In hollywood.com they mention a remake of the movie (http://www.hollywood.com/movies/detail/id/3544352), being George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh the producers...
I think they have been a great team, and they could pull this off, either by reviving the 66 season, or by trying to bring it to present time...
Do you have any data about this?
Cheers
Nobody?
sharei hope they dont mess it up. grand prix is a wonderfull movie, a race fans dream.
shareThis is a ridiculous proposal. There is no way, not even 100's of millions of dollars could recapture the Grand Prix season of 1966. Think about it - unless I'm mistaken, Monaco is the ONLY track still used these days. And it is vastly modified from '66. Nordschleife still exists and drivers delight on her many corners every day of the week but it, too, has had numerous modifications since the time 'Grand Prix' was made, the most disappointing being the removal of all her jumps. Spa Francorchamps may be possible but still this would cost huge amounts to make it look 40. Does Clermont Ferrand still exist? I don't know. Brands Hatch has chicanes... Zandvoort, Reims, Mexico, Watkins Glen, Monza - not even Hollywood has enough money to bring any of these tracks back to original, let alone all of them. And then there is the problem of the cars...
And then you think maybe present time? Formula One races should reflect the practice times - very close. Then why aren't the races close? Why is there no significant passing? Why does it happen only when the cars pit?
A ridiculous proposal
Agreed. I beleive a basic idea to remake Grand Prix was concieved in 2001, it was called Driven. It was God-Awful. A movie set in 1966 would be rediculous, aside from the fact that it would be impossible to recreate, but also, why recreate the same season that was already filmed?
Secondly, a movie set in present day would be 20% racing, 80% finacial and sponsorship. Formula 1 today is NOTHING like it was back in the hayday.
Grand Prix is one of, if not the best, sports movie ever. They can remake it after they remake Star Wars.
If it would be done, it seems now clear to me that it had to be a very different movie... And that would be fine, because it wouldn't mess with the original (maybe it could even attract some attencion over this underrated amazing movie), but we lack a serious racing movie since Grand Prix/Le Mans/Winning... it just was so long ago!
I wouldn't mind seeing a 20% racing 80% financial sponsorship movie, if it was a proper realistic one, with all the glamour of some venues like monaco, interests at the highest level of society, the madning money that goes arround, the desperate strugle of young driver trying to climb up the ladder, intriges, spying, betrayals, dramatic accidents, unfair manouvers, behing the curtain moves, parciality by the federation, comercial needs... all of this happens in fact in F1!
There's plenty of stuff there to make an horrible movie like Driven or an amazing movie like Grand Prix (even if very different, for sure).
We do lack an entertaining car race movie since 'Le Mans', 'Grand Prix' & 'Winning' (and to a lesser degree 'Bobby Deerfield' and 'Speed Fever').
However, one of my gripes is that, before Sly made 'Driven', (as tragic as it is but the only real effort I'm aware of Hollywood attempting a racing flick since the above lovelies), he is likely to have concluded, after watching many F1 & CART races - THAT CONTEMPORARY OPEN WHEELER RACING IS, IN (almost) ANY FORMULA, excrutiatingly BORING! It has been for decades - the ruling bodies know this, they know the remedy, but refuse to act save upsetting their fantastically lucrative 'apple cart'. His movie very well may be an effort to show what racing could & should be. We, you & I, know this. We are racing fans. I am dead jealous of fans born in Europe previous to 1960!! These lucky palukahs would have seen & heard some spectacles that they can "bore" me with any day.
During the halcyon days of the 60's & early 70's, the cars 'moved'!! The first of 4 exact examples of my meaning happen when we watch 'Grand Prix' at Brands Hatch. A most beautiful shot of (probably) Stoddarts BRM accelerating hard downhill at maybe 150 mph hitting the dip & coming uphill towards us - the suspension movement of this shot speaks volumes of 'then & now'. There must have been 3 or 4 inches travel.
