78 replies to this topic

[uechtel]

Most publications I have read seem to agree, that the Gordon Bennett Cup was the first competition that was run according to a 'formula', limiting the maximum weight of the cars to 1000 kg (plus some additional 7 kg when using magneto ignition). Examples are Karl Ludvigsen "Classic Grand Prix Cars", Adriano Cimarosti "Autorennen" and Demand/Simsa: "Kühne Männer, tolle Wagen", and probably quite some more. So if this had been in the rule book since the beginning that would mean, that already the 1900 race (Paris to Lyons) would have been run according to this regulation, while the ACF adopted the 1000-kg-formula only in 1902 for his race Paris to Vienna. Thinking further this would then of course also mean, that the manufacturers (Panhard and Mors in particular) would have had to build special race cars for the Gordon-Bennett-Cup events of 1900 and 1901, but that seems not the case. At least the literature mentioned above does not mention such. The other possibility would have been that both companies would have restricted their design (for the 1900 Paris-Toulouse-Paris race for example) voluntarily to the 1000 kg limit, allowing all the other competitors the possible advantage to build much more heavier and therefore more powerful cars.

 

So to me it makes much more sense, like I understand in Robert Dick "Mercedes and Auto Racing in the Belle Epoque" for example, that the Gordon-Bennett events of 1900 and 1901 were just "normal" races without a formula and that only when the ACF introduced the 1000 kg formula for his "big" town-to-town-race in 1902, naturally the Gordon Bennett Cup had to adopt that as well, as it was in fact just a special sub-event in the general competition.

 

So what happened really? Do we have some contemporary reports? In particular, did for example Gerald Rose write something about that?

[Tim Murray]

According to Lord Montagu in his book The Gordon Bennett Races, for 1900 the only rules relating to weight specified a minimum empty weight of 400 kg for all vehicles. Driver and mechanic had each to weigh a minimum of 60 kg.

For 1901 there was again no maximum weight, but cars were divided into three classes. The minimum weight for heavy cars was 650 kg. Light cars had to weigh between 400 and 650 kg, with voiturettes between 250 and 400 kg.

For 1902 the 1000 kg maximum weight limit for heavy cars was applied.

[uechtel]

Thank you. That were in general the rules, which the ACF had for his other events as well. So that seems to confirm, that the 1000 kg formula was an invention of the ACF and not in the Gordon Bennett rules from the beginning. Was it like with the America´s Cup in sailing, that the winning club could define the parameters for the vehicles to be used in the next cup event?

[robert dick]

La Locomotion Automobile, 29 June 1899, page 409:
http://cnum.cnam.fr/...3/100/841/9/830
In the original proposition sent by James Gordon Bennett, the race was open for any 4-wheeled vehicle powered by gasoline or electricity.

A first "projet de réglement", published in La Locomotion Automobile, 26 October 1899, page 679:
http://cnum.cnam.fr/...83/80/841/9/830
According to Article 7, the cars had to weigh more than 400 kg + two passengers of 70 kg each.

The Bennett cars had always to comply with the "Réglement de Course de l'Automobile Club de France", meaning that the heavy class was not limited in 1900 and 1901, and that, beginning with the 1902 season, the heavy class was limited to a maximum of 1000 kg (+ 7 kg for the magneto).
In the first Bennett Cup, in 1900, the Panhards weighed around 1200 kg. And in 1901, Levegh's Mors (did not finish) weighed around 1400 kg.
It is not clear if the 650-kg Darracq (voiture légère class) was not accepted for the 1903 race in Ireland because it was "underweight".
 

[uechtel]

Ah, the master himself! Thank you for clarification!

 

BTW, it´s a wonderful book!

[Sterzo]

This is a fascinating question, uechtel, which has set me rummaging through my copy of Geral Rose's 'A Record of Motor Racing.' I suspect the answer depends rather on what we would define as a formula.

The 1896 Paris - Marseilles - Paris race was run in four classes, and you can begin to see the idea of a formula in the description of these classes.

Class A: Cars
Series 1: Cars seating two, three or four persons.
Series 2: Cars seating more than four.

Class B: Motor Cycles weighing less than 150 kg
Series 1: Motor Cycles without pedals.
Series 2: Motor cycles with pedals.

Note how motor cycles are defined by weight rather than the number of wheels, which might be two, three or four.

Moving ahead to the Marseilles-Nice race of 1898, weight plays more part in defining the classes, which are as follows.

Class 1: Cars weighing more than 400 kg.
Class 2: Cars weighing less than 400 kg but more than 200 kg, and carrying two persons side by side.
Class 3: Motor cycles weighing less than 200 kg but more than 100 kg.
Class 4: Motor cycles weighing less than 200 kg.

By 1900, there was controversy about the divergence between touring cars and that most unsporting device, the car designed for racing, while there was worry about the safety of racing, particularly when race organisers didn't even have to notify the locals they were invading their roads. So it's not too surprising restrictions began to emerge.

Moving onto the 1900 Gordon Bennet race, Rose refers to the regulations on p 115 of his book, and directs the reader to Appendix A. It states: 'The car must weigh over 400 kgm up to 1000 kgm at most.' Now that's confused me, because as Robert Dick says, surely it was 1902 when the 1000 kg limit came in. Perhaps the appendix represents proposed regulations rather than those implemented.

[DCapps]

This one of the reasons that the actual, contemporary rules/regulations of the contests and the clubs is so important. Too often, they are rarely considered as a whole, and, of course, out of context. Article VII of the Coupe Internationale, the Réglement de Course de l'Automobile Club de France, and other racing rules -- such as those of the ACA and the AAA Racing Board, etc. -- of this period need to be viewed in a larger context, given the relationships of both the clubs and the nature of the contests themselves.

