What /were/ they thinking ?!

[fatbloke]

I've just been watching an old report film of motor racing in Britain in the 60's and I was amazed at the state of the circuits back then. I've always known, of course, that the circuits were not as safe as they are nowadays but what I saw, frankly, scared the pants off me

Brands Hatch and Oulton Park were shown, both with steep banks, ditches and trees right alongside the track - and they argued against change ?! Holy cow! It's no wonder people were killed regularly. And so much for 'gentlemanly driving' - a lot of the driving standards appeared to be no better than the BTCC

The question begs to be asked though, how did they get away with it ? Surely the circuit owners should have been up on a charge of manslaughter or something knowing these dangers were there and refusing point blank to rectify the problems.

[Bluebottle]

I've just been watching a 60's report from Castle Combe on the Sexist Channel, er, sorry, that's the Men & Motors channel- Apart from the chicanes added last year, it's amazing how little has changed there! Mashalls with no orange overalls and only a bale or two of straw to protect them- and it couldn't have been wise for them to be smoking while on duty!!
At Goodwood, Lord March has managed to make the circuit safer while not placing the crowd behind a mass of fencing- a great place to watch historic racing- it has the right look and plenty of safety features for the kind of cars taking part in the revival meeting!
We still have some pretty dangerous circuits- I'm sure the FIA wouldn't entertain the thought of a street circuit in Monaco if it were suggested today as a new idea!!

[Gerard]

I too am shocked when I see old racing footage.
It's unbelievable how dangerous racing was in those days for drivers and spectators.
Especially after the 1955 Le Mans disaster in which more than 80 people were killed, you would have thought something would have been done.
But remember, it was only in 1977, after Niki Lauda's accident the year before, they closed the 'old' Nurburgring.
Besides, ever seen a rally recording?
Portugal perhaps, or Argentine?
It always makes me wonder how come the FIA wants to make Formula One the safest motorracing sport in the world while they still won't take any safety measures regarding spectators in rallying.

[Michael M]

In 2050 racing will be exclusively by computer simulation, and everybody seeing an historic footage about the Canada GP in 2000 wonders how these crazy guys could perform racing in real cars on physical tracks!
So don't compare history with today, not the drivers, not the cars, and not the tracks.
Everyone entering a race in his era knew about the risks involved, these risks had been higher in 1960 than today, and most probably in 1920 higher than in 1960, but for everybody it was absolutely clear - motorsport is dangerous! This sentence seems to be forgotten in today's times. When Michael Schumacher broke a leg last year, he started discussions about the general safety and layout of tracks, and after his brother suffers a minor injury during this year's Monaco GP, discussions had been opened to throw Monaco out of the F1 schedule.
Safety is an absolute requirement in racing, no doubts on this, but my impression is that the "motorsport is dangerous" sentence is something not known to today's drivers. And if somebody is not willing or able to accept the full meaning of this sentence, he better stops racing.

[TimD]

I agree totally, Michael. As you know, I will always choose to watch old cars racing over moderns, and there are plenty of drivers with a sublime skill who would have easily made the grade as professional racers, but who choose instead to drive for fun and pleasure in the historic categories.

And this means driving a car with no crumple zones, no padding, very often no roll hoop and no seat belts. And they are doing it for the love of the sport, without any thought of the substantial rewards that today's professional drivers can expect.

I have to say that in an open wheel car, that does make for a more courteous racing style. If you try the modern F1 stock-car tactics in a Maserati 250F or a Vanwall, you will almost certainly kill someone. And it's a better than even chance that someone will be you.

I can remember only one case in the old era of frankly "dirty" driving of an open wheeler, and that was a fellow by the name of Cowley who deliberately rammed another competitor at Brands Hatch. I am not certain that he ever saw his racing licence again.

As to the circuits - well, it was what the drivers were used to. It was also an age, let us not forget, where people were far more ready to accept the consequences of their own actions. Certainly there were idiotic lapses on the part of circuit owners. I am firmly of the belief that Archie Scott-Brown, Jean Behra and Jim Clark would have benefitted from a preemptive clearing of telegraph poles and small trees from the sides of the circuits they had their last races on. I would say that Brands Hatch was regarded in the early sixties as pretty state of the art in circuit design and amenities.

[fatbloke]

Motorsport is dangerous ? Sure it is, but why does it have to be any more dangerous than it absolutely needs to be ?

I can't believe the way some of you think! Part of the risk ? Bloody hell, don't you think that if the organisers hadn't had that attitude, then maybe there'd have been a few more kids growing up with two parents ? I'll leave you to explain the rationale behind your thoughts to them, cause I can't figure it out at all!

