83 replies to this topic

[ryan86]

I'll put forward a theory, might be right, may be wrong, but it's worth putting it out there.

In the English Premiership, the top 6 or 7 teams tend to be the same. Man City appear to have bought themselves there and Leeds and to a certain extent Newcastle have fallen, but there was a time between 10 and 15 years ago the league really started go global, the Champions League became huge and money started rolling in. The clubs that are at the top tend to be the big clubs throughout history as well, but over these past 10 years they've had an iron grip on the league and I believe part of that is because when things changed and huge money really began to come in, they were all at the top and they're the ones that get the finance to buy better players or bigger stadiums and it's a vicious circle against competitiveness.

When the engine moved to the back, when sponsorship came in, when the sports budgets began to grow into the huge events they are today, they were all usually British inventions or the British were at the front when they happen, they got the head start and therefore become really difficult to catch unless you have the personal finance or the next Eureka moment to catch up.

Edited by ryan86, 11 July 2011 - 22:17.

[D-Type]

Another factor has just occurred to me. Post WW2 there was a lot of newspaper sponsorship for racing - not for teams. This was headed by the Daily Express who supported Silverstone - as well as the Daily Express International Trophy they also supported the GP. Other papers followed suit and adopted other tracks and we had Daily Telegraph, Daily Herald, Daily Mail and even News of the World trophies at other tracks

[ollychester]

I'd always believed that the gradual 1950s switch away from road circuits to artificial circuits was the cataylst for the British invasion - previous to that the way to build a winning car was a powerful engine and tough, soft riding chassis to cope with the classic public road triangle. You needed plenty of power to get down the 4 mile straights and the chassis was for keeping the power down and the car in a straight line for the 300 miles of the race.

But that doesn't work when you are racing on a 1.5 mile set of runways and taxiways. Here handling, light weight, power delivery and aerodynamics suddenly become more important, which led to a generation of British special builders and driver who quickly became expert in this style of racing.

Once the top levels of racing began to move to these modern circuits the British style of design had a huge advantage.

Edited by ollychester, 12 July 2011 - 08:36.

[David McKinney]

Good point, OC

[RAP]

Yes very good point. I went to Circuit Mugello in 1969 and speaking to an Italian enthusiast his view of the Britsh cars entered was "fast but they will break"

[RJE]

Surely one of the main effects on the success of British motor racing between the late 1950s and the 1980s is attributable to the advent of the Ford Kent engine series.

This unit provided a cheap and easy to tune engine basis for Formula Junior, F3, Formula Ford, Atlantic, F2, not to mention numerous sports car projects and home grown series, like the Clubman Formula, Formula 1300 and F4. This readily available supply of good power gave an opportunity to many free thinking builders to construct chassis and cars and get themselves a ready market. This in turn gave them the chance to experiment and learn, this then leading on to greater things, and in deed leading to the establishment of what exists today.

Once into the 'racing kit car' phylosophy it became a relativly simple step to move up to the higher levels, particularly if the Ford connection leads on to things like the Ford/Cosworth DFV that allowed you to enter F1 on an even playing field.

British motor racing did not dominate until the arrival of the Ford 105E engine, although I will accept that Cooper had done well in F1 and Lotus and BRM had followed, however this was sure to faulter with the withdrawal of Coventry Climax. It can also be argued that without the success of the Kent engines there would have been no DFV to dominate the world of F1, Indy, and to some degree sports car racing.

[BRG]

Yes very good point. I went to Circuit Mugello in 1969 and speaking to an Italian enthusiast his view of the Britsh cars entered was "fast but they will break"

Funny, but if you had gone to Brands Hatch in 1969, a British enthusiast might have said the same about Italian cars.

On the UK/USA issue, could I point out that the UK has perhaps been the pre-eminent force in rallying since the 1960s (in terms of total industry - car preparation and parts etc - and general levels of involvement) whereas in the USA it consists of about 6 guys with Subarus.

[D-Type]

Surely one of the main effects on the success of British motor racing between the late 1950s and the 1980s is attributable to the advent of the Ford Kent engine series.

