Jump to content

Talk:Graham Hill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who Sued Whom?

[edit]

I'm not an expert on the law, but from what I do know about the law I'm rather sceptical of the claim that his wife was prosecuted. Do you possibly mean that Hill was posthumously sued? PatGallacher 23:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember the section on Brise's death in the boo, The Lost Generation, Brise's (father or father-in-law) sued the Hill family or something along those lines. Sorry, I don't have the book with me, but I'll try and find what exactly happened. Once again, sorry.--Skully Collins Edits 15:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you sue a dead person you sue their estate. Of course that has has the same effect as suing the benefactors of the estate but its not quite the same thing. --LiamE 18:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indy Streaks

[edit]

Here are a couple of links to back-up the assertions:

http://indy500.tjs-labs.com/list-streak.php?streak=3&sort=A&truncate=Y
http://indy500.tjs-labs.com/list-qual-streak.php?streak=3&sort=A&truncate=Y

--Mycroft.Holmes 15:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Indy 500 Chassis numbers added for Lotus cars + reasons for 1969 withdrawal - source Team Lotus - The Indianapolis Years by Andrew Ferguson M100 21:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TV Driving Series

[edit]

As well as the often-repeated clip of Graham Hill and Jackie Stewart's double-act at the Sports Personality of the year show, I can remember him doing a series of TV shorts(or a regular spot within whatever was then the equivilent of Top Gear) on better roadcraft - or road driving skills. I'd guess around 1972-73. No idea what it was called, but it was very popular at the time and perhaps equally worthy of inclusion if anyone can find any details. Mighty Antar 00:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely irreverent information follows

[edit]

Also the name of a minor hill and elementary school in Seattle. -Uagehry456talk 22:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TRIPLE CROWN

[edit]

What a bizarre notion that anyone would think that the definition of Motor Racing's Triple crown is the Indianapolis 500 (yes) Le Mans (yes) and..... the Monaco Grand Prix!!

The Monaco Grand Prix is only PART of the Formula 1 World championship, and ANY authoritative reference you care to look up (even the one on the French version of Wikipedia, which at some point this article makes reference to) will confirm that the Triple Crown of Motor Racing is regarded as :

FIA F1 World championship

Le Mans 24 Hours

Indianapolis 500

The only driver that has so far captured all three is Graham Hill, (Jacques Villeneuve has 2/3, namely the Indy 500 and the F1 championship) and so long as the present entry for both "Graham Hill" and the "Triple Crown" remain as they are at present in Wikipedia, they will define precicely the weakness of Wikipedia, namely they are the work of someone more interested in his/her (misguided) conviction in their own infallability, rather than providing true facts.

And yes, Bette Hill did get sued by the estate of the passenengers in Graham Hill's plane and lost a great deal of money.

