Jump to content


Photo

1950s Indy cars


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 David Hyland

David Hyland
  • Member

  • 289 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 03 January 2007 - 09:17

Dear fellow TNFers,

Over at the Wikipedia Formula One project, we're having a discussion about whether the cars that ran in the Indy 500 during the "World Championship years" (1950-1960) were legal F1 cars.

I'm pretty confident that from 1954 onwards, they weren't (i.e. F1 max engine size was 2.5 litres, whereas at Indy they were running 4.2 litre Offys), but I wasn't sure about 1950-1953, when the F1 max engine size was 4.5 litres.

Can anyone provide a definitive answer?

Thanks,
David.

Advertisement

#2 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 03 January 2007 - 12:44

In 1950 at least the upper limit for supercharged engines was three litres (as against 1.5 for F1), so that year at least can be ruled out.
I haven't checked later years
There may also have been different weight limits - I haven't checked that either

#3 RA Historian

RA Historian
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 03 January 2007 - 13:17

In the post WWII era they never matched F-1 specs. Before the engine limit was lowered to 4.2 liters unblown I believe it was 4.5. This was the early 50s. Perhaps Steve Zautke will see this thread and give us the facts.

#4 Gerr

Gerr
  • Member

  • 687 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 03 January 2007 - 14:49

Indianapolis 1950:
Non-Stock Supercharged Motors, 183.060 Cubic Inches (3,000 cc.) Piston Displacement or Less;
Non-Stock Non-Supercharged Motors, 274.59 Cubic Inches (4,500 cc.) Piston Displacement or Less;
and Diesel Engines, 402.68 Cubic Inches (6,600 cc.) Piston Displacement or Less
(One or Two Seated Bodies, No Weight Limits.)


As of 1953 the two seat ruled was no longer mentioned.

Added 1953:
Turbine Motors, no size limitation.
No other changes.

Reduction 1955:
Diesel Engines, 335.57 cubic inches (5,500 cc.) or Less;
No other changes.

Reduction 1957:
Non-Stock Supercharged Engines 170.856 Cubic Inches (2,800 cc.) Piston Displacement or Less;
Non-Stock Non-Supercharged Engines 256.284 Cubic Inches (4,200 cc.);
No other changes.

These rules stayed in place through to and including 1965.

#5 szautke

szautke
  • Member

  • 87 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 03 January 2007 - 15:54

IIRC, the Indianapolis 500 was an event included on the World Championship calendar, in which the prevailing F-1 rules were exempt. The AAA/USAC rules superceded the "formula." I've heard old-timers mention that it was included because it gave the schedule a North American race and made it a true 'world' championship. Thus, when Sebring (two U.S. events for '59) and eventually Watkins Glen were included on the schedule, the need for the '500' to be on the schedule was no longer needed.

I'm curious to know if someone can confirm this or has additional information.

#6 stevewf1

stevewf1
  • Member

  • 3,254 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 03 January 2007 - 16:30

Originally posted by szautke
IIRC, the Indianapolis 500 was an event included on the World Championship calendar, in which the prevailing F-1 rules were exempt. The AAA/USAC rules superceded the "formula." I've heard old-timers mention that it was included because it gave the schedule a North American race and made it a true 'world' championship. Thus, when Sebring (two U.S. events for '59) and eventually Watkins Glen were included on the schedule, the need for the '500' to be on the schedule was no longer needed.

I'm curious to know if someone can confirm this or has additional information.


This is mentioned in Mike Lang's Grand Prix! Volume 1, 1950-1965 (page 7)...

I won't quote directly, but essentially it says that when the FIA conceived the World Driver's Championship in 1949, the "American delegate" argued successfully that if this was to be called the "World Championship", a race from North America should be included.

Since there was no Grand Prix as such, it was decided to include the Indianapolis 500 as part of the Championship. It was thought that F1 drivers could run the 500 and Indy drivers could enter Grand Prix events (which very rarely happened). It's ironic that after the Indy 500 was dropped from the calendar after 1960 was when the so-called "foreign invasion" of F1 drivers started running there...

