juanat ylanda vydyah
Sandra Grady
I watched Peter Windsor's interview with Brian Redman last week. Brian stated that back in the day, sportscars were lapping the old Spa 7 or 8 seconds faster than the Grand Prix cars, with the Porsche 917s hitting 210mph on the straights compared to Grand Prix's 180mph or so. I checked this out and sure enough he was right. 1970 Belgian GP, the fastest lap was a 3'27. In the Spa 1000km a month earlier, Rodriguez pulled off a 3'16. The weather was comparable for most events. That's a huge difference in lap time.
The reason I ask is that it looks like "the pinnacle of motorsport" is falling behind sports cars again. Sports car technology is far more pioneering, running hybrid systems, energy recovery systems, alternative fuels, very experimental cars such as the Deltawing and while F1 is giving some of these a go, the systems are nowhere near as reliable and it has been embarrassing to watch manufacturers like Honda struggle to make cars that'll last more than a handful of laps at full beans. Not only that, but modern Grand Prix drivers "race" at several seconds off the pace because they're forever "managing" their cars whereas the LMP1 prototypes are seemingly driven flat out much of the way. And I doubt I need to go into the calibre of Grand Prix drivers vs. sports car drivers. Let's just say if you're 18 and you have a lot of money you can do whatever you want.
No, because dragsters are faster than anything motoring and they're not the pinnacle of motorsport. Speed is not the be-all and end-all, otherwise the Senna/Prost era was pants compared to the Gethin era.
And the three guys who should have won Le Mans were all F1 refugees. It will be the pinnacle of motorsport until it disappears up its own self-selecting fundament. Although I reckon we are rapidly approaching the Event Horizon...
And in the Can-Am race the previous day Jackie Stewart's fastest lap in the Chapparal 2J 'Sucker' was 1' 05.8". However, Denny Hulme in the new McLaren M8D 'Batmobile' had taken pole with 1' 02.76" - faster than Ickx's F1 pole time of 1' 03.07".
Even taking the bigger capacities into account, considering the 2J and M8D were running stock block Chevs, as against the pure Ferrari racing engines, that's pretty damned impressive. At the time it was probably a toss-up as to which was fastest - F1, Group 5 or Group 8 - and IIRC much of the reasoning behind limiting sports cars to 3 litres from 1972 was because the 5 litre Ferraris and Porsches were at least as fast as the best F1 cars.
I believe that, back in around 1964, the motor racing authorities became concerned that the 1.5 litre Grand Prix cars were looking under-powered in comparison to other formulae, resulting in the change to 3 litres in 1966. At the 1965 Silverstone International Trophy meeting the 'Big Banger' sports cars proved quicker than a very good Formula 1 entry.
F1 seems to have shunted itself into a siding with the regulations it has imposed on itself. It has also created an exclusive club which is out of reach of enthusiastic racers who want a crack at the big teams.
As for the USA most Americans who are interested in motor sport will support IndyCar and NASCAR primarily and which are the "pinnacle of the sport" as far as the Americans are concerned. However, both series have slowly been adapted to the show-business concept and coupled with TV ad-breaks are aimed at people with short attention spans.
I don't think that fastest lap time determines the "pinnacle" of motor sport. If you were to put an F1 car versus a specialist hillclimb car, the hillclimb car will set the faster time. Similarly, a Formula Libre car from a wealthy outfit would beat an F1 car on a circuit.
What makes GP or F1 racing a "pinnacle" is the level of competition with a combination of the quickest drivers, most inventive engineers and hungry teams. We love the idea of an equal and open playing field. What we don't like are fake overtaking measures, silly tyre rules, boring engine restrictions etc, some of which have the reverse effect of the intentions behind them. F1 won't get fixed until the people making the rules understand what makes good sport and how rich teams use their money.
Fair points, Charlieman, and one could argue that, as sports car racing lost its way in the mid-1970s, Formula 1 (at least in Europe) was clearly at the 'pinnacle' of the sport: quick cars, several competitive teams, innovative designs, most of the top drivers, increasingly in the public eye etc.
