Jump to content


Photo

1960 Italian GP


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#1 kstr

kstr
  • Member

  • 59 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 24 November 2003 - 20:35

I am searching for this race.I thank for all information

Advertisement

#2 Rainer Nyberg

Rainer Nyberg
  • Member

  • 1,756 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 24 November 2003 - 23:18

Maybe this thread will help?

http://forums.atlasf...&threadid=61488

#3 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 24,024 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 24 November 2003 - 23:56

Rainer (and others) - I'm not of the opinion that kstr is another Russian quiz contestant. Most of the threads he has started concern mysteries which have so far defeated the combined might of TNF and all the best-known track map sites. This one, admittedly, doesn't really fall into that category, but at least in English sources, this race is seriously under-reported.

#4 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 25 November 2003 - 02:01

Please help kstr since he seems to be the real McCoy. :up:

#5 rdrcr

rdrcr
  • Member

  • 2,697 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 25 November 2003 - 04:15

Originally posted by Don Capps
Please help kstr since he seems to be the real McCoy. :up:

Fair enough...

kstr, please forgive the 'cold-shoulder' response from me... it's just that we have been inundated with "posters" that take and never, ever, give back - not even a thank you... I thought for sure that you were one of them - I was apparently mistaken.

Some info on the ~

1960 Italian GP

With the World Championship settled in favor of Jack Brabham and the Italian authorities deciding that the Italian GP would be held on a combined road/oval course, all the big British teams boycotted the event (but why, he asked?) and the field consisted of the works Ferraris, the Coopers of Scuderia Eugenio Castellotti and Scuderia Centro Sud and a few privateers. To increase the size of the field Formula 2 cars were allowed with Porsche turning up with a pair of 718s for Hans Herrmann and Edgar Barth.

The Ferraris dominated with Phil Hill sharing the front row with fellow American Ritchie Ginther and Willy Mairesse with a couple of Coopers on the second row.

In the race, Ginther and Hill led while Mairesse was slowed by team orders to help tow a fourth Ferrari - an F2 car being driven by Wolfgang Von Trips - away from the two Porsches. This helped Giulio Cabianca to run third in his Castellotti Cooper.

Mairesse eventually made his way back to third place while Hill passed early leader Ginther to win the race. Ferrari finished 1-2-3 but it was an irrelevant result given the competition.




POS  NO	   DRIVER				 ENTRANT				   LAPS	   TIME/RETIREMENT   QUAL POS 

1	20	  Phil Hill			  Ferrari D246				50		   2h21m09.200s		1  

2	18	  Richie Ginther		 Ferrari D246				50		   2h23m36.800s		2  

3	16	  Willy Mairesse		 Ferrari D246				49							   3  

4	 2	  Giulio Cabianca		Cooper-Castellotti T51	  48							   4  

5	22	  Wolfgang von Trips	 Ferrari D246P			   48							   6  

6	26	  Hans Herrmann		  Porsche 718				 47							  10  

7	24	  Edgar Barth			Porsche 718				 47							  12  

8	12	  Piero Drogo			Cooper-Climax T43		   45							  15  

9	10	  Wolfgang Seidel		Cooper-Climax T45		   44							  13  

10   28	  Fred Gamble			Behra Porsche-Porsche	   41							  14  

r	 6	  Brian Naylor		   JBW-Maserati (59)		   41		  Gearbox			  7  

r	34	  Alfonso Thiele		 Cooper-Maserati T51		 32		  Gearbox			  9  

r	 4	  Gino Munaron		   Cooper-Castellotti T51	  27		  Mechanical		   8  

r	36	  Giorgio Scarlatti	  Cooper-Maserati T51		 26		  Throttle Linkage	 5  

r	30	  Vic Wilson			 Cooper-Climax T43		   23		  Oil Sump			16  

r	 8	  Arthur Owen			Cooper-Climax T45			0		  Accident			11  

ns   14	  Horace Gould		   Maserati 250F						   Mechanical		  17


#6 Gary Davies

Gary Davies
  • Member

  • 1,916 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 25 November 2003 - 04:33

I think that what with these long northern hemisphere nights now upon the Rugby World Championship country, Mr. Armstrong should take it upon himself to OCR Jenks' wonderfully ascerbic report of the 1960 Eyetie race and post it here for all who have not had the pleasure of reading it. :wave:

#7 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,045 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 25 November 2003 - 11:45

I have always understood that the reason for the boycott was simply because of safety concerns regarding the use of the banking. The banking was known to be bumpy and the Coopers and particularly the Lotuses were of lighter construction than the Ferraris.

