50 replies to this topic

[BloodandSmoke]

Hi, this is Charles Leerhsen, the author of Blood and Smoke: A True Tale of Mystery, Mayhem and the Birth of the Indy 500, to be published on May 3 by Simon and Schuster. It's a deep and hopefully exhilarating dive into the early car culture, the origins of auto racing and, of course, the first 500-mile sweepstakes, conducted 100 years ago this spring. "History comes alive," says Kirkus Reviews, "a fascinating tale." You can learn more about the book at my website: www.charlesleerhsen.com, but I'd be happy to try and answer any questions here.

[RA Historian]

Do you give Cyrus Paschke his due as the winner along with Ray Harroun?

Edited by RA Historian, 23 April 2011 - 14:37.

[BloodandSmoke]

Do you give Cyrus Paschke his due as the winner along with Ray Harroun?

I try to, by mentioning the important role he played in Harroun's official victory, and how he, Paschke, also relieved Joe Dawson in another Marmon that was officially placed fifth. I also note how Paschke was kind of shuffled into the shadows as soon as the race ended.

[RA Historian]

Important role, I should think so! He drove the winning car for part of the race and I feel that he has been slighted by history. He is as much a winner of that race as Harroun.

[BloodandSmoke]

Important role, I should think so! He drove the winning car for part of the race and I feel that he has been slighted by history. He is as much a winner of that race as Harroun.

I guess the question is, how much of a winner was Harroun?

[E1pix]

Hi, this is Charles Leerhsen, the author of Blood and Smoke: A True Tale of Mystery, Mayhem and the Birth of the Indy 500, to be published on May 3 by Simon and Schuster. It's a deep and hopefully exhilarating dive into the early car culture, the origins of auto racing and, of course, the first 500-mile sweepstakes, conducted 100 years ago this spring. "History comes alive," says Kirkus Reviews, "a fascinating tale." You can learn more about the book at my website: www.charlesleerhsen.com, but I'd be happy to try and answer any questions here.

No questions, just a Big CONGRATS on your new book.... and in your signing a major player to publish it!

My Best to Your Success!

[BloodandSmoke]

No questions, just a Big CONGRATS on your new book.... and in your signing a major player to publish it!

My Best to Your Success!

Thanks! If anyone wants a sneak peek, the book is excerpted in the special Indy 500 commemorative of Sports Illustrated--and the June issue of Smithsonian Magazine. I've also been invited to sign books at the Speedway on May 28.

[lotuspoweredbyford]

Important role, I should think so! He drove the winning car for part of the race and I feel that he has been slighted by history. He is as much a winner of that race as Harroun.

I have to be honest, with no disrespect intended in any way, but I have to totally disagree, in my opinion, Cyrus is not at all as much a winner of that race as Harroun is.

Harroun started the race, he finished the race, and he led all of the laps that the car led.

I've always thought the "co-winner" stuff was somewhat nonsense in Davis and Corum's case, and I feel that way about the Cyrus-Harroun case as well.

I am sure Cyrus was a really great guy, and people SHOULD remember him and his contribution, but he didn't lead a lap, didn't start the car, and didn't finish the race.

[lotuspoweredbyford]

I guess the question is, how much of a winner was Harroun?

I'm really looking forward to reading this book.

I have to say, I am intrigued by your question "how much of a winner was Harroun".

Mulford certainly thought Harroun was the winner in the statements he made following the race to newspapers.

[BloodandSmoke]

I'm really looking forward to reading this book.

I have to say, I am intrigued by your question "how much of a winner was Harroun".

Mulford certainly thought Harroun was the winner in the statements he made following the race to newspapers.

Mulford was certainly a gracious guy, but, as I show in the book, he changed his tune as time went on.

As for Patschke (the spelling I use in the book), the record is unclear, as it is about so much of that first race, and the newspaper and magazine accounts tended to be wildly contradictory, but, as I write, "...at about mile 185, Bruce-Brown blew a tire, made his first pit stop of the day, and the Wasp, with Patschke at the wheel, inherited the lead. In the opinion of every reporter at the Speedway, and according to the initial data provided by the Warner System, Patschke reached the 200-mile mark first. The Revised Results, however, have it Bruce-Brown, DePalma, Patschke."

