trivia question....

[eagleash]

The first race to start under the safety car was...?

Belgium 1997?

[Aerospeed]

The first race to start under the safety car was...?

Belgium 1997?

How did you guess that?

[eagleash]

The first race to start under the safety car was...?

Belgium 1997?

How did you guess that?

1) I watched the race on tele.....

2) Double checking the memory bank was easy......

[Peter]

What race had the least finishes? How many, and who won?




Also, what was the biggest ever gap between the winner of a race and 2nd place?

[TomWazzleshaw]

What race had the least finishes? How many, and who won?

Actual finishes or classified finishes?

If it's the former it would be the 1996 Monaco Grand Prix won by Olivier Panis with 3 finishers. If it's classified finishers then it would one of the Monaco Grand Prixs in the mid 60s with 4 (Can't remember which one or who won though)

[mario]

What race had the least finishes? How many, and who won?




Also, what was the biggest ever gap between the winner of a race and 2nd place?

Since Wizzie has had a go at the former, I'll try the latter - the 1959 Portuguese GP, where Moss lapped the entire field and won by over a lap?

[TomWazzleshaw]

What race had the least finishes? How many, and who won?




Also, what was the biggest ever gap between the winner of a race and 2nd place?

Since Wizzie has had a go at the former, I'll try the latter - the 1959 Portuguese GP, where Moss lapped the entire field and won by over a lap?

I think you're looking for the 1969 or 1970 Spanish Grand Prix (Can't remember which one) where Stewart won by two laps and the 1995 Australian Grand Prix where Damon Hill won by 2 laps from Panis's Prost which effectively was on fire by the end of it... literally

[tommykl]

I thought that, by overall time, it was Jackie Stewart in the 1969 German GP, where he won by over 4 minutes...

[eagleash]

What race had the least finishes? How many, and who won?




Also, what was the biggest ever gap between the winner of a race and 2nd place?

Since Wizzie has had a go at the former, I'll try the latter - the 1959 Portuguese GP, where Moss lapped the entire field and won by over a lap?

I think you're looking for the 1969 or 1970 Spanish Grand Prix (Can't remember which one) where Stewart won by two laps and the 1995 Australian Grand Prix where Damon Hill won by 2 laps from Panis's Prost which effectively was on fire by the end of it... literally

!969

[dr-baker]

What race had the least finishes? How many, and who won?

It would be the 1996 Monaco Grand Prix won by Olivier Panis with 3 finishers.

Also, what was the biggest ever gap between the winner of a race and 2nd place?

I think you're looking for the 1969 or 1970 Spanish Grand Prix (Can't remember which one) where Stewart won by two laps and the 1995 Australian Grand Prix where Damon Hill won by 2 laps from Panis's Prost which effectively was on fire by the end of it... literally

These are the answers I would have given if I had been on the forum before the questions had already been answered.

[eagleash]

It would be the 1996 Monaco Grand Prix won by Olivier Panis with 3 finishers.


I think you're looking for the 1969 or 1970 Spanish Grand Prix (Can't remember which one) where Stewart won by two laps and the 1995 Australian Grand Prix where Damon Hill won by 2 laps from Panis's Prost which effectively was on fire by the end of it... literally

These are the answers I would have given if I had been on the forum before the questions had already been answered.

Thank you for sharing......

[dr-baker]

It would be the 1996 Monaco Grand Prix won by Olivier Panis with 3 finishers.


I think you're looking for the 1969 or 1970 Spanish Grand Prix (Can't remember which one) where Stewart won by two laps and the 1995 Australian Grand Prix where Damon Hill won by 2 laps from Panis's Prost which effectively was on fire by the end of it... literally

These are the answers I would have given if I had been on the forum before the questions had already been answered.

Thank you for sharing......

You're welcome.

[eagleash]

Easy question;

When & where was a Safety Car first deployed......??

[tommykl]

Easy question;

When & where was a Safety Car first deployed......??

1973 Canadian GP, driven by Eppie Wietzes.

[eagleash]

Easy question;

When & where was a Safety Car first deployed......??

1973 Canadian GP, driven by Eppie Wietzes.

Correct....
(Pesky kids...... )

[tommykl]

It's the sort of stuff you just have to know...

