Jump to content


Photo

RIP CSI WCD 1950-1980 and long live FIA F1 WC 1981-present


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#1 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 02 January 2004 - 16:23

Can the following be considered "correct?" Did "F1" as it is today emerge as a New Series in 1981? Was this ignored for "Good Reasons" in 1981? And, most importantly, does it really matter to anyone?

In 1949, after the first season of the newly organized world championships sanctioned by the Fédération Internationale Motocyliste, the CSI entertained a motion from the Italian representatives that a similar world championship series be inaugurated for the following year, 1950, the Championnat du Monde des Conducteurs – the World Championship of Drivers. For 1950, the CSI approved the idea and put together a series of events for the championship, one of the rounds being the International Sweepstakes. This was not merely a sop to American interests – which it was, but recognition of the fact that the race was a genuine Grande Épreuve and had been included in the first CSI world championship in 1925. The only change to the International Formula A/ I/ 1, was that the events should have a minimum distance of 300 kilometers and a minimum duration of three hours. This was clearly intended for the Grande Épreuve races, although many of the other races run to the International Formula 1 also met these criteria.

So, before 1950 there was “F1.” By the 1950 season, “International Formula A” and “International Formula B” had become “Formula I” and “Formula II” – but usually now simply “Formula 1” (F1) and “Formula 2” (F2). 1950 merely gets attention because of the CSI decision to launch a new world championship that season. Formula 1/ F1 was already in existence and record books already written when the Royal Automobile Club British Grand Prix, which was also given the grandiose and basically meaningless title as the Grand Prix d’Europe.

In the early stages of the FIASCO Wars, the struggle between the FISA and the Formula One Constructors’ Association – FOCA (a story mostly already told), the President of the Federation Internationale du Sport Automobile (FISA), Jean-Marie Balestre did a pre-emptive strike that whistled right by just about every one when it – he killed the Championnat du Monde des Conducteurs (the World Championship of Drivers) that the CSI had established in late 1949.

On 15 April 1980, Balestre proposed to the FIA Rio Congress that the current championship be terminated (the word used in the English translation is “suppressed”). Instead, Balestre proposed that as of 1 January 1981, there be the “FIA Formula One World Championship.” Unlike the world championship began by the CSI, this new – note the word – championship would be the property of the FIA and the FISA would act as its agent plenipotentiary. This was clearly meant to convey that the FIA and the FISA owned the championship, including all the commercial and financial aspects of the series. This also meant that the FIA/ FISA owned the title, something that it didn’t beforehand.

The old championship officially ceased to exist on 31 December 1980. Unlike the “new” championship, the “old” championship was not run exclusively to International Formula 1. The International Sweepstakes events from 1954 to 1960, along with the events of 1952 and 1953 which were run to the International Formula 2 (the International Sweepstakes being the exception), are proof of this.

In December 1969, during a period when some scarcely concealed ill will existed between the FOCA and the CSI and the organizers – it was get worse by 1972, the CSI authorized race organizers to add F2 cars (properly ballasted to the F1 minimum weight, of course) to the grid of world championship events if it were that there were insufficient entries. In 1972, the CSI threatened to support the organizers to throwing open the world championship to not only F1 and F2 cars, but those complying to the F5000 and USAC formula as well. However, when it came to the crunch, the CSI backed down while the FOCA didn’t even blink.

So, perhaps now it is common acceptance the FIA F1 World Championship and its records dates back to the 1981 season. One of the things that came about as a result of this “new” championship is that all – as in each and every one – rounds in the FIA F1 WDC are now considered to be a Grande Épreuve, whether the event dates back to 1906, 1911, or is new this year. So much for the answer that should have been given as to whether something is a Grand Prix or a Grande Épreuve…


This is an excerpt from an RVM column that, apparently, no one read. :

Advertisement

#2 dmj

dmj
  • Member

  • 1,997 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 02 January 2004 - 17:00

I did read it, exactly while you posted this... :clap: Excellent article.
But even with being technically accurate I don't believe it is necessary. For Joe Fan (not the TNF one, of course), "Formula 1" started in Silverstone 1950 and continues up to today. I am too young to know about the impact of 1950 season at contemporary scene but surely no one in 1981 considered Piquet as first F1 championever, even if he technically was. A slight technical definition had changed and no one noticed at the moment. No one cared. In 1950 probably all was the same as in 1981 - same cars, drivers, propositions as one year before that - but with passage of time it stuck in people's heads and now it seems to be more or less fixed start date for F1 IMHO. You know that history is extremely arbitrary and subjective science - what is considered right by most people, at least those at deciding positions, is right. I can't see good reason to change present state of considering F1 as something that goes on from 1950 - but I do have a problem with ones that consider it as only worthwhile part of whole motorsport picture. Of course, coming to that, each one of us has a subjective view and, for example, my opinions will always be more or less Eurocentric... but then, no one can know everything. So we can simply ignore ones that think they know all and make peace with fact that 99% fans, even true, diehard ones simply don't care about the past.

