33 replies to this topic

[Paul Taylor]

Although these questions have probably been answered many times across many threads, the answers are still a little unclear to me, so I would like to clarify these for my own satisfaction.

1. Did "Formula I" describe the eligibility of a car/rules of an event, rather than the car itself? For example, the Alfa Romeo 158 with a 1.5l S/C engine was not an "F1 car", but a car eligible for F1 events?

2. Various publications state a maximum engine capacity rather than a specific engine capacity, so I'm assuming this is why Harry Schell was able to race a JAP-Engined Cooper T12 at Monaco in 1950 and why "Formula II" cars were eligible to race in championship Grand Prix throughout the 1950s and 60s (excluding 1952-3 for obvious reasons)?

3. Other than engine size, what other rules defined car eligibility in the 1950s? Clearly not engine location (front or rear), layout (FWD, RWD or 4WD), or central driving position (e.g. Biondetti's Ferrari 166T at Monza, 1950)...

[Rob G]

2. Various publications state a maximum engine capacity rather than a specific engine capacity, so I'm assuming this is why Harry Schell was able to race a JAP-Engined Cooper T12 at Monaco in 1950 and why "Formula II" cars were eligible to race in championship Grand Prix throughout the 1950s and 60s (excluding 1952-3 for obvious reasons)?

Yes. there was a minimum engine displacement of 1.3 liters during the 1961-65 1.5-liter formula, but aside from that there was only a maximum capacity specified during those decades. The year 1966 saw an extraordinary amount of cars running at well below the posted maximum limit. However, some races had F2 cars that were racing in their own race concurrently with the F1 cars.

3. Other than engine size, what other rules defined car eligibility in the 1950s? Clearly not engine location (front or rear), layout (FWD, RWD or 4WD), or central driving position (e.g. Biondetti's Ferrari 166T at Monza, 1950)...

There wasn't even a rule specifying that a car had to have exposed tires and wheels in the 1950s and early 1960s. I believe the first additional restriction was the type of fuel, which was established in 1958. The 1.5 liter formula that began in 1961 added a minimum weight restriction and a few other things, and then it sort of snowballed from there.

Edited by Rob G, 17 December 2010 - 00:19.

[uechtel]

1. Did "Formula I" describe the eligibility of a car/rules of an event, rather than the car itself? For example, the Alfa Romeo 158 with a 1.5l S/C engine was not an "F1 car", but a car eligible for F1 events?

The answer is quite obvious, as it was originally developed for the Voiturette category and not according to the GP formula, not to speak of Forumla 1, which came only ten years later...

3. Other than engine size, what other rules defined car eligibility in the 1950s? Clearly not engine location (front or rear), layout (FWD, RWD or 4WD), or central driving position (e.g. Biondetti's Ferrari 166T at Monza, 1950)...

Nothing like that from 1947 to 1960, only engine capacity limit and from 1958 also some fuel restrictions.

First "layout" rules came in 1961, requiring exposed wheels now, the cockpit must open to the top (not to the front or to the side) and also a roll-over-bar now.

1969: Maximum height limitiation, maximal bodywork width, maximal front wing dimensions.

[wenoopy]

Nothing like that from 1947 to 1960, only engine capacity limit and from 1958 also some fuel restrictions.

First "layout" rules came in 1961, requiring exposed wheels now, the cockpit must open to the top (not to the front or to the side) and also a roll-over-bar now.

1969: Maximum height limitiation, maximal bodywork width, maximal front wing dimensions.

In the early days of Formula One, I believe that the guiding principle was that everything was permitted unless it was expressly forbidden. Nowadays the opposite seems to be the case.

Likewise with the World Sports Car Championship in the 1950's. However, I remember that the Le Mans organisers seemed to have a number of additional regulations whose purpose, some people felt, seemed to be to frustrate the British constructors.

