The RACER Mailbag, December 24

On Dec 25, 2025

Welcome to the RACER Mailbag. Questions for any of RACER’s writers can be sent to mailbag@racer.com. We love hearing your comments and opinions, but letters that include a question are more likely to be published. Questions received after 3pm ET each Monday will be saved for the following week.

NOTE: Kelly Crandall is on vacation, but your NASCAR questions will be answered when she returns.

Q: My pal Rob & I were discussing the new F1 cars that will hit the track early next year. Rob thought a hybrid four-wheel-drive setup with an electric power unit (EPU) at the front and an ICU driving the rear axle would have been worth considering.

While F1’s design for 2026 is locked in place, could a four-wheel system still be considered for the next spec IndyCar from Dallara? The front EPU could be one or two spec units (one on each wheel) from one, max two vendors, capable of harvesting energy. Rear ICUs would continue to be Chevy, Honda and hopefully a third automatic manufacturer.

A four-wheel-drive system would be innovative, improving the vehicle’s weight distribution, plus its traction, especially in rainy conditions.

I’m curious to know what you and other Mailbaggers think of this idea.

David, Pittsburgh, PA

MARSHALL PRUETT: This was the drive layout for most of the amazing WEC LMP1 Hybrids that blew our minds in the 2010s. Stout gas or diesel engine out back making 500-600hp, big motor generator units up front which were good for 500-700hp and made the P1 hybrids all-wheel-drive. Watching them explode off the corners at Le Mans was a religious experience.

But those MGUs and axles that sprouted outward to the front wheels sat inside of a prototype chassis that was probably two or three times as wide as a Dallara DW12 or what’s coming with the IR28. So, great idea, but wrong type of car. Even if there was a way to make it fit, adding in 100-plus pounds of AWD weight to the next car is the other issue that can’t be ignored.

Q: Can you give us a tech insight into why IndyCar stopped running stagger? I’m growing old and can’t remember.

Abraham Zimroth, Staten Island, NY

MP: Stagger is still used. Firestone’s oval tires – Indy 500, in particular – have stagger designed into them to help the cars turn. The difference from back in the day is that the stagger is fixed. Decades ago, with older tire construction methods, teams could overinflate their oval tires to stretch and grow the right-side rubber to increase their diameter/stagger, but that changed due to modern materials and construction technology. You can try and blow today’s tires up like a balloon, place them in the baking sun to swell for hours, come back, measure the diameter, and be thoroughly disappointed in the results.

Q: What are the current prospects of PREMA Racing returning to IndyCar for the 2026 season?

Tom Fitzgerald, Las Vegas, NV

MP: Confusing. And getting old.

PREMA Racing CEO Piers Phillips has recently told folks we both know about new investment being received and the team continuing in 2026. If accurate, that would seem like something to share. I’ve called multiple times with zero responses. I’ve checked with IndyCar leadership and they’ve received zero communications from the team about answering the bell on March 1 at St. Petersburg. Chevrolet is understood to have engines ready and waiting, and PREMA is listed as an attendee for the two big group tests in February.

Unless I missed it, I don’t believe PREMA has used its social channels to post anything about its top global program with IndyCar since the season finale that took place to close August, and we’re almost at Dec. 31. If that’s considered an effective communication strategy, I’ll need a kick in the head to understand it.

Meanwhile, every other team is tripping over itself to try and keep its fans and IndyCar’s wider fan base engaged over the brutally long six-month offseason. IndyCar’s media days where every full-time driver must appear is set for January 27-28. PREMA’s total absence from IndyCar will either be resolved beforehand in a positive manner, or it won’t.

They were a different and slightly standoffish addition to the paddock last season with a heavy European/Italian flair that blended itself with some familiar IndyCar veterans. Robert Shwartzman’s Indy 500 pole was one of the biggest moments of the year. A rumored $40-$50 million was spent to ramp up and finish 21st and 24th in the championship.

I’d love to have them back since their return would be what’s best for IndyCar – showing that a brand-new team isn’t prone to collapsing and disappearing after one season – but I’ve seen dozens come and go over the years. If they’re in, they’re in, and if they aren’t, we’ll keep it moving and celebrate those who continue to show up and put on the show.

Q: Who will be the new drivers in IndyCar for 2026?

