1961 Monaco GP

[wedge]

found this recently

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjLwcNn_xh4&feature=related

there's 7 parts altogether, and I can't be bothered with the rest of the links as I'm going off to bed in a moment!

Even though contemporary F1 has stricter regs, '60s often regarded as the golden age, 3:40 somewhat puts things in perspective and goes to show rule changes have often been unpopular:

d4P_ifDWDPk

[52Paddy]

Cheers. Great to see Masten Gregory in interview.

[ClarkFan]

The 1961 shift in the formula was particularly unpopular, especially with the British teams. None of them had a decent engine ready to test until late in the season and as a result they were stomped by Ferrari.

By contrast, the switch back to 3 liters for 1966 (your Golden Age, perhaps?), was highly popular........and none of the British engine makers had a new engine ready to test until late in the season, with the Cosworth Ford not coming on line until 1967.

Does any of this sound familiar in the context of responses to recent changes? ;)

ClarkFan

[ShiftingGears]

The switch to 1.5L engines was a terrible idea.

[blito]

the switch to 1.5l was a great idea - the old 2.5`s were just too powerful for the chassis/tyres/tracks of the day and lives were being lost. racing in the 50s was just too dangerous. the 1.5 era gave us some great races, several great seasons, plenty of drama and very few fatalities (2 iirc- von tripps an r rodrigues)

[Don Capps]

The British Racing Establishment was hit was an incredible case of stupidity, myopia, and arrogance in the aftermath of the October 1958 announcement of the new Formule Internationale that was to take effect with the 1961 season. This was a near-lethal combination for the BRE, which was simply a problem of Pride, of finally having reached the top of the heap in the game, only to have those beastly unspeakables on The Continent unhatch a scheme to snatch it away from them.

That the next such formula was going to be based upon a reduction in engine displacement was evident to even The Untrained Eye -- the Championnat du Monde des Marques had a maximum displacement of 3-litres go into effect during the 1958 season, something which had been known well in advance, as just one of many signals. The reduction in duration and distance for the Championnat du Monde des Conducteurs events also beginning with the 1958 season was another.

Given that the British had a virtual lock on the existing Formula 2 which was the basis of the new formula for 1961, all the hysterics, moaning and groaning, and generally unpleasant behavior seems a bit odd, given that not all in the BRE opposed to the formula change.

The performance of Scuderia Ferrari for the 1961 season flatters to deceive, given that there could have been several of rounds in the championship that could have been lost to other teams, Reims being the most notable one, of course, their bacon being saved by the good fortune of the Baghetti privateer effort outlasting the efforts of Gurney. There was also the rumblings and turmoil that percolated under the surface the entire season, which resulted in the walkout of a number of the staff that Winter.

[TheFamousEccles]

nice find with the 1961 Monaco GP vids. Cheers :D

[ShiftingGears]

the switch to 1.5l was a great idea - the old 2.5`s were just too powerful for the chassis/tyres/tracks of the day and lives were being lost. racing in the 50s was just too dangerous. the 1.5 era gave us some great races, several great seasons, plenty of drama and very few fatalities (2 iirc- von tripps an r rodrigues)

Too dangerous? If drivers didn't want to risk their lives, they didn't participate. To me, F1 consisting of horribly underpowered and slow cars is not what formula one is about.

[Don Capps]

Too dangerous? If drivers didn't want to risk their lives, they didn't participate. To me, F1 consisting of horribly underpowered and slow cars is not what formula one is about.

"Dangerous" is a relative term, of course. Up to and through the Fifties and into the Sixties, automobile racing was quite dangerous, the deaths of drivers and spectators being all too frequent during any given season. The circuits on the Continent were generally public roads with little in the way of driver or spectator protection, with the airfield circuits in Britain not much better, the American speedways also leaving much to be desired.

Your comment about the non-participation of those being aware of the dangers is somewhat juvenile. Although vastly over-emphasized by those in later decades, there was a much greater willingness to accept risk during this era, personal and otherwise, in no small part due to the war that had ended not many years prior to this. Some were convinced that their skill and competence would serve them well, while others were simply either simply foolish or just lack any conziance of the dangers involved. That said, there were those who certainly did step away from automobile racing at this time, Phil Walters being one of them, having witnessed the Le Mans disaster firsthand from the pit area.

