Indy 500 - an irrelevance?

[luke]

sheesh? I didn't even say it was irrelevant for the last time!

[luke]

Another thing is, (talking to no one in particular) I've stated many times this is my favourite race of the year, each year... Just because there is one or two things I don't like and point out constructive criticism towards a few points of the IRL and give reason as to why the 500 has lost some of it's tint in it's amour I give my opinions and get pointed down as bashing, I get waved at like I hate the Indy 500 and words get put in my mouth. How many more times do I have to say that I am a big Hornish and Franchitti fan?

[rustyfan]

Originally Posted by L-B

The field is worse than 1995

This got me thinking, so I decided to do some digging and came up with some numbers:

Some stats about the 33 drivers in the 1995 starting field:

- 99 poles, 315 podium finishes and 93 victories (3 at Indianapolis) from a total of 1868 Champ Car starts

- 10 of the 33 starting drivers had won a Champ Car race; 3 of them being previous winners of the Indianapolis 500


Obviously we don't have a set starting field for the 2006 race as of yet, but checking the current stats of the 33 announced drivers thus far we get these numbers:

- 136 poles, 474 podium finishes and 175 victories (8 at Indianapolis) from a total of 2428 Champ Car/IndyCar starts

- 17 of the 33 (presumed) starting drivers have won either a Champ Car race or an IndyCar race (or both); 6 of them being previous winners of the Indianapolis 500


So is the potential 2006 field worse than 1995? One can argue that several drivers in the 1995 line-up would later blossom out to become big stars, but at the time of the 1995 race quite a few of them had yet to produce a whole lot in terms of results - not even Jacques Villeneuve had that much in terms of results before the 1995 Indianapolis 500. In fact, he had only somewhat better stats before winning that race than Buddy Rice had before winning the 2004 race (four more podium finishes, including one win, in roughly the same amount of starts - 20 vs 21), and yet people moaned and whined like there was no tomorrow after Rice won it, but have nothing but praise for Villeneuve for winning the 1995 race.

With Villeneuve perhaps particulary in mind I somehow think that much of the praise when it comes to the starting grids of the 90's - and perhaps 1995 in particular - is based on what many of the drivers in those races moved on to do, rather than what they had achieved at the time, and that's not a very fair comparison to make when we have no idea of knowing what some of the young, promising drivers that will be in the 2006 field will achieve in the future.

Just my two cents.

[Bluewolf]

I believe the indy 500 is coming back from it's lowest point - and although a merger with OWRS is the only thing that will bring it all the way back, the quality of the drivers is now quite deep and the top teams all have great drivers. Also the TV ratings are bound to be up again this year with Michael, Al, and Eddie coming back. It should be one heck of a race.

[jhansen]

Nice collection of stats rustyfan. But that seems to prove a point about the irrelevance issue. The fact that the two series are divided gives a perception that both series, and in fact the Indy 500 are less relevant post split.

As you have shown, The 500 has a solid competitive field this year. But, the perception is likewise. And like it or not, perception matters, especially to sponsors.

[BootsOntheSide]

Rusty's comparison is interesting. In the years before the split, something of a sea change was taking place in the nature of 'IndyCar' drivers, which is why you had guys like Tracy, JV and de Ferran on statistics which were not imrpessive by then. A result in the IRL up to 2002, or in ChampCar since, does not have the full value of one in peak years either. Also, it's worth remembering that the 1995 field didn't have guys like Al Jr, Michael and Cheever coming back while seemingly past their best. What you've put forward shows that the field is fairly strong, but certainly doesn't tell the whole story.

[Fish_Flake]

1995 isn't a fair year to judge the caliber of the Indy field. First of all, the Penske team of Al Unser Jr. and Emerson Fittipaldi failed to make the field. That's four Indy 500 victories and 51 IndyCar wins right there. It also marks the time where most of the Indy legends of the 70s and 80s started to retire. AJ Foyt, Gordon Johncock, Rick Mears, and Tom Sneva all made their last rounds at the Brickyard in 1992; the senior Al Unser in 1993; and finally, Mario Andretti in 1994. Sixteen 500 victories, several hundred IndyCar wins (in both CART and USAC eras) between those drivers. When you can consider how many wins those drivers mentioned above took in the 15-20 years previous, there absence leaves a dent in the statistical power of the 1995 field, partly because their replacements were younger drivers not active during that era, and partly because the remaining drivers in that era had to settle for the spare victories that were left for the taking.

