1961 monaco grand prix

[rbs]

Can any one let me know why no odd numbers were used in this race.Every car carried an even number.More conventional numbering was used in the
next GP of the year.

[David McKinney]

Most Continental Grands Prix used only even numbers at that time
So perhaps it was "unconveentional" numbering Monaco used the following year!

[Vitesse]

Originally Posted by rbs

Can any one let me know why no odd numbers were used in this race.Every car carried an even number.More conventional numbering was used in the
next GP of the year.

... which was the Dutch. They were the odd ones out in continental Europe in that they used odd numbers. The British GP also employed both odd and even numbers, as did the US GP. Other than that, it's all "evens only".

This convention goes back to well before the World Championship era and the majority of GPs in Europe between the wars also employed even numbers only.

There was a gradual change towards the end of the 60s and the last "evens only" race in Europe was the 1970 Italian GP. But there was a "last hurrah" in Argentina in 1973, ironically the year before standardised numbering was introduced.

[krt917]

Good info vitesse, but do we know why it was such a long-lived convention?

[ensign14]

Sometimes the odd numbers were used in practice. It was a way to stop people producing samizdat programmes with runners'n'riders. The race day numbers were allocated later. Not always the case though.

There may also be an attempt to avoid the so-called unlucky numbers 13 and 17.

[D-Type]

Originally Posted by krt917

Good info vitesse, but do we know why it was such a long-lived convention?

Possibly:
The number 13 is uconsidered unlucky by the British and others, the number 17 is(I believe) considered unlucky by the Italians and others. having only even numbers avoids the issue.

[krt917]

Thanks Ensign and D-Type.

[John Turner]

Now that the the question posed in this thread has been answered, and in view of the thread title, I thought I would just mention the race itself. It was notable for a number of reasons. It was not only the first round of that year's GPs counting towards the World Championship, but the first run to the new 1.5 litre formula. It was widely expected that the new sharknose Ferrari 156 would dominate with team drivers, Phil Hill, Wolfgang von Trips and Richie Ginther. Ginther, who had the only Ferrari with the revised 120 degree V6 engine (Hill and von Trips had the 60 degree V6 in theirs), placed his car on the middle of the front row. He drove what he regarded was the best race of his career, beating both his more experienced and fancied team mates, Hill (who was to become that year's World Champion) and von Trips (who might have been WDC but for his tragic death at Monza) and he shared fastest lap. Unfortunately, for Ginther, he came 'only' second in the race. Sharing the front row with him was, to his left, in the new Lotus 21, a man who was to become the greatest driver of the coming era, Jim Clark. To his right, on pole, in the year old Lotus 18 and entered by the privateer, Rob Walker, the man who was considered the greatest driver of the current era, Stirling Moss. Both Clark and Moss were well down on power compared with their Ferrari rivals.

Everything went right for Ginther, initially, when he snatched the lead off the startline and began to drive away from the chasing Clark, with Moss holding down third. Clark's Lotus started to have problems, first with an oiling plug, and then with a broken fuel pump and he lost much time in the pits. Moss, at that time closely followed by Jo Bonnier (Porsche) then hunted Ginther down and eventually snatched the lead, and was followed through by Bonnier. In fact Ginther was later passed by both his team mates as well, with Phil Hill setting the pace to pass Bonnier for second. Ginther was not done yet, though, and settled into some very fast lappery to overhaul both von Trips and then Bonnier and latched onto the tail of Hill. Both Ferraris then battled together for some laps, at the same time trying to close on Moss. On lap 72 (out of 100), Ginther who was clearly the faster went ahead of his team mate and launched a ferocious attack on the Moss lead and gradually closed him down. However, despite his best efforts he was never able to close the gap completely and Moss, who had driven flat out the whole race, and with the Lotus side panels removed to aid cooling, took the flag by 3.6 seconds. Ginther was not too disconsolate, for he had been beaten by the 'Maestro' who had driven what he also thought was the best drive of his F1 career. It is alleged that one of his compatriots (Dan Gurney?) said after the race 'never mind Richie, you were the first mortal home!'

Moss had actually done the whole race at an average lap speed which was within a few tenths of his pole time. Not only was Moss and Ginther's shared best lap 2.8 seconds faster than pole time, it was also only a tenth of a second away from the previous year's lap record with the old 2.5litre F1 cars, thus proving, that on the tighter circuits at least, the new Formula was very little slower than the old one despite the loss of a whole litre on engine size. They finished two laps ahead of every other driver, except Phil Hill in third, and although von Trips was awarded 4th place, two laps behind, his Ferrari wasn't actually running at the end! A notable race indeed.

