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 …
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: Will we ever see an IndyCar series race on the Chicago Street Course at Grant Park? The same street course that NASCAR races on in the summer?
Chris Fiegler, Latham, NY
MARSHALL PRUETT: No, not unless the city ditches NASCAR or vice versa, and the city chooses to engage IndyCar.
Q: I love the low, sleek, missile-like look of the Lolas and Reynards from the late 1990s and early 2000s. They just looked fast, even when standing still. The current DW12 lacks some of that look, as its side profile looks taller in the center. The tall center visually shortens the car and takes away much of the sleekness.
Part of that is due to the aeroscreen, which I would never dream of suggesting eliminating. However, for me, the biggest part of the tall center appearance is due to the camera pod atop the roll hoop. From the side profile, it looks a little like a snorkel and takes away any low, long, sleek car presence. The camera in the pod is great for the TV product and provides excellent shots of both the side-by-side racing action and cockpit activity, however, I would love to see that camera pod removed in favor of cameras integrated into the car’s lines. Maybe in the center of the roll hoop and/or within the top ring of the aeroscreen halo.
Have you heard any discussion or suggestion about integrated camera placement in the new car design?
Tim Hubbel, Gypsy, OK
MP: I haven’t, but I’ll ask.
Q: I read the Mailbag every week and it seems I am not the only one disappointed about the lack of IndyCar’s presence in video game form. I, like many of your readers, are casual gamers (been playing some sort of console racing game since I was 6, playing the Al Unser Jr racing game on the original NES). Through the years I have played many games, most currently Forza Motorsport on Xbox X.
Currently, IndyCar is not part of the Forza platform (or any other) but it used to be, along with the Long Beach street circuit. Bi-monthly, Forza issues a new track to go with its current selection of tracks. How great would it be if we could get IndyCar and Forza Motorsport to get together and get back into the gaming world? LBGP could be released just prior to the April race with the crapwagon DW12 gen-whatever-we’re-on-now, but it would be a great start. It would be a great way to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the race and seems almost too smart an idea to pass up.
They could even have a ‘beat the lap’-type challenge where gamers try to best a current drivers lap. Additionally, Forza already has a lot of the current tracks (IMS, Road America, Laguna, Mid-Ohio) so you could have an IndyCar mini-series.
Tom, Blue Bell, PA
MP: Yep, all kinds of things they could do. As Penske’s Mark Miles told me towards the end of the season, there’s nothing imminent. Hopefully that changes.
NASCAR’s going to be the only series that races past bars that serve Malort for the foreseeable future. Motorsport Images
Q: What is the status of Honda’s future in IndyCar? With Nissan and Honda joining together, will Honda leave Indy and have Nissan take its place?
David Tucker
MP: Honda’s supply contract runs through 2026. It will decide on whether it wants to stay within the next year. A planned merger with Nissan has been announced, which is different from an actual merger having taken place. It’s got to happen before they can make decisions on such things, if it’s even a consideration.
Q: In the previous Mailbag, you suggested allowing manufacturers to create styling options so that the cars were visually distinct.
How would what you’re proposing be different from the aero kits from the mid 2010s? Those brought visual differentiation between manufacturers. They were supposed to attract Boeing and other aerospace companies, but failed to do so.
I think the pitch sounds good now, but I also thought it sounded good then. No one seemed to like the aero kits then, and no one was sad when they went away.
Kyle
MP: That’s not true. I was sad when they went away. The 2015-2017 aero kits did offer some visual differentiation, but the rules were written to allow great freedom with downforce, which led to crazy explosions of wings upon wings, and in speedway form, super tiny wings. What didn’t happen was the creation of aero rules that were focused on styling variety, as I don’t think of crazy numbers of wings as being about styling.
Right now, there are two manufacturers, not five or 10, so it’s not an overly complex thing to create. Come up with between three-four styling options for manufacturers to choose from, but make those options a set package with items that are unique.
For example, if adding a shark fin to the engine cover is allowed, it can only be used by one manufacturer. And if they all want it, flip cons, or arm wrestle for it. But don’t let all of them use a shark fin because then we’re back to the same problem of all the cars looking alike.
The nose of an open-wheel car sets the tone for the rest of its looks. Create three or four options. Sidepods do the same from the side. Do the same there. And so on. This isn’t about performance. It’s about making a Chevy stand out from a Honda and a ??????? to stand out from a Chevy and Honda.
And like IMSA does with its GTP cars, take them to a wind tunnel, benchmark their downforce and drag and center of pressure and ride height figures and sensitivities, and make adjustments to make them as equal as possible.
You might think this column’s title relates to Formula 1 having an epic championship fight in store in 2025. It could, but more on that later… The ‘super season’ I’m talking about is not actually about 2025. It’s bigger than that, but it is about to …
You might think this column’s title relates to Formula 1 having an epic championship fight in store in 2025. It could, but more on that later…
The ‘super season’ I’m talking about is not actually about 2025. It’s bigger than that, but it is about to start.
I can’t claim to be the person who worked this out, either. It took a team member – a team coordinator, no less – to highlight it, such is their thought process when it comes to planning, logistics, and the way a race team is going to need to operate.
Assuming the 2026 calendar follows the same rough schedule as the two years that have gone before it and runs from March to December, then we are just a few weeks away from current F1 cars likely running every month for 23 months straight.
That’s because 2025 testing will take place in February, the final race will be held on December 7 (and the post-season test follows it), and then the first test of 2026 is provisionally expected to be held in late January. That follows the same timeline as 2014’s major technical regulation changes, when the opening pre-season test took place from January 28-31 in Jerez to allow initial power unit assessments.
Even if that opening test does end up taking place in February, teams were able to use the 2021 car for testing of previous car (TPC) running in 2022 due to the significant change in regulations. Given 2026 offers a similar situation, this year’s cars could well keep running next January, too.
It highlights what a major challenge all of the teams are facing when it comes to the new cars, as they grapple with not only a new set of aerodynamics but also fresh power unit rules. Although not quite as complex as the 2014 changes, they still mark a significant shift, as the first new engines since the hybrids were introduced a decade ago.
So they are now faced with juggling the delivery of their new cars for this coming season, their ongoing upgrades throughout 2025, development of the 2026 designs – aerodynamic work only being allowed to start on January 1 of this year – and TPC running, as well as testing of mule cars if the FIA requires it.
While all of that might sounds relatively similar to what teams were able to do with massive testing programs in the past, they are now limited in many areas by the cost cap, and also facing another 24-race season.
And it’s a season that looks set to be as competitive as any in recent history.
As I admitted in my ‘2025 Wish List’, the way this coming year is shaping up at the front of the field is actually a source of anxiety for me. From the Miami Grand Prix onwards, it was a remarkably competitive season last year, across multiple different teams. The unprecedented number of one-two finishes from four different constructors, and seven winners who also all had multiple victories, was in some ways scuppered by Max Verstappen’s blistering start that moved him out of reach of the chasing pack.
