Welcome to the RACER mailbag. Questions for RACER’s writers can be sent to: mailbag@racer.com. We welcome your comments and opinions, but letters with questions are more likely to be published. Questions received after 3:00 PM EST each Monday will be saved for the following week.
Q: Is there any new information about the IndyCar series video games that iRacing is producing for consoles as well as PC? It’s said to be coming out in 2026, but I haven’t read or heard anything about it since it was announced.
As we all know, it’s been 20 years since the last IndyCar video game was released, which is way too long. We hope that the developers of the new game will release images and trailers for the game soon and we will see a lot of progress.
When the game Motorsport Games was commissioned to create and complete fell apart, it was nothing short of depressing.
david colquitt
Marshall Pruett: I don’t know if I thought it was depressing. Everyone knew it was a terrible choice, told Penske Entertainment it would fail, and it did, so it more than lived up to expectations. I contacted the series and was told that the release schedule is still okay and to look for something in late 2026.
Q: The first question concerns Oliver Askew. We just saw him re-sign with Andretti in Formula E as a reserve role. Will we ever get a chance to see him behind the wheel in a race, in Formula E, IMSA, or any other race?Oliver had real talent but never had the chance to display it at a high level. Since he has been away from racing for three years, it seems unlikely that he will return.
The second question concerns Dale Coin. I’ve read some articles that Honda may be considering having Tsunoda race in IndyCar in 2026 if he is dropped by Red Bull. Do you have any information about this? Similarly, Red Bull driver Ayumu Iwasa has just won the Super Formula championship. Will we see him in IndyCar with Dale Coyne? Will this also be through Honda?
Yannick
MP: You may have noticed that we never mentioned Coyne and Tsunoda in any of our ridiculous coverage of the season. That’s because it was a nothing burger. If Coyne wants to hire Iwasa, he will, but Honda is in the final year of IndyCar’s engine supply contract and is not willing to offer the team $8 million to $10 million to run someone.
I agree with Askew. There’s a lot of talent out there, but he seems to have lost touch with time and relevance within IndyCar as a young talent to pursue. He is the 2019 Indy Lights champion who spent one IndyCar season with Arrow McLaren in 2020 before rolling out, meaning he should still join the team as an option, but he is a few years behind 2022 Indy Lights champion Linus Lundqvist, who spent a year and a half between Meyer Shank and Chip Ganassi and things worked out for him.
If you’re looking to buy a young title-winning talent, there’s a younger, newer, brighter model standing in front of Askew, but that’s the biggest problem. But the problem has nothing to do with Oliver’s abilities.
Q: I have a question regarding the Genesis LMDh program. We know about the 2026 WEC driver team (and it’s a very strong team), but are there any rumors about the IMSA driver team? I imagine there might be some carryover drivers (like Cadillac) since the schedule is so balanced that it’s almost possible to combine seasons (Long Beach/Imola aside). Have you heard anything about the drivers that could be brought into the 2027 IMSA campaign?
ottawa, duncan
MP: I haven’t started thinking about the IMSA portion of 2027 yet, but I’m hopeful that some of the WEC roster will be pulled as well as double duty. Delani stands out as a name that fans know, as does Jaminet. If I were looking for my first success in sports car racing at the highest level in America, I would look to a champion who made his name in IMSA. We’re also hopeful that the 2026 reserve will be ready to take the race seat in 2027 as well.
Which drivers from the 2026 Genesis FIA WEC lineup are scheduled to carry that intangible touch over to 2027 IMSA? Image via Genesis Magma Racing
Q: I’ve noticed that what most race fans want (or do you think?) from an IndyCar broadcast just doesn’t happen. The question is whether it’s due to cost or philosophy. both? Some items, like adding more cameras, depend on cost, but where to put those cameras is a philosophy.
- Compare multiple drivers and track sector times
- Yellow, green and purple truck sector coding
- Audible driver and team microphone
- pit stop clock
- Race strategy with predictive insights
- More cars equipped with cameras
- More ghost cars
- Slow motion replay captured with high frame rate camera
- Camera placement philosophy. A few years ago, F1 made a change by placing the cameras lower, with some staying still as cars pass and others moving from left to right to mimic the way our eyes follow cars. The result is a stronger sense of speed and a deeper admiration for the driver’s work. Even with social content from teams and drivers, the sense of speed jumps off the screen.
I get it, good things cost money. It is unrealistic to expect F1 to be broadcast. These races can only support a certain level of financial commitment, but does that mean improvement is impossible?
mat
MP: I like many of the items you listed as features that F1 broadcast offers. We also appreciate the huge production budgets that F1, the world’s second most popular sport, has at its disposal. As you point out, the same level of funding is not going to go into the second or third most popular regional horse racing series. In this series, IndyCar lags behind NASCAR and possibly F1 domestically.
