Protests in motor racing

In a magazine from early 1954 I came upon a short notice about the repeated refusal of a protest of Ferrari team manager Ugolini by the Automobile Club of Argentina. Believing Fangio had already been disqualified from the Argentinian GP Ugolini had shown signs to Farina to slow down. But not only was the protest turned down but a fine was inflicted on Ferrari, too! Incidentally Maserati was fined the same way for undisciplined behaviour of their pit crew.

I’m sure TNF’ers remember more cases of protests in motor racing (maybe even some successful ones).

Perhaps the classic one was the Bathurst result of 1986...

Locals twigged that the Eggenberger (sp?) Sierras had rather more rear tyre clearance than they should have. Things swayed to and fro... the race was run and won by the errant Sierras... the hearings were heard, they moved on to International hearings until finally the cars were excluded many months after the event.

The irony being that the cars were never challenged in Europe, where it was easier to check their credibility. But it was only the persistence of the team prosecuting the case that led to their ultimate downfall.

Was the McLaren disqualification in Spain in 1976, a result of protest or scrutineering?

Originally posted by Ruairidh
Was the McLaren disqualification in Spain in 1976, a result of protest or scrutineering?

Hunt's win was reinstated some time later in the season. Car was a bit wider than allowed but FIA accepted McLaren's explanation, however they were fined anyway.

I think we could also mention the Piquet ( winner ) and Rosberg ( 2nd ) disqualification in Brazil 1982, as a result of protests from ather teams against their big deposits for carrying water, apparently, to cool the brakes.

Some big protests too took place in 1976. It was the Swedish GP and all teams showed their disagreement with the Brabham BT46 and its fan at the rear. Though the car was not illegal, Ecclestone decided to withdraw it after having won the race at a canter.

Originally posted by WHITE

Some big protests too took place in 1976. It was the Swedish GP and all teams showed their disagreement with the Brabham BT46 and its fan at the rear. Though the car was not illegal, Ecclestone decided to withdraw it after having won the race at a canter.

I think on a strict interpretation the car was illegal - the fan's primary use was as an aerodynamic device, which was demonstrated by Brabham never running it in such a way that all it could do was cool the engine. But the Swedish stewards were clueless, or paranoid, or something. Robbed Arrows of a GP win, although at the time I don't think many were that bothered.

Indy 1981...and they wonder why CART was formed. Indy had shown similar cluelessness before, notably in 1962 when leaking oil was a DQable offence, unless you were a roadster leading a British car in which case you were allowed to soak the circuit and ruin the races of Eddie Sachs and Roger McCluskey, and back in the 20s when Howard Wilcox was banned on the basis he was diabetic.

The blatant nationalism - nay, racism - of the Monte Carlo stewards in 1966, DQing as many cars as necessary on the grounds they were not French in the Monte Carlo Rally to enable Citroen to gain the most tainted victory possible. Prince Rainier walked out of the prize-giving in protest. Was the DQ because Citroen protested or just green-eyed monsters stalking the organizers?

And there was that mad homologation scandal in the first WTCC that ended up with gazillions of cars disqualified at Monza.

Originally posted by ensign14
I think on a strict interpretation the car was illegal - the fan's primary use was as an aerodynamic device, which was demonstrated by Brabham never running it in such a way that all it could do was cool the engine. But the Swedish stewards were clueless, or paranoid, or something.

I know much have been said and written about that car. As far as I remember, fans were not prohibited as long as they were used for cooling purposes. I do not know whether Brabham's fan primary use was to cool the engine or not, but I have read that most of the flux it generated passed thru the radiators so aerodynamic use was a colateral benefit.
Rules did not say neither where fans had to be placed nor how they had to work, so Murray made the most convenient interpretation of said rules. The only thing Murray could be blamed for is having been more intelligent than FIA's rule makers.

Continuing with protests, we should remember Ferrari's against Michelin tyres in 1983.

Originally posted by WHITE


Hunt's win was reinstated some time later in the season. Car was a bit wider than allowed but FIA accepted McLaren's explanation, however they were fined anyway.

Yes, but regarding the initial disqualification - was that prompted by a protest or was it a surprise outcome of the CSI Inspection Committee that was present at that race as new rules (i.e. short not tall airboxes) were being introduced?????

Originally posted by WHITE


aerodynamic use was a colateral benefit.

The only thing Murray could be blamed for is having been more intelligent than FIA's rule makers.

