51 replies to this topic

[Felix Muelas]

Well, it might look like a good idea if we, at least WE, were to be able to agree on the meaning of some of the words that we frequently use in the subject of our interest / passion, i.e. Motor Racing.

To that extent, we owe to Richard this first contribution, originally posted some minutes ago in another thread but that I think deserves a place for itself :

Originally posted by Vitesse2
Felix: how about this as a definition for an "event of Grand Prix status"?

A race held on a road, closed public road or oval circuit, open primarily (but not necessarily exclusively) to cars of any premier International Formula as recognised by the organising club(s) and/or relevant National Sporting Authority, run under an International permit and open to drivers from any country, subject to a minimum distance and/or time as defined in contemporaneous documentation.

;)

Vitesse2 - In his own write ....

Can we start analyzing this fantastic proposal that consists of something like 12 different elements not all of them necesarily present at the same time so that, at the end, we find something like a "form" that, when properly compared with the structure and characteristics of any given race of the past will flash Grand Prix! or alternatively Sorry : No Grand Prix!

Examples would / could include anything but the definition that we are seeking will be specially interesting on the "border" territories, that is races in the so-called National Series ("Aurora"), Bologna Shows et al.

Any interest?

[Felix Muelas]

Maybe this reshuffling of Vitesse2 words will help :

1) A race

2) Held on:
- a) a road
- b) closed public road
- c) or oval circuit

3) Open to (*) cars of any premier International Formula

4) “International Formula” recognized by
-a) the organising club(s) and/or
-b) relevant National Sporting Authority

5) run under an International permit

6) open to drivers from any country

7) as defined in contemporaneous documentation
-a) subject to a minimum distance and/or
-b) (a minimum) time

(*) … open primarily (but not necessarily exclusively) to cars…

[petefenelon]

OK..... now this is tricky ;)

(the obvious way to do it is to plug examples into a neural network and train it to recognise GP/Not GP from them and see how it does on others ;)

Disregarding the modern F1 = Championship = Grand Prix simplification, here's my initial thoughts -- and some of these are probably to some extent mutually exclusive or contradictory - because there isn't a "hard and fast" definition, I guess....

What sort of car's running?

I don't class sports/touring car or voiturette/junior formula races as Grands Prix, personally, even if they bear the name. So it has to be open to Grand Prix Cars, Formula A, Formula 1, call it what you like - or to a Formula Libre field that includes such cars. So the "Grand Prix d'Endurance" isn't a Grand Prix by my definition ;)

How long do they run for?

A ten lap sprint around a typical road circuit is not a Grand Prix. (Actually, for me at the moment, most F1 races aren't really Grands Prix - my rule of thumb is that if I have CDs longer than the race they're not GPs ;)). I'm saying at least 300km and that's pushing it, I'd rather say 200 miles but that rules out most of the modern races!

Who's driving and entering them?

Are the cars driven by the proper works/graded drivers, or is it an outing for test drivers/locals/journeymen/a skeleton crew with one driver?

Where is it?

Is it on one of the best circuits in the country? (NB, I know this means France hasn't really had a Grand Prix since Magny-Cours took over....)

Who are they racing against?

Is it just Ferrari vs some locals, as in a lot of Italian F1 races, or it is a representative field drawn from many teams in many nations? Ferrari beating a load of old Maserati-powered Coopers isnt' a GP. Ferrari beating a bunch of works cars is.

How cosmopolitan is it?

See above, but add in overseas media/spectator interest...

How much history and tradition does it have?

Is it some 'shake and bake' event or is it established on the calendar and in the minds of the racing community as something worth making a special effort for...

Are there other races in the country that are more important?

You can't really have many Grands Prix and still call them special - no more than 2-3 per country per year really.

How much prestige accrues from winning it?

A function of almost all of the above really. e.g. Reims was Reims, regardless of whether it counted for the Championship or not...

Is there really a Grand Prix?

I guess one of the most straightforward criteria -- is there a big prize?!


I think these definitions allow the likes of Pau (in the old days), Reims, Enna and Solitude to be true 'Non Championship Grands Prix', but rule out the majority of French street races and American sports car outings that took the title and, IMHO, abused it ;)

[roger_valentine]

I don’t usually like to get involved with these ‘definition’ threads, but as there seems to be a chance to get in early in this one, I’d like to offer my opinion in one word:

WHY?

Why bother trying to pigeonhole everything into neat little categories? Motor racing isn’t unique or even unusual in defying such attempts. Did Bob Dylan in 1965 play folk music, or rock, or folk-rock or protest? The debate raged on pointlessly and inconclusively for decades. Who cares?

OK so it’s a nuisance for statisticians. How many Grands Prix did x start? You have to define ‘Grand Prix’ and ‘start’, and your definitions may not concur with someone else’s. But x’s career remains unchanged however you state the statistics. Does crashing on the warm-up lap constitute a start or a dns? Neither, it constitutes a ‘crashed on the warm up lap’, and if that is difficult to translate into statistics, then so what? Does winning the Bologna sprint mean winning a Grand Prix? No, it means winning the Bologna sprint, and I’m sure that Perez-Sala, Martini, Tarquini et al are as pleased to have that on their racing record as ‘dnq Australian GP’ or some such.

OK, so having argued that this is pointless and very unlikely to lead to any consensus, I have to admit it is probably fun. So, lets try to pull some holes in Vitesse’s definition:

road, closed public road or oval circuit

Not sure what purpose the adjectives serve, but ‘circuit’ is presumably meant to exclude hill climbs. It also, however, excludes the city-to-city races. So poor old Gabriel never won a race of Grand Prix status? Shame!

(Maybe not all the city-to-city races are excluded. If a race starts and ends in Paris, isn’t that a circuit?)

any premier…

Does that mean it has to have a “1” in it’s name?

…International Formula

Formula Libre of the 1930s therefore excluded?

subject to a minimum distance and/or time

OK. Australia 1991: 25 minutes, 14 laps. A race of Grand Prix status?

[AndreasL]

Excactly, roger_valentine!

