Carlos Reutemann in intensive care, condition said to be worsening

Didn't know that. Started watching in 79 but didn't pay attention to him/Mario. Was focused on Jones at Williams.

Not surprised he beat Villeneuve.

 

Villeneuve was very green in F1 when they were teammates, it took him a season or so to find his legs.
The Lotus 80 was a disaster. Lotus had to revert to the Type 79 by which time the other teams had caught on about ground effects.

 

+1 Absolutely, a great era. F1 is a shadow of the sport it once was.

 

2 years ago!

Niki was just getting started when I became aware of F1 and started to follow. I miss his way of cutting through the crap.

 

And no good way of following the sport in the USA. I remember even in the early nineties having to look up the F1 GP results on Monday morning somewhere buried in the small print section of the newspaper.

And from a racing perspective: those were the years when drivers perished at a regular rate of one per year

Let's not get too romantic about "the good old days".

 

There were 11 F1 driver fatalities in the 1970s, the last was Ronnie at Monza in 1978. There were 4 in the 1980s, 2 of them in testing accidents. In the 1990s only Roland Ratzenberger and Senna on the same weekend.
All drivers knew and accepted the risk.

 

At least the racing was exciting !! But it did come at a steep cost..........perhaps something in the middle would be worthy.......

 

Quick count from Wiki list, 40 driver deaths from 1953 to 1978.

 

IF that info was even in the newspaper! Mine typically only listed the name of the winner (unless someone else got killed) and even that didn't always happen. I began subscribing to Road & Track in 1968 just so that I could read Rob Walker's F1 race reports three months later! So I never complain about today's comparatively in-depth T.V. coverage, and that includes the announcers. I dislike it when anyone criticizes the F1 announcers, even if it may be warranted, because I remember the alternative: nothing!

 

Add to that all the guys whose career ended because of severely broken bones. Surer, Regazzoni, Laffite to name a few. There were more.

Accidents like the ones Kubica or Grosjean had would have easily ended in fatalities.

 

Very good point. I have been complaining about Varsha on here, but you're right. We shouldn't be complaining at all as long as we live in the US.

I remember Senna's accident (I suppose ESPN must have carried that race) and didn't think much of it. Called my friend in Europe the next day and asked how Senna is doing in the hospital. My friend was shocked and told me that Senna died. Then the shock was on me. As they ended the broadcast I had no idea of the gravity of the situation. Then I saw the images of all the blood in the newspaper.

Indeed we have come a long way. With the internet as well as with US TV broadcast of F1.

PS: Would be nice if some US TV channel would finally embrace the Eurovision Song Contest. At least it's on streaming.

 

For me the biggest loss of F1 is the restriction on development and the very defined bodywork. I loved the variety of cars and chassis in the late seventies and early eighties. When a Ligier looked vastly different from a Renault or a Ferrari. And when Colin Chapman came up with the double chassis on the Lotus or Brabham with the vacuum cleaner. That is all gone and as you say a team in bad shape could come back and didn't have to wait seven years until the rules unfreeze.

As for TV coverage I was spoiled growing up in Switzerland: We had Swiss, German and Austrian TV covering pretty much every race on the planet. I spent nights watching the US and Canadian GPs. Was quite a culture shock for me to come to the US where we had 100 TV channels and none carrying F1.

 

This is another Monaco pic I took of Carlos. This one is from the 1979 race when he drove for Lotus. Obviously I don't know squat about photography (and got lucky with my prior 1980 pic). Carlos finished 3rd. Back then Championship points were only awarded to the top 6 finishers, and in the 1979 race every driver who crossed the finish line received a point. Only 6 drivers finished the race. 14 DNFd. Jochen Mass in an Arrows finished 6th, 7 laps behind. He could have stopped the car at the reviewing stand, jumped out and had a beer or two with Prince Rainier and Princess Grace, jumped back in the car, crossed the finish line and still scored a point.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I loved the '79 Lotuses as they brought back British Racing Green for one final time. But I think you're wrong about Mass; I believe that cars had to complete 90% of the race distance to score points, so I don't think he could have stopped for a drink!

 

You’re both right: 7 laps behind = 90.7%
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

There you have it. Mass completed 69 laps and got 6th, but Jabouille completed 68 laps and was Unclassified; even if he had been 6th on the track he would have earned no points.

 

Where were you guys?
C&D and R&T were my subscriptions from I don't remember when. Then, a slotcar racing friend turned me on to "Competition Press and Autoweek" (a weekly tabloid for years 'til it went magazine format) in '68. Bathtub reading (cover to cover) the Wed. or Thurs. (when it usually arrived) following that weekend's racing.
'Discovered "On Track" (biweekly mag.) a decade later.
I miss 'em to this day.
The real racing back then.....the innovation.....the suspense (built to the hilt/who'll make it and who'll blow...).....never to be seen again. 'Gotta keep those sponsors happy with "race"(tsk-tsk) long "billboard" parades doncha' know.....

 

Did some research in a bunch of books I have and find no mention of having to complete 90% of the leaders laps. Just had to be in the top 6 period.
Only percentage I know of is the present qually within 7% and that can be over-ridden anyway......(again, gots to keep those sponsors happy... )

 

Actually, the first auto racing magazine I subscribed to was simply called "Auto Racing". It was published on horrible paper (like newsprint) but had decent race reports. I added "R&T" later because it had more and better photos. When "Auto Racing" folded around 1971 they transferred my subscription to "Autoweek" but I still kept "R&T" because of the better photography and other features. (Eventually I saw the 308 GTB in "R&T", which is why I own a 328 today!) I later added "Formula" magazine, which was eventually renamed "Racecar". I eventually dropped "Autoweek" after F1 races began appearing live on TV because I didn't have time to read a weekly. I subscribed to "Racer" from the start, and still am a subscriber.

 

I figured the results chart you posted might have been copied from the 1979 Monaco Wiki page as it's in Wiki format. I just took a look and discovered to my surprise that one of my other crappy photos was used by Wiki for that race. I had no idea it was there. Thanx. And I also noted that the crazy 1979 Championship formula cited by Nerofer, which I had totally forgotten, was mentioned (albeit somewhat as a footnote) as well. It certainly was a crazy season!

 

Yes, wiki—too easy.

Cool (I hope) about your pic being used. Any idea how it got there?

 

The only thing I can think of is I was asked by an Australian motorsports writer who was in the process of writing a book to send him some of the F1 photos that I mentioned I had taken. I sent about a dozen. He must have posted it, as I had never sent them to anyone else, and Wiki requires provenance. Obviously I don't have a clue about photography. I just had great access at races.