Robin Miller's Mailbag for May 1, presented by Honda Racing / HPD

Your questions for Robin should 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. 

This will be the last week we print any questions or rants or declarations about the possibility of Indy guaranteeing starting spots. It’s not going to happen next month, and it may never happen, and I’m not spending another minute on the subject, so please don’t waste your time writing about it. To quote Danica’s boyfriend to the Packer faithful: ‘R E L A X.” – Robin

Q: After reading last week’s Mailbag, I think people need to relax a bit about guaranteed spots. While I respectfully disagree with you on the subject, I do understand where you are coming from. If we do go to guaranteed spots in the 500 I will 100% bitch about it, but at the end of the day my butt will be in the same seat it has been in the past 22 years for qualifying. This place and this race are too important to me. Race fans just like to bitch.

As someone who became an IndyCar fan in the IRL days, I bitched about the addition of road courses to the schedule. I have since come to respect them as a different type of racing. IndyCar and the 500 have a lot of positive things going for them right now and we can’t afford to lose die-hard fans to something so trivial. Traditions have to start somewhere. For example, I cannot remember a sprint car without a roll cage – to me that is normal. With enough time, all new things become normal. Fans can feel free to bitch, but they need to keep coming to the Speedway. Bring their kids and grandkids, buy them garage passes and get them engaged in the sport. Then, when they are hooked, feel free to educate them about the “good old days.”

Michael, Hartford City, IN

RM: There’s nothing wrong with a healthy debate about the pros and cons of guaranteeing spots for the Indianapolis 500, and it’s obviously been a hot topic for The Mailbag. But to your point, is whatever happens in qualifying going to ruin the race? I would hope not.

Q: I’m a traditionalist as far as the Indy 500 goes, but I think it is time for a change. I’m probably in the minority here, but I’m in favor of guaranteed spots for the full-timers. I never thought I would say that, but its time has unfortunately come. IndyCar desperately needs big-time, full-season sponsors, and it isn’t good business to penalize them for coming up short one or two days because of equipment failure or something. Thank goodness Arrow didn’t bail when Hinchcliffe didn’t make it. The sport can’t afford to have a full time rider/sponsor miss the biggest race of the year. That is the reality of racing in 2019.

Tom, San Diego

RM: The early onslaught of letters were mostly anti-guarantee, but the past few days it’s really evened out because I think people like yourself have looked at the big picture. Car owners aren’t making money in IndyCar, and we’re damn lucky to have 10 full-time teams with Mike Shank waiting in the wings and Ricardo Juncos trying to make it happen. The Indy purse hasn’t gone up in a decade and the Leader’s Circle has actually gone down, so what exactly is the incentive to run full-time? I’m not sure, but guaranteeing a spot for the 22 full-timers is about good business and taking care of the people who support this series.

Q: Et tu, Brute? The only reason we are now discussing the return of the 25/8 rule is because of the influx of talented teams and drivers with sponsors into IndyCar, many by way of the Indy 500. Just as NASCAR hated it when Mario, A.J., and Gurney used to get quality rides and school the regulars on their own playground, Roger, Chip, and Michael are afraid guys like Alonso will push one of their cars out. With all of the advantages they already have over a one-off effort, it is laughable that they are also demanding guaranteed starting spots for the one race per season in which they actually have to qualify. Babies! We have already gone down this path. More cars, drivers, and sponsors at Indy is a great thing. Bumping is good. International interest is good. Stories of giving it all for that one shot at Indy are good. Don’t take my word for it, read everything you wrote for the last 25 years.

PS: Hinch missing last year was a bigger story than Power winning.

John Masden, Georgetown, IN

RM: You may be discussing the 25/8 rule, but as I’ve tried to explain the past two weeks, guaranteeing 22 spots to full-time entrants is completely different. The 25/8 hammer was supposed to knock out CART, but as we know, it didn’t, and open-wheel was torn apart. As for the babies, if it wasn’t for Andretti, Penske, RLL, SPM, ECU, Carlin and Coyne running extra cars next month, there wouldn’t be close to enough cars to have bumping. Then you wouldn’t have anything to bitch about.

Q: I am disappointed at the disrespectful tone which many of the email contributors adopted when voicing their opinions about guaranteed starting positions for established IndyCar teams for the Indy 500. Robin, no one has shown more integrity and loyalty to IndyCar over the years than you have. To voice a counter opinion is fine and expected. To impugn your motives and dedication to what is best for the future of IndyCar is out of line, for none have shown more commitment to the series than you have. I was truly saddened to read some of the accusatory slurs hurled your way. So keep up the good work, Robin, and don't let the bastards get you down.

