Results 11 to 19 of 19
Thread: 1961 Monaco GP
-
8th February 2011, 20:15 #11
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Posts
- 541
- Like
- 0
- Liked 15 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Take a moment to consider following:
* The Gurney-led excursion by Chapman and Lotus to participate in the International 500 Mile Sweepstakes event beginning with the 1963 race.
* The US "Fall Series" of the early Sixties that led to the "Can-Am" series.
* The efforts of Ford Motor Company in the form of the Shelby American effort (and related efforts) on the international GT and prototype scene.
* The importance of the US market for those manufacturing racing machines in Europe.
* The emergence of the true "all-rounder" in the form of Dan Gurney, Jim Clark, Mario Andretti, Parnelli Jones, A.J. Foyt, Jr., and many others including Bruce McLaren, Walt Hansgen, John Surtees, and Denis Hulme during this era.
There are other points as well to consider, but by the Sixties the $eriou$ money to be made in racing was in the United States and that was a powerful incentive for the European teams and constructors. Lotus did produce the Type 30 and the Type 40 with not much success to speak of, even with Clark at the wheel, which should give you an idea of just how bad they were. However, Lotus did field a number of junior formula machines to the US, although it faced stiff competition from Lola and Brabham for the market as it developed.
It is worthy of note that it was pointed out by Henry N. Manney III in his race report on the 1963 GP de l'ACF in Road & Track (the October 1963 issue I believe) that the supporting race for sports cars saw a fastest lap set (I think it was Michael Parkes in a Ferrari) that was quicker than that for the Grand Prix. The appearance of American stock block-powered machinery on the road courses in both the US (the various Cooper Monaco and Lotus Type 19 variants, for example, plus the Shelby American Cobra) and Europe (for example, the Lola Mk. 6 and the Ford GT) did much to pique the interest of many as to the fact that the GP circus might actually have some competition.
Whether through happenstance or because of the Formule Internationale then in use -- I can argue either side of that discussion, the period from the beginning of the Sixties into at least the middle -- and even late -- Seventies witnessed a general (note the term being used) merging of US and European racing in many aspects. Only the junior European formulae and the American stock car series -- and the Trans-Am to an extent -- managed to not be directly and significantly affacted by all this. One could make the case for this era being the transitional or pivot point that has, for better or worse, given us the modern racing scene, whether Formula One or whatever.
There is much more to be said on this topic, but not sure if this is the time and place.
Digressing back on topic for a moment, although much was made of it at the time, the creation of the Grand Prix Drivers' Association (GPDA) during the weekend of the GP de Monaco seems to be overlooked by many these days. This was quite a "big deal" at the time, especially given the collapse of the earlier UPPI just several years earlier, 1957. In its own way, the GPDA was the first group outside the organizing clubs and those within the "motor trade" -- the fuel companies and others involved in automotive products, to become an effective lobbying group in this form of motor racing.
The FJCA -- the Formula Junior Constructors Association -- served as the template for the Formula 1 Constructors Association (F1CA) which came into being in January 1964, largely as a result of the discussions that resulted in the "Mayfair Agreement" or "Paris Agreement" -- take your choice since it was called each -- which took place in late -- November and December -- 1963.
The GPDA and the F1CA would both lead to significant changes in the "Formula One" world as time rolled onward.....Popular memory is not history.... -- Gordon Wood
-
9th February 2011, 01:26 #12
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 6,476
- Like
- 21
- Liked 20 Times in 20 Posts
Originally Posted by Don Capps
I would much rather see drivers in cars that can barely take the power of the engine, to me, that is exciting. Similar to how many people remember the Group B era of rally fondly, even though stage times were quickly surpassed by Group A cars.
Another thing I think worth mentioning is that when the 3 litre formula was introduced in 1966, was that circuits such as Reims, Monza, Rouen les Essarts, Nurburgring and Spa were still present in the World Championship Calendar. I can't think of any modifications done to such circuits to improve their safety since prior to the 1.5L era, so for people to think that the level of risk was unacceptible in 1960, but somehow more acceptible in 1966, where engine capacity was greater, and cornering speeds were much higher, and track safety safety measures were still quite primitive, is in my mind strange, and illogical. It does, as you said, make the engine reduction seem like a token gesture, more than anything else.
