The RACER Mailbag, December 20

Welcome to the RACER Mailbag. Questions for any of RACER’s writers can be sent to mailbag@racer.com. We can’t guarantee that every letter will be published, but we’ll answer as many as we can. Published questions may be edited for length and clarity.

ED’s NOTE: This week’s Mailbag was long. Like, reeeeeally long. So out of respect for the need for our readers to actually have time to spend with their families as we head into the holiday season, we’ve split the Mailbag in two, and will run the second part on the usual day next week. Questions that were sent after this week’s Mailbag closed will not appear next week, but will instead run in the January 3 edition. 

Q: I am a long-time fan of IndyCar and believe it offers some of the best racing in-person or on TV of any on the planet. I wish the series would get some good headlines for once.

When I saw the article about Honda threatening to pull out after 2026, I recall the TV commercial they produced the summer before last that featured a driver view of a Honda in nearly every motor racing series imaginable except IndyCar, and this came on the heels of Ericsson winning the Indy 500 in a Honda-powered car.

I would think with the new hybrid engine coming on, that would be right up an OEM like Honda’s alley from an R&D standpoint. (My wife loves her Honda CR-V Hybrid, by the way.)

Between the race sim fiasco, the non-points club race, no Texas race, a six-month off-season, and now Honda, IndyCar could use a really strong headline for a change. Brad Pitt is doing that F1 movie and I look forward to that Ferrari film that’s coming out. Both will generate some robust public interest in the sport.

IndyCar could use a lift like that to perhaps boost Honda’s spirits. Your thoughts?

Dennis Jones

MARSHALL PRUETT: I agree wholeheartedly, Dennis. I’m a glass-half-full guy. I wake up every day wanting to write positive things about IndyCar, and IMSA, and hope that both series become America’s favorite racing series. But that doesn’t mean I shirk my responsibilities when there are problems to chronicle.

One of the great gifts of my life is having been born at a time when IndyCar was the clear No. 1 racing series and also, as IMSA rose to prominence in the 1980s with GTP, to see IMSA rival IndyCar for that top spot.

IMSA claimed a big chunk of the American motorsports spotlight with its original GTP era in the 1980s, and is riding a wave with the modern version too. William Murenbeeld/Motorsport Images

So with that context in mind, it’s easy for those of us who were around back then — and I was fortunate to work on IndyCar and IMSA teams during their peaks — to know what we had then, compare it to what we have now, and want both series to rediscover some of their former glory.

It would be silly for me to think that both will ascend to the same peaks they once stood upon. But it’s not impossible for IndyCar, since that’s the main series you’re commenting on, to become so much more than it is today in its home country.

And for the sake of clarity, and as much as I would genuinely love to have the old CART 2.65L turbo V8 formula back in action, I don’t want IndyCar to become a tribute act and mimic what it once did as CART or Champ Car. I want it to succeed as what it is today, with safer cars and with newer technology and all of the advancements that time and ingenuity have brought us through the excellent folks at Dallara, Team Chevy/Ilmor, Honda/HPD, Firestone, and the operations team led by Jay Frye.

So yes, IndyCar has taken a lot of Ls (that’s losses) in the last 12 months with the myriad items you’ve mentioned and others that weren’t. Being a late adopter of hybridization was always going to limit its impact in the racing world; F1’s been there for more than a decade and IMSA went hybrid last season, so while it was needed to keep Chevy and Honda on the island, there’s no reasonable expectation for IndyCar to undergo a large swing in popularity because its cars will be hybridized at some point in 2024. If anyone believes IndyCar is going to get bumps in attendance and ratings because energy recovery systems are installed, please seek therapy. But the rest of what it has to offer is solid. Old, but solid.

We’re blessed with great racing and drivers and teams who are mostly phenomenal. That’s a huge and ongoing W (that’s a win). And yet, in the market where it competes, it takes constant Ls against NASCAR and F1. And IMSA’s gaining ground.

