35 replies to this topic

[SophieB]

Fritz-Dieter Rencken‏ @RacingLines 34m34 minutes ago

More

Feel extremely privileged to return from N American @f1 sojourn with complete official dossier for 1981 ‘breakaway series’ instigated at height of FISA/FOCA war. Some fascinating reading material in there.

 

 

 

And an interesting set of exchanges with Andrew Benson:

 

Fritz-Dieter Rencken‏ @RacingLines 29m29 minutes ago

More

Includes the memorable line: ‘The motor racing press should be left to write about cars and drivers and not minor political wrangles.’ I why wonder who wrote that: B Ecclestone or M Mosley?

 

 

Andrew Benson‏Verified account @andrewbensonf1 20m20 minutes ago

More

I believe Ian Phillips wrote quite a lot of this, Dieter

 

 

Fritz-Dieter Rencken‏ @RacingLines 19m19 minutes ago

More

Including that line?

 

 

Andrew Benson‏Verified account @andrewbensonf1 18m18 minutes ago

More

You’d have to ask him. And/or them.

 

Fritz-Dieter Rencken‏ @RacingLines

FollowingFollowing @RacingLines

More

Replying to @andrewbensonf1

It was surely approved by the architects of the series.

 

[ensign14]

So, Carlos Reutemann, World Professional Drivers Champion 1981?

[SophieB]

I too liked the bit about how the press should keep their beak out of all the dark arts by saying essentially, 'thou shalt cover wheeling but not - I repeat NOT - dealing'

[Sterzo]

We knew at the time a break away was threatened, but it'll be interesting to read what Dieter Rencken has to say. Those were foul, awful, dreadful days for anyone who liked motor racing, the wrong people won the struggle and we live with the effects.

 

Anyone who thinks the F1 politics are bad today needs to read up on what happened...

[Vitesse2]

We knew at the time a break away was threatened, but it'll be interesting to read what Dieter Rencken has to say. Those were foul, awful, dreadful days for anyone who liked motor racing, the wrong people won the struggle and we live with the effects.

 

Anyone who thinks the F1 politics are bad today needs to read up on what happened...

http://8w.forix.com/when.html

[Claudio Navonne]

So, Carlos Reutemann, World Professional Drivers Champion 1981?

How I would have liked it!

[back86]

I would love to read the full copy of it

[dolomite]

What does it say in the technical rules about maximum plan area/side pod width?
I've seen it suggested in the past that the Lotus 87 and 88 were designed to comply with the proposed WFMS regulations which is why they had narrower side pods than other cars in 1981.

[Henri Greuter]

What does it say in the technical rules about maximum plan area/side pod width?
I've seen it suggested in the past that the Lotus 87 and 88 were designed to comply with the proposed WFMS regulations which is why they had narrower side pods than other cars in 1981.

 

I don't know if that is true but I recall something else about Chapman.

 

In his book "Grand Prix Story 1980" Austrian writer Heinz Pruller refers to an ultra secred document he had read. It was written by by FOCA on request of the FISA to stipulate how they wanted to reduce corner speeds. the document was dated 18 september 1980. From what I can make up of what Pruller mentions, this might have been this particular document as mentioned in the OP.

FOCA team members had participated in discussions. But one rule that Chapman was fighting for to achieve was to have the "Car volume" to be reduced from 5.5 to 4 Cubic meter. This triggered a number of other constructors who feared that Chapman had made another discovery since ground effects and skirts and were worried what Chapman would have hidden within his sleeves this time.

 

Such a reduced `car volume` would indeed have been an advantage for a car like the Lotus '86/88 and the later 81.

 

 

To tease a bit more.  (For Dutch readers who have the book, look at the pages 202 and 203 to verify where the listed below is coming from, for they who own the original German version: this can be found within the last 4 pages of the last chapter.

 

 

Pruller mentioned the following points being discussed:

 

Wheels of 13 Inch: would not be approved by Renault who needs larger wheels due to their larger brakes.

Restricting fuel flow: Would needs Renault's approval but couldn't be too hig because more fuel would mean more power for the turbocharged engines. The eventual suggestion was 50 cc/sec which would allow up to 600 (turbo)hp. Cosworths were on 41.5 cc/sec.

