53 replies to this topic

[GlenWatkins]

I have just taken the Indy 500 quiz (n and been rightfully humbled -but I did get the Marmon Wasp right!) and one of the questions was about a controversy regarding Penske and this new engine.  I  just read Robin Millers weekly mailbag article @RACER.com where someone mentions that one of the best lines Miller has written was about the first yellow of the first practice session where “The sandbags fell off of the Penske cars”.  At the time I was living in Europe and was totally absorbed learning everything I could learn about F1 and for those years Indy is a blank space in my memory.

 

So, to all the Indy history aficionados here on the forum, what did I miss in 1994, both technically and politically regarding Penske's car and this new engine?

 

[red stick]

Not a bad start.

http://8w.forix.com/...cedes-pc23.html

[red stick]

And bonus--if you still have any questions, Henri posts here.

[SB]

I've read in thread in the Nostalgia Forum last year which has quite detailed coverage ...

[rattymouse]

Here's a must read book on the subject.  A real spell binding story.

 

https://www.amazon.c...8813061&sr=8-17

[Nobody]

I'm no Indy aficionado but know this story well

 

Good little video on it

https://www.youtube....h?v=DBRHwAQxD_E

[PlayboyRacer]

Roger Penske and Ilmor exploited a loophole regarding pushrod engines for the Indy 500. Wasn't it like 1000 horsepower plus, over 200 more than their nearest rivals? Hitting 250mph down the straight.

Penske crushed the field. Emmo was almost a lap ahead of little Al when he crashed. Unser Jnr won, lapping everyone except for Villeneuve. It was beyond domination.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 07 May 2020 - 03:28.

[whitewaterMkII]

And when you are done with the car, and how it won, look at the men behind it. Mario llien, Paul Morgan, Roger Penske. Mercedes Benz's first taste of dominance. Roger Penske was not the first guy to try crazy stuff at Indy,BTW.

Damn.

It's May.

No Indy.

Damn.

[Collombin]

Was the rule badly written? What exactly was the loophole, or was it just against the spirit of the rule in that it wasn't meant to be a rich team that took advantage of it?

To me a loophole is something like the old one that mandated rigorous safety and quality standards of crash helmet design but completely forgot to mention whether it was compulsory to wear them.

[PayasYouRace]

I wouldn’t say it was exploiting a loophole. I’d say it was exploiting a poorly thought out equivalency formula.

[Viryfan]

An equivalency formula which was not dedicated to them (Penske).

 

It was dedicated to manfucaturers or privateer who were not in CART Circus.

 

Indy 500 was not a CART Race but a USAC race.

Edited by Viryfan, 07 May 2020 - 11:41.

[PayasYouRace]

Yes, the equivalency was aimed to help the smaller teams by removing the requirement for a stock block and allowing dedicated racing engines.

Not Penske or Ilmor’s fault that they were entitled to build an engine to those very same rules. USAC didn’t consider the consequences of their rule change.

[Viryfan]

Yes, the equivalency was aimed to help the smaller teams by removing the requirement for a stock block and allowing dedicated racing engines.

Not Penske or Ilmor’s fault that they were entitled to build an engine to those very same rules. USAC didn’t consider the consequences of their rule change.

 

It was not a rule change, the rules were in place in the 80's.

 

Penske started to think about it in 1992 when Buick cracked a 232 MPH pole with their V6  and finished 3rd with Big Al while in the mean time Penske got a beating that year.

 

Ilmor too got a beating in qualy, best speed was 224.8 against 229 for Ford and 232 for Buick.

Edited by Viryfan, 07 May 2020 - 12:10.

[PayasYouRace]

It was not a rule change, the rules were in place in the 80's.

Penske started to think about it in 1992 when Buick cracked a 232 MPH pole with their V6 and finished 3rd with Big Al while in the mean time Penske got a beating that year.

Ilmor too got a beating in qualy, best speed was 224.8 against 229 for Ford and 232 for Buick.

It was a rule change. Previously, the pushrod engines hard to be stock derived. The rules were changed which allowed new designs in, and that gave Penske and Ilmor their opening.

http://8w.forix.com/...tockblocks.html

“ The rule in question, Clause 115-D, read as follows:

“Turbocharged four-cycle single non-overhead camshaft (camshaft in block) engines with pushrod operated valve mechanisms, two valves per cylinder, will be limited to a maximum piston displacement of 209.3 cubic inches (3430cc) and a maximum of eight cylinders.” ”

[Henri Greuter]

It was not a rule change, the rules were in place in the 80's.