That’s obviously not something I want or anyone is the least bit happy about. Finding ways to kill IndyCar’s status as America’s best-kept sporting secret is the thing we’re patiently waiting for Penske Entertainment to address. And maybe it has grand ideas on how to achieve that and the executive leadership team just hasn’t told us. And maybe they haven’t, and that’s why they avoid the topic like the plague.

From my end, I know of nothing that’s on the horizon that classifies as a game-changer, but as I said at the beginning, I do genuinely wake up each day with hope for the people who own the series to conceive and implement ideas that move the proverbial needle. And not by a little bit, but by a lot.

Q: How much of the value proposition that Honda refers to is the need to supply half the IndyCar field vs the overall viewership of the series? I see IMSA as more viable, because an OEM can step in and support two-three cars, whereas the IndyCar ask would be to start with 10-12. Am I missing something, or is the need really to get to 4+ OEMs so the ask is to support six-eight entries?

Alternatively, what cost savings would come from a spec engine and OEM differentiation coming from ECUs?

Dan, Brownsburg, IN

MP: The IMSA dollars are high as well, but this all comes back to perceived  return on investment. For what Acura/Honda spends in IMSA, there’s a strong feeling of great ROI being delivered. At the price point to be in IndyCar — whatever that number is — there’s a feeling that the return is far too small.

I tend to think of ROI in terms of inflation. According to Honda, IndyCar’s inflation is off the charts while IMSA’s is manageable.

So as you said, if Honda had fewer cars to support in IndyCar — say, a third or a quarter of the grid — the ROI would be perfect.

Going to a spec motor means there’s a significant one-time development cost, just like the energy recovery systems, but after the product has been locked down on technology and mass-produced, the annual costs are limited to rebuilds and support technicians. As it is, each engine supplier spends gobs of money every year to improve their respective engines, and if that annual cost almost entirely went away, they’d have the yearly leases to pay for and, in theory, have a ton of extra money — still well below what they spent today — to put into marketing and promoting IndyCar.

Due to today’s high costs to compete, those marketing and promotion budgets have been slashed to the smallest number I’ve seen since the Indy Racing League was a thing. IndyCar’s greatest problem is that not enough people know it exists. More fans and better TV ratings solves a lot, and it’s hard to make serious inroads on this age-old problem if there’s almost no money left over for the manufacturers to help present IndyCar to a wider audience.

There were many reasons for CART’s huge popularity at its zenith in the 1990s, and among the larger contributing factors was the massive marketing investments made each year by its three, four, or five auto manufacturers who supplied engines and spent crazily to promote their involvement in the series through TV and print advertising campaigns, purchasing large volumes of tickets to give away, etc. Many of the Fortune 100 companies who were in the series as team sponsors did the same exact thing, which was a huge help.

But we can’t ignore the enormous financial might that auto makers could bring to bear in bringing IndyCar’s product to the masses through their marketing and promotional budgets if: We had three or more manufacturers in the series and, most of all, those manufacturers have proper marketing/promotions budgets to deploy. But that won’t happen as long as the costs to supply engines are so stiflingly high when two brands are left to support the entire field.

Want to make IndyCar great again? Do things that free up the dollars so car companies can make a huge difference in pointing the national spotlight on the series through TV, streaming, print, and digital campaigns.

You know what’s not a good ROI? Standing in line for 30 minutes to spend $20 on a cold sandwich. Which, according to the photographer who took this shot, is what’s going on here. Michael Levitt/Motorsport Images

Q: Interesting to read that Honda might leave IndyCar but says it has the money to expand in F1 and possibly into NASCAR. This news follows the delay of the hybrid system (again). Obviously the lack of a third engine supplier makes the economics difficult for Honda. We all know Honda are racers — they are in IMSA with Acura, and in MotoGP. How likely is it that they are serious?

Craig, Leland, NC

MP: Is 1,000,000,000-percent a strong enough answer?

Couple of points here: Honda’s F1 involvement is funded/built/run by the main corporation in Japan; IndyCar is funded through American Honda’s budget. Now, with a new alignment that starts this month, California’s Honda Performance Development — the property that designs/builds Honda’s IndyCar motors, builds its IMSA GTP motors, and so on — has been renamed Honda Racing Corporation U.S., which directly affiliates it with Honda Japan’s parent racing division, HRC.