IF ContestOfficialName CONTAINS "Grand Prix" THEN
PRINT "Grand Prix!"
ELSE
PRINT "Sorry : No Grand Prix!"
FI

What's so hard about that?;)

OK, it doesn't lend itself to enjoyabe arguments over what a Grand Prix "really" is/was/should be/etc, but I can't really see another feasible definition.

For FIA sanctioned events, they may not be called a Grand Prix without permission from FIA (or the local MSA) but for non FIA events there's obviously no rules. I don't know what rules FIM have for GP status, but there's a lot of Grand Prix out there on two and three wheels, on tarmac or dirt.

So if someone asks how many GP's Surtees ran in, just answer: lots.

/Andreas
--
http://www.orebrolan...indexRonnie.htm

[Racer.Demon]

The main problem seems to be that we all KNOW what a Grand Prix is (or should be) but that we seem unable to define that knowledge.

Who would argue against the (majority of) races included in Hans' list on Golden Era or the one that goes all the way up to 2003 at 6th Gear?

I think we should specifically look at the bold and capitalized races on Hans' list and the races in bold and italics on the 6th Gear list, as the "races in which Grand Prix cars participated" (i.e. Aurora, the 1980 Australian GP, etc., to give some modern examples) would open the gates a tad too much...

For your reference, here are Hans' criteria:

"From 1924 to 1937, there were between 19 and 37 GP races every year. For an annual overview it is not desirable to mix the major events with the lesser club races. Grandes Épreuves and events of great publicity, as well as races where some of the main contestants met for competition, are considered major races. On an annual basis, races with a similar degree of importance had to be found and the more important ones were then marked as major grand prix races. This list contains over 740 races, in which grand prix cars participated."

In other words, not much in the way of a true "definition", but simply Hans using common sense. Richard's definition in Felix's opening post is close enough to common sense for everyone to understand that the Denver Grand Prix is not a Grand Prix in the sense discussed here.

IMHO the biggest problem lies in the proliferation of the term Grand Prix itself:

1. the name given to a give an event the required credibility boost (i.e. the Denver Grand Prix)
2. the name given to a category or formula (i.e. the pre-war "Grand Prix formula" for "Grand Prix car", as opposed to "voiturette" cars)
3. the name given to a major event for top international formula/Grand Prix/F1 cars and at least a bunch of top international drivers
4. the name given to a World Championship F1 race, excluding the Indy 500

Perhaps it's best to restrict ourselves to defining number 3...

[Wolf]

Well, to throw a monkey in a wrench, what is exacly a Grande Épreuve?

Now, my personal feeling (it's the only kind I have, but...) is there should be requirements on the entries as well to count something as a Grand Prix, but it's a very tricky territory, trying to define such a thing...

Felix and Richard, defining minimum race distance to our liking is definitely not recommendable (although higly entartaining)- one can argue the commercial aspects taking over (as somebody did in the thread that inspired this) or that perchance change of the very nature of motor sport (nowdays, physical rather than mental, one could impishly say) limits the endurable, for driver, length of a race. Following that path, one might then say that nothing held on a Mickey Mouse track is a GP, and then how many GPs would we have in recent years?;)

But methinks an essential thing is missing from Richard's definition- the word 'single seater' or, 'open wheeler' (with exceptions prior to '61 or something like that). And maybe ' organising club(s)' should be replaced and replacement inserted into 'relevant international and national sporting authorities'.

But this thread stems, as I see it, from difference between Yorropean and US series. Should CART race be a GP or not? I say, half in jest, depending how many laps were run under caution.;) Surely, CART should not be denied the right to hold, what should be considered, a GP, but then again I'm strongly opposed to having artificial interventions to create closer racing (even when those are in fact Catholic priests )...

[Racer.Demon]

Originally posted by Wolf
But methinks an essential thing is missing from Richard's definition- the word 'single seater' or, 'open wheeler' (with exceptions prior to '61 or something like that). And maybe ' organising club(s)' should be replaced and replacement inserted into 'relevant international and national sporting authorities'.

But this thread stems, as I see it, from difference between Yorropean and US series. Should CART race be a GP or not? I say, half in jest, depending how many laps were run under caution.;) Surely, CART should not be denied the right to hold, what should be considered, a GP, but then again I'm strongly opposed to having artificial interventions to create closer racing (even when those are in fact Catholic priests )...

I think that "premier international formula" pretty much implies single-seaters and excludes CART, Wolf...;)

[Ray Bell]

But does 'premier international formula' include or exclude Formula Libre?

[Wolf]

Originally posted by Racer.Demon


I think that "premier international formula" pretty much implies single-seaters and excludes CART, Wolf...;)

I wasn't aware of implication re. single seaters, and I do plead guilty to lapsus in using and instead of or, which would then allow inclusion of CART, provided other criteria are met.

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by Racer.Demon
The main problem seems to be that we all KNOW what a Grand Prix is (or should be) but that we seem unable to define that knowledge.

This is a parallel to the problem Justice Potter Stewart so wonderfully articulated when the US Supreme Court confronted the issue of pornography -- "I know it when I see it..."

One of my concerns is that the thinking which often gets generated from these sorts of exercises merely reinforces mindsets and only adjusts blinders already in place.

[Don Capps]

Litmus Test Question: When was the first Candian Grand Prix?

[Leif Snellman]

Originally posted by Racer.Demon
Who would argue against the (majority of) races included in Hans' list on Golden Era or the one that goes all the way up to 2003 at 6th Gear?

I admit had some trouble with this when I started my web site. There are of course some races in "The Golden Era" now that definitely aren't real GPs but I have decided to include as many races as possible that had at least some GP cars in the field. Also, Sheldon includes the Brooklands Mountain Championship races in his books. Those had a good entry list but a lenght of only 11.7 miles!

I also want to add that in my opinion a definition of a GP race should in some way exclude handicap events.