From everything I've read, while the Indy 500 was a points-paying World Championship event, there was no attempt at all to "merge" any kind of engine displacement rules, etc.

#7 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,022 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 03 January 2007 - 17:31

Originally posted by David Hyland
Dear fellow TNFers,

Over at the Wikipedia Formula One project, we're having a discussion about whether the cars that ran in the Indy 500 during the "World Championship years" (1950-1960) were legal F1 cars.

I'm pretty confident that from 1954 onwards, they weren't (i.e. F1 max engine size was 2.5 litres, whereas at Indy they were running 4.2 litre Offys), but I wasn't sure about 1950-1953, when the F1 max engine size was 4.5 litres.

Can anyone provide a definitive answer?

Thanks,
David.

I don't know what the Wikipedia Formula 1 Project is, but I hope it makes clear that 'Formula 1 race', 'World Drivers' Championship race' and 'Grand Prix' are not synonyms. Since the Ecclestone organisation has taken over they are currently the same, but it was not always so.

If it is to properly inform, the Wikipedia project must include some history:

1. Tracing Formula 1 from its roots in the prewar International Formula to the present day
2. Tracing the World Drivers' Championship from its roots in the World Motorcycle Championships and the prewar European championship for drivers
3. Tracing the use of the word 'Grand Prix' from its roots in the Grand Prix run by the ACF in 1906 and the American Grand Prize of similar vintage through the premier race in a country being termed a national Grand Prix and its adoption by several race organisers (Pau, Syracuse, Donington) and by the AC de L'Ouest for its 'Grand Prix d'Endurance'
4. The meaning and significance of the now discontinued Grande Epreuve status
5. Explanation that in1952-53 the World Championship qualifying Grands Prix were run to Formula 2 rules, as were most but not all non-championship Grands Prix
5. The introduction in 1958 of the Manufacturers' Championship
6. The FOCA/FISA 'war' - possibly by reference to the writings of Don Capps on the subject (or are they only on the pay section of AtlasF1/Autosport?)
7. Mention of the 1920s World Championship for manufacturers and the 1930s European Championship for drivers

To answer the original query, Don Capps has written somewhere, either on another TNF thread or in an AtlasF1 article, that when the International Formula was introduced in 1947, USAC considered adopting it for Indianapolis and their championship, but gave way to the lobbying of those running 3 litre supercharged cars and continued with what was essentially the 1939 International Formula, including minimum weights related to engine capacity.

Once that decision was made, the Indianapolis International Sweepstakes was never a Formula 1 race. but as stevewf1 has said it was a World Drivers' Championship qualifier until replaced by the US GP, although both races were Championship qualifiers in 1959 and 1960, the US GP also being a qualifier for the Manufacturers' Championship.


The above is from memory as I am posting at work away from my books, so I may have got the odd detail wrong

#8 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 03 January 2007 - 18:56

Originally posted by Gerr
Indianapolis 1950:
Non-Stock Supercharged Motors, 183.060 Cubic Inches (3,000 cc.) Piston Displacement or Less;
Non-Stock Non-Supercharged Motors, 274.59 Cubic Inches (4,500 cc.) Piston Displacement or Less;
and Diesel Engines, 402.68 Cubic Inches (6,600 cc.) Piston Displacement or Less
(One or Two Seated Bodies, No Weight Limits.)


As of 1953 the two seat ruled was no longer mentioned.

Added 1953:
Turbine Motors, no size limitation.
No other changes.

Reduction 1955:
Diesel Engines, 335.57 cubic inches (5,500 cc.) or Less;
No other changes.

Reduction 1957:
Non-Stock Supercharged Engines 170.856 Cubic Inches (2,800 cc.) Piston Displacement or Less;
Non-Stock Non-Supercharged Engines 256.284 Cubic Inches (4,200 cc.);
No other changes.

