Yahoo Autos The RACER Mailbag, July 31
Welcome to the RACER Mailbag. Questions for any of RACER’s writers can be sent to mailbag@racer.com. We love hearing your comments and opinions, but letters that include a question are more likely to be published. Questions received after 3pm ET each Monday will appear the following week.
Q: I am amazed at the continued backup of cars trying to be the last car in line for the final run of IndyCar qualifying. A simple solution is to use the oval qualifying format on street circuits and the shorter-distance road courses. No draw for the qualifying order; last placed car in the standings goes first. Leave the pits, and first time by you’re green. One lap or two laps, as decided by the series, and positions determined by fastest lap or average of the two. The argument would be the air time, however with the current format I don’t envision that much of a difference in time. Crazy idea, or not?
Susan Bournoville
MARSHALL PRUETT: I have great memories of being a young race car mechanic and sneaking away to watch IMSA GTP qualifying (when the various cars we ran were in the support series) where single-car runs were done. Granted, we’re talking about 10-15 cars, at most, rather than 27, but it made for spectacular theater once the better cars and drivers were on deck to do their single warmup laps and clock their best one-lap runs.
The year 1990 comes to mind as one where the single-car routine was particularly glorious. Future Andrea Moda F1 driver Perry McCarthy, also the future Stig, threw his privateer Spice-Chevy on the pole at Sears Point, breaking the lap record as well, against the factory Nissans and Jaguars and Toyotas and the rest. It created one of the biggest cheers across the track that I’ve ever heard. Pel the giant killer.
One all-out lap, driver by driver, no excuses for traffic or insufficient rubber being put down at the time of whoever’s run. I’m all for giving it a try, Susan.
Since most everything about how race weekends are run is made up, I’d love to see it used to start the season at St. Petersburg. Maybe it’s street race thing, only. Short tracks, quick laps, and if you send the second qualifier out 25 percent of the way through the first driver’s flying lap, you can cut down on wasted time and have each warmup lap mostly done and have the first driver pit at the end of their flying lap — using the alternate start/finish line prior to the final corner — to clear the track for the second driver, and so on. That would tighten up the duration, give commentators enough time to opine about the run that just ended and move into the new run.
Only thing I haven’t figured out is the qualifying order. We could go off of championship points or the results of the first practice session, or a blind draw. What I wouldn’t want is one where we start with the slowest and work down to the fastest because, no disrespect to the slower teams and drivers, but the bottom half of the field is rarely responsible for excitement in qualifying. Shake the order up, and then people would have a reason to watch the entire thing instead of waiting until the top half runs.
Q: I have two quick questions for you, which may or may not have been answered by you before. If they were, I must have missed them:
Why don’t IndyCars have power steering? To make them harder to drive or because it may be too complicated to add power steering, or something else?
Second, I’ve noticed a little shark fin on the top of the right sidepods of the cars. Is that covering up some type of radiator temperature sensor, or something else? I need to know, and haven’t been able to find out in my internet searches.
Snappy Gary, Mondovi, WI
MP: Unless it was a really long time ago when the photos and videos were in black and white, I can’t think of power steering being used in my lifetime in IndyCar. It’s just not a thing here. Plus, the current chassis, the 13-year-old Dallara DW12, was never designed to carry power steering, and doing a bolt-on retrofit isn’t an option. If the series and its drivers want power steering in the next car, I’m sure it will happen. But, culturally, having to fight through downforce and high Gs to turn the car is a decades-old norm in IndyCar.
Perry McCarthy wheeling the Spice SE90P Chevrolet on the New Orleans street circuit in 1991. No word on whether a young Marshall Pruett is hiding behind one of the barriers to watch when he’s supposed to be working. (He’s putting an awful lot of faith in the barriers if he is — they don’t look capable of protecting someone from a T-shirt cannon, never mind a race car). William Murenbeeld/Motorsport Images
Q: There’s been some rumors floating about Andretti possibly switching to Chevy power as soon as 2025. Is there any substance to these rumors? IndyCar teams have tended to have partnerships with different auto makers across different racing categories, however wouldn’t it make sense for Andretti to be seeking to be allied with GM across all its racing ventures?
Fabian Blåder
MP: Indeed. This has been an expectation since we told folks Andretti was moving from Acura to GM/Cadillac in IMSA next year, which is the second GM alignment after its desired F1 program. And the rumor of completing the trifecta with a Honda-to-Chevy IndyCar switch has been a popular one of late.
I asked Andretti COO Rob Edwards about it last week, and he said no, there are no plans to leave Honda. Unconfirmed, but it’s believed Andretti’s Honda contract runs through 2025, so provided nothing changes, the team and manufacturer have one more year together before a formal decision is made on what happens next.
