Robin Miller's Mailbag for April 20, presented by Honda Racing / HPD

Welcome to the Robin Miller Mailbag as presented by Honda Racing / HPD. You can follow the Santa Clarita, California-based company at:

Your questions for Robin should continue to be sent to millersmailbag@racer.com We cannot guarantee we’ll publish all your questions and answers, but Robin will reply to you. And if you have a question about the technology side of racing, Robin will pass these on to Marshall Pruett and he will also answer here.

Simon Pagenaud's warning for crossing the blend line at Long Beach last weekend lit a fire under the Mailbag's readers this week. To keep things simple, Robin gathered all of the relevant questions together and answered them collectively.

Q: Note to IndyCar: don't show a race on the same weekend as a F1 race. They know how to put on a great show and manage indiscretions. Also, great to see the full coverage from the NBCSN team as always. A good lead into the continued BS we see year after year, race after race from race control (oxymoron).

Before the race had even started there was a reasonable discussion about the merge criteria leaving the pits. It was pretty damn clear what was expected. That is, unless you are a in Penske car. So, as we waited and waited for the penalty decision. Time wore on. My guess is that's how long it took them to go to Penske to see what should be done. "Hey, let's give Pagenaud a warning." This BS totally destroys any credibility with IndyCar. It's a great day for Penske drivers playing in The Captain's sandbox.

Grumpy Gary

Q: I'm sure this topic is front and center this week. A warning for Pagenaud. He's clearly in violation of the blend rule, and he gets a warning not to do it again. That was his last pit out anyway so essentially, no penalty. Makes you not want to watch anymore. Shame on the stewards. Boring race anyway, but great job by the announcing crew. PT was spot on and his usual colorful self.

Jeff, Florida

Q: They blew it! Clearly a violation, race control even admitted that part, and then they give what is essentially a non-penalty for what was arguably the race-winning move. And on the biggest stage outside of the Indy 500, which it appears IndyCar is working very hard to screw up. Even my girlfriend, who knows nothing about racing, was asking what a warning means when he clearly merged too soon and took the lead and win. Just a complete cock-up, 142 times worse than a regular cock-up.

Mike, Coppell TX

Q: Great no-call regarding the Pagenaud and Dixon issue. I know you are going to have lots of people complaining that Pagenaud didn't get a penalty, but I never want to see race control determine the winner. If Dixon was that much faster he would have made the pass regardless. I don't understand why IndyCar had such a vague blend line rule anyway. Why couldn't IndyCar put a cone on the track? Bolt it down and make it spring-loaded to stay standing upright. Then there is a clear-cut line and rule. What do you think?

Clayton Williams

Q: While the race was fine, the officiating leaves much to be desired. The new three-steward system was supposed to deliver consistent rulings. I guess after Long Beach, it has proven to be a failure. The steward panel can be renamed Three Blind Mice or the Three Stooges. All weekend long, it was said: Do Not Cross (Short Cut) the blend line. By doing that on his last pit stop, Pagenaud clearly gained the slight advantage that gave him the lead going into Turn 1. What happens at Barber if someone exits the pits over the blend line? If the panel penalizes that driver, then the steward panel will be seen as a complete failure. It is time to enforce rules and make them simple. Break the rule and receive a penalty, not a warning.

Frank V., Phoenix, AZ

Q: Did you ever think you would see the day you'd take Harlan Fengler back? Thanks for being old enough to understand that. (Editor's note: Fengler was the cantankerous, combative chief steward at Indy from 1958 to 1974)

Pat Ringley

Q: Here's my assessment of this nonsense: The warning/penalty options don't make sense. A warning is basically useless, which means a penalty is the only option. The penalty options, however, are silly. It is debatable whether Dixon would have maintained the lead had Pagenaud not violated the rule. Therefore the options of sending Simon to the back of the field or giving him a drive-through penalty are overly punitive. A more appropriate penalty in this case would have been to tell Simon to give the position back to Scott, and then let them fight it out. Once again, race control has made the wrong decision.

Doug Mayer, Revelstoke, B.C., Canada

Q: Once again, IndyCar officials screw up. Below is their released statement:

"Simon Pagenaud's actions during the Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach were deemed an infraction per Rule 7.10.1.1. The penalty for this infraction ranges from a warning (minimum), putting the driver to the back of the field (mid) and drive-through or stop and go/hold (maximum). INDYCAR race stewards determined his actions were not severe enough to warrant a harsher penalty than the warning that was issued."