Peterkirchem 13:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What an (sic) bizarre notion that anyone would think that the definition of Motor Racing's Triple crown includes the Indianapolis 500 and Le Mans 24hr as they are both part of championships? Why would it be 2 races and a championship especially when 2 of the races used to be in the same championship? The triple crown is a carry over from horse racing where it is the the three most important races not 2 races and a championship. --LiamE 17:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And no, Bette Hill was not sued, Graham's estate was sued. Of course in reality there is no appreciable difference between the two in terms of who loses money. --LiamE 18:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You are simply wrong on both counts, though well done spotting my typing error Peterkirchem (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article to identify the alternative definitions of Triple Crown of Motorsport. An alternative (preferable?) solution would be to just say that he's the only driver to have won it, and if people want to find out what "Triple Crown of Motorsport" means, they can follow the link. DH85868993 (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DH, clearly both definitions are currently used, with the F1 championship perhaps being used more often lately than it has before simply because of interest in Jaques Villeneuve. Of course by either definition Graham Hill has won it and is the only person to have done so. --LiamE (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, you really must try harder. As far as I can see I made 3 points, firstly I pointed out the obvious fallacy in your rant which perhaps you still can't see. Your logic is flawed, and even if it wasn't it would stil be OR. Secondly, I really can assure you that the triple crown in horse racing is indeed 3 races, not 2 races and a championship in every country that has one. I can also assure you that the horse racing triple crown was first won quite some time before the invention of the car. Thirdly, you simply cannot sue someone for something they are not responsible for, ergo Mrs Hill was not sued, but rather Graham's estate was. The fact that Mrs Hill was the main beneficiary of the estate means she was in effect sued by proxy, but still SHE was not sued. Furthermore using "an" inappropriately is not a spelling error but an error of grammar. I would also like to point out that the only reason I pointed it out at all was to draw attention to the fact I was using your logic, but perhaps that just went straight over your head too. --LiamE (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Whatever...!! But the most valid contribution to this little lot is the fact that there is no such thing as a formal Triple Crown anyway. No such trophy or award exists for either permutation, therefore making its inclusion in Wikipedia, there for the dissemination of facts, irrelevant. So we are ALL barking up an inappropriate tree ! Just for fun though, I nominate a new Triple Crown for Motorsport.... one which also would almost certainly only be available to Bette Hill... namely wife, mother and eventual grandmother of an F1 World champion... or do you prefer a F1...etc Peterkirchem (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no formal grand slam in tennis, but many people are conversant with the term. Incidentally that used to be triple crown too! The 3 race crown was the original - the races all pre-date the F1 championship by 20 years or more, but 2 races and the F1 title has also been bandied about where anyone appropriate has got close, such as Villeneuve, who's mother might be a near miss for your new triple crown. Should Montoya get a drive at Le Mans we'll be back to the 3 race crown as fast as you can say "Monte Carlo" in faux French accent. As for the new triple, Mrs Hill does have some competition from the Hunts, Sennas, Piquets, Laudas and Rosbergs... time will tell. Now to the crucial question of grammar. I would prefer "an" F1 if pronounced eff-one, but "a" Formula one if that's okay! --LiamE (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


So we are back on with the Triple Crown thing !! As someone has quite correctly pointed out, there is in fact no such thing as the Triple Crown of Motorsport. It is a concept invented by someone for the sake of it, and as there is certainy no formal recognition of it in any form whatsoever, such as a trophy, a prize, a website dedicated to it, I am surprised it is included in Wikipedia which purports to deal in facts only. Anyway, I have dropped Mad Max Moseley a tongue in cheek email asking him to rule on the whole matter. Crikey.. maybe we get a fine of 50 million quid !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkirchem (talk • contribs) 11:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Hang on chaps !! Havent we forgotten someone who came close to winning the triple crown, and, if you include the Daytona 500, instead of Le mans - as someone has - DID win the Triple Crown.... namely Mario Andretti !! Oh, he cant have done.... it doesnt exist ![reply]

Does the tennis grand slam not exist because there is no prize for it and its not official? Or the horse racing triple crown for that matter? And what body would could define it anyway? Simply put, the triple crown exists but it exists as what people want it to be at the time, with the Daytona included if necessary I guess! --LiamE (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Liam... after all the argy-bargie, that sums it up pretty well. What is interesting is that if you look at some of the other Grand Slam definitions (Tennis, Horse Racing etc) is it in each case a perception of what people want it to be, rather than anything specific. Which gets back to my original point. WHY is it mentioned at all in Wikipedia ? Go to the Pitpass Forum... and let's meet up again there under F1 History !! Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkirchem (talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bette?

[edit]

Did Bette have a last name before she married Graham Hill? Did they meet and date before they got married?

Nick Beeson (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

early life?

[edit]

theres almost nothing about his past, it would be cool if someone could find that. just pointing out something that could be added if somebody wants to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.74.42 (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a short biography. Graham Hill has an article because he was an important racing driver. So this article is supposed to be about why he is important. --Falcadore (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Graham Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot's license at the time of death

[edit]

I removed a sentence stating that Hill's pilot's license had expired and that he was uninsured at the time of the accident. A reference was provided, but it did not say anything on that subject. According to the official accident report (https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5422f6a040f0b61342000593/14-1976_N6645Y.pdf) Hill had a valid UK pilot's license. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See 1.17.5 on p.10 of the DoT Aircraft Accident Report:

Article 3(1) of the Air Navigation Order 1974 states that an aircraft shall not fly over the United Kingdom unless it is registered in the Commonwealth, a Contracting State or a country with which HM Government has an agreement. Para (2) of the same Article states that it is an offense against the Order to contravene paragraph (1). The only exception is in the case of aircraft satisfying the ‘B’ Conditions set forth in Schedule 2 of the Order, but these were not applicable to N6645Y [Hill’s US-registered aircraft]. … Article 19(2) states that . . . a person shall not act as a member of a flight crew . . . in an aircraft registered in a country other than the United Kingdom unless . . . he is the holder of an appropriate license granted or rendered valid under the law of the country in which the aircraft was registered . . . . . Schedule 9 Part A of the Air Navigation Order of 1974 states that the holder of a [UK] private pilot’s license (PPL) is not entitled to fly as pilot-in-command . . . on a flight outside controlled airspace without an instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) rating when the flight visibility is less than 1 nm; or when any passenger is carried . . . at or below 3,000 feet amsl in a flight visibility of less than 3 nm. Etc.