But there was a biggest weakness in that pack in the form of Mercedes. As a team it was a long way off at the start of the year, and while there were some extremely competitive weekends, there were others that were just as poor as when the year began. Unlike McLaren, Ferrari and Red Bull, it couldn’t arrive at any given track with any real form of confidence that it would be fighting with the others, but it did at least have the high points to try and learn from.
For teams like Aston Martin, a disappointing start to 2025 might mean a very fast pivot to preparations for 2026. Steven Tee/Motorsport Images
So the added knowledge, and a full off-season to produce a new car that might take advantage of that understanding, could put Mercedes in the frame to join the top three on a more regular basis.
It could be argued that Ferrari was the most consistently strong team by the end of the season – Charles Leclerc scored the most points of any single driver from the summer break onwards, and the team itself outscored McLaren by seven during that same span. But the mid-season errors were costly, and represent the main area that needs addressing this year.
McLaren managed to maintain the better form from Miami onwards despite a title coming when it was clearly still in learning mode, so there’s definitely room for improvement there too, and we saw Red Bull recover from the most alarming spell of its season around Monza and Baku to be competitive again in the final rounds.
So Mercedes has the biggest headroom, but all can do better, and in a perfect world all four will do so, leading to a championship that could be won by any one of four teams, and any one of seven drivers (given Red Bull’s admittance that Liam Lawson’s role is to play second fiddle to Max Verstappen).
The anxiety I spoke of earlier is about what if 2025 doesn’t deliver – if one of those four teams does make the progress outlined above but none of the others do and there’s a clear leader early on, much as there was at the start of last season.
In that case, the impact of the ‘super season’ could really take hold. Teams will be less likely to continue developing their 2025 cars for long if they don’t start the year with a realistic chance of fighting for a championship.
The same can be said of the midfield, where teams are even more likely to write off the coming year when their potential returns are so limited to try and take advantage of 2026. Assuming the top four remains the clear top four – and that’s perhaps being cautious when the small gaps across the field could see a fifth join the party – then at best the rest are generally fighting for ninth and 10th each weekend.
But don’t worry, I’m not getting pessimistic. Nor am I necessarily expecting any of the above to happen, because it’s so rare for the entire field to feel that it was within striking distance of a big result.
At the final round of 2024, eight of the 10 teams were within 0.609s of pole position, and that included Stake Sauber that had made strides through the year and was represented in Q3. Of the other two teams, one of them – RB – qualified 11th and 12th, and a little over 0.4s off the fastest Q2 time.
Wins and podiums might remain unrealistic for the majority, but small gains can move a team a long way in such a competitive field. That makes the coming season all the more enticing for all 10 constructors’, knowing that significant progress is not out of reach.
It’s all set up to be an epic year in terms of competitiveness, but even more so as the sport transitions towards the new regulations, when Audi and Cadillac will join the fray to try and upset the status quo.
Get ready. The super season is going to be some ride.
Here’s to a great 2025! I hope you’ve all had a fun end to last year, but if not then this is the point when we get to look forward with hope and anticipation that there will be better times ahead. And in keeping with that theme, I always like to …
Here’s to a great 2025! I hope you’ve all had a fun end to last year, but if not then this is the point when we get to look forward with hope and anticipation that there will be better times ahead.
And in keeping with that theme, I always like to kick off the New Year with a set of requests. Think of it like writing a Christmas list to Santa Claus – you know a lot of it might be highly fanciful, but you might as well stick it down anyway…
A reminder to anyone who has not read one of these before, this is not a set of predictions, and certainly not intended to be insightful (although go and check out last year’s, as quite a few did end up coming true). This is just a list of topics that I wish I had the power to make come true if I was in charge of the Formula 1 world.
THE TOP TWO TEAMS ARE CLOSELY-MATCHED FROM THE START
A year ago I wanted someone to challenge Red Bull, and for the majority of the season we were lucky enough to have three different teams capable of putting up a fight – and even comfortably beating Red Bull – at specific tracks. But that dominant opening part of the year set the tone, both in terms of expectations and early interest, and also in Max Verstappen getting just a bit too far out of reach.
The way team bosses were talking by the end of the season, all of the expectation is for an absolutely epic year in 2025, with the top four teams all fighting for the title. But I’ll admit that actually leads me to worry about how disappointing it would be if the reality is different.
If one team just gets a march on the rest, even a small one, then others are potentially going to switch full focus to the 2026 regulations earlier than usual, and we won’t see the picture closing up through the year.
So my wish is that at least two teams – any two teams – are fighting it out for wins from the word go. That will not only be great to watch, but it will also prevent either one of them getting a daunting lead such as Verstappen had early on in 2024, in turn keeping the rest of the top four in touch.
HAMILTON AND FERRARI CLICK
It was probably my favorite story of 2024, and we finally get to see how the Lewis Hamilton and Ferrari partnership will play out.
It had a huge impact on the driver market chaos that followed (another wishlist item from last year – one that predicted Kimi Antonelli and Ollie Bearman stepping up!) but it also clearly affected both Hamilton and Mercedes at times, as the two sides acknowledged later in the year.
Yet despite some qualifying struggles, there were still a number of highlights and race performances when Hamilton looked to be at his best. And wouldn’t it be great if there was a lot more of that in 2025?
In fact, wouldn’t it be great if Ferrari provides Hamilton with a true title-contending car, as it did in the second half of last year for Charles Leclerc and Carlos Sainz? 2021 was the last time he had one, and it would be huge for F1 if the seven-time world champion was in a car capable of fighting for an eighth crown.
LIAM LAWSON’S REPUTATION HOLDS UP
I’ve written in-depth about how I think Red Bull isn’t learning from the past or getting the most out of its second car, and to that end, that it risks hurting Liam Lawson by promoting him straight away rather than Yuki Tsunoda.
There’s no argument about Lawson’s talent, but Red Bull needs to be patient while he finds his feet. Sam Bloxham/Motorsport Images
I don’t mind being wrong, so I either want Lawson to have a really good season and prove to be the right choice this year for Red Bull, or I want there to be enough understanding of the situation he has been put in if it doesn’t go well.
A good season in a competitive car could be a lot of fun to watch too, given his early predilection for getting his elbows out, so I guess my wishlist includes me wanting my earlier comment piece to look silly.
GEORGE RUSSELL REMAINS PUNCHY
The final media day of a 24-race season could have been a bit of a slog for the paddock in Abu Dhabi, but George Russell injected plenty of energy into it with his comments about Max Verstappen following their Qatar run-ins.
Some of it I agreed with, some perhaps less so, but all of the drivers don’t have to like each other, and in my book they’re more than welcome to talk up a rivalry.
Now, Mercedes could really do with providing a more competitive car so Russell and Verstappen have to fight it out on track more often, but I’d also like Russell to maintain his conviction into 2025 and not let the off-season turn the heat down too far.
