43 replies to this topic

[Option1]

With talk now starting on the possibility of Michael Schumacher breaking Alberto Ascari's streak of most consecutive wins, I thought I'd ask the question How many did Ascari really win in a row?

Forix says 7 at http://www.forix.com...02040&c=101&s=1

So I'm assuming they count the loss at Indy as having ended the streak.

However, http://www.fortuneci...ry/fifties1.htm says 9. So obviously they don't include the Indy result.

So folks, what should the figure be?

And no, this isn't a quiz. It's more that I'm interested as to why the Indy results should or should not be included in discussions of Formula 1 statistics and records.

regards

Neil

[David J Jones]

If Ascari had won Indy it would have been 10

Sorry but I am just playing up.......

Forza..

[Ray Bell]

Realistically, if you had to include Indianapolis then, you'd have to include it now...

And with today's results being so car-dependent, and combined with the additional events today, it's surely so much easier.

[Racer.Demon]

Originally posted by Option1
With talk now starting on the possibility of Michael Schumacher breaking Alberto Ascari's streak of most consecutive wins

Incidentally, what is the record for most consecutive GP wins from pole?

Mansell, early '92, sharing with Ascari late '52, early '53? In that case, Schumacher has just equalled that. He also beat Prost's record number of fastest laps yesterday.

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Option1


And no, this isn't a quiz. It's more that I'm interested as to why the Indy results should or should not be included in discussions of Formula 1 statistics and records.

regards

Neil

Indianapolis wasn't a Formula 1 race. But then, neither were any other of Ascari's wins in that sequence.... Indianapolis wasn't a Grand Prix either...

[Blind Terry]

Ascari won 9 in a row of races entered. If he had competed at indy, as he did in 1952, then it would have been 7. Unless he had won. The indy should be considered as it formed part of the championship at the time and therefore he won 7 consecutive championship races.

I think that leaves me sitting on the fence. Great question

[Don Capps]

Ah, one of the reasons that life is always so fascinating and why statistics are rarely the complete tale....

Roger's comment is a good starting place:

Indianapolis wasn't a Formula 1 race. But then, neither were any other of Ascari's wins in that sequence.... Indianapolis wasn't a Grand Prix either...

I have to plead a certain sense of mischief and state that the AAA National Championhip cars were in essence "Formula 1" cars -- for the most part. During this period there were only a few exceptions that made the field that didn't meet the Formula 1 rule of of a maximum capacity of 4,500cc for unsupercharged engines.

As to whether it was a "Grand Prix" is another point that isn't so clear either since the event did indeed count towards the FIA World Championship. I always make it a point to include the Indy results in my musings since until 1953 it was pretty much a pukka Event in the WDC series. After that, a different story....

Whether seven or nine, the point is that Ascari did something pretty special.

[Option1]

Thank you Don and all for your replies.

I'll try and be careful with my terminology in future.

regards

Neil

[maxie]

Originally posted by Racer.Demon


Incidentally, what is the record for most consecutive GP wins from pole?

Mansell, early '92, sharing with Ascari late '52, early '53? In that case, Schumacher has just equalled that. He also beat Prost's record number of fastest laps yesterday.

Mansell nearly made it 6 in a row but was just beaten by Senna in Monaco in '92.

[Ray Bell]

Just like Senna knocked him off the track when he was set to get 10 wins in a year...

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Don Capps


I have to plead a certain sense of mischief and state that the AAA National Championhip cars were in essence "Formula 1" cars -- for the most part. During this period there were only a few exceptions that made the field that didn't meet the Formula 1 rule of of a maximum capacity of 4,500cc for unsupercharged engines.

THe cars may have complied with Formula 1 but the race didn't.

[Rob29]

Originally posted by Roger Clark


THe cars may have complied with Formula 1 but the race didn't.

Dom't understand what you mean Roger;Only rules for the races at that time, other than the specification of the cars ,was that they should last for at least 500km or 3hrs.The Indy 500 qualified on both counts. Nowhere does it say it has to be called a Grand Prix only the main national race of the country "Grande Epreurve"

[Ray Bell]

I think he refers to the formula for the cars here, and he's probably on pretty thin ice.
By what authority was the WDC contested by F2 cars, anyway?
Could races for F1 have counted?
This I find an interesting question. I may be alone in that, however.
And what was the formula for Indy at the time? Was the 4.2 litre limit in, or was it still the same as F1?