We expect some of the HRC F1 work to, for the first time that I know of, have HRC U.S. getting involved, and that’s where the comments about possibly using HPD/HRC U.S’s future IndyCar budget for F1, or NASCAR, or wherever, has relevance.

If Honda didn’t want to stay in IndyCar, it would have said nothing, waited until whatever point it felt was appropriate, and informed the series it was leaving. But that’s not what it did. It wants to stay, but not without changes to meet its ROI needs. That’s what partners who care about the health of a series do before it’s too late. Let’s hope IndyCar calms down and acts in the smartest way possible.

Q: Mailbag letters have become a predictable tsunami of complaints about Penske Entertainment’s handling of the series, lack of marketing innovation and delays in green-lighting a new chassis or attracting a third engine manufacturer.

I’m a long-time fan. I don’t much care about those complaints: the cars look good, the racing is close, and the engines are loud.

What does greatly annoy me is the hugely crappy TV deal the series is stuck with. I used to watch every race avidly. Now, in Canada, I can’t. Some races are shown on a major network, some on a specialty sports channel, but in recent years, I haven’t been able to see some races at all. They are carried on a provider few people get — or have even heard of!

I don’t own or run a multi-billion dollar racing and entertainment organization, but I know a dumb deal when I see it. Why did Penske sign/allow it?

A. Jenkins, Ontario, Canada

MP: Let me thank you for a non-Honda/hybrid/car question! To the best of my knowledge, it’s the strongest offer IndyCar received. I’d also keep in mind that as a U.S.-based series, IndyCar’s focus has been on signing the best U.S. broadcast deal, and yes, I know the series races in Canada, and since ABC/ESPN was dropped, the “international” TV package has been less awesome than it was under the former TV deal.

As the last TV/streaming negotiations were underway, IndyCar CEO Mark Miles told me more than once that the series was chasing hard to find a streamer to really grow IndyCar’s digital footprint. That obviously did not happen; it’s the one major expectation that fell short of what I was told they were seeking. Streaming is also the one I’m most curious to see where things end up when the new deal is done ahead of 2025.

Q: I might be just a bit biased, but I can’t help but wonder how T.E. McHale would feel about Honda considering leaving Indy Car after the 2026 season, and how much of an influence he might have been convincing them to stay?

Honda leaving would almost certainly lead to the demise of Mid-Ohio on the Indy Car schedule as well, but not sure how long the current contract is for?

Tom Maiyer Jr

MP: I had this exact conversation with a friend last week; we both loved T.E. His ways were different than Chuck Schifsky’s, but I’m sure their efforts would have been driven by the same care for their brand and for IndyCar. At the risk of overstating things, Chuck’s message — which is Honda’s message — comes from a place of love for the series. Tough love. Those kinds of public statements only get made when there’s a feeling that whatever was said in private has either been ignored or given a lower priority than they deserve.

Honda sponsors Mid-Ohio, Toronto, and all manner of things in the paddock. Other sponsors could be found, no doubt. But it’s a different deal when one of your five engine partners leaves, and when it’s one of two.

Q: So that article about Chevy being tight-lipped about Honda’s concerns sure reads like a message from Roger himself. I’ve seen more than one comment from fans about Roger and Ilmor, and it seems like they aren’t realizing what a serious blow to the series it would be if they lost Honda. Or am I just reading too much into it?

Ryan, West Michigan

MP: It didn’t take long to realize during the Zoom call that we were being spoken to by Penske Entertainment’s executive leaders in the pre-formulated answers crafted during the seven days from when the interview request was made to when the interview itself was conducted.

The repeated reference of being willing to speak about cost reductions and other related matters “in the proper forum” was a public message from on high at IndyCar for Honda to pipe down, but without saying so directly.

