Sixty years ago, the world was still recovering from the ravages of a world war. But it’s always remarkable how quickly people return to normal life after such devastation. By 1950, Grand Prix racing was already very well re-established, even if the cars (and most of the drivers) dated back to the immediate pre-war era. As a new decade began, the time was right to launch the first World Championship.
At the Bahrain Grand Prix last month Formula 1 acknowledged its heritage by celebrating the diamond anniversary of the World Championship in fitting style. All the living World Champions bar two (Kimi Räikkönen and Nelson Piquet) congregated at the desert circuit, along with a collection of fabulous cars from the past 60 years. Such a gathering is unlikely to ever happen again.
As F1 marks the anniversary, we at Motor Sport have decided to do the same. We’ve chosen this, the May issue, because it was on May 13 1950 that Silverstone hosted that landmark Grand Prix, the first to carry the weight of World Championship status.
To celebrate, we pooled some of the best motor racing writers to tell the story of 60 glorious years of GP action.
Doug Nye kicks things off with an overview of the 1950s. Now, as he says in his article, Doug was only a young child when the World Championship was born, but he was always a “good listener”. There is no better authority alive to look back at the decade of Fangio, Hawthorn, Moss, Mercedes and so on.
Into the 1960s, and Eoin Young takes up the story. The Kiwi was smack in the middle of it all back then, working with his mate Bruce McLaren and as a respected journalist, among other things.
We chose Alan Henry to tell the story of the 1970s. AH built his formidable reputation in the decade of flares and fuel shortages, enjoying friendships with the likes of Ronnie Peterson and Niki Lauda.
Our own editor-in-chief Nigel Roebuck covers the 1980s, an era as volatile as any he has known in the sport. It was the decade of the ‘superpowers’ – Villeneuve, Prost, Senna, Mansell and those magnificent turbos. For Nigel, the memories are recalled with a clarity as if they were yesterday.
Seasoned newspaper journalist Maurice Hamilton steps up for the 1990s and regular Motor Sport man Adam Cooper brings the story right up to date with the most recent decade. The ‘magnificent six’ put 60 years of F1 history into context just perfectly.
To complement the story of the decades, Simon Taylor lunched with the man who has started more Grands Prix than any other (except Rubens Barrichello, who took the lead in the longevity stakes two years ago). Yes, it’s Riccardo Patrese. He’s a true Italian gent, who tells us of his racing life, from enfant terrible to respected veteran. Former editor Simon Arron also makes his first appearance in our pages since 1996 to bring us the story of those Bahrain 60th anniversary celebrations.
It’s been a pleasure and a treat putting this issue together. There was a palpable sense of excitement in the office as each of the decade features landed and we began to build the pages. We hope you enjoy reading it as much as we enjoyed making it.
Looking VERY forward to gobbling up those pages.
Will there be an article from ‘Jenks’ in there somewhere?somewhere?
:)
ditto tanveer’s thoughts!
maybe I’ll see it by the end of may….
just got the schooey issue two days ago.
Got mine today, but I’m saving the meat of it for a long ‘plane journey in a couple of weeks.
Wow! Really looking forward to that issue and the articles by those excellent writers!
takes a couple of weeks to get down under, looking forward to it immensely. being a babe in arms when it all started mkes it all the more interesting By the way, who won the first ever GP?
keep up the good work.
cheers
First Grand Prix was the 1906 French GP, won by Ferenc Szisz. First World Championship GP was the 1950 British GP, won by Nino Farina.
Giuseppe Farina won the first GP to be part of the World Championship. It was the British GP at Silverstone, held in May of 1950. He drove an Alfa Romeo 158, which was the dominant car of the day.
The actual first race to be called a Grand Prix was held in France in 1906. That one was won by Ferenc Szisz driving a Renault and it took two days to complete.
history lesson for the day.
Just got it today and read a taster, really looking forward to the rest. What was up with Piquet and Raikkonen, no sense of history or their place in it ? I bet plenty of champions who are no longer with us who would have jumped at the opportunity to be there.
Can not wait till it comes over the pond.How can I get a copy sooner
What would Raikkonen have driven?
