81 replies to this topic

[Barry Boor]

Whilst I have enjoyed reading the day by day countdown to the Australian Grand Prix on the main Atlas website, I am somewhat confused by today's entry.

For those who never look, they take the number of days to go to the race and publish an interesting racing fact based on that number.

When #29 came along, I did have hopes.......

However, today, having reached 14, their chosen subject revolves around the fact that in modern F.1 history (define modern????) there have been 14 European Grands Prix, starting at Brands Hatch in 1983.

We often moan about people who seem to think that F.1 began when Michael Schumacher joined Ferrari or when Ayrton Senna arrived, but I am surprised that ATLAS have chosen to ignore all the European Grands Prix that were held in the 1950s and 60s.

I am sure there must be a better subject for the #14.

[David McKinney]

The difference being that in the earlier years the European GP title was in addition to whatever national GP it was, whereas in more modern times the European GP has usually been an extra race in a country already hosting a GP
But of course the fact remains that there have been many more than 14 European Grands Prix

[billthekat]

Another Sign of the Apocalypse?

[Hans Etzrodt]

Originally posted by billthekat
Another Sign of the Apocalypse?

[Ray Bell]

What would Tony and Bert say?

[AlesiUK]

well one could im sure argue that there have been thousands of European GP's......given that around 3/4 of the GP's most years are Eurpean GP's......

Its clearly nothing to do with the writer "ignoring history", its about interpretation of one word in what have been a series of very enjoyable articles.

[babbel]

We (Marcel Schot and myself) use Forix as our base for all the numbers and Forix happens to list 14 European Grands Prix. HERE

If you all feel Forix is wrong, send a mail to Joao with all the details about the European Grands Prix he (and we) missed out.

I'm looking forward to the reading the info on Forix until that time please contact the AtlasF1 editor or one of the writers if there is a problem instead of ridiculing us on the BB. Thank you!

[D-Type]

Originally posted by babbel
We (Marcel Schot and myself) use Forix as our base for all the numbers and Forix happens to list 14 European Grands Prix. HERE

If you all feel Forix is wrong, send a mail to Joao with all the details about the European Grands Prix he (and we) missed out.

I'm looking forward to the reading the info on Forix until that time please contact the AtlasF1 editor or one of the writers if there is a problem instead of ridiculing us on the BB. Thank you!

I don't think there is any element of ridicule here.

If you read the Post 1 again you will see the phrase

~ (define modern????) ~

and the whole of this thread should be read in that context.

By its standards, Forix is correct on two counts
(1) It concerns itself only with races since the start of the World Drivers' championship in 1950
(2) It is talking about races that were exclusively titled the European Grand Prix.

But, by the standards of many on this forum , you were wrong. The first Grand Prix was in 1906 not 1950. Against that backdrop, the modern era probably started with the World Drivers' Championship. On that basis the 1950 British and European GP and its successors can be considered 'modern' and should have been counted.

However, as was explained by David McKinney in Post 2, there is also a question of definition:

The difference being that in the earlier years the European GP title was in addition to whatever national GP it was, whereas in more modern times the European GP has usually been an extra race in a country already hosting a GP

As Barry said, you could have come up with a better #14 (or a better phrasing for the one you did)

[Barry Boor]

babbel - I am truly sorry if my thread gave offence. That was emphatically NOT the intention. And there is certainly no attempt at ridicule.

As has been said, it is a matter of interpretation, as the thread title implies.

As an old anorak, to me, the term European Grand Prix has been in existence since the World Championship began - it has simply missed a few years in between....

[Hans Etzrodt]

Originally posted by babbel
We (Marcel Schot and myself) use Forix as our base for all the numbers and Forix happens to list 14 European Grands Prix. HERE ...

The European Grand Prix was held first in the twenties as follows:
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928; then again in
1930. After a long pause the title was assigned again in the forties:
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952. After a one year pause, the title appeared once more in
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
?
1965
1966
1967
1968
?
?
?
1983
1984
1985
?
?
?
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997, then again in
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004

[Ray Bell]

In the very modern era the title has been used to enable an extra race to be staged at Bernie's convenience.

This is, I believe, at odds with the original purpose of the allocation of this special title.

There must be some reference on it, but I believe that the European Grand Prix was bestowed on a National Grand Prix to give that particular race a higher level of stature for that year only.

