IndyCar 2018: Racing Nerd Edition

If you're a regular reader of The Racing Nerd, you'll probably know a couple things.  First, we're not big believers in proof reading and grammar around here.  Second, I'm a big fan of IndyCar, and like most IndyCar fans, I'm not real happy with the state of the sport.  While I love the on track action, no one doubts that American open-wheel racing has been on the skids for some time now.  I've mentioned before that RACER has been publishing a series of articles titled IndyCar 2018.  Some of the ideas are good, while some of the ideas aren't (will anyone who believes Indy cars should return to a front engine format please report for their trip to the reeducation camp).  While I highly recommend you read through the RACER series, I figured that I have an internet forum that literally reaches...people, so why don't I take a stab at trying to fix IndyCar.  After all, how hard can it be

If it ain't broke...

Let's start with the things IndyCar is actually doing right.  Say what you want about the DW12, but IndyCar has the on-track racing dialed in.  In 2014, Ryan Hunter Ray finished 0.06 second ahead of Helio Castroneves at the Indianapolis 500 with a  dramatic last lap pass.  That is good racing.  IndyCar's immediate problem might be getting butts in the seats, but once people do tune in, they need to stay tuned in.  That only happens by giving them something good to watch.  That means close, wheel to wheel racing at 220 MPH, which is what we have.

The IndyCar racing purists claim the cars aren't going fast enough, and that IndyCar shouldn't be a spec series.  I say hog wash.  Moving IndyCar from a spec series to an open development series would take money.  I don't think the teams have the money to support that kind of racing, and the manufacturers aren't interested in engaging in an engineer arms race at the moment.  We can't afford to drive teams out of IndyCar like we're seeing in Formula 1 right now (by the way, will the last Formula 1 team to go bankrupt please remember to turn off the lights).  Furthermore, the pole time at Indianapolis last year was 231.067 MPH. The all time qualifying record time at Indianapolis was 236.986 MPH.  It's not like the modern cars are crawling around the track.  By all reasonable standards, the cars are going fast, and they're going fast enough to look exciting to the fans.  I don't see how adding more speed brings in more interest.  Lets focus on securing the future of the sport, and then we can look at breaking track records.

The one thing I might want to change on the track is make the cars louder.  I was talking to one of my coworkers once who had a friend who used to go to the CART race at Michigan every year, and would always say how the cars sounded like a pack of angry hornets from hell.  Modern IndyCar's don't have that kind of awesome sound.  Let the engines rev a little higher, make them sound angry.  I think it's a small change that will add some more drama to the race.

You take how much time off?

I don't think adding more races in and of itself is going to make IndyCar racing popular with the masses, but it will never be popular with its current schedule.  IndyCar flat out disappears for six months a year.  That's six months where people aren't seeing IndyCar on TV, or reading about IndyCar on the racing sites.  IndyCar needs to add more tracks and more race weekends.  I like the idea of double header weekends because they give fans good value for their money, but they aren't the solution.  IndyCar needs to run a schedule the extends from February to November, like every other major racing series in the known world.

No, Circuit of the America's won't make everything better.

One of my favorite hobbies around here is antagonizing the COTA fan boys.  While I wouldn't be opposed to an IndyCar race at COTA on principal, I think the people who are really screaming for an IndyCar race at COTA are pushing IndyCar in a direction that will make things worse.

One of RACER's IndyCar 2018 articles suggested that IndyCar should get rid of ovals (except for the 500) and only race on road and street courses.  Will the people who think that's a good idea please line up next to the crowd lobbying for front engine IndyCars.  There already is an open wheel racing series where they only race on road and street courses, it's called Formula 1.  American open wheel racing has always raced on ovals.  Get rid of the ovals and I'm not sure what you have, but it's no longer American open wheel racing.  This is the problem I have with the voices screaming the loudest for an IndyCar race at COTA.  They want IndyCar to be like Formula 1, which is just a bad idea.  IndyCar won't out Formula 1, Formula 1.

IndyCar needs to structure its series such that its unquestionably different then Formula 1, and racing open wheel cars on speedways is one of the things that differentiates American open wheel racing from European open wheel racing.  If IndyCar was forced to choose between ovals and road courses (and that's a horrible choice no matter how you cut it), IndyCar should choose to get rid of the road courses, and just race ovals.  At least no one would confuse IndyCar for F1 then.

Big money...big prizes.

IndyCar's format of road courses, street courses, short ovals and super speedways does a good job of separating the structure of the series from Formula 1 (you definitely won't see F1 at Iowa Speedway), but that only solves half the problem of making sure IndyCar isn't just dumbed down F1.  In some circles, IndyCar is viewed as a Formula 1 reject retirement home.  We need to change that perception.  The perception shouldn't be that IndyCar is where you go when you can't cut it in Formula 1, it should be that Formula 1 is where you go when you can't cut it in IndyCar.  The way you do that is by raising the quality of the driving talent, and specifically developing highly skilled drivers (preferably American, because everybody loves a hometown hero) who view IndyCar as the big show, not just a step on the way to NASCAR, or a step down from F1.

Of course, finding these mythical world class IndyCar drivers is easier said then done.  I'm going to say something that a lot of people view as controversial.  I think there are at least a few drivers currently in NASCAR who could have been Formula 1 drivers had they chosen to go down that road.  In todays racing world, America's best up and coming drivers gravitate towards NASCAR, because that's currently the most popular American racing series, and therefore the best long term career choice.  I'm convinced that if they were racing in the 60's and 70's, guys like Tony Stewart, Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson would have been open wheel stars and potential F1 drivers.  It's not that these guys don't have the skill to race F1, they just focused on a different set of racing skills for career reasons.  Now let's pivot back to IndyCar for a second.  IndyCar's job is making sure that the next Jeff Gordon and Tony Stewart choose to be open wheel heroes as opposed to NASCAR stars.