#3 Hans Etzrodt

Hans Etzrodt
  • Member

  • 3,188 posts
  • Joined: July 00

Posted 02 January 2004 - 17:02

Good piece, Don! :up:
Makes it pretty clear then.
To my defence I have to say that I hardly ever venture to another Forum or even the main magazine where I would have to show my I.D. that I still don't have.  ;)

#4 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 02 January 2004 - 17:54

Like Tripoli 1933, this is one of those Things which has been bothering me for years.

To Balestre, it apparently was not just a "technicality," but a very cold-blooded decision to cut the feet right out from under the FOCA. By terminating the Old Championship, he really changed the nature of the FIASCO War in such a way as to ensure that whatever happened, things would be different.

In the aftermath of the FIASCO War, both sides found it very convenient to ignore such an untidy problem as there actually being a New Championship commencing with the 1981 season that everyone just puttered along as before. Everyone turned a Blind Eye to this and..... :rolleyes:

Well, for me, there will always be a break at the end of the 1980 season whether anyone likes it or not. Quibble, quibble -- yes. But, since not much of anyone really cares, especially those in the netherworld of F1 statistics, I reckon I am free to do what I wish, especially if I wave my Little Yellow Book and spout quotations from the Beloved President Balestre....

#5 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 48,402 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 02 January 2004 - 18:31

How would the pre-81 championship be 'terminated'? Would there have to be a vote? Surely not by presidential diktat?

De facto of course the championship continued as normal - after all, Jonesy carried number 1 as reiging champ, and the various licences were dished out on the basis of the 1980 championships. Under English law that could count de jure as well, dunno about French law.

#6 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 02 January 2004 - 19:17

[quote]Originally posted by ensign14
How would the pre-81 championship be 'terminated'? Would there have to be a vote? Surely not by presidential diktat? [/quote]

Verbatium from the 1981 Yellow Book:

[quote]
GENERAL REGULATIONS
1 -- In application of the decisions taken during the FIA Rio Congress of 15th April 1980, the FISA os organising the new FIA Formula 1 World Championship from 1st January 1981. As a result, the old World Championship for Drivers is suppressed.

2 -- The new Formula 1 World Championship, which is the proptery of the FIA, will have 2 World Championship titles, one for Drivers and one for Constructors."

[quote]


Yes, there was a vote -- by the Plenary Conference of the FISA during a meeting at Rio.
No, it was not by a presidential "diktat."
Yes, the old world championship created by the CSI was terminated or "suppressed."
Yes, the FIA and FISA refer to a "new" championship. Check the Yellow Books of the following years.
Yes, it happened.




But, everyone seems to think it didn't.

#7 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 6,821 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 02 January 2004 - 23:12

Originally posted by Don Capps


Yes, it happened.




But, everyone seems to think it didn't.

But what does it mean? I always thought that Niki Lauda was world champion three times; are we now supposed to say that he won one championship on two occassions and a different one once? I can't help thinking that Balestre's actions were just a lawyer's manipulation to ensure that the FIA owned the championship.

When the world championship was inaugurated and for many years thereafter, it was not owned by anybody. It was no more and no less than a means of recognising the most successful driver of the past season. Nowadays the championship is a corporate entity in its own right and is owned by companies I had never previously heard of and fabulously wealthy dwarves. The events of 1981 were a significant step in this process.

To those of us interested in motor racing as a sporting and technical competition, these events seemed at the time to be no more than a footnote, whose main result was to cause the temporary withdrawal of Goodyear. This was far important than changes in the wording of the rule book. In retropsect we can see that the events were much more significant in the development of motor racing to what it has become, and much credit should go to Don for making the point. But I still don't think the introduction of a "new" championship was a significant event.

#8 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 02 January 2004 - 23:41

Originally posted by Roger Clark
But what does it mean?


Exactly! Why didn't the dog bark?

