Forum
Registrieren
Ich habe das schon oft
gedacht, wegen Long Beach. Hauptsache aber, dass Clay Regazzoni
noch lebt.
Die schwersten Unfälle
Vielen Dank brabhambt für die Bilder. Ich habe das schon oft
gedacht, wegen Long Beach. Hauptsache aber, dass Clay Regazzoni
noch lebt.
Ich habe das schon oft
gedacht, wegen Long Beach. Hauptsache aber, dass Clay Regazzoni
noch lebt.
Wann war denn dieser Unfall, das sind ja echt wahnsinns Bilder!
MichaelZ hat geschrieben:
Wann war denn dieser Unfall, das sind ja echt wahnsinns Bilder!
Beim F3 Rennen am GP Monaco 1968 mit einem Tecno F3 unmittelbar nach der Hafenschikane.
Ich habe hier noch einen Link von Monza 1988 mit Senna und
Schlesser, die Ladezeit ist ziemlich lang, doch ich finde, dass diese
Sequenz in die Geschichte der F1 einging. Ein Unfall ist es eigentlich
nicht, eher ein Missverständnis, oder Gleichgültigkeit.
http://www.formula1news.it/ayrtonsennaf ... onza88.zip
Schlesser, die Ladezeit ist ziemlich lang, doch ich finde, dass diese
Sequenz in die Geschichte der F1 einging. Ein Unfall ist es eigentlich
nicht, eher ein Missverständnis, oder Gleichgültigkeit.
http://www.formula1news.it/ayrtonsennaf ... onza88.zip
MichaelZ hat geschrieben:
Ja er zog sich bei seinem Australien CRash 1995 einigige Gesichtsverletzungen zu, weil er beim Aufprall in die Reifenstapel, den Kopf derartig an das Lenkrad schug. Er hat sich beispielsweise die Nase gebrochen, sah ziemlich blutig aus bei der Bergung. Da es ja das letzte Rennen der Saison 1995 war, war lange Zeit nicht klar, ob er 1996 an den Start geht. Alain Prost bereitete sich bereits als Ersatz vor, aber Mika Häkkinen fuhr ja dann doch.
Er schwebt sogar einen Tag lang in Lebensgefahr.
Der Unfall passierte, weil er einen schleichenden Plattfuß hatte
Ansonsten hat MichaelZ das gut erklärt
torino hat geschrieben:
Nach dem Rennen gab es ein Verhör durch die Polizei. Regazzoni konnte nachweisen, dass sein Tecno vom Brabham getroffen wurde...
Noch mal zum Lambert-Unfall; ich bin der Meinung dass Regazzoni das NICHT richtig schildert in seinem Buch. Es gab vor ein paar Jahren mal eine Diskussion über diesen sehr unerfreulichen Zwischenfall bei TNF darüber - mit teilweise recht interessanten Erkentnissen. Freigesprochen wurde Regazzoni definitiv nicht - man gab ihm eine Teilschuld. Aber zum Glück gab es keine Sperre. Mal sehen ob ich die Diskussion wieder finde - dann kann ich mal die entscheidenen Passagen einstellen.
Das würde mich interessieren. Ich kenne nur die Aussage von
Regazzoni, es gibt schon im Netz noch ein paar andere Meinungen
dazu. Ich finde aber, dass Regazzoni die Schuld hatte.
Regazzoni, es gibt schon im Netz noch ein paar andere Meinungen
dazu. Ich finde aber, dass Regazzoni die Schuld hatte.
Aus Louis Stabley 'Behind the scene' - ich bin jetzt zu faul zum übersetzen:
For many months I was involved in the controversy following the tragic death of Chris Lambert at Zandvoort. The shock of his son's death hit John Lambert very hard. He became bitter and hypersensitive to any suggestion that Chris might have made a driver error. He accused Clay Regazzoni of being responsible for the crash. It was an understandable reaction, but ill advised in that it blurred the image of a talented young driver. It was not fair to his memory and I attempted to get this point home. I failed as John Lambert's letter shows:
'It was very nice seeing you and I was so surprised at your request to me that l sat well into the night considering it. I am not a vindictive man as l hope you realize but as I think back my anger rises and there are things I cannot forget or forgive and feel the only thing the FIA can do is to put them right, whatever the loss of face. Chris was killed without doubt in my opinion by the dangerous driving of Clay Regazzoni. Chris was blamed for his own death. Regga was cleared and Chris was called a 'Sunday driver'. A libellous and completely untrue account of the accident was published.
'When the above facts were proved to the RNAC, they made no effort to put the record right and broke all regulations to bring out a report which enabled them to lie doggo.