At first, I was stumped on how IndyCar should do this, but then I remembered something a professor of mine once said.  Some problems are solved by just throwing money at them.  So, I propose introducing a number of large cash prizes to IndyCar for accomplishing certain feats in a given season.  For example:

• Four million dollar prize for winning one of each type of race (street circuit, road course, short oval, super speedway) in one season.
• Six million dollars for completing the 500 mile hat trick (i.e., win Indianapolis, Pocono and Fontana in one year).
• Eight million dollars for winning at all street circuits (Long Beach, St. Petersburg, Detroit and Toronto) in one year.
• Ten million dollars for winning the Daytona 500 and the Indianapolis 500 in one year (I'll explain my thoughts on this one in more detail in a second). 

I get by with a little help from my (NASCAR) friends.

How, do you ask, is someone going to win Indianapolis and Daytona in one year without doing the Indy/Charlotte double?  Simple, IndyCar should try and coordinate with NASCAR to move the Coca Cola 600 to Saturday.  Don't ask me how IndyCar convinces NASCAR to do this, I'm just the idea man.  The beauty of this idea though is that all the NASCAR drivers are now able to race at Indianapolis should they choose.  Or at least, it becomes a lot easier for NASCAR racers to race at the Indianapolis 500.  First, I think IndyCar could "borrow" some of NASCAR's popularity.  Although I think there's already some cross over between people who watch the Indianapolis 500 and the Coca Cola 600, I think it would bring in interest from people who know names like Dale Earnhart Jr. or Jeff Gordon, but don't know who Ryan Hunter Ray or Helio Castroneves is.  Second, IndyCar basically builds their entire year around the month of may.  This arrangement elevates Indianapolis to a race above all others.  By having the NASCAR stars compete against the open wheel full timers, it makes it so all roads lead to Speedway Indiana on Memorial Day weekend.  Plus, the idea of someone like Dale Earnhart Jr. dueling with Helio Castroneves is just fun.  It's something that you could only see at Indianapolis, and would be a real feather in IndyCar's cap.

Every day is a party in IndyCar

So, we have the best drivers in the world, driving the wheels off their cars week in and week out, but is anyone watching?  The last piece of the puzzle is that IndyCar needs to embed themselves in the public's imagination.  For example, what if someone could make a really good IndyCar movie.  Top Gun made an entire generation of teenagers want to be F-14 pilots.  A River Run's Through It got countless people interested in fly fishing.  A well done movie (ie, not Driven) that shows the excitement, the speed and the danger of IndyCar could embed car racing in the public's imagination, and make them want to watch the real thing.  I mean it worked for fly fishing...

But why stop with a movie.  Look at what Red Bull does at Grand Prix weekends.  They bring out their old cars and start doing doughnuts in the middle of town.  They let people get close and see how crazy these cars can actually be.  Take the IndyCar circuis to major cities and throw a party.  Have teams have drag races in the middle of town.  Red Bull once drove one of their F1 cars through the Lincoln Tunnel in New York.

My point is that IndyCar needs to do stuff like this.  I have plenty of friends who have zero interest in racing, but love a good party, and would without a doubt show up if IndyCar showed up in their town offering shenanigans like Red Bull does.  I'm not saying that everyone who shows up to an IndyCar party would suddenly be a race fan, but you would have people tweeting about IndyCar, posting Instagram pictures of IndyCars, and talking about IndyCar's on their Facebook page.  The more IndyCar is out their in the public imagination, the more IndyCar fan's we have, and that's a good thing.

Closing thoughts

Let me say that I don't claim this is a step by step road map to bringing American open wheel racing back to its glory days where Nigel Mansell defected from Formula 1 to drive Champ Cars, but I think these are at least a couple ideas that would help move IndyCar in the right direction.

Daytona 500: Random Thoughts and Opinions

I feel like every time I write about NASCAR I have to start by convincing people that I'm not some kind of racing hipster that hates on NASCAR because it's not "sophisticated" racing like Formula 1.  My story (and I'm sticking to it) is that I like NASCAR, but I don't love NASCAR.  Regardless of what you think about NASCAR however, the Daytona 500 is the Daytona 500.  This race is probably the second most famous race in the United States, and definitely in the top ten most famous races world wide.  So, you can imagine that I was excited for the first race of the NASCAR season, and I thought that deserved a write up.

I'll be honest, after watching both the the Xfinity series race, and the Sprint series race, I wasn't sure what there was for me to write about.  Yes, there were a couple of big wrecks, including Kyle Busch's broken leg.  Surprisingly, I think my favorite moment of the weekend didn't come from the 500 at all, but from the Xfinity race on Saturday when rookie Daniel Suarez, who was two laps down at the time, began leading a third line on the outside of the track, around the leaders.  I'm not sure what his plan was, but he definitely wasn't following the usual script, and you knew things weren't going to end well.  Of course, the three wide racing for the last sixteen laps of the 500 was a thing of beauty to watch.  I get nervous in rush hour traffic like this, and these guys were doing it at 200 MPH.  You kept asking yourself if how long could they keep this up before one guy took out half the field.  Answer?  A lot longer then I thought, but it still ended in a pile of twisted sheet metal and ruined cars.

As I sit back and reflect on the racing at Daytona, the quality of racing last weekend was actually better then I originally gave it credit for.  I do have one complaint about the Daytona 500, and this is really more of a problem with restrictor plate racing as opposed to just a Daytona problem.  Drafting plays an important role in all NASCAR racing, but at the restrictor plate races, the importance of drafting is elevated to a stupid level.  As a result, it sometimes feels like the winner of the race isn't the most skilled racer, but the guy whose at the right place in line when the checkered flag waves.

That being said, it often seems like the fast cars are at the front of the pack, while the slow cars are at the back, which is as things should be.  Racing always has a little bit of randomness to it, which is also as things should be, so I probably shouldn't complain too much just because one guy has a good drafting partner and another guy doesn't.  If I had unlimited power over NASCAR though (and was smart enough to figure out how to do this), I'd like to see the cars at the restrictor plate tracks a little less aero dependent and be a little more engine dependent.  That way, guys are better able to drive around each other with less drafting help.  Of course, if NASCAR ever did this I would probably complain that the bigger teams can afford to develop stronger engines which ruins the quality of the racing.

