The Tangled Web of the US National Championships [Archive]

Don Capps

22nd February 2011, 20:54

I saw this elsewhere and felt compelled to write something:

Wikipedia states that the ChampCar brand and history is now owned by IndyCar.

Wrongkipedia strikes yet again.

Only ChampCar could ever own its history, no one else....

What happened was that part of the deal, as I understand it, was that the Indy Racing League/IndyCar got the physical records of the series. To some, that the IRL/ICR took possession of the "records" of ChampCar was interpreted as literally the records, the history of ChampCar. This was not the case.

Nor did ChampCar "own" the history of CART.

Nor did USAC "own" the history of the AAA.

The IRL/ICS was formed in 1994 and had its first season in 1996, which is its history in a nutshell.

CART was formed in 1978 and had its first season in 1979, folding at the end of the 2003 season.

ChampCar was formed in 2004 and folded at the end of the 2007 season, its assets being sold in 2008 to IRL/ICS.

USAC was formed in 1955 and had its first season in 1956, its national championship division dying for intents in purposes 1980 when it withdrew form the Championship Racing League arrangement with CART and the Gold Crown series was created for the 1981 season.

The AAA was formed in 1902, held its first championship in 1905, another "first" champonship in 1916, and then from 1920 - 1941, and 1946-1955 ran its national championship.

So, you have the AAA, USAC, CART, IRL/ICS, and ChampCar histories and championships, which are often blurred and a bit fuzzy in many cases, but basically separate entities for study. True, there are some who take great exception to viewing it this way, but they are inclined to do so not from the viewpoint of the historian.

It should be added that the early history of AAA national championship racing as usually presented is a fraud and should be ignored. Russ Catlin, Val Haresnape, and Arthur Means managed to screw it up royally, with there still being those who think that what is often found on the Web or in various books is correct. It is not.

Dr. Krogshöj

22nd February 2011, 22:12

Don Capps

23rd February 2011, 00:07

Bashing Wikipedia is stupid... If one finds factually incorrect information, they should log in and rewrite it. That's the whole point of the project. Anyway, I don't know if statistics can be "owned" as such, but I am sure glad that IndyCar will include AAA/USAC/CART/CCWS stats. Sorry, Scott Dixon, but you are not the winningest Indy Car driver, A.J. Foyt is.

Sorry to disagree, but Wikipedia is a very good idea gone very bad in many instances. I have no time to waste on writing something when any half-witted, uneducated fool can come along and change what is correct to what is incorrect. Whatever value Wikipedia may have in some broad, general areas, in many niche areas, such as those related to automobile racing, it tends to be very much hit-and-miss, often becoming "Wrongkipedia" instead. Needless to say, I am scarcely one of its biggest fans and tend to ignore it whenever possible. If nothing else, Wikipedia does tend to validate Shannon's Law, but that is not necessarily grounds for any celebration. While I may be many things, stupid is probably not one of them.

Sorry to disagree onve more, but while A.J. Foyt, Jr. has the most USAC national championship wins and it is also correct that Dixon the most IRL/ICS "IndyCar" wins. These are two entirely different series. While one may certainly combine the various series and play games with the data as many seem inclined to do, that does not change the history of the series.

garyshell

23rd February 2011, 01:31

Mark

23rd February 2011, 08:59

I say it's just semantics. By 'owning' the history, in itself doesn't mean a lot, that's for sure. However it enables you to say things like "Driver X has now won the championship 3 times" or "This is the 40th IndyCar race at this venue", even if the championships and races happen to be spread across multiple periods of ownership. You may say that's revisionist history, and you may be right, but it keeps things nice and neat for us simple folk :p .

And certainly the semantics of CART vs OWRS matters not one bit, as they are a continuation one to the other.

How you now think of races taking place under CART/OWRS and if they count as 'IndyCar' races, is another matter really!

BDunnell

23rd February 2011, 10:18

BDunnell

23rd February 2011, 10:21

I say it's just semantics. By 'owning' the history, in itself doesn't mean a lot, that's for sure. However it enables you to say things like "Driver X has now won the championship 3 times" or "This is the 40th IndyCar race at this venue", even if the championships and races happen to be spread across multiple periods of ownership. You may say that's revisionist history, and you may be right, but it keeps things nice and neat for us simple folk :p .

I understand exactly what you mean, but the retention of a true historical record is very important.

Dr. Krogshöj

23rd February 2011, 10:44

Sorry to disagree, but Wikipedia is a very good idea gone very bad in many instances. I have no time to waste on writing something when any half-witted, uneducated fool can come along and change what is correct to what is incorrect. Whatever value Wikipedia may have in some broad, general areas, in many niche areas, such as those related to automobile racing, it tends to be very much hit-and-miss, often becoming "Wrongkipedia" instead. Needless to say, I am scarcely one of its biggest fans and tend to ignore it whenever possible. If nothing else, Wikipedia does tend to validate Shannon's Law, but that is not necessarily grounds for any celebration. While I may be many things, stupid is probably not one of them.

Sorry to disagree onve more, but while A.J. Foyt, Jr. has the most USAC national championship wins and it is also correct that Dixon the most IRL/ICS "IndyCar" wins. These are two entirely different series. While one may certainly combine the various series and play games with the data as many seem inclined to do, that does not change the history of the series.

Apologies for using the word stupid, I referred to the verbal abuse and didn't mean it as a personal insult. However, in my experience, more often than not, community control ensures that eventually, the correct informations will end up in most articles. The very reason for most of the wrong articles may be the fact that people who have the knowledge to correct them, restain from editing on the grounds that half-witted, uneducated will change it to bullcrap.

BDunnell

23rd February 2011, 10:54

Apologies for using the word stupid, I referred to the verbal abuse and didn't mean it as a personal insult. However, in my experience, more often than not, community control ensures that eventually, the correct informations will end up in most articles. The very reason for most of the wrong articles may be the fact that people who have the knowledge to correct them, restain from editing on the grounds that half-witted, uneducated will change it to bullcrap.

But isn't that a very good reason for those with the necessary knowledge not doing so? Personally, I think it is. I think it's better for the latter group to disseminate their knowledge by means that can't be 'amended' in such ways, even if it means the correct information reaches a smaller audience, so as to guarantee that correct information being available in unadulterated form somewhere. Elitist? Possibly, but that doesn't bother me.

Lousada

23rd February 2011, 13:25

Only ChampCar could ever own its history, no one else....

What happened was that part of the deal, as I understand it, was that the Indy Racing League/IndyCar got the physical records of the series. To some, that the IRL/ICR took possession of the "records" of ChampCar was interpreted as literally the records, the history of ChampCar. This was not the case.

What's your basis for this? You can actually own history as bizarre as that may sound. As far as I understand the IRL bought Champcar, and since Champcar continued out of CART, the IRL now owns the history of both CC and CART. That this is incredibly ironic and historically inaccurate is also a fact.
Another example of this complicated matter is the Team Lotus/Group Lotus saga, where Team owns the F1 records while Group owns everything else.

Don Capps

23rd February 2011, 14:12

Apologies for using the word stupid, I referred to the verbal abuse and didn't mean it as a personal insult. However, in my experience, more often than not, community control ensures that eventually, the correct informations will end up in most articles. The very reason for most of the wrong articles may be the fact that people who have the knowledge to correct them, restain from editing on the grounds that half-witted, uneducated will change it to bullcrap.

Apologies humbly accepted. As I stated, that Shannon's Law seems to eventually prevail for the most part when the item being discussed has high visibility and a high interest level does not necessarily lead to that applying to the topics of lesser interest. As stated, while I applaud the basic idea of the Wikipedia, its concept and execution has left much to be desired. End of story as far as I am concerned.

BDunnell

23rd February 2011, 17:09

What's your basis for this? You can actually own history as bizarre as that may sound. As far as I understand the IRL bought Champcar, and since Champcar continued out of CART, the IRL now owns the history of both CC and CART. That this is incredibly ironic and historically inaccurate is also a fact.
Another example of this complicated matter is the Team Lotus/Group Lotus saga, where Team owns the F1 records while Group owns everything else.