 

Penske started to think about it in 1992 when Buick cracked a 232 MPH pole with their V6  and finished 3rd with Big Al while in the mean time Penske got a beating that year.

 

Ilmor too got a beating in qualy, best speed was 224.8 against 229 for Ford and 232 for Buick.

The most ironic thing about Penske taking a beating at Indy in '92 was that in that year they had an advantage on just about every other competitor, except 4 cars already.

 

The Penskes were the only cars that had access to the Chevy 265\B engine, which was smaller and more compact than the first Chevy Indy V8 used since '86.

So they had the advantage of a slighty lower engine bay & bonnet already over all other cars except 4.

The only cars with even more compact engines and improved aerodynamics were the 4 Lola-Ford XB cars of Newman-Haas and Ganassi racing.

Penske wasn't past of "The Ilmor" class that year, it was the lone representant within one of two classes of Ilmors

 

And it wasn't so much beaten on engine performance that year. But the '92 PC2 was the last version of a line of cars that found its origins within the 1988 PC17 design, by then a bit long in the tooth.

 

 

BTW: PYR is more right than you are. Yes the basic rule was in the book since the 80s, but it was indeed the modification or the rule that enabled brand new designs of engines that were no longer based on stock designs that opened the door for everyone with the funding and access to facilities as Penske had.

he rule change itself was poorly though over. The intentions were good and aimed at little teams and constructors/builders. No-oen howevere envisioned that any of the then current engine builders would take up a similar program in order to protect themselves against similar project by such constructors for which the rule was created.

Ilmor & Penske didn't break a rule. The rule had not been closed for them so they were free to use it. But it was certainly not a rule created with the intentions to be used by them or any other CART engine supplier.

About the only manner that could have been blocked was if USAC had mandated the CART teams to keep using the same kind of engines as they used in their cars during the CART season as well.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 07 May 2020 - 12:46.

[Risil]

For the "loophole or not a loophole" discussion, I think this is the crucial bit of Henri's 8w article:
 

USAC also wanted to make the '500' more appealing to smaller engine-building companies with expertise in stock-block technology. In order to achieve this idea that was heavily promoted by USAC official Roger McCluskey (the same Roger McCluskey who once drove the turbocharged AMC stock block in the seventies) USAC decided during 1991 to grant the same capacity and turbo-boost advantage to newly designed engines with pushrod technology and two valves per cylinder.

The rule in question, Clause 115-D, read as follows:

“Turbocharged four-cycle single non-overhead camshaft (camshaft in block) engines with pushrod operated valve mechanisms, two valves per cylinder, will be limited to a maximum piston displacement of 209.3 cubic inches (3430cc) and a maximum of eight cylinders.”

Clause 118-B stipulated that the maximum allowable boost for this type of engine was set at 55 Inch, while Clause 118-D prescribed USAC's rights to alter the manifold pressure for any event.

 

The 3.4 litre turbo, SOHC, pushrod-actuated valve ruleset started out life as a way for production-derived engines to make the Indy 500, but by 1994 that was neither the letter nor the spirit of the law. Ilmor and Greenfield had both designed totally new engines to this ruleset, but Ilmor was better-resourced, had more racing know-how, and was partnered with Team Penske, so we heard a great deal about their entry and relatively little about Greenfield's.

 

I guess the confusion comes in because the rule did used to be about stock blocks, and also because the most famous beneficiaries of the rule pre-Penske were teams running the highly-engineered but still stock-derived Buicks of the early 1990s.

 

Edit: How about that, I start a post an hour ago, and when I come back PaYR and Henri himself both got there first! Sorry for the pile-on Viry!

[Henri Greuter]

For the "loophole or not a loophole" discussion, I think this is the crucial bit of Henri's 8w article:
 

 

The 3.4 litre turbo, SOHC, pushrod-actuated valve ruleset started out life as a way for production-derived engines to make the Indy 500, but by 1994 that was neither the letter nor the spirit of the law. Ilmor and Greenfield had both designed totally new engines to this ruleset, but Ilmor was better-resourced, had more racing know-how, and was partnered with Team Penske, so we heard a great deal about their entry and relatively little about Greenfield's.

