Was Jim Clark the best ever? Maybe

Jim Clark, 26, after his 1sr GP win at Spa, Belgium

Let's take a look at these stats for Clark in his F1 Grand Prix career:
 
1960: (Partial season) 5-5-16-3-16
1961: 10-3-12-3-DNF-4-DNF-7
1962: 9-DNF-1-DNF-1-4-DNF-7
1963: 8-1-1-1-1-2-1-3-1-1
1964: 4-1-1-DNF-1-DNF-DNF-DNF-7-5
1965: 1-DNS*-1-1-1-1-1-1-DNF-DNF-DNF * Skipped Monaco to win the Indy 500.
1966: DNF-DNF-DNF-4-3-DNF-DNF-1-DNF
1967: DNF-1-6-DNF-DNF-1-DNF-3-1-1
1968: 1 - (died April, 7, 1968 at Hockenheim, Germany on the fifth lap of an F2 race when his Lotus veered off the track and hit a tree. Clark was thrown from the car and died of a broken neck. Tire failure is the suspected cause of the crash. There were no witnesses.)

Go back and look at 1965, the greatest single season for a driver in Grand Prix history when he won the first seven GPs and took off the 2nd race of the GP season to crush the field at Indy. That's eight straight and undefeated until Sept. 12. Clark was leading the Italian Grand Prix after starting from the pole and having the fastest lap in the race when the winning streak ended after the fuel pump failed and he was a DNF. Clark was just 13 laps from the finish. He was leading the US GP when his engine quit. He did start from the pole in the final race of the year in Mexico, but this was the only race he did not lead a lap and the Lotus only lasted 11 laps of the race won by Ritchie Ginther of the US in a Honda, their first win.

25 wins in 75 races in eight seasons. Two World driving titles. In five starts at Indy he was 2-DNF-1-2-DNF, with one Pole. There is an argument to be made he won in 1966 but lost because of a USAC scoring error. If indeed Clark had actually run 201 laps as alleged, he was still less the 1-mph slower than winner Graham Hill, who he out-qualified by more than 8-mph. It also must be noted that Clark spun TWICE and never made contact with anything or lost a lap.

I am going to add a few more "what if?" questions to his Indy record:

1. What if ... in 1963 Parnelli Jones get black flagged for leaking oil? Clark was in 2nd place at the time and had led 28 laps of the race? Win #1 at Indy 
2. What if ... instead of using Dunlop Tyres the Lotus team had mounted Goodyear or Firestone TIRES the suspension might not have collapsed. He was leading after Bobby Marshman retired while leading. Win #2.
3. What if ... in 1965 he had led every lap instead of just 190. He would have been the first driver to do that. Regardless. He did get win #1, but could have been third straight, 1st driver to do that!
4. What if ... USAC had not botched the scoring and made Clark drive an extra lap because they missed him after a crash on the backstraight involving Al Unser in  Team Lotus #18 was confused with Jim's #19 and they inadvertently missed Clark's lap. Or they missed him after one of his two spins in turn 4 where he drove directly to the pits for fresh tires and never lost a lap (choose either scenario). He would have beaten Grham Hill, who everyone says never passed a car on the track all day and qualified 8 mph slower than Jimmy. Win #4.

Yes, it is pure conjecture, but it is not totally nuts to think Clark could have won Indy four years in a row. 

Although there is no records like this kept, it is said that Clark was leading in virtually every race he did not finish when he retired from the race. Had the Lotus cars not been so flimsy who knows how many of those DNFs would have been wins?

Starting in 1960, until his last full season in 1967 his record championship record was:
 
10th (1960, 8 pts. 0 wins, 0 poles)
7th (1961, 11 pts. 0 wins, 0 poles)
2nd (1962, 30 pts 3 wins, 4 poles)
1st (1963, 54 pts. 7 wins, 7 poles)
3rd (1964, 32 pts. 3 wins, 7 poles)
1st (1965, 54 pts. 6 wins, 5 poles. Also won Indy leading 190 of 200 laps)
6th (1966, 16 pts. 1 win, 2 poles (finishing only 3 of the races that year))
3rd (1967, 41 pts. 4 wins, 5 poles)
11th, (1968, 9 pts, 1 pole Only start before fatal accident)

He had the fastest lap of the race 21 times in his 75 starts.