Look at the way he exited Formula One…Being paid a small fortune by Ferrari not to show his face in the Paddock.
As circuit-side commentator and broadcaster at Watkins Glen from 1970 to 1980, I greatly look forward to this commemorative issue and voice the wish that Motor Sport will commission a full-scale book this year of all of Jenks’s Grand Prix dispatches across the years, plus the ’55 Mille Miglia. Thank goodness for M-S’s profound appreciation of F-1 history. Without you, it would be historical amnesia!
Paul Mann, California
Ridiculous, wasn’t it? Couldn’t imagine that happening even ten years ago (though I dare say it probably has!)
The first event in the initial CSI world championship was at Indianapolis in May 1925. The first event in the “FIA Formula 1 World Championship” was held at Long Beach on 15 March 1981. What was begun in May 1950 was the Championnat du Monde des Conducteurs, which came to an end at Watkins Glen on 5 October 1980, that championship axed by Balestre and the FISA as another casualty in the FIASCO War.
Of course, Formule International No. 1 (or A or I) first saw the light of day in 1947, not 1950.
So, I suppose that the 60th anniversary is for the world championship which ended in 1980 since this is only the 30th season of the FIA Formula 1 World Championship.
History is always so messy…..
I’ve followed F1 since sept.1949. It’s been a great ride but now I find myself watching the races mostly in “fast forward” only slowing the tape when some good action happens. It’s really sad what “downforce” has accomplished.
Thank you to Damien and all the team. That looks like an outstanding edition and I can’t wait to receive it.
Nowthen Don, come on, aren’t you being just a little pedantic there? Do you *really* think that Balestre “axed” the old championship and started a completely different one in 1981? Do you *really* think that Niki Lauda is not actually a triple winner of the same world championship, as most of us have always thought, but really only won the same world championship twice and then added a separate series to his honours board some years later?
For my own part, I well remember watching old Jonesy storm to victory in that ’81 Long Beach race. I recall being so happy that he’d got his title defence off to such a good start, particularly after the FISA-FOCA war had threatened a full-scale split all winter, and particularly after Williams fans had been fretting that the eventual peace deal was more like surrender to a year of turbo domination with the ban on sliding skirts.
Imagine my shock nearly thirty years later to discover that AJ hadn’t in fact been defending his title after all…
Piquet & Kimi did not turn up at Bahrain. Jack Brabham came all the way from Australia, and he is on a kidney machine 3 days a week.
You may draw your own conclusions from the comparison.
Adrian Muldrew,
Yes, I *REALLY* believe that there was a new championship that began in 1981.
As for the shock, it is not being ‘pedantic’ to simply point out the truth.
Given that there is ample proof that the championship was indeed “axed” — the term used by the FISA when the decision was made at the April meeting in Rio was “terminated’ — by Balestre. And, it was a part of the general unpleasantness related to the FIASCO War.
Whether someone does not like it, refuses to believe it, declines to accept that there was a new championship in 1981 is irrelevant since it still happened regardless of what people wish to think.
The reason that the championship that began in 1950 was terminated at the end of 1980 was simple — the new championship was literally the property of the FIA which now owned the commercial rights to the new championship, which is a major factor as to why the Ecclestone/Mosely faction lost the battle but eventually won the war.
Once again, history is often irrelevant when enthusiasm is involved. Plus, given that the history of automobile racing has largely been in the hands of those who are not historians — nor history-minded for that matter — it is scarcely a surprise that few seem to be happy when informed that they are celebrating something not quite true. Of course, shooting the messenger is always the easy way to deal with such things.
Of course, the general notion that “politics” was an anathema to the enjoyment of automobile racing is something that Enthusiasts have long held as a central tenet to their view of the sport. After all, Jenks rarely deigned to report or even comment on such vulgar goings on. Alas, it is the poor historian who is left with the unpleasant task of sorting out the how the sausage gets to the breakfast plate. Contrary to popular belief – and alas once again, there is much more to motor racing racing history than sorting out chassis numbers or race data.
Then again, given the (I initially wrote British, but it seems to be a universal) tendency to cherry-pick history, any attempt to state what is contrary to what has been accepted for years is doomed to scorn, but a historian has got to do what a historian has got to do.