THE GM WHEELS MOVE QUICKLY
Another one along the same lines as last year, but having 11th team approval hasn’t led to a full resolution of the situation. General Motors/Cadillac/what-was-Andretti is still waiting for its entry to officially be granted, and that leaves it on the back foot heading into 2025 when it needs to be working at full capacity.
Hopefully there’s an announcement from the FIA in a matter of weeks rather than months, and we can start getting excited about the countdown to a bigger grid in 2026.
VEGAS TO CHANGE ITS START TIME
It’s a rollover topic! I wrote it last year and I’ll write it again. Just bring the race start time a bit earlier in the evening. Make it more sensible for those in the stands, those on the East Coast, and, yes, those on the ground starting a triple-header that also takes in Qatar and Abu Dhabi at the end of such a long season.
If it’s a crucial race from a championship point of view, you’re likely to still get other audiences tuning in at strange hours, and if it’s not, the existing start time is still far from perfect for European viewers so you’re surely losing out either way.
I still don’t understand how it makes sense for anyone to have it so late, especially with how early the track now shuts for a support race too. Let’s hold it after dark, but when it’s that bit warmer, and when it suits pretty much everyone involved far better.
CARLOS SAINZ GETS AT LEAST ONE BIG RESULT
I totally get the reasoning for Ferrari taking Hamilton, but Carlos Sainz really can feel like he was the collateral damage because his performances were strong once again alongside Leclerc.
The Williams project is an exciting one, but is focused on taking advantage of the 2026 regulations and longer-term goals. There’s definitely more potential than was shown last year, but Sainz might be facing a really tough year after winning multiple races for Ferrari.
The Williams project is a long-term one, but hopefully Sainz gets some sort of payoff for his move this year. Steven Tee/Motorsport Images
So I’d like him to get just one big high point that provides a hint of why the move could pay off over the coming years. If the 2025 car is not a competitive one, then a surprise top five or podium that provides that reminder of how strongly he was performing, and keeps motivation high ahead of the major rule change.
ALPINE GETS A REALITY TV SHOW
It really does feel like you never know what’s coming next at Alpine, and that can be from both a good and bad perspective. Amid the hirings, firings, power unit program curtailings and Flavio Briatore returnings, there was some strong progress with the car last year, and I’m still massively impressed the team pulled P6 out of all that.
But I also feel like the improvements don’t automatically mean there will be stability from now on, and I know we have Netflix and Drive to Survive but if someone could just ensure there is a camera within the darkest corners of Alpine at all times, that could prove to be TV gold.
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 …
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: For decades, car design was all about speed. Sometime in the mid to late ’90s, IndyCar evolution became more about safety, reliability, and cost control. Huge gains were made in these areas, but at the expense of 25-30 years of incremental speed evolution.
What would the cars look like today if they would have been allowed to continually evolve through annual engineering and design advancements meant primarily to gain competitive speed advantages? In a perfect world, the anticipated 2027 car design should make up for as much of this gap as possible, at least aerodynamically. That’s the car I’d like to see considered, imagined, designed, tested, and raced.
Greg K.
MARSHALL PRUETT: I’m with you, Greg. Let’s do a deep dive to start the new year.
For most of IndyCar’s 100-plus years of existence, the cars and all of the innovations and unique ideas they were conceived from held the interest of its fans. There was no separation of the drivers and their cars; curiosity for what made the drivers so brave and skilled carried over to the cars and curiosities about the unique or boundary-pushing concepts they contained.
Unlike a football or basketball, the main tool we use to play our sport constantly changed and evolved, and the interaction between our athletes and the dynamic machines they strapped into was a big part of the intrigue.
Even the post-WWII “junk” formula and the roadster era that followed, which mostly went against the high-tech grain, were beautiful, or offered interesting takes on the same basic chassis layout and Offy engine package. A few cool and new things emerged like a turbodiesel polesitter at Indy and the SUMAR Streamliner, which fully encapsulated the driver and had four fenders, but they were outliers. Nonetheless, the cars were still a huge part of the intrigue and attraction.
And then we had IndyCar’s wildest creative decade in the 1960s when wings and turbocharging arrived, which carried into the 1970s, and even with the arrival of mass-produced off-the-shelf cars from March and Lola in the 1980s, there was enough freedom and variety to make the technological side interesting for fans.
More mass production came in the 1990s as Reynard joined in, and it was with the engines where the greatest variety was found, and huge power as well. That bled into the early 2000s and peaked with Gil de Ferran’s record qualifying run of 241.428mph at Fontana in 2001, and then it soon settled as Champ Car became a de facto Lola-Cosworth formula while the Indy Racing League went full spec on the chassis side starting in 1997 with Dallara and GForce, and two types of engines in Oldsmobile and Nissan.
The Champ Car Lolas (with the odd Reynard thrown in) were still super-fast, and there were plenty of tiny improvements made on the chassis and aero side, but they weren’t things that the average fan would notice, and all the engines were supplied by Cosworth, and together, it led to a gradual loss of caring about the technology side.
That kind of care was surrendered even earlier with the IRL on its debut in 1996, with possible exception for the monster Menard Buick V6 power that was being made. But the cars, as a whole, became spec tools by 1997 that not only looked the same, but by rule, could not be modified.
Will the U.S. open-wheel history books forever record de Ferran’s record-breaking lap at Fontana as the high water mark for cool cars that went really fast? Michael Levitt/Motorsport Images
So with both IndyCar series locked into a spec or spec-ish look and sound, it’s easy to understand how and why, after nearly a century of awesome and vibrant cars being a central part of an IndyCar follower’s fanhood, that elevated degree of vehicular interest – of wanting to know about the finer details – started to die on slightly different IRL and Champ Car timelines.
Once both series stripped the personality out of their formulas to present a cheaper, generic product, the desire to know all about those cars largely died.
Today, they’re just tools where the only innovations are found inside the dampers, which fans can’t see and don’t care about. And inside the engines, which follow the same can’t see/don’t care theme, because IndyCar’s engine suppliers keep everything they do under lock and key and don’t welcome fans into that world.
Hybridization, the newest tech in the cars, has been relatively open for sharing, and some folks have shown an interest, but it, too, is spec, which makes it a lot like the cars: Something cool to process and learn about when it’s new, but after a short period, you’ve learned what there is to know or grown accustomed to seeing the same old thing, and the curiosity is lost.
Also, hybridization hasn’t been embraced by a decent amount of fans, along with some team owners and drivers. So while the DW12s have cutting-edge energy recovery technology inside the bellhousings, I’ve seen more “kill it with fire” reactions than, “wow, that’s amazing, tell me all about it.”
Racing’s origins are an offshoot of human creativity. One person’s big ideas pitted against the next person’s grand ideas. It’s human expression in its coolest vehicular arena. But when we allow ourselves to kill that creativity and expression, we can’t be surprised when racing series that stifle creativity also end up stifling their popularity.