Randall, Citrus Heights

RM: Thanks for the kind words. It’s always amusing to have some “experts” tell me what I wrote or what I think or how I’ve flip-flopped. Really? I lost my newspaper job, radio show and TV gig because I dared to point out in 1996 that May was being ruined and Indy’s credibility and popularity would suffer, which of course it did, big-time. Tony and I worked together on the merger story in 2008 and he put things back together, so today there is some real optimism between car count and Jay Frye’s five-year plan. If Mark Miles and Frye decide to guarantee spots for full-timers, it’s not anything more than good business in my mind. This isn’t a war, it’s about survival.

Does it matter if the Indy 500 has 33, 34, or 35 entries? Image by Abbott/LAT

Q: Nothing about the current qualification procedure is "traditional," so fans should be open to any changes to keeping the series alive and help it grow. Oval racing is still better.

Jim Osborn, Fishers

RM: Amen, Jim. That’s what is so comical about all the outrage, because “tradition” won’t be honored if spots are guaranteed. We’ve gone from four days to one, three attempts to as many as you can muster and a few years ago you just needed a car and four laps and you were in. The only tradition we have left is 11 rows of three.

Q: I have written a couple of times in the past, but mostly I try to remain above the fray. However, this time I felt a comment was in order. I have attended 43 Indy 500s. I am 71 years old, a card-carrying traditionalist, and somewhat resistant to change. Having said that, I am not so blind that I have not noticed that over the last 25 years, almost every tradition with respect to practice and qualifying for the big race has, often out of necessity, been modified. Yet on Sunday, we are still privileged to experience an awesome spectacle. Now, for the first time in years, we actually have enough entrants that real bumping might actually take place.

Considering the paucity of the prize money for this event and the loyalty (or, if you don’t like that word, the reliability) of 22 or 23 teams to give us something exciting to watch on 16 or 17 other occasions, I think now is the time to reward those reliable owners and teams with guaranteed spots in the big show. There are still 10 or 11 spots to be contested by 13 or 14 drivers and I can virtually guarantee that this will be more exciting than bump day for the last 10 years. I’ll be there. I offer my hope that we will quit bitching and enjoy the show.

Jim in Phoenix

RM: Very well stated, Jim. The last real Indy as we knew was in 1995, when Team Penske had four days and three different chassis and still couldn’t make the show. Now we’re down to one day, and all it takes is a fluke to knock out one of your stars. Is that what Indy needs? We’re trying to get people to watch and make some new heroes.

Q: These are more observations than questions. Concerning the guaranteed spots at Indy, I think a good compromise would be to grant full-time teams a starting spot, but also allow any one-off a place in the race if they go faster than the slowest full-time team. That way, the one-off cars would not be penalized for not running the entire season, and it would put a little unwanted notoriety on the full-time teams for not being one of “the” 33. You could maybe set a minimum qualifying time of 107% of the fast time to be eligible as well. Also, there is a great deal for the Indy Grand Prix that is not heavily advertised. If you participate in either the Mini Marathon or the associated 5K, you can get a reduced price on two tickets in Grandstand J for the Grand Prix, which are really good seats for that event.

Mike Connor, Greensburg, IN

RM: That’s an interesting suggestion, but who is to say that IMS might simply add a clause for provisional starters (former winners or champions) and not guarantee anything? But I like your ticket suggestion for the road race. God knows there’s plenty of seats available.

Q: I saw lots of emails in the Mailbag last week about guaranteed starting spots for the 500.  I understand wanting to protect your team's interest and sponsors, but I don’t think participation in the series for a full season should automatically entitle you to a start at the 500. Even if it did, then where is the line drawn? If Andretti adds an Indy-only effort, then is that car entitled to a start because of the team’s overall full-time status? The majority of people seem to think this falls back to the 25/8 rule and goes in the face of tradition, and I’m inclined to agree.

Instead of guaranteeing (gifting) a spot to the team based on entry status, what if non-bumpable starting spots are earned by a driver/car performance metric based on the results in other races? Say from the start and finish dates from 500 to 500. If within the last year, you have a pole at any other IndyCar circuit, or a finish on the podium – you get a guaranteed starting spot. To open it up a little more, if that is not enough, then maybe expand the selection to include the top 10 in points. It seems better than just giving the spots away, and should alleviate owners’ fears of getting excluded from the race due to any issues that happen during the modern shortened qualifying format.

Alan Stamper

RM: Nothing has been drawn up or discussed, it’s simply a suggestion from some car owners that may or may not ever come to fruition some day. But the talk has been full-timers, not a fifth car at Indy like Michael is running, just the 22 drivers and cars that comprise the regular season.