[RA Historian]

I have to be honest, with no disrespect intended in any way, but I have to totally disagree, in my opinion, Cyrus is not at all as much a winner of that race as Harroun is.

Harroun started the race, he finished the race, and he led all of the laps that the car led.

I've always thought the "co-winner" stuff was somewhat nonsense in Davis and Corum's case, and I feel that way about the Cyrus-Harroun case as well.

I am sure Cyrus was a really great guy, and people SHOULD remember him and his contribution, but he didn't lead a lap, didn't start the car, and didn't finish the race.

But DID he drive the winning car? If so, and the car finished the race in first place, he won the race. Either he was in the car or he was not. It seems to me that if one drives the winning car, even with less than a 50-50 time split, that he is a winning driver.

Cases in point. Jacky Ickx was placed in the Barth/Haywood Porsche 936 late in the 1977 24 Hrs. The car won. Ickx is regarded as a winning driver. Ditto for Mario Andretti stepping into a Ferrari late in the 1970 Sebring race and the car won.

The winning Dyson Racing R&S Mk III in the 1997 Daytona 24 Hrs had seven drivers. Some drove much longer than others. Now which of those seven would you disqualify from being classified as a winning driver because he drove, in your opinion, insufficient laps or did not lead a lap?

Dangerous ground here, but as I said, in my opinion if one was in the winning car, then he won the race.

[BloodandSmoke]

But DID he drive the winning car? If so, and the car finished the race in first place, he won the race. Either he was in the car or he was not. It seems to me that if one drives the winning car, even with less than a 50-50 time split, that he is a winning driver.

Cases in point. Jacky Ickx was placed in the Barth/Haywood Porsche 936 late in the 1977 24 Hrs. The car won. Ickx is regarded as a winning driver. Ditto for Mario Andretti stepping into a Ferrari late in the 1970 Sebring race and the car won.

The winning Dyson Racing R&S Mk III in the 1997 Daytona 24 Hrs had seven drivers. Some drove much longer than others. Now which of those seven would you disqualify from being classified as a winning driver because he drove, in your opinion, insufficient laps or did not lead a lap?

Dangerous ground here, but as I said, in my opinion if one was in the winning car, then he won the race.

Interesting points you make. I don't disagree. And one of the few things that can be said with absolute certainty about the 1911 Indy 500 was that Ray Harroun was driving the car that was declared the official winner.

[ReWind]

Dangerous ground here, but as I said, in my opinion if one was in the winning car, then he won the race.

Wasn't Jean-Pierre Jabouille in the 1978 Le Mans 24 h race winning Renault for some laps? But the winners were only Didier Pironi & Jean-Pierre Jaussaud.

[D-Type]

Wasn't Jean-Pierre Jabouille in the 1978 Le Mans 24 h race winning Renault for some laps? But the winners were only Didier Pironi & Jean-Pierre Jaussaud.

I don't know of this one - it sounds a bit like Ed Hugus in 1965. If the team were to admit it publicly the car would be disqualified.

But Patshke is a different case. He did legally share the driving of the Marmon Wasp with Harroun. This was within the rules and is documented. But, at the time relief drivers were not officially listed unless they drove the car over the finishing line. Hence Harroun is officially listed as the driver, but this that does not necessarily mean sole driver, of the Wasp. The record shows that the official winner of of the first 500 was the Marmon wasp driven by Ray Harroun with relief driver Cyrus Patshke

Whether the Marmon Wasp was the first car to complete 200 laps is a different issue. This relates to the chaos at the time of the multiple accident and the breaking of the timing wire leading some to claim that the Marmon Wasp should not be the official winner - but it is.

[Henri Greuter]

Hi, this is Charles Leerhsen, the author of Blood and Smoke: A True Tale of Mystery, Mayhem and the Birth of the Indy 500, to be published on May 3 by Simon and Schuster. It's a deep and hopefully exhilarating dive into the early car culture, the origins of auto racing and, of course, the first 500-mile sweepstakes, conducted 100 years ago this spring. "History comes alive," says Kirkus Reviews, "a fascinating tale." You can learn more about the book at my website: www.charlesleerhsen.com, but I'd be happy to try and answer any questions here.

Congrats to start with!
Then,
Any occasion where you sell it and can have you sign it the upcoming month?

Henri

[BloodandSmoke]

Congrats to start with!
Then,
Any occasion where you sell it and can have you sign it the upcoming month?

