54 replies to this topic

[Henri Greuter]

OK, in the past 100 years of 500’s there have been races of which you can say well, X won it because of Y had the bad luck of loosing it because of…

Which races do you consider to be lost by someone who should have deserved to win it instead of the eventual winner and why?
Let me start with a shortlist:


1912: Ralph de Palma leading since lap 2, only to have an engine failure 2 laps from the finish and pushing the car to the line…

1947: Bill Holland being mislead by his team manager who did not indicate to him that his fast approaching teammate wasn’t unlapping himself while ignoring the instructions of the boss to slow down but took the lead and the race as well.

1952: Bill Vukovich showing what he did in 1953 as well: Running everyone into the ground and then being forced to retire with 8 laps to go because of a steering malfunction. At least he made up for it in later years.

1963: Jim Clark paying the price for chief Steeward Howard Fengler’s patriotism and cowardism. Because of failing to stick to his principles after having told in the pre-race briefing that he would blackflag anyone who leaked oil. And in the race taking out only one car because of an oil leak but allowing the leader (driving a car owned by a powerful car owner) to continue despite an oil leak. If Clark would have appreciated winning the race because of the leader being taken out is another matter….

1967: Parnelli Jones had the field covered but a bearing in the drive line of the Turbine failing with only 4 laps to go.

1968: Pity for Joe Leonard to be so close yet so far after a well driven race in an underpowered car compared with his opponents. At least one victory for a Turbine would have been nice before they were banned and a bit of a reward for the STP Lotus team after all their misery and bad luck.

1977: Gordon Johncock leading the race but his engine blows with 16 laps to go. A final victory for an Offy with full race distance covered would have been nice and a fitting end to the winning career of the fourbanger dynasty.

1987: Mario really didn’t deserve to loose that race after such a magnificent display of domination all month long till that far in the race.

1992: After such a dominating performance and all misery (injuries) for his other family members in the race that year, Michael Andretti really deserved to have won that race.

henri

[RA Historian]

Well, Henri, this could be opening a real can of worms!

But, just for the heck of it, IMO Jim Clark could have won four straight. Not necessarily should have, but could have.

1963- as mentioned, Harlan Fengler (not Howard), the chief steward, reneged on his pre-race statements and allowed an establishment car to remain in the race even though it was in contravention of the rules regarding oil droppage. To this day I believe that his decision was political, in that Fengler and the Indy establishment were aghast at the prospect of a "furriner" winning their race. His decision was no doubt influenced by the fact that the leader was fan favorite Parnelli Jones driving a roadster (remember that at that time any change at Indy such as a rear engine car was regarded by both the establishment and the fans as worse than the plague) owned by very powerful team owner J.C. Agajanian.

1964- had the race covered until the Dunlops chunked. Had Chunky (I know, bad juxtaposition of terms) opted for Firestones, Jimmy would have won easily.

1965- won easily

1966- finished second after two spins. Could have won perhaps if he knew his actual position in the race. Had Chapman not dropped a lap on his scoring sheet Clark could have been informed of his actual track position. Then who knows what would have happened, but it certainly is a possibility that Jimmy could have caught Graham.

Tom

Edited by RA Historian, 22 February 2011 - 14:42.

[B Squared]

Bobby Unser dominated the second half of the 1979 "500" in his Penske PC7. He lost 4th (high) gear on lap 182 after leading 89 laps, but found 3rd gear and limped home 5th. Al had dominated the first half in the Chaparral 2K. Rick Mears, Bobby's Penske teammate won in the PC6. Motorsport magazine did an article on this saga in February, 2002 in "The One That Got Away" by Adam Cooper, titled "Who Let the Cogs Out".

photo: IMS


edit: photo added.
edit: I want to be clear that I do not believe that Rick Mears was undeserving of his first win.

Edited by B Squared, 23 February 2011 - 11:54.

[B Squared]

1964- had the race covered until the Dunlops chunked. Had Chunky (I know, bad juxtaposition of terms) opted for Firestones, Jimmy would have won easily.