Are you kidding? He won by cheating. He would not have been able to get ahead of Dixon if he blended properly. Castroneves also violated the blend line rule on his final exit from the pits, though no warning was issued. And let's not forget Max Chilton cutting the corner several times to gain advantage.

Instead of the three-person panel taking way too long to make an easy decision, they should replace them with Paul Tracy. He was on it right away. He has the b$%#@ to make the call and would kick your butt if you wanted to fight about it. Now with the dome skids controversy, I feel it might be another bad year officiating in IndyCar.

Joe Mullins

Q: I just finished watching the race at Long Beach, and I must say it was one of the least inspiring I have watched in a long time. The only significant actions on the track were two moves by Simon Pagenaud. The first a dive bomb on Dixon early in the race, and the second an early exit of the pit lane to cut off Dixon and eventually give him the win. Is TGBB still running race control? It appears so, as that was the most blatantly wrong call I have seen in a long time. Does IndyCar have rules or not?

If Pagenaud had not short-cut the pit lane, he would have been out behind Dixon on cold tires. Even if he had come back and won, at least there would have been some action. So Race Control was right and wrong. The call was that Simon did cross the yellow line early, right. The penalty, wrong. Really? A warning, after the last pit stop of the day?

"Tut, tut, you better remember next year to not cut across that line." Meanwhile, congratulations on your undeserved win."

Keith, Maple Ridge, BC

Q: I thought Formula 1 stewards in years past were beyond stupid, but IndyCar stewards iced the cake. It is just unbelievable that anyone, [let alone] a whole committee of rule-makers and judges, would render a warning as an option for the clear violation of a rule that merited a severe penalty. Obviously, the options need to deleted. Here is the rule, if found guilty this is the punishment, no exceptions, no warning - one defined punishment. Simple. Perhaps way too simple for IndyCar officials. You are going to create a backlash and destroy the series with such ignorance.

Thomas Grimes, Waco, TX

Q: Give me a break here, lets put all the politics and hatred for IndyCar management aside. Did Pagenaud really gain a competitive advantage by cutting the yellow line by three inches that altered the outcome of the race? Hell no, it's three inches and not a big deal. Dixon had 80 something other laps to execute a pass. Way too much whining by Dixon, Hull and the Ganassi group. Get over it, move on the Alabama. Frankly, they look like a bunch of babies crying over a dropped piece of candy. This coming from a non-Pagenaud fan.

Shannon Schmidt, Salt Lake City

Q: OK, they have proven early that they have no desire to enforce the so-called rules. At the very minimum, throw the yellow, move Simon behind Scott, bunch 'em and race, damnit! I guess Chilton could drive his own designed track layout and Simon could use whatever exit (even though slightest advantage but it did work). Can Honda show up at Indy and Barber with an extra 100hp since I want to see races worth my ticket price?

Skip Ranfone

Q: Max gets a warning, Simon gets a warning – what is this, kindergarten or little league? Like you said in your video race control has lost everyone for the year and we got 13 more races to go (well maybe 13 Boston isn't a done deal yet...). Wimps.

Jake Murray

Andrew H., Chicago

Q: As another IndyCar season starts to ramp up, I find myself questioning the integrity of the league. First, why does it feel like those who should have the highest levels of integrity are feeling pressure to do whatever it takes to ensure that certain teams are rewarded for their efforts? It seems that the officials are at liberty to create rules as they see fit. Not only are rules created on the fly, but rules are not enforced. Why does the league have a rulebook and an officiating body if the rules are changed or "special" drivers are not given penalties?

Colette Fults

ROBIN MILLER: Some honest appraisals and fair questions above, so I'll try to give an all-encompassing answer.

First off, it's logical to give a warning to anyone running in 12th place and not being challenged for position while exiting the pits. But this was for the win, and that tiny amount of time saved by Pagenaud turning in early likely made the difference. It shouldn't be an emotional decision (it's black or white) but I agree with many of you that said don't ruin the race – just move Dixon ahead and don't take a great drive away from Pagenaud with a mid-field or back-of-the-field penalty.

IndyCar's Jay Frye said Monday they couldn't do that because there wasn't a provision, but I know for a fact it's something that was available to the stewards last year before the rules were rewritten. And with a lot more P2P left, Simon still might have been able to run Dixie down.

