22 replies to this topic

[aportinga]

Ask a 20-30 year old to name a few great drivers of long past and you'll most likely be bombarded with the names Fangio, Ascari and Moss. All great drivers and certainly worth mentioning. However you'll likely not here the names Rosemeyer, Caracciola etc...

Why is this I wonder...is it because they were not considered World Champions prior to 1950 and thereby do not find their names on the same page in record books as Jimmy Clark and Ayrton Senna? Certainly earning the right to call yourself European Champion - as it was then, was indeed a very important accomplishment. But what is in a word? What's so different between two words "European" & "World"? Certainly one conveys more then the other by definition and imagination alike. However does it necessarily designate that a driver from pre-1950 was lesser of a talent then one following the formal creation of the World Championship?

As we move further in time, I think that generations tend to forget the past. Certainly in this case, a past that seems less formal and global then today’s World Championship is more apt to descend into the abyss of memory lost rather then statistics of an era rich in racing and certainly equal to that of today. I guess this generates the question of how to preserve this era? Is it feasible to designate the European Championship as the World Championship – in essence change history? Could it even be done?

Imagine 20 years from now…a young fan – new to the sport, decides to buy a book of World Champion greats. It doesn’t begin with Farina but descends even further back in time – capturing the great efforts of Nuvolari, Rosemeyer, Auto Union, Fiat etc… In this record, the terminology is the same – they are all World Champions and thereby comparable to drivers of more recent success – and thus not forgotten.

Perhaps I am daydreaming again.

What do you think?

[Wolf]

Aportinga- I think it would be wroong.. They never were World Champions and I hope noone ever will proclaim them to be. First of all, they were great drivers and no title can make them any better or worse drivers than they were. Secondly, I don't think that it would be fair to, for example, American drivers who did not (AFAIK) contest existing trophy- because it was just what the name says (European Championship). For example- can one consider L.A. Lakers reigning World Champions, even if their title may say so? I trow not, for even though nobody can dispute strength of NBA, the league consists of clubs from only two countries...

[Richard Jenkins]

I think it is just a matter of passing time. Lest we forget even further back, de Palma, Boillot, the first Ascari, Campari
It's the same in other sports (and life) though - think, a kid grows up, first interested in a sport:

Will they even know of after a few years of following the game:

Cricket: Len Hutton, WG Grace
Football: Dixie Dean, Steve Bloomer, Billy Meredith, Raich Carter
Baseball: Lou Gehrig, Monty Stratton, Joe di Maggio, Babe Ruth
Tennis: They will have heard of Fred Perry but as a tennis star as opposed to the clothes firm he set up?

I think it all comes down, really, to time. When these stars die, the obituary they get is signiicant in telling whether time & illness has dulled the memory,

Billy Liddell, one of Scotland & Liverpool's greatest strikers died this year, after Parkinson's disease - hardly a mention
Sergio Mantovani, a fine Italian driver dies, barely a mention in any motorsport magazine.
Malcom Cooper - one of Britain's all time Olympic Greats - brief mention on teletext - otherwise nowt.
Had they died at their peak, they would be huge news items.

Give it 20 years & I fear that the likes of Gonzalez, Trintignant, Taruffi, Ascari, Hawthorn etc. will be forgotten also, leaving just Fangio & Moss. The reply to the question at the top may be answered with "Nelson Piquet, Alain Prost, Ayrton Senna, Gilles Villeneuve". But I do see your point, as so many general F1 intoduction books concentrate solely on the World Championship & this must be rectified soon.

[aportinga]

Give it 20 years & I fear that the likes of Gonzalez, Trintignant, Taruffi, Ascari, Hawthorn etc. will be forgotten also, leaving just Fangio & Moss. The reply to the question at the top may be answered with "Nelson Piquet, Alain Prost, Ayrton Senna, Gilles Villeneuve". But I do see your point, as so many general F1 intoduction books concentrate solely on the World Championship & this must be rectified soon

My point - which I am glad you did catch, is that I think it would serve these former greats if one could read their names alongside those of World Champions. Lets face it...no seat belts, no helmets - nothing but a steering wheel to hold them in a heavy hard to control car which at times reached 200 mph+! These guys are forgotten by many my age and younger. They deserve to be considered amongst the very best and IMO they are certainly worthy of being called World Champions.

