Most famous rallies of the 1960s

Ok, I'm not gonna lie to you - I know almost nothing about rallies (both those from the past and those running today). But it's time to change that. So first of all, I'd like to learn some information on the most famous rallies from the 60's. Everyone (even me) at least heard about rallies like Safari or Monte-Carlo. I'm not sure but the first one earned its reputation as one of the toughest rallies because of extreme terrain (no roads) and weather conditions (saying 'hot' isn't enough, we could say 'hell on earth' I guess). So it was undoubtedly very difficult physical race for both cars and drivers. As for the Monte-Carlo, being second oldest rally event in Europe and the only one held in January (middle of winter) speaks for itself. And if we add to this the mountainous, narrow roads we have the big picture.
Unfortunately this is where my very limited knowledge of rallies ends. So I'd appreciate it very much if anyone could tell me a bit about other famous rallies. What events were the most highly respected among rally drivers and what were the reasons?

Gulf London Rally, later just the Gulf. A really tough forest rally in the UK. About five days more or less non stop.

You'll need member AAGR for this - surely the foremost rally historian on this forum.

Edited by Hamish Robson, 06 April 2013 - 16:56.

Gulf London Rally, later just the Gulf. A really tough forest rally in the UK. About five days more or less non stop.

I must say I've never heard about this event. The only rally from the UK I know is RAC Rally. How would you compare those two events? And please correct me if I'm wrong but why actually RAC is more widely known outside England?

You'll need member AAGR for this - surely the foremost rally historian on this forum.

We also have Fred Gallagher

Does the London to Sydney Marathon count as a Rally ? The one that always comes to mind from that era and the one that made me aware of off road sport of any kind.

Does the London to Sydney Marathon count as a Rally ? The one that always comes to mind from that era and the one that made me aware of off road sport of any kind.

I have no idea whether this race can be categorized as rally but let's stick to more conventional events for now.

Can I suggest you get hold of a copy of "History of Rallying" by G Robson (AAGR on here) it will give you a good basis from which you can then decide what events you want to study more.

Basically back in the 60s rallying was as much about endurance as speed, with the main international events being 4 days or more in length. We all have our favourites, the Alpine, and the Liege are mine, along with my local event the Circuit of Ireland. Modern rallying is a sprint compared to these events.

Cheers

Michael

Does the London to Sydney Marathon count as a Rally ? The one that always comes to mind from that era and the one that made me aware of off road sport of any kind.

That and the World Cup Rally (tied in with football and ending in South America) were one-offs and although quite challenging and heavily advertised, they were atypical.
The Rallies we remember were annual events (more or less) and included the RAC, Alpine, Monte Carlo, Acropolis, Liége-Rome-Liége/Liége-Sofia-Liége, Tulip, 1000 Lakes, Midnight Sun and Safari.
As for the original question the most highly respected varied as not all the events were current for the same time period. Probably safe to say that if you won the Acropolis, the Midnight Sun, the Liége-Sofia-Liége or the 1000 lakes you were someone!

I have no idea whether this race can be categorized as rally but let's stick to more conventional events for now.

Please - it certainly wasn't a race.

Edited by Allan Lupton, 06 April 2013 - 18:06.

Can I suggest you get hold of a copy of "History of Rallying" by G Robson (AAGR on here) it will give you a good basis from which you can then decide what events you want to study more.

Very much agree about Graham Robson's book. Also consider getting Reinhard Klein's excellent "Rally". One here: http://www.ebay.co.u...=item2329461e14

Not to be confused with the vastly more expensive "Rally Cars".

Fred

As for the original question the most highly respected varied as not all the events were current for the same time period. Probably safe to say that if you won the Acropolis, the Midnight Sun, the Liége-Sofia-Liége or the 1000 lakes you were someone!

Could you tell me please a bit more about those rallies? Why did you pick those? What was unique or specific about those events in comparison to others?


As for books, thank you for your suggestions but unfortunately I cannot afford buying them.

I must say I've never heard about this event. The only rally from the UK I know is RAC Rally. How would you compare those two events? And please correct me if I'm wrong but why actually RAC is more widely known outside England?

The RAC (originally largely a spring navigation exercise) ran in winter from 1959 (with some stages in 1960 and from 1961 as a forest stage event). As a European Championship round it was the UK's best known event (no World Championship until much later). In its classic era (up to 1971) it ran for 5 days and 4 nights with one night in bed (the 3rd). From 1986 it ran with halts every night.