OK but what i’m saying is that there obviously some issues between di Montezemolo and Raikkonen.
The issues are fresh…it’s not as if *years* have passed since Raikkonen was binned in order to make way for Santander and their bailing-out of Alonso out of a horrid Renault situation a year ahead of schedule…
I must admit I’ve never seen why 1950 is considered such a watershed, when it was a continuation of the existing Grand Prix formula that had been used since 1946, dominated by pre-war Alfas and Maseratis.
It just seems to mean that great pre-war and immediate post-war names get ignored whenever there’s a review of Grand Prix history, especially Wimille, surely at the height of his powers in 1947-49.
And the F1 tag is a bit of a misnomer too as 52-53 were F2 years, yet Ascari isn’t ignored from the list of Formula 1 champions as a result…
I don’t think Raikkonen was binned. I think we’ve all gotten the impression that after he won the title he lost interest in all things F1.
As for Piquet not being there… Well that one’s obvious. Too fresh from the escapades of his scumbag son.
I agree that Raikkonen didn’t lose interest in F1 racing (as opposed to all the PR and corporate work which comes with being the highest paid driver ever.)
But if you don’t think he was binned by Ferrari a year early, then what do you call it?
Severed = Binned.
Drood,
There’s an ironic symetry about your “scum bag” PK jr. comment and the Alonso/Raikkonen switch at Ferrari:
Alonso was also a “scum bag” when he ‘won’ the 2008 Singapore GP without, supposedly, questioning the strategy of starting the race on only 12 laps of fuel – a plainly stupid idea given his grid position!
Either Alonso is a total liar for nowing nothing about Renault’s plans to cheat every other team that day…
…OR his moniker of being the “most complete” driver on the grid is utter drivel and nonsense!
Being “complete” entails coming up with proper race strategy with your race engineers as opposed to going out on 12 laps of fuel from well back on the grid.
So, the symetry of it all is that Santander bailed the “scum bag” Spaniard out of the nasty situation at Renault one year early…and it was Raikkonen who, as a result, got the boot (leaving him without a similar seat on the grid once Button made his trip to the McLaren Technology Centre).
Charming, isn’t it?
Imagine if it were Alonso – and not Kubica – who had scored that magnificent 2nd in Australia last weekend…
…All the Alonso lovers would be hailing it as the Second Coming!!!
Don, I regret to say that you *are* being pedantic and I regret equally to say that you are being so to the point of absurdity.
You speak rather fondly of your historical eye for these matters. I couldn’t agree more that history is important; that’s why I lean further towards the likes of Motor Sport than certain other publications with a more exclusively contemporary bias. And I agree with you – motor racing history is about more than race data. That’s another reason why our favourite green-covered magazine is so rewarding.
But history is nothing without context. An historian cannot take one fact in isolation and ignore the wider reality. That’s the very opposite of historical study, frankly.
Yet that is exactly how you have sought to use Balestre’s declaration of a “new” championship. There were good legal and tactical reasons why he made such a declaration and maintained it through1980-81. Well, the leaders in East Berlin no doubt had their good reasons for calling their state “the German Democratic Republic” and indeed that name will forever be a literal historical truth, but does it mean that today’s historians are duty-bound to write that East Germany was democratic?
So, Balestre declared 1981 Year Zero in order to nullify (“suppress” was his actual word, wasn’t it?) the old individual arrangements that were in place between race organisers and entrants. Yes, it happened. No-one’s “refusing to believe” or “declining to accept” that, as you put it.
But you, Don, are indeed “refusing to believe” or “declining to accept” the clear context in which the 1981 US GP West took place, as accepted and understood by everybody who lined up on the grid that day, by everybody in the pits and the paddock (including those in the FIA who put number 1 on Alan Jones’ car), by everybody who reported on the race in the media and by just about everybody, possibly excepting yourself, who watched it trackside or on TV: that it took place in an unbroken line of world championship grands prix then stretching back just under 31 years.
And, if the world championship wasn’t regarded as continuous between 1980 and 1981, kindly explain the following. The first Concorde Agreement, signed just four days before Long Beach, set up a new F1 Commission, comprising three representatives from the manufacturer teams plus one from their sponsors, three from FOCA plus one from their sponsors, four from the race organisers and one from FISA, plus *the reigning World Champion as a non-voting member*.