Unfortunately in today’s world, people do not necessarily have the time or patience to simply sit back and research, read etc... it's a sign of the world we live in. This I feel is why these people become somewhat lost. Take a look at the "Best Drivers Poll" in Readers Comments. I put that together by asking everyone to name their top 5 drivers...compiled the data and then took the top 12. Clearly the board is more knowledgeable of todays numbers then years past.

I'd just like fans of today to experience the skill it took to drive these cars and the accomplishments of those drivers who raced them.

[Vitesse2]

Allow me to blow Hans Etzrodt's trumpet for him ...

Hans' work on his mammoth list of pre 1950s GP races lays the groundwork for what you are saying Aportinga. Many of us have no doubt compiled similar lists and even worked out our own champions (I know I have! ) Hans has even helpfully provided us with his "drivers of the year" in addition to the recognised champions: what is needed is a foolproof way of assessing the relative merits and strengths of each race, in order to find a meaningful comparative system and to try to come up with some sort of "merit table" - British Rugby fans will understand that! - and there's the rub: with every day that goes by so these races fade further away and out of the memory of all but a few ....

On the subject of polls, I have posted before about the one in "Motor" in 1935 - the consensus of opinion was that Nuvolari was even then the greatest who had ever lived ...

Perhaps Cimarosti's book could be made compulsory reading in every school on the planet ....

[mindprobe]

Should the first F1 WC years really be considered as a world championship?

The Indy race was there just to send sand to our eyes, and nothing more!

For me the 1937 season was more worldwide then the first F1 WC, remember that prior to 1950 an american driver could also drive in Europe, and at least the europeans, like Auto Union, Mercedes, Alfa Romeo and Maserati used to cross the sea to drive in North and South America, i think only a few times the europeans raced in Indy, when this belonged to the WC.

And i have a question...why Indy in the WC and not one of the south american races? at least this ones had the europeans racing. I no Buenos Aires were added in 1953 to the WC, but for 1950, 51 and 52 seasons the only non european race was Indy...

[Wolf]

Vitesse- o, ye of little faith...;) Do You really think that some mockup championship could add to or valorize their achievemnets? I mean, if not winning the C'ship when it didn't exist is reason enough to forget the achievements of Nuvolari or Ascari, what will happen to those who failed to win it when it existed (Moss, Villeneuve)? Or even win a single race...;)

BTW, I've thought about that idea with races, although only as difficulty grade for non-championship races... To serve as a sort of merit of the winner, and to show than non-c'sip races were as important as WDC rounds.

But I still maintain that even newcomers to the sport should be taught from the start that titles, stats & stuff aren't everything, merely a few of the things to be observed.

[rdrcr]

Originally posted by aportinga
...Unfortunately in today’s world, people do not necessarily have the time or patience to simply sit back and research, read etc...

This is no more than a sign of an evolution of age and experience. When I first started following F1 (religiously) in '75, I was primarily absorbed with the current "great" drivers of the day. I was aware of the drivers of years just previous because of the movie Grand-Prix and some minor reading. I read of their great feats of driving and dramatic stories of overcoming all odds. I read of how too many drivers perished when new found speed had overcome the safety margins of the day. Clark, Revson, Donohue, Cevert... but never really appreciated the Fangio's or Nuvolari's let alone be aware of earlier greats like Varzi and Lautenschlager. Only later in life when the appreciation factor sets in, does one begin to fully understand there is a certain amount of intrigue and notoriety and fame that gets attributed to the drivers and teams in those earlier eras. The appreciation factor reaches some sooner than others, it's just a matter of personal interest and the direction that it takes you.