But improvement is always an option. For more than a decade, IndyCar television content on various broadcast stations lacked an in-race analysis segment. Thank you Mr Hinch. As lead commentator and driver analyst, Hinch does his best to dig into the strategic aspects as much as possible. All the items you suggested to strengthen that part, giving smart fans more data to make their own calculations and strategize, is something that F1 absolutely thrives on and is long overdue.
We used to live in a time when spectatorship was passive, but expectations have increased, especially among new and younger fans who grew up with modern F1. There, information is constantly being fed to educate and provide the viewer with what they need to do more than just watch zoomed-in cars drive around for entertainment.
Q: Have you heard what the horsepower levels will be for the IndyCar with the new 2.4 liter engine? And is the target weight loss for the car expected to be around 80-100 pounds?
Joe
MP: We’re talking about goals at this stage, but the starting point is 800 horsepower. The current 2.2 makes around 750 horsepower, which is at a very high stress level. I’d probably put a starting range of 750-800 horsepower, which isn’t too much stress, as a debut model for the 2.4. Yes, the goal is to shave 80 to 100 pounds off the car, and if that’s successful, most of the savings will come in the back half of the car through lighter hybrid and transmission components.
Q: Have you heard if the WWTR race will be held again on Sunday night?I think it was the best race of the year.
Have FOX and IndyCar ever discussed the possibility of weeknight primetime races? That could potentially extend the season into football season without having to face the NFL on Sunday.
bob
MP: The schedule announcement from IndyCar said WWTR and Nashville would be held under lights, so yes, night races are planned. We hear from FOX that adjustment time for all races is fast approaching. I’m sure the concept of a weeknight race has been floated, but I haven’t heard anything to suggest anything will happen in the near future.
Q: Robin Miller and I have been friends for many years. We shared a common passion for IndyCar racing from childhood to adulthood. Each of us has been fortunate to have a career in the sport we love. I looked forward to a stimulating discussion with Robin.
One of our many discussion items was Robin’s “IndyCar Mount Rushmore.” Robin’s nominees were AJ, Mario, Parnelli, and Dan Gurney. Robin was always keen to explain the rationale for her candidates. He also mentioned why other drivers didn’t finish in the top four. His background and knowledge base provided comprehensive insight to support his reasoning.
Did you and he have any discussions that you could share about Mount Rushmore and do you agree with his candidacy?
Steve, Chapel Hill, NC
MP: I was one of about 10 people who filmed Robin’s Mount Rushmore video at IMS Productions in 2011, and it was phenomenal. The only disappointment was that Foyt refused to show up because Mario was there. This was before they became best friends. It was really cool to hear Robin on the phone swearing and trying to get him into the conversation right before filming started.
I love the spirit behind Robin’s Mount Rushmore, there’s so much sentimentality in it. We often talked about it and about the main characters. And the reasoning behind all four, from their on-track excellence to their technological innovations to their increased visibility in the sport to their longevity, makes all four the perfect choice for his Mount Rushmore. But that’s not the case of IndyCar’s Mount Rushmore. We all have our own.
The four cases were unique to the time Robin entered the sport. AJ was 12 when he won his first 500, 14 when Rufus won, and 20 when Mario won. Our mutual hero Dan Gurney didn’t win, but he was one of the best, finishing second. They were all big stars of the 1960s, and for some, the 1970s, and AJ and Mario continued to share that crown into the 1980s and ’90s. Multiply Pato O’Ward’s current level of popularity by 100, and Robin’s Mount Rushmore was what IndyCar and the Indy 500 were all about at the time.
Inevitably, our first heroes are the ones we hold onto for the rest of our lives and celebrate as the GOAT. I grew up in the CART era and the original IMSA GTP era. Fighting against those who say they’re not the greatest, which are my two favorite eras? Same goes for new fans who grew up in the era when Dixon, de Ferran, Castroneves, Tracy, Bourdais, Franchitti, Hornish, Danica, etc. were the biggest deals.
Return to list. Foyt has always been IndyCar’s Mount Rushmore automatic, and so has Rick Mears. Mario certainly falls into that category. Juan Pablo Montoya won one championship and won the 500 twice, but I don’t care about the title or his second win at the speedway. Just what he did at Indy in 2000, dropping that big face on the mountain, is worth considering. The most overwhelming display of superiority I’ve ever seen. He toyed with the field for 500 miles. Although he doesn’t fit into many categories and doesn’t fit the rationale Robin used to define his four, I’m willing to make him my fourth. If you take that guy back in time, it’s hard to think of anyone who can’t beat him.