Chris Fiegler, Latham, NY

MP: Caio Collet, Indy NXT runner-up in 2025, at Foyt. Indy NXT champion Dennis Hauger at Coyne. F2 champ and two-year Haas F1 driver Mick Schumacher at RLL. We’ll see where Coyne ends up on the second car, which is the last open seat in the series. We’ve heard for a while now that it’s a returning Romain Grosjean, but that’s been dragging on and unconfirmed for so long that I’m no longer sure it’s a sure thing.

IndyCar fans have a strong rookie division to look forward to in 2026. Joe Skibinski/Penske Entertainment

Q: I’ve been an IndyCar fan for decades, in all its incarnations (except IRL) and, unlike most, this era from 2012 to 2025 is my favorite. If they were racing in CART cars in spec variants, it would be perfect…

My question is related to the announcement of the IR28 car, where I was unpleasantly surprised by the fact that the wheels and suspension remain the same. Since I was hoping that they would move towards improving the mechanical grip of the car as one of the options for creating a faster car through the corners, I’m interested in your opinion on why these chassis parts haven’t changed?

Would a new suspension with larger wheels increase costs beyond acceptable levels? Did Firestone dictate the wheel dimensions?

Neven, Croatia

MP: Cornering speeds took a hit with the inclusion of the hybrid due to its weight and effects on weight distribution/tire use, but I don’t see what you’re seeing. The DW12’s road and street course lap times have been made through cornering speeds rather than big and bold speed on the straights. The car has plenty of mechanical grip; it can certainly be improved, but in how the current car produces its pace, you need to look to the corner entry/apex/corner off sequences to appreciate where the DW12’s speed is made. The cars are quick on the straights, however they’re nothing like the CART-era missiles that blew our minds, but weren’t necessarily capable of holding onto and using those speeds once they got to the corners.

If the targets are hit with the IR28, weight will go down by 80-100 lbs and horsepower will go up by 100. Downforce should be similar, all according to the series. The first two items would make for faster cars on straights and in the corners, but the latter wouldn’t help to keep that speed once the steering wheel is turned.

Q: Reading the IndyCar 2028 engine article and some interesting points from the comments made me curious about a few things…

By ’28 Honda will have the equivalent of almost 10 IndyCar seasons with the 2.4l V6 running in IMSA (one season there is equal to almost to two in IndyCar, right?). So, if new OEMs aren’t joining the 2.2l formula due to Honda and Chevy’s experience with those engines, why would they join the 2.4l one? Honda will be miles ahead of even Chevy. Why is IndyCar insisting on that formula then?

From the Dec. 17 Mailbag:

“Chevy gives the impression of being indifferent to IndyCar’s hybridization, at most, and we know the Bowtie loves its naturally aspirated motors. Honda’s known to be a lover of small turbos and hybrids. Who knows what a new manufacturer would want.

But if a third emerged, and sided with what I think Chevy might be up for, Penske Entertainment would have the ability to change direction without risk of being a single-manufacturer series.”

What is Chevy up for?

This reply made me question then… can’t IndyCar roll back to the beginning of current rule cycle when it allowed different engines? I mean, it’s 2025, we should know better than what we knew in 2010, when they planned those regulations. Can’t they put some fuel flow and torque limits to hold current engines at 650hp and try to convince Toyota and Nissan to bring their GT500 engines to ICS? They fit a small open-wheel car (though they are inline four, I think). Well, you’d need a very good salesman to convince Nissan to join with their current finances, but they have the engine.

It’s not the massive IMSA engines. The current IndyCar rules allowed it at first. So, why not?

William Mazeo

MP: All interesting things to explore. I’m told the nearly-finished 2028 engine regulations will not be a straight and simple carryover of the regs that produced the 2.4 TTV6 Honda/Acura uses in IMSA GTP. I’d expect it to be close in many ways, but as it has been characterized to me, the 2.4 for 2028 will require brand-new designs and all-new manufacturing.

If that were to change, and it was a case of making a few tweaks to the existing 2.4s that Honda Racing Corporation US and Team Chevy/Ilmor have in inventory, then yes, there would be the obvious concern about HRC having a giant knowledge base as an advantage. But IndyCar and Chevy know that as well and don’t want that to be a thing, so that’s where the all-new-motors plan comes from.

The rest of what you raise is exactly what I hope Penske Entertainment is asking itself at this very moment. If it has Chevy and Honda ready to return and support the hybrid 2.4 TTV6 formula, then that’s what the series needs to follow as long as at least one of those two demand it.

