Indianapolis 500 Race Car Variety

I think the issue of design diversity among cars competing in the current era of the Indianapolis 500 has more political obstacles than technological or economic. I hesitate to go down this path especially in a public forum because everyone has an opinion with or without any grounding in experience and most are frequently charged with emotion. I don't want to point fingers, but let me be a little Socratic here and posit this question: "Who has benefited most from the re-shaping of Indianapolis 500 race cars since the 1970's when aero - the fundamental departure - was introduced?" Let me throw in another one - "Who benefited most from the elimination of short ovals and dirt from the 'Championship Trail?"
 
I would further posit that we've had maybe two generations of people both in the paddock and the grandstands who have been indoctrinated in "INDYCAR" being these inverted jets and since the mid-1990's standardized inverted jets. The selling point was this was more entertaining to fans because the "product" was great, that is, the racing was closer, and, of course it was a cost control measure. This assumption that close racing is the sacred cow aspect of the brand has been with us at least since 1996 and isn't it interesting that since that time "Indy car" as a series has never made a profit. Just soak that in. Now, working on 21 years, the series has never made a profit.
 
This brings up the frustrating conflation that confuses those who do not bring the critical analysis to parse the elements of the situation. That is, the Indianapolis 500 has little to do with the rest of the series except that all the people associated with the series participate in the 500. The 500 is more about Hoosier culture, tradition and its own history than it is about the series. It is almost a living organism. Unfortunately, the "500," as the only profitable, sustainable element within the scope of the series has been leveraged - and therefore compromised - over at least the last 21 years to prop up something that simply would not be tolerated in a publicly traded company.
 
Few marketing consultants would advise brand extensions but that is exactly what leadership has done and now - regardless of the revolving door of executives - seems to have unconsciously embraced the "strategy" as a given for over two decades. Keep in mind that while the attendance for the 100th running was markedly up last year, TV ratings were marginally down. To me, this demonstrates the event brand is largely about Hoosier culture and is essentially a regional attraction. The 500 has devolved from a month-long celebration to a Memorial Day weekend party. That's not a criticism, just an observation. It's also fact.
 
The racing is largely a backdrop to a regional party of people watching, music, and State Fair-like exhibits and food/drink. Carl Fisher deliberately selected the date for a reason that still very much works - May, the month when Indiana finally shakes off cold weather and by the precipice of June is usually birthing summer. It is time to get out and enjoy fresh air, soak up rays and shed the cumbersome garments associated with low temperatures. If you talk to the average person in the stands, they don't know the names of more than a handful of drivers and give no critical analysis to the things guys like you and I debate: cars, teams, technology and business structure. Honestly, as long as there are fast cars on the track, the majority of people that show up race day - and even Carb Day - don't care about the cars.
 
Sorry for the stream of consciousness here, but I am writing the long letter manifested of a lazy mood this morning. It is certainly fair to ask that if most of the fans on race day don't care about the cars, why would I be concerned about diversity? Here's the deal. The masses follow the opinion leaders in their bubble. One of the issues of the younger generations' lack of interest in the sport that is not discussed is that throughout the 100 years of the race the single, strongest force in the process of indoctrinating new fans were parents and grandparents. Their advocacy manifested itself in packing the kids in the car and taking them to the track. Not just on race day, but more importantly on practice days where attendance was always markedly lighter allowing greater engagement. Drivers even had time to lean on the chain link fence for autographs and dumb questions. This made a tremendous impression on young minds and fostered a more vibrant fan-hero connection.
 
While, admittedly, the circumstances of the world - not so much the sport - do not fuel physical attendance, the echo chamber continues to parrot that such developments as the Internet of Things and the general busyness of life have distracted people from a day at the track. Also - and fair enough - the realities of physics and legitimate concern for both the safety of drivers and spectators have destroyed the "ceilingless" quest for speed in the build-up to new track records in qualifying have dulled enthusiasm. The daily track reports about guys breaking the unofficial track record were intoxicating.
 
Also limited track time is a problem, but that is created by the nature of the sport in the cost of things like tires, which, in my opinion actually detract from the show with their lack of durability. That situation is a total contrivance and a big, under-discussed factor in the state of things. To practice with anything but the tires you will use in qualifying or race conditions is a waste of time and to practice with those competition compounds is expensive because you burn them up and prove/learn very little. That is an example of something that could change tomorrow and reduce costs. This would also attack the need for pit stops which are now seen as entertainment when once in history they were merely necessary and associated excitement was a byproduct. There's a lot of cost in pit stops in the current "formula." Nobody raises that as an issue. Nobody. We just accept them as necessary because they have always been a part of the sport.
 
Before I completely ramble, my point about diversity is that it is an element of entertainment for fans that is completely undervalued. I believe diversity of equipment would attract more fans during the month and more bench racing that would fuel young minds. Instead, for over 20 years we have disappointed our hardcore fans who cling to the sport despite the fact the thrill is gone. Take your pick - they are in denial, they can't let go of habit, or maybe they are clinging to hope that if they hang in there long enough things will get better. Yes, there are those who sincerely enjoy what is going on. Honestly, I don't think some kind of marshal-arts guard could beat them away with clubs. They are like the 17% who supported the AHCA. Regardless, many fans continue to go while complaining. Their kids, understandably, can't figure out why they should get interested in something their parents complain about. The advocacy for the sport is sharply diminished.
 
That said marketing studies for event advocacy at the "500" remain high. I believe this is enthusiasm for the larger whole product festival than for the cars or the race. I continue to contend the position I took in my RACER editorial a couple of years ago. There needs to be a total re-think of the car to make the racing more interesting and make the sport more competitive with profitable motorsports options - and expand the 500 to a more national platform. I would like to curtail expensive aero, costly tires, mandatory pit stops and enable equivalency formulas.
 
Critics will leap on equivalency formulas as impossible to manage. It will require active management that will generate controversy. I am not sure for the bench racer this is a bad thing. I also would like to define the formula - even if this means a front-engine car - to better suit the grassroots American driver. Let's give him/her a more naturally progressive path up the ladder. Also, that position of the engine is more relevant to our street cars which, incidentally, are not downforce machines.
 
The one thing we can't compromise is safety and that means expense. And that's tough but it is just the way it is, so if you want in, that's the table stakes. We also need to be faster than NASCAR, and that means faster than 200 mph average laps at IMS. I know a lot of people will tell me there are a ton of reasons why all that isn't possible and in my darkest moments I would suggest those are the kind of people who never get things done. If I ran the world, I would fire them and find someone who understands moon shots.
 
One good example of diversity I would love would be the invitation to people who want to qualify an electric motor powered car. I don't care about range anxiety. I don't care about expense - that's on them. What I love is the speculation and level of interest such an announcement would generate. A similar thing happened with the Cummins Diesel back in the 1930's. Track officials didn't even require the entry to be faster than any other car to make the race. With a Garage 56 mindset they simply gave the entry a hurdle minimum speed to attain - and they did, going on to be the first entry to complete the distance without a pit stop. I also don't care if these suggestions are only applied to the Indianapolis 500. The series can continue to run the spec definition if that's what they want. I just want the only important race on the schedule to be more than a summer coming out party again - something of true interest to bench racers. Congratulations if you got through this...and have a meaningful day!