You know what NASCAR, just keeping doing what your doing, you're fine as is.

Mario Kart or Mario Andretti?

This weekend's Daytona 500 means that the worst of the racing duldrums are over, and we can expect to watch fast cars from now until November (except for IndyCar and their six month schedule, but we've covered that ground before).  Still, most of the major racing series, at least that we watch in North America, are still getting up to full speed, meaning there isn't a lot to talk about yet.  So, I was looking over some back stories I missed the first time around when I reread an article that at least one of Nissan's LMP1 drivers at Le Mans will be a GT Academy graduate.  For those of you who aren't aware, GT Academy is a program where Nissan cherry picks the best Grand Turismo players (yes, the PlayStation game) and tries to turn them into race car drivers, and I think this is a much bigger deal then most people give it credit for.

Before we get too far along, I want to talk about the development of my own interest in racing, because I think it applies here.  When I was about 14 years old, I had two interests, cars and video games, but not racing.  I couldn't drive the Corvettes, Porsches and Ferraris I read about in Motortrend, but I could pretend to drive them in games like Need for Speed.  So I did.  While I had a lot of fun pretending to be Sunny Crocket in my virtual Ferrari 355, it ultimately left me wanting.  I knew this wasn't really how these cars drove.  I wanted an experience that was more authentic, so slowly my interest started to drift to the more realistic racing simulations by Papyrus, famous for their hyper realistic NASCAR simulations and their brutally challenging Grand Prix Legends.  These games got me interested in real world racing, so I started watching NASCAR, and then things spiraled out of control.  I started watching other forms of racing, like F1 and the now defunct American Le Mans series.  This got me interested in different kinds of racing sims, which got me interested in even more racing series.  Next thing you knew, I was watching DTM racing and the Isle of Man TT coverage on Speed Vision.

Since I was thoroughly obsessed with racing, I obviously wanted to be a race car driver.  I started trying to learn about how one becomes a race car driver, and was crest fallen when I learned that it all comes down to money.  Which I didn't have.  I was watching Formula 1 drivers, the youngest of whom were only a few years older then me, who had been racing carts for years.  A season of serious carting may cost $10,000 or more,  and I didn't have $10.  It didn't take a genius to figure out that pursuing a career in racing wasn't the best use of my time.

And here in lies the problem with traditional driver development.  To get your foot in the door, you need the money to buy yourself a ride, because no one's going to give you a car to wrap around the Armco.  So, unless you come from a family that can financially support your early racing efforts, with no guarantee of success, you'll never be a professional driver.  Now enter GT Academy.  Suddenly, the highest barrier to entry for trying to be a race car driver, the financial barrier, has been removed.

I'm convinced that professional drivers getting their start in simulation racing (as us enthusiasts like to call it, because these aren't games, their "sims") are going to be the exception rather then the rule for at least the foreseeable future.  Until we start seeing GT Academy graduates win races at the highest levels, the pro teams are going to be skeptical of drafting racers from the sim world, but I think the importance of GT Academy goes beyond driver discovery and development.  It gets a new generation of fans interested in racing.

Read through RACER's "IndyCar 2018" series of articles.  In that series, a topic that keeps being brought up is that the millennial generation of fans might like motorsport, but they like the fast paced, instant gratification style of racing found in Formula Drift and Global Rally Cross.  Traditional circuit racing like NASCAR, IndyCar and Formula 1 just looks like guys going in circles for hours on end to these kids, but these same millennials who wouldn't dream of watching a two hour Grand Prix, will watch a NFL game that is at least as long.  I think the reason for this is that a lot of people have first hand experience with traditional stick and ball sports in school (ie, they played stick and ball sports in school).  Because of the high financial barrier to entry in motor racing that prevents gaining first hand experience, kids don't get to learn about the subtle strategies and race craft which makes watching a race exciting.  Sim racing is the analogy of playing high school football.  If sim racing gave a teen a chance to be a future Indy 500 winner, or Formula 1 champion, especially if they wouldn't have that opportunity anywhere else, don't you think that would make more teens interested in sim racing?  I do, and I know from my own experience that an interest in sim racing can make a person a life long fan of real racing.

For racing to have a bright future, we need to have a new generation of fans.  If no one is watching the races, racing is eventually going to whither and die.  If things like GT Academy can democratize the entry into professional racing, and in turn broaden the base of people who are interested in racing, then I'm all for it.  Having more people watching the races can only be a good thing.

Nice try NASCAR

Although NASCAR was the series that first got me interested in racing, I'm not the world's largest NASCAR fan.  NASCAR is a fine racing, and if you don't like the night race at Bristol, please leave right now, but I prefer IndyCar and Sportscar racing.  Pure personal preference.  That being said, I probably watch more NASCAR during the course of the year then any other form of racing, which isn't hard considering the shear volume of NASCAR racing available.  Hint, hint, IndyCar.

Anyway, it's the Daytona 500 weekend right now, which mean's the racing world turns it's attention to NASCAR.  I plan on writing more about the 500 in the days to come, but I'd like to start with a discussion on the current NASCAR qualifying mess.  The Daytona 500 group qualifying fiasco was over a week ago, but better late then never.  Right?

I'm going to assume that most of you are aware of what happened, because I'm probably the only person in the world still trying to write about Daytona qualifying, but I've got column space to fill, so let's recap real fast.  NASCAR tried group qualifying at Daytona for the first time this year, and the results were...not good.  I normally don't watch race qualifying on TV (I may be The Racing Nerd, but I'm not The Racing Nerd Who Has Nothing Better To Do with His Life), so I won't pretend to be an expert on how group qualifying for NASCAR worked at every track last year, but from what I understand, the problems with group qualifying at Daytona has everything to do with the draft.  At Daytona, if you want to be the fast guy, you want to be the guy at the back of the line, letting someone else punch a hole in the air for you.  That means the first guy out of the pit is like the first guy off the boat in Saving Private Ryan, it just doesn't end well for him.  So, if your clever, you leave the pit's last.  Unfortunately, everyone else has the same idea, so everyone waits for someone else to leave first.  Basically everyone is sitting around going "you leave first."