[uechtel]

Moving onto the 1900 Gordon Bennet race, Rose refers to the regulations on p 115 of his book, and directs the reader to Appendix A. It states: 'The car must weigh over 400 kgm up to 1000 kgm at most.' Now that's confused me, because as Robert Dick says, surely it was 1902 when the 1000 kg limit came in. Perhaps the appendix represents proposed regulations rather than those implemented.

 

Now that seems to be the origin of the confusion. I rather can imagine that Rose did not know that there had been different regulations in 1900, so he simply "extended" those from 1902-05.

[Michael Ferner]

Early racing "formulae" were often fashioned after the commercial interests of the manufacturers, i.e. they tended to divide the cars into "markets", such as two-seaters, four-seaters and so on. Different race organisators/promoters used different classes, although there soon emerged some form of unity. By 1900, the general consensus was to divide the fields into four distinct, performance related categories: Grosse Voitures (Heavy Cars), Voitures Légères (Light Cars), Voiturettes (Cycle Cars) and Moto Cycles (Motor Cycles), with the latter already going pretty much their own way. One can easily see how these car categories led to the International Formulae 1, 2 and 3 in later years.

This is an interesting field which could lead to a lengthy discussion. Be warned, though, this is "real" history!

[robert dick]

The first two Bennett races, in 1900 and 1901, were modest affairs and not on the same level as Paris-Toulouse or Paris-Berlin. The sportsmen quickly forgot these first two races.
The next four races were held under the 1000-kg limit and were not forgotten, for different reasons.
In the third race, run in conjunction with the opening stages of the 1902 Paris-Vienna, the three French cars broke down or had accidents so that Edge's Napier won the Cup.
The 1903 race was held in Ireland, outside of France, with full teams from the French, German, British and American clubs, and just a few weeks after the Paris-Madrid disaster. Jenatzy's Mercedes finished first.
Thus, the 1904 and 1905 Bennett races became the events of the year, and the first Grand Prix, in 1906, was also run under the 1000-kg limit.

As a consequence, in 1906 or 1907, even for a well-informed sportsman, the terms "Bennett formula" and "1000-kg formula" described the same set of rules, at least so long as the weight of a 1901 Panhard or Mors was not under discussion. In the early articles or books about the history of the sport, Pierre Souvestre, Gerald Rose, William Bradley, ..., Laurence Pomeroy, Kent Karslake, ... sometimes took over this convention.
Meanwhile this convention - or confusion - became a part of the history.
 

[Sterzo]

Now that seems to be the origin of the confusion. I rather can imagine that Rose did not know that there had been different regulations in 1900, so he simply "extended" those from 1902-05.

Brilliant as Rose's book is, it was of course a collection of the material he'd managed to acquire; no-one could describe it as definitive. Some Italian clubs didn't reply to his requests for entry lists and results, so their earliest (pre-1902) events aren't in the book, and therefore tend to be ignored by later publications too. I seem to remember that Cyril Posthumus researched those Italian races. Does anyone here know what, if any, weight or other technical restrictions, the Italian races applied?

[DCapps]

As Herr Ferner & Herr Dick point out, one must approach some -- perhaps, much -- of these early historic conventions with a bit of caution and examine the contemporary materials very carefully in comparison with what gets mangled and confused later on. As Michael correctly points out, this is "real" history and does not necessarily conform to what has long been accepted, Robert has pointed out time and again in his work.

 

This is also very much Atlantic or Trans-Atlantic or Global history given the nature of the various linkages at work in the somewhat parochial world of things automotive in the waning years of the 19th Century and the early years of the 20th. Far more interesting with much more nuance and a greater need for context than most have given it. Robert's work has proven to be very valuable in this respect.

 

As an aside, whatever I thought I might have known of automotive competition over the years 1895 to 1920 I was very much disabused of once I began digging into the material. It was a bit embarrassing to realize that despite the work I had done in another life on the years from about 1880 to 1930, how little I had paid to the particulars, but for which I was thankful for the context in which the contests took place. To repeat what Michael stated: It is Real History.

[Michael Ferner]

The first competition that was run according to a 'formula' was actually the very first "proper" motor race of all, the 1895 Paris-to-Bordeaux-and-back race: it had two classes, one for voitures automobile, defined by having (at least) two seats side-by-side, and one for (motor) cycles, which were limited to a weight of no more than 150 kg. The entry for the latter included vehicles of two, three and four wheels, though only a couple of motor bicycles made the start, and none finished. The main automobile class was a "free-for-all", "Formula Libre" event, if you will, although the rules stipulated that the winner of first prize had to seat more than two persons. This did not prevent the entry of half a dozen two-seaters, two of which completed the race before anyone else, so first prize went to a four-seater which had finished third on time.

The following year, races at Bordeaux, Spa and Lyon were held to basically the same rules, it seems, before the ACF exercised its role as leader of the sport by introducing new formulae for the big event in autumn, two each for automobiles and cycles, as detailed by Sterzo in post #6. There was, however, also a third class, called divers by the French, which catered for all vehicles not covered by the aforementioned classes: too heavy for a cycle (more than 150 kg), and not qualifying as a voiture automobile - remember, two seats side-by-side! At the time, only the Léon Bollée "tricars" entered for that class, and they were commercially known as "voiturettes" - not a proper car, but more than a mere cycle.

Throughout 1897, in which year the ACF failed to organise a big race (and thus, also failed to introduce new rules), most race organisers followed the same pattern and posted two classes only, one for automobiles and one for cycles, but raising the weight limit for the latter to 200 kg so as to accomodate the voiturettes as well. Only the Paris-to-Dieppe race appears to have diverted from this pattern, by having two seperate classes for cycles and three for automobiles (again based on number of seats). In spring of 1898, the Automobile Club de Nice finally formulated the breakthrough formulae, mentioned by Sterzo in post #6. It was the most sensible solution so far, and only the fact that it wasn't invented by the ACF stopped it from becoming an immediate and universally accepted pattern. As it was, the ACF continued for two more years with a system based on their own, 1896 rules, but pretty much everyone else, in France and elsewhere, copied the AC Nice formulae to some extent, although the actual weight figures varied some.