Given the aftermath of the 1955 Le Mans incident, the reinforcement of the problem as a result of the Fon de Portago/ Ed Nelson incident during the 1957 Mille Miglia, plus the numerous other on-track deaths and injuries during this period, the reduction in engine displacement was a relatively quick way as to how to do something about the safety issue, the thinking being that the first fix had to be to slow the cars down. Given that there had been governmental intervention in the aftermath of the Le Mans disaster by several countries, with further threats by others, something had to be done, even if at least a token gesture.

As to "...F1 consisting of horribly underpowered and slow cars is not what formula one is about," that is, naturally, your opinion, which is probably shared by many others, then as well as now. However, the entire idea as to "what formula one is about" has morphed and shifted over the years, not always in consistent ways. At the end of the 1961 season, Tony Brooks walked away from the sport due to his lack of interest in the underpowered machines then competing in the Formule Internationale. Many at the time viewed the 1.5-litre era of the Formule Internationale as being something of the Slough of Despair. Although it was not exactly the disaster that many forecast, neither was it exactly the sort of product that necessarily stood up against the other forms of racing all that well, especially when the interest shifted westward towards the United States, the home of full-blooded, powerful racing machines on both the speedways and the road circuits.

By the way, the 1.5-litre machines were not really as "horribly underpowered and slow" as you seem to imagine. They were such only in comparison to the 2.5-litre machines initially, but quickly began to lap many circuits faster than those machines, improvements in the chassis, suspension, transmissions, and tires soon making the difference. As much as I utterly detested the formula then, I have managed to shelve my personal opinions of the era and study it critically, finding it quite interesting in many, many ways, even producing some very good seasons of competition, such as 1962, and especially 1961 and 1964.

One must keep in mind that comparing eras is rarely possible in any meaningful way or that thinking of them only in an anachronistic way is futile.

[BDunnell]

Don, on reading your contributions to this thread, I for one am extremely glad that not only have you continued to contribute to these forums, but also, apparently, to do so to a greater extent. Your wisdom and perspective are genuinely appreciated.

One question, though...


Many at the time viewed the 1.5-litre era of the Formule Internationale as being something of the Slough of Despair. Although it was not exactly the disaster that many forecast, neither was it exactly the sort of product that necessarily stood up against the other forms of racing all that well, especially when the interest shifted westward towards the United States, the home of full-blooded, powerful racing machines on both the speedways and the road circuits.

To what extent, do you think, did it matter that the 1.5-litre Formula One did not stand up against other forms of racing that well? After all, I find it hard to imagine the likes of Lotus and BRM deciding at any time to concentrate their efforts entirely on US racing, and the various US formulae have only ever been of fleeting public interest on the other side of the Atlantic.

[Don Capps]

To what extent, do you think, did it matter that the 1.5-litre Formula One did not stand up against other forms of racing that well? After all, I find it hard to imagine the likes of Lotus and BRM deciding at any time to concentrate their efforts entirely on US racing, and the various US formulae have only ever been of fleeting public interest on the other side of the Atlantic.

Not certain that I can really provide an adequate answer to your question. However....

Take a moment to consider following:

* The Gurney-led excursion by Chapman and Lotus to participate in the International 500 Mile Sweepstakes event beginning with the 1963 race.

* The US "Fall Series" of the early Sixties that led to the "Can-Am" series.

* The efforts of Ford Motor Company in the form of the Shelby American effort (and related efforts) on the international GT and prototype scene.

* The importance of the US market for those manufacturing racing machines in Europe.

* The emergence of the true "all-rounder" in the form of Dan Gurney, Jim Clark, Mario Andretti, Parnelli Jones, A.J. Foyt, Jr., and many others including Bruce McLaren, Walt Hansgen, John Surtees, and Denis Hulme during this era.

There are other points as well to consider, but by the Sixties the $eriou$ money to be made in racing was in the United States and that was a powerful incentive for the European teams and constructors. Lotus did produce the Type 30 and the Type 40 with not much success to speak of, even with Clark at the wheel, which should give you an idea of just how bad they were. However, Lotus did field a number of junior formula machines to the US, although it faced stiff competition from Lola and Brabham for the market as it developed.