You can’t go wrong with Andretti, Foyt, and Mears. He’s an all-time winner at Indy and a multiple-time IndyCar champion. Similar to the game show Wheel of Fortune, these three are the RSTLNEs that everyone starts with when solving puzzles. You might be able to remove one of them, but you shouldn’t. The fourth one is very subjective and probably comes from my days of being obsessed with IndyCar and the 500.
What about Mauli Rose? Uncle Bobby? Wilbur Shaw? Tommy Milton? Big Al? Dario? Helio? There will be many fans who believe Newgarden is the GOAT, and they’re not wrong. To them, Joseph is a lifelong figure comparable to Foyt or Mears.
It’s December and the biggest news right now is Sting Ray Robb returning to the team, so I’d love to know what Mount Rushmore is and what it’s all about, so send it to me.
Q: Kudos to JR for suggesting Blackbird. I completely agree that today’s race car designs place too much emphasis on aerodynamics. I’ve long thought that more rules stifle innovation, and that simplification would be overwhelmingly welcomed.
My suggestion for F1 (and I think IndyCar as well) is simple.
Rule 1: The entire car must fit within box X’ XY’ XZ’ (all to be determined)
Rule 2: No part of the car’s body can be more than 3 feet wide.
Rule 3: Any engine configuration can be used, but the total intake volume must not exceed X (TBD)
Rule 4: Only road legal tires may be used. (regardless of manufacturer/model)
Rule 5: Only steel/cast iron brake discs may be used.
Otherwise, let me design and make whatever I want as long as it fits in the box. As you can see, this opens the door for innovation, puts less emphasis on aerodynamics, and limits the amount of air that the engine can take in.
Speed is automatically limited by street tires, so it’s open to all manufacturers.
Steel brakes, limited area, and street tires put performance back in the hands of the driver.
As it stands, manufacturers are only interested in winning the constructors’ championship. Fans only care about the drivers’ championship. Huge conflict of interest!
Alan Lane, Leesburg, Florida
MP: That’s an interesting approach. Essentially, do we go all in on F1 and IndyCar, opening up all sorts of freedoms, making lots of power, championing creativity and innovation, and then ruining it all by restricting cars to tiptoeing around on street tires?
It would be like removing all restrictions on performance-enhancing drugs in baseball, creating a new generation of players who are unusually big and fast, and forcing them to use pencils instead of full-sized bats to try to hit home runs. If you want to take the chain off something, cut it all off.
Chris Meland: I would be interested to see the results under those rules, but I don’t think it would be anywhere close to the performance that F1 wants, or even the performance of current IndyCar or F2 cars. Aero and tires (along with brakes) work together to give you great cornering and stopping performance, but they also reduce power, and cutting all of that down significantly will slow your car down considerably.
F1 is in a very tough position of wanting to be the best performing category in terms of car pace, but at the same time being open to innovation and design, and you’re right that the two are completely incompatible. But the rules you’ve given are likely to result in a clear route in terms of engine configuration and car size, and for those who don’t get there right away, it will be very costly to find it, and manufacturers and teams won’t sign up.
The good old days were cool in that there were fewer rules and more variety, but we also saw races won by laps and minutes, and I don’t think fans want that.
Next season will actually be a very interesting season. Because a fundamental change to the aero rules would change the performance window significantly, but I’d be interested to see if that would result in a closer field under the cost cap. And even if it doesn’t, the recent ground effects rules, coupled with the new regulations, will provide a wide variety of data to inform the next direction in which F1 seeks to improve racing (which is a never-ending challenge).
I would also argue that winning the Drivers’ Championship remains a priority for most teams with a chance, thanks to the praise and coverage that almost exceeds the prize money of winning the Constructors’ Championship. Of course, ideally I would like to win both.
question: that‘I’m glad to see you on the F1TV broadcast. I‘Curious if the Apple TV F1 broadcast team is taking shape? I think the F1TV line-up is outstanding – Alex Jacks, Jolyon Palmer, David Coulthard, Ruth Bascombe, James Hinchcliffe, Laurence Barrett, Laura Winter, Sam Collins, yourself and more. Will Apple go with this team, the Sky team, or some other option?
Tom Hinshaw, Santa Barbara, California
CM: That’s too kind of you, Tom! There’s cash in the post… All kidding aside, I think the viewer has two options. F1TV will only be available through Apple TV in the US, but the full Pro version will be included as part of the Apple TV package at no additional cost. If you’re an existing Apple TV and F1TV subscriber, you can save money. If not, you can get all the services of F1TV and Apple TV in one.
I’m not sure yet, but I believe that Apple will likely pick up Sky’s coverage in the same way that ESPN does. Therefore, in that case, the viewer can choose both sets of coverage.
In the long run, I’d like to see Apple offer some unique options to make real investments in products tailored for fans here in the US. As I mentioned in another recent Mailbag question, that means going after the best talent that can focus on US products instead of or alongside existing products. However, it is said that this will not happen in 2026.
