141 replies to this topic

[ensign14]

This week's Autosport has a nice photo-retrospective of Derek Bell's career, and he remarks that some people thought he won the Sebring 12 Hours in 1995, only for the scorers to miss a lap - and Derek's team agreed.

We've had threads on Canada '73 - where Emmo or Oliver might have been robbed - and there was also a story that Tony Bettenhausen Jr was the real winner at Michigan in 1981, but the flag dropped for Pancho Carter.

NASCAR was notorious for scoring snafus; Wendell Scott got his victory trophy later, which some put down to racism, but Richard Petty would be a 201 time winner had his father not protested what would have been Richard's first win in the Grand National series. And Ralph Mulford was convinced he had won the first Indy 500.

So...what races have patently been won by the wrong car? Any blatant injustices on the historical record? (Not illegal cars, but ones where the guy who genuinely finished first was held not to have finished first.)

[IanDalziel]

Isn't there still some doubt about the 1966 Indy 500?

[Allan Lupton]

The Ford "dead-heat" fiasco at Le Mans in 1966 has always angered me (particularly so as I was there and felt it as personal affront!).

[Frank Verplanken]

Another LM non-victory was Ed Hugus' 1965 night shift on the NART Ferrari - how odd to drive the winning car without winning the race !

[HDonaldCapps]

Wendell Scott received his trophy "later" -- about two hours after the end of the race, at the end of a scoring recount which upheld his protest. Apparently, Buck Baker still had the trophy and, choose which version you wish, either refused to return it to the promoter to give to Scott or had already left the track and just never gave the trophy to Scott. Scott did get the payout for his win that day. Interestingly, only one of the contemporary newspaper reports I have tracked down mentions the scoring snafu.

[Jerry Entin]

Bruce McLaren at LeMans 1966 crossing the line first.
Le Mans 1966 may have been an injustice to Ken Miles, but the finish was pretty straight forward. The three cars did not cross the line abreast. Some 100 yards before the checkered Miles braked to let McLaren go into the lead, to comply with Ford management's wishes. Bruce McLaren crossed the finish line a car length ahead of Ken Miles, plenty of photos to prove that. So the positions in the start line-up were irrelevant in the end, although the myth kept on living.
photo Ford Motor Company archives-copyright Ford Motor Company 1966.
all research Willem Oosthoek and Alan Cox

[Allan Lupton]

Not entirely a myth, as of course it was after 4 p.m. when the cars crossed the Finish line, and the relative positions at 4:00:00.0 had to be calculated from the passing times at the beginning and end of the final lap.

[bigears]

What about Paul Tracy at an Indy 500 race a few years ago?

I remember there was some controversy over a yellow flag period and Paul Tracy overtook the race leader before the yellow flag came out.

I am sure someone else will fill me in the correct details.

[red stick]

Let's not forget last year's Daytona 500.

[jph]

With regard to the 1965 and 1966 Le Mans questions: did the rules actually allow three drivers to take the wheel of the same car at that time? I thought, maybe incorrectly, that cars were limited to two drivers. And as for who won in 1966, I believe that the rules were (and still are) based on crossing the line after 4pm, with a time limit for completing the last lap. You could have covered 10 laps more than the next car but if you break down at 3.59 and cannot complete the lap, tough luck (see below). Even if the cars were neck and neck at 4.00, all the pictures I have seen show McLaren leading Miles across the line. And did I read somewhere that there is (or was) some argument as to whether one of these cars - I forget which - actually completed one lap more than the other?

Only asking....

As for being robbed, Jesus Pareja / Oscar Larrauri / Walter Brun, Le Mans 1990 second place. A case of a car completing more distance than the car classified second, but being unclassified in the final results.

[fines]

This thread will probably turn out to be a recycler of the most often repeated complaints and whinges. I don't really understand why, e.g. Indy '66 or Canada '73 need to be discussed all over again - yes, there were complaints, but no, there's no doubt whatsoever about the winner today, or in fact since a few hours after the finish. In both cases the recheck was pretty conclusive, and I haven't seen anyone actually challenging them.