On the supply side in 2025, Chevy’s been telling interested parties that it’s full after adding two new cars from PREMA, so tacking three more from Andretti on top of the pile seems like math that ain’t mathing. But what this looks like in 2026 could be altogether different.
Q: While racing at the Brickyard 400 was better than I expected, I was not surprised to see so many fans disguised as empty seats. It had to be embarrassing for NASCAR. After the novelty of NASCAR racing at IMS wore off, the fans have stayed away in droves. Why does NASCAR keep going back?
As for IndyCar at Toronto, give us all a break. As a lifelong IndyCar fan — I’m 75 — I understand the marketing allure of street tracks. However, Toronto is pathetic. It’s a Mickey Mouse track where passing is rare and too many yellows are inevitable. The races there do the overall appeal of IndyCar a disservice.
Bob Isabella, Mentor, OH
MP: Agree to disagree. Toronto tends to present a lot passing and some crashes, which keeps it from being a snoozefest. We had both.
Q: Congratulations to IndyCar, Honda and Chevy for a successful start to the hybrid era. They have created a solution to a problem that didn’t exist. Added weight, cost and complexity is the future? I’ll take the past where 2.65-liter V8s screamed at every track. Did they listen to the fans at all? My daily driver makes about as much HP as a current IndyCar from a big supercharged V8. That’s what I want. Honda, Chevy and IndyCar should think about what the consumer wants. It’s not hybrid or electric.
Frustrated in Houston
MP: The hybrid has become the go-to source of blame for whatever frustrations are held.
Chevy and Honda aren’t here to give you the racing powertrains you or I want. (The 2.65L formula will never be beaten). They’re here to use racing to sell cars, and with greater demands from manufacturers to race something that’s closer to what they sell, two of the three major circuit racing series in the country in IndyCar and IMSA have gone hybrid with their marquee cars. NASCAR hasn’t, but they’re an outlier. And when the other super popular circuit racing series comes to the U.S. for its three races, it become three of the four top series with F1.
I feel like a broken record here, but if you want a vintage racing series, IndyCar can go back to our favorite engines, and go back to 2007 Panoz DP01s, and we’d be the happiest people at small events because once the manufacturer money leaves, the whole thing collapses. TV ads, event sponsorships, partially-subsidized engine leases, and all manner of other things that keep IndyCar afloat come from manufacturers spending big, and they spend big to race with powertrains they consider to be relevant. That was different 25 years ago, and those times were amazing, but times have changed.
Toronto, IndyCar’s first hybrid street race, was just like any other recent edition of the event. Hybrid powertrains didn’t take away from the racing in any way. Iowa was a stinker due to tires. And Mid-Ohio was a strategy race due to the lack of cautions.
The one thing that could change the conversation is the upcoming oval races. If Firestone can get the degradation right at WWTR, Milwaukee, and Nashville, we can isolate the racing product on the hybrids alone. And if the racing is great, then maybe we can put the blame-hybrids-for-everything routine to bed.
And if the tires are well-matched to the three ovals, and the racing is bad, we can point directly to the hybrids and start asking hard, merit-based questions — not the opinion-based ones we have now — and use facts to call for changes.
Q: Is Simon Pagenaud ever likely to return to IndyCar as active driver in full health?
Tom Fitzgerald
MP: As a full-timer? No. With all of the young talent currently in the series and the abundance of Indy NXT and F1/F2 drivers hunting for seats, there’s no market I can think of for Simon to make a season-long return. But he’s a prized operator at the Indy 500. Any team with an extra entry would be wise to go make some money with Pagenaud in May, provided he’s cleared.
Pagenaud would offer an instant upgrade to a lot of teams’ Indy 500 programs if he gets the green light to return. Michael Levitt/Motorsport Images
Q: I have attended multiple races within the UK: MSV-owned Snetterton and Brands Hatch, BRDC-owned Silverstone for BTCC, and the one British GT race. In the UK, if a car leaves the track in a dangerous position or area, the marshals immediately raise a yellow flag and activate the boards and the in-car warning lights. This process is typically swift (like immediately), and race control has virtually no impact; it only updates the safety car (a full course yellow) or red flag if needed.
How does this work in the U.S.? From what it looked like, the yellow flag/light board only triggered once Marcus Ericsson crashed into Pato O’Ward, and it took another few seconds for it to go FCY. Do the local marshals not have the ability to throw a yellow immediately (flag and board)? Or is this partly race control?
Open to being wrong, but it does feel that local yellows are slower.
Dan Mayhew
MP: Our marshals can do all of the same things. There’s a local light panel activation button, but our corner workers, who are often referred to as flaggers, have that nickname for a reason, due to their training and priority in waving whatever flag is needed in the moment.
In the quick-fire heat of a late-race restart, with drivers funneling from four- or five-wide into single-file through Turn 1, I think what we saw at Toronto was a general eyes-forward focus from most drivers on the narrowing path getting into the corner in that restart, and not a eyes-wide approach where spotting flagging station(s) with yellow flags being waved was the priority in the moment.