EDIT: Woo! 500 posts!

[Phoenix]

It's the sort of stuff you just have to know...

EDIT: Woo! 500 posts!

More to the point...it's F1 Rejects related stuff!

[mario]

Easy question;

When & where was a Safety Car first deployed......??

1973 Canadian GP, driven by Eppie Wietzes.

Correct....
(Pesky kids...... )

On a related note, does anybody know when Formula 1 first introduced a medical car? Did the FIA medical car come before, or with, the safety car (i.e. in the 1990's, when the safety car was formally introduced)?

[Phoenix]

On a related note, does anybody know when Formula 1 first introduced a medical car? Did the FIA medical car come before, or with, the safety car (i.e. in the 1990's, when the safety car was formally introduced)?

Maybe in 1978, when Sid Watkins began his involvement with Formula One.

[IdeFan]

On a related note, does anybody know when Formula 1 first introduced a medical car? Did the FIA medical car come before, or with, the safety car (i.e. in the 1990's, when the safety car was formally introduced)?

Maybe in 1978, when Sid Watkins began his involvement with Formula One.

According to wikipedia, the Medical Car was first used at the 1978 US Grand Prix (East). It was the Prof's eighth race on the job, at the preceding race Ronnie Peterson was tragically killed at Monza: "Watkins demanded that Ecclestone provide better safety equipment, an anaesthetist, a medical car and a medical helicopter (Medevac). All were provided at the next race in the USA. In addition, it was decided that the medical car containing Watkins would follow the racing cars for the first lap of the race in order to provide immediate help in the event of a first lap incident."

Peterson's crash was on the first lap and it took other drivers to pull him out of the burning car. Had the medical car been on the scene (it would have taken less than a minute today) then poor Ronnie may well have lived.

[eagleash]

On a related note, does anybody know when Formula 1 first introduced a medical car? Did the FIA medical car come before, or with, the safety car (i.e. in the 1990's, when the safety car was formally introduced)?

Maybe in 1978, when Sid Watkins began his involvement with Formula One.

According to wikipedia, the Medical Car was first used at the 1978 US Grand Prix (East). It was the Prof's eighth race on the job, at the preceding race Ronnie Peterson was tragically killed at Monza: "Watkins demanded that Ecclestone provide better safety equipment, an anaesthetist, a medical car and a medical helicopter (Medevac). All were provided at the next race in the USA. In addition, it was decided that the medical car containing Watkins would follow the racing cars for the first lap of the race in order to provide immediate help in the event of a first lap incident."

Peterson's crash was on the first lap and it took other drivers to pull him out of the burning car. Had the medical car been on the scene (it would have taken less than a minute today) then poor Ronnie may well have lived.

ESPN F1 also states 1978. Whether it would have helped Ronnie is debatable as his injuries (sustained on impact) were not initially thought to be life threatening; the cause of death being an embolism formed during the lengthy operation to re-set his badly broken legs.

[Myrvold]

Peterson's crash was on the first lap and it took other drivers to pull him out of the burning car. Had the medical car been on the scene (it would have taken less than a minute today) then poor Ronnie may well have lived.

Sadly no, Sid Watkins would still make the same decision and the same thing would've happended.

[Phoenix]

Peterson's crash was on the first lap and it took other drivers to pull him out of the burning car. Had the medical car been on the scene (it would have taken less than a minute today) then poor Ronnie may well have lived.

Sadly no, Sid Watkins would still make the same decision and the same thing would've happended.

But that's not the point. The point is, fellow drivers had to extricate Ronnie Peterson from his car and he was lying on the ground with his legs shattered for over 20 minutes. If he had another kind of injuries, he'd have died there, and with proper medical support on the track he'd have lived.

[mario]

Thanks to those who answered my query about when the medical car was brought in - it is a bit sobering, though, when you consider that what seems like a fairly common sense piece of equipment took so long to implement. I'm trying to remember though - was there not one race at Monaco where the medical car crashed at Ste. Devote?

Peterson's crash was on the first lap and it took other drivers to pull him out of the burning car. Had the medical car been on the scene (it would have taken less than a minute today) then poor Ronnie may well have lived.

Sadly no, Sid Watkins would still make the same decision and the same thing would've happended.

