A week of crashes behind at Indianapolis

The Indianapolis 500 is approaching; the qualifications are behind as well as all practice sessions but one-hour Carb Day practice on Friday. Then on Sunday, it's time for the 99th running of the Indianapolis 500.

This year has seen the introduction of the new aerokits. An aim in opening the aerodynamics for competition was to get visible differences between different manufacturers. And it seems that aim was achieved; there are clear differences in the Chevrolet and Honda aerokits and the manufacturers had even designed different parts for the qualifications and the race.

In my previous text, I was carefully positive about the introduction of the aerokits. The aerodynamically more sensitive cars haven't hurt racing, at least too much. But we may have seen another harmful effect of aerodynamically sensitive cars. There have been five crashes on the oval at Indianapolis this year, in four of them the car turned upside down. At first it seemed like it might have been an issue of the Chevrolet aerokit as the first three flips happened with it. But yesterday also a car with the Honda aerokit turned upside down when James Hinchcliffe had a heavy crash and his car was sliding sideways.

Maybe the new aerokits are so sensitive that they have caused the tendency for the cars to flip this year. Or maybe the new aerokits being faster is a reason for crashes and subsequent flips. Or maybe a bit of both, or maybe that could've happened also with the old Dallara aerokit. A thing to be noted is that all flips with the Chevy aerokit happened with the qualifying parts which were abandoned later as it became required to run the qualifying with the race trim.

But what should have been done otherwise, if anything, and what should be done in the future? Well, clearly something should be done to avoid these flips in the future; we don't want that to happen in a race with a group of cars coming behind. And all these flips can't have been a coincidence; there is something wrong at least in the Chevy aerokit. Actually, I'm less worried about the suspension failure that caused the crash of Hinchcliffe, despite it being the only of the crashes where the driver got injured. That crash may just have been a one-off failure and very bad luck for Hinch. There will always be the risk of a mechanical failure, and on an oval it can have severe consequences. 

I think IndyCar should have tested the speedway aerokits already before May. To start testing them only in May meant they didn't have time to fix the arisen issues before the 500, they can only hope the race setup leads to less crashes and isn't so prone to flip. Had they tested the speedway aerokits in winter, they could've addressed and solved their issues before the Month of May.

As for what they should do now, I don't know as I'm not an aerodynamics engineer. But here's a bit radical idea. Make the car less aero-sensitive. Distinctive differences between manufacturers are the only good thing I can imagine of the aerokit competition. Otherwise advanced aerodynamics don't improve racing on track and as we've seen on the past week, they can make a spinning car behave unpredictably. I'd reduce downforce and compensate the loss in lap times with more mechanical grip and power. Of course, this is no short-term solution, rather an idea on what they should do when they set the regulations for the successor of DW12. A short-term solution is just to find what makes the cars flip so easily and how to avoid that from happening without a complete redesign of the car.

Crashes have taken the attention on the first week of this year's Indy 500. But hopefully on Sunday there will be a great race. Later this week I will write a preview of Sunday's race.

Some review of the early 2015 IndyCar season

It's time for some review of the first IndyCar races of the 2015 season. The big change for this season was opening the aerokits for competition. The start wasn't promising. In the first race of the season at St. Petersburg, broken winglets brought many debris cautions plus drivers were already saying it's harder to follow the car ahead. Those were my concerns about the aerokits. The more aerodynamically advanced the cars get, the more they suffer when following another car. And more fragile wings may discourage drivers from overtaking attempts or lead to debris cautions.

Barber was the race I was looking forward the most to see the effects of the aerokits on a road course with fast corners. And it left a good impression, it was a good race. Obviously it's harder to follow the car ahead but it wasn't hurting the racing at Barber too much. And maybe it's only the track characteristics or maybe the drivers have learnt to be more careful with the more fragile wings after St. Petersburg. So, I'm thinking the manufacturer aerokits are a good thing; the cars are a bit more different now. Different aerokits also caused fear of one manufacturer dominating the series. Honda were underdogs in the early season but pretty competitive at Barber, so maybe their car isn't as bad as it seemed earlier. It will be interesting to see how Honda will do at the Indianapolis 500 where they have won 10 of the last 11 races. I hope they could improve their performance on road courses a bit so that we'd have two manufacturers racing for wins all the time. Even better would be if a third manufacturer came to IndyCar soon.