Reminded me of the old coaching trick used by Phil Jackson with the Chicago Bulls where he’d rip into Scottie Pippin, who sat next to Michael Jordan, instead of Jordan himself, when he had criticisms to offer the GOAT. The shouty words were aimed at Jordan’s No. 2, but everyone knew it was Jackson barking at his No. 1, minus the public visuals of dressing down everyone’s hero.

There’s not a person in the paddock who doesn’t miss the late T.E. McHale, who was HPD’s longtime head of motorsport communications. But his job was to act in Honda’s interests, and that’s what he’d be doing were he here now. Well, that, and forbidding anyone from eating dessert in the Honda hospitality unit until they’d had at least one brussels sprout. Michael Levitt/Motorsport Images

Q: In light of all of the fooferaw regarding the “classic” chassis model, huge costs for engine manufacturers, and yet another delay on the hybrid, may I gently suggest that the folks at IndyCar take a look at the series they hosted so beautifully this year: IMSA!

How hard would it be for Dallara to tweak the chassis for a GTP hybrid engine? The R&D has already been done, and we know the dang thing (through multiple manufacturers) works.

So what say ye?

Whitney W, gettin’ out the popcorn for the comment section

MP: Not much to tweak since the final product would be the same Dallara GTP design used by BMW and Cadillac. The IMSA ERS unit is comparatively huge and super heavy to what IndyCar came up with, and it takes up the entirety of the passenger side of the GTP tub. There’s no place to stick the big battery and related components in an open-wheel car, so it’s a non-starter unless IndyCar decides to adopt GTP regulations!

Q: Do you know who sets the pricing for IndyCar’s engine lease programs and if the pricing is the same for each manufacturer? While we’ve covered the gamut of cost vs. value over the last week, the part I’ve never been able to wrap my head around is how these suppliers seem to indicate that more business for them equals more financial loss.

I totally understand sunk development costs, but when it comes to income from each individual lease it blows my mind that these crucial series partners are expected to operate at a loss. This feels very un-Penske-like from a business perspective, and seems like a crucially important detail when it comes to not only Honda’s feelings about return on investment, but also the ability to deliver on increased demand for its product (Indy 500 entries… ahem…)

Lyle

MP: The manufacturers set the number; an increase was approved for 2024, I’m told. The leasing-at-a-loss was part of the new engine formula each manufacturer accepted in 2012, so the practice pre-dates Penske’s 2020 purchase of the series by a long while.

Q: First Honda is considering leaving IndyCar, now its idea to prevent that from happening is interesting: Spec engines, all built by Ilmor. For fans clamoring for a third manufacturer, would that idea be acceptable to them, or would they leave forever? If several manufacturers saw value in this, and the cost was very low, and they agreed to a certain expenditure in advertising, I think this just might work. Your thoughts?

Mike Talarico, Charlotte, NC

MP: Great question, Mike. As I see it, we have two things to ponder: Do fans — new, old, and future — care more about the actual engines being designed/manufactured/developed by Chevy, Honda, Toyota, Ford and Hyundai, if we were to have that dream scenario, which conform to an extremely tight and rigid formula where all the engines perform at nearly identical levels?

Or would fans — new, old, and future — simply love to have Chevy, Honda, Toyota, Ford and Hyundai competing against each other in IndyCar with spec engines, but with the ability to express their individual talents and technological skills in other, less costly areas?

If we were having this discussion 10 years ago, I’d say it was the first option, because the spirit of manufacturers fighting each other for our entertainment — and their promotional benefit — was still very much a thing in IndyCar. But I just don’t see that it matters to the same degree as it once did. I’m fortunate to interact with a lot of young and newer IndyCar fans — most of whom are in their 20s — and seemingly, 99 percent of what they want to talk about is the drivers and the dramas.

Which engine has better fuel economy? And how might that influence the outcome of the Indy 500? Those are conversations started by old school fans, and I’m thankful some folks still care about the engines and tech side of IndyCar. But it’s not a point of interest I see much of — and I’m not saying there’s no interest among new fans, but it’s sparse — as the DW12 era has gone on.