[fines]

Having said that, wasn't there a Formula 3000 race (at Enna I think) where Jean-Marc Gounon won, but was penalised a minute for a jump start which was afterwards conceded as bad judgement, but the win wasn't returned?

[stevewf1]

A.J. Foyt "attacked" Arie Luyendyk at the Texas IRL race in 1997 after a scoring snafu. I remember reading some time later that Luyendyk said Foyt never did give up the trophy even though Arie was declared the winner. USAC got kicked out of the timing and scoring duties after this race.

http://www.theautoch...news004084.html

[Jerry Entin]

Steve: A.J. didn't attack Arie after the race. His fist was having a quiet discussion with Arie's face.

[Frank Verplanken]

Originally posted by fines
Having said that, wasn't there a Formula 3000 race (at Enna I think) where Jean-Marc Gounon won, but was penalised a minute for a jump start which was afterwards conceded as bad judgement, but the win wasn't returned?

Yes I remember this one very well ! Gounon was a terrific starter in single seaters, and he more than once received unfair penalties (as per the French press at least lol).

[ensign14]

Originally posted by fines
This thread will probably turn out to be a recycler of the most often repeated complaints and whinges. I don't really understand why, e.g. Indy '66 or Canada '73 need to be discussed all over again - yes, there were complaints, but no, there's no doubt whatsoever about the winner today, or in fact since a few hours after the finish. In both cases the recheck was pretty conclusive, and I haven't seen anyone actually challenging them.

Yeah, I quoted those as examples, I just wondered what else there was out there where people think someone somewhere screwed up and the victory was awarded to the wrong car. Daytona '59 might have been one of those had the TV footage emerged a few years later.

ISTR Sterling Marlin telling a story that Coo Coo was black flagged at Daytona in about 1974 or 1975? For an incorrectly fitted wheel that was actually correctly fitted? The delay caused by him coming in and straight back out of the pits cost him the race. But that's again a different situation and you can't re-run the race as if he had no such "penalty".

[bigears]

Originally posted by Frank Verplanken

Yes I remember this one very well ! Gounon was a terrific starter in single seaters, and he more than once received unfair penalties (as per the French press at least lol).

I am interested to know more! I looked up for his wins and he only officially won twice (Pau in 1991 and Magny Cours in 1992) so which race was it was?

[stevewf1]

Originally posted by Jerry Entin
Steve: A.J. didn't attack Arie after the race. His fist was having a quiet discussion with Arie's face.

Oops, I forgot...

[Simon Arron]

Originally posted by bigears


I am interested to know more! I looked up for his wins and he only officially won twice (Pau in 1991 and Magny Cours in 1992) so which race was it was?

At Enna in 1991, Gounon made his customary peach of a start, seized the lead (from fourth on the grid) and dominated thereafter. The stewards decided he must have jumoed the green light and docked him 60s, which put him back to sixth. J-MG swore blind that he'd done nothing wrong and, then as now, I tended to believe him. He almost always made fabulous starts (at Mugello that year he rose from the back of the grid to about 12th by the time he'd reached the first corner) and Enna's governance methods were, traditionally, splendidly erratic.

Gounon was (and is) a terrific racer, but for some reason he often seemed to be grossly underrated.

[snettertonesses]

1981 Indy 500
If i recall correctly, USAC was taken to court to clarify the finish and i bet to this day Mr. Unser and Mr. Andretti will give you a different answer on who won that race.
It's a pity really, with so much at stake, human error in timing scoring or electronic glitches can cause such confusion.
A friend attended the IRL race in Texas, when AJ talked to Arie - Texas Style. He said the scoring pylon, would go blank, then come back on with scoring that was obviously incorrect, so the problem was evident well before the end of the race.

[Alan Cox]

Originally posted by Jerry Entin
Le Mans 1966 may have been an injustice to Ken Miles, but the finish was pretty straight forward. The three cars did not cross the line abreast.