And since drivers are accustomed to having lights on their steering wheel pop up and flash when there’s a caution, my guess is that most who trailed Pato had their eyes locked heading directly into Turn 1, knew the lights would catch their attention if a FCY was triggered, and relied on that comfort while charging through the corner.
Q: What is the point of IndyCar when it has been eclipsed by F1 not only in domestic popularity, but also in quality of racing? Five different winners and four different teams have seen the top step of the podium in the past six races. Is the series going to take any proactive and immediate actions to increase the quality of the product which has slipped precipitously (outside of the 500) since 2020?
Woodford from Stankonia
MP: Max Verstappen won seven of the opening 10 races this year, so if we don’t cherry-pick the latest races to prove a selective point, and look at the full season, there’s more to the story. Last year, Max won 14 of 22, and with Sergio’s two, Red Bull won 16 of 22 in one of the most lopsided seasons of F1 to date. Max and Red Bull have “only” won 50 percent of this year’s races, and that’s an indicator of a great change? Mercedes has won three of the last four, with Piastri getting the other for McLaren.
In those 14 races, seven drivers have won races and one of those drivers owns half of the wins. In other words, pure dominance once again from Max and Red Bull.
In IndyCar’s 11 championship races, seven drivers have won races, and no driver has taken more than two victories so far. Over the last six IndyCar races, five drivers from four teams have won. The opposite of dominance. So what exactly has slipped?
If we’re talking about raw entertainment of the most recent F1 races vs IndyCar, there’s no argument against the fact that F1 has been winning (the three races before IndyCar went hybrid weren’t exactly stunning). Let’s hope F1’s thankful change from monotonous Max-wins-again races holds firm and the recent fun continues, and let’s hope IndyCar’s generally underwhelming races of late return to the higher state of fun they tend to produce.
Q: When F1 teams got CART drivers to test, was it more of a driver evaluation or were there some components that the teams are trying out? Did drivers get paid a certain amount to come and test? If Scott Pruett or Paul Tracy did decide to drive in F1, and assuming they had good equipment, do you think they would have had a solid career in F1?
Brandon Karsten
MP: Each situation was unique, since each driver was unique, so it’s hard to give specific answers to general questions. I can’t think of why an F1 team would ask a complete novice with the car and formula to give feedback on new components in a one-off test, but it’s possible.
Michael Andretti was a test driver for McLaren prior to being hired, so he would have been asked for comparison feedback. Willy T. Ribbs had one day in a Brabham, and it was like going from a skateboard to being strapped to a rocket. He had great talent, but it was a better fit for GT cars. Pruett was wickedly talented as well, and was sneaky-good in IndyCar, but he was old by F1 standards when he tested for Larousse and wouldn’t have gotten a shot in a front-running car. In a fantasy world, I’m sure he’d have done well in a good car and team in the late 1980s; there were lots of drivers like him in F1 at the time, but as in most series, there’s the handful of megastars, and then the rest. Next to a Piquet or Senna or Prost, I don’t think Scott would have given them a reason to worry.
PT and Al Unser Jr, are different. Tracy’s test with Benetton went well and I always felt he would have been a monster in F1. I don’t believe his former CART rival Jacques Villeneuve had any more talent than PT. Little Al also had all the talent in the world and in the right team, could have done big things for Williams or whoever if he was in the right place with his lifestyle and focus. But Michael Andretti has always been the great “what if” among the homegrown talents. McLaren’s 1994 car was not stellar — mostly due to an explosion-friendly Peugeot engine — but given a second season there or in another good team, I’m confident he would have been just as special as he was in CART.
Benetton gave Paul Tracy a chance to measure himself against Michael Schumacher in a (theoretically) equal car during an F1 test in late 1994, and a contract that tied him to Flavio Briatore for years and contained no promises beyond more testing. Newman/Haas gave him a contract that guaranteed him a race seat and a large pile of money for 1995. The rest is history. Motorsport Images
Q: I have noticed the occasional difficulty with team radios in several types of racing. Signals get weak or totally lost on portions of some tracks, particularly road courses. On the flipside, the audio and video feeds for TV don’t seem to be affected. I would think that the video feeds would be especially intense in the signal required, and teams would also be concerned about the weight of transmission equipment, so I can’t imagine that that package can be large or heavy. So, why are there issues with something as simple as team communications?
Craig Nelson
MP: Because racing teams don’t have the same equipment or funding as billion-dollar networks who specialize in the transmission of audio and video signals throughout miles of cables put down across racing venues, and beaming those signals in 4K HD through satellite dishes?