[mountainstar]

http://www.speedtv.com/commentary/24295/

Robin Miller weighs in.

[JohnSSC]

The plural of Lotus is "Loti," I believe.

Luke, no offense, but if this is how you feel about your favorite race I tremble to think what might be posted about your least favorite.

I am not going to get too wrapped up in your taking my quotes out of context so I will try to simplify my message. In view of 90 runnings of The 500 there has been good and bad. The Hulmans bought the track off of Eddie Rickenbacker and it had been unused for some time. The Great Depression, WWII and other events coincide with some rather rough times at Indy. Many peaks and many valleys on the timeline and a variety of reasons for them. I remember calls for the 500 to be ended after Salt Walther's horrific crash. Instead, everyone dug down and devised and implemented major safety improvements to the cars and track.

The passion, however, remains. That is what has driven things through good and not so good times.That is what makes Indy, Indy: Passion.

[indycool]

Robin Miller always DOES weigh in......and if the Indy 500 is irrelevant and rates 11 pages here, I'd hate to wade through a thread on a race that WAS relevant.

[L-B]

Originally Posted by rustyfan

This got me thinking, so I decided to do some digging and came up with some numbers:

Some stats about the 33 drivers in the 1995 starting field:

- 99 poles, 315 podium finishes and 93 victories (3 at Indianapolis) from a total of 1868 Champ Car starts

- 10 of the 33 starting drivers had won a Champ Car race; 3 of them being previous winners of the Indianapolis 500


Obviously we don't have a set starting field for the 2006 race as of yet, but checking the current stats of the 33 announced drivers thus far we get these numbers:

- 136 poles, 474 podium finishes and 175 victories (8 at Indianapolis) from a total of 2428 Champ Car/IndyCar starts

- 17 of the 33 (presumed) starting drivers have won either a Champ Car race or an IndyCar race (or both); 6 of them being previous winners of the Indianapolis 500


So is the potential 2006 field worse than 1995? One can argue that several drivers in the 1995 line-up would later blossom out to become big stars, but at the time of the 1995 race quite a few of them had yet to produce a whole lot in terms of results - not even Jacques Villeneuve had that much in terms of results before the 1995 Indianapolis 500. In fact, he had only somewhat better stats before winning that race than Buddy Rice had before winning the 2004 race (four more podium finishes, including one win, in roughly the same amount of starts - 20 vs 21), and yet people moaned and whined like there was no tomorrow after Rice won it, but have nothing but praise for Villeneuve for winning the 1995 race.

With Villeneuve perhaps particulary in mind I somehow think that much of the praise when it comes to the starting grids of the 90's - and perhaps 1995 in particular - is based on what many of the drivers in those races moved on to do, rather than what they had achieved at the time, and that's not a very fair comparison to make when we have no idea of knowing what some of the young, promising drivers that will be in the 2006 field will achieve in the future.

Just my two cents.

I love the spin on that its almost brilliant. In 1995 the Penskes failed to make the field that probably tells you straight away it was more competitive than current. Yes a lot of the current field has won in CART/IRL but I maintain that both series are pale shadows of the old CART depth wise and if you take out Unser jnr and Andretti who are basically retired then your stats tumble anyway.

Theres 10 ex F1 drivers in the 1995 field (not including Jacques)
Theres 2 ex F1 drivers in the 2006 field and both of them were in 1995. Now I'll accept that Scheckter would have made F1 had he not been kerb crawling

Can you see Buddy Rice jumping to F1 and winning races and a championship? I'm not knocking the guy I think he is a good driver and his win was one of my fav 500's despite the weather! but really can you see it? Now Wheldon...

The field is definately stronger than 1996 though.

Oh and luke while you are asking the general Public about Wheldon ask them who Sebastian Bourdais is and Arie Luyendyk hell even Jacques Villenueve oh and throw in a Tony Stewart.

Now go to a club meeting at say Brands and ask the same questions.

