Pity the Unhappy Historian!

Author

admin

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

The historian who busies himself with motor-racing history is largely dependent on contemporary race reports in the motoring journals. Thus he is open to be hopelessly confused by the fallibility of reporters, or rendered hopelessly inaccurate if he gleans information from one source only. To illustrate the pitfalls that await him, let us consider how the recent Italian Grand Prix will appear to the scribe of, say, 1977. Because Britain gained her greatest Grand Prix victory of all time in this race and Vanwall won the first British Continental Grande Epreuve since Segrave and the Sunbeam came home first at Tours 34 years ago, great interest centres about what took place at Monza, and will do so as long as motoring history is written. Let us, then, see what different contemporary reports have to say about some leading aspects of this great race (see table below) :—

Perhaps sufficient evidence has been provided to fill you with sympathy for future writers of motor-racing history? There were plenty of other discrepancies amongst the motor scribes at Monza! One paper retired Godia instead of Piotti, later to award him ninth place, one report says a chunk of rubber came out of Brooks’ tyre, another that this happened to Lewis-Evans, while some reports put the Italian cars on nitro-benzine fuel, others put it into the tanks of the Vanwalls, and only one reporter said the Ferraris were using nitro-methane. Some journals referred to axle changes in practice for the Vanwalls, others ignored this, and no one told us whether they were raised or lowered if they were altered at all. One journalist became excited about the deflector shield on the top of the V12 Maserati engine, forgetting it was in use at Rouen, and lots of editors used “Vanwall Hat Trick” for headlines, overlooking the fact that this would have been true had Vanwall won at Nurburg but wasn’t so after Monza. And, by 1977, no one will ever know how Harry S(c)hell spelt his name!  I repeat, pity the unhappy historian in years to come! — W. B.

VW News

In the Australian Mobilgas Economy Trial the first six places were taken by Volkswagens.

*

At the Plaistow Repair Depot of the British Volkswagen concern a modern paintshop has just been added, in which complete VWs can be expeditiously spray-painted.

*

Apart from the revised appearance of the saloon VW, the Karman-Ghia coupe, already one of the most handsome production cars on the road, is to be slightly altered in respect of the roof-line and the appearance of the tail.