Jump to content


Photo

Autosport's top 50 racecars


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,262 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 22 January 2003 - 10:16

Here's another one for us to groan over. (sorry should be 50 most exciting racecars, but still)

1 - Ferrari 312T (Formula 1)
2 - Porsche 917 (Sports car)
3 - Audi Quattro (Rally)
4 - Lotus-Ford 79 (Formula 1)
5 - Porsche 956/962 (Sports car)
6 ?Alfa Romeo “Alfetta?(Formula 1)
7 ?Lancia Delta Integrale (Rally)
8 ?1072 Eagle-Offenhauser (Indycar)
9 ?Brabham-BMW BT52 (Formula 1)
10 ?Peugeot 206 WRC (Rally)
11 ?Lancia Stratos (Rally)
12 ?Cooper-Climax T51 (Formula 1)
13 ?Lotus-Ford 72 (Formula 1)
14 ?BMW M3 (Touring car)
15 ?Lotus-Ford 38 (Indycar)
16 ?BMW M1 (Sports car)
17 ?Ford Escort Mk II (Rally)
18 ?McLaren-Ford MP4/1 (Formula 1)
19 ?Mercedes-Benz C-class (Touring car)
20 ?Plymouth Superbird/Doge Daytona (NASCAR)
21- MercedesBenz 300 SLR (Sports car)
22 ?Ralt RT3 (Formula 3)
23 ?Lotus-Ford 49 (Formula 1)
24 ?BMW CSL (Touring car)
25 ?Peugeot 206 T16 (Rally)
26 ?Williams-Ford FW07 (Formula 1)
27 ?March-BMW782 (Formula 2)
28 ?Ford Sierra Cosworth RS500 (Touring car)
29 ?Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS (NASCAR)
30 ?McLaren-Mercedes MP4/13 (Formula 1)
31 ?Miller Straight-Eight (Indycar)
32 - Jaguar XJR-14 (Sports car)
33 ?Mini Cooper (Rally)
34 - ?9 Watson-Offenhauser roadster (Indycar)
35 ?Ferrari F2002 (Formula 1)
36 ?Brabham-Ford BT44 (Formula 1)
37 ?Dallara F393 (Formula 3)
38 ?VanDieman RF85 (Formula Ford)
39 ?Lancia LC2 (Sports car)
40 ?Williams-Renault FW14B (Formula 1)
41 ?Ford Capri RS2600 (Touring car)
42 ?Citroën Xsara kit car (Rally)
43 ?Benetton-Ford B193 (Formula 1)
44 ?Audi R8 (Sports car)
45 ?Alfa Romeo 155 TS (Touring car)
46 ?Ligier-Matra JS5 (Formula 1)
47 ?Audi 200 (Trans-Am)
48 - ?5 Ford Thunderbird (NASCAR)
49 ?Reynard 88D (Formula 3000)
50 ?Jaguar XJS (Touring car)

Advertisement

#2 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,574 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 22 January 2003 - 10:22

What? Lancia Delta ahead of the Lancia Stratos? Peugeot 206WRC ahead of the Peugeot 205T16? No Ford Escort RS1600 (ie Mk 1)? Have the compilers of this list no soul?

And why is the Reynard 88D F3000 car included? I like F3000, but it hasn't/doesn't almost by its very nature produce charismatic race cars.

And where is the GT40???

#3 Darren Galpin

Darren Galpin
  • Member

  • 2,139 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 22 January 2003 - 10:31

or Maserati 250F.

#4 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,262 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 22 January 2003 - 10:37

And if its exciting race cars, where's the Sunoco Porsche?

#5 b195

b195
  • Member

  • 467 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 22 January 2003 - 11:01

Depending on what I look at, these are the top 50 cars regards to impact on their respective sport or the top 50 to stir the emotions. Or something else. It isn't the rank of the best 50 cars, a poll which Autosport themselves conducted two years earlier which saw the McLaren-Honda MP4/4 win... a car which didn't even make this current top 50! :p

#6 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,346 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 22 January 2003 - 11:27

At this time of the year 'Autosport' used to publish excellent 'Seasonal Survey' reviews of the various different racing categories, the whole ball of wax in one piece with tabulated results etc. For a journal of record these were superb pieces and today are of immense practical use to anyone interested in our sporting past. They embodied much work and much devotion. Today we get 'Top 50s' and 'Top 25s' and similar $%**^""!!!.... sic transit gloria...