Hear, hear, Jerry. I could never see what all the fuss was about over the Le Mans finish in 1966. I never saw a photo where the three cars looked as though they were in line as they crossed the finish line - the black No. 2 car is always first of the three.

[Jerry Entin]

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the positions at the checkered the yardstick? I always though that if a car broke down permanently somewhere on the backstretch before taking the checkered, but after 4 PM, it became a Non Classified.
I remember an incident during the 1961 Pescara 4 Hours, where Abate had the misfortune to cross the finish line 50 seconds before the 4-hour mark. This meant his 250GT had to do another lap of some 26 km. They were running 2nd overall at the time, only to run out of fuel on the final lap. They became NC.
all research Willem Oosthoek

[fines]

Originally posted by snettertonesses
1981 Indy 500
If i recall correctly, USAC was taken to court to clarify the finish and i bet to this day Mr. Unser and Mr. Andretti will give you a different answer on who won that race.

A good example, and another myth I'm afraid - if Andretti still thinks he won that race he oughta get a brain check!

[Ray Bell]

Two Australian Grands Prix:

1961, Mallala SA. David McKay was driving the ex-Flockhart Cooper, which was a very good car off the line. Quoting from Graham Howard regarding Flockharts experience with the car earlier that year:

Before the race, Flockhart had sought out Warwick Farm's Geoff Sykes and told him, "Even though I am on the third row of the grid I will be no worse than second into the first corner, because this car is so good off the line."

The AGP book accompanies this statement with a photo of Moss making a great start to hed both BRMs comfortably away, but Flockhart is half on the dirt on his right, his car very close to level with Moss' just 30 or 40 yards off the start.

The picture of the start of the race in question shows McKay bolting away from Stillwell and Patterson, but Graham points out (as McKay undoubtedly did...) that Trenberth and Rilstone have already got up alongside Davison, who started on the second row but was being baulked by the Stillwell and Patterson, who were both obviously slow to get going.

McKay led the race throughout, but had a 60-second penalty applied. Lex Davison was granted the win.

1957, Caversham WA. In searing heat the lapscorers lost count. Lex Davison pitted and handed over to Bill Patterson so he'd have a chance to recover, then Patterson pitted to give the car back. Stan Jones pitted after a spin and subsequent push-start, he was looking for someone to take over but couldn't find anyone. He resumed believing he was in the lead.

Davison, refreshed, passed him. Whether it was to take the lead or unlap himself is uncertain, but many seasoned racegoers reckon that Jones' persistence in going on in that race was rewarded by the win that was initially given to him. Later the Lukey camp challenged their fifth placing and the lap scorers' shortcomings became evident. It led to Davison being awarded another AGP.

While there is no certainty about it, I'm inclined to go along with the 'seasoned racegoers', in particular John Cummins, in believing that it was Jones' victory.

[IanDalziel]

Originally posted by fines
This thread will probably turn out to be a recycler of the most often repeated complaints and whinges. I don't really understand why, e.g. Indy '66 or Canada '73 need to be discussed all over again - yes, there were complaints, but no, there's no doubt whatsoever about the winner today, or in fact since a few hours after the finish. In both cases the recheck was pretty conclusive, and I haven't seen anyone actually challenging them.

How could you recheck Indy '66? It was down to manual lap-charting, surely?

There's no doubt about the winner because there was an official announcement, and there's no way of disagreeing, but I don't think Chapman or Clark was ever convinced.

[fines]

: I think I did it before, but anyway here goes again:

If Clark was the rightful winner, he was either (1) not credited with a lap he did, or (2) Hill was credited with a lap he didn't do, right?

(1) Clark was leading or lying 2nd for the entire race, iirc, so checking his laps cannot have presented a problem. If one of his laps had been missed by the lap scorers, a recheck would show with 100 % certainty. I don't think any sound person could possibly challenge this statement!

(2) When rechecking a race score, it is always easy to detect a lap that has been credited accidentally because it invariably leads to "impossible" lap times, i.e. if Hill had been credited with a lap done by e.g. one of his teammates, it would show in that he would have two consecutive lap times far faster than any other.