Q: My wife and I spent last Saturday at Lime Rock Park watching sports cars, Miatas, Nissans, an impressive stock car all-star race and a couple of IROC exhibitions that bode well for the future. We sat on a hillside at Turns 2, 3 and 4 just before the Paul Newman Straight and had a great time. I got to thinking, could IndyCar run at Lime Rock? Have you been there? I’m not sure the pit facilities and runoff would be up to standard, but man, what a nice circuit!
William Phypers
MP: I have. It’s a delightful area and a beautiful place to hold a motor race. But it’s too small and too fast for IndyCar. Some runoff areas would need to be pushed back at least 50 feet, if not 100, to try and create deceleration opportunities that don’t exist today. IMSA took its prototypes off the Lime Rock schedule and made it a GT-only event (before it was dropped altogether) for the same reason.
Q: So, it seems IndyCar has the ability to remotely turn the hybrid on and off. Why do they need to do that? I was not aware of any time during a race weekend when a car cannot use the hybrid. Seems like a failure point they could get rid of.
Craig
MP: Yep. Arrow McLaren team boss Gavin Ward is also of the same opinion.
Q: I just read the first question and answer in the Mailbag last week and that sparked other questions…
With Rick Ware Racing supplying funding to the second Coyne car, was that seen as a way for RWR to get a foot in the door to IndyCar? With Dale now 70 years old and past retirement age for most of us, is he looking at the RWR tie up as a way to pass on/sell the team to a new entrant down the road?
This seems like a transitional year for DCR, where they really just took money for seats over having one really good driver in the first car and a young driver in the second car. It’s a long way from Malukas and Sato… Ferrucci and Palou… Bourdais and various…
Dave, King of Prussia
MP: Dale’s had quite a few co-entrants in recent years, including Vasser Sullivan, Kazumichi Goh and Henry Malukas, who underwrote the No. 18 car from 2022-23. Minus HMD, and in the absence of a replacement and a full-funded new driver, Dale’s had to, as you note, take the best he could find. Same with the second car, the No. 51, which has RWR’s assistance. But that still leaves Dale covering at least half of the combined operating costs.
I don’t foresee Dale selling. He’s extremely successful outside of racing, doesn’t need to sell the team, and racing is the passion of his life. Maybe that will change, but I hope it doesn’t. He’s a reminder of how things used to work in IndyCar.
Q: I understand race car weight limits, but what is the purpose of weighing the drivers? Are they included with car weight? Wouldn’t a lighter, smaller driver have a distinct advantage?
Bob Traina, St. Louis, MO
MP: Yes, which is why they weigh the drivers. In IndyCar, it’s informally called the Danica Patrick Rule. She is/was so much smaller and lighter than her rivals that yes, her absence of weight was a benefit. And because of that inherent advantage of a 5-foot-2 Danica compared to 6-foot-4 Justin Wilson, teams complained enough and IndyCar reacted by introducing driver equivalency ballast. That way, in basic terms, a 100-pound driver wouldn’t have an advantage over a bigger driver.
The equivalency system requires almost every car to ballast up to match the bigger drivers, which sets the paddock-wide standard at 185 lbs. For drivers over 185, there’s an exception where an extra 10 lbs can be removed, but beyond that, drivers over 195 lbs just have to deal with the penalty of carrying more weight around than the rest.
So, within 15 minutes of the end of the first practice session at every event, drivers must arrive and be weighed at the technical inspection trailer, and that weight is recorded by the series and used as the official weight for the event. If a driver weighs in at 150 lbs, their team needs to add 35 lbs of equivalency ballast, and so on. They might be 148 or 153 at the next race, so the number gets adjusted. That number is then used by IndyCar as the weight to factor in after draining the fuel tank and removing the drink bottle in order to get the minimum weight.
Battle of the ballast at Richmond in 2008 as Danica Patrick goes wheel to wheel with Justin Wilson. Motorsport Images
Q: First off, I just want to say that there’s some nuance to the question that your reader asked about whether the EM boards have replaced the flaggers. I am one of the Toronto corner workers and have worked Corner 1 prior to the light panels being implemented.
While you are correct that the flags are still waved, there are no longer the mirror stations on the opposite side of the track that there used to be prior to those boards. Also, many of the marshal stations where the flags are displayed have been moved to the light location, which is much further up the track than the flag locations used to be. I would say that yes, many of the flaggers have in fact been replaced by the lights.
If you look back to previous races back 2016-18, you’ll note that the flaggers at Corner 1 used to be deep in the corner at drivers left, just before the break where they can take the escape road. In addition, we sometimes even had a mirror flag driver’s right just before the turn-in point, exactly where they are looking as they make the corner.
Formula 1 and other series that use lights do not replace the flag stations with the lights. They use the lights to augment the existing flag stations. I have worked Montreal many times and it is common for the light to be controlled by the marshal at the flag station, but for the panel itself to be far upstream in a good position for earlier warning, to supplement the flags closer to the corner and in the best spot for marshals to see the incident.