#9 ranbo38

ranbo38
  • Member

  • 61 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 03 January 2004 - 02:02

Wasn't the CSI simply a sub-organisation under the FISA? I could be wrong but I thought that the CSI was charged with running the sporting side of things then a re-organisation went ahead and FISA took over that role. Then, when FISA/FOCA had their war, further re-organisation went ahead and FIA took over the championship.

Provided I got the relationship of CSI>FISA>FIA correct then, like the bently "old no1", IMHO the championship had continuous "history of ownership" as an entity. Therefore, I am quite comfortable with viewing the championship as one entity from 1950 to present.

#10 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 03 January 2004 - 02:56

The CSI was originally organized under the AIACR in 1922. When the AIACR became the FIA after WW2, the CSI continued its role under the renamed organization. The FISA replaced the CSI in 1978 -- as basically a name change. This change was instituted by JM Balestre.

At issue during the FIASCO War was the commercial control of the Old Championship created by the CSI in late 1949. The FOCA had maneuvered the promoters into a series of deals which gave it de facto control over the commercial aspects of the Old Championship and the CSI was essentially incapable of effectively combatting the FOCA until Balestre was elected as the CSI President. The FISA was similarly stymied in its dealings with the FOCA until it was realized that the best way to beat the FOCA was to simply eliminate the Old Championship and replace it with a New Championship. This was done in April 1980 and was a very, very damaging blow to the FOCA although it was little realized as such at the time by the many outside the War Zone.

From the FISA press release following the Rio meeting on 15 April 1980:

The Plenary Council entrusts the President and the FISA Executive Committee with the drawing up of a list of measures, and to take all the necessary steps so that, in 1981, the FISA exerts full control over the World Championships belonging to it and which, at the present moment, are the object of a takeover by certain private associations foreign to the FIA.


What is very interesting is that its seems that none of the contemporary magazines or the annuals really address this issue, being far more lathered up over sliding skirts and whatevernot than the mere termination of a championship which had been around since 1950. Even I missed it until I went back and re-looked the FIASCO War and realized that it had been bothering me for years. When working on something for the 1981 season, I actually read the material in the FIA Yellow Book and wondered, How did I ever miss something that obvious?








So, is the statement, "Therefore, I am quite comfortable with viewing the championship as one entity from 1950 to present," the concensus?*










































* Polite way of saying, "Don, we really, really and very truly just don't care. It does not matter. Who cares? So what? So there is a small legal point concerning the termination of the Old Championship, so what? Did anybody notice? Did the dogs bark? Where was the Outrage? Besides, we are not going to change the Sacred Records! No way!"



























I really feel like Kevin McCarthy in The Invasion of the Body Snatchers......


#11 Option1

Option1
  • Member

  • 14,892 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 03 January 2004 - 03:04

Originally posted by Don Capps
...
So, is the statement, "Therefore, I am quite comfortable with viewing the championship as one entity from 1950 to present," the concensus?*

For such a simple soul as myself all I can do is answer for myself and say that in terms of history, yes the stop/start is a very important point and is worth noting. In terms of championships, then I'm afraid I remain a luddite and view them all equally as champions from 1950 continuously to 2003.

A contradictory answer in some ways I guess. :)

Neil

#12 bira

bira
  • Member

  • 13,359 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 03 January 2004 - 03:35

Atlas F1 was founded in 1995 by a few American enthusiasts. I joined Atlas F1 in 1998. Don Capps did in early 1999.

In the end of 1999, Paul Kaizar registered the company Kaizar.Com, Inc. The ownership of Atlas F1 was now held in full by Kaizar.Com, Inc.

The day before the company was registered and the day after were exactly the same on Atlas F1: we went about our business of updating the news, we planned the upcoming magazine issue, we thought of ideas of making it better.

So how old is Atlas F1? If to go by Don's insistence that legal ownership dictates age of an entity, then there simply wasn't any Atlas F1 before the year 2000.

And what about a woman who gets married and assumes her husband's surname? Going by Don, that woman birth date is her marriage date (a view, I am sure, many men would have loved to share - and many women would think exactly the opposite ;)).

To a woman that got married, to Atlas F1 that became a business entity, and to the Formula One World Championship that became the FIA Formula One World Championship - to these entities, the legally-changing events had, in the long term, far reaching impact. But it didn't erase the HISTORY of the woman, Atlas F1 or the F1 WC from before that date.

The change is merely an EVENT ON A TIMELINE. It should be acknowledged and analysed but it shouldn't be treated as though someone reset the counter and we start from zero.