The second stunner occurs in 'Le Mans' when the first pit stop at 4:55pm has happened & we see a long shot of the track now wet but still day, Ferrari 512 number 8 is leading a handful of art works & they all have their headlights blazing.
The third is utter memory. I saw 'Le Mans' as a ten year old at a drive in. (I have the racing parts caught on VHS from TV, making this scene non existant for me as the scene had the action happen in the very left hand side of the wide screen). The camera is set up watching the cars as they exit a corner. It is knee high, maybe waist high. The rear of one car, wide, low, all engine & tyres & noise, powerslides - totally controlled, all 550 horsepower coming right on song. No doubt the genius at the pedals laughing, smiling at getting it so perfect!
My fourth, we witness Delaney's 917 crests the Mulsanne hump, overtaking a 911 meanwhile, reducing 4 miles a minute to half a mile a minute - the car squirms & wriggles, track wet - a close look can see the drivers hand darting. Ah, to quote Julie Andrews; these are a few of my favourite things.
And then we come to NOW. The TV directors AND commentators indicate to us - their bread and butter - how 'fantastic' the 'sport' is by concentrating the cameras on the PIT ACTION! Understand this. This is the way I think they want US, WE, THE PUBLIC, to see their broadcasts - motor racing when it is stationary!! Is there more action happening in the SLOW lane than the track?
I believe this is because racing has evolved to extent where passing, whether the car be the slowest on the track or the fastest, has become PHYSICALLY and progressively, timewise, impossible to pass. I know the reasons why. The ruling bodies know why. They refuse to rectify the tedium that present day open wheel racing is. The answers are so simple - they are staring us right in the face...
And p.s. How dare any commentator say that a racing driver steering out of a corner powersliding is making a MISTAKE!!!
You guys mat want to have a look at the 2003 french movie 'Michel Vaillant'. I think it is as close as possible to the greats like 'Grand Prix' and 'Le Mans' (including the razor thin story line). It was filmed during the 2002 Le Mans 24 Hours (I was there!). It has some truly breath taking camera work in it, including some contemporary real life action, and most of the action is 'real for real' (minimizing the CG to just the worst crash). The sound is excellent, bringing these modern day cars to life. The movie got god awfull rating by the french press (something else it has got in common with 'Le Mans') but for a racing fan it has a lot going for it. Try and see if you can find it, as it is A LOT more authentic than 'rocky goes indycar-DRIVEN'. The only things it lacks of course is the heroes (drivers AND cars!) of the golden age (60s and 70s) of motorsport.
share"Driven" was sooooooo baddddddd.
share"How dare any commentator say that a racing driver steering out of a corner powersliding is making a MISTAKE!!!"
It's a mistake, because the power isn't beeing transfered to the track and, as a result, the car isn't accelerating as it could be and will be slower.
To tiagodovale; But in WHOSE opinion is it a mistake? Granted, EXCESSIVE wheelspin exiting any corner will decrease the maximum achievable speed along any straight. Cars are also set up to handle in a slightly understeering state rather than oversteer. So yes, TECHNICALLY you, and the commentators are correct in agreeing that power sliding is a mistake.
However, I am not one of the select few, who work in the current F1 industry, as opposed to the people who are fans worldwide - most probably a ratio of 1% to 99%. So being only a fan, (one of hundreds of MILLIONS) I literally give nought consideration to any driver who has lost a couple of 10 thousandths of a second because he had a bit of a slide. I DO give constant consideration to the entertainment factor of the sport. I think this is supremely important. I have for decades done research into what fans want, whether they be television watchers only or also go to race meetings and irrelevant to the type of motor racing - MOST fans longed for action that has passing or sideways stuff. Some greedy palukahs like me want both at the same time.