 

I guess the confusion comes in because the rule did used to be about stock blocks, and also because the most famous beneficiaries of the rule pre-Penske were teams running the highly-engineered but still stock-derived Buicks of the early 1990s.

 

Edit: How about that, I start a post an hour ago, and when I come back PaYR and Henri himself both got there first! Sorry for the pile-on Viry!

 

 

It is indeed good to point a very vital statement.

 

Both the Ilmor 265/E (Mercedes 500I if you prefer so) and the Greenfield V8s Pushrod engines had no pedigree or any direct link whatsoever with the V6 pushrod engines of Buick and Chevrolet which have been used between '84 and '92. Those V6's have their heritage in production (Detroit) engines. But the Ilmor and Greenfield were clean sheet of paper design, the Ilmor even more advanced and based on purebred racing engine technology than the Greenfield.

Because of that pushrod valve technology, so familiar on US production engines, and which in the USA were named stock blocks when used in racing, that name of "Stock block" was associated with the Ilmor and the Greenfield as well. But there was nothing production on them. the only thing that linked them with genuine stock blocks was that they used the same principle for valve activation. But certainly the Ilmor had thus principle perfected to a state that was unmatched and next to impossible for basic production engines.

 

The Menard V6 engines used between '93 and '96 were still based on the design of the production Buick but had an awful amount of parts purposely made for the engine. But it was no true stock block anymore either by then.

 

 

 

 

[Risil]

I think we've covered every angle!!

[Henri Greuter]

I think we've covered every angle!!

I'm sure someone still will find a loophole to come up with a question or statement that is not covered diligently yet .....

 

Happens every year in May when people find out about this project for the first time....

[juicy sushi]

It is indeed good to point a very vital statement.

 

Both the Ilmor 265/E (Mercedes 500I if you prefer so) and the Greenfield V8s Pushrod engines had no pedigree or any direct link whatsoever with the V6 pushrod engines of Buick and Chevrolet which have been used between '84 and '92. Those V6's have their heritage in production (Detroit) engines. But the Ilmor and Greenfield were clean sheet of paper design, the Ilmor even more advanced and based on purebred racing engine technology than the Greenfield.

Because of that pushrod valve technology, so familiar on US production engines, and which in the USA were named stock blocks when used in racing, that name of "Stock block" was associated with the Ilmor and the Greenfield as well. But there was nothing production on them. the only thing that linked them with genuine stock blocks was that they used the same principle for valve activation. But certainly the Ilmor had thus principle perfected to a state that was unmatched and next to impossible for basic production engines.

 

The Menard V6 engines used between '93 and '96 were still based on the design of the production Buick but had an awful amount of parts purposely made for the engine. But it was no true stock block anymore either by then.

I seem to remember that additional panic was created in 1994 with the idea that Honda, already dipping their toe in, would come back in 1995 with a similar motor to take the fight to Penske, and given the emotions of the era (which led to the Split), that was not something that anyone wanted to see happen.

 

But I could be totally wrong here.

[eibyyz]

Penske, Illmor and Merc paid for and built ~six Indy engines, used only once.  Only one car finished.  

 

Did Penske, Illmor and Merc come out of May ahead financial-wise, when all is said and done?

[JacnGille]

There was a lengthy thread about the engine on TNF a few years ago. It also included excerpts from the book.

[Risil]

I seem to remember that additional panic was created in 1994 with the idea that Honda, already dipping their toe in, would come back in 1995 with a similar motor to take the fight to Penske, and given the emotions of the era (which led to the Split), that was not something that anyone wanted to see happen.
 
But I could be totally wrong here.

 

With Toyota joining in 1996 you could well have ended up with a situation where with four manufacturers handing out leases to favoured teams and car owners having little chance to qualify with an engine they could source independently, the Indy 500 would be basically sewn up by the competition departments of the big car companies. Not a very appetizing prospect and certainly a major departure from how Indy 500 entrants usually operated.

 

Of course that's basically where we are now, but no one had a crystal ball back then.