If you were seeing people killed week in, week out, and the reason for these deaths was clear, wouldn't you feel compelled to do something about it ? Every time there is a death of a driver today I question my love for the sport and, although I always seem to come back eventually, i'm afraid I couldn't live with myself watching people die every Sunday - i'd have to start watching cricket or something

Dirty driving ? When I compared the driving to that of a modern day BTCC, I wasn't meaning dirty driving, simply that the guys in the cars couldn't help but run into each other - for whatever reason. More often than not, as today, the cars would veer off into the scenery (literally the case in the old days) - one particularly horrible sight was at, I think, Cadwell Park where, after leaving the road, one car went up a steep bank and was launched in the air, landing back down on the track in a mangled car, yet very lucky to have missed hitting a (very solid looking) brick wall while airborne. No one seemed all that shocked about it either - as if it happened all the time - yet there had been no apparent attempt to remedy the problem. I'm sure this would have been easily cured by adding a strip of armco alongside the track.

I'm not saying that they should have turned every circuit into a Silverstone (which, incidently, I hate) but no armco ? Trees alongside the circuit ? Come on! Get a grip folks, that's like saying it's OK to have the occasional train disaster because, 'hell, these things happen!' Railtrack may be incompetent when it comes to safety, but at least the goverment is (allegedly) forcing them to improve safety.

Gerard is right in bringing up rallying too. I, for one, refuse to watch it on TV and would never attend one as, besides it being as dull as dishwater, it scares the hell out of me. Something surely should be done about that too - it is plain to see. It's one thing saying that it's OK seeing drivers die, because they know the risks, but quite another seeing hundreds of people wandering around in front of rally cars which are approaching them at full tilt - sideways. What is gonna happen when one of these cars goes out of control and kills 80 spectators ? Most likely the sport will be banned.

I sometimes have a horrible feeling that 'something' is going to happen when I go racing on a Sunday morning, invariably it doesn't, but sometimes it does. How people could have had the attitude that 'it's one of those things', and not bother to at least try and improve things is beyond me

[TimD]

The trouble is - once you start, you have to have a very clear idea of where you're going to stop.

In 1983, a talented racer called Roger Joice was killed in a Frazer Nash sports car during a Jaguar club meeting. His accident involved the car turning over at slow speed, with the inevitable sorry consequence.

For some reason, this accident caught the attention of the powers that be. Very soon, regulations were drafted by the RAC MSA to lay down the roll hoop requirements that would be mandatory for every single class of historic racing, regardless of whether the machines were designed to take hoops in the first place.

Then the objections started. First the GN drivers in the VSCC asked how a sturdy steel hoop was going to protect them when it would be mounted on an 80 year old wooden chassis. Then the Maserati 250F drivers pointed out that their cars were designed to flex, and that their roadholding depended on that chassis flexibility, and that a sturdy hoop would knock all that for six.

Within 10 months, the idea had been finally brushed aside and forgotten, and everyone carried on racing as before.

It doesn't take too much of a leap of imagination to see that one day some legislator is going to decide that these loonies driving their old cars need protecting from themselves, and have us all banned. That is the risk when you start saying "safety above all other considerations".

As I said in my previous post, there have been some criminal lapses in the past. Paul Frere warned the organisation at Spa that a sign post was in precisely the wrong place in 1958. They did nothing, and a week later, it killed Archie Scott-Brown when his Lister-Jaguar ran wide. That was a nonsensical loss, and displayed utter negligence on the part of the organisers.

But on the other hand, there are the armco barriers that acted as a launch ramp for Rolf Stommelen's car at a Spanish GP, and pitched him into a spectator area. Poorly designed and positioned Armco barriers certainly killed Francois Cevert and Helmut Koinigg. Time was that the trees nestling in the runoff areas at the Nurburgring were frail little saplings, specially planted to slow a spinning car...

Safety measures do not always turn out quite so safe after all.

The thing is, ultimately, you have to accept that if a person is prepared indulge in a dangerous activity, then they have to be prepared to accept the consequences of it. Every historic racer knows the inherent risks of stepping into his or her car, but they still do so, for the love of the sport.

Last year, Michael Schumacher was given the chance to try a Tambay/Pironi era Ferrari. At first, it took some convincing to persuade him that it was a complete car - he assumed that the driver crash protection had been left off in the course of restoration.

What crash protection?

He earns how much per year? And demands the very best in the way of safety technology. Great. We have the technical knowhow these days to make his day job very, very secure. So secure, in fact, that he is able to indulge in his wheelbanging and brake testing in the confidence that he will walk away from the resulting accident.

People like Martin Stretton, Willie Green, Alain de Cadenet, Nick Mason race cars that are nearly as quick, but they don't get paid millions to do it. And they make damn sure that they don't have the accident in the first place.