But as I wrote last week, if it’s just Chevy, and since we know they’re racing with a small turbo V6 hybrid in F1 starting in 2026 (under the Cadillac banner, and with Ferrari engines on lease until their own motors are ready), IndyCar is a few months away from being the second and much smaller open-wheel series where GM competes with little TTV6s. Said another way, in 2026, IndyCar’s engine formula, and the one it has on the way for 2028, stops being unique for GM.

Look elsewhere, and GM is holding firm to non-turbo V8s in NASCAR and in IMSA across two classes with GTP and the hybrid Cadillac V-Series.R and GTD with the Chevy Corvette. The hybrid GTPs and Corvettes also race globally in the WEC and at the marquee 24 Hours of Le Mans. Put it all together and all of the promotional bases are covered with GM’s unique identities on display in NASCAR, domestic and international sports car racing, and international open-wheel racing which has three hugely popular races in the U.S. and five on a slightly bigger regional scale with the F1 races in Canada and Mexico included.

Looks to me like a mild and versional change from a hybrid 2.2 TTV6 to a hybrid 2.4 TTV6 in GM’s local open-wheel series could get lost in the marketing conversation. We’re definitely at a crossroads for IndyCar to decide what it wants to be to the auto industry. Since it doesn’t appear to have a line of manufacturers waiting to start building 2.4s, I’m not sure holding firm to that plan is in its best interest.

Nobody would love it, but the IR28 is designed to accept the 2.2s in the engine bay. I’d be surprised if the first tests of the IR28 aren’t with the current motors installed, so if IndyCar opts to rethink its next-generation engine formula and hold off on bringing those online to 2029 or 2030, it wouldn’t prevent the new car from going live.

If the call was made to go in a different route – one that’s more evocative to the ears and garnered real interest from the auto industry – I’ll happily wait until it’s ready.

The current engine can sit just as snugly in the 2028 car if it needs to. Matt Fraver/Penske Entertainment

Q: I wrote in about a year ago, asking whether IndyCar had plans to get diecasts or merch in big box stores, given that F1 and IMSA/WEC have a good presence in my local Targets and Walmarts. As IndyCar is beginning to roll out plans for the 2028 car, I find myself again wondering if big retail stores are part of their plan to market the new formula. Any word of progress on this front? I imagine getting a Hot Wheels deal might be harder now that they’re so ingrained with F1, but a partnership like that is such a good way to expose the series to a younger audience that’s already interested in cars.

Pat M.

MP: I’ll ask next time I speak with the series, but haven’t heard of anything significant on the way.

Q: Seasons Greetings and a well-deserved thank you to the entire staff at RACER. Your efforts are greatly appreciated, and the Mailbag is my first read every Wednesday morning. I admire the candor and love the fact that Miller is still remembered.

Hoping you all enjoy some time off with family and friends.

Tom Patrick, Baja California

MP: Kind of you to send this, Tom. Most weeks, the Mailbag gets somewhere between five to 10 stories’ worth of words with responses. Takes a ton of time for contributors, and our editor, to compile, but we have old man Miller looking up at us and flipping double birds as a constant source of motivation.

Please enjoy the holidays as well.

Q: A recent Newsweek article (Sept. 28) features Brad Keselowski discussing how OEM involvement hinders NASCAR competition. Is there a similar sentiment within IndyCar and/or the teams? While Keselowski suggests adding manufacturers, IndyCar struggles to attract new manufacturers. With over a decade of nearly stagnant engine development and no new OEMs joining, how certain do you think IndyCar will end engine competition, much like it reportedly has with the dampers? It seems the current series formula is fundamentally flawed. The thought of increasing competition through increased regulation and decreased development competition appears antithetical to the health of the sport. Your thoughts?

Craig, Newport Beach, CA

MP: There are no plans to end engine competition. It’s IndyCar’s worst fear. Roger Penske is one of the world’s largest car dealers and is more connected with the auto industry as a whole than any other person on the planet that comes to mind.

Having the series he owns being rejected by that industry, or losing competition by having only one manufacturer to supply engines, would be an embarrassment on the grandest scale. Keselowski raises some interesting points, but they are very specific to NASCAR; I didn’t see a lot of parallels to IndyCar in the article.

We’ve touched on this once or two already, but the overarching topic here is of the auto industry and whether enough car companies find the IndyCar Series to be a compelling place to spend a ton of money to race and in turn sell a ton of cars, burnish their reputations, achieve a specific marketing goal, or all of the above. The question is about engines and formulas, but that’s secondary to the bigger topic.