As Paul Tracy correctly pointed out on NBCSN's telecast, Brian Barnhart doesn't have a vote – he runs the race, so don't blame him. And it wasn't a unanimous vote, because one of the stewards told Dixon he wanted to drop the hammer on Pagenaud. The obvious problem is, what happens when Dixon blends in front of Power on the last pit stop exiting the pits and going into Turn 1 this week at Barber? IndyCar has to issue a warning or it's going to be anarchy, because it established a precedent last Sunday.

But the real problem for race control is that its trust and respect factor were severely damaged at Long Beach. Three races in and the paddock is already torn between cussing and laughing (or both) at race control.

"What happened to that 'transparency' that IndyCar promised for 2016?" asked one veteran afterward. "That was the easiest call they'll ever get and they choked on it," said another. But don't hate Pagenaud – he simply did everything possible to win and got away with it. For the fans that want Tracy to become chief steward, as his agent I forbid it because IndyCar couldn't pay him enough. And, yes, we all know officiating is a tough job but IndyCar made a lot more difficult than it had to be last Sunday afternoon. And let me issue this warning: it's going to get a lot tougher.

 

Q: I think I can speak for many fans (and, judging by the post-race comments, many drivers as well), that the racing product in 2016 through the first three races has been dreadful. IndyCar and its loyalists for years have always been able to crow about how good their on-track product was, even when much of the rest of the sport was struggling. But in 2016 – and through a good portion of 2015 – these races have been dull, boring and predictable. The fastest cars can't even pass the slowest cars in the field. And there aren't enough cars in the field period to bring traffic into play. It's not "soooo competitive" as the IndyCar company-liners like to pretend it is. When two teams win every pole, lead every lap and win every race, that's not "competitive." That's Formula 1. And if wanted to watch F1, I'd get up a 7:00 a.m. and see which one of the Mercedes is going to win this week. IndyCar better fix its on-track product because they don't have much else to fall back on. There is only so much milk they can squeeze out of the 100th Indy 500. And then what?

Drew, Gale, IN

RM: Not sure how old you are Drew, but I'm guessing a lot younger than me. I say this because I worked on IndyCar pit crews and covered races when guys won by two laps or took the pole by a full second. I'll grant you that with spec cars the competition should be close and there hasn't been anything memorable about the first three races of 2016. But I've been to Long Beach when Mario or Little Al nearly lapped the field, and last Sunday Pagenaud beat Dixon in the closest finish ever (0.303s) and there weren't any cautions to bunch up the field. I understand there also weren't any bold passes on track for the lead other than the last one when Pagenaud exited the pits ahead of Dixon.

Every race can't be Indy or Fontana, but I fear today's fans have become so accustomed to the great racing we've seen the past four years that anything short of that is viewed as bad or boring. You are correct that IndyCar needs to make adjustments before going back to Phoenix, and we're all hoping Indianapolis offers what it has the past four Mays. And no doubt it's a Penske/Ganassi show so far, but let's just look back to 2015 when Josef Newgarden, Graham Rahal and Sebastian Bourdais won as many races as Team Penske (two) and only one less than Ganassi despite much smaller budgets. There were nine different winners in 2015, 11 in 2014 and 10 in 2013 but sooner or later the most experienced and best-funded teams are going to do some dominating. Especially if the engine war is one-sided.

Q: Can we make a quick clarification to the 2016 pecking order? Because the problem isn't Chevy beating Honda. The problem is Penske and Ganassi vs. the rest of the field. Right now, the top five in points are Penske or Ganassi cars. So when we're talking Chevy vs Honda, what we're really saying is Penske/Ganassi vs the rest of the field.

How to fix it? Well, really the only way of helping the balance is for Honda to dangle a really fat carrot in front of Chip to get him to switch back. I have no doubt that with the Ganassi juggernaut in its court, Honda would be battling for wins in half a season: after all, the Target cars have absolutely dominated IndyCar since reunification (six championships since 2008). Whether or not that will actually happen is an entirely different conversation, but if IndyCar really wants to stop the rot, they need to break up that Penske/Ganassi/Chevy triumvirate.

Since Roger has a financial stake in the Chevy deal, it has to be Ganassi that switches. That doesn't exactly stop those two teams from kicking all the ass, but it does at least give Honda a big advantage when it comes to fighting Chevy, and would certainly give the media better headlines. Besides, if Ganassi's brain trust can figure out the Honda program, then you can be sure the other teams would improve. Hell, just look at how much better Honda got after Justin Wilson did a couple races in a slapped-together partial Andretti program.

