Doubt over facts of Villeneuve-Pironi row
The details of one of the most famous and tragic episodes in Formula 1 history have been disputed by one of the sport’s long-standing figures.
It had long been claimed that Didier Pironi ’stole’ victory from team mate Gilles Villeneuve in the 1982 San Marino Grand Prix by refusing to follow team orders. Livid with Pironi, Villeneuve crashed to his death two weeks later.
But John Hogan, the man at the forefront of Marlboro’s sponsorship activities in F1 since 1973, dismissed that version of events as “bullshit”.
He said:
That Gilles died.. has coloured many people’s impressions of Didier. But my angle on it is that they were racing all the way, every lap. The idea that they had an agreement that Pironi reneged on is bullshit.
Neither of them would ever have agreed to what effectively was throwing a race. So why did Villeneuve come out with all that vitriol about Pironi going back on a deal?
I think Gilles was stunned somebody had out-driven him and that it just caught him so much by surprise.
It’s a remarkable view that flies in the face of the established version of events. I’m not old enough to remember the race, but having read about it I can offer these observations that strongly contradict Hogan’s claim.
Villeneuve claimed that he was lapping slowly because the Ferraris were troubled by poor fuel consumption and he didn’t want to run out before the flag. That much was clear at Monaco later that year when Pironi ran out of fuel within sight of the flag.
Villeneuve maintained that in the Imola race he was cruising when Pironi passed him, and that he only increased his pace to re-pass Pironi, and when he did he slowed down again. Pironi ultimately overtook Villeneuve on the final lap, giving him no opportunity to respond.
Nigel Roebuck wrote about the Imola row one week after which, crucially (in the light of Hogan’s remarks), was one week before Villeneuve’s death:
As I left the press office on Sunday evening, I picked up a list of the drivers’ lap times. Does close scrutiny of them bear out Villeneuve’s story? Yes, it does. Here are the last 15 laps, together with their leaders:
Lap 45 - 1′36.578s (Villeneuve)
46 - 1′36.451 (Pironi)
47 - 1′35.828 (Pironi)
48 - 1′35.406 (Pironi)
49 - 1′35.967 (Villeneuve)
50 - 1′37.372 (Villeneuve)
51 - 1′37.321 (Villeneuve)
52 - 1′38.123 (Villeneuve)
53 - 1′35.409 (Pironi)
54 - 1′35.571 (Pironi)
55 - 1′35.555 (Pironi)
56 - 1′35.307 (Pironi)
57 - 1′35.213 (Pironi)
58 - 1′35.906 (Pironi)
59 - 1′37.020 (Villeneuve)
60 - 1′36.271 (Pironi)
Reproduced from “Inside Formula 1″, Nigel Roebuck, 1989.
The lap times strongly support the claim that Villeneuve was trying to manage the pace and lead home a Ferrari one-two in team order. If Pironi had passed him on merit, then why was Villeneuve lapping two to three seconds off the pace after he took the lead from Pironi - even on the penultimate lap?
It’s fair to say that both commentators have reason for siding with each driver. Marlboro sponsored Pironi while he was at Ferrari, Roebuck makes no secret of his admiration for Villeneuve.
But for me the bald facts of the lap times underlined the accuracy of the established version of events.
Related links
- Gilles Villeneuve: His victories remembered
- “Villeneuve: The life of the legendary racing driver” (Gerald Donaldson)
- “Inside Formula 1″ (Nigel Roebuck)
- Gilles Villeneuve biography
Tags: f1 / formula one / formula 1 / grand prix / motor sport
I am old enough to remember the race and I do - very clearly. It was very obvious that Villeneuve was cruising when Pironi first caught and passed him. Gilles seemed surprised but immediately increased speed until he caught and passed Didier in turn, thereafter dropping his pace again. And so it went - every time Villeneuve got ahead, he slowed. A more obvious execution of a previous agreement I have never seen.
Gilles said afterwards that, when Didier came past him, he thought that he was putting on a show for the crowd and so Gilles joined in. And the truth of the matter is clear in Villeneuve’s face after the race - he was furious. You don’t get angry when you’re fairly outdriven, you make excuses.
John Hogan is talking tripe, I’m afraid, for reasons known only to himself. But I will say this: I don’t believe that the incident had anything to do with Villeneuve’s death in practice for the Belgian GP that followed, as so often has been said. That was purely a misunderstanding between Gilles and the driver he was about to pass.
John Hogan… odd.
Anyway, as for Zolder 2 weeks later, Gilles was still affected by it, I think. Quali lap, on the limit, certain emotions can make you decide one way when you’d normally decide the other. No direct connection, but I think the indirect emotional connection exists.
I agree with both previous opinions here. Pironi was not OK in the family picture at Imola and Villeneuve’s concentration might be afected later at Zolder.
But this is a bit late to discuss as they are both dead now… perhaps someone could ask Ferrari team managers of that time about it.
Nah, I don’t think we should ask. Not really in good taste. If they have anything to share, they should share it on their own.
Besides, would anyone really admit anything?
i think the only ppl that have a real good idea is the drivers themselves and sadly they are both gone.
but from what i understand at the time gilles crashed he was desperate to beat pironi’s time, as if to prove a point.
thats how i read it
either view u take, it’s a tragic tale
Hogan is speaking nonsense. There was no 1-2 agreement between both drivers but Gilles clearly earned the race in Imola
The following facts speak for themselves:
1) Gilles was not racing at all in the end and clearly did not defend himselves (we all know the way Gilles was racing). Both drivers were instructed to keep eye on fuel in Ferrari’s home race. Gilles clearly obeyed, evidenced by lap times , Didier simply not thus stole the race in a very poor and cheap way
2) Gilles proved to be the quickest of both for major part of the race (as usual)and qualified more than a second faster (as usual
3) Gilles is recognized of one of the most passionate, honorable and unpolitical racing drivers. After 2 weeks, he still did not came down from this injustice, especially the back stab of Puccicini. I think this betrayal played a certain part in Gilles tragic death.
Honestly speaking, I can’t feel any symphathy for Pironi…Dio perdonas…Gilles no.
furthermore, at the moment of the the “slow” instruction from the pits, Gilles was leading and these team orders can only be interpreted as holding position. how can you obey “slow” orders when your team mate is maintaining pace or even racing? So Pironi’s story does not make sense and consists of lies (engine problems). rightly so, gilles claim on victory was justified and his honesty, his loyalty made him to be stunned and bittered by this betrayal. That Gilles died as a bitter man is the most tragic aspect of his death
For the complete story of this tragic event and the fall out of it, one should read Nigel Roebucks “Bad blood at Maranello” in which Gilles provides a highly accurate reproduction of the last famous laps and leaves you to decide. Apart from the facts, everyone who red the biography of the legendary race driver knows who speaks the truth.
“Bad blood at Maranello” is where the above quote is taken from, that’s reproduced in Inside Formula 1.
Pardon me for asking but where was John Hogan quoted from?
Thank you.
It was the last issue of F1 Racing.