Wikipedians - pre-Formula One GP history (merged)

I've started a new category in Wikipedia, the intention of which is to pull together all the information about Grands Prix prior to F1, you can see the top layer here.

http://en.wikipedia....ore_Formula_One

A few of the pages I have created, most were already there and I have linked to and added to them where possible.

Hopefully from what is already there you get a small idea about the direction of the category. It would cover everything from 1894 to 1949, races, drivers, teams, cars etc.

There is already a well supported category on F1 which might give you a better idea of what is possible

http://en.wikipedia....ory:Formula_One

As you can see, by comparison the pre-F1 years are rather underrepresented.

Anyway, before I waste too much time with it I'd like to ask for your first impressions.

Is it worth continuing?
Would it just be an unnecessary duplication of information or other efforts?
If it's worth continuing, is anyone interested in helping?

As I see it the positives are

• the database structure for ease of browsing
• the simplification of collaboration
• Ultimately it could be a huge wealth of knowledge

The negatives are

• It might be a big waste of time that nobody would ever read

Two points:
-the name Formula One didn't appear in 1950 with first WDC but at the end of 1947. This point was discussed in this forum.
-French GP: only from 1968; before it was the ACF (Automobile Club de France) GP.
Better to be accurate to be credible.

Thanks, I used 'French Grand Prix' for that link because it takes you to a page with the same title that lists all "French Grand Prix" back to 1906. If/when a race report is created it would show the official title of the race.

Creating a title for the category was troublesome. The Formula One category only covers events from when the WDC started and so by comparison it was difficult to be clear and concise. I have though now added some text to make it clearer what the category covers.

The main negative is that anybody can post something on Wikipedia and there are apparently no controls or accuracy checks?

My reason for saying this is that at one time under 'Indianapolis winners' it was listing Dario Resta as being Scottish because whoever posted the information hadconfused him with Dario Franchitti who is Scottish. The sad thing is that several other websites copied the error.

Wikipedia contributions are anonymous, meaning the author remains unknown. So, what's the point? I do not understand this approach. To me it is worthless.

As an example, please bring up the drivers, then click on Hermann Lang, then click at European Championship. The following page is totally screwed up with distorted figures. Who wrote that? We will never know who wrote that crap and therefore we can have no discussion with the author to find his/her source or ask the person not to spread false information. I could search Wikipedia for other snafus but I just do not have the time because I am busy straightening out my own listings.

When you click at my signature below you will find my listings.

Originally posted by GIGLEUX
Two points:
-the name Formula One didn't appear in 1950 with first WDC but at the end of 1947.

Didn't it appear after F1CA renamed to FOCA to avoid some unpleasant Italian meaning in late 60-s?

Explaining first half of XX Century you should use some very different terms from what you see now. You say about Bugatti team but count private entrants. You should delete every participant other that works or change section name to "Entrants" to have list of hundreds of privateers or change to "Makes".

Also there's problem of count or not some races with "Grand Prix" in name and so on. Are you ready for this?

I have to echo several others and say that while this might be a nice thought, it is a doomed enterprise from the very git-go. As the effort appears to be basically another attempt to provide simply race results and related data such as now appears in abundance (complete with errors lifted from others and all) on championship GP/F1 events versus any effort to describe, explain or even enlighten anyone on the period, not sure if I would tune into it were it available. As someone with a genuine interest in this "period," which is really far more broad and convoluted than simply being the years "pre-F1," I wonder if this really would be of very much use if there is no explanation of the context into which all this fits. This is an area in which the terms of reference, "Grand Prix" and so on, really need to be carefully placed.

Another question that occurs to me is whether this is going to be another project which focuses solely on the European events and pretty much ignores anything else that happened during this period outside that corner of the world. This can be an interesting problem during the pre-1921 period where most US events are dismissed as irrelevant while very minor European are given greater attention and elevated to being given an importance that may or may not be completely justified. Just a nit-pick, but gives one idea as to some of the possible potholes. There are a number of others.