"No, you leave first."

"No you leave first."

It reminded me of a really annoying couple I knew in highschool who turned hanging up the phone into a three act play.

Back on topic.  So, everyone leaves the pit at the same time and is trying to qualify in a pack.  We've all watched restrictor plate races before, and we know what happens when guys are pushing hard in a pack?  If you answered "wrecks," give yourself a cookie because that's exactly what happened at Daytona.  Needless to say, drivers weren't happy when their primary car was wrecked by someone else's stupidity.

Honestly, I don't blame NASCAR for trying group qualifying.  Ultimately, any racing series is a business, and NASCAR needs to find ways to make money, and trying to add excitement with group qualifying (which makes it a more attractive product for TV), as opposed to single car qualifying, seemed like some awfully easy, low hanging fruit.  Too bad the idea didn't work.  Single car qualifying may not have the excitement of wheel-to-wheel racing, but at least you're guaranteed to see stuff on the track, as opposed to group qualifying where you see a traffic jam on pit road followed by everyone trying to cram in a flying lap at the last possible second.

What I find surprising is that NASCAR didn't see this coming.  From what I understand, the same thing happened at Talladega last year.  Heck, I personally saw the same thing happen at Texas last year when the NASCAR trucks tried group qualifying for the first time.  Did NASCAR seriously think that the teams wouldn't try and draft to gain a qualifying advantage?

View of the pit road during NASCAR truck qualify at Texas Motor Speedway in July 2014.  Like Yogi Bera said, it's deja vu all over again.

In any kind of group qualifying, track position is important, but doubly so on a speedway where a guy can get a tow to gain speed.  NASCAR has already tweaked the group qualifying format to try and prevent a repeat of the qualifying we saw last week, but I have a simpler solution.  Go back to single car qualifying.  I just don't think group qualifying can be made to work on ovals.

Nothing Stock about a Stock Car

As I was writing up my thoughts about spec series versus open development (and basically concluding that Spec Racer Ford should be the best racing in the world), I was thinking about some of my other favorite auto racing internet straw man arguments.  Originally this article was going to be about the idea that racing "improves the breed" (i.e., technology developed for the track finds its way onto the cars you and I drive), but as I started writing it kind of morphed into a discussion of purpose built race cars with no conniption to streetcars, versus streetcars pushed into racing duties.  This is a variation on the old "win on Sunday sell on Monday" argument.  In other words, people want to buy the best cars they can, so they want to buy the cars they see winning races on TV.  What I want to talk about is whether there is any truth in this idea, as well as the merits of production based car racing versus in-name-only stock car racing.  So let's start at the beginning.

Does a racing Boss 302 make you want to run out and buy a Mustang?

The story goes that back in the 50's and 60's manufacturers tested their cars in the crucible of motor sport (and if you got the Top Gear joke, give yourself a cookie).  Let's forget for a second that the Detroit Big Three shunned official involvement in racing until the mid 60's, because that's a different can of worms that I won't open here.  From the forge that is racing, some ideas did well, and were adapted for street car use, while other ideas did poorly and were resigned to the dust bin of history.  Plus we got crazy looking Dodge Chargers and Plymouth Superbirds with massive wings.  The general motoring public saw which manufacturers did well on the track, and used this information to help sway their buying decisions.

But these happy times did not last.  From the purity of the stock cars of the 1950's and 1960's, the cars began to evolve into purpose built tube framed racers that have no relation to their counterparts on the show room floor.  For example, try going into your local Toyota dealer and ask for a Camry with a four speed manual and a pushrod V8.  The sales guy is either going to laugh at you or look at you like you just escaped from psychiatric ward, but that is the car that Toyota races in NASCAR and claims in representative of their "stock" cars.

Now enter the Internet commenters.  The comment I keep reading is that stock car racing should go back to it's roots and actually race cars that are representative of what the manufacturers actually make, because that's the way it should be.  If you're one of those people, I have a simple question for you.  Do you watch Continental Tire Sportscar Challenge?  Because that's basically the series that you're talking about.

A GS Camaro leads a ST Honda through the Horse Shoe at Daytona

I'll be honest, I don't watch as much CTSC as I should, but it is probably the closest thing I can think of in terms of true "stock car" racing (plus it's pretty good racing).  By that I mean, CTSC cars are not purpose built racing machines, but street cars that have been racing modified.  I mean just look at these cars, they don't look like the steroid fueled monsters you see in GTLM, they look like production cars with racing slicks, a roll cage and some decals.  Which is kind of the point.

I'm probably getting ahead of myself a little.  For those of you who don't follow the Continental Tire Sportscar Challenge (and until recently, that included me), here's a basic background.  CTSC is sponsored by IMSA, just like the Turdor United Sportscar Challenge (i.e., big boy american sportscar racing).  CTSC is divided into two classes, the faster of the two being Grand Sport (GS) and containing cars like Mustangs, Camaros, Aston Martin Vantages, Nissan 370Z's and Porsche 911's.  Grand Sport cars make "around" 400 HP, and top out around 160 MPH.  The slower class is Sport Tuner (ST) and contains  cars like the Mazda Miata, the Honda Civic Si, The BMW 1 series and the Porsche Caymen.  Engines make around 200 HP and the cars go around 135 MPH.  Looking at the numbers, I think it's pretty clear that these cars have more in common with production sports cars then actual race cars, and that's the point.  Both GS and ST cars start out life like any other example of the model that you buy from the dealer, and have only minor racing modifications.  The GS cars are allowed to swap out more of their stock parts for race parts then their ST counterparts.  Even for the GS car however, the purpose of the modifications is not to improve the performance of the car per se, but to allow the car's to work better in a racing environment.