The easy argument against embracing creativity is costs, but I’ve never known a time where racing wasn’t insanely expensive. I don’t want to blow up IndyCar by having wide-open technological freedom, but I also don’t want the costs-first side to win and give us another decade or more of good-but-underwhelming growth with a car – the core of our sport – that does nothing to spike new interest. Not while IndyCar is living deep in NASCAR’s shadow, and in the widening shadow cast by F1.
There can be a middle ground allowing human creativity back into IndyCar — beyond the effing dampers — without breaking the bank. Pick a region or two on the cars where teams can play with bodywork, internal aerodynamics, or suspension technology… and seek sponsors and corporate partners to be involved in those areas to enrich their bank accounts.
Come up with styling options for the engine suppliers to use to make it easier to tell a Chevy from a Honda from a Toyota/Dodge/whatever, to whatever degree is possible — outright stealing what IMSA has done with its manufacturer GTP styling requirements.
Identify areas in the electronics, or software/apps where teams and manufacturers can apply their expertise and give them a six-month window of exclusivity before having to publish those solutions. Many folks love seeing what Apple/Google/Samsung/etc. come up with for phone/tablet creations and app developments; why not tap into that by pulling those folks and fans and companies into IndyCar with the same creative process? Is there a Chevy/Honda/whoever head-up display that can be integrated into the cockpit?
How about those same, but custom phone/tablet solutions in the cockpit instead of a spec steering wheel that delivers the display on a spec LCD screen? Imagine big and small tech companies having a green light to get involved with teams — to the teams’ enrichment — and use the cockpits as tech labs and promotional tools.
Instead of endless worrying about costs and keeping creativity and innovation to a minimum out of fear for runaway budgets, how about opening up tech areas and ideas where IndyCar teams can actually profit and become wealthier through bringing all manner of sponsor/partner deals into the paddock?
Here’s Jarno Trulli looking at a boat. Motorsport Images
An example: As we’ve had in IMSA and the WEC for many years, I’ve heard IndyCar is considering a rear-view video camera system for the next car. In sports cars, the first systems were simple bullet cameras pointing out from the bumper that fed a little monitor on the dash, but they’ve become pretty serious, with some using lidar and software that point to which side an approaching car is trying to make a pass.
In keeping with how IndyCar has done things for decades, it will find a single vendor, sign that vendor as the spec supplier, make a modest profit on each sale, and that’s the end of it. Everybody must use the new rear-facing camera and cockpit monitor, pay a set price, and it’s installed and forgotten. It’s a broken way of thinking that kills business and innovation.
No wonder so many teams are having to take on investors or sign more paying drivers just to stay alive.
Regarding how I hope Penske Entertainment approaches this hypothetical rearview camera situation, it will set the technical specification for a rear camera system, identify a spec vendor that can be used, if desired, but leave it open for teams to seek their own vendors. Hey, Sony, or Nikon, or Apple/Google/Samsung/Intel/Bosch/LG/Philips/Toshiba/whoever, let’s do some cool things together in creating a solution, have you become an associate sponsor, and use our team’s cars as a rolling laboratory and promotions machine for this item, and maybe other things you make as well.
Imagine the advertising possibilities with those big companies, using their IndyCar involvement as part of their annual marketing campaigns. It’s everything we dream of, and would also enrich FOX, racetracks with banners and onsite activations, and through digital advertising.
IndyCar can change its future if it’s willing to stop doing dumb things like making almost everything spec. From Hisense to Sharp to JVC to Vivo to Motorola, to all of the big names like Apple and Google, they are barred from doing anything tech-related in IndyCar. Think of all the significant tech brands you know of, or whose products you own, and of all the up-and-coming firms in Silicon Valley and other tech-rich regions, and they can’t make a single thing to be used in IndyCar. By IndyCar’s choice.
(And yes, I realize there are other series who do the same dumb thing, but the question was about IndyCar. And also, the spec rules we have today were written long before Penske Entertainment bought the series or IndyCar’s entire operations and tech department led by Jay Frye were hired.)
Think small and spec, and get small results, which is what has plagued IndyCar — traced back to the IRL and Champ Car — for longer than some of its newest fans have been alive. Or have some balls, and refuse to be driven by fear, and make smart business decisions that benefit the teams.
Every time a decision is made to sign a spec deal, it’s the series that profits and the teams who are further strangled in some financial way. Penske Entertainment, led by Roger Penske — among the greatest business people this sport has known — has its first chance, through bringing a new car to market with Dallara, to show his business expertise by removing the word “spec” from a range of areas on the car.
Opening up big and new and real business opportunities for the paddock by breaking decades of spec thinking is critical.
And if the whole damn thing is another spec car from nose to tail that continues to handcuff IndyCar’s teams from seeking and finding new technology sponsors and partners, I’ll have to question why the series signed its entrants up for another decade of financial struggles.
“Spec” has been the noose IndyCar willingly places around the neck of its teams and watches as they complain about struggling to breathe. It’s time for a rethink on the ways and places where open competition can make IndyCar better, more interesting, and stoke new business development.
Let the technology world — aerospace, aviation, automotive, electronics, and so on — in and let their collective infusion of money and engineering and creativity lift IndyCar to heights some of us once enjoyed before the word spec started choking the life out of the series.
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 …
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 noticed while watching the 1990 and 1991 CART races that Al Unser Jr. would run a vent off the cockpit into a hose that went into his suit. I assume this is for cooling. Could this be a option today in IndyCar in conjunction with the helmet vent?
Tom Harleman, Carmel, IN
MARSHALL PRUETT: That’s what the new ducting atop the aeroscreen is meant to do. From a regulations standpoint, teams can’t do whatever they want, but if it’s a reasonable request, I’d imagine it would be entertained. In this instance, there were no rules to stop a team from adding vents to whatever was desired.
Q: Aaron Telitz deserves a shot at IndyCar. He dominated open-wheel in the Road to Indy, defeating Kyle Kirkwood, Colton Herta and the rest. His problem was not talent, it was budget. He is consistently fastest in his IMSA seat. Someone give him an opportunity!
Joe Weiss
MP: Sounds a lot like our conversation in Milwaukee. Aaron won the 2016 Pro Mazda championship, today’s Indy Pro 2000 series, but never competed against Herta or Kirkwood that season. He did not dominate Colton in the first year of Indy Lights they did together; Herta was Rookie of the Year taking third while Telitz was sixth, and the next year Colton was second behind Pato O’Ward. I’m a huge fan of Aaron and rooted for him at every step, but let’s not make up a history that never happened.