These rules stayed in place through to and including 1965.


Interesting how we seem to keep coming back to this topic....

For 1946, the AAA kept the same regulations as were in effect for 1938-41, meaning the use of the sliding displacement/weight scale. This was dropped for 1947 with the new "International Racing Formula A" being essentially adopted (i.e., the weight limits dropped but the maximum displacements retained) with the temporary provision that the supercharged 3-litre engines would be allowed for at least a year (1948) before the maximum displacement for such engines would drop to 1.5-litres in 1949. This, of course, never happened since the exception kept gettting extended.

For all intents and purposes, with only a few exceptions, the cars participating in the International Sweepstakes were "formula one" cars until the 1953 event. After that, with the decrease in displacements allowed, the CSI and the AAA parted company on that score -- the new formula one was simply at odds with the realities of American racing. However, the event continued to count as a round in the CSI drivers' championship until the 1960 event, a new formula one and the establishment of a USGP making it easy for the CSI to drop the International Sweepstakes from the calendar of points-paying events.

Not sure if this is the answer you are looking for, but there is always more....

#9 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 03 January 2007 - 21:05

Originally posted by D-Type
5. Explanation that in1952-53 the World Championship qualifying Grands Prix were run to Formula 2 rules, as were most but not all non-championship Grands Prix

...and avoiding the common error (these days) of saying "in 1952-53 Formula 1 was changed to the old Formula 2"

#10 David Hyland

David Hyland
  • Member

  • 289 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 04 January 2007 - 00:49

Originally posted by D-Type
I don't know what the Wikipedia Formula 1 Project is, but I hope it makes clear that 'Formula 1 race', 'World Drivers' Championship race' and 'Grand Prix' are not synonyms. Since the Ecclestone organisation has taken over they are currently the same, but it was not always so.

Regrettably, the three terms are currently used interchangeably (to the extent that the article covering the 1952 WDC is entitled "1952 Formula One season" (despite the presence of a statement that "All races were run to Formula Two regulations"!)). However, there are a small group of us who understand the difference between the terms and are working hard to set things right.

Originally posted by D-Type
If it is to properly inform, the Wikipedia project must include some history...

There are articles on Grand Prix Motor Racing which traces the history back to 1894 and a separate article on the history of Formula One. Neither are perfect, but they're a good start.

Thanks everyone for your valued input.

David.

#11 David Hyland

David Hyland
  • Member

  • 289 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 04 January 2007 - 01:15

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
For all intents and purposes, with only a few exceptions, the cars participating in the International Sweepstakes were "formula one" cars until the 1953 event. After that, with the decrease in displacements allowed, the CSI and the AAA parted company on that score -- the new formula one was simply at odds with the realities of American racing. However, the event continued to count as a round in the CSI drivers' championship until the 1960 event, a new formula one and the establishment of a USGP making it easy for the CSI to drop the International Sweepstakes from the calendar of points-paying events.

Not sure if this is the answer you are looking for, but there is always more....

Well, it's the answer I was looking for, but not the answer I was hoping for. I was hoping that the cars participating in the International Sweepstakes did not conform to the Formula One specifications for any of the period during which the race counted for the World Championship, so that we could exclude the Indianapolis cars from all the "Formula One" articles and lists (but of course they would still be included in the "World Championship" articles and lists). We may still decide to do that anyway, on the basis that the Sweepstakes wasn't a "Formula One race".

Thanks again.

David.

#12 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 04 January 2007 - 02:30

Well, I will choose my words carefully here, is this "Wikipedia Formula 1 Project" is focused on formula one or the CSI/FISA (1950-1980) and FIA (1981-present) world championships?

If it is on the latter -- as it appears to be, then to exclude the events at Indianapolis is to indulge in a bit of revisionism of the worse sort.

