Who is/was the greatest driver at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway?

[!!WALDO!!]

Ok some rules although most will not follow them.
1. They must have driven 5 races.
2. They must have finished at least one race 12th or better.
3. They must have gone 500 miles at least once.
4. If you think a certain way then back it up with some facts.

So this eliminates Harroun and Montoya with rule 1 and Jim Hurtubise with rule 2 and Bob Harkey with rule 3.

Otherwise have fun with this since I cannot play.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED or ACTUAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD or NOT YET BORN.)

[Colin]

In my mind, it's Rick Mears, four time winner, probably coulda' shoulda' won a couple more.

[Hoss Ghoul]

A.J. Foyt.

No one won more, led more, raced more, or was as competitive there as A.J.

[Vegasguy]

It's Mears for me too.

[Chris R]

Foyt, Mears, and Unser Sr. pretty much rank as the top three in no particular order - the obvious reasons being they won the most races. I think I would give the nod to AJ since , at the end of his career, even though he had more or less "lost the touch" at other venues, he was still very competitive at Indy in equipment that was probably significantly sub-standard relative to the best teams of the day.

I would also have to give strong consideration to Wilbur Shaw - he won three 500's - very nearly won 3 in a row (1941) and IF the star aligned could have won FIVE in a row - probably one of the strongest stretches in Indy history....

But it is AJ that gets my vote.....

[!!WALDO!!]

A.J. Foyt.

No one won more, led more, raced more, or was as competitive there as A.J.

My personal favorite but Al Unser Sr, 644 led the most laps and Ralph DePalma is second with 612, Mario is third with 556, Foyt with 555, Shaw with 508, Emmo with 505, Parnelli with 492, Vukovich 485, Bobby Unser with 440 and Michael Andretti 431.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED or ACTUAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD or NOT YET BORN.)

[MarcoCheever]

The Great Roberto Guerrero !!


nuff said !

[!!WALDO!!]

The Great Roberto Guerrero !!


nuff said !

4. If you think a certain way then back it up with some facts.

BTW 81st in Laps Led out of 191 drivers. With Harry Hartz and Johnny Thomson

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED or ACTUAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD or NOT YET BORN.)

[Hoss Ghoul]

My personal favorite but Al Unser Sr, 644 led the most laps and Ralph DePalma is second with 612, Mario is third with 556, Foyt with 555, Shaw with 508, Emmo with 505, Parnelli with 492, Vukovich 485, Bobby Unser with 440 and Michael Andretti 431.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED or ACTUAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD or NOT YET BORN.)

You're right about laps led, however, if I'm not mistaken A.J. led the most races.

[!!WALDO!!]

You're right about laps led, however, if I'm not mistaken A.J. led the most races.

Yes 13 compared to Al's 11 races. A.J averaged almost 43 laps per race led Al almost 59 laps led per race. Mario led 11 races and was almost 51 laps per race led. Bobby led 10 and averaged exactly 44 laps led per race.
Highest was DePalma who led only 6 races and 102 laps each time.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED or ACTUAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD or NOT YET BORN.)

[SarahFan]

Gordon, Jeff

[mileman]

A.J. Foyt. I'm not a big fan of his cantankerous character, but he sure could get the most out of the equipment at times. I still remember the amazing qualifying and race at Milwaukee back in the 60's when he had his "dirt track" front engine car going against a field of newer rear-engined cars. It was simply amazing. And at Indy, I really think he had a slight edge over Mears or Al Sr.

[EagleEye]

Ok some rules although most will not follow them.
1. They must have driven 5 races.
2. They must have finished at least one race 12th or better.
3. They must have gone 500 miles at least once.
4. If you think a certain way then back it up with some facts.

So this eliminates Harroun and Montoya with rule 1 and Jim Hurtubise with rule 2 and Bob Harkey with rule 3.

Otherwise have fun with this since I cannot play.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED or ACTUAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD or NOT YET BORN.)

Foyt, Mears, Unser. With each having four wins, picking one would be hard. I'd give Foyt the edge, because he won in several different types of car (Roadster, rear engine, wings). I'd then put Mears ahead of Unser, though both rarely made mistakes at the speedway. I grew up an Unser fan, so maybe I'm trying to hard not to be bias.

The next would be two time winner, Bill Vuckovich. He led the most laps in his second start, only to have a mechanical failure while leading on lap 192, won in his third and fourth start, and was killed while leading in his fifth start. One has to wonder if Vucki had lived, how many victories he would have added.

[bblocker68]

I'm a SuperTex fan, so I have to go with AJ. He won 4 of them, but it seemed he was in contention for so many others. If things went right, he could have won 6 of them or more. But then again, that's why you go racin'. The fastest don't always win.

[Alexamateo]

My top 5 rated drivers would be these.

1. Rick Mears: At one time I would not have had him here, thinking his record was only a result of being in Penske equipment (his only time in a non-Penske car he was a DNQ), but that really changed when he made that outside pass of Michael Andretti in 1991.

2. AJ Foyt Jr.: The best, most versatile driver who won in Roadsters, early rear-engine cars, and more modern winged cars (he also won in a ground effects car, but not @ Indy)

3. Al Unser Sr.: Simply the smoothest, don't make a mistake driver, If he hadn't fallen out with Jim Hall and spent a couple of years in those aweful Longhorns, he might be a 5 time winner.

4. Bill Vukovich Sr.: Wow could have won 4 in a row. Dropped out while leading in 1952 @ 192 laps, won in '53 & '54, and was leading when he had his fatal accident in 1955.

5. Wilbur Shaw: 3 wins and 3 seconds, Won in 1937, was second in 1938 and won twice in a row in 1939 & 1940. He was leading again when he crashed in 1941 on lap 151. The story is that there had been a fire in the garage that morning, and water used to put it out had washed off markings on a certain wheel to not use it as it was defective. That wheel was mounted on the car in a pit stop and ultimately failed causing him to crash.

I would also give honorable mention to any three time winner: Johnny Rutherford, Bobby Unser, Louis Meyer, and Mauri Rose. Two time winners Rodger Ward and Emerson Fittipaldi, and one time winners Ralph De Palma, and Jim Clark.

[champcarray]

I think I'd put Mears at the top of the list. He knew how to get the most out of his car when it mattered: at the finish.

A.J., Al Sr., and Mario are other obvious greats. I grew up rooting for Emmo in F1 and was amazed when he proved to be a superspeedway master. I wonder how many I500s he could have won if he began racing Indy in 1970 (his first year in F1), not 1984 (his first year in CART). It's hard to believe that he won his first I500 at the age of 42. I doubt we'll see that again.

[SarahFan]

. It's hard to believe that he won his first I500 at the age of 42. I doubt we'll see that again.

pt and vasser are around 42 aren't they

[Alexamateo]

I'm a SuperTex fan, so I have to go with AJ. He won 4 of them, but it seemed he was in contention for so many others. If things went right, he could have won 6 of them or more. But then again, that's why you go racin'. The fastest don't always win.

Interestingly enough, the races he was the fastest in, he didn't win, like in 1969, 1974-1976, 1982.

He won in 1961 when Sachs pitted for a tire (of course he himself had an extra pit stop because his crew didn't get all the fuel in.)

In 1964, Clark and Marshman clearly had faster cars although it's hard to say he backed into it leading 146 laps.

In 1967, he won when Parnelli and the turbine broke.

In 1977, he won when Gordon Johncock broke, but Foyt says he would have caught him anyway.

I am not making any commentary, Foyt was always my favorite driver, It's just to point out that circumstances make up a huge part of racing and leads to these truisms:

To finish first, you must first finish.

and ,

Luck favors the prepared man, meaning of course that he was in a position, running up front to capitalize on the mistakes and misfortunes of others. :)

[SarahFan]

Ok some rules although most will not follow them.
1. They must have driven 5 races.


[B]So this eliminates Montoya with rule 1

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED or ACTUAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD or NOT YET BORN.)


I know it's your thread....but why the randon criteria.. Montoya did run the race ina one-off...Qualify second at a track he had never drivern and a car he hadn't ever raced in...then went on to dominate 167 laps of the event..

one start...one dominant win

certainly worthy of consideration

[Alexamateo]

Ken,

I think it's like the NBA, you don't want the guy winning the scoring title to have only played 15 games and then be injured. I think you want them to have played in at least 70 % of the games to show a high level of performance over time, or in this case a high level of performance over several years.

[nanders]

Lloyd Ruby

[!!WALDO!!]

I know it's your thread....but why the randon criteria.. Montoya did run the race ina one-off...Qualify second at a track he had never drivern and a car he hadn't ever raced in...then went on to dominate 167 laps of the event..

one start...one dominant win

certainly worthy of consideration

How about Ray Harroun? He figured if you could average 75 Mph you could win. The first car to use a rear view mirror, something that would not be on another winner until 3 years before Ray's death in 1968. He came 28th to win and led 88 laps.

Yet, I took him out of the equation.

How about Bill Holland? In 5 races he had a win and 3 seconds and 15th. for a 4.6 average finish. His average start was 10.4 so he gained 5.8 postions per start and led 297 laps in three races or 99 per race led. Very close to De Palma.

I friend of mine determined the 25 greatest drivers and added 7 based on performance that was an accomplishment and dumped it into a program and Bill Holland won it.

So at least 2 years ago Bill Holland was the best.

[johnny shell]

I was thinking Mario because I read the question as who was the greatest driver ever that raced at the speedway...

and Mario was the greatest driver ever that raced at the speedway.

but, alas, he wasn't the greatest at driving the speedway itself, if you know what I'm saying.

[!!WALDO!!]

I was thinking Mario because I read the question as who was the greatest driver ever that raced at the speedway...

and Mario was the greatest driver ever that raced at the speedway.

but, alas, he wasn't the greatest at driving the speedway itself, if you know what I'm saying.

Who is/was the greatest driver at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway?

[SarahFan]

Who is/was the greatest driver at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway?



Can I say micheal Schumacher

[PSfan]

Jacques Villeneuve

Rookie of the race first time out,
Won the race 2nd time out
should have more then enough F1 starts to fill the minimum 5 starts
and has enough trophies and championships to back that up.

Since 1 doesn't stipulate that the races have to be raced for the Indy 500, Montoya is still eligible having some more then enough F1 and Nascar starts at IMS.

Schumacher doesn't fit into #3

[xtlm]

idk...i vote for a few of the brazillian dudes

[xtlm]

I also remember a year ago some magazine or internet site had a list...

This list represented the starting positions of the 33car field, and who were the greatest drivers on the track...

They had a points system that gave points to the drivers for the place they finished, qualified and laps led and other things of this nature...


I cant find this link though...

[!!WALDO!!]

I also remember a year ago some magazine or internet site had a list...

This list represented the starting positions of the 33car field, and who were the greatest drivers on the track...

They had a points system that gave points to the drivers for the place they finished, qualified and laps led and other things of this nature...


I cant find this link though...

Myself and another soon banned poster put it together. I referred to it in an earlier post and made up a program and with a 100 mile run down and at the end it was Bill Holland.

Got it in a file in a file in a file on one of 5 computers.

He got banned and walked away because he knew too much, and certain powers did not like that one of the 33 was Buddy Lazier.

It was the best 25 based on points and other drivers that accomplished things. There were those that wanted JPM over Harroun.

To those wanting to change things to fit their desires and wishes. This is an INDY CAR FORUM, the only race that runs INDY CARS is the Indianapolis 500. In the 33 referred to was Jacques Villenueve 33 but I asked and place specific guidelines. If you want different one's then maybe the moderator will let you make a new thread.

According to the points the top 6 were:
Al Unser
A.J. Foyt
Rick Mears
Gordon Johncock
Ted Horn
Wilbur Shaw


(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED or ACTUAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD or NOT YET BORN.)

[ShiftingGears]

Jim Clark. Had perfect sense of balance, won Indy and Foyt said he was his greatest competitor.

[Chris R]

I think that field of 33 article was in Autoweek or some other print mag. last year.....

[johnny shell]

I think we should limit it to driver that I can remember.

[harvick#1]

Can I say micheal Schumacher

2nd that, who could touch him, other than Rubens who took the win away on the photo shoot :p :

on Topic, I'll say Foyt

[!!WALDO!!]

I think that field of 33 article was in Autoweek or some other print mag. last year.....

Two years ago. Where do you think they got if from?

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED or ACTUAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD or NOT YET BORN.)

[Osiris333]

Rick Mears, obviously. He won it four times in 12 years. It took Foyt 20 to win his fourth.

[Chris R]

Two years ago. Where do you think they got if from?

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED or ACTUAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD or NOT YET BORN.)

didn't know if we were all talking about the same thing... the only thing i ever saw like that was the autoweek one... so was that your story or did they copy the idea??

[Chris R]

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070526/FREE/70521008

here's the autoweek story from 2007.

[!!WALDO!!]

Interestingly many different practices where used to determine the top 33. My group did 25 and 8. Reason being a point system of starting and finishing and comparing those results to the rest of the drivers. Then added drivers who accomplished something great at Indy. Harroun, DePaulo, Wallard, Vukovich, Clark, Villenueve, Arnold and Jones. Those drivers did not qualify on points and were added.

When the computer got done it coughed out Bill Holland as the winner of the group as of May of 2006. May of 2007 could have a different result, just like the 500 itself.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[anthonyvop]

Who is/was the greatest driver at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway? -

Ok some rules although most will not follow them.
1. They must have driven 5 races.
2. They must have finished at least one race 12th or better.
3. They must have gone 500 miles at least once.
4. If you think a certain way then back it up with some facts.


Your question should be rephrased to "Who is/was the greatest driver who raced in the Indy 500?

The greatest driver ever to compete at TMS was, hands down, Michael Schumacher!

[!!WALDO!!]

Your question should be rephrased to "Who is/was the greatest driver who raced in the Indy 500?

The greatest driver ever to compete at TMS was, hands down, Michael Schumacher!

Since this is an Indy Car Forum, one must assume that NASCAR and F-1 are eliminated as they have their own Forum.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[ShiftingGears]

Your question should be rephrased to "Who is/was the greatest driver who raced in the Indy 500?

The greatest driver ever to compete at TMS was, hands down, Michael Schumacher!

Heard of Jim Clark? ;)
At the time of his death...
Most F1 race wins
Most F1 pole positions
Acknowledged by many at the speedway as their greatest rival, including AJ Foyt
Fast everywhere. Renowned for only needing one shakedown lap to give precise and accurate feedback about the car.

[mantom]

there are a number of drivers I'd say were the tops at Indy, but if I had to pick one, it would be Rick Mears. Most wins/poles per start. Came back from 2 laps down to win in one year, made the most daring outside pass in another. Was very close to winning a 5th or 6th time in other years. Was a dominant racer in all forms until he injured his feet, but still retained his magic on ovals afterwards. Retired at an age younger than Emmerson Fittipaldi won his first Indy.

Honorable mentions:

Emmerson Fittipaldi - didn't win as many times as other greats, but finished higher consistently and was more competitive in his losses than most drivers. Had he not gotten greedy in 1994 trying to pass his teammate, he'd be a 3-time winner. Definitely a driver who reached for the win than let it fall in his lap. Certainly would've won more had he started his career at Indy instead of Formula 1.

Jacques Villeneuve - Only raced at Indy twice, but never finished worse than 2nd. Very heads-up driver who certainly had the potential to win more given the opportunity at his young age.

Al Unser, Sr. - The guy knows how to put himself in position to win at the end. However, I wouldn't call him the best driver because his strategy was mostly about surviving the attrition for a shot at the checkers than to drive to grab the win outright.

[!!WALDO!!]

Al Unser, Sr. - The guy knows how to put himself in position to win at the end. However, I wouldn't call him the best driver because his strategy was mostly about surviving the attrition for a shot at the checkers than to drive to grab the win outright.

Really, 644 laps led total. Number one in that category. In 1970 he led 190 laps to win race 1, 103 in 1971 to win race 2, 121 in 1978 to win race three and 18 to win race 4. 432 laps led for his 4 victories.
Most laps led outside of a win was 85 in 1979.

No, in stats and finishing Al is the greatest.

Let us also try to keep this only to Indianapolis.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[mantom]

Really, 644 laps led total. Number one in that category. In 1970 he led 190 laps to win race 1, 103 in 1971 to win race 2, 121 in 1978 to win race three and 18 to win race 4. 432 laps led for his 4 victories.
Most laps led outside of a win was 85 in 1979.

No, in stats and finishing Al is the greatest.

Let us also try to keep this only to Indianapolis.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

Doesn't change my opinion. Al drove at Indy 27 times which means the other 23 years combined he led only 80 some laps. What did he do those other years? Like he always does, play the attrition game to get a shot at the end. Al Jr and Bobby Rahal drove the same way. Doesn't make him a bad driver, I just don't think he's the best for it. For the same but opposite reason I don't consider the Andretti's or AJ Foyt the best drivers at Indy because they were so aggressive they didn't know how to take care of a car to last through a race even when they had dominant equipment. People talk about the Andretti luck, I call it stupidity on their part. Sure, there were years where the snake bit, but majority of the time it was their own fault.

There's a certain balance between the extremes of Al Sr and Mario that needs to be struck, I think the drivers I listed previously fit that bill. Your mileage may vary.

[tbyars]

I friend of mine determined the 25 greatest drivers and added 7 based on performance that was an accomplishment and dumped it into a program and Bill Holland won it.

So at least 2 years ago Bill Holland was the best.


Myself and another soon banned poster put it together. I referred to it in an earlier post and made up a program and with a 100 mile run down and at the end it was Bill Holland.

Got it in a file in a file in a file on one of 5 computers.

He got banned and walked away because he knew too much, and certain powers did not like that one of the 33 was Buddy Lazier.

It was the best 25 based on points and other drivers that accomplished things. There were those that wanted JPM over Harroun.

<snip>

According to the points the top 6 were:
Al Unser
A.J. Foyt
Rick Mears
Gordon Johncock
Ted Horn
Wilbur Shaw


I think that field of 33 article was in Autoweek or some other print mag. last year.....


Two years ago. Where do you think they got if from?


Interestingly many different practices where used to determine the top 33. My group did 25 and 8. Reason being a point system of starting and finishing and comparing those results to the rest of the drivers. Then added drivers who accomplished something great at Indy. Harroun, DePaulo, Wallard, Vukovich, Clark, Villenueve, Arnold and Jones. Those drivers did not qualify on points and were added.

When the computer got done it coughed out Bill Holland as the winner of the group as of May of 2006. May of 2007 could have a different result, just like the 500 itself.

Great thread. Just seems like a whole lot of self-aggrandizement going on here. Especially considering all the talk of feeding this into the computer and coming up with the list, boiunced against this statement in the article:


AutoWeek’s editors and contributors got together to select the 33 Indy competitors from across time whom we would most like to see battling one another on the same day. We did not use convoluted formulas or go strictly by statistics, so agree or disagree—we’re braced for outraged letters demanding to know why we included X but not Y

Frankly, Waldo, I really don't think the AutoWeek article had squat to do with your "analysis," regardless of your claim of "Where do you think they got it from?"

