22 replies to this topic

[HistoryFan]

We had an interesting discussion in another forum about the driver changes what were allowed in the early/mid 50s. I think it was banned in 1958.

 

In 1956 Fangio 3 times changed the cars during the race.

 

Why was that banned in 1958?

What were the opinions of that rules?

Had the teams entered more cars because of that allowed changes?

Has anyone publications on that topic from that time?

[ensign14]

The race distances came down from 3 hours to 2, so there was less need for driver change.  Driver changes were not banned - indeed Masten Gregory and Carroll Shelby shared a Maserati to 4th at Italy in 1958, and later Clark took over Trevor Taylor's 3rd placed Lotus to win the Mexican GP 1962 - but if there were a driver change, the car became ineligible for points.

[D28]

The race distances came down from 3 hours to 2, so there was less need for driver change.  Driver changes were not banned - indeed Masten Gregory and Carroll Shelby shared a Maserati to 4th at Italy in 1958, and later Clark took over Trevor Taylor's 3rd placed Lotus to win the Mexican GP 1962 - but if there were a driver change, the car became ineligible for points.

Right, the 62 Mexican GP was a non-title race so points were not at stake for Clark's win. In 1964 at the US GP Lotus tried this again when Clark took over Spence's car to try and  lessen  points for G Hill and Surtees. It didn't work as they finished 1-2 anyway.

This may be the last observance of a shared drive in WC races, one of the last at least.

[Porsche718]

It's very likely that small and upcoming teams that only had 1 or 2 cars felt they were being unfairly penalised by Ferrari, Maserati and even Vanwall who were regularly enter 4 or more cars may have also added to the pressure to change the rules?

[uechtel]

There was already a rule change, I think because of the somewhat annoying events of 1956, saying that in the 1957 races the points would be only shared when the driver, who takes over another car, has at least done one third of the race distance. The intention was, that a driver would only get points when he has a 'real' share in the result of a car. So I don´t believe the next rule change for 1958 has something to do with the race distance, rather a further step to avoid extensive team tactics like in 1956.

[D28]

There was already a rule change, I think because of the somewhat annoying events of 1956, saying that in the 1957 races the points would be only shared when the driver, who takes over another car, has at least done one third of the race distance. The intention was, that a driver would only get points when he has a 'real' share in the result of a car. So I don´t believe the next rule change for 1958 has something to do with the race distance, rather a further step to avoid extensive team tactics like in 1956.

Trevor Griffiths mentions in his Grand Prix handbook that even in the very early years some drivers were not awarded points in a shared drive because they hadn't done enough laps. No examples given though. Fagioli in his shared drive with Fangio in the 51 French GP completed 20 of 77 laps in the winning Alfa, just under 1/3. However he raced Fangio's original Alfa for another 20 laps after the switch, so he was deserving of the win, still the record for oldest winner.

[Tim Murray]

This rule change for 1957 affected Peter Collins, who took over Trintignant's Ferrari during the 1957 British GP. The car finished fourth, but Collins was considered to have covered insufficient distance in it so received no points. My understanding is that Trintignant himself received half points for his drive, but I have seen sources giving him the full three points. Can anyone confirm definitely?

The other 'pointless' shared drive was that of Trintignant and Moss to third place in the 1960 Argentine GP.

[uechtel]

The wording in 'Automobil Revue' reads like following:

"Falls ein Pilot während des Rennens auf ein anderes Fahrzeug wechselt, so werden wie bis dahin die erzielten Punkte auf die Fahrer aufgeteilt. Indessen erfolgt eine Punkteteilung nur dann, wenn der Pilot mindestens einen Drittel der Distanz auf dem betreffenden Wagen zurückgelegt hat.

Durch diese Regelung wird erreicht, dass ein Fahrer nur dann in den Genuss von Weltmeisterschaftspunkten gelangt, wenn er auch einen namhaften Anteil zum SIeg beigesteuert hat."

Unfortunately in my opinion you can understand that in two ways. Either "the division of points is not made" means, that the original driver gets the full points, or the second part of the sentence is only related to the driver who takes over, so he gets no points and the original driver half points.

 

How is it in other sources?

[2F-001]

I'll confess I've not yet checked this for myself, but do the seasons' points totals in various sources tally with a particular (or different] way of interpreting the points distribution for races with shared drives?
As ever, it's difficult to know which 'sources' have relied on which others for their information.

[uechtel]

In most secondary literature I know it is not explicitely recogniseable whether the championship tables have been taken directly from an official source. I suspect many have been calculated by the authors.

[HistoryFan]

It's very likely that small and upcoming teams that only had 1 or 2 cars felt they were being unfairly penalised by Ferrari, Maserati and even Vanwall who were regularly enter 4 or more cars may have also added to the pressure to change the rules?

 

But Ferrari and others still run more than 2 cars in the 60s. I think it's very sad that this isn't allowed today as in IndyCar it's still normal. 5 Penske next year at the Indy 500.

 

[Roger Clark]

Motor Racing magazine used to report the annual CSI meeting at which rules changes for the following year were announced. In 1956 they reported that: "the regulations now specify that in order to gain any points the driver must have driven the car for more than one-third of the race. In 1957: "The driver to gain points only if he drives one car throughout the race".