Since we're on the "what if" bandwagon, Bobby Marshman might have had something to say about Jim's "easy" win. Clark was almost 30 seconds behind Bobby when he retired. Marshman led 33 straight laps (the second most of the day. Foyt led 146). Clark led 14. Only 7 of those laps after Bobby retired, yet Jim Clark is always remembered as the one who was ruling the day when he broke.

[Henri Greuter]

Since we're on the "what if" bandwagon, Bobby Marshman might have had something to say about Jim's "easy" win. Clark was almost 30 seconds behind Bobby when he retired. Marshman led 33 straight laps (the second most of the day. Foyt led 146). Clark led 14. Only 7 of those laps after Bobby retired, yet Jim Clark is always remembered as the one who was ruling the day when he broke.

Since both Marshman and Clark had retired before 1/4th of the race was over I don't put 1964 in the list of races that should have had another winner. They were simply out way too quick and the race was way too long to say that nothing else could have happened to them before the race was over. still so much to go in which so much could have gone wrong for them instead.

I must add to my original list that the eventual outcome of several of the races became much more spectacular ( '87 an '92 ) or a special victory (77 and 87) then for what the races would be remembered for had `the unlucky looser`won instead. But maybe more memorable nowadays because of how it went, it wasn't justice all the time.

Henri

[B Squared]

Since both Marshman and Clark had retired before 1/4th of the race was over I don't put 1964 in the list of races that should have had another winner. They were simply out way too quick and the race was way too long to say that nothing else could have happened to them before the race was over. still so much to go in which so much could have gone wrong for them instead.

I concur with your assessment Henri. It just gets old hearing how JC lost a sure win that day. Bobby was in a refitted 29 while Jim was in a new 34. Bobby was faster than Jim all month until Pole Day in which the day ended very much like Peter Revson and Mark Donohue in 1971. I'd very much like for Bobby to be given a bit of respect for his performance during May, 1964 - that's all.

[Bob Riebe]

1965 Al Miller, had he not had the small tank Lotus and had to make extra pit stops, he would have won easily.

Edited by Bob Riebe, 22 February 2011 - 18:21.

[BRG]

Didn't Emmo punt someone out of the lead on the last lap (Lil' Al?) to take the win himself?

And didn't Mansell reckon that Dennis Vitolo cost him a 500 win (but our Noige isn't always the most reliable witness!)

[B Squared]

Didn't Emmo punt someone out of the lead on the last lap (Lil' Al?) to take the win himself?

And didn't Mansell reckon that Dennis Vitolo cost him a 500 win (but our Noige isn't always the most reliable witness!)

Lap 199 in 1989. Al Jr. says that it "was the best slide job anyone ever gave me".



Nigel wasn't going to beat Fittipaldi or Unser Jr. in the Penske's in 1994. He cost himself the win through lack of experience in 1993.

[RA Historian]

1965 Al Miller, had he not had the small tank Lotus and had to make extra pit stops, he would have won easily.

You will get an argument on THAT!

[buckaluck]

Well not sure how everyone feels about Danika but for lack of a gallon or two of fuel and she would have won the Indy 500 just one more second of fuel on her last pit stop and she would have won her first race at Indy! She has been consistent since then but not quite a winner save for in Japan. She may just be missing two things that would help make her a winner again, not much chance she will grow those any time soon.

[ensign14]

Scott Goodyear in 1995, stiffed by USAC incompetence. And if you say it's his fault for passing the safety car when he did, I give you 1997, when USAC stopped him winning by leaving the yellow lights on by mistake.

Gary Bettenhausen in 1972, and maybe Tony in 1951, making the wrong choice.

Jimmy Reece in 1958. Think he actually completed 500 miles of racing faster than anyone, but had spent so much time in the pits getting the dents from the O'Connor crash out he was down in sixth.

Dan Wheldon in 2006. Had it not been for Scheckter's crash early on he'd've lapped the field. And he needed the extra margin as a puncture cost him dearly.

[Fiorentina 1]

What about 87 when Roberto Guerrero was leading but stalled during his last pit stop? Or 97 when Robby Gordon ran out of fuel while leading with a lap to go?