It is worthy of note that it was pointed out by Henry N. Manney III in his race report on the 1963 GP de l'ACF in Road & Track (the October 1963 issue I believe) that the supporting race for sports cars saw a fastest lap set (I think it was Michael Parkes in a Ferrari) that was quicker than that for the Grand Prix. The appearance of American stock block-powered machinery on the road courses in both the US (the various Cooper Monaco and Lotus Type 19 variants, for example, plus the Shelby American Cobra) and Europe (for example, the Lola Mk. 6 and the Ford GT) did much to pique the interest of many as to the fact that the GP circus might actually have some competition.

Whether through happenstance or because of the Formule Internationale then in use -- I can argue either side of that discussion, the period from the beginning of the Sixties into at least the middle -- and even late -- Seventies witnessed a general (note the term being used) merging of US and European racing in many aspects. Only the junior European formulae and the American stock car series -- and the Trans-Am to an extent -- managed to not be directly and significantly affacted by all this. One could make the case for this era being the transitional or pivot point that has, for better or worse, given us the modern racing scene, whether Formula One or whatever.

There is much more to be said on this topic, but not sure if this is the time and place.

Digressing back on topic for a moment, although much was made of it at the time, the creation of the Grand Prix Drivers' Association (GPDA) during the weekend of the GP de Monaco seems to be overlooked by many these days. This was quite a "big deal" at the time, especially given the collapse of the earlier UPPI just several years earlier, 1957. In its own way, the GPDA was the first group outside the organizing clubs and those within the "motor trade" -- the fuel companies and others involved in automotive products, to become an effective lobbying group in this form of motor racing.

The FJCA -- the Formula Junior Constructors Association -- served as the template for the Formula 1 Constructors Association (F1CA) which came into being in January 1964, largely as a result of the discussions that resulted in the "Mayfair Agreement" or "Paris Agreement" -- take your choice since it was called each -- which took place in late -- November and December -- 1963.

The GPDA and the F1CA would both lead to significant changes in the "Formula One" world as time rolled onward.....

[ShiftingGears]

"Dangerous" is a relative term, of course. Up to and through the Fifties and into the Sixties, automobile racing was quite dangerous, the deaths of drivers and spectators being all too frequent during any given season. The circuits on the Continent were generally public roads with little in the way of driver or spectator protection, with the airfield circuits in Britain not much better, the American speedways also leaving much to be desired.

Your comment about the non-participation of those being aware of the dangers is somewhat juvenile.
Although vastly over-emphasized by those in later decades, there was a much greater willingness to accept risk during this era, personal and otherwise, in no small part due to the war that had ended not many years prior to this. Some were convinced that their skill and competence would serve them well, while others were simply either simply foolish or just lack any conziance of the dangers involved. That said, there were those who certainly did step away from automobile racing at this time, Phil Walters being one of them, having witnessed the Le Mans disaster firsthand from the pit area.

Given the aftermath of the 1955 Le Mans incident, the reinforcement of the problem as a result of the Fon de Portago/ Ed Nelson incident during the 1957 Mille Miglia, plus the numerous other on-track deaths and injuries during this period, the reduction in engine displacement was a relatively quick way as to how to do something about the safety issue, the thinking being that the first fix had to be to slow the cars down. Given that there had been governmental intervention in the aftermath of the Le Mans disaster by several countries, with further threats by others, something had to be done, even if at least a token gesture.

As to "...F1 consisting of horribly underpowered and slow cars is not what formula one is about," that is, naturally, your opinion, which is probably shared by many others, then as well as now. However, the entire idea as to "what formula one is about" has morphed and shifted over the years, not always in consistent ways. At the end of the 1961 season, Tony Brooks walked away from the sport due to his lack of interest in the underpowered machines then competing in the Formule Internationale. Many at the time viewed the 1.5-litre era of the Formule Internationale as being something of the Slough of Despair. Although it was not exactly the disaster that many forecast, neither was it exactly the sort of product that necessarily stood up against the other forms of racing all that well, especially when the interest shifted westward towards the United States, the home of full-blooded, powerful racing machines on both the speedways and the road circuits.