Oh, and this has nothing to do with RECORDS and everything to do with progress.

Countries, people, companies and language - they all evolve. The English language spoken in England 500 years ago would be rather foreign and unclear to you and me. But we call it the English language and we talk about its heritage. And Shakespeare wrote in English just as the Monty Python did.

And Mercedes in the early 20th century resembled nothing of Mercedes of the 21st century - legally, it's not even the same company with a completely different ownership. But we call it Mercedes and recognise the legacy of the present company and acknowledge its long-running roots in automotive history.

Any suggestion that we should place a cut-off date and reset the historic continuity of entities is, imo, very anti-historian -- for if something is re-born at every given change, then it has no history.

#13 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 03 January 2004 - 05:22

The point of this nagging, whining, irritating and very minor, insignificant point is that we believe what we want to believe when it comes to Certain Things. F1 is apparently one of those Certain Things.

Last points: First, does it not strike anyone as a bit odd, even drastic, that the FISA were willing to gamble with the Crown Jewels -- the championship? Second, just pretend it all never happened.....

I will now take a long, long break from this forum and Atlas F1 while I go about finshing up some long neglected projects and finally bring some of them to long overdue closures.

:wave:







To quote Oliver Norvell Hardy, "I have nothing to say."

#14 bira

bira
  • Member

  • 13,359 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 03 January 2004 - 05:52

Originally posted by Don Capps
Last points: First, does it not strike anyone as a bit odd, even drastic, that the FISA were willing to gamble with the Crown Jewels -- the championship?


Isn't it also to their credit that the transition was made so flawlessly and without impact on the fans? If the GPWC was formed in 2008 and all the automotive companies dumped the F1 WC and switched to the GP WC, it would have rocked our boat and there wouldn't be anyone who would have thought of the two championships as a continuation of one another. But the CSI WC and the FIA WC are perceived as one and the same. So kudos to whoever did his/her job right in making sure there IS continuity.

#15 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 64,957 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 03 January 2004 - 14:00

I agree... it is to their credit that they pulled it off so smoothly... whether it be by spin-doctoring the whole issue or simply lying to everyone about it.

Did Jenks ever put anything on paper about this change? I recall he went to great lengths during the sixties to try and create an upheaval over the change of title (or whatever it was...) to the French GP... why not this?

#16 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 9,075 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 03 January 2004 - 14:20

I doubt that Jenks would have written anything as he considered the whole concept of a World championship irrelevant.

But I may be mistaken.

#17 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 01 November 2004 - 20:22

I Don 't see that happening...

#18 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 01 November 2004 - 20:39

Why would they want to advertize it? For all I know, GP racing was something of no great importance (except for historical folklore, and nice pedigree) until FIA came in about 1950 and created a World Championship, or F1 as we came to know it*. I've even heard some bozos organized races, even after that, where there were no championship points- where's a point in that?!? Anyways, back to the subject: this is what I know- because I remeber reading it in FIA FAQ (or something to that effect). Are You sure they'd want something surfacing which would point to us simple folks that there was revolution within evolution of F1 (apart for Big Bang in year of our Lord 1950, which brough order to chaos, and light into darkness)?

* one of my favourite F1 Champions is Alberto Ascari, and not only do I care about history, but accuracy as well...

#19 TIPO61

TIPO61
  • Member

  • 598 posts
  • Joined: August 04

Posted 01 November 2004 - 21:49

You GO, Nye guy!

Advertisement

#20 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 01 November 2004 - 22:25

1 -- In application of decisions taken during the FIA Rio Congress of 15th April 1980, the FISA is organising the new FIA Formula 1 World Championship from 1st January 1981. As a result, the old World Championship for Drivers is suppressed.

Interestingly, my German version reads: "Folglich wird die alte 'Weltmeisterschaft der Fahrer' ab diesem Termin für inexistent erklärt." (As a result, the old WDC will be termed non-existant) - I always wondered about the exact meaning of these words, now I know it's just a case of bad translation! :lol:

#21 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Administrator

  • 33,634 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 01 November 2004 - 22:32

I might be wrong (I'll dig through a few Yellow Books in a minute), but isn't the French text supposed to be definitive in case of a dispute?

My collection ends in 1980, so I can't check what it says in 1981!