By 1901, the general pattern was for Heavy Cars to weigh over 650 kg, Light Cars from 400 to 650 kpg, Voiturettes from 250 to 400 kg and Motor Cycles under 250 kg, and the following year Heavy Cars were usually capped at 1000 kg maximum. For a while, Heavy and Light Car classes tended to be combined into one race, while Voiturettes usually ran with the Motor Cycles, which soon developed a sub-class for motocyclettes at 50 kg, basically a two-wheel-only class. This old system finally faded away with the big ACF races, and the last big meeting which at least formally held on to these rules was the 1905 Circuit des Ardennes, if I'm not mistaken. In the fall of that same year, the Coupe de l'Auto stepped into the void by creating its own set of rules for the next ten years or so, leading to much confusion amongst some researchers.

The pattern for the years 1905 following, was that the Association International des Automobile Clubs Reconnus (AIACR) and the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM), both founded during the year 1904, finalised the rules for the Heavy Car and Motor Cycle classes, with the Coupe de l'Auto (named after a car magazine) effectively making the rules for the "Voiturette class", the Light Cars disappearing from sight for a time, much like in the Formula Junior years (1958 to '63). This also opened the door for more complex formulae, not based simply on total weight, and for a good time maximum bore formulae were very popular, which led to some very bizarre designs, especially in the Voiturette class. Thus, l'Auto decided to revive the Light Car class in 1911 with a formula based on engine capacity alone, a concept already tried by the German club for the 1907 Kaiserpreis race, and although very successful at the time, not repeated since.

L'Auto was rewarded with a superb entry for the 1911 Light Car race, and the Voiturette class died quietly away, while the Light Cars went from strength to strength, even competing with the Heavy Cars in the 1912 Grand Prix, and giving a very good account of themselves. Meanwhile, the FIM (i.e. the international motorcycle sanctioning club!) in 1913 introduced the "Cyclecar" class, effectively voiturettes under a new name, bringing the class "home" again to its roots with the Motor Cycles of the late 19th century. Thus, in 1914 at last, all the major categories in car racing were based on capacity limits: Heavy Cars, now mostly known as Grand Prix cars at 4500 cc, Light Cars at 3000 cc, and Cycle Cars at 1100 cc (although there was often a sub-category for 750 cc cars as well).

The war interrupted all this, and when it was over there was a distinct lack of direction for a time, with the Targa Florio even reverting to a maximum bore formula once again, but from 1920 onwards basically all top racing events in Europe were governed by capacity classes. For several more years, motorcycle clubs continued to organise cyclecar races, with capacity limits of 750, 1100, 1400 or even 1500 cc, while other events usually "cut their clothes" according to what was available. At some point in the early twenties, and I'm still trying to find out when exactly, the AIACR introduced formal classes A to J, according to the following list, and soon race organisers began adopting those, although their main aim was to make record keeping more efficient:

A: over 8000 cc
B: 5000 to 8000 cc
C: 3000 to 5000 cc
D: 2000 to 3000 cc
E: 1500 to 2000 cc
F: 1100 to 1500 cc
G: 750 to 1100 cc
H: 500 to 750 cc
I: 350 to 500 cc
J: up to 350 cc

Naming conventions went a bit to the wind in those years, while the limit for Grand Prix cars (traditionally, the "Heavy Car" class) came down to eventually 1500 cc in 1926 - that was hardly "heavy", or "big" as in the original French term "Grosse Voiture"! Basically, those were effectively "Light Cars", competing as Grand Prix cars, a situation much the same as in 1961 to '65. By 1926, the 1100 cc and 750 cc classes were almost universally called Voiturette and Cyclecar classes, respectively, although they were often described by their capacity alone, and that continued after the Grand Prix limit of 1500 cc was lifted again. The 1500 cc cars continued to race, often simply as "Fifteenhundreds", and sometimes as Light Cars - I have never seen one of those races or the formula called "Voiturette" in period sources of the time; it is simply a historical and linguistic mistake to call an ERA or a 6CM Maserati a voiturette, or in continuation of this a March 782, or a Reynard 89D! Sadly, since the publication of the "Black Books", that mistake has made it into print, and will be difficult to erase. But the real voiturette of these days is the Formula 3 car, ever since its inception as a 500 cc racing car, and still today (unlike the Formula 2/3000 Light Car) markedly different from a full-size Grand Prix car - not a proper car, but more than a mere cycle!

Edited by Michael Ferner, 10 May 2018 - 17:50.

[DCapps]

Michael, a nice summation of this topic, far better than one usually finds in print. The A-thru-J may have come into being thanks to the CSI in the latter part of the 1920s, but I have had serious challenges nailing that down and finding solid documentation. Although this is generally an Euro-centric rundown, there were certainly effects felt on the other side of the Atlantic in the USA. Some of the shifting and sorting as to how cars competing in contests were classified -- or categorized, which might be more accurate -- was Trans-Atlantic in some aspects, but as always the devil is in the details. The discussion regarding the nomenclature is well-taken and represents another oft-overlooked topic. I hazard to even offer this observation, but there are times when the English authors of the "classical" works from the formative years seem to not quite either understand things as well as they appear to or simply get it somehow mangled (wrong). There are probably several worthwhile interpretations as to why, of course, but I have learned to be far more cautious than I realized that I might with some of these sources.

