Indy is tougher to win than F1 - J. Herbert

[rev-ed]

It's not a direct quote, but a summary editorially attributed to Johnny Herbert:

Herbert, who has won in many disciplines and has a Grand Prix victory on his resume, believes after having tested on the oval that it might take more to win the Indy 500 than it does to take the top spot in a Formula 1 event.

"The concentration required for driving on an oval is, in some respects, more demanding because the races are longer and the speeds are so much higher," Herbert said. "It's made more difficult because you are passing a lot of cars consistently through the race. From my experience in testing, I've no worries about the proximity of the walls, but I haven't hit one yet. Maybe then I'll change my mind!"

Is it tougher to win Indy than Monoco?

Link to Speedvision article

[ZenMan]

Well, to win Monaco all you need is one really fast, white-knuckle lap to put you on the front row, and then you have to make it to Ste. Devoe (sp?) first. Indy requires 4 white-knuckle laps at over 220 MPH just to make the race.

I'll sit back now and wait for one or all of the "usual suspects" to tell me why the above statement is incorrect and outrageous.

[bkeske]

Originally posted by rev-ed:
<STRONG>It's not a direct quote, but a summary editorially attributed to Johnny Herbert:

Is it tougher to win Indy than Monoco?

Link to Speedvision article</STRONG>

You did hear Herbert say "in some respects". Anyway, he has never ran in a 500 oval race before, so he must be assuming.

I'm not sure you can say the 500 is tougher to win by his statements, and that is your inferance per your subject header.

[Ted]

Originally posted by ZenMan:
<STRONG>Well, to win Monaco all you need is one really fast, white-knuckle lap to put you on the front row, and then you have to make it to Ste. Devoe (sp?) first. Indy requires 4 white-knuckle laps at over 220 MPH just to make the race.

I'll sit back now and wait for one or all of the "usual suspects" to tell me why the above statement is incorrect and outrageous. </STRONG>

Ask Juan Pablo Montoya, he ran both in the span of a year. Let's see, he crashed out in Monaco and won the 500.
Ask double World Champion Mikka Hakkinen who never won there.
Ask Jacques Villeneuve who also never won there.

The problem with winning at Monaco is that not only do you have to fight the track, but you also have to contend with 23 other drivers that are pretty good!

Oh and the winner hasen't sat on pole since 1998.

[nitrofan]

hey I've watched monaco. and indy.
and at monaco you get the lead you don't even have to be fastest to keep it.

not so at indy.. not even close.

herberts right. it is harder to win indy.
think about it.

I 'm talking from a drivers point of view.

[bkeske]

Originally posted by nitrofan:
<STRONG>herberts right. it is harder to win indy.
think about it. </STRONG>

That isn't what he said though.

[sf-indy-fan]

Originally posted by bkeske:
<STRONG>That isn't what he said though.</STRONG>

You are correct, sir. I think what Johnny was talking about was much more general than two specific races. He was referring to road racing vs. oval racing in general. To translate this to Monaco vs. Indy is, IMO, a logical jump that just doesn't hold water, since there are so many other factors involved.

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: sf-indy-fan ]

[Guy]

I don't know which is more difficult to win but I know which one I'd rather win.

[rev-ed]

Originally posted by bkeske:
<STRONG>I'm not sure you can say the 500 is tougher to win by his statements, and that is your inferance per your subject header.</STRONG>

Exactly why I phrased it the way I did, bkeske. The idea was attributed to Herbert by Eric Mauk. Whether you believe Mauk misrepresented Herbert's comments which were not directly quoted is entirely up to you.

[bkeske]

Originally posted by rev-ed:
<STRONG>Exactly why I phrased it the way I did, bkeske. The idea was attributed to Herbert by Eric Mauk. Whether you believe Mauk misrepresented Herbert's comments which were not directly quoted is entirely up to you.</STRONG>

Well, Mauk's editorial of what Herbert said sure did influence folks (here) 'take'on what he actually said. Yes, I believe it was a misrepresentation.

....but the "-J. Herbert" had me a bit confused rev.

[Parsons W. Newbury]

Originally posted by Guy:
<STRONG>I don't know which is more difficult to win but I know which one I'd rather win.</STRONG>

Seeing as how the women in Monaco are better looking than the women in Speedway I'd chose the Monagasque win.

[rev-ed]

Originally posted by bkeske:
<STRONG>

Well, Mauk's editorial of what Herbert said sure did influence folks (here) 'take'on what he actually said. Yes, I believe it was a misrepresentation.

....but the "-J. Herbert" had me a bit confused rev.</STRONG>

It wouldn't be the first time a journalist misrepresented what an interviewee said. But it's out of character for Mauk to give Indy much credit, so I can go either way on that question. The thread title gives Mauk the benefit of the doubt -- notice I used no quotation marks. . .

Sorry if I threw you a splitter. . .

[gforce]

Originally posted by Parsons W. Newbury:
<STRONG>

Seeing as how the women in Monaco are better looking than the women in Speedway I'd chose the Monagasque win.</STRONG>

Now, now. This isn't the case if you like your "women a little on the trashy side," like me.

[dog-ring]

The women in Monaco are "High Maintenance" The women in Speedway are REAL race fans

[Parsons W. Newbury]

I don't want to maintain them - just drive 'em a while.