When the Indy Racing League turned into the IndyCar Series in 2005 and added road/street racing to its former all-oval calendar, it had Chevrolet, Honda, and Toyota involved as official and major partners/suppliers. In 2006, Chevy and Toyota were gone and Honda stayed on as the sole supplier with its 3.0-liter non-turbo V8 purebred racing engines.

It was a spec series with those Hondas from 2006-11, and over in Champ Car, the former CART IndyCar Series lost its multiple manuf acturers and ran as a spec series with Ford-badged Cosworths from 2003-06 and held its farewell season in 2007 with unbadged Cosworths.

The new 2.2-liter TTV6 IndyCar formula arrived for 2012 and Chevy returned to join Honda along with Lotus, which hired the Judd family to make engines for pennies.

Lotus left after a single season, and since 2013, it’s been all Chevy and Honda. Once the 2026 season gets rolling, we’ll hit the 14th season of IndyCar’s two-brand engine supply reality, and we’re left to take an honest look at what this century’s story has been with domestic and international car companies.

There was solid involvement in CART which had three brands through 2002, then reverted to one until its demise later in the decade. The IRL/IndyCar had three through 2005, one through 2011, three for 2012, and has been at two for almost a decade and a half.

Those motors have been screaming 2.65-liter turbo V8s, singing non-turbo V8s, and whatever you’d describe today’s 2.2 TTV6s as sounding like. They’ve been different sizes, with different cylinder counts, with different types of air induction, and have recently gone hybrid. And the average participation count from the world’s auto industry has hovered between one to two brands for the longest stretches of time since the start of the century.

With all of that variety in mind and the highly limited presence by brands that aren’t named Chevy and Honda, I’d say the size and type of motor isn’t the issue. Creating a more compelling product where more brands believe they can distinguish themselves in the sport, elevate their reputations, and increase their values through vehicle sales, is where the first fixes are required.

GM/Cadillac isn’t headed to F1 to try its hand at racing small turbo V6 hybrids. That’s old news. It’s the everything else that’s bringing GM and an insane budget to F1. All while Chevy hasn’t signed to stay on in IndyCar after 2026. It ain’t just the engines… it’s the entire value offered the a series.

Q: I apologize if I have missed this in the various articles regarding the new IndyCar engine formula, but has it been decided whether the push to pass system on road and street courses will still be in effect in 2028?

Don, Indianapolis, IN

MP: No worries. It will. Just a question of whether it’s P2P via extra turbo boost, hybrid electricity boost, both, or just the hybrid.

IndyCar steering wheels will still feature a push to pass button from 2028, although how that system will function is still being determined. Joe Skibinski/Penske Entertainment

Q: Would Chevy and Honda really leave if the 2028 regs were a non-hybrid V8 turbo? And should we care?

When you look at YouTube and see videos about sports cars and pre-2000 Indy and F1 cars, what are they discussing? Yep, the sound and the visceral experience. Whether it be a Cosworth turbo V8, a F1 V10, a Jaguar XJR16, a Mazda 787 or hell, a new Corvette Z06, the sound gets a lot of the attention.

If IndyCar would just focus on the product, then manufacturers would be coming to them to participate. Instead, they are letting the tail wag the dog, and will always be behind the curve. Meanwhile we end up with a totally spec car that sounds like a tractor with an electric motor that no one can see or experience, and in a few years will be completely irrelevant.

Right now is a prime opportunity to get one up on F1 since their next formula will still be V6s. I’d really like to think manufacturers would step in and want to be a part of that experience, where fans come to the fence to see something they don’t normally experience.

Short-term loss, long-term gain.

Brandon

MP: Well, yes, either would leave if they didn’t want to build and race with engines they either don’t like or don’t fit their promotional needs. As for whether you should care, it’s a question of whether you want more IndyCar or less IndyCar, because manufacturers pay for a lot of the racing that happens through the millions received by the series, and by sponsoring events, and helping to develop cars, safety devices, drivers, and teams through a range of financial means.

Totally get the passionate position you’re speaking from; we share the same views. But from a business perspective, most brands don’t make decisions on where to race and what to race based on what will make fans happy. Executives at Brand X don’t sit around a table asking how they should spend tens of millions or hundreds of millions on racing programs to make people smile. I’m sure they should, but they’re in business to make money and meet whatever goals they’ve created to achieve their financial forecasts.