[Michael Ferner]

Thanks, Don. Out of sheer necessity, I "streamlined" a few details, and deliberately left out the US side of the story, in order to make an already complex story not even more complex! But you're right, to make the picture complete one shouldn't ignore that aspect.

[Vitesse2]

According to the Seherr-Thoss report, published by the FIA in 1987, classes A-G were introduced in 1925 as part of the annexes to what would become the first Code Sportif International. Classes H-J followed in 1927, when all ten were 'recognised by the AIACR'.* Which - rather than shedding light - seems to obscure! However, Seherr-Thoss tells us that:

 

During the congress of 1922 in London the AIACR established the "Commission Sportive Internatonale" (CSI) and charged it with the preparatian of a "Règlement Général Sportif". It was inaugurated officially on October 28, 1925, and came into force on March 17, 1926. This regulation had been introduced as "Code Sportif International" on March 17, 1928.**

 

Prior to 1925 the AIACR had used records set at Brooklands in the following classes, which had been determined by Colonel Lindsay Lloyd in 1912:

 

A - 100ci = 1639cc

B - 125ci = 2048cc

C - 150ci = 2458cc

D - 175ci = 2868cc

E - 235ci = 3851cc

F - 305ci = 4998cc

G - 475ci = 7784cc

H - 850ci = 13929cc

J - over 850ci/13929cc

 

In addition to records set at Brooklands as early as 1907, there are a few set at Arpajon, Montlhéry, Eaux-Mortes, Cremona and Monza before 1925 which appear on the AIACR's official lists, so there must have been some mechanism to homologate records submitted by (at least) the ACF, ACS and RACI. At a guess based on the use of CSI-approved timing gear? Or maybe subject to the presence of a CSI member and/or official observer?

 

So it appears to me from the above that it was a slow and gradual process which took nearly six years - perhaps the "Règlement Général Sportif" was intended as a provisional document, which went out for consultation to all the national clubs, in order that they could then - if necessary - modify their own existing sporting regulations to conform to the AIACR's capacity rules. After all, not all AIACR-affiliated clubs were represented on the CSI, so this could also have given them the opportunity to submit possible modifications.

 

There is perhaps a clue to this on page 64 of the Seherr-Thoss report (page 68 of the PDF version)

 

Class H. 500 to 750 ccm
Prepared 1923 as Class L, introduced 1924 as H

So perhaps the RAC submitted a proposed classes list, which was later modified by the CSI? Although having said that, Seherr-Thoss had also told us that Class H didn't exist until 1927!

 

Inter alia, although the AIACR didn't officially recognise records for diesel cars until 1935, the first records in the list are shown as set by Clessie Cummins at Daytona in 1930 (5 miles) and 1931 (mile).

 

https://www.fia.com/...record-archives - the Seherr-Thoss report (and many other documents) can be downloaded as PDFs.

 

* J was then modified in 1957 and a new class K for engines up to 250cc was simultaneously introduced.

 

** For 'had been' I assume one should read 'was then'. Otherwise it makes no sense.

[DCapps]

This is exactly the sort of thing that begs for being discussed at a panel at a conference, not just papers being presented, but an open, moderated dialogue by panel members.

[Vitesse2]

On the 'what is a voiturette' question, I'm very much in agreement with Michael. Not for nothing is the standard work on 1500cc racing in the 1930s called 'The Racing 1500s'!

 

However, I will throw in a few thoughts.

 

Firstly, the British and French press of the time may bear some responsibility. Although we know the Alfa Romeo 158 today as the Alfetta, you can find British and French writers calling them 'Alfettes' in the 1938-39 period.

 

Secondly, because of the sliding weight/capacity scale the new 1500cc cars built for the 1938-40 International Formula were actually GP cars. There was one immutable rule for cars which complied to this formula; a minimum body width at the cockpit of 85cm. The Alfa Romeo 158, ERA E-type, Mercedes Benz W165 and Maserati 4CL all fit this pattern - had this rule not existed, with bodywork widths free for all, it's possible that the formula could have been more successful.

 

Thirdly, although the 1941-43 International Formula was never agreed, it is generally supposed that it would have been for supercharged 1500cc cars, possibly without an unsupercharged option. Having studied the few pieces of available evidence, it's my belief that the Germans, possibly supported by the Italians (and even by some British elements), were planning to push something far more radical and innovative through the CSI.

[DCapps]

It occurs to me to ask just what does the FIA actually have in its archives and whether there is any access to what is there? At some point, maybe not for the likes of me, but there are those out there who should be given access and, perhaps -- just perhaps -- begin to create the sort of narrative -- as in scholarly, referenced, annotated -- that is generally absent in the much-maligned (and justifiably so) topic of auto racing history and begin its morphing into the field of motor sport history.

 

Archival materials in Paris, Daytona Beach, Indianapolis, and elsewhere exist, but for whom?

 

Richard: Nice thoughts to toss out there for consideration.

 

(This is exactly the sort of topic and discussion that I created TNF for, so it nice to see happening. So, thank you!)

[Michael Ferner]

Having studied the few pieces of available evidence, it's my belief that the Germans, possibly supported by the Italians (and even by some British elements), were planning to push something far more radical and innovative through the CSI.

Do tell, Richard!

Many thanks, btw, for the clarification on the capacity classes. I had an inkling it was buried somewhere in the LSR stuff which, I'll readily admit, is outside of my core area of interest and thus often just under my radar. The link to the FIA archive looks interesting nonetheless, I shall investigate when I'm back home after work. I echo Don's sentiment about the availability of archive material!