Funny way to signify a clean break, wouldn’t you say?
The plain fact is that even the FIA itself doesn’t recognise what you’re saying about its own world championship. Its publications always pinpoint 1950 as the start date. That’s why there was the celebration in Bahrain, after all.
And the overwhelming majority of fans, those with a sense of history and those without and those in between, are only too happy to join in those celebrations. If you prefer to let your obsession get in the way of the festivities for yourself, Don, then that’s a little sad but, to paraphrase you, it’s irrelevant, because an unbroken line of six decades of fine world champions has happened, from Farina to Button, whatever Don Capps thinks.
Given that there are those who still believe that the Earth is flat, that the world is only six thousand years old, that Elvis is still alive, and other such things it is understandable that there is some reluctance and, yes, anger, as expressed by Adrian Muldrew and others regarding this somewhat inconvenient matter.
I would like to suggest to Adrian Muldrew: that he take the time to examine the work on the FIASCO War that can be found at the 8W site (http://8w.forix.com/fiasco-introduction-timeline.html). Given that I am long used to being personally attacked or insulted by people such Adrian Muldrew:on this and other similarly inconvenient topics, I will simply state that his comments pretty much reflect the sort of mindset that has resulted in why the history of automobile racing is largely a shambles.
In the short story, “Silver Blaze,” written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle as part of the Sherlock Holmes series of stories, the following conversation, led by Dr. Watson, takes place regarding how Holmes was able to determine that the killer of Colonel Ross’s racehorse was the owner of the stable dog:
Colonel Ross still wore an expression which showed the poor opinion which he had formed of my companion’s ability, but I saw by the inspector’s face that his attention had been keenly aroused
“You consider that to be important?” he asked.
“Exceedingly so.”
“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.
Regardless of what Adrian Muldrew may think about the lack of context on my part regarding this, I would suggest that his is woefully off base in this accusation, his snarky remarks to the contrary about historians. It was that “the dog did nothing” that led to the research which found this rather surprising element in the rather convoluted and often confusing story of the FIASCO War.
The FIASCO War is probably one of the least discussed and examined episodes in the history of the AIACR/FIA and the CSI/FISA. The coverage at the time was spotty and often tended towards the sensational, but generally lacked much depth or marked by a level of analysis beyond “the sky is falling” level. For its part, Motor Sport largely ignored or downplayed the entire affair as a nuisance caused by that ugliest of expletives — “politics.” It was a long-standing policy of Denis Jenkinson to ignore any of the unpleasant “politics” of motor racing since he considered it not what enthusiasts were interested in. Of course, exceptions were made when an ox of his was being gored, but that is that.
It is something of a surprise to realize Autosport provides a fairly decent chronicle of the FIASCO War. At the time of the FIASCO War I was much more preoccupied with other things than worrying about some silly squabble among basically silly people over what seemed to be silly matters. Nor at the time did I –along with many others it must be said — consider automobile racing as a subject worthy of any real attention by historians. It was a sport and very much a niche sport at that. Besides, in the early Eighties the FIASCO War was not history, but current affairs.
Years later, after I reconsidered the matter of the history of automobile racing as an appropriate subject for historical inquiry, it became quite evident that if anything, automobile racing history needed to be rescued from those who seemed to be shaping and molding it to what they wanted it to be, not necessarily what it was.
At some point several years ago, I was asked to write about the FIASCO War. I had my opinions about the entire matter, but opinions are not history, only opinions. As I began to examine what there was and realized that there really was not much. Lots of opinions and notions about the War, but not much else. It seemed as if when the War ended, that was that for the journalists, few bothering to take a look at it much less pick at that particular scab.
Adrian Muldrew, please take a look at the 1981 FIA “Yellow Book” or Yearbook. You will find quite a bit of information regarding the “suppression” of the 1950 championship and the creation of the new championship. You will find it there and probably not much this elsewhere. Contrary to what you seem to think, it was a genuine surprise to find that there was a new championship in place beginning with the 1981 season. I then went to the contemporary sources and found very little, finally locating a few comments referring to the FIA meeting in Rio and the actions there regarding the power of the FISA.