I think the phrase 'owning history' is a bit of a misnomer here. It's hard to explain what I mean, but the history is what it is, while company or rights ownership changes. There should be no problem so long as the new owners' references to history are accurate.

Don Capps

23rd February 2011, 20:51

For some background on this topic for those few who might be interested, I would suggest going to Automobile Racing History and History or Case History and Casey and Clio Has a Corollary: Part II, Rear View Mirror, Volume 7, No.6 (http://forix.autosport.com/8w/rvm-vol7-no6.html), and then down to "Case History: John Glenn Printz and the Struggle for the Past" which is subtitled, "The A.A.A. Catastrophe: Arthur Means, Val Haresnape, Russ Catlin, and Bob Russo." This is a short discussion of the problems with the history of the AAA national championship and how it got that way.

Don Capps

24th February 2011, 01:46

For those who seem to be having problems with grasping the realities of what we might refer to as the history of the "United States National Championship," you are not alone.

The problem that seems to be evident is that some seem to think that the "United States National Championship" is literally continuous despite the changes in the sanctioning or organizing group when that is not actually the case. What has happened is that there have been breaks in the lineage of the "United States National Championship" at various points along the way. I will attempt to provide the "short version" of all this.

The American Automobile Association (AAA) was organized in 1902 and in 1905 held the "National Motor Car Championship" which was won by -- of all people -- Barney Oldfield. Its inaugural season of the AAA National Championship was held in 1916, interrupted by the Great War in 1917 and resumed in 1920, running until the next interruption by war, 1941. It resumed once more in 1946 -- a rather confusing year for the championship -- and the final AAA national championship season was 1955, the series ending when the AAA withdrew from sanctioning automobile racing.

In 1955, in the days following the announcement of the AAA Contest Board's withdrawal, the United States Auto Club (USAC) was formed. Its inaugural season was 1956 and USAC treated it as a new championship -- one need only to look at their yearbooks to realize this. Beginning with the 1971 season, USAC created new championships for road racing and the Dirt Tracks, the National Championship Trail being exclusively for ovals until the 1977 season when road races were re-admitted to the series. In 1980, USAC ended its national championship after withdrawing from the Championship Racing League (CRL), which was the result of an agreement with CART to run a combined series during the 1980 season, which USAC reneged on after the Mid-Ohio round.

USAC then created a new championship, the Gold Crown Series, which would begin with the 1981 season. The fields were so thin that both cars and races from the Silver Crown Series -- the new name for the Sprint Car series -- had to be added to the series, it eventually being reduced to a single event: the International 500 Mile Sweepstakes. This series ended in 1995.

In 1978, the Championship Auto Racing Teams (CART) was formed, its inaugural season being the 1979 season. In 1980, it participated with USAC in the short-lived CRL, which USAC withdrew from after fifth race. CART ceased to exist after the 2003 season. As in the case of USAC, it treated its championship as a new championship, not a continuation of that of USAC, much less the AAA.

In 1994, the Indy Racing League (IRL) was formed and held its inaugural season in 1996.

In 2004, the remaining physical assets of CART were bought by Open Wheel Racing Series which then created the Champ Car World Series, when then folded in early 2008, its physical assets being bought by the IRL, to include the various administrative records.

So, the lineage of the "United States National Championship" has several breaks in it long before we get to the current somewhat messy, convoluted mishmash that is the IRL or IndyCar Series (ICS), 1955 and 1980 as well as 2003.

It is no surprise that racing fans ignore all this and show nothing but disdain for the "political machinations" of automobile racing. That is also quite irrelevant. The "racing politics" and all that goes with it are an integral part of automobile racing history regardless of what fans may or may not think. It is the job, the duty, of the historian to dig into things and sort out the mess that the past almost invariably is in the case of the history of automobile racing. While things has gotten much better than they were even as recently as only a dozen years ago, much remains to be done, a great deal inn fact.

Some may huff and sniff and regard all the above as "quibbling" while others refuse to entertain any thoughts about the effects of "political machinations" of automobile racing since it ruins their enjoyment of the sport and yet others will choose to ignore all of what has been presented and regard it all as one big glump despite all evidence to the contrary. Again, that is irrelevant. While one wishes that this was not the case, it is also worthy of note that Denis Jenkinson comes up rather short as an automotive historian given his inclination to not bother his readers with the "racing politics" that directly affected the sport he was reporting on, which meant that there was much left unsaid that he simply refused to chronicle. At least Jenkinson did not present the half-truths, legends, and outright nonsense that other journalists indulged themselves in their writings.

Alexamateo

24th February 2011, 03:06

It is a mess, isn't it? I always think about the Indy 500 in this. CART drivers ran the race from 1979 to 1994, but never once had the sanction, yet paid points every year except 1981 and 1982. It's no wonder everyone wants to claim "history" as their own.

garyshell

24th February 2011, 03:27

Mr. Capps,

You had plenty of time to write up this diatribe here, you could have just as easily posted a copy to Wikipedia. And the reality is you are quibbling semantics with this nonsense. So what if they were all separate series, they were all a continuum of championship open wheel racing in the US. Some of us are much more interested in the history of that continuum than we are in the political machinations of one series versus another.

Gary

It is no surprise that racing fans ignore all this and show nothing but disdain for the "political machinations" of automobile racing. That is also quite irrelevant. The "racing politics" and all that goes with it are an integral part of automobile racing history regardless of what fans may or may not think. It is the job, the duty, of the historian to dig into things and sort out the mess that the past almost invariably is in the case of the history of automobile racing. While things has gotten much better than they were even as recently as only a dozen years ago, much remains to be done, a great deal inn fact.

Some may huff and sniff and regard all the above as "quibbling" while others refuse to entertain any thoughts about the effects of "political machinations" of automobile racing since it ruins their enjoyment of the sport and yet others will choose to ignore all of what has been presented and regard it all as one big glump despite all evidence to the contrary. Again, that is irrelevant. While one wishes that this was not the case, it is also worthy of note that Denis Jenkinson comes up rather short as an automotive historian given his inclination to not bother his readers with the "racing politics" that directly affected the sport he was reporting on, which meant that there was much left unsaid that he simply refused to chronicle. At least Jenkinson did not present the half-truths, legends, and outright nonsense that other journalists indulged themselves in their writings.

Gee, would you be talking about me? In our lifetime has there ever been a year that didn't have some form of open-wheel championship auto racing? (I've been a fan since about 1958 and can't remember a year that the cars didn't run.) Sure, there have been various sanctioning bodies come and go and even some overlap, but there has still been a continuous string of races year after year. And some of us could really care less about which "political machination" was in control at any time when we look back at the history of races and racers. To us all that really matters are those people and those events. If you are more interested in the politics behind them and want to deliniate those races in to neat little pockets based on the politics, fine. But don't expect every one here to share in that.

Gary

Don Capps

24th February 2011, 14:47

Gee, would you be talking about me? In our lifetime has there ever been a year that didn't have some form of open-wheel championship auto racing? (I've been a fan since about 1958 and can't remember a year that the cars didn't run.) Sure, there have been various sanctioning bodies come and go and even some overlap, but there has still been a continuous string of races year after year. And some of us could really care less about which "political machination" was in control at any time when we look back at the history of races and racers. To us all that really matters are those people and those events. If you are more interested in the politics behind them and want to deliniate those races in to neat little pockets based on the politics, fine. But don't expect every one here to share in that.

