Heresy

[angst]

I know that alot of motor racing enthusiasts love Brooklands, and I can see that the history of the circuit and the cars and people that raced there is great if taken in the context of being an entity all on its own. However does anyone agree that the setup at Brooklands put Britain's place in international racing (particularly Grand Prix) years behind because of the developments in cars for racing there?

[Peter Mallett]

This is one for Tim but you could ask the same about Indy or Monthlery. The world revolved around speed rather than handling at that time and all the cars which raced at Brooklands also entered land speed record attempts (all?) so the continuous blast around the banked tracks gave them info for the LSR attempts.

Set the development back? No just sent it on a different course. Oh, I forgot the old Avuus track which was two straights with a banked corner at each end.

[TimD]

Heh, heh, I suspect you knew it was going to be me with the first response!

This is a hot potato that William Boddy and Paul Sheldon have been arguing for a decade now. Both writers who I respect, and both of whom have given me great encouragement in my Brooklands project.

In a word, I think we would have been a lot worse off without Brooklands. It gave us at least some kind of competition industry, and was home to the earliest twitchings of the British motor sport dominance of the post-war era.

First of all, it was not unnatural to assume in 1907 that the speed bowl was the way forward in race courses. Sitges was being built, Indianapolis was planned, and was indeed but one of many banked tracks in the USA. Even later, when Monza was laid out, a banking was an integral part of the design, and Montlhery was founded as late as 1925.

The Brooklands circuit was founded specifically because the British motor industry, uniquely in Europe, was unable to test their products on the open road, thanks to legislation. Until very late on, all GPs on continental Europe were held on closed public roads, to say nothing of the Targa Florio, Mille Miglia and others. In Britain, that would have required act of Parliament, and no government ever showed itself to be amenable to a change throughout Brooklands' lifetime. I do not see that they would have been any more responsive if Brooklands had not existed at all.

So we had a situation where British competition cars were being tested and proven on the speed bowl, where the emphasis was on flat out velocity rather than handling.

In this is the start of British competitiveness in the Land Speed Record. Indeed, Edge, Eyston, Segrave, Parry-Thomas, Campbell and Cobb were all Brooklands competitors before they were LSR holders.

From out of the tuning sheds appeared the Napier-Railton and the Bluebirds, which laid the groundwork for ultra-high speed technology, and of course such machines as the Dixon Rileys and the ERAs, which were competitive in voiturette (Formula 2) right to the late forties, and whose construction team was the core of the project that became BRM. If not for Brooklands, would Raymond Mays have ever had the inspiration to develop those cars? And in turn, is it possible that Colin Chapman et al might have had nothing to tilt at in the certainty that he could do better?

I would certainly agree that by the early 1930s, Brooklands was in danger of becoming an anachronism, given the increasing use of purpose built "road" circuits in Europe, and it is true that the BARC saw no need to change anything until the advent of Crystal Palace and Donington Park provided a viable alternative spectacle. The Brooklands Campbell Circuit was a neat, but hasty response to pressure being placed on their spectator numbers!

So my argument simply is this - British cars were indeed for decades unsuited to road racing. But this is because we had no opportunity for literal "road racing".

Brooklands was the proving ground for engineers who later on DID build cars capable of taking on the rest of Europe.

In conclusion, I would say that Brooklands, from its very start, had its detractors for exactly the same reasons cited. It was suited to one specific racing discipline. But until Crystal Palace and Donington were founded (also on private land) there was no one prepared to put their money behind their convictions.

[Marshal]

I agree with everything you say Tim, but in hindsight, Britain would have been more competetive in top line racing earlier if Brooklands hadn't been banked.

Might not have owned the LSR mind

[angst]

I see your points Tim and Peter. I suppose it's because the LSR has never really grabbed me, and Grand Prix racing always has (quite a narrow view I suppose), but I always thought that if they'd only built something infield along the lines of a road course, that things would have moved along a lot quicker in terms of Britain's international racing aspirations. Basically, imagine all that mechanical/technological know-how that was spent on huge speed machines being directed toward getting the best from a limited capacity car which had to handle round bends. I think alot of the people involved at that time would have alot more recognition now, as the likes of Jano and Porsche etc. do.

[Dan Friel]

I went to Brooklands on Sunday....

Just fantastic it was, very good museum and access to all the old hangers with planes and techincal stuff still in them..

They're just about to open a F1 display also..

I've been to part of the banking before, but the part near the paddock which is looked after is amazing - I couldn't walk up it!!!

It was almost emotional...

If you're in the area, its a must go visit...