It is all too obvious that something needs to be drastically rearranged in F1, the pinnacle car racing which ironically has NEITHER. I wonder if you would agree with this? I sight a typical F1 situation; mid runner has pitted, rejoins and is 2 seconds behind a car but catching it at 2 tenths of a second per lap. In a few laps he's within striking distance but can't get by for many laps. He has to rely on both teams collaborating, and then instructing the marshalls to flag slower car. Why is this so?
I finish by saying, it wasn't too long ago when heroes like Berger, Rosberg (snr), and especially Gilles, Amon & Clark would be the fastest by having their cars sideways. Do you know why? The had, amongst an array of hypertalents, extraordinary throttle control. While exiting a corner they would feed in enough throttle to get to the particular rev range of maximum power. Of course you say. But a short cut was to over throttle, spin the wheels & then "feather" the throttle off & on, holding a fine balance of minimal spin at maximum revs. This feathering may require tiny movements in tiny time spans. Ah, the sensitivity. Weekend hacks are often heard out of slow corners riding the clutches slowly out while holding on full revs in a disguised attempt to replicate these geniuses.
Which makes me ponder. I notice so many current F1 "stars" spin their cars without a fraction of oversteer correction, do they also lack the throttle finesse I've just mentioned?
[quote]
Which makes me ponder. I notice so many current F1 "stars" spin their cars without a fraction of oversteer correction, do they also lack the throttle finesse I've just mentioned?
[quote]
No, the way the cars are setup they are either stuck or spinning.
Another reason you don't take a car sideways at ALL is aerodynamics. You lose downforce when the car is in a yaw situation.
Remember, as someone once told Sir Jackie Stewart; If you can catch it, you AREN'T on the limit.
Mr/Ms Haupmann6; I finished my last scrib incorrectly. I ponder if many current F1 pilots have the skill neccessary to have them able to WIN in F1 or even if they deserve to be there at all. I sight this because more often than not, when spinning, the drivers introduce NO STEERING CORRECTION whatsoever. Why? Are they unaware how to inhibit a slide, stop it from becoming a spin? Are these blokes merely good & have paid huge money to drive?
Um, and yes I'm aware of the situation you talk of concerning yaw. Studied it.
Do you consider the one liner to JYS was a giggle or a serious?
Do you consider the one liner to JYS was a giggle or a serious?
Little of both. While it may have been made up. It has a large grain of truth.
I have seen VERY few slides in modern F1 racing. Once the backend is moving, it's GONE. If a couple thousand pounds of downforce won't hold it, countersteering won't do any good. it's hold on and pray you don't hit anything time.
The efficiency of the 'wings' have been very high for 3 decades now. Before the mid seventies, wings were much less efficient. The percentage difference of efficiency between '76 & '06 would be less than 15%. And then of course there was the era from about '77 to the end of '82 when 'ground effects' was being perfected, then outlawed, probably due to the majority of drivers hating ground effects.
I absolutely agree with you when you say you 'have seen VERY few slides in modern F1 racing'. This is one of the main points I am expressing. But you are wrong in saying 'Once the backend is...'. Any PAID driver has the hyper-talents neccessary to cope with all facets a GP car deals him, including controlling rear end slides by 'oversteer' & being able to catch most slides before they become spins.
But don't misunderstand me. I know cars are set up to be slightly on the understeering trait. I know that to purposely impliment a powerslide may decrease the cars speed along the next straight. I know that some/most of the unpaid drivers are in over their heads. As a spectator, F1 struggles to cause any interest in new comers, and a lot of long time fans because the cars don't pass, and they don't slide or move the way they once did.
snoreflottado:
The answer is very simple, and I will not entertain this discussion more than this: it's a mistake in everybody's opinion, because the objective in F1 is to go as fast as possible. Besides, many F1 fans seem quite educated about the discipline, so I wouldn't generalize as you did.
The rest of your comments had nothing to do with what I said or the subject, so I don't know why you addressed them to me.
About the movie:
Of course one couldn't make the same movie again, and, of course, Formula 1 has changed.