DCN

#7 Jeremy Jackson

Jeremy Jackson
  • Member

  • 479 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 22 January 2003 - 12:04

Totally agree, I still retain, and refer to Autosport's Seasonal Surveys of the early 70s, all these Top ?? seem a waste of time and space, but I can't really complain, since after 30+ years of buying Autosport, I gave up last year!

#8 Geza Sury

Geza Sury
  • Member

  • 936 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 22 January 2003 - 12:37

Originally posted by b195
Depending on what I look at, these are the top 50 cars regards to impact on their respective sport or the top 50 to stir the emotions. Or something else. It isn't the rank of the best 50 cars, a poll which Autosport themselves conducted two years earlier which saw the McLaren-Honda MP4/4 win... a car which didn't even make this current top 50! :p

This is a good point actually. Where's the Williams-Honda FW11 or 11B for that matter? I also miss the Mercedes W154 and of course the Ferrari 'sharknose' from the list.

#9 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 24,239 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 22 January 2003 - 13:41

Auto Unions weren't exciting then? :rolleyes:

And as far as I can see the only pre-War car is the straight 8 Miller - no W154, no W163, no W165? No Bugattis? No Fiats? No Delages? PAH! Typical short-sighted Autosport cr*p .... can't see back past 1965 (essentially past the mid-80s really!) :down:

#10 Pyry L

Pyry L
  • Member

  • 60 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 22 January 2003 - 13:47

What were the criteria for "exciting racecars"? Cars that stir the imagination or stretch the boundaries or cars that were so good they were banned? I can see why cars like the Plymouth Roadrunner Superbird, Dodge Charger Daytona, Sierra RS500, Porsche 917, Ferrari F2002 and Williams FW14B are there but why no Eagle Mk.III GTP, Porsche 917/10 (or /30 for that matter), Brabham BT46B, Nissan Skyline GT-R (R-32) or any Auto Unions? Maybe those aren´t "exciting" to some ppl...

#11 Joe Fan

Joe Fan
  • Member

  • 5,591 posts
  • Joined: December 98

Posted 22 January 2003 - 14:19

:rolleyes:

No Ford GT40, no Auto Union, no Mercedes-Benz W196, no Maserati 250F????

But it is nice to see that they included the Plymouth Superbird and the Ford Thunderbird from NASCAR.

#12 bobbo

bobbo
  • Member

  • 841 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 22 January 2003 - 15:40

Jeez!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I can almost find a better list in the "used cars" section of my local newspaper.

What (if any) are their criteria??

Bobbo

#13 JacnGille

JacnGille
  • Member

  • 1,599 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 22 January 2003 - 16:54

Nor is the D type Jag mentioned.

#14 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 22 January 2003 - 17:16

Can't we just stop posting these silly lists? In my opinion it's just killing time, and I for one have none to spare! ):

#15 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 22 January 2003 - 17:24

As Doug points out, once upon a time the Winter lull, Autosport produced some very comprehensive and valuable season surveys of a wide variety of series and classes. Even today, they are the gold standard when establishing a baseline for work in an era or series. Around 1998 or so, after reading and subscribing to Autosport since the mid-1950's I dropped my subscription because I was just tired of looking at what it had become -- I scarcely bothered to read most of the issues I received in the last years that I subscribed. The few issues I have bought in the years since then have done much to convince me that I made a good decision.

As for Motor Sport, Paul Fearnley once stated he would set me up with a subscription after I slamdunked the magazine here at Atlas. Paul never made good on his offer and I have always hemmed and hawed about renewing my subscription whenever I get the notice that my subscription is going to expire soon. I have most of my copies from the 1970's and early 1980's and pretty much complete since the mid-1980's. Alas, most of my issues from the 1950's and 1960's have vanished. I have found from looking at some of them recently exactly where some of my views on some issues originated.

The recent crop of lists being generated by both (Haymarket...) magazines signals either a lack of imagination or trying to milk a market for whatever it is worth. Motor Sport has informed me that they don't like to work with articles of more than 1,000 or perhaps 1,500 words -- max. This from the magazine which used to change the type to cram in as much as possible and what was needed for to tell a story.

There have been a number of noble attempts to produce magazines which would be similar in style and scope as these two magazines. Few have survived, something which always saddens me. Then again, that was also a major motivation and a driving force behind the establishment of this forum.

