Didier Pironi: charmer or jerk?
arn...@sipri.se
I just looked through Autocourse's Grand Prix Winners book and was
amaze at what Maurice Hamilton had to say about Pironi. In brief, MH
said he was a great guy who would have been champion several times if
he hadn't crashed at Hockenheim in 1982. I checked the 1982 Autocourse,
in which nobody is rated number one, and it is pretty clear that MH
thought Pironi was number one but could not be given the award without
competing the whole season. I also vaguely remember that Rob Walker
liked Pironi a lot, headlining the story of his first win (Belgium 1979
in a Ligier, I think) "Nice Guy Finishes First" or something like that.
But then you read what Gilles Villeneuve told Nigel Roebuck, about
Pironi being a jerk and, worse, slow. Gilles supposedly told NR that he
could easily have beaten Pironi at Imola in 1982 if he had known they
were racing, but they weren't (he thought). And Sid Watkins is scathing
in his book: He says Pironi is the only driver he didn't like. Once
Watkins (race doctor for all modern GPs) treated Pironi after he took a
catch-fence post on the head. Someone asked how Pironi was. "It didn't
improve him", Watkins replied. Watkins also is blatently contemptuous
of Pironi's career-ending crash, which he judges to be completely
unnecessary.
So my question is, was Pironi such a jerk? If so, there must be some
great stories out there, but I haven't heard them yet. Also, was he so
good? One win in the Ligier and only one earned win (Imola doesn't
count) in the dominant Ferrari 126C that Arnoux won in three times the
following year.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Brendan Andrews
On Tue, 05 May 1998 10:38:32 -0600, arn...@sipri.se wrote:
>I just looked through Autocourse's Grand Prix Winners book and was
>amaze at what Maurice Hamilton had to say about Pironi. In brief, MH
>said he was a great guy who would have been champion several times if
>he hadn't crashed at Hockenheim in 1982. I checked the 1982 Autocourse,
>in which nobody is rated number one, and it is pretty clear that MH
>thought Pironi was number one but could not be given the award without
>competing the whole season. I also vaguely remember that Rob Walker
>liked Pironi a lot, headlining the story of his first win (Belgium 1979
>in a Ligier, I think) "Nice Guy Finishes First" or something like that.
I believe you are misreading this, look again - the number one was
clearly left vacant for Gilles, not Didier. My opinion has always been
that the Villeneuve - Pironi pairing were the best in Ferrari's
history in the time I followed them closely (since 1979). There is no
doubt that Gilles was the more talented of the two, but Gilles'
criticism of him as a person is something I cannot comment on, except
through the obvious opportunism Didier exploited at Imola in 1982.
Pironi was considered very quick and very talented, and to come close
to Gilles was proof enough of that. The raw statistics as well as a
more in depth understanding of their year and a half together shows
that Gilles had his measure - as did the lap times when Gilles was in
front at Imola compared with when Didier had leap frogged him.
>
>But then you read what Gilles Villeneuve told Nigel Roebuck, about
>Pironi being a jerk and, worse, slow. Gilles supposedly told NR that he
>could easily have beaten Pironi at Imola in 1982 if he had known they
>were racing, but they weren't (he thought). And Sid Watkins is scathing
>in his book: He says Pironi is the only driver he didn't like. Once
>Watkins (race doctor for all modern GPs) treated Pironi after he took a
>catch-fence post on the head. Someone asked how Pironi was. "It didn't
>improve him", Watkins replied. Watkins also is blatently contemptuous
>of Pironi's career-ending crash, which he judges to be completely
>unnecessary.
>
Nigel Roebuck has always been (rightly in my opinion) very fond of
Gilles both personally and as a driver. I always thought the two
(Gilles and Didier) got on well until that race. As for Syd Watkins, I
had never heard that before, what book is it?
Pironi's crash unnecessary? Perhaps, but that is what good drivers do,
I think Senna, Gilles, or even Schumacher would have been doing the
same thing, reinforcing their dominance and just enjoying themselves.
>So my question is, was Pironi such a jerk? If so, there must be some
>great stories out there, but I haven't heard them yet. Also, was he so
>good? One win in the Ligier and only one earned win (Imola doesn't
>count) in the dominant Ferrari 126C that Arnoux won in three times the
>following year.
>
You have to look at the equipment. The Ligier was quick but unreliable
(from memory he was streets ahead at Brands Hatch when faulty wheels
caused a tyre deflation that cost him a race). He was quicker and as
consistent as Jacques Laffite, he never really got the chance that
drivers like Jacques Villeneuve, Damon Hill, Nigel Mansell etc. get.
(yes they are all Williams drivers aren't they!). But then, neither
did Gilles, and he is rightly the stuff of legend. Sometimes you have
to dig to find talent, it doesn't always win championships or sit in
the fastest car.
Vinci
I think Pironi was a good above the average pilot. This means that with
the right car he could win the championship, but without a good car (as
Ferrari 1981...). Maybe he was like Damon Hill,a good pilot when driving
a good car.