[Marcel Schot]

Originally posted by Racer.Demon


Incidentally, what is the record for most consecutive GP wins from pole?

Mansell, early '92, sharing with Ascari late '52, early '53? In that case, Schumacher has just equalled that. He also beat Prost's record number of fastest laps yesterday.

Indeed Mansell 1992 and Schumacher 2000/1:

Mansell at South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Spa & San Marino in 1992 and Schumacher at Italy, USA, Japan, Malaysia 2000 & Australia 2001

Funny coincidence : in both cases more than half the wins were won outside of Europe.

Ascari's record for consecutive poles is 4, which he all went on to win with fastest lap. Absolutely no competition ofcourse.

[Don Capps]

In 1952, the AAA 'formula' for the National Championship Cars was still a maximum of 4,500cc. The reduction to 4,200cc wasn't until perhaps the 1957 or the 1958 season, I can't recall off the top of my head.

And I must say that "F1" then was rather nebulous in many more ways then than it is now. The race was over three hours long and for a distance of at least 500km (a tad over 800km in fact). While two of the entries weren't exactly "F1" - the Cummings Diesel of Fredie Agabashian and a the Novi in the Kurtis of Duke Nalon -- the other 31 were about as pukka an "F1" car as you might ask for at the time.;)

This whole series of 11 races has been a thorn in the side of the F1 Purists since practically Day One and certainly since 1954. Personally, I rather like the "fly in the ointment" that it creates. It should serve to remind us that "real" history is usually very messy and not without good reason is there the occasional long discourse on "setting the scene" or the "context" of an event.

I will defer the in-depth discussion of the "Outlaw" Championships of 1952 and 1953 for another time, but it good to keep in mind that the CSI was really pretty toothless back then. The European organizers basically told the CSI what it was going to do and the CSI let them do it. Naturally, the root of the problem was Mammon...

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Rob29

Dom't understand what you mean Roger;Only rules for the races at that time, other than the specification of the cars ,was that they should last for at least 500km or 3hrs.The Indy 500 qualified on both counts. Nowhere does it say it has to be called a Grand Prix only the main national race of the country "Grande Epreurve"

What sized supercharged engines did they allow?

[cabianca]

From its inception in 1950, F1 was 4500cc unsupercharged and 1500 cc supercharged. After Alfa retired at the end of 1951, it was obvious that Ferrari would be unchallenged in F1 WC competition. At that time, it was thought that running the WC for FII cars (2000cc unsupercharged, 750cc supercharged) would bring in more manufacturers. Perhaps it did, but Ferrari won all the races but one anyway in 52/53. Indy continued to count for the WC in the FII years of 52-53, even though the formulae were no longer in agreement (Indy still at 4.5, WC at 2000cc). Then, F1 was reinstated at the formula for WC racing in 1954, but it was now limited to 2.5 liter engines, naturally aspirated. Indy continued as a WC points-paying race, still allowing the 4.5 liter limit. Was Indy ever a Grand Prix. They sure as hell never referred to themselves that way. They were finally dropped from the Championship after 1960, when F1 went to 1.5 liter engines in 1961. The weird part of it is that Indy still counted toward WC points in 1959 and 1960 when the U.S. had a pukka points-paying Grand Prix of its own (Sebring in 59 and Riverside in 60, both having the full GP circus participate in 2.5 liter cars). Don's right, history is messy. The question is, since Indy never called itself a Grand Prix, does it have the right to exclude itself from the nomenclature?
Michael T. Lynch

[fines]

One of the things that has always bugged me...

There was never a thing like a Formula One World Championship before 1981 (no misprint!), just a World Drivers Championship. Thus, the Indy races and F2 GPs of the fifties are as much a *real* WC round as any other race during the time. Also, there was never a rule that the 1952/3 WC races had to be run for F2 cars, it was up to the organisers of the Grandes Épreuves to decide upon that. In fact, until September 1953, a Spanish GP for F1 cars was a scheduled round of the WC, it was only cancelled after the Italian GP of that year.