So what? Let's do a new movie, about the new F1!
If before it was romantic, and now it's all about politics, let's focus on that!
You can write an amazing script with all the spying, doublecrossing, politics, money, etc. that go around in Formula 1 nowadays!
Times have changed: so has formula one and so should the movie change: the only thing it has do to is to honour the first movie, and maintain it's amazing aestetic values, incredible realistic racing sequences, and an interesting plot, with substance and interest! I think it's possible to make a different but memorable, if not historic, movie, about today's Formula 1.
Besides: we would always have the original Grand Prix (and a new movie would bring attention to it), and we wouldn't loose anything if someone tried to make a new good racing movie!
[deleted]
"...so I wouldn't generalize as you did"
But you wrote that "...it'a mistake in everybody's opinion..." 'Everybody's'. I wont hold you to this.
I realize now that you have taken my 'ps' comment too literally, too semantically. Yes, I grant you that sideways action is TECHNICALLY a mistake in that the maximum possible speed obtainable along any full power bit of tarmac may be reduced, the larger the slide the less top speed. I do know this, I have raced for 30 years. But I do urge you to re-read all of my scribs.
In my country, 4 different codes of football, cricket, tennis, swimming are hugely popular & have a growing patronage. But Formula 1 doesn't. People who were once fans & no longer, see it as "boring", "tedious", "a yawn". I find this to be as dissapointing as it is curious; a multi-Billion dollar sport & Bernie & Max & other powers can not or WILL not rectify the situation. I have for 25 years drawn answers from people why they no longer are fans of F1.
What is the situation? It is, that the sport, from now on called 'The Business', is dull. There is no action. I doubt if you can really take an alternate stand on this issue. (there are crashes but I do not include this as being action). Cars can not pass. Winning at ANY cost is the single objective which means the drivers are no longer allowed to show off their talents with powerslides, because yes you are correct - this will reduce the optimum speed. There was a time some decades back when, just as now, slides were technically incorrect, but at the pub later or at the resturant the next week or at a party, fans would talk about how amazing Rindt, Clark, Brabham, Amon, Peterson, Villeneuve & others looked as they got sideways leaving big black marks from their tyres or how brave that pass was diving up the inside or driving around the outside. It was the 60's & the 70's when F1 it had it's fastest growth concerning 'fan base', and because it was so spectacular unexpected people became fans - including people not mechanically minded & women. And this is so important. The todays business could have a much bigger fan base but...
I suppose what this back & forth scrib tween you & I is this. What would you prefer to see? What do you suppose others would prefer to see? - no powerslides or unextravagant powerslides? You know the sort I mean.
You are talking with a fan of F1, but in a different era than now.
I am afraid if anyone put together a flick with 80 or more % of todays F1 racing & the rest politics or romance or whatever, I would be one who wouldn't see it, let alone 20% racing/80% politics.
ps. As silly as 'Driven' is, Sly's fast lap when picking up the coins had a bit of sideways movment. A bit too much for my liking, but he did have a go at showing what it could be like.
The opinion one has on how good current F1 racing is (I think it's as hard and extreme as ever, just different, more estrategic and cerebral, and I like it) or how much politics are involved, doesn't really matter on the movie subject...
You can make a good movie (or a bad movie), with almost everything.
Even with what seems boring in F1, like it's politics...
Just look at Stalone's movie: it came from such a good source of interesting racing (or so it is told), and the movie is lousy...
A good movie has no relation with the racing show: that's the racing show, not a movie.
Ever heard of Ronnie Peterson? He used to powerslide to the apex, then he was already at the correct trajectory to floor the throttle, so he could get on full throttle before anybody else could. He got many pole positions because of his driving style. As did Gilles Villeneuve.
shareHullo Wes.