A point made by Robert yesterday, that the first two or three Gordon-Bennett races were, more or less, "non-events" is worth underlining, too. Another beef I have with the "Black Books" is that they focus very much on these pretty minor events, and basically leave out the entire first (and pretty lively) decade of the sport in total. (Do I sound negative? Nah, the "Black Books" are still the bible of auto racing!! )

And finally, thanks to uechtel for bringing up the topic in the first place. I am not ashamed to admit, that I wasn't really aware of the discrepancy in the various accounts before reading the initial exchange. It's so easy to miss out on certain details, even if they are far from minor! Robert's explanation as to why the record became muddled makes perfect sense.

[Tim Murray]

Do tell, Richard!

Seconded!

[D-Type]

Fast forward 50 years or so and the "Yellow Book" defines classes A to J for Record Setting but not for Racing.  Could it be that this was the intention in the 1920s? - To rationalise the record-setting categories.

[Michael Ferner]

I'm sure you're right, Duncan. The adopting of those classes for racing events was more than likely incidental, if handy.

[Vitesse2]

Fast forward 50 years or so and the "Yellow Book" defines classes A to J for Record Setting but not for Racing.  Could it be that this was the intention in the 1920s? - To rationalise the record-setting categories.

Oh, indeed. The report seems to make clear that only the RAC had actually set standardised rules for record-breaking - with Brooklands as the only place they could be set, due to its permanent set-up. Pre-1914 individual events - and even national clubs - probably maintained and published their own records for (for example) kilometre lancé, but if the measurement of the courses and/or the timing gear wasn't standardised then there would have almost inevitably have been disputes. The Sporting Commission of the ACF was totally responsible for rule making at that time; as it wasn't a supra-national authority, just another national club's committee, I can foresee that national clubs like the AvD, RAC, RACB, RACE, RACI etc would have resented any interference from it.

 

The A-J classes were more like guidelines where racing is concerned and between the wars the International Formula would sometimes be based on capacity, sometimes on minimum or maximum weights and sometimes on complicated relationships between the two. 1946 was the first time the CSI laid down a simple International Formula based purely on engine capacity.

[Charlieman]

A-J classes were more like guidelines where racing is concerned and between the wars the International Formula would sometimes be based on capacity, sometimes on minimum or maximum weights and sometimes on complicated relationships between the two. 1946 was the first time the CSI laid down a simple International Formula based purely on engine capacity.

But it wasn't purely on engine capacity in 1946. There was an equivalence concept that 1.5 litre supercharged could race against 4.5 litre unsupercharged. When was the equivalence concept first used in GP racing? 1938?

 

In earlier years: Monoposto versus space for a mechanic even if not present? Ballast weight for hypothetical passengers? Elbow width/minimum cockpit dimensions? Race for N hours before refuelling or attending to the car.

[Vitesse2]

The 1946 Formula isn't an 'equivalence formula' in the way the 1938 one was, but I take your point.

 

Cockpit measurements were always the way bodywork regulation was framed within the Formula. After riding mechanics were banned, in general terms, it was essentially up to manufacturers whether to fit one or two seats. (Different in the US!)

 

Ballast was part of several formula proposals but never implemented apart from in sports car racing. Which also applies to minimum distances before replenishment/repair.

[uechtel]

Naming conventions went a bit to the wind in those years, while the limit for Grand Prix cars (traditionally, the "Heavy Car" class) came down to eventually 1500 cc in 1926 - that was hardly "heavy", or "big" as in the original French term "Grosse Voiture"! Basically, those were effectively "Light Cars", competing as Grand Prix cars, a situation much the same as in 1961 to '65. By 1926, the 1100 cc and 750 cc classes were almost universally called Voiturette and Cyclecar classes, respectively, although they were often described by their capacity alone, and that continued after the Grand Prix limit of 1500 cc was lifted again. The 1500 cc cars continued to race, often simply as "Fifteenhundreds", and sometimes as Light Cars - I have never seen one of those races or the formula called "Voiturette" in period sources of the time; it is simply a historical and linguistic mistake to call an ERA or a 6CM Maserati a voiturette, or in continuation of this a March 782, or a Reynard 89D! Sadly, since the publication of the "Black Books", that mistake has made it into print, and will be difficult to erase. But the real voiturette of these days is the Formula 3 car, ever since its inception as a 500 cc racing car, and still today (unlike the Formula 2/3000 Light Car) markedly different from a full-size Grand Prix car - not a proper car, but more than a mere cycle!

 

Indeed this is a quite interesting perception. I have never worried about the 1500 cc races being voiturettes, but your explanation seems very reasonable.

 

I think we can trace back from Sheldon to Venables - "A History of Voiturette Racing from 1931 to 1940" - and possibly Kent Karslake - "Racing Voiturettes" (which I don´t have). Neither Sheldon nor Venables seem to have seen a difference between the terms "voiturette" and "light cars". Sheldon even writes, that in the thirties the category was known as "light cars" in England (I am sure he refers to Great Britain) and as "voiturettes" in France.

 

On the other hand for example Sheldon lists the 1921 Brescia race (where the "Brescia" Bugattis have their name from) as "Gran Premio delle Vetturette". Same title 1922  for the Monza race for the "minor" category and so on. Same for the "Coupe des Voiturettes" at Le Mans in 1923. So if Sheldon did use the original title of these events, then at least the word "voiturette" would have been indeed used synonymously for the 1500 cc cars at least for a while in the twenties.   
 

[Roger Clark]

In the 1930s, Motor Sport frequently referred to contemporary 1500cc racing cars as voiturettes.

On the other hand, Kent Karslake, in Racing Voiturettes, regarded the coming of the supercharger as marking the end of the class. He said that the post war development of 500cc racing was a revival His book was first published in 1950.

[JohnB]

In the 1930s, Motor Sport frequently referred to contemporary 1500cc racing cars as voiturettes.