In the background was the political furore whereby the British teams wanted to carry on with the 2.5 litre formula as there was not a suitable 1.5 litre engine available. Ferrari, on the other hand, had the Dino V6 up and running so were perfectly happy with the formula change and did not support the British teams in their representations to the FIA.

Incidentally the car that Von Trips drove was the new rear engined 1.5 litre Dino so I would expect it to be a Dino 156 not a 246 as Richard has posted. However it could be that for some idiosycratic reason it was called a 246, possibly as that was the original size of engine installed. I have seen somewhere that this was the chassis that Baghetti used at Reims in 1961, but rebodied as a 'sharknose'.

Over to the experts!

#8 Rainer Nyberg

Rainer Nyberg
  • Member

  • 1,756 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 25 November 2003 - 12:21

I am sorry too...the post had all the hallmarks of a "russian-quiz" poster...

The "new member" and no profile and then Mr Capps private message...

Just sorry, if it was seriously intended...

#9 Rob29

Rob29
  • Member

  • 3,107 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 25 November 2003 - 14:21

Originally posted by Rainer Nyberg
I am sorry too...the post had all the hallmarks of a "russian-quiz" poster...

The "new member" and no profile and then Mr Capps private message...

Just sorry, if it was seriously intended...

Yes,it would give us more confidence if 'kstr' filled in his personal details. If not a Russian quiz,his questions gave me the impression of a wind-up. Asking vague or impossible questions. I can forgive bad manners as a language thing for someone who's first is clearly not english.

#10 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 24,024 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 25 November 2003 - 14:27

Originally posted by Vanwall
I think that what with these long northern hemisphere nights now upon the Rugby World Championship country, Mr. Armstrong should take it upon himself to OCR Jenks' wonderfully ascerbic report of the 1960 Eyetie race and post it here for all who have not had the pleasure of reading it. :wave:


No time right now, but I've put it by the scanner .... :)

#11 kstr

kstr
  • Member

  • 59 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 25 November 2003 - 20:06

Are there some photos of this race?

#12 rdrcr

rdrcr
  • Member

  • 2,697 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 25 November 2003 - 20:49

I have this addition, it supports D-Type's ascertation:

In 1958 John Cooper started a revolution in Grand Prix car design, the rear-engined car. Along with Chapman's monocoque chassis, this would prove to be one of the most devastating developments in the history of Formula 1.

As with most radical developments, Ferrari was slow on the uptake, even two years later in 1960, Enzo Ferrari was still adamant that the ideal car design was front-engined. Famously he was quoted as saying that the horse should always pull the cart.

Come the penultimate round of the 1960 championship, (race nine,) the front-engined Ferraris had yet to open their account for the season. During the build-up to the Italian Grand Prix at Monza, the Tifosi were downhearted.

In the face of the mid-engined onslaught, there seemed to be little hope of a Ferrari victory. The Monza organisers hit upon the idea of using the "full" circuit, taking in the bumpy banked sections, thus allowing the Ferraris to use their powerful engines to their full effect and blunt the handling advantage of the mid-engined cars.

The mid-engined British teams were outraged by this blatant nationalism; they also considered the banking at Monza to be very dangerous. In an attempt to get the organisers to re-evaluate the decision to use the full track they banded together and threatened to boycott the event. The Italians race organisers were not having any of it and they stood firm but so did the mid-engined teams. The entry to the Grand Prix was reduced to four Ferrari's (one of them being a F2 car,) two Porches and nine privateers in various cars.

Source

I think that this was the last time a front engined car won a Grand Prix...

D-Type, the 246 designation is from what I've seen in researching the matter...