[krt917]

It's certainly a candidate for Moss's greatest GP, and is often mooted as such, though I've always reckoned that his '61 Nurburgring could perhaps have been better. At Monaco, the power advantage of the Ferraris would have been minimised. The Nurburgring, like Monaco, is also more of a handling track than a power one, but there are still a couple of fast sections where the Ferraris would have been able to stretch their legs. And there was some rain, which made conditions tricky.

Either way, the two races were the only ones in which the Sharknoses were beaten during the 1961 Championship season.

[bauble]

Many people consider Monaco '61 as Moss' grestest drive, however, it always seemed to me that Moss in a Lotus was a better combination than Hill or Ginther in a Ferrari and so there was nothing special about the win. (By Moss' standards, that is.)
I once asked Stirling what he considered his 'greatest' drive and he recalled a Formula Continental race at Silverstone when in pouring rain he lapped the entire field, which included John Surtees and Jack Brabham. It just goes to show that watching and driving are two completely different things. I reminded him of his winning the Sebring 12 hours race driving a 1500c OSCA, which I have always believed to be his most staggering feat. Stirling expressed suprise that anyone remembered that race. The point is that when asked about any other driver's greatest race one can always say .... Monza 1963, or Monaco 1995, or some such event but with Sir S.Moss you have so many to choose from, Mille Miglia, Targa Florio any number of races in any number of different cars from Cooper and Kieft in 500cc races to HWM, Maserati, Vanwall in GP,s. And never forget his perfomances in Aston Martin and Jaguar.

Mind you I would never include Stirling Moss in my 'top ten' all time greats.
You take Nuvolari, Fangio and Moss, put them on a pedestal, then pick your top ten from the rest.

[David McKinney]

You had me worried there for a moment, baub

[D-Type]

At the Nurburgring he apparently had a tyre advantage as he was running the new Dunlop SP rain tyres which no-one else had. Given the closeness of his lap times to his qualifying times he must have been flat out for the whole of the monaco race. This is borne out by an interview with Moss I once read where he said "I was on my personal limit for the whole race".

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by bauble

...... Moss in a Lotus was a better combination than Hill or Ginther in a Ferrari and so there was nothing special about the win. (By Moss' standards, that is.)

That's the point, really - ''by Moss standards'. As D-type says, he was flat out all the way, and he was giving at least 30 bhp away to the Ferraris; more to Ginther's version. That's a lot of power bearing in mind that they were only 1.5 litre cars, even at Monaco.

Originally Posted by bauble

I once asked Stirling what he considered his 'greatest' drive and he recalled a Formula Continental race at Silverstone when in pouring rain he lapped the entire field

The thing about Stirling is that he has indicated a number of different races as his 'greatest drive' depending on when he was asked. One is the aforementioned 1961 Monaco race. He has, as you say, many to choose from.

Originally Posted by bauble

.... never forget his perfomances in Aston Martin .....

To me those two wins in Nurburgring 1000kms in 1958 and 1959, in the glorious DBR1/300, were as great as any. In fact, of course, he won that event 4 times in all, at this greatest of driver's circuits, the other occasions being 1956 and 1960, in Maseratis.

Originally Posted by bauble

Mind you I would never include Stirling Moss in my 'top ten' all time greats. You take Nuvolari, Fangio and Moss, put them on a pedestal, then pick your top ten from the rest.

As with David, you briefly had me worried there. Mind you, it's probably a bit harsh to put those three on a pedestal above a few others, but that's another debate.

Not surprising that this has become a Moss thread. I tried not to be too predictable with the account of the race by trying to centre the account around Ginther just to give it a different slant. That Moss emerges from all this is inevitable!

[Marcus Mussa]

Coming back to the original question, I asked Michel Ferry at the Automobile Club of Monaco and offhand he thinks that they reserved the even numbers for the Formula Junior race. This could be checked if somebody has the entry list for the FJ race that year. Later on they started the Formula Junior or F3 cars at number 100.

[Pete Fenelon]

Originally Posted by Vitesse

...But there was a "last hurrah" in Argentina in 1973, ironically the year before standardised numbering was introduced.

I explored "standardised numbering" over on Atlas TNF a couple of years ago, and while it was mostly standardised in '74 it wasn't for several years (I think '78 or so!) that there were no anomalies (i.e. the same number turning up on two entries during a season, or the same entry using two numbers in a season).

[Rob29]

Originally Posted by Marcus Mussa

Coming back to the original question, I asked Michel Ferry at the Automobile Club of Monaco and offhand he thinks that they reserved the even numbers for the Formula Junior race. This could be checked if somebody has the entry list for the FJ race that year. Later on they started the Formula Junior or F3 cars at number 100.

Hardly likely as the FJ race did not start until 1959,and I don't recall 3 digit numbers in the F3 races.