#22 bira

bira
  • Member

  • 13,359 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 02 November 2004 - 00:46

Originally posted by KarlOakie Research
While it is perhaps true that this simply a nitnoid sort of thing, history is often littered with such inconvenient nitnoid sorts of things.
.
.
.
So while accuracy is praised when it suits our purposes, so is it dismissed when it interferes with our sacred cows, especially those in the the formula one herd.


As you yourself have proven so well, change to titles and names can often be superficial - you're still the same person, your character and characteristics have not changed one bit, and you're still ranting about the exact same issues :p :lol: :kiss:

#23 TIPO61

TIPO61
  • Member

  • 598 posts
  • Joined: August 04

Posted 02 November 2004 - 01:26

and that would negatively effect the rest of us...HOW?

#24 TIPO61

TIPO61
  • Member

  • 598 posts
  • Joined: August 04

Posted 02 November 2004 - 02:48

Now those two deletes from KarlOakie Research are/were interesting.

#25 David Hyland

David Hyland
  • Member

  • 289 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 02 November 2004 - 03:07

Originally posted by Vitesse2
My collection ends in 1980

Was it "suppressed" by JMB? ;)

#26 canon1753

canon1753
  • Member

  • 619 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 03 November 2004 - 16:21

Basically, the FIA took something that the CSI held in trust and made it their own and arbitrarily decided that F1 was going to be what they wanted it to be.

Someone pointed out that the World Championship did not need to be for F1 (i.e. 1952-3, and the AAA and USAC sanctioned Indy 500). The FIA made darn sure that the World Championship would be what they said it would be and they had all of the commercial rights to it. What this has meant is that everything else in the FIA sanctioned world plays second fiddle to F1. F2 became F3000, originally a place for cast off F1 cars with DFVs. The WSPC died because of the insistence that 3.5 liter F1 engines would be just dandy for any and all endurance races. F1 is king because the FIA wanted it that way.

#27 Racer.Demon

Racer.Demon
  • Member

  • 1,709 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 22 November 2007 - 20:40

As this thread comes closest to resembling a FISA-FOCA war thread, I'll bump it for the work I've started on 8W. I've only an introduction and a brief timeline as yet:

http://8w.forix.com/...n-timeline.html

However, chapters will follow on the build-up to the war, the war's primary years from '79 to '82, and the aftermath.

Much of this has already been done by Don, and he's helped me by checking the timeline, but sadly his FIASCO series has long since disappeared deep into the autosport.com archives, so I thought I'd do the job myself again. In my opinion, this is a very important topic which has never received the attention it deserves, especially with the broad view I'm attempting to give it, summing it all up in a single series of articles.

I'm sure there are lots of silly mistakes, misinterpretations and omissions, with more to follow when the next article is put up, so please take your best shot... That's what the forum is for. :up:

#28 Racer.Demon

Racer.Demon
  • Member

  • 1,709 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 25 January 2008 - 13:31

Since my previous post there have been several additions to the FIASCO series on 8W:

http://8w.forix.com/fiasco-onset.html
http://8w.forix.com/fiasco-79-80.html
http://8w.forix.com/fiasco-81.html

The same request applies - please help me fish out the errors and omissions that are almost certainly there, even though my previous request didn't quite manage to render the feedback I was looking for... :

There's a particular issue in the onset article that I would like to know more about: the ACF/FFSA power struggle of the sixties, culminating in the demise of the ACF GP. I've already asked the guys at Memoire des Stands, which had led to a kind offer by FEV to translate a Jabby Crombac article on the matter, but if some of you know anything about the background of the conflict, then please add your comments. I know there was a conflict, which sides were involved and that it revolved around power and money - what else? - but I'd to know what precisely it was about and why the British constructors and the GPDA eventually got involved.

#29 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 25 January 2008 - 14:16

Oh, noooooooooo......! Not another old thread that will get deleted!

#30 Racer.Demon

Racer.Demon
  • Member

  • 1,709 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 25 January 2008 - 14:40

Relax Don, it won't.

#31 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 25 January 2008 - 15:42

Originally posted by Racer.Demon
Relax Don, it won't.


Sorry, but I don't share that same level of confidence, seeing how this could easily be construed as "navel-gazing" by the management.

#32 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 9,075 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 25 January 2008 - 17:06

Good for you Racer Demon. :clap: It is a crying shame that this particular information is now in the subscription-only part of Autosport-Atlas. There have been many instances when I have wanted to draw people's attention to this, both on TNF and on (dare I admit it :blush: ) other forums.

Don, of course it matters. But you have to appreciate how it matters.

