Results 21 to 30 of 55
-
29th March 2011, 18:09 #21
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Location
- Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
- Posts
- 10,568
- Like
- 695
- Liked 653 Times in 512 Posts
The thing that amazes me is not so much the cars and drivers.
After all they couldn't invented saftey measures of today out of thin air in the 50's 60's and 70's, and as I believe said on the programme the drivers said no choice. You race dangerously or not at all. This sadly is the way if was and had to be.
But what does seems strange to me is the things that could be changed there and then.
The crowd and camera men.
They all stood on the edge of the track, but surely after one incident of crowd getting killed by flying cars, thats something you can control and change and yet they still done it.
And I only speak for myself but if there were no fences at silverstone when i went a few years ago. I wouldn't have gone and stood on the edge of the track as metal travelling at 200mph is going to hurt if it hits you and drivers always can make mistakes.
Surely people of the time didn't stand in front of trains thinking "No danger here". They kept clear knowing it wasn't safe so why they didn't move back for there own saftey seems unbelievable.
Very good and insightful program though.
Not so keen on the first one.I still exist and still find the forum occasionally. Busy busy
- Likes: Fortitude (20th January 2022)
-
29th March 2011, 18:49 #22
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Posts
- 541
- Like
- 0
- Liked 15 Times in 15 Posts
"Safety" in automobile racing has always been relative. Even after the horrific crash at Le Mans in June 1955 or the de Portago crash during the 1957 Mille Miglia, relatively little was done to remedy or rectify many of the problems related to racing safety. What little effort that was made was more to mitigate any harm to spectators rather than the participants, not that this always worked, witness the von Trips-Clark incident at Monza in September 1961.
Interestingly, it was the United States that took the lead in driver and car safety and not Europe during the Fifties, Sixties, and Seventies. USAC mandated the use of a safety harness rather a seat belt beginning with the 1959 season, as well as a true roll-over bar to be fitted to its cars the same year. In 1965, once again it was USAC mandating the use of fuel tanks designed to reduce the danger of fire. Helmets were not required by the CSI until 1952, although the AAA had long mandated their use prior to that edict.
There is much more, of course, on this topic, but this issue was not tackled effectively in Europe until Jackie Stewart stepped up to take the lead. There were some not so pleasant consequences to the movement Stewart set in motion, many not felt until long after Stewart had retired from driving, but they are overshadowed by the overall result.
Jackie Stewart, whether one agreed with him or not, demonstrated the courage of his convictions both on and off the track. Reading some of the contemporary remarks made by Denis Jenkinson, who certainly did not agree with Stewart, which seemed to be "cheap shots" at the time, and the modern reader probably reading those same remarks today probably being somewhat aghast at Jenkinson's venomous, often spiteful words directed at Stewart.
I will not mention that on the Saturday practice session at Spa-Francorchamps in 1960, we were able to find a place where we could be within just a few meters of the track, with nary a haybale or barrier anywhere close to stop anything, much less a wayward car. And, yes, this was the session where Moss had the rear wheel depart his Lotus 18 resulting in an almighty shunt that could have easily killed him. I think that it was Mike Taylor who also crashed his Lotus at almost the same time on another part of the circuit. We managed to get that close to the track after the Moss incident, everyone in the area being distracted by the crash. Then, during the race, both Chris Bristow and Alan Stacey, who I "interviewed" at Zandvoort, the previous GP race, were killed.
Different times.Popular memory is not history.... -- Gordon Wood
-
29th March 2011, 19:00 #23
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 19,105
- Like
- 9
- Liked 77 Times in 62 Posts
Originally Posted by Don Capps
Originally Posted by Don Capps
- Likes: Fortitude (20th January 2022)
-
29th March 2011, 19:07 #24
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Posts
- 2,607
- Like
- 28
- Liked 186 Times in 146 Posts
Originally Posted by aki13
-
29th March 2011, 19:44 #25
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 19,105
- Like
- 9
- Liked 77 Times in 62 Posts
Originally Posted by AndyL
-
29th March 2011, 20:36 #26
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Posts
- 541
- Like
- 0
- Liked 15 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Originally Posted by BDunnell
That is, was, and has been the thnking about Jenkinson for what seems to be forever. Jenkinson was both quite opinionated about many topics and very out-spoken. He came to represent the Purist or Enthusiast view of motor racing to a great many people, which is still true today to a large extent. Jenkinson did, on occasion, take a great disliking to someone and made no effort to hide it. Likewise, there were those he adored and they were capable of no wrong (Senna da Silva).