[FLB]

1964- had the race covered until the Dunlops chunked. Had Chunky (I know, bad juxtaposition of terms) opted for Firestones, Jimmy would have won easily.

That said, if Rodger Ward's fuel mix valve had been correctly installed...

[dbltop]

I will nominate Paul Tracy as one who deserved to win in whatever year it was that he got screwed.

[RA Historian]

Well not sure how everyone feels about Danika but for lack of a gallon or two of fuel ...

Danica

That said, if Rodger Ward's fuel mix valve had been correctly installed...

Good point indeed. What did he make, six stops? As I recall he was very fast, but running full rich had to stop so many times that he filled his Green Stamps book.

I will nominate Paul Tracy as one who deserved to win in whatever year it was that he got screwed.

2002. He won, but got screwed by Tony George, the Great Brian Barnhart, and the then Indy establishment because he was a CART driver.

Tom

[cheapracer]

Isn't it amazing how many racers through history have pushed their cars harder to be way out front but have "bad luck" when their cars break ....

[RA Historian]

Isn't it amazing how many racers through history have pushed their cars harder to be way out front but have "bad luck" when their cars break ....

Very interesting point indeed!

Tom

[Amphicar]

1965 Al Miller, had he not had the small tank Lotus and had to make extra pit stops, he would have won easily.

Less fuel because of the smaller fuel tank meant that the car was lighter and therefore faster than it would have been with a bigger and heavier fuel tank. More pit stops are the price you pay for running lighter and faster.

[Bob Riebe]

Less fuel because of the smaller fuel tank meant that the car was lighter and therefore faster than it would have been with a bigger and heavier fuel tank. More pit stops are the price you pay for running lighter and faster.

Driver weight differences cancel that reason.

[B Squared]

1965 Al Miller, had he not had the small tank Lotus and had to make extra pit stops, he would have won easily.

Bob - I've never heard this before. Clark led 190 of the 200 laps and won, in my opinion, easily. Could you fill me in on a few of the details, I'm aware that Al finished a great 4th behind Clark, Parnelli and Mario, but I'm unfamiliar with the pit stop time differential. Thanks for your help.

[Amphicar]

Driver weight differences cancel that reason.

Not with the same driver! I'm saying that if Al Miller's car had a bigger fuel tank it would have been heavier (and therefore slower) than it was with the smaller tank.

[D-Type]

Not with the same driver! I'm saying that if Al Miller's car had a bigger fuel tank it would have been heavier (and therefore slower) than it was with the smaller tank.

The tank size is immaterial. For the same fuel load, a "large tanked" car running part full will have the same performance as a "small tanked" car running full. Clark could have adopted Al Miller's fuel strategy but Miller couldn't have adopted Clark's. The fact that Clark didn't suggests it was a slower strategy. But the novi that started the race with enough fuel for the full 500 miles confirms there's an upper limit to optimum capacity.

However, even if he had been given a level playing field, I believe that Miller would still have finished behind Clark.

[Flat Black 84]

If Vuky hadn't been killed in '55, I'm reasonably sure he would have won that year. Combine that likely win with his wins in '53 and '54, and his "should've" win in '52, and you've got four straight at Indy.

PS--I could argue that Walt Faulkner should have won in '52. Troy Ruttman's chicanery knocked Walt out of the Kuzma and put him in it. If Walt had remained in the ride that was rightly his, I suspect he would have won in '52.

Edited by Flat Black 84, 23 February 2011 - 17:34.

[Amphicar]

The tank size is immaterial. For the same fuel load, a "large tanked" car running part full will have the same performance as a "small tanked" car running full. Clark could have adopted Al Miller's fuel strategy but Miller couldn't have adopted Clark's. The fact that Clark didn't suggests it was a slower strategy. But the novi that started the race with enough fuel for the full 500 miles confirms there's an upper limit to optimum capacity.

However, even if he had been given a level playing field, I believe that Miller would still have finished behind Clark.