And sorry Don, but the rules at Indianapolis were VERY different to F1 throughout the fifties. For 1950 to 1953 "non-stock supercharged motors of 3000cc, non-stock non-supercharged motors of 4500cc, supercharged four-stroke Diesel engines of 6600cc and supercharged two-stroke Diesel engines of 4500cc" were allowed, from 1954 on Diesel engines were restricted to 5500cc and unrestricted turbine motors were allowed in, and from 1957 racing engines were restricted to 2800cc (s/c) and 4200cc (u/s). In every year from 1950 to '53 there were supercharged 3000cc entries practicing, qualifying and racing at the 500, so none of these races can be regarded as an F1 event, but they were WC rounds just as much as the British, French or Italian GP.

Thus:

- Most WC rounds won in a row: Ascari 7 (1952/3)
- Most WC rounds entered won in a row: Ascari 9 (1952/3), Clark 6 (1965)
- Most F1 races won in a row: ?

[Don Capps]

And sorry Don, but the rules at Indianapolis were VERY different to F1 throughout the fifties. For 1950 to 1953 "non-stock supercharged motors of 3000cc, non-stock non-supercharged motors of 4500cc, supercharged four-stroke Diesel engines of 6600cc and supercharged two-stroke Diesel engines of 4500cc" were allowed, from 1954 on Diesel engines were restricted to 5500cc and unrestricted turbine motors were allowed in, and from 1957 racing engines were restricted to 2800cc (s/c) and 4200cc (u/s). In every year from 1950 to '53 there were supercharged 3000cc entries practicing, qualifying and racing at the 500, so none of these races can be regarded as an F1 event, but they were WC rounds just as much as the British, French or Italian GP.

I placed emphasis on the fact of the matter: like it or not, Indy was a round in the Championship and should acknowledged as such -- whether it makes sense or not. Remember who we are dealing with here, the CSI...

The fact of the matter is that despite all the ruckus, the smoke & mirrors, the WDC was moreorless a Formula Libre for the 1952 and 1953 seasons with the FIA F2 simply being the European expedient choice of what to run. The choice for the WDC could just as easily been 2,500cc cars or the AAA formula or even sports cars. Also, even think about the fact the CSI never played name games and changed F2 into F1? That should have been an interesting idea to at least someone at the time.

Michael does make an interesting point that many have missed: the name change in the midst & aftermath of the FIASCO War.

I am playing something of a Devil's Advocate since I think Champ Car racing often gets short shrift by too many. Personally, I have always wished that the rift twix the US and European open-wheeled series had not happened, but it did and Life is Like That....

[Ray Bell]

Shame the Spanish never happened... Moss might have won in a BRM?

How about we have a hypothetical about this race, starting with the circuit and the then-current drivers and their then-current contracts?

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Shame the Spanish never happened... Moss might have won in a BRM?

How about we have a hypothetical about this race, starting with the circuit and the then-current drivers and their then-current contracts?

Ferrari 1st 2nd 3rd. BRMs non-started. That was why they raced Formula 2.

[Ray Bell]

Aren't you ignoring Albi?

[Marcor]

Was Albi the good example ? Ferrari won twice, BRM retired in 52, won a short race in 53 (a qualification race) and was beaten by Rosier's private Ferrari 375 in the final.

1 June 1952 Albi (F1 race)
1- Rosier Ferrari 375 #8
2- Landi Ferrari 375 #6
3- Giraud-Cabantous Talbot Lago T26C 110001 SA #22
4- Crespo Talbot T26C 110005 SA #12
5- Whitehead Ferrari 125 s/étage 125-114 #26
6- Fischer Ferrari 212 #28
7- Comotti Ferrari 166 F2 #24
8- Trintignant Talbot Lago T26C #10


DNF- Bira Gordini T15-T16C #16
DNF- Behra Gordini T16 32 #14
DNF- + PP- Fangio BRM T15 MKI V16 #2
DNF- Etancelin Talbot T26C #18
DNF- Pilette Talbot T26C 110052 DA #36
DNF- Schell Gordini T16 #32
DNF- Gonzales BRM T15 MKII V16 #4
DNF- Grignard Talbot Lago #20
DNF- Watson Maserati #30


31 May 1953 Formula 1 race heat (10 laps = 89 km)
1 + PP + FL- Fangio BRM T15 MK1/1 V16 #7
2- Wharton BRM T15 MK1 V16 #9
3- Rosier Ferrari 375 52-2 #5
4- Trintignant Gordini T16 34 #15
5- Gonzales BRM T15 MK1 V16 #11
6- Giraud-Cabantous Talbot T26C 110053 DA #17
DNF- De Riu Maserati 4CLT/48 #21
DNF- Hamilton Talbot T26C 110011 #19
DNF- Farina Ferrari 375 Thinwall special #3
DNF- Ascari Ferrari 375 #1