The only exception possible for this scenario is during pit stops, i.e. Hill stops and gets credited with a lap during the time of his stop - this can only work when the stop takes at least the time for a full lap minus de- and acceleration, obviously, and the accidental triggering of the lap scorer happens at a "convenient" time, i.e. approximately a full lap time after Hill's last regular lap score and a full lap time before his next regular one.

Apart from the fact that these are quite a number of exceptional circumstances to come into play all at the same time, pit stops are also always accurately recorded at Indy and can be checked the same as the lap times, so a mistake would easily show. There's simply no way for an error of that magnitude to go unnoticed!

Originally posted by IanDalziel
(...) but I don't think Chapman or Clark was ever convinced.

That is actually the first notion I have heard of that! Andy Granatelli has certainly complained loud and often (as is his wont), and possibly some others of the team as well, but I have never heard a word of complaint from either Chapman or Clark on it.

[COUGAR508]

Originally posted by fines

A good example, and another myth I'm afraid - if Andretti still thinks he won that race he oughta get a brain check!

The Andretti family has had reason to feel aggrieved at Indy on more than one occasion.

[stevewf1]

Originally posted by fines

A good example, and another myth I'm afraid - if Andretti still thinks he won that race he oughta get a brain check!

Bobby Unser cheated better than Mario...

(lengthy video)

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

[fausto]

Can some of the runner-ups of the in-famous 1985 WEC Monza1000 consider themselves robbed of a certain win? Hadn't the tree fallen down we'd have probably seen a different winner...

[Stephen W]

Originally posted by Jerry Entin
Steve: A.J. didn't attack Arie after the race. His fist was having a quiet discussion with Arie's face.

And there was me thinking Arie tried to head-butt AJ's fist! You learn something everyday!

[fines]

Originally posted by stevewf1
Bobby Unser cheated better than Mario...

(lengthy video)

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Neither cheated. The pitlane ends at the exit of Turn 2, that's the point worth mentioning. Everything else is immaterial.

[fines]

Originally posted by fausto
Can some of the runner-ups of the in-famous 1985 WEC Monza1000 consider themselves robbed of a certain win? Hadn't the tree fallen down we'd have probably seen a different winner...

Now isn't that statement a classic example for the futility of this whole discussion: If there were "some of the runner-ups" with valid complaints, how can any of them have been "certain" of victory?

[RA Historian]

Originally posted by Alan Cox

Hear, hear, Jerry. I could never see what all the fuss was about over the Le Mans finish in 1966. I never saw a photo where the three cars looked as though they were in line as they crossed the finish line - the black No. 2 car is always first of the three.

yES, YES, YES! I am so tired of the endless myth that it was a dead heat with the win awarded to McLaren/Amon. As every shred of evidence has always clearly showed, McLaren/Amon won BECAUSE THEY CROSSED THE FINISH LINE FIRST!! Anything else is just so much horse manure!

[David Beard]

Originally posted by Simon Arron

Gounon was (and is) a terrific racer, but for some reason he often seemed to be grossly underrated.

I can only go on what I have seen of him at the Goodwood Revival. On that basis I have to agree...

[Manfred Cubenoggin]

Granted, this little tale is somewhat O/T but I offer it up as an example of an effort to AVOID being 'robbed'. Damage control, if you will.

I was hotly involved in a region-championship deciding Formula Ford race 30 years ago in Ontario. In the final race at Shannonville, I was running a close second to the leader, my arch-rival. We were tied on points at the top of the title chase so obviously, whoever won the race would be champ. I was significantly...but not substantially...faster but passing is difficult on this little, 1.1 mile club circuit. In those days, the control tower facility...a two-storey affair...was located at the S/F line on the infield. As the laps reeled off and I looked for a way to pass, I kept an eye on the upper windows where T&L would post the laps remaining on a board. I counted them down with each pass by the tower. So? My arch-rival was of the same motorsports club as the race organizer. You may guess where I'm going with this now.