See also p.4, 1.6:

. . . August 1974 . . . the aircraft was . . . removed from the US register [. . . ] at the time of the accident it [N6645Y] was unregistered and stateless.

Also p.13:

. . . to fly in visibility conditions worse than 3 nm when below 3,000 feet with passengers on board [which Hill was doing], he was required by Schedule 9 of the ANP to be in possession of a valid IMC rating, which he was not.

Also p.3:

. . . [Hill] was issued by the United States Federal Aviation Administration in June 1966 with a Special Purpose pilot’s certificate, which [he] last renewed in November 1970, at which time he also qualified for an FAA instrument rating. Both the certificate and the instrument rating expired . . . in December 1971 and neither was renewed by the pilot. . . At the time of the accident . . . [he] held only his United Kingdom PPL which was valid until December 1975. . . . An Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) rating which had been issued in March 1970 had not been renewed and was therefore invalid.

Therefore I propose RS content along the following lines:

At the time of the accident Hill’s aircraft, originally US-registered, was “unregistered and stateless”. His US pilot certification had expired, as had his FAA instrument rating. His UK Private Pilot’s Licence Instrument Meteorological Conditions rating, which would have permitted him to fly passengers in the visibility that prevailed at the time of the accident, was also out of date and invalid.

Writegeist (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to the above but uninsured is universally understood. Everyone here wants the article accurate & if anyone can demonstrate that the RS is wrong we'll help you mark the page so it doesn't get re-inserted. JRPG (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I did clearly demonstrate that the original source (the article from Independent.co.uk) was wrong about the status of Hill's pilot's license, as that statement is directly contradicted by a far more reliable source, the contemporary official accident report. The only relevance of his insurance status in that article is that it led to financial difficulties for Hill's family, which is a point that this article does not delve further into, so therefore that information is not notable in this context. I agree with Writegeist's analysis and I would like to see that proposed text incorporated into this article. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you have! The AAIB is the authoritive source though too detailed for some readers. The Independent appears to have oversimplified the facts so you do need to add at the end that the aircraft insurers rejected the claim otherwise we would need to say that sources differ. If you have a wp:RS source to say that Hill's family suffered financially as a result, you can include it briefly as I expect Writegeist will agree. If you add it, we can tidy any referencing errors as necessary.
Regards JRPG (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for incorporating that text. I'd rather see the whole sentence about Hill's insurance be removed as it reads like WP:CRYSTAL but I'm not going to make an issue of it.71.197.166.72 (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A US pilot license never expire, neither do an instrument rating! They can be suspended or revoked, but they never expire! But, in order to keep the privileges of each current, a pilot must do a flight with an instructor every second year for the license to fly, and every six month to keep the instrument rating current, and that is obviously what Hill had not done. But to say that his license and instrument ratings had "expired" is not correct! They were not legally current and that's not the same! --Towpilot (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1975 images

[edit]

I think we should get a image of Graham Hill in 1975 that is not copyright please.92.21.255.192 (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial 1964 season

[edit]

In 1964 Hill came 2nd to Surtees despite having more points than Surtees. Surtees team mate also collided with Hill in the last race of the season to help Surtees become World Champion. Mobile mundo (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The points system was best 6 from 10, which worked out unlucky for Hill, who had a better finishing record than Surtees. Bandini was a hot-headed young Italian in a Ferrari, trying to pass Hill, and they tangled. This was 1964, not 1994. In those days you didn't try to barge your opponent off the track, or you might both end up dead. Halmyre (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Graham Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Graham Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karting

[edit]

According to Karting magazine Graham Hill is credited with winning the first ever official go kart race in the UK. Worth at least a passing mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.1.229.118 (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Hill&oldid=1252197062"