The "Gulf" - the Gulf London International Rally - only ran for 4 years (65-68) as an International (and had nothing to do with the Gulf, of Persia or Arabia) but ran in summer. Previously it was one of the major UK National Rallies. In its final form (68) it was intended to be as punishing as the "Liege" and ran for 4 days and 3 nights with no night halts/nights in bed. It had a few 1 hour meal halts and one 3 hour halt at Manchester Airport halfway through. Being warmer and suffering heavier traffic than the RAC it was considered more tiring - which I can vouch for, having been a very (very) young service crew member in 68.

In many respects the next most tiring UK rally was the Welsh. Although only 1 day and 2 nights long in its heyday, there were no long main road sections where one crew member could rest. The Scottish Rally was very rough and hence tough on the car but was considered a holiday for the crew in comparison. Not strictly UK but the Circuit of Ireland fell somewhere closer to the Welsh.

Ask any actual competitor or participant (not just those who read magazine reports and pass on second-hand opinions), and I think they might agree that :

** The Liege-Sofia-Liege (or Spa-Sofia-Liege, as it became) was the toughest of all.

** The French Alpine was the fastest and most demanding on the cars - and held in the best weather, on the best roads

** The Daily Mirror World Cup Rally of 1970 was the longest, the toughest, and the most gruelling (and the most expensive !) marathon of all time.

Without exception - even the fully-special-stage RAC -no British event even came close to them.

Comments ?

AAGR

Edited by AAGR, 06 April 2013 - 20:59.

What events were the most highly respected among rally drivers and what were the reasons?

It's the 60s you are asking about. (Also what works drivers liked was not necessarily what private entrants liked). So:

Monte - one might claim it was disrespected by many, not least for running to a handicap formula of some sort until 68, and for being a bit of a lottery for tyres. Wrong availability or choice on just one section could lose the event. Also marred by regulation niggles. The 66 lights saga is funny in hindsight as there were many aspects of quite serious non-compliance by the excluded British cars, none of which were found by the scrutineers and the one that was found amounted to a translation error that the UK teams should have been on top of by using their own transalation of the FIA French text that had primacy over any other English translations.

Swedish - the only true snow rally of the period (and now). Too specialised for some.

Flowers (later San Remo) - bit of a reputation for regulation niggles as well.

Tulip - always quoted as the best event for a private entrant. Good friendly organisation. Was it "respected" by works crews? Not really, as it had long road mileage and painfully few competitive stages for the distance travelled. Strange handicaps in some earlier years too.

Acropolis - originally gained status by giving foreign teams good deals. became respected as roughest European event (and some say roughest of all, in a different way to the Safari).

Coupe des Alpes - respected? Oh yes! Popular with UK private entrants in first part of 60s, despite being a bit of a (largely tarmac) car killer. Tourist traffic increase meant it didn't survive much beyond the 60s.

Liege - last ran in 64. Effectively a road race. Ran out of traffic-free roads, despite running more and more into eastern Europe. "Respected", and how. Not to be confused with its resurection as an 84 hour Nurburgring test.

Polish, Vltava, 3 Cities - usually lacking something in organisation but the more eastern European events were part of the championship.

RAC - increased in stature almost every year in the 60s (except 68, when the London Sydney followed too close for most works teams to enter the RAC as well). Eventually, well beyond the 60s, fell victim to anti-unpractised rallies views by some top competitors and respect was lost.

The names give a start:
The Acropolis Rally was run mainly in Greece, but some years the start was as far from Greece as Trieste allowing them to use roads in Yugoslavia as well as Greece.
The Midnight Sun was run in Norway and Sweden in the summer
The Liege-Sofia-Liege, or Marathon de la Route, was originally the Liege-Rome-Liege but it grew
The 1000 Lakes was in Finland
The Tulip Rally was organised from the Netherlands but the route went through other countries
The Alpine Rally or Alpine Trial was run in the Alps

Each rally was different and presented different challenges.

Try googling the various names - it will tell you a lot that you want to know. Once you've found out a bit more about them you'll be in a position to ask about particular events rather than the present "Please tell me everything about all the different rallies". It is far simpler for people to answer specific questions.

For example in your first pos you mention the Safari. The challenge of the Safari was more than just the the unsurfaced roads breaking the cars. The rally was run over the Easter weekend which meant that all the volunteers, whose help made the rally possible, were available. Easter is also the time that the rainy season breaks meaning torrential rain in some areas. The rain in combination with the type of soil transformed the roads to nearly impassable mud which led to the cases of only seven or eight finishers.


Edit: While I was writing this, RS2000 and AAGR made their posts which partially supersede and amplify what I've written.

Edited by D-Type, 06 April 2013 - 21:26.