This unit provided a cheap and easy to tune engine basis for Formula Junior, F3, Formula Ford, Atlantic, F2, not to mention numerous sports car projects and home grown series, like the Clubman Formula, Formula 1300 and F4. This readily available supply of good power gave an opportunity to many free thinking builders to construct chassis and cars and get themselves a ready market. This in turn gave them the chance to experiment and learn, this then leading on to greater things, and in deed leading to the establishment of what exists today.

Once into the 'racing kit car' phylosophy it became a relativly simple step to move up to the higher levels, particularly if the Ford connection leads on to things like the Ford/Cosworth DFV that allowed you to enter F1 on an even playing field.

British motor racing did not dominate until the arrival of the Ford 105E engine, although I will accept that Cooper had done well in F1 and Lotus and BRM had followed, however this was sure to faulter with the withdrawal of Coventry Climax. It can also be argued that without the success of the Kent engines there would have been no DFV to dominate the world of F1, Indy, and to some degree sports car racing.

What you say is true to an extent but check out the timeline:

1953 - Hawthorn wins French GP. First post war British driver to be competitive in a GP
1955 - Syracuse GP. first british car to win a continental GP, albeit not a Grande Epreuve
1957 - Vanwall win three Grande Epreuves. 1958 - Hawthorn wins the drivers' and Vanwall the manufacturers'. Every GP won by a British driver, a British car or both.

1960 - Ford 105E introduced.

So the British were already on their way. The Coventry Climax FWA and FPF and the Bristol engine had preceded the 105E. Lea Francis and Alta also played their part but weren't generally available so perhaps they should be discounted.

The 105E consolidated the position.

Edited by D-Type, 25 June 2014 - 15:53.

[Stephen W]

GBR is now number one in racing with the most wins in Formula One and the most teams are located in GBR. But why? Before 1950 only a few Britains were good, like Grover-Williams, Segrave and Seaman. The most important nation in racing was France with the first ever Grand Prix was in France and so on.

Why was France fallen and why GBR raising since the World Championship exist?

In my opinion the premise is wrong and the question flawed.

If GB was the "number one in racing with the most wins in Formula One" then we would have provided more World Champions than we have plus all our EFF-WUN constructor's wins would not have to be added up to beat Ferrari.

[Ray Bell]

I blame Mike Hewland...

While Cooper had the Knight gearbox and others adapted other things, ZF built a dicky 'special' for Lotus, Colotti did some nice jobs etc, Hewland came out with a practical and usable series of transmissions designed specifically to fit things the way they needed to be fitted.

This might all be post-1960, of course, but while there was some good groundbreaking work done through the fifties, it took the sixties to consolidate.

[BRG]

all our EFF-WUN constructor's wins would not have to be added up to beat Ferrari.

Isn't that the point though? UK produced a plethora of successful teams, not just one (well, two of course if we remember Maserati). And how many WDCs should the UK have had?

Edited by BRG, 12 July 2011 - 13:08.

[Tim Murray]

Statistical breakdown:

GB - 10 drivers, 14 championships
Brazil - 3 drivers, 8 championships
Finland - 3 drivers, 4 championships
Germany - 2 drivers, 8 championships
Australia - 2 drivers, 4 championships
Austria - 2 drivers, 4 championships
Italy - 2 drivers, 3 championships
USA - 2 drivers, 2 championships
Argentina - 1 driver, 5 championships
France - 1 driver, 4 championships
Spain - 1 driver, 2 championships
NZ - 1 driver, 1 championship
S Africa - 1 driver, 1 championship
Canada - 1 driver, 1 championship

Edited by Tim Murray, 12 July 2011 - 14:03.

[RJE]

What you say is true to an extent but check out the timeline:

1953 - Hawthorn wins French GP. First post war British driver to be competitive in a GP
1955 - Syracuse GP. first british car to win a continental GP, albeit not aGrande Epreuve
1957 - Vanwall win three Grande Epreuves. 1958 - Hawthorn wins the drivers' and Vanwall the manufacturers'. Every GP won by a British driver, a British car or both.

1960 - Ford 105E introduced.

So the British were already on their way. The Coventry Climax FWA and FPF and the Bristol engine had preceded the 105E. Lea Francis and Alta also played their part but weren't generally available so perhaps they should be discounted.