Today's system is just another San Marino GP, giving Germany a second shot at showing off its World Champion on home soil and having the turnstiles bring in additional revenue.

The saving grace is that it did once give us a look at Donington and a fantastic first lap in the rain...

[billthekat]

In the modern history of F1 there have been 14 European Grands Prix. Nine of them were at the current venue of the new Nurburgring, two times it was held at Brands Hatch and Jerez and one time it was held at Donington Park.

The first two European Grands Prix were held at Brands Hatch in 1983 and 1984.

Originally posted by babbel
We (Marcel Schot and myself) use Forix as our base for all the numbers and Forix happens to list 14 European Grands Prix. HERE

If you all feel Forix is wrong, send a mail to Joao with all the details about the European Grands Prix he (and we) missed out.

I'm looking forward to the reading the info on Forix until that time please contact the AtlasF1 editor or one of the writers if there is a problem instead of ridiculing us on the BB. Thank you!

I am really at a loss as to how to even begin to approach this matter. My initial response to this obviously very angry retort and the blunt insinuation that such information is above open discussion here at TNF was, I readily admit, not one worthy of a member of this forum. Indeed, I simply bit my tongue and sat on my hands for awhile and re-read both the posting that Barry made and the article in question until I thought I had an idea that "....what we have here is failure to communicate."

Unfortunately, this is an all too common problem in this realm and one that will exist long after some of depart this forum.

First this: Among the first things the CSI did in the wake of its formation in 1922 was to institute the "Grand Prix de Europa." The title was given to the Gran Premio d'Italia at Monza in 1923 and then to other events in subsequent years, as Hans Etzrodt points out in his listing -- in 1964, 1972, 1977 the title being given to the RAC British GP, 1974 to the German race, 1975 to the Austrian event, and 1976 to the Dutch. The title went from supposedly something of substance in the 1920s to simply another title added to an event in the post-WW2 world. In the post-FIASCO world of 1981 and since, the European GP was added as a means to squeeze in another event to pick the pockets of race-goers. This latter event is what the authors obviously had in mind and by depending upon Forix got led down the garden path. Blaming Barry and some of us here at TNF for their inadequate research and stating -- demanding from the tone -- that any criticism of their work had to be directed through the Atlas authorities does not sit well with me at all.

Second, this: When I look at this List of Championship Events, I note that there is it is "Pescara" and not "Italy-Pescara," but it is "USA-Long Beach," "USA-Las Vegas," and "USA-Detroit, " whereas none of these were a USGP, as is clearly implied -- being the Grands Prix of Long Beach and Detroit and the Caesar's Palace GP. Yes, yes, I realize that some will still argue with me until the cows come home on Long Beach, but the others are pretty clear cut. I have informed Forix of this and still nothing in response, literally years later.

Third, as good as Forix might be and is, it simply tons and tons of data, with rarely any exposition as to what the data represents in some cases. As a database this is to be expected and is as it should be.

To check Forix, find a number which matches the number needed for a story and then develop it from there could have worked had the phrase "In the modern history of F1..." been defined as, say, since the 1981 season when "F1" was officially added to the title of the championship or, as Duncan and Barry have both suggested, as free-standing events having this title -- European Grand Prix -- rather than former "Grand Prix of Europe" would have gotten head nods and, perhaps, a few murmurs, but little else. Instead, we got a scathing attack on us for our daring to mention that there might be some other ways to interpret the information in the article.

Sorry, but in my very strong opinion, Barry is the one owned an apology and not the one who should be apologizing. Being called on your piss-poor research is not Barry's fault. I do apologize for my pointed remarks, but the personal attack on both Barry and this forum was completely unwarranted.

Certainly, a True Sign of The Apocalypse.



Postscript: We all make errors of fact and/or interpretation, something which just goes with the territory. Either you deal with it and move onward and do a better job in the future -- at least make different errors, or you push forward ignoring the criticizing cretins and make the same or similar mistakes. On more than a few times more than a few of us have less than entralled with dropping the ball and doing so in public, but I think we've learned to deal with it and got over it.

What I very much object to in this instance is clearly the clear assumption that an article appearing in Atlas is not an appropriate topic for criticism here at TNF and that any and all such criticism has to be handled out of the public eye. This is not the first time such an issue has been raised here. In this case, the angry accusation that we were "ridiculing" the authors truly irritated me. Had we intended to truly take a shot at "ridiculing" the authors, the authors would have been nothing like what was written, plus it would have been nipped in the bud immediately since it is not our style here.