From the point of view of a historian this was a decisive move in the FOCA/FISA war as Balestre effectively captured the high ground and regained ownership and hence control of the WDC. From the point of view of the average fan it means diddley squat. I believe this is because the transition was so seamless that at the time nothing was seen to have changed. More a case of Chesterton's postman than Conan Doyle's non-barking dog.

That day Balestre won the war. But since then Bernie has won the peace. And Max has had to think hard about which side he is now on.


Edited by D-Type, 20 May 2018 - 19:19.


#33 Racer.Demon

Racer.Demon
  • Member

  • 1,709 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 25 January 2008 - 17:35

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps


Sorry, but I don't share that same level of confidence, seeing how this could easily be construed as "navel-gazing" by the management.


The particular issue whether the name change to FIA F1 World Championship per se - as previously discussed in this thread - would be warrant enough to see the 1950-1980 and 1981-present eras as two separate championships could indeed be seen as navel-gazing. I wouldn't argue against the accepted view that it is generally the same championship which generally used F1 cars. Let's not make it more difficult than it already is.

But it's important to understand the transformation, as on a bigger scale it does matter very much, especially for those wanting to understand what has been happening the last ten years, since history tends to repeat itself - as it actually did, with Mosley on the other side of the fence doing exactly the things that he once accused Balestre of.

And even when not making parallels with today's events the FISA/FOCA war is essential to any historical description of the (F1) World Championship and I'm almost ashamed that I failed to cover it on 8W until now.

I would even say that the broad subject of Grand Prix politics in its historical perspective - and this thread is perfectly capable of carrying that weight - needs to be discussed on TNF, with more replies and by more people than this thread has managed to attract until now...

So, the FISA/FOCA war. Your views please!

#34 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 25 January 2008 - 19:08

Originally posted by Racer.Demon
(...) with Mosley on the other side of the fence doing exactly the things that he once accused Balestre of.

Except that Mad Max sucks at it! :rolleyes:

#35 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 25 January 2008 - 19:15

Originally posted by Racer.Demon
(a) The particular issue whether the name change to FIA F1 World Championship per se - as previously discussed in this thread - would be warrant enough to see the 1950-1980 and 1981-present eras as two separate championships could indeed be seen as navel-gazing. I wouldn't argue against the accepted view that it is generally the same championship which generally used F1 cars. Let's not make it more difficult than it already is.

(b) But it's important to understand the transformation, as on a bigger scale it does matter very much, especially for those wanting to understand what has been happening the last ten years, since history tends to repeat itself - as it actually did, with Mosley on the other side of the fence doing exactly the things that he once accused Balestre of.

© And even when not making parallels with today's events the FISA/FOCA war is essential to any historical description of the (F1) World Championship and I'm almost ashamed that I failed to cover it on 8W until now.

(d) I would even say that the broad subject of Grand Prix politics in its historical perspective - and this thread is perfectly capable of carrying that weight - needs to be discussed on TNF, with more replies and by more people than this thread has managed to attract until now...

(e) So, the FISA/FOCA war. Your views please!


A few comments before this thread gets deleted or locked.

[pedantic mode](a) "Navel-gazing" to most here -- management and forum-dwellers alike as well as most elsewhere for that matter -- is an easy, effortless way to dismiss the asking of questions and the interpretations that only historians might be interested in examining or discussing. It is the nature of historians, whether they are professional or amateurs, to do so.

(b) Allow me to point out that the "past" is what happened and history is the historian's [/i]interpretation of what happened[/i]. While the past may not repeat itself, historians do so endlessly.

© Don't worry about failing to address the FIASCO War on 8W, if for no other reason than you are in very good company. With this topic being either avoided or considered off-limits for no end of reasons, at least you are now addressing it.

(d) This issue of perspective, "context" if you will, is where the problem of discussing it here on TNF, a forum for the the discussion of motor racing as the management reminds us, become a challenge. In any such discussion there is an invariable shift at some point into the discussion of historiography which could (perhaps should) address the nature of the forum and its relationship or place with the process of examining the topic at hand.

(e) If pressed, most historians would be in agreement that history most likely begins with events from approximately 25 or more years ago. This is based upon a consensus that it seems to take about that long for the context of an event or events to begin to emerge, for information to become available, for interpretations to emerge and develop, as well as there being sufficient "stand-off" distance from which to better observe the event(s), as well as there also being participants still available to discuss/interview concerning the event(s) that took place. The FIASCO War now falls witin this window of exploration. [/pedantic mode]

#36 bira

bira
  • Member

  • 13,359 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 25 January 2008 - 19:28

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
Oh, noooooooooo......! Not another old thread that will get deleted!