[David McKinney]

I'm firmly in the roger valentine/AndreasL camp
In the absence of a pre-established ruling, a Grand Prix is any race which has in its title the words Grand Prix, Gran Premio, Grosser Preis etc
You simply cannot re-define terms to state what you would like them to be. To do so would be an irresponsible disservice to future historians
That's not to render invalid listings such as Leif's. He has the right to include or exclude whatever races he likes. But it cannot be a defintive list of GPs without sportscar races, handicaps and anything else that had the title
What you can do is use the more obvious GPs - those contested by GP cars (using the accepted definition of the time) - and add those of equivalent stature which do not have the magic words in their title. The pre-war Mountain Championship races at Brooklands are stretching it a bit on the grounds of their lack of distance, but the postwar International Trophy at Silverstone, for example, was a GP in everything but name.
This is pretty much what Sheldon etc did.

[Wolf]

Originally posted by Don Capps
Litmus Test Question: When was the first Candian Grand Prix?

Wasn't it, speaking off top of my head, somewhere in early sixties ('61 or '62), held as a sportscar race? I distinctly remember discussion in here about it (prompted by pre-race pop quiz, declaring the first CDN GP being held in '67), but can't remember details...

[Racer.Demon]

Originally posted by Don Capps
This is a parallel to the problem Justice Potter Stewart so wonderfully articulated when the US Supreme Court confronted the issue of pornography -- "I know it when I see it..."

Nice analogy, Don!

But the judge's statement sums up it nearly - I know a Grand Prix when I see one...

[Racer.Demon]

Originally posted by David McKinney
What you can do is use the more obvious GPs - those contested by GP cars (using the accepted definition of the time)

Which is where you wander straight out of Roger and Andreas' camp and straight into mine (and others), David!

I guess what Felix is trying us to establish here is the common ground of these "more obvious" GPs, i.e. not the actual "Grands Prix" (races called Grand Prix) but those with "Grand Prix status" (as in the thread title), which - again obviously - entails the presence of "GP cars" (see my second and third meaning of "Grand Prix").

So should we start with determining the "accepted definitions of the time"? This is where our effort gets into its first loop of self-evidence already and approaches the territory so eloquently described by Don: "One of my concerns is that the thinking which often gets generated from these sorts of exercises merely reinforces mindsets and only adjusts blinders already in place."

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by Racer.Demon


I think that "premier international formula" pretty much implies single-seaters and excludes CART, Wolf...;)

Why? As far as the US is concerned, CART and IRL are currently "premier international formulae" - both now run races outside the North American continent, both are technically international series open to drivers of any nationality and with races subject to a minimum target time/distance (I should have included "target" in my original definition - I knew someone would bring up Australia - but that was drafted in about 5 minutes flat).

Admittedly, CART may soon become a feeder series for F1, giving it the same status as F3000 (or F2 or whatever they want to call it this month), in which case it drops out of the mix. But where will that leave IRL?

And, furthermore - how will we define an event of Grand Prix status after 2008 if the threatened split happens: to whose wagon do we hitch our star?

[Felix Muelas]

Originally posted by Racer.Demon
...I guess what Felix is trying us to establish here is the common ground of these "more obvious" GPs...

Well yes, Mattijs, but I realize that it is not going to happen. At least not in this context. It is obvious that I should have choosen my words more carefully from the very start because I have generated what I regard as a misunderstanding and, once swords are out I do not see how to call a truce.

I´ll try again in a couple of days, on the british countryside...;)

Meanwhile, I do not think that I have intended to or else even mentioned some of the concepts that, by reading the thread, one might imply I had! Will some of you please re-read my original posting?

I fail to see why my interest is apparently mixed, for instance, with the ones that statisticians might have. I do not think I have given any clues in the past that might lead to someone actually extracting such conclusion from my words...

Anyway, it was just my intention to hear your views on what a slighlty sensible answer to a question that, sooner or later, I expect to hear from my son, as he is surrounded by "Grand Prix" references everywhere he looks.

Richard and Mattijs on the theoretical side, and Leif and Hans making genuine choices for their lists have actually approached the subject in what I regard as a sensible way. Again, I might very well be biaised...

Some of you might be happier if I choose to say to John : do not even DARE to ask those questions, son. THOSE are important issues that require DEEP studies and sophisticated investigations and, to my knowledge, as it happen with some other COMPLEX things in LIFE, you have the ability to make a question to which, my dear, there is no answer...

PS : In the back of my mind there is that sensation that if we are able to explain to a kid what is a feeling, what is a tree, a mountain or even a song, actually defining a Grand Prix shouldn´t be that complicated
And if it is, then we are wrong or have lost perspective of things.

Buenas noches...

[Ray Bell]

Where was Australia brought up, Speedy?

More than just what was called a Grand Prix (AndreasL), I would say that there has to be some recognition of whether or not those organising the race had the right to call it a Grand Prix.

So here I can introduce the subject of the Australian Grand Prix in an example.

I want to see the 1927 race recognised as the first in the lineage of our Grand Prix. It was called that, so what supports the claim?

First, the cars. Some of the best racing cars in the country at the time ran in that race. Not all of them, by any means, and not the very best either, but a good selection of the best on offer was there. And a couple of others were non-starters but were entered.

Second, the name. The organisers called it 'The Australian Grand Prix' right from the start. Now, did they have the right to so do?

There was at that time no governing body over racing in Australia, so the organisers probably had as much right as anyone to use the name. Moreover, they were using the local (Goulburn district) motorcycle racing history where the Grand Prix name had been used several times, and this name was accepted for those races.

What's more, there was no other race that took the name that year (nor on any previous year, not even the succeeding year), so the title was available for use.

That the race consisted of a number of heats and a final is unusual, as we look at it today, but not so unusual in those days. There had never been, for instance, a road race of any type held in Australia prior to that time, and road racing was the source of the title. That this wasn't a road race might be of some concern...

Now we go to the races that are called 'The Australian Grand Prix,' and first of all to the one that took place just fifteen months later. It's on the list, accepted by all.

It had a bigger field and it was held on a road course, was much longer and a single race. Well, not really a single race, because the field was divided into two parts with each having their own race, the winner being the fastest from the two fields.

But it most definitely wasn't called 'The Australian Grand Prix' at the time, nor for some time thereafter. Everyone I have ever met or spoken to who was there for the event consistently referred to that event by the name that it was given by the organisers - the '100 Miles Road Race'!