Also, holy crap where did Simon Pagenaud come from? Two seconds and a win? Talk about a program that's found its mojo. I'm ecstatic he's doing so well, but holy cow, if that's not the biggest surprise of the season so far, I don't know what is.

Dave Zipf, Lexington, KY

RM: As long as he's running Chevys in NASCAR, why would Chip go back to Honda? And, while his team certainly would be a boost, why would he consider leaving the dominant IndyCar engine? Plus, he's not going to get the big money he did when bailing on Honda for Toyota in CART. But check the answer right above yours because it hasn't been a rout the past couple years. As for Pagenaud, he's always been damn good but just didn't get any results. I picked him to win the title in 2015 (oops) and in 2016 because he's fast, smart and driving for The Captain.

Q: I read Marshall Pruett's article about

Andretti's results at Long Beach

. What do you think Andretti needs to do to be a successful team again? I hate to say it, but I think they need to evaluate their driver situation. RHR, I think, is solid person to have, but I think Alexander Rossi needs a little more time behind the wheel (he likely will not be there next year if F1 or something else comes knocking). Carlos Munoz is not very consistent, and his one and only win was more down to strategy. Not sure, he brings anything to the development table. Perhaps a seasoned development driver would be better in that seat. Although I really like Marco, I think he should find another function on the team and maybe just run ovals. I think they would be better off having Mike Conway on the road and streets to help in development and fight for wins. I would really like to see Andretti bring the fight to Chip and Penske;  I guess we will see. Hopefully they will be strong at Indy. I think if they do well, the other Honda teams will become more competitive, it was sad to see only two Hondas in the top 10 at Long Beach.

Paul, Erie, PA

RM: RHR is always in the hunt (except last weekend) on any track, Marco is always up front on ovals and Munoz certainly has shown the speed but not the consistency. If Honda makes some strides by May, the team can be right in the mix because they have a lot of talented people. But I don't think they've got the resources or chemistry of Penske and Ganassi. Nor the horsepower.

Q: I thought IndyCar took away the technology that let all teams know how many push-to-pass each team had left. The NBC booth sure knew how many each team had left? Also I couldn't agree more with the drivers on needing more laps and needing to lose the saving fuel races – boring. I'll see you in Indy for my 25th this year!

Steve F. Kansas City, MO

RM: That's right, television knows so we can keep the viewers informed but the teams don't know, which is the way it should be.

Q: I am surprised that the race distance for IndyCars at Long Beach was only 80 laps, accounting to a race distance of only 157-odd miles. I believe the races in prior years were 102 laps for a race distance of 200 miles, which I thought was a standard IndyCar street/road course distance. What gives? I am now suspecting conspiracy about someone trying to give less for the same money. Is this in some way a shortcut or cost cutting?

I feel like IndyCar pulled a fast one on the fans just when no one suspected that have us a lesser product (in terms of shorter race). A few drivers mentioned that the race felt too short. Also, Graham Rahal said after the race that something has to be done to add more downforce through the underbody and that no one is able to pass with the way the downforce is run on top, and sure enough there was limited amount of passing and if any passing was done it was done in the pits. Why this lack of listening from IndyCar? Drivers have been spot on at every track with their impressions of how the racing will be, based on the aero package and downforce levels, and IndyCar doesn't seem to want to pay attention.

Shyam Cherupalla

RM: From Brian Barnhart:

"The race distance is determined by input from the promoter, the television partner and its window and IndyCar. Ultimately, it falls on IndyCar and its engineering department with the goal being to avoid a 'fuel mileage' type of race. Long Beach was shortened three years ago by five laps and, based on what we saw Sunday, it will need to be revisited again. It's our goal to avoid fuel conservation-type of racing so we will re-evaluate before returning in 2017."

But as for your conspiracy theory, what benefit would IndyCar, Long Beach or NBCSN get from a shorter race? NBCSN had to fill more than 30 minutes last Sunday because it was over so quickly, and LBGP wants to sell as much beer as possible. And I think Bill Pappas will listen to the drivers about aero concerns, but it's not going to happen overnight.