F1 the pinnacle of motorsport? That's a difficult one, but I expect that my own feelings will accord with those of many TNF old farts. It's always been F1 above everything else for me, ever since probably still short-trousered, I stood in the rain to watch Sir Stirling displaying his mastery at Aintree and Oulton Park in the Ferguson or a 1.5litre Lotus 18. I watched other races on the programme as well, but they didn't really excite much interest. Chevron B8s? no thanks, not in comparison with SCM and sharknose Ferraris etc. The closest I ever got to LeMans type cars was listening to the BBC hourly commentary into the early hours, head under the bedclothes so as not to arouse any parental interest "You've got school on Monday and homework to finish!", about whether the D Types were holding off the Testarossas etc. I'd be the first to admit that current F1 cars are most unattractive, the ugliest they've ever been, clever undoubtedly, but some of the technology is confusing and largely irrelevant to most of us, and certainly little appreciated or understood. "Modes?" "Harvesting?, no thanks! The racing is dull more often than not, and some of the characters involved, drivers and others are hugely uninspiring, I hate all the showbiz fanboy stuff that a few of the current lot seem to attract. I still watch all the races though, even if I sometimes drop off halfway through after a lunchtime glass or two of Shiraz, when it all becomes too processional, and they all seem to be "Waiting for the stops". Whoever elevated "strategy" to it's current all-consuming status should be shot for the good of the sport.
Sports cars do nothing for me, they haven't since live-axled D Types and Ferraris with a mesh or Perspex scoop over the carbs. The current cars are the ugliest freaks ever, and the mess of formulae impossible to follow, as if anyone cared about wattage, ohms, or however else the things are classified. There's an awful lot wrong with many types of racing, F1 most of all, and there seems to be little will to improve the situation, but apart from LeMans, how many people go to watch sports cars these days? In many ways, F1 is a shadow of what it once was despite the millions spent on it, but it's still the pinnacle for me, and I can't see anything ever taking over from it for popular worldwide appeal.
I agree with a lot of your position except that I was attracted first to sports cars and saw many races before ever seeing a F1 car. I do expect prototypes to resemble racing cars somewhat and the current Le Mans cars leave me completely cold. The same can be said of current F1 cars.
What I really appreciated fairly recently was the ALMS series. It featured great racing especially in the GT class and visited great circuits. It was also televised by a dedicated racing channel; one could watch the Road Atlanta Little Le Mans for updates all day and see the final at night. It's hard to believe now, as all has disappeared, I don't know why the ALMS folded, probably because of internecine wrangling that so destroyed American OW racing. The combined series whatever called today also leaves me cold, the IMSA cars never appealed. Also as you point out probably not enough fans paid to see or follow ALMS. What we are left with locally as the main viewing options are NASCAR and F1. Sports cars just aren't on the radar in N America now. and that is a shame.
Other formulae may be quicker from to time but Formula One has , does and will attract the best drivers and usually has the fastest cars. Not every F1 driver is part of the speedy elite but that is even more the case in sports cars. The current crop may be over complex , they may race racing in daft places like Baku ,some drivers ' gnomic utterances may grate (yes stand up Lewis) but close up the cars are pieces of modern art and what's not to like in 900bhp in 600 -odd kilos ?
What's not to like is that it looks like they are easy to drive (not to mention ugly cars, awful circuits and too much aero.) - 20 odd years ago the steering wheel was moving constantly, the car moved around and the driver did a lot one handed because he was also changing gear etc.
F1 has always attracted the very best drivers, as well as some who make up the numbers/pay for the team but these days there are so few entries and with telemetry, simulators etc. their performance is much closer to each other.
As for the term quicker, top speed has usually been quicker in sportscars but lap time isn't and it doesn't matter, in the heyday of DTM it was really popular with very spectacular cars but the lap times were similar to an F3 car.
c01484d022