The RACER Mailbag, December 3

Welcome to the RACER Mailbag. Questions for any of RACER’s writers can be sent to mailbag@racer.com. We love hearing your comments and opinions, but letters that include a question are more likely to be published. Questions received after 3pm ET each Monday will be saved for the following week.

Q: Do you have any new information on the IndyCar Series video game that iRacing is creating for gaming consoles as well as PC? It supposedly coming out in 2026, but I haven’t read or heard anything more about it since the announcement. 

As you know it’s been 20 years since the last IndyCar video game was released, which is way too long. I’m hoping that the developers of the new game might have images or a trailer for it soon and that a lot of progress has been made. 

It was nothing short of depressing when the game that Motorsport Games was contracted to create and finish fell apart. 

David Colquitt

MARSHALL PRUETT: Not sure I saw it as depressing. More of a living down to expectations, since everybody who knew it was a terrible choice told Penske Entertainment it would fail, and then it did. I reached out to the series and they tell me the release timeline is still good and to look for something in the second half of 2026.  

Q: My first question concerns Oliver Askew. I just saw that he has re-signed for a reserve role with Andretti in Formula E. Is there any chance we’ll see him back behind the wheel in a race one day, whether in Formula E, IMSA, or elsewhere? Oliver was a real talent who never had the opportunity to demonstrate it at a high level, and after three years without racing, a comeback seems very unlikely.

My second question concerns Dale Coyne. I’ve read some articles saying that Honda might be considering placing Tsunoda in IndyCar in 2026 if he were dropped by Red Bull. Do you have any information on this? Along the same lines, Red Bull driver Ayumu Iwasa has just been crowned Super Formula champion; could we see him in IndyCar with Dale Coyne, also through Honda?

Yannick

MP: On Coyne and Tsunoda, you might have noticed we never mentioned it in any of our silly season pieces, and that’s because it was a nothingburger. If Coyne wants to hire Iwasa, he will, but as Honda is entering the last year of its IndyCar engine supply contract, it isn’t going out and offering teams $8-10 million to run someone.

Agreed on Askew. Tons of talent, but it looks like he’s been lost to the passage of time and relevance within IndyCar as a young talent to pursue. He’s the 2019 Indy Lights champion, who had one IndyCar season in 2020 with Arrow McLaren that went sideways, which would mean he should still be in the mix as an option, but he’s years behind Linus Lundqvist, the 2022 Indy Lights champion, who did 1.5 seasons across Meyer Shank and Chip Ganassi, where things did go well.

If you’re shopping for young title-winning talent, there’s a younger and newer model with more shine standing in front of Askew, which is the main problem. But the problem has nothing to do with Oliver’s capabilities.

Q: My question is about the Genesis LMDh program. We know the 2026 WEC driver team (and it’s quite a stout one), but has there been anything rumored about the IMSA one? I imagine there might be a couple of carryover drivers (like Cadillac) since the schedules seem well balanced enough that a combined season is mostly possible (Long Beach/Imola notwithstanding). Have you heard anything about drivers who might be brought in for the IMSA campaign in 2027?

Duncan, Ottawa

MP: I haven’t started to think about the 2027 IMSA part, but I’m expecting some of the WEC roster to get pulled across, and not just on double duty. Derani stands out as a name that fans know, and similar with Jaminet. If I’m trying to make a first-time splash at the highest level of sports car racing in the U.S., I’m going to lean on champions who made their names in IMSA. I’d also look to the reserve roles for 2026 as being primed for race seats in 2027 as well.

Q: I’ve come to realize the things most race fans want (I assume?) in the IndyCar broadcast just aren’t going to happen. The question is whether that’s because of cost or philosophy. Both? A few items like more cameras are cost-dependent, but where those cameras are placed is a philosophy. 

• Track sector times comparing multiple drivers
• Yellow, green, purple track-sector coding
• Audible driver and team microphones
• Pit stop clocks
• Race strategy that includes predictive insight
• Cameras on more cars
• More ghost car
• Slow-motion replay captured with high frame-rate cameras
• Camera placement philosophy. A number of years ago F1 shifted by placing cameras lower, keeping some stationary as cars pass, and moving others left to right to mimic how our eyes follow cars. The result is a stronger feeling of speed and a deeper admiration for what these drivers are doing. Even in social content from teams and drivers, the feeling of speed jumps off the screen.

I get it, nice things cost money. It’s unrealistic to expect an F1 broadcast. These races can only support a certain level of financial commitment, but does that mean improvement isn’t possible?

Matt

MP: I enjoy many of the items you’ve listed as features offered in F1 broadcasts. I also appreciate the vast production budget F1 has at its disposal, which is what you’d expect from the world’s second most popular sport. As you noted, the same level of budget wouldn’t be carved out for the second or third most popular regional racing series, which is where IndyCar falls domestically behind NASCAR and possibly F1.