I have only worked on one encyclopedia project and it was far more difficult and challenging than I ever expected, and I did only a fairly small part of the overall effort. And, we left out at least several times what we placed into the encyclopedia, almost all of it great stuff. Much had to be edited out or down to meet the limits that had to be adhered to.

It is not that some project like this isn't needed (look to the Leif Snellman site for a model to fill in the many blanks from the years prior to 1934 and after 1940), just that this might not be the "right" venue.

I use wikipedia quite a lot as a quick initial reference to unfamiliar names in history or current affairs. I find it useful. No doubt there are problems with bias, accuracy etc. but there do seem to be systems in place to deal with this.

People are always coming on to TNF with ideas for projects and more often than not they leave well soaked with cold water. My advice is just to go ahead and do it.

I really like Steve Small's "Grand Prix Who's Who" and Leif Snellman's site is gradually providing accurate bios on drivers from the 1934-40 period. A very long list of pre-1934 drivers would be a start, people could then add what biographical detail they had and it would be something fresh not covered elsewhere.

The key word is "Accurate". If it isn't 100% accurate, or as close as you can get, then the whole exercise is as much value as a chocolate teapot! And the Wikipedia format precludes accuracy - for example, it would naturally favour the Mercedes paint scraping story or the Neubauer version of the Tripoli GP.

Originally posted by D-Type
The key word is "Accurate". If it isn't 100% accurate, or as close as you can get, then the whole exercise is as much value as a chocolate teapot! And the Wikipedia format precludes accuracy - for example, it would naturally favour the Mercedes paint scraping story or the Neubauer version of the Tripoli GP.

Isn't this where the Wikipedia format has some pluses? Inaccuracies get set down in books and magazine articles and there they sit for all time in black and white. With wikipedia you can just go in and write out the inaccuracies, hopefully quoting your sources and if your facts are then disputed, well there do seem to be systems to resolve the matter.

Now I certainly don't know enough about wikipedia to argue their case too strongly but at least any facts placed there are easy to find. That is not the case with TNF where information can be difficult to dig out. Also there are no copyright issues!

I guess a wikipedia based database would only be as strong as its contributors but I can't see how the format itself precludes accuracy when it is so open to challenge.

Originally posted by D-Type
The key word is "Accurate". If it isn't 100% accurate, or as close as you can get, then the whole exercise is as much value as a chocolate teapot! And the Wikipedia format precludes accuracy - for example, it would naturally favour the Mercedes paint scraping story or the Neubauer version of the Tripoli GP.

I think Duncan articulates the big sticking point to me smack on the button: there is a greater likelihood of erroreous information being given both validity and new life through such an effort than the record being set straight.

As for the charge that TNF is a habitual dispenser of cold water, I have to take great exception to that charge. Most of the ideas that "get sprinkled with cold water" are usually and almost without exception either rehashes of what has either already been done or just not well thought-out or well-considered research projects in the first place. Ideas with merit and some solid thinking behind them have no fear of TNF and its "cold water." Unfortunately, that is a relatively short list compared to the "other" list.

However, KJJ does accurately pinpoint the essential and potentially fatal problem with TNF as it currently exists: it can be an utter nightmare to plumb for information needed when trying to research a topic. Barring some miracle of information technology, there is apparently either no or no easy, affordable solution to this problem that I am aware of. Then there is the small problem of if the forum migrates to a new system which allows the contents to be plumbed for information easier and quicker, it would only work with new information entered into the forum and not the old stuff. I am out of my league on this one when it comes to figuring out how to do something like most would like to have happen.

Pardon me for bring this up, but posts by Hans and Duncan set me to thinking about it, but what sort of editorial control and fact-checking do you intend to employ pollocka? If there are no references, no editorial oversight or review for this material, Hans speaks for me as well in saying that the information becomes essentially useless, just worthless words strung together. If you want this done correctly, ponder why folks get people such as McKinney, Nye, Cancellieri, Ludvigsen, Argetsinger, Lawrence, and so forth to edit or contribute to such efforts. Unless there is at least some recognition as to whom the contributor for an article or section is, as well as some type of references or biblography involved, why bother? If you are going to do this Right is one thing, but you simply want to do it, that is another thing altogether.