Originally posted by Vitesse2
...Hans' work on his mammoth list of pre 1950s GP races lays the groundwork ...

...On the subject of polls, I have posted before about the one in "Motor" in 1935 - the consensus of opinion was that Nuvolari was even then the greatest who had ever lived ...

Perhaps Cimarosti's book could be made compulsory reading in every school on the planet ....

When you drew attention to Hans's work, I just thought I'd echo your thoughts and add, that without such individuals, this history would be truly lost. Be it through the great efforts of the individual or foundations like the Indianapolis Museum and the Research Center at Watkins Glen, the history of auto racing has a pretty good foundation in which to preserve the fact as well as the story behind the scenes. I feel that forums like the one here at Atlas take on a life of their own, that a great amount of information can be discussed and analyzed to ensure that the real story gets told.

I also think that the interest in motorsport in general is continually increasing. Through this, the history of the sport will continue to garner people who want to preserve and archive the foundation as best as possible.

Thanks for the recommendation for the Cimarosti Book, FYI for everyone, I found a pretty good preview: http://www.amazon.co...962#reader-link

Originally posted by Wolf
...But I still maintain that even newcomers to the sport should be taught from the start that titles, stats & stuff aren't everything, merely a few of the things to be observed.

I'd agree, it's the over examination of these stats that removes some of the appreciation factor what it even takes to qualify let alone race. No matter if it's 1932 or 2002 the pressure of winning is still great, today's driver has more demands of personality and sponsor obligations to incorporate in their schedule, but racing of any era has its famed drivers and their great years and great drives. The other drivers should be recognized for their courage and determination to compete. There shouldn't be so much emphasis on the ranking or trying to put a relationship of standing between drivers in different eras. The constant comparison of whether Fangio could have beaten Clark or Schumacher in equal cars is for amusement only and serves no other purpose in my opinion... now, equal cars, was that equal Ferrari F2001's or Alfa 159's?;)

History loves to be told.... It's why the Amon thread is so long.... It's great reading. Someone should start a Moss thread. Another truly great driver, never to have won a "Title". They and others like them, provide wondrous sources for pontifications from enthusiasts.

It's all good...

[Wolf]

Rdcr- I hate to brag (yeah, right ;)) but Yours truly started Favourite Moss Stories... But I'll have a go soon to edit all the pics I posted in there, should make no difference tho- just to point the links in the right direction...

[dmj]

I don't believe that anyone who likes and watches races (or any other sport) should know anything about past - but anyone who wants to write or comment it should be an expert. And it isn't the case in most situations. Just today I had read a comment in a specialized Croatian car magazine in which author states that Toyota is first fully new team (not a takeover of existing one) in F1 since 1979! Unbelievable! Or, more remarkably, once I walked through house of our national TV chatting with Ivan Sverko, by any account one of top 5 or 10 best racing drivers Croatia ever had. We met a man who at the time commented F1 and national motorsport - and he didn't recognize Sverko! I was shocked! Or what about this: when I was making questions for a TV quiz game (music and motorsport, of course... ) - I offered a question about Emerson Fittipaldi and it was refused. They said me that our national TV has not a single picture of him, let alone the movie! I believe most of TNF members have a lot of similar stories...
We are minority, most of people don't want to know anything about motorsport prior to Senna or Schumacher - but we could teach them through little articles, anecdotes, mentions... and maybe someone becomes interested in motorsport history through our influence, through websites a lot of TNF members maintain, or through other ways. In last issue of Croatian edition of Penthouse ( well, man has to do something for money) I wrote a few words about Chris Amon, Le Mans 1953. and some other interesting moments of motorsport history. I doubt anyone will be intrigued enough but who knows? Maybe someone will type "Chris Amon" in Google, find TNF (that's how I found it, I'm not quite sure if it was Amon or someone else, but who cares) and stay...