Bye
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Vinci"
E-mail : cor...@iperbole.bologna.it
Home-page : http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7917
---------------------------------------------------------------------
arn...@sipri.se
In article <354fdf6...@news.ozemail.com.au>#1/1,
f...@auran.com (Brendan Andrews) wrote:
> I believe you are misreading this, look again - the number one was
> clearly left vacant for Gilles, not Didier.
Hamilton did say that Villeneuve could have been champion, but completed too
little of the season to be considered. My reading is that Pironi is clearly
the shadow number one, because Hamilton would only have given it to someone
else if he had made major mistakes in the last few races of the season.
> As for Syd Watkins, I had never heard that before, what book is it?
His memoir, Life at the Limit. There is a fascinating appendix comparing
Pironi's and Villeneuve's physical fitness and response to the stress of
preparing for a race.
> Pironi's crash unnecessary? Perhaps, but that is what good drivers do,
> I think Senna, Gilles, or even Schumacher would have been doing the
> same thing, reinforcing their dominance and just enjoying themselves.
Watkins says elsewhere that Hockenheim in the rain is one of the most
dangerous phenomena he has seen, because the forest canopy traps the mist
created when the cars drive on the wet track. Pironi was already on pole from
the previous dry session. Gilles may have done heartstopping laps at the Glen
in the wet, but nobody else was out there.
> You have to look at the equipment. The Ligier was quick but unreliable
> (from memory he was streets ahead at Brands Hatch when faulty wheels
> caused a tyre deflation that cost him a race). He was quicker and as
> consistent as Jacques Laffite.
I think the consensus is that they were about equal at Ligier, but that Pironi
might improve while Laffite had peaked.
Anyway, I'm looking for anecdotes about Pironi's behavior, bad or otherwise.
Any takers?
The only other driver I've heard was as unpopular in some quarters was Arturo
Merzario. Alan Henry quotes quite a few old teammates and mechanics at Ferrari
who hated the guy.
Mr. Hot Pants
arn...@sipri.se wrote:
>
> In article <354fdf6...@news.ozemail.com.au>#1/1,
> f...@auran.com (Brendan Andrews) wrote:
>
> > I believe you are misreading this, look again - the number one was
> > clearly left vacant for Gilles, not Didier.
>
> Hamilton did say that Villeneuve could have been champion, but completed too
> little of the season to be considered. My reading is that Pironi is clearly
> the shadow number one, because Hamilton would only have given it to someone
> else if he had made major mistakes in the last few races of the season.
>
> > As for Syd Watkins, I had never heard that before, what book is it?
>
> His memoir, Life at the Limit. There is a fascinating appendix comparing
> Pironi's and Villeneuve's physical fitness and response to the stress of
> preparing for a race.
>
> > Pironi's crash unnecessary? Perhaps, but that is what good drivers do,
> > I think Senna, Gilles, or even Schumacher would have been doing the
> > same thing, reinforcing their dominance and just enjoying themselves.
>
> Watkins says elsewhere that Hockenheim in the rain is one of the most
> dangerous phenomena he has seen, because the forest canopy traps the mist
> created when the cars drive on the wet track.
Derek Warwick's accident with Luca Badoer at Hockenheim '93 sounds
similar to Pironi's.. and in the same conditions.
Mr. Hot Pants
Bottom bottom bottom
Cheek Sr
Mr. Hot Pants wrote:
Pironi's Hockenheim accident was much more like Gilles' of a few monthes
previously,only Didier's Ferrari touched the ground nos-first after
somersaulting,rather than tail-first.
This is what crushed Didier's legs (and probably saved his
neck,literally).
Didier Pironi was an enigma,often wearing a smile that many thought was
slightly mocking.
He very rarely showed emotion,only the colour of his skin an the amounts
of sweat he
worked up were a sign of the effort he put in.He was VERY committed.
One of his few recorded emotional moments,was at Monthlery in
Paris,where he drove
a 1967 prototipo 330 P4 Ferrari,powerliding the car beautifully and
really waxing lyrical
about it afterwards.
Doc
--
Fredrik B. Knutsen, MD
Director,
Cheek Racing Cars (http://home.sol.no/~kareknut)
"Scuderia Alce Rampante"
Lutz Goerke
> I also vaguely remember that Rob Walker
> liked Pironi a lot, headlining the story of his first win (Belgium 1979
> in a Ligier, I think) "Nice Guy Finishes First" or something like that.
>
No- in 1979 Pironi drove a Lotus 79 clone called Tyrrell. His first win
was in Zolder 1980 in a Ligier. In his Tyrrell days in 1978 he had a
little bit the reputation of a crash pilot - he had a huge shunt in Zandvoort
1978 in the first lap.
> But then you read what Gilles Villeneuve told Nigel Roebuck, about
> Pironi being a jerk and, worse, slow. Gilles supposedly told NR that he
> could easily have beaten Pironi at Imola in 1982 if he had known they
> were racing, but they weren't (he thought).
I just seen this race on Video- what a battle! They changed the lead every few laps.
Villeneuve was missing on the podium after the race - he never
spoke a word after that with Pironi cause he felt that Pironi had clear orders
from the team to let him pass.