Aaron was a rocket in the Lexus for most of the time, but the team didn’t feel that was shown in 2023 so he was shifted to a part-time role last season. I hope he gets back to his best form and a full-time seat in the WeatherTech Championship. At 33, and having last raced an open-wheel car in 2019, I can’t find an angle to suggest he deserves a shot in IndyCar before a bunch of drivers who are fighting to get in or fighting to get a shot.
Q: So, if you go on the IndyCar app, as you scroll down there are driver biographies. So there I was, scrolling and clicking and just reading all of them because I’m a fan and enjoy everything about racing. If memory serves me correctly, the drivers are in order of how they finished in the points. I got to the last driver, who is Marco Andretti. His bio says he is the winner of the 2006 Indianapolis 500. I read it a number of times, thinking somehow they meant that he was the first car to finish second, but nope, they make the claim that he is in fact the winner of the 2006 Indianapolis 500. A little ticky-tack, but incorrect nonetheless. I’m not sure how to get it corrected and give the actual winner his recognition. Any suggestions?
Bring back the Cleveland Grand Prix.
Steve, Lorain, OH
MP: Of all the things that might keep Sam Hornish awake at night, idiocy in a bio on an app isn’t one of them. And agreed, bring back Cleveland!
Q: What will be the impact on IndyCar in 2026 and beyond as a consequence of the Honda/Nissan merger?
Gordon, Dallas
MP: Hard to answer since it hasn’t happened yet. Need to wait for the merger to actually happen before we can talk about what might or might not change.
Ah, so now we know what he does for the rest of the year. Sam Cobb/Motorsport Images
Q: Who will be the rookies in the 2025 IndyCar Series?
Chris Fiegler, Latham, NY
MP: RLL’s Louis Foster, PREMA’s Robert Schwartzman, and possibly one or two drivers from Dale Coyne.
Q: In the 12/18 Mailbag somebody asked about using the current Super Formula chassis as a basis for the 2027 IndyCar, and the answer was no because of safety.
Oval crashes are inherently going to be more violent on average than road course crashes just because of speed and wall proximity, but are they harder to the point that IndyCar needs a massively different chassis? Recently, Super Formula had a crash at 130R at Suzuka, and F1 had multiple crashes that were reported at +50G force this year.
Does the FIA, Dallara, IndyCar, or anybody else keep a database of crash data that would be useful for comparing the impact/violence between series?
Will, Indy
MP: Yes to all three. As IndyCar is its own sanctioning body, it wouldn’t report its findings to the FIA. But in the case of our crashes, IndyCar, it’s safety team, and Dallara descend on damaged cars once the vehicles are returned to their garages or transporters and ADRs — accident data recorders — get downloaded, which provide forces and speeds and other info. They also take photos of the crashed car and various bits to document the damage and draw insights that go into their reports.
Q: I know everyone hates Formula E (except, of course, the fans who are making the series grow every year ) but their car does look more 21st century than an IndyCar. Do you think a new car that took styling cues from FE and as bonus made less downforce while at the same time making a lot of noise and burning copious amounts of fossil fuel would make any sense?
Pete, Tucson, AZ
MP: It’s possible, but why would IndyCar need to make their car look anything like what’s found in another series? That’s never been the case. If your favorite band hadn’t put out new music in a decade, would you want them to return with songs that sound like whatever today’s trend happens to be, or with an updated version of their signature sound? I’ll go with the latter.
Also, there’s a fallacy about reducing downforce equates to making better racing. Avoiding an excessive amount of downforce is a good thing, but if you slash downforce, you get drivers who aren’t able to be aggressive with the throttle except for in the slower corners.
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 …
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: Linus Lundqvist’s chance of a full-time IndyCar seat in 2025 seems slim, but can an Indy 500 one-off be on the cards? Other than that, are you aware of him having had discussions with teams in other categories? I’m thinking IMSA would be a good option to get some track time, in let’s say an LMP2 team.
Fabian Blåder
MARSHALL PRUETT: As I understand where open seats stand today, Linus has Dale Coyne left as the only place to go. I’ve pointed him to a number of IMSA LMP2 teams, and also suggested pursuing options as one of the bigger IndyCar team’s official test and reserve driver, as we see with teams in F1, to ensure a title contender has a rocket on standby who can also help with simulator work, engine test days, straightline testing, and some of the other less desired duties that veterans often want to skip. I haven’t checked in since our last story went up and don’t know what he’s got. There was an IMSA GTD possibility I heard of a little while ago, but can’t say if that was just for the Rolex 24 or more.
MP: It’s an interesting call that I’ve heard others in the IndyCar paddock mention as well. Only note to add is Dallara’s spec SF chassis is built purely for road racing and lacks all of the added – and significant – design features to keep drivers safe in the event of an oval crash. With Graham Rahal in the series — and any future drivers who are either tall or wide (or tall and wide) — Dallara’s IndyCar tubs need to be larger than anything they’d make for other open-wheel championships.
It makes doing something original for IndyCar a natural starting point instead of trying to adapt a design from another client.
Q: May I suggest that the design of the next IndyCar chassis be a similar footprint and basic look as the 1979 F1 Ferrari 312 T4, which would be updated with carbon fiber wings, body, etc., of each team’s unique design? I think IndyCar should strive to be different from FIA, F1, F2 designs of today’s long snouts, and trick DRS wings. IndyCar needs to be a unique product, to strive to be better than F1.
Along with this I suggest that work be done with race engine providers such as Ilmor to reproduce the sound of the V12 engines of 1979 F1 to compliment the new chassis.
Sometimes you need to look backwards to move forward.
Mark Stadelmann
MP: It would be the best-looking/sounding retro-modern open-wheel series in the world, which would be an upgrade to simply being the world’s one and only retro-moderns open-wheel series like it is today. A question, though: Does copying something that already exists, and was retired nearly 50 years ago, qualify as unique?
Now try to imagine it with an aeroscreen. Rainer Schlegelmilch/Motorsport Images
Q: After 25 years, SoCal’s iconic Irwindale Speedway has succumbed to the ever hungry real estate market. On Sunday, Dec. 8, the drag strip boasted 250 cars, where racers and fans alike stayed for emotional Final Pass at sunset. As a crew member of this A/FX history run, I’m proud to say thanks to the Speedway along with the countless racers who made it want it was.
Denny Valdez
MP: A sad development. The first racetrack I remember visiting — Baylands drag strip and figure-8 facility — presently lives under the parking lots and big-box stores at the next exit south from where we live. Too many stories like yours and mine and others who loved going to Track X and are left with nothing more than memories after it was sold and turned into something else.
Q: I haven’t seen or heard anything about this but, what will happen to an IndyCar charter if a team who owns a charter can’t come up with enough sponsorship dollars or find a driver with enough money to run a full or partial season? IndyCar has said that they don’t want a revolving door of drivers, so let’s suppose Dale Coyne or Juncos can’t come up with the money to run their two cars — do they have to sell their charters? Can they lease them to another team? How will it work?