In my opinion the decision by IndyCar to eliminate all mirror flags and place all flaggers at or near the light panel vastly defeats the purpose of using lights. It is my hope that after this incident they will look at the amount of time it takes to get from where the light panel and flags now are, to where the incidents are more commonly found (in this instance it takes almost four seconds to get from where the local yellow is and where O’Ward was sitting, meaning even if the light came on instantly, and even if they threw a full course, everyone in the pack down to Grosjean still wouldn’t have seen it).
The flag was out in under two seconds from when Pato spun, but the idea it took five or more is because it’s another almost four seconds for them to arrive past the light/flag.
We still have the communicator and light operator down where they used to be at Turn 1. In my opinion, they should keep the flaggers in place where they were so that more drivers receive warning. That extra one to two seconds makes a huge difference. Leave the light upstream, but keep the flaggers down at the corner.
They should look at how the FIA and F1 uses lights and flags in different locations, and see how that can work. It does add some complexity when you have an incident between a panel and the flags that requires showing a different signal on the light than at the station, but it’s something they prime us for at F1 and we manage well.
Thanks for the opportunity to make this point.
Marshall T, Toronto
MP: Thanks for the great insights, Marshall. Unless we’re going to a new road or street course, we know the two or three main problem areas everywhere we go. Apportioning more flaggers and stations entering those two or three corners, extra lights, and an extra person from race control at Turn 1, 3, and 8 at Toronto each year (and St. Pete, and so on) to be right there and trigger advance-warning flag waving and “HOLY CRAP SLOW DOWN” lights right there from those spots seems like a sharp adjustment to make, especially when we’re talking about blind corners.
Q: Thanks to Jasmin for the response to my question last week. I was aware that IndyCar has a spotter’s guide for the NXT Series. My gripe is that IndyCar doesn’t put the radio frequency information on it like they do for the main series. That does not seem like a difficult thing to add.
David, Waxhaw, NC
MP: It does not.
Q: My question/concern is regarding the charter system. I am hearing that the charter system will cap off teams at three cars. What does this mean for Chip Ganassi Racing with five cars? Rumors are spreading that CGR and Meyer Shank Racing will have a technically alliance for 2025 and that an additional CGR entry would go to MSR.
My concern is, who gets the cut at CGR if the charter system is approved? Assuming Dixon doesn’t pull a Rosberg in the offseason, CGR would have Dixon, Palou and Armstrong (based off Armstrong’s good form this season). MSR would have Felix for sure, and Malukas has been incredible so I would expect MSR to keep him. It would come down to Simpson and Linus in the third MSR car. Unfortunately, I would expect that money would be the determining factor and Simpson would be in the third MSR car and Linus is once again without a ride. I know he had signed a multi-year contract but they way contracts have been dealt with… you know what I mean.
Do you have any thoughts on this potential situation that could occur? Would other two car teams step up and go with three cars full-time? (i.e. Foyt, ECR, DCR)
Stefan “Not that one” Johansson
MP: Yes, we’ve written about the cap being at three many times. Here’s an in-depth story from May. Here’s another one from May. Here’s a deep dive from April which includes a range of scenarios on how the charter could impact CGR.
The charters would be issued to the top 25 eligible entries from last season’s entrants’ championship results (that’s also included in one or more of the links), so while teams are welcome to add third cars, they wouldn’t get charters because they didn’t run in 2023 and place in the top 25.
Q: Can you provide some insight on the state of the IndyCar paddock’s finances? The last few years, the majority of teams at least appeared reasonably healthy judging by the number of sponsors on each car and stable car count. We’ve heard repeatedly that driver salaries are going up.
However, this season many cars are running almost blank, there has been public criticism of additional costs to go racing, and McLaren –which appeared to have more cash than it knew what to do with — took a pay driver.
Finally, do you know how PREMA is funding its U.S. expansion? It appears to be doing things in a very professional way; however, Carlin were for many years the dominant Euro feeder team and always appeared to be doing things on a shoestring — and ultimately failed.
John
MP: It’s been very rough for half of the field. Foyt needs more funding for its 14 car. McLaren’s No. 6 car has had its budget deficit addressed, as you noted. Both of Coyne’s cars have been run on shoestring budgets where every driver, except for Colin Braun, has paid to drive, and often below a break-even point. Juncos Hollinger Racing’s cars have been largely funded by Hollinger, who isn’t there to pay all the bills. Ed Carpenter Racing has been light on funding, as evidenced by VeeKay’s car being bare for most races. Meyer Shank Racing is working hard to complete its funding for its second car next season and could, if necessary, take a paying driver if that’s what’s needed to get the budget finalized. And RLL, which has many great sponsors, is in the same boat as MSR in needing to sign some important deals to get its dollars in order.