Pics ~

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

#13 McRonalds

McRonalds
  • Member

  • 444 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 25 November 2003 - 20:54

Here's the grid moments after start has been given. Since most of the cars are F2 competitors, the F1 cars are at front - best F2 car was von Trips with the rear-engined Ferrari. Just pick out the car you're interested in.;)

Posted Image

#14 gdecarli

gdecarli
  • Member

  • 1,038 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 26 November 2003 - 00:19

I have found three photos about this race. They are all from Il Leggendario Gran Premio d'Italia - by Paolo Mantegna, 1989, pages 88-89 (click to enlarge) :
  • Porsche 1500cc driven by Hermann (#26, right) and Barth (#24, left) on Circuito Alta Velocit√† (High Speed Track)
    Posted Image
  • Richie Ginther (Ferrari 2500cc #18)
    Posted Image
  • Wolfgang Von Trips (Ferrari 1500cc #22, left) is overtaking Wilson (Cooper Climax 1500cc #30, right). In background, Phil Hill (Ferrari 2500cc)
    Posted Image
Ciao,
Guido

#15 cabianca

cabianca
  • Member

  • 641 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 26 November 2003 - 00:54

Yes, the conventional wisdom is that the Brits considered the banking too dangerous to run at Monza in 1960. If that were the case, why were they perfectly happy to return in 1961 with even flimsier cars. I think it had more to do with not wanting to be beaten and letting the FIA know that they were now the bulk of the field and their wishes re the 1.5 liter formula should be given more consideration. After spending most of the history of motor racing to that point being graceful losers, they had yet to learn to be graceful winners. Thankfully, that came not too much later.

#16 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 6,013 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 26 November 2003 - 08:12

We should also remember that when the banking was used in 1960, the Ferrari team did not distinguish themselves by their strength and durability.

Earlier in 1960 there had been a Formula Junior race at Monza and the Lotus 18s had been given a very hard time by the organisers and by the Italian teams. I believe there was some fear of follow-on from this that contributed to the boycott. That and the fact that Brabham had already won the championship, whereas in 1961 Moss still had a chance if he won at Monza.

#17 Gary Davies

Gary Davies
  • Member

  • 1,916 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 26 November 2003 - 09:37

Originally posted by kstr
Are there some photos of this race?


I scanned this ages ago. It's Ginther. Note the difference in wear on the two rear tyres.
Posted Image

Is that Vic Barlow taking a close look at the fronts?

Edited by Gary Davies, 02 September 2010 - 08:27.


#18 kstr

kstr
  • Member

  • 59 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 26 November 2003 - 13:36

I can`t see the division between oval track and road track

#19 Rob G

Rob G
  • Member

  • 10,890 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 26 November 2003 - 14:41

Originally posted by kstr
I can`t see the division between oval track and road track

If you look at the big black and white pic of the starting grid you can see the little white BP pylons. In the color pic just above it you can see one just above and behind the Ferrari.

Advertisement

#20 kstr

kstr
  • Member

  • 59 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 26 November 2003 - 14:49

Is it only that BP pylons who divide the track?

#21 gdecarli

gdecarli
  • Member

  • 1,038 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 26 November 2003 - 15:24

Originally posted by kstr
Is it only that BP pylons who divide the track?

Yes, because circuit could be used with different layoutas: complete, road, Oval and Junior. Of course each layout used main straight in a different way, so it was not possible to have a permanent division.

Ciao,
Guido

#22 kstr

kstr
  • Member

  • 59 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 26 November 2003 - 15:38

But is very dangerous.On the thirties I think that there aren`t any pylons,aren`t they?

#23 kstr

kstr
  • Member

  • 59 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 26 November 2003 - 16:53

I am very satisfied withthe results.If there are more,please post it.But I will also start with another post

#24 kstr

kstr
  • Member

  • 59 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 26 November 2003 - 19:32

Are there mor photos like the start photo, with driver` s name?

#25 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,849 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 26 November 2003 - 21:58

Originally posted by cabianca
.....If that were the case, why were they perfectly happy to return in 1961 with even flimsier cars. I think it had more to do with not wanting to be beaten and letting the FIA know that they were now the bulk of the field and their wishes re the 1.5 liter formula should be given more consideration. After spending most of the history of motor racing to that point being graceful losers, they had yet to learn to be graceful winners. Thankfully, that came not too much later.