Yes Ronnie was one of my favoured. He was somewhat interpreted as not very bright by many media but the fact was he did not enjoy that the media would exaggerate a story to sensationalize it or simply fabricate outright lies. So he preferred to not speak with the 'prix'. But his racing mates knew he was a cluey bloke. After all, how can one be so quick and be an air head? A couple of stories I remember reading of Ronnie was during practice he often fitted his JPS with race tyres & would take it out & throw it around just as you talk of, getting himself into fast brain mode, but was able to get these hard tyres hot enough, sticky enough to often get pole position or very close to the front.
Another, was once he had a complete loss of brakes at the end of a straight where all cars could achieve top speed & cooly & effortlessly threw the car sideways & purposefully kept it sideways, smoke blazing from all four squealers and brought the car to a very rapid stop with minimal (or no) damage to car or pilot. And remember, this was pre 1978 when there was minimal (or none whatsoever) run off area. Ah, the control...
Absolutely fabulous stuff. I've also read that he may have been too decent a man to be World Champ, even though he was regarded by his peers as consistently the fastest of all GP drivers while he was alive, maybe not having that "killer instinct" to trample over team mates, breaking team orders, to not gain a reputation of being a bastard from the men he most admired - his peers.
Ha!, ya know, if I was to re-type this scrib & interchange Ronnie with Gilles, it would be so similar. But I am sure Gilles had an enormous sense of the Killer in him. On my list of top 5 or 10 drivers, Gilles would always be in pole pos...
"Name two ways of getting them flowing, Watson".
Snoreflottado, you are mistaken about the tracks. Most of them are still being used, although not by Formula 1. Brands Hatch is still pretty much the same. Westfield Bend was tightened in the late 80"s (no harm done, really) and the ONLY chicane (at Dingle Dell) was removed some years ago and they renamed the bend after Barry Sheene. Monaco ahd no change in the section from Saint Devote (the first corner) up to the exit of the tunnel. The chicane is slower now and there is the swimming pool complex. Nordschleife still exists and all the jumps are still there! The Nurburgring Grand Prix circuit is a small fraction od the old track and the Nordschleife itself has not had any modification whatsoever. The same has happened to Clermont-Ferrand. There is a smaller GP circuit but the old circuit is still there. Although not used in races as the magnificent Nordschleife. But remember that these circuits were so big that Grand Prix itself shows very little of the tracks. A short track like Monaco made it easier to show the action. How many cameras would be necessary to show the cars along more than 23km in Nordschleife? Zandvoort has changed a lot but all the sections shown in Grand Prix are still the same. Monza has got three chicanes now but the elevated parts are still there. And they were not used anymore in the 1966. Actually they were not used many times in Formula 1. Reims was a road course, amd the roads are still there. But it wasn't used in 1966. The layouts of Mexico City and Watkins Glen are pretty much the same. But If you have only the movie in mind, Formula 1 was an Europena-only event.
shareDear Padilhakids; As I live 20,000kms away from where the real car racing action was, I hope you will extend me some latitude. The only TV channel that shows racing here concentrates on 'the V8's' (local), open wheelers from the USA & F1. That's it!
Let's not be misunderstood. I am talking of the circuits during the 60's & now.
I will add to your comments of chages to Monaco Grand Prix circuit. First up, the first corner, St. Devote, 40 years ago had a much larger radius than today. The very last corner in 1966 was a single hairpin, but today is a set of corners, perhaps requiring 3, 4, or 5 steering movements at non racing speeds.
It is fantastic news about Brands Hatch losing the chicane; a truly gorgeous circuit for both the spectator & I'm told by a friend of Derek Bell, an astounding track to go fast on.
The Nurburgring (Nordschleife) has, I'm afraid, been heavily modified since the late 60's. The German GP of 1970 was run on Hockenheim because most drivers said the cars are now too fast for the Nurburgring. About this time much work was done to make the track safer. One of the requirements was to 'shave' some of the 'yumps'. Some of the corners were removed altogether, others straightened. Please watch a video/DVD called 'In Car 956', a flick featuring Derek Bell driving his Porsche 956 on some of the planets great tracks available in the mid 80's.
