Q: I saw in your last Mailbag a few thoughts about the Vanderbilt Cup, but first a quick story.
Back in 2011 for the Centennial celebration, the IMS Museum converted the museum such that only Indy 500 winning cars were on display, and it was magical. However, the 1969 Brawner Hawk of Mario Andretti owned by the museum is truly a replica, to which the museum mentions the actual car is in the possession of The Smithsonian. I made a promise that, if possible, I would see the authentic 1969-winning car at some point in life.
Fast forward to 2022. The Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum opened a new exhibition, “Nation of Speed,” to which one of the jewels of the display is the 1969-winning car – the real car. One road trip to Washington, D.C., and there she was. To say I filled my camera up with wonderful images is an understatement.
To my surprise, literally feet from the car, and across from Richard Petty’s car from his 200th victory, was the original Vanderbilt Cup. In the words of Cousin Eddie, “she’s a beaut.” I had never seen the trophy first-hand before, but it definitely made me pause and admire the brilliance and craftsmanship of detail that went into it. So, it’s no longer in storage in Maryland, and the racing world is better for it.
Here’s to hoping both are on display for years to come, as the museum is worth the price of admission. Be that as it may, their website does have a virtual tour of the entire exhibit, in case there are those that cannot make the trip to Washington. Definitely worth the exploration.
David
MP: Great stuff, David. Thanks!
Q: Much of the strategy during an IndyCar race is driven by fuel mileage. As you stated in the last Mailbag, the pace at Milwaukee 1 and other tracks was slower than expected. Fans want to see these cars scream around the racetrack, not drive in eco mode.
Can you write about how the fuel allotment per race is determined and would IndyCar ever consider adding just a few more gallons to give the fans a show?
Dave Truty, Williamsville, NY
MP: The fuel tanks are fixed at 18.5 gallons, so there’s no quick solution to change that. But IndyCar could look to take some fuel capacity away and make more stops a reality, which might halt the desire to save fuel.
Q: Track limits should be enforced with electronic proximity sensors in each car and a sensor cable under the track edge. IndyCar had a version of this at Laguna Seca. The driver should have a readout or light in the cockpit and an audible signal in their ears that ramps up as they get closer to being off the track, so they have real-time feedback on their position and can immediately modify their approach and really learn what line and control to use. End of arguments.
Bruce
MP: Sure. Because racing needs more rules. And who doesn’t love more rules in sports to control creativity?
Q: What happens to all the marbles when the sweepers collect them?
Gordon Mann
MP: Unless there’s a vacuum going on, the marbles are brushed down the track or blown down the track.
Q: So 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have filed a lawsuit alleging NASCAR and the France family “have stifled the competition, and control the sport in an unfair way.” And this lawsuit is a manifestation of their wish for more money to be allocated to charter teams – charters which effectively bar new entrants from having any hope of ever competing in NASCAR, and severely restricts the purse money available to non-charter teams should they decide to enter any races. Am I the only one seeing the irony here? The comedy writes itself, people, I just report the news.
I absolutely despise the notion of charters or franchises in motorsports. This disease infects F1, it infects NASCAR, and now it’s going to infect IndyCar. The entire essence of auto racing is that anyone who shows up at the track with a car that will pass tech should have an equal chance to qualify and race. Racing is a performance-based pursuit, no pun intended.
I’ve heard Jeff Gordon on a podcast bemoan that Hendrick Motorsports hasn’t made a profit in probably 10 years. I’ve heard Denny Hamlin on his podcast whining that 23XI can’t make a profit given the revenues allocated under the current charter agreement terms. Memo to Jeff and Denny – your teams could just reduce expenditures 10% across the board, and voila – you are now making a nice 10% profit margin. “But wait,” they will surely say, “we have to spend at this level to be competitive.” Exactly. And if charter terms were amended to allocate 20% more revenue to each charter team, spending will go up 20% across the board in pursuit of more speed and competitiveness. It’s the nature of the beast.
No matter how much the sanctioning bodies try to reduce cost, teams will find a way though simulator time, shock engineering, hiring more staff, spending more to develop and retain top talent, whatever, in order to gain a competitive edge. If you’re involved in racing, at any level, and you want to make a profit, the quickest and surest way to achieve that goal is to get out of racing.
Mike, Marietta, GA
MP: The spending wouldn’t go up 20 percent. Following that logic, every professional racing team also loses money because they spend everything they receive and more. The argument here, whether it’s accurate or not, is that the costs to compete — not to make up the numbers at the back of the field, but to run strong — exceed what’s being generated through sponsorship and charter revenue.
Maybe 15 percent of that extra 20 goes to competition and the other five percent is what takes the team from red to black. Yes, it’s hard to make a profit in racing, but racing would be nothing but an amateur sport if most teams were unable to run in the black.
Q: I want to get rid of the race at Indy before the 500. This suggestion will cost IndyCar some money: Have a Saturday night race at the oval in Miami the same weekend as the Formula 1 race. Make it free to all the fans who have F1 tickets. You don’t give up media to F1, and you give worldwide media and fans an up-close view of what we love.
Any word on what the IndyCar leadership thinks about NASCAR lawsuit? What does IndyCar need to do to prevent a similar thing from happening?
David Tucker
MP: Strange that after 10-plus years of existence, the Indy GP is still the least-loved event on the calendar, and delivers a tiny crowd, but Penske Entertainment continues to serve up this nothingburger of an event.
As if Roger and his acolytes would speak on the lawsuit in any meaningful way while Roger is an entrant who signed the NASCAR charter. IndyCar teams receive no profit sharing or TV revenue in their charter, so there’s not much to sue for right now.
Q: Can you explain or map out the long-term plan for PREMA? Could they eventually “earn” a charter? What about Leaders Circle money? I love that they are coming to IndyCar, but if it’s too difficult to maintain a program, it feels likely that the program will just shutter in a year or two.
What happens if they get a car or two to finish in the top 15 next year? Is PREMA looking at maybe buying out a group like Juncos Hollinger (or someone else) if/when they decide to leave? Clearly Penske wants more interest and support for IndyCar, so I can’t imagine he wants too many odds stacked up against PREMA.
Tom, Greenwood, SC
MP: Not in the first version of the charter, to my knowledge. There was a concept of charter “jokers” floated before it was finalized without them, where non-charter entries beating charter entries in the final standings could buy those charters at a pre-established sum, but that was shot down, I was told.
So, no, the only way PREMA gets charters is if they’re able to buy them. And they tried. I’ve heard Juncos quoted $40 million as the asking price.