It is isn't that such an effort isn't needed and it isn't that the contributors to TNF couldn't produce it, it is that it is a much bigger project that you can imagine and one that requires a campaign plan, not a few evenings cribbing data from somewhere else.

Last comment: what if someone simply opens another entry at Wikipedia which competes with what is being proposed? Say that they continue with the 1933 Tripoli or the paint scraping myths? Some encylopedia. Although there have been challenges to the 1933 Tripoli myth for some time now, it seems to be as ingrained as ever in the media and the public's imagination. Don't hold your breath for many challenges to what gets put on Wikipedia.

I have to agree that you're being a bit harsh on wikipedia. TNF might allow for reputations to lend truthworthness to information, data and sites, but surely wikipedia is no more or less trust-worthy than any random site that google turns up.

To correct one slight inaccuracy: entries are not edited anonymously. They can be, but the vast majority are not. You just need to click the 'history' link that is on every page, where you can access every single version the page has gone though, and who did it.

Last comment: what if someone simply opens another entry at Wikipedia which competes with what is being proposed? Say that they continue with the 1933 Tripoli or the paint scraping myths? Some encylopedia. Although there have been challenges to the 1933 Tripoli myth for some time now, it seems to be as ingrained as ever in the media and the public's imagination. Don't hold your breath for many challenges to what gets put on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has developed quite a complex process for dealing with disputes, duplicates, confusion, etc. I gather duplicates certainly don't last long, what you get instead is revert wars, where the two sides frequently re-dit to their POV. However, that soon gets picked up on, and entries get put in to arbitration process with the aim of finding a sensible middle ground. Which would most likely be "this is the paint scraping story, and this facts suggest it's not true." Wikipedia is undergoing a massive popularity explosion, which to me makes it to me, the only mainstream place where you have a chance to challenge the myths. TNF might be brilliant, but one a post here does not do, it place information in mass view!


How about putting the scepticism on hold, and conducting an experiment. Everybody here chip in to writing a top notch entry on both the paint scraping and 1933 Tripoli myths. Stick them Wikipedia and see what happens to them six months down the line.

Originally posted by Kvadrat


Didn't it appear after F1CA renamed to FOCA to avoid some unpleasant Italian meaning in late 60-s?

Excuse me but when I say 1947, it is 1947.

http://forums.autosp...&threadid=56427

Originally posted by MrAerodynamicist
Wikipedia is undergoing a massive popularity explosion, which to me makes it to me, the only mainstream place where you have a chance to challenge the myths. TNF might be brilliant, but one a post here does not do, it place information in mass view!

Everybody here chip in to writing a top notch entry on both the paint scraping and 1933 Tripoli myths. Stick them Wikipedia and see what happens to them six months down the line.

The story of Tripoli 1933 has already been written, but none of the "major" magazines were interested at the time and in the particular case of Motor Sport, published an article by Mark Hughes that continued to perpetuate the myth. Nor did they express any interest in an article providing an "alternative" view of the event.

As someone who rarely uses Wikipedia for a variety of reasons, I will bow out of this, defer to others, and let this one go where it may, all while not holding my breath.

Oh, "F1CA" was a change that came about largely for the linguist reasons given (or so we are told), being officially replaced by "FOCA" in either 1977 or 1978, I think, although it was in use prior to then. Funny, but it is fascinating how few realize that F1CA/FOCA was created in late 1963 and announced in January 1964. It was based upon the very successful FJCA effort and had basically the same membership and rationale for existing.

Originally posted by GIGLEUX


Excuse me but when I say 1947, it is 1947.

http://forums.autosp...&threadid=56427

But I said about Formula One versus Formula 1 names. I think it's one of key bricks in the wall between motorsport in the past and today's Formula One. Everybody today connects what they know as Formula One to former event which also somehow had this name in its name. BUT! Formula One is Bernie's Empire description althoug originally there were racing cars classes Formula 1, 2, 3. Change of "1" digit to "One" word was a step from racing cars divisions to racing series system.