Henri

Thanks very much! I'll be part of the World's Largest Autograph Session at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway the day before the big race, signing books on May 28. I'll also be at the Barnes and Noble in Indianapolis the night before that, May 27. Don't know where you're located, but I'll be doing a reading and signing at Book Court in Brooklyn, NY on May 18. More dates will be announced on my website: www.charlesleerhsen.com.

[Henri Greuter]

Thanks very much! I'll be part of the World's Largest Autograph Session at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway the day before the big race, signing books on May 28. I'll also be at the Barnes and Noble in Indianapolis the night before that, May 27. Don't know where you're located, but I'll be doing a reading and signing at Book Court in Brooklyn, NY on May 18. More dates will be announced on my website: www.charlesleerhsen.com.

Thanks, You''ll see me.


henri

[lotuspoweredbyford]

But DID he drive the winning car? If so, and the car finished the race in first place, he won the race. Either he was in the car or he was not. It seems to me that if one drives the winning car, even with less than a 50-50 time split, that he is a winning driver.

Cases in point. Jacky Ickx was placed in the Barth/Haywood Porsche 936 late in the 1977 24 Hrs. The car won. Ickx is regarded as a winning driver. Ditto for Mario Andretti stepping into a Ferrari late in the 1970 Sebring race and the car won.

The winning Dyson Racing R&S Mk III in the 1997 Daytona 24 Hrs had seven drivers. Some drove much longer than others. Now which of those seven would you disqualify from being classified as a winning driver because he drove, in your opinion, insufficient laps or did not lead a lap?

Dangerous ground here, but as I said, in my opinion if one was in the winning car, then he won the race.

Yes, I understand, looking at it the way you would look at an endurance race, then Cyrus is a winner.

But it's never been looked at it that way as far as the 500 goes.

I just am not sure I buy the co-winner thing. As I previously stated, it is solely my opinion, but having Corum and Davis on the same level as Jim Clark and Tom Sneva and the other 1-time winners has always been a bit absurd in my view, since they never led a lap and didn't cross the line first as Clark and Sneva and the other 1-time winners did.

Adding Cyrus seems even more odd to me, since he didn't start, finish, or lead a lap.

But as I said, it's solely my opinion.

[lotuspoweredbyford]

Mulford was certainly a gracious guy, but, as I show in the book, he changed his tune as time went on.

As for Patschke (the spelling I use in the book), the record is unclear, as it is about so much of that first race, and the newspaper and magazine accounts tended to be wildly contradictory, but, as I write, "...at about mile 185, Bruce-Brown blew a tire, made his first pit stop of the day, and the Wasp, with Patschke at the wheel, inherited the lead. In the opinion of every reporter at the Speedway, and according to the initial data provided by the Warner System, Patschke reached the 200-mile mark first. The Revised Results, however, have it Bruce-Brown, DePalma, Patschke."

I definitely look forward to reading it, and learning more about Mulford "changing his tune" as you stated.

[RA Historian]

Yes, I understand, looking at it the way you would look at an endurance race, then Cyrus is a winner.

But it's never been looked at it that way as far as the 500 goes.

I just am not sure I buy the co-winner thing. As I previously stated, it is solely my opinion, but having Corum and Davis on the same level as Jim Clark and Tom Sneva and the other 1-time winners has always been a bit absurd in my view, since they never led a lap and didn't cross the line first as Clark and Sneva and the other 1-time winners did.

Adding Cyrus seems even more odd to me, since he didn't start, finish, or lead a lap.

But as I said, it's solely my opinion.

But Patsche DID drive the winning car in the race in which it won. Hence, he DID WIN the race. Does not matter if he started, finished, or led. He drove the winning car. You cannot say that Harroun solely won the 500 since he drove far less than 500 miles. End of argument, (in my opinion).

Edited by RA Historian, 28 April 2011 - 20:54.

[lotuspoweredbyford]

But Patsche DID drive the winning car in the race in which it won. Hence, he DID WIN the race. Does not matter if he started, finished, or led. He drove the winning car. You cannot say that Harroun solely won the 500 since he drove far less than 500 miles. End of argument, (in my opinion).

To me that's the Milka Duno standard of "winning".

I guess I have a different standard of "winning" a race.