Just to stay on topic, however, my pick HAS to be A.J. Both Mears & A.J. were great, but go to IMS today and see which of the two gets the most attention. Same criteria holds for Al, who is my personal favorite. But A.J. gets the nod here. He was the first to win 4. That's something Rick and Al can never say.

[!!WALDO!!]

Great thread. Just seems like a whole lot of self-aggrandizement going on here. Especially considering all the talk of feeding this into the computer and coming up with the list, boiunced against this statement in the article:



Frankly, Waldo, I really don't think the AutoWeek article had squat to do with your "analysis," regardless of your claim of "Where do you think they got it from?"

Just to stay on topic, however, my pick HAS to be A.J. Both Mears & A.J. were great, but go to IMS today and see which of the two gets the most attention. Same criteria holds for Al, who is my personal favorite. But A.J. gets the nod here. He was the first to win 4. That's something Rick and Al can never say.

We supplied them a list in 2006, I don't get the get the rag. It came from someone that shot for them. Just for what it is worth. I am amazed that people get offended by other people that have done things. So be it though as that appears to be the way it is.
The computer ran a race for us and your four drivers were all in it and it spit out Bill Holland leading the final 12 to win.
Many old railbirds told me he was the smoothest driver at the time but was far from perfect in the front wheel drive era, as in his 500 while lapping Shorty Cantlon he slipped and sent Shorty, a long time veteran head long into the wall and to his death.
Bill gained positions in every start, had a win and 3 seconds and averaged over 100 laps led per race led.
I am a Foyt fan and always liked Al and Rick but I am a fan of the sport first so was Foyt the greatest at Indy? Well he lost positions in his total career at Indy and led about 40 laps per race led. Bill did better than that. Bill was in position to win in his first 4 races, all of them.

This thread is for thinking and dreaming back to the days of bricks. only a few of us can really dream back to that, but A.J. did win on the "bricks" but Rodger Ward did not.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[garyshell]

I am amazed that people get offended by other people that have done things.


And we are equally as surprised that supposed former college professors don't understand why there is such low tolerance of braggarts and pontification here. Or how said professors can confuse the statement "Just seems like a whole lot of self-aggrandizement going on here." as being offended because someone has "done things". You take on the mantle of victim so readily. Poor !!Waldo!!. It's the same tired "Waldo is the victim" argument when folks criticize your manner of presentation, you always trot out the "suppression of ideas" argument. Yawn.

Gary

[!!WALDO!!]

Here is our 2006 research.

Bold Names active for this 500.
Al Unser, Sr. 118 points (First 5 races 1965-1968 1970)-10.0 average finish, 14.2 average start, 79.5% Laps finished and led 23.9% of the laps. (4.2 positions gained per race) 27 races total-10.26 average finish, 9.15 average start, 82.53% Laps finished and led 14.78% of the laps. (1.11 positions lost per race)
A.J. Foyt Jr. 108 points (First 5 races 1958-1962)-15.0 average finish, 11.4 average start, 70.7% Laps finished and led 10.04% of the laps. (3.6 positions lost per race) 35 races total-13.83 average finish, 10.03 average start, 70.44% Laps finished and led 11.46% of the laps. (3.80 positions lost per race)
Rick Mears 77 points (First 5 races 1978-1982)-12.2 average finish, 6.6 average start, 66.0% Laps finished and led 17.12% of the laps. (5.6 positions lost per race) 15 races total-11.20 average finish, 4.67 average start, 78.07% Laps finished and led 18.32% of the laps. (6.73 positions lost per race)
Gordon Johncock 75 points (First 5 races 1965-1969)-11.4 average finish, 7.4 average start, 76.2% Laps finished and led 0% of the laps. (4.0 positions lost per race) 24 races total-14.33 average finish, 11.375 average start, 68.43% Laps finished and led 10.73% of the laps. (2.955 positions lost per race)
Ted Horn 69 points (First 5 races1935-1939)-5.8 average finish, 15.8 average start, 94.5% Laps finished and led 2.12% of the laps. (10.0 positions gained per race) 10 races total-5.40 average finish, 12.4 average start, 97.2% Laps finished and led 4.84% of the laps. (7.00 positions gained per race)
Wilbur Shaw 68 points (First 5 races 1927-28-1930-1932-33)-14.4 average finish, 23.6 average start, 65.3% Laps finished and led 4.13% of the laps. (9.2 positions gained per race) 13 races total-10.15 average finish, 12.77 average start, 77.54% Laps finished and led 25.16% of the laps. (2.62 positions gained per race)
Mario Andretti 66 points (First 5 races 1965-1969)-17.0 average finish, 2.4 average start, 50.7% Laps finished and led 26.04% of the laps. (14.6 positions Lost per race) 29 races total-17.86 average finish, 8.69 average start, 54.18% Laps finished and led 18.29% of the laps. (9.17 positions lost per race)
Mauri Rose 65 points (First 5 races 1933-1937)-15.8 average finish, 18.8 average start, 67.8% Laps finished and led 10.03% of the laps. (3.0 positions gained per race) 15 races total-12.33 average finish, 10.4 average start, 77.6% Laps finished and led 11.04% of the laps. (1.93 positions lost per race)
Bobby Unser 64 points (First 5 races 1963-1967)-20.2 average finish, 16.4 average start, 43.6% Laps finished and led 00.00% of the laps. (3.8 positions lost per race) 19 races total-12.26 average finish, 8.00 average start, 72.33% Laps finished and led 16.85% of the laps. (4.26 positions lost per race)
Al Unser, Jr. 62 points (First 5 races 1983-1987)-13.0 average finish, 12.4 average start, 80.9% Laps finished and led 1.24% of the laps. (0.6 positions lost per race) 17 races total-11.47 average finish, 11.12 average start, 84.82% Laps finished and led 3.84% of the laps. (0.35 positions lost per race)
Rodger Ward 56 points (First 5 races 1951-1955)-23.2 average finish, 20.6 average start, 54.6% Laps finished and led 0.00% of the laps. (2.6 positions lost per race) 15 races total-13.47 average finish, 12.27 average start, 72.00% Laps finished and led 12.08% of the laps. (1.20 positions lost per race)
Louis Meyer 53 points (First 5 races 1928-1932)-14.8 average finish, 11.0 average start, 67.8% Laps finished and led 12.68% of the laps. (3.8 positions lost per race) 12 races total-11.50 average finish, 10.42 average start, 79.83% Laps finished and led 17.33% of the laps. (1.08 positions lost per race)
Johnny Rutherford 52 points (First 5 races 1963-1965, 1967-1968)-26.0 average finish, 18.4 average start, 28.8% Laps finished and led 0.00% of the laps. (7.6 positions lost per race) 24 races total-17.04 average finish, 13.92 average start, 60.56% Laps finished and led 10.60% of the laps. (3.12 positions lost per race)
Bobby Rahal 50 points (First 5 races 1982-1986)-13.2 average finish, 9.6 average start, 76.5% Laps finished and led 11.37% of the laps. (3.6 positions lost per race) 13 races total-12.00 average finish, 11.92 average start, 77.19% Laps finished and led 6.18% of the laps. (0.08 positions lost per race)
Jim Rathmann 49 points (First 5 races 1949-1950 1952-1954)-14.4 average finish, 22.4 average start, 80.7% Laps finished and led 0.12% of the laps. (8.0 positions gained per race) 14 races total-12.79 average finish, 18.14 average start, 82.86% Laps finished and led 6.59% of the laps. (5.35 positions gained per race)
Tom Sneva 49 points (First 5 races 1974-1978)-10.4 average finish, 3.4 average start, 82.10% Laps finished and led 0.97% of the laps. (7.0 positions lost per race) 18 races total-16.50 average finish, 12.00 average start, 62.70% Laps finished and led 9.54% of the laps. (4.50 positions lost per race)
Michael Andretti 47 points (First 5 races 1984-1988)-10.4 average finish, 8.2 average start, 82.0% Laps finished and led 5.49% of the laps. (2.2 positions lost per race) 14 races total-12.29 average finish, 10.43 average start, 81.68% Laps finished and led 18.63% of the laps. (1.86 positions lost per race)
Arie Luyendyk 46 points (First 5 races 1985-1989)-14.2 average finish, 13.4 average start, 83.0% Laps finished and led 0.00% of the laps. (0.8 positions lost per race) 17 races total-11.94 average finish, 10.47 average start, 86.97% Laps finished and led 6.36% of the laps. (1.47 positions lost per race)
Buddy Lazier 45 points (First 5 races 1991-1992 1995-1997)-15.8 average finish, 17.0 average start, 58.5% Laps finished and led 8.55% of the laps. (1.2 positions gained per race) 13 races total-13.23 average finish, 17.08 average start, 81.71% Laps finished and led 3.32% of the laps. (3.85 positions gained per race)
Emerson Fittipaldi 41 points (First 5 races 1984-1988)-14.0 average finish, 16.0 average start, 75.5% Laps finished and led 1.59% of the laps. (2.0 positions gained per race) 11 races total-11.55 average finish, 10.91 average start, 81.14% Laps finished and led 28.29% of the laps. (0.64 positions lost per race)
Harry Hartz 41 points (First 5 races 1922-1926)-2.8 average finish, 2.2 average start, 99.79% Laps finished and led 5.95% of the laps. (0.6 positions lost per race) 6 races total-6.50 average finish, 2.50 average start, 85.86% Laps finished and led 5.72% of the laps. (4.00 positions lost per race)
Roberto Guerrero 39 points (First 5 races 1984-1988)-8.6 average finish, 9.6 average start, 79.8% Laps finished and led 1.13% of the laps. (1.0 positions gained per race) 15 races total-16.67 average finish, 13.80 average start, 57.83% Laps finished and led 3.23% of the laps. (2.87 positions lost per race)
Cliff Bergere 38 (First 5 races 1927-1929, 1931-1932)-11.6 average finish, 14.6 average start, 80.6% Laps finished and led 0.00% of the laps. (3.0 positions gained per race) 16 races total-13.00 average finish, 13.13 average start, 75.78% Laps finished and led 1.44% of the laps. (0.13 positions gained per race)
Tommy Milton 37 (First 5 races 1919-1923)-10.8 average finish, 17.4 average start, 69.4% Laps finished and led 31.41% of the laps. (6.6 positions gained per race) 8 races total-11.00 average finish, 15.75 average start, 75.25% Laps finished and led 18.11% of the laps. (4.75 positions gained per race)
Ralph DePalma 37 (First 5 races 1911-1913, 1915, 1919)-9.4 average finish, 4.8 average start, 81.3% Laps finished and led 52.27% of the laps. (4.6 positions lost per race) 10 races total-9.00 average finish, 5.80 average start, 79.70% Laps finished and led 38.39% of the laps. (3.20 positions lost per race)
Bill Holland 37 (First 5 races 1947-1950, 1953)-4.4 average finish, 10.4 average start, 91.4% Laps finished and led 32.50% of the laps. (6.0 positions gained per race) 5 races total.
Helio Castroneves 33 Points 5 races-4.4 average finish, 7.6 average start, 100% Laps finished and led 13.67% of the laps. (3.2 positions gained per race) 5 races total.
Jim Clark 28 Points 5 races-12.0 average finish, 5.2 average start 68.20% Laps finished and led 43.57% of the laps. (6.8 positions lost per race) 5 races total
Bill Vukovich 20 Points 5 races-14.6 average finish, 10.6 average start 67.60% Laps finished and led 71.75% of the laps. (4.0 positions lost per race) 5 races total.
Jacques Villenueve 19 Points 2 races-1.5 average finish, 4.5 average start 100% Laps finished and led 5.5% of the laps. (3.0 positions gained per race) 2 races total.
Peter DePaolo 21 Points (First 5 races 1922, 1924-1927)-11.6 average finish, 10.8 average start 51.40% Laps finished and led 28.79% of the laps. (0.8 positions lost per race) 7 races total-17.29 average finish, 11.43 average start, 52.71% Laps finished and led 20.05% of the laps. (5.86 positions lost per race)
Lee Wallard 19 Points 4 races-9.25 average finish, 18.25 average start 73.88% Laps finished and led 30.11% of the laps. (9.0 positions gained per race)
Ray Harroun 10 Points 1 race-1.0 average finish, 28.00 average start 100.00% Laps finished and led 44.00% of the laps. (27.0 positions gained per race)


There you go, I set them you fight it out. Thanks to several people that did the research and of course to a couple libraries.

Jerr Barnett aka Doug Piranha

[!!WALDO!!]

Now we have 30 to argue and fight over. These are the 30 best based on the same set of numbers. Yes, maybe your favorite driver isn’t on there. Many believe that Parnelli must be on the list. I think that even Rufus would think these drivers are better than him. So I will do a Rufus Parnell comparison with the winner of the WIBC Greatest Race that Never Was, Jimmy Bryan.
Rufus Parnell Jones 28 Points (First 5 races 1961-1965)-9.0 average finish, 3.2 average start 84.70% Laps finished and led 38.90% of the laps. (5.8 positions lost per race) 7 races total-9.28 average finish, 3.71 average start, 80.71% Laps finished and led 43.54% of the laps. (5.57 positions lost per race)
Jimmy Bryan 32 Points (First 5 races 1952-1956)-13.0 average finish, 17.0 average start 85.80% Laps finished and led 8.97% of the laps. (4.0 positions gained per race) 9 races total-13.44 average finish, 15.22 average start, 78.39% Laps finished and led 15.31% of the laps. (1.78 positions gained per race)
As you can see Mr. Jones’ record does not compare to Jimmy Bryan but both are considered greats in the history of the Great Race.
Now the most important thing is to determine the final three that changed the face of the 500. This is real tough to pin on a driver. We could say Carl Fisher, Tony Hulman and Roger Penske with great ease. Looking at drivers then one must look at the clock. I believe the most significant win of the pre-World War II era was 1925 as it became the first race in under 5 hours. (4:56:39.40) So number one is Peter DePaolo.
Peter DePaolo 21 Points (First 5 races 1922, 1924-1927)-11.6 average finish, 10.8 average start 51.40% Laps finished and led 28.79% of the laps. (0.8 positions lost per race) 7 races total-17.29 average finish, 11.43 average start, 52.71% Laps finished and led 20.05% of the laps. (5.86 positions lost per race)

So based on that important win one I believe must look 26 years later as we knock off another hour off the race. This tribute must go to Lee Wallard, one of Waldo’s favorites as he told me the story that when he was told of the fact that he had won the 500 in less than 4 hours, he exclaimed; “I would like to meet the SOB that does it in under 3 hours.” Of course 35 years later that was Bobby Rahal already included in the top 30. So Lee Wallard’s 1951 win puts him in this group in my mind. (3:57:38.103) So number two is Lee.
Lee Wallard 19 Points 4 races-9.25 average finish, 18.25 average start 73.88% Laps finished and led 30.11% of the laps. (9.0 positions gained per race)
So with plenty of thinking I must regress back to the driver that “planned” to win the Indianapolis 500. He designed and built a car that only seated one, himself. Put a mirror on it that would not be seen again until 1965 and figured if he averaged 75 mph he would win. So that man that made 88 possible was the one that won race number one. The only one to actually figure it out, win it and get out, Ray Harroun.
Ray Harroun 10 Points 1 race-1.0 average finish, 28.00 average start 100.00% Laps finished and led 44.00% of the laps. (27.0 positions gained per race)


Jerr Barnett aka Doug Piranha

[!!WALDO!!]

Here was what the computer kicked out as the starting line up for the computerized race.
1. Harry Hartz
2 Mario Andretti
3 Tom Sneva

4 Ralph DePalma
5 Jim Clark
6 Jacques Villenueve

7 Rick Mears
8 Gordon Johncock
9 Helio Castroneves

10 Michael Andretti
11 Bobby Rahal
12 Roberto Guerrero

13 Bill Holland
14 Bill Vukovich
15 Peter DePaolo

16 Louis Meyer
17 A.J. Foyt Jr.
18 Al Unser, Jr

19 Arie Luyendyk
20 Al Unser, Sr.
21 Cliff Bergere

22 Ted Horn
23 Emerson Fittipaldi
24 Bobby Unser

25 Buddy Lazier
26 Tommy Milton
27 Johnny Rutherford

28 Mauri Rose
29 Lee Wallard
30 Rodger Ward

31 Jim Rathmann
32 Wilbur Shaw
33 Ray Harroun

[!!WALDO!!]

Al Unser, Sr. 118 points

10 points for 1st---4 40
9 points for 2nd---3 27 67
8 points for 3rd---4 32 99
7 points for 4th---1 7 106
6 points for 5th---1 6 112
5 points for 6th---0
4 points for 7th---1 4 116
3 points for 8th---0
2 points for 9th---1 2 118
1 point for 10th---1

[!!WALDO!!]

Al Unser, Sr. 118 points

10 points for 1st---4 40
9 points for 2nd---3 27 67
8 points for 3rd---4 32 99
7 points for 4th---1 7 106
6 points for 5th---1 6 112
5 points for 6th---0
4 points for 7th---1 4 116
3 points for 8th---0
2 points for 9th---1 2 118
1 point for 10th---1

10 points for 1st---4 40
9 points for 2nd---3 27 67
8 points for 3rd---4 32 99
7 points for 4th---1 7 106
6 points for 5th---1 6 112
5 points for 6th---0
4 points for 7th---1 4 116
3 points for 8th---0
2 points for 9th---1 2 118
1 point for 10th---0

Cutting and paste mistake.

[mantom]

10 points for 1st---4 40
9 points for 2nd---3 27 67
8 points for 3rd---4 32 99
7 points for 4th---1 7 106
6 points for 5th---1 6 112
5 points for 6th---0
4 points for 7th---1 4 116
3 points for 8th---0
2 points for 9th---1 2 118
1 point for 10th---0

Cutting and paste mistake.

Computer tabulations are only as good as the logic the programmer fed into it. In most cases, not very. Drivers with fewer starts are more likely to have skewed projections from lack of data. Software in general doesn't consider intangibles outside of the statistics entered into the computer. For example, weather, technology of the day, political climate, competitors on the grid, etc each race....

The only real way to make these comparisons is to level the playing field so all drivers are compared by the same measuring stick. You say Al Sr was the best. Well, he also had 12 more starts than Rick Mears. If Rick Mears had 12 more starts, how much higher would he rank in the standings? I'm sure he'd shoot up the chart like the rocket he was and pick up at least one more win. 5 wins would make him the undisputed Indy Champ, no? Another way to look at it: Rick drove against both AJ and Al Sr for many years. During those races where all 3 competed, how many Indy 500's did each win? Hmmm... Rick won 4 with both AJ and Al Sr in the field. Al Sr won once, AJ none.

Point being, this is all conjecture. Since it's all conjecture, you can't level the playing field to make a fair comparison. To rank people based on primitive stats and insist they are the gospel is plain foolish.

[garyshell]

Point being, this is all conjecture. Since it's all conjecture, you can't level the playing field to make a fair comparison. To rank people based on primitive stats and insist they are the gospel is plain foolish.

The entire exercise is plain foolish. The question can never be answered. Who or what will be the final arbiter? Who gives a rat's behind who was the best driver ever? The question begs for an argument with no possible solution, so why even ask?