Ask any actual competitor or participant (not just those who read magazine reports and pass on second-hand opinions), and I think they might agree that :

** The Liege-Sofia-Liege (or Spa-Sofia-Liege, as it became) was the toughest of all.

** The French Alpine was the fastest and most demanding on the cars - and held in the best weather, on the best roads

** The Daily Mirror World Cup Rally of 1970 was the longest, the toughest, and the most gruelling (and the most expensive !) marathon of all time.

Without exception - even the fully-special-stage RAC -no British event even came close to them.

Comments ?

AAGR

London Sydney 68 correctly not included above. Many fairly scathing comments at the time and now from drivers that it was not tough enough.

Can't see AAGR listed in 68 Gulf entry list and didn't encounter him grovelling under cars with the rest of us. My earlier comments on that event stand.

Thank you everyone for your great response. I'm beginning to have some vision on those rallies. It's still vague but much better than it was only a few hours ago.

I'm a bit surprised nobody has mentioned Österreichische Alpenfahrt and Rallye de Geneve. I'm guessing but it seems to me that the first one could easily be compered to the Alpine Rally (at least in terms of roads characteristics). As for the second I have no clue what kind of rally it was but being a round of ERC would indicate that it was a big event.

We also have Fred Gallagher

......and he won said Safari Rally more than once too, not sure if vitamin is aware of this ?

......and he won said Safari Rally more than once too, not sure if vitamin is aware of this ?

I had no idea about that. Thank you very much for letting me know.

I had no idea about that. Thank you very much for letting me know.

You are welcome, Fred competed at the top level with many of the fastest drivers of the day, Bjorne Waldegard, Ari Vatanen, Henri Toivenon,to name a few, he was in many works teams spanning quite a few years.

You are welcome, Fred competed at the top level with many of the fastest drivers of the day, Bjorne Waldegard, Ari Vatanen, Henri Toivenon,to name a few, he was in many works teams spanning quite a few years.

Oh, now I know why I haven't spotted his name in the rally archives - he is too young. I was checking only some results from pre-WRC era. But nevertheless it's great to have him here.

Oh, now I know why I haven't spotted his name in the rally archives - he is too young.

You've made my day!

I would be interested to know what has sparked this interest in 50s and 60s rallying.....

Fred

Here's a picture from when I was even younger!

Safari Rally 1991 with pace notes clearly visible.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Fred

London Sydney 68 correctly not included above. Many fairly scathing comments at the time and now from drivers that it was not tough enough.

Can't see AAGR listed in 68 Gulf entry list and didn't encounter him grovelling under cars with the rest of us. My earlier comments on that event stand.

Oh dear RS2000, the muddy chip on your shoulder gets bigger with every entry you make. The reason you did not see me listed in the 1968 Gulf entry was that I was AUTOCAR's leading rally reporter in those days, borrowed a Porsche 911 from the importers to follow what was a long-distance high-speed event, and ventured as far as north as Scotland, as far west as Wales, etc. Along with a photographer, we covered just as many miles as the competitors, had about as many hours as the competitors in bed - and then immediately produced a comprehensive report for the magazine within 12 hours of getting back to the finish in Manchester.

Oh yes, and before you comment further - I was directly involved in all the other rallies which I have nominated, either as a competitor, a team manager or (London - Mexico in 1970) a travelling controller/member of the organising team. Is that credible enough for you ?

AAGR

Edited by AAGR, 07 April 2013 - 08:48.

Oh, now I know why I haven't spotted his name in the rally archives - he is too young. I was checking only some results from pre-WRC era. But nevertheless it's great to have him here.

That means that I too, am young ! Who said TNF was an older gentleman's domain ?

Thank you Fred for your photo. As for your question, well it was (and still is) a PC game - Rally Trophy. It's a bit old game (from 2001) but I discovered it only a few months ago. And the more I played it, the more I liked it (especially after installing the TT Real Mod which changes game's physics). Eventually I got hooked for good and began to search for information on cars and rallies from that era. And that's how I found this forum.


Back on topic, as I'm checking some results from the 50's and 60's, there's one thing I cannot figure out. How it was possible that so often the winning cars were much less powerful than others? It's something that as far as I know doesn't happen in modern (WRC) era of rallying. I'd appreciate it very much if someone could explain it to me.


p.s.
As for your age gentlemen - it's not about DOB, it's about how you feel. If you feel like you were 30 or 50, that's how old really you are.