Looking through the Motor Sport/Brooklands Gazette archive, which starts in 1924, the first mention of voiturettes that I can find (apart from in race titles) is in an article "The Winning of the Grand Prix de Boulogne" by B. S. Marshall (10th Oct. 1925, p. 120). That was clearly a weight limit class and 1,500 c.c. cars were not expected to qualify for the class:

Having gained a place in the 1923 race after persistent tyre troubles, and also having won the event last year with my veteran " Brescia " Bugatti in the 500 kilo, category, the idea occurred to me that by careful consideration I could enter it in the Voiturette Class (below 500 kilos.), and thus, after studying various details, it became possible to present the 1,500 c.c. Bugatti to the A.C.F. officials, who were obviously somewhat surprised when the scale turned at 465 kilos.

The next mention, apart from in race titles again, is the summary of 1926 race results in the 12 Dec. 1926 issue (p. 176). For the Miramas GP, as well as the main "Grand Prix de Miramas l'A.C.F." it also lists voiturette races in 3 capacity classes: "Grand Prix des Miramas Voiturettes 1100c.c.", "Grand Prix des Miramas Voiturettes 750 c.c.""Grand Prix des Miramas Voiturettes 500c.c."

After that, apart from race titles and articles on older voiturettes from the 1900s and 1910s, the next mentions I can find are much later, in 1934, by which time as Roger Clark says it was used to refer to a 1,500 c.c. class.

In the report on the Swiss GP (9 Sep. 1934, p. 523) it has "The voiturette race (1,500 c.c.) was held over 15 laps..." and in the report on the Brno GP (11 Nov. 1934, p. 4) it has "A Voiturette Race was also to be held, and attracted no less than 21 entries. Of these, more than half were 1,500 c.c. Bugattis, ..."

[Edited to fix typos]

Edited by JohnB, 12 May 2018 - 10:00.

[Michael Ferner]

I don't doubt that the error is older than the "Black Books", and one also shouldn't get hung up on the somewhat arbitrary figure of 1500 cc - the last "proper" Coupe de l'Auto for Voiturettes in 1910 had entries of up to three-and-a-half litres, and not a single one under two! The pertinent point is that the name voiturette describes, historically and linguistically, not a secondary, "middle-of-the-road" category, but a bottom-rank class at the fringe of the spectrum - cf the original definition of a voiture automobile (two seats, side-by-side), which specifically excluded voiturettes and their like, and the fact that in the very beginning, voiturettes more often than not competed with the motor cycles, instead of the proper cars.

John's analysis of the word usage in Motor Sport is particularly interesting, in that the name "voiturette" for 1500 cc cars only came up by the time that Grand Prix cars had grown considerably in engine size, and 1100 cc racing had all but vanished from the face of the earth. There is obviously no hard and fast way to say what exactly makes a voiturette (cf again the early sixties, during the 1500 cc GP formula: formulae two and three were temporarily replaced by Formula Junior - now, was that a "light car" class or a "voiturette"?), but as soon as the 500 cc racers appeared in the immediate postwar years, the situation became clear again, as so lucidly recognised by Kent Karslake!

It is also very interesting to re-read what Paul Sheldon wrote in Vol. 1 of the "Black Books" series (p131), where he acknowledges that "one of the most difficult problems to resolve in consideration of the second Formula in this work has been its name", yet his short analysis of the problem contains several errors. Most pertinently, he then goes on to make the curious statement that "in the thirties (...) a major race for these machines was still called a 'Light Car Race', although machines like the ERA could hardly be called light!" - yet he choses the word "voiturette", which historically and linguistically describes a car of roughly half the size of a "light car"!!

In the end, I think that an unfortunate choice of the word by a linguistically insensitive editor of Motor Sport may be the root of the problem. It's hardly rocking the foundations of the earth, or even only of auto racing/motor sports, but it has become a bit of a pet hate for me. "A Record of Grand Prix and Voiturette Racing" is, sadly, an erroneous title for an epoch-making tome.

Edited by Michael Ferner, 12 May 2018 - 13:48.

[Vitesse2]

A quick scan through the 1930s ones in Motor Sport suggests that the perpetrators of 'voiturette' were mainly 'Auslander' (who I'd still like to identify!) and (to a lesser extent) Kent Karslake!

[DCapps]

Is it simply me in my dotage, or do many -- perhaps even most -- of our problems, issues, confusion, and general puzzlement in motor sport history seem to begin with journalists? (E.g., http://forums.autosp...44-stop-press/)

[robert dick]

Concerning the 1000-kg formula:

The first road race open for the 1000-kg racers was the main event of the 1902 Riviera meeting, the road race between Nice and Abbazia (now Opatija, Adriatic coast). Start was to be on 8 April 1902. A few competitors, in particular Degrais and Lemaitre in the latest Mercedes racers prospected the course through northern Italy at racing speed, killing numberless ducks and geese, and throwing many villages in a state of panic, so that Italian officials gave orders to prohibit the race. Nice-Abbazia never took place.

The Circuit du Nord à l'Alcool, the alcohol race held on 15 and 16 May 1902, was the first road race in which the 1000-kg racers started. The winning Panhards driven by Maurice Farman and Jarrott were lightened 1901 models to comply with the 1000-kg limit, "types modifiés pour Nice-Abbazia". The Panhard driven by de Knyff, who did not start for the second stage because of a slipping clutch, was the only brand-new, pure one-tonner, the prototype of the famous Seventy.

The definition of the passenger weight was not clear, depending on the events 60 or 70 kg, in other cases driver and riding mechanic together not less than 120 or 140 kg.