'When I went to the RAC where I could expect a hearing on behalf of one of their own boys, they gave me an incomprehensively unfair
'Tribunal' refusing to listen to my case and rejected it. I wrote to all members of the Competition Committee and I have heard since that there were many unhappy people when the decision was made to reject my request for support. In view of the fact that on the evidence I have supplied the Dutch judiciary they are contemplating (and I believe may even have started) a criminal case against Regazzoni, it is obvious the RAC must have been totally wrong to reject my request for support.
'At the occasion of the Formula Two race I wrote to nearly all the intended drivers giving them the opportunity to say "let sleeping dogs lie" ? not one so replied.
I therefore feel Chris and I have both been wronged far too much and far too frequently and beyond the point where one can turn the other cheek. I am very sorry if it is what you would like me to do. I cannot believe in your heart of hearts that it is.'
Seven months later John Lambert was still unhappy that his censure had not been acknowledged. He said that he read with interest a plea I had made in the press for non-police intervention in the field of motor-racing, but feels that:
'Its logic, if my own experience is anything to go by, leaves much to be desired. If privilege is granted, then full responsibility must go with it.... In the event of my son's death, matters were left to the motor?racing world and not only was no inquest as we know it held, but a completely false account was issued. It was not the Dutch Automobile Club who asked for an enquiry by the FIA, it was not the GPDA, it was not the club who sponsored my son's entries in the field of motor?racing, but it was the Dutch police, who on hearing my case felt there was sufficient truth in it to warrant such an enquiry. I shall forever be grateful to them and I hope that this enquiry will enable me to fade from this unpleasant scene and to live only the very pleasant memories which my association with my son's motor?racing has given me over the years.'
Unfortunately it was not to be so. Some 18 months later I received another letter:
'In view of what you did, or attempted to do when Chris was killed, I have the greatest regret in writing this letter to you.
'After the findings of the FIA, although they were not accurate in some details and went out of their way to praise Regazzoni's style of driving, I should have let the matter drop. However, Regazzoni caused to be printed accounts of the accident in which he stated that:
1. He was not to blame.
2. Lambert ran into him,
3. John Lambert has pursued the enquiries because of insurance money.
He has refused to withdraw this and the FIA has stated that the matter is closed as far as they are concerned. I shall therefore pursue my campaign against his style of selfish, dangerous, and, at times, maniacal driving because I believe it is some-one's job to shout before the inevitable happens. I would not be in the shoes of the FIA or the RAC if Regazzoni caused the death of another racing driver and perhaps even that of innocent bystanders. My dossier would be at the disposal of any interested parties and I should esteem it a privilege to be called as a witness to any proceedings that might follow'
So ended a bitter dispute. John Lambert's reaction was understandable. His son had died. Violent death is a terrible shock for those involved. Usually the tragedy is accepted in stoical silence. Motorracing is dangerous and those who take part know the risks as do their families. But occasionally another dimension is added if it is felt that death might have been avoided had the actions of others been more temperate, and when officialdom appears to sweep the evidence under the carpet, it is instinctive for a grief-stricken parent to react as John Lambert did. Nevertheless I feel it was misguided. Nothing could bring back his son. For the sake of his memory it would have been more timely to restrain bitterness so that the memory of Chris should be of a talented, dedicated young driver who would surely not have wanted the recriminations that followed. Alongside Regazzoni he was a boy as regards experience. Clay was a professional driver in the mould of men like Farina and Mairesse. He knew no fear. He was hard, unyielding, and at times criticised by fellow drivers for taking risks that endangered others, but he would never deliberately cause another driver to crash. In a tight situation, he expected the other fellow to have the same degree of skill and be able to cope with the situation. That understanding has to be there. When drivers are bunched together at maximum speed, each man is confident that the others will not react stupidly. Only a break or mechanical failure should break the pattern of race behaviour. That is the argument in theory, but inevitably any driver who tests his machinery to the limit time and time again will, on the law of averages, have accidents Regazzoni paid the price with a crash that left him paralysed. His racing days are over, but he lives. Chris Lambert was not so fortunate.
For many months I was involved in the controversy following the tragic death of Chris Lambert at Zandvoort. The shock of his son's death hit John Lambert very hard. He became bitter and hypersensitive to any suggestion that Chris might have made a driver error. He accused Clay Regazzoni of being responsible for the crash. It was an understandable reaction, but ill advised in that it blurred the image of a talented young driver. It was not fair to his memory and I attempted to get this point home. I failed as John Lambert's letter shows:
'It was very nice seeing you and I was so surprised at your request to me that l sat well into the night considering it. I am not a vindictive man as l hope you realize but as I think back my anger rises and there are things I cannot forget or forgive and feel the only thing the FIA can do is to put them right, whatever the loss of face. Chris was killed without doubt in my opinion by the dangerous driving of Clay Regazzoni. Chris was blamed for his own death. Regga was cleared and Chris was called a 'Sunday driver'. A libellous and completely untrue account of the accident was published.