Bumping or no bumping, you can always rely on Ed Carpenter to spice things up in Indy 500 qualifying. Image by Levitt/LAT

Q: Longtime IndyCar fan and 500 attendee. Well, after reading all the posts on guaranteed spots, I guess I better re-evaluate my take on the state of IndyCar racing. I clearly am in the minority. Are these other “fans” nuts, given the state of IndyCar and all other forms of racing with the national media, TV ratings, lack of sponsorship, low attendance numbers, etc? Anybody who shows up with a car and can meet a minimum speed should make the 500. All the other races, too. Indy 500 tradition died many years ago, and who cares? Maybe someday, IndyCar will get back to what it once was, but as you say, doubt it. Everyday is a new day – the old way traditions mean nothing in today’s world. Move on.

Patrick W., Indiana

RM: I suggested starting all 34 or 35 cars for a couple of Mays because it’s a struggle to find sponsors and put programs together, and it’s not like we haven’t started more than 33 before. Qualifying hasn’t truly meant anything since 1995, it doesn’t pay squat and nobody comes to watch, so other than Ed Carpenter taking it to the big boys, it’s not the show it used to be.

Q: Longtime Indy 500 fan, newish full-season fan and Mailbag reader ('16). First off, I am against guaranteed Indy 500 spots, but maybe a compromise is in order. I think guaranteed spots for all full-time entries goes way too far, as next season 26 full-time entries are easily possible with more possible in the future (good problem to have!). I originally thought maybe locking the top 16 in owners’ points could work, but that basically just locks Penske, Ganassi, and Andretti and a few others.

Then I thought, what about the provisional rules NASCAR used? What about 30 spots based on speed and three provisionals (if necessary)? To be provisional eligible, team must be full-time the previous season, and must have a speed that is within a certain pre-determined limit. Any provisional that isn’t used would revert to qualifying speed. If more than three full-timers miss the top 30, take the top three in owner’s points. Maybe this is something owners and fans can accept, and hopefully that keeps us from chasing off one-off entries as well.

Dan, NE Indiana

RM: Some kind of provisional option would seem to be more satisfying for a lot of fans, and it could very well be part of a plan – if there is one.

Q: I propose the following regarding guaranteed Indy 500 grid spots for full-time teams: When the Leader's Circle allotments are calculated prior to each season – and before the money is given out to the teams – full-timers must choose either to take money or run a guaranteed spot in May. The series is then free to take any "open" Leaders Circle shares to give to other teams as needed, or to put into the Indy 500 purse. I justify this because the guaranteed TV exposure for sponsors is worth more than teams get in Leader's Circle funds. It also allows the full-timers to win their money back.

Rob Peterson, Rochester, NY

RM: Nobody is going to turn down $1 million (little less than that today) for a share of the paltry Indy purse (of which $200,000 is paid to Leader’s Circle teams on top of where they finish in the race), and it’s the Speedway’s job to find a big title sponsor to raise the purse to an acceptable level.

Q: Been going to the Indy 500 since I was five years old, starting in 2001. Family's been sponsoring laps and attending for generations, sometimes 150 in attendance. Reading some of the responses that fans have sent in about the 25/8 rule and bumping makes me laugh, because like you said, this isn't 1960. IndyCar is a business, and needs to be run as such. IndyCar has taken too many positive steps in the past few years to throw it away for a tradition that hasn't truly been observed for decades, and quite honestly isn't relevant to the current state of the sport.

So what if the Big 3, which at one point were all running four cars in a series that was in serious trouble, want some protection in the big show? I think they and their sponsors are entitled to that. And to the people that say the one-offs wont show up, that's hogwash. The 500 is the 500 and will always draw interest. I don't see those one-off teams lining up to run a Road America race or Mid-Ohio? IndyCar has a responsibility to take care of the teams and owners who have stuck with IndyCar during the hard years, and to make good on the investment that they have made throughout to progress the sport (Andretti and Indy Lights!).

Last year, sitting in Turn 1 at the Speedway during quals, it made my blood boil that Hinch would sit out and James Davison (for example) would be in the show, and I think we saw how that turned out in the race – sorry, Takuma. I don't know, people will think what they want to think, but in my eyes the reality of the world and the sport is that this is a business, and a high dollar business at that. Act accordingly.

Helio4four, Illinois

RM: Well said, and to your point, if we eliminate the full-time teams that are running extra cars next month then we have only three, Indy-only teams competing – Clauson/Marshall Racing, Juncos and McLaren (which is technically tied to Carlin). So IMS needs the full-timers to run extra cars so it doesn’t have to scramble to fill the field like it did a few years ago. And people don’t think those teams deserve some kind of guarantee is this economy?

Q: I can see both sides of the argument on guaranteed spots for the 500. While I’m firmly on the side of the fastest 33 should race, the health of the series overall may depend on the guaranteed spots. That being said, have they thought about requiring owners field a team in Lights in exchange for your spot on the grid? That could be a benefit to both series.

Dustin, Kansas

RM: Not sure they’ve used Indy for leverage with Lights, but they did give extra test days if you fielded a Lights car, and maybe your idea works if they toss in a little extra money.