It's the same stupid question that is asked in golf, Tiger vs. Arnold vs. Jack. It's asked in basketball, Michael vs. Wilt vs. Magic. Etc. etc. etc. Who cares? They were all great and one's accomplishments don't diminish the others.

Gary

[Chris R]

Hey, this is supposed to be fun!!! :p

Everyone is kind of right about this... it is nearly impossible to determine who is really the best - so it is all opinion no matter how we back it up... different drivers in different eras facing different challenges are pretty hard to compare accurately.... I find the different approaches people take to figure out "the best" to be pretty interesting in and of themselves.

As for the Autoweek article - sounds to me like multiple people had similar ideas at a similar time - happens all the time throughout history. IIRC the Indy 500 yearbook did a pretty interesting fictional "race" between past winners back in the 1970's - can't remember who won that one.... Also would not be the first time a publication took a reader's basic idea and made it their own...

Realistically, the best Indy 500 driver ever is probably some poor slob who started at the bottom of the field and drove a car that had no business being in the race to 15th place and then went back to work at the diner down the street the next day..... (ok, this is an exaggeration - but you get my point)

everyone seems to have a respectable and defensible opinions lets just have fun and take them all at face value..... :)

[Chris R]

The entire exercise is plain foolish. The question can never be answered. Who or what will be the final arbiter? Who gives a rat's behind who was the best driver ever? The question begs for an argument with no possible solution, so why even ask?

It's the same stupid question that is asked in golf, Tiger vs. Arnold vs. Jack. It's asked in basketball, Michael vs. Wilt vs. Magic. Etc. etc. etc. Who cares? They were all great and one's accomplishments don't diminish the others.

Gary

driving cars around in circles very fast (whether they be paved, dirt, round, oval or squiggly) is foolish too :D

doesn't mean we aren't fans who enjoy discussing stuff - we just need to keep it light hearted...

I absolutely agree with your last sentence - almost every driver discussed in this thread was a great driver and on any given day any one of them has/had the ability to beat the rest.....

[!!WALDO!!]

Hey, this is supposed to be fun!!! :p

Everyone is kind of right about this... it is nearly impossible to determine who is really the best - so it is all opinion no matter how we back it up... different drivers in different eras facing different challenges are pretty hard to compare accurately.... I find the different approaches people take to figure out "the best" to be pretty interesting in and of themselves.

As for the Autoweek article - sounds to me like multiple people had similar ideas at a similar time - happens all the time throughout history. IIRC the Indy 500 yearbook did a pretty interesting fictional "race" between past winners back in the 1970's - can't remember who won that one.... Also would not be the first time a publication took a reader's basic idea and made it their own...

Realistically, the best Indy 500 driver ever is probably some poor slob who started at the bottom of the field and drove a car that had no business being in the race to 15th place and then went back to work at the diner down the street the next day..... (ok, this is an exaggeration - but you get my point)

everyone seems to have a respectable and defensible opinions lets just have fun and take them all at face value..... :)

You see it took 2 years to do and in May of 2006 it was done. I see we still must try to shoot down 15 peoples work because of either the messenger or someone flat out disagrees.

We went through a system to determine the top 25 drivers. Like many some wanted just to select, some wanted a point system, 1-33 and we settled on 1-10. As that was a solid constant. That took 6 months to determine and had to look at every driver from 1911 through 2005.

We also determined that 5 years was really an average of 500 starts so take the first 5 and compare them. Again that took 3 months.
Then we looked at the next 5 drivers, this was drivers not in the top 25 and did this cause trouble but we were able to determine a criteria for those 5 positions. To come up with Bill Holland (Tied for 25th), Helio Castroneves, Jim Clark, Bill Vukovich and Jacques Villenueve required a big fight but one rule was they had to be a winner as 5 of the 25 were not winners. Another 4 months to get to 30.

The final three that changed the face of the 500 was even tougher as what was going to be the criteria? The only thing that seemed real was time. Time is a constant so then we look at accomplishments of time. DePaulo, Wallard and Rahal but Bobby was in the top 25. That gave us 32, then one more winner. We all had to read about 15 drivers not in the mix that accomplished something great in winning the 500 and it became Ray Harroun. This took 5 months.

Then we had to look at computer formulas that would establish a starting field and then race these 33 drivers. This took 6 months to debug as we were looking at would equipment need to come into play. We set the 500 average speed of 144MPH and figured everyone would qualify based on past performance. Harry Hartz had the lowest career starting position 2.2 and would get the Pole and Harroun started 27th in his only 500 so he was the highest thus he would start 33.

Like any 500, it was on any given day the “Old Lady” could grace someone with a great day. The next day it could be someone else. So on that day, with those 33 drivers, Bill Holland was the best.
I found some of the race results if anyone would be interested. This was not my idea, but because of my knowledge of and extensive library, I was asked to be a part of this effort. I was a team leader of 7 people that made determinations based on a criterion we established and not emotions.

It is interesting I was called names and I found this on a backup hard drive. I was told I was full of it, I produced some, over 15,000 characters with a 10,000 character limit. Got more if you want it, maybe I can find meeting notes, phone numbers, emails and addresses.

This was not at our expense and the head of this, Jerr Barnett supplied all our work to other publications some he did some work for.

Amazing that race fans do not get the concept on any given day anything can happen. That is what we had to program into this to make it as real as possible.


(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Not sure how much more needs to be said, but in one of my rare trips online, Ifigure this is one I can wade in on.

My personal 5 drivers are based on me either seeing them or at least being able to relate to the type of race cars they rate and my knowledge of the era. Basically, my knowledge of the Wilbur Shaw's and Billy Vukovich's is less than of the cars of the 70's to now. Nevertheless, one of my picks are of the era when I was whelped....lol

1. AJ Foyt is the first guy that came to mind. It is for good reason. No one loved the race like he did, no one won in as many ways as he did, no one was the story as often, and no one of the truly greats spans as many era's as he has. That, and he is one of the greatest characters in racing. One of my personal hero's who I have been fortunate enough to meet.

2. Al Unser Jr. Another 4 win man, who scans much of the eras that AJ did, but he wasn't always the story and he wasn't always a threat to win in the ways AJ was. I could say he is the 1a selection, but I would put him down here because of his quiet nature and he was not the threat in the front engined car era that AJ was.

3. Rick Mears. The man who defined the legacy of Mark Donahue in that he was a genius for figuring out what the car needed as the race went on, and he already was running up front. He won 4 times, but because all four were with the same team, he drops below the other 4 time winners. His quiet and classy image makes him one of the great people in racing, and on ovals, he may be the most dominent oval Indy Car drivers ever.

4. Mario Andretti. No one has nearly won as many times as this guy and his threat to win every time he showed up puts him on my list. The man was always the fastest or nearly the fastest man every time he hit the track.

5. Tie: Jim Clark, JP Montoya and Jacques Villeneuve. Why? Simple. They were all guys who were "outsiders" to the traditional route to the Speedway. They were all guys who showed up, once, maybe twice, and took to it like ducks to water. Jim Clark only did it 2 times, and did it before anyone from Europe really saw it as something TO do in the modern era, and he won on his second attempt with the amazing lightweight Lotus, that cool looking Ford and the Wood brothers in the pits. Never has three worlds of racing met at one time like that. JPM for having a perfect record there. Not bad for a guy who heard about all the rough times rookies have adapting to the Speedway. Killed that myth dead didn't he?
And Villeneuve who came from 2 laps down on paper to win the Indy 505. Ya, Scott Goodyear should have won but had a brain cramp, but may Jacques would have taken him anyhow. Villeneuve was another young outside guy who didn't quake in his boots when he saw the Speedway, he just was fast from the word go and if either he, Clark or JPM ran this 20 times, it would be be a joke to bet against them not winning a few times.


The modern era at the Speedway will be a tighter fight for wins with all the identical packages. I miss the variety of machinery to show up at the Speedway, but it does make for a level playing field, and I doubt we will see another 4 time winner....but I will put Helio in that top5 if he wins again.....of course PT had him beat if that yellow didn't save his dancing tail.....

[Alexamateo]

.......... Jim Clark only did it 2 times, and did it before anyone from Europe really saw it as something TO do in the modern era, and he won on his second attempt with the amazing lightweight Lotus, that cool looking Ford and the Wood brothers in the pits. .......

l.....

No real quibble with your list, but I did want to say that Jim Clark raced @ Indy 5 times, winning his third time out. He finished second in 1963 and some thought he should have been the winner because Parnelli should have been black-flagged for an oil leak. (Including Eddie Sachs, who said so to Parnelli's face and ended up getting decked for it. :blackeye: ). He won the pole in 1964, but broke the suspension during the race after leading quite a few laps, then of course he won in 1965. There are also some who say that he, not Graham Hill won in 1966, that the scorers missed one of his laps. I believe they filed a protest, but later withdrew it saying they were satisfied that no mistake was made. Still, some insist that Clark won. He dropped out early in 1967, and was entered in one of the turbines in 1968, but of course was killed @ Hockenheim that April before the race. :(

So some would say he should have 3 wins in only 5 starts, which if it had actually happened that way would make him have the best 5 race stretch ever, so maybe Clark is the greatest driver @ Indy.


the Wood brothers in the pits.

Something I just learned recently, Did you know that in 1965, Clark only made two stops, and those were for fuel only? That's right, they didn't change a single tire all day. Not to take anything away from the Woods, who were the first to take pit stops to a science, but having them there wasn't really necessary, it was a PR move by Ford. Needless to say, it worked. :p :

[!!WALDO!!]

Something I just learned recently, Did you know that in 1965, Clark only made two stops, and those were for fuel only? That's right, they didn't change a single tire all day. Not to take anything away from the Woods, who were the first to take pit stops to a science, but having them there wasn't really necessary, it was a PR move by Ford. Needless to say, it worked. :p :

The first post war driver/car to change tires during the race was 1973. You changed tires, you lost.

In those days you had fuel for 210-215 Miles, 84-86 Laps, stop again at 166-172 and you were done. Some used an early stop policy of starting a little lighter, saving the tires and stopping between 50-60 laps, then again at 130-140 and being light again at the end of the race, again saving rubber and being potentially faster if needed at the end.

Wood Brothers were an insurance policy in case of a need of changing a tire. Plus USAC changed fueling rules after the Jones incident in 1964 but while everyone was putting in 70 gallons in 32, Clark crew was doing it in 19+.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[Mark in Oshawa]

I stand corrected on Clark's actual entries. I was going off the top of my head; but the point is that Clark was a serious threat to win EVERY time he was in the car at any race track, and Indy was no exception. It also puts paid to the often voiced opinion of some people at Indy that people with no oval track experience are out of their element. Clark took to it instantly, as did JPM and a few others.


AS for never changing tires until more recently, I almost find that hard to believe in some sense because I cant imagine someone didn't think to make a really good higher performance tire that could make up for the time lost on the tire changes. That said, thinking outside the box in the early years was confined to suspensions, engine location and weight distribution. Tactics and methods for faster rubber were not part of the lexicon and thought process....

[!!WALDO!!]

I stand corrected on Clark's actual entries. I was going off the top of my head; but the point is that Clark was a serious threat to win EVERY time he was in the car at any race track, and Indy was no exception. It also puts paid to the often voiced opinion of some people at Indy that people with no oval track experience are out of their element. Clark took to it instantly, as did JPM and a few others.


AS for never changing tires until more recently, I almost find that hard to believe in some sense because I cant imagine someone didn't think to make a really good higher performance tire that could make up for the time lost on the tire changes. That said, thinking outside the box in the early years was confined to suspensions, engine location and weight distribution. Tactics and methods for faster rubber were not part of the lexicon and thought process....


Firestone from 1946-1966 showed the FOUR tires used in an ad. Goodyear and Firestone did from 1967-1972.
Pit crews were not professional, they were pick up. Two guys to refuel the car and usually the Chief Mechanic changed the tire. (Not no "s")

It was different times, harder tires and slower speeds and yet worn tires cost Jim Rathmann in 1959, Rodger Ward in 1960 and Eddie Sachs in 1961 and only Eddie of the three changed tires.

It was true at every track. Only person I saw win after a new tire was Foyt during a long yellow for Bill Horstmeyer's fatal in 1964 at Springfield. He came back to win as Marshman's tires started to wear.

Who changed Foyt's tire? His only crewman, George Bignotti.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[!!WALDO!!]

Also, since Indy was a test lab and Firestone won every 500 from 1921-1966 do you think that just maybe they had a silly goal of getting a tire to go 500 under extreme race conditions?

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[AAReagles]

Ok some rules although most will not follow them.
1. They must have driven 5 races.
2. They must have finished at least one race 12th or better.
3. They must have gone 500 miles at least once.
4. If you think a certain way then back it up with some facts.


Well everyone here posted some good responses, but I'm gonna add something here, in regards to 'uncrowned champion' version; Dan Gurney.

Why ?

1) He was driver/team manager in not only USAC series, but in Grand Prix racing as well, having to engage in overseas operations, as well as stateside in order to maintain a competitive outfit, despite lack of sufficient funds.

2) Finished 2nd twice, 3rd once (1968-70), almost made it to glory less 60 laps from the finish. That's when he had something competitive to drive.

[!!WALDO!!]

Well everyone here posted some good responses, but I'm gonna add something here, in regards to 'uncrowned champion' version; Dan Gurney.

Why ?

1) He was driver/team manager in not only USAC series, but in Grand Prix racing as well, having to engage in overseas operations, as well as stateside in order to maintain a competitive outfit, despite lack of sufficient funds.

2) Finished 2nd twice, 3rd once (1968-70), almost made it to glory less 60 laps from the finish. That's when he had something competitive to drive.


Again, performance only at Indy. So is he better than Scott Goodyear, Vitor Meira who both finished second twice? How about Harry Hartz who finished 2nd 3 times?

It takes almost 40 points to reach the top 25, Dan has 29 points. 33 points to be in the top 33.

Now as far as great Amercan Drivers, Dan is right there. The only driver to win in F-1, Indy Cars, CanAm, Trans-Am, Edurance and NASCAR Cup.
Mario can't claim that, A.J. can't claim that, Mark can't claim that only Dan but it really has nothing to do with 500 and his performance there.

I am doing 1968 and am doing the 1968 Mosport Twin 100's. Any guesses to who won those two races?

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[Bob Riebe]

I am going to say Eddie Cheever for the simply fact that anyone who can go out and lap at 236 mph during the race, for the simple reason he had nothing better to do, know how to driver at Indy.

[!!WALDO!!]

I am going to say Eddie Cheever for the simply fact that anyone who can go out and lap at 236 mph during the race, for the simple reason he had nothing better to do, know how to driver at Indy.

On lap 78 of the 1996 500. So one lap makes him the GREATEST DRIVER EVER.

Interesting approach.

236.103

How about Luyendyk that owns the 500 mile record?

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[Bob Riebe]

On lap 78 of the 1996 500. So one lap makes him the GREATEST DRIVER EVER.

Interesting approach.

236.103

How about Luyendyk that owns the 500 mile record?

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)
Well you said the greatest driver at, which would mean in, the 500 and it was not just lap, he was continually lapping at that rate because he could, nothing to lose, nothing to gain, just a very fast afternoon drive.
Now how many others could?
If they could, why did they not?
Bob
PS__Luyendyk, was equally fast.

[AAReagles]

Again, performance only at Indy. So is he better than Scott Goodyear, Vitor Meira who both finished second twice? How about Harry Hartz who finished 2nd 3 times...

Now as far as great Amercan Drivers, Dan is right there. The only driver to win in F-1, Indy Cars, CanAm... but it really has nothing to do with 500 and his performance there.

Well, 'again', I mention 'uncrowned champion', and sure he's not the only one that fits in that category, just as there is no one great driver at Indy with exception to individual opinions, such as mine. Depending on what the fan/observer bases their notions on, be it stats and/or performances.

I realize you're referring to performance/accomplishments/stats at Indy only, which is why I'm still listing DG as my consideration (or opinion rather).

As I noted (in so many words) about his time commitments to managing not only his Indy program, but his GP campaign efforts as well, I think he did pretty good, since his focus wasn't entirely on driving duties.

And no, I didn't stray on the subject of his driving activities in other arenas of the sport. But since it was brought up about Trans-Am & Can-Am, those were two other series he became involved in as well, when it came to starting up teams and managing them (aside from himself competing in the events themselves when proper $$$ was available). So needless to say time was consumed there as well.

Of course I realize it was his decision to launch and maintain All-American Racers (All-Anglo Racers with respect to the GP efforts), and no doubt he probably realized the possible consequences of good driving opportunities being bypassed due to this commitment.

All things considered (Indy-wise), he still managed to perform well at the brickyard, which is why he deserves to be mentioned.

[!!WALDO!!]

Well you said the greatest driver at, which would mean in, the 500 and it was not just lap, he was continually lapping at that rate because he could, nothing to lose, nothing to gain, just a very fast afternoon drive.
Now how many others could?
If they could, why did they not?
Bob
PS__Luyendyk, was equally fast.

Then a Peter DePaulo falls into that also as he averaged 100MPH to win the 1925 500. That was a time went the "thinking" world assumed anything faster than 100 would cause you to travel back in time.

Airlines 5 years later would advertise 100MPH Aircraft even though they were 105 because of that fear.

So Peter was equally fast for his day.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[!!WALDO!!]

Well, 'again', I mention 'uncrowned champion', and sure he's not the only one that fits in that category, just as there is no one great driver at Indy with exception to individual opinions, such as mine. Depending on what the fan/observer bases their notions on, be it stats and/or performances.

I realize you're referring to performance/accomplishments/stats at Indy only, which is why I'm still listing DG as my consideration (or opinion rather).

As I noted (in so many words) about his time commitments to managing not only his Indy program, but his GP campaign efforts as well, I think he did pretty good, since his focus wasn't entirely on driving duties.

And no, I didn't stray on the subject of his driving activities in other arenas of the sport. But since it was brought up about Trans-Am & Can-Am, those were two other series he became involved in as well, when it came to starting up teams and managing them (aside from himself competing in the events themselves when proper $$$ was available). So needless to say time was consumed there as well.

Of course I realize it was his decision to launch and maintain All-American Racers (All-Anglo Racers with respect to the GP efforts), and no doubt he probably realized the possible consequences of good driving opportunities being bypassed due to this commitment.

All things considered (Indy-wise), he still managed to perform well at the brickyard, which is why he deserves to be mentioned.

He was rewarded for his car building at the Speedway. In my 1968 Thread on the 500 you would find that 3 of the 4 new 1968 Eagles built were running 1-2-3 at the end of 1's race only to have a problem with 3's tire that cost him a spot.
I was always a fan of Dan and AAR but in looking at history one must remove the emotions of beliefs and look at realities of stats. Being a long time Foyt fan I could argue A.J. but Al has better stats. When things were fed into a computer then Bill Holland came though over Hartz and Horn, two non-winners.
One always must look at the question. Indianapolis 500. Not Dan. Riverside International Raceway, yes Dan.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[garyshell]

He was rewarded for his car building at the Speedway. In my 1968 Thread on the 500 you would find that 3 of the 4 new 1968 Eagles built were running 1-2-3 at the end of 1's race only to have a problem with 3's tire that cost him a spot.
I was always a fan of Dan and AAR but in looking at history one must remove the emotions of beliefs and look at realities of stats. Being a long time Foyt fan I could argue A.J. but Al has better stats. When things were fed into a computer then Bill Holland came though over Hartz and Horn, two non-winners.
One always must look at the question. Indianapolis 500. Not Dan. Riverside International Raceway, yes Dan.