Subaru, with the dogs driving the car advertisement, might be the only brand that DGAF about anything other than making car sales through creating smiles. But they aren’t in F1/IMSA/IndyCar/NASCAR where a racing program would get noticed.

I want to have a reason to go crazy at the sound and speed of an Indy car like I have in the past, or when I’ve gotten to see things like Colton Herta drive his dad’s 1999 Reynard-Ford/Cosworth CART IndyCar in anger. I also wish those emotions were the kind of things that fuel engine formula decisions within today’s IndyCar which could then inspire more car companies to come play in the series for everyone’s delight.

Q: Couple of things: First, for Marshall. Say it ain’t so. BoP for IndyCar? Put aside how contrary to IndyCar history that is, how can such a thing be done without politics and controversy? Has everyone forgotten the pop-off valve/spacer controversies in CART days? Or the heavy push from teams to get rid of the aerokits?

Besides, given the ROI, wouldn’t the formula be pretty much self-policing? We have just had an unprecedented 20-year period of a, ahem, balance of power in IndyCar in which Chevy and Honda have pretty much been competitive with each other because neither side was prepared to spend crazy money to get a massive edge. Wouldn’t a bigger worry be, with neither signed past next seasons, finding an engine supplier at all? It’s still not clear to me what the plan is for 2027.

Second, for Chris, I am sure you will have plenty of things to say as a postmortem on the return of the ground effects formula; however, one thing keeps bugging me: At the start of the formula, Ferrari and Mercedes broke with the consensus design approach and tried their own paths. Which flopped. And more important, the two teams never caught up. How did that happen? Side effect of the cost cap? Side effect of the longer seasons that meant design work on the next year’s car had to begin halfway through the current season? You can always blame the revolving door tech department at Ferrari for its woes, but no such instability plagued Mercedes. With the massive changes in store for 2026, should we fear a repeat?

Al, Boston

MP: Chevy and Honda have spent massive amounts of money to gain an edge, so right up front, let’s dispel the notion that they haven’t. The idea of using BoP to bring an underperforming engine into a state of greater competitiveness is part of the effort to get both brands – and others – to sign on. In lieu of spending a fortune to R&D their way out of a hole, some extra turbo boost or another performance-enhancing allowance would keep the brands competitive while saving them a lot of money.

Referring back to those pop-off valves which regulated CART IndyCar Series-era turbo engines, BoP is exactly what the series used – just without the BoP name – as it took away or gave boost to the different brands as they did exceedingly well or struggled. Back then, the measurement was in inches of mercury, with the Buicks, Chevys, Judds, Ford/Cosworths, and others having their power reined in or freed through pop-off valve settings decreed by the series.

After Roger Penske mollywhopped everyone at the 1994 Indy 500 with the 209 c.i. Ilmor turbo V8, the motor’s turbo boost was slashed for 1995 and he pulled the plug on the engine program; this was 100 percent BoP, with “The Beast” being balanced down and out of competitiveness to make it go away. And it did.

The spirit of what’s being considered for 2028 is about balancing upwards, if needed, and only if it’s needed, to make the series more affordable for car companies that are seriously worried about the state of their industry and having the profits and reasons to continue spending on racing programs. If this cost-saving application of BoP helps to ease their fears, I’m all for it.

And if the auto industry was overflowing with cash and had no worries about receiving all the money they wanted in order to play in IndyCar, I’d be hollering at IndyCar for even considering something like this. But that’s not the reality we’re living in.

CHRIS MEDLAND: I’d say it’s not about those two teams, but more about the fact that all teams still hit the same limitations and it was who worked around them best. Look at Red Bull, for example – absolutely dominant in 2023 and the first part of 2024, then hit a limitation with its floor design and ride height concept.

Previously, Red Bull was able to get performance at a higher ride height while others struggled with bouncing, but as rivals – namely McLaren – started to work out how to get performance from the floor at lower ride heights, Red Bull was caught out. Only as it adapted later this year did it become truly competitive again.

Ferrari had a good concept at the start of 2022, and also in 2024 when it outperformed Red Bull (and everyone else) in the second half of the season, but it got its suspension concept wrong last season and was playing catch-up.

I think we’d have seen Mercedes catching up more had there not been a major change of regulations coming, but while Red Bull could identify how to make big gains during 2025 – and realistically only had that shot at winning a title for another couple of seasons, given its power unit situation for next year – Mercedes and Ferrari were both too far behind McLaren at the start of this year to justify that investment in development with the new car on the horizon.