I think it absolutely matters if he started, finished, or led.

But as I mentioned, we can certainly agree to disagree.

[RA Historian]

Don't follow your logic at all. If Patschke was not in the car for X number of laps, Harroun would not have won, since he was sitting behind the pit wall at that time. How can one drive the winning car and be treated as if he was not even at the track? Makes no sense.

But I agree with your last sentence!

[Jim Thurman]

To me that's the Milka Duno standard of "winning".

I guess I have a different standard of "winning" a race.;)

I think it absolutely matters if he started, finished, or led.

But as I mentioned, we can certainly agree to disagree.

It is grossly unfair to compare Cy Patschke, Floyd Davis and Lora L. Corum to Milka Duno, or to use the standard of her co-wins for them. It is in no way comparable.

And, yes, I realize your standard is based on Milka Duno driving a prototype briefly and getting credit for a win. Still, something pre-arranged ahead of time (Duno) versus something that unfolded during the race are vastly different circumstances.

Along the lines of the Milka Duno standard was the female driver, whose name escapes me at the moment, in IMSA Lights class who drove almost exclusively on caution laps, yet earned co-drive wins. That led to a change in IMSA rules. That could not be further away from what Davis, Corum and Patschke did.

[lotuspoweredbyford]

It is grossly unfair to compare Cy Patschke, Floyd Davis and Lora L. Corum to Milka Duno, or to use the standard of her co-wins for them. It is in no way comparable.

And, yes, I realize your standard is based on Milka Duno driving a prototype briefly and getting credit for a win. Still, something pre-arranged ahead of time (Duno) versus something that unfolded during the race are vastly different circumstances.

Along the lines of the Milka Duno standard was the female driver, whose name escapes me at the moment, in IMSA Lights class who drove almost exclusively on caution laps, yet earned co-drive wins. That led to a change in IMSA rules. That could not be further away from what Davis, Corum and Patschke did.

Yes, obviously my comparison with Duno is not suggesting that Lora Corum or Cy or Davis were on par with her when discussing skill-set.

I of course acknowledge that my opinion may be a minority opinion, or even that I may stand alone on the co-winners issue.

I think if you're tooling around in 14th, you get called in, and replaced in the car, and the car goes on to win, you're not a winner.

But as I mentioned, that's just my opinion.

[lotuspoweredbyford]

Don't follow your logic at all. If Patschke was not in the car for X number of laps, Harroun would not have won, since he was sitting behind the pit wall at that time. How can one drive the winning car and be treated as if he was not even at the track? Makes no sense.

But I agree with your last sentence!

As I said, it's just my opinion, but if you start 17th, and you're rolling around in 14th, and someone else is put in your car, and then the car goes on to win, you're not a winner, but Davis is on the trophy so I guess he won.

Under that standard, Cy is certainly a winner.

Edited by lotuspoweredbyford, 29 April 2011 - 01:17.

[BloodandSmoke]

As I said, it's just my opinion, but if you start 17th, and you're rolling around in 14th, and someone else is put in your car, and then the car goes on to win, you're not a winner, but Davis is on the trophy so I guess he won.

Under that standard, Cy is certainly a winner.

One thing I came to believe while researching the first Indy 500 for my book was that the public wanted a clearcut decision, perhaps even more than it wanted the truth. People liked the idea of one race (as opposed to the program of races that the IMS had been presenting before this) and one winner, with no qualifications and no asterisks. Harroun, driving an Indianapolis-made car, fit the bill just fine, and though he was not the most charismatic driver he and his Wasp were much preferable to a more complicated story about (very real) timing and scoring problems and a relief driver who was in the cockpit for long and key stretches.

[Lemnpiper]

One thing I came to believe while researching the first Indy 500 for my book was that the public wanted a clearcut decision, perhaps even more than it wanted the truth. People liked the idea of one race (as opposed to the program of races that the IMS had been presenting before this) and one winner, with no qualifications and no asterisks. Harroun, driving an Indianapolis-made car, fit the bill just fine, and though he was not the most charismatic driver he and his Wasp were much preferable to a more complicated story about (very real) timing and scoring problems and a relief driver who was in the cockpit for long and key stretches.

Hi Folks


In 1923 Howdy Wilcox relieved Tommy Milton for about 47 laps, so if you give Patschke credit for a win why not give Wilcox credit for a 2nd win?Are there any other instances of this happening?