In the 1957 British Grand Prix, Collins drove only three laps before giving the car back to Trintingnant. Perhaps of more importance, Moss took over the winning Vanwall on lap 26 of 90, so Tony Brooks should not have received any points if the one-third rules was enforced.

Edited by Roger Clark, 17 December 2016 - 10:48.

[uechtel]

I understand the ruling, that only the driver who takes over has to do the one third distance, but the original driver will receive points in any case. I think th intention was to prevent that the number 1 driver of a team waits at the pits for which of the team cars is best placed near the end of a race to take that over and get the points.

 

@HistoryFan, I see it just the other way round. Many cars of a team would mean that the racing is completely overshadowed by team orders. Like in DTM (at least for some time before I lost interest in that)

[Roger Clark]

On July 20th, 1957, Autosport published a table showing Brooks on 10 points: 6 for Monaco, 4 for Aintree. The following week, they printed a correction, saying that the one-third rule meant that he received no points for Aintree. They also said that "Peter Collins, by taking over Trintingnant's car for a few laps, prevents the latter from collecting full points". However, on October 18th, they printed a full season table, showing Brooks with 4 points for Aintree, but Trintingnant with 1.5!

[Allan Lupton]

It is as well to remember that, apart from starting money, income such as the prize money and suppliers' Bonus payments depended on race results.

Whilst all this business about points is relevant to some extent, in those days it was getting your team's cars into good finishing positions in each race that was most important and the Brooks/Moss shared car Aintree in 1957 got the best place.

Edited by Allan Lupton, 17 December 2016 - 12:59.

[D28]

Two sources I am using (Griffiths and Jacques Deschenaux) show Collins receiving 0 points for the 57 British GP, he only drove 3 laps.

The years totals show no half points for Collins or Trintignant.

 

As for Brooks/Moss they show 4 points for each.

The whole thing is a bit confusing.

[Charlieman]

It is as well to remember that, apart from starting money, income such as the prize money and suppliers' Bonus payments depended on race results.

Whilst all this business about points is relevant to some extent, in those days it was getting your team's cars into good finishing positions in each race that was most important and the Brooks/Moss shared car Aintree in 1957 got the best place.

I was going to suggest "prizes beat points" but Allan beat me to it.

 

How was prize money given in multi-driver times? The car crossing the line earned money. The two/three drivers -- who may have had different contracts -- earned a split for their contributions. After generous payments to the junior driver(s) who gave a car to the team star, the car win would have been less profitable than one with a single driver. 

[uechtel]

It is as well to remember that, apart from starting money, income such as the prize money and suppliers' Bonus payments depended on race results.

Whilst all this business about points is relevant to some extent, in those days it was getting your team's cars into good finishing positions in each race that was most important and the Brooks/Moss shared car Aintree in 1957 got the best place.

But on the other hand if they had not seen a problem in what happened in 1956 and if they wouldn´t have cared about points anyway, why did they feel it necessary to change the points rule?

[DCapps]

All this discussion regarding the pertinent regulations appears to be based upon second and third-hand sources rather the regulations themselves. Why is there not any primary, archival material for this sort of discussion being used rather the all too usual usual speculation and opinion, even if some of that might be considered reasonably well-informed? Just where is this primary, archival material and why must these sorts of discussions invariably become dependent on secondary sources at best? Why are these materials not available and being used? In other words, why does even relatively modern auto racing history tend to be devoid of such research materials? It has too often been the case that we are attempting to do the best with can with relatively little primary sources. Had some publications not made some level of effort to report on the CSI meetings and the various rule changes, where would we be? Easy to see why motor sport history tends not to be taken too seriously, which is unfortunate, but all too true. That the championship points tables for several seasons are still a mystery does not inspire confidence....

Edited by DCapps, 17 December 2016 - 16:42.

[D-Type]

Surely the points awarded for races was originally intended solely to determine who was champion and using the points table to determine a ranking a later innovation that initially would not have been officially recognised. 

 

Does anybody have access to the relevant FIA regulations, the forerunner of the "Yellow Book"?

Edited by D-Type, 17 December 2016 - 18:12.

[Kvadrat]

How was prize money given in multi-driver times? The car crossing the line earned money. The two/three drivers -- who may have had different contracts -- earned a split for their contributions. After generous payments to the junior driver(s) who gave a car to the team star, the car win would have been less profitable than one with a single driver. 

 

The winning car still got the same prize money. It was a matter of entrant and all participating drivers to divide money between them.

[DCapps]

Does anybody have access to the relevant FIA regulations, the forerunner of the "Yellow Book"?

 

Technically, the relevant material is from the CSI, which as the sporting arm of the FIA often operated rather autonomously in its operations from the FIA. It is also important to realize that the technical regs for the international formulae, such as formula 1, were separate from the sporting regs that governed the various championships, such as the World Championship for Drivers. Then again, there were the various agreements that the teams or organizing clubs also entered into regarding prize and starting monies. I would like to think that some -- maybe even most -- of this documentation, especially for the era in question here, has managed to survive as part of the archives of at least a few clubs.

 

Why is it that so much of the history of automotive competition rests on a foundation of sand?

[D-Type]

I always find this split of responsibility curious.  The "Yellow Book" is titled "FIA Year Book of International Sport (or at least my 1975 edition is)".  It states that Sporting Questions are handled by the CSI.   But it refers to "FIA Graded Drivers", "FIA Championships", etc.  So, where does the CSI fit in?