I wouldn’t fear a repeat in 2026, although I would still lean towards McLaren being more likely to outperform Mercedes with the same power unit given recent form. But I’d have Mercedes being much closer to McLaren.

The early-season gap built up by McLaren played a part in some other teams easing off on in-season development and switching their focus to the 2026 regulations. Sam Bagnall/Getty Images

Q: I am a bit curious as to why F1 uses a battery for its hybrid system, versus using a capacitor as in IndyCar? Methinks that a capacitor would be much lighter, take up less space, and be easier to package than a battery. Any thoughts?

John

CM: I’ll admit this is only an I think answer rather than having had this explained to me at all, but I’m pretty sure it relates to what is more relevant to manufacturers and the technology that could make its way into a road car. I also believe that in order to get the sort of performance F1 wants from the hybrid system, the capacitor would actually take up more space – they don’t hold as much energy as the battery can, even if power delivery could be rapid. By pursuing battery technology, the regulations also encourage manufacturers to improve in order to provide quicker bursts of energy in smaller, lighter batteries.

Q: The 2026 F1 regulations are out. And just like DRS, the new regs require only a one-second gap. So you can possibly get the added power every lap. IndyCar’s Push to Pass requires strategy. These new F1 regs don’t. I had also hoped that F1, reacting to the constant driver complaints recently about being balked by a slower car during qualifying, would move the timing line in qualifying to before pit in, so a driver could immediately pull into the pits and not have to do a slow lap and hold someone else up.

Further, wouldn’t breaking Q1 and Q2 into two groups greatly reduce balking, and result in shorter sessions since there would be fewer cars on the track? Two Q1 groups of 11, with seven going through. Thus Q2 with seven cars in each group, with five from each going through. Sounds totally reasonable to me, which is precisely why the FIA won’t do it. Can’t imagine what Monaco qualifying will be like with 22 cars if they don’t.

Mike Talarico, Charlotte, NC

CM: Admittedly, the regs are complicated, but there is a Push to Pass-style power option too, called Boost Mode. That’s just like previous ERS deployment and available to drivers separate to the Overtake Mode (which is like DRS, as you rightly point out). So you effectively have both a DRS-style power boost and a Push to Pass-esque one as well.

We’ve actually seen relatively few penalties for impeding this season, but drivers will always complain! Certain circuits can be problematic (for example Monaco traffic on such a narrow circuit, Budapest and Brazil as short laps and also Monza where the slipstream is so crucial), but on the whole I don’t think two extra cars are going to be a big issue.

In 2010-12 we had 24 cars on the grid with the current format, and there were fewer rules then around maximum lap times to make speed differentials safer, etc. It just means Q1 is likely to see an even longer delay when cars leave the pits, as they all crawl out. With 22 cars involved, six cars get eliminated in each of Q1 and Q2, so by Q2 there’s only one more car than normal, and Q3 is the normal top 10.

Despite all that, I do agree with you that I’d like to see the timing line moved to reduce the likelihood of traffic issues and to speed up cars getting back into the pits for another run.

Q: In the previous cars, has there ever been a case where the DRS did not close and caused an incident or crash?

My question is about the movable bits on the new car and what would happen if at the end of a straightaway, the front wing did not return to the desired position. What could happen?

Jim Doyle, Hoboken, NJ

CM: Yes, but the most recent example I can remember was driver error – Jack Doohan turned in for Turn 1 at Suzuka this year still flat out, which meant he hadn’t lifted at all and therefore the DRS hadn’t automatically shut, and he had a huge accident. Allegedly he had been doing it in the simulator without issue, but it did need the DRS to be manually closed, or a lift to trigger it.

Marcus Ericsson also had a massive crash on the run to Turn 1 at Monza in 2018, with his DRS failing to close when he hit the brakes. That one was a mechanical/parts failure, rather than on Ericsson.

Next year, it’s both wings that can open to reduce drag on certain straights, and therefore both should close at the same time, too. If that didn’t happen, a car would get much worse braking performance as it would have far less downforce, but should be slightly better balanced as it’s both front and rear wings that are affected. That might reduce the likelihood of a car spinning or snapping away instantly (a problem with DRS because there was far less downforce at the rear but the normal amount at the front) but would mean carrying far too much speed to make the corner.