In regards to Corum and Davis we dont know how well they may have done if they had stayed in the cars for the whole race , But the fact they had not crashed or mechanically sidelined the car while driving i am of the opinion they DID earn a share of the win.

Plus there have been instances of relief drivers doin something to eliminate a car they were driving at the time in relief.



Lemnpiper

Edited by Lemnpiper, 29 April 2011 - 02:10.

[404KF2]

Any plans to write something later about the next several years? My faourite car won in 1913, 1916 ad 1919. Best of luck with the book!

[Collombin]

Are there any other instances of this happening?

Norman Batten, who deserves to be remembered for other reasons too, was a co-winner in 1925.

Someone whose name escapes me relieved Joe Dawson in 1912.

Edited by E.B., 29 April 2011 - 13:56.

[Tim Murray]

Someone whose name escapes me relieved Joe Dawson in 1912.

Don Herr, I believe.

[BloodandSmoke]

Any plans to write something later about the next several years? My faourite car won in 1913, 1916 ad 1919. Best of luck with the book!

Thanks for the good wishes. Too soon to think about a sequel, but you never know.

[RA Historian]

Along the lines of the Milka Duno standard was the female driver, whose name escapes me at the moment, in IMSA Lights class who drove almost exclusively on caution laps, yet earned co-drive wins.

Linda Ludemann?

[D-Type]

I think that based on the somewhat lurid title and the blurb I'll wait until it's remaindered. Drivers at Indianapolis throwing things at each other! In town-to-town races perhaps, but not in a circuit race and particularly at Indy. Bookmakers taking bets on who'll be killed. It all suggests the ex editor of Sports Illustrated is applying his journalistic know-how to not allowing the facts to get in the way of the story.

Edited by D-Type, 29 April 2011 - 20:51.

[Collombin]

I think that based on the somewhat lurid title and the blurb I'll wait until it's remaindered. Drivers at Indianapolis throwing things at each other! In town-to-town races perhaps, but not in a circuit race and particularly at Indy. Bookmakers taking bets on who'll be killed. It all suggests the ex editor of Sports Illustrated is applying his journalistic know-how to not allowing the facts to get in the way of the story.

I was more hopeful until I read the bit about "we're still waiting to find out who won"

[Jim Thurman]

Linda Ludemann?

Yes, that co-drove with Scott Schubot. Thanks, that is who I was trying to come up with off the top of my head.

[john glenn printz]

If you want to read an entertaining book on Carl Fisher and the 1911 Indianapolis 500, BLOOD AND SMOKE is it. I bought my copy at the IMS Museum on race day and read it yesterday. I even got a few genuine laughs from it.

Two errors I noticed were;

(1.) As to the number of automobiles in the U.S. in 1898 (page 119), my guess would be it was closer to 200 than 2000. See the thread "The Years 1894 to 1897" and my posting of May 16, 2007.

(2.) For 1911, the Indy qualifing trials (p. 215) consisted of running at least 75 mph, after a flying start, through a 1/2 mile trap, located on the main straightaway. The speeds recorded were not for a single, 2 1/2 mile lap, around the Speedway. None of the driver times were given out and it was only announced if each car had qualified or not.

I researched the 1911 500, back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and later posted a published 1987 article on the thread "First Indy 500". I too concluded that it is impossible to established Harroun/Patschke duo as the absolute winner, although either they or Mulford is probably the overall victor. In 1911 certainly the significance and importance of the 500 mile race and its huge future could not have been even remotely fathomed.

In my investigation I also concluded that Harroun did not invent the rear view mirror. Rear view mirrors, I found, were used on horse driven cabs in New York City in the 1890s and ads for them even appeared in a few motor journals before 1911.

I don't think that early U.S. racing (1895-1911) was as chaotic perhaps as Mr. Leerhsen presents it. For an entirely different perspective see the thread "American racing 1894 to 1920". I would recommend BLOOD AND SMOKE to all interested readers.

Sincerely, J.G. Printz

Edited by john glenn printz, 01 June 2011 - 14:49.

[D-Type]

Well, with an endorsement like that from John, perhaps my comments, based on the publisher's blurb, were a little premature.

[BritishV8]

Congratulations Charles!