So, I’d say the latter, with having multiple brands who are in the series at a more affordable level, who have techy things they can do that matter to them, while putting big dollars into promoting the series and their participation in it, is the best idea I’ve heard in a while. I don’t love the sound of going to a spec engine, but if that’s the change that brings in manufacturers and showers the country with tune-in messaging for IndyCar, I’m in.

Q: What can be done to control costs in a car designed to house a very expensive engine?

If we assume that Honda plays hardball to bring costs down or to leave the series if it can’t get what it wants, and if Chevrolet doesn’t want to supply the whole field without the teams paying a lot more for its engines, what can be done to put a less expensive engine in the current chassis?

I love the sound of the current engines, but not as much as I like the competitive balance of the series. If newer, less expensive cars and engines are what it takes to keep the series going, then I am in favor of that change.

What are your thoughts?

Doug Mayer, Revelstoke, BC, Canada

MP: The series has been proactive in trimming costs wherever possible, including through the restrictive amount of on-track testing we have today. But that ignores the inevitable response by teams which, in the absence of abundant on-track running, have poured tons of dollars into off-track testing technology and hiring the high-dollar brains needed to lead simulation and R&D programs.

As teams always do, when something is taken away, they look for workarounds, and that’s been what’s happened with off-track testing. That’s the last big area IndyCar has left to try and regulate, and savings there by capping things, would save the engine manufacturers and teams a lot of money.

The other area is the one Honda suggested, which is to shed the wild annual cash burns on making their own motors. After 12 years of using and developing the same 2.2-liter V6s, there’s almost nothing left to find that hasn’t already been found and put to use as a performance, reliability, or fuel economy gain. In the offseason of 2012, there were vast gains to find since the motors were only a year old. Heading into 2024, it’s spending crazily to find the proverbial needle in a haystack.

And since the new 2.4-liter V6s were abandoned, the chance for that development quest to start anew is gone. So, do Chevy and Honda keep shoveling tens of millions of dollars each year into the 2.2-liter V6 development furnace, or does IndyCar look at ending that financial waste and go with a spec formula that keeps manufacturers in and adds new ones who can afford to play?

I never imagined I’d be in favor of the latter, but if it helps the series to grow, let’s do it.

Q: Would a common engine formula between Japan’s Super Formula series and IndyCar make sense for the OEMs and each series? Toyota and Honda are already involved in Super Formula, and the engines obviously fit in a single-seater, unlike IMSA’s GTP formula.

Joe

MP: If that’s what Chevy or Honda wanted, I’m sure they could. Historically, IndyCar has been responsive to the wants and needs of its manufacturers when it comes to engine formulas, so it’s not impossible if all involved agree on the change.

Q: I’m guessing this has already been bounced around in regard to cutting costs, but what about an approach taken by some of the European car makers, where they share the cost of a common short block?

I believe it was Peugeot, Renault, Volvo and someone else that shared the costs and development of a V6 short block, to which each manufacturer then applied its own cylinder heads and accessories.

Maybe IndyCar could do something similar, where then Honda, Chevy/Ilmor, and whomever could then just focus on cylinder heads (and maybe pistons — as there would be an interface there.)

Hopefully that would help with costs while still giving participating manufacturers some individualism, something fans to cheer for, and keep the series from becoming a total spec series…

This, of course would still mate to the common hybrid system. Just brainstorming and always respect your thoughts, so what do you think?

Bill V., WI

MP: Fixing those PRV V6s probably covered half of the Pruett family’s income while I was growing up; my father loathed those things, but they were great for business since the heads always leaked and other maladies meant our garage had PRV-powered cars strewn throughout the parking lot in need of repair.

Maintaining individuality is usually the argument against going spec, but this idea of allowing engine suppliers to do their own cylinder heads, or maybe another area that piques their collective interest, could be a winner.