 

Q: After all the hype and optimism for 2016 (based on an amazing 2015 season), the series is struggling to build any momentum at the start of the '16. Sure the races are mostly clean, and fast, and fit in a nice TV window. But we are expecting more this year. Champ Car had an anti-fuel mileage/conservation strategy provision – let's get that implemented in IndyCar. Run fast, all out, every lap. Enforce the rules, no gray areas, no warnings. Are the stewards afraid to PO the Captain or the Chipster? Chip took the high ground on TV, and I give him a ton of credit for it. I guess the bottom line is, I don't want to see the series relapse and squander the potential this season still has. Scrap the aero kits if necessary. Give the drivers what they want and let them race.

Mike G., Avon, IN

RM: I remember Champ Car going with mandatory pit windows to try and force what you are suggesting but it ended up being a little too contrived and easy to predict. And you can't control yellows, which invariably decide many shows, but because there weren't any at Long Beach; it became more about "saving fuel" – the two worst words in motorsports. I think we've been spoiled by the Spec Monster the past few years, but it's certainly not uncommon in IndyCar's history to see domination (Target/Ganassi won 10 of 19 in 1998 (ABOVE), Team Penske won 12 of 16 races in 1994 and A.J. swept 10 of 13 in 1964). The fact Chevy seems to have the upper hand again and the two most successful teams in the series would be the formula for things not changing anytime soon. But I think the aero kits will be gone by 2017 – just hope the fans stick around.

Q: I've traded email with you in the past. I'm set on coming to the 100th Indy 500 and are looking for a traditional entry list, but can't find one. Do you have one, and do you have any insight as to whom else might sign on? Does the engine contracts limit the number of cars in anyway?

Rob Weitzel, Reston, Va.

RM: It's still a work in progress but I can predict that Gabby Chaves, Katherine Legge, Buddy Lazier, Oriol Servia, Jack Harvey, Stefan Wilson, Sebastian Saavedra and James Davison are all trying to find a deal. There will be 33 cars and possibly 35, according to IndyCar, but Honda and Chevy each agreed to supply 18 engines for May.

Q: While I still have enjoyed the season so far, I am becoming a bit concerned about the lack of passing. If IndyCar is going to have under-horsepowered cars with bumpers, at least entertain the heck out of us. Like 2012 thru 2015. Having said that, I wish the drivers would stop telling us how boring the racing is in their interviews. I appreciate the honesty but, if I am a new fan or a potential sponsor and I see/hear that. It's not a good way to sell the product.

Jeff Loveland, Chilton, Wisconsin

RM: The best possible thing for a driver to say is that it looks like passing is going to be challenging, but we say that all the time and still find ways to do it.

Q: Is there any hope for Barber to be any good? Long Beach was not good at all (at least on TV). If the answer is no, I say we totally invert the field and do not tell the drivers what we are doing until right before they roll off. At least the first half of the race will be worth watching!

Short Track Rat

RM: I hope so. Heck, the first time we saw Barber we cringed because it's a narrow, winding, motorcycle track and everyone figured it would be a parade for IndyCar but it's turned out to be damn entertaining and racy the past couple years. Let's be cautiously optimistic that trend continues.

Q: Since it seems highly likely that the specific aero kits are an endangered species, what is the likelihood that the series will specify some sort of hybrid kit based on the current models rather than returning to those unfortunate looking original Dallara panels? I wouldn't mind returning to spec bodywork (especially since they've mostly converged anyway) if it helps put the competitors on a more equal footing again. See, not all emails this week are about the non-penalty penalty.

Steve C., Ithaca, NY

RM: I would imagine IndyCar takes the cheapest option to the teams and that would seem to be reverting to the 2014 models. But I believe the aero kits will be long gone by next year.

 

Q: Well three races in and I think the season is off to a good start (B-). We have to stop all the knee-jerk reactions to everything that's happened so far this year, which is less than ideal for a discussion point. Honda is off the pace, so what? We are only three races in and who's to say they aren't taking it on the chin for the first part of the season so they can surprise Chevy with the latest "evolution" to their power plant when it matters most – Indy? Long Beach was too short, caused fuel saving ... hello, it was the fastest race in 42 years. No yellow at Long Beach? May be another 20 years before that happens again. That said, if we make the race longer and have cautions like normal does that mean we all are OK with a timed finish in the future?

Sean, Vancouver, BC

RM: Honda contends it's been pointing towards Indianapolis and that strategy worked in 2012 when Chevy dominated qualifying only to have Dario and Dixon run 1-2 (ABOVE) in the race, although Marco led the most laps and was quite stout in his Chevy before his accident. BTW, it was the fourth time that Long Beach has run without a caution.