Having said that, Jenkinson did capture the Zeitgeist of that era quite well, his comments often being akin to having an "ants in amber" quality, almost perfectly capturing the thinking of the time on various topics. On the other hand, he could be quite adamant about certain issues and not be swayed by facts or other inconveniences. Personally, my few dealings with him were greeted by a certain coolness at first -- it turned out that he was not necessarily enthralled with "schoolboys" nor children for that matter -- that eventually gave way to at least a polite acceptance. Needless to say, I thought the word of him, along with with Henry N. Manney III, of course. Two very fascinating people.
However, Jenkinson was first and foremost an automotive writer and not necessarily an automotive historian, which many have come to regard him. He had no use for the "other side" of motor racing, that is, the "politics" and all the other things that make the sport go round. If one reads his columns and race reports, especially at selected times when "politics" were in play, that absence is readily noted. True, there will be the occasional nudge-wink-wink sort of thing, but rarely does he -- or Motor Sport for that matter -- provide much of the in-depth coverage of the happenings behind the scene that are part and parcel a critical part of what is needed for the historian who must follow the writer.
Having first begun reading DSJ well over a half century ago, I find that I often still have mixed thoughts about some of his writings, even after all these years. Yet, I still have no hesitation to place him high on the list of Scribes.Popular memory is not history.... -- Gordon Wood
-
29th March 2011, 21:01 #27
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Location
- Coulsdon, Surrey, UK
- Posts
- 3,553
- Like
- 1
- Liked 78 Times in 73 Posts
On the question of safety, those in the UK may be interested to know that David Tremayne's The science of safety is currently being remaindered at "The Works" for £1.99. They are also selling quite a few others from Haynes back catalogue.
Duncan Rollo
The more you learn, the more you realise how little you know.
- Likes: Fortitude (20th January 2022)
-
30th March 2011, 08:47 #28
- Join Date
- Jan 2001
- Location
- Sunny south coast
- Posts
- 16,345
- Like
- 0
- Liked 26 Times in 26 Posts
This question of increasing safety standards leading to a decline in driving standards is an interesting one.
We've gone from drivers knowing that if they stepped into a racing car there was a chance they would be killed, to the likes of Mike Conway (Indy) and Robert Kubica (Canada) not only surviving horrendous accidents but coming back to race again.Riccardo Patrese - 256GPs 1977-1993
-
30th March 2011, 08:56 #29
- Join Date
- Apr 2000
- Location
- Chester-le-Street, United Kingdom
- Posts
- 38,577
- Like
- 78
- Liked 125 Times in 92 Posts
There are, of course, several incidents in recent years which we could point to and say that they would certainly have resulted in the death of the driver had they taken place a few decades earlier.
Massa's injury at the Hungaroring springs to mind, hit on the head by a heavy flying object, had helmet technology not been as good as it is, no doubt he would have been killed instantly.
The collective memory these days suggests that the last person to die in an F1 event was Aryton Senna in 1994. But of course a track marshal was killed in 2001 during the Australian Grand Prix. Just because it wasn't a driver doesn't make the death any less significant or important. But that was 10 years ago now, am I right in thinking there have been no fatalities since then?Please 'like' our facebook page http://www.facebook.com/motorsportforums
-
30th March 2011, 09:49 #30
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 19,105
- Like
- 9
- Liked 77 Times in 62 Posts
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
It was on qualifying stage, he rolled the car and it was said that he won't be able to start the rally. But team managed to repair the car and he did start and dominated drivers like Rossel, Gryazin...
WRC2 news & rumors 2024