As if a computer was doing the analysis! Look what "the computer" has done for picking the College Football bowl participants, yawn. I have made my living with computers since the day I graduated from high school. And I have to laugh every time I hear about some computer picking this or that. It was NOT the computer that picked it, it was the algorithm designed by the programmer(s). This is a HUMAN making the pick, assisted by the statistical analysis of the computer. An analysis that carries all of the biases introduced by the programmer when building the algorithm. The algorithm can be tweaked to bring out a whole host of outcomes, and not necessarily consciously tweaked, mind you.

To be honest, I don't think there is ANY way to statistically pick a best over a wide span of years. There is no REAL way to factor out all of the intangibles of differences in equipment, weather variations etc. etc. etc. In this sort of picking of the best of all time will always come down to an emotional choice. Stats can't possibly work when talking 1911 to present day. The "computer pick" is simply hiding behind a "never mind the man behind the curtain" scenario. Statistics don't lie, statisticians do.

Gary

[markabilly]

He was rewarded for his car building at the Speedway. In my 1968 Thread on the 500 you would find that 3 of the 4 new 1968 Eagles built were running 1-2-3 at the end of 1's race only to have a problem with 3's tire that cost him a spot.
I was always a fan of Dan and AAR but in looking at history one must remove the emotions of beliefs and look at realities of stats. Being a long time Foyt fan I could argue A.J. but Al has better stats. When things were fed into a computer then Bill Holland came though over Hartz and Horn, two non-winners.
One always must look at the question. Indianapolis 500. Not Dan. Riverside International Raceway, yes Dan.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)
Dan Gurney is an excellent choice. In 1967, he was running a very strong second to P. Jones, who when he broke, would have left dan the winner except he broke down. Foyt then had it.



Jim Clark or Mario Andretti---Jim Clark for the best spin everand to keep going down the track as though nothing had happenned (actually he did it twice) and the only driver there to ever lose the race purely because of a scoring error ---- as a result of the same spin (he kept it going), but the scorer failed to score him on the lap where he spun

Now as to greatest, if you mean the most wins over the longest period well duh.........that leaves foyt.............

[ShiftingGears]

Jim Clark for the best spin everand to keep going down the track as though nothing had happenned (actually he did it twice)

And if anyone has footage of this spin, please put a link up for it!

IMO it would be hard to justify classing someone as better than Jim Clark, at any circuit!

[Alexamateo]

......Jim Clark for the best spin everand to keep going down the track as though nothing had happenned (actually he did it twice) and the only driver there to ever lose the race purely because of a scoring error ---- as a result of the same spin (he kept it going), but the scorer failed to score him on the lap where he spun

.





From Andrew Ferguson book Team Lotus - The Indy Years:

Page 144 "Eventually the race officials agreed to let Colin and Cyril to investigate the official lap scorer's records and when after a though check, the two agreed that it was their own error, the matter was allowed to rest."
"Andy Granatelli remained unconvinced - how was it, he reasoned, that the official scoreboard, the announcer, the press and even Graham's John Mecom crew had Jimmy ahead before the tower scoreboard changed."

According to the book the scoreboard had Clark ahead. It then flicked and then had Hill in the lead


Had to comment on this, Although the debate still lingers in some circles, Graham Hill was the winner of the 1966 race. The passage above also shows me that although they might have thought otherwise at first, Both Jim Clark and Colin Chapman left Indy knowing they finished second.

[markabilly]

Had to comment on this, Although the debate still lingers in some circles, Graham Hill was the winner of the 1966 race. The passage above also shows me that although they might have thought otherwise at first, Both Jim Clark and Colin Chapman left Indy knowing they finished second.


that was the problem: the official record put Hill ahead, and to challenge that, would have been very difficult, if not impossible. And then there is the bigger problem of all the mess that a gentleman such as Clark would have done his best to avoid.

Like Grantatelli, I remain unconvinced.

And it has been years since i have seen the spin, on TV. Wish I had a link to it as well. What was amazing, was the standard absolute rule at the time was that no one could spin it like that on that piece of track without smacking the wall or at least stalling out. Clark proved the rule to be inapplicable to him.

A possible reason for the spins I read somewhere had to do with the engine not being a 16 cyclinder but the old ford v-8, as the other engine had been stolen or some such, which resulted in the car balanced incorrectly

[!!WALDO!!]

As if a computer was doing the analysis! Look what "the computer" has done for picking the College Football bowl participants, yawn. I have made my living with computers since the day I graduated from high school. And I have to laugh every time I hear about some computer picking this or that. It was NOT the computer that picked it, it was the algorithm designed by the programmer(s). This is a HUMAN making the pick, assisted by the statistical analysis of the computer. An analysis that carries all of the biases introduced by the programmer when building the algorithm. The algorithm can be tweaked to bring out a whole host of outcomes, and not necessarily consciously tweaked, mind you.

To be honest, I don't think there is ANY way to statistically pick a best over a wide span of years. There is no REAL way to factor out all of the intangibles of differences in equipment, weather variations etc. etc. etc. In this sort of picking of the best of all time will always come down to an emotional choice. Stats can't possibly work when talking 1911 to present day. The "computer pick" is simply hiding behind a "never mind the man behind the curtain" scenario. Statistics don't lie, statisticians do.

Gary

Yes and WIBC did the same thing in 2004 as the greatest race that never was on the Radio. Jimmy Bryan won that. He didn't even make the top 33 in our results.
See like an auto race on any given day with the field lined up a certain way then a result may occur.
We spent almost 24 months working out everything maybe if we had known of you we would have asked you to join this working group of people. We talked to other that have done the same thing and we incorporated new stats that had not been used even though they were available to be used. As I explained way back, emotions were not used to determine who would make the top 25.

No statisticians do not lie, they just can see things that others do not want to see or refuse to see.

Now what is interesting is now 2 years later, Bill Holland would not make the top 25 and thus not the top 33. So would he win again if we did it? Nope, again on any given day.

I do know why Bill Holland won that day because it was his statistics that did it. In every race he drove he gained positions when most of the rest lost positions. He gained positions to finish 2nd three time and 1st once in only 5 races.

Before we let anything out we checked the numbers and everything. Someone in our group checked with WIBC after the fact and found they actually had the same results but did not have tape of that race and had to go with something they had, Jimmy Bryan in 1958.

So Bill Holland is as good of pick as anyone of that era or any era. Bill away was the first political prisoner of racing too.

See as an historian of this sport, I stay away from opinions. That is for the uniformed to make. I saw many of those drivers race and to me strapping on the equipment and putting the car on the edge is enough for me. It doesn't matter a CoT or a IRL car or a Midget it is about racing and reaching for fleeting glory.

Bill Holland has been gone a long time, it would be nice to be able to honor one of the truly greats of the Speedway.

Thanks for your input, 2 years too late though. Here is some reading:
http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=473584&postcount=49
http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=473585&postcount=50
http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=473984&postcount=58

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[!!WALDO!!]

that was the problem: the official record put Hill ahead, and to challenge that, would have been very difficult, if not impossible. And then there is the bigger problem of all the mess that a gentleman such as Clark would have done his best to avoid.

Like Grantatelli, I remain unconvinced.

And it has been years since i have seen the spin, on TV. Wish I had a link to it as well. What was amazing, was the standard absolute rule at the time was that no one could spin it like that on that piece of track without smacking the wall or at least stalling out. Clark proved the rule to be inapplicable to him.

A possible reason for the spins I read somewhere had to do with the engine not being a 16 cyclinder but the old ford v-8, as the other engine had been stolen or some such, which resulted in the car balanced incorrectly

Graham Hill officially won the race but here is what happen. At the late stages of this race, Stewart was 1st in the #43 Mecom car, 2nd was the #19 of Clark, STP Lotus, 3rd was Hill in the #24 Mecom car and 4th was Al Unser in the #18 STP Lotus. Since Jimmy had worn out his WHITE WALLS tires in his two spins he was like Unser's car.
Hill was dogging Clark and Andy, Colin and Jimmy assumed he was a lap behind they motioned for him to pass. At the same time Al Bounces the #18 off the north short chute wall. The scorer assumed it was the #19. Clark was sure at this point the cars in front of him, Stewart and Hill were on the tail end of the lead lap and Jimmy slowed and those two drove away. Stewart lost oil pressure and Graham took the lead.
What was found in the post race scoring recap was that CLARK was actually a lap down to the field when he trailed Stewart and waved Hill by it was for position but one down to Stewart, then he went down a second lap but that was put back in before the checkered and once Stewart dropped out Hill took the lead to win by a half a lap over Clark.

Clark was trying to score the race from the car, Andy's scorer was trying to tell them what was going on but Andy and Colin didn't want to hear it.

They sold that Lotus to Foyt for $50,000 and Foyt tested it at Milwaukee on Friday before the Sunday Mays 100 and after 5 laps the suspension broke hitting the frontstretch was and bursting into flame seriously burning Foyt.
So Clark's car was a squirrel at best and he and Al did a great job of soldiering as far as they did.

So the real winner was Hill and a valuable lesson was learned, do not score from the cockpit as you can't see everything.


(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[!!WALDO!!]

Dan Gurney is an excellent choice. In 1967, he was running a very strong second to P. Jones, who when he broke, would have left dan the winner except he broke down. Foyt then had it.

But Dan broke, even led when the turbine was in the pits after a spin. So Dan could not be considered a possible winner because he didn't finish.


(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[garyshell]

No statisticians do not lie, they just can see things that others do not want to see or refuse to see.



Ah but they DO, even to the point of instructional books being published on the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728

I do agree with you that in a true statistical model that emotions should have no place. And I applaud the efforts that folks made to try to make this pick. But I think it is taken a bit too seriously as if it were some absolute truth. It is only a truth based on the weights placed on all of the various coefficients in the algorithm. Weights that were placed by the human particpants in building the algorithm.

My point is that I think there is no way to ever level the statistical playing field for a race in 1911 to one run in 2005. I do think it is VERY possible to make such comparisons over a shorter time line.

In my business process planning and analysis software we don't get into simulation directly, but do share the models and some of the collected data with simulation engines. I know that the folks behind those engines admonish people to use "fresh" versus "stale" data to do drive their simulation runs.

I am curious about something. What was the process used to decide which stats to include? And how were the various factors weighted? How were those weights chosen? And was the algorithm used to go back and simulate all of the races in the data set to refine the weights or test its accuracy? Please, don't get me wrong I am NOT trying to tear down or denigrate the exercise at all. I am very curious as to how the process was carried out. Simulations are something I have a lot of interest in, but only participation in at arms length as I interact with other vendors. And know that for business model simulations folks are very careful about the timelines over which they carry these out. I am pretty sure I would see a lot of rolled eyes if I were to suggest an almost 100 year span of data to be simulated.

Gary

[!!WALDO!!]

Ah but the DO, even to the point of instructional books being published on the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728


I do agree with you that in a true statistical model that emotions should have no place. And I applaud the efforts that folks made to try to make this pick. But I think it is taken a bit too seriously as if it were some absolute truth. It is only a truth based on the weights placed on all of the various coefficients in the algorithm. Weights that were placed by the human particpants in building the algorithm.

It is an absolute truth for that exact time. 3 races later it may not be true.


My point is that I think there is no way to ever level the statistical playing field for a race in 1911 to one run in 2005. I do think it is VERY possible to make such comparisons over a shorter time line.

We found several but one glaring.


In my business process planning and analysis software we don't get into simulation directly, but do share the models and some of the collected data with simulation engines. I know that the folks behind those engines admonish people to use "fresh" versus "stale" data to do drive their simulation runs.

This was discussed by our people that had a combined 200 years of computer programing. Me I was more interested in getting to the 33. That is my expertise not the computer end.


I am curious about something. What was the process used to decide which stats to include? And how were the various factors weighted? How were those weights chosen? And was the algorithm used to go back and simulate all of the races in the data set to refine the weights or test its accuracy? Please, don't get me wrong I am NOT trying to tear down or denigrate the exercise at all. I am very curious as to how the process was carried out. Simulations are something I have a lot of interest in, but only participation in at arms length as I interact with other vendors. And know that for business model simulations folks are very careful about the timelines over which they carry these out. I am pretty sure I would see a lot of rolled eyes if I were to suggest an almost 100 year span of data to be simulated.

Gary

Again I gave you links to some of the thought process I found in my old notes. I was behind the 33, not the actual testing. We knew what ever the results may be that it would be a "snapshot" of that day.
The actual programming, imput, testing and final run occurred in London. I like many were surprised when this thing coughed out 200 laps of racing.

Maybe if it is done again then we can set in another set of numbers. If you look at the links I supplied you you will see some of the relavent stats we used. The one not used was the 118 points for Al Unser as that was to determine who would make the top 25.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[garyshell]

I am curious about something. What was the process used to decide which stats to include? And how were the various factors weighted? How were those weights chosen? And was the algorithm used to go back and simulate all of the races in the data set to refine the weights or test its accuracy? Please, don't get me wrong I am NOT trying to tear down or denigrate the exercise at all. I am very curious as to how the process was carried out. Simulations are something I have a lot of interest in, but only participation in at arms length as I interact with other vendors. And know that for business model simulations folks are very careful about the timelines over which they carry these out. I am pretty sure I would see a lot of rolled eyes if I were to suggest an almost 100 year span of data to be simulated.

Gary


Again I gave you links to some of the thought process I found in my old notes. I was behind the 33, not the actual testing. We knew what ever the results may be that it would be a "snapshot" of that day.
The actual programming, imput, testing and final run occurred in London. I like many were surprised when this thing coughed out 200 laps of racing.

Maybe if it is done again then we can set in another set of numbers. If you look at the links I supplied you you will see some of the relavent stats we used. The one not used was the 118 points for Al Unser as that was to determine who would make the top 25.

I re-read those three messages, but still don't understand what weights each factor was given, or were they all considered equal? Was it more important that someone had more top ten finishes, or more important that they gained more positions? Also all of these numbers were based on how they performed against their peers. But there is nothing there to attempt to show how they might do against their moderned day opponents. Lets say just for the sake of discussion that in one year a particular fellow had a phenominal set of stats using the criteria these folks used. But this guy was up against a field of hacks who couldn't drive worth a damn. This guys stats would be overly inflated as opposed to what it would be like to drive against a field who were top notch. I would think that if you want to apply these sorts of stats over disparate fields of drivers years apart, you would need to factor in how each driver rates RELATIVE to the others in the field. A guy who scores well with the criteria used who did so against a field where lots of drivers did well should garner more attention than a driver who did well in a field where no one else was a standout in any way.

I see now that the factors mentioned were ONLY used to set the field of 33, not the simulation. I would be VERY VERY curious on how the simultation was programmed. I still don't see how you can simulate a race between a guy who drove in 1911 and someone who drove in 2005.

Gary

[!!WALDO!!]

I re-read those three messages, but still don't understand what weights each factor was given, or were they all considered equal? Was it more important that someone had more top ten finishes, or more important that they gained more positions? Also all of these numbers were based on how they performed against their peers. But there is nothing there to attempt to show how they might do against their moderned day opponents. Lets say just for the sake of discussion that in one year a particular fellow had a phenominal set of stats using the criteria these folks used. But this guy was up against a field of hacks who couldn't drive worth a damn. This guys stats would be overly inflated as opposed to what it would be like to drive against a field who were top notch. I would think that if you want to apply these sorts of stats over disparate fields of drivers years apart, you would need to factor in how each driver rates RELATIVE to the others in the field. A guy who scores well with the criteria used who did so against a field where lots of drivers did well should garner more attention than a driver who did well in a field where no one else was a standout in any way.

I see now that the factors mentioned were ONLY used to set the field of 33, not the simulation. I would be VERY VERY curious on how the simultation was programmed. I still don't see how you can simulate a race between a guy who drove in 1911 and someone who drove in 2005.

Gary

I would be interested in that also but to what end? On any given day anyone could win. We could put in the 1952 Starting Field and put in factors but does it mean Troy Ruttman would win again?

See I understand you wanting to make an issue out of something that occurred 2 years ago and for 2 years prior, to come up to a "any given day" situation were Bill Holland won.
No top 10 points determined the top 25, the rest requires reading of the stats and the explaination of it by someone else.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[garyshell]

I would be interested in that also but to what end? On any given day anyone could win. We could put in the 1952 Starting Field and put in factors but does it mean Troy Ruttman would win again?

See I understand you wanting to make an issue out of something that occurred 2 years ago and for 2 years prior, to come up to a "any given day" situation were Bill Holland won.
No top 10 points determined the top 25, the rest requires reading of the stats and the explaination of it by someone else.


Just forget about it. I am sorry I asked. I thought there might be an opportunity here for a discussion of how this was done or might be done. But you see it as my "wanting to make an issue out of something that occurred 2 years ago and for 2 years prior". I am not making an issue out of anything. Just trying to discuss it. Another case of anyone who dares suggest another way to something you say, is just wrong. I get it. Moving on... [shakes head]

Gary

[!!WALDO!!]

Just forget about it. I am sorry I asked. I thought there might be an opportunity here for a discussion of how this was done or might be done. But you see it as my "wanting to make an issue out of something that occurred 2 years ago and for 2 years prior". I am not making an issue out of anything. Just trying to discuss it. Another case of anyone who dares suggest another way to something you say, is just wrong. I get it. Moving on... [shakes head]

Gary

Did you read the explaination? It took a long time to settle on 33 as it required a formula to figure it out.
You wanted to be in comparisions of drivers to their peers. The top 10 did that. Only problem with the top 25, 26 in this case was the longevity of the driver. That was why when we looked at it and 5 years appears to to the average length of a drivers career. That is why we look at the first 5 years and then the career. Now maybe you would take a different set of 5 years but all drivers start with their first race and end with their last. Another constant.
So Al Unser in points and categories would be the Greatest driver but not in the 1st 5 years, longevity gave him that.

I see you get your feelings hurt real easily. This is ancient HISTORY. Maybe we need just to put 33 drivers into the mix and forget about it. We took emotions, wishes and desires out of it and left it to the HISTORY of the race. Then we found statistics that do not lie and 4 people that have no racing background and 4 people that did put a program together that took months and months. I stayed out of it as I knew one stat they didn't know was intangables.
My 1952 example would have Bill Vukovich's steering broke 9 laps from the end? I doubt it very much. So the "any given day" concept was used to work this out. Most things occurred the way they did based on the drivers past performance.

I set in this thread some simple guidelines. Notice I have no opinion as my favorite was Billy Alley and "Wild" Bill Cummings. Neither made the top 33 in our computer game and neither mentioned here.

I have been beaten on for establishing these rules and I have also seen people consider one lap as it.