[Allan Lupton]

In the early days of Formula One, I believe that the guiding principle was that everything was permitted unless it was expressly forbidden. Nowadays the opposite seems to be the case.

Likewise with the World Sports Car Championship in the 1950's. However, I remember that the Le Mans organisers seemed to have a number of additional regulations whose purpose, some people felt, seemed to be to frustrate the British constructors.

That's about right.
It must be difficult for someone who is not old enough to remember even the time when there wasn't a Rule about the number of cylinders to understand that for years a simple pair of maximum displacements (supercharged and unsupercharged) was all that was used to define a formula.
Stick with us, Paul, and you'll soon get used to it and probably (like us) wish things were still like that.

[RA Historian]

That's about right.
It must be difficult for someone who is not old enough to remember even the time when there wasn't a Rule about the number of cylinders to understand that for years a simple pair of maximum displacements (supercharged and unsupercharged) was all that was used to define a formula.
Stick with us, Paul, and you'll soon get used to it and probably (like us) wish things were still like that.

Agreed. I long for the days when there was simply a displacement limit, blown or unblown. Simple, effective, and encouraging of innovation. I fondly recall my first GP, Mosport in 1967, when I saw fours, eights, twelves, and sixteens from a wide variety of manufacturers. (Cue "Auld Lang Syne")
Tom

[Paul Taylor]

I have only begun to understand fully in the last few days. For my whole life, the motorsport media, motorsport publications and even self-professed motorsport buffs have insisted as a fact that the Formula 1 World Championship started in 1950 and continues uninterrupted to this day.

Learning about Grande Épreuves, the reason behind the inclusion of the Indy 500 and Formula 2 rules in 1952-3 has opened my eyes but I realise the reality of it all is too complicated for today's Grand Prix fans to grasp. I doubt they're even interested anyway. Numerous websites and books quote 1952 and 1953 as "F1 races running under F2 rules", but that's akin to saying "a football match run under rugby rules". And quoting Indy 500 statistics when referring to Formula 1 or Grand Prix racing has always grated me.

I suppose you could argue that once Balestre gained full legal rights of the "Formula One World Championship" in 1981, all previous seasons were retroactively renamed and so Ascari becomes as much a Formula One World Champion as Sebastian Vettel...(eugh)

Edited by Paul Taylor, 17 December 2010 - 14:45.

[RA Historian]

Yeah, you got it Paul. The use of the term "Formula One" has changed considerably over the years. Time was when 'Grand Prix' races were run to various formulae, I, II, and even III, plus Libre. Over the past 30 years everything got blurred. Now it is "Formula One World Championship". It used to be that the FIA determined which races, and even which formula, to use in setting the calendar for the World Championship. There was no 'commercial rights holder' tail wagging the dog as there has been the last two or three decades. As you know in 1952 and 1953 the points paying races were run to F-II specs, not F-1. Hence, as you note, Alberto Ascari was never "F-1 World Champion' as is so often erroneously stated now. History gets corrupted by the constant repeating of erroneous info to the point where it gets accepted as fact.

It got so bad a number of years ago that a respected motor racing publication went so far as to name the Ferrari 500 as the best Formula ONE car of all time! Complete nonsense, of course, and they of all people should have known better, but that shows just how much this corrupted thought has entered the mainstream.

(Segue to blood pressure thread!)

Tom

[Paul Taylor]

It used to be that the FIA determined which races, and even which formula, to use in setting the calendar for the World Championship.
Tom

The information I gathered was that it was up to the organising club to determine which formula to use for the race, the FIA merely defined the rules of the formula and sanctioned the event. Hence in 1952, the ACF decided as early as January to switch the rules of the GP de l'ACF over to FII, whereas the ACM and RACB held onto Formula 1 rules for the Italian and Belgian GP's respectively right up until April.

The FIA determined the calendar by which races they considered to be Grande Épreuves.

Edited by Paul Taylor, 17 December 2010 - 16:46.