As for the list, well, it only supports my view of the nonsense which underlies all such lists..... No Maserati 250F? No Bugattis? No Duesenbergs? No Hudson Hornet? No Chaparral 2-series? No Aston Martins? No...

#16 F1master

F1master
  • Member

  • 50 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 22 January 2003 - 17:31

strange top50 :stoned:

#17 bill moffat

bill moffat
  • Member

  • 1,407 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 22 January 2003 - 17:57

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Today we get 'Top 50s' and 'Top 25s' and similar $%**^""!!!.... sic transit gloria...

DCN


In my mind Autosport lost all credibility when it featured (at considerable length) an article on the Gumball Rally. A bunch of over-rich kids who evidently have nothing better to do than drive dangerously and without skill around Europe posing in their very expensive cars.

As far as I'm aware this is bugger all to do with motor sport and gives unwarranted publicity to these morons.

#18 rdrcr

rdrcr
  • Member

  • 2,699 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 22 January 2003 - 17:59

Originally posted by Don Capps
"...As for the list, well, it only supports my view of the nonsense which underlies all such lists..... No Maserati 250F? No Bugattis? No Duesenbergs? No Hudson Hornet? No Chaparral 2-series? No Aston Martins? No...


:up:

...No Grand Sport Covettes? No Ferrari P3/4? No....

:

The more of these lists I see, the less regard for the nominators I have...

#19 dbltop

dbltop
  • Member

  • 1,513 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 22 January 2003 - 19:15

I would have thought that the Lotus 25 would have made the list.

Advertisement

#20 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,346 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 22 January 2003 - 19:22

Fellers - on behalf of the British motoring press may I earnestly, sincerely, absolutely from the bottom of my heart - not to mention the pit of my stomach - APOLOGISE for what my nation has recently managed to produce... ... ... ... .... ..... ....... in the way of 'motor racing journalists', I mean.

DCN

#21 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,399 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 22 January 2003 - 19:39

Haymarket has become a BIG COMPANY who has lost touch with their customer
base. As many know they even bought RACER magazine here in the States and they are now looking for a new editor via an ad in Autosport. Haymarket has something like 18 or more magazines under their umbrella.

If someone will provide me with the name and mailing address of the chief
yuck-e-muck or yuck-e-money, I will would love to send him a personal letter. He is clearly a dictator who has bought in a lot of yes men.
I also encourage people to go on-line to Autosport online and send a note
to Nigel Roebuck and ask him if he can explain their current "editorial"
philosophy. We wonder why we are producing a generation of worldwide morons
who don't have any depth and who don't read enough yada, yada when we have
a philosophy of we don't want anything over 1,500 words. How much depth can
you get in 1,5000 words or am I missing something...don't answer that!

#22 rdrcr

rdrcr
  • Member

  • 2,699 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 22 January 2003 - 19:55

Mr. Jeremy Vaughan, CEO
38-42 Hampton Road, Teddington,
London Middlesex TW11 OJE

email:

nb50@dial.pipex.com


Have at it...

#23 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,399 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 22 January 2003 - 22:43

I sent my letter. I won't say exactly what I told him, but I felt totally
justified since I get both Autosport and Motor Sport by first class mail here in the States, so it ain't cheap. If I get a reply I will share the essence of it.

Be strong, be fair...

#24 Jordi #99

Jordi #99
  • Member

  • 90 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 22 January 2003 - 23:58

Gilles could make any car look exciting! From a 126CK to a Fiat 127!

#25 Manson

Manson
  • Member

  • 2,064 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 23 January 2003 - 00:17

I'd put the Penske PC-10 in there somewhere plus the aforementioned GT-40. A couple GT-40's went off at the Barrett-Jackson auction for $300 000+ USD! Man, if I had the money... :(

#26 dretceterini

dretceterini
  • Member

  • 2,991 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 23 January 2003 - 02:44

Doug:

No need to appoligize. We know you had nohing to do with the list... (OK, there are a few cars on teh lsit that DO deserve to be on it)...

#27 ehagar

ehagar
  • Member

  • 6,233 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 23 January 2003 - 05:46

Are my eyes deceiving me, or is the STP Lotus Gas Turbine Indycar missing from the list? To me, that was the most brilliant car design of the 60s.