Still, I think IndyCar must ensure the cars don't get aerodynamically too advanced. Aerodynamically advanced cars don't usually provide so great racing plus they put less emphasis on the drivers' skills. Also, while I'd like opening the rules more, it should be done carefully to avoid creating too big performance differences between the manufacturers as well as to avoid costs exploding.

Juan Pablo Montoya is leading the championship by three points to Helio Castroneves. Montoya took a brilliant win at the season-opening Grand Prix of St. Petersburg. At the second-race of the season at NOLA, his pace wasn't so good but as the qualifying had to be abandoned, he started on pole as the championship leader and finished fifth. Great defensive driving at the end of the Grand Prix of Long Beach gave him the third place there and he retained his championship lead at Barber despite finishing only 14th.

Castroneves took the poles in the last two races at Long Beach and Barber. Having to wait for the traffic on the pit road probably cost him the win at Long Beach and at Barber he finished only 15th after running out of fuel. Still, his pace in the last two races shows he's a strong contender for his first IndyCar Series title and surely one of the favorites for the Indianapolis 500 where he could equal A.J. Foyt, Al Unser, Sr., and Rick Mears at four wins.

Scott Dixon is on the third place of the standings. After the difficult first two races, he took his first win at the Grand Prix of Long Beach and then was third at the Grand Prix of Alabama at Barber. Everything looks to be set for another great season for the three-time series champion.

Josef Newgarden has had a good start to the season, three times in top 10 and fourth in standings. The 2011 Indy Lights champion took his first career win the in the IndyCar Series in the last race at Barber. He seems to have potential to become the next American superstar in IndyCar, and an American superstar would be great for the series in its home market. I heard some speculation that he might be a candidate for the new Haas F1 Team in 2016, even though he may not fulfill the super licence requirements. While I'd love more crossover between IndyCar and F1, I must say I'd be slightly disappointed if IndyCar lost a potential future American star driver to F1.

The defending series champion Will Power is only fifth in the standings. A pole and a second-place finish at St. Petersburg as well as a fourth-place finish after a collision and drive-through penalty at Barber show he has the pace but he should have been smarter at times. At St. Petersburg, an overly-optimistic dive on Montoya for the lead caused a collision but thankfully didn't take the cars out. At Barber, colliding with Sato when exiting the pits was a stupid mistake. He hasn't lost the championship yet but he needs to drive smarter if he wants to win it.

Simon Pagenaud completed Team Penske's four-car dream team. One might have expected him to be a threat for the veterans Montoya and Castroneves for the 2016 seats unless Penske wants to continue with four cars. But Pagenaud has been a disappointment for me. He's been the weakest Penske driver so far and is only ninth in the standings. That's quite poor given he's been in the top 5 in the last three years and his teammates are first and second in the standings.

And few words about the calendar. As it seems that Formula One is going to start the 2016 season only in April, I think IndyCar should try to fill the void of open-wheel racing. Start the season in the Southern states, Latin America, or Australia right after the Super Bowl and have few races before the F1 season starts. The winter break of F1 might make some F1 fans to watch IndyCar.

How to stop the decline of F1's viewership?

Formula One is struggling with viewing figures. Recently I read the former Mercedes-Benz motorsports director Norbert Haug's comments about how to increase the popularity of the DTM which is also struggling with viewing figures (in German). I think some of his comments would also apply to F1. Especially I liked these:

"When you're once at the track, then you'll surely follow the series in media."

"If I had great TV ratings and the grandstands at the track are half empty, that is not good. Firstly the spectators at the track must be served."

These remind me of the suggestions in Racer's website's IndyCar 2018 article series, where many people emphasized the importance of race events for the series' popularity.

Almost everywhere in the World, the most popular sport is some team sport. You can see it live almost every week during the season, in some sports multiple times per week. A successful team increases the sport's popularity in their city or region. And while tickets are getting more expensive in every sport, the tickets are still affordable for casual fans, who might get hooked and become regular game-visitors.

