The RACER Mailbag, October 26

Welcome to the RACER Mailbag. Questions for any of RACER’s writers can be sent to mailbag@racer.com. Due to the high volume of questions received, we can’t guarantee that every letter will be published, but we’ll answer as many as we can. Published questions may be edited for length and clarity. Questions received after 3pm ET each Monday will appear the following week.

Q: One of the greatest problems with IndyCar (and motorsport in general) is ensuring that rides go to those with the most talent, instead of the most wealthy or well-connected. Indy Lights does a fine job getting drivers the required experience and into contact with teams, but the scholarship money meant to help the careers of the most talented seems to provide only very limited help.

Looking at the last five champions, Kyle Kaiser only got five races, Linus Lundqvist is unlikely to find a ride next year, Oliver Askew got one of the few pre-funded rides but is now left with nothing, and Kyle Kirkwood was only saved by ROKiT after getting passed over for Devlin DeFrancesco. Pato O'Ward is the only one that truly benefited from the scholarship by turning seven races with Carlin into a ride with McLaren.

So why doesn't IndyCar take some money to create a team of people whose job is to help upcoming drivers find business connections? A group of people that function somewhere in between career counselors and agents to help drivers connect and create relationships with sponsors, which may provide more than just a few races worth of support. Is this unfeasible, or is IndyCar a poor investment that businesses have no interest in, unless a family member is the beneficiary?

Max S

MARSHALL PRUETT: The problem you raise is what’s also known as the underlying foundation of our favorite sport. Pick the series -- Formula 1, NASCAR, IMSA, IndyCar, and so on -- and there are drivers who pay for the privilege of competing. I can’t think of a single series where all of the drivers are paid by the teams (drivers paying teams and getting a paycheck back from that money doesn’t count).

So what we have here is perfectly normal. I don’t love that this is the way things are, but it’s nothing new. We don’t have enough money coming in from sponsors, TV profits, or any other area to allow our teams to go and hire the best available talent in the same way NFL, NBA, or MLB teams do with their huge piles of cash.

Of the 10 full-time IndyCar teams that will be on next year’s grid, seven have at least one entry that’s either partially or fully paid by a driver bringing money from a sponsor, personal investor, manufacturer, or family funding/profits from family-owned business. That’s 70 percent, for those keeping score at home. Andretti Autosport choosing Devlin DeFrancesco over Kyle Kirkwood isn’t a case of the 2021 Indy Lights champ being passed over; it’s perfect reflection of what the No. 29 Honda entry required to stay on track and, ultimately, to keep the Andretti team afloat.

The Indy Lights advancement prize, which has been reduced to a joke by Penske Entertainment, is/was meant to help the champions get a start, not to solve their long-term funding needs or guarantee them a long career in the sport. Supreme talent, along with that $1.2 million prize, was never going to be ignored, and dating back to 2014 when Andersen Promotions implemented the advancement prize, every single one of its Indy Lights champions graduated to IndyCar and all have driven for multiple IndyCar teams, barring Kaiser, who was on the softer end of the supreme talent spectrum.

I don’t disagree that the establishment of a new department within IndyCar to help Lights champions and other strong talent to acquire the sponsorship needed to race in the series would be a good thing, but there’s two realities we need to consider first: When it comes to IndyCar, Penske Entertainment has shown no interest in chasing sponsors for any entity other than Penske Entertainment. And secondly, if we look to the big cut in the advancement prize for Lundqvist and Penske Entertainment’s shifting of that cut to paying prize money to its teams, it has sent a clear message that it places a greater priority on its teams than its drivers. It won’t spend the money to give its first Lights champion a head start in IndyCar, but would spend money on establishing a new department to find money to give its new champions a head start… That’s a heck of a Catch 22.