Well I agree with the second contention, Gordon definitely spotted a loop-hole - which is why the car was (a) allowed to race (b) the result stood and © the rules were - quickly - changed.

As for aerodynamic use only being a collateral benefit - well that was the theory that successfully exploited the loophole wasn't it, the reality I'd humbly suggest was somewhat different - as Mr. Murray and his then-team owner knew ;)

Originally posted by Ruairidh


Yes, but regarding the initial disqualification - was that prompted by a protest or was it a surprise outcome of the CSI Inspection Committee that was present at that race as new rules (i.e. short not tall airboxes) were being introduced?????

As far as I remember, new rules had to come into force from that Gp on, so all cars were carefully examined to check if they met new regs. Hunt's disqualification was not as a result of any protest.

I think we must be careful to differentiate between disqualifications instigated by race organisers along with the associated appeals against them and protests by one entrant or driver against another car. the latter are far rarer.

Originally posted by WHITE
Some big protests too took place in 1976. It was the Swedish GP and all teams showed their disagreement with the Brabham BT46 and its fan at the rear. Though the car was not illegal, Ecclestone decided to withdraw it after having won the race at a canter.

The way I remember it -- ever since I was there at that race -- was that 1976 saw another odd winner in the Swedish GP, Scheckter in the six-wheel P34. Nobody protested. In 1978, however, the BT46 fan car won, although for a while Mario Andretti did quite well in the ground effect Lotus 79.

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Perhaps the classic one was the Bathurst result of 1986...

Locals twigged that the Eggenberger (sp?) Sierras had rather more rear tyre clearance than they should have. Things swayed to and fro... the race was run and won by the errant Sierras... the hearings were heard, they moved on to International hearings until finally the cars were excluded many months after the event.

The irony being that the cars were never challenged in Europe, where it was easier to check their credibility. But it was only the persistence of the team prosecuting the case that led to their ultimate downfall.

Highlights one of the problems of having a single "Series Scrutineer". One person's acceptance of modifications rather than different people in different countries getting to check against Appendix J. I think I clashed with the same gentleman as a competitor in Belgium's major International really a few years earlier...

Originally posted by D-Type
I think we must be careful to differentiate between disqualifications instigated by race organisers along with the associated appeals against them and protests by one entrant or driver against another car. the latter are far rarer.

This is true !

But protests by one team against another, are not as rare as it may seem. I
remember few examples: at the beginning of the 70s, Georges Bignoti protested ( or accused ) A.J. Foyt had a hidden fuel tank in his car. I do not know anything else about it.
In 1983, Renault, and to a certain extent Ferrari too, protested that KKK was suplying Brabham-BMW with much better turbos than those given to them. Also that year, there were protests against BMW's strange onion smelling fuel.
In 1997, some protests arouse against Ferrari's flexible bargeboards. A bit later came the protests against McLaren´s asymetrical brake system that pushed FIA into forbidding it.
I even remember that, at the beginning of the turbo era in the 80s, Ken Tyrrell protesting against turbos saying that they were movable aerodynamic devices.
I am sure more examples can be given and I eagerly wait form them.

Originally posted by Ruairidh


the reality I'd humbly suggest was somewhat different - as Mr. Murray and his then-team owner knew ;)

I would also humbly accept this reality. However the only "reality" that counts is the written one and there was not anything written against that car.

Originally posted by D-Type
[...]protests by one entrant or driver against another car

That in fact was the idea for this thread...

No problem with discussing disqualifications etc. but as long as they aren't related to a competitor's protest please discuss them elsewhere. Thank you.

Coloni serially protested other teams in F3000. They protested both Arden cars at Monza in 2002 for not entirely evident reasons.

And they protested Andreas Scheldt's unexpected 2nd place at Nurburgring in 2000 on the basis that he altered the car's specifications in parc ferme. In particular, he pinched off a bit of sticky tape that had blown onto the front wing endplate. To the stewards' eternal shame, they upheld the latter and DQ'd him. However, Coloni got what they wanted, one of their cars got an extra 2 points. Wankers.

they didnt had to change or add a rule to ban the vaccum -brabham ,since the very beginning of "aero" ruling in 1969 . theres a rule to ban any mobile aerodynamic device. later the same clause appplied rightfully for the "mobile" skirt.the emergency came from the fact that those vaccum car were throwing the dust and marble to the back ,a real hazzard for the other cars

Originally posted by ensign14
And there was that mad homologation scandal in the first WTCC that ended up with gazillions of cars disqualified at Monza.