On PREMA, I think so, but I need to see if I can get more details.
Q: Given that the IndyCar season ends the previous week, is there any indication that any of the series regulars might participate at the six-hour IMSA race at the Brickyard in mid-September? Is there even a realistic opportunity for any of them to join, or are those driver lineups pretty much set as that championship nears its conclusion?
Mark Founds
MP: It’s not impossible, but as IMSA’s penultimate race of the season, I wouldn’t expect any of the championship contenders to welcome new/guest drivers into the mix. Also, at six hours, it’s not as grueling as a 12- or 24-hour event, so the full-time two-driver rotations will be used in most instances. The only caveat is the teams who have peerless endurance drivers (think WTRAndretti with Colton Herta, Cadillac with Scott Dixon/Alex Palou, or Penske with Josef Newgarden) and might want to ensure they have three rockets who are super fresh for each stint.
If WTRAndretti wants to pull a surprise out of its hat for IMSA’s trip to the Brickyard, it’s got Herta’s number. Michael Levitt/Motorsport Images
Q: It seems that the increased number of IndyCar entires is causing traffic problems for qualifying on road and street courses. I understand the need to reduce car count in the first session, but I hate the idea of going to three qualifying groups.
So how about this: Today, the last 20 minutes are divided up into two 10-minute groups. Let’s use those by giving the fastest two cars from each of those groups a free pass to the Fast 12.
The advantages would be:
• Friday practice would mean something (kind of like the old “provisional pole” from the CART days).
• Two fewer cars in each of the Round 1 qualifying groups Saturday.
• The Friday qualifiers would effectively also have an extra set of alternate tires (since they would skip Round 1).
Option: If we did not want the Friday qualifiers to earn and extra set of Alternate tires for Saturday, we could make Round 1 of Saturday qualifying primaries only, disallowing the use of alternates in that round.
I think this would address the traffic issue while adding some excitement to Fridays at road and street courses.
Ed Joras
MP: Let’s keep the ideas coming in!
Q: Now that we have hit a summer/Olympic break, I’m interested in everyone’s take on the other series they don’t regularly cover. The common refrain from fans seems to focus on why “my” series is better than the others. In my opinion each series has their own place, and we need to focus on how each brings something to the table and everyone can have their own personal preference instead of a constant battle about which is the best.
I tend to follow IndyCar most mostly because I grew up going to races and it is the most accessible to someone living in Ohio. But F1 and NASCAR both hold a special place in my heart. F1 is perfect coffee TV while I get ready for church on Sundays. Catch the start of the race, leave it on in the background while getting ready and then head out the door once it finishes. NASCAR is peak lazy Sunday afternoon! Throw on the race, maybe have a beer (or three), nap, complete a house project or two and watch the end of the first stages before tuning in for the end.
With that in mind I would love to get each panelist take on the series they don’t cover:
• Say something good about the other series and what draws you to watching it (or at least having it on in the background)?
• What from the other series do you wish your series had?
• Where does your series fall short?
Ben, Columbus, OH
MP: I hear you, but we also live in a world where lots of people are highly tribal, so “my (favorite political party/political candidate, form of music, type of car or fashion, racing series, or whatever) is better than yours” is still a pretty common thing, right?
I railed against the series I didn’t like for most of my life (and music, the rest), but with age, and giving fewer craps each year, I now fall into your line of thinking most of the time. Doesn’t mean I now love things I don’t care for, but I don’t feel the need to rail against them.
KELLY CRANDALL: I have a passing interest in a few other forms of motorsports like IndyCar and Formula 1, but the latter is mostly due to “Drive to Survive.” They accomplished their goal of drawing people in through the stories and the drivers under the helmets because people make the best stories and doing that series has been a hit. With the IndyCar Series, I’m always drawn to the Indianapolis 500 and find myself watching everything on track during the month of May. The series and the coverage does a great job making it known how special that race is and why it’s so meaningful to people.
The biggest draw for me outside of NASCAR is drag racing, though. It’s of course the speed and the sound but I have found there are also great stories and personalities over there that I really enjoy getting to interact with when able. One thing the NHRA has that I wish could come to NASCAR is the All-Star Call Out concept because it puts drivers in a unique position that leads to real rivalries and emotion. I’m not sure how it would translate to NASCAR but it would be awesome to see.
CHRIS MEDLAND: The first part is just not having to cover them, Ben! I love watching racing as a fan and not having to react to everything that’s happening from a work point of view, so I really enjoy that about IndyCar and NASCAR.
I love the tracks in IndyCar, and the way you’ve got drivers working so hard but on a relatable circuit that generally doesn’t have a perfectly smooth surface or massive tarmac run-offs (although F1 is improving on that front, too).