The Road to Indy was paved with gold for Pato O'Ward, but some other recent graduates have had a tougher time of things. Image via USF Pro Racing Championship

Q: There's been a lot of talk about attracting engine manufacturers to IndyCar and some fans are under the impression that newer and more relatable technology is needed. Even though hybrid or electric energies are often marked as the obvious answer, I've notice that in Japan, Super Formula (I believe Super GT might also be on board with this as well) is working on a carbon-neutral formula. At first I thought this was strictly for the engine formulas, but it turns out it also includes how the tires and chassis are made. In short, Super Formula is trying to make as many aspects of their cars as carbon neutral as possible.

Since Firestone is already making a more environmentally friendly tire and hybrid motors are already on the way, wouldn't a carbon neutral idea be a good direction for IndyCar? With talks of a new chassis possibly years away, maybe IndyCar can also try to make them as carbon neutral as possible as well. In this way the series would look innovative and different without changing too much, and at the same time maybe bring in some manufacturers/sponsors that might find these ideas attractive.

Do you think it would work? Thanks!

Tom Yang, Milwaukee, WI

MP: Are we talking about Super Formula planting a bunch of trees to offset any resources -- electricity or otherwise -- to manufacture carbon fiber tubs, weld and machine metal suspensions, and whatnot, or some other manufacturing process that’s carbon neutral? Admittedly, I’ve never associated the creation of race cars as something that lives anywhere near the serious generation of pollution or a drain on resources that places stress on the environment.

My guess is this is a well-intended marketing initiative, and if that’s what it takes for a racing series to think about its impact on the planet, that’s not a bad thing. I’d also bet that it won’t be long before we see the rest of the world’s major racing series -- ones that don’t have a carbon-neutral plan -- get in on the game.

IndyCar is moving to a carbon-neutral-ish fuel next year with new series partner Shell. We saw Team Penske use a B.E.V. (battery electric vehicle) tractor to haul one of its transporters to Portland (and I believe Laguna Seca, as well) to close the season, but with our electric infrastructure largely supported by the mining and burning of coal to then charge B.E.V.s, it’s hard to claim full carbon neutrality…

I’m sure there are other IndyCar/Indy 500-related initiatives I’m forgetting, and as a whole, I can’t see the downside of doing more in this area to appeal to sponsors and manufacturers who won’t do business with a series unless there’s an environmentally-friendly plan in place. I’m also sure that once such a thing becomes a frontline IndyCar initiative, we’ll have another topic where IndyCar’s younger and older fan bases can find something to argue about.

Q: Roger Penske has cut the funding for the Indy Lights champion. He has stopped the series from getting a new chassis that is long overdue. There seems to be very little advertising for the series. There is no third engine manufacturer. So is Roger doing a good job for the series, or is he pinching pennies and hurting the series? He seems to be all-in on IMS but what about IndyCar in general?

Paul, Indianapolis

MP: To be fair, having weathered a rough introduction to owning the series and speedway -- COVID was a bear to deal with in 2020 and 2021 -- we shouldn’t downplay his stabilizing effect in keeping the series afloat during COVID, nor should we ignore some of the extensions that have been signed. There are positives, on record, as a result of Penske Entertainment’s purchases.

And then we have the actions and decisions, many of which you’ve cited, that speak to heavy financial conservatism, cost cutting and a general lack of investment in a series that’s getting beaten up on a regular basis by its domestic and international rivals as they grow, expand into new places, introduce new technologies and welcome new fans.

I’m excited about the expected move to hybrid engines in 2024, and the switch to synthetic fuel next year, but beyond that, what I observe on a regular basis is the big energy surrounding other series that visits IndyCar on fleeting occasions.

I keep waiting for the big "Here’s how Penske Entertainment is taking IndyCar to the next level" plan. It can’t be one thing like going to hybrid engines; I’m looking for a mission statement, a call to action, something that spells out where IndyCar is headed through the end of the decade and how those plans will return the series to the place of national prominence it once held.

Q: Excellent news that Rasmus Lindh is back in Indy Lights for 2023. Is Malukas Sr. discounting heavily, or subsidizing, or what? Maybe he is not so popular with other Lights team owners.