Graham Rahal, Tim Cindric and Roger Penske are definitely talking about guaranteed spots in this photo. If you look closely, you can kind of read their lips. Image by LePage/LAT

Q: I guess it is because we are about the same age (I am 62 and a half), but my God, you have the patience of Job. All these nonsensical questions and comments about the potential for guaranteed spots. I have been attending or watching the 500 since 1968. If anybody should be arguing for traditional qualifying, it should be me. I have no idea how all these knuckleheads are unable to understand that the times have changed a tiny bit. I no longer have a transistor radio nor a party line, among other things. Thanks so much for sticking to your guns and keeping your responses professional. Not sure I could do that.

Dave from Cincinnati

RM: The Mailbag readers and writers are some of IndyCar’s most loyal and knowledgeable fans, and I’m always amazed and thankful they participate all year when the season is only seven months. But this question of guaranteed spots has sent some of them off the deep end like IndyCar is doomed if 22 spots were to be guaranteed. Screaming about qualifying tradition is simply laughable, because just check the past 25 years.

Q: All this talk about guaranteed 500 entries, I've not heard anyone mention NBC having the last word on the decision. Don't be surprised in your production meeting if they tell you to bring up the topic but no pro or con either way. I believe NBC is hoping this year an Andretti, Penske, or Ganassi team struggles to make the 33-car field so more eyeballs are watching! NBC wants this to happen, but they also want all three teams to get into the field! This year will be my 17th straight 500 visit, and no matter what IndyCar, and I believe NBC, decide for 2020 and future races, I'll be there in the first turn!

James, Campbellsville, KY

RM: The decision to ????? I know that NBC wanted all the action on Sunday so they could show everything on network, and Jay Frye was no fan of that Saturday charade where you run all day to secure your spot for real qualifying on Sunday. I think NBC and IndyCar worked together and it’s going to be a good show.

Q: I’ve spent the last week buried in work, so the first I’ve heard of potential guaranteed spots was in the Mailbag this week. I am floored at the responses. Besides the fact that Indy tradition has been trampled since I really started watching (I’m 32, so I’ve seen the long slide), being a full-season IndyCar owner is a thankless job. There’s next to nothing for a purse, it’s a constant struggle to appease and bring in sponsors, and this is one of the few races where sponsors would get an actual return on their investments.

Everyone is caught up on the Big Three, but they won’t have an issue qualifying. Think about the other teams – the SPMs, the Hardings, the Juncoses. These are the teams that fight and claw to get to the track each weekend. They need this race. We will still have bumping while protecting these teams. IndyCar fans are just not happy unless they have something to bitch about! Thanks for being a voice of reason.

Desmond, Oak Lawn, IL

RM: I’ve said for the past year I’m dazzled that we have 10 full-time owners and 22 cars (11 and 23 next year when Mike Shank hopefully goes full-time and maybe 12 and 25 if McLaren makes a move) because IndyCar is such a loser financially. NASCAR owners get big TV money and a franchise system, and F1 owners share millions from television, but I doubt any IndyCar owner comes close to breaking even. And people throw a tantrum because they want a little guarantee for their business?

Q: Robin, just a comment about a guaranteed starting spot at Indy for owners who race the whole season and those who do not. I’m torn. As we all know, for teams that race all season, and more importantly their sponsors (the ones who pay to put their wrap on the cars and pay the salaries for those involved), have a vested interests at Indianapolis. Not all the teams have a sponsor such as Arrow that will stand by their team if they miss the race.

Things are great now, but there will be a business downturn coming and depending on how severe it is, could have a negative effect on sponsorship. I’m retired and worked 41 years in sales. Business is cyclical -- believe me, I know. I love the drama and the last hour of qualifying can be thrilling, but series needs to be smart.

Mike, Cincinnati

RM: You are spot-on, Mike. Even though we have 22 full-time cars right now, it’s always a tenuous situation with sponsors and even owners. It only takes one change at the top to gut your IndyCar program.

Q: Robin, I'm a longtime fan of yours and respect your opinions and insight on the sport of IndyCar. With regards to the Indy 500, you have said "start ‘em all if it's 34 or 35 cars." My question is, where does it end? We have 36 cars showing up for this year’s 500 ­– start em all? If 38 show up next year -- start ‘em all? I think there has to be a cut-off at some point, otherwise at what point does it become too many cars on track? I believe we keep it at 33 spots for the iconic 11 rows of 3. If the full-timers really want guaranteed spots and that's where the series goes, so be it. We will all still watch the 500 as it will still be the Greatest Spectacle in Racing. And there would still be "bumping" for the one-off rides ­– at least this year. Thanks for all you do for IndyCar and the fans. See you in May!

