Syracuse surprise!

Just when you think you have it all worked out...

In 1932 Louis Schneider and Bill Cummings were team mates at Indy in Schneider's Bowes Seal Fast team, with Louis driving the 1931 500 winner (#1) and Bill the older car, 3rd place finisher in 1930 (#10). Schneider went out with a broken frame, while Cummings wrecked the engine, so Bill would sit out the next race at Detroit on Sunday, while Louis would presumably mate the surviving engine to the surviving car. Indeed, Phil Harms shows Schneider in #10, with Cummings being snapped up by the Boyle team to drive their potent 8-cylinder Miller (#8), starting a successful association which would last until Bill's death 7 years later.

So far everything's fine, and two weeks later Cummings and the Boyle showed up at Roby with #10, as that was Bill's number from his tenth place finish in the 1931 championship, while Schneider was back in "his" #1, surely the repaired Indy winner again, or just maybe the 1930 car of his own stable with the number transferred???

Then I find this picture at the Rumbledrome site, purportedly showing Schneider at Syracuse on July 2, 1932:



Surprise, surprise!!! How wrong can one be when going by guesswork alone? This car is very obviously the sister car to the Boyle 8-cylinder, the Miller 230 owned by Ralph Hepburn, and driven at Indy and Detroit by Wilbur Shaw (#3)! Another, rather enthusiasm dampening reminder of how important it is to back up even the most logical guesswork by factual evidence such as photographs - there is no, was never and will never be a substitute for that!

The AAA Official Report from Roby Speedway on June 19 now confirms that Schneider drove the Hepburn car as #1 Bowes Seal Fast already there.

Matching avatars… it's uncanny!!! 

No, not at all. They were remaindered a while a go, and apparently I wasn't the only one to take advantage

:-)

A ten year gap between postings is that a record for posting on a single thread by a single TNFer ? 

 

What took the "AAA Official Report" from Roby Speedway on June 19 so long to confirm that Schneider drove the Hepburn car, has the official report only just been found or has it recenty been altered ?

Ten years? Nah, not even nine and a half! In fact, not even nine years and five months...

The Official Report lay dormant for more than eighty years. It's fascinating, I find all kinds of information nuggets just like this all the time, rummaging in those old documents. I feel like the first man on the moon.

It's clear to me, that whoever had access to these in the past, didn't have the desire to digest all of it. I am guessing that Phil Harms had a good look, but decided to concentrate on the very basic information that has by now made it into countless copycat race statistics, warts and all. It's time for a revolution.

Edited by Michael Ferner, 16 May 2017 - 15:04.

It's clear to me, that whoever had access to these in the past, didn't have the desire to digest all of it. I am guessing that Phil Harms had a good look, but decided to concentrate on the very basic information that has by now made it into countless copycat race statistics, warts and all. It's time for a revolution.

 

Some folks just aren't as interested in spending that much time simply to authenticate some rich dude's toy 

 

And without Phil Harms concentrating on that very basic information, which no one to that point had even bothered with, you wouldn't be anywhere near this far along. He was quite aware that there were bound to be errors and was very happy with them being found and corrected.

Yes, I know that. Phil Harms was a hero, and he was interested in being corrected. However, his apostles are not, and keep regurgitating the same nonsense over and over, and what's more, they will defend it to death. "But it is written in the Holy Book of Champ Car Stats..."

Yes, I know that. Phil Harms was a hero, and he was interested in being corrected. However, his apostles are not, and keep regurgitating the same nonsense over and over, and what's more, they will defend it to death. "But it is written in the Holy Book of Champ Car Stats..."

 

I hear you on that. But, Phil shouldn't be blamed for the faulty mindset of others (I know the poster you are referring to here   ). That's all down to him and not Phil. Perhaps I should point that out to him over on that forum, just so I can be on the receiving end of another his childish replies    (nah, I'll save that for next time he comes back with "but it's on Champcarstats", so it won't be long) 

 

Blaming Phil Harms for these types of posters reminds me of a music writer c, 1990 giving a positive reassessment of Led Zeppelin by noting: "It is unfair to blame them or hold them accountable for all that came after them." 

...and look, let's face it. To some at that forum, if it wasn't Phil Harms' Champcarstats.com data, it would be something else cited unassailably. Some other website, some other book. You know that, I know that... 

I'm not blaming Phil, not at all. But, do we need to move on? I say, yes, definitely. I'm sure Phil would have moved on, taking in criticism and correcting his box scores all along since 2005. He's no longer with us, and his input will be missed, but that's life. We can't just stop here, and stare the status quo in the eye just because he's no longer here, just out of respect for his immense contribution. That doesn't make sense.