Originally posted by Kvadrat


But I said about Formula One versus Formula 1 names. I think it's one of key bricks in the wall between motorsport in the past and today's Formula One. Everybody today connects what they know as Formula One to former event which also somehow had this name in its name. BUT! Formula One is Bernie's Empire description althoug originally there were racing cars classes Formula 1, 2, 3. Change of "1" digit to "One" word was a step from racing cars divisions to racing series system.

Sorry,Kvadrat,but in english whether you use the word or the figure makes no difference to the meaning. What you are talking about is the change of the constructors association acronym F1CA to FOCA when the italians joined.

I trust you but what I see is that now everybody write "Formula One" and we know that means Bernie's commercial racing series. 50 years ago the same term was written "Formula 1" and we know that wasn't commercial racing series but top class for racing cars. It changed over the years from that Formula 1 to today's Formula One and I think using "1" or "One" is important for correct meaning.

No, Rob's right
Fifty years ago it was sometimes written Formula 1 and sometimes Formula One

Originally posted by David McKinney
No, Rob's right
Fifty years ago it was sometimes written Formula 1 and sometimes Formula One

Or even Formula I in some cases....

Vladimir, does it REALLY make any difference there on Wikipedia pages? The category being discussed is of a pre-F1 racing, so the discussion whether Formula 1 or Formula One should be correct as applied to those articles, seems to be meaningless IMO.

Who else cares for Wikipedia project today after all?

But you are right, so move discussion at Names, Titles and Terms.

I would like to wish the Wikipedia project the very best of luck.

I use Wikipedia quite often, mainly for things I know nothing at all about. I would not expect it to be 100% perfect but it still fills an extremely useful purpose. Especially when you haven't got an encyclopædia to hand or the subject is too modern to be in the last one you bought.

And ... the lovely thing about hypertext articles is that you can happily use the term "Formula 1" everywhere but have the term hyperlinked to a detailed discussion of whether it should be "Formula 1", "Formula One", "Formula A", "Grand Prix" or whatever. 99% of Wikipedia users are unlikely to be too bothered.

Out of curiosity, I wanted to see what Wikipedia had on the 1933 Lottery GP at Tripoli/Mellaha:

Tripoli Grand Prix
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Tripoli Grand Prix in Libya was first held in 1925 and ended in 1940 following the onset of World War II. Part of the Grand Prix circuit, the race was held on a 71.10 km road course in Tripoli until 1933 when a new track was built, bringing the best drivers in the world to compete for the £80,000 purse, a very substantial amount at the time.

Libya was then a colony of Italy and the new race course was opened at Mellaha Lake on May 7, 1933 by the country's Governor, Marshal Italo Balbo. The new track was an 8.165 mile (13.140 km) clockwise track with 15 turns situated in a salt basin between Tripoli and Tagiura. Designated a "Formula Libre" race, it meant there were neither engine nor weight restrictions applicable on what was then the fastest racetrack in the world. The race was held in conjunction with the state lottery and the 1933 inaugural event is notorious for having been fixed. The scandal led to substantial rule changes.

Houston, We have a problem....

It is interesting to note that this same article is repeated seemingly endless times by other sites all over the internet.

Also, the prize monies were in lira, not £ and should be so stated.

PS: Here is a not untypical article about the event.... http://www.chiangmai.../031/auto.shtml

Well change it then. That's the whole point.

Originally posted by Allen Brown
Well change it then. That's the whole point.

Indeed, why hasn't it been changed? Or is this some form of whack-a-mole where you have to track down each and every factoid entry? Being generally unfamiliar with Wikipedia since, as I have admitted, I rarely if ever use it, how is someting changed or an error corrected? Then again, since Conventional Wisdom seems to fully accept the idea that the event was "rigged," what prevents it from being changed back to the original or a variant thereof? Just asking....

If you create an account for yourself (it's regarded as best practice to use your real name but I think many here have guessed ;) ), you can then edit the page and record your reason for editing it. That will show up in the change history for that page and any user can compare the versions before and after you made your change.

There is nothing to stop someone altering it back but they'll have to give their reasons and your version will continue to be accessible via the change history. In practice, someone won't just change it back without contacting you and asking for the reasons behind your change.