Lutz
Brendan Andrews
On Wed, 06 May 1998 07:45:00 -0600, arn...@sipri.se wrote:
Hmm, I re-read this because I was working from memory, but I do
believe that it was Gilles who was considered (in the summing of the
drivers ratings in Autocourse that year) the better and hence the main
reason for the #1 slot being left open. I do not think think the
number one slot would have been left open if the results of their
accidents had been reversed. To quote ..
"Pironi's progress with the improved 126C2 begs the question 'What
would Gilles have done?' Probably cleaned up the championship even
earlier than Didier, for it was clear that the French Canadian had
lost none of his flair and bravado"
Also, of interest, I don't believe that Gilles had any problem with
Didier until Imola that year. To quote again from the Autocourse of
that year..
'Jesus, we've been living together at Ferrari for the last year and a
half. I thought I knew the guy..'
This is, admittedly a fond subject to me.
He is sorely missed.
>In article <354fdf6...@news.ozemail.com.au>#1/1,
> f...@auran.com (Brendan Andrews) wrote:
>
>> I believe you are misreading this, look again - the number one was
>> clearly left vacant for Gilles, not Didier.
>
>Hamilton did say that Villeneuve could have been champion, but completed too
>little of the season to be considered. My reading is that Pironi is clearly
>the shadow number one, because Hamilton would only have given it to someone
>else if he had made major mistakes in the last few races of the season.
>
>
>> As for Syd Watkins, I had never heard that before, what book is it?
>
>His memoir, Life at the Limit. There is a fascinating appendix comparing
>Pironi's and Villeneuve's physical fitness and response to the stress of
>preparing for a race.
>
>
>> Pironi's crash unnecessary? Perhaps, but that is what good drivers do,
>> I think Senna, Gilles, or even Schumacher would have been doing the
>> same thing, reinforcing their dominance and just enjoying themselves.
>
>Watkins says elsewhere that Hockenheim in the rain is one of the most
>dangerous phenomena he has seen, because the forest canopy traps the mist
arn...@sipri.se
In article <
355293bb...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
f...@auran.com (Brendan Andrews) wrote:
>
> Also, of interest, I don't believe that Gilles had any problem with
> Didier until Imola that year. To quote again from the Autocourse of
> that year..
>
> 'Jesus, we've been living together at Ferrari for the last year and a
> half. I thought I knew the guy..'
True. Villneuve and Pironi used to drive down to
Maranello from Monte Carlo together in one or
both of their 365 Daytonas, apparently at 150
mph+ at times.
My reading of the 1982 Autocourse stands,
however. Gilles was simply killed too early in the
year to be the phantom no. 1. So much space is
devoted to Pironi in the essay -- and combine this
with what Hamilton says about Pironi in the
Autocourse Grand Prix Winners book (see first
post in this thread) -- that I think it's pretty clear.
I do not write this wishing it to be true, since I do
not have as high a regard for Pironi as Hamilton
does. As a Fennophile, I prefer Keke to both the
Ferrari boys. Watch the 1982 video. Keke
deserved to win several times, not just his one
victory at Dijon and the near miss at Austria where
he lost by a gnat's eyelash to DeAngelis in one of
the most stupendous finishes ever. Not
coincidentally, Hamilton systematically underrated
Keke in subsequent Autocourses as well.
But to get back to the main point: Aren't there any
stories of Pironi behaving badly (aside from the
discussion of Monaco 1979 in a parallel thread)?
arn...@sipri.se
> My reading of the 1982 Autocourse stands,
> however. Gilles was simply killed too early in the
> year to be the phantom no. 1. So much space is
> devoted to Pironi in the essay -- and combine this
> with what Hamilton says about Pironi in the
> Autocourse Grand Prix Winners book (see first
> post in this thread) -- that I think it's pretty clear.
>
For memory's sake I went back to the 1982
Autocourse ratings and the video of the season.
Here is a rough summary of Hamilton's
explanation of there not being a number one:
Nobody who doesn't complete the season can be
rated. Pironi -- not Villeneuve -- 'established his
superiority', but still could have choked in the last
five races, a la Reutemann 1981. I might add (and
it is implicit, I think) that Pironi would have
deserved it by Autcourse's usual logic for dealing
with the adversity of taking over the leader's
position at Ferrari after Villeneuve's death (a la
Hill 1994) and also coping with his involvement
in Paletti's death at Montreal, as well as a huge
practice shunt at Paul Ricard. Hamilton then adds,
almost as an afterthought, that if Villeneuve hadn't
died he might have done good things with the
Ferrari, too (but then again, maybe not).
But had Pironi really established his superiority?
