Barry Sheene the Movie

MdubSTYLIE said:

You must be a huge fan of Talladega Nights. Its a very realistic portrayal of NASCAR and I don't think they used any CG.

Click to expand...

There was a time in my life when I used to be on board with all of the NASCAR bashers, but I've long since changed my tune on it. The fan base is a different subject altogether, but the racing, while I agree is not for everyone, takes a lot of courage. Running at 190+MPH with cars inches away from you on the sides, front, and back takes a special driver to do it successfully. There's been a number of F1 drivers who have expressed an interest in running the Sprint Cup cars for a reason; it's challenging.

JPSLotus said:

There was a time in my life when I used to be on board with all of the NASCAR bashers, but I've long since changed my tune on it. The fan base is a different subject altogether, but the racing, while I agree is not for everyone, takes a lot of courage. Running at 190+MPH with cars inches away from you on the sides, front, and back takes a special driver to do it successfully. There's been a number of F1 drivers who have expressed an interest in running the Sprint Cup cars for a reason; it's challenging.

Click to expand...

Your reply is basically the description of the movie, so I'll take that as a yes.

Arrabbiata1 said:

I suppose the significant difference was that Hunt was already a World Champion when Ronnie Peterson died. The Daytona incident happened comparatively early in Sheene's career and because it was captured by a documentary crew it turned him into a household name. That accident in many ways was his making.

Returning to Hunt, I always thought that his criticism of Patrese in the Peterson incident was unjustified. In the UK Channel 4 used to run a series called 'The real...(insert name here). It was more an unglamorous exposé than anything else. They broached that incident of course, but the most painful viewing was after Hunt had attended a budgerigar convention in some provincial city I can't recall and the CCTV footage captured of him being ejected drunk from a nightclub. Murray Walker laments about his old friend and commentary partner and testifies that the alcohol was a personal demon up until his premature death.

Click to expand...

His criticism of Patrese always struck me as a defensive response from a guy who deep down knew he made contact with Ronnie. It's a heavy weight to bear knowing your move to avoid one driver, crashed another driver out who ultimately died from the injuries. Of course had they gotten Ronnie back to Sweden, the outcome may have been vastly different for his life. Winning the title certainly took some of the drive out, but the way he half-assed it in '79 for Walter Wolf Racing was a result of a guy who'd been forced to ponder his own mortality behind the wheel of a grand prix car.

I always thought Hunt's end was regrettable as he had completely cleaned his life up. He dropped the cigs and booze, and was taking care of himself. As a BBC commentator, he and Murray Walker were a fantastic pairing who got on quite well. He had proposed to his girlfriend the day before he died in 1993.

JPSLotus said:

FIA Historic F1 series.



Lotus 49 crashing at Monaco 2014.

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware of that series. I will have to start following it, that era was when I loved F1, formula Cosworth before modern aerodynamics, slipstreaming,overtaking 3 cars in 1 corner as I saw Alan Jones do once a few years later etc.

I actually liked the movie, I was a big Lauda fan, and I knew the story of that championship of course but that season was before live telecasts to Australia so I haven't seen the actual races. I watched it with a group of petrolhead old school friends, 2 of whom have raced cars, all of whom liked it.

JPSLotus said:

A man after my own heart.

I know you were joking with it, but Rush is a sore point with me in particular because of all the ........ Ron Howard spewed prior to the film being released about filming with THE REAL CARS on REAL RACE TRACKS. I genuinely thought we were going to get a gritty racing movie shot on grainy film stock to really simulate the era for all it's glory. Instead he released a highly processed film that was missing all of the grittiness that it should have had...and in spite of that, the public lapped up the movie like it was the pinnacle of race films. All I could think was, that it's been nearly 50 years since Grand Prix (James Garner ) was released, and for all of the money Hollywood spends on a budget, they can't even use the techniques John Frankenheimer perfected in the 1960s?

The thing is, Howard had access to all of the original GP cars from the era since most of them are used in the FIA Historic F1 series. That's what makes it head-scratching. He literally had the ability to do what he wanted, and instead wound up with a film that was short on the actual racing, and high on the ........ drama.