The GP of 1976 put an end to F1 at this awe inspiring, gob smacking 14 miles of amazement. I do know that daily lucky bastards get to thrash around her 130 odd corners. Hmm...
One last thing. I need you to look up the French GP of 3rd of July, 1966 won by 'Blackjack' Brabham and note the circuit used.
p.s. I'm not sure what your last statement means.
There is a movie about Bruce McLaren in the making with an estimated budget of about 100 million dollars
I have no idea how they plan to do it but the movie should cover more than a decade of F1, nearly a decade of Le Mans, CanAm, maybe they can even include his appearence in Grand Prix :)
Hullo Chris, That is fantastic!
How did you hear of this movie? Will it be drama or documentry? Do you know any more info please.
"Name two ways of getting them flowing, Watson".
Hullo Chris, That is fantastic!
How did you hear of this movie? Will it be drama or documentry? Do you know any more info please.
I hope they don't try to remake this. I know it sounds cool, but they'll just make crap. Driven was an attempted remake that went all wrong. Today's movie going people (or sheeple as they are), would prefer some God awful pop soundtrack to the minimal sound track of the '67 film.
Sheeple would rather watch "Snakes on an Racecar" than a movie that's about racing.
John Frankenheimer the director of "Grand Prix" said that if made today it would cost $250 million to make it, IF the F1 management people would allow the access like the producers of Grand Prix had, which they probably wouldn't.
shareThe in-car camera makes it very difficult to make a good racing movie. You can see what the driver sees at the push of a button, so the mystery is just about all gone. Also, Grand Prix was made during a time when racing was a lot more romantic and enigmatic than it is now...it's so much safer that it's a lot more "sanitized" than ever before. Drivers don't live as close to the edge as they once did.
If you remember the scene where Scott Stoddard wins the USGP, he wins about 17,000 dollars. Today, a Grand Prix payout for winning is well over a million. John Frankenhamer's estimate of 250 million to make the movie today was made several years ago. Just like the purses, the costs of racing in F1 have skyrocketed. That's why DRIVEN was mostly shot in the U.S. Sly couldn't afford F1 prices. It would probably cost closer to 500 million to make a F1 racing movie today, and it probably wouldn't be nearly as good a show, because in reality, F1 isn't really that exciting. There is still some drama, but it usually involves mechanical issues, not so much physics.
We have two great racing movies, GRAND PRIX and LE MANS. THE CROWD ROARS and THE BIG WHEEL weren't all that bad, either. And, there was HEART LIKE A WHEEL. Each reflected the dynamics of racing in the era in which they were made.
If somebody really wants to make a good racing movie, why don't they try sprints or midgets or maybe rallying?
Dan
Frankenheimer said that if there is another movie based on Formula One would be impossible because of higher production cost.
sharePlease no!! This is just one of those movies that u can't remake!! IMHO part of the reason it works is the fact that the movie was not fictionalizing the danger of grand prix racing of the 60s...chances of survival weren't good...as another mentioned the tracks of today are missing what the tracks in this film had, mainly some character....this is the best racing movie ever!! I laugh at Days of Hunder when at the end Cruise moves the car around all the traffic, like stock cars can actually do that....
shareWe have two great racing movies, GRAND PRIX and LE MANS. THE CROWD ROARS and THE BIG WHEEL weren't all that bad, either. And, there was HEART LIKE A WHEEL. Each reflected the dynamics of racing in the era in which they were made.
You are correct. The track is the legendary Monza. When watching TV of any racing at Monza, you can get glimpses in the background occassionally of the now long defunct banking.
"Name two ways of getting them flowing, Watson".
One more question. Is that part of the track simply closed off, or did they just stop using it for safety reasons and it has now fallen into disrepair?
It was visually stunning to watch that on film, I don't get to watch much F1 here in the states, but that looked like it was a pretty demanding course for those types of open wheel race cars.