Could you explain more about that? I can't remember about it.

I only can recall an ETCC race in the late 1980s at Monza and practically a lot of cars got disqualifed and a Holden got the win.

I may be conflating the two. Wasn't there something that cost Steve Soper the WTCC title cos of problems with the Eggenberger Sierra? Or was that the ETCC?

Originally posted by philippe charuest

...the emergency came from the fact that those vaccum car were throwing the dust and marble to the back ,a real hazzard for the other cars

I don't remember anyone protesting the Chaparral 2J for that reason.

Funny that it happened to BCE's team, though...

Originally posted by philippe charuest
the emergency came from the fact that those vaccum car were throwing the dust and marble to the back ,a real hazzard for the other cars

By then, Brabham was one of my favorite teams so I followed that matter with great interest. From what I remember, there were many other "things" around all that business.
If what FISA really wanted to avoid had been the throwing of dust and debris to the back, or prevent the use of fans with other purposes than for cooling, they could have simply banned the skirts or asked for a flat bottom to avoid fan from extracting air from under the car. This would have been more than enough. However, the problem was that this would have meant the end of the wing car itself, but this was something no team wanted as they were all already working on their own wing cars.
Ecclestone, had already come to an agreement with the other team bosses by which he would withdraw the car at the exchange of getting total control of FOCA. FISA knew this and decided to forbid the car to avoid people thinking that such a desicion had not been taken by them. The only excuse they could find to forbid he car was the dust and marbles thrown backwards which, by the way, could have also been avoided simply by fitting a sieve either before or after the fan.
We can even remember that the throwing of stones to the back is something that had always happened. In fact, Helmut Marko lost a eye by the violent impact of a stone thrown by the car in front of him - Emerson Fittipaldi's Lotus, I think.
In the Brabham's case, the rule against aerodynamic movable devices did not apply because fan had a cooling purpose, something which was not forbiden. If this rule could have been applied, they would not have had to fall back on "security matters" to ban the fan.

Originally posted by WHITE

In the Brabham's case, the rule against aerodynamic movable devices did not apply because fan had a cooling purpose, something which was not forbiden. If this rule could have been applied, they would not have had to fall back on "security matters" to ban the fan.

The rule was that you could not have anything whose PRIMARY purpose was aerodynamic. So if the fan spent 60% of the time cooling then it would have been legal. But the fan's primary purpose WAS aerodynamic, as they never ran the car in such a form that all the fan did was cool. QED.

Originally posted by bigears


Could you explain more about that? I can't remember about it.

I only can recall an ETCC race in the late 1980s at Monza and practically a lot of cars got disqualifed and a Holden got the win.

Wasn't it the first race of the short lived WTCC? All the BMW M3s were excluded for bodywork (boot/trunk and minor wheel arch/side add-on bits of a diffferent material from what was actually homologated in Group A.

Originally posted by ensign14
they never ran the car in such a form that all the fan did was cool. QED.

They did not have to !

Originally posted by Twin Window
I don't remember anyone protesting the Chaparral 2J for that reason.

Funny that it happened to BCE's team, though...

its because the chapparal never did more then two lap in a row without falling apart ;)

That's right... the opening round at Monza...

It was the opening round at Monza, and all the cars were BMW M3`s that got DQ`d because they were running carbon fibre boot lids.

The Eggenberger cars were DQ`d in the `87 Bathurst, and were protested ( ironically ) by Frank Gardener`s JPS BMW team.. who were running M3`s..

Funny how the only protests I can think of are those who were not made. Like Moss who did not protest against Brabham who had been pushed back on the track after a spin out - that was a Portugal GP I think, 1959 ? (err help me here, faulty memory can't be backed up with books or mags actually

I think you're thinking of 1958 and Hawthorn...

Well, not really. Moss stopped to tell Hawthorn to turn the car around and push it downhill to restart (so he could finish the race and get the point that ultimately gave him the title...), while the following year Moss was excluded for doing something similar. I don't think there was a protest involved anywhere in that.

Moss gave evidence on Hawthorn's behalf, as I recall.

Yes thanks Ray I was thinking about 1958 and Hawthorn. I meant that he (or Vanwall) could have made a protest but did not. If they had Hawthorn would have been disqualified wouldn't he ?