Gary

You present the opportunity to point out that while sanctioning bodies and series come and go, that aspect of lineage often being broken and somewhat mangled, that in many cases the teams and drivers and others simply move along and adjust to the situation. That important factor tends to mask the changes that take place, those breaks in the lineage, and does provides a sense of continuity to what would otherwise be an even more messy past. However, this does not change the fact that significant changes have taken place.

garyshell

24th February 2011, 15:21

You present the opportunity to point out that while sanctioning bodies and series come and go, that aspect of lineage often being broken and somewhat mangled, that in many cases the teams and drivers and others simply move along and adjust to the situation. That important factor tends to mask the changes that take place, those breaks in the lineage, and does provides a sense of continuity to what would otherwise be an even more messy past. However, this does not change the fact that significant changes have taken place.

I certainly didn't mean to imply in any way that those changes were not significant. But as you said, "in many cases the teams and drivers and others simply move along and adjust to the situation", and I would include most of the fans (with the notable exception of those on both sides who didn't get the message that the war is over). And while you assessment of the history is absolutely correct, I think most fans don't really give a whit about the delineation of sanctioning bodies when they start "bench racing" and the talk turns to who won the most races etc. I know I am certainly among that group. If driver x won 13 races spread across three different sanctioning bodies, I still think he won 13 races.

Cheers,
Gary

nigelred5

25th February 2011, 00:13

IMHO, the national championship in American Open wheel racing has always been defined by the Indy 500, even though I was firmly in the "other" camp during the split.

Ever try to follow what side the "good guys" were on in the Star Wars saga? ;)

Don Capps

25th February 2011, 00:44

....And while you assessment of the history is absolutely correct, I think most fans don't really give a whit about the delineation of sanctioning bodies when they start "bench racing" and the talk turns to who won the most races etc. I know I am certainly among that group. If driver x won 13 races spread across three different sanctioning bodies, I still think he won 13 races.

I will only point out something the Daniel Patrick Moynihan said: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

IMHO, the national championship in American Open wheel racing has always been defined by the Indy 500, even though I was firmly in the "other" camp during the split.

The management of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway worked ceaselessly to turn the annual Decoration Day -- later Memorial Day -- running of the International 500 Mile Sweepstakes into a major American and international sporting event, with little to no regard to American automobile racing as a whole. In doing so, they planted the seeds that later sprouted as weeds and not flowers. If there is one factor that has in the long term managed to create many of the problems that has plague the "US National Championship" concept and its various series, it is Indianapolis.

By the mid-Twenties, the Indianapolis event was the premier US event in automobile racing; by the Thirties, it was just about the only US automobile race that people knew about. During this period the AAA Contest Board and the IMS management were synonymous, to the detriment of any other racing event or series attempting to gain national recognition. If you take a step back and look at the problems that have beset the "US National Championship" for at least the past four decades, Indianapolis is always the root of the problem -- and rarely the solution.

nigelred5

25th February 2011, 22:49

I will only point out something the Daniel Patrick Moynihan said: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

The management of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway worked ceaselessly to turn the annual Decoration Day -- later Memorial Day -- running of the International 500 Mile Sweepstakes into a major American and international sporting event, with little to no regard to American automobile racing as a whole. In doing so, they planted the seeds that later sprouted as weeds and not flowers. If there is one factor that has in the long term managed to create many of the problems that has plague the "US National Championship" concept and its various series, it is Indianapolis.

By the mid-Twenties, the Indianapolis event was the premier US event in automobile racing; by the Thirties, it was just about the only US automobile race that people knew about. During this period the AAA Contest Board and the IMS management were synonymous, to the detriment of any other racing event or series attempting to gain national recognition. If you take a step back and look at the problems that have beset the "US National Championship" for at least the past four decades, Indianapolis is always the root of the problem -- and rarely the solution.

I don't dispute any of that, but the fact remains, good or bad, Indy has defined the top level of open wheel racing in the US for almost 100 years.

Don Capps

26th February 2011, 04:03

I don't dispute any of that, but the fact remains, good or bad, Indy has defined the top level of open wheel racing in the US for almost 100 years.

Okay, then take it to the next dots to connect: Why? and, So what?

Don Capps

28th February 2011, 19:26

There has been a long, interesting, and generally over-looked, ignored or misunderstood history of discord and emity within the American racing community. Even I often have trouble at times keeping them all straight and remembering what they were fighting over at the moment. Below, are a few of the highlights.

When the American Automobile Association (AAA) was formed in 1902, one of the founding clubs was the Automobile Club of America (ACA) which was founded in 1899. Having been the US club that was in existence when the ACF was the host club for the Coupe Internationale, the ACA became the de facto US national club on the international scene, a status cemented when it was one of the founding clubs of the AIACR in 1904. However, rather than looking to the ACA, of which he was a member, in 1904 "Willy" Vanderbilt asked the AAA to sanction the event for the cup he was donating. The ACA took some askance to this given that this was definitely an international event and, therefore, within its realm. Although there was much talk, little of it was heated, in no small part due to ACA members being not only on the AAA Racing Board, but the chairs during this period. Life went on.

In the late 1907, early 1908 timeframe, the AAA changed the method by which the fees of its member clubs were assessed. This led to something of a rebellion within the AAA, one which had already been brewing for several years at this point. This had a large effect on the ACA and its displeasure led to not only heated words, but the club withdrawing from the AAA -- along with a number of other clubs it must be noted. Only after this issue of the fees had been raised did the issue of the 1907 Ostend Agreement (there is a very, very brief mention to all this here at RVM Vol 8 No 2] (http://forix.autosport.com/8w/rvm-vol8-no2.html)come into play. Contrary to what has been accepted as gospel among "racing historians," the spat twix the ACA and the AAA was centered first and foremost on the issue of fees, this leading to the arguing about other issues, the Ostend Agreement being among them.

The ACA ensured that the AAA did not get a voice in the AIACR discussions, leading to both the Vanderbilt Cup being run to its own rules and the ACA reviving its Racing Committee and creating the "Grand Prize for the ACA Gold Cup" in Savannah in November 1908. However, between the first shots fired in early 1908 and the Grand Prize race on Thanksgiving, much happened to the relationship twix the two organizations.

During the Summer of 1908, there was a battle royal twix the AAA and the ACA. After the usual exchange of adverse comments, the AAA and ACA came to an arrangement that led to the ACA continuing as the US club for international racing and the AAA being the club for national racing. This also meant that the existing problem regarding the acceptance of records recognized by the AAA but not by the AIACR as "international" record continued and would not be resoleved until the late-Twenties.

In late 1908, the AAA then folded its Racing Committee, renaming it the Contest Board by incorportating the Tours Committee into the new board. In the meanwhile, the Motor Contest Association had been formed by one group of the manufacturers and had rejected asking the AAA to take on the duties of its contest board. However, in early 1909 the MCA and the AAA reached an agreement that the AAA would perform the functions as the MCA Contest Board. The ACA and the AAA eventually reached an agreement regarding the Vanderbilt Cup and Grand Prize events, creating a holding company to manage the races. This arrangement lasted until 1916 when the last Grand Prize and WK Vanderbilt Cup races were held at Santa Monica.

In 1915, the emity between a number of promoters and the AAA Contest Board reached the boiling point and the International Motor Contest Association (IMCA) was formed. The root cause was the Contest Board's referring to any driver, promoter or event not toeing the line as an "outlaw." The reason for the Contest Board's constant, unending efforts to control racing and enforce its sanction over national racing was that part of the agreement in the creation of the Contest Board was that it had to be self-sustaining, a financial problem that plague the Contest Board for most of its life. When the Contest Board ceased operations soon after the US entered the Great War, the IMCA moved into place as the organization running US racing. In April 1918, the AAA Contest Board announced that it was returning to operation "due to popular demand," that was met with more than a little skepticism given the ill-will twix the AAA and IMCA, the latter moving into the territory that was considered as part of the AAA's domain -- at least by the AAA. The emity between the IMCA and the AAA would continue for years to come.

There is much more, of course, but these at least scrratch the surface a bit.

call_me_andrew

5th March 2011, 03:20

The Indy 500 is like Melange: whoever controls the spice controls the universe.

escargokie

19th March 2011, 01:06

I got into this group in 2003, and forgot about it until I got a "Happy Birthday" note.

