Q: Leading up to the Toronto weekend I had been hearing rumors that a contract extension was in the works for the race. Is that still expected?
Joe
MP: Here’s a story on this topic we posted a few weeks ago.
Q: This may seem really dumb, but I’m wondering why IndyCar tires are called “primary” and “alternate” when it really seems as if it would be more accurate to just call them something like “hard” and “soft”? After all, teams have to run both compounds in each race and the tire of choice seems to change depending on the track, the weather, etc. So one week’s primary tire could very well be the next week’s alternate, depending on circumstances and team choices.
And while we’re arguing silly semantics, why not change “drivers, start your engines” to “teams, start your engines.” After all, the drivers haven’t started the cars in decades; the task being performed by a pit crew member shoving the starter up the car’s bum.
Changing the call to “teams” would not only be more accurate, it would be more “inclusive” (and isn’t that what counts the most these days?) as well as helping to stress the fact that racing is a team sport.
Jim Bray, Calgary
PS: I attached a quick drawing of your favorite French Fry for your viewing pleasure.
MP: Well, for another five races, “Drivers, start your engines” will indeed be inaccurate. So if a change is going to be made, it needs to happen now. In 2024, with hybrid engines coming online, drivers will start their engines, thanks to the motor generator unit’s ability to engage the input shaft and spin the crank to fire the motors through the wizardry of electronics and hydraulics.
As for tire nomenclature, I wouldn’t want my brand’s tires referred to as hard if I was trying to convey their performance capabilities. And the degrees of hard/soft varies between tracks, so it makes more sense to me to avoid that route and just go with what they are — the primary option and the alternate option to the primary.
Nice work with the drawing. Only mistake is that he’s not flipping me the bird.
Q: Regarding last week’s question from Bob, would tire competition actually be good for the series? I was under the impression that modern tire manufacturing was so good that racing tires wear artificially fast for the sake of competition. Isn’t that why every major series uses a single manufacturer these days?
If we had manufacturers competing, wouldn’t that also incentivize them to compromise safety for the sake of performance?
Mike, California
MP: Not sure, I follow, Mike. We have Chevy and Honda competing with engines, and they aren’t compromising safety for performance. Same with every other non-spec form of racing. If anything, I thought the whole idea of competition was to make things better and win through excellence.
Most endurance racing series do or have welcomed multiple manufacturers and safety wasn’t an issue. We had Michelin, Pirelli, Yokohama, Kuhmo, Falken, Goodyear and others I’m forgetting in the ALMS, and it was a big deal that was important to the series and the brands to be involved in open competition. Same with IndyCar when we had Goodyear and Firestone. The belief that major corporations would risk tire failures, vehicle damage and driver injury for the sake of performance is baffling.
Q: I went to the Rolex 24 this year and was blown away by how loud the engines were, especially in the GTP class. I’ve been to the last 15 Indy 500s in a row and can say that it isn’t nearly as loud.
I know that the Honda engine in the Acura GTP car was originally conceived as the 2.4L IndyCar engine that never came to be. When the engine formula was announced, Jay Frye said that the goal was to be “fast and loud.” Do you think that the engine would have been as loud in an IndCar? If so, wow! Now I’m really bummed that we don’t have those engines in IndyCar.
Matt McGowan, Collegeville, PA
MP: A more ferocious engine like the 2.4s should have made cooler sounds, so yes, and the 2.4 in the ARX-06 GTP does sound awesome, but I’d put that mostly down to it revving higher than the other prototypes and standing out because of that difference.
Q: Set up the PVR for the Honda Indy Toronto race on TSN for the pre-race and race coverage. Later that evening I opened the pre-race taping, only to realize that the half hour recorded was Wimbledon! Fast-forward through that to the race coverage. Wimbledon coverage finished and joined the race in progress — lap 26?! Canadian fans important? Nah.
If this the effort to make sure us “important” fans are looked after then please don’t bother.
Mike, Ontario
MP: Take note, TSN.
Q: I went to Peacock to watch the Toronto race and it had already begun. I discovered there was no way to watch from the beginning. I was either watch from the point where I joined, or wait until the race was over. I waited and it was more than an hour after the broadcast ended before the replay was available.
This is an oddity in the streaming world as usually you can opt to start the stream from the beginning.
Randall, Citrus Height, CA
MP: Of all the streaming platforms and the options they offer with player controls, let’s just say that Peacock has a lot of chassis setup work to do to catch the other teams.
Q: I just realized that IndyCar and NASCAR went head to head on Sunday, and IndyCar is on the network while NASCAR is on cable. Not complaining, but a little shocked that the open-wheelers are getting the headliner billing from NBC in this instance. Is it due to the prospects of a more spectacular show in Iowa compared to a more likely snoozer for the tin tops at the tricky triangle?
Marc, Columbia, MD
MP: I love the idea of executives judging the anticipated quality of races while assigning their TV homes, but I’d look closer towards the Iowa doubleheader being a really big deal for IndyCar, which is co-promoted by IndyCar, and had some big sponsors and musical acts involved. To my knowledge, Pocono was just a standard Cup race.