From 1929 the name was applied to the Light Car Club's event at Phillip Island each March until they decided not to hold any more after the 1935 running. I should add here that they had used the name of their own volition, and that they didn't pass the banner to anybody else to run it. The title simply lapsed.

But all of these events had a 2-litre limit because they were run by the Light Car Club! Another event on the same circuit held in 1934, for instance, was not only longer but included faster cars, and a goodly field of them. It was merely called the 'Centenary Grand Prix'... referring to the Victorian Centenary.

So we look next at another state's Centenary, South Australia's. It also had a race, the South Australian Centenary Grand Prix. When? December 26, 1936. Where? On a road circuit at Port Elliot, just over the hill from Victor Harbor. And like it's Victorian counterpart two years earlier, it was open to cars of all sizes, a very representative field drawn from all over the Commonwealth. Well, nobody from Queensland, but from NSW, Vic, SA and WA.

It therefore had all the ingredients of a true 'Australian Grand Prix' and nobody complains today that it's included in 'the list' that keeps the lineage of that august event. But some shake their heads and wonder why it's listed as having been the 1937 Australian Grand Prix.

The name was, again, post-applied to the race, the next running of 'The Australian Grand Prix' being at Bathurst in 1938 and it was called that from the beginning. It was at this time that the ideal of running the event in a different state each year took root, that the continuity of the event was established and that some kind of organisation was behind the name.

Some don't accept these races because, from 1932, they were handicap events. And they remained so until 1948.

But they were in most instances the biggest (and longest) event of the year. They were open (in 1927 and after 1935) to the fastest cars in the country, sports or racing cars, and with the exception of 1936 they were known as 'The Australian Grand Prix'... and the country's top drivers prepared for the race each year, importing and building cars to compete with a view to winning.

But all such traditions have a beginning, and that beginning might well be a very humble one. For that reason I'm prepared to argue the case that the 1927 Australian Grand Prix be accepted as the first in the long line.

[Wolf]

A thought just occured that if we try to 'define' Grand Prix, we should be wrong in doing so- there are quite a number of Grand Prix races held all the time, which do not fit even most basic of our criteria, that is to be run in cars... Basically we're defining only a sub-category (dare I say motor racing Grand Prix).

[D-Type]

Felix mentioned explaining to a kid "What is a mountain?" Surely that is a similar question.
A mountain in the Netherlands, in Switzerland, in Nepal, or in Britain would all be different but the common thread is that it's the highest thing around.
In the case of Britain, in 1891 a one time president of the Scottish Mountaineering Club, Sir Hugh Munro, published a list of 251 peaks over 3000 feet (915 metres) which he considered to be separate mountains. To a large extent his list has stood the test of time as nowadays of the 515 points higher than 3000 feet, some 284 are considered to be "Munro's"

The question "What constitutes a Grand Prix?" is similarly a question of subjective judgement. Don's "I know it when I see it" puts the thought very succinctly.

By this token I reckon that a Grand Prix is a race that is accepted as such by the followers of the sport (not the public, not the media, not the promoters)

A definition is simply a tool to delineate the grey cases.

I would suggest that for a race to be considered a grand Prix it must meet all of the following

• An important race
• International
• Reasonably long
• For racing cars (traditionally open wheeled single seaters)
• Cars that conform to the fastest set of rules (F1, F2 in 52-53, Formula Libre in the early thirties)
• Featuring the top "works" teams of the day - or at least most of them
• Similarly with most of the top drivers

With due respect to our American and Australian friends a Grand Prix is really a European thing.

Applying my rules to some examples gives

YES
Albi Grand Prix
Classic Pau Grand Prix
Syracuse Grand Prix
1950's Daily Express International Trophy
Vanderbildt Cup
US Grand Prize

NO
London Grand Prix
Macau Grand Prix
Johore Grand Prix
1929 Monaco Grand Prix
1935 Donington Grand Prix
Le Mans Grand Prix d'Endurance

UNDECIDED
1920's Targa Florio
1949 Czechoslovakian Grand Prix
Chimay Grand Prix des Frontieres
Indianapolis 500


Difficult isn't it?

[Ray Bell]

So you would disenfranchise the governing bodies of countries and continents from their right to name their major race a 'Grand Prix'?

[Option1]

There still seems to be a tendency throughout this thread for some to only think in terms of European formulae as qualifying for the exalted monicker of "Grand Prix". Yet who's to say that only one of Australia's two Grand Prix held annually qualifies for the title? And, echoing another sentiment expressed in the thread, why?

The interesting thing to me is that with the Australian Grand Prix and the Indycar Grand Prix, both qualify as a Grand Prix (in my warped and twisted mind), yet cars from one cannot run in the other.

Neil

[Frank S]

In my simple way of thinking and speaking, I will use the term "Grand Prix" as a tool to communicate more than what the independent words mean, but possibly less than what it might mean to a chance overhearer.

I will not knowingly utter the "GP words" as vessels to carry different meanings in different contexts.

Here, in this forum, it is easy for me. When the GP words cross my keyboard, they mean a contest whose result is an integral part of a scheme that determines the winner of an even G-er P, a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP. Another pair of laden words.

I mean a Recognized WC (not water closet). One contested among drivers of highest category in cars of highest potential, over meaningfully disparate, distributed, difficult courses and through a significant period of time on the day, and during the year.

I will not, in this place or any other, reduce the value of the GP words by referring to any non-F1 race or contest as a Grand Prix. The Cleveland race is The Cleveland Race. The Times "GP" for sports cars was a "GP", not a Grand Prix, although most of the criteria for Grand Prix-ness were present. Just not the critical one: it (they) did not count toward an Official Recognized World Championship.

Open-wheel/closed-wheel is of no importance to me, but I know it is in Grand Prix circles, so I accept the tradition for what it is: arbitrary and definitive.

Same for the unfortunate proponents and producers of "Non-Championship Grands Prix". It is to laugh. No Grander Prix, no Grand Prix.