Don't get me wrong. When safety technology is there - I say use it. I've wept for drivers who had the big one. I have no desire ever to see or hear of another fatal or crippling accident. But there is a level of risk which is acceptable to a driver, and as an informed spectator, I accept that I too bear a certain risk.

Although I will say this - I have seen the sun and sky blotted out by a racing car flashing past me as it cleared the spectator protection, and came down in the car park, scattering the picnicking families.

And that was a Ford Granada flying out of the confines of Bovingdon banger racing circuit.

[Michael M]

Fatbloke, what I wanted to say is not that I accept the safety standard of 50s and 60s race tracks and race cars under todays circumstances, but under the criteria of the time then. If nobody would have taken care, we would have the same safety standard today than 50 years ago. Safety was always an aspect in motor racing, starting in 1903 after the stopped Paris-Madrid road race, and there had been constantly safety improvements over the last 100 years. But such improvements didn't came over night as a full bunch, but slowly step by step, and very often they also ended in dead end streets. One has to consider the actual status of technical and general knowledge of each era. It is very easy with our state-of-the-art knowledge today to say "had they been crazy", and it is also not correct to state that these dangers had been refused totally in those days. If so, where would we stand today? Do you really think all safety aspects of modern racing had been invented only over the last 3 years? They started with straw bales, went over to armcos, then catch fences, and today gravel traps. And is this the last word? No, today they are thinking to substitute the gravel by asphalt because of better adhesion. And tomorrow? Nobody knows, and most probably in 20 years they will shake their heads about our actual gravel traps and monocoque structures.

You can't believe the way some of us are thinking!? No discussion, getting hurt or even killed is part of the risk in motorsport! Tim brings it to the point, in earlier times racing was much less agressive as it is today, because everybody was aware about the risk. And today? Daddys are cramming their 6 year old kids into karts, fully convinced that nothing can happen! And in fact for 99.9 % nothing happens - not in karting, not in Formula Junior, not in F3 or F3000, and even not in F1. Until the sad day comes where the unexpected happens! And immediately everybody is guilty, the motorsport bodies, the organizers, the track owners, the team, the marshalls - everybody except the driver who's free decision it was to step into the car and to press the starter button.

And the spectators? You say drivers know the risk, but hundreds or thousands rallye spectators not? Of course they do, and exactly that's the silly thing! You are right, the next really serious rallye accident may be the end for this type of motorsport, an end similar to that of the Mille Miglia and the Carrera Panamericana. If I would be a top rank rallye driver, I would stop my car on the middle of the road of such a spectator crowded stage as a protest, even taking the risk of loosing my licence!

Neither me nor Tim nor any others having a similar opinion believe serious accidents belong to racing on basis of 'hell, these things happen!', but to make it clear again, you cannot condemn the safety standards of earlier times simply because we know much more today. If you do so, you also must say that the race engineers had been stupid and incapable, because they squeezed out of 2.5 litres on a low 270 hp, whereas such displacement today is good for at least 700 horses!

And actual racing? Much safer than ever before, but really safe? No, of course not. What to do? Building a totally new generation of tracks in remote areas, no walls, no treas, no armcos - nothing, only space, space, and space. And of course the spectators at least 500 meters away, no problem, the race can be followed on gigantic video walls, so everybody is happy.

During writing this, Tim posted his reply already, and I only can agree in full to his opinion.

[Dan Friel]

I think everyone would agree that life today is much safer than it ever has been before. Even on the road, there are now less deaths per year than there where each year in the 1930's.... and how many more cars do we have now!!

So I'm not sure if I would have liked to go marshalling back in the 50 / 60's, too many messy moments etc etc.. But today, I'm amazed that drivers can walk away from huge accidents. Only two weeks ago did we have a Renault 5 that rolled several times, smacked into the barrier and looked very munched.. I have to say that I wasn't keen at arriving at the car first - but when I did, the driver was crawling out!!!

So motor racing is about as safe as it can be... Me, I'm not a great fan of large gravel traps, if the drivers are up for it, let them go for it.... And bring on Irish Formula Vee's at Cadwell this weekend!!!!

[fatbloke]

no, no, no! I think you're missing the point! I wasn't saying that running old cars today is wrong - far from it, though I am often amazed that some of those guys have the balls to drive some of that machinery...

What distresses me is the way that the circuits seemed to treat the matter so lightly back then. Now, i'm not old enough to remember first hand so don't shoot me, but what i've seen and heard made me cringe. I understand fully that safety development doesn't occur overnight, indeed it seems that today it is only driven forward when the regrettable does occur.

However, it hardly takes a mastermind to realise that allowing telegraph poles, trees and deep ditches to remain alongside an unguarded track is inviting tragedy. Even if it did, failing to react to such a tragedy and allowing these exact same obstacles to remain is criminal. If gravel traps or armco hadn't been invented, what was stopping them from chopping down the trees and filling in the ditches ?

