Discussion
Pipers, Parrots and Pure F1
Strange title but fantastic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1_cqop3LX0
Strange title but fantastic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1_cqop3LX0
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 22 April 15:26
ELUSIVEJIM said:
Lovely sharp footage. Nice to see the Monza banking being used in anger. You can see how bumpy it was. Doing a bit of driver spotting - I saw Ascari, Fangio, Hawthorn, Taruffi, Moss.Eric Mc said:
Lovely sharp footage. Nice to see the Monza banking being used in anger. You can see how bumpy it was. Doing a bit of driver spotting - I saw Ascari, Fangio, Hawthorn, Taruffi, Moss.
The bumps as you say look scary. That on a banked circuit must have been interesting to say the least.Amazing.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
Amazing tech for the time. ~230hp @14,000rpm.I wonder what a modern engine could produce with the same size/cylinder count and retaining normal aspiration?
350?
ELUSIVEJIM said:
The bumps as you say look scary. That on a banked circuit must have been interesting to say the least.
Amazing.
One of the problems with the banking was that the G forces pushed the cars right down to the maximum compression on their suspensions. Therefore, when they hit a bump, there was no absorbtion so the shock went right through the entire chassis and made the car very unstable.Amazing.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
That must be some of the close "wheel to wheel" flat out racing that some threads hark back to 
(Moss lapping the entire field)
Fun to watch though.
Vaud said:
That must be some of the close "wheel to wheel" flat out racing that some threads hark back to
(Moss lapping the entire field)
Fun to watch though.
I don't think people claim that older racing was all wheel to wheel at all. The charm of older racing was the openess, the venues, the drivers, the excitement , the glamour, the sound, the smells, the dynamics of the vehicles, the risks and yes, the danger.(Moss lapping the entire field)
Fun to watch though.
Eric Mc said:
I don't think people claim that older racing was all wheel to wheel at all. The charm of older racing was the openess, the venues, the drivers, the excitement , the glamour, the sound, the smells, the dynamics of the vehicles, the risks and yes, the danger.
I don't disagree with your point, but there are some posters (and I don't mean on this thread) that talk of a former F1 that was wheel to wheel, flat out all the time, close racing... their rose tinted glasses.It was certainly a different sport; part of the glamour was also, in my view, an excitement from post-War austerity (in the 50s and 60s)
Vaud said:
I don't disagree with your point, but there are some posters (and I don't mean on this thread) that talk of a former F1 that was wheel to wheel, flat out all the time, close racing... their rose tinted glasses.
It was certainly a different sport; part of the glamour was also, in my view, an excitement from post-War austerity (in the 50s and 60s)
Yep. There were a lot of adrenaline junkies floating around after WW2 - either ex soldiers/sailors/airmen or those who had just missed out on being called up. Motor sport was an obvious exciting and dangerous pastime for people like that.It was certainly a different sport; part of the glamour was also, in my view, an excitement from post-War austerity (in the 50s and 60s)
We still have many individuals today who crave thrills. However, these days they are not drawn to motor racing. They are more likely to be involved in extreme sports such as wing suiting, base jumping etc.
Eric Mc said:
Vaud said:
I don't disagree with your point, but there are some posters (and I don't mean on this thread) that talk of a former F1 that was wheel to wheel, flat out all the time, close racing... their rose tinted glasses.
It was certainly a different sport; part of the glamour was also, in my view, an excitement from post-War austerity (in the 50s and 60s)
Yep. There were a lot of adrenaline junkies floating around after WW2 - either ex soldiers/sailors/airmen or those who had just missed out on being called up. Motor sport was an obvious exciting and dangerous pastime for people like that.It was certainly a different sport; part of the glamour was also, in my view, an excitement from post-War austerity (in the 50s and 60s)
We still have many individuals today who crave thrills. However, these days they are not drawn to motor racing. They are more likely to be involved in extreme sports such as wing suiting, base jumping etc.
Was the loss of life and were the risks less remarkable post War than now? I have always thought so. One of my father's team-mates was Tony Rolt, who had been involved in the Colditz glider escape plan. Racing around Europe and the World must have been such a stark contrast from the horrors of the previous decade.