The 105E consolidated the position.

I cannot argue with your history, however surely you have made my point.

1953 Hawthorne, one win in an Italian car.
1955 Connaught one win at Syracuse against a very depeted F1 field in a non Championship race. (This takes nothing away from Tony Brook's drive.) Plus Connaught never came near repeating it anywhere else.
1957 Yes, Vanwall did very well to win three GPs, but Italian cars won all the rest. And a Vanwall driver did not win the drivers contest.
1958 True Vanwalls did win the manufacturers title but it was the first year it was awarded. True Hawthorn did win the title but again in an Italian car.

True the British may have been on their way but the climb was not very steep and although Coventry Climax engines were great at what they did only the twin cam was truely successfull on the international stage, before 1962. Bristol, Lea Francis(Connaught) and Alta(again Connaught) were never competetive when the top Continentals were present, although I will accept that each may very well have had their moments. Bristol at Le Mans for example.

Once Ford 105E came, in Formula Junior, Britain dominated a proper International catagory for the first time ever and the success graph got very much steeper. Since then, with some exceptions, many of the manufacturers spawned on the back of the Ford Kent engine in it's various forms have held a grip on many top areas of the business and many of the designers who cut their teeth on Kent powered cars have steered the direction of racing.

[D-Type]

Suppose there had been no Coventry Climax FWA and later FPF, then we would have had:

No Lotus Eleven, arguably, no Costin/ Chapman involvement in Vanwall. No Vanwall success.
No Bobtail Cooper. No F2 Cooper-Climax. No F1 Cooper Climax.
No domination of Formula 1 by Cooper in 1959. Admittedly Ferrari weren't far behind in 1959 but it was really a last gasp effort.
No total domination of Formula 1 by Cooper and Lotus in 1960. Yes it was total domination.
No rear engined revolution. Just Ferrari vs BRM and maybe Scarab and Aston Martin. The 1961 1500cc Formula 1 would still have happened and a rear-engined Porsche might have been competitive and inspired copiers but they wouldn't have had an engine.

The 500cc, 750 Formula, 1172 Formula, British club racing school would still have produced a generation of "garagistes" who knew how to make a chassis work but they may not have been in a position to exploit the situation when the 105E engine came along. In Formula Junior would we have seen a 105E engined Lotus 12-like car competing with the Stanguellini and Taraschi Fiat-powered "baby Maseratis or Ferraris"'? What would Cooper have produced? A mini Cooper-Bristol with 105E or BMC A-series power. Without their Climax experience and rear engine experience would Lotus, Cooper et al have been able to exploit the 105E?

Certainly the 105E and its Cosworth and other derivatives played a major part but they could only do so because they were building on the foundations laid by Coventry Climax.

[uechtel]

I think the British were the first to arrange with the "absence" of their big automobile companies and therefore were the first to develop an infrastructure of companies specialised and fully focused on racing. Germany was always only fixed on the big companies, Mercedes, Porsche, perhaps BMW. Nothing else was ever taken serious. But such companies do not need a permanent engagement, but rather make this dependant on economical, political and marketing decisions. But companies like Lotus, Cooper, McLaren, Williams etc. are racing, stepping out would mean the end of their existence. And in contrast to other countries it seems they got respected from the British public. Therefore I think they were able to built up an advantage from continuity, not only in technology, but in infrastructure, culture and experience.

Edited by uechtel, 12 July 2011 - 21:54.

[HistoryFan]

I'd argue that - with the exception of a brief ascendancy of Bugatti in the mid-20s (mainly due to weight of numbers!) and a year of Delage - French power in Grand Prix racing effectively ended after the 1913 GP de l'ACF. From then until the 70s and the advent of the Volant Shell scheme and then Matra she lived on past glories. French voices were loud in the committee rooms of the CSI, but they do say empty vessels make the most noise ;)

You have mentioned Williams, Segrave and Seaman but omitted Howe, Mays, Hamilton, Wakefield and honorary Britons Straight and Bira. Between the wars, most British drivers were content to stay within the British Isles, but they and others were prepared to race abroad: turning it on its head, very few Continentals ever raced in Britain! The British ERAs dominated 1500cc racing for much of the decade and it should also be borne in mind that until Donington was rebuilt in 1937 we had nothing here to compare to a Continental road circuit.