We as diehard race fans know that racing brings it's own drama for better or worse, and you don't need to write much of a script for the story itself. The on-track product is an intrinsic part of the story. For all the talk we've spent on Sepang 2015, from a storytelling point of view, it was incredible. You could not script an event like that. 1976 F1 season was just that, and all the wasted time in that movie managed to take the edge off of it. Bruhl did a great job with Lauda yes. But Hunt was infinitely more difficult to capture because he had that natural charisma like Barry Sheene, and both were wild as could be. Biggest difference was Hunt lost the will to drive after Ronnie Peterson was killed on Monza in 1978 and retired in the middle of 1979. Sheene wasn't deterred by the danger when most would have retired after the Daytona crash.

Click to expand...

Guys like Howard know what sells the movie is the story - not the racing. What happened during the race - is history. Movie makers are above all- story tellers.

Keshav said:

Guys like Howard know what sells the movie is the story - not the racing. What happened during the race - is history. Movie makers are above all- story tellers.

Click to expand...

I disagree...racing is a story in itself that is evident. While you have to connect the races with something in between, the focus should have been the racing. Instead we were left with an overly processed film that was shot in digital format, and managed to take out a lot of the character of the era by that decision. It should have been shot in analog given the subject nature of the movie. That doesn't even get into the CG which just made it look visually worse.

Yes the film was highly rated, but it's not a good racing film by any stretch of the imagination. Frankenheimer shot Grand Prix in 70mm analog. Rush was shot in 35mm digital. The quality difference is night and day. Ron Howard is a storyteller yes, but he didn't tell a good story here as part of the story is based on how it is being represented visually, and he .... the bed there.

The critics can all .... off since they clearly didn't bother to consider how it fit into the pantheon of race films. The standard as I mentioned earlier is Grand Prix (1966) and Le Mans (1971). Ron Howard clearly didn't pay enough attention to why they were able to be so good in spite of a passable story in Grand Prix, and a nearly non-existent one in Le Mans. I can only hope the Barry Sheene movie doesn't fall down the same hole.

JPSLotus said:

There was a time in my life when I used to be on board with all of the NASCAR bashers, but I've long since changed my tune on it. The fan base is a different subject altogether, but the racing, while I agree is not for everyone, takes a lot of courage. Running at 190+MPH with cars inches away from you on the sides, front, and back takes a special driver to do it successfully. There's been a number of F1 drivers who have expressed an interest in running the Sprint Cup cars for a reason; it's challenging.

Click to expand...

And very few are successful at it once they try it. The snobs of the racing world who look down their nose at NASCAR, would piss down their leg if they sat in a couple of laps at Bristol. Not only is wrestling 3400 pound cars physically exhausting, doing it at those speeds while beating and banging on one another is mentally exhausting as well. I just grin and say to my self every time i here some know it all talk .... about NASCAR, " he truly has no ....... idea"

JPSLotus said:

I disagree...racing is a story in itself that is evident. While you have to connect the races with something in between, the focus should have been the racing. Instead we were left with an overly processed film that was shot in digital format, and managed to take out a lot of the character of the era by that decision. It should have been shot in analog given the subject nature of the movie. That doesn't even get into the CG which just made it look visually worse.

Yes the film was highly rated, but it's not a good racing film by any stretch of the imagination. Frankenheimer shot Grand Prix in 70mm analog. Rush was shot in 35mm digital. The quality difference is night and day. Ron Howard is a storyteller yes, but he didn't tell a good story here as part of the story is based on how it is being represented visually, and he .... the bed there.

The critics can all .... off since they clearly didn't bother to consider how it fit into the pantheon of race films. The standard as I mentioned earlier is Grand Prix (1966) and Le Mans (1971). Ron Howard clearly didn't pay enough attention to why they were able to be so good in spite of a passable story in Grand Prix, and a nearly non-existent one in Le Mans. I can only hope the Barry Sheene movie doesn't fall down the same hole.

Click to expand...

