Q: This last-lap snaking that Pagenaud started might well end in tears. As it is the first two cars, at a minimum it could wipe out up to, say five cars — the top five! Maybe a rule should be introduced saying that cars cannot have either of their left wheels over the pit entry while line. Maybe all four wheels. That could be on the last lap only or for each of the 200 laps, however I feel it would reduce the dragon danger to some extent.
Santino’s day will come!
Oliver Wells
MP: I’ll keep saying it and hope it’s heard: The day IndyCar outlaws the stupid “dragon” maneuver will be a day to rejoice. Move a lane to the left or a lane to the right? No problem. Turning a 2.5-mile lap into three miles or whatever it is by weaving left and right? Just stupid.
Q: I’m here to defend the red flags. Don’t even know if it’s needed, but it’s my belief all races should finish under green. This might make me a simpleton, but if I ran the world, it would be the law.
More seriously though. Are there not tethers to hold the wheel on? I couldn’t even imagine what would have happened if Kirkwood’s tire went into the stands.
Shawn, MD
MP: There was more than one lap left so I’m good with the decision to have the race finish with a one-lap battle, even if that battle had a foregone conclusion before it started.
The wheels spin at crazy speeds and are changed many times per race; I’m not sure how the wheels would rotate if they had a cable attached. The tethers connect to the suspension uprights where the wheels are affixed with a threaded stub axle and nut. As I understand, the entire upright sheared from Kirkwood’s car, which is a concern since it did have a tether connected to it.
It’s also worth mentioning that there’s no way a safety device will work 100 percent of the time. That’s not an excuse, but more of a reminder that even amid the safest period of IndyCar racing we’ve ever had, things still break, malfunction, and pose risks. This was a frightening jog to the memory.
Q: On the last restart of the race, Ericsson was P1 and Josef P2. It was discussed in post-race interviews that Ericsson was a sitting duck. Would it have made any sense for Ericsson to let Josef pass him going into Turn 1 in hopes of setting up a winning pass into Turns 3 or 4?
Craig
MP: The driver with the draft has the advantage while Indy cars are winding up to speed at Indy, and it takes more than one lap for a car to get all the way up to speed. That’s why whomever was P2 going into the red flag was all but assured to win. Yes, in hindsight, the smartest move Ericsson and his team could have made was to accelerate and lift to allow Newgarden to take the lead into Turn 1 and take advantage of the tow to try and win. Trying to out-run whomever was in P2 was not the answer for reasons that have nothing to do with the drivers and everything to do with aerodynamics.
Q: As an old-timer, I certainly do not want to go back to the days of the winner being one lap ahead of the entire field. However, I also do not think what happened on Sunday was a good thing. The red flags made the ending feel manufactured and potentially more dangerous, with racers taking more risks to win an all-out sprint. Will there be any fallout from this, or am I in the minority (along with a justifiably unhappy Marcus Ericsson that this was not a good look for the series?
Chris
MP I was good with either outcome, Chris. As they went by me under yellow, I knew it would be an unpopular win for Ericsson if it stayed yellow and he’d be picked off by whomever was second if it went red, which I thought was Ferrucci at the time.
I’m good with the call to go red since the precedent was set with the first and the second reds. At least that was consistent.
Q: My first concern is with the massive weave that has taken hold on the last laps of the race. I don’t care about the backstretch, as the fans have catch fences. But I care about the crews on the front stretch that only have a concrete wall. We don’t need another Kevin Cogan incident. I’m concerned about a car losing it and spinning onto pit lane at 200+ mph because drivers were being jackass aggressive with the weave off Turn 4. Are you hearing any rumbles in the industry about this?
Regardless of what people think about the red flags, the energy of the race came across on the broadcast. It was a good race with changes in strategy, drivers losing their cool and doing stupid things (VeeKay), and unpredictable changes in fortune. If you can watch the actual broadcast, there are points where Hinch and Townsend are going at it which had us laughing hard. Diffey was ever the professional and moved the conversation on. I loved it. Not sure if someone is going to get in trouble during coverage of the Snake Pit in the middle of the race when they said, “Not many families down there right now. Probably some families starting there.” All in all, still ridiculously better race coverage than ABC.
John
MP: I woke up the morning after the race and was thinking about how this edition of the Indy 500 had the biggest “boys (and Katherine Legge) have at it” tone I can recall. What really stood out was how differently it was managed compared to the other races this year where strict control and penalties have been levied for poor driving, but here, it was a blend of professional and amateur standards going unchecked. The crazy weaving coming out of Turn 4 — also sanctioned by the series — was further proof of how the refs are quick to blow the whistle everywhere else but Indy.
If they’re going to holler at a driver for doing something stupid on the Indy road course, why would the whistle get swallowed most of the time when we’re on the oval? Katherine Legge made a massive error when she hit Stefan Wilson in practice. The reaction from the series? Nothing that I know of. Scott McLaughlin drilled Simon Pagenaud from behind in the race, leading to his crash and Agustin Canapino’s crash. The penalty? Nothing that made the official race results. If it’s “have at it” at the 500, it should be that way everywhere else or nowhere else.
Q: On the Indy 500 LCQ practice broadcast, one of the RLL engineers said that they were going to try some of the things that they learned in the wind tunnel but didn’t think would work in real life. With wind tunnel time being extremely expensive, why would they waste their time and money in there if they believe they were not getting real-world data that could be used? Seems like the wind tunnel learnings would be the first thing to try at the beginning of the week to use as a baseline of where to go.
Joey, Boynton Beach, FL
MP: There’s a practical aspect to this, right? They went to the wind tunnel, learned some things that were beneficial, learned some things weren’t — according to the controlled environment they were in at the tunnel — and likely worked through all of the “yes” items and were left to give the “no” items a try because they had nothing left to try and nothing to lose since they were already losing.