[aportinga]

But I still maintain that even newcomers to the sport should be taught from the start that titles, stats & stuff aren't everything, merely a few of the things to be observed

I agree. However in the States there is absolutely no platform to promote F1 during the off season (We do have SpeedVision but the coverage nation wide is reletively small). Furthermore there is very little - almost nill, data brought to the racing public in the States during the racing season. Essentially if you don't live in Indiana - or are not a die hard fan, you won't even be able to tell the off season from the regular season...this due to no coverage.

Therefore there is really no existing platform to bring the initial interest of the current World Championship to the general public and avid fans. Thus how are we to even begin to promote interest in a less formal era (prior) where active and intelectual fans of today cannot agree on numbers pre-1950?

I guess what I mean to say is...there is no means to even spark interest here in the States. Not sure if this is the same elsewhere. But without any catalyst to spawn interest, it well ultimately become lost data.

[Don Capps]

Here is something that appeared in the 20 June 2001 issue of Atlas F1, courtesy of the author:

The Death of History?

Several months ago - in October, I used the following quotation in an article: "Only the icing and the frills have changed." The quote is from Denis Jenkinson in an article written for the 1981 edition of Autocourse. At the time, I professed to accept what Scribe Jenkinson said. Since then, I think I may have changed my mind...

Quiz Time! Okay, Sports Fans, put on your Tom Terrific Thinking Caps and get ready:

Question: Who won the first Canadian Grand Prix and when and where was it held?

(Hey! This is an absolute No Brainer, Sports Fans! Easy points to put on the board!)

And the Answer is: Jack Brabham in a Brabham-Repco in August 1967 at Mosport!

Sorry, Sports Fans - that IS a good answer, but not really THE answer.

"Oh, Really?" is the response I see on the lips of the vast majority of you F1 Fans out there. That response is followed by, "Just what is he talking about? It says so right here and everywhere else that the first Canadian Grand Prix was in 1967!" As usual, it really isn't all that difficult, but it just gets that way when we fail to understand that - well, the past is at times not what we think it was.

The first Canadian Grand Prix run for Grand Prix cars - or 'Formula 1 (F1)' machines to use the term currently in use, was indeed the answer given above; as well as being used on Speedvision as the response to the identical question which they asked in the moments prior to the race.

However, the "real" answer is also something of a surprise since it is once again Common Knowledge that Gilles Villeneuve was the first Canadian to win the Canadian Grand Prix in 1978. Well, Villeneuve was the first Canadian to win the Grand Prix as a round in the World Championship, but he was not the first Canadian to win his home Grand Prix. So, just exactly who was the winner of the first Canadian Grand Prix?

Peter Ryan - hailing from Mont Tremblant in Quebec (by way of Philadelphia, PA), beat the field to the checkered flag at Mosport after 100 laps of racing while driving a Comstock Racing entered 2.5-litre Lotus 19 - Climax FPF in September 1961. He was all of 21 years old at the time. At a time when such events were essentially rounds in the Stirling Moss Retirement Fund Series, this was a result that made folks sit up and pay attention. One of these was Colin Chapman. Chapman signed up the young Canadian for the 1962 works Lotus Formula Junior. In addition, Chapman arranged for another Lotus 18/21 to be brought over for the United States Grand Prix at Watkins Glen. It was not an audacious or conspicuous debut, but the car wasn't much to start with in the first place. Alas, Ryan was to die from injuries sustained in a crash the following July in a Formula Junior race at Reims.

In 1962, Masten Gregory won the Canadian GP driving a Lotus 19 - Climax FPF. Pedro Rodriguez driving for the North American Racing Team, drove Ferraris to win back-to-back races in 1963 and 1964. In 1965, Jim Hall and his Chaparral emerged the victor after a dice with Bruce McLaren in an TRACO Oldsmobile-powered Mark 2 McLaren. In 1966, the race was a round in the initial season of the Canadian American Challenge Cup - Can Am - and was won by Mark Donohue in a Lola 70 - Chevrolet entered by Roger Penske. It was the first major victory for this duo, but it certainly was not to be the last.

