The RACER Mailbag, March 15

Welcome to the RACER Mailbag. Questions for any of RACER’s writers can be sent to mailbag@racer.com. Due to the high volume of questions received, we can’t guarantee that every letter will be published, but we’ll answer as many as we can. Published …

Q: Why wasn’t Scott Dixon penalized for moving over on Felix Rosenqvist (which he said he did) and putting him in the wall and causing the chain reaction crashes on lap one at St. Petersburg? Many others got penalties for lesser transgressions during the race, such as David Malukas getting one for cutting the tire on the car he was passing. He got that because he damaged another car. Why didn’t Dixon? It’s time to get rid of this arbitrary penalty or enforce it on everyone anytime there is the slightest of incidences.

Mark, Cincinnati, OH

MP: If I had to guess, there was a belief that Rosenqvist should have conceded the position and got hit where he shouldn’t have been. I don’t see it that way, but usually when there’s contact like that and there’s no penalty for the driver who did the hitting, it’s because there’s a view that both drivers shared in the blame. Malukas drove into the back of Armstrong and flattened his tire. Much easier to appoint sole blame on that one.

Q: Since NBC/Peacock has been covering IndyCar races, the sound quality of the broadcasts has been unintelligible most of the race. Particularly at street circuits like St. Petersburg, the in-car volume has drowned out any voice audio. I contact NBC/Peacock every year with specifics of the problem. Nada! Anyone else experience this?

Bernie, West Milford, NJ

MP: I had no issues hearing what they were saying, Bernie.

Q: Marshall, you were right on with your response last week to a writer’s question regarding points. I too feel that there is not enough emphasis on winning and too much emphasis on “participating.” People come to see who wins, not who finishes seventh. This de-emphasis on winning, almost to the point of shunning a winner, is a fact of life in our world, let alone racing. Winning is the essence of racing. It’s the reason drivers strap in, teams prepare cars, why people watch.

I feel that the number of wins is a season should determine the champion. If two drivers are tied in wins, then use any method you want to determine the champion. I could even tolerate “double wins” for prestigious races like the Monaco GP, Indy 500, Le Mans 24, Daytona 24, Daytona 500. Did you know that at one time in the NASCAR point system, it was mathematically possible for a driver to win 28 of the 29 races, be second in the 29th race, and NOT be champion?! Just crazy.

We will never return to the days when the winner is gets his true recognition. Those days are gone. But always remember what Dale Earnhardt said: “Second place is just the first loser.”

Bill

MP: Thanks, Bill — some good nuggets in there.

Q: Just got through watching the St. Pete IndyCar race. It was wildly entertaining and very surprising in many ways. It seems the drivers have finally figured out Turn 10 — no one hit the wall there!

The part I can’t figure out is why do some drivers think they can pass on the outside of Turn 4 or Turns 8 & 9? Narrow track, narrow corners, drivers seem to think if their nose is ahead that the inside driver has to give way. Seems to me that the pass has to be complete before they reach the corner to avoid getting bumped into the barriers.

It looked to me like Herta and Grosjean weren’t completely ahead before they reached the corner. While McLaughlin looked like he braked too late on cold tires, and Power was in the marbles with reduced grip, it looks extremely high risk to attempt an outside pass.

Did anyone successfully complete an outside pass on those two corners?

Curt Larson

MP: If McLaughlin’s tires had one more lap of temperature in them, he and Grosjean would have gotten through Turn 4 without a problem. Turn 8? Not so much.

Trouble brewing? Evidently Ericsson’s not a chocolate stout fan…

Q: Loved your videos and writing for St. Pete, Marshall. As matter of fact I love all the work you do for RACER and IndyCar. Inquiring minds want to know what were you drinking in the interview with Marcus Ericsson after the race?

Kurt Brenner

MP: Kind of you to say, Kurt.

Marcus had Morning Timber and I had Finding Bigfoot. I loved mine, which was dark and thick. Ericsson wasn’t a fan of his; it was, admittedly, a big sweet with a strong chocolate vibe. They were handed off by my friend Ryan Caminiti, and were originally intended as post-race beers to share with some of my photographer friends, but I think I’ll try and do our post-race winner interviews with beers because, well, why not? If you can’t knock back a beer with the person who just won an IndyCar race, why bother holding the race?