Concur completely Michael. I wasn't for a minute suggesting Phil's work not be amended, because he would be doing the same were he here. Considering the real problem is as you describe, people continually regurgitating inaccurate info that is easily found via internet sites, correcting those internet sites would seem to be the most pressing issue.

Isn't that exactly what we're trying to accomplish with Ryan's thread over there? Correcting his inept posts, only to end up with "his childish replies"? I'm just fresh out of another "barfight" over there, pointing out that Ferrari's "first F1 race" wasn't Monaco in 1950 and this and that, followed by a post with a Wikipedia link showing Silverstone 1950 to have been the first F1 race, yada yada yada. I do think that in the long run, (most) people will see how ridiculous this guy is, and that it's important to not let his "wisdom" go unchallenged, but my, this makes Sisyphos's job look like a walk in the park!!

If, on the other hand, you're suggesting to try and make changes to ChampCarStats, then my answer is: no, thanks. That's like correcting entries to Wikipedia, the same ole' Sisyphos-type job and you're still going to be at the mercy of someone with questionable knowledge, at best. I have a better idea.

Isn't that exactly what we're trying to accomplish with Ryan's thread over there? Correcting his inept posts, only to end up with "his childish replies"? I'm just fresh out of another "barfight" over there, pointing out that Ferrari's "first F1 race" wasn't Monaco in 1950 and this and that, followed by a post with a Wikipedia link showing Silverstone 1950 to have been the first F1 race, yada yada yada. I do think that in the long run, (most) people will see how ridiculous this guy is, and that it's important to not let his "wisdom" go unchallenged, but my, this makes Sisyphos's job look like a walk in the park!!

If, on the other hand, you're suggesting to try and make changes to ChampCarStats, then my answer is: no, thanks. That's like correcting entries to Wikipedia, the same ole' Sisyphos-type job and you're still going to be at the mercy of someone with questionable knowledge, at best. I have a better idea.

 

True, but we're correcting him (or others) and not their sources, which is where it originates ("and the circle, goes round and round...") BTW, I heard from Sisyphus, he said he doesn't envy us. He'll take the rock    Oh how well I know about being at the mercy of those less knowledgeable. It's happened at Wikipedia and I recently discovered that some of my well-researched info has been replaced at Racing Reference.com. At least there, I can combat it by providing direct links, at least when possible. That sort of stops the sloppy researchers in their tracks with a nice period and exclamation point on it.

 

I look forward to your better idea and I would be very willing to help if possible.

Ten years? Nah, not even nine and a half! In fact, not even nine years and five months...

 

TNF pedant to the the end ;-)

The Official Report lay dormant for more than eighty years. It's fascinating, I find all kinds of information nuggets just like this all the time, rummaging in those old documents. I feel like the first man on the moon.

 

Keep up the good work and keep sharing it

It's time for a revolution.

 

Count me in

 

 

 We can't just stop here, and stare the status quo in the eye just because he's no longer here, just out of respect for his immense contribution. That doesn't make sense.

 

 

 

 I have a better idea.

 

 

 

 

 

I look forward to your better idea and I would be very willing to help if possible.

 

Ditto if there should be anything beyond the continued moral encouragement from a fellow TNFer on the sidelines please shout or more usefully PM me

Yes, I know that. Phil Harms was a hero, and he was interested in being corrected. However, his apostles are not, and keep regurgitating the same nonsense over and over, and what's more, they will defend it to death. "But it is written in the Holy Book of Champ Car Stats..."

 

 

I hear you on that. But, Phil shouldn't be blamed for the faulty mindset of others (I know the poster you are referring to here   ). That's all down to him and not Phil. Perhaps I should point that out to him over on that forum, just so I can be on the receiving end of another his childish replies    (nah, I'll save that for next time he comes back with "but it's on Champcarstats", so it won't be long) 

 

Blaming Phil Harms for these types of posters reminds me of a music writer c, 1990 giving a positive reassessment of Led Zeppelin by noting: "It is unfair to blame them or hold them accountable for all that came after them." 

 

The so-called "apostles" of Phil Harms are really charlatans, lacking any of the ability that Harms had for research and they are possibly even worse -- if that is possible -- at grasping what Harms in my opinion was really attempting to do: establish a baseline for future development. Phil Harms was, indeed, one of the few heroes in a field that still tends to be overwhelmed by charlatans, thieves, the inept, and the often merely intellectually-challenged. Phil was someone not only willing to share what he had, but open to the notion that his work was not the Alpha and Omega, that there were the inevitable errors that come from dealing with the sort of research he was conducting. Phil Harms and John Glenn Printz deserve great credit for both their work and their willingness to help others. That their work tends to take a backseat to those who are really more akin to Russ Catlin in their profound ignorance and arrogance really is shameful and disgusting.