[rustyfan]

Originally Posted by L-B

I love the spin on that its almost brilliant. In 1995 the Penskes failed to make the field that probably tells you straight away it was more competitive than current.

At the same time there must have been something extremely wrong in the Penske camp - perhaps something similar to when Bobby Rahal missed the show in 1993 after bringing a car the team had built themselves from scratch? - to get outqualified by the likes of Hideshi Matsuda, Davy Jones, Eric Bachelart, Lyn St. James, Hiro Matsushiita, Carlos Guerrero and quite a few others in the 1995 field who hadn't ever been even close to a top finish in Champ Car.

Originally Posted by L-B

Theres 10 ex F1 drivers in the 1995 field (not including Jacques)

Interesting that you would take my post above as a spin and then mention that, seeing as the 10 ex F1 drivers in the 1995 field - Eliseo Salazar, Stefan Johansson, Roberto Guerrero, Michael Andretti, Teo Fabi, Bobby Rahal, Mauricio Gugelmin, Eddie Cheever, Christian Fittipaldi and Danny Sullivan - hardly set the F1 world on fire, managing only a handful of podium finished combined.

Sure, having been a Formula 1 driver is a merit in itself, but to be honest, having, for example, done just two races in 1978 with a best finish of 12th, one lap down, isn't exactly what I'd call impressive, even if it happens to be Bobby Rahal who did it.

Personally, and I might be alone in thinking this, I think having ex-Formula 1 drivers in no way is an automatic "quality-enchancer". I mean, would the 2006 field be held in much higher regard if Alex Yoong, Yuji Ide, Robert Doornbos, Enrique Bernoldi etc were part of it?

The 1995 field might have had 10 ex-Formula 1 drivers, but when it comes to quite a few of them - like Bobby Rahal, Danny Sullivan, Michael Andretti and Teo Fabi for example - I'm way, way more impressed with what they had done in Champ Car compared to what they had managed to do in Formula 1.

Originally Posted by L-B

Theres 2 ex F1 drivers in the 2006 field and both of them were in 1995. Now I'll accept that Scheckter would have made F1 had he not been kerb crawling

Guess you can make that three, now that Max Papis is entered as well.

Originally Posted by L-B

Can you see Buddy Rice jumping to F1 and winning races and a championship? I'm not knocking the guy I think he is a good driver and his win was one of my fav 500's despite the weather! but really can you see it? Now Wheldon...

The field is definately stronger than 1996 though.

When did I even hint that I see Buddy Rice as being as good as Jacques Villeneuve or that I expect him to race in F-1?

My point - which you obviously missed - was that I have the feeling Villeneuve's 1995 victory is held in much higher regard these days in part because of what he later produced. Because as said, both Villeneuve and Rice had quite similar results before winning their each respective Indianapolis 500, and yet, as mentioned, Rice's victory is looked down upon as some sort of fluke, while Villeneuve's victory is hailed as a really great one.

[BootsOntheSide]

To some extent, there are less ex-F1 drivers in the current IRL field because less people have driven F1 in the last 10 years than in the 10 years before 1995, as there are less drives available. Also, ex-F1 drivers were drawn to ChampCar (and the 500 as a consequence) largely by the emphasis on road racing, whcih the IRL doesn't have to that extent.

Buddy Rice's pre-IRL CV is probably stronger than JV's pre-CART one, so you can't make a definite comparison there.

The 1992 field was statistically much stronger than 1995 or 2006, but it's surely fair to wonder whether Mears, Sneva, Foyt et al were anywhere near as good as they had been at their peaks? 1993 might be an interesting comparison year.

[luke]

Originally Posted by L-B

Oh and luke while you are asking the general Public about Wheldon ask them who Sebastian Bourdais is and Arie Luyendyk hell even Jacques Villenueve oh and throw in a Tony Stewart.

Jacques Villeneuve everyone would have heard of him here, because he was an F1 champion and still races in F1! Bourdais would be better known in europe as he was a F3000 champion, F1 test driver...does Le Mans every year, quite big in France, also won the European CART races here in '03 so some people will remember him...Arie and Tony no.

[paul-collins]

The F1 list is a red herring. As Boots has said, the revolving door of F1 is a lot less prone to opening these days.