I may be putting myself in harm's way again, but I cannot see how articles appearing in Atlas can be so above reproach. Should this be the way that things are to be, then so be it. I cannot fathom wanting to participate in an forum that is expected to be a "house organ" and turn a blind eye to what may be if not necessarily "factual" errors, at least items to which there may issues with the interpretation of such information presented, as was the problem in this case.

If I seem to be making a big deal out of this, I am. Sorry, but you ought to know that about me by now. An ad hominum attack launched against a distinguished member of this forum by a member of the Atlas family while apparently acting in that capacity sorta sticks in my craw.

I am not happy.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Some of you seem really keen on making this the most unfriendly end of the forum

[Barry Boor]

[Twin Window]

The 1972 Grand Prix at Brands Hatch was one of the events David McKinney alluded to IIRC; while being branded the John Player Grand Prix it was officially the GP d'Europe as well as being the British GP.

I believe it was deemed some sort of honour in those days, but I have no idea if it was actually worth anything.

[Roger Clark]

In the 50s and 60s it was common, in British magazines, to refer to these races as the European Grand Prix, rather than by their national title. For example, in 1964 Autosport barely mentioned the British Grand Prix, although Motor Sport took the opposite line.

It was also common in those days to say something like "The European Grand Prix title one signified the most important race of the year, but it is now purely honorary." This can only be referring to the 1920s. Was the European Grand Prix regarded as the most important of the year at that time? Nothing I have read of the times suggests it was.

[babbel]

Thanks for the helpful replies. It's quite obvious that I had no idea that the title "European Grand Prix" was given as an addition to the regular title of the GP. However in my "modern" views they were not a "European Grand Prix" in the way I ment it. I'm sure there will be people who are not going to agree with me and I can live with that.

I didn't mean to attack anyone personally here, if I did I apologize for it now.

[David McKinney]

So did you not read my earlier post (the first response) before your little rave, or merely presume that no-one could possibly know something you and Marcel didn't?

[Rob29]

Originally posted by Twin Window
The 1972 Grand Prix at Brands Hatch was one of the events David McKinney alluded to IIRC; while being branded the John Player Grand Prix it was officially the GP d'Europe as well as being the British GP.

I believe it was deemed some sort of honour in those days, but I have no idea if it was actually worth anything.

What it was worth to us in UK in the 50s was sound radio coverage! The BBC only covered LeMans & European GP,apparently concidered the 2 most important events. I remember hearing Spa in 58. In 59 TV coverage was also scheduled,but cancelled by a french strike,so we had to make do with Raymond Baxter reporting from a phone box.
One question I have never seen a answer to; Why was the Luxembourg GP at Nurburgring renamed the European.removing the possibility of the title being used elsewhere? if you are counting races this is surely one event?

[babbel]

Originally posted by David McKinney
So did you not read my earlier post (the first response) before your little rave, or merely presume that no-one could possibly know something you and Marcel didn't?

No sorry I overlooked it last night.

I don't pretend to know everything about the history of F1 because I know I don't. Anything before 1950 is completely out of my interest scope and even everything before say 1980 is borderlining on my attention span. Thats also the reason why usually I don't write anything about those periods because I don't find it interesting.

[Barry Boor]

I think we have proved conclusively that misunderstandings over wording or meaning can easily be overcome with a little patience and intelligence.

And that's how it should be!

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Twin Window

I believe it was deemed some sort of honour in those days, but I have no idea if it was actually worth anything.

There was a comment in the newspapers for the GP d'Europe of 1950 that if a GP was like a Test match, the European GP was like an Ashes match. Or something like that.

But I think this was just jingoistic pride that the privilege had been awarded to Britain for the first time...

[David McKinney]

I dunno
I think it was still regarded as pretty big deal in those days.
Slightly OT, I remember reading (in a 1950 publication) reference to Ascari being European Champion, which kinda threw me till I realised they were using that term to describe the winner of the (1949) European Grand Prix.

[Hans Etzrodt]

Originally posted by babbel
...Anything before 1950 is completely out of my interest scope and even everything before say 1980 is borderlining on my attention span. Thats also the reason why usually I don't write anything about those periods because I don't find it interesting.