'When the above facts were proved to the RNAC, they made no effort to put the record right and broke all regulations to bring out a report which enabled them to lie doggo.
'When I went to the RAC where I could expect a hearing on behalf of one of their own boys, they gave me an incomprehensively unfair
'Tribunal' refusing to listen to my case and rejected it. I wrote to all members of the Competition Committee and I have heard since that there were many unhappy people when the decision was made to reject my request for support. In view of the fact that on the evidence I have supplied the Dutch judiciary they are contemplating (and I believe may even have started) a criminal case against Regazzoni, it is obvious the RAC must have been totally wrong to reject my request for support.
'At the occasion of the Formula Two race I wrote to nearly all the intended drivers giving them the opportunity to say "let sleeping dogs lie" ? not one so replied.
I therefore feel Chris and I have both been wronged far too much and far too frequently and beyond the point where one can turn the other cheek. I am very sorry if it is what you would like me to do. I cannot believe in your heart of hearts that it is.'
Seven months later John Lambert was still unhappy that his censure had not been acknowledged. He said that he read with interest a plea I had made in the press for non-police intervention in the field of motor-racing, but feels that:
'Its logic, if my own experience is anything to go by, leaves much to be desired. If privilege is granted, then full responsibility must go with it.... In the event of my son's death, matters were left to the motor?racing world and not only was no inquest as we know it held, but a completely false account was issued. It was not the Dutch Automobile Club who asked for an enquiry by the FIA, it was not the GPDA, it was not the club who sponsored my son's entries in the field of motor?racing, but it was the Dutch police, who on hearing my case felt there was sufficient truth in it to warrant such an enquiry. I shall forever be grateful to them and I hope that this enquiry will enable me to fade from this unpleasant scene and to live only the very pleasant memories which my association with my son's motor?racing has given me over the years.'
Unfortunately it was not to be so. Some 18 months later I received another letter:
'In view of what you did, or attempted to do when Chris was killed, I have the greatest regret in writing this letter to you.
'After the findings of the FIA, although they were not accurate in some details and went out of their way to praise Regazzoni's style of driving, I should have let the matter drop. However, Regazzoni caused to be printed accounts of the accident in which he stated that:
1. He was not to blame.
2. Lambert ran into him,
3. John Lambert has pursued the enquiries because of insurance money.
He has refused to withdraw this and the FIA has stated that the matter is closed as far as they are concerned. I shall therefore pursue my campaign against his style of selfish, dangerous, and, at times, maniacal driving because I believe it is some-one's job to shout before the inevitable happens. I would not be in the shoes of the FIA or the RAC if Regazzoni caused the death of another racing driver and perhaps even that of innocent bystanders. My dossier would be at the disposal of any interested parties and I should esteem it a privilege to be called as a witness to any proceedings that might follow'
So ended a bitter dispute. John Lambert's reaction was understandable. His son had died. Violent death is a terrible shock for those involved. Usually the tragedy is accepted in stoical silence. Motorracing is dangerous and those who take part know the risks as do their families. But occasionally another dimension is added if it is felt that death might have been avoided had the actions of others been more temperate, and when officialdom appears to sweep the evidence under the carpet, it is instinctive for a grief-stricken parent to react as John Lambert did. Nevertheless I feel it was misguided. Nothing could bring back his son. For the sake of his memory it would have been more timely to restrain bitterness so that the memory of Chris should be of a talented, dedicated young driver who would surely not have wanted the recriminations that followed. Alongside Regazzoni he was a boy as regards experience. Clay was a professional driver in the mould of men like Farina and Mairesse. He knew no fear. He was hard, unyielding, and at times criticised by fellow drivers for taking risks that endangered others, but he would never deliberately cause another driver to crash. In a tight situation, he expected the other fellow to have the same degree of skill and be able to cope with the situation. That understanding has to be there. When drivers are bunched together at maximum speed, each man is confident that the others will not react stupidly. Only a break or mechanical failure should break the pattern of race behaviour. That is the argument in theory, but inevitably any driver who tests his machinery to the limit time and time again will, on the law of averages, have accidents Regazzoni paid the price with a crash that left him paralysed. His racing days are over, but he lives. Chris Lambert was not so fortunate.