Originally posted by stuartbrs
It was the opening round at Monza, and all the cars were BMW M3`s that got DQ`d because they were running carbon fibre boot lids.

The Eggenberger cars were DQ`d in the `87 Bathurst, and were protested ( ironically ) by Frank Gardener`s JPS BMW team.. who were running M3`s..

At that time I remember the press wrote about a different (slimmer) thickness of some steel panels, there is an excellent piece on Frank de Jong site, with an interview to the Hungarian driver/team owner of the only M3 left after scrutineering...

http://homepage.mac....20Cserkuti.html

Other legendary protests:

1982 water tanks inatmo F1 cars.
Ken Tyrrell protesting the turbocars as using two engines, turbo being a second engine

About the '78 brabham Bt46B:

It was legal to the rule: the fan was indeed used to aid the passing of air through the radiators. But the rule was in fact used because the aerodynamic effect was more important and the main reason to try the system But using the air to cool the engine as well, that was the loophole Murray needed to make the system legal for the time being.
Cooling was very efficien by the way. Alfa's retired quite often that year with engine failure but not in Sweden: the improved cooling may have something to do with that?





non F1:

Indy 500 1981: Did Unser or Andretti wil legally?
Indy 500 2002: Did Tracy pass Catroveves yes or no? (more correct: Do we want yet another Penske victory at Indy because it is IRL or do we accept an intruder win the race?)

Henri

Originally posted by Frank Verplanken
Yes thanks Ray I was thinking about 1958 and Hawthorn. I meant that he (or Vanwall) could have made a protest but did not. If they had Hawthorn would have been disqualified wouldn't he ?

I think the very fact that Moss suggested it to him, and that he stood up for him, indicates that this question is one that couldn't be answered...

In both cases it was obviously the Stewards or the organisers who took the action. No protests.

Henri... the other issue involved in that, IIRC, was that the surface radiators of the Brabham as used to that time weren't doing their job properly.

Originally posted by WHITE
Continuing with protests, we should remember Ferrari's against Michelin tyres in 1983.

And again 20 years later! (Did Ferrari actually lodge an official protest in 2003? Or just make their feelings known to the media?)

Here are some other cases of motor racing protests, some out of my head and some found with the help of my old friend "Mr Google":

1948 Swedish GP: This page suggests that Bira lost his victory as the result of "a protest", but doesn't identify who lodged it (presumably the second-placed Ferrari team?)

1957 Australian GP: A protest over a minor placing led to the lap charts being reviewed, relegating Stan Jones, who thought he'd won, to second place. Refer http://www.sportscar...rini/index.html

1975 British GP (the one where a late-race cloudburst resulted in virtually every car crashing) : I have some vague recollection of protests (by Tyrrell?) about the results of this race, but I couldn't immediately find eny evidence.

1982 Long Beach Grand Prix (hi Don!) : Was Villeneuve's disqualification the result of a protest?

1995 Italian GP: Benetton protested Damon Hill after Hill ran into the back of Schumacher(M). See http://www.johnnyher.../monzawin.shtml

1996 British GP: Benetton protested against the front wind endplates on Villeneuve's winning Williams (they claimed they were asymmetrical). [rejected]

1998 Australian GP: The chairman of the Australian Grand Prix Corporation, Ron Walker, lodged an official protest over the method of Hakkinen's victory (i.e. Coulthard moving over with 2 laps to go) [I recognise this is outside the specified scope of protests raised by others drivers or teams]

2001 Austrian GP: BAR protested that Raikkonen overtook Luciano Burti under yellow flags [protest rejected]

If we're including motorcycles, you can add the following:

2002 Dutch Motorcycle GP: "There was also confusion about who finished seventh with the yellow flags out at the chicane for the Ukawa crash. After a protest and counter protest, American John Hopkins, riding the two stroke Yamaha, was awarded seventh, his best grand prix finish, in front of Shinya Nakano and Norick Abe. " From http://www.bikersweb...SEN/results.htm

2004 Qatar Motorcycle GP: "Before the race began Honda lodged a protest against Rossi’s crew for tampering with his grid slot by burning rubber from a paddock scooter onto the tarmac to enhance grip at the start. Yamaha then made a tit-for-tat protest about Biaggi’s crew who had swept his grid slot clean. Both were upheld and Rossi and Max Biaggi (Camel Honda RC211V) were each given a six second time penalty before the start. This relegated them to the back of the grid." From http://world.honda.c.../2004/1002.html


Finally, regarding the Brabham fan-car, as (from memory) Alan Henry points out in his book Brabham, The Grand Prix Cars, if you're talking about the general English-language definition of the word, I fail to see how anyone can claim that the primary purpose of any fan is not "aerodynamic" (i.e. related to the motion of air/fluids). Of course, the term "aerodynamic" may be/have been specifically defined in the Formula One regulations.