There is nothing wrong by admitting a lack of interest in certain matters. However, here at TNF turf, the majority of posters are interested in the many topics before 1980 and certainly in episodes before 1950 because that's what it is all about at TNF. Therefore I find your above remark quite courageous and I do not really understand for what reason you then honour TNF with your guest appearance?

[Hans Etzrodt]

Originally posted by Roger Clark
...This can only be referring to the 1920s. Was the European Grand Prix regarded as the most important of the year at that time? Nothing I have read of the times suggests it was.

The European Grand Prix was important enough to the AIACR when they called off the 1929 World Championship in October that year after a planned European Grand Prix had not taken place and holding that event was obligatory to authorize the championship.

[babbel]

Originally posted by Hans Etzrodt
Therefore I find your above remark quite courageous and I do not really understand for what reason you then honour TNF with your guest appearance?

Because there were remarks about something I wrote on AtlasF1. When this is all over I'll go back to not even reading this part of the AtlasF1 Forums.

[MCS]

Originally posted by ensign14
There was a comment in the newspapers for the GP d'Europe of 1950 that if a GP was like a Test match, the European GP was like an Ashes match. Or something like that.

Dear me, that gives it a rather serious complexion...

We've been discussing the next Cricket Ashes Series for the last eighteen months - well, possibly for slightly longer actually (since England started to win matches again)...

All of which begs the question - "why is the current European Grand Prix always held in Germany?"

Mark

[Hans Etzrodt]

Originally posted by MCS
... "why is the current European Grand Prix always held in Germany?"

money-hunger!

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Hans Etzrodt
The European Grand Prix was important enough to the AIACR when they called off the 1929 World Championship in October that year after a planned European Grand Prix had not taken place and holding that event was obligatory to authorize the championship.

Where was the European Grand Prix to have been, and what were the other events in the Championship?

In fact, I can see that the 1928 European Grand Prix was probably the most important of the year, being (I think0 the only race run to the AIACR formula.

[D-Type]

Originally posted by babbel


Because there were remarks about something I wrote on AtlasF1. When this is all over I'll go back to not even reading this part of the AtlasF1 Forums .

May I ask "Why?".

If you are a journalist writing about motor sport, do you not think that an appreciation of the sport's rich history will make you a better journalist? Note I do not say knowledge simply an appreciation.

[Hans Etzrodt]

Originally posted by Roger Clark

Where was the European Grand Prix to have been, and what were the other events in the Championship?...

1929 European Championship events according to AIACR plans were:
Indianapolis 500 – May 30
French GP – June 30
Belgian GP – July 6
German GP – July 14
Spanish GP – July 28
European GP (Monza) – September 15

[D-Type]

Was there one year when there was both a Spanish GP and a European GP also in Spain? I think we had a thread on it but I can't find it with a 'Search BB'.

[billthekat]

1) I think that perhaps a few of you now understand why The Nostalgia Forum exists.

2) I am sadden that a journalist who writes "historical" articles assumes that since he has no interest in an era that relieves him of any responsibility for having his facts straight.

3) While I think we have about beaten all the glue out of this dead horse, I doubt that this is the end of it.

[D-Type]

Originally posted by billthekat
~ beaten all the glue out of this dead horse ~

I love the metaphor

[Twin Window]

Originally posted by D-Type

If you are a journalist writing about motor sport, do you not think that an appreciation of the sport's rich history will make you a better journalist? Note I do not say knowledge simply an appreciation.

Nice one...

Now can we all please refrain from adopting the seemingly recent trend of taking an antagonistic stance on almost any given point? And yes, I have read this thread - so it applies as much to infrequent visitors as to regulars.

[Wolf]

Hans- no Italian GP in championship? How did they get away with it?

[Hans Etzrodt]

Originally posted by D-Type
Was there one year when there was both a Spanish GP and a European GP also in Spain?...

Yes, in 1926.
July 18 --- European Grand Prix at Lasarte Circuit, south of San Sebastian, won by Jules Goux in an 1.5-liter Bugatti T39A. The International formula was limited to 1.5-liter cars.
July 25 --- the following weekend, the Spanish Grand Prix took place on the same circuit, won by Meo Costantini in a 2-liter Bugatti T35.

[Hans Etzrodt]

Originally posted by Wolf
Hans- no Italian GP in championship? How did they get away with it?