As a by-product of creating an account, you will then have your own page on Wikipedia where you can list articles that you have written or made major contributions to. You can also decide how you wish to licence the articles you write.

Have fun. It can be quite addictive.

Allen

Originally posted by Allen Brown
I use Wikipedia quite often, mainly for things I know nothing at all about. I would not expect it to be 100% perfect but it still fills an extremely useful purpose.

I'm with Allen on this one. I too use Wikipedia, like any encyclopædia, for looking up things I know nothing at all about. I expect a brief overview, I don't expect minute detail. And the titbits of information I pick up are either a) sufficient to satisy my idle curiosity, or b) enough to whet my appetite and encourage me to research the subject further using more detailed sources.

I agree that downright falsehoods are unacceptable, but brief summations, even if they omit some salient facts, are perfectly alright.

So, to Tripoli. The wikipedia entry as quoted by Don seems OK to me. (Not brilliant, but OK). "..the 1933 inaugural event is notorious for having been fixed." The race IS notorious (i.e. famous more for the lottery affair than for the actual race) and it WAS fixed: In Don's own words: "But what about The Fix? There was one, wasn’t there? Yes, there was an agreement about the finish, but hardly the sort of affair that Herr Neubauer dreamed up." Wikipedia doesn't say what sort of fix, and anyone who wants to know more can do so by reading whatever source they feel might be most appropriate - Neubauer (famous story teller and 'embroiderer' of the truth), chiangmai-mail.com (never heard of them) or Capps (respected researcher).

The Wikipedia entry clearly states that the event was "fixed." For an event to be "fixed," this means that there has to be malice aforethought, a conspiracy, to arrange a particular finishing order and this has to be contrary to any laws or regulations. An arrangement to share prize monies is not a "fix." Why? No conspiracy to manipulate the actual results, only how any monies won were shared. Sailing close to the edge? Certainly, but not illegal. Ethically suspect? Yes, definitely enough to raise an eyebrow if not both, but not illegal.

Oh, well, whatever. Enough from my end.

Steady on folks!

The issue is the accuracy or otherwise of Wikipedia.

The Tripoli GP is one example where so many people have read the Neubauer version, either directly or at second hand (Motor Sport etc) that it becomes "accepted fact" and that is what goes into Wikipedia. If anybody were to query it quoting Don's corrected version, the odds are that it would be voted down by all those who think they know better.

I note that Wikipedia no longer says that Dario Resta was Scottish - it now says he was Italian! I believe he was born in Italy of Italian/British parentage but held British nationality. The simplistic "He was born in Italy - so he must be Italian" idea appears to be being applied here.

It is subtle issues of this nature that show up the weakness of the Wikipedia "Feel free to make corrections" philosophy.

The difference between grandprix, Formula 1 and World drivers championship is another one where the incorrect majority view that they are the same will probably prevail.

It's all very well saying "it would be voted down by all those who think they know better" or "the incorrect majority view ........... will probably prevail". These are surely fears not facts.

Even if what D-Type supposes might happen actually comes to pass then at least the minority view is still there to be seen by the open-minded researcher who cares to look.

Why don't we try it and find out? I'm happy to make the change. Tel me what the new wording should be and I'll change. Then let's see if it gets changed back.

Allen

The current amendment is probably a bit blunt!

1933 inaugural event is notorious for having been fixed, a myth that has been comprehensively debunked, please see [1]

I would suggest:

"1933 inaugural event has become notorious for allegations of race fixing.", followed by the addition of a "1933 - Result fixing?" subsection (which would follow the structure of: paragraph on events as per the allegation, paragraph on the source of the allegations, then final paragraph of counterclaims against allegations)

Sorry Don, but the quote in my previous post was taken directly from your 1999 RVM piece: "But what about The Fix? There was one, wasn’t there? Yes..."

I didn't use the ellipsis last time, and allowed the sentence to run on, so that your meaning would be clear. Nevertheless, however you qualify that "yes", there is no escaping the fact that you posed the question "was there a fix?" and immediately answered "yes".