Brad, Des Moines, IA

RM: I wrote that when there were 34 cars, and said what’s the big deal about paying another $203,000 for somebody that went to the effort to put together an Indy program? Obviously we’ve got enough cars for bumping next month, so have at it.

Check out that qualifying crowd. Image by IndyCar

Q: After reading the April 24 Mailbag, I had to respond. Do the people who complain about "tradition" and "history" even come to Indy? In 2019 I will attend my 38th Indy 500. Not too long ago (before the Split) my buddies and I would have to get to Indy on Thursday afternoon of race weekend to get a decent spot to camp. We'd have two guys pay for and mark off some spots, then the rest would get there in the evening. Nowadays, there is no hurry or frantic pace. Where are all these so-called traditionalists, because they don't seem to be coming to the race? Sure, the 100th running was packed, but the weekend is not what it used to be by any stretch. Don't complain about the Greatest Spectacle in Racing if you don't support the show.

Jackson Pell, South Bend, IN

RM: Hear, hear, Jackson, If all the complainers of the past couple weeks would show up for qualifying, IMS might get 7,500.

Q: So I just finished reading last week’s Mailbag, and I have to throw my thoughts in on guaranteed starting spots for the Indy 500. I totally understand the reasoning, and I will accept it when it happens, because it will, but I absolutely f-ing hate it, Robin. I don’t want anybody to miss out on competing in the Indy 500. I was gutted for Hinch. That was terrible. However, I want to see the fastest 33 drivers compete. I have even caught myself a few times saying, hell, there are only 34, 35, etc. drivers, just let them all in. I think I could accept that easier.

The Big 3 teams shouldn’t need any help, honestly. If they can’t get a car in with all of their resources, come on. If there are going to be guaranteed starting spots, then if you are not a full-timer, but are able to qualify faster than a guaranteed car, you are in, regardless of grid count. Tradition is dead anyway. At this point I really don’t care if there are 36 cars starting, but it isn’t what I prefer. Hinch was awesome, his personality is terrific, and it seemed like he, his team, and his sponsor still received plenty of mentions. That may not be the case going forward if another full-timer doesn’t qualify, and I totally get the risks and potential ramifications.

I just can’t embrace with any love guaranteed starts. Additionally, in our circle of fans, this has been discussed, and not a single person has liked the idea. Not one. In fact, everyone one of them has stronger negative opinions about it than I do.

Loved COTA. Screamed like a little girl. Bring back the apron.

Aaron & Mossie

RM: In the history of what we knew as Indy qualifying (four days), the only major teams to miss the show were Bobby Rahal and Team Penske. I think the owners’ concern today is that qualifying is basically one day and any kind of a freak blow-up or failure could put them on the sidelines with no chance to rebound. We all know the Big 3 isn’t going to miss the show unless it’s a fluke, and that goes for most of the full-timers. But in this day and age when we are fighting for every eyeball, why would anybody think Indy would be better off without having its big names? It’s ludicrous.

Q: After reading last week’s Mailbag, it was obvious that the topic of guaranteed spots brought a lot of emotion with it. Here is my thought on the subject. This year, the increased car count at Indy brought back feelings of Bump Days of the past, and IMS capitalized by promoting Bump Day. So to change midstream by allowing full-time teams guaranteed spots would be going back on your promise of Bump Day. You can’t promote the excitement of Bump Day where anybody could be bumped with past stories of Penske, Rahal, and Hinchcliffe missing the show, then only have those non full-timers fighting it out to make the 33. I understand that we are not living in the past and this is a business. If IMS wants to change the rules for next year where everybody knows ahead of time, fine. I may not like it, but that is the state of racing we live in today. You just can’t have it both ways.

Joe Mullins

RM: Relax Joe, nothing is going to change this year and may never change.

Q: What is the problem with the full-time teams getting into the Indy 500 automatically? I went to my first 500 (101st) two years ago, and it was great. Having a full field is critical, but why lock out teams that complete all year? Sorry to say, but the complaints are based on old realities.

Doug V., Dallas

RM: Not everyone thinks it’s a problem, Doug. Thanks for your thoughts.

Q: I can’t get over the number of fans that don’t understand the reasoning for locking in the IndyCar regulars. Like you’ve stated before, it makes economic sense for the sponsors and teams. How’s this for a format that would generate excitement?

Any driver that has completed all the current year races up to Indy is locked in. The top 25 on qualifying times are locked in regardless of full-time status or not. The remaining cars would then run a short sprint race. 25-50 laps perhaps? If a full-timer still doesn’t make it in, they can use a “provisional.” A format like this would keep the full timers and their sponsors happy, and still allow the Indy-only teams to have a chance to race their way into the show. Whatcha think?

Jeff DeJong, Canada

RM: I think the fans and NBC would be all for it, but it would have to offer a nice purse and that’s not going to happen. I’d just be thrilled if IMS found $5 million to throw into the race purse.