All I tried to do was show some work done. Again like the 500, did you really think Scott Dixon would win or did you see Vitor Meira like I did?

I am sorry, but a lot in my life changed from March of 2004 until April 29th of 2006 and since it is fantasy anyway it is forgotten as it has no history to it.

Just the facts maam.

NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[Dave Brock]

Ok some rules although most will not follow them.
1. They must have driven 5 races.
2. They must have finished at least one race 12th or better.
3. They must have gone 500 miles at least once.
4. If you think a certain way then back it up with some facts.

So this eliminates Harroun and Montoya with rule 1 and Jim Hurtubise with rule 2 and Bob Harkey with rule 3.

Otherwise have fun with this since I cannot play.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED or ACTUAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD or NOT YET BORN.)



You are all WET WALDO...!

The greatest human to have driven at THE SPEEDWAY was NEVER even entered in a race there!

Take 3 seconds to try and figure out my angle
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Give up yet?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

It was Mister Anton Hulman....
NO ONE ever attempted to pass him or be in from of him while he was driving on the property.....

....and NO ONE ever came running up to him and called him TONY or DEMANDED an autograph....it was ALWAYS
MISTER HULMAN...would you PLEASE........

IF M.A.H. was behind the wheel inside the gates.....HE ruled the pavement and ALL the people around him.......

Therefore my lerned friend you are in error and I am RIGHT and you LOSE this round.....
thanks for playing...game over.
please deposit another dollar
if you wish to TRY and

FOOL The GUESSER

Hows the cat doin? :s mokin:

[garyshell]

You are all WET WALDO...!

The greatest human to have driven at THE SPEEDWAY was NEVER even entered in a race there!

Take 3 seconds to try and figure out my angle

Give up yet?
It was Mister Anton Hulman....
NO ONE ever attempted to pass him or be in from of him while he was driving on the property.....

....and NO ONE ever came running up to him and called him TONY or DEMANDED an autograph....it was ALWAYS
MISTER HULMAN...would you PLEASE........

IF M.A.H. was behind the wheel inside the gates.....HE ruled the pavement and ALL the people around him.......

Therefore my lerned friend you are in error and I am RIGHT and you LOSE this round.....
thanks for playing...game over.
please deposit another dollar
if you wish to TRY and

FOOL The GUESSER

Hows the cat doin? :s mokin:

Oh, goody. It looks like I just might get my wish. Let the games begin! :rolleyes:

Sign me looking on with bewildered amusement,

Gary

[!!WALDO!!]

So Gary what wish is that?

Actually Hulman was considered part of the 33 by some. Of course it was rejected as we have no driving record. Eddie Rickenbacker was also considered but Eddie suffered from not having enough money although we have a driving record.

So yes for the final 3 all three owners were considered until the guidelines were refined for obvious reasons.


Patch the cat is failing rapidly and the real Waldo is sad that her litter mate is dying. 17 years and 10 months, and leaving her barn near Waldo, WI on the day Foyt went off the track at Elkhart Lake she did pretty well, surviving many things including a brain tumor so she used all 9. Hoping she goes on her own rather than the other way but appears not to be done yet.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[garyshell]

So Gary what wish is that?

The wish, which I expressed in another thread, was to see the two guys here that seem to want to use their retention of arcane trivia as a way to demean other fans, engage in a throw down as to which one knows more minutiae.

Gary

[!!WALDO!!]

The wish, which I expressed in another thread, was to see the two guys here that seem to want to use their retention of arcane trivia as a way to demean other fans, engage in a throw down as to which one knows more minutiae.

Gary

Oh I see. I didn't see any of that in Mr. Brock's post. No trivia just an opinion based on a belief.

It appears only you got flustered about that.

So how was that 1957 Tape Delayed race? :rolleyes: :D :o

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[!!WALDO!!]

I found this on my spare hard drive. This is the final finish to the race that never happened:

1. 13 Bill Holland 200L 16 Laps Led
2. 22 Ted Horn 200L 1 Lap Led
3. 6 Jacques Villenueve 200L 3 Laps Led
4. 9 Helio Castroneves 200L 7 Laps Led
5. 1 Harry Hartz 200L 3 Laps Led
6. 26 Tommy Milton 200L 12 Laps Led
7. 31 Jim Rathmann 200L 0
8. 32 Wilbur Shaw 200L 1 Lap Led
9. 20 Al Unser, Sr. 200L 10 Laps Led
10. 12 Roberto Guerrero 200L 0
11. 21 Cliff Bergere 199L 0
12. 10 Michael Andretti 199L 2 Laps Led
13. 4 Ralph DePalma 199L 23 Laps Led
14. 18 Al Unser, Jr 199L 0
15. 33 Ray Harroun 197L 11 Laps Led
16. 3 Tom Sneva 177L 0
17. 19 Arie Luyendyk 177L 0
18. 23 Emerson Fittipaldi 167L 0
19. 8 Gordon Johncock 165L 0
20. 11 Bobby Rahal 153L 5 Laps Led
21. 29 Lee Wallard 151L 12 Laps Led
22. 17 A.J. Foyt Jr. 146L 4 Laps Led
23. 5 Jim Clark 130L 16 Laps Led
24. 28 Mauri Rose 119L 4 Laps Led
25. 16 Louis Meyer 119L 5 Laps Led
26. 14 Bill Vukovich 118L 26 Laps Led
27. 7 Rick Mears 105L 6 Laps Led
28. 25 Buddy Lazier 97L 3 Laps Led
29. 30 Rodger Ward 88L 0
30. 15 Peter DePaolo 71L 8 Laps Led
31. 2 Mario Andretti 49L 7 Laps Led
32. 24 Bobby Unser 22L 0
33. 27 Johnny Rutherford 8L 0

[!!WALDO!!]

Patch the cat is failing rapidly and the real Waldo is sad that her litter mate is dying. 17 years and 10 months, and leaving her barn near Waldo, WI on the day Foyt went off the track at Elkhart Lake she did pretty well, surviving many things including a brain tumor so she used all 9. Hoping she goes on her own rather than the other way but appears not to be done yet.

She is done and will be gone on her own in an hour or so. August 8th, 1990 to June 8th, 2008? She didn't do bad.

Like a driver she knew when it was time to hang it up and move on to a new kitten vessel.

World needs pets to keep us calm and demostrate on a daily basis how much love they can give.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)

[Bob Riebe]

She is done and will be gone on her own in an hour or so. August 8th, 1990 to June 8th, 2008? She didn't do bad.

Like a driver she knew when it was time to hang it up and move on to a new kitten vessel.

World needs pets to keep us calm and demostrate on a daily basis how much love they can give.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)
Waldo we may dicker on some things but here you have my true sympathy and empathy.
I had to put a my much loved Humphrey to sleep some years back, and it is misery unmeasured.
Now Fuzzy is eighteen, and amazingly frisky, I pray that he goes in natural manner.
God speed Waldo and to Patch.
Bob

[!!WALDO!!]

Waldo we may dicker on some things but here you have my true sympathy and empathy.
I had to put a my much loved Humphrey to sleep some years back, and it is misery unmeasured.
Now Fuzzy is eighteen, and amazingly frisky, I pray that he goes in natural manner.
God speed Waldo and to Patch.
Bob

Thank you as Waldo is meowing in the back ground. She and her sister did well. If you ever on the way to RA and on W-57 and you see "C" you are in the area of the birth of two great aniimals.

Amazingly they dislike cheese but would die for tuna juice.

[AAReagles]

I was always a fan of Dan and AAR but in looking at history one must remove the emotions of beliefs and look at realities of stats.I agree. However, emotions/beliefs weren't necessarily what I was basing my opinion on. And yes, stats are necessary for the sport and, of course, record books, but they don't tell the whole story.

But I see your round about point that more info should be provided, so I'll elaborate some:

1967 - *noted below

1968 - finished 2nd, behind B. Unser, who's private-entry eagle was fitted with an Offenhauser - providing up to 100 hp advantage. Not to take away anything from the Unser's victory. It is a fact.

1969 - finished 2nd behind Andretti, while driving the ill-handing Mark 7 eagle (AKA - 'Santa Ana' ).

1970 - finished 3rd behind Al Unser and Mark Donahue (respectively), while driving the Mark 8 (AKA type 7000). Gurney admits that the handling of this car also, would have prevented him from taking the checker, but matters weren't made much better when the fuel reserve valve locked-up and didn't work. Which kept running low on fuel so much, that he was resigned to making 7 pit stops, as opposed to Al Unser's five.

Another stat - Gurney was already past his prime (age 35) by the time (1966) the eagle cars first launched themselves on motor racing grids around the world... including, but not limited to Indianapolis, as far as american open wheel racing goes.






But Dan broke, even led when the turbine was in the pits after a spin. So Dan could not be considered a possible winner because he didn't finish. Not so sure about that. Although the 1968 Indy was his favorite race at he brickyard, he figured his best chance for winning there would have been in 1967.

As Gurney put it, in so many words, he was leading the piston-brigade while he was in the race. Had mechanical woes not forced him out, the results of 1967 might have been different.

[garyshell]

She is done and will be gone on her own in an hour or so. August 8th, 1990 to June 8th, 2008? She didn't do bad.

Like a driver she knew when it was time to hang it up and move on to a new kitten vessel.

World needs pets to keep us calm and demostrate on a daily basis how much love they can give.

(NO REFERENCE, IMPLIED OR REAL TO ANY POSTER, LIVING, DEAD, or NOT YET BORN.)


Despite whatever has transpired between us I do feel you pain, having been where more than once. And you do have my sincere sympathies.

When we had to put my last cat down my Labrador wandered the house for a week or more looking for her. They were fast friends. Little "Occie" (looked like a minature Ocelot) thought she was a dog. And would sleep betwen the dogs paws with the dogs chin resting on her back. I miss that little dickens.

Gary

[!!WALDO!!]

I agree. However, emotions/beliefs weren't necessarily what I was basing my opinion on. And yes, stats are necessary for the sport and, of course, record books, but they don't tell the whole story.

But I see your round about point that more info should be provided, so I'll elaborate some:

1967 - *noted below

1968 - finished 2nd, behind B. Unser, who's private-entry eagle was fitted with an Offenhauser - providing up to 100 hp advantage. Not to take away anything from the Unser's victory. It is a fact.

1969 - finished 2nd behind Andretti, while driving the ill-handing Mark 7 eagle (AKA - 'Santa Ana' ).

1970 - finished 3rd behind Al Unser and Mark Donahue (respectively), while driving the Mark 8 (AKA type 7000). Gurney admits that the handling of this car also, would have prevented him from taking the checker, but matters weren't made much better when the fuel reserve valve locked-up and didn't work. Which kept running low on fuel so much, that he was resigned to making 7 pit stops, as opposed to Al Unser's five.

Another stat - Gurney was already past his prime (age 35) by the time (1966) the eagle cars first launched themselves on motor racing grids around the world... including, but not limited to Indianapolis, as far as american open wheel racing goes.





Not so sure about that. Although the 1968 Indy was his favorite race at he brickyard, he figured his best chance for winning there would have been in 1967.

As Gurney put it, in so many words, he was leading the piston-brigade while he was in the race. Had mechanical woes not forced him out, the results of 1967 might have been different.

He won the Louis J. Schwitzer Award for the Weslake Engine in 1968 (Low cost engine), in 1972 for the 1972 Eagle and Jon Ward won it for the 1981 Eagle.
You got to look at it from two different angles. Is designs and builds got him farther at Indy than his driving.
Even Dan would agree to that.

[!!WALDO!!]

Here is a great 500 trivia question. Three drivers led the 500 in two different cars in the same race, who were they?

[AAReagles]

... You got to look at it from two different angles. Is designs and builds got him farther at Indy than his driving.
Even Dan would agree to that.

Correct. And yes I have observed his contests at Indianapolis in numerous perspectives while he was racing; as driver, test driver, driver recruiter, team manager (constructor), innovator/promoter, negotiator (with numerous sponsors - like any other constructor would have to).

Not to mention that some of his driver/owner operations were conducted overseas at the time. The logistics involved in maintaining such operations is not something I think can be easily dismissed.

My point was that for a guy who fell (just) short of the checker, he did exceptionally well when you consider all the things had occured during his run as driver/constructor.

And as silly as this may sound, I wouldn't want it any other way... other than a 67' 500 win to top off what some might consider his most notable season. As I'm glad he had the passion and determination to following through on fielding an american-based team on the Grand Prix campaign, as well as competing at Indianapolis, and other various forms of racing.

Anyways as you stated, Harry Hartz finished 2nd 3 times, and that's a good argument. Rex Mays is another good candidate (4 poles, 2nds). I was racking my brain for other drivers to think of, but I'm afraid that my thoughts only go far back as the 50's.

I tried to think of someone who else had come very close at times, but Tom Sneva was the only other driver I could figure, and of course he doesn't count as a possible 'uncrowned champ' since he won in 1983.




Additional note: with all this compilations of stats/facts you're making, I hope you're planning publishing a book someday, as it is interesting; though I don't always have the time to read every thread that's been posted.

Be sure to include detailed reports of individual races too, as that's one thing lacking from most Indianapolis 500 books, particularly the roadster eras.

Anyways good luck, if such ambitions should be pursued.

[!!WALDO!!]

Correct. And yes I have observed his contention at Indianapolis in numerous perspectives while he was racing; as driver, test driver, driver recruiter, team manager (constructor), innovator/promoter, negotiator (with numerous sponsors - like any other constructor would have to).

Winning cars in 1968, 1973 and 1975


Not to mention that some of his driver/owner operations were conducted overseas at the time. The logistics involved in maintaining such operations is not something I think can be easily dismissed.

He did struggle with that and his F-1 operation was in the Harry Weslake shop in England.


My point was that for a guy who fell (just) short of the checker, he did exceptionally well when you consider all the things had occured during his run as driver/constructor.

It occurred a few times. Dan sold cars to pay for his equipment and without the 1972, 1973 Eagles there would have been some short fields in 1975.


And as silly as this may sound, I wouldn't want it any other way... other than a 67' 500 win to top off what some might consider his most notable season. As I'm glad he had the passion and determination to following through on fielding an american-based team on the Grand Prix campaign, as well as competing at Indianapolis, and other various forms of racing.

The only 2 laps he led was at the 1/4 mark when the Turbine was in the pits. The car started a wretching death about 20 laps later even though almost another 60 went by before he called it.


Anyways as you stated, Harry Hartz finished 2nd 3 times, and that's a good argument. Rex Mays is another good candidate (4 poles, 2nds). I was racking my brain for other drivers to think of, but I'm afraid that my thoughts only go far back as the 50's.

Many guys knocked on the door. Ted Horn was the greatest door knocker of all time. Using the 10-1 formula you would find, Al, AJ, Rick, Gordy and Horn.


I tried to think of someone who else had come very close at times, but Tom Sneva was the only other driver I could figure, and of course he doesn't count as a possible 'uncrowned champ' since he won in 1983.

Modern day is Scott Goodyear.





Additional note: with all this compilations of stats/facts you're making, I hope you're planning publishing a book someday, as it is interesting; though I don't always have the time to read every thread that's been posted.

Be sure to include detailed reports of individual races too, as that's one thing lacking from most Indianapolis 500 books, particularly the roadster eras.

Anyways good luck, if such ambitions should be pursued.

Have been doing this since I was a child. Have published, have written stories and covered races for publications.
Here in the land of opinions, that counts more that what the peepers actually saw.

I do thank you very much as you thought it out. Dan's best chance to win was the 1969 race as it was expected that Mario would stick his foot through the car but he didn't even though it was overheating and detonating during the final 100 miles.

[!!WALDO!!]

Patches Lynn Taylor
August 8th, 1990---June 7th, 2008 1:40PM CDT

[garyshell]

Patches Lynn Taylor
August 8th, 1990---June 7th, 2008 1:40PM CDT


A damn fine looking feline! The name fit perfectly. I am sure she will be missed by you and her pal.

Gary

[AAReagles]

... Dan's best chance to win was the 1969 race as it was expected that Mario would stick his foot through the car but he didn't even though it was overheating and detonating during the final 100 miles.
I was under the impression that Gurney thought it was the 1967 race, because the car was a front-runner (swapping places with AJ Foyt behind the turbine).

Myself, I figured 1968. After the 67' dissappointment of the DOHC Ford, he switched his ride with the pushrod version for purposes of reliability. Down @ 100 hp from B. Unser to finish 2nd. But I also realize that Gurney had enough luck on his side where the misfortunes fell on the turbines, Andretti & Llyod Ruby... just not enough for Unser to fall out as well.

The 69' Eagle (Mk 8) didn't get sorted out till later in the season, where it's handling was much improved. Though you're right; as Gurney cited after fixing the problem at IMS (while Goodyear folks were there during the IRP race), he not only found the car was easier to drive, but also increased his speed to 1 1/2 mph.

[!!WALDO!!]

I was under the impression that Gurney thought it was the 1967 race, because the car was a front-runner (swapping places with AJ Foyt behind the turbine).

1967 everyone was chasing the turbine. When Parnelli passed Mario exiting T-2 on lap 1, Mario said later, "the SOB didn't have the decency to wave."
Dan led his only laps because the Turbine spun in the North Short Chute with LeeRoy Yarbrough. Andy said later, that the way PJ slammed it back into gear may have caused the damage that would take it out.
Only that and pit stops kept the turbine from leading them all.


Myself, I figured 1968. After the 67' dissappointment of the DOHC Ford, he switched his ride with the pushrod version for purposes of reliability. Down @ 100 hp from B. Unser to finish 2nd. But I also realize that Gurney had enough luck on his side where the misfortunes fell on the turbines, Andretti & Llyod Ruby... just not enough for Unser to fall out as well.

Well it was a victory of sorts. Three new Eagles, 3 different powerplants, 1,2 and 4th. Not bad for a 5th place car.


The 69' Eagle (Mk 8) didn't get sorted out till later in the season, where it's handling was much improved. Though you're right; as Gurney cited after fixing the problem at IMS (while Goodyear folks were there during the IRP race), he not only found the car was easier to drive, but also increased his speed to 1 1/2 mph.

He modified his with a bigger radiator opening but, Joe Leonard in the Smokey Yunick Mk8 Turbo-Ford had second and was faster than Mario but a rock through the radiator and replacing it scored him in 6th. Denis Hulme in the #42 Turbo-Ford Mk8 was running third when it blew. He could have won that thing.
Mario was hanging on by a thread, Dan was not handling, Bobby's 4WD Lola was going through shoes like a growing child, Kenyon was in a different area code, Revson came from 33rd and was in a different area code than Kenyon. Leonard, Donohue, Foyt all were front runners until ills cost them pit time. Dickson and Johns were like Revson, last row starters. Only time the 3 front row starters, Foyt, Andretti, Unser and last row starters, Dickson, Johns and Revson finished in the top 10.
Point is Dan was the healthiest car running with a chance in 1969.

1970 he took what he could get as one of the most competitive fields turned into Al Unser leading 190 Laps.

[PA Rick]

The Great Roberto Guerrero !!


nuff said !