I think they stood to lose to much in 1961...

The Ferraris had dominated the series, there were a couple (or three?) Climax (and BRM?) V8s to try out in competition, they had lost out in 1960 when their demands simply weren't met.

Again, in 1962, the plan was to run on the banked circuit as well (or am I getting confused with 1963?), but the crash of 1961 was able to be cited among the other reasons for not using it and it didn't happen... though I think they practiced on it in one session? I might be wrong about that though...

#26 conjohn

conjohn
  • Member

  • 487 posts
  • Joined: July 03

Posted 27 November 2003 - 06:13

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Again, in 1962, the plan was to run on the banked circuit as well (or am I getting confused with 1963?), but the crash of 1961 was able to be cited among the other reasons for not using it and it didn't happen... though I think they practiced on it in one session? I might be wrong about that though...

Quote from The Motor 11 September 1963:
"After an hour or so practicing ceased and G.P.D.A. chief Jo Bonnier hurried the length of the paddock collecting drives' signatures for a petition urging that the banked circuit should not be used for the race in view of the fact that five cars had already suffered suspension failures as a result of its appalling surface. Bonnier found ready support for his petition, even Ferrari backing it, but before it could even be presented, the organizers issued a statement to the effect that the banking would not be employed on instructions from the police. The high safety fence installed after the 1961 disaster in front of all public enclosures on the road circuit has not yet been erected round the bankings, and the police therefore refused to allow the banked circuit to be used. No doubt this police decision was by no means unwelcome to the race organizes who had been considerably shaken by the terrible things that were happening to the cars. Practising was therefore resumed on the road circuit only, but as most of the cars that were still runners had their suspension specially jacked up to cope with the bankings, the times were not really significant."

#27 Leif Snellman

Leif Snellman
  • Member

  • 1,076 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 27 November 2003 - 10:01

Originally posted by kstr
But is very dangerous.On the thirties I think that there aren`t any pylons,aren`t they?

In 1934, yes! They had to as there was two way traffic on the main straight.

#28 kstr

kstr
  • Member

  • 59 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 27 November 2003 - 13:09

And on the fifties?

#29 Leif Snellman

Leif Snellman
  • Member

  • 1,076 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 27 November 2003 - 16:33

1934:

Posted Image

#30 kstr

kstr
  • Member

  • 59 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 27 November 2003 - 17:47

Are there any complete comment about the race?

#31 Mike Argetsinger

Mike Argetsinger
  • Member

  • 948 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 27 November 2003 - 20:28

It should be noted that this race had a huge significance on this side of the Atlantic. This was the first American victory in a European Grand Prix since Jimmy Murphy in the 1921 French Grand Prix. American race fans had long considered Murphy's win a bench mark achievement and aspiring road racing drivers (including Phil Hill) used it as an inspiration. This was the holy grail and Phil Hill's win had nearly as big an impact here as did his World Championship the following year.

#32 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 27 November 2003 - 20:49

I had the great fortune to be at Monza that day and what Mike states is absolutely true. Those Americans -- me included -- in the crowd went nuts. Plus, there was much written on it in the various American motoring magazine afterwards. It was a real boost to The Cause.

#33 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 24,024 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 28 November 2003 - 00:23

DSJ thought it was "absolutely right" that Hill "should be the first American to win a proper motor race with a Grand Prix car". Which begs the question: did he not consider the Duesenberg a proper Grand Prix car? Or the GP de l'ACF not to be a proper race?

#34 gdecarli

gdecarli
  • Member

  • 1,038 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 28 November 2003 - 00:46

Something like pylons was used from 1922 to 1938 and from 1955 to 1969 every time complete circuit was used. In both cases, main straight was intended to be divided into two halves. When only road circuit or only oval circuit were used, pylons must have been removed. OLd oval circuit was destroyed in 1938 and the new one was built in 1955, so in that period main straight was not shared between two layouts.

On my Monza page there are some maps that can help you to understand. Unfortunately I have no time now to finish with missing maps.
I have a 1932 photo that show a little pramidal pylon.