For guys like us - agree. But I wouldn't expect Howard to try to match up or out-do the classics. I'm sure if Spielberg made the film - it would have satisfied the needs of hardcore racing aficionados. If you ever watched his film "Empire Of The Sun" you'd see what I mean. Attention to authenticity was paramount. His budget I expect, was probably 40 times what Howard's was. I was a projectionist for 22 years (how I could afford to race with so few sponsors) and worked for many screening rooms for some of the top directors in the business, and have also lamented the way CG cheaply turns so many potentially great films into comic books. I'm sure that there's great pressure from finance companies to use CG to keep costs down, and in light of the huge number of films being released cheaply, he was under pressure to do the film on a lesser budget as it's potential at the box office was relatively limited in a market so focused on teens and tweens who never heard of Nicky Lauder.

povol said:

[/B]
And very few are successful at it once they try it. The snobs of the racing world who look down their nose at NASCAR, would piss down their leg if they sat in a couple of laps at Bristol. Not only is wrestling 3400 pound cars physically exhausting, doing it at those speeds while beating and banging on one another is mentally exhausting as well. I just grin and say to my self every time i here some know it all talk .... about NASCAR, " he truly has no ....... idea"

Click to expand...

No doubt there are particular and peculiar skills to oval track racing, which other race drivers, even F1 drivers, frequently prove unable to master. The speed together with the close proximity of the cars is impressive as well.

Too many yellow flags for me though, which sometimes seem contrived to produce a close race.

michaelm said:

No doubt there are particular and peculiar skills to oval track racing, which other race drivers, even F1 drivers, frequently prove unable to master. The speed together with the close proximity of the cars is impressive as well.

Too many yellow flags for me though, which sometimes seem contrived to produce a close race.

Click to expand...

There is no doubt it goes on, but if you go to a race, you kind of appreciate the yellows as a break for the fan himself and it sometimes puts different strategies into motion. Plus, restarts are kind of cool when everyone is on fresh tires digging for positions that will be hard to obtain after 10 laps or so. I have been to just about every kind of race in my life and for entertainment value, Nascar cant be beat. Attending any kind of road race is a labor of love, its not hard to figure why so few enjoy it. Drag racing is insane for about 20 minutes, then you are seeking shelter from the sun, the sound and the smell, which are all overwhelming. Besides GP, my favorite racing is probably Indy oval racing, them boys have big big balls. 230 mph open wheel to wheel with concrete and fencing waiting for a mistake. I remember a few years back, they had to cancel an Indy race at Texas speedway because the banking and speed were inducing g loc. Thats some serious .... right there.

Arrabbiata1 said:

Sorry, it was meant to be a joke. - I was being a facetious troll. If inserted a 'wink' emoji to indicate that I was being a ..., I'd come across as patronising like J8rn0 and that'd be even worse.

Actually, I wholeheartedly agree with you. It's a bit like putting photoshop in the hands of the general public - instead of effecting subtle barely discernible enhancement, the results are often a garish farrago. Aside from the fact that I do like something vaguely resembling dialogue in a film, I find modern Hollywood blockbusters unwatchable with the excessive reliance on CGI which apart from being wholly unconvincing, robs the film of depth, dynamic and all verisimilitude - much like much of the music in the post analogue age. Hollywood being so obsessed with remakes, then it should rediscover some of its pioneering production techniques. No one is about to become the next Cecil B De Mille, as you say, largely due to expense, but it would be nice to see a return to real life action.

As a kid, I loved both Le Mans and Grand Prix (-that was James Garner right?). The makers similarly incorporated real footage of the '79 GP at Silverstone during 'Silver Dream Racer' - problem was, it was ..... If Richie Cunningham had wanted to do the same thing, he would have needed to find a vintage club race, but then nothing stopping them filming on boards from some race reps and employing some racers to swap paint I guess.

Click to expand...

Rubbish. I thought the moon landing CGI was quite convincing

Figured this was as good of a place as any to put this awesome picture....

Great photo. Seen so many from this era and it still amazes me that they were riding 500cc 2-stroke engines bolted into steel tube frames, utilizing $30.00 steering dampers, treaded tires, skinny little forks (no fork brace) and dual coil spring shocks, not even gas charged. And wearing those leathers from that era. Today's MotoGP leathers weigh about 11 lbs. Leathers from that era weighed around 32 lbs.