Simple! In August 1929 it was official that Italy had given up carrying out the Grand Prix of Europe. The race, which was to take place at Monza on September 15, was cancelled. The reason given was the organizer's concern that the Grand Prix would not have assembled enough competitors under the new consumption formula.

Instead the Italian organizers promoted the Monza Grand Prix for racing cars to Formula Libre on the same date.

[Leo]

Hans,
In addition to your list above, I also have the following GPs as European GP:

1964 (Brands Hatch)

1972 (Brands Hatch)
1973 (Zolder)
1974 (Nurburgring)
1975 (Osterreichring)
1976 (Zandvoort)
1977 (Silverstone)

[Marcel Schot]

Ahhh, the age old matter of interpretation arises once again.

I'm aware that when looking at the bare facts with the level of detail that's common here in the nostalgia forum, things aren't always the way they are presented in the vast majority of all available sources. However, while appreciating your deep knowledge of things, I'd also like to point out that for the majority of those who follow Formula One, things like AIACR, doubly named Grands Prix and non-championship races are merely confusing and of little interest.

We chose to go the most common road and limited ourselves to the Formula One (yes, yes, I know even that isn't the full truth) World Championship and the facts such as they are named in the large majority of all available sources. It is something I've been doing for years and very rarely has led to complaints.

There always has been and always will be a difference between TNF and the rest of the forums around here and that's fine with me. For me personally, I must say that the cult of factual correctness and purity is something that played a major part in why I don't spend much time here anymore. Here's talk of appreciation of the sport's history, yet there's no appreciation for those who don't know or don't care to know the smallest, obscurest detail. This is not against any individual posting here, but merely an observation.

Where can I find the complaints about #55?

[FLB]

In their Legends of Motorsport series, Speed Channel has a film about the 1958 Belgian Grand-Prix at Spa. You won't find it in their schedule, though.

Because it's listed as the 1958 Grand-Prix d'Europe...

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by Marcel Schot
Here's talk of appreciation of the sport's history, yet there's no appreciation for those who don't know or don't care to know the smallest, obscurest detail.

Excuse me, I'm not a typical Nostalgeer - I can tolerate that, but why should I appreciate?
BTW I find this European GP thingy not a small, obscure detail - but that might be a matter of taste.
Anyhow, if you don't know much about pre-1980 while writing about the WDC history, ask somebody who cares.

Originally posted by Marcel Schot
Where can I find the complaints about #55?

Just shows how lenient some of us can be ;)
But OK, next time I won't let that "Formula One Championship" slip away!

[scheivlak]

That said, I have no problem at all BTW with the content of http://www.atlasf1.c...dex.html/day/14.
It states clearly enough: "In the modern history of F1 there have been 14 European Grands Prix."

I have no problem to define the post-Concorde Agreement era as "the modern history of F1". In a way, the Concorde Agreement is the pivotal event of post-war GP racing; and in a way this is the "BC" (before Concorde) forum...
OK, don't take it too seriously & objection granted - e.g. this place is not just about single seater racing.




As a side note: Grands Prix or Grand Prix? Haven't we discussed this before?

[D-Type]

Un prix, quatorze prix. un grand prix, quatorze grands prix in French. But if you say Grand Prix is now an English word then it's one box, fourteen boxes, one grand prix, fourteen grand prixes.
Personally I prefer grands prix out of respect for events in 1906 and thereafter, but of course that is of no interest to the majority of those who follow Formula One, or to those who don't know or don't care to know the smallest, obscurest detail,











or to sloppy arrogant modern journalists (not that I'm referring to anybody posting here)

[billthekat]

TNF has faced always faced the prospect of being a no-win situation from about the moment it appeared. This thread, especially Marcel's comment, simply makes that crystal clear. Inclusive, Exclusive, whatever, TNF is simply incapable of being all things to all people as many wish for it to be, a serious no-win situation. But, I will shut up and go back to other things.

[angst]

Originally posted by Marcel Schot
Ahhh, the age old matter of interpretation arises once again.

I'm aware that when looking at the bare facts with the level of detail that's common here in the nostalgia forum, things aren't always the way they are presented in the vast majority of all available sources. However, while appreciating your deep knowledge of things, I'd also like to point out that for the majority of those who follow Formula One, things like AIACR, doubly named Grands Prix and non-championship races are merely confusing and of little interest.

We chose to go the most common road and limited ourselves to the Formula One (yes, yes, I know even that isn't the full truth) World Championship and the facts such as they are named in the large majority of all available sources. It is something I've been doing for years and very rarely has led to complaints.