[David McKinney]

The FIA determined the calendar by which races they considered to be Grande Épreuves.

They decided which races would be championship rounds
Not all were Grandes Épreuves by the proper definition of that term

[Roger Clark]

They decided which races would be championship rounds
Not all were Grandes Épreuves by the proper definition of that term

What is the proper definition of that term?

[Paul Taylor]

Going by the results of the Search feature, that question has been kicking around for ten years and no one has agreed on the definition yet!

A lot of people agreed that the definition was constantly being changed by the FIA.

Edited by Paul Taylor, 17 December 2010 - 21:32.

[David McKinney]

Not sure it was "constantly changed by the FIA", Paul, but by other people

Before the War, it applied informally to a handful of "great tests" (which is what the term means), the oldest established GPs such as the French, German, Italian, Belgian and maybe - depending on who you were talking to - the Swiss and Monaco. The term was not applied to the dozens of other Grands Prix held in Europe each year.

The trouble started with the introduction of the WDC in 1950: all the grandes épreuves run that year were included, but so were one or two other races - and more were added as time went by. It was in those years that the press - not the FIA - started referring to all WDC rounds as grandes épreuves. And of course now that there aren't allowed to be any non-WDC Grands Prix, the terms grande épreuve and F1 WDC round are synonymous

[byrkus]

There was also Dallara 3087 at 1988 Brazilian GP - a F3000 car (!), completed with Cosworth DFV engine with 3 litre capacity, while others had either 1.5 turbo, or 3.5 n/a...

[Kvadrat]

They decided which races would be championship rounds
Not all were Grandes Épreuves by the proper definition of that term

1950 Appendices to the International Sporting Code contains only this:

248. Establishment of the Calendar. — The F.I.A. shall every year at the time of its Annual General Meeting draw up a Calendar of International Competitions proposed for the following year by the countries within its jurisdiction.
Each A.C.N. has the prior right to have one Competition entered on the Calendar on a date which does nut clash with the date of any other Competition (see 249, Note 2).
First of all shall be entered the «Classic Events» enumerated in Article 249, Note 3. When this framework has been completed, each A.C.N. not having entered a classic event may have a date alloted to it for another International Competition under the three following conditions :
a) That said Competition shall be organised by the A.C.N. itself or that the holding of the Competition be recommended by the A. C. N. ;
b) That it has been held at least once previously ;
c) That the date does not clash with any other Competition already entered (see n° 249, .Note 2) or that the date is accepted by the C.S.I.

International Sporting Code itself has nothing on this matter.

[David McKinney]

No mention of Formula 1, or of a championship

[Formula Once]

There was also Dallara 3087 at 1988 Brazilian GP - a F3000 car (!), completed with Cosworth DFV engine with 3 litre capacity, while others had either 1.5 turbo, or 3.5 n/a...

And EuroBruns were fitted with F3000-Judds more than once two years later...

Edited by Formula Once, 20 December 2010 - 22:11.

[Vitesse2]

The answer is quite obvious, as it was originally developed for the Voiturette category and not according to the GP formula, not to speak of Forumla 1, which came only ten years later...

Uechtel, my friend, I'm afraid you are wrong there. If you study the 1500cc cars which span the period 1938-48, you will find they were all specifically built to conform to the 1938-41 Formule Internationale - the ERA E-type, Alfa Romeo 158, Maserati 4CL (and the Mercedes Benz W165) - are all technically Formula cars. The big clue is that they all have a width measurement of 85cm at the cockpit - the Achilles heel of that formula, which meant that small-engined cars could not be built down to the sliding scale of weights (although the 4CL got close).

Edited by Vitesse2, 20 December 2010 - 23:51.

[Vitesse2]

Not sure it was "constantly changed by the FIA", Paul, but by other people

Before the War, it applied informally to a handful of "great tests" (which is what the term means), the oldest established GPs such as the French, German, Italian, Belgian and maybe - depending on who you were talking to - the Swiss and Monaco. The term was not applied to the dozens of other Grands Prix held in Europe each year.