Those F1 and Indy drivers back in the days before more safety considerations were taken into account had big brass ones. What they say is true, back then the driver used to drive the car, not that they still don't have to have considerable skill, but those cars just looked totally unforgiving and more demanding.
Yes, well & truly closed off now. I also think that the banking has not been used since 1961. I am not sure of the reason/s but I suspect that it was very rough to drive over - natural deterioration, small Earth movements...
I think Monza, both with the banking & without, till early 70's was almost flat out in top gear, 180 mph, except for 2 or 3 corners.
I agree with what you say whole heartedly about their courage levels. I say this because, for starters the cars lacked strength as both tubular frames & monocoques, though the engines produced 300 - 500 horses through the years, cars weighed half a ton AND they raced on amazing circuits like Nuburgring (14miles & 145 or so corners & 7 or 8 jumps), Spa Francorchamps, Clermont Ferrand, Rouen, Oesterreichring. And these men did this because it was fun & they had the skill. Payment was minimal & a secondary consideration.
Since the mid 70's F1 has become a "business". I question how many of todays F1 drivers are in it solely for a very quick & large buck.
"Name two ways of getting them flowing, Watson".
Snoreflottado is mostly correct; the last time the high-banked oval section of Monza was used in the Italian GP was the 1961 race. However, it was used for other, lesser class races at least through 1969, but has been abandoned since then and is in a state of decay now. This section is in danger of been torn down, but there is a movement to renovate it for historical purposes.
Apart from the toll the years have since taken on this portion of the track, the other critical issue was that the cars of that era were not able to adjust their suspensions for the the unique requirements of the severe banking section. Set up to handle much flatter tracks, the cars' suspensions would almost completely compress just from the centrifugal force. On such severe banking, this force was mostly downward, not sideways as on a flatter curved track. That left almost no play in the suspension, creating a potentially dangerous ride, as well as pounding both driver and car. Also, it meant virtually full throttle and top speed (at least in the 50's and early 60's cars) for extended periods, again without the usual benefit of suspension travel.
In my opinion, the use of this most dramatic section of Monza, is one of the best features of "Grand Prix" and now also makes it invaluable just for the historical aspect. We will surely never see such a track in use at such high speeds ever again, and I marvel that this one was ever built and used. As with the rest of Monza, it was designed for speed and does not disappoint in that regard. Unfortunately, the designers achieved a spectacular result, but overlooked some technical problems as well as the rapid advent of aerodynamic ground effects in the cars that soon followed. These changes in the cars rendered the severe banking somewhat obsolete, which just adds to the mystique of the track.
As mentioned before, can you imagine the guts it took to race Monza when this banked section was in use?
Two other points - I agree that F1 is not even close to as exciting as it was in previous years, and for exactly the reason you cite, Snoreflotto. It seems like it is extremely difficult and too rare for truly competitive cars to pass one another, and who cares which team can change tires and refuel the fastest?? While I love the cars and they are marvels of speed and power, I guess the tracks just don't lend themselves to passing. Here in Portland, Oregon, we had an "Indy" car race for about 25 years. While I loved the whole spectacle, our otherwise fine road course presented exactly the same problem. There was not enough room, both in track width, and length of "passing" areas for the cars to pass one another. While strategy is one thing, it should not overshadow actual racing on the track, but it seems to for the most part in contemporary racing.
Finally, as was stated earlier, in the "making of" extra to Grand Prix, it was stated that not only would it be too expensive to re-make the same movie today, but you would never be able to get the permission to do it again. At least, you could not do it the right way, with the actors (almost all of them, :))actually driving real cars with cameras mounted on them, a separate "camera" car filming action right round it, and real F1 drivers hired to round out the fictional field. Grand Prix actually staged their fictional races right before each real race, and you would supposedly NEVER get this approval again. The drivers would not have this kind of free time before the real races now, and would probably be prohibited in their racing contracts anyway. Also, all but the top drivers back then made surprisingly little money; while not stated, the movie may have been a decent payday for them back then. So, even if someone was crazy enough to spend all that money, they would not get permission from F1 nor the drivers. Thankfully, the movie was made in 1966, and we have one of the greatest eras of racing recorded mostly faithfully, realistically, and spectacularly.