If you look at the tape, I think you'll agree that he
did not. The Renaults were dominant unless they
broke, and then Piquet's Brabham-BMW
generally took over until it broke. The underdog
that did the most to see off these two was
Rosberg. Rosberg passed Prost spectacularly at
Detroit (where he actually entered the escape road
to get by) and Dijon. Rosberg chased down
DeAngelis in Austria and was the moral victor on
a track that should have been too fast for the
Cosworth to be competitive. He was also on the
podium at Hockenheim under similar
circumstances. He was on the podium at Rio,
ahead of Prost, but disqualified over the water-
bottle business. He was on pole at Brands, but his
engine wouldn't start. Under today's rules, I
believe, he would have started from the front
rather than the back of the grid (he got moving
while the others were still on the parade lap) and
had a good chance of winning of coing second,
since Lauda was the only other one at the front
who had a good race that day. Rosberg deserved
to be champion, deserved to win more races and
deserved to be Autocourse number one. I think
Hamilton was a bit embarassed that Keke had
nerver made the top ten before, though Rob
Walker had rated him highly. (Having rated Keke
even with Arnoux, DeAngelis and Patrese in
1981, Walker rated him, Lauda and Watson above
Pironi in 1982. He didn't rate Villeneuve.)
What about Pironi and Villeneuve? At Kyalami,
Prost crushed all before him, coming back from
doing a lap on three wheels (a la Villeneuve at
Zandvoort 1979) to win by a lap over everyone
but his teammate and Reutemann (who apparently
quit partly because of Rosberg's lapping as
quickly as him and Jones after only 6 laps in a
Williams, though the Falklands thing and Frank's
nationalism must have had something to do with
it, too). At Rio, Villeneuve caved in when Piquet
put the pressure on and spun off. At Long Beach,
Villeneuve caved in when Rosberg put the
pressure on and spun off, recovered to finish
third, then was disqualified. At Zolder, the
Renaults blew up and Brabham and Williams did
not take part. Villeneuve deserved to win and
Pironi stole it, but the race should not have
garnered championship points any more than
Kyalami did in 1981. Then Villeneuve was killed,
perhaps in part because he was not doing so well
in the championship despite having the best car
and overdid it (a la Senna in 1994?) as much as
his anger at Pironi. In 1981, all his spins could be
blamed (at least in part) on the twitchy 126C
chassis, but he was still spinning in
Postlethwaite's redesigned and better behaved
126C2, in which Pironi and Tambay also won. It
was a great car that turned into the 126C3 in
which Arnoux almost won the championship in
1983. Also, Rosberg was showing that a pilot
with a 'pointy' driving style could win with a
twitchy chassis, even without turbo power. Keke
was just as relentless as Villeneuve and seems to
have had greater stamina.
Pironi had been in Villeneuve's shadow until the
Zolder crash. He was not really in contention at
Monaco (Renault dominant until the farce after
Prost's spin two laps from the end), Detroit
(passed by Watson on his way from 18th to 1st)
or Canada (Brabham romp). He won Zandvoort
fair and square, but was streets behind Lauda at
Brands and even passed by Warwick in the
Toleman. Paul Ricard was another Renault
walkover. Then he crashed at Hockenheim, which
Hamilton admits was driver error. To me the
inevitable conclusion is that Pironi was the
unnamed number one, but did not really deserve
to be. Hamilton's fondness for Didier, discussed
earlier in this thread, biased him.
Rosberg deserved to be number one on his
performance alone, and 1982 was the one year
where this was clearly true. Keke was great in
1983 too, but the turbos were too good even for
him to challenge them consistently. When
Williams got its own turbo, it was harder to tell
whether Keke was being brilliant or simply
wasting boost to blow by people frivolously, only
to have it catch up with him later. If it were not for
1982, it would have been impossible to tell how
good Keke really was. But those two moves
where he put Prost away despite Renault's
superiority remove all doubt.
Damon Scott Hynes
> But had Pironi really established his superiority?
> If you look at the tape, I think you'll agree that he
> did not. The Renaults were dominant unless they
> broke, and then Piquet's Brabham-BMW
> generally took over until it broke.
Which means the most reliable car was the Ferrari.
> Rosberg chased down
> DeAngelis in Austria and was the moral victor on
> a track that should have been too fast for the
> Cosworth to be competitive.
No, the moral victor was DeAngelis, who had a Ford-Cosworth just like
Keke.
> Rosberg deserved
> to be champion, deserved to win more races and
> deserved to be Autocourse number one.
Rosberg took care of business, like Prost did in '87 when the Williams
were better, and like Lauda did in '77 whan the Lotus was better. There
is nothing dishonorable in taking care of business, but does the fact
that you were champion make you the best? (Wasn't Jones rated #1 when
Jody won in '79?)
> Reutemann (who apparently
> quit partly because of Rosberg's lapping as
> quickly as him and Jones after only 6 laps in a
> Williams, though the Falklands thing and Frank's
> nationalism must have had something to do with
> it, too).
I read Autocourse that year, too, and I didn't hear a mention of the war
at all. Was it ever mentioned? BTW, I was extremely disgusted by
Lole's behavior in '92, and I was a fan of his.
> Then Villeneuve was killed,
> perhaps in part because he was not doing so well
> in the championship despite having the best car
> and overdid it (a la Senna in 1994?)
That is so much Barbra Streisand that it ruins any good points you make
in this post. Ayrton was chasing an illegal car that year.
> but he was still spinning in
> Postlethwaite's redesigned and better behaved
> 126C2, in which Pironi and Tambay also won.
And in which Mario got pole at Monza. Mandatory jingoistic North
American racefan commentary.