Q: What are the rules regarding in-season testing and development? There has been a lot of criticism of Honda for wanting exceptions to the rules. The critics say if we want competition then we should expect one manufacturer to do a better job and have an advantage. ..as we are seeing with Chevy the past two seasons. However, if the rules are very restrictive or prohibit in-season development on the aero kit or the engine then that seems to be a problem. How can I try to beat my competitor if I'm not allowed to improve my performance? Not just during the pre-season but during the season when I have actual results to base my improvements on?

Bill, St. Pete, FL

RM: There are set number of open tests for everyone and a couple of tire tests for selected teams. And, yes, the rules are very restrictive so what most of the teams are lobbying for is the chance to build their own parts to save money and also use their creativity in certain areas.

Q: Had a question about Pocono. Since it's a large place and will only have about 22 cars, has anyone thought about having Indy Lights race alongside? IMSA seems to make it work on rovals. It would add to the race, and give the kids in Lights experience in the longer oval races when they "graduate." My biggest concern with that idea is how much slower are the Lights cars compared to the DW12?

Dan in KCMO

RM: It sounds intriguing but the closing rates would be frightening (kinda like the 1981 Pocono when USAC dirt cars raced with the Indy cars) and I think the Lights' race at IMS (Freedom 100) is enough excitement for their budgets. And hearts.

Q: Here I go again.... I have gone back to the early '90s to when I started following races and going to Portland to break down the engines and the true manufacturer of those engines, and want input and corrections from you. So, back in the CART heyday we had Honda, Ford, Toyota, and Mercedes. Honda was built by Honda (HPD), Toyota was built by Toyota (TRD), Ford was built by Cosworth, and Mercedes was built by Ilmor. Then, when Honda moved to the IRL and became the sole engine supplier it was built by Ilmor for three of four years before Honda started building its own again, correct?

Now, we have Honda and Chevy. Again, Honda is built by Honda (HPD) and Chevy is built by Ilmor, not Chevy. I wanted this breakdown because I think it says a lot when a company can build their own engines and not rely on a contractor. I also wanted this breakdown because the casual fan thinks that when a Chevy wins a race it is actually built by Chevy, which is not true at all. Having said all this, do you think some of Honda's issues (engine only) stem from relying on Ilmor for those years? Being such a huge Honda fan I am still struggling with their plight and am truly dumbfounded. What the hell is going on? Screw the aero side, we all know that side of the coin. But, what happened to the days when they were so dominant when the competition was so much better and more fierce? Is it a leadership issue at HPD's IndyCar program? I don't think Robert Clarke would be allowing this.

Josh R., Salem, OR

RM: You are very observant, Josh. Ilmor always has been a formidable force in motorsports and the fact Roger Penske aligned with and bought into the company is more than enough proof. Honda Performance Development turned out to be quick learners when it joined CART – going from doormats to dominating in two years with four consecutive championships. Tom Elliott and Robert Clarke were the driving force and, as you noted, both are gone and many of the Honda teams think losing Roger Griffiths two years ago really hurt them. Honda is a proud organization but rights now it's playing catch-up with new people and competing against one of the most experienced players in Ilmor, which only has to concentrate on engines. Can it turn around by next month like it did in 2012? Honda drivers are hoping so, and HPD says its focus is on Indianapolis.

 

Matt Wiser, Auberry, CA

RM: I know Danica didn't care for Milka but I wasn't aware of any feud with Sarah and I'm not sure about Japan. Pete Brock was at Dan's party and he's an original Cannonballer so there were a few stories. But mostly it was admiring the refurbished 1967 Eagle and listening to The Big Eagle talk about the good old days. A great afternoon.

Q: So a half dozen of us long-time attendees were strolling though the IndyCar paddock on Friday, and in tow was the six year old son of one of our attendees who himself started coming to Long Beach at about the same age with his Dad. Coming the other way was Chip Ganassi, heavily involved in a conversation with the person he was with, but when stopped and told that this was the six-year-old's first race, and a brief intro, Mr. Ganassi was nice enough to shake hands, introduce himself, spend maybe only 15-30 seconds with the new race fan. But what an impression he made on not only the kid, but the rest of us. I should note that Chip also spent a few minutes talking with us as we strolled through the garage area a year or so ago, being friendly, but also gathering info (where were we from, why did we come here, etc.) All in all, nice to see someone who is actually fan-friendly.

Dennis Goughary, Irvine, Ca.