With the shortage of engineers and mechanics in 2021-22 can an eight-car team be an indication this shortage is easing?

Oliver Wells

MP: A sponsor, GarageXYZ, was announced as the primary on Lindh’s car, so I’d have to assume it’s real money being paid to the HMD team. Also, according to a press release, the company is a “photography-based NFT project and DAO concept,” which makes about 19-percent sense to me, but that’s OK, I’ve never claimed to be all that smart.

Lots of crew exist on the open-wheel ladder, plus, there’s a growing number of IndyCar veterans who are looking at Indy Lights as a good place to work with a more relaxed schedule and decent pay available for teams in search of high-level talent that can coach up the next-generation. It’s the need for high-level IndyCar talent where the shortage continues to exist.

His funding seems solid, so Lindh's main concern next year will be making sure he doesn't jump into one of the other seven HMD cars by mistake. Gavin Baker/USF Pro Racing

Q: With the Coyne/HMD and Andretti juggernauts forming the base of the Indy Lights car count, how are we looking for average or max field sizes with the addition of JHR and some of the other smaller teams both existing and new? Any more new additions on the horizon?

Aaron Barker

MP: We have five full-time teams for 2023 with Abel Motorsports, Andretti Autosport, Cape Motorsports, HMD Motorsports, and Juncos Hollinger Racing. It will be six if/when Legacy Autosport announces its drivers. Abel (2), Andretti (4), Cape (2), HMD (8), and Juncos (2) should give us 18 as the standard for each round, but -- and there’s always a "but" with Indy Lights -- we can count on a few drivers failing to make it to the finish line, so there will be some changes along the way as a few teams scramble to find funded kids to step into those vacant seats.

Q: Do the big IndyCar teams have separate oval and road cars, or do they have to change them over for different tracks?

Geoff

MP: Most, but not all, have dedicated superspeedway cars that are used for the Indy 500. Elsewhere, it’s normal for all teams to interchange their road/street cars for the other four oval events.

Q: We lost a really good person this week. "Murph," as we knew him, was a friend to all and the hardest working hospitality professional in IndyCar. Maybe with the exception of his wife Mary Lin. Know any good stories you can share?

Bernie

MP: I wasn’t fortunate to know them, Bernie. My career didn’t intersect with having them look after hospitality for the IndyCar/Indy Lights/Atlantic teams I worked for, and since I moved over to the media side, I make an effort to spend as little time in hospitality units/suites as possible. Here’s a fun video, though, from back in the day featuring the Murphys.

Q: Since the issue of electric wheel guns seems to be an obsession with Mailbag readers, I figured I'd throw in something that we've talked a lot about in the comments but which the submissions seem to be overlooking regarding the matter...

People seem to be overlooking the insane amounts of torque the impact wrenches used in motorsports produce. They're not your average garage mechanics' tool -- these things are powerful enough to break your wrist if you mishandle them. While it's not impossible to make battery-powered guns of such power, doing it with a portable battery is not going to be a simple task and, more importantly, will likely be more expensive than the standard air guns. Corded versions would be easier, but then you don't get the major benefit that's the whole reason for this debate: The removal of hoses/wires to be driven over.

What's more, as racing continues to push the "green" ideas, battery-powered wheel guns would actually be detrimental to the movement. Batteries are messy to dispose of, after all, while air is just... air. It's not like they've added dangerous chemicals to get the air pressure they need -- in fact, I'm pretty sure they use pure nitrogen, which is not a greenhouse gas or pollutant of any sort.

But what's more, in the case of series like IndyCar, IMSA, or WEC where they use air jacks, they have to bring an air supply to the track anyway. And while it's been a long time since I've been through a pitlane, I do recall most (if not all) the teams used the same air supply for the air jacks and the wheel guns.

Put simply, the benefits of battery-powered wheel guns do not outweigh the cost, and it's just more stuff to keep track of in your logistics. I wouldn't complain if anyone made the move, but if I were bankrolling a team I just wouldn't be able to justify it.