If it is strictly "formula one" then you would be obliged to exclude the CSI championships of 1952 and 1953 as well as the Indianapolis events. Plus, mention the many non-championship events would be necessary.

Or does it really matter? Outside TNF and a few other sites where there are those with something more than a passing knowledge of motor sports history and its oddities -- people who are counted in the dozens and not hundreds or thousands and certainly not millions, most of those interested in formula one are not all that interested in its history, except in some vague way, usually related to Ferrari it seems. The same could be said for most of the fans of nearly any sport you might wish to name. History is not relevant to the enjoyment of the current way the sport is conducted.

Of course, it matters; it is simply what are you really trying to achieve? Keep in mind that for many years the histories of the CSI championship -- especially those in English, tended to ignore (completely or mention it in passing) the Indianapolis events. If it is the two world championships, then you have to deal with Indianapolis.

#13 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,754 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 04 January 2007 - 02:55

I've previously expressed my disappointment with what Wikipedia does for searching out information via Google and other search engines...

To that end, I trust that this project will include full results for every race it mentions?

#14 RA Historian

RA Historian
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 04 January 2007 - 03:25

Perhaps I am missing something here, but Gerr says that the Indianapolis formula for supercharged cars was three liters in the early 50s while Don Capps says that for all intents and purposes these cars were formula one cars. Maybe I am missing some subtle distinction, but the early 50s Indy 500 cars, as I see them, were anything but F=1 cars. While the top limit for unblown engines for both was 4.5 liters, the blown limits were at variance with 3.0 for Indy and 1.5 for F-1. In addition, the majority of cars in the Indy 500 were dirt cars or early roadsters, having little or no relevance to F-1 cars. The Ferrari 375 attempt was the only "crossover" of which I am aware. So I think, again unless I missed something, that it may be incorrect to say that "the cars participating in the International Sweepstakes were formula 1 cars."

I also agree with the statements made by several about the interchangeability of the terms Grand Prix, F-1, etc. It was well pointed out that the 1952-53 "Grande Eprueves" were run to F-2 rules, not formula one. But as time goes by I see more and more references to the Ferrari 500s and Maserati A6 cars of the time as being F-1 cars. Further, I have seen references that say Alberto Ascari was the two time "F-1 champion". He was a two time World Champion, but not in F-1. Indeed, a while back Motor Sport mag declared the Ferrari 500 to be one of the best F-1 cars ever. Nonsense! I wish that the powers that be today would drop thier nomenclature of "F-1 World Championship" and revert to the former, time tested labeling of the driver's championship of the world as simply "World Championship". When you come right down to it, conceivably the FIA could designate the world championship to be determined in FF2000 cars, to make a rather absurd point. Back when I was a youth, it was simply World Championship, and run to F-1 specs. Now, by declaring it to be the "F-1 World Championship" it rather cheapens the crown by categorizing it not as the WORLD Championship, the best of the best, but rather as 'just' the F-1 crown, if you follow my thinking. But I know that we are swimming upstream in trying to change the generally accepted perception of things.

#15 David Hyland

David Hyland
  • Member

  • 289 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 04 January 2007 - 03:34

Originally posted by Ray Bell
To that end, I trust that this project will include full results for every race it mentions?

It does for all the World Championship events (I think someone wrote a utility to automatically suck all the information from formula1.com) and some non-Championship events. I expect the details for the other mentioned non-Championship events will be added in the fullness of time.

#16 David Hyland

David Hyland
  • Member

  • 289 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 04 January 2007 - 03:46

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
Well, I will choose my words carefully here, is this "Wikipedia Formula 1 Project" is focused on formula one or the CSI/FISA (1950-1980) and FIA (1981-present) world championships?

If it is on the latter -- as it appears to be, then to exclude the events at Indianapolis is to indulge in a bit of revisionism of the worse sort.

If it is strictly "formula one" then you would be obliged to exclude the CSI championships of 1952 and 1953 as well as the Indianapolis events. Plus, mention the many non-championship events would be necessary.