Being brutally honest, France had very few top-class drivers in the 30s either: Dreyfus, Moll, Sommer, Chiron and Wimille were all outstanding, but none of the other names would register with many people.

France had a lot of great drivers in the 80s with Elf, Renault and more young driver programms. Prost, Arnoux, Pironi, Tambay... It could have been a revival. Why wasn't there a revival?

And Italia is also a good point. They have a great racing infractructure, a lot of tracks, Dallara, Ferrari, a lot of drivers, own F3, own Auto GP and so on - but not really good F1 drivers. Why not Italia?

[HistoryFan]

This was all preparatory to the introduction of a new 1½ litre International Formula in 1941, for which at least three British, two Italian and one French cars were being planned. So it could be said that the outbreak of war actually delayed a "British invasion" by ten years or so ...

Can you tell me which three British, two Italians and one French were being planned?

[HistoryFan]

Statistical breakdown:

GB - 10 drivers, 14 championships
Brazil - 3 drivers, 8 championships
Finland - 3 drivers, 4 championships
Germany - 2 drivers, 8 championships
Australia - 2 drivers, 4 championships
Austria - 2 drivers, 4 championships
Italy - 2 drivers, 3 championships
USA - 2 drivers, 2 championships
Argentina - 1 driver, 5 championships
France - 1 driver, 4 championships
Spain - 1 driver, 2 championships
NZ - 1 driver, 1 championship
S Africa - 1 driver, 1 championship
Canada - 1 driver, 1 championship

Another statistical breakdown:

GP wins (with GP races before 1950 and GP races not WC status):
1. Großbritannien 328
2. Deutschland 183
3. Italien 167
4. Frankreich 157
5. Brasilien 104
6. Argentinien 58
7. Australien 46
7. Finnland 46
9. USA 44
10. Österreich 43

the GBR winners:
Jim Clark (GBR) 40
Jackie Stewart (GBR) 32
Nigel Mansell (GBR) 31
Stirling Moss (GBR) 28
Damon Hill (GBR) 22
Graham Hill (GBR) 19
Lewis Hamilton (GBR) 15
James Hunt (GBR) 14
David Coulthard (GBR) 13
John Surtees (GBR) 13
Jenson Button (GBR) 10
Tony Brooks (GBR) 7
Peter Collins (GBR) 7
Innes Ireland (GBR) 5
John Watson (GBR) 5
Mike Hawthorn (GBR) 4
Eddie Irvine (GBR) 4
Johnny Herbert (GBR) 3
Reg Parnell (GBR) 3
Trevor Taylor (GBR) 3
Peter Gethin (GBR) 2
William Grover-Williams (GBR) 2
Mike Parkes (GBR) 2
Richard Seaman (GBR) 2
Henry Segrave (GBR) 2
Mike Spence (GBR) 2
Geoffrey Ansell (GBR) 1
Bob Anderson (GBR) 1
Leslie Brooke (GBR) 1
Bob Gerard (GBR) 1
John Moore-Brabazzon (GBR) 1
Tom Pryce (GBR) 1
Dario Resta (GBR) 1
Peter Whitehead (GBR) 1

GER:
Michael Schumacher (GER) 91
Rudolf Caracciola (GER) 22
Sebastian Vettel (GER) 16
Hermann Lang (GER) 9
Bernd Rosemeyer (GER) 9
Ralf Schumacher (GER) 6
Hans Stuck (GER) 4
Manfred von Brauchitsch (GER) 4
Heinz-Harald Frentzen (GER) 3
Christian Lautenschlager (GER) 2
Wolfgang Graph Berghe von Tripps (GER) 2
Rudolf Hasse (GER) 1
Karl Kling (GER) 1
Jochen Mass (GER) 1
Hermann-Paul Müller (GER) 1
Rudolf Steinweg (GER) 1