No Chaparral? Can-Am stuff?

#28 FredF1

FredF1
  • Member

  • 1,964 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 23 January 2003 - 08:23

Originally posted by Vitesse2
Auto Unions weren't exciting then? :rolleyes:

And as far as I can see the only pre-War car is the straight 8 Miller - no W154, no W163, no W165? No Bugattis? No Fiats? No Delages? PAH! Typical short-sighted Autosport cr*p .... can't see back past 1965 (essentially past the mid-80s really!) :down:


Isn't that the point?

Autosport seems to be aiming at the early-mid '20's age group bracket - hence the mid-'80's cutoff point. Concentrating on the period where most of this group would have gotten their first exposure to motor sport.

#29 Darren Galpin

Darren Galpin
  • Member

  • 2,139 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 23 January 2003 - 08:49

But along the way forgetting that some of us in that age group might just have an interest in things earleir.

#30 LB

LB
  • Member

  • 12,530 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 23 January 2003 - 09:23

All this proves is that such lists are subjective!

I have been getting Autosport since the early 80's and I don't have a great problem with the current magazine apart from the price sneaking up and up . They still do seasonal reviews on seperate series there has been a review of F1 . F3000, F3 , sportscars, Cart , IRL et al since the season ended. They aren't as comprehensive as they used to be but bare in mind in 1980 we had F1, F2, F3, FFord, Touring cars, Sportscars and Indycars and a few more - think how many series are out there now, they simple cannot be as comprehensive anymore. The F1 review was still in the christmas edition as it always was.

The poll was on cars that stir the blood basically, nothing more nothing less and hence is purely subjective to each individual person and no one will agree on it. Other cars could clamour to be included but I am pretty pleased to see that the list includes cars from all the major series and its not a bad list. 21 of the cars are pre 1980 so I fail to see a mid eighties cut off point too...

I sometimes wander in here and marvel at the depth and knowledge shown in the threads - At the same time I can wander in and almost laugh at the 'oldies' rattling their canes off the ground and saying it was much better when I was a lad. Er guys of course it was Autosport is aimed at 16-35 year olds I think the comments here show that its doing a fairly decent job.

( Darren doesn't count he got his pipe and slippers for his 16th birthday ;))

#31 Joe Fan

Joe Fan
  • Member

  • 5,591 posts
  • Joined: December 98

Posted 23 January 2003 - 09:49

Originally posted by FredF1


Isn't that the point?

Autosport seems to be aiming at the early-mid '20's age group bracket - hence the mid-'80's cutoff point. Concentrating on the period where most of this group would have gotten their first exposure to motor sport.


I have no problem with them concentraing on bios and articles about cars from the 80's on but they owe it to their readers not ignore the past on these lists. A great car in its era should not be forgotten just because the vast majority of their readers may have not heard of them.

#32 LB

LB
  • Member

  • 12,530 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 23 January 2003 - 10:00

Originally posted by Joe Fan


I have no problem with them concentraing on bios and articles about cars from the 80's on but they owe it to their readers not ignore the past on these lists. A great car in its era should not be forgotten just because the vast majority of their readers may have not heard of them.


As I said 21 of the cars are pre 1980

#33 Darren Galpin

Darren Galpin
  • Member

  • 2,139 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 23 January 2003 - 10:07

And I have even caught myself saying "When I was a lad......." once! :p What's wrong with slippers anyway? Bare feet on a lino floor in winter really won't do!

I still get Autosport each week. Despite the hyperbole in the headlines (and the occasional article which sounds like an advert - it seems to have got better since a nadir two years ago and one "journalist" in particular), it still covers the widest amount of world motorsport which I wouldn't otherwise read about in other print magazines in the UK. You read it to get pointers as to what is happening around the place, and then dig around the Internet if you wish to find out more.

#34 Joe Fan

Joe Fan
  • Member

  • 5,591 posts
  • Joined: December 98

Posted 23 January 2003 - 10:24

Originally posted by LB


As I said 21 of the cars are pre 1980


So this means that 29 cars are from roughly a 20 year period and 21 are from a period of around 80 years. Not to mention that they left out some great cars, that were greater than the ones they listed.

#35 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,346 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 23 January 2003 - 10:25

Originally posted by LB
I sometimes wander in here and marvel at the depth and knowledge shown in the threads - At the same time I can wander in and almost laugh at the 'oldies' rattling their canes off the ground and saying it was much better when I was a lad. Er guys of course it was Autosport is aimed at 16-35 year olds I think the comments here show that its doing a fairly decent job...