I don't think they were so dangerous according standard of those time!

Ciao,
Guido

#35 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,849 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 28 November 2003 - 01:07

Originally posted by Vitesse2
DSJ thought it was "absolutely right" that Hill "should be the first American to win a proper motor race with a Grand Prix car". Which begs the question: did he not consider the Duesenberg a proper Grand Prix car? Or the GP de l'ACF not to be a proper race?


Interesting question... there's no hint in what he wrote? Like in the 'Reflections' or whatever?

#36 d.c.a. mulcahy

d.c.a. mulcahy
  • New Member

  • 16 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 28 November 2003 - 06:02

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vitesse2
DSJ thought it was "absolutely right" that Hill "should be the first American to win a proper motor race with a Grand Prix car". Which begs the question: did he not consider the Duesenberg a proper Grand Prix car? Or the GP de l'ACF not to be a proper race?
------------------------------------------------------------------------



Interesting question... there's no hint in what he wrote? Like in the 'Reflections' or whatever?

-----

In response to the above questions the original quote from DSJ appeared in a set of notes which DSJ often appended to his Motor Sport GP reports. In this case they were headlined Monza Murmurs

The quote in question was:
'That Phil Hill should be the first American to win a proper motor race with a Grand Prix car seems absolutely right, for few will deny that he is the best American road-race driver of recent years.'

That was the end of his comment on this topic and he moved onto another point.

However in the race report itself there is a further comment which can be added to the one above.

It reads:

'The number one American road race driver completed the 50 laps at a new record race average and thus became the first American to win a proper Grand Prix in Europe since Jimmy Murphy way back in the dark ages.'

#37 petefenelon

petefenelon
  • Member

  • 4,815 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 28 November 2003 - 11:53

Originally posted by d.c.a. mulcahy
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vitesse2
DSJ thought it was "absolutely right" that Hill "should be the first American to win a proper motor race with a Grand Prix car". Which begs the question: did he not consider the Duesenberg a proper Grand Prix car? Or the GP de l'ACF not to be a proper race?
------------------------------------------------------------------------



Interesting question... there's no hint in what he wrote? Like in the 'Reflections' or whatever?

-----

In response to the above questions the original quote from DSJ appeared in a set of notes which DSJ often appended to his Motor Sport GP reports. In this case they were headlined Monza Murmurs

The quote in question was:
'That Phil Hill should be the first American to win a proper motor race with a Grand Prix car seems absolutely right, for few will deny that he is the best American road-race driver of recent years.'

That was the end of his comment on this topic and he moved onto another point.

However in the race report itself there is a further comment which can be added to the one above.

It reads:

'The number one American road race driver completed the 50 laps at a new record race average and thus became the first American to win a proper Grand Prix in Europe since Jimmy Murphy way back in the dark ages.'


I suppose it could be

(A) Jenks being inconsistent and WB not catching him out and correcting him?
(B) Jenks being deliberately provocative about the Duesenberg's origins?

I'm inclined to think the latter - a factual slip that obvious doesn't sound characteristic of DSJ or WB...

#38 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 24,024 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 28 November 2003 - 12:04

Originally posted by petefenelon


I suppose it could be

(A) Jenks being inconsistent and WB not catching him out and correcting him?
(B) Jenks being deliberately provocative about the Duesenberg's origins?

I'm inclined to think the latter - a factual slip that obvious doesn't sound characteristic of DSJ or WB...

That was my feeling too, Pete. But of course Jenks actually owned a racing Duesy of slightly later vintage ...

#39 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,045 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 28 November 2003 - 12:33

Originally posted by kstr
Are there any complete comment about the race?

We don't know where you come from, what your native language is, or what knowledge you already have. This makes it very difficult to know what to say.

There will be complete reports of the race in contemporary magazines. British: Motor Sport, Autosport, Motor Racing, Autocar, Motor. US: Road and Track and others. I don't know the names of Italian, German or French magazines. There may be Spanish or Portuguese language magazines either from Europe or South America.
Then there are the yearbooks such as Autocourse.
Then general history books such as Lang Volume 1.
I have seen a history of the Italian GP advertised at one time.
Then you have biographies such as "Phil Hill: Yankee Champion " by Nolan, or any of the biographies of his contemporaries - principally Stirling Moss.