ITA:
Tazio Nuvolari (ITA) 25
Alberto Ascari (ITA) 23
Achille Varzi (ITA) 17
Giuseppe Farina (ITA) 14
Luigi Villoresi (ITA) 13
Luigi Fagioli (ITA) 11
Riccardo Patrese (ITA) 6
Carlo Felix Trossi (ITA) 6
Michele Alboreto (ITA) 5
Giuseppe Campari (ITA) 5
Luigi Musso (ITA) 4
Giancarlo Baghetti (ITA) 3
Giancarlo Fisichella (ITA) 3
Felice Nazzaro (ITA) 3
Carlo Pintacuda (ITA) 3
Antonio Ascari (ITA) 2
Lorenzo Bandini (ITA) 2
Gastone Brilli-Peri (ITA) 2
Elio de Angelis (ITA) 2
Ludovico Scarfiotti (ITA) 2
Piero Taruffi (ITA) 2
Luigi Arcangeli (ITA) 1
Clemente Biondetti (ITA) 1
Pietro Bordino (ITA) 1
Vittorio Brambilla (ITA) 1
Antonio Brivio (ITA) 1
Alessandro Cagno (ITA) 1
Gianfranco Comotti (ITA) 1
Meo Constantini (ITA) 1
Benoit Falchetto (ITA) 1
Alfieri Maserati (ITA) 1
Ferdinano Minoia (ITA) 1
Alessandro Nannini (ITA) 1
Carlo Salamano (ITA) 1
Jarno Trulli (ITA) 1

FRA
Alain Prost (FRA) 51
Jean Behra (FRA) 9
Jean-Pierre Wimille (FRA) 9
René Arnoux (FRA) 7
Maurice Trintignant (FRA) 7
René Dreyfus (FRA) 6
Jacques Laffite (FRA) 6
Robert Benoist (FRA) 5
Philippe Etançelin (FRA) 5
Jules Goux (FRA) 5
Louis Rosier (FRA) 5
Raymond Sommer (FRA) 4
Georges Boillot (FRA) 3
Albert Divo (FRA) 3
Marcel Lehoux (FRA) 3
Didier Pironi (FRA) 3
Louis Wagner (FRA) 3
Patrick Depailler (FRA) 2
Jean-Pierre Jabouille (FRA) 2
Raymond Mays (FRA) 2
Patrick Tambay (FRA) 2
Jean Alesi (FRA) 1
Paul Bablot (FRA) 1
Jean-Pierre Beltoise (FRA) 1
François Cevert (FRA) 1
Louis Charavel (FRA) 1
Georges de Marotte (FRA) 1
Arthur Duray (FRA) 1
Yves Giraud-Cabantous (FRA) 1
Georges Grignand (FRA) 1
Victor Hémery (FRA) 1
Guy Mairesse (FRA) 1
Robert Manzon (FRA) 1
François Miguel (FRA) 1
Olivier Panis (FRA) 1
André Simon (FRA) 1

[Vitesse2]

Can you tell me which three British, two Italians and one French were being planned?

In addition to the E-type ERA, Alta had built a new chassis (for which a new engine was never completed) by the end of 1939, Reg Parnell had built Challenge/Challenger (again engine not completed) and Freddie Dixon had made tentative plans - possibly involving 4WD. It is also possible that Earl Howe may have been involved in another project. In Italy: Alfa 512 plus much-rumoured new cars from both Maserati and AAC (ie Ferrari). France: Bugatti T73 series, which I believe included road cars, sports cars and what eventually emerged as the T73C.

[BRG]

France had a lot of great drivers in the 80s with Elf, Renault and more young driver programms. Prost, Arnoux, Pironi, Tambay... It could have been a revival. Why wasn't there a revival?

And Italia is also a good point. They have a great racing infractructure, a lot of tracks, Dallara, Ferrari, a lot of drivers, own F3, own Auto GP and so on - but not really good F1 drivers. Why not Italia?

This is the real question - not why is GB number one, but why are these other countries with equivalent infrastructures and opportunities seemingly underperforming?