31 May 1953 Final - F1 + F2 race (18 laps = 160,218 km)
1- Rosier Ferrari 375 52-2 #5
2- Gonzales BRM T15 MK1 V16 #11
3- Trintignant Gordini T16 34 #15
4- Mieres Gordini T16 32 #6
5- Whitehead Cooper T24 CA-1-53 Alta #10
6- Claes Connaught A A4 Lea Francis #14
7- Cole Cooper T23 CB-9-53 Bristol #12
DNF- de Tornaco Ferrari 500/0208 #16
DNF + FL- Wharton BRM T15 MK1 V16 #9
DNF + PP- Fangio BRM T15 MK1/1 V16 #7
DNF- Lyons Connaught A AL9 Lea Francis #18
DNF- Bayol Osca 20 20-01 F2 #8

DNS- Giraud-Cabantous Talbot T26C 110053 DA #17

[Ray Bell]

But the signs were there... Ascari retired trying to match Fangio's pace...

And what efforts would they have put in for such an event?

[Don Capps]

From its inception in 1950....
....The weird part of it is that Indy still counted toward WC points in 1959 and 1960 when the U.S. had a pukka points-paying Grand Prix of its own (Sebring in 59 and Riverside in 60, both having the full GP circus participate in 2.5 liter cars). Don's right, history is messy. The question is, since Indy never called itself a Grand Prix, does it have the right to exclude itself from the nomenclature?

Michael,

Yessiree, history is really messy.

The effective date for the new FIA "Formula A" was 1947. In early 1946, the former AIACR now FIA began to pull the pieces of what remained of motoring in Europe. The CSI was established as the group to get racing back on its feet, particularly in Europe. In the USofA, however, the AAA picked up right where it left off in 1941 and scarcely -- at least publicly -- blinked an eye. After all, it had adopted the AIACR GP formula as its own in 1938 and the winning car in 1939 and 1940 was a pukka GP car. The modification of the AIACR/FIA GP formula by the AAA and then not adopting the 1500cc supercharged option that approved effective from 1947 as part of "Formula A" (later known as "Formula 1") was entirely in keeping with the AAA Contest Board's view of the world.

When the FIA eastablished the World Championship in late 1949, including the Indy 500 seemed like a logical step. After all, Indy had been included in the world championship events held in the 1920's. Besides, the inclusion of the Americans seemed like a good idea, especially if it was to be a World Championship....

As to being a "Grand Prix," well, the folks at Indy never thought it necessary for the 500 to be called the "US GP" or whatever -- it was the Indianapolis 500 Mile Sweepstakes AKA the "Greatest Spectacle in Racing," so an additonal title didn't seem necessary. It was more a matter, in my opinion, of saying "We don't need to be called a 'Grand Prix'," by the Indy Board and the AAA CB. After all, the term "Grand Prix" is vague at best and nebulous at its worst; even Mr. Ecclestone couldn't put a TM on it although it was a consideration at one point. He had to settle for putting a TM only on "F1" instead.

Many have used the term "Grand Eprevue" for the points-carrying World Championship events, certainly this was a popular use of the term by the British motoring press in the 1950's. Perhaps Hans will correct my errors since I am doing this from my increasing feeble memory, but the term was created by the AIACR to designate those events counting towards the Euro Championship in the 1935/1939 period. I have not found anything to find that the term used by the FIA when its new championship came into being in 1950.

[fines]

I think that the term "Grand Épreuve" is probably older than that, but can't assure it. I found a notice in a 1948 magazine stating that the British GP took over as the Grand Épreuve of Great Britain from the Tourist Trophy!

[karlcars]

Glad to see Ascari being recognized for his achievements! I agree with Marcel Schot that he lacked competition in the latter part of the 1952 season after Fangio crashed at Monza and was out for the rest of the year. In his own stable at Ferrari, however, Alberto had some competition from Nino Farina, who was still capable of some quick motoring. In 1953 Fangio was back and at the wheel of a Maserati much improved by Gioachino Colombo, and that did indeed qualify as serious competition in my book.