Often rallies had a handicap system with smaller cars set slower target times for stages.

had nothing to do with the Gulf, of Persia or Arabia)

But the Gulf of Mexico! The sponsors Gulf had come from Regent > Texaco > Gulf in a series of name changes and takeovers ect.
A reason for the tougher road schedule was the R.A.C. was run at a 30 mph average from start to finish I believe but the Gulf was set at 30 mph for the road sections only with the stage component being at 50 mph. Were there any motorways used in the road sections? Then these would also have been 50 mph.
Put another way the target time for an RAC stage was 50 mph but the stage distance was treated as 30 mph between controls.

Polish, Vltava, 3 Cities - usually lacking something in organisation but the more eastern European events were part of the championship

I would not criticise the organisation of those three although I dnsed the 3 Cities. The D.D.R. was different ..... we haf weys of ensuring one of our cars will win!

but being a round of ERC would indicate that it was a big event.

It would appear that for political fairness any national club could nominate an event for the ERC big or small.

Often rallies had a handicap system with smaller cars set slower target times for stages.

Does it mean maybe that all rounds of ERC used that system to give all drivers the same chances for winning the title?

As for books, thank you for your suggestions but unfortunately I cannot afford buying them

I quite understand - and sympathise

However, you can get a basic understanding of European rallying from the www

Wikipedia isn't famous for its reliability, but these should provide a good introduction:
http://en.wikipedia....ly_Championship
http://en.wikipedia....ly_Championship

And if your specific interest is 1960:
http://www.dlg.speed...ral/60euro.html

Yes, I'm aware of those websites but as you might noticed it (or maybe not?) you won't find very much details there (wiki has less than 10 sentences about ERC history). And as for Darren Galpin website, while it's great resource of statistics and results you won't find any details about those rallies or cars either.

Polish

Nice to hear this (as a Pole).

Often rallies had a handicap system with smaller cars set slower target times for stages.

Please note that often special stages were not the most important part of the rally.
Usually more important was what we call now 'liaison' - back then it was long, non-stop, with a very high average.

I just checked - Rally of Poland in 1962, route 2892 kms long, Started at thursday at 8pm in Cracow, then going far east to Cisna / Sanok and back to Cracow. Leg 1 finishes on friday at 11 am. Then there is a break. 90 minutes (if you have a service you can rest a bit, otherwise you have to take care of your car). At 12:30 pm start to 2nd leg which goes west as far as Kowary and back to Cracow. Finish of the rally on saturday 4:30 pm.
This is just an example, far from extreme.

Please note that often special stages were not the most important part of the rally.
Usually more important was what we call now 'liaison' - back then it was long, non-stop, with a very high average.

Now it's even more unclear for me. If the special (or 'timed' as they were called back than AFAIK) stages were not that important, how the points were being calculated and what decided who was the winner?

I see AAGR still can't accept he has some things plain wrong (despite one particular fairly recent case on here) and still attacks the messenger instead of the message. It's somewhat pedictable and repetitive.

..and, no, following an event is most certainly not the same as competing (or, in those days, being a competitor's sole service crew). Last time I followed an International using a press plate it was rather embarrassing (and sickening) how doors just opened and all sorts of things were suddenly easier/less effort.

Since I'm already largely aware of where he, and many others, were on such events, "you" others must decide what is "credible" to you!

how the points were being calculated and what decided who was the winner?

Time control (liaison) - 20 points for each minute late/early
Special stategs: for 1 second longer than target time - 1 point.

Target time was shown in the road card. It was different for each class, calculated as follows:
kategory A:
cars to 500 ccm: 100%
to 700 ccm: 98%
to 1000 ccm: 96 %
to 1300 ccm: 94%
to 2000 ccm: 92%
over 2000 ccm: 90%
kategory B:
to 1300 ccm: 90%
over 1300 ccm: 87%

Generally, liaisons were more demanding than special stages (or at last it is how it was remembered and told me by the drivers of period).
Remember that special stages were (in theory) closed for traffic, so the chance of encountering cars was smaller (albeit not zero).

Now it's even more unclear for me. If the special (or 'timed' as they were called back than AFAIK) stages were not that important, how the points were being calculated and what decided who was the winner?

The 60s were a time of change, when many major rallies had to evolve from being competitive "road" events to events where special stages on closed roads largely decided matters. That's why the Liege couldn't survive beyond 64.
So how rallies were won at the beginning of the decade was not the same as at the end. Stages could be tie deciders earlier on, when the penalties accrued "on the road" were massively greater.
It was also a time of change even for minor UK club rallies, with significant new regulations introduced in 65 (which took more effort for organisers to get around...).

Thank you very much for the explanations and those details on calculating points. As I understand this is that handicap system that D-Type mentioned earlier on, yes? And just two more questions:
1. What were those "A" and "B" categories?
2. Did drivers have to follow speed limits and other road signs and regulations just like everyone when driving on those liaisons?

