152 replies to this topic

[Lemnpiper]

True, Lemn. Both races Dan ran in 2011 were determined, to a large degree, by accidents in which JR was either the only player or one of the prime players.

I still say, however, that a JR win at Indy would have been a monumental upset. An unknown rookie winning, no matter who he drove for, would have been a shocker. I know I was pinching myself as JR led the last several laps. I simply could not believe what I was seeing.

Flat Black

The one big reason i would not have considered JR winning a great upset is my belief that these days the cars themselves seem to be more important that the driver.

The Panther team has had great Indy 500 finishes with Vitor and Dan prior to JR getting the ride ,so for JR to be contending for the win was no surprise to me. If anything i tend to fault the team and their spotters for not telling JR well enough how big a lead he truely had before he tried to pass Kimball the way he did. If they had won it would have been a mild upsset on the level of Al sr in 1987. Folks saw JR had potential prior to the race unlike with some others lumped into the "field " for betting purposes.


If You want a shocking win and major upset, Alex LLoyd with Coyne winning in 2010 would have been one.




Paul

[Flat Black 84]

Fair points, Lemn. Nevertheless, the pre-race consensus was that the winner would be from either the Penske or Ganassi stables. A win by just about anybody outside of that cohort would have surprised many folks and shocked most. That said, whenever a previous 500-winner such as Al Sr. or Wheldon wins, I'm less surprised. Even with the overweening importance of the cars and the team engineers, the drivers do make some difference. Indeed, when the cars are identical and the setups are very similar, one could argue that it is the drivers who tip the balance one way or tuther.

[Nigel Beresford]

Even with the overweening importance of the cars and the team engineers, the drivers do make some difference. Indeed, when the cars are identical and the setups are very similar, one could argue that it is the drivers who tip the balance one way or tuther.

This is true, and to expand on your point I'd say that one needs to more overtly acknowledge the fact that the driver doesn't just get in and drive what he's given - the setup is intrinsically developed by the driver / engineer partnership, and he has a lot of influence on the decisions taken. The driver bears a significant part of the responsibility for a bad or a good setup.

Edited by Nigel Beresford, 29 November 2011 - 22:25.