John
MP: I could be wrong, but I believe there’s the equivalent of a “If you don’t use it, you lose it” clause in the charter. Like the Leaders Circle contracts, where teams commit to entering a LC-possessing entry for the full season to get the $1 million payout, I’m confident in saying charters have the same full-season requirement.
Keep in mind that no team actually owns its charters; those belong to Penske Entertainment, so if a team is unable to field a chartered entry, I’d think Penske would become centrally involved to reclaim the charters if a sale of the charters to an approved buyer could not be completed. No sales are done without Penske’s approval, so in every scenario, the mothership would be involved.
An area of interest for me in such a scenario, or if someone simply wants to sell and get out of IndyCar, is how that would play out on the buyer side. We often think of an owner with two cars and two charters selling both to a newcomer, but what about the other two-car teams who might want to expand to three charter entries? If Team X is looking to get out, would a Foyt or a Shank — existing two-car teams — get the first shot at buying one of the two charters before a new entity was considered?
MP: It is. There are a range of options on the table that could bring down the overall weight, but a new and heavier energy recovery system is coming, so it won’t be easy to take a bunch of weight away from the thing.
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 …
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: Thanks for your recent article update about the safety improvements made at Mid-Ohio. Attached are two aerial shots of the track I took on Nov. 27, while en route from Maryland to Indiana for Thanksgiving, that fellow readers might enjoy:
Chris R, Olney, MD
MARSHALL PRUETT: I want to know how you got the pilot to hand a hard right to give you two unique angles! Thanks for sharing these, Chris; we asked the track for photos, but they declined, citing ongoing and unfinished work with the fencing.
Q: Is IndyCar stagnant, growing, or declining?
Geoff Branagh
MP: I love questions like this, Geoff. It was stagnant for most of the decade but has started to grow with things like the move to hybridization, which many love to moan about, but has signaled the series is no longer a technological dinosaur, and the shift from a safe TV partner to something bigger with FOX, and the efforts to come up with a new car for 2027, a successful return to Milwaukee, and an ambitious new event in Arlington in 2026.
The deserving criticism during Penske’s first four years of ownership was the overarching lack of the word “new” in regards to the series, all while its main rivals at NASCAR, IMSA, and F1 made big strides with new things that drew — and continue to draw — a lot of attention.
I have a lot of optimism about where IndyCar is headed, but as expected, there are persisting concerns as well, led by the high costs to compete. This is why the move to FOX holds so much hope for the paddock, with an anticipated rise in ratings and teams’ ability to seek bigger deals from sponsors as a result of the larger audience.
Q: Watching F1 over the weekend and all the attention given to the constructors’ championship, and it’s something IndyCar could use. My thought would be the teams would select their two drivers to earn points at the beginning of the season. The reward is for the guys and gals back at the shop plus in the pit lane.
David Bowers
MP: We could rename the cntrants’ championship as the teams’ championship, and add some sort of prize fund, but Penske Entertainment is rarely looking for ways to spend more money, and the entrants’ deal is already used to award $1 million contracts to the top 22 entries.
The reward is through the drivers’ and entrants’ for the crew, but as a former crew member, I’m all for anything that provides greater wealth or recognition for the people who make the racing happen.
Q: IndyCar needs to not be off for six months out of the year. There is no shortage of historic tracks that fans want to see return. We know that when Penske Racing tested “The Beast” for Indy, Roger had them carve a track out of the snow so Paul Tracy could test the engine at Nazareth. It appears Roger sold the property, but it’s still undeveloped.
Enter the Nazareth WinterPrix.
Penske Entertainment gets the land back for cheap, restores the track, and then they wait until February. Firestone debuts the Bridgestone Blizzak Winter Guayule, and off 25 IndyCars go for 150 laps.
I look forward to receiving an email from IndyCar’s marketing team to work out the logistics.
Ed, Jersey
MP: Let’s kick it off with making Pikes Peak (the real Pikes Peak, not the crappy ex-IRL oval) a multi-week championship of its own. Fire DW12s up the hill in rain, snow, and dry conditions. Survivors earn the heavenly respect of Bobby Unser and Parnelli Jones.
Q: Your remembrance of Dan Gurney’s Pepsi Challenger reminded me that I had an old photo of that car with Mike Mosley racing A.J., probably early in the race as Mike started second between Uncle Bobby and A.J. that year. The picture was taken from “behind the fence” in Stand K (now the North Vista) between Turns 3 and 4 at the 1981 500. I suppose this was just one Sunday before Mike took the car to victory at Milwaukee but I didn’t look to confirm that. I was 13 years old and the shot was taken with a Kodak 110 camera.
Andy R., Detroit area
MP: The fact that you took this with a 110 is remarkable.
Q: If you could pick an IndyCar driver that you think would make IndyCar fans care about Cadillac F1, which driver would you pick? Does not have to be an American — or does it?
Ryan, West Michigan
MP: I could be wrong, but isn’t there a natural connection for IndyCar fans through Andretti Global? If not, IndyCar’s two most popular drivers in Pato O’Ward and Josef Newgarden would be the go-to drivers to pursue.
I’m also half convinced the entire ordeal with Michael Andretti is a ruse; he’s the American driver being referenced and will return to F1 in 2026 to complete the season with McLaren that was cut short in 1993.
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 …
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: Being non-American, I just don’t get how can NASCAR be more popular than IndyCar. Obviously the Split wrecked it, however the reunification happened almost two decades ago. Also, in the first years of the Split, CART was still great with international races, lots of manufacturers and well-known drivers.
And another less rhetorical question – any news on the Honda front?
Nicholas, Greece
MARSHALL PRUETT: Regarding Honda, nobody will talk on the record (I’ve asked), but I’m hearing positive conversations on staying have been happening.
The Split was a crucial event that helped propel NASCAR ahead of IndyCar, but that leap was already in progress as Cup began reaching a wider base of fans — escaping its mostly southern roots — while CART and the IRL stepped on their respective appendages.
I’ve told this story many times: Sonoma Raceway, 1990, and the second NASCAR Cup race there. I don’t know if it was organized by the track or the series, but on the opening day, Friday afternoon, there was an autograph signing arranged with The King, Richard Petty, and the newest Daytona 500 winner Derrike Cope. It was positioned in front of Huffaker Racing’s shop near the entry to the paddock, with Petty and Cope sitting at a little square card table. There was nobody in sight as I walked down the road from our shop — positioned about 200 feet away — and nobody in line to get their autographs. I walked past them and they were chatting among themselves in this awkward event.
But the NASCAR weekend quickly took off and became the biggest event of the year, beating former monster weekends put on with IMSA and Trans Am by a mile. If you weren’t a NASCAR fan, avoiding Sonoma Raceway and all of the arteries to reach the track for a good 5-10 miles in any direction became the norm when Cup was in town. That was happening in California road racing territory while CART was a raging success, and doing similar backed-up-traffic-forever at Laguna Seca.