He ran one F1 race in 1968 at South Africa before he died - he won the race pole and had the fastest lap!

At the time of his death in 1968 he had 25 wins (33%) and 33 GP Poles (44%) in 75 races and was the all-time leader in both categories.

Colin Chapman said that no one will ever know how fast he could have driven because he only saw Clark drive full out was once in his career, that was the 1967 Monza Grand Prix. Clark started on the pole but suffered a tire puncture and had to pit, dropping to 16th place. He charged back through the field to regain the lead but ran out of fuel because of the unexpectedly fast pace he had to drive. He finished third behind Jack Brabham and John Surtees.

Chapman said, "He never had to push his limits because he was beating everyone at 7-tenths."

Early in his racing career, he asked a teammate, "Why is everyone going so slow?" The teammate answered, "No Jim, it's because you're so bloody fast."

In 1963 he LED 71.4% of all the laps of the races that year.

He also holds the record for most Grand Slams, taking pole, fastest lap, race win and leading every lap of the race in 8 races (1962 British Grand Prix, 1963 Dutch Grand Prix, 1963 French Grand Prix, 1963 Mexican Grand Prix, 1964 British Grand Prix, 1965 South African Grand Prix, 1965 French Grand Prix, 1965 German Grand Prix).

Of all of the 75 races he competed in, he only lost on the track (meaning still running at the end) 24 times in seven years. Twelve of those came before his 1st win in 1962. That means that in five years of F1 races he only got beaten on the track 12 more times!

In 1963, for his career 1st F1 win at Spa, in a downpour, started 8th, took the lead lapped all but Bruce McLaren and won by FIVE MINUTES. At the time, one lap at Spa was 8.761 MILES!




The only F1 track he never won at was Monaco.

He won 19 non-sanctioned Grand Prix. And had one USAC win at Milwaukee.

Mind you, he also raced Saloon cars, too. He once drove a Ford Cortina down the bobsled course in Cortina, Italy as a promotion for Ford.

Negotiating his way down the bobsled track in Cortina, Italy in a Ford Cortina

 

He was just 32-years old at the times of his death.

That is just a sampling of the accomplishments of perhaps the GREATEST driver of All-Time, anywhere - any car!

It's all about the drivers!

On a Facebook page the question was raised "If you had Carte Blance, what 4 things would you change to make IndyCar better?"

I get 4 changes, right?

1. Market the drivers as the best in the World.
2. Market the series as the most competitive in the World.
3. Market the Indianapolis 500 as it is said to be - The Greatest Spectacle in Racing.
4. Convince everyone you know that there is no more exciting form of auto racing on the planet!

There is nothing wrong with the cars, there is nothing wrong with the tracks, there is no need to incorporate any rule changes regarding how the races finish, they don't need to go any faster.


The worst thing that came out of the split in open wheel racing in the mid-nineties was the perception that the greatest drivers in the world did not race at the Indianapolis 500 any longer. At that juncture, that was true. Not any more!

Since then, the series has never shaken that perception, particularly when the majority of fans still promote that view of the drivers currently racing at Indy are somehow inferior by whining that their favorite driver races elsewhere and few in the field ever drove a sprint car at Terre Haute. Ask anyone why they watch NASCAR and they nearly always say "to see how Tony Stewart (insert any other name) does."

The first step in reviving IndyCar to become the predominate racing series on the planet all starts with driver recognition. People come to see DRIVERS! not the type of cars, tracks or any other gimmick you can come up with.

We as IndyCar fans have to buy into that way of thinking - it's very important.

No one cares what kind of golf clubs Phil Mickelson is using in the US Open this weekend - they only care that Phil Mickelson is playing in the tournament! Car racing is no different than golf when it comes to what attracts the casual sports fan. It's the players not their tools! Those are the people IndyCar needs to focus on and go after.