The GCR's of most any race organization world-wide have passages that read along these lines:

1. 'Should the race go long and an extra lap be made before the checkered flag is displayed, the final official results will revert to the posted race distance and the extra lap will be deemed to be irrelevant.'

2. 'Should the race be flagged EARLY and one less lap completed then the posted race distance, those results will stand and the results considered final.'

Was I going to wait til the last lap to make a bid? While the organizing club and its membership are beyond reproach, there could always be the case of the starter getting his signals crossed or have an itchy trigger finger with the checker and flag the event early, isn't there? All this came to mind as I sat just off the gearbox of the lead car. I saw an opening to make a pass with TWO laps to run and pulled it off.

Do we examples of races fitting this description? Especially those being flagged early and throwing the results into chaos?

[Formula Once]

Gounon was (and is) a terrific racer, but for some reason he often seemed to be grossly underrated.


Hmmm, in F3000 he was not that terrific and maybe the fact that he lied (and used falsed documents) to get a March F1 drive in 1993 didn't help his image, nor the fact that while he may have looked spectacular at times in GT and sports cars, he regularly did a fair bit of damage to them, too. Many drivers are labelled underrated (for whatever reason a lot of Frenchmen are among them) but there is often more to it than first meets the eye, as terrific as that may look.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Manfred Cubenoggin
Do we examples of races fitting this description? Especially those being flagged early and throwing the results into chaos?

There's a few where a red flag has meant an ostensible winning move has been lost on the countback, but those are part of the rules and you have to put up with that sort of thing. I was thinking more of lines where the "winner" patently (or possibly) didn't actually win.

Thinking of another NASCAR one...Brett Bodine's one win IIRC was due to a scoring snafu, he ended up with nearly a lap on the field because of a safety car misdeployment. He was leading, which no-one could believe, so when a caution flag was thrown the pace car went out in front of the second placed car...

[Simon Arron]

Originally posted by Formula Once
Hmmm, in F3000 he [Gounon] was not that terrific.

In 1990 he was patchy at the wheel of a Madgwick Reynard, I agree, but for the next two seasons he drove unfashionable cars (Ralt RT23, then Lola T92/50) and managed to nail a win with each (should have been two in the Ralt).

I was present at almost every F3000 race (I missed only two FIA events between 1985 and 2004) and always enjoyed watching J-MG in action. He had an uncomplicated, press-on attitude and was also refreshingly easy to deal with.

I can't remember the circumstances surrounding the March drive in 1993 (I know he was linked to a deal, although the team never appeared). I just recall an old-fashioned, no-nonsense racer who always appeared to give 100 per cent, irrespective of circumstance.

[HistoricMustang]

Originally posted by Alan Cox

Hear, hear, Jerry. I could never see what all the fuss was about over the Le Mans finish in 1966. I never saw a photo where the three cars looked as though they were in line as they crossed the finish line - the black No. 2 car is always first of the three.

OK, lets throw this in for the poor fool that stumbles upon this thread a decade or so from now:

At the finish, Ford decided to stage publicity photo between Miles/Hulme and McLaren/Amon with the No. 5 following, too. According to witnesses, McLaren left a small margin to Miles and it was expected than Miles/Hulme will be declared winner after the examination of the photo finish. But the ACO declared the McLaren/Amon car had won the race, having covered more distance in 24 hours, as it had started the race several places behind the Miles/Hulme car. The ACO estimated the difference to 8 meters. This was a terrible disappointment for Ken Miles who expected the triple crown Daytona-Sebring-Le Mans as a reward for his investment in the GT40 development. The well-known photography published by the Ford Motor Company showing McLaren leading Miles, with the MkII of Ronnie Bucknum and Dick Hutcherson third, may have fooled some people, but this document doesn't show the finish line and the public doesn't know at what time the picture was shot. The finish remains, however, the closest in Le Mans history.

As I stated in the Mickey Thompson affair several months ago we may need to "double clutch" the LeMans finish of 1966.