FormulaFox

MP: All solid points. I do expect the shift from pneumatic wheel guns to battery wheel guns to happen, but it wouldn’t be before 2024, at the earliest. I’ve seen a prototype, and it was pretty cool.

I do not have a photo of an electric wheel gun. I do have a photo of Uncle Bobby with a cat. And here it is. Motorsport Images

Q: What happened to the Hulman home that stood outside the stands near Turn 2 at IMS? I never read or heard anything about it being torn down, but a grassy lawn now occupies that historic structure’s former place at the track. I was told by an employee, who would know, that Tony Hulman used the house when he visited the track back in the early days of his years there. I know his daughter used it every year on race weekends for private events involving her charities.

William Grimes

MP: It took a little while to get the answer to your question from August, but thanks to our steadfast friends at IMS, here it is:

“The structure, nicknamed 'The Mouse House' internally, was torn down during 2020. After doing an assessment of the property, it was determined it could not be salvaged without significant investment and renovation. Recently, it had only been used a few days a year for Hulman-George family entertainment.”

Q: I was surprised that there were no F1 budget cap questions last week! Anyway, I believe it was Laurent Rossi of Alpine who said that a “minor breach” of $7,000,000 (maximum) translated to 70 engineers. To me, that is anything but "minor." That could buy a team a significant amount of performance, or at least trim away the less productive design ideas and allow focus on the promising ones.

I largely agree with Zak Brown’s suggestions: the financial penalties should be double the overage, take a hit in both tunnel and CFD time and limit the "minor" category to $2,500,000. The consequences have to be significant enough to put a bit of a dent in the team’s performance for the following year in order to create a disincentive. I don’t think it would make sense to include removing wins and championships because it would probably be difficult to quantify how the advantages played out in terms of results. I also think it is a bit silly to negotiate the penalties. The FIA should never have allowed that.

Regarding the budget cap itself, I don’t think it was done properly. I’m OK with the theory, but with Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull in the $400,000,000 range, it would have made more sense to me to set the target at $200,000,000. That would have significantly trimmed the Big 3, provided some growth opportunities for smaller teams and allowed staff members the possibility of moving to smaller teams rather than exiting the sport. Similarly, sponsors could move to smaller teams and be likely to have more presence for the same money they paid to larger teams.

Don Hopings, Cathedral City, CA

CHRIS MEDLAND: I agree with Zak too -- if a team has breached to a level close to the 5% limit -- and also that it needs to be a lower limit moving forward. The big question mark is over what Red Bull is disputing, because Christian Horner says it's in the region of hundreds of thousands of dollars, not millions.

For the cap, the target is more like $200m for those big teams, because of certain costs that are outside the cap like marketing spend, driver salaries and the top three earners in each team. The biggest teams spend the most in these regions. I think the number's right (it's down to $140m this year and $135m next) because it's what makes all of the teams stable and profitable, and really will reward talent but even with such a strict limit it will take time to have an impact on the pecking order.

Q: Lance Stroll given a three-place grid penalty for driving that dangerously? What is the FIA playing at? You cannot move in reaction to try and block another driver. 

Had Fernando Alonso's car actually started flying, he'd have had no control and if a marshal or photographer been in the line of fire, they would have been killed. And it would be all on Lance Stroll.

Moreover, his attitude after the race about the incident was breathtakingly arrogant and entitled. Surely a race ban is necessary, not just for his outrageous maneuver, but for his nonchalance?

Jordan, Warwickshire, UK

CM: I was amazed Alonso defended Stroll after the race, to be honest, and I checked with him in private to make sure he wasn't just saying it because he is joining Aston Martin next year and he insisted he wasn't. He felt Stroll didn't move in response, just unfortunately moved a split second after Alonso himself had. I'm not so sure, but perhaps the stewards took those views into account in that it wasn't a clear-cut block but more an intended attempt to defend the inside before Alonso went there.