And I really like the dynamic of oval races because they’re so different to what we have in F1, and with both IndyCar and NASCAR on ovals it feels like you’re often building up to a close finish or late sprint.
I wish F1 had the openness that IndyCar and NASCAR has, in the sense of just being allowed to do cool stuff with teams or drivers to bring the sport closer to fans, rather than be quite so hamstrung by broadcast rights, etc. I’m always really jealous of the videos Marshall is allowed to do at tracks. I do actually wish we had fewer races too, although as exhausting as it has been this year so far, that’s less of a complaint when it’s this competitive each week.
F1 falls short in over-policing the racing. I like how often it’s down to the teams and drivers to sort out among themselves when things get aggressive on track, but I will admit I also understand why F1 does it given the huge amount of money involved, and need to set clear rules that everyone’s competing to. But I do feel it’s gone a little too far with rules of racing, and more should be let go where possible.
Q: Do you think that Andretti Global could be willing to get into a bidding war with Hitech for the Alpine team? Andretti was told that is their only way into F1 is to buy an existing team.
Frank, Mooresville, NC
CM: I would be surprised if there wasn’t at least a question asked, but with the investment that Andretti has already put into trying to become its own entrant, I don’t know how that would align with the Enstone setup. It won’t be as simple as buying a team out of nowhere given the plans they had put in place, but I’m sure they’d be interested being able to purchase a spot on the grid that way if the price is right.
Hitech’s team principal Ollie Oakes is set to become the new Alpine team principal, and that could lead to him trying to help his investors get involved, too. On top of that, Alpine likely using a Mercedes power unit in 2026 could be seen as a way of increasing the value of the team if it becomes more competitive, so it might be that Renault isn’t all that interested in a sale quite yet.
Q: Well, I missed ordering tickets for the Canadian GP for the second year in a row. The website had a “Hunger Games” approach to ordering the tickets. You go into the queue for a grandstand and hope you get your tickets.
This is very discouraging to a traditional F1 fan who has attended races since 1980. Does FIA/Liberty Media realize that the high ticket prices will not hold?
Steve Selasky, Rockford, MI
CM: Ticket sales are a tricky topic Steve, but I’ll defend both the FIA and Liberty here. The FIA has absolutely nothing to do with it — they’re just the governing body who police the sport and say whether tracks are safe or not to race on. It would be like blaming the referee at a football game for the price of tickets.
Liberty also doesn’t have a direct say on ticket prices. It negotiates a race hosting fee with a race promoter — in Canada that promoter is Octane Racing Group — that is set over a multi-year period as part of the race agreement, and then the promoter sets the ticket prices based on costs, supply and demand, and what they want to make out of ticket sales.
Where Liberty is a little more connected, is that when negotiating the next contract the promoter might start saying it can’t pay the same fee if it is struggling to sell tickets at a price that works. But for now, attendances continue to rise, so the demand is there for tickets.
For Montreal next year, there are a number of grandstands still available, and lots of GA at around $260 (USD) for the three days, which I know isn’t cheap but I do think is pretty good value given that’s three full days of action at that price, and under $90 per day.
Q: There was a comment on TV during Friday practice in Belgium regarding aero upgrades for Mercedes, including the halo. It got me thinking: How standardized is the halo? Beyond the presumed dimensional and strength requirements, is there an aerodynamic envelope that teams can work within and exploit? Does the halo design vary throughout the year for many teams, like other aero areas? And how influential is it to the overall airflow?
Mark T, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
CM: The structure of the halo is standardized, in terms of the actual titanium device having to be manufactured by one of the FIA-approved suppliers, and withstand crash tests both standalone and once attached to the chassis.
But teams are allowed to add aerodynamic fairings, which are mainly on the very front but also the cockpit sides. These are exactly as you suggest — to help with airflow, and in particular the way the air gets into the cooling intakes above the cockpit or down the side of the engine cover.
It’s not an area that’s going to prove crucial to downforce levels, but it really can impact the car’s cooling efficiency if the airflow is not controlled correctly. That means it is usually developed and updated in conjunction with other changes, as it’s all part of the overall flow structure over the car. For example, updated sidepods for performance are often delivered in partnership with a tweaked engine cover, and that will mean the airflow to the engine cover also needs addressing from the halo, so the fairings will also be updated.
The halo structure is standard; the clever curvy bits that teams stick onto them to control airflow are not. Mark Sutton/Motorsport Images
Q: Among the many excuses that F1 gave to Andretti for not accepting its worthy team entry was “the need for any new team to take a compulsory [customer] power unit supply, potentially over a period of several seasons, would be damaging to the prestige and standing of the championship.” That was always complete codswallop, as it would only have been for two seasons, allowing them to bed the team in before taking the works GM supply, and would have mitigated another of F1’s concerns by helping them to be more competitive in the long run.
