The RACER Mailbag, November 4

Welcome to the RACER Mailbag. Questions for any of RACER’s writers can be sent to mailbag@racer.com. We love hearing your comments and opinions, but letters that include a question are more likely to be published. Questions received after 12pm ET each Monday will be saved for the following week.

Q: With the new car on the horizon, do you think it’s time for IndyCar to seriously consider opening its tire contract to an RFP when the current Firestone agreement expires?

I understand the institutional reasons for maintaining the relationship. Firestone is sort of like the safe, dependable girlfriend from your hometown. She’s loyal, reliable, provides everything you fundamentally need, and your family absolutely adores her. But the relationship has become so comfortable that you never really stop to consider whether you’re settling or what else might be out there.

I think that’s a fairly apt analogy for IndyCar’s relationship with Firestone.

Nobody can dispute Firestone’s pedigree, its institutional knowledge, or its ability to produce a safe and reliable racing tire. But let’s not pretend its track record is flawless. There have been numerous occasions where questionable compound choices have compromised the racing product. Iowa in 2024 was an especially egregious example, although I’ll readily concede the repaving and hybrid package were also significant contributing factors.

My larger concern, however, is on the commercial side.

I have no idea what the precise financial arrangements are between Bridgestone and Penske Entertainment. Obviously, the teams benefit from the tire supply arrangements, Firestone provides considerable technical support, subsidizes certain aspects of the development ladder, holds the Indy NXT entitlement, and sponsors several races. But beyond those benefits, what is IndyCar actually getting from the relationship?

Where is the substantial cross-promotion on national television, in print, or through digital advertising? Why can I watch Firestone’s consumer advertising and, in many cases, see virtually no acknowledgment of its association with the Indianapolis 500 or IndyCar? How much of Bridgestone’s broader marketing apparatus is actually being deployed to introduce the sport to people who aren’t already watching?

To me, a tire supplier should be more than a company that delivers a few thousand tires to the paddock every weekend. It should be one of the series’ most important commercial partners and, ideally, an enthusiastic evangelist for the product.

I recall that during the latter stages of Randy Bernard’s tenure, the series entertained a potential switch to Continental Tires. If memory serves, there were reports of a rather substantial financial offer, possibly approaching eight figures annually, that would have dramatically altered the economics of the tire agreement. The team owners and drivers were understandably apprehensive, and the resulting political controversy was among the issues that contributed to Bernard’s eventual ouster.

But that was nearly 15 years ago. The commercial landscape has changed, and I think it’s worth revisiting the fundamental premise.

Firestone is not the only company on the planet capable of engineering a safe, competitive IndyCar tire. Its accumulated data and experience are unquestionably advantages, particularly at Indianapolis, but tire manufacturing isn’t some lost art known exclusively to the engineers at Bridgestone.

Suppose Hankook, Continental, Michelin, or even Pirelli came to Penske Entertainment with a proposal that offered substantially more money, comparable technical capabilities, and a genuine commitment to aggressively promote IndyCar through national advertising, consumer campaigns, retail partnerships, and other marketing channels.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, this is now a roughly 2,000 word letter about tires. James Black/Penske Entertainment

Would Penske Entertainment seriously entertain that proposal, or is Firestone so entrenched politically and institutionally that the contract is effectively untouchable?

I’m certainly not advocating replacing Firestone simply for the sake of change. If Firestone offers the most compelling combination of technical excellence, commercial investment, and promotional support, by all means retain them. But shouldn’t that conclusion be reached through a competitive process rather than simply presumed?

I would argue that one of IndyCar’s longstanding commercial shortcomings has been its tendency to prioritize stability and familiarity over maximizing the value of its assets. I worry that the tire agreement may be another manifestation of that mindset.

I’d be curious to hear what you know about the economics of the current arrangement, whether other manufacturers have expressed interest, and whether Penske Entertainment would ever seriously contemplate putting the business out to bid.

Or is Firestone effectively IndyCar’s tire supplier in perpetuity, regardless of what a competitor might be willing to offer?

Andrew, Atlanta, GA 

MARSHALL PRUETT: You get the award for the longest submission about tires in Mailbag history.

I’ve never had an interest in the financial arrangement between Firestone and IndyCar, so that’s a dead end. I’m sure Penske would entertain outreaches and offers from other brands, but Goodyear has gone all-in on NASCAR and one class in the WEC. Michelin is the global brand for sports car racing in IMSA and WEC, and has driven off all rivals with a superior product.

Firestone did that to Goodyear in CART and the IRL about 25 years ago, and since then, the number of tire makers who want to tackle the extremely unique requirement to produce multiple compounds for road/street course racing and an entirely different type of tire for multiple types of ovals has been limited. I get your point about wanting to stoke tire supply competition, and love the spirit of it, but there’s a built-in hurdle to clear for most brands since all but a tiny handful have proper oval experience with big cars.

If IndyCar was like F1 with nothing but roads and streets, I’m sure there would be a long line of interested brands. But with the hardcore knowledge needed to handle the oval side and succeed from the first day, that’s an imposing threshold to cross, which is why Penske isn’t out chasing replacements for Firestone.

Q: With the lack of ovals on the IndyCar schedule, do you think there is a part of Roger Penske that in hindsight wishes he hadn’t sold Michigan, Fontana, Nazareth, etc., to the France family? Also, do you think Penske Entertainment would consider buying more tracks for the series to race on? I drive past Kentucky Speedway fairly regularly. With nothing going on there it could possibly be bought fairly cheaply and it's not in terrible shape yet, so for a modest investment it could be a viable race date.

Josh, Flo-Town, KY

MP: I’ve never known Roger to live in the past and harbor regrets in that way, but I can say that I wish he’d held onto those tracks, because his series needs what he no longer owns. I’ve had the same curiosity about whether Penske Entertainment would look to acquire one or two ovals and solve its problem through ownership, provided the current owners would want to sell at a price that makes sense.

The greatest issue IndyCar has here is the lack of control over its biggest weaknesses. Knowing how much Penske wants to control everything possible in his business orbit, buying more ovals has merit, but not if it would lead to ongoing financial losses.