557953 said:

Look forward to seeing this, I hope they do a good job on it..... Wonder which of the Hemsworths will be playing Barry?

Click to expand...

Guy Martin would be good and he is a racer.

Keshav said:

Great photo. Seen so many from this era and it still amazes me that they were riding 500cc 2-stroke engines bolted into steel tube frames, utilizing $30.00 steering dampers, treaded tires, skinny little forks (no fork brace) and dual coil spring shocks, not even gas charged. And wearing those leathers from that era. Today's MotoGP leathers weigh about 11 lbs. Leathers from that era weighed around 32 lbs.

Click to expand...

Agree, great photo.

That's an XR14 - a remarkable bike. As I understand, it was the combination of four rotary-valve, 125cc engines. Unlike the renowned Ariel square four which had had one cast block of four cylinders the RG500 had four separate cylinders and was deemed cheaper to engineer than a V4. In terms of weight Kesh, Sheene's works bikes had an advantage over their production racer counterparts which ran aluminium and steel to Sheene's magnesium and titanium. I know that the later beautiful XR22 and XR23 1977 iterations weighed as little as 130kg. They had to be nimble because Barry lacked strength in his damaged legs hence the 'bull horn' handlebars to increase leverage. Also, the sprung shocks were replaced by gas shocks in '77 which Sheene purportedly hated. Not that it mattered, Suzuki didn't want to show their hand and the XR23 was mothballed as an insurance policy in case Yamaha started disappearing over the horizon and the sister version the '22 was reserved for the Trans Atlantic Challenges - meaning I saw one race at Mallory. Ridiculously, they let him test it, but not ride it and gave him another XR14 much to his infuriation. Here's what you could have had. I have often thought that this was another reason for his defection to Yamaha.

Nonetheless Barry ensured that he coralled all the factory machines for himself leaving teammates Hennen and Baker with the less competitive production racers. The early versions of the RGV were notoriously unreliable which is why he had a carburetta catch bottle fitted to the underside of the fairing having crashed and broken his wrist in '74. The early versions ran very hot and Suzuki responded by increasing the rad size which Yam were reluctant to do in the interest of aerodynamics. Although the RGV radiators were twice the size this meant the Yamahas would run hotter and lose power.

From various shows and exhibitions...






Anyone know when the movie is released?

Theo said:

Guy Martin would be good and he is a racer.

Click to expand...

Guy can't talk cockney.

AntG said:

Guy can't talk cockney.

Click to expand...

Who can that is a racer?

Arrabbiata1 said:

Agree, great photo.

That's an XR14 - a remarkable bike. As I understand, it was the combination of four rotary-valve, 125cc engines. Unlike the renowned Ariel square four which had had one cast block of four cylinders the RG500 had four separate cylinders and was deemed cheaper to engineer than a V4. In terms of weight Kesh, Sheene's works bikes had an advantage over their production racer counterparts which ran aluminium and steel to Sheene's magnesium and titanium. I know that the later beautiful XR22 and XR23 1977 iterations weighed as little as 130kg. They had to be nimble because Barry lacked strength in his damaged legs hence the 'bull horn' handlebars to increase leverage. Also, the sprung shocks were replaced by gas shocks in '77 which Sheene purportedly hated. Not that it mattered, Suzuki didn't want to show their hand and the XR23 was mothballed as an insurance policy in case Yamaha started disappearing over the horizon and the sister version the '22 was reserved for the Trans Atlantic Challenges - meaning I saw one race at Mallory. Ridiculously, they let him test it, but not ride it and gave him another XR14 much to his infuriation. Here's what you could have had. I have often thought that this was another reason for his defection to Yamaha.

Nonetheless Barry ensured that he coralled all the factory machines for himself leaving teammates Hennen and Baker with the less competitive production racers. The early versions of the RGV were notoriously unreliable which is why he had a carburetta catch bottle fitted to the underside of the fairing having crashed and broken his wrist in '74. The early versions ran very hot and Suzuki responded by increasing the rad size which Yam were reluctant to do in the interest of aerodynamics. Although the RGV radiators were twice the size this meant the Yamahas would run hotter and lose power.