Now Alpine is considering doing something far worse: ditching its own works Renault engine permanently, and taking a supply of customer Mercedes instead. In the face of Andretti’s rejection, this outcome would be particularly hard to swallow.
If this happens, what could the fallout be? Clearly F1 wouldn’t be happy, and they couldn’t prevent it, but is there some action they could take against a team “damaging their prestige and standing”? It’s hard to see any way that Andretti could benefit, unfortunately, although I hope they make a noise about it.
Rob MacDonald, Chippenham, UK
CM: I’ve spoken to F1 about this and they haven’t been overly unhappy about it so far, because it’s a move that only impacts Alpine and no other teams in the wider sport. It actually strengthens Mercedes, which is set to gain a customer back after losing Aston Martin to Honda.
From the impression I got, F1 is confident in the commitments of Audi and Honda. But it must be said that Renault has been struggling to be competitive for over a decade, and it pulling out actually adds to the argument that F1 made against Andretti, because it would be left without a power unit supplier now too (and someone else would be forced to give one to a new team if its entry had been accepted).
It certainly won’t hurt the chances of coming in in 2028, though, if GM does commit as a manufacturer. That still sounds like it isn’t guaranteed, but if it does, then it would even out the loss of Renault, so that would look good from a PR standpoint. But with Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull, Honda and Audi all supplying power units, the sport’s still in good shape on that front.
And as referenced in an earlier answer, if Alpine is then set up for a sale in future, that could become a way for Andretti to get onto the grid if the numbers make sense. That’s a big if, though.
Q: It looks like Red Bull is feeling the pressure in the last few months. At this point, even Max seems to feel the strain of carrying Checo on his back, along with the consistent improvement of McLaren and Mercedes. In light of Checo’s contract extension, is there any possibility of Red Bull sending him down to RB to salvage the championship if results keep trending like they have in the last four races? You would think Yuki Tsunoda or Daniel Ricciardo could get similar results, at minimum, to Checo with better equipment. I also noted Russell’s DQ profited McLaren with another point towards the Red Bull gap.
JG, Tennessee
CM: Honestly, JG, if I was answering this 24 hours ago I’d have said I thought there was every chance Checo would be dropped completely from Red Bull and Daniel promoted. For some reason, Christian Horner doesn’t appear to be willing to consider Yuki as a replacement, but Daniel would have been a safe pair of hands, and remains a Horner ally like Perez is. Plus he gets on well with Max, so it wouldn’t overly rock the boat.
Every conversation I’d had at Red Bull and with other sources suggested it was likely to happen, but on Monday a review meeting before the summer break saw Red Bull opt to stick with Perez.
Daniel’s performance level is an unknown, so there’s a chance you get nothing better than you’ve had from Perez recently (you can read more about the reasons for sticking with him here) but at the same time, it looks like Liam Lawson is set for a promotion to RB next year regardless. And if you do that, then Ricciardo is out, and you never know if he would have been back to something like his best in a Red Bull race seat.
Red Bull could have promoted Daniel in place of Checo, given him until the end of the season and if he didn’t perform then you choose between Liam (if he showed up well) or Yuki for 2025. But as you can see, none of those decisions provide any certainty of success or long-term planning. And it could have been expensive, as I’ve heard conflicting reports over whether there were clauses that could have been activated to replace Perez without penalty.
I generally feel that Red Bull cares far more about the drivers’ championship and keeping Verstappen happy than making a change to defend its constructors’ position, but it does feel inevitable now that McLaren will soon overtake it unless Perez’s form turns around dramatically. It could be that changes come in the winter instead if not.
THE FINAL WORD
From Robin Miller’s Mailbag, July 27, 2016
Q: A question that has not been discussed in full. Due to the rash amounts of concussions coming to the fore lately, have the helmet designers overlooked something? Were the drivers of old tougher, or did they just drive through the problem? Dario and Dale Jr. don’t give up easily, so their problems must have been tough.
Don Betsworth, Torrance, CA
ROBIN MILLER: Interesting question. I have lunch every week with Pancho Carter, Lee Kunzman, Bill Vukovich, Bubby Jones, Merle Bettenhausen and Gary Irvin, and we were trying add up all our concussions the other day. We surmised that nobody knew much about concussions, or paid much attention, back in the ’60s and ’70s, and they weren’t given a second thought. Think about all the guys who got KO’d in an Indy car but were back behind the wheel in a back-up car after a night’s sleep. Not sure it was bravado as much as it was the urgency not to miss a race.
Today’s helmet makers and car manufacturers have made amazing advances, and a driver is safer than ever before. But a vicious hit like Dario took at Houston, compiled with his other high-speed licks, put out the stop sign and although he didn’t want to quit he made a wise decision. And I guess in Earnhardt’s case it doesn’t have to be a big hit for him to be concussed. But times have certainly changed.