-
9th February 2011, 03:23 #13
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Posts
- 541
- Like
- 0
- Liked 15 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
You are making a mistake in continuing to think that the drivers were necessary those behind the changes and the voices being raised regarding the safety issue in the latter part of the Fifties and early Sixties. It was the CSI and many of the organizing clubs that were wringing their hands, such as it were, over the issue, especially given the safety issue was less than of the drivers than that of the spectators. This is where you are reading too much into any attempt at logic regarding this issue during that era. The safety issue was quite selective and also more than a bit political during this period.
As for the period when the rally cars were basically disasters waiting to happen, that bit of insanity might be "fondly remembered," but whatever it was, it destroyed the last remnants of rallying as it once was. Just my opinion on that issue, completely losing any interest in rallying by the early Seventies or so.
Always keep in mind that the tensions between the CSI and those actually in the business of automobile racing, whether in Europe or elsewhere, were often high and the relationship rarely pleasant. The teams and the drivers had little to no say so in the sport as such during this period, the CSI and the clubs running things as they pretty much wished. As for the fans, the spectators, they were rarely catered to, even today I groan at the facilities and other miseries that often plagued attending an event, the British circuits often building true character and the swill that was usually often as "food" in Britain making prison camp cuisine look good by comparison. Also, I can vividly recall being almost literally on the edge of the track during the practice sessions at Spa on Saturday in 1960 and not thinking much about it, having done that many times before there and elsewhere. Different times, indeed.Popular memory is not history.... -- Gordon Wood
-
10th February 2011, 11:17 #14
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 6,476
- Like
- 21
- Liked 20 Times in 20 Posts
Originally Posted by Don Capps
You are making a mistake in continuing to think that the drivers were necessary those behind the changes and the voices being raised regarding the safety issue in the latter part of the Fifties and early Sixties.
It was the CSI and many of the organizing clubs that were wringing their hands, such as it were, over the issue, especially given the safety issue was less than of the drivers than that of the spectators. This is where you are reading too much into any attempt at logic regarding this issue during that era. The safety issue was quite selective and also more than a bit political during this period.
-
10th February 2011, 13:23 #15
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Posts
- 541
- Like
- 0
- Liked 15 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
Compare the way the 1961 era course looks to that of a decade later and you will see significant differences, the death of Bandini being one of several factors that influenced the changes at Monaco, which had long been a troublesome circuit -- 1950, 1952, 1955, 1957, 1959, and 1962 being years that witnessed either crashes that blocked or partially blocked the circuit or a death.Popular memory is not history.... -- Gordon Wood
-
10th February 2011, 20:40 #16
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 19,105
- Like
- 9
- Liked 77 Times in 62 Posts
Originally Posted by Don Capps
-
10th February 2011, 20:57 #17
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 19,105
- Like
- 9
- Liked 77 Times in 62 Posts
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
-
10th February 2011, 21:28 #18
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Location
- Coulsdon, Surrey, UK
- Posts
- 3,553
- Like
- 1
- Liked 78 Times in 73 Posts
A lot of the safety changes were targeted at spectator safety. The circuit owners were afraid of the consequences of a car going into the crowd. The Silverstone chicane at Woodcote is an example. The armco barriers were primarily intended to keep an errant car on the track. A couple of nasty accidents where a car went under the armco led to the introduction of catch fencing which was intended to stop a car progressively - it would still protect spectators but it also reduced the chances of injury to the driver and eliminated the risk of a car being caught up in someone else's accident. But there were two problems - the posts and that marshalls couldn't be sure how many layers a car had gone through so they had to go in from the trackside through the hole a driver had made.
Duncan Rollo
The more you learn, the more you realise how little you know.
-
11th February 2011, 07:02 #19
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 6,476
- Like
- 21
- Liked 20 Times in 20 Posts
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Meeke had a big gap to Rossel after stage 3 (20 sec) at stage 4 had a puncture and now the gap to Rossel is just 2 sec Gryazin strangely slow,anybody now why?...
Portuguese Rally News