The risks were still raw however. Dad recounted how he nearly gave up after being pushed off at Boreham into spectators who were too close to the circuit. I'm not sure if anyone was killed, but there were injuries, and only a stern talking to by an older father figure persuaded him to continue racing.
The way he spoke about Peter Collins, who had been a close friend, also suggested that his loss had been very hard to take.
Leithen said:
It was glamorous but also relatively new. Yes there had been the beginnings in the inter-war years, but post WW2 it must have been exhilarating for the enormous crowds to see such machinery and such speed.
Was the loss of life and were the risks less remarkable post War than now? I have always thought so. One of my father's team-mates was Tony Rolt, who had been involved in the Colditz glider escape plan. Racing around Europe and the World must have been such a stark contrast from the horrors of the previous decade.
The risks were still raw however. Dad recounted how he nearly gave up after being pushed off at Boreham into spectators who were too close to the circuit. I'm not sure if anyone was killed, but there were injuries, and only a stern talking to by an older father figure persuaded him to continue racing.
The way he spoke about Peter Collins, who had been a close friend, also suggested that his loss had been very hard to take.
I'd argue it was far from new. There was LOTS of motor sport, not just between the two world wars but also before World War 1. Indeed, motor racing was so big pre WW1 that (like in the 1920s and 30s) national prestige was gained from both hosting events and hopefully, winning them too. It was in this era that cars began to run in "national" colours - that's how big it was. Was the loss of life and were the risks less remarkable post War than now? I have always thought so. One of my father's team-mates was Tony Rolt, who had been involved in the Colditz glider escape plan. Racing around Europe and the World must have been such a stark contrast from the horrors of the previous decade.
The risks were still raw however. Dad recounted how he nearly gave up after being pushed off at Boreham into spectators who were too close to the circuit. I'm not sure if anyone was killed, but there were injuries, and only a stern talking to by an older father figure persuaded him to continue racing.
The way he spoke about Peter Collins, who had been a close friend, also suggested that his loss had been very hard to take.
I just think that people in general were far more acceptable of risk. The modern unacceptance of it really only began to gain traction in the 1980s. Ironically, it was deaths in televised F1 races and related practice sessions that really kicked off a change in public mood. Deaths in not so heavilly televised sports, such as Three Day Eventing stil happen at more or less the same rate they always did.
I agree with all your other points. I've heard Doug Nye, the great motor sport historian, tell the story of the interview he had with a driver from the 1950s (he doesn't mention the name - it could have been Rolt). He asked him, "Did you not CARE about the dangers?". The interviewee replied, "Of course we cared - but nobody was trying to deliberately kills us. It wasn't like we were being shot at. We were doing it to ourselves - voluntarilly".
And what does that ACTUALLY mean?
I think risk is an important part of the sport - indeed, ANY sport. After all, isn't there supposed to be an element of unpredictability about sporting endeavours.
However, not risk of death but risk of consequence - and I don't mean penalties by stewards.
I think risk is an important part of the sport - indeed, ANY sport. After all, isn't there supposed to be an element of unpredictability about sporting endeavours.
However, not risk of death but risk of consequence - and I don't mean penalties by stewards.
Eric Mc said:
And what does that ACTUALLY mean?
I think risk is an important part of the sport - indeed, ANY sport. After all, isn't there supposed to be an element of unpredictability about sporting endeavours.
However, not risk of death but risk of consequence - and I don't mean penalties by stewards.
Personally I think it is is about increasing the dependency on human control and it's fallibilities. I think risk is an important part of the sport - indeed, ANY sport. After all, isn't there supposed to be an element of unpredictability about sporting endeavours.
However, not risk of death but risk of consequence - and I don't mean penalties by stewards.
i.e. bringing back manual or semi automatic H boxes (maybe with lock outs to reduce risk of over revving). reducing the number of variables that can be changed from the cockpit. Ban car to pit telemetry (or massive reduce the variables and frequency that data can be sent).
Reduce the data, you reduce the value of the "control room" in the teams. Increase the driver dependency, increase the variability and risk in the race.
Physically it is tricky; I would prefer an engines formula with massively reduced downforce. Increasing the penalty for run off is also tricky in era that shares so many tracks with MotoGP with their different run off requirements...
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff