The RACER Mailbag, May 21

On May 21, 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.

Q: I am sure you will get multiple questions regarding the Penske violations. You are my North Star when it come to IndyCar reporting so I wanted to get your thoughts. I know there is no hard evidence that the attenuator was illegal on Saturday, but they are starting to show a history of doing the wrong thing. Should they have been pushed back to spots 31-33?

Also, I would guess the rule book is significant enough that it would be virtually impossible to have memorized, but how many people work the inspections? Maybe each individual must be responsible for certain areas of rules (maybe it is already that way)? Just seems like it would be difficult to try and catch everything.

Lastly, does this all fall on Tim Cindric?

David N

MARSHALL PRUETT: Here’s where we have some interesting applications of the rule book. By rule, yes, the two Penske cars were allowed to keep their Fast 12 spots as a result of their speed on Saturday. And the speeds were kept, according to IndyCar, due to not being found in illegal spec on Saturday.

That doesn’t mean they weren’t illegal on Saturday. That means IndyCar didn’t penalize the illegality. Multiple teams told me they saw the illegal parts and alerted the series prior to Sunday and no action was taken.

A technical director from an opposing team told me Penske’s use of modified attenuators is nothing new to the paddock and they believed it had just become an accepted thing that Penske did that was ignored by IndyCar technical inspection.

Where this has merit is in how the rest of the paddock hasn’t followed suit by modifying their attenuators. If the other teams thought they could get through tech with modified attenuators, they would. But they didn’t, which lends credence to the belief that it was viewed as a Penske-only exception made by technical inspection. That’s telling.

Then IndyCar decided to act on the illegal Penske attenuators on Sunday. Why Sunday and not Saturday? Or the days prior when the parts were on two of the cars? Or at the Indy Open Test in April? Or in 2024 when the race-winning car carried the modified attenuator? That’s for IndyCar to answer. I’ve asked and await the opportunity to hear what might be said.

And then on Monday, IndyCar chose to ignore the Fast 12 protection rule for the 2 and 12 cars and use a catch-all rule that lets them vacate other rules and apply penalties and fines.

Any suggestion that the tech inspectors didn’t know whether modifying the attenuator was legal or illegal is pure fantasy. This has been a Penske ordeal since Sunday, but that’s only half the story, and frankly, it’s not all that interesting to me. Team Penske, doing something it shouldn’t – no matter how small or stupid or as obvious as modifying something that everybody could see – is old news.

The apparent and ongoing failure of technical inspection to actively enforce the rules it writes is the real story. IndyCar’s rules are created by the people in charge of policing the cars. This isn’t a case of having to try and memorize a book written by someone else. This is the handbook they wrote for themselves, to set the technical standards they want to see upheld by their competitors. And if anyone wasn’t sure about attenuators, all it took was opening the rule book they wrote and reading the section on what can and can’t be modified. There’s no mystery here.

If a Rahal car comes through with a plain-looking attenuator, and a Penske car rolls through with a beautifully blended and smoothed and shiny clear-coated attenuator, that’s the time to do a simple compare and contrast of the differences between two spec components that have been presented in blatantly different visual states.

It’s the old Sesame Street game of “which one of these is not like the others?”

If the Penske ones are not like all the others, over and over again, ask questions. Consult the rule book, if needed. The chances to play the Sesame Street game were offered up on so many occasions since 2024, but technical inspection chose to fail at that game until Sunday. The reason behind that choice is what I want to know more than anything else related to this incident.

Why did Penske modify the attenuators and why weren’t the modifications consistent on all of its cars? Said another way, why, when I went back and looked at all my footage of the cars from the April test through Sunday, was the No. 3 car found with a compliant, non-blended attenuator while the Nos. 2 and the 12 were in illegal form the entire time? Like hearing from IndyCar, I hope to hear from the Penske team to find out.

As for Tim Cindric, yes, he’s the top person in charge of the team, so that’s where the buck stops, but I don’t believe for a minute that he, or Roger Penske, or anyone else at the team cooked this up as a masterful attempt to cheat. This wasn’t some stealthy item buried in the fuel tank that gave Penske drivers an extra gallon of fuel to use that was uncovered by technical inspectors. This was as obvious as it gets, in plain sight.

Which supports the suggestions coming out of the team that the modifications were driven by cosmetic motivations and not a scheme to achieve aerodynamic perfection. But the motivation behind ignoring the rules doesn’t matter, does it?

Reminds me of a time when I saw a court show where the judge stopped the proceedings when a line of detainees were being cycled through for their hearings. One was asked to plead guilty or not guilty, and he responded by saying, “Guilty, but with a reason.” He then gave an excuse for why he did whatever he did, and the judge ignored the answer and went with guilty. The next person came up and was asked to plead, and used the same “Guilty, but with a reason” answer. That’s where the judge stopped everything and angrily said, “There’s ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty.’ There is no ‘guilty with a reason.’”

As a byproduct of illegally modifying components that weren’t allowed to be modified, what the team did was the definition of cheating. That part needs to be clear. Even if the motivation was something as simple as making the attenuators smoother and prettier, the end result of their actions was to do something to their cars, in a tightly controlled spec series, that should not have been done. That their rivals weren’t doing. Guilty or not guilty. There’s no ‘guilty, but with a reason.’

Another item that needs to be clear: It’s not what they did, but the fact that they did it. And that THEY did it. The team owned by the guy who owns the series, caught again. Huge violation of trust. Again.

Whether it made their cars faster, slower, or had no performance gain whatsoever is immaterial. The act of modifying a part that is banned for modifications in the rule book is illegal. Putting those modified parts on the cars, and using them in competition, is cheating. Back to the Sesame Street game; if one team is doing something all the others aren’t because they know they shouldn’t, that one team isn’t playing by the rules. It’s the most basic form of cheating, even if there’s a great reason for it.

It’s the act of not complying, not how far out of compliance they were. This was intentional, and repeated, and done over a long period of time. And IndyCar’s technical inspection wasn’t oblivious to this until Sunday. Something happened – something triggered a newfound willingness to call a foul after a year of refusing to blow the whistle – and that’s about all we know for sure.

What this has exposed, again, is the appearance of a team that’s not willing to apply the same internal checks and balances as others to ensure it complies with the rules. And that just can’t happen when the team and series are owned by the same person. Team Penske needs to be the shining example of competitive and compliance excellence. This is just sad.

Q: Please explain what options the teams and drivers have for setting up hybrid usage in 500 qualifying and race. I understand the basics of how the system works, but TV made it sound as if there were algorithms that had to be chosen before running.  Are capacitors charged before leaving pit lane? Are the regeneration and deployment rates set before the run? Are those rates totally open to the teams within the capabilities of the unit? Is this by rule, or limitations of the device? (TV made it sound as if the ‘trickle’ approach or full single deployment was a choice made prior to the run.)

What choices are available to the driver once the run begins? Will any of this change for the race?

Jack

MP: The trickle was a qualifying option, which was preset before the runs and could not be changed during the runs. And vice versa with doing manual deploy; whatever you chose you had to stick with for the run.

The batteries are charged before they roll out. In the race, there’s two regen options with automated and manual. Both can be activated so regen happens if a lift of the throttle happens, for example, and drivers can press a button or pull a paddle to charge. On deployment, it’s manual only. Drivers do not have to use the charge all at once; if a driver wants to release 100-percent, they can. If they want to do 25-percent, they can.

We’re only going to run one Penske attenuator photo in this week’s Mailbag. This is it. Enjoy. Paul Hurley/Getty Images

Q: During Indy 500 qualifying, why do drivers exit Turn 4 and then swerve toward the inside of the track and then swerve back to the outside of the track entering Turn 1 instead of running a straight line? Seems like a shorter distance would produce a lower lap time.

Tire management allows seems to be an issue in the races. Why do drivers light them up exiting the pits? Wouldn’t an easier exit save some rubber for race action?

Ken, Lockport, NY

MP: It’s speed vs. distance. The cars are setup to turn hard left in the corners, and when they come out of the corners, they want to veer left on the straights. So yes, while they take a slightly longer route by not going straight, they avoid fighting the car pulling to the left, and that improves speed by reducing tire scrub. Tire life with racing slicks is different than tire life on road cars with tread depth. There comes a point, usually, where the special chemistry in the rubber – the compound – loses its ability to adhere to the ground as well as it did when it was new. It isn’t about thickness of the rubber.

Drivers light the tires to quickly accelerate and to generate heat in the ‘cold’ tires so the heavier rear of the car has grip.

Q: What is Bobby Rahal doing to his kid? Every 500, Graham has the worst car in the field. Maybe Bobby needs to get out and sell the team. Look at the clear message BMW is sending.

David Tucker

MP: Last I checked, Graham was a grown man with a wife and kids and the freedom to drive or not drive race cars. What’s up with the friendly fire for Bob?

Q: I’m trying to understand the fuel strategy for the 500. Would you be willing to share:

Expected laps on a full fuel run for a car leading 100% of the time.
Expected laps on a full fuel run for a car conserving fuel in the draft 100% of the time that is not using any hybrid power.
Expected laps on a full fuel run for a car in the draft that is aggressively using/deploying/regenerating hybrid power (possibly attempting to move forward through the pack).
Traditionally the 500 has stints limited by fuel, not tire life. Any chance tire degradation is so high that stints are limited by tire performance?
What else should someone know who wants to watch the race from a strategist’s perspective?

Kyle

MP: Hard to give answers before we hit Carb Day. Great questions, but the fuel side is a lot of guesses and approximations until true race-day running is seen on Friday. On tires, yes, there’s a new wrinkle in the possibility of tires surrendering sooner than usual at the 500 due to the weight.

Q: IndyCar needs changes, so here is an idea. If a team budget is $8 million (estimate) then how about each team can spent it anyway they want? If a team wants 10 sets of tires for a weekend and they want to spend more of the cap on tires, then let them. If a team wants eight engines instead of four then let them, as long as it doesn’t go over budget.

The restrictions on IndyCar was created to limit cost, but that hasn’t worked out so well for us as fans and action on the track. Stop telling teams how they must spend money. More rules and restrictions don’t equal better racing.  

Dan

MP: Completely agree. It’s an interesting proposition, Dan.

Q: Yet again Marco Andretti showed up for his annual outing at the 500, only to scrape in at the back of the field. And, if his form from recent 500s continues, he will be an also-ran in the race itself. He is doing no good to his own or his family’s reputation with these displays, though, puzzlingly, he seems to have his supporters.

How long can they, and he, continue thinking these Indy 500 one-offs are a worthwhile endeavor?

A. Jenkins, Ontario, Canada

MP: This is the first time, since he went to an Indy-only plan, that it has felt like more of an obligations – that’s just what you do each May – than a raging need to race. I could be totally wrong. And with his dad no longer involved, I’m sure it feels slightly less like home. I’ve always liked Marco, and hope he reaches appoint where Indy is a highlight, no a sense of family duty to uphold.

Marco’s flying the family flag alone at the Speedway now. Paul Hurley/IMS Photo

 Q: It’s interesting to me that with all the engineering, simulation and brainpower that a clear method for using the hybrid hasn’t yet been identified as being optimal. That will almost certainly be figured out soon, then it will be just another spec aspect.

What I don’t like seeing is all the wheel and tool movements required at over 235mph with walls staring at you, and from the interviews, it seems the drivers don’t, either. Is this a situation where the marketing factor outweighs safety?

Mike, Elkhart Lake, WI

MP: I’ve yet to see or hear a driver say they crashed or almost crashed at Indy due to hybrid-related distractions on the steering wheel, so no, marketing isn’t outweighing safety. Not yet, at least. Teams have the same cars with the same suspensions and transmissions and so on, and they all use different gear ratios and choose different angles and geometries, so I’m not surprised to see teams finding their own preferences on hybrid use.

Q: Over the last few years I have found myself really starting to pull for Ferrucci. When I heard about the Malukus/Foyt/Penske arrangement, my first thought was there is no way Ferrucci will be allowed to outperform Penske’s guy. Bad optics. Please tell me this is not being clearly illustrated at Indy.  

Mark, Kansas

MP: There are no team orders at Foyt, so it’s not a thing. But the immensely talented young race engineer James Schnabel from Penske who was with Santino last season was moved to David’s car, which obviously meant Ferrucci needed to start a new relationship with a new engineer, and I think it’s that process, more than anything, that’s prevented the momentum from 2024 to carryover without interruption in 2025. Santino’s a badass. Can’t wait to see what he has for us on Sunday.

Q: What happened to the flaps that used to be on the cars to prevent airborne cars at Indy? There are too many airborne cars this year! This is not good!

Lenny Mishik, Fairview Park, OH

MP: Flaps are still on the cars. But they aren’t magic devices that can defeat physics.

Q: I found myself watching the 1982 Indy 500 telecast, and the commentators mentioned early in the race that Rick Mears had broken his fingers in the weeks leading up to the 500 while working on a Model A at home. I didn’t know he was gaining on Gordon Johncock in the closing laps of that race with an injured hand. I’m wondering what the phone call to Roger Penske was like to tell The Captain what happened.

A couple of questions came to my mind. Do driver contracts typically include clauses that say, “Don’t do anything stupid” or “Stay away from specific training exercises like a mountain bike”? What’s been the most unusual way you ever heard of a driver being injured away from the track?

Brandon Karsten

MP: Very common for the well-paid drivers to have limits placed on their action sports activities (no sky diving, swimming with sharks, etc.) for some of the older and more traditional team owners. And then you get a Kyle Kirkwood who’s in the water every day, spear fishing and Lord knows what else, who won’t be tamed. I worked with a driver who was fond of cheap beer and our team owner tried to limit how much he could drink during race weekends. One of those things that’s hard to police, so it was more of a message being sent in the contract than anything to be enforced.

Q: What on earth is Chris Myers doing as host of the 500? Shows me FOX is not serious about making the beat possible broadcast. He’s been simply horrible during qualifying weekend, with so many errors – he called it the Daytona 500 twice.

Mike, Elkhart Lake, WI

MP: But isn’t that what most networks do by taking their figurehead announcer and dropping them in to lead the big game or race in some capacity?

Q: I’m curious about what teams are allowed to do between Indy 500 qualifying and race. Will Andretti and MSR send the backup cars to the shop to try and better prep the backup bodywork for the race, or is that not allowed?  

John, Columbus

MP: They’d need special dispensations to leave the property with the cars. They can do anything to the cars they’d do at any other point in the event. The work tends to happen in Gasoline Alley.

Teams are free to work on their cars in Gasoline Alley ahead of the 500. Chris Jones/IMS Photo

Q: As annoying as it was to have NBC seemingly rely on bringing in NASCAR talent to legitimize Indy, at least they knew where they were. Hearing Chris Myers remind Colton Herta during an interview that it was Herta’s seventh Daytona 500, which Colton immediately corrected, was even more frustrating. This after Saturday’s qualifying broadcast that completely disregarded at least three drivers’ runs during Myers’ and Danica Patrick’s overlong intro. Can’t even split-screen it, guys?

Then Myers tosses to commercial break, promising to bring the filling of the 33-car field for next Sunday’s Daytona 500 – Indy 500. Ouch. Here’s hoping they take it a little more seriously on race day.

Henry, Richmond, VA

MP: Let’s go ahead and take what I just told Mike and light it on fire. This sounds like Troy McClure from The Simpsons has come to life and is hosting the Indy 500.

Q: My questions are pretty simple. Shwartzman has talent, and we all accept that. But the setup and performance of his car in qualifying – that looks like the influence of Mike Cannon. Am I wrong? Good for Shwartzy and it made for good TV.

Was Dale Coyne calling Mike Cannon to ask when his extended fishing trip will be over? I hate what happened for Dale’s team. They are scrappy and I love to cheer them on.

Sato: The guy just continues to cement his legend at Indy.

John Balestrieri, Waukesha, WI

MP: Mike wasn’t involved. The team hired Newgarden’s 2023 Indy-winning race engineer Eric Leichtle for the race.

Q: This year Indy qualifying had it all. My wife enjoyed so much she thinks it could be better than the race. 

RLL hires Sato. Sato and crew proceeded to spank his teamm ates and all but one racer in qualifying. Why is there such an imbalance between Sato and Graham Rahal? Is it his skill level at Indy and skill alone? Can anyone, including Graham, explain his falling down these last couple Indy 500 qualifiers?  

Penske: Was that not a blatantly cheating offense and getting busted at it? Who makes that call within Team Penske? How did one car pass inspection but not the other? The attenuator is a spec part not to be altered, so they say.

Hybrid: Why was it not deployed more at the beginning of run to take advantage of fresh tires?  

PREMA and Shwartzman were spectacular! Is this not an opportunity for IndyCar to cash in on this splash of success and throw IndyCar in the spotlight a little bit more?  

Timothy S., Nashville, TN

MP: Takuma is better at Indy than Graham. Nobody is saying who green-lit the alterations. Because you don’t need more speed when you have maximum speed. You need it when you’re losing speed. Nobody here knows who or what a PREMA is, or about Robert, so I don’t see how unknown people would bring the series into the spotlight.

Q: Jacob Abel in the No.51 car failed to qualify for the 500 in what was a very cool livery. At what point does Dale Coyne start to take things seriously? Not to bash him or anything, but he didn’t look the least concerned that one of his cars was not making the show when he was being interviewed during the Last Chance Qualifying.

The No. 51 car is sitting dead last in the full time entry standings. Does Coyne take a gamble and bring in a veteran driver to get some much-needed points? The driver doesn’t necessarily have to light the grid on fire, but if they are able to bring the car into the top 15 more often that would certainly help…

Not that awesome watch designer Stefan Johansson

MP: If you ignore the valid contract executed between the Abels and Coyne to provide a car for Jacob in exchange for a full budget to run the car, and Dale wants to pay for everything to get a veteran driver, this would be possible.

Q: Robert Shwartzman’s pole victory was a shocker because they didn’t look like they were going to have both cars in the field the way they started out on Tuesday. In Teo Fabi’s case people kind of knew that he could be the first rookie driver to win the pole because he was more accomplished during his stint in Can-Am.

Also, Penske being caught cheating again is so not good for series if it wants to keep Honda and have other engine manufacturers come in. Maybe there should be an independent committee that needs to step in and put a stop to these cheating scandals from the Penske team.

Alistair, Springfield, MO

MP: It’s already in the works.

The modern day Teo Fabi. Joe Skibinski/IMS Photo

Q: Are IndyCar tech inspections video recorded for later review? If not they should be going forward. It’s hard to believe the attenuator infractions were arbitrary. as Tim Cindric put it. This situation creates more questions than answers about the waning integrity of Team Penske, and now also IndyCar tech inspections. This is what happens when all workflows ultimately report to one man. As a long-time IndyCar fan, I have serious doubts about the integrity of the series moving forward.

Rob Peterson, Rochester, NY

MP: Not that I know of on the video recording. This is two stories of their own: Penske’s two-season use of illegal attenuators, and the acceptance that allowed it to happen on the inspection side.

Q: What has been the paddock’s reaction to this new round of illegal Penske cars?

I thought this conflict of interest could be managed, but I was wrong. Team Penske has had multiple cars DQed from official sessions in consecutive seasons. The series’ integrity has been called into question both times.

Is anyone within IndyCar Series leadership willing to say that the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes?

Kyle

MP: Serious outrage from the owners who’ve called, as well as at least one manufacturer.

Q: Where are the pitchforks for Helio Castroneves and Conor Daly being in the LCQ? Both failed tech inspection as well. I’m not saying Penske doesn’t deserve considerable animosity, but they’re not the only team that lost a spot in line/times this weekend.

On an unrelated note, I hate the rule that you don’t have a time if you’re not in the field. Abel is in if he keeps his time. Nobody did it on Saturday this year, but you can pull your time and be the last one to run and be P30 if you were already in the field. I would love to see that rule changed.

Ryan, West Michigan

MP: Why would there be pitchforks for any team that failed pre-session tech? Happens all the time. What doesn’t happen all the time is being failed for intentionally modifying something they can’t modify. Big difference.

Q: First Push-to-Pass, and now illegal attenuators. Roger Penske owns the Speedway and the series. His team has to go above and beyond to make sure there are no thoughts of improprieties. Now they have been caught cheating twice. People went nuts when Tony George started the Vision team. It is time for Roger to sell his team. Let him keep NASCAR and his sports car teams, but you can’t be the owner of the series and have a team.

Joe Mullins

MP: He can be the owner and have a team. It’s just not something that makes everybody comfortable or confident in impartiality when it’s time to dole out penalties, make major race control decisions, and so on. That’s where changing the power structure so an independent officiating body that isn’t directly paid by Penske Entertainment is a must.

Q: Seems interesting that since Roger took over IndyCar, the team caught cheating the most is Team Penske. My question is about the filling on the attenuator. Could the filling, while being aerodynamic, cause a safety issue? It would seem that the filling could cause an issue with the attenuator not working to reduce the impact.

 Frank, Mooresville, NC

MP: Possible if the bonding agent/sealant adds a higher level of rigidity that changes the energy dissipation curve they designed into the device.

Q: Regarding the Penske cars’ illegal modifications to the attenuators, why were the original qualifying times allowed if these parts were present? Will the parts be replaced and re-inspected before the race? Seems like the fox watching the hen house with Doug Boles running it and Penske owning everything. Makes me wonder if Abel could have made the race.

Craig B, Leland, NC

MP: They didn’t try to run on Sunday, the day of the discovery, so the speeds from Saturday, where the illegalities weren’t found, get to stand. Yes, they won’t be allowed to continue using the illegal parts…

Could be wrong, but I think former IndyCar President Jay Frye would have come up with the same decision – moved to the back and a real fine.

Q: I’ve been going to qualifying weekend since 1981. Love it every year! IMS is truly my favorite place! But honestly it doesn’t take much to get IndyCar fans all upset. What Penske did, I don’t see as any different to putting tape on seams on the car – which I have spent hours of my life at IMS doing for many teams. It was a seam they filled, which I would have too if I saw it.

IndyCar didn’t like it, so Penske pulled their cars and did it with respect and dignity. I think “cheating” is too strong of a word for this.

Instead of fans complaining and concentrating on this, we should be celebrating the state of the Indy 500. It is sold out! The cars saved numerous drivers in bad accidents. Great storylines throughout the week and weekend, and a feel-good storyline for the front row with pole and second place.

Let’s celebrate the successes, and not some filler on some gaps.

Tom Harleman, Carmel, IN

MP: This isn’t putting tape over a bodywork seam. This was full body shop work on applying filler and clear coating the attenuators; hours of work for each car’s primary and more hours for the backups. And if it was such a nothing deal, why weren’t 30-plus other cars bounced for doing the same thing? Because they didn’t do it, because they knew it was illegal. The size of the gain makes no difference. If you cheat on the engine rules, and get one horsepower more, you don’t focus on the 1hp, you focus on the cheating. I thought that was something where we were all in agreement.

Not sure what photo to put here that doesn’t involve Penske attenuators because OH HEY LOOK OVER THERE IT’S NOLAN SIEGEL MILKING A COW. IMS Photo

Q: Regarding Doug Boles’s statement regarding Team Penske’s tech inspection issue in qualifying, if the attenuators in the Nos. 2 and 12 cars were deliberately modified, might that have been done to gain a competitive advantage? I don’t think an attenuator is a party you can accidentally modify, so what kind of advantage might that modification provide?

I want to be careful not to make accusations before all is known, but Team Penske must have known that the attenuator is not a modifiable part of the vehicle. The rules seem to be unequivocal on that issue, and I don’t believe Team Penske is challenging that. So why would a team modify a part that should not be modified?  

Kevin P., Los Angeles, CA

MP: To gain a competitive advantage by smoothing the airflow over the sides of the attenuator. Or to make it prettier. Or both.

Q: With the 500 qualifying results (also considering Dale Coyne Racing’s history), I propose that PREMA be given eminent domain power over one of DCR’s charters (i.e., forced sell at fair market value). OK, 500 qualifying alone is a silly measure to use for such a drastic change, but it got me thinking… maybe there’s something there.

Perhaps this could extend to something akin to a relegation system like in European soccer, where some measure of consistent failure in the championship series would require that you put one charter up for sale. (You don’t have to give it away, but some measure of fair market value could be independently determined). I’d think it’d have to be a multi-year measure of failure (at least two years). Perhaps some measure of failure in the short term puts your team in warning of being forced to sell, and you can get out of the warning period by future improvements. The timelines/measures would be something to consider, for sure.

It’s probably a ridiculous idea, but I’ve thought of a few guidelines for it anyway…

1. To prevent charters all ending up with the most well-off teams (e.g., Penske, CGR)… the forced sell option would cascade as follows:

• First buy option goes to public offering for new teams.

• Second buy option goes to teams with fewest number of charters, sorted by some measure of championship success… i.e., for teams with two charters, the most successful of those gets first option to buy, next successful gets second option, etc… then similar cascade to teams with three charters… four charters…

2. A team with only one charter cannot be forced to sell the one they have.

3. A team cannot exceed 20% of available charters… If 25 charters are outstanding, no team could exceed five charters.

4. If there are no buyers during the offseason, the team retains the charter, but it remains available as a forced sale for a period of time in subsequent off-seasons, unless the team demonstrates some measured level of improvement in the championship series.

There’s a ton of variables, but is there something to this idea?

Mark Shekleton

MP: A team with a half-season invested in IndyCar should get the charters from a team that’s been here since the 1980s because it was the best in setting the grid for the Indy 500?

And with a plan to prevent the well-off teams from getting all the charters, the first move is to get the charters away from a small team so a big-dollar team can have them?

I love the backfires there, and the creativity, but these ideas might be best served for a time when such problems exist. This addresses problems that aren’t here.

Q: On Sunday, we witnessed another example of Penske’s disregard for the IndyCar rule book. Not misinterpretation of the rules, but a clear violation of the rules.

At the center of the storm, like the P2P episode, was Tim Cindric. Thanks to him, Roger Penske’s name is again associated with a cheater. Roger spent +60 years building his reputation for speed, appearance, innovation and general excellence in motorsports the world over. Roger and his teams are the standard by which all other race teams are measured. Now these two events in two years threaten to undo all of that.

When Roger bought IndyCar in 2020, he took on a greater responsibility than just being another owner. With that ownership, greater integrity.for his race teams was demanded. They must be above other teams in what they do and how they conduct/present themselves. This is why, I think, Roger doesn’t attend IndyCar races other than the Indy 500, anymore. There can’t be even the appearance of favoritism. This tough, tough standard is evidently too high for Tim Cindric. Maybe it is for any man, but that is the cards that have been dealt.

It’s time for Cindric to go, either by himself or by Roger’s boot. He can’t hide behind a simple, “They didn’t like it” explanation, anymore. I’m sure Tim will land on his feet somewhere, but he can’t stay at Team Penske.

Bill (not even a Team Penske fan)

MP: Roger Penske’s at the stage of his life where everything now is about legacy. The tarnishing of that legacy, by those in his orbit, whether it’s by accident or intent, needs to stop.

Q: How did PREMA do that?

Greg K., Indianapolis

MP: With great style.

Of course PREMA has great style, the team’s Italian. Josh Hernandez/IMS Photo

Q: It has come out there are pictures of the Penske attenuators going back a year to last year’s 500 and the Open Test a few weeks ago. At this point, scrutiny needs to be on Kevin Blanch. He’s the head of IndyCar tech. How can such an obvious infraction on the exterior of the car that’s not even wrapped be missed for a year? That gross level of incompetence should have serious consequences for him and a few others for their participation as IndyCar employees.

If anything, because Penske owns the series and because of the media scrutiny and narratives, the Penske cars should get far more tech attention each week just to make sure they are legit. They backed into catching the P2P issue last year and had to have someone else point this out to them. Next tech, man up.

Mark, Milford, OH

MP: Known Rocket forever; one of my favorite people on pit lane. No question this should never have happened and it’s gone down on Rocket’s watch. Oddly, no mention from IndyCar President Doug Boles about race director Kyle Novak, who was placed in charge of tech after they ousted Frye. He’s been Rocket’s new boss, per the series, since February. For what just happened last weekend, this is on Novak’s watch as well:

Also at IndyCar, Kyle Novak begins an enhanced role as Vice President of Officiating and Race Control. In this position he will lead both the Race Control and Race Tech teams at INDYCAR, responsible for ensuring rigorous and equitable enforcement of NTT INDYCAR SERIES and INDY NXT presented by Firestone competition regulations. Novak has served as INDYCAR’s Race Director since the 2018 season and was elected to the FIA General Assembly in 2022.”

And everything that went down in 2024 that wasn’t seen or acted upon, was on Frye as well as Rocket. Can’t say what will happen to Rocket, but this is the first big failure of the new big boss over him and the rest of the team. Like it did by suspending Cindric and Ruzewski, let’s see if IndyCar has the fortitude to sanction Novak and Rocket and not just Rocket, if they do end up taking any disciplinary action.

Q: I now know why PREMA could put together a stellar speedway car – because they had Newgarden’s past engineer. You said they did him dirty at Penske. Can you elaborate?

Jeff, State College, PA

MP: Josef was in a really bad headspace in 2023; won five races and the Indy 500, but lost the championship. I was told Eric Leichtle was scapegoated and demoted, offered a lesser role, and he left.

Q: Someone went to the Indy museum and looked at the 2024-winning Penske car. It has the same illegal modification to the attenuator as this year. Social media is having a field day with this. So what is it like in the field of non-Penske competitors?

John Balestrieri, Waukesha, WI

MP: I did. Two guesses, circle the one you think is the right answer: They’re happy. They’re not happy.

Q: Having now had two incidents of breaking regulations in less than two years, and in essence cheating, how can Roger Penske look at the rest of the owners in IndyCar with a straight face on any matter, even if he may or may not have had knowledge of what his race car teams were doing?

Clint Novak

MP: He can’t, which is also sad. For some owners, he’s looked upon like a dad. The disappointment for a select few is very real.

Q: When teams were rebuilding an IndyCar after a hard crash into the wall, I heard the announcers say the engine and gearbox will be reused/re-installed in the new tub. Is there any teardown or inspection that takes place before those are reused?

I can’t imagine a heavy impact or stoppage doing anything good to the internals of those components. How robust are they?

Phil, Michigan

MP: Yep, Chevy or Honda techs will do a visual inspection for external damage – cracks or otherwise – and pull the spark plugs and use a borescope to look into the cylinders as well. They’ll try and rotate the crank to make sure everything spins appropriately and dive into the data for any irregularities that might have been captured. And if all’s good, it goes into the new car.

Gearboxes and engines are thoroughly inspected after a crash. If they’re in good shape, they go back into service. Matt Fraver/IMS Photo

Q: I watched the Fast 12 and the Last Chance Qualifying on Sunday afternoon. It wasn’t until Dale Coyne’s cars made their attempts that I noticed both car Nos. 18 and 51 were crabbing down the front straightaway. Up until that point all of the other cars looked normal and straight. I am sure that this caused a scrubbing issue and probably contributed to their slow speeds.  

Tom, Former CART CM

MP: Thanks, Tom.

Q: During qualifying last year I remember Pietro Fittipaldi talking about pressing the throttle with both feet in order to prevent himself from lifting. Then on Sunday Christian Lundgaard referred to this technique as “the old-fashioned putting both feet on the gas approach” (or something to that affect).

From your experience and insight, how common is this approach and how long has it been used? Did someone come up with it or did it develop organically? Are there any stories from the paddock about this?

I find it absolutely incredible and want to know as much as possible, as I genuinely can’t think of another example in sport where the athletes are that committed to their craft. It’s one thing to take a corner flat and take the risk (Jacques Villeneuve trying to take Eau Rouge flat in 1999 springs to mind) but it’s another scenario to force yourself to go flat, basically without the option of lifting! Madness, in the best possible sense.

Delighted to be in race week and looking forward to my weekend diet of Indy, Monaco GP, British MotoGP, DTM and the mighty BTCC all on Sunday.

Will, Cambridge, UK

MP: Never been common in my experience.

Q: So if Roger Penske’s teams are fined two times $100,000 for the attenuator violations, do they still make the check(s) out to Penske Entertainment?

Seriously though, in many professional sports leagues, athlete and team fines and penalties are designated for specific charitable causes. I know in the NHL, for example, fines are stipulated to go to the Players Assistance Fund, which helps retired players experiencing health or financial misfortune.

Does IndyCar have a similar program for ex drivers or crew members who may be down on their health or luck? Is there any sort of formal retired IndyCar drivers association?

MP: Beth Boles, Liz Power, and other awesome people in the series have reimagined the former Indy Family Foundation as the Indy Benevolent Fund to help paddock members in need. The $200K and other fines get shared among local community programs – the Boys & Girls Club, for example – plus the Indy Benevolent Fund, Women in Motorsports North America program, and so on.

Q: I have a couple of technical questions about the designs of the Le Mans Hypercars and the LMDh cars that race in the WEC and IMSA.

1. I have read a bit about the differences between the Hypercar and LMDh regulations. Could you give more detail about what areas of the LMDh are limited, or standardized, compared to the Hypercar?

2. The LMDh cars are built around approved “backbones” from one of four approved suppliers. What is included in that backbone – survival cell, bare chassis? Are pickup points for suspension, etc., fixed, or can they be specified or modified by the OEM and/or team? What other aspects of the car are included in the backbone?

3. At the IMSA race at Laguna Seca, it was obvious that the Valkyrie Hypercar had a much larger and more complex rear wing, and a much larger and more curved diffuser. Are those components more restricted in LMDh?

4. I saw in an article that the Aston Martin Valkyrie, although called a Hypercar, is subject to a different set of regulations because it is based on a road car. Can you give us a bit of information on what those differences are?

 Bruce

MP: The answer to your first question is provided in your second question, so it seems like you know the answer? LMDh is based on LMP2 cars, so it’s a spec tub from the LMDh suppliers along with the spec gearbox. Aerodynamics are custom but highly controlled, and manufacturers have their chassis supplier customize the spec P2 cars with their own engines, bellhousings if needed, and suspension.

3: Yes, LMH rules allow a purebred race car to be built by a manufacturer, or for a road-based hypercar to be built into a LMH-compliant racer. The Valkyrie’s rear wing is nothing like the purebred LMHs from Ferrari and Toyota, for example, because it’s derived from an extreme version of the Valkyrie road model.

4: Since the Valkyrie was not originally designed as a race car to compete in LMH, the rules were written to accommodate unique cars like it, or a Bugatti, or who knows, and adjust their power, weight, and aerodynamics to fit within the same performance window as the purebred LMHs and the LMDhs. There’s no magic rule that can make a Valkyrie and Cadillac equal, so the rules are more free to bring a Valkyrie that can make 1100hp and insane downforce into something that fits with the 680hp and lower downforce full-race creations.

The regulations allow cars like the road-based Valkyrie to get into the same performance window as purebred race cars in LMDh and Hypercar. Perry Nelson/IMSA

Q: If BoP is working, why are the same teams winning every sport scar race this year: Ferrari in WEC Hypercar, and Porsche in IMSA GTP?

Basically, BoP measures things statically – a moment at a time – including the torque sensors. If a car is easier on its tires over a stint, BoP doesn’t catch that. And every team and driver knows that managing the tires is the key to speed, longevity, and winning.

IMHO

Bruce

MP: BoP in GTP isn’t working. Can’t say in WEC because I don’t take as deep a look into its BoP because it’s not within my reporting scope.

BoP isn’t measured statically. It’s 100-percent dynamic. Lap time average and variances there, along with tire temp and pressure data, make it very easy to analyze tire performance over a stint. Add in steering and throttle sensor data, and a full picture is available to series that use BoP data to determine changes.

Q: This year will be my 50th 500, but it was my first Indy Grand Prix. I had the flex ticket and sat in the Northwest Vista grandstands for the race. IMS is so huge that it’s hard to really estimate how many people are there, but it seemed to me that the crowd was pretty decent for a typical IndyCar race. Did they release actual or estimated attendance?

Alan, Orlando, FL

MP: Haven’t seen anything released, but it looked slightly better from the various camera angles and aerial shots.

Q: I would hate to see the P2P go to the DRS model. The drivers being able to manage the P2P adds another layer of strategy to the race. The DRS does very little strategy-wise except for a driver waiting to get to the straight so he can pass. Considering how short of time the teams have had to learn the full strategy of the hybrid and how they could use it in conjunction with the P2P, it might help even more. I find it interesting to see who has used up the P2P getting through the field and who hasn’t, it adds another dimension to the end of the race.

With driver frustrations regarding getting good laps in qualifying and practice, why doesn’t IndyCar do the two groups in practice? It would give the teams a better opportunity for qualifying times with adequate practice laps not to mention more on-track entertainment for the fans.

What is the process for motor distribution to the teams? Are they random or do the teams get specific motors back?

I am surprised at the car count for Indy at 34 cars considering the addition of PREMA to the series. Is it more of the engines being available or lack of teams who usually put additional cars in the 500? I thought there would be 35 to 37 cars trying to make the field.

Jerry Marney

MP: IndyCar splits the end of its first practice into two groups for the reason you mention. IndyCar assigns engines to teams in a random manner, which the Chevy or Honda techs then pull from their trucks and deliver. Chevy and Honda do not decide which team gets what motor.

Could have had 35 entries with Katherine Legge if she’d bought a chassis or been able to get a team to loan or lease one.

Q: Please let Tom from California know that my household has spent a small fortune on the trading cards and it has been the single biggest engagement with younger fans that IndyCar has done in a decade.

It was an absolute grand slam home run. Pictures attached of my teen’s room.

Jason, Terre Haute, IN

MP: What a fun way to display the cards. Tom’s somewhere yelling at kids for having fun at the playground.

Q: People in the Mailbag seem to be all wondering how to fix the Long Beach starting kerfuffle, and coming up blank.  If the issue really is the tight hairpin followed by a relatively short distance to the green flag, then surely the answer is obvious? Move the hairpin back nearer to the original F1 location at the meeting of Shoreline Drive and Ocean Boulevard! I appreciate that back in those days the track used Ocean Boulevard rather than Seaside Way for the back stretch, so taking up the exact original location almost certainly isn’t a go with the need to keep traffic moving, but the 1983 F1 track which was the first that used Seaside Way pulled that back a little, but still a lot further than the IndyCar layouts have used since 1984 – and the 1983 hairpin location looks still usable today.

This would give the cars another 200 yards to sort themselves into better order. It doesn’t sound like much, but it’s an extra one-third the distance or so.

 PS: I still miss the Linden Avenue drop!  

Steven, Wolverhampton, UK

MP: Best answer yet. Or maybe the start is on Linden and they all charge and go flying down the hill like Stadium Super Trucks jumping off the ramps.

Q: In addition to Hulu’s fantastic IndyCar, Indy NXT and F1 coverage, I just discovered they have a huge archive of on demand Indy 500 telecasts dating back decades.  I recently watched the 1992 Indy 500 for the first time since it originally aired. It’s a fantastic race, and what I had not expected was all the grey hair in the driver’s grid. In 1992, there were five drivers over 50, six drivers in their 40s and – most telling – only six drivers in their 20s. Lyn St. James was a 45-year-old rookie. I should also point out that I looked into subsequent years, and the driver ages in 1992 weren’t an anomaly in that era.  Compare that to 2025, where more than half of the 34 drivers set to attempt Indy 500 qualifying are in their 20s, and I just heard Curt Cavin refer to Helio Castroneves as “the old guy” because at age 50, he’s the oldest person in the field.

For additional context, in 2022, during Alex Palou’s contract controversies, the then 25-year-old was famously quoted as saying about his chances of getting into F1, “I am too old to wait and see if someone gets hurt and that is how I can get my chance.” Had he been racing in 1992, he would have been among the youngest on the grid.   

My question is, what has fueled the youth movement in racing? Some compelling data says that athletes in other sports, movie stars and even CEOs are getting older and performing well later in life thanks to improved medical science. What factors have seemingly pushed racing teams to go against this trend and favor young talent?  

LA Racing Fan  

MP: I’m confident I still have the 1992 race recorded live on a VHS tape. Age and experience was trusted. Youth and inexperience wasn’t. Very hardline approach with the veterans doing a lot of gate-keeping. CART got a lot younger from the mid-1990s onwards, and it’s continued as more high-caliber junior open-wheel training series have emerged. Instead of true rookies showing up who had minimal mileage in bigger and faster cars, and on ovals, young drivers with much deeper bases of experience arrived and were competitive.

Today, the most highly trained young driver imaginable are here with vast Indy Lights/NXT/F2 training and they’re like mid-career veterans of old from the outset. Some need to learn the ovals, but look at Robert Shwartzman. He’s a pup, but has F1 and F2 and WEC experience which made him ready to onboard oval racing and look like he grew up at Eldora.

Better development of next-gen talent through the rise of simulators and the rise of health and fitness standard have changed the sport.

Q: I have a question about The Split, but it’s not the usual kind of question that we see. I remember the involvement of Bill France as far as encouraging, and perhaps partially supporting, Tony George. What I didn’t remember, or I had forgotten, was the involvement of Bernie Ecclestone in the same timeframe. The poaching of Jacques Villeneuve at the time was meant to boost Formula 1 in the USA and detract from IndyCar. My question is, were they working together, or was it just how the timing worked out?  

Going back to the recent race at the IMS road course, there was a lot of talk about Graham Rahal’s tire strategy, but without a possible explanation (S, S, H, H). It didn’t make a lot of sense to the broadcast team or to me. Is there any thought as to why the team chose to work their tire strategy as they did?  

DeeAnn Hopings, Cathedral City, CA

MP: Can’t say if they were working together, but I do recall Bernie making suggestions to George that fueled The Split and benefited F1. I’ve never looked at JV as being poached. Best driver in IndyCar with the Indy 500 win and championship, and then an invite to join the best F1 team. With his family’s F1 lineage, Split or no Split, there’s no way he declines the offer.

Q: I have often wondered why IndyCar and its predecessors have a different formula than F1. The average and even more sophisticated fans, can’t visually tell the difference between current top speeds. Yes, speed sells, but wouldn’t economy of scale help out with cost?

Charley Goddard, 78-time Indy attendee, Muncie, IN

MP: You’re wondering why IndyCar, which was established decades before Formula 1, uses a formula that’s different from F1? Because it existed well prior to F1 and is its own entity? Both formulas create cars that are wickedly fast.

Now go and do the race without power steering. Clive Rose/Getty Images

Q: Making preparations to head up for my 50th 500! To commemorate I have booked four laps in the two-seater for Tuesday after the race! Since I am pushing 70 I hope I can handle it. Anyway, in our little text chain I was asked if I had any idea why neither of the Fittipaldi boys weren’t in this year’s race. I don’t really know, but I said that is was probably a lack of funding. So the question was then asked, how many drivers bring funding to participate in the 500?

So I will ask you – how many drivers are paid by the team to drive, and how many bring funding (or more commonly known as bought rides, which I hate the term) for the privilege of participating? Just curious.

D Thomas, Tell City, IN

MP: They have money. They don’t have teams that were willing to take that money in 2025. Hopefully that changes in 2026.

Seven of the 33 starters are paying to be in the race, either from personal/family wealth or sponsors they’ve brought who pay for the seat while they take a percentage to pay themselves.

Q: Alex Palou has demonstrated Alain Prost-like racecraft since his first drive in IndyCar. By Formula 1 standards he is a senior citizen, so that door is probably closed. What about WEC? If I were the team principal for Toyota, Alpine or Ferrari, I would be sending Chip a check with lots of zeros on it. Alex’s racecraft, a competitive chassis and a little luck equals an overall win at the 24 Hours of Le Mans. And the team principal that sent Chip that big check will look like a genius.

Jonathan and Cleide Morris, Ventura, CA

MP: Great Prost-ian parallel to Palou (alliteration warning!). WEC and IMSA teams have drivers just as good as Alex. No need.

Q: I love what FOX is doing promoting IndyCar and the graphics that they’re using are awesome. Kudos to them. There is, however, one aspect of the coverage that is driving me crazy. There should only be two in the booth. Three is too many voices trying to outdo each other and they go on and on. I can understand for Indy 500 because it’s a long race, but for the others it’s not necessary.

Jack, Ft Pierce

MP: But NBC, and ABC before that, and so on, have had three in the booth, so FOX isn’t doing anything other than the norm.

Q: We all know the current IndyCar chassis is extremely overweight . We are worried that this will probably not be remedied in a meaningful, paradigm-shifting manner in 2027 (or 2028). Therefore, would it be worthwhile to consider a hybrid aeroscreen/halo system moving forward?

Implement the halo for road and street circuits, like every other top level open cockpit series and use the aeroscreen for ovals. The aeroscreen already has a halo built into it – could they just remove the “glass” and have at it ?

Would this help drivability and ultimately the show?

Jah from the ATL

MP: Right line of thinking on reducing weight, but not with this car. It’s new rear weight bias is the problem. Taking 42 pounds off the front by removing the laminate screen would make the rear bias worse.

Q: The Indy 500 qualifying draw has got me thinking about, well, qualifying.

For the 500, why do teams want to be the first to attempt? On non-ovals the teams aim to be the last to finish each session. The primary factors for quali optimization I can think of are ambient temperature, track temperature, and rubber on track. Is the difference a nuance between ovals and non-ovals or is there a certain threshold where earlier becomes better?

In last week’s Mailbag you answered that teams select their pit stalls for the Indy 500 after qualifying has finished. For essentially all other IndyCar races pit selections are based on the previous race’s qualifying order. Therefore, how will pit selections be done for Detroit, how are they done for St. Pete, and are Nashville’s qualifying results used for anything pit-related?

Atilla Veyssal, Madison, WI

MP: Yep, it’s cooler at 11 most days than it is at 12 or 1, hence the hope for an early draw. St. Pete is on the final standings. Detroit on Indy qualifying, I believe. No on Nashville.

Q: I am not the greatest math student but I love analyzing numbers nonetheless. There is no doubt the IndyCar TV ratings have been underwhelming for all parties involved, but is it possible FOX still views IndyCar as a better bargain than say, the Xfinity Series?

According to my math, if IndyCar gets 750,000 viewers for most races a price tag around $30,000,000/year, that comes out to FOX paying $40 per viewer. Now the CW is paying $114,000,000/year for the Xfinity Series according to my research. With those numbers, the CW is paying about $104 per viewer.

Of course everyone wants good ratings, but there has to be some cost benefit analysis. From a business standpoint, I might want IndyCar at that price point. Especially knowing you get the Indy 500 to replace the Coke 600.

Brian Joliet, Illinois

MP: Really interesting way to look at it, Brian.

Yes, you gain the Indy 500 – but you lose the Andy’s Frozen Custard 300. Sean Gardner/Getty Images

Q: IndyCar TV ratings have me at a loss. Palou running away and playing hide and seek does not help, nor races going caution free. This cannot be what FOX and Penske had in mind at all.

Why hasn’t IndyCar, if they have not already, impounded the No. 10 CGR and torn it apart? I understand Palou has great talent, but he is not racing against the IRL like Montoya did in 2000. Something seems wrong.

AE, Danville

MP: Who said they haven’t? And when did someone dominating equate to a need to something being underhanded and wrong? That’s a sad way to look at life.

Q: Trailing off Jeremy from Tulsa’s comment in last week’s Mailbag, I was wondering also if Scott Dixon has lost a bit of an edge. True, he’s barged forward during races to improve from poor start grid spots, but race pace is different from flat-out qualifying speeds, no?

The larger question I want to expand on: Absent sponsorship or personality issues, how does a team determine when a driver should hang up the helmet? Or, the team ends / doesn’t renew a contract, and is the determining factor raw speed? Let’s get Medland in here to expound on whether it’s different in F1, or the same… and why was Jarno Trulli let go? (Finally, someone asking the real questions – Ed.)

John in Downers Grove

MP: New engineer for Dixon and they haven’t found the single-lap pace they need. In the races, Dixon’s been Dixon. There does come a point where age conspires against ultimate speed, but in the parts of the events that pay the most points, Dixon’s delivering.

It’s a feel thing on the timing, and also an opportunity. If Ganassi feels Dixon’s got years left, he’ll keep him for years. If a young rocket from F1 calls and says he wants to drive for Chip, or the next Palou emerges at another IndyCar team and wants to drive for Ganassi, that might be an opportunity where the timeline of change could accelerate.

CHRIS MEDLAND: Jarno! Love this. Do you know he has his own vineyard in Italy and used to gift wine to some people in the paddock? So I’ll never have a bad word said about him…

Jokes aside, the “Trulli train” was a thing because he was so quick in qualifying and often could put the car a bit higher than it should have been, and then he was able to hold people up in a slower car when it was so tough to follow in the late 2000s and early 2010s. But as F1 looked to improve racing it became harder to hold a position further up the field if you didn’t have the race pace. Trulli was 37 when he stopped racing in F1 and it did feel like a time when there were some solid young talents coming through.

I don’t think raw speed is always the determining factor, actually. I think it’s the potential of any replacements. Look at Mercedes and Lewis Hamilton – the team knew Lewis could still be excellent in races even if he was maybe struggling to replicate his best qualifying performances regularly, but in case Max Verstappen became available it only offered a one-plus-one year deal to Hamilton in late 2023.

Hamilton could win you another title or two but at some stage there would likely be a drop-off, or a desire from himself to do something else, so Mercedes needed to future-proof its line-up and Verstappen would likely give you at least another decade of a driver at the top of their game. (It was also the potential of Kimi Antonelli that led it to make the bold choice to promote him in Hamilton’s place rather than take a more established option).

Given the experience and gravitas that Hamilton brings, and the solidity it has in Charles Leclerc alongside him, Ferrari is unlikely to replace him until it sees a clear longer-term improvement in performance available elsewhere. So even if he has lost a tiny bit of qualifying pace, that certainly wouldn’t be enough to move on from him.

Where I’d say all motorsport is similar, is performance is a big part of why you choose a driver, but unless they are a significant chunk quicker than any other option, then it’s about the entire package that includes personality, culture fit, marketability and experience/potential.

A man of the people. Getty Images

Q: With all the hunting around for a potential Cadillac driver with a U.S. passport, there’s an American who already has a Superlicense and knows the tracks, because he has F1 experience. Do we know whether they have considered Alexander Rossi, or whether he would consider going back to F1? Or is his experience just too far in the past to be seen as relevant

J.J. Gertler

CM: As far as I’m aware, Rossi is not someone on Cadillac’s radar, and to be fair to the team it has maintained that it will only put an American driver in there on merit. That’s not to say Rossi wouldn’t fit the bill and isn’t a very good driver who could earn a spot through performances, it just means the team is not looking at Americans primarily, but only if they feel they would represent the best option for that first season.

I do think it’s also a good point you make that Rossi’s experience is very far removed – and was limited to five starts a decade ago – so I think some of the drivers who have time in more modern equipment through testing of previous car (TPC) running would be deemed to have more relevant experience. Both Colton Herta and Pato O’Ward (from an IndyCar crossover point of view) have that, but even so they would also be both in need of a lot of preparation work.

That’s why the likes of Sergio Perez and Valtteri Bottas are seen as frontrunners for at least one of the seats. They would bring knowledge and experience for the team to tap into when it comes to F1, rather than need a significant amount of guidance from the team to help learn systems, tires, tracks etc. It’s the same reason Haas didn’t opt for an American driver over those with F1 experience or juniors from F1 teams.