Q: This may have been the Silliest Season of all in 2024. For the first time in who knows when, it doesn’t appear that many, if any, teams actually got better, and many actually got worse.
With all team lineups set, outside of DCR, we can start to compare driver lineups from 2024 to what they will be in 2025. I have zero confidence in Coyne putting the most competitive lineup of Lundqvist and VeeKay together, and any lineup other than this is criminal and just unconscionable from a competitive standpoint.
If we look at the teams that made changes going into next season, the only one making a clear upgrade is Foyt with Malukas replacing Robb. The rest of the changes don’t necessarily make their lineups any better, and the following can be viewed as a pretty even swap; Arrow McLaren’s Lundgaard for Rossi, ECR’s Rossi for VeeKay, JHR’s Daly for Grosjean and Robb for Canapino, and MSR’s Armstrong for Malukas aren’t really negligible changes from a competition standpoint.
The CGR ‘change’ of keeping Simpson over Lundqvist/Armstrong, Arrow McLaren’s pick of Siegel over Illott/Pourchaire, and RLL’s Foster and DeFrancesco over Lundgaard and Fittipaldi were clearly based on the almighty dollar, but also clearly decrease the competitiveness of those teams.
I know there will always be ride buyers but what are your thoughts on many teams actually downgrading from the 2024 to 2025 seasons?
Andrew, Plymouth, IN
MP: Agreed on all points except for Foster at RLL and Rossi at ECR. Money aside, the kid’s exceptional and has the potential to do big things for RLL if it’s able to reduce the engineering/performance gap to their faster rivals. A pairing of Rossi and VeeKay would have been the most competitive solution, but also the costliest, which made keeping Rasmussen a no-brainer.
There’s nothing to suggest Rossi is faster than VeeKay at this stage of his career, but there are so many other things that Rossi brings to make ECR better than it’s been since Newgarden left after 2016 that the change was worthwhile. That’s also exactly what ECR needed — someone who wasn’t just a great driver, but also someone who could help the team to level up in all areas of competition. Some teams need drivers who just drive. ECR is no longer that team — not if they want to break out of the midfield. Rossi’s the perfect guy for the job.
All of the other scenarios you’ve described at Arrow McLaren, CGR, JHR, and MSR reflect this greatest year-to-year change in the paddock and that’s the steep rise in costs to compete.
Q: Two things this week. First, a response to Stefan ‘not that one’ Johansson from last week.
I am about to say something that I would have considered blasphemous just a couple years ago, but it needs to be said, acknowledged, and understood. The more I try to consider what the newer generation wants, the more I realize IndyCar needs to stay single-make on the chassis side. For all we make of the rise in popularity of F1, it’s easy to forget that trying to be sort of like F1 is a double-edged sword. Fall short of it and you invite ridicule. Do too well and you run the risk of being dismissed because “we already have F1.”
The best thing for IndyCar in the current situation is to have a single chassis that is, in a word, exciting. It doesn’t have to be super visually exciting – as long as it catches the eye compared to F1 it will be fine – but it needs to blow minds on the racetrack. The DW12, even at its worst, has been consistently providing a quality of on-track action that nearly everyone who gives IndyCar a chance acknowledges it has superior racing, even if something else kept the viewer from coming back to IndyCar. Building on this is the key way to keep those people coming back.
Second, regarding the new car itself, I am expecting the new car to look somewhat similar to the DW12 due to the simple modern realities of aerodynamic knowledge. There are only so many ways you can make an aerodynamically sound ground-effect open-wheel single-seater. The modern F1 cars ended up looking closer to the current incarnation of the DW12 than anyone expected. The 2026 concept rendering looks even closer. And while they are still visually distinct, this increasing similarity is just going to continue unless some massive new discovery occurs.
But it’s not like there aren’t options. The idea of basing something on the Red Bull X1 is being… disliked by fans. But it’s not like it’s the only thing to look at. I would propose that Dallara look at the Gen2 Formula E car for some inspiration. Although this still will anger the open-wheel purists, the FEG2 was one of the most striking single-seaters of the past 20 years. Imagine is with reprofiled sidepods more suited to oval aero, the front fenders removed, and in their place a set of ramps in front of the wheels that go just up to the top of the tires), a full ground effect floor, and a wider stance with the tires poking out just a handful of inches (a small offering to the purists).
I think it’d be a winner despite the complaints from the purists.
FormulaFox
MP: I was surprised at how many folks think they read words from IndyCar team owners saying they wanted IndyCar to make the X1. Not a single owner said anything like that; they wanted IndyCar to lean in a highly creative mindset that allows something extremely unique to be devised. The X1 was the example how creative one could get.
Q: The ‘new’ IndyCar design should be a ‘skeleton’ of a car. It should include the driver survivor capsule, aero screen, fuel storage, electrical energy stores and engine management systems and data storage. The skeleton can be configured so that different suspension modules can be fitted as the organizers may desire. The floor of the car, as specified by the organizer, can be fitted and changed at the whim of the organizer. As such, various aerodynamic designs may be fitted to the skeleton as the organizer may see fit over the years as necessary to accommodate various power plants and energy recovery/storage systems.
There are really no new ideas in race car construction coming on the scene. Most ‘new’ ideas are in fact very old ideas that were invented before supporting technologies matured to permit the use of the idea successfully. The organizer can switch which ‘new ideas’ they want implemented each year. Needless to say, any ideas must be manufactured so that they will fit the skeleton with minimal modification to the skeleton. There would be front and rear suspension and aero packages to facilitate the change from street courses, road course and the various characteristics of speed-ways.
Chuck McAbee
MP: I’m still trying to figure out what a ‘suspension module’ happens to be… The suggestions above are very CART-era in that teams and chassis and engine manufacturers had plenty of money, plenty of creative freedom, and most importantly, plenty of staff with design knowledge to constantly evolve and change suspension, bodywork, and powertrains.
Sadly, we no longer live in those times in today’s IndyCar. Most teams have almost no staff to make use of all of the proposed freedom, nor do today’s teams have the equipment or infrastructure to get the most out of these kinds of rules. There’s also the need to double or triple each team’s budget. I love the idea, and wish CART was still here, but it isn’t.