An example of a GS car, a Nissan 370Z.

An example of an ST car, a Porsche Caymen.

So, you're asking, what does a second tier North American sportscar series have to do with the evolution of NASCAR from racing production cars to tube framed cars?  For purposes of what we're talking about, it all circles back to win on Sunday, sell on Monday.  The kind of production car based racing that certain Internet commenters are wanting (and claim is the way things should be) does exist, at least at semi-professional level, but you don't hear Ford and Chevrolet bragging about how well their doing in CTSC.  I'll concede the point that maybe the problem is that CTSC just doesn't have enough exposure to make the manufactures care, but if racing "stock" cars on sunday really helped sell on Monday, you'd think this kind of racing would have more factory backing then it does.

And herein lies the main issue with racing show room cars, no one really cares.  Obviously, the manufacturers feel there is some benefit to motorsport or they wouldn't support it, but I think if you asked the guys in the corner offices Detroit, it doesn't matter if the car on the track looks anything like what's for sale at the Ford dealership, as long as the car says Ford on it.  It's all about generating buzz and headlines, not showcasing the superiority of specific models or technology, and that's because people don't judge cars based on racing performance.  The general buying public doesn't have enough awareness to make this kind of analysis, and the enthusiasts understand that a car prepped by a good race shop (even if the car is production based) is a far cry from the car you buy from the showroom.

So for the manufacturers, it's not about generating buzz for specific models, it's about generating buzz for the entire brand, which means supporting the most popular forms of racing.  Which means supporting forms of racing that has appeal to casual race fans, not just racing enthusiasts.  Like it or not, series like NASCAR are the most popular because they appeal to a non-enthusiast audience.  With this in mind, the manufactures have no reason to put added support behind CTSC.

Likewise, the sanctioning bodies don't car.  Deep down, race promoters don't care about racing, they car about making money.  The promoters are running a business, which means they need to produce a product the appeals to the largest audience.  Again, the casual audience seems to prefer the pack racing, tube framed, purpose built, cars of NASCAR, so that's what the race organizers give them.  It's not personal, it's business.

That doesn't mean there isn't an enthusiast argument that racing production based cars is a great idea because it's just plain cool, but cool ideas by themselves don't sell tickets to the race, or get the manufacturers excited.  So, if your argument for racing true production based cars is that it's somehow "purer," I wouldn't spend too much time sitting by the phone, waiting for NASCAR to answer your letters.  In the meantime, why aren't you watching CTSC?

So, does winning on Sunday help to sell on Monday?  To the extent that generating positive headlines  help to sell cars, yes, but I think the benefit of auto racing as a vehicle to drive sales is somewhat overrated in the todays market.  What doesn't matter is whether the car is a production based Boss Ford Mustang, or a tube framed NASCAR prepped Ford Fusion, they both generate sales for the brand.  Let's say we stop arguing about how much better stock car racing was in the good old days, and just enjoy the racing.

I Sure Hope they Studied...

...Because teams are testing.  I was browsing my usual sources for auto racing news today, and I realized that F1, WEC and IndyCar are all in their preseason testing cycles, which means we have stuff to talk about that isn't me telling stories from the Rolex 24.

Let's start with WEC.  I know that just the other day I was complaining that open car development isn't everything, but I love WEC because that's where the weird cars live.  So far, the news stories I'm seeing have to do with the the big four in LMP1, Audi, Porsche, Toyota and Nissan.  Nissan is testing at Circuit of the Americas, but I haven't heard any news, other then they are testing.  Audi just finished a test at Motorland Aragon in Spain, while Toyota has tested at Motorland Aragon as well as France's Paul Ricard circuit.  Both Toyota and Audi are staying pretty tight lipped about their test results, but both claim to be happy with their cars.  About the biggest news to come from Toyota is that they are sticking with their current super capacitor hybrid system as opposed to a battery system (more on hybrid systems in a while).  I'll be honest, I don't really know what any of that electrical engineering stuff means.  Porsche also recently finished testing their latest 919 in Bahrain.  Their team principle claims that the 2015 Porsche driver squad reports that the car is more drivable then last years.  Which I guess is better then the alternative.  So, to recap the testing results for the four big WEC teams, things are coming along well, but what else would you expect the teams to say?

Here's where things get interesting with regards to WEC in my opinion.  Megajoules.  Nissan is rumored to be chasing the 8MJ hybrid class, as is Toyota (which is currently in the 6MJ class).  Audi is looking to move up from 2MJ to 4MJ, and Porsche says they are currently evaluating which megajoule class they want to enter (currently, the 919 is a 6MJ car).  I was reading the dead tree edition of Racecar Engineering a while back, and they were saying that one of the major advantages Toyota had over Audi in 2014, at least in terms of pace, is that Toyota had a megajoule advantage.  Specifically, Toyota's decision to use a 6MJ design gave them a pace advantage over Audi 2MJ.   It looks like everyone this year is trying to up their megajoule game, so if either Toyota, Nissan or Porsche can hit 8MJ, that could give them a significant advantage over the competition.  I also speculate that as soon as a team hits the currently elusive 8MJ mark, it will start a hybrid arms race, as the other teams try and catch up, or be relegated to the dust bin of hybrid history.  Despite the two preceding paragraphs of stuff, any serious discussion of this year's Le Man's competitors is premature until the hybrid systems are finalized and we have some comparative lap times.

[NOTE FROM THE RACING NERD: If you're reading my discussion on hybrid classes screaming that I'm an idiot, I agree.  Also, I feel WEC hybrid subclasses deserves it's own discussion.  A full article discussing Audi 4MJ car versus Toyota, Nissan and Porsches 6MJ and/or 8MJ cars is coming].

Which brings us to Formula 1, where we actually do have comparative lap times.  F1 finished their first preseason test in Jerez Spain about two weeks ago, and shockingly, Ferrari power topped the lap times.  It's hard to judge the truth of preseason lap times since you don't know the cars fuel load or what the team was trying to accomplish with their testing, but I'm having a hard time believing that Ferrari was the only team hammering out laps while everyone else was just cruising.  Is Ferrari Mercedes fast now?  Probably not, but it is definitely looking good for the red cars with the prancing horses on the side.