How about the way that the authorities reacted to Jackie Stewart's campaigns for safety by trying to shut him up ? Interesting that Timbo should mention Rolf Stommelen in the Spanish GP - wasn't that the occasion when the drivers refused to race claiming that the armco was dangerous in it's construction - I think the wooden posts holding it in the ground were rotten, or they were not bolted together right (?) They were told to race, or lose their licences - then the exact thing that they predicted happened. Crass stupidity by those in authority.

Yes, Tim, certain forms of the sport are more dangerous than others - you don't like banger racing, do you! - but as long as the powers that be do their best to minimise the risk, there's not much we can say. Members of the Oval Racing Council - exclusing grasstracks such as Smallfield - always have safety at the top of their priority list - circuit owners back in the days i'm thinking of plainly did not.

[KC]

Racing in the days of linen and leather helmets was viewed just as being a pilot. It was considered a dangerous undertaking. It was the responsibility of the driver for his own life and limb. Just like the barnstormers just after WWI.

[fatbloke]

Well, all I can say is, thank god for those brave people like Jackie Stewart who dared to stand up and challenge that view.

[yelwoci]

TimD

<<<<
I can remember only one case in the old era of frankly "dirty" driving of an open wheeler, and that was a fellow by the name of Cowley who deliberately rammed another competitor at Brands Hatch. I am not certain that he ever saw his racing licence again
>>>>>

I can't believe that a driver of such an illustrious name would commit such an heaneous crime!<vbg>

On the thread it seems to me to be a very difficult topic.

Should the 'historic' cars be original, or can bits be replaced, restored, and rebuilt. If so could a simpathetic replicar be elligible. After all how many Maserati 250s or Bugattis are as they left the factory. Like many racecars they were messed around by their owners even before they became 'historic'.

Further, it is possible to develop an 'historic' car today, using modern measuring techniques (loggers, g-meters, CAD, etc) that will improve the car...is this ethical?
Modern tyres (even X-plies) and dampers that will be better than original, but this is inevitable, but what if soemone finds a new way of doing things, using 'historic' bits, but parts/functions that were never used before in that way.
Should they be allowed.

In our Club we have a very close group of Mk1 Lotus Cortinas, some Appendix K. One individual is suddenly leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else. The Club had his car checked, its legal, but he claims to have tested, tested and tested to develop the car and as it happens away from the '60s settings everyone else uses (alledgedly!).

Food for thought perhaps!

If you want to get an impression of what these circuits were like in 67 in the US and Europe and you have a decent PC get a copy of Grand Prix Legends. Its awesome and my respect for those drivers has risen immeasurably.


IanC (COWLEY!!!)

[TimD]

No relation to your good self, I am sure, Ian!

AV Cowley, I think the initials were.

The story goes that in April 1958 during a 500cc Formula 3 race, Mr C and the long time 500cc exponent Don Parker had a coming together. Parker had a reputation for "forcefully" protecting his position, and Cowley felt that he had been eased out.

His response was to wait in his idling car for a lap, and when Don Parker came round next time, Cowley rammed him amidships.

As I say, I don't believe the RAC ever gave him his licence back.

[Dan Friel]

Played Brand Prix Legends at the weekend for the first time - best racing sim ever!!! Awesome stuff...

Historic cars provide fantastic racing - in fact I grew up at VSCC meetings at Silverstone... But they do scare me. At Goodwood, I'm always holding my breath when the ERA's etc come charging round - and just pray... But then again, the sight of Barrie 'Whizzo' Williams totally sideways was the best thing of last season!!! Theses guys usually know how good they are, and it's only the real racers that push their cars....

[Peter Mallett]

Rotund One has some interesting slants on the safety issue. In the world of business we all take responsibilty for our own and our colleagues' safety. That's our culture.

Way back when, the circuits took the view that if you wanted to race then fine. It wasn't their fault if you crashed and died. The world took that view as well.

The Senna trial made a mockery of the system. However, we have all been educated into thinking that if its not certifiably safe we shouldn't do it. Take that a stage further and we all may as well take up golf. (Wearing hard hats of course).

Maybe we've gone too far? I don't know but I wouldn't decry the efforts of our predecessors because "risk assessment" and "safety plan" were not words in the dictionary.

[yelwoci]

History shows that average man like watching others take massive risks with their own lives and a little bit of reinforcement of the risk (albeit apparently horrible) adds to the 'scene'.

Aka Gladiators, unwalled ovals, Le Mans 1900-1970, bike racing, bare knuckle boxing, blah blah.

Some have suggested recently that some of the driving practices of the top drivers in F1 are acused by the realtive safetly. Pre-90s or on a current CART/IRL oval they would die!

IanC