The total air volume within the tires were reduced from  476 to 400 liter. Because the smaller tires would account for some 20 kg weight reduction the minimum weight was to remain at 575 kg.

 

Mind you, all of this was publised by Pruller already in early 1981!

[Charlieman]

The typography in the documents in the first post did not exist before 1984 for a document of its style or nature.

 

In 1981, people typed stuff. Others word processed and printed documents on a daisy wheel or dot matrix printer. 

 

Laser printers did exist, and word processing software to drive them too. You'd find them at Xerox and customers who bought Xerox Star systems. You'd find them at a few universities. But in 1981, companies didn't ship internal documents to be typeset on state of the art systems.

 

A forensic expert might identify the typeface. It doesn't look right to me. The underlined type and quotation marks suggest that the document was word processed, rather than set by a printing professional.

 

My bet is that document was printed after 1984. Maybe composed in Microsoft Word 3 on a Macintosh circa 1987.

[ensign14]

Surely it is of too good a quality for desktop publishing in 1984?  I'm guessing it was properly printed, a la brochure or share prospectus.

[Allen Brown]

My mother’s company was using word processing systems well before 1984. I remember her word processing student’s theses using a BBC Micro in 1981, so surely a large company would have had such software. When was Displaywriter?

Edited by Allen Brown, 05 November 2018 - 22:31.

[Charlieman]

Surely it is of too good a quality for desktop publishing in 1984?  I'm guessing it was properly printed, a la brochure or share prospectus.

The document is alleged to be from 1981.

 

"Desktop publishing" was "invented" in 1985 ish. That is more or less true according to the people who made hardware and software capable of publishing stuff. Laser printers were invented in the 1970s at Xerox.

[Allen Brown]

"Desktop publishing" as a term might have been invented in the mid-1980s, but we did have ways of creating documents electronically before 1985!

[SennasCat]

In a previous life I was a trade typesetter, started my apprenticeship in 1978.

 

We were very capable of producing documents, with at least that quality in both hot-metal (old school) or phototypesetting from that date if not somewhat earlier.

 

And while the memory is a bit dim for detail, it does look like a Helvetica look-alike that was popular in the day. So I wouldn't be excluding the document on the dating itself.

[ensign14]

I was thinking Univers.

[Felix]

The typography in the documents in the first post did not exist before 1984 for a document of its style or nature.

 

In 1981, people typed stuff. Others word processed and printed documents on a daisy wheel or dot matrix printer. 

 

Laser printers did exist, and word processing software to drive them too. You'd find them at Xerox and customers who bought Xerox Star systems. You'd find them at a few universities. But in 1981, companies didn't ship internal documents to be typeset on state of the art systems.

 

A forensic expert might identify the typeface. It doesn't look right to me. The underlined type and quotation marks suggest that the document was word processed, rather than set by a printing professional.

 

My bet is that document was printed after 1984. Maybe composed in Microsoft Word 3 on a Macintosh circa 1987.

The first story from the sheaf of documents has now been published on RaceFans.net, complete with signatures of various parties. Suppose you'll say pens didn't exist in 1981 either... 

[absinthedude]

I have schools education materials from the late 70s and early 80s in spiral bound booklets which are typeset pretty much exactly according to that 1981 document. The style, typeface and quality or printing do not exclude the date of 1980 or 81.

[Charlieman]

The first story from the sheaf of documents has now been published on RaceFans.net, complete with signatures of various parties. Suppose you'll say pens didn't exist in 1981 either... 

Funnily enough, the page with signatures to which you refer was produced on a daisywheel or golfball head typewriter/printer, with the help of some Tipp-Ex. It doesn't prove very much.

 

I'm sceptical about the typesetting in the pages shown in the first post on this thread. I'm not an expert in type forensics but I operated an offset litho in a part time job around that time. I saw amateur material and professionally generated paste up. I later worked for a firm selling typesetters in the DTP era.