There always has been and always will be a difference between TNF and the rest of the forums around here and that's fine with me. For me personally, I must say that the cult of factual correctness and purity is something that played a major part in why I don't spend much time here anymore. Here's talk of appreciation of the sport's history, yet there's no appreciation for those who don't know or don't care to know the smallest, obscurest detail. This is not against any individual posting here, but merely an observation.

Where can I find the complaints about #55?

It's difficult to appreciate an attitude that, at base, sounds so simlar to 'tabloid' journalism. "...are merely confusing and of little interest" - erm, isn't that called playing to the lowest common denominator? Isn't it also a tiny bit patronising and insulting to presume to know the frailties of the minds of those you are writing for?

From the list of races alone (for numbers are, of course, of greatest importance) it can surely not be regarded as an obscure detail - the emphasis put upon the title, particularly in it's earliest days surely remove any doubts about it being a small deail. Is it true of all things in life that that which is not 'now' is redundant?

I understand 'The Sun', but I don't 'appreciate' it.

[billthekat]

I just took the trouble to go through a large number of the "Countdown" trivia pieces that Marcel Schot & Marcel Borsboom have fashioned. They appear to reflect the viewpoints of the writers as has been made clear here. They are writers not historians and that they might be disinterested or a trifle perturbed with whatever this forum has to say, therefore, is to be expected. Just a bald statement of fact. It is obvious that to many TNF is not very relevant nor is it much "appreciated." So be it. Interpret this as you will.

[Wolf]

I think this thread started as normal (benign) TNF thread- I certainly didn't think Barry was making a fuss or taking a dig at Atlas writers, but let's keep things in perspective... If things were 'normal', I'd guess discussion would meander between definig what is 'modern F1' (personally, I'd say since C'ship started in 1950*), trying to get as much info on pre-war European GPs from Hans**, or asking whether (and why indeed not) concept of European GP didn't take root in sportscar racing, &c...

* using 'modern' in non-derogatory sense.;)

** thanks for the response, Hans. I meant that Italians are usualy quite vocal, and couldn't picture them surrrendering idea of having Italian GP in C'ship for hosting an European GP (esp. considering who was in power, at the time).

Babbel, kudos for sorting out 'Your' part of misunderstanging, and to Barry for being just as amicable. This is way things are usually done here. Furthermoer, I think things in here should be handled in similar manner, the atmosphere most of are accustomed to- if in doubt, ask first (not shoot first, ask later), and assume (if there's no reason to believe otherwise) fellow poster is benevolent. Also, criticism in here is rarely personal- I have said 'I stand corrected' on so many more occassions than I care to remember, but I believe those very people who corrected/chastized me share same respect for my enthusiasm as I share for their knowledge and willingness to share it. [Aside.] Actually, I respect them more, but that's the way I feel it should be- but at least my enthusiasm is (I feel) appreciated...

[Marcel Schot]

Originally posted by angst
It's difficult to appreciate an attitude that, at base, sounds so simlar to 'tabloid' journalism. "...are merely confusing and of little interest" - erm, isn't that called playing to the lowest common denominator? Isn't it also a tiny bit patronising and insulting to presume to know the frailties of the minds of those you are writing for?

OK, might have paraphrased that badly. What I was meaning to say is that for most people the pre-1950 era is a completely unknown territory that they never hear about. Every piece of information around Grand Prix weekends is presented in relation to championship races since 1950. Therefore to go beyond that would require explanation. Considering the size of the countdown pieces, I'd rather stick to the stuff that would not require as much explanation than to sacrifice half of it explaining something that's not common knowledge. Had it been a full article on European Grands Prix, things would have been different.

[angst]

Originally posted by Marcel Schot

OK, might have paraphrased that badly. What I was meaning to say is that for most people the pre-1950 era is a completely unknown territory that they never hear about. Every piece of information around Grand Prix weekends is presented in relation to championship races since 1950. Therefore to go beyond that would require explanation. Considering the size of the countdown pieces, I'd rather stick to the stuff that would not require as much explanation than to sacrifice half of it explaining something that's not common knowledge. Had it been a full article on European Grands Prix, things would have been different.

Thanks for the clarification, and apologies if my post seemed more beligerent than necessary. Certainly seems much harsher now than when written - must stop these early morning posts.