But improvements are always an option. IndyCar’s TV content has, for more than a decade across a range of broadcasters, been lacking with the in-race analysis part of the broadcasts. Thank goodness for Hinch, who does his best to be a lead commentator, driver analyst, and to drill into the strategy side when possible. All of the items you’ve suggested on amplifying that part – giving smarter fans more data to do the math or work the strategy on their own, which is something F1 has absolutely fostered – are long overdue.

We once lived in a time when viewing was a passive thing, but expectations have risen, especially with newer and younger fans who’ve grown up on modern F1, where there’s a steady barrage of info given to educate or arm viewers with what’s needed to do more than just watch zoomy cars go around for our entertainment. 

Q: Have you heard what HP levels will look like with the new 2.4 liter engines? And is the target weight loss of the car expected to be around 80-100 lbs?

Joe

MP: We’re talking about goals at this stage, and it’s 800hp to start. The current 2.2s are good for 750hp or so, and that’s at a crazy-high level of stress. I’d put a starting range of 750-800hp, which isn’t as big of a stress, as the likely debut for the 2.4s. Yes, the goal is to take 80-100lb off the car and if they’re successful, most of the reduction will come from the back half of the car through lighter hybrid and transmission componentry.  

Q: Have you heard if the WWTR race will take place on Sunday night again? I think that was my favorite race of the year.

Have Fox and IndyCar discussed the possibility of weeknight prime time races? That could be a way to possibly extend the season into football season without going head to head with the NFL on Sundays. 

Bob

MP: The schedule release from IndyCar said WWTR and Nashville will be under the lights, so yes, nighttime racing is what’s planned. I’m hearing tune-in times from FOX for all the races are imminent. I’m sure the concept of weeknight races has been broached, but I’ve heard nothing to suggest anything is happening in the near term.  

Q: Robin Miller and I were longtime friends. We shared a mutual passion for IndyCar racing from childhood through our adult years. We each were blessed and fortunate to have careers in the sport we loved. I looked forward to and enjoyed my stimulating discussions 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 anxious to explain his rationale for his nominees. He would also provide his reasons for why other drivers did not make his top four. His background and his knowledge base provided comprehensive insights to support his reasoning.

Did you and he have discussions about his Mount Rushmore that you can share, and did you agree with his nominees?

Steve, Chapel Hill, NC

MP: I was one of maybe 10 people in attendance for the filming of Robin’s Mount Rushmore video at IMS Productions back in 2011, which was phenomenal. The only disappointment is that Foyt refused to show up because Mario was there – this was before they became BFFs. Listening to Robin curse him out over the phone just before filming began while trying to goad him into taking part in the conversation was pure gold.

I’ve always loved the spirit behind Robin’s Mount Rushmore, and it’s loaded with a ton of sentimentality. We spoke about it or the main characters often, and all of the reasoning behind the four, from their on-track excellence to their technical innovations, to their uplifting of the sport’s profile, to their longevity, make all four the perfect choices for his Mount Rushmore. But it’s not the Mount Rushmore of IndyCar. We all have our own.

Very much a case of the four being specific to the time Robin came into the sport; he was 12 when A.J. won his first 500, 14 when Rufus won, and 20 when Mario won. Our mutual hero, Dan Gurney, didn’t win, but was one of the greatest to finish second. They all were the biggest stars of the 1960s, part of the 1970s for some, and A.J. and Mario continued to share that crown into the 1980s and 1990s. Take whatever level of popularity Pato has today, multiply it by 100, and that’s who Robin’s Mount Rushmore were to IndyCar and the Indy 500 back then.

Inevitably, our first heroes are usually the ones we hold onto and hail as GOATs for the rest of our lives. I grew up in the CART era and the original IMSA GTP era. Guess which two eras are my favorites where I’ll fight anyone who says they aren’t the greatest? Same for newer fans who grew up in a time where Dixon, de Ferran, Castroneves, Tracy, Bourdais, Franchitti, Hornish, Danica, and so on were the biggest deals.

Back to the list. Foyt’s an automatic in any era for IndyCar’s Mount Rushmore, and so is Rick Mears. Mario certainly belongs. Juan Pablo Montoya won a single championship and two 500s, but I don’t care about the title or the second Speedway victory. What he did at Indy in 2000 alone is worthy of consideration for plopping his big face on the mountain. Most crushing display of dominance I’ve ever seen; toyed with the field for 500 miles. He doesn’t measure up in many of the categories or fit the rationales Robin used to define his four, but I’ll happily make him my fourth. Take that guy back in time and I can’t think of anyone he couldn’t beat.

You can’t go wrong with Andretti, Foyt, and Mears. All winners at Indy and champions many times over in IndyCar. Like the game show Wheel of Fortune, those three are the RSTLNE for everyone to start from while solving the puzzle. You can maybe drop one of them, but shouldn’t, and the fourth is highly subjective and probably comes from the era you fell in love with IndyCar and the 500.