Obviously, I agree that a difference in tank size doesn't matter if both cars are carrying the same amount of fuel but my point is precisely that Clark and Miller were clearly not carrying the same amount of fuel. Miller was running lighter (and therefore faster) than he would have done with a larger fuel tank - assuming that in each case the tank was brimmed at each filling. The downside to running lighter and faster was the need to make more fuel stops. Unless the time Miller saved by running lighter and faster was greater than the time required to carry out the extra stops he would lose out. You cannot assume (as Bob Riebe seems to be doing) that had Miller had a larger fuel tank (and filled it each time) his speed would have been the same as it was with a lower fuel load.

In short, I think we are both saying the same thing - and I agree with you that had Miller been able to run the same fuel strategy as Clark, JC would still have won.

Edited by Amphicar, 23 February 2011 - 18:34.

[RStock]

Scott Goodyear when Jacques won.

[Bob Riebe]

Bob - I've never heard this before. Clark led 190 of the 200 laps and won, in my opinion, easily. Could you fill me in on a few of the details, I'm aware that Al finished a great 4th behind Clark, Parnelli and Mario, but I'm unfamiliar with the pit stop time differential. Thanks for your help.

I wish I could. Some years ago I came across a-- thread or maybe a print magazine-- which listed the number of stops and the TIME the stops took for the Indianapolis front runners in 1965. If one removed the time Miller lost due to his extra stops he won easily.

I have tried a deep search on the net and nothing comes up so I am not sure if it was not in a print magazine.

Edited by Bob Riebe, 23 February 2011 - 18:28.

[Jim Thurman]

If Vuky hadn't been killed in '55, I'm reasonably sure he would have won that year. Combine that likely win with his wins in '53 and '54, and his "should've" win in '52, and you've got four straight at Indy.

PS--I could argue that Walt Faulkner should have won in '52. Troy Ruttman's chicanery knocked Walt out of the Kuzma and put him in it. If Walt had remained in the ride that was rightly his, I suspect he would have won in '52.

I believe the Ruttman story may be apocryphal, though he told it himself. The timeline doesn't seem to follow the story, or much more likely, there is more to it than the story. Sadly, without Walt or Mary, I don't know if anyone can provide the real story, like so much of "racing history". A member of the Agajanian family, perhaps Jay, but maybe not even then.

[B Squared]

I wish I could. Some years ago I came across a-- thread or maybe a print magazine-- which listed the number of stops and the TIME the stops took for the Indianapolis front runners in 1965. If one removed the time Miller lost due to his extra stops he won easily.

I have tried a deep search on the net and nothing comes up so I am not sure if it was not in a print magazine.

Thanks for the reply and the effort. I'm going to keep my eyes open for additional info or hit up Mr. Davidson for his memories when the opportunity allows.

[Flat Black 84]

I believe the Ruttman story may be apocryphal, though he told it himself. The timeline doesn't seem to follow the story, or much more likely, there is more to it than the story. Sadly, without Walt or Mary, I don't know if anyone can provide the real story, like so much of "racing history". A member of the Agajanian family, perhaps Jay, but maybe not even then.

I've confirmed this through Cary Agajanian. It's the truth, and Cary says JC felt terrible about it for the rest of his life. And Mary is alive and well and living in San Diego. She'll be 91 on May 28. She's also a big Jeff Gordon fan, by the by.

Edited by Flat Black 84, 23 February 2011 - 19:52.

[Jim Thurman]

I've confirmed this through Cary Agajanian. It's the truth, and Cary says JC felt terrible about it for the rest of his life. And Mary is alive and well and living in San Diego. She'll be 91 on May 28. She's also a big Jeff Gordon fan, by the by.

Great to hear about Mary. Glad you were able to find her. Common names are difficult to track down and obviously, I was given some misinformation along the way. So this doesn't get too far OT, I'll post the reason I had questions about the incident to the Walt Faulkner thread, ok?

[RA Historian]

Say what you will about Al Miller, but THERE IS NO WAY ON EARTH that an Al Miller would have beaten a Jim Clark, not to mention Parnelli Jones and Mario Andretti. If needed, Clark would merely have upped his pace. Makes a nice story, but not one which I can believe.

[Bob Riebe]

Say what you will about Al Miller, but THERE IS NO WAY ON EARTH that an Al Miller would have beaten a Jim Clark, not to mention Parnelli Jones and Mario Andretti. If needed, Clark would merely have upped his pace. Makes a nice story, but not one which I can believe.