Thanks.

Re: Wikipedia - It continues to improve, but it should never be considered true or accurate.

For example, the 1950 Sebring Endurance Race winner is shown as "Fritz Koster and Ralph Deshon, driving a Crosley Hot Shot". This was a six hour race, honoring the late Sam Collier.

Koster/Deshon were winners in their S750 class; the entrant was Victor Sharpe, Jr.

They were twenty laps behind the overall winner, Fred Wacker, driving an Allard/Cadillac with co-driver Frank Burrell, in class S8.0.

Other well-known drivers and entrants included Briggs Cunningham, Phil Walters, Jim Kimberly, George Weaver, Bill Spear, Luigi Chinetti, Alfred Momo, John Fitch, Paul O'Shea, Tom Cole (killed at Le Mans, and buried there), and Robert Wilder (killed at Bridgehampton).

Last week there was an outstanding article in The New York Times about Briggs Cunningham's "production cars", needed to homologate the Cunningham racing cars. Great photos of many of the surviving examples of the C-3.

I am one of the researchers for Motorsport Memorial.

I have a complete list of all the SCCA National Champions (with two questioned, who may have been DQed). More than a thousand drivers, many of them outstanding.

Escargokie (also known as E. R. Kelly, Oklahoma City)

D-Type

19th March 2011, 08:48

Welcome back, Rick. Your contributions will be welcomed here.

Don Capps

18th May 2011, 19:48

(1) The SCCA National Championships and the events for each season are another whole kettle of fish and headaches. It does not take long to realize just how "amateur" the SCCA was on so many different levels. Despite there being seveal instances of "adult" of "professional" leadership trying to save the SCCA from itself, ultimately those attempts were unsuccessful. That the SCCA has allowed someone to peddle their archives -- for profit, of course -- is both an irony and a source of frustration given that it apparently does not include the materials from the "pro" racing series, or at least very few.

(2) The Wiki concept is a nice one, a concept that seems great at first thought, but it is deeply flawed in execution and intent.

(3) Apparently, there is a new book coming out soon on the C2K, by the way.

(4) I have rarely visited the Motorsport Memorial site for any number of reasons. At some point I stopped making any notes regarding fatal racing accidents to possibly send to M2. I just did not see the point, I guess.

(5) Somewhat back on track, so to speak, I came across something by accident within the past week which was something of if not a surprise, at least a reason to activate the thought processes once more.

It has long been something of an article of faith that the first season review that C.G. "Chris" Sinsabaugh wrote for "Motor Age" was for the 1909 season. I had never given it much thought and simply accepted it as what others had long realized. So, it was interesting to find an article by Sinsabaugh entitled "Road Racing at Home and Abroad in 1908" in the 7 January 1909 (Vol. XV No. 1) issue of "Motor Age." In addition to the article on road racing, there were also additional articles -- no bylines but probably written by Sinsabaugh -- entitled "Reliability Runs of the Past Season," "Hill Climbing Popular Sport in 1908," "Other Branches of Motoring Sport," and "Support Given Competitions by Makers."

The Sinsabaugh "Motor Age" season reviews as well as others that can be found in "Horseless Age" and "The Automobile" and "Motor" among others during these years, provide nicely encapsulated views into the Zeitgeist of the world of motor contests in the latter part of the first decade of the 20th Century and into the second decade of the century. Though they rarely contain any of the detailed information so longed for my the data-miners, these reviews provide a window into the age and allow the historian to "see" the events though the eyes of those involved in the racing scene. Nothing very earth-shaking in that revelation one can safely assume, but when strung together and viewed from a distance of many decades, one can begin to examine and study the material and come to some thoughts or intrepretations regarding various aspects of the era.

One failing of most historians is the constant urge to seek out relationships and connections so as to create the "So-and-so Era" or determine the temporal parameters of an "era." Or simply to have some form of rough boundraries for one's inquiries. In the case of the Sinsabaugh review of the 1908 season, which when linked with other season reviews and information regarding the automobile contests of the period, the on-going organizational issues regarding the AAA, ACA, MCA, and WAA and later IMSA over the period of, say, 1908 to 1920, appears to be a period which could be considered as a possible discrete area of study.

This leads, then, to the consideration that there is a period of American automobile racing that somewhere in the 1907 or 1908 timeframe ends and another timeframe which then runs from those years to roughly 1920. It is not an unrelated occurrance that much of the confusion and messiness regarding the "national championship" and other similar issues is during this period.

At any rate, more to follow on this.

Mark in Oshawa

27th May 2011, 09:57

Geeze....is it any wonder why people are confused by the machinations of Open Wheeled racing in the USA?

I read some of the great research Don and others have done and I knew a lot of it, but didn't know all the details.

Compare this, to the linear sometimes not so benevolent history of NASCAR and one realizes why the France's really are the anal power mad types they were...because left to its own devices, the racing world makes the boxing world look simple!

To put the Indy spin on things, let me just state that for the great unwashed, and casual race fans, for YEARS the race was Indy. It didn't matter if it was AAA or USAC running the show, it was THE SHOW. The CART people were ok with it...they ran the rest of the series, USAC ran Indy, and it was an uneasy peace at times, but until Tony decided he wanted it all; it worked. What kills me, and what always killed me was when we had two series both trying to claim the crown. Look back in all that history, and there was never any confusion really about the crown, or where the top guys were. It really puts into focus just how pointless the split was.

The sport has been for YEARS been not always run as a business so much as a battle of egos for control over it all. IMS didn't help matters either with their blind allegiance to the USAC boys when it was clear some of their ideas were just 20 years behind the teams and/or technology. In the end, though, I have hope. We have one body running the sport, a leader who has the backing of the people writing the checks who is growing the sport bit by bit, new cars coming and a firm resolve to politely shove the owners back when they want too much, or resist change. For the first time in a millenium, I think the management of the series (with the exception of Brian Barnhart) gives me hope. What is more, the team owners, for all their squaking know they dropped the ball. They also know that a neutral party like the management of the series will in the end make racing better for them and the fans. They may not like it (2012 is coming and the teams are pushing back a little but hey...it is their money) but it is coming....

Excellent read guys....Don, I commend you for doing all this research.

Don Capps

27th May 2011, 23:58

AAA Contest Board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAA_Contest_Board)

AAA was established in Chicago, Illinois on 4 March 1902, by June of the same year AAA also established the Racing Board. Arthur Rayner Pardington was appointed chairman and the board sanctioned its first race, the 1904 Vanderbilt Cup held in Long Island, New York. It is unclear as to why William Vanderbilt had AAA sanction his race as opposed to the Automobile Club of America, the predominant sanctioning body for major US racing at the time.

With the success of the racing board's experience sanctioning automobile events in 1904, the board announced a national track championship for 1905. Though not historically considered a true national championship due to it only including short dirt oval sprint races, it was the first time in American racing history that a points system was used to decide a year end champion. From 1906 through 1915 the racing board, inexplicably, held no official championship title season. It did continue to sanction individual, one-off events, the Vanderbilt Cup and events at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

In 1908 the ACA created the American Grand Prize, the first traces of Grand Prix style racing in the US along with the then established Vanderbilt Cup. This race started a feud between the ACA and AAA. Later in 1908 it was decided that AAA would sanction all big time racing nationally and the ACA would sanction all international events held on American soil. On 2 December 1908, AAA dissolved the Racing Board and created the Contest Board later the same day. Though the rationale for this decision has been lost with time, the move was most likely done to allow AAA to oversee all automobile events and not just racing contests.

The Manufacturers Contest Association (MCA) urged AAA to organize racing so American manufacturers could race mostly stock configuration cars and ban the pure race cars being imported from Europe. The stock car style rules continued until 1916, when the Contest Board relaxed the rules allowing purpose built machines back into competition ahead of its first true championship season in 1916. Although AAA did not award national champions during 1906 through 1915, the American automobile journal Motor Age published who they regarded the most outstanding American driver during the years of 1909-1915. These picks have become the de facto national champions of the day.