> Pironi had been in Villeneuve's shadow until the
> Zolder crash. He was not really in contention at
> Monaco (Renault dominant until the farce after
> Prost's spin two laps from the end), Detroit
> (passed by Watson on his way from 18th to 1st)
> or Canada (Brabham romp).
No, spare car. (Re: Paletti.)
> Paul Ricard was another Renault
> walkover.
Because Renault had 2.0 engines at their home race <g>.
> Then he crashed at Hockenheim, which
> Hamilton admits was driver error.
Driver error at 99/100ths is different than at 7/10ths. Hockenheim was
a ballbuster that Saturday.
***
The Marny Stanier Appreciation Society
Damon...@sprintmail.com , Midlands Chapter President
"When it didn't whistle for the station, I knew we were in trouble."
Brendan Andrews
arn...@sipri.se wrote:
>
> But had Pironi really established his superiority?
> If you look at the tape, I think you'll agree that he
> did not. The Renaults were dominant unless they
> broke, and then Piquet's Brabham-BMW
> generally took over until it broke.
Not true in the second half of the season, look at Zandvoort,
Hockenheim, Swiss (Tambay did not start), Austria and Monza.
Ferrari was the car to have. Had Gilles competed in all of these, it is
hard to imagine him not winning the majority of them.
> (some not entirely unjustified praise of Rosberg was here)
> Rosberg deserved
> to be champion, deserved to win more races and
> deserved to be Autocourse number one. I think
> Hamilton was a bit embarassed that Keke had
> nerver made the top ten before, though Rob
> Walker had rated him highly. (Having rated Keke
> even with Arnoux, DeAngelis and Patrese in
> 1981, Walker rated him, Lauda and Watson above
> Pironi in 1982. He didn't rate Villeneuve.)
This last sentence is only because Gilles did not complete the season -
it was not to do with his ability.
Rosberg better than Lauda, Gilles, Didier or Prost - let alone all of
them - you must be joking!
In justification of Gilles, from the same Autocourse top ten review of
1982 ..
"Pironi's progress with the improved 126C2 begs the question 'What would
Gilles have done?' Probably cleaned up the championship even earlier
than Didier, for it was clear that the French Canadian had lost none of
his flair and bravado"
>
> What about Pironi and Villeneuve? At Kyalami,
> Prost crushed all before him, coming back from
> doing a lap on three wheels (a la Villeneuve at
> Zandvoort 1979) to win by a lap over everyone
> but his teammate and Reutemann (who apparently
> quit partly because of Rosberg's lapping as
> quickly as him and Jones after only 6 laps in a
> Williams, though the Falklands thing and Frank's
> nationalism must have had something to do with
> it, too). At Rio, Villeneuve caved in when Piquet
> put the pressure on and spun off. At Long Beach,
> Villeneuve caved in when Rosberg put the
> pressure on and spun off, recovered to finish
> third, then was disqualified.
Caved in at Long Beach? He spun on the marbles at the end and outside of
the long straight and recovered brilliantly and quickly competing
against a lighter more nimble car much better suited to that track. He
kne the possible consequences of sitting it out with a lighter car there
and dealt with it perfectly. I saw Keke spin a full 360 on the straight
there once ...
> At Zolder, the
> Renaults blew up and Brabham and Williams did
> not take part. Villeneuve deserved to win and
> Pironi stole it, but the race should not have
> garnered championship points any more than
> Kyalami did in 1981. Then Villeneuve was killed,
> perhaps in part because he was not doing so well
> in the championship despite having the best car
> and overdid it (a la Senna in 1994?) as much as
> his anger at Pironi.
No, at this point the Ferrari had not emerged as the front running car.
The Renaults were quicker at Imola and generally prior to that race.
> In 1981, all his spins could be
> blamed (at least in part) on the twitchy 126C
> chassis, but he was still spinning in
> Postlethwaite's redesigned and better behaved
> 126C2, in which Pironi and Tambay also won. It
> was a great car that turned into the 126C3 in
> which Arnoux almost won the championship in
> 1983. Also, Rosberg was showing that a pilot
> with a 'pointy' driving style could win with a
> twitchy chassis, even without turbo power. Keke
> was just as relentless as Villeneuve and seems to
> have had greater stamina.
>
> Pironi had been in Villeneuve's shadow until the
> Zolder crash. He was not really in contention at
> Monaco (Renault dominant until the farce after
> Prost's spin two laps from the end), Detroit
> (passed by Watson on his way from 18th to 1st)
> or Canada (Brabham romp). He won Zandvoort
> fair and square, but was streets behind Lauda at
> Brands and even passed by Warwick in the
> Toleman.
The good year tyres were not up to Brands - the car was. The performance
of the Toleman (Pirelli tyredI think) relative to it at this one and
only race underlines this.
Paul Ricard was another Renault
> walkover. Then he crashed at Hockenheim, which
> Hamilton admits was driver error. To me the
> inevitable conclusion is that Pironi was the
> unnamed number one, but did not really deserve
> to be. Hamilton's fondness for Didier, discussed
> earlier in this thread, biased him.
Yes, you may be right, but he was certainly not considered by the author
of the top ten as a better driver than Gilles.