For a series like F1, or whatever motorsport series, it's different. The series visits a track only once, or twice in some cases in the DTM or NASCAR. Visiting a Grand Prix isn't as casual as visiting a football or hockey game which can be more comparable to going to movies. That's why you don't get those casual fans there so easily. Of course, as a Grand Prix is such a rare event, you get spectators from a larger area. But, with tickets being so expensive, it's hard to fill the stands. If you aren't really into F1, you probably aren't going to spend hundreds of euros for tickets. And even if you're a big fan, you may not be able to afford those tickets. And here's a thing I think F1 has got wrong. As Norbert Haug said about the DTM, when you get people to the track, then you'll begin to follow the series in media. I think F1 needs less expensive tickets to get casual fans there; if they enjoyed the event, they'll come again the following year and follow the series in media. With less expensive tickets, there might be more fans visiting multiple races per year. And less expensive tickets require lower sanctioning fees for tracks, then they can lower the ticket prices.

And make the series seen where they are racing. The only time I have lived in a country where a GP is being held was last summer in Germany. I have to say I hear a lot more about the Rally Finland in the Finnish media than I heard about the German GP in the German media. Maybe I didn't follow the German media enough or maybe the event gets more publicity in regions closer to it, or maybe the FIFA World Cup title took media's attention. But surely a big sports event gets also more TV audience in the host country, offering a chance to get people into that sport. Having a good vibe around the event makes people more interested about it. Positive things like big audience are a way to create that good vibe. When you can say there are well over 100,000 spectators, it's easier to make other people check it on TV. To get a big audience, you need good marketing, affordable tickets, and an attractive event.

As I think experiencing F1 live is a way to market the series, then leaving classic venues where the audience is must have been a mistake. Surely, one can say F1 is trying to expand its fanbase by going to Asia. But I'm sceptical about that having been the main reason for it. F1 has been going to Asia to receive bigger sanctioning fees; expanding fanbase has been a desired side effect of that. And countries like Bahrain and Abu Dhabi don't really offer big opportunities to expand fanbase. I think F1 should put more emphasis on getting crowds than receiving big sanctioning fees. A badly attended Grand Prix doesn't increase viewership, no matter how big the sanctioning fee is. Of course, some attempts to expand into new markets are OK but they should result to getting a well-attended event or leaving the country.

I think NASCAR has got it right; they race in front of big crowds. The races are where there are fans and the tickets are affordable. And I think they have it right with television, too. While I'd prefer all races free-to-air, pay-per-view channels just can pay more for the TV rights. But, the problem with PPV is that then it's mostly the hardcore fans who can watch the races, casual viewers less likely have the pay channels. Even some hardcore fans must stop watching the series as they can't afford the PPV channels. I like how it is with NASCAR in the USA. Certain attractive races like the Daytona 500 and the last races of the Chase are on FTA channels. That helps to keep masses interested in the series but isn't enough for the hardcore fans who will pay for the cable channels to see the other races.

I think F1's willingness to go for money at the expense of viewing figures may undermine its future. Even if F1 got more money from the new Asian host countries than declining viewership costs, the declining viewership is a problem. The huge global audience has justified manufacturers' and sponsors' spending. Is it justifiable anymore when viewership decreases? If F1 lost manufacturers, would it anymore be the top-tier class if the manufacturers joined another series and hired F1's top drivers? And, are those new host countries anymore willing to pay the high sanctioning fees when they get less exposure than before?

I think stopping the declining viewership is important for F1. Surely there are things in the sport that could to be improved to be more attractive to fans. But F1 also needs to be more affordable and accessible for fans. Still, I'd find a big drop in sanctioning fees and TV rights surprising, for sure the commercial-rights holder doesn't want a huge drop in their revenue. Maybe the declining viewership is OK for them as long as they make profit; after all, F1 is owned by an investment company.

Should IndyCar go to Europe?

I think IndyCar needs some overseas races to get more international recognition. While NASCAR is the biggest motorsport in the USA, international exposure would help IndyCar to attract sponsors. Besides North America, Europe is obviously the continent with the strongest motorsports culture. But for certain reasons, I have been thinking IndyCar shouldn't go to Europe. Firstly, could IndyCar succeed among established series in Europe? F1 is the big thing in Europe and there are strong regional and national series there. And if IndyCar couldn't succeed in Europe, would it make sense to go there with races being on TV at 8am ET like F1? That's why I think the overseas races should be in close time zones in South America or in the Asia-Pacific region like Australia or Japan, taking place in late Saturday night for the US audience. Especially South America might be a continent with potential. They have only one F1 race, the Brazilian GP. And I think IndyCar should really try to get a race in Colombia as there are four Colombian drivers in the series.

But F1 pricing itself out from Europe might give IndyCar a chance to make ground there. Governments aiming to promote their countries have set the bill of hosting a Grand Prix so high that European countries not needing to promote themselves can no longer afford it. Ticket prices must be increased to cover the high hosting fees, and less people can afford attending the race. Last year, more than half of the seats of the Hockenheimring were empty at the German GP. This year, the financially troubled Nürburgring withdrew from hosting the German GP and Hockenheim didn't want to host the race, despite Mercedes-Benz's offer to cover half of the potential losses of the event. So, for the first time after 1960, there will be no F1 race in Germany.

OK, there should be the German GP at Hockenheim next year. But how long can Hockenheim continue paying the hosting fees even every second year as the Nürburgring can't anymore? And what if Germany can't afford hosting a race anymore? Will F1 let Germany lose its Grand Prix just like it let France, the birthplace of Grand Prix racing, lose it? If F1 lets its traditional European hosts lose races and instead keeps on going to new government-subsidized non-European tracks, then I could see chances opening for IndyCar in Europe. Surely there would be some demand for high-level open-wheel racing in Europe.

I'm not saying IndyCar should go to Europe immediately. While Germany doesn't have a Grand Prix this year, Britain and Italy have and France has Le Mans. And those are the countries where I think IndyCar should go to if they come to Europe. But if the future of the German GP is a biennial race at Hockenheim, then I think IndyCar could be the future of open-wheel racing at the Nürburgring. Surely, lack of German involvement in IndyCar could be problematic, even though a rare European IndyCar race might bring fans from abroad. As is the case with American races, good promotion would be important also here. Try to get good support classes. DTM or WEC might want to be the headline series of the weekend but the World Series by Renault might be a good support series with local interest. And moreover, provide a great fan experience. Give access to pits, have some exhibitions relevant to the audience, provide some entertainment at the track area once racing has ended, etc. Make it an attractive event also for those who aren't yet into IndyCar, or aren't necessarily even racing fans. And give them a reason to attend the event the following year, too. But keep it affordable. Otherwise only hardcore fans will come, and there aren't many of them in Europe.

If IndyCar came to Europe, it should be two or three races. It wouldn't make sense to fly to Europe for one race, yet there probably wouldn't be demand for more than three races. I think Britain might be the best European country for IndyCar to have a race in. They have maybe the strongest motorsports culture in Europe and some drivers in the IndyCar Series. And Britain has a modern oval in Rockingham, just like Germany has the EuroSpeedway. I'm not sure IndyCar should go to ovals in Europe; road courses are what attracts Europeans. Still, I think an oval race could work in Britain. In Germany IndyCar would be a substitute for F1, in Britain an alternative. I think F1 would be too strong in Britain for IndyCar to compete against. Yet I think they have a strong enough motorsports culture for an IndyCar race, even on an oval. And Brands Hatch or Donington would be road course options in Britain, as well as the new MotoGP venue Circuit of Wales.

Italy might be another good candidate for an IndyCar race. There were talks about an IndyCar race in Mugello some years ago. If not Mugello, then also Imola might be a good host. As a former F1 track, there might be some desire to see again high-level open-wheel racing. And Bernie Ecclestone threatened least year to drop Monza from the F1 schedule. With Germany already gone, that doesn't sound quite so unlikely anymore. If Italy really lost its Grand Prix, IndyCar could go for the void left by F1. And with two drivers in the series, maybe France could also be a potential destination for IndyCar in Europe, especially as they lack an F1 race.