RM: I'm worried about Ganassi. He wasn't ranting and raving after Sunday's decision and almost appeared docile (like Jack Nicholson in Cuckoo's Nest following the lobotomy) so I fear that he hit his head in last year's bicycle accident and that turned him into a nice guy. Now your story confirms it. But, seriously, I've seen Chip interact with fans (especially young ones) and I think he knows that's important.

Q: I did some thinking about the Long Beach layout. Is it possible to extend the run to Turn 11? Turns 10 and 11 are on top of each other, really making 11 a dive-bomb-only corner. The leading car can effectively stack, compromising entry speed in favor of exit speed and ensuring he will be extremely difficult to pass going into Turn 1. If the leading driver had to at least contend with a potential overtaking move on entry into the hairpin, a trailing driver could sacrifice entry speed for exit speed. If the leading driver doesn't focus on exit speed, you may actually have better racing into Turn 1. Otherwise there are just too many 90-degree turns with not enough run-up. I mean not all drivers can be like Chilton and just re-design the course on the fly.

Ryan Terpstra

P.S. So what happened from P8 on back at the end of the race with those on 3 stop strategies? Did the drivers who pit with 31 to go have to stop? Did any of them run out? What happened? Sorry the race up front wasn't much of a race. It wasn't worth ignoring the conclusion to the pit stop strategy that the broadcast focused on so much early in the race.

RM: With all the construction in downtown Long Beach during the past decade, the track has suffered from its original, badass layout and it's not nearly as racy. But I imagine Jim Michaelian & Co would look at anything and everything to get more passing opportunities so I sent him your suggestions. As for your p.s., I know Graham Rahal ran out on the last lap but I think the post-race drama with Pagenaud and Dixon over-shadowed just about anything behind them.

Q: I was reading your piece on Dan's birthday and I saw several pictures with no captions. There were a couple of shots of an engine with "Gurney Eagle" valve covers. The exhaust was in the center. What is that engine? Do you have any history on it?

Dave Thurston

RM: From John Zimmerman, author of Dan Gurney's Eagle racing cars. "The 1967 Eagle that Justin Gurney restored and rolled out last week at Dan's 85th birthday party was one of the Gurney/Weslake pushrod Ford V8s with the suitable valve cover."

Jerry Joseph

RM: No and I never thought it would return after the grandstands were sold off a few years ago. But thanks for the update.

Vince, Akron, Ohio

RM: There is no doubt that R.P. beat USAC to death with its own rulebook in 1994, but that Mercedes horsepower camouflaged the impotence of the Penske chassis. And, when it became obvious they needed help in 1995, R.P. bought Lolas and Reynards and called Fittipaldi off a run on Saturday that would have made the race. But Little Al and Emmo missing the show had nothing to do with politics or cheating – a staple of Mays gone by.

John Fulton

RM: The Captain is fine but I would have liked to see Parnelli driving with Mario riding shotgun and the Unsers in the back seat.

Mark Gillespie

RM: You would be spot-on, Mark. I asked Dan he said the Lights were treated very well at Pocono, but that one big oval was enough and I'm not sure he knew he'd have 16 cars when the schedule had to be announced.

Q: When have price controls ever worked? Especially in racing? IndyCar is a small racing series. The pie only has about two dozen pieces to it. Go tell some manufacturer "no matter how much R&D you spend, there are only so many slices of pie to go around, and you can only charge so much money." Nonsense. Will never work. IndyCar is cheap compared to NASCAR, F1 and Le Mans. The problem with IndyCar is not the price to enter, it's the ability to get sponsors. Everyone is thinking the solution is to make it cheaper. Nonsense! Now you're chasing a downward spiral. The solution is to market the series in a way to get the sponsors over. The racing is fantastic. The problem is not the product nor its cost of entry.

Bill Jurasz

RM: Yes and no, Bill. It is cheaper than those other big dogs, but it's still too expensive to attract new owners or even keep the ones we've got because of what you said about sponsors. It's a vicious cycle: there is no incentive for a new owner because he can't get in the Leader's Circle, and finding a title sponsor that can carry a season is difficult because of the TV numbers (compared to NASCAR) and the amount a team can ask for. Look at the Rahal/Letterman/Lanigan car of Graham Rahal and count all the sponsors – that's what it takes because few companies are doing deals like Target, Verizon, ABC Supply, DHL and Novo Nordisk anymore. And the purses aren't nearly enough to attract a part-timer – even for Indy. I asked Richard Childress why he wouldn't field a car in May and he said, why would I spend $1 million to run for $200,000? Hard to argue with him, and until the economics (and prices) of the series turn around, we're going to struggle to field more than 21-22 cars and get 33 for Indianapolis.