I was there the day he finished first at the Indy 500. In fact he finished so fast the green had not waved before he was finished.
BTW, that was back when the track sold out the week after the previous 500.
My vote for the best indy 500 driver is Rick Mears, the best race driver to drive at Indy was Mario Andretti.

[!!WALDO!!]

Here is a great 500 trivia question. Three drivers led the 500 in two different cars in the same race, who were they?

Interesting, in 1923 Howdy Wilcox led the 500 10 laps in his car, and 41 in the winning Tommy Milton car. Milton did take the Checkered Flag himself.

In 1924 Joe Boyer led one lap in his car, and 24 in L.L. Corum's to become co winners. Boyer took the flag.

In 1941 Mauri Rose led 6 laps in his Maserati and took over the Noc Out Hose Clamp car of Floyd Davis on Lap 72 and led 162-200 to become the second co winners.

Interestingly, neither Loras L. Corum or Floyd Davis ever led a lap of the 500 that caused their face to end up on the Borg-Warner Trophy. Neither actually ever led a lap in the 500.

[AAReagles]

1967 everyone was chasing the turbine... Dan led his only laps because the Turbine spun in the North Short Chute with LeeRoy Yarbrough. Andy said later, that the way PJ slammed it back into gear may have caused the damage that would take it out.
Only that and pit stops kept the turbine from leading them all.
Right. Those would be the only laps Gurney ever led at the brickyard. After Gurney's brief stint in front of the turbine, Foyt managed to lead 4 or 5 laps around the 80 lap mark, then again for another laps some 15-20 laps @ three-quarters way thru the race, and of course the final 3 or 4 laps when a $6 bearing broke on the turbine.

Jones perhaps lost some lead laps to Foyt's closing of the ranks during the caution periods. Though some rival teams complained about it, as well as the track announcer observing and notifying the fans, the organizing body didn't feel that it was enough to sustain a penalty for the procedures Foyt made.

In short, it apparrently wasn't as bad as B. Unser's move under caution after coming out of the pits in 1981.





Mario was hanging on by a thread, Dan was not handling... Point is Dan was the healthiest car running with a chance in 1969.
Not much of a chance really when the car was handling as bad as it was. With the car not being sorted out properly prior to the 500, Gurney mentioned that it was quite a struggle driving the thing with terrible understeer.

Didn't Lloyd Ruby fall out of that race too ?... when he was leading off and on and had that mishap with the fuel hose not disengaging while taking off from the pits ?

[!!WALDO!!]

Right. Those would be the only laps Gurney ever led at the brickyard. After Gurney's brief stint in front of the turbine, Foyt managed to lead 4 or 5 laps around the 80 lap mark, then again for another laps some 15-20 laps @ three-quarters way thru the race, and of course the final 3 or 4 laps when a $6 bearing broke on the turbine.


Jones perhaps lost some lead laps to Foyt's closing of the ranks during the caution periods. Though some rival teams complained about it, as well as the track announcer observing and notifying the fans, the organizing body didn't feel that it was enough to sustain a penalty for the procedures Foyt made.

That was Bobby Unser in 1968 until getting behind the #20 and lost about 4 seconds.




Not much of a chance really when the car was handling as bad as it was. With the car not being sorted out properly prior to the 500, Gurney mentioned that it was quite a struggle driving the thing with terrible understeer.

Didn't Lloyd Ruby fall out of that race too ?... when he was leading off and on and had that mishap with the fuel hose not disengaging while taking off from the pits ?

Handling better than Bobby, Dan though didn't change rubber so it wasn't too bad.

On Lloyd yes but I was only referring to the Mk8s in the race.

[coogmaster]

Here's some more trivia for everyone:

Who is the only driver to finish every Indianapolis 500 that he started?

Hint: Being flagged counts.

And another if you've got the time:

There are 8 drivers who have raced in the 500 whose BIOLOGICAL fathers won the race. Name them. No hints with this one.

[!!WALDO!!]

Here's some more trivia for everyone:

Who is the only driver to finish every Indianapolis 500 that he started?

Hint: Being flagged counts.


Ray Harroun and Juan Pablo Montoya and Jacques Villenueve and Mickey Rupp and Bobby Johns.

And another if you've got the time:


There are 8 drivers who have raced in the 500 whose BIOLOGICAL fathers won the race. Name them. No hints with this one.

Al Unser Jr, Robbie Unser, Billy Vukovich, Johnny Parsons, Michael Andretti, Arie Luyendyk Jr. and P.J. Jones.

Larry Foyt is actually his daughter's kid so he is his biological Grandson but adopted son.
Pancho Carter and Johnny Parsons have the same mom.

Howdy Wilcox and Howdy Wilcox II are not related at all.

[coogmaster]

Ray Harroun and Juan Pablo Montoya and Jacques Villenueve and Mickey Rupp and Bobby Johns.

And another if you've got the time:



Al Unser Jr, Robbie Unser, Billy Vukovich, Johnny Parsons, Michael Andretti, Arie Luyendyk Jr. and P.J. Jones.

Larry Foyt is actually his daughter's kid so he is his biological Grandson but adopted son.
Pancho Carter and Johnny Parsons have the same mom.

Howdy Wilcox and Howdy Wilcox II are not related at all.

First one: Correct, although I didn't think of those. Howdy Holmes is another one.

Second: All correct, but you forgot Jeff Andretti as the eighth one

[!!WALDO!!]

First one: Correct, although I didn't think of those. Howdy Holmes is another one.

Second: All correct, but you forgot Jeff Andretti as the eighth one

There are actually more in the first. Yes, Jeff.

[!!WALDO!!]

There are actually more in the first. Yes, Jeff.


Al Holbert and Jim Hickman come to mind also.

[!!WALDO!!]

My vote for the best indy 500 driver is Rick Mears, the best race driver to drive at Indy was Mario Andretti.

?????????? Since he drove on the 500 then??????

Now Mario did win at the 500, at the IRP road course and at the Indiana State Fairgrounds Mile but not in the same year.
Al Unser won all three in 1970.

So the best driver to drive at Indianapolis, a stretch but possible. Best driver to drive at the 500, after you said Mears? I don't get it.

[!!WALDO!!]

Here is one and considering a the times he and where he race it was a bit of an accomplishment.

Who was the first 500 winner to be Jewish?

He is pictured leaning by his car and talking in the "Rings" commercial and is one of the 33 greats.

[champcarray]

I'm pretty much in PA Rick's corner: The best Indy 500 driver of all time is probably Rick Mears. The best driver ever to compete in 5 or more 500s? My vote is Mario Andretti, too. There have been other great drivers who drove fewer than 5 I500s (Jim Clark, Jackie Stewart, etc.), but they don't meet your criteria.

[!!WALDO!!]

I'm pretty much in PA Rick's corner: The best Indy 500 driver of all time is probably Rick Mears. The best driver ever to compete in 5 or more 500s? My vote is Mario Andretti, too. There have been other great drivers who drove fewer than 5 I500s (Jim Clark, Jackie Stewart, etc.), but they don't meet your criteria.

Ok, then why Mario? Because he was World Champion? World Champion in a season where he and his Teammate were the contenders for the Championship because in 1978 Team Lotus had the set up?

Mario did more outstanding things than that and harder. Is only 500 win was his most difficult drive of his career.

I know I shouldn't mention this I saw Mario from day 4 of his Indy Car Career. I saw him in Sprints, Midgets, Stocks, Sports Cars, Champ Dirt, F-5000 and yes F-1.

Great yes but that has nothing to do with his performance at ONE PLACE and ONE RACE.

[coogmaster]

Ok, then why Mario?

The reason that I think Mario should be considered, and for that matter Al Unser, is for one simple reason: They did it longer than anyone else (except AJ) and they were COMPETITIVE until their very last years of competition, into the early 90s. Mario and Al both led in the '93 500 and were contenders late in the race until Al lost his clutch and Mario lost the handle.

As far as racing in the 500, I vote Al over Mario, because he won 4 to Mario's 1, and later in his career, he did it with lesser equipment, while Mario had a great ride until he retired.

But as far as the best racer, I'd put Mario atop that list, for his accomplishments in other forms of racing.

And Waldo, for your trivia question, is it Mauri Rose?

[!!WALDO!!]

And Waldo, for your trivia question, is it Mauri Rose?

It was.....

[AAReagles]

That was Bobby Unser in 1968 until getting behind the #20 and lost about 4 seconds.
Well no, it was 1967. And it was Foyt. According to Bill Libby at least, in his book 'Foyt'.





Handling better than Bobby, Dan though didn't change rubber so it wasn't too bad.
I disagree. Since the 1969 car wasn't an immediate contender as it's predecessors were.

As I mentioned before, Gurney drove the car and claimed the handling was difficult, due to the fact that he wasn't able to get the car sorted out until later in the season, making adjustments on the suspension at Goodyear's offer to use IMS during the IRP-race weekend. It was only since then he was able gather 5 poles and 3 wins (two in 69', one in 70' ).

[!!WALDO!!]

Well no, it was 1967. And it was Foyt. According to Bill Libby at least, in his book 'Foyt'.

Yes I read that but Parnelli was in Foyt's mrrors when the turbine failed. Panelli pit stops were real slow due to the amount of fuel required to fill it plus he was on a different cycle than Foyt.

I have an autographed version of that book and A.J. told me there was a "lot of things not right."


I disagree. Since the 1969 car wasn't an immediate contender as it's predecessors were.

Only car that stood a chance, the only one healthy with no problems. I saw the race and like most cars in that day it was as piggish and anyone elses but his lap times in the final 150 miles were better than Mario and he was to only one.


As I mentioned before, Gurney drove the car and claimed the handling was difficult, due to the fact that he wasn't able to get the car sorted out until later in the season, making adjustments on the suspension at Goodyear's offer to use IMS during the IRP-race weekend. It was only since then he was able gather 5 poles and 3 wins (two in 69', one in 70' ).

Poles? You mean, IRP, Brainerd, Kent and Riverside? The best American road racer wins a pole. He only won two races. He did better than that in 1968 with less effort.

[AAReagles]

[/I]Yes I read that but Parnelli was in Foyt's mrrors when the turbine failed. Panelli pit stops were real slow due to the amount of fuel required to fill it plus he was on a different cycle than Foyt.

I have an autographed version of that book and A.J. told me there was a "lot of things not right."
It's not the first time that notes/storys would be with some flaws, however he was an author of Foyt, so it is difficult to believe he would write anything against Foyt's favor without reason.




[/I]Only car that stood a chance, the only one healthy with no problems. I saw the race and like most cars in that day it was as piggish and anyone elses but his lap times in the final 150 miles were better than Mario and he was to only one.



Poles? You mean, IRP, Brainerd, Kent and Riverside? The best American road racer wins a pole. He only won two races. He did better than that in 1968 with less effort.

The only one healthy ? No problems ? I beg to differ. As far as reliability goes (along with DNF from others contending w/Andretti), DG had a chance, but with the understeer he was experiencing, he would not have been able to challange Andretti. Gurney drove it, and Gurney stated how bad it was. Which is good enough for me to believe.

Even Andretti said he backed off considerably since he was almost a lap ahead of anyone that was left.

Your statement of how he faired in 1968 further illustrates with what I've mentioned all along about the 1969 car (and 1970 for that matter).

[!!WALDO!!]

It's not the first time that notes/storys would be with some flaws, however he was an author of Foyt, so it is difficult to believe he would write anything against Foyt's favor without reason.

They get years mixed up and things how they occurred. I explained to you why Foyt led and how far behind when the Turbine broke. Bob Wilkie went over the USAC screaming in 1968 about the Turbine of Pollard's costing Unser 4 seconds. That was the only time an car owner went to USAC about a track issue since 1963.


The only one healthy ? No problems ? I beg to differ. As far as reliability goes (along with DNF from others contending w/Andretti), DG had a chance, but with the understeer he was experiencing, he would not have been able to challange Andretti. Gurney drove it, and Gurney stated how bad it was. Which is good enough for me to believe.

Were you there? Did you see the car in the turns? No he was underpowered and would not of been able to challenge Andretti but a little pressure would have blown Mario up. What you fail to realiize this was an important war and Dan was Goodyear's only hope at this point.


Even Andretti said he backed off considerably since he was almost a lap ahead of anyone that was left.

Of course he did. Do you know about him waving by Foyt when Foyt wanted to race him after the welding of the manifold that cost him 25 laps plus?


Your statement of how he faired in 1968 further illustrates with what I've mentioned all along about the 1969 car (and 1970 for that matter).

My point is and missed here that the Mk8 with other drivers were in position to win this race along with the Coyotes of Foyt and McCluskey, the Mongoose of Ruby, the Kuzma/Eagle of Dallenbach, the Lola of Donohue. all came to grief, the only car that did not have some mechanical issue was Gurney.
The track was hot and greasy and a bunch of cars did not handle or run well. So a GREAT driver can carry a car. Mario did that, rare for him and Dan did too.

[AAReagles]

They get years mixed up and things how they occurred. I explained to you why Foyt led and how far behind when the Turbine broke. Bob Wilkie went over the USAC screaming in 1968 about the Turbine of Pollard's costing Unser 4 seconds. That was the only time an car owner went to USAC about a track issue since 1963.

It's possible to get the years mixed up yes. However the author did refer to Parnelli being the turbine driver at the time and that would have been in 1967. I believe he mentioned it was the "rival crews" which of course I would assume included the owner. I still doubt that was made up.

In any event it doesn't matter, because Foyt won and as I mentioned before it was apparent that the infraction wasn't severe enough (perhaps noticed even) that he never recieved any penalty.

Personally I don't blame Foyt, as I would have done the same thing if I were in his shoes.




Were you there? Did you see the car in the turns? No he was underpowered and would not of been able to challenge Andretti but a little pressure would have blown Mario up. What you fail to realiize this was an important war and Dan was Goodyear's only hope at this point.

No I wasn't there. I wasn't in the Mk 7 cockpit either. Were you ?

As Gurney put it in a recent publication: "I finished 2nd, but I was having a hell of a time driving it. Not a very nice car. This is the trouble with not racing a car before you go to Indy. You say; 'Well I've got a whole month to get this sucker sorted out', but you never do."

As I mentioned earlier (in much less of details), after resolving the problem with the suspension (changing up to a bigger sway bar on the front on the front) Gurney went on to say: "... I instantly gained 1 1/2 mph and it was way easier to drive than it had been before."

Well not a tire historian here, but looking up (online) what you mentioned about Goodyear's only hope being AAR seems to be different from another source. I suppose they got the years & tire makes mixed up too.




Of course he did. Do you know about him waving by Foyt when Foyt wanted to race him after the welding of the manifold that cost him 25 laps plus?
No I wasn't aware of that.

From what I read is that Andretti felt some spray inside the cockpit while the guages were flickering and figured something busted on the car - turned out to be a plastic bottle of Gatorade the crew had straped inside, that Andretti thought was tipped by the air current inside the cockpit.




... the only car that did not have some mechanical issue was Gurney....
And that's what I agreed on when I mentioned "as far as reliability goes."

Perhaps I misunderstood your statements, "the only one healthy with no problems", as I don't consider handling issues as 'not' a problem.

[!!WALDO!!]

It's possible to get the years mixed up yes. However the author did refer to Parnelli being the turbine driver at the time and that would have been in 1967. I believe he mentioned it was the "rival crews" which of course I would assume included the owner. I still doubt that was made up.

In any event it doesn't matter, because Foyt won and as I mentioned before it was apparent that the infraction wasn't severe enough (perhaps noticed even) that he never recieved any penalty.

Personally I don't blame Foyt, as I would have done the same thing if I were in his shoes.

I read stuff and never heard of a complaint lodged. There was the next year and Art Pollard came within a lap of being Black Flagged.




No I wasn't there. I wasn't in the Mk 7 cockpit either. Were you ?

Nope but I saw 200 laps turned in. Dan never said a bad thing about the car at the time. Yes, you can 10 years later.


As Gurney put it in a recent publication: "I finished 2nd, but I was having a hell of a time driving it. Not a very nice car. This is the trouble with not racing a car before you go to Indy. You say; 'Well I've got a whole month to get this sucker sorted out', but you never do."

See above. My favorite is try to prove something that occurred at the time. Not in a recent article. 39 years stories changed. Yes he was happy he got second but the track was very greasy and everyone missed their raceday set up. Remember the first weekend was a total washout so the second week was a week to find speed rather than set up for the race.


As I mentioned earlier (in much less of details), after resolving the problem with the suspension (changing up to a bigger sway bar on the front on the front) Gurney went on to say: "... I instantly gained 1 1/2 mph and it was way easier to drive than it had been before."

Ok.


Well not a tire historian here, but looking up (online) what you mentioned about Goodyear's only hope being AAR seems to be different from another source. I suppose they got the years & tire makes mixed up too.
Mario--Firestone
Dan--Goodyear
Bobby---Goodyear and going through tires.
Mel---Firestones
Revson-Goodyears
Leonard---Firestone
Donohue---Goodyear
Foyt---Goodyear
Dickson--Firestone
Johns--Firestone.

From memory. He was the healthiest car on Goodyears at the point of catching Mario.



No I wasn't aware of that.

From what I read is that Andretti felt some spray inside the cockpit while the guages were flickering and figured something busted on the car - turned out to be a plastic bottle of Gatorade the crew had straped inside, that Andretti thought was tipped by the air current inside the cockpit.

What no mention of water temps at 240? No mention after qualifying the Andretti/Brawner team wanted to add an oil cooler and USAC would not allow it and Clint and Andy G almost withdrew the car as they knew it wouldn't go the distance.



And that's what I agreed on when I mentioned "as far as reliability goes."

Ok


Perhaps I misunderstood your statements, "the only one healthy with no problems", as I don't consider handling issues as 'not' a problem.

Did not change tires, Bobby did every 100 miles. Who really had a bad handling problem?

[AAReagles]

See above. My favorite is try to prove something that occurred at the time. Not in a recent article. 39 years stories changed...
Well you raise a good. But I honestly think it goes both ways on that. Sometimes one forgets to mention this (or that) when it occured, only to be remembered later on. But I know what you're saying about memory, etc., as I experience 'brain-fade' often myself.





What no mention of water temps at 240?... :laugh:

No my friend, I'm afraid that I'm not as dedicated as you. I already feel like I've been writting a book on this thread.




Did not change tires, Bobby did every 100 miles. Who really had a bad handling problem?
Sounds like Bobby had it worse.


Well, time for a breather.

:up: Keep up the good work.

[!!WALDO!!]

Well you raise a good. But I honestly think it goes both ways on that. Sometimes one forgets to mention this (or that) when it occured, only to be remembered later on. But I know what you're saying about memory, etc., as I experience 'brain-fade' often myself.

See from May of 1965 through May of 1996 I got the Indianapolis papers, many years both the Star and the News for the month of May. Many stories were written. I saw Dan qualify about 4:30 in the afternoon on Day 1(3). I saw him take a 10th to 12th place car and thanks to bad luck drive to 2nd behind an extremely ill car. He never had a bad thing to say about his 500 miles except he was underpowered.
Now do you know how the handling on those cars were done? Go to the Bear Garage and they would do it for you. You looked for balance as you had a 70 gallon fuel load that would work its way down to 5 before you pitted.
If Dan compares 1969 to 1996 then it is comparing a goat to a dog, they both have 4 legs and eat.
So to make the story more interesting people embelish the truth to what occurred. Did Dan's car handle badly? Well I was in 4 and never heard him squeal the tires, did hear Bobby and others including Mario near the end.
So was it poor handling? As bad as 32 others with no race practice and an hot, oily track.