But are there really chances for IndyCar to go to Europe? And would it make sense? Even as a European fan, I would rather like to see IndyCar being big in the USA than being a global second-tier series. But I think some overseas races would be good for the series. If Europe could offer great events, then I think IndyCar should have some European races. If a country like Germany or Italy lost their Grand Prix, I think IndyCar should try to fill the void. With good promotion, I believe an IndyCar race could be a success, especially when it wouldn't compete against F1 in that country. Of course, the Labor Day finish would bring challenges for European races. If IndyCar wants to finish by Labor Day, then the summer dates are for American races and the overseas races have to be in the early season when it's still winter in most of Europe. But if IndyCar has a good chance to go to Europe, then abandon the Labor Day finish. Dedicate August (when F1 is having the summer break) for the European races and finish the season only in October in the USA.

Should IndyCar and Super Formula unify technical regulations?

I have seen some interesting tweets by @4TheLoveOfIndy suggesting IndyCar having common technical regulations with Japanese Super Formula, following the success of global GT3 rules. I agree with him and have also been thinking about that. Another example from sports cars is LMP2 and LMGTE regulations being used besides the WEC also in regonal series and there are entrants from those regional series at Le Mans. Another example is German DTM and Japanese Super GT unifying their regulations.

But why not doing the same in open-wheel racing? Of course, a major difference is that IndyCar has ovals besides road and street courses, Super Formula has only road courses, so there are different requirements for these cars. But still, the Indy car must be suitable also for road courses.

I think this would have benefits for both series. With more potential customers for the IndyCar/Super Formula engines, we might see more engine manufacturers. Maybe this could bring Toyota back to IndyCar as they are already in Super Formula. And maybe that could enable the series open the chassis regulations, as both currently have a spec chassis. With over 40 cars, they could afford multiple chassis manufacturers.

One of his tweets was about how those Super Formula teams could do the Indy 500 and there would be bumping. I really like that idea. I feel that would help promoting both series. The Indy 500 and the IndyCar Series would get exposure in Japan, even with no own race there. And Super Formula might get some American audience when the drivers become more familiar. Think about a race in Japan on Sunday at 2pm. It's Saturday evening 9pm PST/10pm PDT or 12am EST/1am EDT. A bit late on East Coast but not quite so bad on Saturday evening.  That's why I think it is the Asia-Pacific region where IndyCar should go if they want to have races outside the Americas and promote the Series there; in some parts of the home market USA, the races would even be at prime time on Saturday. But if Super Formula adopted common technical regulations and race at the Indy 500, they would market the 500 in Japan on behalf of the IndyCar. And it is not like they would be a rival for IndyCar, rather a partner series who come to race at the 500. And if this helped IndyCar to gain popularity in Japan, there would be a logical overseas race in Japan. If not a combined race, then imagine a Super Formula-IndyCar doubleheader at Motegi: IndyCar on the oval and Super Formula on the road course or maybe even on the oval.

All in all, I'd like the idea of another series adopting the IndyCar rules and then participating the Indy 500. With an existing strong series like Super Formula that would be easier. Using the same cars in multiple series would also make those series more attractive to manufacturers.

The flaws of the NASCAR Chase for the Sprint Cup

Now I'm writing about a series I am not so familiar with. NASCAR, I mean. But I'll write anyway, sometimes it's easier for an outsider to see flaws (or an outsider just can't see why they really aren't flaws).

The Chase for the Sprint Cup will get its conclusion next Sunday at Homestead-Miami. Or should I rather call it the Sprint for the Chase Cup as after 26 races, the title is decided in the last ten races. Anyway, I spotted this interesting statistic:

Qualified for the Championship round:
Logano - 5 wins - 15 times in top 5
Harvick - 4 wins - 13 times in top 5
Hamlin - 1 wins - 7 times in top 5
Newman - 0 wins - 4 times in top 5

Eliminated after the Eliminator round:
Keselowski - 6 wins - 16 times in top 5
Gordon - 4 wins - 14 times in top 5
Edwards - 2 wins - 7 times in top 5
Kenseth - 0 wins - 13 times in top 5

So, it seems like the eliminated drivers form a stronger lineup than the Championship round lineup. I think that highlights the biggest flaw of the current Chase system. It's just crazy that after 26 races, the advancing drivers are decided in three-race elimination rounds, and in the end, the title is decided in one race. I'm not saying the Chase is a bad system; I rather think it could be a great system. Extending the title battle to the last race and eliminating four drivers after every third race makes the end of the season exciting and keeps the title battle more open. It may not be the fairest system but it's balancing between having a fair and an entertaining system. That's why team sports have the playoffs and so has the PGA Tour, too, and those systems work.