During World War I, AAA suspended the national championship and almost stopped sanctioning races as a whole. This time also saw the demise of the American Grand Prize and the ACA totally folded during the war. American manufacturers saw the absence of European racers, and the relaxed rules due to no national level sanctioning as a chance for the US to catch up to the European racers who had dominated racing internationally up until that point. The Racing Board picked up the pieces and regularly held national championships from 1920 until the outbreak of World War II in 1942. Post WWI, the race car specifications for the national championship were mostly aligned with what the Indianapolis Motor Speedway wanted to run during its Memorial Day classic, and this still holds mostly true today. AAA, again, restarted the championship with the close of the war for the 1946 season and continued uninterrupted until 1955 which saw AAA completely pull out of auto racing following the 1955 Le Mans disaster. The United States Auto Club took over the void filled by AAA's departure. During the last half of the Racing Boards existence they sanctioned many forms of racing such as midgets, sprint cars, sports cars and stock cars as well as top level championship car racing.

Controversy: In 1927 the Contest Board changed the results of the 1909 season, the 1920 season, and awarded retrospective national championships for the years of 1917-1919 during WWI. In 1951 The board, again, retrospectively awarded titles from 1902–1908 and changed the results of the 1905 season. These actions have made it difficult to distinguish fact from fiction regarding AAA sanctioned national racing.

The 1909 AAA Championship Car season consisted of 24 races, beginning in Portland, Oregon on June 12 and concluding with a point-to-point race from Los Angeles, California to Phoenix, Arizona on November 6. There were three events sanctioned by the Automobile Club of America in Lowell, Massachusetts. The de facto National Champion as poled by the American automobile journal Motor Age was Bert Dingley. Points were not awarded by the AAA Contest Board during the 1909 season. Champions of the day were decided by Chris G. Sinsabaugh, an editor at Motor Age, based on merit and on track performance. The points table was created retroactively in 1927 keeping Dingley as champion. In 1951 the championship standings were reworked, stripping the traditional champion of his title and giving it to George Robertson. All championship results should be considered unofficial.

The 1910 AAA Championship Car season consisted of 19 races, beginning in Atlanta, Georgia on May 5 and concluding in Long Island, New York on October 1. The de facto National Champion as poled by the American automobile journal Motor Age was Ray Harroun. Points were not awarded by the AAA Contest Board during the 1910 season. Champions of the day were decided by Chris G. Sinsabaugh, an editor at Motor Age, based on merit and on track performance. The points table was created retroactively in 1927, all championship results should be considered unofficial.

The 1911 AAA Championship Car season consisted of 21 races, beginning in San Francisco, California on February 22 and concluding in Savanna, Georgia on November 30. The de facto National Champion as poled by the American automobile journal Motor Age was Ralph Mulford and the winner of the inaugural Indianapolis 500 was Ray Harroun. Points were not awarded by the AAA Contest Board during the 1911 season. Champions of the day were decided by Chris G. Sinsabaugh, an editor at Motor Age, based on merit and on track performance. The points table was created retroactively in 1927, all championship results should be considered unofficial.

Can anyone here spot -- and correct -- the errors with the information current on Wiki regarding the AAA Contest Board and the information on the three seasons listed? Yes, this is a trick question.

Of course, it does beg the question in the first place that if these were NOT "national championship" seasons why that false impression, disclaimers aside, is still being perpetuated....?

The prize is that YOU get to correct the Wiki information!!!!

Don Capps

28th May 2011, 19:24

Looking at the listing of those involved with the WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_American_Open_Wheel_Racing), one would think that they would do a better job vetting material that gets placed on the Web for public use. Other than Mark Dill, who is much more of an enthusiast/writer than an automotive historian -- although he is getting there to be sure, nary a soul seems to be an actual automotive historian. I could be mistaken, however, but the errors and sloppiness of some of the entries that seems to be attributed to this group does little to inspire confidence. In a number of cases previous entries have been changed to better reflect what we know, but there is still room for improvement as the Contest Board entry demonstrates. One hesitates to point out the old adage of "Garbage in, Garbage out," but this does seem to be the case in a number of instances, unfortunately.

At some point, we old guys are going to depart the scene and others -- perhaps some of YOU -- will have the opportunity to pick up the fight and carry on. I hope you are up to it.

Bob Riebe

30th May 2011, 02:44

00steven

30th June 2011, 15:46

I just consider the records to be open wheel records, not split all up.

D-Type

5th July 2011, 11:48

I just consider the records to be open wheel records, not split all up.
As Don Capps has pointed out, it is essential to consider the fragmentation to understand what the records show.

To take the most obvious case, it is valueless to include IRL and CART races in the same list.

Mark in Oshawa

11th July 2011, 16:34

Rain all you want, I have an umbrella. Ya, CART had to sue USAC to enter the 500. Which shows you my point how past it USAC was, and how even then, the IMS management never once grasped they didn't run the series and didn't understand the business model a racing team owner needed to make it all work.

CART was the owners knowing they needed their own series to justify the costs of having a full time professional team year around. Indy pays REALLY well and gets you a sponsor, but you can do better by having a good series with full crowds week after week. USAC never really grasped that...and couldn't run a drunken rampage in a brewery.....and when you have to SUE to get your cars into the Indy 500, the world is upside down. USAC never grasped once that the owners of the most successful open wheel teams were an asset THEY needed....

Bob Riebe

12th July 2011, 20:48

Bob Riebe

13th July 2011, 07:14

00steven

14th July 2011, 04:40

I wouldn't call the best part of 10 years "collapsing like a house of cards". They weren't real healthy but they sure did hang around for a bit.

And produced some fine racing too.

Mark in Oshawa

14th July 2011, 18:34

Bob is a purist..he only wants it his way....and the world don't work that way...

Bob Riebe

14th July 2011, 18:47

Bob is a purist..he only wants it his way....and the world don't work that way...
Outside of attacking me, on a thread about racing history, can you give any proof for your rhetoric?

D-Type

14th July 2011, 19:47

Gentlemen! Calm down please. Petty squabbling is pointless.

garyshell

15th July 2011, 05:52

I wouldn't call the best part of 10 years "collapsing like a house of cards". They weren't real healthy but they sure did hang around for a bit.

They inherited what they had from USAC, ran for sixteen years, with Indy, which they sued to get into, and seven years later ceases to exist?

The USAC series ran for forty some years.

That is a collapse.

Bob is a purist..he only wants it his way....and the world don't work that way...

Outside of attacking me, on a thread about racing history, can you give any proof for your rhetoric?

Would your dismissive attitude regarding Starter's statement that a ten year run hardly counts as a collapse suffice as an example that you only want it your way? BTW it's not the first time.

Gary

D-Type

15th July 2011, 13:20

Gantlemen stop now!

We don't wnt this to degenerate into a squabble. If you really feel you must carry it on please do so by PMs

Mark in Oshawa

15th July 2011, 19:04

I just stated the fact that Bob's view is the only one he wants to see, and it is for a formula libre almost of ideas and of course, it sounds great in theory, but it has never survived economically. The old Can AM was living proof of that.....

D-Type

15th July 2011, 21:34

Mark in Oshawa

16th July 2011, 07:30

That may be what you meant when you wrote it, but it came across as a personal criticism.

It is, and it isn't. Bob and I have disagree and agreed. I agree with Bob's notion that ideally everyone would run what they have and the rulesmakers would quit trying to keep everyone even. Where I am however going to annoy him is I understand that in today's world, this isn't happening. It is pretty much the reality if one car wins every race in a year, the interest in a series drops. It is THAT simple....and hence all the rules tinkering and various ways of handicapping. There isn't a promotor on the planet that wants to see week after week one team just kicking the snot out of everyone else.....and with some of these juggernaut teams in some series, that could go on for years.