Your exposé of the myth does not exactly debunk the "coin toss" story either.

On balance perhaps MrAerodynamicist has the best phraseology: "allegations of race fixing" is better than "fixed", but is also better than "a myth that has been comprehensively debunked"

Originally posted by roger_valentine
Sorry Don, but the quote in my previous post was taken directly from your 1999 RVM piece: "But what about The Fix? There was one, wasn’t there? Yes..."

I didn't use the ellipsis last time, and allowed the sentence to run on, so that your meaning would be clear. Nevertheless, however you qualify that "yes", there is no escaping the fact that you posed the question "was there a fix?" and immediately answered "yes".

Your exposé of the myth does not exactly debunk the "coin toss" story either.

On balance perhaps MrAerodynamicist has the best phraseology: "allegations of race fixing" is better than "fixed", but is also better than "a myth that has been comprehensively debunked"

I am sorry, Roger, but I most emphatically disagree with you: No "fix" as you imply and certainly no "coin toss," certainly not as Neubauer described, which you apparently seem to believe as being the gospel truth.

Plus, you keep referring to the 1999 article, as if the article at the Leif Snellman's site did not exist. Your dogged persistence to twist my words to agree with your ideas does not amuse me and takes them out of context. I know exactly what I said and exactly what I meant.

I continue to stand by my statements: that the the finishing order was not "fixed," especially with the accompanying antics that Neubauer described; that the arrangement to distribute any prize monies was completely legal and while being perhaps a bit suspect ethically was not a "fix" since the finishing order was irrelevant, only that members of the syndicate split any prize money equally among the members abd finish in the top fininshing positions -- if possible, an important caveat since none of the other racers were giving way to the syndicate members as part of a wider conspiracy as Neubauer stated was the case.

Roger, if you accept that the usual Tale of Tripoli 1933 is true, it is your problem if you wish to believe such nonsense. Some people still cling to the belief that earth is flat I am told, so I shouldn't be too surprised that so many cling to the Neubauer-generated myth.

It's just a misreading of language. The "yes" in Don's comment relates to the following sentence of an arrangement rather than the preceding question, on my reading.

E.g. "Is Tony Blair a liar? Yes, he did not tell the truth on WMD, but he was honestly relying on information".

That formulation expressly denies that Bliar is a liar - at least on the willingness to lie.

I don't think Roger is denying the non-fix. But I would not rely on Neubauer, and it would be folly to allow the Great Unwashed to read Neubauer's stuff uncritically, without at the very least setting out why Don Alfredo was wrong - not in the least that he was not even there (Betty Sheldon).

I believe that because of the stink about the shenanigans that went on, the following year the lottery draw was held immediately before the start. But this could also be part of the myth.

I like the "allegations of race fixing" approach with a separate exposition of what actually happened.

To go back to the original premise at the start of the thread. This issue illustrates the weakness of the Wikipedia approach. Here we have a group of people who 'know' each other and who know the facts, i.e. as Don Capps researched and published in RVM (how do we find that in the new Autosport/Atlas?) and on Leif Snellman's site and this same group are also familiar with the Neubauer version, as reproduced on Dennis David's site. And they (we?) cannot agree on how it should be presented on Wikipedia. Add in someone who aggressively holds to what he honestly believes is the truth (say the Neubauer version) even if it isn't and you have a recipe for disaster.

A recipe for disaster maybe, but not inevitable disaster.

The Napoleon I entry is a great example of endless dispute and reversion of edits but 99% of the time an entry is augmented with another point of view and then edited back into some form of compromise. Two steps forward, one step back.

Originally posted by D-Type
And they (we?) cannot agree on how it should be presented on Wikipedia. Add in someone who aggressively holds to what he honestly believes is the truth (say the Neubauer version) even if it isn't and you have a recipe for disaster.

Probably because everybody is sat around tying to come up with the perfect entry in one swoop. I think the process probably works best when it's achieved though a lot of incremental rewrites.

I've tried to kick start the process, I've had a go at writing a bit. However, the 1933 section is but a few words so it needs expanding to a proper discussion.