The action at Rio simply seems to have been lost in the high emotions of the day, which makes reading the articles often a tiresome process. It is worth noting that the action at Rio was on 15 April, prior to the problems of the Spanish race and the subsequent exchange of salvos between the FIAS and FOCA.
Indeed, that “the dog did nothing” is perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this entire affair. That topic is worthy of a great deal more attention than is getting or has gotten — none. Then again, that would be to pick at a scab that few seem willing to do, especially while Ecclestone and Mosley are still in our midst.
If Adrian Muldrew and many millions are happy to think that the world championship has continued unbroken since 1950, and will resist any attempt to be told otherwise, well, so be it. I should really care less since the facts indicate otherwise, but it bothers me that it seems to devolve into an attack on historians (the DDR remark being one that truly displays a sense of anti-historian bias) rather than wondering just how such a thing could happen.
OK…except Elvis is alive and well, and calls himself R Tanveer these days…
The lack of understanding something that you do not like does not negate the fact that it happened.
Given how much the fact that there have been two and not one continuous world championship seems to irritate and rile people to the point where they get downright nasty about it, continues to suggest to me that once more that it is the legend and the mythology that are far more important to the motor racing fan or enthusiast than any result from messy process of motor racing “politics” might be. The irony, of course, is that by getting rid of the old world championship and creating a new one, Balestre actually provided Ecclestone and Mosley with what they wanted in the first place, something which they could not see at the time given their vision being fixated on the short-term and not the long-term aspects of the situation. So, in relatively short order the poachers became game wardens and controlled the sport in large thanks to the new championship placing the commercial interests of that championship in the hot, sweaty hands if the FIA.
That there was a new “FIA Formula One World Championship” literally changed the azimuth of the championship — and some would suggest not necessarily for the better, creating what you have today.
Gosh, Damien, lucky you! You get all this research for free and avoid having to place something in the monthly which might upset the readers.
Azimuth????
Damien – i hate to be pedantic but Luigi was killed at Rheims in 1958 and not Spa as you’ve put in your excellent mag – although do have a problem with calling mschumacher a king
Jones had No.1 on his car in 1981, and he was, according to the FIA, the “defending champion”, ie, he was defending his 1980 championship. So, new names, new people, new set up, new whatever notwithstanding, the 1950-1980 championship has carried on from 1981 to the present. IMHO.
Golly, Kenny, if you and Adrian and all the others say it is so, it must be so! I am so wrong and, therefore, must wilt before the concerted onslaught of opinion since opinion in motor racing is always stronger than fact.
Please forgive me, since I must have slipped into the Twilight Zone and found all that factual information that about what the FIA/FISA did in 1980. Oh, the shame to dare think that FIA would even dream of such a thing, that its concern for the integrity of its past, its history, that it would even consider such a dastardly act which would upset the fans.
Next thing you know, we will be told that the 1933 GP di Tripoli was not rigged, Tommy Milton was not the 1920 AAA National Champion, Hermann Lang was not the 1939 AIACR/CSI European Champion, and Lord knows what else if we don’t keep those pesky historians from poking around with the past and coming up with things just to irritate us and say things contrary to our opinions.Ban the historians! Give us the past as we want it to be, not as those nasty historians keep trying to tell that it was! After all, what do those historians really know any way? Obviously nothing if they can’t get the history of the formula one championship correct, right? No more history written by historians!
Get a grip, Don.
Hello Don and Kenny,
I could not wait, so looked up ‘azimuth’ in my dictionary.
I have come to the conclusion that your debating positions are azimuthal to each other, and therefore it is futile to continue.
I had to look it up, too…I don’t know if we are azimuthal in the astronomical, navigational, or targeting sense. Perhaps all three…
remind me NOT to ever buy your book on motor racing history, Mr. Capps.
Keep in mind, that until the 1980 season, the formula and the world championship regulations were two separate items, that the world championship could be run to whatever formula — F1, USAC, F/5000, F/Atlantic — that the CSI chose. It was the necessity to combine those two separate parts into a single set of regulations, which would also give the commercial rights to the FIA, that led Balestre to do what he did, terminate the old (1950) championship and by doing so dissolve all the existing agreements and then create a new championship to replace it, giving the FIA complete control over the “product.” Not an elegant solution, and one that Ecclestone & Mosley seemed to grasp as being their way to control at the time, but one that certainly worked.