The old Can AM I believe is the closed to what Bob's ideal was, and for all that nostalga and love people had for the series, it economically didn't survive, and there was no competitive balance....now there a lot of reasons for it, and Bob would be the first to point out that SCCA couldn't run a pi$$ up in a Brewery and he would be right, but I have always believed that with factory McLaren's winning week after week, year after year, it eventually killed a lot of interest off. Then when they left, Penske brought that 917-10 and 917-30 and they owned everyone...which just destroyed the series. They were great cars and a great spectacle....but people just gave up on it...

Mark in Oshawa

16th July 2011, 07:30

That may be what you meant when you wrote it, but it came across as a personal criticism.

It is, and it isn't. Bob and I have disagree and agreed. I agree with Bob's notion that ideally everyone would run what they have and the rulesmakers would quit trying to keep everyone even. Where I am however going to annoy him is I understand that in today's world, this isn't happening. It is pretty much the reality if one car wins every race in a year, the interest in a series drops. It is THAT simple....and hence all the rules tinkering and various ways of handicapping. There isn't a promotor on the planet that wants to see week after week one team just kicking the snot out of everyone else.....and with some of these juggernaut teams in some series, that could go on for years.

The old Can AM I believe is close to what Bob's ideal was, and for all that nostalga and love people had for the series, it economically didn't survive, and there was no competitive balance....now there a lot of reasons for it, and Bob would be the first to point out that SCCA couldn't run a pi$$ up in a Brewery and he would be right, but I have always believed that with factory McLaren's winning week after week, year after year, it eventually killed a lot of interest off. Then when they left, Penske brought that 917-10 and 917-30 and they owned everyone...which just destroyed the series. They were great cars and a great spectacle....but people just gave up on it...

beachbum

16th July 2011, 11:38

It is, and it isn't. Bob and I have disagree and agreed. I agree with Bob's notion that ideally everyone would run what they have and the rulesmakers would quit trying to keep everyone even. Where I am however going to annoy him is I understand that in today's world, this isn't happening. It is pretty much the reality if one car wins every race in a year, the interest in a series drops. It is THAT simple....and hence all the rules tinkering and various ways of handicapping. There isn't a promotor on the planet that wants to see week after week one team just kicking the snot out of everyone else.....and with some of these juggernaut teams in some series, that could go on for years.

The old Can AM I believe is close to what Bob's ideal was, and for all that nostalga and love people had for the series, it economically didn't survive, and there was no competitive balance....now there a lot of reasons for it, and Bob would be the first to point out that SCCA couldn't run a pi$$ up in a Brewery and he would be right, but I have always believed that with factory McLaren's winning week after week, year after year, it eventually killed a lot of interest off. Then when they left, Penske brought that 917-10 and 917-30 and they owned everyone...which just destroyed the series. They were great cars and a great spectacle....but people just gave up on it...The original Can-Am demonstrated both the best and worst of open rules. The rules allowed cars like the Shadow Mk1 with its tiny wheels, the King Cobra, the Chaparrals, and finally the Porsches. Lots of diverse ideas and interesting technology. If you were into car technology, it was a golden era. But the downsides were huge as most of the time the series was dominated by one car, in the early years mostly by very conventional McLarens. Mechanical breakdowns were frequent and often the races became almost demonstration runs. Costs escalated until the series didn't make sense to anyone.

In the same era as Can-Am you had the Tran-Am. While the rules were more open than most series today, the cars were rather similar. The racing was very good, with different cars having an opportunity to win. The closest thing today are the GT classes in Grand-Am and ALMS.

Today there is F1 and Le Mans. While the rules are pretty restrictive, the costs are still out of line. As a technological exercise F1 is very interesting. But when you look at qualifying, you can almost line up the cars by brand. Red Bull at the front, then McLaren or Ferrari. At the back you find the Lotus and HRT. For the most part, the only passing is in turn 1 and pit lane. The racing IMHO is visually and aurally stunning but the on track action is about as exciting as watching paint dry. Qualifying is more interesting as the race, as often it IS the race.

Le Mans cars are just a bad. Sure the Audi and Peugeots are fun to watch, but take away the factory funding and what do you have? ALMS. 2 maybe 3 P1 cars and only 2 are competitive. Grand-Am may be "spec" cars, but at least the on track competition is strong - and they have more than 2 cars show up for the top class.

If you view racing as a technical exercise, then more open rules make sense. The best engineer wins. But if racing is viewed as a competition to see who is best driver, then "spec" racing often creates the best on track competition. I have a degree in engineering, but I would rather see who is the best driver than who has the best car design.

Personally, I have been following racing a long time, and I don't remember any series as competitive as Indy Car is right now. Even at road courses, the whole field may be covered by 2 seconds with the majority within 1 second. The last practice at Toronto had 22 cars within 1 second of the quickest. Hard to beat that.

Bob Riebe

16th July 2011, 18:16

In the same era as Can-Am you had the Tran-Am. While the rules were more open than most series today, the cars were rather similar. The racing was very good, with different cars having an opportunity to win. The closest thing today are the GT classes in Grand-Am and ALMS.

Despite what Mark insists, if one wants to go down this road, the Can-Am is not the desired standard (I never like the sucker Chaparral from the get-go) but the original Trans-Am, is the way sedan-gt racing should be done, and a basis of how rules should be written. Rules have two boundaries between which one can build a car/engine to defeat the competition. No stinking artificial equalization, which destroys the reason motorsports came to exist, show who has the best vehicle.

The Grand-Am and ALMS are only similar in that they use sedans and gt vehicles. Both are pathetic spec. series that give no one without money burning a whole in his/her pocket any reason to compete, unless one has a huge sponsor to pay the bills.

Any sort of spec. racing always boils down to the one who can best afford to cheat the supposed "spirit" of the rules, wins. I.e. Chevy with their homologated but factory only cylinder heads in GT1.
Of course Saleen did manage to win in GT1, but the specs. were changed to right that wrong.,

If Indy Car racing thinks it can survive, much less grow, by hoping it can draw hero driver worshippers, they might as well turn out the lights the party is over as, once the short run curiosity wears off, its new - it is spec. but it is not spec. -farce with collapse on it itself.

beachbum

16th July 2011, 19:47

Despite what Mark insists, if one wants to go down this road, the Can-Am is not the desired standard (I never like the sucker Chaparral from the get-go) but the original Trans-Am, is the way sedan-gt racing should be done, and a basis of how rules should be written. Rules have two boundaries between which one can build a car/engine to defeat the competition. No stinking artificial equalization, which destroys the reason motorsports came to exist, show who has the best vehicle.I had a unique opportunity to hear Mark Donohue speak at a very small SAE meeting when they were running the Javelins in Trans-Am, and was able to speak with him after the meeting. The amount of cheating that was going on in that era was amazing. Acid dipped bodies, oversize fuel cells, special lightweight (and illegal) parts and on and on. Because the rules were pretty lax, even that series was getting out on hand. Mark spoke about the oil pan on the Javelin that cost over $40,000 in development (not counting the cost of many blown engines) in 1970. Dry sump was not allowed, but their pan was effectively a dry sump system in a single "oil pan". He claimed Trans-Am was at least as expensive as Can-Am, and while the factories appeared to pour money into the series, the support wasn't as extensive an many believed.

Based on his comments, I don't think he thought it could last much longer without tighter rules and rules enforcement. Open rules sound good, but they have never built a solid foundation in any racing series.

Bob Riebe

17th July 2011, 05:13

I had a unique opportunity to hear Mark Donohue speak at a very small SAE meeting when they were running the Javelins in Trans-Am, and was able to speak with him after the meeting. The amount of cheating that was going on in that era was amazing. Acid dipped bodies, oversize fuel cells, special lightweight (and illegal) parts and on and on. Because the rules were pretty lax, even that series was getting out on hand. Mark spoke about the oil pan on the Javelin that cost over $40,000 in development (not counting the cost of many blown engines) in 1970. Dry sump was not allowed, but their pan was effectively a dry sump system in a single "oil pan". He claimed Trans-Am was at least as expensive as Can-Am, and while the factories appeared to pour money into the series, the support wasn't as extensive an many believed.