But that's not the point. The point is, fellow drivers had to extricate Ronnie Peterson from his car and he was lying on the ground with his legs shattered for over 20 minutes. If he had another kind of injuries, he'd have died there, and with proper medical support on the track he'd have lived.

Possibly, although whenever we have these sorts of hypothetical scenarios, it is always hard to tell what might have happened if something was different. We can probably agree that prompter medical intervention would have most likely improved the chances of survival for Ronnie, as there would have been less time for complications to have set in. At the very least, having trained medical officers at the scene of the accident almost immediately would have not done any harm to the chances of Ronnie surviving.
However, given that the cause of death was not just down to the nature of the accident, but complication that arose during the surgery that followed his accident, those facilities alone might not have been enough to save his life.

In many ways, though, it is shocking how little concern was given to the safety of the drivers, though, during the earlier days of Formula 1. After all, the first mobile medical facilities were offered by a voluntary service, not the organising bodies or the teams, and in a number of instances, those mobile medical facilities were banned from entering the track, because the track owners were offended by the (quite accurate) implication that their own medical facilities were woefully inadequate and under staffed.

[eagleash]

If he had another kind of injuries, he'd have died there, and with proper medical support on the track he'd have lived.

The chances of an embolism forming during such a lengthy operation (I understand there is a greater risk during this type of procedure) would have probably still been the same.

[Peter]

Last time a driver won his home GP?

[dr-baker]

Last time a driver won his home GP?

Massa, Brazil, 2008; and prior to that, Lewis, Britain, 2008

[Peter]

Correct! It's been quite some time, hasn't it?


Has a driver ever secured a championship in their home GP?

[dr-baker]

Correct! It's been quite some time, hasn't it?

2 years? Maybe. But it is more competitive now and therefore harder to win specific races.

[mario]

Correct! It's been quite some time, hasn't it?


Has a driver ever secured a championship in their home GP?

In 1950, Nino Farina won the final race of the season, the Italian Grand Prix at Monza, to win the championship (albeit helped by the fact that most of his rivals failed to finish in a race of attrition - only seven drivers finished out of 26 starters).
It has been a pretty rare thing for a driver to be in a position to win the title at his home race, since normally the home races for most drivers have been clustered at the beginning to middle of the season, when the title is still fairly open. That is, if the driver has a home race at all, since a number of drivers have represented their country at a time when their home nation did not have a race, and in the case of some (say, Finland), still doesn't have a home race.

[Klon]

Well, if McNish's engine had not failed in 2002, we would have very likely seen another case of winning a championship at your home race.

[Phoenix]

If he had another kind of injuries, he'd have died there, and with proper medical support on the track he'd have lived.

The chances of an embolism forming during such a lengthy operation (I understand there is a greater risk during this type of procedure) would have probably still been the same.

I'm not talking about the actual situation; if he had severe burns, then it would have been more likely for him to live if he received proper medical attention at the track.

[Peter]

If he had another kind of injuries, he'd have died there, and with proper medical support on the track he'd have lived.

The chances of an embolism forming during such a lengthy operation (I understand there is a greater risk during this type of procedure) would have probably still been the same.

I'm not talking about the actual situation; if he had severe burns, then it would have been more likely for him to live if he received proper medical attention at the track.

Peterson probably would have died whether there was a medical car or not. Because even if the medical car took him off track and to a hospital in a few minutes, there would still be a long operation to do to fix his broken legs, and the embolism would have probably formed again. But I agree that the safety was horrible back then, its as if they didn't do anything about safety until someone was killed or almost killed, and it makes you wonder who the hell had the balls to do that. F1 is so much safer now, we have people crashing purposely for their teammates. It seems as if i'm more likely to be killed peeling a potato than driving an F1 car.

[Aerospeed]

It has been a pretty rare thing for a driver to be in a position to win the title at his home race, since normally the home races for most drivers have been clustered at the beginning to middle of the season, when the title is still fairly open. That is, if the driver has a home race at all, since a number of drivers have represented their country at a time when their home nation did not have a race, and in the case of some (say, Finland), still doesn't have a home race.

Please don't give Bernie any ideas.

Thanks.