Seeing NASCAR go from an oddity with minimal interest to the biggest race in NorCal by the early 1990s was the sign of change that registered with me the most. The cars are super-relatable to what the average person drives or understands, which is always the hurdle for IndyCar to overcome.
Q: One of the interesting things I’ve noticed lately is the evolution of the language around racing, so I have been collecting a glossary of sometimes overused new motorsports terms for my own amusement:
Deg = tire wear
Box box = pit pit
Livery = paint job
Papaya = orange
Coms = radios
Vasser = a reference to a car owner made at least two dozen times by T. Bell every race (multiply if it’s an endurance race)
Driver “opened up his hands” in the corner = ???????
Sub-optimal = not great (please stop using this it makes one sound sub-intelligent)
Playoffs = Don’t know, don’t care.
The Dynamo = Pipo. (Isn’t Pipo interesting enough for a name?)
Maggotts, Becketts and Copse = Corners at a racetrack that every Brit is required by law to use every time Silverstone is mentioned.
This all leads me to my question: Why do F1 teams have people sit on the wall outside of the pit box? Certainly, the mountain of coms equipment make it sub-optimal for the people to actually see the papaya livery of the cars as they pass by on the straight and observe if the driver opens up his or her hands as they enter Copse and Maggotts.
DA, Chicago
MP: Opening up your hands is another way of saying the driver is unwinding the steering wheel, which I realize is another odd expression.
The “pratt perch” (stand of idiots) positioned on the other side of pit lane, separated from the crew and garage, is very much an international thing. I’d guess it remains today out of tradition since, as we see, there are teams who prefer to have their engineers and strategists situated in the garage. Since sitting out on an island does nothing to help those on the island — they all stare at TV/timing/data monitors, just like those in the garage — I can’t work out why the practice continues.
Mailbag hero Jarno Trulli got a close-up look at the Copse gravel trap after he collided with David Coulthard at the start of the 2001 British Grand Prix. BOOOOOOO. Spinney/Motorsport Images
Q: You have Mario Andretti who is a class act, then you have Michael who the exact opposite of his father. Why such a difference? Is he the primary reason his son Marco really didn’t do much in his racing career?
David Tucker
MP: Not sure how we’ve arrived at Michael having no class. In all of my interactions with him, “having no class” never entered my mind. But maybe you’ve had encounters that left a different impression. I’m struggling to think of many third-generation IndyCar racers who’ve had careers that were anything close to their father’s or grandfather’s accomplishments. Unsers, Foyt, and Andrettis come to mind.
Q: I read an interview with Valtteri Bottas where he said he turned down a full-time ride with an IndyCar team for 2025. I’m trying to think of what team made this offer? Maybe PREMA, or possibly Ed Carpenter? Certainly not Dale Coyne. Do you have any insight as to which IndyCar team made this offer?
Steve, Chicago
MP: Without asking Dale, this sounds like Dale. He’s had an interest in good on-the-way-out-of-F1 drivers for many years.
For so long, the messages were mixed. Formula 1 turned down the Andretti Global project’s bid to join the 2026 grid back in January, and it was not a decision that came as a surprise to anyone within the paddock, or many outside it. CEO Stefano …
For so long, the messages were mixed.
Formula 1 turned down the Andretti Global project’s bid to join the 2026 grid back in January, and it was not a decision that came as a surprise to anyone within the paddock, or many outside it.
CEO Stefano Domenicali and company had made clear that they felt 10 teams was the right number for the sport at this stage, but that there were enticing elements to the entry that had been lodged. The involvement of General Motors certainly caught the eye of both F1 and the rest of the teams, with Williams team principal James Vowles almost going as far as saying the team shouldn’t be allowed in but he’d like the GM partnership for himself.
But it was the level of that involvement, and the uncertainty regarding its future plans, that played a part in the Andretti Global bid being knocked back at the time. F1 made clear that the door wasn’t closed and that 2028 could well be an option, because at that stage GM was suggesting it would produce its own power unit.
The original entry involved Andretti wanting to use a Renault power unit supply in a partnership that could well have become long-term had GM decided against investing in its own F1 engine department. The idea of re-badging such an engine as a Cadillac did not sit well, even if F1 was not aware that Renault’s future participation could be in doubt.
A touch of skepticism over how serious the GM involvement would be was somewhat understandable, given the recent arrival of Ford in partnership with Red Bull. Christian Horner’s team has welcomed Ford support but been very specific about where it might want help, and is determined to do the majority of the power unit work itself.
To call it solely a sponsorship deal would be unfair, but it’s certainly not a Ford power unit being developed and does not represent a commitment you could guarantee will still be made in five years’ time.
The idea that GM would build its own power unit was an attractive one, but what was to stop it saying it intended to — in order to help get the entry confirmed — and then exploring customer deals in the longer term? That would have resulted in Andretti Global holding a prize asset in terms of the value of the 11th team, at a much lower investment than if there was a power unit project too.
None of that is to say it was ever the intention to pull such a move, but they were the scenarios that F1 was having to consider if it were going to expand the grid. Because F1 is big business, and while the existing teams were thinking with their selfish business hats on and not wanting to divide up the revenues 11 ways over 10, so too the Andretti Global bid — along with the others that made submissions to the FIA — was grounded in being financially viable and lucrative.
That remains the case with GM’s entry now, of course, but it holds greater value to the sport itself, too. Attracting the largest car manufacturer in the world to enter a works team — as opposed to supporting an independent racing team’s entry — is a significant difference.
F1’s initial rejection of the then-Andretti Cadillac F1 team was widely painted as a rejection of Michael Andretti; however, those with inside knowledge of the deal insist this is not the case. Motorsport Images
As brutal as it is to say, the Andretti name, as iconic as it is in North America and among global racing fans, does not have the same level of recognition around the world as General Motors or Cadillac.
What is likely to be a Ferrari power unit deal (although Honda is a fallback through the mandatory supply rules) will not be a re-badging, something F1 also deems important.
But in reality, very little has changed. The people behind the project are the same, even if the CEO of Andretti Global — Michael Andretti — has gone. Sources insist there was never anything personal against Michael and there were no suggestions he should not be involved in the bid, but one of the financiers, Dan Towriss, is now overseeing all of TWG Global’s motorsport activities that also include Wayne Taylor Racing and Spire Motorsports.
That’s a decision that was made by Towriss, GM and you’d very much imagine Mark Walter, who brings huge sporting ownership experience and even bigger funding. But the technical setup is the same one that was approved by the FIA, with the same facilities and current personnel.
The U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation into potential anti-competitive practices clearly focused minds at F1, although it must be said it could have waited to see what the outcome was if it truly didn’t want an 11th team. Instead it pushed for it to be its ideal setup, and confirm the arrival of an extra power unit manufacturer to the grid after the departure of Renault.