If Apple picks up Sky broadcasts as well as F1TV, American fans will have two options to choose from. Simon Galloway/Getty Images
Q: I’m sure you’ll be writing about this by the time the mailbag gets posted, Chris. But I’m still waiting for the post-mortem of the McLaren faceplant in Qatar.
I have to commend Karun Chandhok for his field analysis. He wondered whether McLaren’s unwillingness to penalize either driver ended up penalizing both drivers. They should have separated their strategies. What a train accident. Can McLaren get out of its own way? Verstappen should have been eliminated five races ago.
Ryan, West Michigan
CM: Well, that certainly feels like a problem that McLaren is having right now, Ryan. In the meantime, the team is keeping the door open for Max Verstappen to compete, as the team tries hard to keep things fair and even between the two drivers (as was the case in Qatar).
There is a part of me that is very grateful for this. Because we now have a title decider between three drivers, and Red Bull must be commended for taking advantage of all the opportunities available (with the exception of Brazil, who were probably a bit more on the table). But another part of me thinks it would be a huge blow to McLaren if either Lando Norris or Oscar Piastri don’t win the title.
And Chandok rightly points out that both were at a disadvantage, and the problem is that both can never be equally disadvantaged. They both lost one position, which sounds comparable, but Norris lost three points (15 for third, 12 for fourth) and Piastri lost seven points (25 for first, 18 for second), and a win would have strengthened his chances of reclaiming the title on countback if he finished tied on points with someone else. Instead, all three will win seven races, with Norris winning the tiebreaker for second place at this rate.
However, as I will answer below, the split strategy was not the right method…
Q: I think this is one of the many questions regarding the failure of McLaren’s strategy. Can someone comment on the split strategy?For myself, I would have played against Oscar and hoped Max would follow his lead.
Furthermore, if the McLaren pits on lap 7, how will it know if others will follow?
steve
CM: These two questions go together nicely. Because the split strategy was still the wrong way to go. That way you only penalize one driver, not both. Some may argue that it’s better than the other two, but it’s still the wrong decision, and one that’s just as troubling for a team trying to give both drivers an equal chance to win the title.
The fact that all cars stopped during the safety car period shows how obvious the decision was to everyone else. All of the rival teams say it made sense as it allows them to gain a lot of race time on a track where overtaking is very difficult. We all knew it made the most sense to participate at this moment, since the gamble of not participating was highly unlikely to pay off.
So I believe everyone still would have stopped, including Verstappen who needed to defend second place over Norris to remain in the title fight, so it was necessary to pit both of them instead of just one. The split strategy did not cover the options. It only caused damage to the drivers who did not pit. Otherwise, I would have watched other teams do it.
Q: Did McLaren not understand the 25-lap tire rule and think they needed to pit on lap 8? Why didn’t any team outside the top 10 pit for a second car on lap 8 to allow for an undercut?
Will, Indy
CM: No, McLaren understood, but they didn’t expect everyone to pit, so they would be backed up into traffic on a circuit where overtaking is difficult (as the field was still relatively tight on lap 7). The reason others pit is because the circuit is difficult to overtake, and tire offset is less important.
Going one lap longer is actually an overcut. Rather than doing an outlap with new tires, use your own pace to move the car forward on an inlap with fresh air. However, under the safety car, speeds are limited so there is no possibility of overcutting. Because of that restriction, you cannot go faster than the car in the pits, so in that case you cannot overcut the other car with extra pace.
However, if delaying the first stop by one lap means there is a chance for an undercut or overcut on lap 32/33, then the car that stops second is only likely to undercut because it will be doing so with tires at the end of their life. The 25-lap tire rule meant you couldn’t pull the trigger earlier and undercut, but anyone who waited until lap 8 to pit should have been prepared to be undercut by everyone coming in on lap 7.
last word
From Robin Miller’s Mailbag, December 4, 2013
Q: I haven’t missed the Indianapolis 500 since 1970. I’d like to hear your opinion on Juan Pablo Montoya’s run when he won the race. (Editor: 2000; this letter pre-dates JPM’s second win in 2015). I know he owned luxury cars, but the way JPM drove and the way he drove around corners and mountain passes was some of the best driving I can remember. Is my memory vague?
Fred Cunningham, Simpsonville, South Carolina
Robin Miller: Please give me the best perspective I can think of to answer your question. Rick Mears, who was looking for Jason Loeffler’s spot at Indy in 2000, said after the race that the only time he thought JPM had his car hustling all day was when Buddy Lazier got close to firing range. Montoya then disappeared into traffic. It was a clinic, and Foyt also drew praise. “That Monterrier is a hell of a driver,” the Indy legend said later.