The Paris-Vienna rules were published by the end of January 1902 (Locomotion, 1 February 1902):


Nice-Abbazia (Locomotion, 5 April 1902):



Circuit du Nord (Locomotion, 26 April 1902):


 

[D-Type]

Is it simply me in my dotage, or do many -- perhaps even most -- of our problems, issues, confusion, and general puzzlement in motor sport history seem to begin with journalists? (E.g., http://forums.autosp...44-stop-press/)

It has to be thus.  If you think about it, book writers, or if you like historians both amateur and professional, generally use material written by journalists as their source.

[DCapps]

It has to be thus.  If you think about it, book writers, or if you like historians both amateur and professional, generally use material written by journalists as their source.

 

Yes, but professional historians tend to not only to question their sources and analyze them, regardless of the sources, but also to the maximum extent possible make use of the original archival material. While the lot of the journalist might seem to easy pickings to to toss stones at, in more than a few instances they have -- and do, for that matter -- provide good, solid research material, at times certainly derived from the original sources. While the problems related to motor sport history might be seen to BEGIN with the journalists, it certainly seems to END in the lap of many of those wishing or claiming to be auto racing historians (Russ Catlin along a great host of others around the globe, but definitely which not include a much, much, much smaller cohort of scholars, regardless of their lack of formal, scholarly credentials); there often appears to be a failure to differentiate between journalism and history, which are not the same. When one begins to examine the historiography of motor sport, it quickly become apparent to even The Untrained Eye that it leaves much to be desired. Indeed, it scarcely seems to exist in many cases.

 

That we must turn to this forum time and time again for the material necessary to come to grips with and grasp many aspects of the history of motor sport suggests the tenuous thread upon which the field hangs.

 

Praise and hosannas to those on this thread and similar threads who give me reasons to have and hold on to the faith that some day that the study of motor sport history will finally be seen and accepted as a serious field of study.

[Michael Ferner]

It occurs to me to ask just what does the FIA actually have in its archives and whether there is any access to what is there?

Land Speed Record Archives


Welcome to the Archives for all FIA World Land Speed Records. These records show the fastest official speeds achieved by any wheeled vehicle on land as recognized by the FIA. These do not include motorcycles, for which records are maintained by the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM). These records are established over a variety of course lengths and elapsed times in accordance with FIA regulations which govern all land speed record attempts.



These Record listings and other associated materials reflect a large collection of paper materials maintained by the FIA at their facility in Valleiry, France, near Geneva, Switzerland. Over time, as time and funds are available, additional materials will be added to this online collection.

Does anyone know when the FIA started this? Is it one of those things started many years ago, with the annotation "... will be updated regularly", and then forgotten about? It's not very confidence inspiring that they make the cardinal mistake of not putting a date to their postings of archival material!

There are some very interesting documents, unfortunately only about speed records, for which I find it very difficult to work up enough enthusiasm to be interested. But this collection does appear to show that there are FIA archives worthy of the name, and that there is at least some intention to get it out into the open public.

Why don't they just start by publishing full copies of the various FIA yearbooks? They appear to exist in the archives, judging by what is posted already. Wouldn't that be a good start, and create awareness of the archives amongst the full range of those with an interest in these things?

[Vitesse2]

It's fairly recent, I think, Michael. I only became aware of it at the back end of last year.

[DCapps]

I do not think that I was the only one over the years to make inquiries to the FIA as their archives, especially the CSI material and the AIACR bulletins and so forht, but rarely got any response and even in those rare instances it was vague to negative.

[uechtel]

John's analysis of the word usage in Motor Sport is particularly interesting, in that the name "voiturette" for 1500 cc cars only came up by the time that Grand Prix cars had grown considerably in engine size, and 1100 cc racing had all but vanished from the face of the earth. There is obviously no hard and fast way to say what exactly makes a voiturette (cf again the early sixties, during the 1500 cc GP formula: formulae two and three were temporarily replaced by Formula Junior - now, was that a "light car" class or a "voiturette"?), but as soon as the 500 cc racers appeared in the immediate postwar years, the situation became clear again, as so lucidly recognised by Kent Karslake!

It is also very interesting to re-read what Paul Sheldon wrote in Vol. 1 of the "Black Books" series (p131), where he acknowledges that "one of the most difficult problems to resolve in consideration of the second Formula in this work has been its name", yet his short analysis of the problem contains several errors. Most pertinently, he then goes on to make the curious statement that "in the thirties (...) a major race for these machines was still called a 'Light Car Race', although machines like the ERA could hardly be called light!" - yet he choses the word "voiturette", which historically and linguistically describes a car of roughly half the size of a "light car"!!

In the end, I think that an unfortunate choice of the word by a linguistically insensitive editor of Motor Sport may be the root of the problem. It's hardly rocking the foundations of the earth, or even only of auto racing/motor sports, but it has become a bit of a pet hate for me. "A Record of Grand Prix and Voiturette Racing" is, sadly, an erroneous title for an epoch-making tome.

 

From the logic I can absolutely support your understanding of the word 'voiturette' describing historically a very light vehicle, rather something inbetween automobil and motorcycle (maybe a little bit in the sense of the German word "Fahrmaschine"). But fortunately or unfortunately language follows logic only on very rare occasions. Again see for example the "German" word "Handy" for "cellphone"/"mobile phone" or - in a similar way, but completely established in our everyday language - the fact that you never take one "Kek" (as from English "cake") out of the package, but always a "Keks" (which originates from the English plural form and makes therefore the word "Kekse" as absurd as "Handy"). I am sure that there are lots of examples in the English language as well. So to me the question who is the originator of the "mistake" is rather secondary, the first question is whether the word "voiturette" was an accepted terminology for a certain category of racecars at the time or whether it was introduced later by some professional or unprofessional historian.

 

Unfortunately John has omitted the use of the word in race titles from his lookup in the contemporary publications, but at least I understand, that "voiturette" was used more or less commonly for the kind of cars like a Maserati 4CM, ERA or Alfetta in the 1930ies, so that I can not see how we can blame Sheldon or others for using it that way as well.