[Marcus Mussa]

Originally Posted by Rob29

Hardly likely as the FJ race did not start until 1959,and I don't recall 3 digit numbers in the F3 races.

Wasn't the enquiry about the 1961 race?
You may be right about the F3 numbers - I have not checked.

[Rob29]

Originally Posted by Marcus Mussa

Wasn't the enquiry about the 1961 race?
You may be right about the F3 numbers - I have not checked.

Yes,but the point was that they had ALWAYS used even numbers only.Just checked 1936 and the first ever support race used 42,44,46,etc.

[Rob29]

Originally Posted by Pete Fenelon

I explored "standardised numbering" over on Atlas TNF a couple of years ago, and while it was mostly standardised in '74 it wasn't for several years (I think '78 or so!) that there were no anomalies (i.e. the same number turning up on two entries during a season, or the same entry using two numbers in a season).

Actually,the standardised numbers started mid-1973.Never did discover who organised this.Anomalies were when a team bit the dust,a new team might take over the spare number.Also I guess a team having bad luck might ask for a change.Only Divina Galica asked for #13 In those days teams used to come and go all the time.Now we have seen only one real new team(Toyota) in nearly 10 years!
FIA fixed numbers & entries started with the Concorde agreement in 1981.

[Barry Boor]

Looking at my programme from Monaco 1965 - I was actually there - I see that the F.3 guys were numbered from 29 up - odd and even, but based on the entrant's nationality.

E.g. Allemagne 30-35, Autriche 29 (don't ask!) Belgique 36, France 37-50 (but with a late entry #73), etc etc etc.

Incidentally, the single Austrian was the well-known (well, to his Mum anyway) Hellfried von Kiwisch!

Not relevant to 1961 but interesting for all that.

With regard to the '61 Grand Prix; it is my all-time favourite race and the one that I would gladly risk a time-machine journey to go back to see.

[bauble]

Been busy for a few days and have just caught up with the '61 Monaco debate.
I will stand by my 'harsh' judgement on the 'Gods' and ask who else can you really put in the same category? Senna, Clark, Schumacher, Prost, Stewart? All good and worthy champions, but definitely not in the sublime class.
Funnily enough I was speaking to Peter Scott-Russell (remember him?) a while back and he said the same thing, so I am not alone.

Odd numbers? Some very odd topics on 10 10ths.

PS; Can anyone recall the original 10/ths method of measuring how fast a driver was going? Certainly ten tenths ALWAYS ended in an accident.

Regards to all members.

[krt917]

Originally Posted by bauble

Been busy for a few days and have just caught up with the '61 Monaco debate.
I will stand by my 'harsh' judgement on the 'Gods' and ask who else can you really put in the same category? Senna, Clark, Schumacher, Prost, Stewart? All good and worthy champions, but definitely not in the sublime class.

I know of several people who believe Moss to be the greatest ever racing driver. I'm not committing to agreeing or disagreeing with that, but I think you have to include the names above in the same class (and add Fangio and Nuvolari, at least, as well). Each of them scored great results and wins against the odds and were great drivers. Choosing between them is an almost impossible, but interesting, task! I also think that it's fair to say that it was 'easier' for Moss to show his skills in an inferior car in the 1950s and 1960s than it was for Prost, Senna, or Schumacher because the driver input was a greater part of the package back then. But that's another issue....

Moss does, have a lot of candidates to choose from for his greatest drive. Just sticking to Grands Prix, the 1958 Argentinian and 1959 Italian events stand out as potential candidates to rival Monaco '61!

[Steve Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by Barry Boor

Looking at my programme from Monaco 1965 - I was actually there - I see that the F.3 guys were numbered from 29 up - odd and even, but based on the entrant's nationality.

E.g. Allemagne 30-35, Autriche 29 (don't ask!) Belgique 36, France 37-50 (but with a late entry #73), etc etc etc.

Incidentally, the single Austrian was the well-known (well, to his Mum anyway) Hellfried von Kiwisch!

Not relevant to 1961 but interesting for all that.

With regard to the '61 Grand Prix; it is my all-time favourite race and the one that I would gladly risk a time-machine journey to go back to see.

At the THREE Monaco GPs that I attended the F3 field were always numbered by Natioanlity and the Nationalities were always listed and numbered alphabetically. Like Barry I spotted a few anomalies mainly due to the organisers getting a driver's natioanlity wrong!

Back to 1961. I remember a story involving Moss and a grid walkabout on the Sunday just before the GP. He was alleged to have pointed to the rear of Phil Hill's Ferrari and said something along the lines of "I wouldn't have let them do that mod to the rear end!". He then quietly walked off as Phil Hill had kittens!