[Henri Greuter]

Penske, Illmor and Merc paid for and built ~six Indy engines, used only once.  Only one car finished.  

 

Did Penske, Illmor and Merc come out of May ahead financial-wise, when all is said and done?

Six engines?  Make it 17 and castings for 30 more made in the Summer of 1994 with the eye on 1995 but those were destroyed after the last rule changes to clip the engine's wings a second time.

 

I don't think money was mode on the project at all. Good chance that Ilmor eventually played even with all theirs costs being covered by Mercedes and other Team Penske sponsors. The total amount of prize money won was nowhere near what the project had cost.

Penske probably didn't loose that much money on it at all either with their sponsors filling in the bills.

 

But the entire project gained a lot of publicity and attention back then and even today for Team Penske

Who knows out of the top of his head exactly how many races Team Penske won at Indy?

But a good chance that a number of those who can't give the right answer still know at least something about the one of 1994.

Of all the many Penske victories it is likely the one that most people will think of because it is the best example of the approval that Roger Penske was so insaturatable thirsty for victories at Indy that he was willing to do whatever it took that promised him victory.

If shelving his own (Penske) cars to buy Marches in '84 and withdrawing his own (Penske) cars and rush out show one year old cars from hotel lobbies and send these into competition had not been approaval eough yet...

Just to name a few of his doings in order to improve his odds over the years, I could go on a bit longer if a gun is put against my head to continue....

[red stick]

Still draws a crowd.  Amelia Island Concours, eight weeks ago.

 

 

 

[PayasYouRace]

'Tis a thing of beauty after all.

 

For me the most fascinating aspect of the story is how Penske couldn't get hooked up in 1995 and failed to qualify.

[Henri Greuter]

I seem to remember that additional panic was created in 1994 with the idea that Honda, already dipping their toe in, would come back in 1995 with a similar motor to take the fight to Penske, and given the emotions of the era (which led to the Split), that was not something that anyone wanted to see happen.

 

But I could be totally wrong here.

Not only Honda, Ford was also forced to think about such a project and Menard was also already working on a V8 to replace its V6.

 

For CART engine builders, it would have lead to the situation that they had to create two entirely different engine programs, one for the CART season, one for Indy only. Unless CART would have given in on requests already made in the past by teams running Buicks to give the these V6's na now all pushrod engines the same boost increase as they had at Indy. CART did allow pushrod engines like the Buick but they didn't have a higher turboboost like they had at Indy. All engines in CART used the same boost levels, making the Buick's near useless within CART. Now had this boost advantage also be given by CART then everyone could drop these Quadcam 2.65 liter engines and concentrate on the pushrod engines like the Ilmor and Greenfield instead.

 

And that would have taken away the advantage USAC had hoped to create to encourage smaller engine builders. Not mentioning the fact that CART racing cars all of a sudden would see a power increase of way over 150 hp, in a time that CART tried to find manners to slow the cars down a bit.

Another thing for CART was that the '94 Penske chassis úsed at Indy wasn't a bespoke design to be fitted with the 265E from the outset. The car was designed for the regular 2.65 liter Quadcam Ilmor 265\D. But for Indy that engine was replaced with the 265\E. Some parts in the driveline were beefed up and adjusted for the more powerful engine but Team Penske had not designed let alone built a bespoke chassis to make optimal use of whatever the 265\E had to offer. That would have been the next step for improvement: building a bespoke chassis for Indy-only for the Indy-only engine

 

Anyway, Costs would have gone skyhigh for the engine builders and the lease prizes to the teams for engineswould have gone up. And for USAC, the idea to give the smaller teams a better chance with a new option made up for them was gone once Ilmor was building such engines. Because Ilmor only awarded engines to teams the wanted to supply. Even if you had enough money to lease them, Ilmor was restricted in capacity and could not make engines readily available to everyone as in the days of the (Ford) Cosworth DFX in the late 80s and later on in the 90s when the Ford Cosworth XB became available. Chevrolet got a lot of bad publicity about that because many felt that since their engine was the dominant one but not avaialble to anyone who wanted it and could afford it they killed the racing. Certainly in 1991 that was causling a lot of anger, curiously, just after CART had managed to drive away Porsche out of CART !!!!