[HistoryFan]

In addition to the E-type ERA, Alta had built a new chassis (for which a new engine was never completed) by the end of 1939, Reg Parnell had built Challenge/Challenger (again engine not completed) and Freddie Dixon had made tentative plans - possibly involving 4WD. It is also possible that Earl Howe may have been involved in another project. In Italy: Alfa 512 plus much-rumoured new cars from both Maserati and AAC (ie Ferrari). France: Bugatti T73 series, which I believe included road cars, sports cars and what eventually emerged as the T73C.

Thank you very much!

[Roger Clark]

In addition to the E-type ERA, Alta had built a new chassis (for which a new engine was never completed) by the end of 1939, Reg Parnell had built Challenge/Challenger (again engine not completed) and Freddie Dixon had made tentative plans - possibly involving 4WD. It is also possible that Earl Howe may have been involved in another project. In Italy: Alfa 512 plus much-rumoured new cars from both Maserati and AAC (ie Ferrari). France: Bugatti T73 series, which I believe included road cars, sports cars and what eventually emerged as the T73C.

I would suggest that not many of those were likely to be regular participants, let alone serious competition for Mercedes-Benz.

[fbarrett]

So many factors came into play.

Surely a lot of the growth, experience, and success of Great Britain and America in racing came via World Wars I and II, where many thousands of young and enthusiastic men were trained and practiced in automotive and aircraft maintenance and repair. When they left the services, their talents were well developed, so they could get on with building their own racing cars, etc. England and the U.S. did have post-war material shortages but nothing like Germany, Italy, and France. If you examine the beginnings of the hot-rod industry in California during the 1950s, it was largely populated and led by men who had gained experience during World War II. England and the U.S. recovered economically from both wars more quickly than did Germany, Italy, and France, so money was more available, too.

The geographic concentration of resources within relatively small areas (England, Southern California, the Carolinas) also made it easier for racing to grow.

[TennisUK]

David McK, I expect most German airfields were full of very big holes!

Not a airfield, but a former German tank track 'converted' in to a quite ludicrous oval 5.5 mile 'super-speedway' - the Wegbergring, AKA the Grenzlandring - this makes the British airfield circuits look positively tame:

http://www.circuitso...ingenglish.html


I also happened to have been born very close by. Sadly other than a constantly curving piece of tarmac pretty much no other evidence of the track now exists.

[Collombin]

This is the real question - not why is GB number one, but why are these other countries with equivalent infrastructures and opportunities seemingly underperforming?

And why is the reverse true for just about any other sodding sport?

[lanciaman]

I suspect the 'GBR is number one in racing' proposition could well be a bit of a myth that some folks in Indiana, North Carolina and California may well disagree with, it would be interesting to see how the stats that show sales volumes stack up in this respect.

There are more than 150 race tracks in these 3 states alone.

[lanciaman]

Geography is another answer. The Midlands produces most of the F1 technology by having a critical mass of skilled engineers and garagistas close at hand, within hours of most high level teams and circuits and suppliers. And lots of good beer.

The US is rather more spread out. Indiana (and grudgingly, North Carolina) are home to teams and technology because they are more or less equally accessible from east or west coasts and very accessible by interstate.

And there's this: the average US racing fan would rather see cars turn nothing but left. (Or, in a pinch, go in a straight line.) When I was marketing guru for Indianapolis Raceway Park (IRP/URP/LRP and who knows what next), we could not attract a crowd to see Indy drivers in Indy cars on the 2.5 mile road course to save our souls, and that's back when cars and drivers had personality.)

[Eric Dunsdon]

I'd always believed that the gradual 1950s switch away from road circuits to artificial circuits was the cataylst for the British invasion - previous to that the way to build a winning car was a powerful engine and tough, soft riding chassis to cope with the classic public road triangle. You needed plenty of power to get down the 4 mile straights and the chassis was for keeping the power down and the car in a straight line for the 300 miles of the race.

But that doesn't work when you are racing on a 1.5 mile set of runways and taxiways. Here handling, light weight, power delivery and aerodynamics suddenly become more important, which led to a generation of British special builders and driver who quickly became expert in this style of racing.

Once the top levels of racing began to move to these modern circuits the British style of design had a huge advantage.

This, I think, is the best explanation yet. Spot on!. It also reminds me that when I was a lad in the 1950's, I often read that while what we were watching at places such as Silverstone, Goodwood , Boreham and Brands Hatch might well be be good fun, it had absolutely nothing to do with 'real' motor racing which took place on Continental road circuits.