Speaking of books, here's what I said about this period in my book on Alberto:

June [1953] brought two world-points races in Holland and Belgium. Recently resurfaced and dusted with dunes sand, the Dutch course was especially treacherous. Fangio challenged Ascari in qualifying but could not touch him in the race, which the Milanese dominated. The Maseratis were more of a threat at the fast Spa circuit, two of them joining Alberto on the front row of the grid. With half-full tanks they rushed away from the Ferraris, which were not stopping. González’s Maserati set the fastest race lap its second time around.

‘Ascari’s handling was sheer artistry,’ wrote John Cooper in The Autocar, ‘but González, the fighter, seemed by brute force to make the car go where he wanted it; both methods were successful but Ascari’s was the greater joy to watch.’ Before mid-race both Maseratis were broken and Ascari drove through to victory, stopping immediately at his pit as he had in 1952. In fact since that race a year ago no one else had won a championship Grand Prix (except for odd-race-out Indianapolis).

After Spa Alberto Ascari had won nine world-points races in a row, a quite staggering achievement that has not been equalled at this writing. If we take the Indy 500 into account his winning string ended after seven races. His closest challengers have been Jack Brabham, Jim Clark and Nigel Mansell with five race wins in a row. He also broke all records by setting the fastest lap in six races in succession – all the 1952 races and the first of 1953. His nearest rivals have strung together only four fastest laps: Mansell again, Jackie Stewart and Gilles Villeneuve. Neither of these achievements by Italy’s greatest racing driver of the modern era will easily be surpassed.

[Marcor]

Schumi has now won 6 in a row, after the Malaysian GP. I'm not sure his teammate (Barichello at home in Brazil) will stop the serie although Schumi has declared he doesn't care about records.

The Ferraris seem to be unbeatable, maybe McLaren and Hakkinen will regain their competitiveness at Montmello in Spain !!

Don't know if this commentary has his place here at TNF as it's just speculation but the figures about the Schumacher's career are impressive...

[Marcel Schot]

Well, with Brazil ahead, Schumacher looks not entirely unlikely of equaling Ascari's 7 race version of the record.

Schumacher in Brazil: 8 podiums of which 3 wins in 9 attempts.

Then at San Marino comes another of Schumacher's best circuits with 3 wins and 7 podiums in 9 attempts. Additionally Spain is also one of Schumacher's best, historically : 2 wins, 7 podiums in 10 attempts.

So it's quite possible we're looking at history in the making. Both 7 and 9 appear possible.

Whether or not this is nostalgia or not...at least it will be

[Bjorn]

.. odd
I checked the Forix sequence list a week ago or so, and I'm sure it said that Ascari had 9 consecutive wins then... Recent update or am I getting crosseyed?

[Option1]

Originally posted by Bjorn
.. odd
I checked the Forix sequence list a week ago or so, and I'm sure it said that Ascari had 9 consecutive wins then... Recent update or am I getting crosseyed?

I'm not sure where you got that from Bjorn. As best as I can see it still says 7 at both the URL I originally posted (http://www.forix.com...02040&c=101&s=1) and at this one:

http://www.forix.com...0&k=0&l=0&c=101

regards

Neil

[Racer.Demon]

Originally posted by Marcor
Schumi has now won 6 in a row, after the Malaysian GP. I'm not sure his teammate (Barichello at home in Brazil) will stop the serie although Schumi has declared he doesn't care about records.

Don't know if this commentary has his place here at TNF as it's just speculation but the figures about the Schumacher's career are impressive...

Funny that none of the press picked up on the new 6 straight wins from 6 straight poles record.

Also funny that that I vividly remember Schumacher telling some years ago (I think it was 1996, probably very coincidentally coinciding with his move to Ferrari) that he wasn't interested in championships, only the wins and records counted...

Marc, sure enough this is TNF stuff since old Alberto's record is under serious threat, which gives us ample reason to lament that fact - or rejoice in it, whichever you please.

[David J Jones]

I think it is great to see Alberto Ascari receiving the recognition he deserves after all this time.

However I get irritated when Murray drops a clanger and ITV take it as gospel quoting the 9 in a row theory. Especially when other noted historians (see planetf1.com) compound the error.

Surely they should be told of TNF where all topics are soundly discussed and the correct perspective put on the outcome.