Or does it really matter? Outside TNF and a few other sites where there are those with something more than a passing knowledge of motor sports history and its oddities -- people who are counted in the dozens and not hundreds or thousands and certainly not millions, most of those interested in formula one are not all that interested in its history, except in some vague way, usually related to Ferrari it seems. The same could be said for most of the fans of nearly any sport you might wish to name. History is not relevant to the enjoyment of the current way the sport is conducted.

Of course, it matters; it is simply what are you really trying to achieve? Keep in mind that for many years the histories of the CSI championship -- especially those in English, tended to ignore (completely or mention it in passing) the Indianapolis events. If it is the two world championships, then you have to deal with Indianapolis.

I believe the project is focussed on the World Championships, which means it is actually misnamed. (I suspect it was started by people who see "FIA Formula One World Championship" as an indivisible term). In my heart of hearts, I'd like to see the project renamed to reflect the World Championship focus, but I think that's just not going to happen, and plus what would you call it? The "Wikipedia CSI/FISA/FIA World Championships Project" doesn't have quite the same ring, does it? (and loses the information that for the past 53 years, the Championship has been comprised of exclusively Formula One events).

Maybe I just have to bite my tongue and accept the inclusion of Watson and Kuzma in a list of "Formula One constructors", even though I know they're really not.

#17 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 23,859 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 04 January 2007 - 13:09

Originally posted by David Hyland

There are articles on Grand Prix Motor Racing which traces the history back to 1894
David.

David - I'm afraid the description under the picture at the top of that article is not a good start. :rolleyes:

#18 David Hyland

David Hyland
  • Member

  • 289 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 04 January 2007 - 14:20

Originally posted by Vitesse2
David - I'm afraid the description under the picture at the top of that article is not a good start. :rolleyes:

Oh, dear - really? If you can provide a more accurate description, I'll update it. Thanks.

#19 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 04 January 2007 - 16:57

Originally posted by RA Historian
Perhaps I am missing something here, but Gerr says that the Indianapolis formula for supercharged cars was three liters in the early 50s while Don Capps says that for all intents and purposes these cars were formula one cars. Maybe I am missing some subtle distinction, but the early 50s Indy 500 cars, as I see them, were anything but F=1 cars. While the top limit for unblown engines for both was 4.5 liters, the blown limits were at variance with 3.0 for Indy and 1.5 for F-1. In addition, the majority of cars in the Indy 500 were dirt cars or early roadsters, having little or no relevance to F-1 cars. The Ferrari 375 attempt was the only "crossover" of which I am aware. So I think, again unless I missed something, that it may be incorrect to say that "the cars participating in the International Sweepstakes were formula 1 cars."


Please notice that I prefaced my remarks with this statement: "For all intents and purposes...." I qualify my statement only because of the AAA rules and not the vast majority of the cars themselves that participated in the International Sweepstakes until the 1953 event: cars that had engines of 4.5-litre displacement.

So, while an open-wheeled Ferrari of 1952 with a 4.5-litre engine is a "formula one car" -- but a car of similar vintage, 1952, also open-wheeled, using a 4.5-litre engine, and participating in an event counting towards the CSI world champion is not?

Exactly what does the statement, "....having little or no relevance to F-1 cars" really mean? That the American cars did not conform to your -- and obviously many others -- image of a formula one car?

So, do you simply wish away cars that actually met the specifications of the current CSI international racing formula one and participated in a CSI world championship event because they did not look like Ferraris or Alfa Romeos? Begone you Kurtis, Deidt, Moore, Stephens, and Lesovsky cars! You are not relevant and therefore names that are unworthy to even be mentioned, nay, even whispered, when formula one is mentioned.

Let us go back a step. If a car is built to the specifications of the CSI international racing formula -- grand prix, in other words -- and races in a series governed by those regulations, is it a "grand prix" race? From 1938 to 1946, the AAA national championship events were run to the international formula, yet they are studiously ignored whenever grand prix racing of this period is mentioned, much less discussed.