I'd dispute "informally". Having studied this in some detail now, I've found that in the early 30s (I think it was in 1931), the CSI began holding two meetings every autumn. The first was held in September and used almost exclusively to determine the major events on the calendar. The first calendar would be issued after this meeting, listing only the Grandes Épreuves and Épreuves á Priorité - each of these categories was listed separately, although most of the press combined the lists to publish it. Then, at the second meeting, during the Paris Salon in October, the third level international meetings including hillclimbs, rallies etc were added.

The 1930s Grandes Épreuves always included (when held) the Indianapolis 500, the Tourist Trophy and the French, German, Italian, Belgian and Monaco GPs. The Swiss GP was added to that list in 1936. Épreuves á Priorité included other Formula races like the Donington GP, Coppa Acerbo and Masaryk GP; big non-Formula and sports car events like Le Mans, Spa 24 Hours and the Australian GP; quasi-national GPs like Rio de Janeiro and Vila Real and even rallies like the Monte Carlo, Balkan and Polish.

[David McKinney]

I could be pedantic and point out that the question and my answer referred to the FIA, not the AIACR...

But I didn't realise (or, more likely, had forgotten) that the term grande épreuve was used more formally in earlier days

[Roger Clark]

Uechtel, my friend, I'm afraid you are wrong there. If you study the 1500cc cars which span the period 1938-48, you will find they were all specifically built to conform to the 1938-41 Formule Internationale - the ERA E-type, Alfa Romeo 158, Maserati 4CL (and the Mercedes Benz W165) - are all technically Formula cars. The big clue is that they all have a width measurement of 85cm at the cockpit - the Achilles heel of that formula, which meant that small-engined cars could not be built down to the sliding scale of weights (although the 4CL got close).

Very interesting.

Was the cockpit width the reason these cars weighed so much?

At some point on this forum, Don Capps posted the minimum weights applying to each capacity band of the 38/39 formula. can anybody point me to it?

Lastly, when was the 85cm width requirement dropped? Did it apply to the post war grand prix formulae?

[uechtel]

Uechtel, my friend, I'm afraid you are wrong there. If you study the 1500cc cars which span the period 1938-48, you will find they were all specifically built to conform to the 1938-41 Formule Internationale - the ERA E-type, Alfa Romeo 158, Maserati 4CL (and the Mercedes Benz W165) - are all technically Formula cars. The big clue is that they all have a width measurement of 85cm at the cockpit - the Achilles heel of that formula, which meant that small-engined cars could not be built down to the sliding scale of weights (although the 4CL got close).

While this is a strong argument I am yet not totally convinced. Perhaps in this question there is no absolute "right" or "wrong", but the answer may be somwhere between this and probably depending on one´s personal approach and predefinitions. As I have written already elsewhere, technically also my father´s VW Beetle was completely within the F1 specifications of its time in the late fifties. Nevertheless I would not regard it as a Formula 1 car, as obviously this had not been in in the designer´s mind. I am aware, that, with argumentation on "intentions", I am on very thin ice (you can´t look into somebody´s head), nevertheless so far I have not found a better criterium for regarding something as a 'Formula' car than that the builder had this specification in mind and not that something fits under the rules only by "accident".

Concerning the Alfa Romeo 158 - like it is indicated by the nickname Alfetta - I have never read something about it being designed as a Grand Prix 'Formula' car, always being referenced as a Voiturette only. Didn´t Alfa Romeo develop a real 'Grand Prix' model parallel to this also?

The 158 ran of course in the 1939 Swiss GP, but to my understanding that was due to the special format of the event and the reports did not regard this as a proper 'competition', but did explicitely point out the surprising performance of the 'lower class' model compared to the Silver Arrows.

