Q: Back in the day there was a lot of talk about how some drivers were hard on their equipment (namely the Andrettis) while others were much gentler (the Unsers) and that this was largely responsible for the lopsided Unser vs. Andretti Indy 500 victory totals.
I am really curious to get your thoughts on: 1) Do you think these reputations were deserved? 2) Was how one took care of his/her equipment back in the day a major factor in the number of one’s race victories? And 3), does driver care of the car matter less, more, or the same compared to the past?
For me, it seems that different eras of drivers require different skill sets, making generational or even series comparisons impossible. Just look at Scott Dixon, the master of fuel-saving — a skill that is irrelevant in current F1 racing.
Ed, Hickory Hills, IL
MP: You’re right about the difference of skills required of each era’s drivers. Indy and sports cars (and F1 cars, and so on) weren’t capable of withstanding maximum attack from their drivers, so engines, transmissions, clutches, brakes, and tires were treated as precious commodities that would fail or massively degrade if they weren’t driven below their peak potential.
Dan Gurney — an endurance racing guru — gave that advice to A.J. Foyt before the 1967 24 Hours of Le Mans: Take your time with each shift, baby the brakes, and we’ll be there to go for the win at the finish. Foyt listened and won the world’s biggest race on his first try.
Move into the 1980s, and mass-production of Indy and sports cars, and the design technology improved, reliability improved, and cars could be pushed harder for more of each race. Get to the 1990s, and the big growth in computerization in design and development, plus huge expenditures from engine, transmission, and chassis manufacturers, and we were gifted with cars that could be driven to their limits without constant failures. That’s only improved with each new decade.
As for Mario and Michael, I can’t recall seeing anything that stood out as being overly harsh, but Mario was a magnet for odd reliability issues, and Michael was the most aggressive driver of his time, so that can’t be ignored. If Michael came along at the same time as Dixon, he’d have five or six championships, no doubt. Other than conserving a set of tires to be as good as possible for an entire stint, there’s nothing today’s IndyCar drivers need to preserve.
Q: So, Big M, here is the deal:
1) Chip Ganassi hired the fifth driver to keep Honda from doling out another engine to a competitor. I believe this.
2) That thing going out in the desert with the rich people? Great idea! I know you said billionaires never pay money for stuff. Fair enough, but I think a couple of Billionaire Boys will sneak in somehow and be giddy watching IndyCar. Then watch the moolah roll in! I believe this (maybe).
3) A question: How many drivers typically show up with helmets in hand to be available in case another driver cannot race?
4) Another question: What is the strangest thing you have ever encountered in the paddock?
Sincerely, Janis (Straight Outta Tampa), running life on wets on the driest track ever.
MP: Let’s roll:
1) The driver (Kyffin Simpson) hired Chip Ganassi to run a fifth car for him, not the other way around, so it would have to be Simpson’s master plan to stress the Honda engine lease ecosystem, which would make him a teenage Dr. Evil.
2) The Las Vegas Grand Prix, which looked more like an Instagram influencer’s post than anything I’d associate with a motor race, was just as empty and vapid as expected.
3) In what kind of race? If It’s IndyCar, you’ll have at least one or two — often those who are giving two-seater rides who are somewhat recent and capable — and then you’ll have one or more who were in the series in the last year or two who are trying to build opportunities for themselves. I do wonder if we’ll start to see more of an F1-style approach being taken by some of IndyCar’s bigger teams by having a reserve driver onsite at every event who is prepared to work if called upon.
4) A rival driver/team owner under our car — in my early days as a mechanic — when we arrived at the track and found him looking at how we built the car, its suspension settings, and so on. We put the cars — these were smaller sports prototypes — up on stands overnight, put covers on them, and had enclosed EZ-UP tents over each car with sidewalls installed. Started undoing one of the sidewalls and saw a pair of legs protruding from under the car… so he crawled out after being caught and walked off without fisticuffs being involved. He was a likeable and well-known character, so we couldn’t get too mad at him.
Q: Does the fact that Andretti’s hope of an F1 berth is intimately tied to GM have any impact on his Honda relationship in IndyCar?
Shawn, MD
MP: I’d have to assume the answer is no, since Andretti also serves as Acura/Honda’s factory IMSA GTP team, which is a lucrative contract, just as it was when Andretti was well paid to run one of Acura/Honda’s ALMS LMP2 programs from 2007-2008.
So, that’s answering the question from a “would being a Honda IndyCar team be problematic for GM if Andretti and GM get to go F1 racing together” perspective. Chip Ganassi is Honda’s leading IndyCar team and also runs GM’s biggest factory GTP effort, and Roger Penske runs GM’s leading IndyCar team and Ford’s leading NASCAR team, so major brand conflicts are by no means new.
Now, if GM were to decide that it wanted Andretti to only runs its products in IndyCar and F1, I’m sure it could make a sizable offer to bring the team back to the Bowtie where Andretti won its last IndyCar championship (in 2012) and used its engines through 2013 before shifting to Honda. If the business case is made, most teams would be willing to leave for a manufacturer that’s willing to do more than its current partner.