Regards,
David.

Originally posted by David Hyland
.....1957 Australian GP: A protest over a minor placing led to the lap charts being reviewed, relegating Stan Jones, who thought he'd won, to second place. Refer http://www.sportscar...rini/index.html.....

Oh yeah... that travesty...

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Oh yeah... that travesty...

Do tell....

Simply... there are many who claim that Stan wuz robbed!

John Cummins is among them. The official lap charts were in a shambles and the decision was made based on a conglomeration of lap charts from up and down the pits.

One of a few AGPs Davo got awarded that should have belonged to others...

Originally posted by David Hyland

1982 Long Beach Grand Prix (hi Don!) : Was Villeneuve's disqualification the result of a protest?

David.

Yes it was: Ken Tyrrell acting up another time.
I had always felt some sympathy for Tyrrell (though I got sick that every new driver he hired had something else again he had not seen since the days of Stewart anymore)
But during '82 with all his anti turbo protesting, I began to lose sympathy and from '84 on when he cheated even more big time didn't care about him anymore.


I also vaguely remember an occasion when I believe somewhere in the 80's Lotus was disqualified for oversized brake ducts after a rival team protesting against them?

Henri

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
I also vaguely remember an occasion when I believe somewhere in the 80's Lotus was disqualified for oversized brake ducts after a rival team protesting against them?

1987 Australian GP. Benetton protested Senna's 2nd place Lotus, resulting in a Ferrari 1-2 with Boutsen's Benetton 3rd. How could I forget? I was there! (and it was hot!!)

David.

Originally posted by WHITE


This is true !

But protests by one team against another, are not as rare as it may seem. I
remember few examples: at the beginning of the 70s, Georges Bignoti protested ( or accused ) A.J. Foyt had a hidden fuel tank in his car. I do not know anything else about it.

Aahhh, yes! 1974, in qualifications. Foyt's Coyote just happened to be the "class of the field" through practice and qualifications. The turbocharged Foyt V8 (nee' turbocharged Ford DOHC) was getting more power and more fuel mileage than the turbocharged Offenhausers used by most of the rest of the entrants, including the team headed up by Bignotti. There was absolutely no love lost in those days, between Bignotti and Foyt, stemming back to their tempestuous relationship as crew chief and driver 1961-65. Then there was Foyt's penchant for insisting on covering the rather unusual nose section of the Coyotes immediately upon leaving their garage, being pushed to the pits, and upon the cars' returning to their pits after each practice run. A lot of speculation went around the Speedway as to what unknown, exotic tricks Foyt had come up with INSIDE that nose cone to make the Coyote that much faster than so many others.

George Bignotti went so far as to claim (and IIRC, file a protest with USAC to that effect) that Foyt's crew had put upwards of 10 gallons of fuel capacity (over and above the then 40-gallon onboard limit) in the Coyote's onboard fire extinguisher system. That protest was quietly dismissed by USAC, greeted with loud guffaws by Foyt, and became the cause of much derision of Bignotti by fans and the press. It's still funny!

Art

Here are some more:

1936 Coppa Acerbo Junior: Maserati filed a protest against Seaman's Delage, asking for a verification of its engine capacity. Source

1964 Italian GP: Louis Stanley (on behalf of BRM) protested against John Surtees' participation on the basis that not enough time had elapsed since he had had concussion (resulting from a crash in the Tourist Trophy race at Goodwood the previous weekend). Source

1976 British GP: "there were protests against Hunt having been allowed to take part". Source

1998 Brazilian GP: After the official protest from Ferrari, Sauber, Benetton, Minardi and Tyrrell the extra brake systems used by McLaren, Williams and Jordan were declared illegal by the race stewards. Source

2001 Australian Grand Prix: Shortly after the race, Sauber filed a formal complaint against both BAR's Olivier Panis and Arrows' Jos Verstappen, claiming that these drivers illegally overtook Nick Heidfeld while the race was under yellow flags--after Bernoldi Kiesa's accident on lap 2. The protest was upheld by the race officials. Source

2001 Belgian GP: THE McLaren team lodged a protest against 17 of the competing cars after qualifying for the Belgian Grand Prix on the basis that they had ignored the rule which requires one to slow down for a waved yellow warning flag. Source

Motorcycles:

2003 British MotoGP: a protest made against Rossi for passing under the yellow flag on the start of lap two incurred a 10 second penalty and dropped Rossi from 1st place to 3rd. Source

I've found this really interesting - thanks for starting the thread, ReWind!