According to the definintion above, what of course would be debatable to me was the ERA E-Type. To my knowledge at least the chassis had been indeed intended as a full Grand Prix model, but because of the lack of a suitable engine the common 1.5 l was installed to let it run in the Voiturette category at least. To settle this we would have to find an agreement on whether a 'Grand Prix car' is specified by the combination of all of its part or whether the word 'car' is defined by the chassis only. I think since the emergence of Climax- and Cosworth-powered we are used to follow the latter definition (a Lotus 25 may have a Climax or a BRM engine, but the model still remains a Lotus 25), but to my impression the general opinion had been different before that. Ferrari defined his models by the engine rather than by chassis - like 125 - 166 - 375 or 156 - 226 - 246 - 256 where the various models did all have basically the same chassis design (please don´t beat me on this I too much, am no Ferrari expert) and I usually found this attitude usually in all publications until around 1955. As a consequence for me personally a 'Grand Prix car' can be made only of the combination chassis-plus-engine, means for example, that a Lotus 18 with a 1.5l engine is a Grand Prix model and with a FJ engine is not. Hence again an ERA E-Type with 1.5l engine woulde be no proper GP model to me, but I admit, it is very complicated.

With the Maseratis I am no expert so I am not aware whether for example the 4CL and the 8CL used the same basic chassis design but I think they might be regarded as a similar case to the Lotus 18 example.

[Tim Murray]

At some point on this forum, Don Capps posted the minimum weights applying to each capacity band of the 38/39 formula. can anybody point me to it?

Yer tiz:

1938 International Formula Sliding Scale of Weights and Displacements

[Vitesse2]

Very interesting.

Was the cockpit width the reason these cars weighed so much?

It was certainly a contributory factor, Roger. Contemporary press references mention it and it's my belief that this was one of the reasons that the much-rumoured 1500cc Austins never appeared. I haven't yet pinned down the exact moment when it happened, but at some point in 1937 the CSI changed this rule, only to rescind the decision before the formula came into effect - I have found reports that ERA built and scrapped two slimline chassis and that Frank Ashby had also built one for his tipo B Alfa.

Lastly, when was the 85cm width requirement dropped? Did it apply to the post war grand prix formulae?

Not sure, but it had also been part of the 1934-37 Formula: as far as I can tell this was an attempt to nullify any advantage which might come from building monoposto bodies, which were for the first time permitted but not compulsory.

[D-Type]

uechtel said

Concerning the Alfa Romeo 158 - like it is indicated by the nickname Alfetta - I have never read something about it being designed as a Grand Prix 'Formula' car, always being referenced as a Voiturette only. Didn´t Alfa Romeo develop a real 'Grand Prix' model parallel to this also?

Wasn't this more a case of the original [Grand Prix] Formula 1 being "designed" (if you call devising and writing down a formula as design) to match the Alfa 158 , 4.5 litre Talbot etc? Rather than the cars being designed to suit the formula

[Roger Clark]

It was certainly a contributory factor, Roger. Contemporary press references mention it and it's my belief that this was one of the reasons that the much-rumoured 1500cc Austins never appeared. I haven't yet pinned down the exact moment when it happened, but at some point in 1937 the CSI changed this rule, only to rescind the decision before the formula came into effect - I have found reports that ERA built and scrapped two slimline chassis and that Frank Ashby had also built one for his tipo B Alfa.

A factor, but was it a significant one? Most of these cars were several hundred kilos over the minimum, much more than could be accounted for by the need for slightly wider bodywork. The Alfa tipo B had its bodywork widened in 1934 and never had any problem (as far as I know) in complying with the 750 kilo limit.

The minima for the 38/39 formula look very challenging for smaller engined cars. The limit for for an unsupercharged 1.5-litre was very close to that in the 1961 formula. I know that no-one would have considered such a car in 38/39 but it illustrates the point.

Thanks to Tim for the link and to Don for the original post. We miss him.

Edited by Roger Clark, 21 December 2010 - 23:21.