Der Vergleich von Stanley mit Farina (Champvar Fahrer Parnelli Jones war ein ähnliches Kaliber) trifft den Kern der Sache. Der hatte ja in der Beziehung auch einen sehr schlechten Ruf. Wenn ihm jemand zu langsam war wurde er einfach aus dem Weg 'gefahren'. Ich denke so hat es Regazzoni mit Lambert eben auch gemacht - diesmal ging's leider schief. Hinterher redet man dann immer von den Risiken des Motorsports, jeder weiss um das Risiko, 'That's Racing!' - und so weiter...
Das fand ich noch in einem alten TNF-Thread dazu:
Finally, on November 14th 1971, there was an official declaration by the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile that established that Regazzoni was guilty of “a mistake in appreciation, but not of a serious negligence" whilst at the same time the declaration included a sentence where the "audacity" of a driver was said to be impossible to monitor...
At no time in that report it is stated that "Lambert ran into him" as the Stanley quote might imply (maybe we are not talking about the same statement). In the Nov 14, 1971 there IS a blame on Regazzoni, although "light". Just a mistake in appreciation.
Stimmt fast 100% mit meiner Ansicht überein. Regazzonis eigenes Geschwätz in seiner Autobiografie stimmt also nicht. Der Mann glaubt scheinbar an seine eigenen Lügen! Ich bin etwas zerknirscht. Eigentlich fand ich ihn immer einen Super-Rennfahrer. Aber in der Beziehung hapert's wohl etwas bei Regazzoni. Sorry dass ich das so sagen muss (falls wir hier Regazzoni-Fans im Forum haben)...
Finally, on November 14th 1971, there was an official declaration by the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile that established that Regazzoni was guilty of “a mistake in appreciation, but not of a serious negligence" whilst at the same time the declaration included a sentence where the "audacity" of a driver was said to be impossible to monitor...
At no time in that report it is stated that "Lambert ran into him" as the Stanley quote might imply (maybe we are not talking about the same statement). In the Nov 14, 1971 there IS a blame on Regazzoni, although "light". Just a mistake in appreciation.
Stimmt fast 100% mit meiner Ansicht überein. Regazzonis eigenes Geschwätz in seiner Autobiografie stimmt also nicht. Der Mann glaubt scheinbar an seine eigenen Lügen! Ich bin etwas zerknirscht. Eigentlich fand ich ihn immer einen Super-Rennfahrer. Aber in der Beziehung hapert's wohl etwas bei Regazzoni. Sorry dass ich das so sagen muss (falls wir hier Regazzoni-Fans im Forum haben)...
Das geht schon in Ordnung Alfalfa. Ich denke, dass Regazzoni nach den
vielen Jahren sicher jetzt anders denkt über diesen Unfall. Er wird doch
im September 67 Jahre alt, und die Lebenserfahrung dürfte sich auch
bei ihm durchgesetzt haben. Ausserdem bezeichnete er es ja als
schwarzen Punkt in der Karriere, demfall wusste er, dass dieser Unfall
wohl auf seine Kappe ging.
vielen Jahren sicher jetzt anders denkt über diesen Unfall. Er wird doch
im September 67 Jahre alt, und die Lebenserfahrung dürfte sich auch
bei ihm durchgesetzt haben. Ausserdem bezeichnete er es ja als
schwarzen Punkt in der Karriere, demfall wusste er, dass dieser Unfall
wohl auf seine Kappe ging.
Der F.I.A.-Spruch (ein 'bisschen' Schuld!) ist ja wieder mal typisch. In er Beziehung hat sich seit damals nicht viel geändert... 
Ja die F.I.A hat sich wirklich nicht geändert. Uebrigens bin ich
schon lange hinter dem F5000 Einsatz von Regazzoni im McLaren
1973 her. Auf seine Bio habe ich zur Zeit keine Lust.
In seiner Bio ist ein Foto mit einem McLaren, aber Papier ist ja
bekanntlich geduldig, vielleicht wurde ich deswegen nie fündig.
Aber Du hast Recht, es ist, bwz. war ein Lola T330. Du könntest
die Bio redigieren, dann wäre sich wenigstens richtig.
bekanntlich geduldig, vielleicht wurde ich deswegen nie fündig.
Aber Du hast Recht, es ist, bwz. war ein Lola T330. Du könntest
die Bio redigieren, dann wäre sich wenigstens richtig.
Vielleicht hat er McLaren-Indy und Lola-F5000 miteinander verwechselt. Sollte eigentlich in einer Biografie nicht passieren, aber da habe ich in anderen Biografien schon schlimmeres gelesen.
Recht überzeugend scheint das Werk aber wirklich nicht zu sein...