If you think I'm nuts, consider this question - Why does NASCAR spend so much time and money on Dale Earnhardt Jr. and Danica Patrick? Because they have found that the paying customer shows up to see if one of these two is everything they have heard from the marketing barrage. Neither of them  have ever measured up to the hype, but the hype has not subsided. Even when you watch drag racing on ESPN2, the ticker across the bottom recounts who won, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th...Earnhardt Jr. 24th, Patrick, 33rd. Who cares? A lot of people who still buy the marketing dept. hype of NASCAR, GoDaddy, and Diet Mountain Dew. When you think about it, even the folks in Bristol, CT have bought into the hype by always including their names in the rundown no matter how poorly they finished.

To this day NASCAR is riding on the coattails of one of the most successful marketing campaigns ever devised when CEO Ralph Seagraves

and the folks at the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company had to come up with a way to sell cigarettes by using subliminal advertising. Even tough you never saw Cale Yarborough puffing on a Winston 100 in victory lane or Buddy Baker with a pack of menthols rolled up in the sleeve of his T-Shirt, Seagraves and those hillbillies in Winston-Salem, NC found a way to sell smokes through stock car racing. That is what started and fueled NASCAR's rise. It's still using those same techniques today because it worked. Geez, they even convinced Tony George that the Indianapolis Motor Speedway didn't measure up without a WINSTON Cup race - how many more cartons of Winstons flew off the racks after that announcement? Anton's Grampa Hulman and Wilbur Shaw both died a second time after that deal was done. A Faustian Bargain if ever there was one. We'll make Indy look better by bringing in enemy forces! That has evolved into something great, hasn't it?

Have you ever seen an advertisement for a NASCAR race where they have promoted coming out to watch the Gen 6 cars take on the world? They even have folks believing they're watching Chevys, Fords and Toyotas in spite of the fact they are all the same body/chassis, except for paint and the nose. NASCAR fans don't really care, they just want to see Kyle Busch loose and then get thumped by teammate Denny Hamlin during the brawl in the pits. Even when you see an ad it starts with Jimmie Johnson drives a Chevrolet...Jeff Gordon drinks Pepsi...Matt Kenseth wears a Rolex watch.

Think about how many advertisements for IndyCar, when you can find one, that mentions the driver at all. ZERO. No amount of marketing about how diverse the Indy car chassis or aero packages are will not attract new fans. Marketing that depicts a driver like Ed Carpenter

as the great "giant killer" because he qualified for the pole 2013 Indy 500 will raise the curiosity of casual fans faster than any tech change will. It would have far more impact if an ad ran something like this: "Ed Carpenter used Firestone Tires to become the fastest qualifier in a field of the best drivers in the world competing at the Indianapolis 500." Curiosity about how good this Carpenter guy is will start and fans will tune to an IndyCar race and find out he's pretty good at what he does. Cars actually pass each other during the race, too. Zoeller sells more booze, makes more money and extends a contract extension worth more money to ECR! That was Seagraves' secret strategy. It's a win situation for Ed, a win for Fuzzy's Vodka and most importantly a win for Indy car racing. But it all starts with Ed Carpenter - not his car, not his engine and not his tires!

Carpenter is walking proof that a former midget/sprint/Silver Crown dirt racer can be successful at Indy if he chooses to race there. All it takes is talent, which Carpenter has plenty of. The only thing holding back rising talent from coming to Indy is the size of the purses. Making money, not bringing money is the current deterrent to getting new young drivers into the 500. 

Announcing that Tony Kanaan has just triumphed over the most incredible field of the finest drivers in the World in the most exciting and fastest Indy 500 in history will do the same thing. The more the drivers are touted, the more everyone in the series benefits.

After watching the 2013 IndyCar season so far I would say that there is nothing wrong with the racing product itself that needs a major overhaul. Yeah, Texas was a yawner, but that was only one race not the only race. NASCAR fans continue to view races week in and week out that are way more boring than Texas was. Why? Because they have been convinced by a massive marketing machine that there are no better drivers than those who drive stocks cars, who the hell cares if the races stink, theses guys can DRIVE!

Until IndyCar fans start to tout guys like Kanaan, Dario Franchitti, Helio Castoneves, Scott Dixon, Carpenter, Marco Andretti, Ryan Hunter-Reay, James Hinchcliffe, Justin Wilson, Simon Pagenaud, Sebastian Bourdais, Takuma Sato, Mike Conway, Josef Newgarden, etc. as the best in the world and the guys in NASCAR are just pretenders to the throne, IndyCar will always forever be looked upon as a second-rate series no matter what changes the series makes to the cars.