Henry

[fines]

Originally posted by HistoricMustang
OK, lets throw this in for the poor fool that stumbles upon this thread a decade or so from now:

At the finish, Ford decided to stage publicity photo between Miles/Hulme and McLaren/Amon with the No. 5 following, too. According to witnesses, McLaren left a small margin to Miles and it was expected than Miles/Hulme will be declared winner after the examination of the photo finish. But the ACO declared the McLaren/Amon car had won the race, having covered more distance in 24 hours, as it had started the race several places behind the Miles/Hulme car. The ACO estimated the difference to 8 meters. This was a terrible disappointment for Ken Miles who expected the triple crown Daytona-Sebring-Le Mans as a reward for his investment in the GT40 development. The well-known photography published by the Ford Motor Company showing McLaren leading Miles, with the MkII of Ronnie Bucknum and Dick Hutcherson third, may have fooled some people, but this document doesn't show the finish line and the public doesn't know at what time the picture was shot. The finish remains, however, the closest in Le Mans history.

That's not how it's done - the first to cross the finish line is the winner! The distances that are published with the result are simply the average speed multiplied by 24...

[D-Type]

Fines, are you sure?

I thought the rule in 1966 was that they calculated the 24 hour distance by taking the total number of laps covered before 4pm plus a fraction of a lap calculated pro rata based on the time taken for the last lap. So had the cars crossed the finishing line absolutely together the race would have gone to whoever was leading the previous lap.

After 1966, or maybe 1968, they realised that if someone were behind by say 2 seconds on lap (n-1) and ahead by 1 second on lap (n) they could have a situation where the car pictured taking the chequered flag was not the winner. Complicated, but work it out.

So they changed the rules so that whoever was first over the line after 4 pm was winner (out of cars on the same lap of course).

[Twin Window]

Tommy Byrne being taken-out by a spinning back-marker just a handful of laps from the end of the final race of the 1989 Indy Lights season at Laguna, and thereby being 'robbed' of the series title, has to be mentioned here methinks. The story wasn't too dissimilar in 1988 either for that matter...

[scheivlak]

Earlier threads about Le Mans 1966:

http://forums.autosp...&highlight=Mans
http://forums.autosp...&highlight=Mans

and, in a way, http://forums.autosp...&highlight=Mans

[RA Historian]

Oh for crying out loud! Enough of this revisionist crap. McLaren/Amon was first across the line. They won. End of story!

[fines]

Originally posted by D-Type
Fines, are you sure?

I thought the rule in 1966 was that they calculated the 24 hour distance by taking the total number of laps covered before 4pm plus a fraction of a lap calculated pro rata based on the time taken for the last lap. So had the cars crossed the finishing line absolutely together the race would have gone to whoever was leading the previous lap.

After 1966, or maybe 1968, they realised that if someone were behind by say 2 seconds on lap (n-1) and ahead by 1 second on lap (n) they could have a situation where the car pictured taking the chequered flag was not the winner. Complicated, but work it out.

So they changed the rules so that whoever was first over the line after 4 pm was winner (out of cars on the same lap of course).

I am not a sporty car fan, so I can't be sure about Le Mans, but it is the way it has always been done with duration races, and it is the only practical way of doing it! I had a bit of a time trying to understand your version (and so, apparently, had you yourself, your statement at the end of the first paragraph being wrong, methinks), and I would be utterly surprised if this is how it was done!

[Formula Once]

Hello Simon, as for the circumstances surrounding Gounon's March drive in 1993 as far as I know at the time the French government compensated racing drivers for having lost sponsorship money after tobacco advertising was banned in France. Gounon was said to have altered the amount written on the documents that stated how much compensation he would get to demonstrate to the team the budget he had available and get the deal. Just before the start of the season the truth came out and having not found sufficient sponsorship in the meantime he was unable to pay up and in turn the team was unable to pay Ilmor in time for its engines, as a result of which Ilmor did not sent its V10 engines to Kyalami, where the team had already travelled to for the first GP of 1993. Jan Lammers (who was to drive the other March and who's sponsors had paid significant money already) sat down with Mario Illien at Kyalami and he and a friend paid Ilmor for the engines to be sent to South-Africa after all, but despite Illien's promise he would sent the engines, he collected the money, but kept his engines in Europe. Consequently, the engine-less Marches did not run in South-Africa that weekend, effectively marking the end of the already financially troubled team. Lammers ended up paying (for years) back his sponsors and his friend plus the costs of the court case he later lost against Ilmor because the verbal gentlemen's agreement with Illien had not been documented in writing.