So, there it is. Grand Prix means

· Fastest open-wheel left-and-right-turning cars
· Best drivers
· Extensive, diverse, and demanding physical and temporal obstacles
· Organized consensual objective beyond the current competition

Join me in the Grand Prix Anti-defamation League.

Thank you for your kind attention.


Frank S

[Racer.Demon]

Originally posted by Vitesse2
Why? As far as the US is concerned, CART and IRL are currently "premier international formulae"

Perhaps it's my lacking grasp of the English language but I thought that "premier" could only apply to one category at a time! I can't imagine there being two Premier Leagues in the UK...

So no offense intended to our host and other US-resident TNFers, but if you as a world citizen had to choose between the F1 World Championship, the Bridgestone Presents The CART World Series Powered by Ford or the IRL IndyCar Series, which would be the premier championship?

But you are opening a new can of worms with the looming threat of the 2008 schism...

[Racer.Demon]

Originally posted by Racer.Demon
IMHO the biggest problem lies in the proliferation of the term Grand Prix itself:

1. the name given to a give an event the required credibility boost (i.e. the Denver Grand Prix)
2. the name given to a category or formula (i.e. the pre-war "Grand Prix formula" for "Grand Prix cars", as opposed to "voiturette" cars)
3. the name given to a major event for top international formula/Grand Prix/F1 cars and at least a bunch of top international drivers
4. the name given to a World Championship F1 race, excluding the Indy 500

Perhaps it's best to restrict ourselves to defining number 3...

I wouldn't want to deprive all the events under number 1 of their Grand Prix title (even though they are not organized for "Grand Prix" cars), but for the sake of argument may I once more suggest that we stick to number 3 and go forth along the lines that D-Type also suggested?

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by Racer.Demon


Perhaps it's my lacking grasp of the English language but I thought that "premier" could only apply to one category at a time! I can't imagine there being two Premier Leagues in the UK...

So no offense intended to our host and other US-resident TNFers, but if you as a world citizen had to choose between the F1 World Championship, the Bridgestone Presents The CART World Series Powered by Ford or the IRL IndyCar Series, which would be the premier championship?

Again no offence meant, but the average Joe Six-Pack would probably go for CART or IRL (or NASCAR:rolleyes: )over F1!

Perhaps there's a case for a "supra-National" tier, below Grand Prix, but above F3000/F2/F Nippon level. That could encompass CART, IRL, even Intercontinental,Tasman and some F5000 races.

Originally posted by Racer.Demon
But you are opening a new can of worms with the looming threat of the 2008 schism...

Indeed, but there's no harm in being prepared. We've seen how damaging something like this has been to open-wheel racing's credibility in the US: if Bernie or his successors up sticks and decamp to the Far East where all the tobacco money is, then we have the possible prospect of two competing "premier series" .... one based in Asia, one in Europe. :

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Racer.Demon


I can't imagine there being two Premier Leagues in the UK...

There's the English and Scottish leagues of course...

To me, a Grand Prix has got to be a race between Grand Prix cars. Most of the time, a Grand Prix car is one complying with a formula specified by the FIA or its predecessor as the governing body of world motor sport. Having the words "Grand Prix" in the race title is neither necessary nor sufficient.

[Racer.Demon]

Originally posted by Roger Clark


There's the English and Scottish leagues of course...

But at least they are playing by the same rules!;)

Originally posted by Roger Clark
To me, a Grand Prix has got to be a race between Grand Prix cars. Most of the time, a Grand Prix car is one complying with a formula specified by the FIA or its predecessor as the governing body of world motor sport. Having the words "Grand Prix" in the race title is neither necessary nor sufficient.

Amen.

[roger_valentine]

Well, to throw a monkey in a wrench, what is exacly a Grande Épreuve?

The resurrection of the term “Grande Épreuve” actually makes a lot of sense in the context of this discussion. As far as I am aware, the term has never had any precisely defined meaning, just an intuitive, ‘” know it when I see it” kind of meaning of a ‘big’, ‘important, ‘historic’ race. The criteria for a Grande Épreuve seem to be pretty close to the criteria that Pete Fenlon would like to see for a Grand Prix.

So, Grand Prix = race with Grand Prix in the title.
Grande Épreuve = race which Felix, Leif and the consensus of opinion at TNF consider to be ‘big’, ‘important’ and ‘historic’.

The only problems I see with the term Grande Épreuve are

1) Traditionally, Grandes Épreuves were mainly, but not exclusively, Grands Prix. I would find it very difficult to justify the exclusion of Le Mans and Indy 500 (and probably Mille Miglia and Targa Florio) from any list of Grandes Épreuves, although they are precisely the kind of races which the ‘Grand Prix’ definition seeks to exclude.

2) How long does it take to become a ‘historic’? Some Grands Prix become Grandes Épreuves from day one (French, Italian), but what of the British GP? A Grande Épreuve by the 1950s, certainly, but surely not in 1926, with its Mickey Mouse circuit and makeshift chicanes.

Just one addition to Pete Fenlon’s criteria list (whether for GP or GE),

Is it one of the most important races in the context of the period?

I quite agree that there haven’t been any ‘real’ Grands Prix since the introduction of the 200 mile/2 hour rule, but the present lot are the best we’ve got, so, much as we might grumble, we have to include them.

Finally, as concrete examples have been called for, I would like to throw into the mix:

1983 Race of Champions

Formula 1 (exclusively!) = Grand Prix
only 40 laps = Not Grand Prix
but still, 40 laps is not exactly a sprint = Grand Prix
Proper works teams and graded drivers = Grand Prix
but only single cars from most teams = Not Grand Prix
Alan Jones, Keke Rosberg = Grand Prix
Hector Rebaque, Brian Henton = Not Grand Prix
Brands Hatch = Grand Prix
but not Silverstone = Not Grand Prix
Ferrari v Williams v McLaren etc = Grand Prix
but not Renault, Alfa Romeo etc = Not Grand Prix
Tradition – series dating back to 1965 = Grand Prix
but that’s not exactly 1906, is it? = Not Grand prix
Prestige? – Better ask Danny Sullivan about that. It certainly didn’t do his F1 image any harm (although I believe he also won one of those funny little not Grand Prix races they have in America once) = Grand Prix ?