A point that is important here is that there are those revising history through a deadly combination of studied ignorance and willful manipulation.

Advertisement

#20 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,022 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 04 January 2007 - 18:00

I agree with your sentiments, Don, but is it not a good starting point to set the record straight vis a vis Indianapolis, the World Championship, Formula 1, Grands Prix and Grandes Epreuves?

Having tackled that one we can then go on to decide wheher or not the Indianapolis 500 is or was a Gand Prix - it was certainly a Grande Epreuve and still would be if such a race definition still existed.

Other AAA races were national in character, although they might have been nominally international, and as such I do not consider they merit the Grand Prix soubriquet.

As to "What is or is not a 'Formula 1 car'?", how about: the Ferrari in 1952 and the unsuccessful ERA E type in an earlier year (was it 1950 or 1951?) were 'Formula 1' cars competing in a race run under AAA rules; similarly De Beaufort's Porsche Spyder in the 1958 Dutch GP was a sports car competing in a Formula 1 race; Rodger Ward's entry in the 1959 US GP was a USAC Midget competing in a Formula 1 race; prewar the Millers that ran in the Italian GP were US track racing cars running in a Grand Prix.

I agree completely that we should not revise history.

#21 Rosemayer

Rosemayer
  • Member

  • 1,253 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 04 January 2007 - 18:16

Which indy roadsters ran against Fi cars at Monza in the 1950s?

#22 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 04 January 2007 - 18:34

(1) Define exactly what is a "Grand Prix" for me. Is there a specific defintion for such an event? Or it is simply a matter where there is a connotation as to what such an event should be.

(2) If being simply a "national" event means that an event is not a 'Grand Prix," then someone should tell the French to find another term for many of their event called a "Grand Prix." Also, when do you begin tracking the history of the "Canadian Grand Prix" -- 1967? Or 1961?

(3) If Pop Myers wanted to call it the "Grand Prix of Indianapolis," as he did in the 1938 IMS program, would that have meant that the sun would not shine, the tides stop, and the birds cease singing?

(4) It seems a bit hypocritical for some of us to loving ferret out every detail of a minor British club race held to the CSI international racing formula one or other similar events held using the CSI international formula while ignoring -- denying -- that such a thing could happen in America. Especially in Milwaukee.

This sort of thing can go on and on and probably accomplish diddly-squat. The only point that is truly relevant is that the CSI placed the International 500-mile Sweepstakes race at the Indianapolis Motor speedway on its calendar of world championship for drivers from 1950 until 1960. This cannot be denied, although it can be -- and has been -- ignored.

#23 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,754 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 04 January 2007 - 20:37

They wouldn't have been, of course, if Stirling Moss had been offered a drive at Indy in 1958, accepted and then finished in fourth place...

Would they?

#24 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 23,859 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 04 January 2007 - 23:47

Originally posted by David Hyland
Oh, dear - really? If you can provide a more accurate description, I'll update it. Thanks.

IIRC that picture was in one of DCN's quiz threads, so may very well be copyright of the GP Library. I don't remember the precisions of the identification - by either Jean-Maurice Gigleux or Robert Dick, I think - but it's certainly not the 1912 GP de l'ACF. Some sort of record run on a velodrome IIRC: note the banked corner and the lap counter reading double zero.

#25 Sergio Sultani

Sergio Sultani
  • Member

  • 140 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 05 January 2007 - 00:23

Originally posted by Gerr
Indianapolis 1950:
Non-Stock Supercharged Motors, 183.060 Cubic Inches (3,000 cc.) Piston Displacement or Less;
Non-Stock Non-Supercharged Motors, 274.59 Cubic Inches (4,500 cc.) Piston Displacement or Less;


Since 1938, until 1956.

Anothers years before:

1908: Under 1200 Kg.

