Q: Why did Randy Bernard get so much crap and why was he terminated? He got a third manufacturer, did chassis stuff and actually tried new ideas.
Steve
MP: He was the shiny new toy with big ideas, and IndyCar was in a similar place as it is today with old cars, spec engines, and sitting a distant second to NASCAR in popularity and sponsorship income. Randy tried a bunch of things, and they weren’t all of the winning variety, and before long, some team owners/leaders felt they would be better off without him, thought a less creative approach to running the series was needed, and engineered his ouster.
Q: Excuse my ignorance, but what is it financially that IMSA is doing differently to IndyCar that attracts so many engine suppliers?
Oliver Wells
MP: It’s the little acronym ROI, or return on investment. The answer here isn’t that IMSA GTP or GT racing is cheap, because it’s not. But as we’ve seen, manufacturers, including Acura/Honda and Cadillac/Corvette/Chevy, spend huge sums to go racing in the WeatherTech SportsCar Championship, and do so at an annual price, which is over $20,000,000 per year in GTP according to a solid source, because they see the marketing data and view the cost-vs-return ratio as being favorable.
Whether it’s in the amount of cars they sell as a result of fans being trackside or watching at home and being swayed to go buy a model from one of IMSA’s many partner brands, or in the money a brand spends to alter its perception — Cadillac, and Lexus are prime examples — from being slow or lame to fast and sporty, there’s all kinds of ways a manufacturer might judge ROI and decide if the costs to play are giving back something that can be measured as a worthwhile investment.
So, it’s not like a season of funding a pair of factory GTP hybrids comes with some sort of deep discount; it requires a ton of cash. But take Honda’s warning shot to IndyCar as a message that the series needs to bring down the costs to supply engines so the ROI makes sense, because as the brand told us, the ROI is out of balance — at least for them — to the point of saying the hard and uncomfortable part out loud.
Q: It’s been about six months since Alex Palou’s spurning of McLaren. The question is, why? I know there is litigation, but that doesn’t mean no speculation.
Do people know? If they do, can they say? I can’t believe the money was greater from Chip to stay. Is that wrong? Did he see Pato as the only one getting a true shot at F1 there? (My theory.)
Fans of Alex, fans in general and nosy people want to know. I’m all three.
Mike DeQuardo, MKE and Elkhart Lake
MP: It’s good to know who you are, Mike.
When Alex was keen to leave Ganassi in the summer of 2022, he was amid a long winless streak as the follow-up to his first IndyCar title, feeling ultra aggrieved by the tiny salary he agreed to drive for, saw Team Penske was rolling strong, and had Arrow McLaren dangling lots of dollars and validation in front of him through the offer of a well-paid IndyCar drive and the chance to do his first-ever F1 tests. And, just maybe, if things fell through with McLaren’s F1 drivers, an F1 seat would open up.
He signed with McLaren for 2024 and took advance monies from the team, according to McLaren, all while signing to remain with/driving for Ganassi in 2023 at a greatly improved salary figure. In May, I heard Ganassi made a bigger offer for him to stay in 2024 and beyond, but also heard he asked Ganassi if staying was an option in light of the full expectation by everyone in the paddock — including his own team — to leave for Arrow McLaren.
I wouldn’t pretend to know exactly how it went down on the “will you stay/can I stay” situation with Ganassi, but one thing was obvious well before that happened: McLaren had two F1 drivers who weren’t leaving anytime soon, and that meant his F1 dreams were going to be dashed if he went to McLaren.
Factor in the four wins from five races from the Indy GP in mid-May through Mid-Ohio at the start of June, not to mention the pole and strong Indy 500 run, while Arrow McLaren was winless, and you have the two-fer on why Palou pulled the plug — as I’ve understood it — on joining the other team.
Q: I am not surprised that IndyCar is caught up in the circumstances of its feckless decisions. No new chassis because they are working on a new 2.4l engine… scrap the new engine because the manufacturers want a new hybrid system to become more relevant (to themselves) and potentially draw in more manufacturers… scrap or put on hold the new semi-hybrid (joke) system because it is quirky and has proven to be unreliable… now Honda is talking about leaving IndyCar because of the cost. You can’t make this stuff up.
I really don’t have any ideas on how to address the chassis situation, but as to the engines, IndyCar should issue the 2.2l blocks to any engine builder that is interested and let them do any modifications that they choose, with the only stipulations being that they will have to use the IndyCar-issued fuel and pop-off valve for the turbo. I know it does sound familiar, but it is less restrictive than the previous attempt at this idea.
Notice that I did not use the term “approved engine builder.” Let’s go back to some innovation and real racing.
Matt, Michigan
MP: Only note here is IndyCar doesn’t have 2.2L blocks to supply, but it could if Penske decided to have the company he co-owns/co-founded, Ilmor Engineering, produce Chevy’s ass-kicking 2.2L blocks and whatever else for purchase or lease by all interested parties.