For instance, Tomas Enge should be, by rights, at least an ex-F1 driver by now. Silly. (And I don't consider Seb the F3000 champion either. )

[luke]

Isn't that because you didn't get F3000 in Canada? And my view was based on a European perspective!

[rustyfan]

Originally Posted by paul-collins

For instance, Tomas Enge should be, by rights, at least an ex-F1 driver by now. Silly.

Well, he is, seeing as he did three races for Prost in 2001

[jhansen]

Originally Posted by rustyfan

Personally, and I might be alone in thinking this, I think having ex-Formula 1 drivers in no way is an automatic "quality-enchancer".

Yet on Page 1 of this thread in Post #12 you said: "I don't see any Formula 1 drivers taking part in the Le Mans 24 Hours though."

That was in response to ss_collins, who was discussing the quality of the grid at LeMans. So I'm confused, are you saying that the addition of ex-F1 talent to the grid is good or bad?

[rustyfan]

Originally Posted by jhansen

Yet on Page 1 of this thread in Post #12 you said: "I don't see any Formula 1 drivers taking part in the Le Mans 24 Hours though."

That was in response to ss_collins, who was discussing the quality of the grid at LeMans. So I'm confused, are you saying that the addition of ex-F1 talent to the grid is good or bad?

Nice way of taking it out of its context - that post was a reply to what several naysayers had been posting, in regards to how Formula 1 drivers seemingly is a must to make the Indianapolis 500 a glorious event - for some reason I don't see the same things being said about Le Mans.

Not that the drivers at Le Mans matters much though - there will be an Audi, with Tom Kristensen part of the outfit, winning as usual anyway

[jhansen]

I do think that many sportscar fans appreciate the fact that LeMans draws drivers from outside the normal pool of sportscar talent. Same thing can be said about the Indy 500. The marketing people make a big deal about it. The TV commentators will be sure to point that out. And the fans will take note of it. So it's a good thing in my opinion.

But I would say that sportscar fans tend to pay a lot of attention to the cars. That's just part of the draw in that sport.

Originally Posted by rustyfan

Not that the drivers at Le Mans matters much though

Tell that to Tom Kristensen...

[BootsOntheSide]

Luke, I think Paul was referring to the way Enge lost the title to Bourdais for a positive maruijana test. Ex-F1 drivers are one of many 'red herrings' when comparing eras - the overall raicng scene has changed hugely in the last decade. Good point about the 500 being much more open than Le Mans; while I appreciate awesome technology, I prefer to see close racing which an be won by the best driver/pitcrew combination. Le Mans has often had eras of domination; not just successions of wins but successions of 1-2s.

[luke]

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...605160391/1052

TG gives his reasons.

[L-B]

Originally Posted by rustyfan

At the same time there must have been something extremely wrong in the Penske camp .

Your not kidding. My point was they were entered and didn't make the field, the wheels could fall off the Penske cars this year and they would still make the field, having said that I hope theres a bit of bumping so maybe not i've actually been bigging up this years field on another board I have never stated it as weak or poor I just don't think it is as good as 1995 ( and certainly 1994). The thing that struck me about the split was that CART at the time was taking on F1 even over here. F1 was in all sorts of trouble in 1994with losing Senna then all the political bickering between Benetton and the FIA then the title decided with people running into each other. 1995 was no better with Williams doing its best to make a complete mess of it, Schumacher benefitting despite being run into by Hill at least twice. CART was seen as the up and coming challenger for the throne as top dog. Then we get to 1996 the Indy field was full of names I for one had never heard of, and CART's showpiece ended up bouncing off the walls all over the place. F1 has never looked back since, as its unchallenged as the premier single seater series. This is all IMO obviously.

Originally Posted by rustyfan

Interesting that you would take my post above as a spin and then mention that, seeing as the 10 ex F1 drivers in the 1995 field - Eliseo Salazar, Stefan Johansson, Roberto Guerrero, Michael Andretti, Teo Fabi, Bobby Rahal, Mauricio Gugelmin, Eddie Cheever, Christian Fittipaldi and Danny Sullivan - hardly set the F1 world on fire, managing only a handful of podium finished combined.