I just watched the video "trailer" for Blood and Smoke on Barnes & Noble's website, and I'm sold. Looks like a great read.

I sincerely hope this book is a huge success in every way. There are far too few "racing books" being published anymore. I usually have to buy racing books used because the titles I'm interested in are often out-of-print. Blood and Smoke sounds like a great book for re-priming the pump, like Seabiscuit was for horse racing.

This thread has already talked way too much about drivers... of course it's engineers and mechanics who really matter! Does the book include a thoughtful discussion of technical differences between the competing cars? That's what I'll be reading for.

Charles, what will you be writing about next?

[Lemnpiper]

Well, with an endorsement like that from John, perhaps my comments, based on the publisher's blurb, were a little premature.

I agree , i was on the fence , but will now pick a copy up.




BTW Mr Printz i have a question or two.


Prior to the 1911 Indy 500 what was the longest distance race held on an oval in the USA?

Did any driver complete that distance alone , and if not was the relief driver creditied as a co-winner?





Paul

[Jim Thurman]

I agree , i was on the fence , but will now pick a copy up.

BTW Mr Printz i have a question or two.

Prior to the 1911 Indy 500 what was the longest distance race held on an oval in the USA?

Did any driver complete that distance alone , and if not was the relief driver creditied as a co-winner?

I'm not Mr. Printz, and he certainly can elaborate and add details, but the longest races on ovals in the USA were the 24 Hour races at some ovals. Perhaps the best known were the ones at Brighton Beach, Coney Island, New York.

I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of the races themselves is limited, but I believe they were usually two man teams.

Edited by Jim Thurman, 04 June 2011 - 04:00.

[Lemnpiper]

I'm not Mr. Printz, and he certainly can elaborate and add details, but the longest races on ovals in the USA were the 24 Hour races at some ovals. Perhaps the best known were the ones at Brighton Beach, Coney Island, New York.

I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of the races themselves is limited, but I believe they were usually two man teams.

Jim


Those 24 hour races would fall into enduance races where multiple drivers would be expected. My question centered around long races where only one driver was expected to drive all of the distance and not share the win , if the starting driver started and finished the race in the cardespite getting help midway for a bit.


In a way if any of the other cars had won ,wouldwe have considered the riding mechanic of that car as being as important ans the driver.And remembered him as much.



Paul

Edited by Lemnpiper, 04 June 2011 - 13:35.

[D-Type]

With the possible exception of the 1955 Mille Miglia, the riding mechanic never gets credited as contributing to the win - some are identified, but that's about as far as it goes.

Relief drivers is a different issue

[john glenn printz]

Dear Mr. Lemnpiper;

The longest distance race on an oval speedway proper in the U.S. before 1911, not a 24 hour marathon (I believe), was a scheduled 300 miler at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway run on August 21, 1909, for the Wheeler & Schebler Trophy. The event was stopped at 245 miles because of a bad accident involving driver Charles Merz (National) which killed three persons, including Merz's mechanician, Claude or Frank Kellum and a breaking up of the track surface. The race was won by Leigh Lynch in a Jackson. Ralph De Palma was 2nd (Fiat), and Harry Stillman was 3rd (Marmon). Lynch's elapsed time is given as 4:13:51.4 for an average of 55.54 mph. I'm not aware that Lynch had any relief.

The Indianapolis Speedway's first automobile race meet of August 19-21 killed five persons; i. e. 1 driver (Bourque), 2 riding mechanics (Holcomb & Kellum), and 2 spectators (Joliff & West). This led to the track being paved with bricks later in the year.

The first major U.S. speedways constructed for specifically for motor racing were built in 1909. They were the 2 1/2 mile Indianapolis Motor Speedway which opened a three day meet on August 19, and the 2 mile Atlanta Motordrome which staged a five day meet beginning on November 9. The longest event at the inaugural Atlanta meet was a 200 miler run on November 9, won by Louis Chevrolet (Buick) with a time of 2:46:48. Bert Dingley (Chalmers-Detroit) was 2nd at 2:53:53, and Lee Lorimer (Chalmers-Detroit) was 3rd with a 2:55:10. The first of the big board track ovals was the 1 mile Playa Del Rey which opened on April 8, 1910. The Atlanta track lasted just two seasons (1909-1910) while the Playa Del Rey oval closed down in early 1913.