And speaking of Mercedes, the Silver Arrows cars were working on reliability.  Despite being dominate last year, Mercedes had a few technical glitches to iron out, like when Louis Hamilton's car burst into flames in Hungary.  Mercedes turned an insane amount of laps more then everyone else in Jerez, and if I was the other teams, this would make me nervous for two very specific reasons.  First, Mercedes wasn't working on race pace.  Even though Ferrari topped the lap times, Mercedes was still quick, and they had the fastest strait line speed by 7kph.  The speed trap numbers obviously don't tell the whole story since Max Verstappen's Torro Rosso and Marcus Ericsson's Sauber-Ferrari were both faster then Kimi Raikonnen through the trap.  (Hands up, who things Max Verstappen is going to be faster then Kimi Raikonnen when the F1 season starts proper in Australia?  No one?  Didn't think so.)  So, while strait line speed doesn't necessarily equal quick lap times, it does prove they have plenty of horsepower, and with that the potential to be plenty quick.  Lap time just wasn't the focus at Jerez.  Therefore, if Mercedes can be competitive when they aren't focusing on lap time, how quick will they be when they actually put in some effort?  Second, like I said, Mercedes turned a lot of laps.  I haven't seen a break down of number of laps per stint for Mercedes, but I have to assume the answer is a lot, I just can't imagine them getting the mileage they did by turning a lot of short, low fuel runs.  So, if the car was loaded down with a lot of fuel, it makes sense that they were weren't number one on the lap time charts.  If a Mercedes full of fuel can run lap times competitive to cars on lighter fuel loads (assuming the others cars where on lighter fuel loads), I'm going to nervous about the speed of my car compared to the Mercedes under similar fuel loads, like you get during race conditions.  Just because Mercedes wasn't the quickest at Jerez, I still think they're going to have the fastest car on race day.

Which brings us to McLaren.  I can't help but wonder if Fernando Alonso is regretting his career choices right now.  His old ride at Ferrari looks like it could be a contender this year, and his new ride at McLaren looks like it might struggle to get out of the pit lane without embarrassing itself.  If you didn't hear, Honda had serious reliability problems at Jerez, and Alonso was a full 30kph slower through the speed trap then Mercedes.  That's not good.  Will Honda get the biggest of their problems figured out before the first race?  More then likely.  Will that engine be competitive with Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault?  Now that is a much better question.  I keep reading internet commentators claiming that Honda had a design advantage.  Honda got to build an engine from scratch with a year's worth of data on the current V6 turbo formula.  Where would Honda get this data?  Did they call up Mercedes and ask "can we have all your test data and design files?"  Of course not.  The other three engine supplies have a year worth of data, Honda has squat, and they're trying to play catch up, and as a result McLaren is currently stuck with a lemon.  I just hope Ron Dennis bought the extended warranty.

And then there's IndyCar.  They're testing at New Orleans Motorsport Park.  Which is a thing.  I guess.  You see, the teams are using the old Dallara road course aero components, which is funny, because now that Brazil is cancelled, those old cars won't actually be raced in this years IndyCar season.  I guess teams and drivers are learning the ins and outs of NOLA, but other then that, I'm not really sure what IndyCar is trying to accomplish with this test.  I did hear Simon Pagenaud saying that he expects good racing for the NOLA race,  Which is good.  I guess.  Let's be brutally honest with ourselves, you can parade the cars around all you want, but IndyCar testing doesn't really start until teams take delivery of the new aero kits.  At that point they can start figuring out how to get the most speed out of the 2015 cars.  Still, it's good to see the DW12's back on the track, even if they're just wandering around aimlessly.

Save the Open Cockpit Racecars

So I was on the internet the other day, and I found this.  (Yes, I know that’s not how the Top Gear joke goes, but I’m lazy).  I also found an article in Race Car Engineering (a magazine that takes its motorsport commentary a lot more seriously than I do) on the subject of closed cockpit F1 cars.  To boil the argument down to its essence, F1 and Indy Car drivers are racing at 200 plus miles an hour, with their heads sticking out of the cars like a Golden Retriever riding in a convertible, which puts the driver’s at additional risk.  This is what happened in Jules Bianchi’s crash at last year’s Japanese Grand Prix, and was responsible for Dan Wheldon’s tragic death in 2011.

I’m a firm believer that for the good of racing, racing needs to be as safe as possible.  The day racing becomes a blood sport is the day we lose racing.  But I still want to keep the roofs off of the cars and keep the drivers acting like Labradors having the time of their lives.  Simply put, open cockpit racecars adds excitement to the race by letting you see the driver at work.

Take a look at two pictures I took at this year’s Rolex 24 to see what I’m talking about.  The first picture is of a prototype challenge car, the only open cockpit left in top tier American sports car racing.  The second picture is of A GTLM Aston Martin. 

An open cockpit prototype challenge car.  Believe it or not, this Sponge Bob Square Paints painted car took pole in PC class.  Shortly after qualifying, all the other PC drivers committed ritual suicide.

A GTLM Aston Martin.

I’ve never been a huge fan of prototype challenge.  It’s a pro-am class, which means it must be shunned and hated by the auto-racing master race, but sitting in the stands, I couldn’t take my eyes off these cars, and it was because I could see the driver, not because one was sporting a Sponge Bob Square Paints livery.  You could see the drivers heads tilting to side under cornering forces.  It added an element of drama to the watching cars, while the closed cockpit cars might as well have been driven by Skynet.