[mario]

It has been a pretty rare thing for a driver to be in a position to win the title at his home race, since normally the home races for most drivers have been clustered at the beginning to middle of the season, when the title is still fairly open. That is, if the driver has a home race at all, since a number of drivers have represented their country at a time when their home nation did not have a race, and in the case of some (say, Finland), still doesn't have a home race.

Please don't give Bernie any ideas.

Thanks.

I doubt that there would be those who objected to a Finnish Grand Prix; still, I don't get what you mean by "Don't give Bernie any ideas"?

Peterson probably would have died whether there was a medical car or not. Because even if the medical car took him off track and to a hospital in a few minutes, there would still be a long operation to do to fix his broken legs, and the embolism would have probably formed again. But I agree that the safety was horrible back then, its as if they didn't do anything about safety until someone was killed or almost killed, and it makes you wonder who the hell had the balls to do that. F1 is so much safer now, we have people crashing purposely for their teammates. It seems as if i'm more likely to be killed peeling a potato than driving an F1 car.

There was often quite a bit of resistance within the sport when some safety measures were proposed for a number of reasons; as such, quite a few drivers and team bosses ended up being heavily criticized at the time, and became quite unpopular with some figures, because of their insistence on better safety standards. Take Stewart, and his famous accident in 1966 at Spa Francorchamps - he had to spend an anxious 25 minutes trapped in his car, soaked in fuel, whilst Graham Hill and Robert Bondurant had to borrow a toolkit from a spectator to undo the steering column to free Stewart.
The point is, there were no marshalls to help, and no ambulance came to the scene to help - they had to hitch a ride back to the pit lane in a van, before the ambulance turned up (and promptly got lost on the way to the hospital in Liege).

The circuit owners often had, at best, a somewhat careless attitude, and at worst were downright hostile to change - barring outside medical staff to their venues whilst not bothering with a decent (or indeed any) medical service, woefully understaffed and undertrained marshalls and emergency crews, badly installed crash barriers (which killed several drivers when they failed) - the list goes on. It's quite shocking in some ways that medical facilities - which you'd have though a basic requirement for a circuit - were not compulsory until 1980.
The thing is, making alterations like new gravel traps, new crash barriers were expensive, and some circuit owners were more interested in money instead of lives, tragic as that was. Others feared that if safety standards were tightened further, they would loose the event completely, and were naturally keen to prevent that happening.

There was also some resistance from the teams themselves - Chapman's cars were death traps at times (the original Team Lotus had by far the worst fatal accident rate), in his constant search for lightweight, compact designs, and at times the teams were much more interested in chasing performance over driver safety. For example, in 1970 Ferrari introduced the 312B - a highly competitive car, and a number of design features were quickly copied.
However, that car had some lethal features - for example, the drivers feet were ahead of the front axle, so in a head on collision his legs would not be well protected. However, it allowed the driver to sit lower down in the car, lowering the centre of gravity and the decreasing the frontal area of the car, cutting drag - which meant that many copied that design feature. Even relatively modern cars seem fragile compared to the modern cars; it reminds me of what Hamilton said when he first drove the MP4/4 - "The cockpit walls are so thin that I could virtually punch through them".

[eagleash]

What was the question again?

[Aerospeed]

Please don't give Bernie any ideas.

Thanks.

I doubt that there would be those who objected to a Finnish Grand Prix; still, I don't get what you mean by "Don't give Bernie any ideas"?

I'm pretty sure a Finnish GP would be a good idea (it's better than Vietnam), but I don't want a shitty track made by Tilke and his minions!

What was the question again?

This:

On a related note, does anybody know when Formula 1 first introduced a medical car? Did the FIA medical car come before, or with, the safety car (i.e. in the 1990's, when the safety car was formally introduced)?

I think it's been answered, so I'll post up the next question:

Which driver drove for Kahusen and Merzario in the same season?

[TomWazzleshaw]

Here's a good one:

Timo Glock recently ran a mini-contest on twitter. What was that contest?

[Nuppiz]

Which driver drove for Kauhsen and Merzario in the same season?

Gianfranco Brancatelli

[Phoenix]

OK, lessee...
There was once a Grand Prix in which 2nd place wasn't awarded. I'd like that someone told me which one, and why.