Q: Your position on this issue is baffling to me. I have the utmost respect for Penske, Ganassi, and Co., but this proposed move is strictly self-serving and not in the best interest of the sport long-term.  You argue that keeping a good sponsor out of the race is so devastating that it cannot be endured. I would counter that preventing a new sponsor (albeit smaller) from being incentivized to enter  the race due to a lower probability of qualifying  is far more damaging in the long run.

Verizon, PNC Bank, etc., can leave the sport anytime they want because they have a business to run. If IndyCar is not priming the pump for new sponsors and new teams all the time, it will eventually die. I don’t see these same owners guaranteeing a 33-car field as part of the deal. Forget tradition, this is just bad business and I sincerely hope IndyCar does not fall for it.

Justin, Park City, UT

RM: Let’s look at this year. There are no restrictions or guarantees, and we have three Indy-only teams (Dreyer & Reinbold, Clauson/Marshall and McLaren) and Juncos, so let’s say that’s three total. Where’s the big line to come run Indy? Oh, maybe it’s because it only pays $203,000 for an Indy-only entry unless that team would finish third or fourth. And if the full-timers weren’t running extra cars, we wouldn’t be close to having enough to fill the field, let alone bump somebody. Indy is a financial loser and the full-timers aren’t asking for extra money like I would be, they’re simply talking about some guarantees because it’s bad business to own IndyCars.

Q: Robin, haven’t written in a while but just wanted you to know that as a 69-year old racing fan from way back, I completely agree with your responses to the folks who somehow are against guaranteed spots for the 500. They refuse to understand the current business realities that you keep pointing out over and over again. The series is just now getting back on its feet and gaining momentum. It needs to do everything it can to keep it going. Antiquated rules that make no sense anymore have to go. End of story. Don’t like it? Go find some other series (good luck, not many left). Keep the faith, and keep up the good fight!

Jeff B, Bernardsville, NJ

RM: Bump Day use to be the most sadistic, pressure-filled and dramatic day in May, because you had 20 cars lined up and drivers jumping in and out of them trying to find enough speed to make the show and the 40 percent of the purse that could keep them alive for another year. But that all changed in 1996, and nothing about qualifying has been the same since. Bump Day can still be plenty depressing or euphoric, depending on your outcome, and even if there were 22 spots guaranteed you could still have 14 drivers going for 11 spots.

Q: I’m sure you are tired by now of all the comments about guaranteed starting spots for the full-time teams, but I have an idea that might work for everyone. I certainly understand that things have changed and the sponsors of the full-time entries need to be in the 500. I don’t have any objections to making sure that happens, but not at the expense of a faster car from a non full-time team. Why not just take the fastest 33, and then if there is a full-time team that didn’t make the show, let them start at the back? Who cares for now if that means we have 34, 35 or even 36 cars?

Like you said, it’s not like we have 60 cars going for the 33 spots. This solution allows the full-time teams to get their sponsors’ exposure during the biggest race of the year, and still encourages those once a year entries to come and give the 500 a try. If they are one of the 33 fastest, they’re in. It’s those teams that we all hope will someday become future full-time teams.

Jerry H

RM: I think provisionals are certainly an option for a former winner or champion (that’s why NASCAR wouldn’t dream of running Daytona without Kyle Busch) that runs into trouble, but that still doesn’t protect a full-timer, and again, the owners aren’t worried about speed, they’re just trying to protect their team from a fluke in the one-day format.

Q: Everyone's hair is on fire over the guaranteed spots controversy. In a perfect world, every 500 entrant should have the same chance as the full-time teams, but people have short memories. Ten-plus years ago, open-wheel racing in the U.S. nearly went the way of the dodo (and that is no exaggeration). I was a die-hard CART/Champ Car fan and the idea of negotiating with Tony George and the IRL was pure treason in my mind, but then I began to see the light – merge, or become the dodo.

The sponsors of the full-time teams want something for their millions. Those millions keep the sport alive. I would hate to see big sponsors walk away from IndyCar because their car was bumped. The competitor in me wants to see everyone get their shot (I am guilty as the next – I write to you every couple of months ranting about who I believe should be in the series), but IndyCar isn't the most profitable business in the world and the financial health of the sport should be a consideration.

Jonathan and Cleide Morris, Ventura, CA

RM: People say Marlboro didn’t walk away from Penske and Miller didn’t quit Rahal after they missed the show, but those were the days of multi-million dollar sponsors and long-term deals. It’s not like that anymore and most sponsors are pretty fragile in terms of commitment or duration, and SPM was so lucky that Arrow had such a great attitude last May. The only thing more shaky than sponsors are IndyCar owners, because it’s such a financial challenge and we’re lucky to have as many as we do.