By the way, the 1.5-litre machines were not really as "horribly underpowered and slow" as you seem to imagine. They were such only in comparison to the 2.5-litre machines initially, but quickly began to lap many circuits faster than those machines, improvements in the chassis, suspension, transmissions, and tires soon making the difference. As much as I utterly detested the formula then, I have managed to shelve my personal opinions of the era and study it critically, finding it quite interesting in many, many ways, even producing some very good seasons of competition, such as 1962, and especially 1961 and 1964.

One must keep in mind that comparing eras is rarely possible in any meaningful way or that thinking of them only in an anachronistic way is futile.

I suppose what I dislike about rule changes where engine power is drastically reduced is that the cornering speed increases anyway due to the evolution of the cars, which is where the drivers are more likely to lose control.

I would much rather see drivers in cars that can barely take the power of the engine, to me, that is exciting. Similar to how many people remember the Group B era of rally fondly, even though stage times were quickly surpassed by Group A cars.

Another thing I think worth mentioning is that when the 3 litre formula was introduced in 1966, was that circuits such as Reims, Monza, Rouen les Essarts, Nurburgring and Spa were still present in the World Championship Calendar. I can't think of any modifications done to such circuits to improve their safety since prior to the 1.5L era, so for people to think that the level of risk was unacceptible in 1960, but somehow more acceptible in 1966, where engine capacity was greater, and cornering speeds were much higher, and track safety safety measures were still quite primitive, is in my mind strange, and illogical. It does, as you said, make the engine reduction seem like a token gesture, more than anything else.

[Don Capps]

I suppose what I dislike about rule changes where engine power is drastically reduced is that the cornering speed increases anyway due to the evolution of the cars, which is where the drivers are more likely to lose control.

I would much rather see drivers in cars that can barely take the power of the engine, to me, that is exciting. Similar to how many people remember the Group B era of rally fondly, even though stage times were quickly surpassed by Group A cars.

Another thing I think worth mentioning is that when the 3 litre formula was introduced in 1966, was that circuits such as Reims, Monza, Rouen les Essarts, Nurburgring and Spa were still present in the World Championship Calendar. I can't think of any modifications done to such circuits to improve their safety since prior to the 1.5L era, so for people to think that the level of risk was unacceptible in 1960, but somehow more acceptible in 1966, where engine capacity was greater, and cornering speeds were much higher, and track safety safety measures were still quite primitive, is in my mind strange, and illogical. It does, as you said, make the engine reduction seem like a token gesture, more than anything else.

Actually, contrary to what you seem to think, there were continual, on-going changes being made to the circuits, to include all those you named, which meant that just a few seasons into the new formula many circuits had been changed in some fashion, usually wth the addition of barriers and other such measures.

You are making a mistake in continuing to think that the drivers were necessary those behind the changes and the voices being raised regarding the safety issue in the latter part of the Fifties and early Sixties. It was the CSI and many of the organizing clubs that were wringing their hands, such as it were, over the issue, especially given the safety issue was less than of the drivers than that of the spectators. This is where you are reading too much into any attempt at logic regarding this issue during that era. The safety issue was quite selective and also more than a bit political during this period.

As for the period when the rally cars were basically disasters waiting to happen, that bit of insanity might be "fondly remembered," but whatever it was, it destroyed the last remnants of rallying as it once was. Just my opinion on that issue, completely losing any interest in rallying by the early Seventies or so.

Always keep in mind that the tensions between the CSI and those actually in the business of automobile racing, whether in Europe or elsewhere, were often high and the relationship rarely pleasant. The teams and the drivers had little to no say so in the sport as such during this period, the CSI and the clubs running things as they pretty much wished. As for the fans, the spectators, they were rarely catered to, even today I groan at the facilities and other miseries that often plagued attending an event, the British circuits often building true character and the swill that was usually often as "food" in Britain making prison camp cuisine look good by comparison. Also, I can vividly recall being almost literally on the edge of the track during the practice sessions at Spa on Saturday in 1960 and not thinking much about it, having done that many times before there and elsewhere. Different times, indeed.