 

The info told about 1995 plans for Ilmor was that their CART teams got the chance to sign up for the use of the latest versions of the 265\E. But it required yet another extra 1 milloin dollar to fond for that program. It was not that if a team got a lease for Ilmor engines for 1995 that they got the 265\E (or whatever name the 2nd generation engine would have had)  was part of the deal. That was a separate deal that required extra money.

Needless to say, any other team that only wanted to sign up for the 265\E engine deal for Indy was kindly told that this was not possible.

Once USAC found out about these plans, the story is that it convinced them even more that their plan to help the little guys out had failed miserably ant the best option being making their own invention no longer able to dominate at will. It was the best thing they could do.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 07 May 2020 - 17:46.

[Henri Greuter]

'Tis a thing of beauty after all.

 

For me the most fascinating aspect of the story is how Penske couldn't get hooked up in 1995 and failed to qualify.

 

Contrary to what is told and believed by many, the failure to qualify had nothing to do with 1994 and the Merc engine anymore. That was an entirely different situation.

But it is indeed kind of funny that 1994 and 1995 are probably the two years within Penske history of which people know the outcome the best of all and these outcomes being entirely opposite from another. But falsely being connecte with another.

1995 was not a result of 1994 at all.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 07 May 2020 - 17:46.

[GlenWatkins]

Not a bad start.

http://8w.forix.com/...cedes-pc23.html

Not sure what yo mean, but Thanks very much for the link!

[GlenWatkins]

Great information everyone!  I have alot of reading to do!

[red stick]

Not sure what yo mean, but Thanks very much for the link!

Ironic understatement.

Enjoy.

[teejay]

How damn good does that car look? Simple, elegant, and stupidly fast. 

[Henri Greuter]

How damn good does that car look? Simple, elegant, and stupidly fast.

To be honest, put a Quadcam powered Lola or Reynard of the same year next to the PC23-265\E and you'll likely think them to be more elegant thtn the Penske. The engine covers on the Lola and Reynard sloped down more elegant than on the Penske. The 265\E was some 10 cm higher than the Quadcam engines so it had a way higher engine cover, making it less elegant seen from aside.
But who cares about looks and elegance when you have an extra 150 hp under that bulged cover.....

[stewie]

Contrary to what is told and believed by many, the failure to qualify had nothing to do with 1994 and the Merc engine anymore. That was an entirely different situation.
But it is indeed kind of funny that 1994 and 1995 are probably the two years within Penske history of which people know the outcome the best of all and these outcomes being entirely opposite from another. But falsely being connecte with another.
1995 was not a result of 1994 at all.

I was always under the impression the 94 engine masked the inherent issues of the 94 chassis at Indy, and it was a lack of this knowledge come 95 with a regular engine that caused the DNQ? Maybe not the case then?

[Henri Greuter]

I was always under the impression the 94 engine masked the inherent issues of the 94 chassis at Indy, and it was a lack of this knowledge come 95 with a regular engine that caused the DNQ? Maybe not the case then?

You're one of many who still believe this.
For some time this had genuinely believed to be the case.
But in recent years more info about what really happened that month in 1995 has been released and appeared in print.

in his book, Nigel Bennett explained it.

In two sentences: Earlier that year the team had modified the car for the short oval at Phoenix where that setup worked brilliantly. It was left on the car for Indy but with hindsight that turned to be a setup that did not work at all anymore at a Superspeedway.


I could devote more sentences to it. But that's been done already.
And, risking to get flak from people who feel I might promote my own work another time, allow me to put up one link what I found out after corresponding with people who knew about it.
I rather won't quote that entire piece in here, if you want to read it all, have a look here.

http://8w.forix.com/...-pc23-1995.html

I also tried to bring up as much approval as I could find to prove that there was no design flaw at all in 1994 already but that it was a bunch of circumtances that made it look that 1 + 1 is 2 while in fact it was more a case of 1 + 0.5 + 0.4 + 0.1 makes 2 as well.

[stewie]

You're one of many who still believe this.
For some time this had genuinely believed to be the case.

Thanks Henri for your reply, I will take a look at that link and do some more reading up!

[Henri Greuter]

Thanks Henri for your reply, I will take a look at that link and do some more reading up!