This could potentially be quite good ROI if anyone takes him up on it. Possibly not for the driver, though. Depends what’s in the sandwich. Charles Coates/Motorsport Images

Q: When Roger Penske bought the IndyCar Series in 2019, I had high hopes that the series would finally go back to the late 1980s and early ’90s that made IndyCar popular. It’s 2023 and it’s just as bad when Paul Gentilozzi, the late Kevin Kalkhoven and Gerry Fosythe ran Champ Car into the ground from 2004-07. In fact, Forsythe, who’s retired and owns Cosworth engines somewhere in Michigan, must be chuckling the way Mark Miles and Jay Frye are running IndyCar Series like a sideshow.

This has been another terrible offseason for IndyCar with cancellation of the video game, the delay of the hybrid and the possibility of Honda pulling out of the series, for which I don’t blame it. At this point Penske should sell the series and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway to Liberty Media because he’s staring at 90 years old which very old to keep the series going with little progress since he took over the series.

Alistair, Springfield, MO

MP: Another RACER Mailbag Public Service Announcement: Penske Entertainment makes all major decisions and runs IndyCar, not Frye or Miles, who were the people who ran it with autonomy before it was purchased. If it’s a big decision since January 1, 2020, it’s been done by their bosses. Seriously. I’m not making this up.

We return you to your regularly schedule programming.

Q: The past few weeks have seemed like an endless stream of bad news from IndyCar. Long before all the bad news became public, I realized the health of the series was questionable the moment I watched Colton Herta and his dad run those demo laps at Laguna Seca. There, for all to see, was a 25-year-old Champ Car that was way cooler than the Frankenstein that the DW12 has become. It was embarrassing.

How did IMSA get hybridization so right and IndyCar so wrong?

Jonathan and Cleide Morris, Ventura, CA

MP: It’s an oversimplification for me to say that IMSA’s hybrid solution is a 100-percent off-the-shelf package, but it’s not too far from being accurate. Also, the GTP cars have no concerns with space limitations to house all of the Bosch and Williams ERS technology. And we can’t escape the fact that the GTP cars were designed, from scratch, to be outfitted with batteries and motor generator units and whatnot.

The opposite was true with IndyCar’s adoption of hybridization, where it chose to use its existing non-hybrid chassis instead of building it from scratch. And with no passenger area to stuff all of the components, IndyCar and its ERS partners had to find a way to package everything in the one empty space it had, which is inside the bellhousing. It’s a good thing IndyCar outlawed the use of a single turbo soon after the 2.2-liter V6 formula began, because if that was still in place, it’s home would continue being where it was from 2012-13, and that’s where the ERS units are meant to live.

Thanks to eliminating Honda’s single-turbo selection from the dawn of the current motor formula, the series has that unused space to fit the MGU and supercapacitor. If it didn’t, I don’t know how it would go hybrid.

So, by comparison, IMSA’s adoption of hybridization for 2023 in GTP was much easier than IndyCar’s aborted attempts to join them by having to fashion an all-new solution in a pre-existing car.

Q: I’ve been following Alexander Rossi since he arrived in IndyCar and he’s now one of my favorite drivers. I understand he gets a bit of a bad reputation because of his personality (in a previous RACER story, Paul Tracy went as far as to call him “not very friendly” and seeming quite distant, to which you replied that he’s simply an introvert, which makes me like him even more, being one myself. But let’s focus on his driving skills, here.

The guy became the lead Andretti driver in only his second year in the business before being a title contender in the two following seasons. After that, he kind of fell down the order. Going to McLaren seems to have improved his situation a little bit, but not that much. So, what do you think has been preventing him from fighting for the title again against the likes of Palou, Dixon, Power and Newgarden? What is plaguing him since 2020? (The answer “cartoon anvils” ain’t gonna cut it!) What are his weaknesses?

You once wrote that it is his consistency. But other than Iowa, Alex showed that he’s definitely still got the chops to score at least a top 10 if not a top five at pretty much all of the other tracks. Even on the ovals (other than Iowa), which some tend to point out as a potential weakness: he practically always shines at Indy, finished fourth Gateway this year and was in the lead group at Texas before the incident with Kirkwood.

I heard he’s having a harder time adapting to the heavy aeroscreen (along with other drivers like Conor Daly, it seems). Could next year’s lighter one make things a bit easier for him?