[Option1]

I agree David. In fact, the Speedvision commentary team here in the US was also quoting 9 wins as gospel and it irritated me enough to send them an email pointing out that it's a disputed number.

regards

Neil

[magic]

Ray Bell
Just like Senna]knocked him off the track when he was set to get 10 wins in a year...
--------------
williams telemetry showed that nige braked earlier than before.
senna was all over him and nige knew he'd get beaten.

[David J Jones]

I find it confusing that a similar thread is in Readers Comments forum!

I could not resist referring to this Forum and this thread.... amongst other things.........

[Drinky]

What did people in the fifties think of Ascari's winning-streak? Did they consider him to have won 7 or 9 races? Was there any debate at all in the popular press, motoring journals and magazines of the time?

Oh, and Don, what's "pukka"?

[David J Jones]

I wonder ......

just to be a little controversial and provoking further discussion on fine points. Did Ascari enter any other races in this period?

Schumi has entered 6 and won 6 from pole - as far as I know he has not entered ANY other events.

Can the same be said for Ascari - I have a feeling he will have entered a few more events in the period concerned.

This is not meant to belittle Alberto - it is more that I am attempting to put Schumis achievement in perspective.

Also it was not until 1953 that the WDC (other than Indy )included one from outside Europe.
There is a tremendous gap between the situation then and now.

[LB]

Originally posted by Rob29

Dom't understand what you mean Roger;Only rules for the races at that time, other than the specification of the cars ,was that they should last for at least 500km or 3hrs.The Indy 500 qualified on both counts. Nowhere does it say it has to be called a Grand Prix only the main national race of the country "Grande Epreurve"

Indy 500 is 500 miles (about 800km) not 500km, (god I can be a pedantic so and so )

[Marcor]

Ascari in 1952 and 1953, single-seaters races, Ferrari 500 except * Ferrari 375

Syracuse, 16 March, 1st
Turino, 6 April, 5th (or DNF ?) *
Pau, 14 April, 1st
Marseille, 27 April, 1st
Autodromo Monza, 8 June; DNF
Europe - Belgique, 22 June, 1st
Marne GP, 29 June, 2nd
ACF GP, 6 July, 1st
Les Sables d'Olonne, 13 July, DNF
Britain, 19 July, 1st
Germany, 3 August, 1st
Comminges, 10 August, 1st
Netherlands, 17 August, 1st
La Baule, 28 August, 1st
Italy, 7 September, 1st
Modena, 14 September, 3rd
Argentine, 18 January, 1st
Buenos-Aires, 1 February, DNF *
Syracuse, 22 March, DNF
Pau, 6 April, 1st
Bordeaux, 3 May, 1st
Naples, 10 May, 5th
Albi, 31 May, DNF *
Netherlands, 7 June, 1st
Belgique, 21 June, 1st
ACF, 5 July, 4th
Britain, 18 July, 1st
Germany, 2 August, 8th
Switzerland, 23 August, 1st
Italy, 13 September, DNF

+ Indianapolis 52, DNF * Ferrari 375

From 19 July to 7 September 1952, 6 races, 6 victories, no defeat...

[Wolf]

Marcor, I think that streak is for c'ship races (WDC events)... Let me see from Your list, we get:

EU/B '52
F '52
GB '52
D '52
NL '52
I '52
RA '53
*(IND '53)- DNEnter
NL '53
B '53

I'm inclined to formulate his streak as 9 consecutive wins in WDC races he entered.

[Marcor]

Most F1 victories in one season: Jim Clark in 1963: 12 victories, 7 WC races and 5 nc F1 races:

Pau 15 April
Imola 21 April
International Trophy Silverstone 11 May
Belgique, 9 June
Netherlands, 23 June
ACF, 30 June
Britain, 20 July
Kannonloppet 11 August
Italy, 8 September
International Gold Cup 21 September
Mexico, 3 November
South Africa, 28 December.

[Rob29]

Originally posted by LB


Indy 500 is 500 miles (about 800km) not 500km, (god I can be a pedantic so and so )

Not sure what you are trying to say here.As I said rules up to 1957 stated races had to be AT LEAST 500km OR 3hrs duration.There was NO upper limit.French GP 1951 was 600km.

[LB]

Oh jimminy cricket...oops

I'll just get back in my hole.