No my friend, I'm afraid that I'm not as dedicated as you. I already feel like I've been writting a book on this thread.

It is being there. I am a Goodyear person so when Foyt had his problem where did my loyality lie? Dan Gurney. I wanted him to push Mario and he picked up ground but not enough.
See 1969 was NUMBER FOUR but that is why they race the race.




Sounds like Bobby had it worse.


Well, time for a breather.

:up: Keep up the good work.

Bobby and the 4WD Lola missed it completely.

Now remember something very important, we cannot replay history with what ifs. In 1966 Dan Gurney would have won the 500 because he had factory ford help and the Wood Brothers. Too bad he got the right side of his car tore off before the Start/Finish line.
In 1967 the race you feel was his best chance, do you realize after he lead he fought that engine from blowing for 150 miles while dropping back before it did the right thing and blew up? You cannot win if you are not running at 500 miles.
You want to hear of a screw up? When the turbine dropped out they were pitted north of the start/finish line. They were scored 196 laps complete, had they pushed the car 25 feet and crossed the line they would have completed 197 laps first and been scored 3rd place rather than 6th. Ever hear of that story?
In 1968, in my piece I talk about the gearbox failing on Bobby Unser's car if top gear failed then Dan Gurney would have won that race. It didn't though.
In 1969 had Mario's temps gone to 260, Dan Gurney would have won the 500, I wonder how much more ill handling the car would have gotten 39 years later.

He had nothing in 1970 and third was good.

I enjoy writing about what happen and in my 1968 piece Dan is still in the top 10 in points with only one race yet for him to drive. You should follow along.

[AAReagles]

See from May of 1965 through May of 1996 I got the Indianapolis papers, many years both the Star and the News for the month of May. Many stories were written. I saw Dan qualify... He never had a bad thing to say about his 500 miles except he was underpowered...
Well if there's one source I don't rely on, as far as those days goe, it's the newspapers. Nothing against daily/department-structured journalist back then, but I've seen more mistakes made in the papers in those days then in most books. Of course back in those days reporters didn't have the luxury of computers/internet to provide accuracy... whether it's a lap # or typo.



...So to make the story more interesting people embelish the truth to what occurred. Did Dan's car handle badly? Well I was in 4 and never heard him squeal the tires...
I realize that your passion for the sport requires absolute facts, statements and so. Not to get carried away here, as I don't believe the forum is a place for promoting books and the sort, other than making references, but I think that John Zimmerman did a fine job of publishing the history of AAR.

Additionally, I don't think DG would have exagerated or made up something for the sake it. Yeah, I'm a DG fan, but I'm also a Clark fan/Andretti fan/Gilles fan/... whoever. My moniker was based on that I appreciated what DG done in regards to co-creating AAR. So I'm sorry, but I can't be swayed to think that DG gotten a case of dementia while the interviews for the book were being conducted.






Now remember something very important, we cannot replay history with what ifs... In 1967 the race you feel was his best chance, do you realize after he lead he fought that engine from blowing for 150 miles while dropping back before it did the right thing and blew up? You cannot win if you are not running at 500 miles.
No, I suggested that if Gurney had not experienced mechanical failure, the 1967 outcome might have been different. Gurney is the one who stated that was the car, not year, that he felt he had his best chance.

I felt that 1968 was his best shot.




I enjoy writing about what happen and in my 1968 piece Dan is still in the top 10 in points with only one race yet for him to drive. You should follow along.

I would but for 1) I'm not one for staying long on the computer due to schedules and other people/things that need my attention. 2) there are other news events/occurances that I give my attention to as well. Nevertheless I do follow on when I can

[AAReagles]

Well if there's one source I don't rely on, as far as those days goe...

Additional note: when I said "those days", I meant since I was following the sport since 1978.

[!!WALDO!!]

Well if there's one source I don't rely on, as far as those days goe, it's the newspapers. Nothing against daily/department-structured journalist back then, but I've seen more mistakes made in the papers in those days then in most books. Of course back in those days reporters didn't have the luxury of computers/internet to provide accuracy... whether it's a lap # or typo.

Not in that day and not in Indy. That is all they knew. Also NSSN and being there should square up things plus the daily reports that went to AP and UPI.

Thing is the the Star would print stuff that happened that day, early in the day rather than 39 years later. Which do you think is more acurate?



I realize that your passion for the sport requires absolute facts, statements and so. Not to get carried away here, as I don't believe the forum is a place for promoting books and the sort, other than making references, but I think that John Zimmerman did a fine job of publishing the history of AAR.

So did Shelby Foote with his narrative of the Civil War, three books. I own two Civil War books printed in 1865 and 1866, which are more accurate mine or his from the late 1970's.


Additionally, I don't think DG would have exagerated or made up something for the sake it. Yeah, I'm a DG fan, but I'm also a Clark fan/Andretti fan/Gilles fan/... whoever. My moniker was based on that I appreciated what DG done in regards to co-creating AAR. So I'm sorry, but I can't be swayed to think that DG gotten a case of dementia while the interviews for the book were being conducted.

Its not that, stories get embelished over time. The fish got bigger or this case the car handled badly. In the day where you grew a pair and drove the car.



No, I suggested that if Gurney had not experienced mechanical failure, the 1967 outcome might have been different. Gurney is the one who stated that was the car, not year, that he felt he had his best chance.

So then I am right about 1966. He was the factory Ford guy and he had the Wood Brothers who at the time was the fastest pit crew in the world and pitted Clark in 1965.
Anyone before the race can say they got an excellent chance but when a car drives from 6th to first exiting turn 2 on the first lap and walks away, all good feelings go out the window. Dan said on the radio after dropping out he "had nothing in that race". Interesting how things change over the years. Yes, I heard him say that.


I felt that 1968 was his best shot.

He spent most of the day in the top 6. Again did he or did he not win that race?



I would but for 1) I'm not one for staying long on the computer due to schedules and other people/things that need my attention. 2) there are other news events/occurances that I give my attention to as well. Nevertheless I do follow on when I can

Me too............
Maybe this will help:
http://www.indy500.com/images/stats/pdfs/dtr/1969.pdf

[AAReagles]

Not in that day and not in Indy. That is all they knew... plus the daily reports that went to AP and UPI.

... the Star would print stuff that happened that day, early in the day rather than 39 years later. Which do you think is more acurate?

The AP and UPI are usually accurate, and perhaps, so is the Star, though that doesn't mean they were immune to mistakes. Even Autoweek and other bi-weekly pubs, which had more time to meet a deadline committed mistakes.

Which do I think is more accurate ? The publication that required more time and effort involved in regards to interviews and gathering information, without the added pressure of a next-day delivery.





... stories get embelished over time. The fish got bigger or this case the car handled badly. In the day where you grew a pair and drove the car.

Like as if Gurney needed to embelish a story. In addition, I doubt that designer Tony Southgate was amplifying the understeer problem.

The logic you're applying to this may as well serve as a disclaimer on any and every recently produced book that covers the subject of motorsport's past. Besides if Gurney is capable of overcooking things, what about not only other drivers but other people who were around in the sport then ? Such as yourself maybe ?

Sorry, but I'm more inclined to believe what I read in a publication (or newspaper even, believe it or not) that consisted of a vast amount of research with various interviews included, than what someone posts on a forum.

As you mentioned once before, "... looking at history one must remove the emotions of beliefs and look at realities of stats.", which is true of course. And stats are facts, are they not ?

That said, Gurney drove the car, no one else, including you or I, which is a fact. So as you might imagine I'll take his word for it.




So then I am right about 1966. He was the factory Ford guy and he had the Wood Brothers who at the time was the fastest pit crew in the world and pitted Clark in 1965...

I'm afraid you have me mixed up with someone else, as I don't recall discussing the 66' 500. Because if we did, I would have remembered it for obvious reasons; 1) the crash... 2) ... in which Gurney was taken out.

As far as the Wood Brothers association, I don't recall their services for Gurney/AAR at Indy. Maybe in 1966 as you mentioned. but otherwise they were assisting him at the Motor Trend Riverside 500s, that I do know.




Anyone before the race can say they got an excellent chance but when a car drives from 6th to first exiting turn 2 on the first lap and walks away, all good feelings go out the window. Dan said on the radio after dropping out he "had nothing in that race". Interesting how things change over the years. Yes, I heard him say that.
Did you ever stop to think that he was referring to the speed/handling combination ?... as compared to the other cars he drove at Indy ?

And again, the 67' car's capability was Gurney's opinion. So who am I to believe ?




He spent most of the day in the top 6. Again did he or did he not win that race?
Well... "again"... was he, or was he not underpowered in that race ? And the margin of victory was much closer in the 68' race, than it was in 1969. Go figure.

Bobby Unser was a modest winner, citing that he had an advantage with the Offy-turbo, and that it should have been banned.

[!!WALDO!!]

The AP and UPI are usually accurate, and perhaps, so is the Star, though that doesn't mean they were immune to mistakes. Even Autoweek and other bi-weekly pubs, which had more time to meet a deadline committed mistakes.

Which do I think is more accurate ? The publication that required more time and effort involved in regards to interviews and gathering information, without the added pressure of a next-day delivery.

I gave you a link to what came from the news room in 1969 at the Speedway for 30 days. Neat read for those inclined.
See even a National Speed Sport News gets it wrong sometimes but they run corrections to the story because they found that real racing fans want it right, now not 40 years later.


Like as if Gurney needed to embelish a story. In addition, I doubt that designer Tony Southgate was amplifying the understeer problem.

The logic you're applying to this may as well serve as a disclaimer on any and every recently produced book that covers the subject of motorsport's past. Besides if Gurney is capable of overcooking things, what about not only other drivers but other people who were around in the sport then ? Such as yourself maybe ?

Sorry, but I'm more inclined to believe what I read in a publication (or newspaper even, believe it or not) that consisted of a vast amount of research with various interviews included, than what someone posts on a forum.

As you mentioned once before, "... looking at history one must remove the emotions of beliefs and look at realities of stats.", which is true of course. And stats are facts, are they not ?

That said, Gurney drove the car, no one else, including you or I, which is a fact. So as you might imagine I'll take his word for it.

So you are apt to believe Shelby Foote over those that actually did fought the battles?

Of course you are discounting the times, the fact the cars were tough to drive and a hot, greasy track and that 32 other cars did not handle to perfection.



I'm afraid you have me mixed up with someone else, as I don't recall discussing the 66' 500. Because if we did, I would have remembered it for obvious reasons; 1) the crash... 2) ... in which Gurney was taken out.

As far as the Wood Brothers association, I don't recall their services for Gurney/AAR at Indy. Maybe in 1966 as you mentioned. but otherwise they were assisting him at the Motor Trend Riverside 500s, that I do know.

I am telling you, based on your 1967 explaination then the 1966 500 was his. HE HAD THE FORD MAIN ENTRY AND WAS GIVEN THE WOOD BROTHERS TO CREW HIS CAR. Now you just learned something you did not know then. The same Wood Brothers that crewed the Ford MAIN EFFORT in 1965, Jimmy Clark. Based what occurred with Clark then Gurney was the front running threat.


Did you ever stop to think that he was referring to the speed/handling combination ?... as compared to the other cars he drove at Indy ?

Oh you mean worse than running 150 miles on Dunlop Rain Tires in 1964 before dropping out with Overheating Tires?


And again, the 67' car's capability was Gurney's opinion. So who am I to believe ?

He didn't say that after exiting the car in 1967 to millions of people listening over the IMS Radio Network. Again in hindsight he could of believed that but according to him on May 31st, 1967 "I had nothing today." So who am I to believe? Him in 1967 or him 40 years later?



Well... "again"... was he, or was he not underpowered in that race ? And the margin of victory was much closer in the 68' race, than it was in 1969. Go figure.

How about a long yellow and the green coming out with 8 to go? That is why he was closer in 1968. Yellow in 1969 did not fly in the second half of the race.


Bobby Unser was a modest winner, citing that he had an advantage with the Offy-turbo, and that it should have been banned.

So Gurney won nothing in 1968? If Denis Hulme had not fell off the jacks after Bobby had won, 1968 Eagles would have finished ONE, TWO, THREE. Only built 5 of those cars and two DNFed.
All of this is covered in my 1968 thread.

[AAReagles]

... Neat read for those inclined.
See even a National Speed Sport News gets it wrong sometimes but they run corrections to the story because they found that real racing fans want it right, now not 40 years later.

Good to see you're not so inclined to dismiss modern books/mags as you were earlier.





So you are apt to believe Shelby Foote over those that actually did fought the battles?

Rather I'm apt to believe the driver/engineers/designers, than one person's claim, since that's what you're referring to.





Of course you are discounting the times, the fact the cars were tough to drive and a hot, greasy track and that 32 other cars did not handle to perfection.

Implying that I discounted the days before aerofoils and other devices/inventions that increased corning stability still does not further enhance your argument/dispute about the handling of his car in 69'.





I am telling you, based on your 1967 explaination then the 1966 500 was his. HE HAD THE FORD MAIN ENTRY AND WAS GIVEN THE WOOD BROTHERS TO CREW HIS CAR. Now you just learned something you did not know then. The same Wood Brothers that crewed the Ford MAIN EFFORT in 1965, Jimmy Clark. Based what occurred with Clark then Gurney was the front running threat.

Interesting about the Wood Brothers though. And no I wasn't aware of that.

Once again, Gurney's opinion was that he felt that 1967 was his best shot - What I figure to be related to the handling/speed performance the Mk 3 provided. Though it didn't come through, it was a challanging front-runner.

And please, before you decide to sidetrack on some far off based notion, i.e. using civil war books as an example or failing to mention that while Gurney was running mainly 6th in the 68' event when there were other turbo-offys in the field, not to mention 2 of the 3 turbines were running well until they encountered problems, do try to keep some perspective on the subject at hand.

Now, as far as the 1966 event, I made no referral nor implication that 'was his event based on my explanation' - I'll mention it twice, just so you'll get it. It was Gurney's opinion about his best chance in the 500... and again, I believe he was referring to the handling/speed combo of the car...




He didn't say that after exiting the car in 1967 to millions of people listening over the IMS Radio Network. Again in hindsight he could of believed that but according to him on May 31st, 1967 "I had nothing today." So who am I to believe? Him in 1967 or him 40 years later?

I don't necessarily doubt that he may have said that -just for arguments sake I'll take your word though, but if that's all you're going off of, from what you heard in the stands, then I suppose that's your official version of his race report. And that's all he said ?... not just on that day, but later 'after work' so to speak, but what about the day after ?... and the days following... so I'm to believe that's it and that's that ?

I'm sorry, but I really don't think you're being not honest with not only me, but yourself as well. As if trying to convince yourself that 'no he didn't qualify in the front row... no, he wasn't in 2nd position (behind the turbine) when the race was stopped after what, 18 or 19 laps(?), no, he wasn't the first driver to take the lead from the turbine... '- though it was under favorable circumstances of Parnelli spinning.

He obviously had something going there. But again, it's his opinion. And dare I say, it's his opinion that counts.





How about a long yellow and the green coming out with 8 to go? That is why he was closer in 1968. Yellow in 1969 did not fly in the second half of the race.
And again, don't forget to mention that Andretti was able to back off when he was near lapping the field, some laps over the half-way mark.





So Gurney won nothing in 1968? If Denis Hulme had not fell off the jacks after Bobby had won, 1968 Eagles would have finished ONE, TWO, THREE. Only built 5 of those cars and two DNFed.
All of this is covered in my 1968 thread.

This has nothing to do with what I mentioned about my estimation of Gurney's best chance would have been 1968. As you even brought up before, he had 'to finish' in order to be considered a possible winner.

And as I stated before, he was fortunate enough to have so many competitors ahead of him to drop out, that having one more (B. Unser) just wasn't meant to be.


Sidetracking on different topics/events (in attempts to make comparisons), or conveniently leaving out details at what's being discussed really isn't going to convince me of what you believe/know anymore than what I believe/know. You quite a knowledgable member with good experiences and resources with more than I'll ever have. Nevertheless it seems that I'm not the only one here with 'beliefs' and/or notions.

I think, or as you rather prefer, 'believe' Gurney is as good a candidate for 'uncrowned' champ, as some other drivers that you and I mentioned. And you disagree. And that's fine.


You're entitled to your opinions just as anyone else is here, but please don't waste my time by dismissing authors and discrediting professional race car drivers and engineers. There really isn't much logic in that, and defeats the objective of the discussion, or rather one member's point trying to be made. Which of course means that this convesation would serve no purpose anymore.

[!!WALDO!!]

Good to see you're not so inclined to dismiss modern books/mags as you were earlier.

National Speed Sport News goes to bed at 12:00PM Eastern every Monday for 51 weeks. Has been since the 1930s. Is that new?



Rather I'm apt to believe the driver/engineers/designers, than one person's claim, since that's what you're referring to.

Still no comment to the sort at the time. Hindsight is always 20/20.


Implying that I discounted the days before aerofoils and other devices/inventions that increased corning stability still does not further enhance your argument/dispute about the handling of his car in 69'.

In 1968 none were legal, in 1969 it was marginal and only a few ran them. So these cars, none of them were built with those devices in mind and became legal at Indy.
Again you want to compare it to cars he drove before, none existed then. So my 1964 statement is valid then.
Again if he was so ill handling then why not change rubber as it would have worn out. His Goodyears went the distance.


Interesting about the Wood Brothers though. And no I wasn't aware of that.

Only because he was getting a huge Check from Ford.


Once again, Gurney's opinion was that he felt that 1967 was his best shot - What I figure to be related to the handling/speed performance the Mk 3 provided. Though it didn't come through, it was a challanging front-runner.

Again in hindsight, Dan could feel that way. Reality was on May 30th he was running 3rd then 2nd. On May 31st he ran 2nd then first then 2nd and after 60 laps, 150 miles was in a free fall. Had he continued to run he would have been 11th. His words at the time, "I had nothing today" are telling to his plight, not his thoughts 40 years later.


And please, before you decide to sidetrack on some far off based notion, i.e. using civil war books as an example or failing to mention that while Gurney was running mainly 6th in the 68' event when there were other turbo-offys in the field, not to mention 2 of the 3 turbines were running well until they encountered problems, do try to keep some perspective on the subject at hand.

First I covered the whole Month of May in my 1968 piece. The Civil War is a good example of how even now people want to rewrite the history of how it happen. Even though there are books written at the time by those fighting and witnessing that are being discounted by someone born 30 years ago.
So for your information only Unser and Ruby had Turbo Offys running ahead of Gurney, Ruby lost a magneto and three Turbines of Hill, Leonard and Pollard. Hill wrecked past half way and Gurney was already ahead of him and Pollard was 2 laps back and behind Gurney when he dropped out. Gurney was in third when Leonard failed, a lap down to Joe but not to Bobby. There is some perspective on the subject at hand.