My pleasure.
To be honest, I was believing this scenario to have been the case for a long time myself as well.
But thanks to in particular Nigel Beresford (who was the engineer for Paul Tracy in 1994) and Nigel Bennett himself I got the details about what really happened in '95. And then came the fun to try to deduct everything else that you can read about on that chapter. That was really a lot of fun to work out once it turned out to be a kind of jigsaw that did fit as long as you kept trying.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 08 May 2020 - 08:37.

[Risil]

Thanks Henri for your reply, I will take a look at that link and do some more reading up!

We had a quick discussion about it in the 1995 IndyWatchParty thread a few weeks ago, in which Henri disabuses me of the same notion you had.

https://forums.autos...e-start-5pm-ish

[PayasYouRace]

You're one of many who still believe this.
For some time this had genuinely believed to be the case.
But in recent years more info about what really happened that month in 1995 has been released and appeared in print.
 

[snip]

 

Even without the direct connection to the pushrod car, it's still fascinating how the team dropped the ball so badly the following year. How a team so steeped in engineering process would make such a fundamental error in setting up its cars.

 

Even without any fundamental flaws on their 1994 car, it still points to a team losing out on a year of Indy set up experience as a result of having such a huge power advantage.

[Henri Greuter]

Even without the direct connection to the pushrod car, it's still fascinating how the team dropped the ball so badly the following year. How a team so steeped in engineering process would make such a fundamental error in setting up its cars.
 
Even without any fundamental flaws on their 1994 car, it still points to a team losing out on a year of Indy set up experience as a result of having such a huge power advantage.

They had experience with the PC23-Ilmor\D in late 1994 during a test session. Contrary to what many people believe, it is not that the ``Standard` PC23-Ilmor\D was never used at the Speedway in 1994. Not in May but later on in the year it had been tested over there. There was a baseline to work with with that car and be of a guidance for the 1995 car. If the differences between the '94 and the '95 were not too big to begin with.

As for `loosing it` in May. It is even that bad when you keep in mind that in a test session earlier in the year, before May, they were still lapping at 228. Had they done that in May....

[PayasYouRace]

They had experience with the PC23-Ilmor\D in late 1994 during a test session. Contrary to what many people believe, it is not that the ``Standard` PC23-Ilmor\D was never used at the Speedway in 1994. Not in May but later on in the year it had been tested over there. There was a baseline to work with with that car and be of a guidance for the 1995 car. If the differences between the '94 and the '95 were not too big to begin with.

As for `loosing it` in May. It is even that bad when you keep in mind that in a test session earlier in the year, before May, they were still lapping at 228. Had they done that in May....

 

Yeah, if at a test session earlier on they were at a pace that would have put them in the field, it just shows how badly they lost it. That even with a whole month of practise they couldn't bring their cars up to speed is just mind boggling for a team with just strength. Is it even that bad? It's worse.

[Henri Greuter]

Yeah, if at a test session earlier on they were at a pace that would have put them in the field, it just shows how badly they lost it. That even with a whole month of practise they couldn't bring their cars up to speed is just mind boggling for a team with just strength. Is it even that bad? It's worse.

I have to dig into the data etc. to find out if this March test was before Phoenix and the setup chance yes or no.
That might be one explanation as of why they were still quick enough in March. And maybe the temperatures were advantageous for the Penske in March compared with the presumably warmer conditions of May.


Oh well, whatever you may think about it...
Like you said, it is unbelievable how one tem went from the absolute top to the cellars within one year time and I am pretty sure that a number of fans who rued about how Team Penske had ruined 1994 were mighty pleased with the events of one year later.
It was a kind of poetic rough justice.
Maybe the saddest part of this entire 1995 failure is; what influence has this event had on Al Jnr? His collapse as a driver as well as within private live started shortly thereafter and I always had the feeling that 1995 may have been of some influence in this....

[PayasYouRace]

Then again, Little Al had an extremely good 1995 and 1996, and was in championship contention to the last race in both years. Obviously Indy is the big one, but he wasn't short of success in either year. He was still at the top of his game.

[Henri Greuter]

Then again, Little Al had an extremely good 1995 and 1996, and was in championship contention to the last race in both years. Obviously Indy is the big one, but he wasn't short of success in either year. He was still at the top of his game.