Marco Andretti made three ALMS appearances in an Andretti Green Acura in 2008, including this one at Lime Rock. Image by LAT

Q: Why does Marco not race in other series like his teammates and other IndyCar drivers? Hopefully it's not because he's afraid he'll get waxed by them there as well. Any movement from IndyCar and IMSA on collaborating on a double-header at The Glen in the future, or are they still playing the "mine's bigger" game? Would Jay and Mark consider running on Saturday just to get back to a place they need to be at? (Opinion coming from a huge fan of The Glen who went to the race every year)?

Derek, Arcola, VA

RM: Marco ran Petite Le Mans for Honda a few years back and was quick, and I imagine he’d love to run IMSA races if given a shot. The IndyCar/IMSA double-header at The Glen probably wouldn’t work because IMSA brings all its fleet and there would be no room or time for IndyCar. Sad, because I think it would have a chance to draw a decent crowd.

Q: First-time writer to your Mailbag. I have been a long-time IndyCar fan, since I was a child. Rick Mears was my hero growing up, and I’ve been to every Indy 500 since 1997. My question has to do with the latest IndyCar chassis [ED: body kit] that came out last year. I think IndyCar dropped the ball with this one. For the 20 or so races it has been in use, I can only think of one race – the opener last year at St. Pete – where there has been an on-track pass for the lead with this car. The Wickens/Power (I think) on last restart, and then Bourdais taking advantage of it. Even at Indy, Power only won because drivers in front of him had to pit.

It seems that once a driver gets the lead to third place, that is where they stay. There is some action in back of the pack, but never at the front. Qualifying to me with this new car has become more important than the race, because if you don't qualify well, you have no chance. Would like to IndyCar find a better aero package than this – something where guys can pass on track. Just wondering how you felt about this. Thank you also for being a great spokesman for IndyCar.

Eric from G.R./K-zoo, Michigan

RM: I think T.K. passed Ed for the lead last May, and I know Dixon got around Newgarden at Toronto on the restart, and I thought there were a couple passes for the lead at Iowa but, to your point, there has been great racing in the pack but not so much up front in terms of passes for the lead. We’ve only had one this season (Felix at St. Pete passing Will P.), and I know IndyCar is hoping it made the right tweaks to bring back all the overtaking we saw at Indy in 2014-15-16-17. I mean, the car is racier on road and street circuits than ovals right now, and that’s not a bad thing since we only have five ovals nowadays. Let’s see how May goes.

Q: I see Chip only has two entries in the 500 this year. His operation looks meager compared to Andretti or Penske. Is Chip running low on money? Is there something going on with the financials of his empire that we don't know about? More cars mean more data for getting setup right. Seems like he is at a definite disadvantage

Doug

RM: I think he took a big shot after DC Solar went south and had to close down his Xfinity team, but cutting back to two cars in IndyCar was more about performance than anything else. And Dixon is quite happy with Rosenqvist as his teammate.

Q: My son and I are heading to Road America for the first time this year, and we’ll be camping in the infield. Can you recommend the best viewing areas at the track for the race? Any specific turns that are better than others for passing? I’m not familiar with the area, and was also wondering if there is any good restaurants outside the track to hit up in the evenings while we are there.

Clint Lahnen, Danville, IN

RM: Call up and rent a golf cart ASAP, because you can drive all over the place and see so many cool corners. There are a couple of nice places to eat in downtown Elkhart Lake. Have fun.

Q: Pretty simple question here; I'm just unsure whether it has a true answer or not. When the road course race at Indianapolis first started with the IndyCar Series, it was dubbed the 'Grand Prix of Indianapolis,' which to me just sounded like it had a little bit of prestige to it. Any idea why after the fourth or fifth year it was changed to the 'IndyCar Grand Prix?'

Jeremy, Iowa

RM: From IMS president Doug Boles: “To make it clear that it was IndyCar. One of the biggest challenges we faced early, and even still to a lesser extent, was answering the question “What cars and drivers run in the Grand Prix?”

Q: To give them the best chance to be lined up at the start of the IMS road race, have they ever thought of using Turn 1 of the oval to lead on to the front stretch after coming back on from the road course section? There are no cones or anything in the way, and this would give them arguably a half-mile to get lined up without having to go through any tight corners.

Don Weidig, Canton, Ohio

RM: Not to my knowledge, but it seems like the line-up has been pretty decent the past few years.

George Mack battling Eddie Cheever Jr at Kansas in 2002. Image by Osborne/LAT

Q: As I leaving the Long Beach Grand Prix I had a tire go down due to a nail. Pulled in an Auto Service Center in Long Beach – and George Mack is the owner! He was super cool, talking about the old IRL days and 310 Racing. Remember him from the old IRL days?

Fred, Rolling Hills, CA (two streets over from Rufus)

RM: Very cool, I liked George and am glad he’s doing well.