Category A - Standard Touring Cars
Category B - Modified Touring Cars and GT Cars
The degree of modification allowed (Group 2, Group 4 etc) varied from year to year and rally to rally.

Yes drivers did have to follow the trafrfic codes at all times on public roads. The penalties for infringements were high. Typically in the Safari, to be caught speeding once would incur a massive penalty that would put you totally out of contention, a second infringement would mean disqualification.

Thanks D-Type, now I got the big picture. It looks like rallying in the 60's (and before) was anything like it is in the WRC era. Thank you once again everyone for great response.

It was also a time of change even for minor UK club rallies, with significant new regulations introduced in 65 (which took more effort for organisers to get around...).

Yes club rallying was road rallying and it became a different challenge to the organisers to make an event difficult when we were no longer allowed the half mile (one minute) section, a set of a dozen of which would sort 'em out. We did manage to make a two-mile/four minute section difficult but we had to use slightly more devious navigation to do so.

For Vitamin's benefit I can say that many International rallies had been road rallies with tight time schedules and ability to drive to a schedule is not related to the power of the car, provided it is sufficient. There were also capacity-based classes and the Tulip Rally determined the overall order by a class-improvement comparison, so again the overall result was not necessarily to the powerful.

I see AAGR still can't accept he has some things plain wrong (despite one particular fairly recent case on here) and still attacks the messenger instead of the message. It's somewhat pedictable and repetitive.

..and, no, following an event is most certainly not the same as competing (or, in those days, being a competitor's sole service crew). Last time I followed an International using a press plate it was rather embarrassing (and sickening) how doors just opened and all sorts of things were suddenly easier/less effort.

Since I'm already largely aware of where he, and many others, were on such events, "you" others must decide what is "credible" to you!

Well, well. Are you really a troll, or are we meant to take you seriously ?

You, after all, are a person who, on another Forum and under another name, once stated that Roger Clark was generally disliked, and was not as good as some others suggested ! This, mind you, was an opinion of a driver who won the RAC rally twice, the British Rally Championship several times, and more than 20 International rallies.

And now you suggest that it is unseemly to be a rally reporter who has not only competed and managed, but also observed, rallies all around the world. May one ask if Mr Troll RS2000 has ever done/watched/worked on any event outside the British Isles ?

Edited by AAGR, 08 April 2013 - 10:28.

While I'm not enjoying this "dispute" I have to agree with Graham that I never heard a bad word said about Roger during the 15 years we were adversaries, team mates and then friends.

Of course he was past his best when he got into a TR7 but then so too were Timo Mäkinen and Simo Lampinen.....

I can also vouch for Graham as a very serious journalist indeed. His Triumph history where it covers the four year period when I was with the team is 100% accurate, particularly when it goes into the difficult relationship between Brian Culcheth and John Davenport.

We are certainly not best buddies but I would trust Graham totally when it comes to the history of the British teams in particular of the 70s and 80s.

Fred (running for cover.....)

It's the 60s you are asking about. (Also what works drivers liked was not necessarily what private entrants liked).

RS, could you tell me please why works and private drivers had different likings about rallies? And BTW, did private and works drivers have the same chances and equal status in terms of rules when competing in the same event?

The works drivers were typically more skilled than the largely amateur private drivers, so they would have been able to take in their stride some of the challenges that the amateurs found difficult.
The works drivers had far more in the way of back up teams than the amateurs. For example, on the Monte the works drivers had access to up to date ice notes for the final loop and a range of studded tyres to suit conditions; on the Safari they had supply helicopters and aircraft, flying squads of mechanics, workshops in the bush etc. For example: on one Safari, a private entry failed to meet up with his service crew and a vital set of replacement tyres and when all his tyres failed finished a section driving on the bare rims, on another, a car had broken a half shaft and in the absence of a spare a service car pushed it for the final 30 miles to the finish (this was legal as the rules only banned towing). Hence logistics was less of a problem for the works drivers.
Works cars may have had modifications not available to the amateurs.

The rules were the same for all in terms of time penalties, technical regulations and the like. I don't know if this comes under your classification of 'the same chances' - On the Safari an early starting number offered significant advantages - principally less dust and fewer bogged down cars to contend with. After about 1968 the organisers introduced seeding of the entry with a separate pool in the draw for starting numbers giving earlier numbers to the overseas factory entries and selected locals who had previous successes, while first timers and those without previous success were relegated to the pool for later numbers. I think other rallies also seeded starting positions.

Thank you very much D-Type for the explanation.