Many of your are trying stifle yawns and are muttering, "So what?" under your breathe. The reason I mention this that however the "official" list of Canadian Grand Prix winners might look like, if Ryan, Gregory, Rodriguez, Hall, and Donohue are missing - it is not correct.

Again, many are saying, "Oh, PLEASE! Get off it! Who cares?"

Well, I care.

"Well, Speedvision and the other F1 programs are aimed at the general F1 audience. Therefore, any questions concerning history relate only to the events of the World Championship. Get a life, Capps!"

But, the answer given by Speedvision was not correct.

"So? And, what difference make? It was an F1 race and therefore it was assumed to be concerning the first F1 Canadian GP. Jeez, Capps, you are beginning to bother me."

I don't make this stuff up. Not every major race that carried the title "Grand Prix" was a race in the World Championship. Generally, yes, a "Grand Prix" was usually for either Grand Prix cars (F1) or Voiturette cars - Formula 2. Or, in some cases, for sports cars. The Grands Prix of Canada, Sweden, and United States were once run as sports car races.

"Wait a minute! No way that the US GP was ever a sports car race! The first one was at Sebring in 1959 and was for F1 cars! It says so in the record books!"

Actually, the title "United States Grand Prix" was applied to a major professional sports car race sponsored by the Los Angeles Times-Mirror Company at Riverside in October 1958. Basically, they just did it and most folks either didn't mind or care. This was somewhat stretching things, in my opinion, but when they lined up on the grid in December 1959 at Sebring, it was the "II United States Grand Prix." Now the Swedish GP did count towards the World Championship, only it was the Sports Car WC.

"Hold it, hold it, hold it! It is exactly this stubbornness concerning the exact truth and terminology that scares the vast majority of F1 fans away from folks like you, Capps! Who really cares? Face up to it, very, very few F1 fans are really interested in F1 history! It is boring, irrelevant to what is happening today, and those old guys couldn't cut it today anyway. Jeez, go away and leave us alone!"

Voltaire said something in Oeuvres (1785) which I believe applies here:


On doit des égards aux vivants; on ne doit aux morts que la vérité.
We owe respect to the living; to the dead we owe only the truth.

It is not always easy finding the truth. In his essay The Use and Abuse of History, William L. Burton wrote something that is perhaps more common than most realize: "If you do not like the past, change it." The past of the Canadian Grand Prix is merely one example. It is a round in the FIA F1 World Championship and therefore it is convenient and consistent that the "First" Canadian Grand Prix has to be an F1 event - 1967 in this case. If you ignore the Canadian GPs which were held for sports cars, sooner or later so will everyone else and the "correct" history will be in place.

Perhaps the real issue to how to follow the instructions that Lord Chesterfield set forth his son in Letters to His Son (1774) : "Speak of the Moderns without contempt, and of the Ancients without idolatry." Indeed, many F1 fans will find themselves nodding in agreement with something that Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in 'World and Days' from Society and Solitude (1870) : "Whatever is old is corrupt, and the past turns to snakes. The reverence for the deeds of our ancestors is a treacherous sentiment."

History has its place, but obviously not a very large place, in F1. The very definition of when history really begins and what defines the "past" is one that defies an easy, pat answer. This alone makes history out of place in F1. The current F1 scene is one that is focused on the here and now, not yesterday. Its drivers are Stars. They are expected to conform to the business culture that now dominates professional sports. This is simply how things are.

The races are now marvels of standardization. Failure to meet the standards expected by the FIA brings swift retribution in the form of fines or an assault by the media incited by the FIA to fever pitch.

An observation that surprised me at first, but then made since is that today's races are better observed than read about; whereas in the past it was often the other way around.

Well, what does all this have to with the so-called "death of history?" Actually, quite a bit. I think that it was not necessarily an intentional move on the part of the FIA and the motor racing media to kill history, but history is merely a niche market at best and a sump hole for resources at its worse. Even here at Atlas F1 it is clear that the past is not a popular stopping place for F1 fans: the Readers Comments Forum has approximately 220,000 posts versus about 33,500 for the Nostalgia Forum. And if you add in the other posts at other sites, it gets even more lopsided since there are very, very few fora for 'nostalgia' or history.