Its also interesting to note that, at the time it was run, the ROC should have been the most important race and Brands Hatch (and second most important F1 race in Britain) of the year. Only later in the year, when the European GP was hastily organised, did it get demoted on both counts.

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by D-Type
[BWith due respect to our American and Australian friends a Grand Prix is really a European thing. [/B]

My point exactly.

Y'all Euro-types can continue to count the number of blueboods, hero drivers, pit babes, and scruffy versus neatly attired mechanic ratios needed to waltz on the head of a pin for an event to be a "Grand Prix" with all the right crowds -- and no crowding -- until the cows come home.

That is perfectly alright with this Yank. Indeed, if I were allowed to do so, I would replace the very pretentious term "Grand Prix" with the more suitable -- and perhaps 'more' correct -- "Grand Prize" for American events. Rather than the "Grand Prix of Denver," it should be the "Grand Prize of Denver." It is just another note in the casualties from the cultural wars that the Americans never had the fortitude to retain the use of their term for the major race(s) of the day.

[Racer.Demon]

In spite of being a full-blooded Euro-type I can fully understand your point, Don.

But when talking about the days when world motorsport was still WORLD motorsport, would you object to us Europeans still hijacking your Grand Prizes, Cups, National Trophies and Sweepstakes in our established "Grand Prix" category?;)

BTW, I would applaud the historical awareness that would lead to a Denver Grand Prize. But suppose there were plans to create a modern street track in, say, Savannah. Would you cringe at the thought of reviving the American Grand Prize for this or would you be a supporter of such a plan?

[Ray Bell]

I'm inclined to agree with you there, Don...

In fact, from this distance, I can see that there's plenty of reason to say that the folks who ran the Savannah races did a lot of things right. 'American Grand Prize' has a special ring to it that no other race can really claim.

Which means, I guess, that Watkins Glen was only 'almost right'... but I suppose you can forgive them the one shortcoming?

[Wolf]

I must admit to being a bit disturbed about recent 'schismatic' turn of developments in here... I mean, if bunch of us, who are nothing but of fans of high speed motoring, cannot but fight over which side of Atlantic, or whatever, should be right in their view of motor sport... *shakes his head in a disenhearted manner*

Let's face it, some countries prefer oval racing, some tin-tops, others hill-climbs, &c. Maybe all of us cannot (or, would not) enjoy all the sorts of it, but what point doth fighting over prestige of term 'Grand Prix', whether it should be on either side of Atlantic, or just the side that in modern times did nothing but diminish the prestige thereof, serve?

And, TBH, I'm at loss how Frank's post about C'ships and GPs got unchallenged, but I guess disagreeing takes precedence over it... *shrug* I mean, many of us still share romantic notion of GP racing as something more than excercise in calculating how many points one needs to score, in order to win a trophy at the end of the season.

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by Wolf
I must admit to being a bit disturbed about recent 'schismatic' turn of developments in here... I mean, if bunch of us, who are nothing but of fans of high speed motoring, cannot but fight over which side of Atlantic, or whatever, should be right in their view of motor sport... *shakes his head in a disenhearted manner*

Let's face it, some countries prefer oval racing, some tin-tops, others hill-climbs, &c. Maybe all of us cannot (or, would not) enjoy all the sorts of it, but what point doth fighting over prestige of term 'Grand Prix', whether it should be on either side of Atlantic, or just the side that in modern times did nothing but diminish the prestige thereof, serve?

Wolfie, A suprising and entirely unanticipated consequence of this forum has been my slow and reluctant conversion to a viewpoint I had previously scoffed at and openly belittled. That viewpoint is perhaps simply another view though the prism I was already using, just paying closer attention to the spectrum -- or the lack thereof as the case may be.

Being largely ignorant that it made a difference as to whether it actually mattered that a "grand prix" was really very "grand" or much of "prix" or that its location was of much importance, or that the wheels flapped around in the open or were covered with fenders, or that it was the Premier formula of the world or nation, or that hordes teemed to the race site or it was an "artistic success" -- code for a poor turnout, it would seem that I was wrong to make that set of assumptions.

[Racer.Demon]

Originally posted by Wolf
I must admit to being a bit disturbed about recent 'schismatic' turn of developments in here... I mean, if bunch of us, who are nothing but of fans of high speed motoring, cannot but fight over which side of Atlantic, or whatever, should be right in their view of motor sport... *shakes his head in a disenhearted manner*

Come on, lighten up, Wolf! There's no "fight" going on! You shouldn't take all this friendly poking around too seriously - we all know that the truth is somewhere in the middle of Don's grumpy patriotism and the (my?) European arrogant elitist view, but the chasm that has grown between the Old World and the New World is indeed something that (sadly) needs to be taken into consideration when discussing these matters.

Perhaps we should ask the TNF members from Canada or Mexico - they seem to have one foot in the Old World and the other in the New World...

BTW, I'm with you in challenging Frank's view of a Grand Prix as a stage towards a Grander Prix at the end of the season... For me, that ain't necessarily so. Winning a great race is the grandest prize around to me!

[Geoff E]

Originally posted by Racer.Demon
I can't imagine there being two Premier Leagues in the UK...

One might ask why "Premier" is deemed to higher in rank than "First".

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by Roger Clark


There's the English and Scottish leagues of course...

But the analogy there is very much like F1 vs CART for most of CART's history -- Penske (Rangers?) should be competing with the big boys elsewhere rather than being a very big fish in a small-ish pond.

(I freely admit to knowing little of football and less of 'fitba'...;))

[Vitesse2]

Actually Pete, that's quite a good analogy: take Rangers and Celtic out of Scottish football and there's very little left. Now Penske and Green have gone to the IRL, CART looks a bit thin ....