[Roger Clark]

I'd always believed that the gradual 1950s switch away from road circuits to artificial circuits was the cataylst for the British invasion - previous to that the way to build a winning car was a powerful engine and tough, soft riding chassis to cope with the classic public road triangle. You needed plenty of power to get down the 4 mile straights and the chassis was for keeping the power down and the car in a straight line for the 300 miles of the race.

But that doesn't work when you are racing on a 1.5 mile set of runways and taxiways. Here handling, light weight, power delivery and aerodynamics suddenly become more important, which led to a generation of British special builders and driver who quickly became expert in this style of racing.

Once the top levels of racing began to move to these modern circuits the British style of design had a huge advantage.

I don't think it was really the nature of the public road circuits, many of them were very twisty indeed, but their availability. The British could race every weekend and Brands Hatch, Silverstone and others, and often did. The Continentals could rarely close roads more than once or twice a year. A lot of road circuits were used no more after Le Mans 1955 and the Mille Miglia 1957.

[uechtel]

The Nürburgring, Berne, Monaco did for sure consist of more than only "4 mile straights" and regarded as classic circuits long before the British invasion. Also they did not stop racing on Spa, Monza and Reims, so I can not see that major kind of change on "top level of racing". Also I can not remember any advantage of British designs concerning handling, weight, power delivery or aerodynamics over Mercedes, Alfa Romeo or Gordini in the early half of the fifties. But Auto Union was no longer, Mercedes, Alfa Romeo and Lancia withdrew, Gordini lost Simca-backing and Maserati and Bugatti were only a shadow of themselves. This vacuum was filled by "small" specialised British companies, with the only challenge from Ferrari, who were in my opinion no "classic" manufacturer as well and indeed were suffering from the Commendatore´s under-estimation of the importance of chassis design. But you can not state, that virtues of chassis design had been invented by the British teams, it was only, that nobody on the continent really recognized the potential of companies like Cooper or Lotus and they were only waiting for the return of the big companies until it was too late.

[Ray Bell]

Vanwall is being left out of this equation... and Connaught too...

And there's the change of fuel in F1 that, in one fell swoop, reduced the size a car needed to be to carry tankage for the races, which at the same time were shortened dramatically.

So a sudden change in the size of the cars fell into the laps of the blokes who were coming up to that size from F2 underpinnings while it hindered those who were trying to cope with change to cars that were now too big.

[uechtel]

Vanwall may be an exception, maybe also BRM. But ERA, Alta, HWM, Connaught were already there, even also Cooper for a while, and could not really compete with the big teams until the mid-fifities. I think the mistake is to regard Ferrari in the same league as Alfa Romeo or Mercedes in this period. Ferrari was probably more the kind of the British teams, unlike the big manufacturers they did not have the choice between the investing endless resources in technical supremacy or leaving the stage completely if they saw they would not have the best material, but rather had to use stop gap solutions from time to time in order to keep the enterprise existing.

[RCH]

Three names, BRM, Walter Hassan and Keith Duckworth.

The original BRM project may have been a disaster but it introduced a lot of British Industry to motor racing. In the inter war years Britain had the engineering ability to equal or beat Germany but it was never employed in the sport which in retrospect seem odd. Mays & Berthon woke the industry up to what could be done and brought in Owen and Vandervell.

When Walter Hassan was tasked with designing a lightweight fire pump engine, given his background, it was almost certainly going to have racing potential... the rest, as they say, is history.

Many people on here have commented on the importance of the Ford Kent engine. Duckworth took it from the original Ford Anglia engine and worked and worked at it until he had produced a "Ford" Formula One engine. OK a gross over simplification but the DNA is there in my opinion. The DFV appeared at just the right moment allowing everyman and his dog a shot at building an F1 car. Sponsorship was coming in big time and the success of Cosworth powered teams garnered them more money from sponsors and again the rest is history.

Edited by RCH, 14 July 2011 - 16:43.

[HistoryFan]

I really enjoy reading that thread!
Very interesting!
Thank you @ all!