>
> Rosberg deserved to be number one on his
> performance alone, and 1982 was the one year
> where this was clearly true. Keke was great in
> 1983 too, but the turbos were too good even for
> him to challenge them consistently. When
> Williams got its own turbo, it was harder to tell
> whether Keke was being brilliant or simply
> wasting boost to blow by people frivolously, only
> to have it catch up with him later. If it were not for
> 1982, it would have been impossible to tell how
> good Keke really was. But those two moves
> where he put Prost away despite Renault's
> superiority remove all doubt.
I don't have that impression of Keke. It is very hard to assess. My
ordering of that season (excluding the two original Ferrari drivers)
would have been ..
Alain Prost
Keke Rosberg
Nelson Piquet
Niki Lauda
Rene Arnoux
I don't think even Keke would say he was as talented as Gilles. Didier
is another story, and I know I probably overestimated him. The relative
merits of the cars make this a very difficult discussion, but is nice
remembering! Thank you.
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
--
Brendan Andrews - Brisbane Australia
(Please remove underscores when replying)
arn...@sipri.se
In article <356A27A7...@auran.com>,
Brendan Andrews <f...@auran.com> wrote:
> Rosberg better than Lauda, Gilles, Didier or Prost - let alone all of
> them - you must be joking!
In 1982, yes! Hamilton and Rob Walker agree
that Keke was better than Prost in 1982, mainly
because Prost made some youthful errors.
Hamilton (and you, below) agrees that Keke was
better than Lauda in 1982, but Walker is in a
minority that thought Lauda's genius was
apparent that year and rated him higher than
anyone else. Others generally criticise his lack of
commitment at some of the races, compared to
Keke's total commitment. My last post explains
why I thought Villeneuve was not having a very
good year based on what he actually did, not what
he might have done. And you acknowledge that
Pironi had the best car, so his personal
contribution to his results should therefore be
evaluated in that light. True, the Williams chassis
was excellent, but Keke was the one that put it at
the front against the odds.
> Caved in at Long Beach? He spun on the marbles at the end and outside of
> the long straight
Sounds like caving in to me. Typical Villeneuve,
wants to be in front so much, he forgets to stay
off the marbles.
>
> I don't have that impression of Keke. It is very hard to assess. My
> ordering of that season (excluding the two original Ferrari drivers)
> would have been ..
>
> Alain Prost
> Keke Rosberg
> Nelson Piquet
> Niki Lauda
> Rene Arnoux
>
> I don't think even Keke would say he was as talented as Gilles.
You're right about this. Keke has said that
Villeneuve was one of a kind, but his great year
was 1979, not 1982. Keke was one of another
kind. Call one talent and the other relentless
speed, whatever.
I simply argued that Keke was the best driver in
1982, period. Not as some would have it, one of
the least deserving champions.
Mike Hesse
On Mon, 25 May 1998 23:34:12 -0500, Damon Scott Hynes <damon...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>Rosberg took care of business, like Prost did in '87 when the Williams
>were better, and like Lauda did in '77 whan the Lotus was better. There
>is nothing dishonorable in taking care of business, but does the fact
>that you were champion make you the best? (Wasn't Jones rated #1 when
>Jody won in '79?)
If you are Australian, maybe :-)
Alan Jones finished 11 points behind Jody in 1979, Giles Villeneuve was second
with 47 points.
Mike Hesse
Email supplied on request
Vincent Ho
Brendan Andrews <f...@auran.com> wrote:
> arn...@sipri.se wrote:
> >
> > But had Pironi really established his superiority?
> > If you look at the tape, I think you'll agree that he
> > did not. The Renaults were dominant unless they
> > broke, and then Piquet's Brabham-BMW
> > generally took over until it broke.
car (look where his team ended up in the constructors and looked what
Derek Daly did), and when it mattered, he won at the right time.
I think all the good drivers who could do great consistantly did not
finish the season (Reutemann, Villeneuve, Andretti, Pironi), while those
that did were inconsistant (Watson, Prost, Arnoux, Lauda), while the only
one that was consistantly good was let down by his car (Piquet).
Rosberg won the championship because of the "survival for the fittest" situation.
I do think that the idea of NOT having a number one very debatable. In 1970
Jochen Rindt died, while Stewart also had to change cars, but Stewart
got the number one beause he finsihed the season.
Personally I think Hamilton was a great editor as far as layout is concerned:
he is the one who made Autoucourse to be published in color. But I think
that he is also the one that started the downhill trend of the "professional"
quality of the Autoucourse editors. Alan Henry, whom I think is more
knowledgable than Hamilton, made the year book even less "professional".
I missed the professionalism of Mike Kettlewell, and even more so,
David Phipps. THe Autoucourses of David Phipps were clearly aimed
at the motorracing people, not the general public. No Marlboro ads,
no Vauxhall informercials. Instead we have TBA Asbestos Clothing for
race marshalls, Repco engineering ads, technical reviews that showed
us that the McLaren used ZF Cronw Wheel and pinion, and a lap chart
that had individual lap times for every car plus their intervals to
the leader and their own overall time. For example, Baghetti was NOT
listed as running and unclassified at 59 laps in the 1966 Italian GP,
btu rather as running and unclassified at 59 laps with the last lap
being 1' 43.6" with an overall time of 107'44.8" while the leader
and winner Scarfiotti was at his 68th lap with a time of 1' 35.6"
with an overall time of 107' 14.8"
No wonder one of the world champions wrote in the forword that he used
Autoucourse lapchart for debriefing (Graham Hill?).