Recht überzeugend scheint das Werk aber wirklich nicht zu sein...
Ja, das Geld hätte ich besser für ein anderes Buch ausgelegt.
Danke Alfalfa, die Seite war lange Zeit down. Jetzt habe ich auch
die Resultate aus der F5000 mit Lola gefunden. Dort heisst es F5
die Resultate aus der F5000 mit Lola gefunden. Dort heisst es F5
Weil wir gerade bei Regazzoni sind: wer hat denn den Ferrari Massencrash in Le Mans 1970 verursacht? Da war doch Regazzoni auch drin verwickelt...
Da habe ich ein Bild davon in meinem Archiv:
Merzario/Regazzoni auf Ferrari Startnummer 8.
Merzario/Regazzoni auf Ferrari Startnummer 8.
Beim 24h-Rennen von Le Mans 1970 verlor Ferrari bei einem einzigen Unfall vier Werkswagen: Durch das plötzliche Ausweichmanöver eines Alfa, prallte der Ferrari-Fahrer Regazzoni auf den langsam fahrenden Wissel-Ferrari. Beide Wagen stellten sich quer und blockierten die Piste. Zwei weitere Ferrari jagten heran. Während Parkes das Unheil zu spät erkannte und in die beiden Ferrari raste, erkannte Derek Bell in einem weiteren Ferrari das Unheil rechtzeitig, überdrehte aber beim Runterschalten das Triebwerk. Somit kamen gleich vier Ferrari auf die Ausfalliste, die, da nur 7 Wagen das Ziel sahen, diesmal besondes lang war.
Quelle: izdebski.de
Quelle: izdebski.de
torino hat geschrieben:
Beim 24h-Rennen von Le Mans 1970 verlor Ferrari bei einem einzigen Unfall vier Werkswagen: Durch das plötzliche Ausweichmanöver eines Alfa, prallte der Ferrari-Fahrer Regazzoni auf den langsam fahrenden Wissel-Ferrari. Beide Wagen stellten sich quer und blockierten die Piste. Zwei weitere Ferrari jagten heran. Während Parkes das Unheil zu spät erkannte und in die beiden Ferrari raste, erkannte Derek Bell in einem weiteren Ferrari das Unheil rechtzeitig, überdrehte aber beim Runterschalten das Triebwerk. Somit kamen gleich vier Ferrari auf die Ausfalliste, die, da nur 7 Wagen das Ziel sahen, diesmal besondes lang war.
Gabs 1970 noch den Start, wo die Fahrer zu den Boxen rüberrennen mussten, um die Wagen von dort zu starten ? Sensationell...Wann wurde diese Start-Art abgeschafft ?
torino hat geschrieben:
Quelle: izdebski.de
Diese Quelle halte ich für etwas FRAGWÜRDIG - die verbreitet nämlich auch diesen Aprilscherz mit dem GP von Dubai (steht genau über dem Ferrari-Le Mans-Bericht von 1970 - passt irgendwie zum Rosenmontag)...
Peterson78 hat geschrieben:
Gabs 1970 noch den Start, wo die Fahrer zu den Boxen rüberrennen mussten, um die Wagen von dort zu starten ? Sensationell...Wann wurde diese Start-Art abgeschafft ?
Das kollidierte irgendwann mit der Anschnallpflicht. 1968 (da gab's die Anschnallpflicht erstmals), gab's ja den schweren Unfall von Willy Mairesse, der ja auf die Hektik des Le Mans Starts in Verbindung mit der Anschnallpflicht zurückgeführt wurde. Um schneller vom Start weg zu kommen, gingen die Fahrer nämlich dazu über, die Sicherheitsgurte nicht sofort sondern erst in einer der nächsten Geraden anzulegen. Jacky Ickx übte dagegen bei seiner ersten Teilnahme der 24-Stunden von Le Mans 1969 Protest (wg. des Unfalls seines Landsmannes im Vorjahr), indem er nach dem Startzeichen gemächlich zu seinem Ford GT 40 ging und betont langsam und sorgfältig seine Gurte festmachte, bevor er schließlich weit hinter den anderen Teilnehmern ins Rennen fuhr.
Aber im Rennen 1969 gab es wieder einen schweren Zwischenfall. Der noch nicht angegurtete Fahrer John Woolfe verunglückte in der ersten Runde tödlich.
1970 schaffte man dann schließlich den klassischen Le Mans Start ab.
Freitag, 20. September 2024
Werbung ausschalten|
Motorsport-Magazin.com Plus|
Magazin bestellen|
ePaper|
Unterstütze uns|
Apps|
Newsletter|
RSS
Mein Motorsport-Magazin.com
Registrieren|Login