[Paul Taylor]

As I have written already elsewhere, technically also my father´s VW Beetle was completely within the F1 specifications of its time in the late fifties. Nevertheless I would not regard it as a Formula 1 car, as obviously this had not been in in the designer´s mind. I am aware, that, with argumentation on "intentions", I am on very thin ice (you can´t look into somebody´s head), nevertheless so far I have not found a better criterium for regarding something as a 'Formula' car than that the builder had this specification in mind and not that something fits under the rules only by "accident".

I had exactly the same discussion on another forum a few days ago, we had Veritas and Porsche sportscars entered and raced in championship Grand Prix in the 1950s and you definitely wouldn't refer to them as "Formula 1" or "Formula 2" cars.

[uechtel]

For sure not F1, but the Veritas was a proper F2 (if we talk about the single seater model). Nevertheless today it is frequently called "Germany´s first Formula 1 car" which is of course nonsense. Correct would be "first German car appearing in a race of the World Championship".

Both models just happened to fall under the F1 specification. In case of the Porsche it was simply by accident, in case of the Veritas it was inevitable, as every Formula 2 car was automatically also fitting under Formula 1 regulations. Nevertheless nobody in those days had ever regarded it as a F1.

But as Duncan pointed out, the Alfetta may be indeed a complicated case. If the Formula is adapted to fit a certain type of car - same as perhaps the Porsche 718, Ferrari 156 or Lotus 18 at the end of the fifties - , maybe you should regard them indeed as a Formula 1 cars, even if they had designed according to a different formula, so my definition (the intention of the designer) would be incomplete. Any better idea?

The problem is to find something that fits to every period, neglecting that circumstances and attitudes have changed over the years.

[uechtel]

It was certainly a contributory factor, Roger. Contemporary press references mention it and it's my belief that this was one of the reasons that the much-rumoured 1500cc Austins never appeared. I haven't yet pinned down the exact moment when it happened, but at some point in 1937 the CSI changed this rule, only to rescind the decision before the formula came into effect - I have found reports that ERA built and scrapped two slimline chassis and that Frank Ashby had also built one for his tipo B Alfa.

I can not quite understand the argumentation. It makes sense for the Alfas, perhaps also for the ERA (if the E-Type is meant, which had been originally intended as a 'Formula' car), but no restrictions on the Voiturette class, so the Austins could have well run there (like the ERA did).

Like Roger I don´t think the bodywidth had been the main problem, I think it was mainly a calculation error in the formula itself that would have prevented any design of minor engine capacity to be successful.

[D-Type]

I think we are getting ourselves confused between "Formula 1 regulations", "Formula 1 races" and "Formula 1 cars".

In 1950, a Formula 1 race was open to cars complying with the then Formula 1, ie < 1500cc supercharged or < 4500cc unsupercharged, and that was about it - possibly they had to have 4 wheels. So in different races we saw: cars specifically designed for the Formula (Ferrari 125, BRM, Alta, Maserati 4CLT, some Lago-Talbots); cars designed for prewar vouturette racing (Alfetta 158, Maserati 4CL, some Lago-Talbots, some Delahayes); cars built as sports cars and stripped of wings, lights etc (Ferrari 166/125, some Talbot Lagos, some Delahayes, Jaguar XK120); cars built as racing cars that happened to fit the formula (Cooper-JAP, Simca-Gordini); cars built as Formula 2 cars that were admitted to fill out the grid as their capacity was less than the Formula 1 limit (HWM, Ferrari 166) - not the same as competing in a separate Formula 2 class in the same race; etc.