 

I don't think the first pages (post #1) were set using hot metal type. The underscore type (e.g. 'WORLD PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS CHAMPIONSHIP 1981 (WPDC 81)') is physically too close to the line below. So the pages are probably phototypeset.

 

The absence of smart or curly quotes (e.g. 'Definition of an "Automobile Make":') and the use of underscore suggests an amateur typesetter. Perhaps somebody composed the document on a micro computer or borrowed some time on a mini computer. Maybe somebody had a mate with access to pre-production Xerox Star systems or similar.

 

The typeface looks like Univers -- uppercase G is strongly suggestive. So the pages could have been set on almost any device.

 

How many copies were made? If you go to the effort of typesetting a proposal, you intend printing a lot of copies, hundreds of them. Absinthedude recalls typeset teaching materials of the same style but thousands of them would have been printed. You create a professional document so that you can flash it around to show that you have a serious business proposition. Why has it taken so long for a copy of this document to turn up? 

 

I'm suspicious of the document because people make stuff up all of the time. I think it might be the real thing -- Univers typeface, rather than a version of Helvetica, suggests 1980 rather than a later "reprint". But I struggle to imagine the UK F1 teams agreeing a rule book and the future director of the WPDC announcing that everyone will get copies in the post in two weeks.

[Charlieman]

Take a close look at the first page of the alleged document in the first post. https://pbs.twimg.co...HbhXcAItuOq.jpg

 

Page one is a right hand page of a document which does not have binding marks on the left. It looks like a photocopy -- see black triangle over the top edge. We can see through the paper to read "drivers championship" in capital letters. There is a vertical design on the right hand side of the page -- 1, 2, 3 -- a version of which we might expect to see on other pages.

 

Page two is another right hand page: https://pbs.twimg.co...He-WsAAyonF.jpg. It is an almost perfect copy of a copy. There are binder marks and you can sort of read what the page beyond contained.

 

Page three has a vertical line on the right hand side to suggest that page one had index tabs.

---

Page two is entitled: "World Federation of Motor Sports (WFMS)" -- in caps.

 

Page three is: "F1 Technical Regulations" -- in caps.

 

None of these titles appears on Page one. 

---

When were the lights so bright and the sensors so sensitive on a photocopier to record background content of the sheet being copied?

 

Edit: And when were the lights etc so sensitive to record the background content on a previous photocopy?

Edited by Charlieman, 24 January 2019 - 16:46.

[Charlieman]

Appendices. E. The Heathrow Agreements.

 

What was that about?

[Charlieman]

Contents. 7. Background to the FOCA/FISA split. In caps.

 

If you are going, you don't need to explain it to yourself.

[FLB]

Contents. 7. Background to the FOCA/FISA split. In caps.

 

If you are going, you don't need to explain it to yourself.

No, but you might need to explain it to those with whom you have binding contracts (sponsors, drivers, suppliers, etc,).

[Charlieman]

"Prize money paid by the organisers in accordance with the FOCA Contracts will be distributed to Alfa Romeo, Ferrari and Renault after the deduction of eight (8) percent in accordance with the prize scale today in use including the Constructors Award and Championship points provided the last two benefits will only be paid to these teams if they were in the top ten teams for the previous two half seasons.

 

Blah"

 

See https://www.racefans...odern-f1/wpdc3/

 

That contract is almost enforceable as my agreement with neighbours to take their bins out when they are on holiday. We are supposed to believe that three car manufacturers signed up to terms which treated them as idiots?

[Charlieman]

No, but you might need to explain it to those with whom you have binding contracts (sponsors, drivers, suppliers, etc,).

Fair enough, but in the 1970s and early 1980s, drivers and sponsors lived in the dark a lot of the time. Would catalogue blurb inform you more than reading Autosport for a couple of weeks at the time?

[Charlieman]

Paragraph 4: "Payment of all monies owed by reason of this agreement shall be made by FOCA..."

 

Shall.

 

In the other paragraphs, it is all "will". 

 

It was a rubbish contract and it must feel worse for those who signed it. Assuming that the contract is enforceable.

[BRG]

We are supposed to believe that three car manufacturers signed up to terms which treated them as idiots?