Very rich coming from you, given that you were the one who actually went back and deleted his own posts in this thread...

#37 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 25 January 2008 - 20:00

Originally posted by bira
Very rich coming from you, given that you were the one who actually went back and deleted his own posts in this thread...


I can do the same again if you wish.

#38 Rob Ryder

Rob Ryder
  • Member

  • 2,396 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 25 January 2008 - 20:02

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
Oh, noooooooooo......! Not another old thread that will get deleted!


Originally posted by HDonaldCapps

Sorry, but I don't share that same level of confidence, seeing how this could easily be construed as "navel-gazing" by the management.


Originally posted by HDonaldCapps

A few comments before this thread gets deleted or locked.

[pedantic mode].......... [/pedantic mode]


Why is it that a person with so much knowledge and so much to give (and given) to this forum finds it necessary to always take such a cynical view?

Please Don, if you don't like what you see, don't post or comment. It's as easy as that. Your 'point scoring' and barbed comments at the TNF moderation/administation since you left it is becoming boring (if not laughable).

Can we get back on-topic?

Rob

#39 Racer.Demon

Racer.Demon
  • Member

  • 1,709 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 25 January 2008 - 20:40

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps

(e) If pressed, most historians would be in agreement that history most likely begins with events from approximately 25 or more years ago. This is based upon a consensus that it seems to take about that long for the context of an event or events to begin to emerge, for information to become available, for interpretations to emerge and develop, as well as there being sufficient "stand-off" distance from which to better observe the event(s), as well as there also being participants still available to discuss/interview concerning the event(s) that took place. The FIASCO War now falls witin this window of exploration.


Well, quite. So, by all means, let's discuss.



P.S. You can trust me to guide this discussion - if it ever gets off from its false start - into a direction far away from any risk of this thread getting locked or deleted. So far, Don, I'm afraid that the only thing bringing that risk any closer was your comment expressing that fear in the first place...

Advertisement

#40 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 05 March 2010 - 15:03

Sorry, I thought your question about the trophy was a genuine one.

Just for the record, there is only one FIA WDC trophy
Posted Image

The trophy is inscribed with the name of the winner each year.
Posted Image


Do the names include those champions prior to 1981? If so.....

#41 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 05 March 2010 - 17:41

Do the names include those champions prior to 1981? If so.....

The names of Fangio and Phil Hill are clearly legible in a version of the photo posted on another thread (the Blood Pressure thread, obviously...)


#42 Kpy

Kpy
  • Member

  • 1,247 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 05 March 2010 - 17:57

Do the names include those champions prior to 1981? If so.....

Hello Don. Thanks for rescuing this from elsewhere...
The answer is yes
Posted Image

#43 angst

angst
  • Member

  • 7,135 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 05 March 2010 - 18:58

Basically, the FIA took something that the CSI held in trust and made it their own and arbitrarily decided that F1 was going to be what they wanted it to be.

Someone pointed out that the World Championship did not need to be for F1 (i.e. 1952-3, and the AAA and USAC sanctioned Indy 500). The FIA made darn sure that the World Championship would be what they said it would be and they had all of the commercial rights to it. What this has meant is that everything else in the FIA sanctioned world plays second fiddle to F1. F2 became F3000, originally a place for cast off F1 cars with DFVs. The WSPC died because of the insistence that 3.5 liter F1 engines would be just dandy for any and all endurance races. F1 is king because the FIA wanted it that way.


I'm glad that this subject has had life breathed into it. The change did impact, not only F1, but motor racing in a more general way - and I would argue it impacted negatively. The post that I've quoted explains a part of that. Now all other single seat 'formulae' (for most are not formulae at all, but simply spec-series) are seen a simply a 'feeder' series for F1, the great god of motor racing.

Was it a good idea? Did someone do a "good job" in ensuring a smooth, seamless changeover? The move itself was agamble, and won that didn't pay off. I'd argue that it played into BCE's hands. Balestre played this wrong, and what we're left with is a series that is meant to be the 'pinnacle' of world motor racing which is anything but. It is, as my mother would say "all fur coat and nae knickers". It puts on a lovely, colourful show, but the reality is that its a protectionist, franchised 'circus' that goes trotting all over the globe pretending to be all things to all men.