That it all seemed to move along on the surface without much of anyone noticing — which is repeated endlessly here and elsewhere — is nothing short of remarkable and perhaps reflects several things about those involved at the time, not all of them necessarily positive, but not necessarily negative either, pragmatism tending to triumph over ideology.
That the fans did not notice nor were even really aware of the momentous changes which took place was both serendipitous and worked to the advantage of Balestre, allowing him to use the history canard, being able to maintain to the public the fiction that nothing had changed, that it was business as usual.
Quite a remarkable performance, one that was not fully appreciated until later on, when the poachers became the game wardens.
Sorry, Cubbage, you have to be able to read to buy anything I write on motor racing history.
thank you Copps for pointing out that I am illiterate. I actually didn’t know I was!
you keep on insulting the bloggers here and you’ll be arguing with other pedants like yourself.
Sorry, Cubbage, please accept my apologies, you are clearly not illiterate.
apologies accepted.
one thing that is for sure – we all are rabid motor racing fans here – we are passionate about the sport. it is reflected in posts by all of us.
and maybe some parts of its’ history, like the FISA-FOCA wars, many of us would rather forget. it was a very ugly period in the history of F1.
and it is funny, but if I were to write the definitive history of F1, the record book would have Martin Brundle 2nd at Detroit in 1984! I was there, I saw it, yes they cheated, but so did about everyone else those days. Revisionist history I would call it…..;-)
Don, can I politely ask you where precisely is the anger to be found in my remarks?
Can I also politely ask you how it “displays an anti-historian bias” for me to write “the leaders in East Berlin no doubt had their good reasons for calling their state “the German Democratic Republic” and indeed that name will forever be a literal historical truth, but does it mean that today’s historians are duty-bound to write that East Germany was democratic?”
Here’s a suggestion Mr Editor: How about taking a close look at AH’s piece on the 1970s and edit out everything we’ve heard before, just leaving in stuff that’s new.
Since there’ll be just a few lines remaining, you’ll have plenty of room for some DSJ gems.
I am really looking forward to reading Nigel on the 1980s. He is a beautifully evocative writer, though I do wish he’d resist the temptation to use the cut and paste button.
The first GP I attended was at Watkins Glen in 1967 where Clark and Hill won in Lotus 49′s. That was year 18 of the modern F1 championship and now we’re at 60 and counting! I must be getting old. Is it just me, or was it better then?
it’s not you Mr. Ehrlich….
Hope it’s not too late to add my two pen’orth on the above article and discussion, which I’ve just read. First of all, congrats to Damien Smith, you pitched it beautifully. I found the ensuing discussion fascinating.
That was an unfair edit which changed the meaning of what I wrote. To leave it as saying I found the discussion fascinating, full stop, is to imply I thought everything was equally fascinating, Mr Capps’ arguments included. That’s not what I wrote. I cannot sit back and let Mr Capps get away with accusing others of anger when clearly it is he who is making the angry contributions, a pattern I have seen elsewhere. What I am particularly concerned about is that, on a forum as clearly reputable as this one, Mr Capps’ inaccuracies should not be allowed to go unchallenged. He makes much of the FIA Yellow Book, but he omits to mention that it was compiled in October and published in January, thus completely ignoring what happened between then and the start of the 1981 season – i.e. the Concorde Agreement. Mr Capps cannot congratulate himself when he ignores such a crucial historical fact. His second fundamental error is to argue that Balestre changed the championship to one which was exclusively for F1 cars, from one which had not been so. In fact, the 1981 Yellow Book stated “organisers may admit International Formula 2 racing cars if the number of Formula 1 cars available is insufficient.” Subsequent Yellow Books made similar decrees in respect of F2 and later F3000, whilst earlier Yellow Books stipulated the championship was “open to racing cars of the International Formula 1, except for an explicit waiver”. So Mr Capps is wrong twice over. This needs to be placed on record.