Originally posted by D-Type
I believe that because of the stink about the shenanigans that went on, the following year the lottery draw was held immediately before the start. But this could also be part of the myth.

Even if it were, that is surely so that the ticket holders for Varzi/Nuvolari et al could not make a pact with their drivers to pool ALL money? As it is, if I had the Varzi ticket, I'd be inclined to side up to the Caracciola and Nivola ticket holders and suggest we pool it all.

Or maybe it was just to heighten the tension? Cannot be much fun if you draw one of the 30 tickets (who-hoo!) but the week of the race draw get Guglielmo Carraroli (d'oh!). Much better to tease you throughout the week. Like the Palio.

IMNSHO Wilkipedia is an utter waste of time... both for reading and writing!

Originally posted by ensign14

"Is Tony Blair a liar? Yes, he did not tell the truth on WMD, but he was honestly relying on information".

That formulation expressly denies that Bliar is a liar - at least on the willingness to lie.

Er, no it doesn't - it expressly states that Tony Blair IS a liar, but then goes on to qualify this by stating that he did not lie intentionally or knowingly.

No Labour Party spin-doctor would ever allow this statement without amending it to "Is Tony Blair a liar? NO! He may have made comments about WMD which have since been shown to be incorrect, but he was honestly relying on information".

Writers, like politicians, must choose their words carefully. Any "yes, but" is not a denial, it is a plea for mitigation. "No" is a denial.


But rather than prolong this petty argument, I will accept that Don has always believed there was no 'fix', and never intended to make any statement which could be misinterpreted as saying that there was one.


So, as to my position - I am neither a flat-earther nor a Neubauer believer. I read Neubauer many years ago but can barely remember it, so my views on Tripoli based largely on Don's analyses (the RVM one, and the 'Snellman' one, and others which have appeared in TNF), and subsequent reading of some of the sources cited therein.

Where Don and I differ is merely in our understanding of 'fix': Don's definition:

For an event to be "fixed," this means that there has to be malice aforethought, a conspiracy, to arrange a particular finishing order and this has to be contrary to any laws or regulations. An arrangement to share prize monies is not a "fix." Why? No conspiracy to manipulate the actual results, only how any monies won were shared. Sailing close to the edge? Certainly, but not illegal. Ethically suspect? Yes, definitely enough to raise an eyebrow if not both, but not illegal.

My definition: Collusion between competitors and gamblers on matters concerning the outcome of a race, an arrangement to share prize monies (equally), thus making the finishing order immaterial, something ethically suspect - a "fix". The finishing order may not (or may) have been fixed, but the race was fixed.

I'm sure that 'fix' is merely a colloquial term rather than a legal term, so proving that something is not illegal does not make it any less unsavoury.



Any finally (to prolong this petty argument - sorry!) - the coin toss.

Did Neubauer mention the coin toss? I thought this came from Canestrini. (I said it was a long time since I read Neubauer. Certainly it is not mentioned in the potted summaries of Neubauer on either the Snellman or D.David pages). If it happened, then there is definitely a conspiracy to arrange a particular finishing order (which may or may not actually be illegal) regardless of whether the agreement was eventually kept. So did it happen?


More word-twisting, I'm afraid:


Don (this thread) : ' No "fix" as you imply and certainly no "coin toss," certainly not as Neubauer described, which you apparently seem to believe as being the gospel truth'

Don (November 2000) : 'While there may or may not have been a coin toss to determine the winner (and there is no reason to doubt it)' {my italics -RV}

Don (Snellman page, 2001) : 'Lurani does not mention the coin toss to decide the winner. However, as usual, it is Canestrini who supplies the story.'


P.S. Don - please do not take this as a person attack. I have the greatest of respect for your research and writings, even if I do not always agree with your conclusions.

Originally posted by roger_valentine
P.S. Don - please do not take this as a person attack. I have the greatest of respect for your research and writings, even if I do not always agree with your conclusions.

Pretty much like saying, "Gee, I like your music, but don't care much for the lyrics....."

