United front
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
Sir,
The articles by David Tremayne and David Phillips on advanced F1 technology and the relatively advanced age of IndyCar drivers in June’s issue were both illuminating and topical.
A technological edge has led to many a championship being won. Brabham, Clark and Andretti spring to mind. Combine a performance advantage with a brilliant driver and you have the ingredients for F1 success. However, it’s difficult to justify the epithet ‘race’ when superior equipment means that there are just four or so possible winners. Yet it has been that way for at least a decade.
Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier, but who surpassed Mach II and Mach III? Whoever was sitting in the ‘planes with the technology to do it! If Senna and Prost drive for the best teams until they are 50, they will each have 10 World Championships to their name. Nuvolari and Fangio may have pushed inferior machines to victories, but the Apostles would have to ride Jehovah’s back to beat a Williams or a McLaren.
The subject of elder statesmen continuing to hold their own in IndyCar racing, possibly because of the nature of oval track racing, made interesting reading. It also makes interesting viewing. For spectacle, IndyCars beat F1 hands down. The F1 World Championship has only been around since 1950, and may not see out the millemium in its present form. Maybe, to appease spectators and sponsors, there’ll be a new, amalagamated formula.
Do separate North American and rest-of-the-world formulae make sense in 1993? I don’t think so.
Aaron Lewis, Cessnock, Australia.