[ensign14]

Hm, contracts need not be in writing...there must have been something more to the engine shipping agreement...

[Formula Once]

Well, these are F1 style agreements we are talking about of course...

Anyway, March still owed Ilmor money for 1992 (and Ilien did not want to supply engines before that money was paid), but at Kyalami Ilien agreed that if Lammers himself paid for the 'Kyalami engines' he would sent them out. Instead he opted to keep his engines and use that money to settle the 1992 balance. This all happened in a single day (the agreement, the payment and the decission not to sent the engines). My theory is that by the start of 1993 Ilmor expected March to again have difficulties paying for its engines in 1993 anyway and since they now had Sauber/Mercedes as their new client they took the Lammers money and kept the engines to wrap up 1992, knowing that March would be very unlikely to be able to pay a) the penalty for not racing in South-Africa and b) the lease for the 1993 engines.

[HDonaldCapps]

Originally posted by RA Historian
Oh for crying out loud! Enough of this revisionist crap. McLaren/Amon was first across the line. They won. End of story!

Tom,

Like you, I thought that it was sort of a no-brainer that the first across the the line at the end of the 24-hour grind with the most laps was the winner. That happened to be the McLaren/Amon Mark II according to all the evidence and accounts that I have found. End of discussion, Bruce and Chris the winners. Next.

It is not "revisionist crap" that some still bring up the issue today -- more akin to "regurgitated revisonist crap," because it came up at the time and muddied the waters of what should have been a straight-forward finish. I looked into this several years ago and lay the blame for the muddle on the Ford PR people and with those wonderful folks at the ACO for adding to the confusion. I think I still that despite various machinations that were taking place as the finish approached, that with one of the cars clearly ahead at the crossing of the finish line, it was all moot.

It was poorly handled at the time and the death of Ken Miles just weeks later only added to the mess.

I think I still have my notes around here somewhere. I will try to around and find them. I do recall that it seemed very clear to me that the winner on the track was the McLaren/Amon car. There are a number of things we do need to go back and revise how they are interpreted, but I agree with you that this is not one of them.

[RA Historian]

Absolutely right as usual, Don. It is regurgitated revisionist crap. This whole nonsense got its start during the race when Ford queried the ACO about a dead heat finish. As I understand it, Ford was then told that a dead heat would be subject to the "who started farther back" insanity. This simple "what if" has gotten blown way out of proportion and context to the point where, despite ALL evidence to the contrary, some people still insist that it really happened that way. And I fear that all truth and logic to the contrary will not sway their dubious thinking in the least. I would fully suspect that they also believe that the photos of the finish, clearly showing McLaren/Amon the winner, were taken from a black helicopter that took off from the grassy knoll....

Of course, the fact that McLaren/Amon clearly won it on the road rendered any implementation of the spurious "who started further back" interpretation moot. In point of fact, the ACO's irresponsible floating of the POSSIBILITY(not implimentation) is responsible for the continuation of this foolish myth to this day, where it is readily picked up by various souls for whatever misguided reasons.

Again, to those who refuse to believe the facts, read this over slowly, memorize it, and commit it forever to the FACT side of your brain:

BRUCE McLAREN AND CHRIS AMON WON THE 1966 LE MANS 24 HRS. THEY WERE FIRST ACROSS THE LINE. THE FINISH WAS NOT, REPEAT NOT, A DEAD HEAT WITH THE WIN BEING AWARDED THEM.

Then repeat this over and over: I will NOT let any regurgitated revisionist bull **** about this finish ever enter my brain again.

End of rant.