Believe what you want, but even with the extra time sitting still in the pits, Miller was on the same lap as the leaders, even with the Woods Brothers in Clark's pits, which does say a lot about Al's car set-up and pit crew.
I have no doubt he would have been in the lead and outraced whom ever tried to take it.

[Collombin]

Say what you will about Al Miller, but THERE IS NO WAY ON EARTH that an Al Miller would have beaten a Jim Clark, not to mention Parnelli Jones and Mario Andretti. If needed, Clark would merely have upped his pace. Makes a nice story, but not one which I can believe.

I agree completely. However, for what it's worth:-

Al Miller - 5 stops, total 3m 18s
Jim Clark - 2 stops, total 42s

[ensign14]

And also, for what it's worth:

Al Miller - 500 miles in 3h 24m 39.89s
Jim Clark - 500 miles in 3h 19m 05.34s

Miller was not on the lead lap at the finish, he was just given the opportunity, now denied, to complete the full distance in the ten minutes or so after the chequer. Even if you credit Miller with the two-and-a-half minutes extra he had in the pits, he's still a full three laps down to Clark.

[RA Historian]

I have no doubt he would have been in the lead and outraced whom ever tried to take it.

Dream on.

[Tim Murray]

If needed, Clark would merely have upped his pace.

Yes indeed. I have read that Clark was averaging 157 mph in the early stages of the race, but in the later stages he was cruising around at 148 mph. Plenty in hand if needed.

[Collombin]

That said, if Rodger Ward's fuel mix valve had been correctly installed...

I believe that the initial installation (suitably annotated "rich" in one direction and "lean" in the other) was rubbing against Ward's leg in practice, and so was re-installed upside down for the race. Unfortunately Rodger forgot that he now had to move the lever in the opposite direction to get the desired results.

If so, I'm not sure that such a calamitous brain fade was deserving of victory!

[BorderReiver]

Eddie Sachs certainly deserved one Borg-Warner.

[BorderReiver]

Isn't it amazing how many racers through history have pushed their cars harder to be way out front but have "bad luck" when their cars break ....

Ahh, this is you banging your ludicrous "Jimmy Clark wasn't any good because his cars sometimes broke" drum again is it?

You know, the one where you make facile statements like he was a car-breaker whilst ignoring the literal reams of evidence to the absolute contrary . . .

[RA Historian]

Ahh, this is you banging your ludicrous "Jimmy Clark wasn't any good because his cars sometimes broke" drum again is it?

This is OT, but it reminds me of the Chris Economaki statement I have seen quoted two or three times. The one in which Chris says that Jim Clark was not much of a racer because he never passed anyone...


Well, of course not! He was always ahead! I may be misinterpreting what Economaki meant, but taken on its face I always thought it was about the most ludricrous statement he ever made.

Tom

[JtP1]

Re 1966, Llyod Ruby was running away from everyone including Clark, Stewart and Hill when he retired because a tooth sheared of the cam shaft drive and went through the timing cover. The car retired because of the oil leak and that cannot be looked upon as overdriving the car. Near the finish when they sorted the score board out, it was JYS in the lead till he retired allowing Hill to get the win.

[Collombin]

1966 is definitely the year that always gets lots of coulda/shoulda/woulda suggestions for alternative winners - Johncock usually gets a mention too.

Maybe this is partly due to the "he never passed a damn car all day" attitude in some quarters to Hill's win.

I wouldn't bat an eyelid if somebody one day even presents a case for Bobby Grim deserving the Borg Warner that day.....

[Bob Riebe]

I agree completely. However, for what it's worth:-

Al Miller - 5 stops, total 3m 18s
Jim Clark - 2 stops, total 42s

It would seem that even with the time taken to slow down and accelerate included, Miller had he had a newer car would only have been possibly in second. As a book I have said they were lapping at apprx. sixty seconds per lap he would have been at minimum a lap behind no matter what.
As Johns beat Branson by three one-hundredths of a second to the flag, which flag?
Did they drone around for ten minutes or race to a flag ten minutes later?