Well, there is something that Edward Shils wrote in his book Tradition (1981), that is one reaction that I often find difficult to purge from my mind when I realize how few care about history: "Modern culture is...a titanic and deliberate effort to undo by technology, rationality, and government policy the givenness of what came down from the past."

The past - or history, take your choice - is not a particularly pleasant subject even for those of us whom make our living writing about it. Needless death, deliberate distortion of the record, the scarcity of records, the fallibility of memory, and many other problems make looking backward less than a joy at times. However, there are stories that simply cannot be told without turning back the clock and kicking over rocks to see what is there.

In the wonderful movie The Third Man, Orson Welles has a speech in which he talks about the chaos, warfare, and general anarchy of Italy during the period of the Borgia family.


"You know what the fellow said: In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love--they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

Well, do be it. Speedvision was incorrect and that is how it is. And at some point in the future, some will look back at when F1 started to produce cuckoo clocks...

For the most part, motor racing history is a sub-genre of the art of Clio that sees more often than not to be more a tool of the Gordon Gecko Gang in establishing a pedigree of their wares or the excuse to peddle information that is considered proprietary rather than that of the public domain.

That this forum -- or the RacingHistoryGroup or the few other outposts of steadfast soldiers who consider history important, exists is always a marvel to me. History is simply not much of an issue in modern racing -- except where it serves a purpose, usually a commercial purpose. Books and so forth of the past are not important for the information contained within them, but for their (commercial) value to collectors. And many collectors are exactly that -- Collectors: the Franklin Mint Mafia meets the Gordon Gecko Gang....

However, I will cease and desist and contain some of my words for later....

[rdrcr]

Originally posted by Wolf
Rdcr- I hate to brag (yeah, right ;)) but Yours truly started Favourite Moss Stories... But I'll have a go soon to edit all the pics I posted in there, should make no difference tho- just to point the links in the right direction...

Thanks Wolf - I should have done a search 1st. As most everything has been touched on in one fashion or another in Atlas. We'll hold you to your picture update promise too. It's difficult to find time to read everything but it's in the to-do list now.

Originally posted by dmj
I don't believe that anyone who likes and watches races (or any other sport) should know anything about past - but anyone who wants to write or comment it should be an expert. And it isn't the case in most situations...

dmj - I think that your examples are poignant but are they applicable everywhere? I think that in more than one bench racing session in and around the tracks and watering holes wherever there is a vintage racing event, you will find these stories being told. I will agree though, that the need for increased knowledge of racing history is called for if one is to have an in-depth and comprehensive opinion. Racing history isn't for everyone, as the current scene is a whole lot easier to grasp. There will be enough interest though, to have authorities continue to make a living. The ever increasing popularity of vintage racing certainly helps the overall interest level when the general populace gets to see the cars in action.

A- In part, what you say is true, However, the information won't become lost per-se, rather woefully overlooked. Only through increased effort of promotions and by foundations that are equipped to instill this interest, will the heritage of motorsport come to life in the here and now.

There will always be a lesser or disproportionate number of people interested in the history of something than the current scene. All it takes is one trip to the Historics in Monterey to see history in action. You will know in a second if your going to be a fan or not. I think it's a incredible time and so do the 100,000 other old car nuts that show up year after year.

