Q: With Foyt getting the link with Penske, I imagine those seats just became much more sought-after. Any idea who we will see in the two Foyt seats next year?
Oiled-up Orc
MP: Yes, indeed they did! I’d hope the Pedersen/Foyt relationship comes to an amicable end, because it’s been terrible for both sides and there’s no rainbow waiting at the end of the road here. I hear Devlin DeFrancesco is a name to watch for if a seat opens up.
The truth of the matter is the team needs a major infusion of cash, and that could mean its driver choices are based more on talent+budget than just talent alone. But Penske isn’t helping just for the sake of it; there’s an expectation for a rise in quality on the driver front, so with the Penske technical link in mind, I’d think a young and funded Indy NXT and/or quality Formula 2 driver with money to offer is where we might end up.
Santino Ferrucci has been excellent at times, but I don’t know if the team is racing to sign him to an extension. Let’s get through the last few races and see how Santino does with Penske tech support. Strong runs could help his case to continue, but we still come back to that budget issue. It’s way too of a complex situation to predict who’ll be in the Nos. 14 and 55 Chevys.
Q: Thanks to RACER for posting the article about the passing of my friend Mickey Rupp. Though Mick had a short history at Indy, as well as racing karts and snowmobiles, his last great racing adventure was flying his P-51 Mustang in the Unlimited races in Reno.
From 1988-1995, he raced “Samurai,” partnering with Jack Roush in developing pistons and parts for the Rolls Royce Merlin V12s. Mick was a “good stick,” was fun to hang out with, and was even known to have a bit of a temper from time to time… but I will cherish my friendship with him. He was another one of those people who “did” instead of just talking about it.
Brad, Seattle
MP: Thanks for sharing, Brad.
Q: I am willing to bet money that the recent article about the talks of a charter system for IndyCar has sparked off some angry Mailbag submissions about the idea of guaranteed spots on the 500 grid. Rather than add another rant to the pile, I figured I’d make the point of how sad an idea it is by proposing another way of guaranteeing some 500 starts that is much more in line with what Indy is, theoretically, all about while also giving additional purpose to the rest of the season.
For starters, only put five guaranteed starts up for grabs. This gives more than enough room for qualifying drama in spite of the guarantees. However, there is no guarantee five drivers will be awarded these spots — it is possible for only one guaranteed spot to be taken under this system. Maybe two depending on what you roll with for one of the criteria. As for what those criteria are, it’s pretty straightforward…
1) Defending Indy 500 winner gets a spot
2) Defending IndyCar Series champion gets a spot.
3) Winner of the Indy GP that year gets a spot.
4) Points leader after the Indy GP gets a spot.
5) Either the polesitter of the previous year’s Indy 500, or the highest-position driver in points that doesn’t meet any of the above, gets a spot.
If a driver meets multiple criteria, none of the spots go to next in line — it merely results in a guaranteed start not being awarded. This gives everyone something extra to push for throughout the season, gives a purpose to the controversial Indy GP, and leaves the majority of the 500 grid open. Despite my being opposed to any guaranteed spots on the 500 grid, I can still see myself getting more hyped for a season as a whole with something like this in play.
I will now await your complete evisceration of this notion.
FormulaFox
MP: No eviscerations today. What you’ve outlined above reminds me of the ACO’s annual awarding of automatic invites for the 24 Hours of Le Mans. If you won the LMP2 championship in the ELMS, you get an auto invite. If you’re the top amateur driver in IMSA’s GTD class, you get an invite, and so on.
I hate the auto invites, but since that’s the system they’ve chosen, I understand how such awards are given in a completely contrived, non-competition-based approach to setting the entry list. The ACO could say there are 15 spots in the race reserved for LMP2 cars, run a qualifying session for however many want to enter, and send those who are 16th and slower home, but they don’t.
And as much as I hate auto invites for Le Mans, I hate the idea of auto invites for the Indy 500. But, if Penske’s going to guarantee starting positions at the Speedway, and I’m confident he will, there’s no reason to stop there. If IndyCar is going to a contrived entry list for the 500, they may as well guarantee last year’s winner and all the other gifts that are proposed here.
For me, it’s either pure and based on merit where the best 33 get to race, or it’s a joke and qualifying is a meaningless exercise for the “made” entries. If that’s where we’re going, we may as well give away the other entries to those who fit all kinds of made-up criteria.
Q: As a former Philly native who watched the whole Eric Lindros NHL head injury kerfuffle play our two decades ago, with the (not wholly-unexpected) retirement of 2014 Indy 500 starter Kurt Busch, Simon Pagenaud being sidelined after his barrel-roll at Mid-Ohio and Ryan Preece’s barrel-roll over the weekend at Daytona (not to mention Dale Earnhardt Jr.’s early retirement), it’s worth a look again at closed head injuries, especially with barrel-rolling. For many years now, accelerometers have been built into IndyCar (and NASCAR?) radio earmolds, providing useful driver g-force crash data.
What were the G-forces experienced by Kurt Busch in his spin and impact at Pocono, Simon Pagenaud snap-rolling at Mid-Ohio, and Ryan Preece rolling at Daytona? Unless I missed something, I haven’t seen the data from these three crashes released.
Do barrel-roll type of wrecks seem to cause more severe head injuries than other types of wrecks?
Dan Schwartz, Atlanta, GA
MP: Unless the team or series releases the data, this isn’t information that tends to be released. Unlike the NTSB or FAA, racing series rarely give full public documentation of what happens in crashes. I’m not a doctor or an expert on which types of crashes produce more severe head injuries, so I have no answer.
KELLY CRANDALL: NASCAR does not typically release those numbers to the media, but Busch told The Associated Press in February the rear impact was 30G and the front was 18. Analysis is still ongoing of the Preece crash, so we may not hear anything for a while unless Preece or Stewart-Haas Racing release information. As for barrel-roll wrecks being more serious, I’ve never seen data or numbers that would correlate that, but in speaking with drivers who have crashed or flipped in the past, they say it’s not the flipping that is the problem; it is the way in which the car lands and impacts. It’s when everything stops that can hurt.