1909-1912: up to 600 cubics inches (ci) and 9.800 cc


1913: up to 450 ci (7.400cc)

1914: up to 600 c1 (7.400cc)

1915-1919 : up to 300 ci (4.900 cc)
1917-1918 :without races.

1920-1922: 183 ci (up to 3000 cc)

1923-1925: 122ci (2000 cc) - single seaters

1926-1929: 91 ci (1500 cc)


1930-1931: up to 366 ci (6.000 cc)

1932-1937 as 1930, supercharged allowed, riding mechanic compulsory


Feliz Ano Novo
SS

#26 RA Historian

RA Historian
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 05 January 2007 - 00:43

Don, dear oh dear oh dear, Please don't get so huffy! This really is not worth such an argument. All I am saying is that the AAA cars that ran US tracks in the 50s were not F-1 cars. The top engine limit of 4.5 was the same, but beyond that the specs differed greatly. The cars you seem to favor were built to the AAA specs while the cars in Europe were built to the F-1 formula. They were never intended to be the same. I have nothing against the Kurtis, Watson, what have you roadsters and dirt cars, but they were not and were never intended to be F-1 cars. Hence they had little or no relevance to F-1. I never said that the Indy 500 did not count for the World Championship (note, not F-1 championship) in the 50s. I know that it did. But in fact it was ignored and irrelevant to the World Championship. And yes, I know that the World Championship was not run for F-1 cars in 1952-53. See my comments on that earlier. I really don't know why we are arguing this arcane point; it simply is not worth it.

#27 David Hyland

David Hyland
  • Member

  • 289 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 07 January 2007 - 05:58

Originally posted by David Hyland
I believe the project is focussed on the World Championships, which means it is actually misnamed. (I suspect it was started by people who see "FIA Formula One World Championship" as an indivisible term). In my heart of hearts, I'd like to see the project renamed to reflect the World Championship focus, but I think that's just not going to happen, and plus what would you call it? The "Wikipedia CSI/FISA/FIA World Championships Project" doesn't have quite the same ring, does it? (and loses the information that for the past 53 years, the Championship has been comprised of exclusively Formula One events).

Maybe I just have to bite my tongue and accept the inclusion of Watson and Kuzma in a list of "Formula One constructors", even though I know they're really not.

We've decided to leave the articles focussed on the World Championships rather than "Formula One" (which seems quite reasonable) but to make sure that the text within each article is accurate, e.g. the 1950 British Grand Prix article, which currently says "This was the first round of the 1950 FIA Formula One World Championship" will be changed to read "This was the first round of the 1950 World Championship for Drivers".

Can anyone provide (or point me to) a chronology of the accurate/official names for the Drivers and Constructors championships from 1950 to the current day?

Thanks,
David.

#28 RA Historian

RA Historian
  • Member

  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 07 January 2007 - 17:00

Originally posted by David Hyland
Can anyone provide (or point me to) a chronology of the accurate/official names for the Drivers and Constructors championships from 1950 to the current day?

Yes, I think that is a splendid idea, David. It may clear up a bit of the fog surrounding this topic. I have long felt that the term "Formula One World's Championship" came to be in the last 20 or 25 years or so. Its initial use may well be somewhat concurrent with the rise of Mr. Ecclestone to power. I cannot recall seeing, in my youth, in the magazines of the day, the World Championship referred to as the "Formula One etc.". It was just the World Championship, which happened to be run to the Formula One specs. The terms were not used interchangeably and concurrently as they are now. Much less confusing. Everyone knew what was meant. As has been stated many times earlier in this thread, the two terms have come to be accepted as the same thing, whereas they are not.

Personally, I am against the use of 'FOWC' for this basic reason: Its use today carries the implication that it is the World Championship of Formula One and Formula One only, not all racing. Back when, before FOWC became used, the World Champion was taken to be just that: the WORLD CHAMPION, meaning of all racing, not just Formula One. I hope that is not adding to the confusion.