Where is the professionalism now?
> --
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Vincent B. Ho Chinese: 何保承 1996年三藩市州立大學商科碩士畢業生
San Francisco State Univerisity MBA Graduate 96'
(415)255-5963 h...@tsoft.com http://www.tsoft.com/~hbv/
Chinese Homepage: 中文本頁地址 http://www.tsoft.com/~hbv/hbvchi.html
Viola Isolotto Socio 58; NAWCC #134571; Team H; Shoujo, H, MG ML
Minami Ozaki Fan Page & Gallery http://www.tsoft.com/~hbv/ozaki.html
Steve Chopper Chase
There was much more to Didier Pironi than was apparent to the eye. In
Alan Henry's book "The Turbo Years" the journalist, referring to the
infamous 1982 San Marino race with Villeneuve wrote:
"I am tempted to think that the ice-cold Pironi knew exactly what sort
of response his actions would illicit from Villeneuve"
He suggested that the whole incident was pre-conceived by Pironi, and I
agree with him.
Not only this incident, but others convinced me that Didier was a rather
ruthless character, who was prepared to sacrifice anything (a la Senna)
to achieve supreme status.
Paul Berry
Damon Scott Hynes wrote:
>
> > But had Pironi really established his superiority?
> > If you look at the tape, I think you'll agree that he
> > did not. The Renaults were dominant unless they
> > broke, and then Piquet's Brabham-BMW
> > generally took over until it broke.
>
>
Which was quite an achievement. Ferrari had only had the turbo since
1980 (it was used in practice for the Italian Grand Prix by Villeneuve
that year). Renault had had the turbos since '77 and should have been
the dominant "blown" team by '82. But they weren't. 8)
> > Rosberg chased down
> > DeAngelis in Austria and was the moral victor on
> > a track that should have been too fast for the
> > Cosworth to be competitive.
>
> No, the moral victor was DeAngelis, who had a Ford-Cosworth just like
> Keke.
>
Much of a muchness. Both Rosberg and de Angelis performed exceedingly
well at a race where the turbos were expected to dominate. I recall the
finish (my dad was a tremendous Lotus fan, and any Lotus win was
generally memorable...) but don't recall what happened to allow two
normally-aspirated cars to be in such a position by the end.
> > Rosberg deserved
> > to be champion, deserved to win more races and
> > deserved to be Autocourse number one.
>
> Rosberg took care of business, like Prost did in '87 when the Williams
> were better, and like Lauda did in '77 whan the Lotus was better. There
> is nothing dishonorable in taking care of business, but does the fact
> that you were champion make you the best? (Wasn't Jones rated #1 when
> Jody won in '79?)
>
Rosberg certainly didn't *deserve* to be champion. He struck lucky in a
season fraught with disaster. Had Villeneuve and Pironi both not crashed
they would have gone on to dominate the season in an ever-improving
Ferrari. Proof of this dominance by the team can only be shown by
Tambay's performances (Tambay was in my mind a journeyman driver; an
adequate replacement for Villeneuve but by no means as quick or as
committed a racer) and the performance of Andretti at Italy that year
(an aging driver who hadn't been truly competitive in F1 since '78; then
again, the Alfa of '81 wasn't the greatest of cars!). Ferrari did, after
all, win the constructors title that year.
There has always been situations where drivers have won the championship
without deserving it on merit, and there will always continue to be.
> > Reutemann (who apparently
> > quit partly because of Rosberg's lapping as
> > quickly as him and Jones after only 6 laps in a
> > Williams, though the Falklands thing and Frank's
> > nationalism must have had something to do with
> > it, too).
>
> I read Autocourse that year, too, and I didn't hear a mention of the war
> at all. Was it ever mentioned? BTW, I was extremely disgusted by
> Lole's behavior in '92, and I was a fan of his.
>
IIRC Reutemann's decision to quit was because of Rosberg. Reutemann was
pretty well known for having a sour temperament, and fading rapidly into
the background on a bad day, or when things weren't going his way.
> > Then Villeneuve was killed,
> > perhaps in part because he was not doing so well
> > in the championship despite having the best car
> > and overdid it (a la Senna in 1994?)
>
> That is so much Barbra Streisand that it ruins any good points you make
> in this post. Ayrton was chasing an illegal car that year.
>
The situations were completely different. Villeneuve was killed going
for a hot lap on super-sticky qualifiers when he came up behind a much
slower car. Senna was in the lead of a race and nowhere near anyone
else. The former made a mistake, the latter is inconclusive and could
(allegedly) have been the fault of the car.
> > but he was still spinning in
> > Postlethwaite's redesigned and better behaved
> > 126C2, in which Pironi and Tambay also won.