I assume you have already done a web search using all the usual keywords. In addition to the many sites listing results there are some that also feature reports.

Please try and make it clearer what you already know and what you want to find out to complete the picture.

Advertisement

#40 petefenelon

petefenelon
  • Member

  • 4,815 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 28 November 2003 - 12:39

Originally posted by Vitesse2

That was my feeling too, Pete. But of course Jenks actually owned a racing Duesy of slightly later vintage ...


Maybe he disapproved of any car the crankshaft of which was nearly as tall as himself?;)

#41 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,045 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 28 November 2003 - 13:19

Originally posted by petefenelon


I suppose it could be

(A) Jenks being inconsistent and WB not catching him out and correcting him?
(B) Jenks being deliberately provocative about the Duesenberg's origins?

I'm inclined to think the latter - a factual slip that obvious doesn't sound characteristic of DSJ or WB...

Remember he would have been using a typewriter rather than a word processor so he couldn't go back without retyping the page.
I think it is just Jenks being himself and doing a bit of a Murray Walker. Picture the scene:

Somewhere in Europe a bearded gnome is sitting in front of a typewriter:

Thinks'Hill deserved to win he's due a GP win'
Types 'That Phil Hill should be the first American to win a proper motor race' .
Thinks 'Hang on! He's won Le Mans and other sports car races.
They're proper races. Has he won any F2 races? Can't remember. Let's see"

Types ' with a Grand Prix car'
Thinks 'Now where was I?'
Types '. . . seems absolutely right, for few will deny that he is the best American road-race driver of recent years.'
Thinks 'Is that a Ferrari or a Maserati I can hear? Must have a look!'
Exit stage left.

It could be far more mundane:

The piece is marginally too long. The typesetter does a mental Google and sees 'Murphy in a Duesenburg' twice and pulls the second one out. 'Duesenberg' would show up well on the mirror image he's reading.

#42 Mallory Dan

Mallory Dan
  • Member

  • 2,673 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 28 November 2003 - 13:29

Completely OT, pete, what's the syphon ???

Dan

#43 kstr

kstr
  • Member

  • 59 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 28 November 2003 - 13:48

I am Portuguese and i has ask for an internet comment, because you are experts on motorsport history

#44 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,053 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 28 November 2003 - 14:03

Originally posted by petefenelon

(B) Jenks being deliberately provocative about the Duesenberg's origins?

I'm inclined to think the latter - a factual slip that obvious doesn't sound characteristic of DSJ or WB...

Ditto, the Doozie arguably was not a GP car but an Indy-type car.

#45 kstr

kstr
  • Member

  • 59 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 28 November 2003 - 16:46

Are there more photos or a video?

#46 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 6,013 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 29 November 2003 - 08:07

Originally posted by Vitesse2
DSJ thought it was "absolutely right" that Hill "should be the first American to win a proper motor race with a Grand Prix car". Which begs the question: did he not consider the Duesenberg a proper Grand Prix car? Or the GP de l'ACF not to be a proper race?


It is clear that DSJ made a mistake, the Duesenberg was certainly a Grand Prix car. Do not David Bruce-Brown, Ralph DePalma, Howdy Wilcox and Wilbur Shaw count?

#47 David Beard

David Beard
  • Member

  • 4,886 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 29 November 2003 - 10:42

Originally posted by petefenelon


Maybe he disapproved of any car the crankshaft of which was nearly as tall as himself?;)


Is that why he was so fond of motor cycles...?

#48 kstr

kstr
  • Member

  • 59 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 29 November 2003 - 14:03

Spmeone can post more material about 1960 F1 season

#49 Leif Snellman

Leif Snellman
  • Member

  • 1,076 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 29 November 2003 - 18:50

For more about the 1960 season I recommend Robert Blinkhorn's site:
http://www.gpracing..../races/1960.cfm

#50 kstr

kstr
  • Member

  • 59 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 30 November 2003 - 18:52

I would like more