What about Mauri Rose? Uncle Bobby? Wilbur Shaw? Tommy Milton? Big Al? Dario? Helio? I’ll bet there are plenty of fans who believe Newgarden is the GOAT, and they aren’t wrong. For them, Josef’s their life’s equivalent of a Foyt or Mears.     

Since it’s December and the biggest news we have at the moment is of Sting Ray Robb returning to his team, I’d love to see your Mount Rushmores and rationales, so please send them in.

Q: Kudos to J.R’s proposed Blackbird! I fully agree that there is way too much emphasis on aerodynamics in today’s race car design. I have for years thought that innovation has been stymied by the increased rules, and simplification would be overwhelming welcomed.

My suggestions for F1, (and I think IndyCar, as well), are simple:

Rule 1: The entire car must fit inside a box X’ X Y’ X Z’, (all TBD)

Rule 2: No portion of the body of the car can be any wider than three feet.

Rule 3: Any engine configuration may be used but, the total air intake may be no large than X (tbd)

Rule 4: Only street legal tires may be used. (Any make/model)

Rule 5: Only steel/cast iron brake discs may be used.

Otherwise, let them design and build whatever they want, as long as it fits in the box! As can be seen, it opens up innovation, puts less emphasis on aero and restricts engines to just how much air they can suck in.

Speeds are automatically limited by street tires which also opens it up to all manufacturers.

Steel brakes,  limited area and street tires puts the performance back in the hands of the drivers.

As it is now, the manufacturers are only concerned with winning the Constructers’ Championship. The fans are only interested in the Drivers Championship. A huge conflict of interest!

Alan Lane, Leesburg, FL

MP: Interesting approach. Essentially, let F1 and IndyCar have at it, open up all kinds of freedoms, make lots of power, champion creativity and innovation, and then poop all over those things by limiting the cars to tip-toeing around on street tires?

It’s like removing all limitations on performance-enhancing drugs in baseball, letting a new era of freakishly large and fast players develop, and forcing them to use pencils instead of full-size bats to try and hit home runs. If you’re going to take the chains off of something, cut all of them.

CHRIS MEDLAND: As much as I would be interested to see the outcome under those rules, it wouldn’t be anything anywhere near the performance of what F1 wants to be, or even a current IndyCar or F2 car. Aero and tires work together (along with the brakes) for the immense cornering and stopping performance, but also to get the power down, and hugely reducing all of that would create much slower cars.

F1 is in this very tough position of wanting to be the highest performing category in terms of car pace, but also still open to innovation and design, and you’re right that the two don’t perfectly fit hand-in-hand. But with the rules you give, you’d likely end up with a clear route to go down in terms of engine configuration and car size, which would be extremely expensive to find out for anyone who didn’t land on it straight away, and manufacturers/teams wouldn’t sign up.

As cool as the good old days were in terms of fewer rules and more variety, they also saw races won by laps or minutes, and I’m not sure any fan wants to see that.

Next season is actually a really interesting one, because the radical change in aero rules will mean very different performance windows, but under the cost cap I’m interested to see if it makes for a closer field. And even if it doesn’t, the recent ground effect rules, coupled with the new regulations, will be widely varied data to inform where F1 goes next to try and improve racing (which is a never-ending challenge).

I’d also argue that winning the Drivers’ Championship is still the priority to most teams that have a chance because of the kudos and coverage it gets that would almost outweigh the prize money of winning the Constructors’, although of course they ideally want to win both!

Q:  It’s great to see you on the F1TV broadcasts. I’m wondering if the AppleTV F1 broadcast team is taking shape? I think the F1TV lineup is outstanding – Alex Jacques, Jolyon Palmer, David Coulthard, Ruth Buscombe, James Hinchcliffe, Lawrence Barretto, Laura Winter, Sam Collins, you, et al. Will Apple go with this crew, the Sky team, or some other option?

Tom Hinshaw, Santa Barbara, CA

CM: Too kind, Tom! Cash is in the post… All jokes aside, as I understand it viewers will get two options. F1TV will become only available through AppleTV in America, but the full Pro version will be included as part of the AppleTV package, so there’s no additional cost. You’re saving money if you were an existing AppleTV and F1TV subscriber, and if you weren’t then you get F1TV and all of AppleTV’s offerings in one.

The bit I’m not certain about yet but believe to be happening, is that Apple are also likely to take the Sky coverage in the same way that ESPN did. So in that case, viewers will have the option of both sets of coverage to take their pick.

Longer-term, I hope (and not just selfishly) that Apple deliver some sort of their own option, too, that sees real investment in the offering that is bespoke to fans here in the U.S. As stated on another recent Mailbag question, by that I mean chasing the best talents to be focused on an American output, either in place of or alongside the existing offerings. But I’m told that won’t be happening in 2026.

