Q: Will we have to pay to see NASCAR races on TV? If so, when does that take effect?
Chris Fiegler, Latham, NY
KELLY CRANDALL: Well, you’re already paying the cable company to see NASCAR races on TV, but I assume you mean through streaming. There has been no straight answer from NASCAR, but some sort of streaming piece is expected in the next media rights deal. NASCAR, however, doesn’t appear to want to move all its races off TV. A new television deal begins in 2025 and is in the midst of being worked on, so time will tell if the current partners – FOX and NBC – stay or if someone else comes into the picture and the TV schedule lines up.
Q: Alex’s letter to Kelly on Sep. 4th spurred a thought in my mind.
If Andretti is ever allowed on the FIA Formula 1 grid, how about we lead the call for him to give Kyle Larson some testing opportunities? Michael has always been good about investing in and supporting American talent.
You can’t pigeon-hole Larson as a stock car driver, since he also races open-wheel. And soon he’ll be getting some rear-engine, high-downforce experience. He is an above-average driver, at worst, on road courses.
What’s to lose? At worst, Andretti gets a bunch of media exposure and Larson has fun. At best, America found the discipline-transcending star it has been waiting for.
Kristopher, Seattle, WA
KC: Kristopher, you go ahead and lead the charge on that, but I have a feeling that Michael Andretti isn’t focused on Kyle Larson and testing opportunities right now. As for Larson, he seems pretty happy being a stock car driver and dirt driver, but he will get to live that dream of competition in the Indianapolis 500 next season. Going to Formula 1, however, has always seemed unrealistic to him.
Q: Is Kyle Busch retiring?
Janet Teague
KC: Not unless he wakes up one day and decides to walk away, like Carl Edwards did a few years ago. Busch has a multiyear contract with Richard Childress Racing and has repeatedly stated he plans to continue racing for many years.
Q: With all the hullabaloo regarding Andretti getting stone-walled by FOM and the grid got me thinking. Over there years, I’ve seen teams come and go, the grid ranging from less than 20 to over. However, I don’t ever remember the other teams being so opposed to a new one. Was Nelly right? Must it be the money?
Shawn, MD
CHRIS MEDLAND: Put simply, yes. I sort of get it – why would a team say “Sure, I don’t mind losing out on millions of dollars so someone new can have them”? – but it’s not meant to be a decision made by the teams. Perhaps the biggest difference is between management, as under Bernie Ecclestone there were multiple individual commercial deals and a far less even split, so the arrival of new entrants didn’t always come to the cost of existing constructors. Whereas now, it’s a much more equitable distribution that could be impacted, which means they all stand to lose out at least a little.
Q: With all that has been written about Andretti Global’s F1 bid and FOM’s likely rejection of it, I have not seen this brought up:
How do the heads of American tech companies in Formula 1 feel about this? After all, you can trace a lot of F1’s current financial largesse to sponsorship contributions from American tech companies, like Oracle, Alphabet, Dell, Zoom, AMD, etc. I stopped counting at 25 significant sponsors.
The other issue is that most of the commentary I have seen is written from a European, old world point of view. We look at things differently here. I know that Americans confound Europeans. We enjoy confounding Europeans. I want to make two points and get your comments, if you’re not too confounded.
1) From a demographic and psychographic standpoint, Michael and Mario Andretti look a lot like the heads, or founders, of those American tech companies I spoke of – either immigrants to the USA themselves (Mario) or children of immigrants (Michael). Families that migrated to America for opportunity.
2) From the point of view of many Americans, this looks like Old Money trying to keep New Money out of the country club. Or keeping the riff-raff out of high society. If that’s how this comes off, this is not good for F1 in the USA: our money is good for a round of golf as a guest, but we can’t be a member of the club.
My question is ultimately this: As this fight goes on, do you see major American sponsors of F1 putting quiet pressure on the principals of the teams they sponsor? And if they do, will it make a difference? Or will the teams go to the mat to keep America’s best known racing family and one of its industrial giants out of the club, no matter how it looks?
—@S2000_moose, just outside of the Kansas Speedway
CM: Honestly, I really don’t see sponsors putting any pressure on. Quite the opposite, they are getting more value out of their existing deals by already being in F1, and by being associated by one of just 10 teams. That gets diluted slightly too if there’s another team that other sponsors are involved with (as well as the risk of slightly less TV time in each race because you’re fighting for it with another team and therefore could get less exposure at times).
The main thing I keep reiterating – and having reiterated to me on all fronts, even by those linked with the Andretti project – is that this is nothing to do with Andretti specifically. It’s about an 11th team, whatever that team might be or wherever it might come from. Audi was pushed towards partnering with an existing outfit by the powers that be too, rather than being encouraged to try and become a new team.
Unless a proposal is given to them that makes them all better off, I do expect the teams to stick to their guns and not want another team added to the grid. That team happens to be Andretti, but it would be the same if it was someone like Stewart trying to come in again with the backing of Jaguar. If it threatens their ability to make money and be worth as much as possible, then they’re against it.