Q: I know you share Jackie Stewart's opinion that Ayrton Senna (ABOVE) crashed too much to be one of your favorite drivers. Try to set that aside for the following question: I saw a poster this weekend at a mall in Orlando, near those of other, living sports stars - a sign people see the heroes of open wheel racing, whether IndyCar or F1, as being in the past tense? I know there has been a lot of debate recently about Dixie's position among the all-time IndyCar greats, far beyond him getting hosed at Long Beach. It seems there's a striking disconnect between how the heroes of the past like AJ, Uncle Bobby and Mario see him (one of their rank indeed) and the fans (a good driver, maybe even the best today, but not a "hero").

I don't think it's just Dixie's self-effacing nature, either - Jimmy Clark was quiet but still a giant on both sides of the Atlantic, among the fans as well as his competitors. There's a difference between a star and a hero. Lewis Hamilton probably has the biggest social media presence of any driver around the world, so he's a star. Dale Jr.'s probably the most famous driver in the U.S. - absolutely a star but, as he'd be the first to admit, not a hero like his dad. Can we get that sense of heroism back? And if so, how? Because I think that's the only way for either IndyCar or F1 overcome their current doldrums (to put it mildly).

Larry Parker, Winter Haven, FL

RM: I said I didn't like Senna crashing into Prost to take the title, but I didn't label him as a crasher and he's certainly one of the greatest drivers ever. As to your question, A.J., Parnelli, Mario, Gurney, Rutherford, Leonard and the Unsers became heroes because they drove everything and won in everything in the most deadly era of motorsports. Ditto for Clark and Jackie Stewart. They are still heroes today, and much bigger names than Dixie or Helio or T.K. because of the era, the risk, the popularity of racing and the coverage. I don't know how to return racers to heroes like those guys because I'm not sure it can be done.

Q: Mr. Miller, in regards to a possible new/updated car in 2018, would it not make sense to just come out with a DW12.1? The reason I ask is, with car count always an issue, the Penskes, Ganassis, and Andrettis of the world will want the 12.1, while some of the lower-funded teams could buy DW12 parts from those teams or Dallara themselves. I could be missing something, but this in theory should make it cheaper to race for some teams while increasing car count at places like Indy.

Kyle "FL" Good

RM: That would be a great idea and one that needs to be embraced some day if we're ever going to have 40 or 45 cars again. But right now the engine manufacturers pretty much control the car count (each has committed to a max of 18 cars next month), so until that's loosened up I don't think it matters if we have "used cars" available.

Q: Longtime reader of RACER and the Mailbag, but first time writer. I've timed this poorly as you're bound to be inundated with Long Beach thoughts for the next Mailbag, but hopefully this can make the cut. I wanted to get your thoughts on the points system. As a fan and follower of F1 and IndyCar for the vast majority of my life, I have seen an array of different point systems throughout the years (and read about even more).

My main problem with the current "everyone gets points just for turning up and we'll randomly assign double points whenever we feel like it" system is that I have just never bothered to understand it. I never understood why finishing (or not as the case might be) in 20th place was worth any points. My favourite points system was the old CART system of the 90's – partly because it's the system that was in place during my favourite era of IndyCar, and partly because it just works.

I decided to rescore the Championship post-unification and see what impact a "better" system would have had. As you'd imagine, the Champion in most years would have been the same. 2008 – Dixon; 2009/10/11 – Dario; but then in 2012 Power claimed the title by two points; 2013 stayed with Dixon, and 2014 with Power. But 2015 was the real surprise for me and the point of my Mailbag submission – Montoya scored 140; Dixon 142 but Graham Rahal scored a massive 150! So you heard it here first; Rahal is the rightful 2015 champion! Honda's problems don't look half as bad and no-one can complain about double points. All is right with the world! What are your thoughts on points systems in general; and is there any traction for getting a better system in place for 2017?

Andrew, Nottingham, England

RM: First off, thanks for reading and writing and anointing Graham with the 2015 title. I liked the old Formula 1 system from 1991-2003 that rewarded first place and only paid off the top six– 10-6-4-3-2-1. Why should anyone get points for finishing 18th?