Making the cars faster will bring in new fans is also a fallacy. There has not been a significant increase in speed at any of the major race tracks, including Indy or Daytona, since the early nineties but the fans keep coming. Speed increases require design changes, which require an investment of a lot of money, which in turn squeezes the small budget teams out of the sport. How many races do you think Dale Coyne Racing will win if you change specs to an all new chassis in 2014 = NONE. He proved he is a competitive team owner as of today by WINNING Detroit a few weeks ago! More different teams are capable of winning now than in any period in the past. Winning is also not merely based on that team's budget any longer either, either. Team Penske has won once in what turned out to be an illegal car, Target/Ganassi is struggling like they have never before. Huge budgets are not winning races these days - why change that?

My suggestion on car design - freeze the current design for another three years until the quality of today's competition attracts enough new fans that teams like Dale's can attract a lucrative sponsor to stay competitive when the formula changes.
 
The other upside of freezing the chassis formula is that as high-budget teams "freshen" their car inventory with news cars, the older cars can be purchased at a reduced cost by someone, say, like Bryan Clauson's family. The car would still be competitive even though it's only a year older, but still exactly like the newer car, and like Carpenter, with the ability to race competitively the entire season on a limited budget and talent in abundance Bryan Clauson could very well contend for the Indy pole and win a race or two in the future! Land a ride in a better car. Maybe even the 500! Imagine that? Guys running in USAC today racing at Indy tomorrow because they can afford to do it, advancing to the pinnacle of the series! What a concept, huh?


When Indianapolis ruled, it wasn't because everyone thought the Watson Roadsters were cool race cars - it was because guys like

A.J. Foyt, Parnelli Jones, Mario Andretti, Bobby Unser, Al Unser and  Johnny Rutherford drove them. Sure, today's Indy drivers come from different roots, that doesn't mean they aren't damned good race car drivers, because they are!


I have been attracted to car racing for more than 50 years now and I can't remember going to a race to see a car. I have gone to see the drivers race - regardless of the car. I never went to Manzanita Speedway to see the new Stanton Chassis - I went to see Lealand McSpadden drive it. In fact I went to Manzanita to see Lealand McSpadden drive midgets, sprint buggies, modified stocks, and almost anything else and it didn't matter a hill of beans to me what kind of cars it was - it was essential that Lealand was driving! Did you really give a damn about seeing what car Jan Opperman was driving? I saw Ayrton Senna race F1 in Phoenix, but I don't remember for what team. Eddie Sachs remained my hero, even when he changed into the American Red Ball Movers yellow #9. Was that a Watson, Kuzma or Meskowski - I don't remember or care. He was still Eddie Sachs and still my hero!

Between 1961 and 1999, I can say that I saw virtually every great driver race in that time span. I didn't give a damn what kind of car they were driving. I'm lying just a little - Jim Clark in the Lotus at Trenton in Sept. 1963 and Parnelli in the Turbine. However, those drivers made those cars great, not the other way around. Remember when Bill Cheesbourg drove a turbine at Indy? I didn't think so. "Chees" was not the greatest of drivers and the turbine he drove was an innovative TOS! The TV rating didn't drop because that car missed the show. Do you really think the STP Turbine would have been as popular/hated if Andy Granatelli had hired Bob Harkey to drive it?

The downfall of the Indianapolis 500 had nothing to do with the technical specifications of the cars raced at the track. It came about when race fans began to believe the best drivers had abandoned the race for greener pastures and virtually every driver since is just a replacement while the perceived "best" race elsewhere. That's just not true anymore!

The only thing that will reverse that perception is when fans devote themselves to the concept nothing is better than the Indy 500. This year we saw the most competitive Indy 500 EVER and some people still complain about something instead of jumping out of seats at witnessing it! Let's see NASCAR match that race - they can't, even with a green-white-checker finishing crash fest. We will never be successful if you continue to say, "I really love IndyCar racing, but..." If you want IndyCar to succeed, quit being a cry-baby and just say "I LOVE INDY CAR RACING!!!!"