Racing has a long tradition of open cockpit cars, and if the open cockpit car dies, racing will have lost something special, but tradition alone isn't enough of a reason to keep the roofs off the cars, I think there's a good marketing reason for open cockpit cars.  Some of us, the target audience of this blog, are fascinated with the technical aspect of racing.  While people like us have our favorite drivers, we also love the cars.  In my case, I'm more interested in the cars, and the design of the cars, then the people driving them, but I think I'm in the minority.  I think that most people, especially more casual fans that we need in order to grow the sport, are more fascinated by the drivers, and an open cockpit car puts the drivers closer to the fans.  It adds an extra level of excitement and drama to the racing, and excitement helps sell the product, especially among people who don't really understand the difference between out breaking and out breaking yourself.

I could keep rambling on, but I don't feel like I'm really making a good case for the survival of the open cockpit car, so let me boil the argument down to it's most basic element.  Open cockpit cars are cool, don't get rid of them.

Let's Hear it for Spec Racing!

Hello dear reader (as in singular, because I'm pretty sure there is only one of you).  As you've probably figured out by now, I read a lot of racing media, because, let's be honest, RACER isn't going to plagiarize their content for me.  And speaking of RACER, I've been enjoying their ongoing "IndyCar 2018" series of interviews and editorials.  If you haven't read this series yet, it is the opinions of various people in the American Open Wheel racing scene commenting on what IndyCar needs to do to be successful when they introduce their 2018 car, but this article really isn't about IndyCar 2018, instead it is about something I see in the comments sections of articles about IndyCar, F1, WEC, IMSA, and probably lawnmower racing if I bothered to read about that.  What I'm talking about is car development.

A lot of the commenter' I see claim that IndyCar's problem is that it's basically a spec series these days, and if IndyCar would simply let the teams develop jet powered super cars with frickin' laser beams attached to their head everything would be better.  If only IndyCar would embrace the idea of open development, then people who have no idea what month the Indy 500 is held would suddenly flock to IndyCar like people racing for the last servings of soylent green.  And that thinking is all wrong.

I'm focused a lot on IndyCar so far, but these same arguments apply to F1 and sports cars as well, as well as any other series where internet armchair race directors are screaming for more development.  Here's the basic flaws that thinking open development means race car popularity.  First, and most importantly, the people who are interested in race car engineering are already watching car racing.  Casual race fans (the people who we're trying to get interested in tuning into the Iowa Corn 250) don't understand why the Penske Ilmor pushrod engine for the 1994 Indy 500 was such a big deal.  I'm not saying these people are stupid, and can't understand, they just don't care.  Open development won't bring in more fans because new fans don't know this is something to get excited about, assuming they care about the technical side racing to begin with.

Not only is increased development not going to make new fans, it's going to make the racing product worse.  Say what you want about NASCAR and IndyCar, but the racing is wheel to wheel and you never know whose going to win a given race.  Even a back marker team can win on the right day in those series, and that makes the races exciting to watch.  In Formula 1, the poster boy series for technological development, the winner is going to be either that one Mercedes, or that other Mercedes.  Speed costs money, and in a series that places heavy emphasis on development the winners are the guys willing to throw the most money at the problem, while everyone else is holding on for dear financial life.  Don't believe me?  Ask Caterham and Marrusia.  It's a simple formula really.  Increased developments means more engineering talent is required, more research and development is required, and as a result more money is required, and as costs go up, grid sizes go down.  Car count isn't everything in racing, but an empty paddock is a sad paddock.

And while we're in that sad paddock of eight cars that can actually afford to design a new differential between practice and qualifying, the cars don't actually "race" anymore, they just kind of drive around in ranked order.  When rules governing technical development are tight, it's hard to build a car that's across the board slower then everyone else's.  When development is open, building a movable chicane becomes real easy, real fast.  I love the technical side of racing, but ultimately, I want to see tight, wheel to wheel racing, not a movable demonstration of who has the best engineering squad.  The results of a race should ultimately be determined by what happens on track, but when one car is head an shoulders superior then the others, the significance of the racing itself is minimized.

An argument I've seen advanced a couple of time's online (particularly with regards to F1) boils down to "throw out the rule book and let the engineers go wild."  No technical regulations, build whatever you want.  And I can't think of a worse idea.  The challenge of race car engineering is to build a car within a certain set specifications, and bend those regulations in such a way that you're faster then everyone else.  Or, if you're really clever, break those rules in such a way that the tech inspectors don't notice (looking at you Red Bull).  Because every racing series has some set of technical regulations (at least ever good racing series) there will be some limitations on development, and we shouldn't be afraid of this.  Limitations on technical development aren't strangling competition, they create a challenge.  The teams have a limited amount of development options, and the good teams will make the most of those options, which is the real fun, not whose willing to spend the most money to win.

Should all series become spec series then?  Of course not.  A world that doesn't allow bat guano crazy ideas like the Nissan LMP1 GT-R or the Delta Wing is a world I don't want to live in, but I don't think we should complain when a IndyCar doesn't allow the use of afterburners and plasma drives.  While arguing about the design choices of the Mercedes W06 versus the Ferrari SF15-T is fun for racing nerds, it doesn't put butts in the grandstands, or eyes on TV's.  The ultimate fate of any racing series depends on what happens on the track, not back in the shop.

In the Announcement that Shocked No One...

...IndyCar doesn't have a replacement for the cancelled March 8th race in Brazil.  I kind of figured this would be the result (IndyCar: St. Petersburg Confirmed as Season Opener).  The idea that IndyCar would somehow shoe horn a race into Circuit of the Americas (or any track for that matter), with no warning, in a little over a month, is frankly laughable.

It sounds like IndyCar is trying to find a replacement race for later in the season, which I think is the best case scenario, although I wouldn't be surprised if we only have a 16 race season.

Best Super Bowl Commercial Ever?

So did you see Nissan's Super Bowl commercial?  You know, this one.  The one with all the race cars.  If you haven't heard why this is a big deal already (and if you haven't, what WEC hating rock have you been living under), it's because this is the official unveiling of Nissan's new LMP1 car.