Based on his comments, I don't think he thought it could last much longer without tighter rules and rules enforcement. Open rules sound good, but they have never built a solid foundation in any racing series.It went on for a long time after that, both the series and the cheating.

The rules were not open, but very specific, as Joe Chamberlain found out when he built a CAT II Corvette, took it to inspection and was given a list of items to fix.
Cheating was only complained about by the ones caught.
In the long run it was not the "open" rules that killed the Trans-Am but 110" generic tube-frame cars that neither fans nor factories cared much about.

beachbum

17th July 2011, 15:27

It went on for a long time after that, both the series and the cheating.

The rules were not open, but very specific, as Joe Chamberlain found out when he built a CAT II Corvette, took it to inspection and was given a list of items to fix.
Cheating was only complained about by the ones caught.
In the long run it was not the "open" rules that killed the Trans-Am but 110" generic tube-frame cars that neither fans nor factories cared much about.I won't disagree with any of that.

Don Capps

1st October 2011, 14:26

I will attempt to nudge this back towards the original topic....

The past several months have been focused largely on continued research into various aspects and areas of American automobile racing, the early, formative years and the years immediately following in particular, that is, to about 1920-1922. I also thought about the various discussions or writings regarding the heritage/ lineage/ history/ relationships of the various championships as expressed in recent years. Being fortunate enough to continue to dig out and track down new sources regarding early American racing, thus continuing to develop my understanding of the context of many contemporary issues as well as the Zeitgeist, I have found myself pondering an Emersonian quandary: Despite re-framing the questions or changing the direction of the inquiry, the results remain basically the same. A hobgoblin of "foolish consistency" or simply that history based on scholarly research trumps that based on hearsay, legend, and shoddy work?

There seems to be an interesting dichotomy at work: while many seem to have at nodded if not acknowledged that the early AAA championships did not exist contemporaneously, they nevertheless treat them as if they were and, therefore, include them in any of their various accounting of or approach to this topic.

I wonder how many there are there who still think that the Means-Haresnape/ Catlin/ Russo faux champions were/are "real" championships? More than I would wish to ever consider I would imagine....

As for the recent trend to blend, merge, and amalgamate the national championships into a single "combined" championship ostensibly for "statistical" purposes, well, the road to hell is usually lined with the best of intentions.

Chris R

1st October 2011, 16:39

Don, If I may try to bring both the past, present and future together (I am not trying to derail your thought process but rather try to glean some insight from it). Since Indy and the "top rung" of American open wheel racing in general are so taken with tradition - are all of the "recent" (mid- 1960's USAC onward) attempts to re-invent the sports more or less doomed to failure because the institutional memory of the sport is so strong and fundamentally de-centralized??

The roots of the sport do not include a championship, yet all other modern sports do and as such we have forced that top level of American open wheel racing to fit the broader sports mould. My philosophical (and practical) question would be - "Can we look to the past to find a viable model upon which to base the future that maybe does not include an over-arching championship??" Can you document the relative success (or failure) of past approaches (were the races well attended? did all parties involved earn a decent living? was the model sustainable for a period of year?) and from that analysis can we come up with some suggestions to move the sport forward as many of us are clearly disappointed with the state of things for at least the past 10-15 years and as many "new" ideas as have been implemented, there really does not seem to be an impending return to the "glory days" of the sport.....

As far as your question, I think many, if not most of us have been indoctrinated to think of sports seasons in terms of championships - for better or worse - it is one of the few ways we have to measure the relative skills of the participants.... However, the simple fact that the participants themselves were not actually competing for a championship means they competed in a different way and therefore lumping them into a "championship" gives a skewed analysis at best. However, absent of other measures I see few other ways to compare the past to the present. Any ideas??

Don Capps

1st October 2011, 18:25

As was once observed, "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."

It is difficult on my part not to point a finger at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway and state that it is, perhaps, as much at the root of much that has gone wrong with recent American racing as any of the various other factors that could be tossed into the fray. While that might get the Indy fanatics foaming at the mouth and sending them into a wild-eyed rage, there is much to say for that argument. The hegemony of Indianapolis in regard to US racing, particularly by the latter part of Twenties is difficult to overstate. That it became an important sport "Event" in the US, being lumped in with the Kentucky Derby, World Series, and the Rose Bowl by then is of significance, but it tends to be seen as a positive by the hagiographers of the IMS who have long held sway over how it is regarded. While I have real regard and even affection for the IMS, that does not blind me to seeing it in larger context.

To address some of your inquiries, first, I am at a point where I am past viewing most things regarding racing in ordinal terms. I have a dark view of ordinal or superlative lists, even those with at least a modicum of criteria because they tend to dwell on aspects that while interesting to many are really not very germane to the decoding of the Zeitgeist. In other words, I don't waste much time in pondering as to whether Dario Resta or Dario Franchetti is better or how they compare to Jimmy Bryan or Wilbur Shaw.

Second, the questions regarding how those competing during, say the 1908 or 1915 seasons approached their racing compared to today are interesting ones and not necessary all that easy to answer in some regards. In addition, some of the answers simply show just how much of a niche sport automobile racing was -- is -- on the American sporting scene. While some events were well-attended -- it is possible that the 1908 event held at Fairmount Park in Philadelphia may have drawn anything from 250,000 to 350,000 to even close to 500,000 spectators -- many races were poorly attended, whether in 1907 or 1920 or 1950 or 1970.

The financial aspects of American automobile racing have long been an ugly can of worms to sort through, reliable information often being difficult to obtain whether for the promoters or the drivers or teams, now or then. While some drivers obviously did quite well for at least a season or perhaps more, others barely scraped by. The true fuel of racing being bales of money, this is an area that certainly warrants far more attention than it usually gets; it should be noted that one of the notable areas where the modern scene does pay better attention to than was done in the past is the financial details related to racing, this being in no small part due to the better accessibility to such information in many cases.

Third, to compare -- and contrast, in some cases -- Then and Now and expect any true revelations or insight is often a fool's errand. Having often been a fool regarding this, I think that speak with some authority on this point. That is perhaps a polite way of stating that I don't waste much -- if any -- time doing so in the terms that most wish to do so.

Last, although there is an impulse to make history "utilitarian" there might be much to caution against this view, although it is, like it or not, seemingly the prevailing one in those instance where automobile racing is concerned.

It should be noted that I am largely unconcerned or even interested in the contemporary racing scene. While I might keep informed at some minimal level on the happenings in the sport, I simply no longer have the ability to devote much time to doing much more that. Nor do I hold to the notion that things were better in the "Good Old Days," because they often were not. They were simply different, which should not automatically connote "better." At present, I am involved in a large project that is taking up most of my time and which has been plagued by some unfortunate technical glitches requiring more effort than I had anticipated. That and still having a Day Job which is truly beginning to interfere with my life.

Bob Riebe

3rd October 2011, 06:49

Don Capps

3rd October 2011, 16:19

I have come to lean towards thinking- THINGS, were not necessarily better in the Good Old Days; ATTITUDES- Often WERE better in the the Good Old Days.

Men,s, attitudes were/are what set the racing rules, and recorded the history, in the manner it was, or was not, recorded. The attitude of some, now, are so involved with their own opinions, they want to change those attitudes of people who are long dead.

Not sure there is much of a case for "attitudes" being "better" in the "Good Old Days" and "worse" today, given the issues of the metrics that would need to be involved in any purposeful discussion. That said, in my view there is ample room for discussion regarding the anachronistic approach often taken by some -- perhaps many -- in how they express the ways and whys those in the past dealt with issues or situations.