[ShiftingGears]

Actually, contrary to what you seem to think, there were continual, on-going changes being made to the circuits, to include all those you named, which meant that just a few seasons into the new formula many circuits had been changed in some fashion, usually wth the addition of barriers and other such measures.

I don't doubt that changes were made between '61 and '66, I just have doubts that they were really more than primitive, or enough to justify that those circuits, with those grand prix cars, would be significantly safer than in 1960.


You are making a mistake in continuing to think that the drivers were necessary those behind the changes and the voices being raised regarding the safety issue in the latter part of the Fifties and early Sixties.

I didn't make that assumption.


It was the CSI and many of the organizing clubs that were wringing their hands, such as it were, over the issue, especially given the safety issue was less than of the drivers than that of the spectators. This is where you are reading too much into any attempt at logic regarding this issue during that era. The safety issue was quite selective and also more than a bit political during this period.

Yeah, I thought that might be the case.

[Don Capps]

I don't doubt that changes were made between '61 and '66, I just have doubts that they were really more than primitive, or enough to justify that those circuits, with those grand prix cars, would be significantly safer than in 1960.

Personally, I would hesitate to use the word "significantly" and perhaps say something along the lines of perhaps "slightly better" until about 1968 and after when the effort provoked -- note the word -- by Jackie Stewart and the GPDA began to have an actual effect on the circuits. As in most cases during this era, things were quite relative, what actually working still be more a matter of guess and theory than actual effectiveness.

Compare the way the 1961 era course looks to that of a decade later and you will see significant differences, the death of Bandini being one of several factors that influenced the changes at Monaco, which had long been a troublesome circuit -- 1950, 1952, 1955, 1957, 1959, and 1962 being years that witnessed either crashes that blocked or partially blocked the circuit or a death.

[BDunnell]

Whether through happenstance or because of the Formule Internationale then in use -- I can argue either side of that discussion, the period from the beginning of the Sixties into at least the middle -- and even late -- Seventies witnessed a general (note the term being used) merging of US and European racing in many aspects.

Yes, a very worthwhile point, and one that brings to mind again the xenophobic, small-minded stance of motorsport administrators in the UK in that period (actually, the same can be said for the administrators of most sports in Britain at that time, and for many years before and after). As I know you'll be well aware, the absurd banning of Dan Gurney's Chevrolet Impala from a British Saloon Car Championship round, owing, as far as I understand it, in large part to the establishment — including Jaguar — 'ganging up' on the trans-Atlantic rival when it was realised that it would blow the British cars into the weeds, probably represented the xenith of this attitude. In stark contrast, of course, was the way in which Gurney decided not to protest too much — in a recent article I read, he summed it up thus: 'Why fight City Hall?' Then, within a season or two, American 'muscle-cars' were commonplace in British saloon racing, and remained so for over a decade. And then we could talk about Formula 5000, but then we'd be drifting seriously off-topic.

[BDunnell]

I don't doubt that changes were made between '61 and '66, I just have doubts that they were really more than primitive, or enough to justify that those circuits, with those grand prix cars, would be significantly safer than in 1960.

By modern standards, the changes were probably primitive. But, as Don intimated in a previous post, there was unquestionably a very different view at the time of risk leading to death. It was, to put it bluntly, a more accepted fact of life (no pun intended).

[D-Type]

A lot of the safety changes were targeted at spectator safety. The circuit owners were afraid of the consequences of a car going into the crowd. The Silverstone chicane at Woodcote is an example. The armco barriers were primarily intended to keep an errant car on the track. A couple of nasty accidents where a car went under the armco led to the introduction of catch fencing which was intended to stop a car progressively - it would still protect spectators but it also reduced the chances of injury to the driver and eliminated the risk of a car being caught up in someone else's accident. But there were two problems - the posts and that marshalls couldn't be sure how many layers a car had gone through so they had to go in from the trackside through the hole a driver had made.

[ShiftingGears]

By modern standards, the changes were probably primitive. But, as Don intimated in a previous post, there was unquestionably a very different view at the time of risk leading to death. It was, to put it bluntly, a more accepted fact of life (no pun intended).

Of course, I don't think anyone would suggest otherwise.