They signed several of Bernie's Concorde Agreements, so, yes.

[kayemod]

The absence of smart or curly quotes (e.g. 'Definition of an "Automobile Make":') and the use of underscore suggests an amateur typesetter. Perhaps somebody composed the document on a micro computer or borrowed some time on a mini computer. Maybe somebody had a mate with access to pre-production Xerox Star systems or similar.

 

The typeface looks like Univers -- uppercase G is strongly suggestive. So the pages could have been set on almost any device.

 

 

 

I'm suspicious of the document because people make stuff up all of the time. I think it might be the real thing -- Univers typeface, rather than a version of Helvetica, suggests 1980 rather than a later "reprint". But I struggle to imagine the UK F1 teams agreeing a rule book and the future director of the WPDC announcing that everyone will get copies in the post in two weeks.

 

 

This is angels dancing on the head of a pin stuff, but as an ex-printer myself, from the days of hot metal typesetting, I'm not sure that it's either Helvetica or Univers. That upper case G does indeed look like Univers, but some of the lower case letters look more Helvetica to me, see the small tails in the uprights of an 'a'? That's much more like Helvetica than Univers, no tail on the vertical of a Univers 'a'.

 

Sorry if this confuses things more, but I'm not convinced it's either face, and no printer would mix two different faces in a single document.

[ChiliFan]

I'm fairly certain it's Univers, see the distinctive capital Q on this page: https://www.racefans...odern-f1/wpdc2/

[kayemod]

I'm fairly certain it's Univers, see the distinctive capital Q on this page: https://www.racefans...odern-f1/wpdc2/

 

Like I said, some of the upper case letters bear a resemblance to Univers, but many of the lower case ones definitely don't, and they look like Helvetica to me. Check for yourself.

 

If you're trying to ascertain what typeface this is, you need another candidate.

[2F-001]

I'll take a closer look at it when I get a moment (it's my province).

But at a quick glance,

I'm not convinced that the upper case headings and the bulk of U/lc text are of the same family.

Some systems had alternative "lookalike" versions of more established typefaces, sometimes to get around licencing issues.

The 'tapered oblong' quotation marks (mentioned earlier) look right for Univers - that's the way Adrian Frutiger drew them...

 

It does look very 'amateur' (in the pejorative sense), but I've seen worse from people claiming to be professionals!

 

I can't see anything immediately obvious that couldn't have been produced on one system or another in the mid-70s - from an office printing system (such as the mid-60s era IBM Selectric Composer - except for the larger headings) on upwards; even a reasonably forward-looking provincial jobbing printer in my home town of Leicester demonstrated to me in 1974 a photosetting system they had that could have done that not too expensively.

And who knows what resources/friends/tame suppliers/contacts/favours-to-call-in the originators had?

 

If anyone's really interested I'll look into this more deeply, but I won't be rushing over it...!  

 

And this is all getting seriously off-topic...! 

Edited by 2F-001, 25 January 2019 - 00:47.

[kayemod]

I'll take a closer look at it when I get a moment (it's my province).

But at a quick glance,

I'm not convinced that the upper case headings and the bulk of U/lc text are of the same family.

And this is all getting seriously off-topic...! 

 

You're right, it's seriously off-topic, though it could he important if we're trying to date the document, there are several Univers/Helvetica lookalikes, and I'm sure this is one of them.

 

It's good to get an opinion from someone who knows what they're talking about, any more ex-printers out there? Join the club!

[Michael Ferner]

Perhaps the off-topic discussion flourishes because the topic itself is pretty bland?

[ensign14]

I do not think the discussion of the usage of type can ever be off-topic in any context whatsoever.  Especially when the options here do not include Baskerville, the king of typefaces.

[Allen Brown]

... Baskerville, the king of typefaces.

 

Surely the hound of typefaces.

[Nemo1965]

Having written several 'what ifs' on these shores about what happened when the break-off in 1980/81 would have succeeded, I am very curious if:

 

A. The document is legit

B. What Dieter Rencken makes of it. He is probably the only journalist in F1 who could make a balanced analysis of it, certainly if one has to include the ripple-effects on the year there-after.