However: to try to get back on track: Felix picked up on my original intention, which was to define an event of Grand Prix status. NOT a Grand Prix, which is a debased term (there's a British Lawnmower Grand Prix fer chrissake!). Grand Epreuve has been mentioned, but we've tried and failed in the past to come up with a definitive explanation of what that actually means. This seems to be degenerating into a semantic rather than a practical debate: "a rose by any other name ...." or "if it walks like a duck ...."; frankly, we could call Grands Prix by whatever name we liked, if we could come up with a satisfactory definition!

To pick up some other points:

The original Grand Prix was in 1906, but there are certainly pre-1906 races which qualify - including city-to-city events.

Formule Libre: no reason to exclude FL events in the inter-War years as far as I can see if they included GP cars and established drivers and meet the minimum distance criteria.

Here's a definition which I used some years ago to define a major race when attempting to produce "merit tables" for the 1946-65 period:

Primarily for F1 cars
Minimum distance of approx. 150ml/240km
Participation by at least two leading works teams and (from 1950) at least six WDC points scoring drivers - before 1950 participation by selected privateer teams.

Bearing in mind what I said about "status", here's a possible hierarchy, with rough examples.

1 Major Grand Prix - primarily F1/GP/FL cars, minimum 150ml/240km distance originally scheduled, with participation by a minimum standard of competitors to be defined. Run as an International event, with participation by drivers from several countries. This encompasses all major national GPs, while excluding lesser events. A case could be made here to include the Indy 500 and other 300 mile plus oval races as the exceptions which prove the rule.

2 Minor Grand Prix - not necessarily primarily for F1/GP cars, minimum 150ml/240km distance originally scheduled, with participation by a minimum standard of competitors to be defined. Run as a supra-National event, with participation by drivers from several countries. Examples: some lesser F1/GP Formula races, CART, IRL, F3000, some F2, some Voiturette,some Tasman, some Intercontinental, some F5000.

3 Prix National: Formule Libre, possibly run to some other recognised Formula but no minimum distance. Contested primarily (but not exclusively) by drivers from the country in which the race takes place. Examples: some lesser F1/GP Formula races, Aurora, some F2, some Voiturette, some Tasman, some Intercontinental, some F5000.

[Racer.Demon]

Originally posted by Racer.Demon
I guess what Felix is trying us to establish here is the common ground of these "more obvious" GPs, i.e. not the actual "Grands Prix" (races called Grand Prix) but those with "Grand Prix status" (as in the thread title), which - again obviously - entails the presence of "GP cars" (see my second and third meaning of "Grand Prix").

I see our minds are alike, Richard!

However, I have some trouble with the way you are trying cram in voiturette/F2/F3000, CART/IRL, F5000, Tasman and what have you into your definition, however international their character might have been (or might be). I'd stick with "Grand Prix cars".

I quite like (and have adopted) Hans' hierarchy:

1. Grande Épreuves (the season's great GP/F1/FL races)
2. Major races (important races with a slightly less impressive entry, the 'non-championship' traditionals)
3. Minor races (short/national GP/F1/FL races, i.e. most British/French/Italian Cups/Trophies/Grands Prix, Aurora, Shellsport, ZADC, Temporada, etc.)

F2 will only feature, as is obvious, in '52/53, while Indy and other American events are only part of this hierarchy in the days when "Grand Prix cars" were eligible to run there.

If that's making this exercise into a European thing (where Europe also includes Canada, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, Africa and South America ), then so be it...;)

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by Racer.Demon


I see our minds are alike, Richard!

However, I have some trouble with the way you are trying cram in voiturette/F2/F3000, CART/IRL, F5000, Tasman and what have you into your definition, however international their character might have been (or might be). I'd stick with "Grand Prix cars".

I can see why you feel that way Mattijs, but the reasoning is that "second Formula" cars have often run against GP cars - from early days up to the 70s and 80s - while CART and IRL are roughly equivalent in standard to F3000. Makes sense to include them for completeness and comparison. And as Tasman blended into the F5000 era ....

[roger_valentine]

It is, in fact, very simple to define an event of Grand Prix status:

The number of competitors shall vary between 3 and 58 (except in the case of point-to-point events, in which over 300 may compete).

The duration of the race shall be somewhere between 20 minutes and 12 hours (68 hours for point-to-point events).

Most vehicles will be powered by internal combustion engines of between 750cc and 26 litres.

Alternative forms of motive power will be allowed (unless, of course they look like becoming successful, in which case they will be banned).

Cars must be either open-wheeled, or have the wheels partially or completely covered by bodywork.

Cars must have either one or two or more seats, and a riding mechanic must be carried, or not.

All cars must be open cockpit, except in cases where someone decides that closed cockpit might be a good idea.

Cars not conforming to the above formula will not be allowed to compete, or may compete as a separate class, or may compete as well as, or instead of, the formula cars.

Manufacturer participation is mandatory, as follows:
Fiat/Ferrari must compete every year (but are permitted to miss races whenever they are feeling stroppy).
Mercedes Benz must compete at least once every 20 years.
Renault must compete at least once every 70 years.

Private (non-works) entries are allowed (although this right has temporarily been suspended, until such time as they learn to park their VW pick-ups in a nice neat row alongside the manufacturers motorhomes).

Drivers will be between 19 and 57 years old, and, of course, male. (In the interests of fairness and equality, at least one female driver will be permitted per century).

Except in cases where they can bring financial inducement to a team, all drivers must have achieved graded status by demonstrating their proficiency and success in lower formulae over a period of several years. In the case of Scandinavian drivers, a couple of Renault Clio races will suffice.

Grand Prix circuits will, at minimum, have the splendour, magnificence and historic importance of the Nurburgring. Disused airfields and casino car parks will also be permitted.

The number of races per season shall be between 1 and 57. (No more than 3 Grands Prix to be held on the same day).

Some, or all, or none of these races shall count towards a championship, to be known as either the European Championship, or the World Championship (depending on whether we can pretend that the Americans are interested). The governing body reserves the right not to reveal the scoring system to be used in such championship until after the end of the season, or not at all.

Starting positions will be decided either by ballot or by practice times, or by any other system Max Mosley can devise to ensure an interesting grid.

The grid shall have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or more cars abreast, and all cars will start simultaneously, or at timed intervals.