RACER has a four page write up on the new car here.  I'm still digesting all the information that's come out in the last couple of hours (ie, it's Sunday night and I'm getting ready for work on Monday), but even based a cursory glance, this car is...interesting.  First, it's front engine, like the old ALMS Panoz prototypes (technically the car is mid engine, it just puts the engine in front of the driver, instead of behind the driver like every other mid engine car).  Second, the car uses a five speed transmission.  Let's just sit and marvel at those last couple of sentences for a second.  Modern F1 cars all have eight speed gearboxes.  Furthermore, A front engine car hasn't won an F1 race since 1960, while the last front engine car to win the Indianapolis 500 was 1964.  A front engine car with a five speed transmission sounds like it should run on coal.

Now make sure your sitting down for this next part, because after you get passed the engine and the gearbox, things start getting really weird.  This car is front wheel drive.  Okay, that part is actually a bit of lie (sort of).  Like all modern LMP1 prototypes, the Nissan is a hybrid (seriously, why are you listening to me say this, go read that RACER article, they're smarter then I am).  The power from the car's internal combustion engine goes to the front wheels, while the electric power can go to either the front or the rear wheels.  This means that the car can be run as an AWD car, but here's where things start getting confusing.  Although the design of the car allows it to be run in an AWD fashion, Nissan can run it as a strict FWD car, if they choose.  It's not particularly clear at this time if car is actually FWD, AWD or some weird crime-against-nature combination of the two.  So, if this is all as clear as mud for you, good, we're on the same page.  In all honestly, these guys are shooting for a car with somewhere between 1,250 and 1,500 horse power.  Does anyone honestly think that the engineers are going to try and send all that power through the front wheels, and let the rear wheels just chill out and do nothing?  I can't help but think that when Nissan goes to race this thing, some amount of power is going to be sent to the back wheels.

As I understand it, Nissan plans on campaigning the car this year in the World in Endurance Championship.  When this thing shows up for the first race, there's no doubt it's going to be the most interesting thing on the grid.  Which is what worries me.  Sometimes, guys who innovate and try something new go on to curb stomp the competition.  The other possibility (which I think is the more realistic scenario for the 2015 season) is that Audi, Toyota and Porsche focus on the business of winning races, while Nissan sits in the garage trying to figure out what's wrong with their Rube Goldberg Machine of a drivetrain today.  The point I'm driving at is that Nissan deliberately built this thing so that it would be completely different from anything else currently on the grid.  Judging on that criteria, mission accomplished Nissan, but building something completely different, just because you can, isn't necessarily the best way to build a race car.  Don't believe me?  Allow me to present exhibit A, the Delta Wing.

My Johnny Rain Cloud analysis aside, I'm really looking forward to seeing this car on the track.  I'm planning on heading down to Austin this September for the WEC race at Circuit of the Americas, so hopefully we'll have some exclusive out of focus pictures of Nissan's brand new LMP1 car on The Racing Nerd before the year is out.

Rolex 24: Pictures and Thoughts

I was fortunate enough to be in Daytona this year for the Rolex 24.  Okay, “fortunate” is probably the wrong word.  It’s not like I was wandering around the country and accidently found myself in Daytona Beach during a race weekend.  Anyway, a week after the end of the race, anyone who cares about the actual results has either seen the race, read about what happened, or most realistically, both.  That means I won’t bore you with a bunch a race analysis.  Besides, that just means I end up plagiarizing a bunch of stuff from RACER anyway.

Of course, just because I don’t have a lot of race analysis to share, doesn’t mean I don’t have opinions (and pictures to post, because everyone loves pictures).  First, if you like sports car racing, you owe it to yourself to go to this race.  A four day ticket, including garage access cost me $90.  I was at the track for about 40 hours over the course of four days.  If there is a better ratio of hours per racing/dollar, I’m not aware of it.

The garage access in particular was one of the highlights for the trip to me.  I’ve been to professional motor races before, but this was the first time I was able to wander around the garage and look at the teams while they’re working.  Being close enough to the cars to touch them really was a thrill for me.  You also get a chance to appreciate the small details on the cars that you don’t normally see when they’re flashing by at 200 MPH.  Like this little flourish on the Starworks Daytona Prototype.



The other major difference between the Rolex 24 and the shorter oval races I’ve been to (besides being approximately 21 hours longer) is that you never know what’s around the next corner.  Literally, I walked around a corner on my way from the east to west horseshoe grandstands and saw this…

Turns out one of the prototype challenge cars was having a bad day and was being pulled out of the escape road near the west horseshoe.  In fact, this guy was having a really bad day, because the position light says he was in second when his car decided to start leaking fluid like a poorly house trained puppy. 

And as I was standing there enjoying someone else’s missery, this guy pulled up…

Good old Delta Wing.  I think everyone knew the Delta Wing was going to break down, because let’s be honest, that’s what the Delta Wing does, but I wasn't expecting them to be done before dinner.  The transmission had different ideas.

I don’t want turn this post into “How I Spent my January Vacation,” which is what’s going to happen if I keep typing, so I’ll end it here, but I do want to close with the idea that if you’re a race fan, you really should do everything you can to watch a race at the track.  I’ve talked to people at work who’ve said that they would love to see a race in person, but they never go.  Going to see a race is an experience you can’t get just by watching the race on TV.  Even if the race itself isn't that great, I've never regretted going.

 I’ll send this post off with some more of my favorite pictures I took at the race and can’t squeeze in anywhere else, but like too much not to share.  Let me know if you guys like the racing pictures.  I have a bunch more I can share.

The infamous Wayne Taylor Racing Corvette DP.

Krohn Racing Ligier/Judd P2 car.  I was really excited to see a P2 car take pole this year, and not really surprised to see only one P2 car still running at the end of the race.

Everyone loves cars with Martini Rossi liveries right?  Bonus points for being on an open cockpit car.

If we're going to show off pictures of Martini liveries, it's only fair to give the Gulf livery fans equal air time.

Corvette C7R, going through NASCAR 1 and 2, side by side with one of the Chip Ganassi DP cars.  Images like this are why I love sportscar racing at Daytona.