LB - good for you. I'm glad to hear 'Autosport' does it for you, as it did it for me when I used to sit on the loo at school and memorise its pearls each week...inquiring minds are the key...

#36 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,399 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 23 January 2003 - 13:13

As Harry Truman once said, "The only thing new is the history you haven't
read". Everything is geared to 16-25 years olds. Its been that way for a long time. All I am saying is that is all well and good to try and seek
these "new" customers, just be careful NOT to loose you existing customer
base. Studies show that it is five times harder to get a customer BACK, then it was to get them in the first place.

The grander issue is whether I, as one of these older farts, choose to continue to buy your product which I see going in the wrong direction.
Since it is Haymarket's choice they get to live with that decision, I just
don't want to hear the tears followed by "where did you lose you"...duh!

Like I said, I wrote the "Jeremy" and told him EXACTLY how I feel.

I await my "old fart #1" response letter.

#37 Gary Davies

Gary Davies
  • Member

  • 1,939 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 23 January 2003 - 13:52

Another OF happy to rattle his cane within TNF ... this list is rivalled for futility and time wasting potential only by those excruciating "Miscellaneous Endeavours" lists in the Guinness Book of Records ... you know, the longest single unbroken apple peel record or the longest gum wrapper chain.

I love, and share too, the palpable anguish in David M. Kane's lament at the awfulness of Haymarket and its literary (sic) atrocities. David, it's the way of the world old son. Haymarket shares with Microsoft, cockroaches and the Hyundai Excel the twin characteristics of being simultaneously rather horrid yet highly successful.

That said, I still see a lot of good material in Motor Sport.

#38 DREW

DREW
  • Member

  • 462 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 23 January 2003 - 14:04

As I pondered my "...and they forgot X" reply (not wanting to embarrass myself in front of this esteemed group) it suddenly dawned on me...

They omitted Garlits' Swamp Rat 14, the first rear-engined dragster!

Thinking outside the box,

DREW

#39 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,399 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 23 January 2003 - 14:21

Vanwall you are absolutely correct, there is MUCH that is still good about
Motor Sport. Having come from a Corporate background that was closely partnered with Microsoft AND Intel I can tell you this. If you don't wack
on them ocassionally they get out of line real fast. In this economic
climate companies do listen to their customers.

Silence brings you nothing.

In fact, I probably enjoy Motor Sport TOO MUCH...

Advertisement

#40 MichaelJP

MichaelJP
  • Member

  • 849 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 23 January 2003 - 15:43

I regularly think of cancelling Autosport, amongst many things what particularly galls me is the way they have one interview with a "personality" whose quotes then become 4 or 5 separate "news" items to pad the section out!

Having said that I still enjoy reading Nigel Roebuck's column. When he eventually packs it in, probably I will also.

Motor Sport I enjoy more, but not as much as I used to.

- MichaelJP

#41 petefenelon

petefenelon
  • Member

  • 4,815 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 23 January 2003 - 16:32

Originally posted by Vanwall


That said, I still see a lot of good material in Motor Sport.


I see a lot of fantastic and very well-reproduced pictures - the words are going downhill. DSJ is probably spinning in his grave and it's saying something when the best reasons for reading a magazine is Nigel Roebuck. As the Goodies said of John Peel: "He could bore for England".

Well, that's not strictly true, but he has a fund of about 50 anecdotes and a pile of stock paragraphs that he constantly keeps repeating in print in both Autosport and Motorsport, and online at autosport.com. There's bits of Grand Prix Greats that seem to have been recycled into Chasing The Title and into a number of Fifth Columns and Ask Nigels.

As for his race reports, it's perhaps merciful that they're increasingly submerged in sidebars and featurettes because he says less and less.

Maybe it'd be better if he went off to be editor of Motor Sport (Fearnley seems to be in it largely for the test drives he can blag) and left the GP editor gig at Autosport to someone who can raise some enthusiasm for the travel and the modern sport. Hey, or why isn't he after the gig editing Racer - after all, he's always on about how he likes American racing..... :)

(Dear old WB is alas not the first thing I read in the Green'un these days - but like an elderly and puzzled mad great-uncle in a garret somewhere in the attic taking pot-shots at the youngsters with a blunderbuss, it's good that he's still around).