Now, as far as the 1966 event, I made no referral nor implication that 'was his event based on my explanation' - I'll mention it twice, just so you'll get it. It was Gurney's opinion about his best chance in the 500... and again, I believe he was referring to the handling/speed combo of the car...

It was obvious you knew nothing of it. Factory support, a Pit Crew that won the 500 the year before and Gurney thinks nothing of his chances even though two of his cars competed for the win in 1966 before both broke.
Speed/Handling? Did you see the 1967 Eagle race? I did, it was ok but nothing great. One did win the 1967 Car Owners championship but it may have been his best model Eagle but in 1968 and 1969.



I don't necessarily doubt that he may have said that -just for arguments sake I'll take your word though, but if that's all you're going off of, from what you heard in the stands, then I suppose that's your official version of his race report. And that's all he said ?... not just on that day, but later 'after work' so to speak, but what about the day after ?... and the days following... so I'm to believe that's it and that's that ?

So his words to millions do not count for much, his book read by hundreds is a better source. I wasn't in the stands, I was listening only on the radio.
He may have believed his chances were good to win prior to the race and 40 years later but the race was over pretty much by turn 2 of lap one. So most peoples expectations of a fine performance were out the window.


I'm sorry, but I really don't think you're being not honest with not only me, but yourself as well. As if trying to convince yourself that 'no he didn't qualify in the front row... no, he wasn't in 2nd position (behind the turbine) when the race was stopped after what, 18 or 19 laps(?), no, he wasn't the first driver to take the lead from the turbine... '- though it was under favorable circumstances of Parnelli spinning.

Read above.....


He obviously had something going there. But again, it's his opinion. And dare I say, it's his opinion that counts.

Believe him then and stop picking the memories of a person that was rooting for Dan in 1968 and 1969 and a Member of AAR in 1966.


And again, don't forget to mention that Andretti was able to back off when he was near lapping the field, some laps over the half-way mark.

I mentioned it 12 times but you must not have read it. Then Dan could have caught him based on that. The Weslake came off the corners real well but ran out of strength at the end of the straights.



This has nothing to do with what I mentioned about my estimation of Gurney's best chance would have been 1968. As you even brought up before, he had 'to finish' in order to be considered a possible winner.

If the grearbox on the SISTER CAR had failed then Dan would have won in 1968. Had the temps in the #2 car reached 260 then Dan would have won in 1969. Should of, would of, could of. The History of the 500 is loaded with those.


And as I stated before, he was fortunate enough to have so many competitors ahead of him to drop out, that having one more (B. Unser) just wasn't meant to be.

Two only. In 1969 he had 7.


Sidetracking on different topics/events, or conveniently leaving out details at what's being discussed really isn't going to convince me of what you believe/know anymore than what I believe/know.

I have left nothing out, you just either didn't read it or chose not to believe it. That isn't sidetracking, this is about the GREATEST 500 DRIVERS IN HISTORY. Not Dan Gurney and a fans opinion. That's SIDETRACKING.


You quite a knowledgable member with good experiences and resources with more than I'll ever have. Nevertheless it seems that I'm not the only one here with 'beliefs' and/or notions.

On this subject, nobody rode to your rescue. 2 seconds, one third and a seventh is good but not the greatest by any opinion.


I think, or as you rather prefer, 'believe' Gurney is as good a candidate for 'uncrowned' champ, as some other drivers that you and I mentioned. And you disagree. And that's fine.

You claim to like Jimmy Clark. He made the top 33 and did you see his performance in 1965? What a butt kicking of the field.


You're entitled to your opinions just as anyone else is here, but please don't waste my time by dismissing authors and discrediting professional race car drivers and engineers. There really isn't much logic in that, and defeats the purpose of the discussion, or rather one member's point trying to be made.

I have read most books on this subject and things sometimes do not add up. That is why it is better to read history fresh, like NSSN than read it two months later or 40 years later. It just happens that way, history gets seen differently over time and many important aspects are lost except by those that witnessed it. Me, when I heard Dan Gurney's remarks I wrote them down. You are reading his thoughts 40 years later. Is one more right than the other? Think about it.

So since you are the Dan Gurney expert here, what car did Dan Gurney pass his rookies test in 1962? Hint: it was not the #34 Mickey Thompson Buick.
If Dan wrote the book he should discuss this.

[AAReagles]

National Speed Sport News goes to bed at 12:00PM Eastern every Monday for 51 weeks. Has been since the 1930s. Is that new?

Sure it is. Next day's news is good, just not necessary accurate all the time. And as you've said, books, mags make errors too. It's just that a bit more time is allowed to prevent mistakes/misprints.



Still no comment to the sort at the time. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Thanks. As that was the point I was trying to get you to understand. "At that time" - which means at the moment, not necessarily the next day and so on.




... Again you want to compare it to cars he drove before, none existed then. So my 1964 statement is valid then.
Again if he was so ill handling then why not change rubber as it would have worn out. His Goodyears went the distance.

Actually I believe Gurney said the worst car he drove was the Thompson #34 that you mentioned below - said it was scary to drive.

I see your point in regards to his 64' car, nevertheless you still believe/imply that he was able to win that race - sure, under that hypothetical circumstances you've mention about pressing Andretti/laps times you mentioned... while Andretti was backing off.






Again in hindsight... His words at the time, "I had nothing today" are telling to his plight, not his thoughts 40 years later.

Yes, and again that's all you heard, I assume, immediately after the 67' race. Just a few words doesn't necessary tell a whole story, was the point I was making.




... The Civil War is a good example of how even now people want to rewrite the history of how it happen. Even though there are books written at the time by those fighting and witnessing that are being discounted by someone born 30 years ago.

Sorry, but I was born 44 years ago, that birthdate you read in my profile ended there by mistake since this forum changed over to an upgrade.

And no, I don't believe the CW was a good example - it's just my opinion - but you were, I believe, trying to compare that author's research to Zimmerman's in some sense (or any other current author for that matter)... in which you'll notice that most of Mr. Zimmerman's subjects were/are still alive.





So for your information only Unser and Ruby had Turbo Offys running ahead of Gurney, Ruby lost a magneto and three Turbines of Hill, Leonard and Pollard. Hill wrecked past half way and Gurney was already ahead of him and Pollard was 2 laps back and behind Gurney when he dropped out. Gurney was in third when Leonard failed, a lap down to Joe but not to Bobby. There is some perspective on the subject at hand.

Thank you for elaborating that more. That's much better.





It was obvious you knew nothing of it.... Speed/Handling? Did you see the 1967 Eagle race? I did, it was ok but nothing great. One did win the 1967 Car Owners championship but...

Yes, it was obvious that I knew nothing of it (1966 AAR/Wood Brothers). So ? Did I ever claim I did ? Nope.

Nope, didn't see the 67' race either. The car was, by perhaps most folks' regards, not great because it didn't win the race. Which is agreeable, since that sort of logic could be applied to all none-winning cars. Nevertheless it had everything to win -with exception to reliability of course.







... He may have believed his chances were good to win prior to the race and 40 years later..

Thank you for finally realizing for what I've implying all along.





Believe him then and stop picking the memories of a person that was rooting for Dan in 1968 and 1969 and a Member of AAR in 1966.

This discussion went from my throwing DG in the ring as a 'uncrowned champ', which as you requested for more elaboration - which was no problem... I did, and you still disagreed... still no problem.

I think we were fine until you claimed that Gurney was embelishing about his difficulty with the 69' ride. His designer concurred on the matter as well. In short, you were basically stating that their accounts were inaccurate. That's where the problem got started.



... this is about the GREATEST 500 DRIVERS IN HISTORY.

True...




On this subject, nobody rode to your rescue. 2 seconds, one third and a seventh is good but not the greatest by any opinion.

Nobody rode to my rescue ? About what ? Gurney ?... There was nothing to be rescued, just disputed/debated is all.



I have read most books on this subject and things sometimes do not add up. That is why it is better to read history fresh, like NSSN than read it two months later or 40 years later. It just happens that way, history gets seen differently over time and many important aspects are lost except by those that witnessed it. Me, when I heard Dan Gurney's remarks I wrote them down. You are reading his thoughts 40 years later. Is one more right than the other? Think about it....

So since you are the Dan Gurney expert here...

Never claimed that at all. I personally think you're as opinioned as anyone else here is what I finally realized.

No offense, but you seem not to want to believe certain things as well, such as Bill Libby's book (wrote in the 70's ) when some sort of negativity is mentioned about Foyt... and it was really no big deal at all, but you kept dismissing the account, one post after another. Which is fine, it's your opinion, as opposed to Libby's.

Anyways, besides the 40-year-later book references, my '30 yr old' age, 'Gurney expert' remarks - thanks for including more details and a better understanding of what I was relaying about DG statements in regards to the 67' & 69' cars. No harm, no foul.

[!!WALDO!!]

Sure it is. Next day's news is good, just not necessary accurate all the time. And as you've said, books, mags make errors too. It's just that a bit more time is allowed to prevent mistakes/misprints.

So quicker isn't better? So reading Today's newspaper, 40 years later and written 40 years later will be more accurate.



Thanks. As that was the point I was trying to get you to understand. "At that time" - which means at the moment, not necessarily the next day and so on.

I gave you a link to the OFFICIAL SPEEDWAY ACCOUNTS of 1969. Are there mistakes, yes but it is the OFFICIAL RECORD of the month of May 1969.


Actually I believe Gurney said the worst car he drove was the Thompson #34 that you mentioned below - said it was scary to drive.

Funny a year later Rookie Al Miller got the handle on the car and busted 150 for a lap or two. Difference of a year.


I see your point in regards to his 64' car, nevertheless you still believe/imply that he was able to win that race - sure, under that hypothetical circumstances you've mention about pressing Andretti/laps times you mentioned... while Andretti was backing off.

Burning gas required 1 pit stop, the problem was the tires. Had he been on Firestones he would have won the 1964 race or run second to Clark.

Goodyear was wanting a press but Gurney couldn't. Great drivers win with inferior equipment and Mario did that. Dan didn't.



Yes, and again that's all you heard, I assume, immediately after the 67' race. Just a few words doesn't necessary tell a whole story, was the point I was making.

Cockpit to mike, 30 seconds after leaving a car that was junk for 150 miles. Is he going to say, "gee wiz I thought I was going to win." Reality set in.


Sorry, but I was born 44 years ago, that birthdate you read in my profile ended there by mistake since this forum changed over to an upgrade.

I wasn't talking about you but some 30 year old rewriting the history of A. Lincoln on CSPAN.


And no, I don't believe the CW was a good example - it's just my opinion - but you were, I believe, trying to compare that author's research to Zimmerman's in some sense (or any other current author for that matter)... in which you'll notice that most of Mr. Zimmerman's subjects were/are still alive.

Books are filled with mistakes. I hate to tell you that. Many of us racing historians can go though a book you think is great and find 100 mistakes. It is a form of entertainment not of history.


Thank you for elaborating that more. That's much better.

Read my 1968 piece there is tons of Dan Gurney stuff in it.



Yes, it was obvious that I knew nothing of it (1966 AAR/Wood Brothers). So ? Did I ever claim I did ? Nope.

Yet, no mention of this in the book. His best chance to win.


Nope, didn't see the 67' race either. The car was, by perhaps most folks' regards, not great because it didn't win the race. Which is agreeable, since that sort of logic could be applied to all none-winning cars. Nevertheless it had everything to win -with exception to reliability of course.

The #74 car was sold to Foyt and he used it at Mosport and it was modified and Donnie Allison won RoY in that car for Foyt in 1970. The only two times the car ran at Indy and 4 races overall.


Thank you for finally realizing for what I've implying all along.

How many cars did Gurney pass in 1967 that was for position on the track?

ZERO!



This discussion went from my throwing DG in the ring as a 'uncrowned champ', which as you requested for more elaboration - which was no problem... I did, and you still disagreed... still no problem.

Ruby and McElreath had better finishes overall but I do not include them.


I think we were fine until you claimed that Gurney was embelishing about his difficulty with the 69' ride. His designer concurred on the matter as well. In short, you were basically stating that their accounts were inaccurate. That's where the problem got started.

4 Goodyears going 500 miles discounts the excuse. One of those facts that are not discussed.



Nobody rode to my rescue ? About what ? Gurney ?... There was nothing to be rescued, just disputed/debated is all.

Nobody came and said you are right. You are basing an opinion on what you read not what you saw. I saw Dan Gurney at Indy in 1965, 1969 and 1970. Good not the greatest.



Never claimed that at all. I personally think you're as opinioned as anyone else here is what I finally realized.

Opinions are for the uniformed. It is easier to come to a conclusion rather than researching. Historians of a subject do not make opinions.


No offense, but you seem not to want to believe certain things as well, such as Bill Libby's book (wrote in the 70's ) when some sort of negativity is mentioned about Foyt... and it was really no big deal at all, but you kept dismissing the account, one post after another. Which is fine, it's your opinion, as opposed to Libby's.

I read Libby and it is fraught with errors and also some insight. His Parnelli book was about 70% truth and 30% opinions and that book was fresh. Sometimes facts are as dry as dust and embelishing makes it interesting to read.


Anyways, besides the 40-year-later book references, my '30 yr old' age, 'Gurney expert' remarks - thanks for including more details and a better understanding of what I was relaying about DG statements in regards to the 67' & 69' cars. No harm, no foul.

You are the Gurney expert. Nobody else is taking your position. You read a book and are knowledgable, based on the words of people there 30-40 years later than when it occurred over those that actually saw and heard the comments of those you admire.
Gurney is the only driver to win in F-1, Indy Car, CanAm, Endurance, Trans-Am and NASCAR "Cup". This places him in the top 10 in American Drivers. Three Schwitzer awards for what he built at the Speedway, winning cars in 1968, 1973 and 1975 (Owned by Gurney) is a greater accomplishment there than his drives at the Speedway.
Look in 1965, Colin Champman built 3 Lotus 38 Fords, #82 for Clark, #83 for Johns and the #84 that became the #17 and Dan Gurney put that car on the outside of the front row. He had what ended up winning. What no automatic winning situation?

Since you do not know in 1962, he was assigned to the #52 John Zink Trackburner Turbine. Problem was the car was not ready and Dan Gurney needed his Rookies Test. So they pulled out his Back-up car, a 1961 Moore-Offy that Lloyd Ruby won the Milwaukee 200 with. This car was a Watson copy and the engine was upright to the left and in front of the cockpit.

So the answer is:#74 John Zink Trackburner Moore-Offy Roadster.

So why was the 1972 Eagle so much faster than the 1972 McLarens?

[AAReagles]

... Opinions are for the uniformed. It is easier to come to a conclusion rather than researching. Historians of a subject do not make opinions...

I read Libby and it is fraught with errors and also some insight. His Parnelli book was about 70% truth and 30% opinions and that book was fresh. Sometimes facts are as dry as dust and embelishing makes it interesting to read...

You are the Gurney expert. Nobody else is taking your position. You read a book and are knowledgable, based on the words of people there 30-40 years later than when it occurred over those that actually saw and heard the comments of those you admire.

Since you do not know in 1962... So why was the 1972 Eagle so much faster than the 1972 McLarens?

Well, so much for progress. :rolleyes:

When I signed off a thread page or two ago, and said "keep up the good work", I meant it as to someone who had dedication and passion, not as a boost for someone to keep pursuing one-dimensional views just because other sources revealed or opinions stated don't happen to agree with yours.

Your experiences are great and I envy you for that, but even long time racing sports-casters don't always view things the same as they see them.

Providing pop-quizes for the sake of exposing my lack of knowledge/resources may be a nice boost for yourself, nevertheless it doesn't diminish the fact that your continual discrediting of people intimately involved in the sport illustrates not only an unwillingness to recieve new/additional information from 40 years since events happened, but also raises questions about your creditability. Not to mention your maturity.

[!!WALDO!!]

Well, so much for progress. :rolleyes:

Do you ever read the opinion pieces of a newspaper? The writer is trying to get the reader to believe him based on limited knowledge. If a person actually does research they would find the OPINION PIECE a Fluff piece and of no depth. Thus for the uniformed.


When I signed off a thread page or two ago, and said "keep up the good work", I meant it as to someone who had dedication and passion, not as a boost for someone to keep pursuing one-dimensional views just because other sources revealed or opinions stated don't happen to agree with yours.

One dimensional view? Look they are many drivers that never won at Indy with a better record, look up Ted Horn, Michael Andretti, Harry Hartz, Roberto Guerrero, Jim McElreath and Lloyd Ruby.
So your problem is you want to be right. Ok then DAN GURNEY WAS THE GREATEST DRIVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE SPEEDWAY. Feel better.
Let's look at the facts: Competitve passes on the track 5, 2 in 1962 and 3 in 1970. That is a true sign of greatness.
I gave you things he accomplished as a man/builder/designer at the Speedway that would put him in the Hall of Fame but you discount that as unimportant.
I and many other historians would agree but not with you about this. Yes, we who saw Dan drive know nothing compared to those the read a book.


Your experiences are great and I envy you for that, but even long time racing sports-casters don't always view things the same as they see them.

Really, what experience do you have in this. I saw, I wrote notes, I read, I then put together the story and that is what I am using in my 1968 piece. totally accurate, nope because some behind the scenes stuff is missed or I edited out as unconfirmed. About 95% accurate and that is pretty good for 40 years.


Providing pop-quizes for the sake of exposing my lack of knowledge/resources may be a nice boost for yourself,

They are for you to learn somthing. When I taught, pops were used to make people think and to supply some insight to things. This one is what gave Dan his second Schwitzer award and should be one of Dan's crowning achievements. Thus it would have been covered in his book, very heavy.


nevertheless it doesn't diminish the fact that your continual discrediting of people intimately involved in the sport illustrates not only an unwillingness to recieve new/additional information from 40 years since events happened, but also raises questions about your creditability. Not to mention your maturity.

Nice insult, I gave you what happen yet you choose not to believe, your choice. I told you more about Dan Gurney than maybe the book did but that isn't good enough because I didn't learn from you. I saw, witness, talked to people in the know, heard Dan's words, understood the believes of the man, supported him with cash and rooted for him everytime A.J. went out.

See I am a Foyt fan, is there one post that I state he was the greatest? Nope, because at Indy he wasn't but he was the luckiest. I consider Al Unser the greatest because in 3 500 he led over 100 and one, Dan Gurney's last 500, 190 laps. He was a surgeon.

So unlike some I look past the what I wish and go with what the stats tell me. This way I do not get all wrapped up trying to save a position that cannot be saved.

I thought this was interesting to bring up and discussing the history of one the U.S. greatest drivers and a little insight to his building, designing and the awards for that.

There is not unwilliness, there is your word of how you read it to the facts of that day.

I thought it was interesting even though I explained things 12 times you kept coming back and acting like this was something new. So is that selective reading of my stuff, or did you do the same in the case of the book?

As a teacher I saw this done many times. That again was why there were pop quizes.


Enjoy the evening. Argue this point about that Duns, Scotland driver and you will not get much from me except another surgeon.