Who got to continue to lap for ten minutes or did anyone who wanted to do that?

Miller's qualifying time was only one mph slower than Jones and Andretti so I have no doubt he could have run with them.

[ensign14]

Did they drone around for ten minutes or race to a flag ten minutes later?

Who got to continue to lap for ten minutes or did anyone who wanted to do that?

The question ought to be the other way around - why does everyone stop racing when they cross the line after the winner? It's a 500 mile race, yet you can have a battle between two drivers that stops at mile 495 - which might have gone a different way had they gone the full distance. But the great god TV gets in the way, of course. The only reason for the time limit earlier was because Ralph Mulford took the mickey in 1912 and stopped for a sandwich when reeling off the final miles. He was the last one running but the officials wouldn't just give him the 9th place prize money.

[eldougo]

Quote....
OK, in the past 100 years of 500’s there have been races of which you can say well, X won it because of Y had the bad luck of loosing it because of…
Which races do you consider to be lost by someone who should have deserved to win it instead of the eventual winner and why?

As far as iam concerned that anyone that wins A race let alone the Indy500 they deserved it because they where in the right place at the right time and that is how the world works ,if you did not win you DID NOT WIN .

That it. simple.

Edited by eldougo, 24 February 2011 - 08:06.

[Amphicar]

And also, for what it's worth:

Al Miller - 500 miles in 3h 24m 39.89s
Jim Clark - 500 miles in 3h 19m 05.34s

Miller was not on the lead lap at the finish, he was just given the opportunity, now denied, to complete the full distance in the ten minutes or so after the chequer. Even if you credit Miller with the two-and-a-half minutes extra he had in the pits, he's still a full three laps down to Clark.

Indeed - in fact even if you subtract all the time Miller spent in the pits he would still have been more than two minutes behind a two-stopping Clark.

[JtP1]

Did they drone around for ten minutes or race to a flag ten minutes later?

Who got to continue to lap for ten minutes or did anyone who wanted to do so

The flag was dropped as the winner crossed the line, but the race didn't finish for 5 to 10 minutes later for all runners to complete as many laps as they could. Thought it was 5 minutes, but Miller's time race time refutes this, unless it's 5 minutes + finish the lap you are on.

Iirc Andretti in 65 ran out of fuel on the 200 lap and had to wait and see if anyone caught him in the extra time. There was a photo of him sitting on/ near the car during this time.

[Tim Murray]

Iirc Andretti in 65 ran out of fuel on the 200 lap and had to wait and see if anyone caught him in the extra time. There was a photo of him sitting on/ near the car during this time.

Andretti was classified third, some six seconds down on Jones in second, so if he ran out of fuel it must have been after he completed the 200 laps. Jones was the one with fuel problems - he had to drive very conservatively for the last few laps and was nearly caught by Andretti.

[Henri Greuter]

Quote....
OK, in the past 100 years of 500’s there have been races of which you can say well, X won it because of Y had the bad luck of loosing it because of…
Which races do you consider to be lost by someone who should have deserved to win it instead of the eventual winner and why?

As far as iam concerned that anyone that wins A race let alone the Indy500 they deserved it because they where in the right place at the right time and that is how the world works ,if you did not win you DID NOT WIN .

That it. simple.

Eldougo.

The title of the thread had been changed by the moderators. My original title was less harsh.
You are of course right that he who wins it was the man who deserved it. But with this thread I was looking for opinions o races in which the eventual winner really deserverd second place at best because there had been another driver that race of who it can be said that he really deserved the win for his performance that race but was denied the win for whatever unlucky reason, often beyond his control.


Another nomination, not one on first sight but circumstances stepping in.

Wally Dallenbach in 1975, leader for so long and then berak down with some 40 laps to go. Normally not the kind of performance for which I would say he should have deserved the win. More drivers who were stron at 400 miles retired shortly thereafter...
But, 9 laps after dallenbach's demise came the deluge that finished the rece premature with Bobby Unser the lucky winner.
Had the rains came 10 laps earlier.....

Maybe this win makes up for Bobby's loss of the '79 race?


Henri