>
> And in which Mario got pole at Monza. Mandatory jingoistic North
> American racefan commentary.
>
Villeneuve always drove a car to and beyond its limits. That's why he
spun so much, and that's why he was so incredibly good at what he did.
Yes, Villeneuve spun at Long Beach in '82, but recovered to finish third
in a race which should have been dominated by the non-turbos. And didn't
Rosberg spin there too?
> > Pironi had been in Villeneuve's shadow until the
> > Zolder crash. He was not really in contention at
> > Monaco (Renault dominant until the farce after
> > Prost's spin two laps from the end), Detroit
> > (passed by Watson on his way from 18th to 1st)
> > or Canada (Brabham romp).
>
> No, spare car. (Re: Paletti.)
>
Pironi beat Villeneuve fair(?) and square at Imola prior to Zolder. That
is perhaps partly to blame for Gilles' accident. Monaco was a lottery
(thanks to the rain) - Derek Daly and Andrea de Cesaris both had chances
to win it, and it was never going to be a favourite for the turbos
anyway. Detroit again was one for the Cosworths. Canada was, as
mentioned, a different case thanks to Paletti's tragic accident.
> > Paul Ricard was another Renault
> > walkover.
>
> Because Renault had 2.0 engines at their home race <g>.
>
No surprises there. 8)
> > Then he crashed at Hockenheim, which
> > Hamilton admits was driver error.
>
> Driver error at 99/100ths is different than at 7/10ths. Hockenheim was
> a ballbuster that Saturday.
>
Yes and no. IIRC, he was following two cars closely (Prost and Watson)
in almost zero visibility when Prost moved over to pass Watson. Pironi
thought it was to let him through and ploughed into the back of Watson.
Adieu Mondiale (as Enzo Ferrari is reputed to have said).
--
Paul Berry mailto:pjb...@liv.ac.uk
Java Developer http://pc018084.mat.liv.ac.uk:80/paulsweb
MATTER Project ICQ UIN 11508568
University of Liverpool Tel: +44 (0) 151 794 5364
arn...@sipri.se
> 1982 ..
>
> "Pironi's progress with the improved 126C2 begs the question 'What would
> Gilles have done?' Probably cleaned up the championship even earlier
> than Didier, for it was clear that the French Canadian had lost none of
> his flair and bravado"
But don't you realise that this is written in the
same manner as, "If Reutemann and Jones hadn't
retired ..." or "If Mario had driven for Ferrari all
year ..."? Gilles just had not competed in enough
races and had not done that well in the few that he
did.
By the way, I vaguely remember that Pironi was
supposed to try a comeback in 1987 with Ligier,
but was killed in that boating accident. Anyone
know more about that? What was the date of
Pironi's death (i.e., was it before the beginning of
the season)? It would have been interesting to see
him and Arnoux in the same equipment, inferior
thought it may have been.
Ian Hill
arn...@sipri.se wrote:
>
> By the way, I vaguely remember that Pironi was
> supposed to try a comeback in 1987 with Ligier,
> but was killed in that boating accident. Anyone
> know more about that? What was the date of
> Pironi's death (i.e., was it before the beginning of
> the season)?
Pironi died on 23rd August. 10 out of 16 races had been run by then.
--
Cheers
Ian Hill, Cambridge, UK
Email: ij...@cam.ac.uk
Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/IanHill
arn...@sipri.se
In article <
3577B8...@NOSPAM.cam.ac.uk>,
Ian Hill <ij...@NOSPAM.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> arn...@sipri.se wrote:
> >
> > By the way, I vaguely remember that Pironi was
> > supposed to try a comeback in 1987 with Ligier,
> > but was killed in that boating accident. Anyone
> > know more about that? What was the date of
> > Pironi's death (i.e., was it before the beginning of
> > the season)?
>
> Pironi died on 23rd August. 10 out of 16 races had been run by then.
Hmm. Maybe he bailed out when the Alfa engine
turned out so badly.
Damon Scott Hynes
arn...@sipri.se wrote:
>
> In article <
> 3577B8...@NOSPAM.cam.ac.uk>,
> Ian Hill <ij...@NOSPAM.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > arn...@sipri.se wrote:
> > >
> > > By the way, I vaguely remember that Pironi was
> > > supposed to try a comeback in 1987 with Ligier,
> > > but was killed in that boating accident. Anyone
> > > know more about that? What was the date of
> > > Pironi's death (i.e., was it before the beginning of
> > > the season)?
> >
> > Pironi died on 23rd August. 10 out of 16 races had been run by then.
>
> Hmm. Maybe he bailed out when the Alfa engine
> turned out so badly.
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
He had received a huge settlement from Fiat after his wreck in '82, and
he would have been forced to pay it back to them if he had un-retired.
--
Steve Chase
Ian Hill wrote:
> Pironi died on 23rd August. 10 out of 16 races had been run by then.
>
And by all accounts, the accident was his fault. Whilst powerboating
just off the Isle of Wight, he failed to lift off during very heavy
seas, the boat breaking up as it dipped underneath the waves.
Perhaps the final curtain summed up Didier in a nutshell...