There’s another aspect that hasn’t changed, either. And that’s that there still isn’t actually an entry for the Cadillac team…
Confirmation has to come from the FIA, and you’d expect that to be a formality. But while the new team is kept waiting, it is not privy to things like Pirelli tire data and open-source materials because it is not yet an entrant.
At this point, what was already a strong bid now has even greater global clout, but includes the same team waiting to be given the final green light to start work as a proper F1 entrant.
Barring something extremely dramatic, this week’s announcement marked the no-going-back point from F1, even if it still has to iron out anti-dilution fees and certain logistics. But it was not the final approval, and so remains a situation where there’s a sense of limbo.
In that regard, while there has been a clear step forward and GM/Cadillac is coming to F1, some of the messages still remain mixed.
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 …
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 know it sounds fickle, but after watching Formula 1 fumble all over itself to suddenly talk to General Motors now that Michael Andretti has stepped down, I would love to see a total power move from GM once negotiations are complete:
“After careful consideration we have decided Formula 1 would not bring enough value to the General Motors brand to warrant the upheaval of its addition to the series.”
Third supplier in IndyCar engines instead?
Brad, Seattle, WA
MARSHALL PRUETT: I’ve heard the GM-to-IndyCar rumor since 2010 but can’t find any evidence that says it will happen. Fingers crossed.
Q: The announcement that Wayne Taylor Racing will operate the Cadillac GTP program in IMSA for 2025 did not mention Andretti Global as a partner. The RACER.com article noted that Wayne Taylor said the team name was changed from WTRAndretti to WTR at the request of Cadillac. Is Andretti Global still involved? Seems like there is more to this when a significant partner’s name is removed from the team name.
What is the latest beyond-the-scenes developments with Andretti Global/Cadillac’s efforts to get into F1? Is the Andretti Global F1 facility really continuing to staff up and work on a 2026 car? I have read speculation that with both Michael Andretti and Greg Maffei out of their respective roles, along with the U.S. Dept. of Justice investigation proceeding, that there may be a compromise in the works to allow an 11th team on the grid. Comments attributed to Mario Andretti and Eddie Jordan recently imply something is in the works sooner rather than later.
David, Danville, CA
MP: You sent this prior to Monday’s formal confirmation of the Cadillac F1 program being accepted for 2026, but as I wrote in the first Mailbag after Michael was uninstalled at his own team, all of my sources positioned this as a high-level move to weed out the problematic aspects of Cadillac’s efforts to reach F1.
Liberty Media had major issues with Andretti. And General Motors, as I was told, also took issue — far too much drama and public-facing instability for its liking — and an initiative to move forward without the Michael Andretti distractions was hatched to get Cadillac into that 11th F1 entry slot.
Everything we’ve seen since then has fallen in line with what those sources spelled out in September because that’s precisely what’s been unveiled. We also noted how, in everything prior to Michael’s exit, the F1 team was presented as Andretti+Cadillac, and how in a post-Michael world, the new positioning was of Cadillac as the entrant, minus the Andretti name. But that never meant the Andretti team went away.
Think of the Sauber F1 team, which went by Sauber or some version of Sauber forever, and how it fell back and renamed itself Alfa Romeo Racing from 2019-23. We all knew it was Sauber making the cars and running the team, but it was presented as Alfa. That’s what is taking place with the removal of Andretti from the now-it’s-Cadillac-F1 routine.
On the WTR side, Andretti Global is involved, but mostly by name through ownership of WTR instead of being intermingled in the team’s daily activities. Andretti applied a significant layer of oversight and involvement in their first season together in 2023, and the outcome was far from harmonious. Andretti pulled back and let WTR be WTR in 2024, which was tons better, and that’s the way it will likely stay.
Despite being excellent in sports cars for a brief period from 2007-08 in the former American Le Mans Series, Andretti Global are not experts in IMSA or hybrid GTPs, whereas WTR are among the best, making the recent shift towards being a standalone operation a smart one by its parent company.
If GM joins IndyCar as a manufacturer, I’ll celebrate by wearing something fancy like a bowtie to the press conference. Matt Fraver/IMS Photo
Q: I’ve been to the Roush Automotive Collection a couple of times whenever there was an open house when NASCAR came to Michigan. There’s a Whistler Mercury Cougar IMSA GTO car, and close by is Tommy Kendall’s All Sport Mustang that he raced in Trans Am. Just by looking at the bodies, it seems to me the IMSA GTO and Trans Am cars from the late ’80s and early ’90s look pretty similar. What are the similarities and differences between IMSA GTO and Trans Am from that era, and could cars from those rivaling sanctioning bodies compete in both series?
Brandon Karsten
MP: Roush routinely rebodied his Bob Riley-designed tubeframe Ford/Lincoln Mercury/Merkur GTO and Trans Am cars to use in both series. Engine displacement and configuration were the main differentiators, but the cars — minus paint and stickers — were largely identical.
Q: On your podcast two weeks ago you said that when a new chassis comes out there will be only 25 cars, not 27 like IndyCar has now. Why is that, and which teams will lose a car?
Paul, Indianapolis, IN
MP: It’s not official, but every team owner I’ve spoken with regarding charters has said at some point that they expect the release of new cars to coincide with Penske Entertainment trimming the field from a max of 27 cars to 25.
As for where the two deleted cars would come from, there’s no answer, since it hasn’t been formally adopted. But I’d start with the three-car teams (Andretti, Ganassi, McLaren, RLL and Penske) as the first candidates to cull one car. The other option to address is whether version 2.0 of the charter, assuming the 25-car limit is implemented, would allow more non-charter entries to try and qualify for those 25 spots.
Would one of those three-car teams trim to two chartered cars and try and bump their way into the races with a third and newly unchartered car, provided it was allowed?
Q: Good on FOX for not only getting one of their more popular personalities into the 500 Pace Car, but also using a good chunk of prime NFL pregame show to announce it to the noon Sunday NFL audience. Now, maybe Michael Strahan could have been better informed about some of the details of the job ahead of him, but to have Will Power’s car and the pace car there in the studio with them and to spend that much time on it — these are good signs.
Aitch, Richmond, VA
MP: It’s the latest example of how the FOX deal is the biggest achievement by Penske Entertainment since it bought the series. The NFL pre-game show on FOX is sponsored by Verizon, so using Power’s Verizon-sponsored car during the shoot was a smart and obvious choice.
But I wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t tell you that in a paddock that is always on high alert for things that could be a conflict of interest in a series owned by Penske where Penske also competes, not every reaction to this has been positive.
A call from one person asked why Penske was using the opportunity to benefit himself with one of his cars on a big nationally televised show, instead of helping one of the other IndyCar teams — possibly one that isn’t as financially secure — to use the hit to land a sizable sponsor. I can see how Penske-helping-Penske was the takeaway for some, and if the show wasn’t sponsored by Verizon, I’d likely agree. But this made sense to me, so I don’t agree.