Edited by john glenn printz, 23 June 2011 - 13:31.

[jj2728]

With the possible exception of the 1955 Mille Miglia, the riding mechanic never gets credited as contributing to the win - some are identified, but that's about as far as it goes.

Ahhh, but HE was the navigator....

[Michael Ferner]

I was more hopeful until I read the bit about "we're still waiting to find out who won"

Yes, very strange - if you'd been alive in 1911, you'd been able to read it in the evening papers, or the next morning's issues the latest. Since then, hundreds of books have been published with complete results, not to mention the thousands which include a list of winners. But I guess a good conspiracy theory beats even minimal research any day...


As regards Cy Patschke's role in the win, I have to say I'm with "lotuspoweredbyford" here. The winning driver is the one who gets the flag; any starting or relief driver is merely a footnote, with varying importance to the main story. In fact, I'm constantly puzzled (or even annoyed) by the practice of listing only the starting driver in race results, instead of that of the finishing driver - gives you no end of wrong ideas. Not so long ago, we discussed how it was possible for someone with an indistinguished racing record (Percy Ford) to finish third at Indy, when that actually never happened.

Patschke certainly appears to have done a competent and commendable job, but to imply that he was as deserving of the spoils of victory as Harroun is bordering on ludicrousness, imho.

[Michael Ferner]

Prior to the 1911 Indy 500 what was the longest distance race held on an oval in the USA?

In addition to the excellent answers provided so far, there were also a couple of de facto "oval" races on beach courses at Daytona Beach (256 miles on March 5, 1908) and Jacksonville (300 miles on March 31, 1911), both in Florida. These races were conducted on straight stretches of varying lengths, with wide u-turns on each end - not the "classical" shape of a speedway, but very close. The average speeds attained (76 mph by Emanuele Cedrino on the Cyclone/Fiat at Daytona, and 77 mph by Lou Disbrow on the Pope "Hummer" at Jacksonville) were the highest in long-distance closed-circuit racing up to that point, and actually faster than Harroun's at Indy.

The Atlanta Speedway (or, Motordrome) also held a 250-mile race on November 7, 1910, won by Joe Horan on a Lozier at 72 mph. A couple of rather obscure events was run on 1-mile dirt ovals in California in the summer of 1909 - these were 300-mile races of a very local character, contested on horse racing tracks at Los Angeles (Ascot Park track on August 15) and San Francisco (Tanforan track on September 5), and won by William Orr/Locomobile (44 mph) and Harry Michener/Lozier (49 mph), respectively.

None of the winning drivers in these races required relief, to the best of my knowledge.

Edited by Michael Ferner, 07 June 2011 - 13:58.

[Rob Semmeling]

Just two tiny additions, if I may:

The Atlanta track lasted just two seasons (1909-1910)

For auto racing, yes, but it ran at least one motorcycle meet after that, in May 1911.

The Atlanta Speedway (or, Motordrome)

I believe the correct name of the track in question is Atlanta Speedway; the Atlanta Motordrome was a different, slightly later motorcycle-only track, one of the many built by Jack Prince. It opened at Jackson Street on June 6, 1913.

[MPea3]

No, the Atlanta Speedway was a circular 1/2 mile banked track on Paces Ferry Road northwest of Atlanta. There may have been a motorcycle track built later by the same name, but the original 2 mile track now under the Atlanta Airport was definitely called the Atlanta Motordrome.

http://forums.autosp...howtopic=101031

Also, according to the Atlanta Constitution, the Atlanta Motordrome continued to have outlaw and motorcycle races well into the 20's.

Edited by MPea3, 07 June 2011 - 14:44.

[Rob Semmeling]

Well, without wanting to take this too far off-topic, many of the contemporary reports I have seen refer to the 2-mi oval as Atlanta Speedway. Sure, the term 'motordrome' is also used, but mostly in a more generic sense, the same way we nowadays can refer to any track as a 'raceway' or 'speedway'.

[Michael Ferner]

I think you're both right - I've seen the Candler track named Atlanta Speedway and Atlanta Motordrome in different reports. Whether the one or the other was the "correct" or generic name, I can't say. The short-lived half-mile circle track of 1929/30 was, apparently, called exclusively Atlanta Speedway, as a direct competitor to Lakewood Park/Speedway.