Now, a Formula 1 car can have two meanings - a car that complied with the Formula 1 regulations and ran in a Formula 1 race, or a car that was designed and built to comply with the current Formula 1 regulations. The latter definition appears simple but there are pitfalls: was the Vanwall which originally had a 2-litre engine designed as a Formula 2 car for 1952-53 or was it designed to compete in the post-1954 Formula 1? The Cooper-Climax was originally developed as a Formula 2 car until messrs Salvadori, Brabham, Cooper, Walker etc decided to put a 2-litre engine in it and race in Formula 1 races - Cooper still numbered the chassis as F2/..... The Ferrari Dino first appeared (I think) as a 1.5 litre Formula 2 car, but I think it was always intended to have 2.5 (or 2.4) litre version to succeed the Lancia-based ferrari 801 in Formula 1 racing.

The situation is exacerbated by the way that Grand Prix racing has evolved so that in 2010 the terms "World Drivers' Championship", "Grand Prix" and "Formula 1" all mean the same thing.

Edited by D-Type, 30 December 2010 - 21:44.

[uechtel]

Now, a Formula 1 car can have two meanings - a car that complied with the Formula 1 regulations and ran in a Formula 1 race, or a car that was designed and built to comply with the current Formula 1 regulations. The latter definition appears simple but there are pifalls: was the Vanwall which originally had a 2-litre engine designed as a Formula 2 car for 1952-53 or was it designed to compete in the post-1954 Formula 1? The Cooper-Climax was originally developed as a Formula 2 car until messrs Salvadori, Brabham, Cooper, Walker etc decided to put a 2-litre engine in it and race in formula 1 races - Cooper still numbered the chassis as F2/..... The Ferrari Dino first appeared (I think) as a 1.5 litre Formula 2 car, but I think it was always intended to have 2.5 (or 2.4) litre version to succeed the Lancia-based ferrari 801 in Formula 1 racing.

Therefore I think it is better to regard the chassis together with the engine. The Vanwall may have started as a F2 car for a while, but at the enlarged engine this would be a 'different' F1 model, developed out of a F2 design, like the Cooper or the March.

The situation is exacerbated by the way that Grand Prix racing has evolved so that in 2010 the terms "World Drivers' Championship", "Grand Prix" and "Formula 1" all mean the same thing.

A big difference may be also, that in the former times you could build something and then look for which race format it would fit in, maybe with minor modifications. You did not need to reach to the absolute limits of a formula to be competitive. Ferrari won a World Championship giving away almost 100 cc engine capacity.

Today it is very hard to imagine to build a successful 'multi purpose' car which can be used in different kinds of series by exchanging engine or bodywwork. In fact, the 'world engine' seems to be just the opposite idea, perhaps also indication how the attitude has changed.

[Vitesse2]

Lastly, when was the 85cm width requirement dropped? Did it apply to the post war grand prix formulae?

Looking for something else, I discovered that there was neither a minimum cockpit width nor even a minimum weight for either the original Formula 1 or Formula 2. The only requirements were that the bodywork could have one or two seats, a firewall should be fitted to protect the driver and cars should be fitted with two reflecting mirrors (is there any other sort?), one on each side, with a minimum surface of 60 sq cm each.

Source: "Motor Racing 1947" page 89.

[Michael Ferner]

... and cars should be fitted with two reflecting mirrors (is there any other sort?)

You obviously haven't read your fairytales in your youth, to forget about the Magic Mirror!

Mirror, mirror on my car
Who is the greatest racing star?

Watch out - he's going to lap you!!!

Edited by Michael Ferner, 30 December 2010 - 22:21.

[Roger Clark]

Looking for something else, I discovered that there was neither a minimum cockpit width nor even a minimum weight for either the original Formula 1 or Formula 2. The only requirements were that the bodywork could have one or two seats, a firewall should be fitted to protect the driver and cars should be fitted with two reflecting mirrors (is there any other sort?), one on each side, with a minimum surface of 60 sq cm each.

Source: "Motor Racing 1947" page 89.

Thanks for that. Presumably the requirement for two mirrors was removed in the 50s, or didn't apply to Maseratis.

Edited by Roger Clark, 31 December 2010 - 09:30.