Many drivers in those seasons would have whished they had results like that.
But Indy is way and way more important than the season. You seem to be aware of it but I wonder if you really know how much more important Indy is. And Al Jr. was one for who Indy mattered the most of all.
A number of CART champions would instantly trade in all their race wins of that season and the championship if in return they got the Indy 500 as the only victory of the year.

AJ Foyt won Indy and Le Msns within weeks time in '67. He bragged about Indy for the rest of his life, never about Le Mans. He has been on record that his 1967 season was saved because of winning Indy.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 08 May 2020 - 12:25.

[red stick]

Many drivers in those seasons would have whished they had results like that.
But Indy is way and way more important than the season. You seem to be aware of it but I wonder if you really know how much more important Indy is. And Al Jr. was one for who Indy mattered the most of all.
A number of CART champions would instantly trade in all their race wins of that season and the championship if in return they got the Indy 500 as the only victory of the year.
 

That's always been my understanding, although I've lost where the notion first arose, that "the Split" was hard on many but the lost years at Indy were particularly hard on Al, Jr.

[Alfisti]

Man that is a HELL of a read, bravo Henri. 

[Risil]

Many drivers in those seasons would have whished they had results like that.
But Indy is way and way more important than the season. You seem to be aware of it but I wonder if you really know how much more important Indy is. And Al Jr. was one for who Indy mattered the most of all.
A number of CART champions would instantly trade in all their race wins of that season and the championship if in return they got the Indy 500 as the only victory of the year

 

I don't think that's what Payas was saying -- it's more that if you're looking to trace Al Unser, Jr's loss of competitiveness in Indycar, it only became noticeable in 1997. I doubt there's a neat causal line you can draw between Unser's failure to qualify for a motor race and his collapse as a human, although the loss of the 1995 Indy 500 and then his inability to right that wrong in 1996 must've been a double blow.

 

I dunno if it's hindsight talking but in early interviews with Al Jr I often think I see a vulnerability in him that I don't often identify in top-level racing drivers. But we know so little from the outside.

[red stick]

You're one of many who still believe this.
For some time this had genuinely believed to be the case.
But in recent years more info about what really happened that month in 1995 has been released and appeared in print.

in his book, Nigel Bennett explained it.

In two sentences: Earlier that year the team had modified the car for the short oval at Phoenix where that setup worked brilliantly. It was left on the car for Indy but with hindsight that turned to be a setup that did not work at all anymore at a Superspeedway.


I could devote more sentences to it. But that's been done already.
And, risking to get flak from people who feel I might promote my own work another time, allow me to put up one link what I found out after corresponding with people who knew about it.
I rather won't quote that entire piece in here, if you want to read it all, have a look here.

http://8w.forix.com/...-pc23-1995.html

I also tried to bring up as much approval as I could find to prove that there was no design flaw at all in 1994 already but that it was a bunch of circumtances that made it look that 1 + 1 is 2 while in fact it was more a case of 1 + 0.5 + 0.4 + 0.1 makes 2 as well.

 

Self-promotion of items of such value that they would be worth promoting regardless doesn't strike me as a problem.

 

You've easily cleared that bar.  

[Henri Greuter]

Man that is a HELL of a read, bravo Henri.

Thank you very much.

[Henri Greuter]

I don't think that's what Payas was saying -- it's more that if you're looking to trace Al Unser, Jr's loss of competitiveness in Indycar, it only became noticeable in 1997. I doubt there's a neat causal line you can draw between Unser's failure to qualify for a motor race and his collapse as a human, although the loss of the 1995 Indy 500 and then his inability to right that wrong in 1996 must've been a double blow.
 
I dunno if it's hindsight talking but in early interviews with Al Jr I often think I see a vulnerability in him that I don't often identify in top-level racing drivers. But we know so little from the outside.

The loss in of his skills being noticable from '97 also had something to do with team Penske also loosing the plot from then on. The 97-99 generation of cars were not the best PCxx's at all. In '99 the Penske team even fielded a Lola on occasion. Maybe that affected the look we had on Al Jr even more. But in private life he had a real hard beating too, he had things happen to some of his loved ones that were so hard to deal with. And regrettably he lacked the backbone to carry that by himself and/or lacked the support to cope with all of that.

But hey, even Rick Mears ended up in troubles for quite a while.