Sponsorship by tobacco companies is not allowed. Sponsorship by nazi governments is, however permitted.

All monies accruing from any race of Grand Prix status, whether using the name Grand Prix or not, or involving motor cars or not, or involving racing or not, will be payable to Mr. B. Ecclestone.

[Racer.Demon]

Absolutely classic!

(It really is Friday afternoon, is it?;) )

[VAR1016]

My understanding has always been that a Grande Epreuve [yes I know about the acute accent, but am not able to add them - please do not advise - been there, done that, burned the t-shirt all to no avail] is a race whose result contributes to a championship - usually a supra-national one.

A "Grand Prix" or Grosser Preis" or "Grand Prize" is the name given these days to Grandes Epreuves.

Since there are, at present no other races for current Formula 1 cars, then there cannot be any problem - the problems being historical definitions.

In the past, certainly in England, there was no conflict - e.g. The International Trophy, The Oulton Park Gold Cup etc.

PdeRL

[AndreasL]

Originally posted by Vitesse2
Felix picked up on my original intention, which was to define an event of Grand Prix status. NOT a Grand Prix, which is a debased term (there's a British Lawnmower Grand Prix fer chrissake!).

Why not define what is a "Major event" by your standard, and call it "A Vitesse2 class A race". Or if we (or you, I'm not sure I'd take part) vote for what a "Major event" should be, call it a "TNF grade 1 race". And then you can vote for what races should be classed as grade 2, etc.

What I personally don't get (youth (well, relative youth) has its privilege, I just claim ignorance) is _why_ there should be a common definition of such things. Is it to compare drivers from different periods? Boy, talk about things I don't get... I don't even see the point in comparing drivers from different teams durint the same season!

/Andreas

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by Racer.Demon
I see our minds are alike, Richard!

However, I have some trouble with the way you are trying cram in voiturette/F2/F3000, CART/IRL, F5000, Tasman and what have you into your definition, however international their character might have been (or might be). I'd stick with "Grand Prix cars".

I quite like (and have adopted) Hans' hierarchy:

1. Grande Épreuves (the season's great GP/F1/FL races)
2. Major races (important races with a slightly less impressive entry, the 'non-championship' traditionals)
3. Minor races (short/national GP/F1/FL races, i.e. most British/French/Italian Cups/Trophies/Grands Prix, Aurora, Shellsport, ZADC, Temporada, etc.)

F2 will only feature, as is obvious, in '52/53, while Indy and other American events are only part of this hierarchy in the days when "Grand Prix cars" were eligible to run there.

If that's making this exercise into a European thing (where Europe also includes Canada, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, Africa and South America ), then so be it...;)

Well, the Swiss Grand Prix became a "Grande Épreuve" in its second year....

.....as for Europe including "Canada, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, Africa and South America" -- I am sure that some are quite delighted to see that colonialism is still alive and well.....

...and I am becoming more convinced that perhaps many of us have way too much time on our hands....

[Racer.Demon]

Originally posted by Don Capps
.....as for Europe including "Canada, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, Africa and South America" -- I am sure that some are quite delighted to see that colonialism is still alive and well.....

I see I missed putting another ;) there, but for what it's worth - it was alive and well straight into the sixties, so for the larger part of the period we are discussing. Culturally it has of course never stopped, also accounting for those regions' alignment with the European view on Grand Prix, F1 and all that. There's no judgement in that, it's simply an observation. (Perhaps with the recent exception of Canada and Mexico, that have moved away from Bernieworld to CART.)

I'm as sorry about the single-seater chasm (it isn't too bad in sportscars) between Europe and the US as you probably are, Don. But what can we do about it?

[petefenelon]

A modest proposal I made elsewhere a few years ago - even more appropriate now F3000, CART and the IRL are looking fairly moribund....

This was from 1999, when CART was riding high and F1 was starting to get tedious. At the time it looked like the CART invasion of the 500 might see the IRL dented a bit ;)

Faced with an F1 that is technically moribund (I don't count months of
tweaking away in the wind tunnel for 0.1s a lap particularly exciting, and
the rubber situation is farcical) could one not argue that a series that
visits four nations (US, Canada, Australia, Brazil), includes arguably
the World's biggest race (let's assume the Indy 500 wants some stars back )
and a dozen or so drivers as good as most of the F1 grid is a *real challenge*
to the sterile Max/Bernie pseudo-F1 we've got at the moment?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. CART has gone the right way on
aero packages -- the cars are controllable, driveable, safe and fast. And,
holy of holies, they still run on sensible racing tyres! Maybe it's
time F1 adopted a similar package, and moved towards convergence on
engine rules. (the sticking point here is methanol vs gasoline. maybe both
sides should move onto LPG ) Customer chassis would be allowed, as would
"year old" (or more) cars bought from other teams/manufacturers. There would
be a three-year stability rule on chassis and engine regs...

Let's go further. Abolish F1, CART, IRL, F3000 and FNippon as they currently
stand and bring in one set of unified technical regs. Run Asia-Pacific, American
(North and South) and European series of 15-20 races to one unified
formula. Cherrypick the best five or six races from each area to be
part of a true World Championship, for which the formula would stick an
inch or so on the tyres and add another couple of hundred bhp to the cars
(whether through another litre on the engines or increased turbo boost,
depends on what engine package is adopted)

Add a system of promotion and relegation between the regional series and
the World Championship. (one-off race between the bottom team in the WC and
the top teams in the regional series...)

Does this make sense? It seems to me that it provides a proper ladder of
opportunity for teams, drivers, technical personnel, race organisers,
everyone... it should cut costs, preserve the challenge and spectacle, and
help promote top-class racing everywhere. Anyone got the balls to do it?

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by roger_valentine
It is, in fact, very simple to define an event of Grand Prix status:

.....

All monies accruing from any race of Grand Prix status, whether using the name Grand Prix or not, or involving motor cars or not, or involving racing or not, will be payable to Mr. B. Ecclestone.

LOL.... and Gordon Murray could still design a car outside the spirit of those rules, and Ferrari could still poke holes in the sporting regs ;)