Does it have the greatest scope for innovation? Well, no. Does it offer the best racing? Errmmm... No. Does it have the very best driving talent on show? Aaah, possibly not...

An interesting parallel example might be the English premier League. My own team, Leeds United, won the very last English League Division One championship as the top flight of English football in the season 92/93. After that a new championship called the Premier League was formed. Now, while allusions are often made to some sort of continuity, there is no-one who doesn't recognise that there is a change that took place between those seasons. Nobody pretends that Leeds United have won a Premier League title, for example.

Just thinking about this, while I have been writing it... would the FOCA (BCE) deal done with Ferrari have anything to do with this 'cover-up' I wonder? Weren't they due a larger cut than other teams because of the greater length of time they had been participating in the World Championships? Surely the other teams, had they considered this, could have argued that...well, the F1 World Championships for Drivers and Constructors started in 1981. McLaren International, Williams GPE, Team Tyrrell etc. etc. they were all there too.


#44 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 05 March 2010 - 19:26

The names of Fangio and Phil Hill are clearly legible in a version of the photo posted on another thread (the Blood Pressure thread, obviously...)


What is the engraving at the bottom of the cup? There seem to be the words "Formula" and "One" in what I can make out, in which case the inclusion of those prior to 1981 would be an anachronism.

#45 angst

angst
  • Member

  • 7,135 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 05 March 2010 - 22:17

What is the engraving at the bottom of the cup? There seem to be the words "Formula" and "One" in what I can make out, in which case the inclusion of those prior to 1981 would be an anachronism.


It appears to say "FORMULA ONE DRIVERS WORLD CHAMPION(SHIP?)", It definitely says FORMULA ONE... And, as you say, not only would those names prior to 1981 be an anachronism, but if Alberto Ascari is named then it is also a false representation.

#46 Jesper O. Hansen

Jesper O. Hansen
  • Member

  • 582 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 05 August 2010 - 07:31

I'm looking for the official title of the WCD and F1 titles over the years, and just thought I had found most on the answar in this thread - that is untill I read the last few posts! My understanding had become that the titles were:

CSI World Championship of Drivers (1950-1978)
CSI World Championship of Manufactures (1958-1978)
FIA World Championship of Drivers (1979-1980)
FIA World Championship of Manufactures (1979-1980)
FIA Formula 1 World Championship of Drivers (1981-present)
FIA Formula 1 World Championship of Manufactures (1981-present)

If the 1978-1979 change from CSI to FIA is correct, then all other CSI championships continued by FIA would have had the same name change to the title?

Jesper

#47 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 4,635 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 05 August 2010 - 16:07

There was no "World Championship for Manufacturers" before 1981, it was "merely" an "International Cup for F1 Constructors" or some such. Also, the CSI was always a section of the FIA, and I believe the official title would've always included the FIA acronym, not CSI.

#48 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 14,878 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 05 August 2010 - 16:38

There was no "World Championship for Manufacturers" before 1981, it was "merely" an "International Cup for F1 Constructors" or some such. Also, the CSI was always a section of the FIA, and I believe the official title would've always included the FIA acronym, not CSI.

Quite possibly 'Coupe internationale des constructeurs' as it's called here http://www.motorlege...an/9,12910.html

#49 Jesper O. Hansen

Jesper O. Hansen
  • Member

  • 582 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 05 August 2010 - 17:47

Thank you for pointing out the official official French title, Scheivlak - guess "conducteurs" would replace "constructeurs" for the drivers title.

My use of CSI and FIA was to point out the name of the organizing body, with the years as suggested on the 8W link earlier in this thread. Wheather CSI or FIA was or wasn't used in the title of the championship has probably always been a matter of taste, but I would say it should be there somewhere. I have always found it just as natural to refer to the NASCAR Winston Cup as the Winston Cup to name another example.
From the 8W link I got the impression that Jean-Marie Balestre was elected as president of CSI only to dismantle it and replace it with FIA. Untill now I thought that it was merely a renaming, but I might just have mixed up the governing body names!

Jesper

#50 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Administrator

  • 33,634 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 05 August 2010 - 19:03

They were always the FIA's championships in name: the CSI was merely one of several commissions which dealt with traffic, technical issues, tourism etc.

Grabbing a Yellow Book at random (1972), in the International Sporting Code the championships were named as:

FIA World Championship of Drivers/Championnat du Monde des Conducteurs
FIA International Cup for F1 Manufacturers/Coupe Internationale des Constructeurs Formule 1