I know what you mean about his attitude too, but that might have been another reason the stewards still penalized Stroll even with Alonso's comments, because they felt he needed to learn it wasn't something that could be dismissed lightly. I think a race ban is too far, though -- these guys race hard every week and they are always inches from moments like this. A tiny misjudgment can have big consequences, but I feel like there needs to be utter stupidity or maliciousness to get into race ban territory, and Alonso felt there was neither of those here.

Q: This may be more coincidence than anything, but I have a theory on the decline of NASCAR in particular. (Note: I only really watch IndyCar these days.) When I was a kid in the 1990s and a teen in the early 2000s, cars were easily identifiable as the sponsors were the same every race and paint schemes change little from year to year. Even if you didn’t follow closely, you knew when you saw the bright orange Tide car, that was Ricky Rudd -- every race. When you saw the DeWalt car, it was Matt Kenseth… every race. Valvoline = Mark Martin. Essentially, you identified the drivers more by what the car looked like than the numbers. When teams went to rotating sponsors, it became difficult to follow if you didn’t watch every week.

The "identity" of being a fan also went away and marketability got wonky. Look at F1 -- McLaren is papaya and even a casual fan will know if they see you in papaya you’re a McLaren fan. Red = Ferrari. All that to say, I think there’s something about the stability of drivers and sponsors when it comes to being able to follow the sport and market it, and when that went away the decline came.

Ross Bynum

KELLY CRANDALL: NASCAR went through a glorious period where it was very easy to connect a driver to a paint scheme, and there is no denying that a driver was associated with the car they drove. Jeff Gordon and DuPont. Dale Earnhardt and GM Goodwrench. Jimmie Johnson and Lowe’s. Dale Earnhardt Jr. and Budweiser. The list goes on, including the ones you mentioned, Ross. But as the cost of racing got more and more expensive, when sponsors started to depart, it became really hard for teams to find full-season sponsors. In fact, I think the only one left is Ally on the No. 48 for Hendrick Motorsports. FedEx was one, too, but the No. 11 at Joe Gibbs Racing has had other one-race sponsors like Sport Clips come on in recent years. The point is, teams are no longer in a position to brand around one company -- which gives a driver an easy identity -- because it’s too expensive for those companies to sponsor 38 races, and that’s why there is a rotating cast of sponsors on a car.

Even during its silver era, McLaren had a papaya soul -- as evidenced by the pre-season testing livery on the very wonderful MP4/12 in 1997. Motorsport Images

THE FINAL WORD

From Robin Miller's Mailbag, October 22, 2013

Q: As an IndyCar "lifer," I get very sensitive whenever NASCAR claims to be the greatest, most-skilled, best, fastest, etc. In light of that, I need someone to explain to me (like I’m a five year-old) how Talladega is the "world’s fastest racetrack," as we were reminded yesterday with unabashed fervor after every commercial break. I understand that the track’s size and high banking lends to higher speeds for NASCAR and that the restrictor plate controls speed, but I’m not finding the statistics that back up the claim of being the "world’s fastest track." Is it a mentality of “if it didn’t happen in NASCAR, then it didn’t happen"?

My brother, who has drunk the NASCAR Kool-aid, looked at me like I was an idiot and, dripping with contempt, told me, "It’s the fastest track in NASCAR, and if the IndyCars ran on it, the drivers would pass out, so it’s the fastest racetrack," to which I responded, "But that hasn’t been proven." Uncomfortable silence for several minutes. In all sincerity, please help me understand where I’m off-track.

Cyndy Riordan

ROBIN MILLER: First of all, smack your brother because he’s wrong. Gil de Ferran set the all-time, one-lap oval-track record of 241mph at Fontana in 2001 in an IndyCar!!!! Last time I checked, the speeds at the Indy 500 were 20mph quicker than Cup cars at ’Dega (and IndyCars lap IMS 40mph quicker than Cup cars do). So smack him again.