Sure, having been a Formula 1 driver is a merit in itself, but to be honest, having, for example, done just two races in 1978 with a best finish of 12th, one lap down, isn't exactly what I'd call impressive, even if it happens to be Bobby Rahal who did it.

Five of them stood on a F1 Podium, albeit not the top step. Johansson (12), Andretti (1) Cheever (9) Fabi (2) Gugelmin (1), 25 podiums is more than a handful. F1 is actually a bad indicator of driving talent anyway considering the car differences. as you said getting there is usually impressive in itself.

Originally Posted by rustyfan

Personally, and I might be alone in thinking this, I think having ex-Formula 1 drivers in no w.y is an automatic "quality-enchancer". I mean, would the 2006 field be held in much higher regard if Alex Yoong, Yuji Ide, Robert Doornbos, Enrique Bernoldi etc were part of it?.

Depending on who they replace, Yoong, maybe, he did win recently in A1GP He was better than his F1 career suggests. The year previous to his year with Minardi he had a huge crash at Spa in F3000 and I think that affected him a bit. Ide, I doubt it, though he was dealt a rotten hand, he is the FNippon runner up after all, however he had zero testing and Sato had all the 'best' bits. Should really have kept his head down a bit. Doornbos I reserve judgement on but he seems ok. Bernoldi certainly would, he's actually a pretty damn good driver. One of the few to have overtaken Schumacher legitimately on the track and one of only two I can think of in an Arrows!

No if you said Lavaggi, Adams, Nissany and Baumgartner I would have been struggling

Originally Posted by rustyfan

The 1995 field might have had 10 ex-Formula 1 drivers, but when it comes to quite a few of them - like Bobby Rahal, Danny Sullivan, Michael Andretti and Teo Fabi for example - I'm way, way more impressed with what they had done in Champ Car compared to what they had managed to do in Formula 1.

Fabi was actually damn impressive in F1 anyway as both you and I have said you need a good car there to do anything.

Originally Posted by rustyfan

Guess you can make that three, now that Max Papis is entered as well.

Four if Enge gets there.

Originally Posted by rustyfan

When did I even hint that I see Buddy Rice as being as good as Jacques Villeneuve or that I expect him to race in F-1?

My point - which you obviously missed - was that I have the feeling Villeneuve's 1995 victory is held in much higher regard these days in part because of what he later produced. Because as said, both Villeneuve and Rice had quite similar results before winning their each respective Indianapolis 500, and yet, as mentioned, Rice's victory is looked down upon as some sort of fluke, while Villeneuve's victory is hailed as a really great one.

Well its all about perception Villeneuve won with a 2 lap penalty (ok he never actually went 2 laps down) Rice won a rain shortened event. You also say that the perception is down to what he went on to do, so do you see Rice following in the tracks of Villeneuve? It's a fairly obvious follow up and completely understood on my part.

[L-B]

Originally Posted by luke

Jacques Villeneuve everyone would have heard of him here, because he was an F1 champion and still races in F1! Bourdais would be better known in europe as he was a F3000 champion, F1 test driver...does Le Mans every year, quite big in France, also won the European CART races here in '03 so some people will remember him...Arie and Tony no.

I know what they did there is a reason I chose that list and its not only because they have all raced at Indy. Stewart and Bourdais are current champions, Arie was the last Euro winner of Indy (excluding Wheldon of course) and Jacques has won Indy and the F1 title. Yet I know for a fact that he is largely forgotten outside the non racing community, its funny what you end up talking about when working offshore. I asked some (10 or so)of the crew to name the last ten f1 champions they all got Alonso, Schumacher, Mika, Hill, Prost, Senna and Mansell a couple got Piquet everyone knew of Lauda though they thought he was too far back ( mind you so did I until I worked it out) only 1 got Jacques and he was Canadian anyway. Of the other nine only four had ever heard of them. tbh I will have to try the others when I go back out.

I asked you to ask people not speculate.

[L-B]

Sorry for the triple post but another thing on the awareness of Wheldon is that he was voted british racing driver of the year but the Autosport readers. While hats not the general public but people with an interest in motor sport it certainly points to him not being completely unknown.