Q: I've been reading and enjoying your work a good while now, thanks for the fun and info. With the Indy GP coming up, one thing that's always bugged me is seeing so much empty grandstand in oval T1 and the front stretch. I got to thinking, what if they ran the race only on the back half? Follow the current course down Hulman and around the museum, but instead of bearing to the right to the oval, create a hairpin left into oval T2.

The 'new' layout could then follow the oval around to oval T4 ,where it would turn left and back into the infield. I know it's crazy and won't ever happen, but it might make the TV and spectator experiences more interesting or park-like by not including the mass of comparatively empty grandstands in T1 and the front stretch. It would mean setting up temporary pits and start/finish line on Hulman or the backstretch amongst other accommodations, but what do you think? A worthy change-up? Feel free to pass it along to management if you'd like.

Aaron Barker, Carmel, IN

RM: I think they’re happy with the current layout, and no changes are going to improve the attendance unless Fernando shows up.

Q: Reading the story from Marshall Pruett about Porsche supplying engines in 2021. What is your take on that?

Guillermo Calvillo

RM: My take is that he sat on that story for quite a while because he honored a source and it looked like it might happen, but now it’s just like he wrote last week – gone.

Q: Getting into a Month of May theme here. Can you give me your top three drives or performances during the 500? Driver may not have won the race (yes Lloyd Ruby and any Andretti loss comes to mind). I’ll throw one your way – Al Unser Sr. in 1992. Another substitute ride for Big Al, subbing for the injured Nelson Piquet Sr. raced through the demolition derby and finished third, in a Buick engine mind you. Can you check with Donald Davidson to see if that was the highest finish ever by a Buick engine?

Brandon

RM: Vuky in 1952 and 1953, A.J. in 1961, Parnelli in 1967, Jimmy Clark in 1965, Rube in (you name the year), Mario in 1987, Michael in 1992 and Montoya in 2000 immediately come to mind. Third was the best Buick finish ever.

Q: Just finished reading your story about great comebacks in racing. I know it really isn’t to the same level as some of these guys, but Davey Hamilton coming back from his crash at Texas to finish ninth at Indy was pretty impressive too, even with the rain delay. Just my two cents worth. Great article, I enjoy reading about the history of the sport and the men and women who’ve helped make it great.

Michael Shriver, Boise, Idaho

RM: No, you are spot-on, I forgot Davey and Mark Dismore. And really, Nelson Piquet belonged as well. Thanks for pointing it out.

Q: Hey Robin, on the Open Test webcast you said that Mark Miles told you there are now fewer than 200,000 seats at IMS. How is that possible? Did another grandstand vanish over the last few years? I know some seats were lost overall with the new penthouse construction a few years back, but can't believe IMS has fewer than 200k today.

John S., Indianapolis

RM: They’ve been taking down seats for a few years, that’s how it’s possible. But I don’t know the seating capacity of all the suites, so add those in as well.

Q: Do you know if NBC Gold members living in the Indianapolis metro area will be blacked out for the 500?  Also, I watch the NHL on NBCSN and am encouraged by the commercials and promotion of the Indy 500.  But these commercial need more punch. Nothing I see screams, “You can’t miss this event!”  They let you know the race will air on NBC, but it misses an emotional connection. It is better than nothing, and this is coming from someone who will be at IMS all available opportunities in May. I hope they ramp up and convey the awesomeness of the 500 and the spectacle of the event as a whole; one you simply can’t miss.

Mike, Avon, IN

RM: Yes it will, and probably be shown a couple hours afterwards like usual. NBC has more cool promos planned in the next couple weeks so stay tuned.

Q: I noticed a reader’s letter in the April 24 Mailbag asking which tracks let kids in free with a ticketed adult. I wanted to add this information for him. The Honda Indy Toronto teamed up with the Disney Channel last year and the website makes no mention of any change to allow kids 12 and under free paddock access for the NTT IndyCar Series with ticketed adult all weekend. They have since 2010 been partnered with Make-A-Wish Canada to do a Fan Friday, where small donation to the charity at the gates gets you access to the support race paddocks and every single grandstand and General Admission area included. The IndyCar paddock, at least for adults, is still credentialed. It’s a great way to take kids on a budget and benefit an awesome cause.

There is also a children’s club called Rookie Racers. For $25 kids get a membership kit, gifts from sponsors, activities planned just for them, plus the ability to high-five every driver on Sunday in the headline event. I believe they cap the number of participants, though. While Go Transit hasn’t announced anything pertaining to the 2019 race, they are the official transit partner. They do have a policy that they implemented this year that is in place all the time now for kids 12 and under to ride free on all Go Trains and buses. Go Transit, incidentally, has a train that stops steps from Turn 8 entrance. I hope this helps.

Geoff Roberts, Unionville, Canada

RM: Good information Geoff, thanks for sharing.