Originally posted by Henri Greuter



non F1:

Indy 500 2002: Did Tracy pass Catroveves yes or no? (more correct: Do we want yet another Penske victory at Indy because it is IRL or do we accept an intruder win the race?)

Henri

What about Indy 1995 (Scott Goodyear).

Another one from the IRL when USAC still sanctioned the races.
Texas 1997. Billy Boat got the checquered flag and was already in winners' circle.
Arie Luyendijk, finishing third, claimed to have won the race because he was informed by his team he was counted one lap too few.
There was also an incident between Arie and AJ Foyt (Boat's teamowner).
Anyway the next day the laps were recounted and it appeared, there was a counting error of 2 laps on Arie's behalf, therefore Arie had won the race by more than a lap. There were also some other corrections.
I think they used chips for counting purposes and I think during some pitstops these chips did not work properly.
As a result IRL broke their connections with USAC.


Gerrit Stevens

Originally posted by David Hyland
2001 Belgian GP: The McLaren team lodged a protest against 17 of the competing cars...

... including one of their own, apparently!

Here are some more protests:

1992 Formula Opel Lotus Benelux Championship: Jos Vestappen dominated the series so completely that one of the rival team owners protested the legality of his engine. Source

1995 Belgian GP: Williams protested Schumacher(M), questioning the legality of his driving after he and Hill(D) banged wheels. Source

2003 United States GP meeting: Porsche Michelin Supercup race (Saturday) : #5 Frank Stippler, who finished fifth, was excluded from the race following a protest by #3 Wolf Henzler. The protest was upheld by the stewards. Source

2002 French GP: McLaren have lodged a protest against Michael Schumacher's victory in the French Grand Prix arguing that Schumacher passed Kimi Raikkonen under a yellow flag. Source

Here are a few instances where it's unclear (to me) whether the driver/team protested against another competitor, or against the lapscoring/result of the race (so I'm not sure whether they really fall within the scope of this discussion) :

1911 Indianapolis 500: Ralph Mulford protested the result, claiming he had lapped winner Ray Harroun during a slow lap when Harroun was limping around to the pits to replace a blown tyre. Source

1959 Grand National at Lakewood, Georgia: In 1959, Richard [Petty] thought he had won his first race after finishing first in the Grand National at Lakewood, Georgia. However, Lee [Petty], who finished second in the event, protested his son's victory. The protest was upheld, and Lee won the race. Source

1959 Daytona 500: Beauchamp and Ford protested Lee Petty's win. Source


Whilst researching this topic, I've found several sources describing teams "protesting" against a penalty (e.g. McLaren "protesting" against Coulthard's disqualification from the 2000 Brazilian Grand Prix). But I would have thought that one appeals against a penalty, rather than protesting, no? Regardless, I've omitted situations like this from this thread because even if they are considered as "protests", they're not against another competitor.

David.

That's right... you 'appeal' against a decision of the Stewards... not protest.

But you can lodge a protest against the actions of officials, I think.

Originally posted by gerrit stevens


What about Indy 1995 (Scott Goodyear).

Another one from the IRL when USAC still sanctioned the races.
Texas 1997. Billy Boat got the checquered flag and was already in winners' circle.
Arie Luyendijk, finishing third, claimed to have won the race because he was informed by his team he was counted one lap too few.
There was also an incident between Arie and AJ Foyt (Boat's teamowner).
Anyway the next day the laps were recounted and it appeared, there was a counting error of 2 laps on Arie's behalf, therefore Arie had won the race by more than a lap. There were also some other corrections.
I think they used chips for counting purposes and I think during some pitstops these chips did not work properly.
As a result IRL broke their connections with USAC.


Gerrit Stevens

As a result of Arie's claim, AJ punched him.

Originally posted by Slyder


As a result of Arie's claim, AJ punched him.

Float like a butterfly...