Originally posted by roger_valentine

My definition: Collusion between competitors and gamblers on matters concerning the outcome of a race, an arrangement to share prize monies (equally), thus making the finishing order immaterial, something ethically suspect - a "fix". The finishing order may not (or may) have been fixed, but the race was fixed.

How does an agreement to share winnings make the finishing order immaterial? It would not stop Varzi racing Nuvolari to the line, as indeed happened. In those days they did not take each other off to stop t'other winning. And the race could not have been fixed, given the presence of, say, Birkin. If anyone fixed him it was the organizers, not allowing him sufficient pit space &c.

Originally posted by roger_valentine
Any finally (to prolong this petty argument - sorry!) - the coin toss.

How would the coin toss work? Heads = Nuvolari wins, tails = Varzi, on its edge = Borzacchini?

Just to illustrate the limitations of wikipedia (and perhaps its strength) I wandered over there to look at its F1 pages, and clicked on an article about Jean Marie Balestre which begins

"During World War 2 Balestre worked as an undercover agenf for the French Resistance".

Which is, to say the least, disputed.

Thankfully, its only the work of a moment to edit it to add the necessary qualifications to this claim (though I don't want to get the guys into trouble with Balestre's lawyers, so I've left it to someone else to suggest what he might really have been up to!)

Originally posted byensign14

How would the coin toss work? Heads = Nuvolari wins, tails = Varzi, on its edge = Borzacchini?

Pretty much, yes! According to Canestrini, the coin toss was only between Nuvolari and Varzi.

Originally posted by roger_valentine
Pretty much, yes! According to Canestrini, the coin toss was only between Nuvolari and Varzi.

The key phrase, of course, is "....according to Canestrini...."



An issue that has long bothered me is the enormous push-back that there seems to be from more than a few quarters when it comes to the Tripoli story and correcting the record. That the Neubauer cock-and-bull story is still accepted uncritically by so many as it has for nearly five decades is enough to make one wonder if there is really very much history in motor racing "history."

An otherwise rational and generally very good author on historical subjects wrote an article on Tripoli 1933 in Vintage Racecar Journal several years ago, which parroted the usual Neubauer party-line. When challenged on the validity of the article and his lack of any apparent research, along with being given references to articles here and at Leif Snellman's site and the Hilton book, it was all dismissed as being "self-referential" and he stated that his research and sources -- never named, by the way -- agreed with the Neubauer version. I think that it is safe to say that an analysis of the many articles on Tripoli 1933 that have seen the light of day reveals an uncanny similarity to the original Neubauer story, often using many phrases lifted either intact or almost intact from the story as well as varients being introduced in later stories being picked up by those to use in even later articles. A self-referential spin cycle, if you will.

Outside Bill Boddy in the September 1969 issue of Motor Sport along Betty Sheldon's coda to the 1933 season in the third volume of A Record of Grand Prix and Voiturette Racing in 1992, and what Hilton wrote for his book on Nuvolari (2003), little has appeared in print to refute the tidal wave of Neubauer-inspired stories.

One could write a story today using the Neubauer version of events and probably find a way to get it into print with a major magazine since it somehow remains not only a juicy story, but generally accepted as fact. Not only fact, but as verified fact due to the weight of stories written about the even, all echoing both Neubauer and each other.

One question that always seems to be left unanswered is this: just how much research did an author actually conduct and what were the sources?

That Bill Boddy (politely) exposed the Neubauer folktale for what it was in 1969 and the myth continued to finds its way into print -- even into Motor Sport of all places in January 2000! -- demonstrates that truth usually runs a poor second to a charming lie.

I have became a bit of a bulldog over this since even a causal analysis of the story as presented fails to pass the common sense test with all the drama packed into the various adventures depicted when one bothers to check the results and contemporary race reports. Not to mention that there is virtually nothing written on the event being "rigged" or "fixed" until after the Neubauer book appears in 1958.

Sorry, I realize that I have taken up way too much space discussing this issue, but it is prime case for muttering time and again, "Pity the poor historian," whenever folks embrace the Neubauer myth and question or reject the reality of the events that took place.

For those who are unfamiliar with the story of Tripoli 33, it's all here

Thanks, interesting articles!