Historians tend to avoid superlatives or ordinals for very good reasons in their research and studies, not the least of which is that their focus is usually directed elsewhere, considering issues that are more relevant or of interest regarding the topic at hand; therefore, generally leaving such matters to others. One tool that historians usually develop is that of "historical empathy." It allows historians to consider things in context, to be aware of the Zeitgeist and how such factors affect any possible interpretations of issues or topics. This, of course, means that factors such as "attitude" can play a role in shaping an interpretation, such as how to possibly interpret various statements or actions within the contemporary framework. While all of this is, I would hope, a Blinding Flash of the Obvious, the problem is developing that "historical empathy" to allow one to view the Zeitgeist in its own terms.

I will not go any further with the historian gobblety-goop that begins in earnest during grad school and continues for a lifetime, but the historian's craft is a complex and we do not always succeed in our efforts since our knowledge is always incomplete.

So, yes, Bob does present what I consider to be a legitimate issue regarding history and its use or misuse. I may have shifted the thrust of his question, but to examine the past solely within the lens of the present is to skew what is seen and is to create an anachronism in its rawest form.

While we may not know the inner-most thoughts of those creating the contest rules, technical regulations or promoting events in the past, we do have the record (not as complete as we would wish, of course) of what they wrote and often the results -- actual or perceived -- that came about because of their actions. It is upon the rocky shoals of historical interpretation that many a notion -- opinion -- comes to grief....

As was once observed, "Opinion is easy, history is hard."

Don Capps

24th September 2012, 20:04

It was interesting to find The New York Times naming not Ralph de Palma, but Bob Burman as its "driver of the year" for 1912. Apparently, The Times based its decision solely on the number of wins that Burman earned during the season, which were more numerous than I realized when I saw the number.

D-Type

24th September 2012, 20:23

Don, is that The New York Times in 1912 or in 2012?

I have a certain sympathy with the "most wins" approach - the object of racing (whether in a car, running, carrying an egg on a spoon, riding a horse or whatever) is to win. So the man who wins the most races is logically the most proficient racer.

In 'proper' history it's different - the winner of a war is the winner of the final battle, not the winner of most battles in the course of the war.

Don Capps

25th September 2012, 01:03

"American Racing Results for 1912," The New York Times, 24 November 1912.

Burman is recorded as having 43 starts with 33 firsts and eight second places. Next up is Louis Disbrow with 28 starts with 17 firsts, three seconds, and four third place finishes.

Don Capps

25th September 2012, 01:06

D-Type

25th September 2012, 10:22

Don Capps

25th September 2012, 10:41

Don,
Just making the point that one should view "motor racing history" in a different light from serious history. Admittedly a poorly thought through example, but intended to illustrate that the mindset can justifiably be different.

Your example of "proper history" was a tad off base, which was my point, but sports history -- of which automobile racing history is a subset -- is far too often barely recognizable as "serious history" given its lack of grounding in the art of historical inquiry. While things have certainly improved of late, there being nowhere to go but up, much still remains to be done to incorporate more "real" or "proper" history into the study of automotive competition.

As a military historian, there were those "real" historian who looked upon that field --and its practitioners -- with great askance and scarcely concealed their disdain for those of us who labored in that particular part of Clio's vineyard. That we were being lumped in with those who merely wrote memoirs or nut cases such as David Irving -- but one among many -- is still a source of irritation to many in the field. For the most part, we are now accepted as "real" historians by the other "real" historians. Of course, given the paths that some of those historians have wandered down, it difficult not to raise an eyebrow at some of the topics now being pulled into the mainstream. But, I digress...

To produce "serious" history in the realm of automotive sport is much easier said than done, of course.

Don Capps

2nd January 2013, 20:37

Recently, in another forum, John Genn Printz presented the contents of two letters written by Russ Catlin in response to queries sent to him. At the moment, a third letter -- to Jim O'Keefe, is being posted.

The letters reveal just how wrong Catlin got things regarding the Contest Board and the national championships, both real and imagined.

The theory that JG Printz has long proposed regarding Catlin's complete misinterpretation of the material that Arthur Means and Val Haresnape developed in the mid-Twenties seems to have a very firm basis given what is found in the letters.

Here is something taken from the third letter concerning the 1920 national championship, Catlin being a firm supporter of Milton being the "true" champion and having the records altered to reflect that in 1952; Catlin gives voice a notion that would be parroted by Bob Russo several years later in an article that appeared in Indy Car Racing:

What had happened is this. Kennerdell, the CB chairman then, certainly must stand as the most secretive, inept, conniving yellow-spine chairman in history. He not only failed to release points orb standings during the year but wouldn't allow others to do so. When Chevrolet was killed the press, in the obit, called him the champion off his Indy win but Eddie Edenburn was upset and wired the board office prior to the Tacoma race for the point standings. Kennerdell found he was caught and that Milton was actually leading so he devised a rule that only races of 350 or 400 miles (I forget which) or longer was to count for championship. This did give Chevrolet the title and Edenburn so wrote his year-end column and this rule to the board for approval (in February) it was turned down by the opposition led by Edenburn. So, the problem was plain to Eddie. Should be, as a newsman, bare the fact or, as a sworn-to-secrecy board member say nothing and inasmuch as the new season was underway in California Eddie buried the entire thing.

There is also this:

Where news accounts lead modern researchers astray (and, believe me I can understand this) is news clips from year-end summaries in 1920 stating Chevrolet was the 1920 champion and no champion had been named since 1916. Oh, what a can of worms! How can anyone know otherwise when there was no official AAA comment, retraction or followup? The clips were in the 1920 or 1924 folder I rescued from AAA with hand-written notation by Means that "This is as it should have been." I tell this in my history and just pray AQ doesn't flub the proofs. However, the minutes of the 1924 executive session of the Contest Board carries this notation, "Championship races and point awards back to and including 1909 are now approved with the stipulation that such champions to be known as 'point champions'." I interpreted this as a ploy to save face for Dingley, Chevrolet and the press." Obviously the compilation was done by Harnape and he had converted all points to the method in use that time, i.e. 2 points-per-mile per winner. Point values did change three or four times during history.

All this is, needless to say, complete and utter nonsense.

8W - When? - Rear View Mirror, Vol.7, No.6 (http://forix.autosport.com/8w/rvm-vol7-no6.html)
8W - When? - Rear View Mirror, Vol.8, No.4 (http://forix.autosport.com/8w/rvm-vol8-no4.html)

What Russ Catlin -- as well as a number of others -- has left us is a Legacy of Ashes. That many continue to believe this rubbish is almost beyond understanding.

Don Capps

3rd January 2013, 16:09

Correction: The third letter written by Russ Catlin was to Ken McMaken -- I had Jim O'Keefe on the mind due to some work I was going, which meant taking a look at Jim's book on race winners.

Now that the third letter is complete, it is as bad as I imagined.

Thanks to Gordon White, I do have some of the A.A.A. Contest Board records and material that are housed in Indianapolis on microfilm. What one discovers is that mixed in amongst the actual records of the Contest Board, the bulletins and so forth, one also finds materials and results that are obviously ex post facto given the information that one finds as part of the material, particuarly references to championships and points for years when there were no such things, or listings of "championship drivers" for years when there were no championships. The unwary can walk into -- and obviously have -- the same trap that Catlin did.

Whatever the real story is regarding the records of the A.A.A. Contest Board, Catlin himself provides several, much of the remaining records and related material are scattered far and wide, with Indianapolis having a cache of some size, while people and places have collections of varying sizes and quality. The late Phil Harms managed to find and assemble a number of CB records that do not otherwise exist as far as we know, the record book for the 1916 season being the most notable of this type of material. It should be kept in mind that for all of Harms' efforts, he was really a statistician and not a historian, something that came up a number of times in our exchanges. Harms was content to provide others with the necessary help to sort out the rather messy bits of history while he concentrated on what he was interested in -- races results and so forth. Harms was a great help in helping me finally have many of missing parts of the puzzle that allowed me to piece together and understand the tangled mess of early US racing.