[dmj]

[David McKinney]

Formula 1 can exist without any understanding of or reference to history. Likewise 90% of F1 fans (a different breed entirely from what used to be called motor-racing enthusiasts).
Just as in the wider world, most people know very little history of their country or town, and survive perfectly well nevertheless.
But, in both the wider world and the motor racing world, there are some people who have an interest in the background to what they're involved with, and in its history. It is important that if they want to find out about history, they can do so without being misled (which is only slightly less serious than being lied to).
I would be perfectly comfortable writing a book about "the history of F1" (from 1950). But because I care about history I would be very careful not to make any statement suggesting motor racing, or F1, started in 1950. It's easy enough to refer to (eg) the 1967 Mosport race as "the first F1 Canadian Grand Prix" and so on, and to make clear that Grand Prix racing started long before the world championship (and almost as long as that before F1 was devised)
You'll never be able to force the majority to take an interest in history (of motor racing, or of wider areas). If they care enough to learn, it is easy enough to do so - in some ways easier than ever, thanks to the existence of the www.

[rdrcr]

Originally posted by Don Capps
... On doit des égards aux vivants; on ne doit aux morts que la vérité.
We owe respect to the living; to the dead we owe only the truth.

It is not always easy finding the truth. In his essay The Use and Abuse of History, William L. Burton wrote something that is perhaps more common than most realize: "If you do not like the past, change it..."

...That this forum -- or the RacingHistoryGroup or the few other outposts of steadfast soldiers who consider history important, exists is always a marvel to me. History is simply not much of an issue in modern racing -- except where it serves a purpose, usually a commercial purpose. Books and so forth of the past are not important for the information contained within them, but for their (commercial) value to collectors. And many collectors are exactly that -- Collectors: the Franklin Mint Mafia meets the Gordon Gecko Gang.....

Thanks for finding and preserving the truth Capps. Did you write to Speedvision anyway?

[aportinga]

Thanks Capps - brilliant read indeed!

Face up to it, very, very few F1 fans are really interested in F1 history! It is boring, irrelevant to what is happening today

Something mentioned from Capps that I have to agree with (although I agree with the entire post). As I mentioned in an earlier thread, I was able to watch a broadcast from the History Channel here in the States of the battle between Auto Union and Merc (1934-1939). The footage was excellent as was the details of individuals who raced of that era. Clearly in my perspective the best racing I have ever seen altogether on the tele since I have been a fan (1985). I never even knew that the machines of that day were clocking 200mph+ at the German GP.... sliding all over at Monaco and so on. You just don't see this today and in a way that's very unfortunate. The sport has become consumed by the almighty dollar, lire, pound etc... And although it has not become dictated by marketing such as NASCAR, it certainly has lost a good deal of it's herritage. A good look at Hockenheim's future starting January 02 confirms that the legend of Grand Prix racing continues this trend. I am still shocked that massive petitions precluded this from happening...


Thanks everyone for the insight!

[Carlos Jalife]

I have to say that I have longed for knowing who were the champions of the world before 1950, even 1948 and 1949 but for sure there must be a list which includes Bernd Rosemeyer in 1936, Caracciola in 1935, 1937-8, Lang in 1939, and Nuvolari in 193?. I'm not sure as to how far back it can go but it should be, it is right, there were races that arre the equivalent of the current ones, I mean GP of Italy, GB, France, Germany, Spain, on a similar formula, so why not. And if someone complains about Indy, hell, just check how many gringos crossed over from 1950-8 when indy counted for the World Championship, basically none, so why include it before when it should never have been there in the first place? Hell the world can exist without Indy (although it might be a poorer place) and so can a World Championship.
I think we ought to reach a clear consensus on who were the champs for those years, and if Hans has all the data already let's just do it. I support aportinga's view.
By the way, Don, great article, and of course Pedro was the first two time winner of the Canadian Grand Prix if you want to ask that question, I once did and nobody could answer it in a whole week in my radio program until I told them it was a mexican. So history is certainly needed here too.