From various shows and exhibitions...

View attachment 12494
View attachment 12495
View attachment 12496
View attachment 12497

Anyone know when the movie is released?

Click to expand...

I only started following GP (F1 as it was called then) in "79. Actually kind of amazed to know they were doing tube framed chassis with magnesium and titanium that far back. I do remember when the bikes went from tube frames to various versions of the Delta framed bikes. Christ... the pictures of those hand welded frames in the year-end GP coffee table books were just pure .... - and they were all just aluminium.

What is a carburetta catch bottle? For oil spray if the engine seized??? I know on superbikes one had to have catch bottle for overheated radiator water. I always used a guinea pig water feeder for mine because the feeder mouthpiece was a perfect fit for the surgical tubing connecting to the radiator.

I read somewhere that the late iterations of the Honda 2-strokes weighed about 285 lbs and made 200 (not very usable) hp. Can you imagine that weight to horsepower ratio with today's electronics?

Keshav said:

I only started following GP (F1 as it was called then) in "79. Actually kind of amazed to know they were doing tube framed chassis with magnesium and titanium that far back. I do remember when the bikes went from tube frames to various versions of the Delta framed bikes. Christ... the pictures of those hand welded frames in the year-end GP coffee table books were just pure .... - and they were all just aluminium.

Click to expand...

"Only" in 1979??? You noob.

Sheene would have been astride the XR27 by then.

I believe that it was the castings/casings and literally the nuts and bolts, whilst the frame was steel tube duplex. The gas shocks would have been aluminium too - but as I said, Barry didn't like them and stuck to what he knew. Like today they required a suspension technician and unless the guy from Kayaba was in attendance 24hrs a day otherwise it simply meant that it was more work for Barry, unnecessary complexity and more to understand.

These things were only designed to last a few races though- three GPs maximum, so very few remain. The ones in my picture belong to the family estate in Australia. According to this article, it was only the fasteners that were magnesium and aluminium - although I know for definite that the crankcases were magnesium, although Barry insisted on trying aluminium because Yamaha ran them and he was convinced it gave them an advantage.

A Stroke Of Genius | Sport Rider

Keshav said:

What is a carburetta catch bottle? For oil spray if the engine seized??? I know on superbikes one had to have catch bottle for overheated radiator water. I always used a guinea pig water feeder for mine because the feeder mouthpiece was a perfect fit for the surgical tubing connecting to the radiator.

Click to expand...

It was a justifiable precaution, they had side mounted floats back then.

Keshav said:

I read somewhere that the late iterations of the Honda 2-strokes weighed about 285 lbs and made 200 (not very usable) hp. Can you imagine that weight to horsepower ratio with today's electronics?

Click to expand...

Again, have a look at the sportrider article. Although the minimum weight was only 100kg you were never going to achieve that. However, the RGV was making 124bhp and weighed in as little as 110kg - unbelievable. If the bike remained in the powerband (9,800 - 11,000rpm), it would snatch forward on the throttle in sixth like an ordinary bike does in first.

Talking of gearing, the other interesting thing that I spotted in that piece is the fact that the XR22 onwards had a cassette gearbox. Prior to that to change any ratio you had to remove the entire engine. Wth the appearance of chicanes to slow down the faster circuits, this became more significant, hence the introduction of the technology. Ironic, given the current rules on fixed gearboxes.

Also very interesting in that piece to read how successful the XR14 was as a customer machine which is one of the reasons the '22 was withheld. It seems that the '14 was well understood and raced very successfully by satellites and privateers alike both nationally and domestically.

Incidentally, somewhere I've got some great show pictures of Bazza's Seeley TR500 and as mentioned earlier, the XR27...(think Sheene v Roberts Siverstone 1979)..but that's another story altogether.

Theo said:

Who can that is a racer?

Click to expand...

Gino Rea and Danny Webb immediately spring to mind. Gino was born in the same hospital as me in South London, so strictly speaking he isn't a cockney and neither come to that was Barry who was from Holborn - (too far west).

Shakey's from Lambeth I believe - again, hardly within the sound of Bow Bells -
but that'll have to do.