If Apple picks up Sky coverage as well as F1TV, American fans will have two options to choose from. Simon Galloway/Getty Images

Q: By the time the Mailbag drops I am sure you’ll have written about this Chris, however I am waiting for the post-mortem out of the McLaren faceplant.

I have to give credit to Karun Chandhok for his on the spot analysis. He wondered if McLaren not wanting to disadvantage either driver ultimately disadvantaged both. They should have split their strategy. What a train wreck. Can McLaren get out of their own way? Verstappen should have been eliminated five races ago.

Ryan, West Michigan

CM: Yup, that definitely feels like the problem McLaren have now, Ryan. They are trying so hard to keep it fair and equal between their two drivers (which they actually did do in Qatar) that they are leaving the door open to Max Verstappen in the meantime.

Part of me is very grateful for it, because we have the title decider between three drivers now, and credit does need to go to Red Bull for taking every opportunity available (perhaps except Brazil, where there was a little more on the table). But the other part of me thinks it will be hugely damaging for McLaren if one of Lando Norris or Oscar Piastri don’t win the title.

And Chandhok is spot on that both got disadvantaged, with the additional problem that you can never disadvantage both equally. It cost them both one position – which sounds equal – but it cost Norris three points (15 for P3, 12 for P4) and Piastri seven (25 for P1, 18 for P2), as well as a win that would have strengthened his chances of taking the title on count back if finishing level on points with anyone. Instead all three now have seven victories, and Norris wins the tiebreaker on second places as it stands.

Splitting strategy was not the way to go, though, as I’ll answer below…

Q: I am sure this is one of many questions about McLaren’s strategy blunder. Can someone comment on a split strategy? Myself, I would have pitted Oscar and hoped Max would have followed him in. 

Additionally, how do we know if McLaren pitted on lap seven whether others would follow them in?

Steve

CM: These two questions are nicely interlinked, because a split strategy would still have been the wrong way to go. All that would have done is disadvantage one driver, rather than both. You could argue that’s better than two, but it’s still the wrong call and creates just as many headaches for a team trying to give its two drivers equal chance to win the title.

The fact that every car stopped under that Safety Car period shows how clear a decision it was to everyone else. Rival teams all say it was obvious to them, because you gain so much race time, on a track where overtaking is so difficult. The gamble to stay out had such little likelihood of paying off that they all knew coming in at that moment made the most sense.

So I do believe everyone would still have stopped – including Verstappen who would have been protecting P2 over Norris as it was what he needed to stay in the title fight – and therefore you needed to pit both of them, not just one. Split strategy wasn’t covering your options, it was just hurting the driver you didn’t pit, otherwise you’d have seen other teams do it.

Q: Did McLaren not understand the 25 lap tire rule and think they needed pit on lap eight? Why did none of the teams outside the top 10 pit on lap eight for their second car for enabling the undercut?

Will, Indy

CM: Nope, McLaren understood, but they didn’t think everyone would come into the pits and therefore they would have dropped back out into traffic (as the field was still relatively closed up on lap seven) on a circuit that is tough to overtake on. The reasons everyone else pit is because the circuit is tough to overtake on, so a tire offset is far less important.

Going one lap longer would actually be an overcut – using your pace on your in-lap in clear air to get ahead of a car, rather than your out-lap on fresh tires – but there’s no chance of an overcut under Safety Car, because you’re limited in speed. You can’t go quicker than those in the pits because of that limit, so you can’t use extra pace to overcut another car in that instance.

If you mean that would open up an undercut or overcut chance on lap 32/33 if you had delayed by a lap to make your first stop, though, it’s only likely to be an undercut because the car stopping second would be doing so on tires at the end of their life. The 25-lap tire rule meant you couldn’t pull the trigger much earlier to undercut, but for anyone waiting until lap eight to pit they would have just opened themselves up to be undercut by everyone who came in on lap seven.

THE FINAL WORD

From Robin Miller’s Mailbag, 4 December, 2013

Q: I haven’t missed an Indianapolis 500 since 1970 and wanted your opinion on Juan Pablo Montoya’s drive when he won the race. [ED: In 2000. This letter pre-dates JPM’s second win in 2015]. I know he had an elite car, but the way JPM drove and where he put it in the corners and on passes was one of the best drives I can remember. Is my memory hazy?

Fred Cunningham, Simpsonville, SC

ROBIN MILLER: Let me give you the best perspective I can think of to answer your question. Rick Mears was spotting for Jason Leffler at Indy in 2000 and after the race he said the only time he thought JPM hustled the car all day was when Buddy Lazier got within striking distance. Then Montoya vanished in traffic. It was a clinic and even got Mr. Foyt’s admiration: “That Montereier is a helluva driver,” said the Indy legend afterwards.