Autosport's a comic these days really. I tend to read Club Autosport first, Pit and Paddock second, race reports third, the columns, and then features roughly in the order sports cars/GTs, other single seater formulae (*excluding IRL), tourers, rallying, technical F1 articles, F1 PR fluff, IRL, NASCAR.

As for F1 racing - lifestyle stuff for the girlies. No ta.

MN - no longer the wide-ranging and fun paper it used to be, it mixes pretty much the same stories as Autosport with more on club rallying than I can justify readign.

Leaves Classic & Sportscar as the best in the Haymarket portfolio really - which actually runs better historic motorsport articles than Motor Sport most months. Certainly has more text in it.


pete

#42 MichaelJP

MichaelJP
  • Member

  • 849 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 23 January 2003 - 16:45

Originally posted by petefenelon
DSJ is probably spinning in his grave and it's saying something when the best reasons for reading a magazine is Nigel Roebuck...

...Maybe it'd be better if he went off to be editor of Motor Sport (Fearnley seems to be in it largely for the test drives he can blag) and left the GP editor gig at Autosport to someone who can raise some enthusiasm for the travel and the modern sport.


Hmm.. are there any good motor racing journalists who do have any enthusiasm for the modern sport?

- MichaelJP

#43 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,399 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 23 January 2003 - 17:25

Once you been exposed to Bo Derek, its pretty hard to go back to your fat
girlfriend or something like that. The reason they don't like modern racing is because they have seen REAL racing in the past. I feel like a parent who
made the mistake of giving a chemistry set to a bright child. The child
gets so absorbed in playing with and experimenting with it he loses sight of what it was he set out to do.

If my memory serves me right F1 started out being called a drivers championship, the manufacturers championship was for sports cars. I don't think it can effective be BOTH, at least not under the present rules!
I think the elimination of drivers aids is the best thing to happen in years. I think we will be surprised to see how that changes up things.

#44 LB

LB
  • Member

  • 12,530 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 23 January 2003 - 18:51

Firstly Joe Fan

So this means that 29 cars are from roughly a 20 year period and 21 are from a period of around 80 years. Not to mention that they left out some great cars, that were greater than the ones they listed.



I actually think thats not that bad simply because how many of the people at Autosport would have seen those 21 cars in action? thats probably why the Auto Unions and Mercedes pre war weren't included. Theres not that many in here never mind working in a 'modern' magazine that would have seen them race outside of film.

at least they are there - some of them may even lead people to be more curious about them so even have a look in here. I first came in cos I wanted to know more about the history anyway.

Doug I left school a fair while ago now :D but I remember doing exactly what you describe.

Autosport is beginning to annoy me now but I am reaching the end of the readership scale. Its like music everything was better when you were a kid.

#45 David Beard

David Beard
  • Member

  • 4,887 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 23 January 2003 - 20:12

Originally posted by DREW

They omitted Garlits' Swamp Rat 14, the first rear-engined dragster!

DREW


It wasn't, surely? There was a white rear engined dragster came to the Drag Festival from the States in the early sixties. Garlits still had a front engine rail at that time.

It was Tony Nancy's wedge I think...look here
http://www.trakbytes.com/6064.html

#46 diego

diego
  • Member

  • 390 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 23 January 2003 - 20:26

Originally posted by DREW
As I pondered my "...and they forgot X" reply (not wanting to embarrass myself in front of this esteemed group) it suddenly dawned on me...

They omitted Garlits' Swamp Rat 14, the first rear-engined dragster!

Thinking outside the box,

DREW


Right on!

How can they overlook Top Fuel in general? If 3000hp doesn't get you out of bed, nothing will

#47 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 23 January 2003 - 20:43

Actually, it appears that Tony Nancy and Don Garlits once again prove that great minds think alike since they both developed rear-engined rails at almost literally the same moment. Regardless of who was first, they both played a major role in its development. It is at moments like this that I really miss all my copies of Hot Rod that I collected from some point in the 1950's to maybe the early 1970's. There were some superb articles and features that many would never imagine in "that" sort of magazine. Plus, I really did enjoy the rods and kustom jobs in the magazine. Most were superbly engineered cars and even now I can picture more than a few of them in my mind's eye. Speaking of which, what? no Ramchargers?