Hey there BB,
Good points.
One thing I must make clear is, from my point of view, passing in car racing is not an absolute requirement - as long as there is very close racing. If there is very close racing, inevitably passing will occur.
The kind of class that current F1 should become would ideally follow some fundamental regs which would stipulate;
No aerodynamic devices whatsoever
Road registerable tyres
Engine capacity at 2000cc or maybe even 1800cc
Weight restriction to, say, 450 kgs
The first two suggestions have highly considered reasons.
Many scoff at these suggestions, but then consider them when I mention that the category known as 'Formula Ford' is always, 100% of the time, ultra competitive. And FF's in my country have no more than 150 hp and very novice drivers.
"...and if the bible has taught us anything (and it hasn't)..." Homer
You have to have some aerodynamics and ground effects. Or you'll be back to having cars in the 60's and 70's and a lot of dead drivers.
This movie wouldn't work. You don't see the drivers faces or expressions anymore. F1 is more about the technology, and less about the driver's. Yes, making money is a big factor as well. Hell there's not even a clutch anymore, you tap a paddle on the steering wheel now.
I like the idea of more stripped down basic tech racing. That way more car companies can compete head to head. Sorry Nascar fans, its a joke. I remember the days when it was STOCK car racing. The cars were slightly modified, stripped down versions of ones you could buy in a dealer. Now it's just a shell that sort of looks like a production car. F1 has better drivers and more difficult courses.
Mind you its harder to be a supporter of racing when gas is at the prices they are now.
Grand Prix shouldn't be remade. The original is just fine for me.
"You have to have some aerodynamics and ground effects. Or you'll..."
I do have to disagree. Gravity will (and did) keep the cars on the ground pre 'wing era'. The reason wings were incorperated was soley to increase cornering speed.
The reasons that there was an enormous amount of carnage was; 1. The circuits were very VERY dangerous. Please research Nordschleife (Nurburgring), Rouen and Spa Francorchamps pre 1970, to name only a few. There was no run-off areas whatsovever - Jim Clarks Lotus was torn to bits as he left the track at Hockenkeim at high speed and hit a forest of very immovable trees. 2. The cars were constructed of easily crushed or bent materials. 3. This was an era when fires were very common as it was before the fabulous unburstable rubber fuel cells invented in, I think, the mid to late 70's.
In my country, the Formula Fords have never run with any 'wings' and although they don't get too far above 130 mph, never has there been an incident where the cars have decided to 'fly'. AND precisely because they don't run 'wings', the racing is always, always very close and supremely exciting. And that is with 110 hp and very unskilled drivers.
"...and if the bible has taught us anything (and it hasn't)..." Homer
With Clooney's recent box office flops I wouldn't waste my time. Looks like a bad idea and investment to me.
shareIs that it?
Is that all?
Can you not think a little harder than that?
What if the welfare of the female human race depended on you 'heyjohnny40-1'?
Pull your finger out, mate!!
"...and if the bible has taught us anything (and it hasn't)..." Homer
Hey johnny40-1
Why don't you take up a new past time - watching movies that you've been TOLD are worth watching.
Pull your thumb out of your mouth and get on with life. Cartoons make fun of gigs like you.
"...and if the bible has taught us anything (and it hasn't)..." Homer
I recently heard the big budget F1 film will be about race driver James Hunt, who had a rather colorful life besides being a World Champion.
shareNo, no, you've got it all wrong. There's a movie in the works staring Philip Seymour Hoffman as Dick Cheney. The working title is "Grand Prick."
share