[fines]

The original question here was one of the reasons behind my developing of GPChart (another plug, what a nuisance! ). I don't like the "retrospective naming of champions", like it was done in the USofA all those years back, but to have a common yardstick is somehow commendable. I am still working on and off at those rankings, and for those who have shown some interest before, or those who don't even know GPChart so far, here's the latest:

Top 6 positions at the end of each year:

Year  First	   Second	  Third	   Fourth	  Fifth	   Sixth



1945  Wimille	 Louveau	 Gordini	 Sommer	  Veuillet	Brunot

1946  Sommer	  Wimille	 Louveau	 Gordini	 Raph		Chaboud

1947  Villoresi   Wimille	 Chiron	  Chaboud	 Cabantous   Louveau

1948  Villoresi   Wimille	 Farina	  Sommer	  Ascari	  Rosier

1949  Ascari	  Villoresi   Fangio	  Graffenried Bira		Farina

1950  Fangio	  Ascari	  Farina	  Villoresi   Rosier	  Fagioli

1951  Ascari	  Fangio	  González	Farina	  Villoresi   Rosier

1952  Ascari	  Farina	  Villoresi   Taruffi	 Rosier	  González

1953  Ascari	  Farina	  Hawthorn	Fangio	  Villoresi   Graffenried

1954  Fangio	  Trintignant González	Hawthorn	Behra	   Moss

1955  Fangio	  Moss		Behra	   Trintignant Castellotti Musso

1956  Moss		Fangio	  Collins	 Behra	   Salvadori   Castellotti

1957  Fangio	  Behra	   Moss		Musso	   Collins	 Schell

1958  Moss		Hawthorn	Brooks	  Brabham	 Collins	 Salvadori

1959  Moss		Brabham	 Brooks	  McLaren	 Trintignant Salvadori

1960  Brabham	 Moss		Ireland	 McLaren	 Bonnier	 Hill (G)

1961  Moss		Brabham	 Clark	   Hill (P)	McLaren	 Ireland

1962  Hill (G)	Clark	   McLaren	 Surtees	 Taylor	  Brabham

Of course, pre-WW2 rankings will also be prepared, but for now I'm concentrating on the post-war stuff.

[rdrcr]

Cool,

What sort of point system was used? Or did you just take the most wins, the most 2nds etc. and come up with a placement of the drivers?

[fines]

A bit more complicated, I'm 'fraid... Actually, I was computing the results of ALL single-seater races (F1, FLibre, F2, Indycar etc.), without F3, FJunior and Sprint Car results so far, as to speed things up. The rankings are far from perfect at this point, but they do give an idea about how it will pan out in the end. So far there're more than 1,000 races and close to 2,000 drivers listed...

The points system is basically 1 point for a win, half a point for second, 1/3 for third and so on, multiplied with a coefficient arrived at by adding up the points share, scored over the last twelve months, of every driver entered in a race.

[Don Capps]

Alas and alack!

Once again, we must point out that unlike Europe, the International Formula was alive and still functioning in the United States, forming the background of a Drivers' Championship that stretched back to 1916 (...or 1909 or 1902...). In a sense, there could be a valid claim for the "Grand Prize of Langhorne" (or the "Grand Prize of Atlanta" at Lakewood and so forth) that is certainly just as good as the formula libre pick-up events in Europe that seem to be all that folks seem to fixate upon.

[aportinga]

Okay I'm going to do some research on the data specifically regarding the States. However may I ask you - those who may know, was the series and drivers of the day in the States comparable to those in Europe(pre-1950)? The only reason I ask is primarily due to my belief that there have been very few series in America that retain the quality of racing as well as the skills demanded by drivers equal to those of South America and Europe today. Of course I strongly hold this perception based upon today's numbers. I guess my question is could the same be said about the years prior to 1950?

My ignorant opinion (disclaimer), is that if there were no formula today that existed for which we could crown a World Champion, and thus one had to be created...I don't really think I'd even include many races, series and or drivers from the States. Certainly a few such as Michael & Mario Andretti, Bobby Rahal, AJ Foyt and Rick Mears. But definitely no one from NASCAR or the IRL for that matter. So why bother?

Again...my ignorant opinion is that if we include European races, South American races, etc... we could come up with a valid formula to place value and recognition of a driver on a year to year basis thus designating a World Championship.

I know - I have alot to learn...