I think the Chase system should reward the entire season's success more. Somebody with Gordon's season shouldn't be out of the title contention while Newman is in the final four with no wins. So, instead of resetting all drivers' points to the same amount between the elimination rounds, don't reset them or reset them so that the best drivers of the season have a significant advantage but even the last qualifier has a chance to win the title.

Also, I don't like how the title is decided in the final race. While winning the title by finishing 7th with even 11th place being enough while the main rival wins would be anticlimatic, winning the title just by finishing ahead of the other contenders doesn't feel right if they've had a better season until then. Have it like in the previous elimination rounds, you're through if you win, otherwise points decide.

So basically, give more importance for the entire season's performances. For example, don't reset the points but allow advancing to the next elimination round and winning the title by winning a race if a driver doesn't otherwise have enough points for that. That kind of a system would reward having a great season but would also reward winning.

Thoughts about IndyCar schedule

The IndyCar season ended over two weeks ago, which is very early given that e.g. NASCAR's Chase for the Sprint Cup started only last weekend and will finish in mid-November. IndyCar wanted to have the season finale in late August to get the season finished before the American football season begins.

The early season finish has been criticized a lot but I can understand the reasons behind it. One can say the IndyCar fans would watch IndyCar also after the football season has started but that argument doesn't take casual fans into account. Once the football season has started, it is harder to make casual fans watch IndyCar as well as it is harder to get attention for IndyCar. The season ending in late August can help to get more attention for the season finish.

But the early season finish has also its disadvantages. Even if it enabled to get more attention for the season finish, it means the offseason will be longer than the race season if the next season begins in March.

I think the season should be seven to eight months long. Usually that means a season from March to October or November. But I think the season could also begin earlier to shorten the offseason after an August finish. In that case, even a February start would be too early but the season could begin in January or December. A longer season would allow more time between races. I think two weeks is ideal for the gap between races. A race every week feels too often; a race doesn't feel so special when there was one in the previous week and another in the following one. A race every two weeks feels right; it would feel more special yet the races would be often enough to keep the interest up. Yet, a winter start wouldn't completely be without problems. There are IndyCar drivers participating the 24 Hours of Daytona so a January start would be problematic. Besides weather would rule out many tracks for races in winter.

Weather leads to another topic. Should IndyCar expand overseas? There could be races e.g. in South America during winter.

I think IndyCar should concentrate on the USA, their key market is there. But there could be some overseas races to increase the series' international recognition. I think Latin America would be a good option for international races. The races would be in the same time zones as the USA so it wouldn't make much difference for an American TV viewer. Brazil had a race in Sao Paulo until last year and next year there will probably be a race in the city of Brasilia. Another Latin American country where I would like to see a race is Colombia as they have three drivers in the series. Mexico as the USA's neighboring country would also be quite a natural option for an abroad race. Yet, the former Champ Car venue Autodromo Hermanos Rodrigues in Mexico City will be hosting F1 starting from the next year, so that track obviously isn't an option for IndyCar.

As for overseas races, I think Australia and Japan could also be good additions to the calendar. Surfers Paradise and Motegi have already previously hosted IndyCar and CART races. Those races' time zones might be somewhat problematic for the American TV audience but I am pretty sure late Saturday night is better than early Sunday morning. Because of the difficult time zone, I don't think IndyCar should consider expansion to Europe. Another reason is that IndyCar isn't very popular in Europe and I doubt the races would draw enough audience to be worth flying the cars to Europe.

All in all, I think the season ending in late August may have some advantages but the long offseason has its disadvantages. Starting the season earlier could be a solution to avoid the long offseason of the August finish. Yet finding tracks for a winter start might be more difficult than extending the season until October or November with a March start. My opinion is that the offseason must not exceed five months. If you cannot do it with an August finish, then extend the season into October or November.