 

 

 

Edited by uechtel, 14 May 2018 - 09:52.

[Charlieman]

So to me the question who is the originator of the "mistake" is rather secondary, the first question is whether the word "voiturette" was an accepted terminology for a certain category of racecars at the time or whether it was introduced later by some professional or unprofessional historian.

We might also look at film reporting and commentary of the 1930s -- or captions for earlier events. Vernacular terms might turn up there rather than in the formal language of event regulations.

[Vitesse2]

We might also look at film reporting and commentary of the 1930s -- or captions for earlier events. Vernacular terms might turn up there rather than in the formal language of event regulations.

Or not. There's newsreel of Cork in (IIRC) 1937, in which the commentary mentions 'Prince Bira and his famous erra'.

[Sterzo]

I'm not sure we should blame journalists or anyone else for misusing the term voiturette, nor indeed light car. They're both vague terms, begging the question: smaller than what and lighter than what? They only mean anything in conjunction with the rules for a specific race. My favourite forms of current motor racing happen to be categories like F3, F4 and Formula Ford, which I refer to happily as junior single seaters. Words are just words, glorious in their imprecision.

[Michael Ferner]

... and makes therefore the word "Kekse" as absurd as "Handy

Oi! Krümmelmonster will not be amused!!

Unfortunately John has omitted the use of the word in race titles from his lookup in the contemporary publications, but at least I understand, that "voiturette" was used more or less commonly for the kind of cars like a Maserati 4CM, ERA or Alfetta in the 1930ies, so that I can not see how we can blame Sheldon or others for using it that way as well.

No, not at all. As far as I can see, only Auslander and, on occasion, Kent Karslake used it, nobody else. It certainly wasn't in general usage in Germany, Switzerland, France or Italy. That's were Paul Sheldon erred.

[DCapps]

 

Words are just words, glorious in their imprecision.

 

 

I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, Lou. -- Marge Gunderson

 

Operationally defining the terms for this sort of discussion on what is essentially one devoting itself to a possible taxonomy relating to motor sport is a challenge, of course. There are the cultural aspects that must be considered along with the evolving nature of the technical ones. It suggests that there is also an element of presentism that seeps into the discussion, with the issues that brings. It occurs to me that there is an inclination by the English/British/Whatever-those-living-on-that-big-island-off-The-Continent-of Europe-are-called to adopt terms that are clearly from another language for use in sport: Grand Prix rather Grand Prize being one notable example. Perhaps it is this inclination that lies at the root of the issue at hand regarding the term voiturette. (Just sayin'...)

 

Keep in mind that the taxonomy for automotive contests during the developing years of motor sport were rather elastic. In the USA, for instance, cars could compete in classes derived from piston displacement, weight or price. Doubtless. similar practices existed elsewhere.

 

This examining of how contemporary sources provide how the term voiturette is used is in and of itself a much needed conversation, providing some interesting insights.

[uechtel]

Oi! Krümmelmonster will not be amused!!


No, not at all. As far as I can see, only Auslander and, on occasion, Kent Karslake used it, nobody else. It certainly wasn't in general usage in Germany, Switzerland, France or Italy. That's were Paul Sheldon erred.

 

...but always apart fom race titles...

 

So I understand already some official names of events contained the word "voiturette"?
 

[Michael Ferner]

I'm not sure we should blame journalists or anyone else for misusing the term voiturette, nor indeed light car. They're both vague terms, begging the question: smaller than what and lighter than what? They only mean anything in conjunction with the rules for a specific race.

First of all, it's not about blaming anybody, and "misuse" is a pretty relative term. But uechtel is quite right in that period acceptance is of interest here. Yes, "light car" or "voiturette" are vague terms: in 1901, the winning "heavy car" of Paris-to-Berlin had an engine capacity of 10 litres, while the winning "light car" had 3.3, and the winning voiturette only 1 litre of displacement. Ten years later, some voiturettes had grown up to 3.5 litres, while another ten years on the "heavy cars" of the Grand Prix formula were restricted to 3000 cc, and the same month the Bologne speed week specified classes for voitures légères (2500 cc), petites voitures (1500 cc), voiturettes (1400 cc) and cycle cars (1100 cc). But a 2.5-litre car was, of course, no longer a "light car" when the Grand Prix limit went down to 2000 cc the next year, or even 1500 cc in 1926.

The weight or engine capacity alone does not make a Light Car, or a Voiturette. It's the position within the overall picture. It took Formula 2 less than twenty years to grow from 1000 cc (1966) to 3000 cc (1985), during which time the Formula 1 limit did not change at all; in fact, by the very next year the limit for F 2 (actually F 3000) was twice as big as that for F 1 (the latter supercharged, of course). A simple formula like, 1500 cc = voiturette, does not help the discussion one bit.

[Michael Ferner]

...but always apart fom race titles...
 
So I understand already some official names of events contained the word "voiturette"?

Not for fifteenhundreds in the thirties, no.

[robert dick]

The original voiturette:
http://cnum.cnam.fr/...0/418/0011/0415

The Horseless Age, November 1895:
"The organizers of the Paris-Marseilles race made no provision in their classification for vehicles of this kind, but the members of the committee are all so well pleased with it that they have unanimously voted to make a new class especially for M. Bollée's benefit, and he has accordingly entered his machine in the race."
 

[Vitesse2]

IIRC Bollée was involved in a court case, having tried to trademark 'voiturette' in order that other companies couldn't use the name as a generic term.

[Vitesse2]

I also think Lewis Carroll summed this 'what is a voiturette?' question up rather well:

 

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

 

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

 

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Through the Looking Glass (1872).