It's so silly that we (American race fans) can be up in arms about Andretti not being able to get an F1 spot and just let Indycar get away with the same thing.
No one is blocking anyone. F1 has an approval process that applicants must go through. A Charter system allows anyone with enough cash to blow to come in and make an offer, like Justin Marks and Pitbull did with Chip Ganassi in NASCAR.
@Michael-pi8ps "...and then, OMG! 'Penske' caught 'Penske' cheating, then 'Penske' penalized 'Penske' for cheating! This is outrageous!!!" I honestly don't understand this logic at all
No Charters! Limit the field to how many pit stalls are available at any particular track, and then the line-up is determined by qualifying. Some entrants will go home, so be it!
The problem with that is that it's super expensive to invest in getting a team set up. Going to the track and not making the race costs a lot of money. You're immediately way behind on owners points and sponsors drop you. When sponsors are gone, you're out of business. No one races on their own money at that level.
David I saw you on Carb Day and I said hi to you and you said hi back and tried to give me a fist bump but I didn't realize what you were trying to do until you had already passed me and I left you hanging and for that I just wanted to say I'm sorry.
At a time when the sport needs engagement and involvement (which is now approaching levels of all time involvement) the mere thought of structuring the series to discourage new entries is ridiculous. I get limiting grid sizes at small tracks for capacity, safety, and quality of racing. Having bumping on merit at those places would be fantastic. But 30 cars at a place like road america seems doable. F1 had it right to an extent with pre qualifying in the late 80s-early 90s. It was merit based, you had to earn your way into the field out of pre qualifying, and if your team underperformed you got sent back into pre qualifying. Its ridiculous that hypothetically 4 cars fighting for 2 spots could put times in quick enough to lock out the first two rows yet two of them are sent home packing (yes i know it would probably never happen but you never know) All the money from these charters better go towards new cars, new tracks/ a bigger schedule, and better marketing rather than commercials and advertising aimed at people that already watch Indycar. If this is really the way forward then we shouldn’t see doubleheaders outside of Iowa (because of the concert party appeal). Load up the schedule to 18-20 races and re-establish a northeast presence with a race there since thats where a huge portion of the population is concentrated. If these things happen, fine. But if a charter system is put in place and things remain as they are, its a complete face plant. Great video as always David
Charters are the worst idea. One of the greatest things about IndyCar is and has been that it is open to enter for teams to take a crack at it and see how they go - a huge part of its charm.
Charters are one of the reasons I stop tuning in to NASCAR. I am strongly an opponent of the Charter system in NASCAR, especially if it affects our enjoyment of the sport. The Charter system has been a topic of disagreement for fans who feel it limits the competition. If IndyCar were to adopt a similar approach, I and others reconsider our engagement with the series. This motorsport has always been about competition and the thrill of any racer having a shot at success. If that gets compromised by the NASCAR-Style Charter system, it could drive us away. We want to see fair competition. Not Worship Lord Penske.
@@ruddgrandprix-speedrunraci8515 If the financial aspects don't make sense for the leagues to exist as is, and teams don't have any valuable assets, then you have nothing to watch. But obviously you don't want to watch much at all since you already stopped watching despite the on track product not being effected. All the stupid extra rules like guaranteed spots are the biggest problems. Charters themselves aren't inherently evil or anything, but it does make more sense in a series with 36 cars than 20 cars I will admit. Getting them to do it right is one thing.....but if people hate the idea of charters so much that they would rather the sports they supposedly like go bankrupt and vaporize before their eyes...then we might already be fucked
We've seen this with Nascar 43 car feilds with 43 full time teams with cars going home EVERY WEEK to just 37 full time teams and only 3 significant part time efforts in 2016, the first charter year. And only 2 teams have ever done all 36 races as an open car. Most feilds these days are 36 cars with no open cars. There is no f-ing point for charters, you kill teams and make them pointless in a year or two max
NASCAR didn't have 40+ full time race teams for the three years preceding the charters, they had 36, hence 36 charters. What they did have was a bunch of start and parks who leached purse money and only ran the full race at the highest paying tracks. Teams showing up to qualify at the back and run 20 - 30 laps before inventing a reason to park for the day brought absolutely nothing to the sport. The 36 teams who were given charters showed up and raced every week.
@@RC.41 In the past couple of seasons it has, previous to that there were charters to be had for 10 million or so. Dale Jr. has said he had multiple opportunities to buy at that price but didn't. If a new team couldn't afford to pay 10 mill for a charter they probably couldn't afford to be a sustainable team. I highly doubt charters will go away in Cup, but I would like to see it expand to 40(if teams can show they have a viable plan) and three open cars.
@@eteocles4452 Year/Full time cars 2015...43 2014...41 2013...40 2012...40 2011...41 2010...43 2009...41 Except for 2004, with 36 full timers, 1996 was the last year with less than 40 (39).
@@NotSteveCook How many of those back markers actually ran every lap? Look at the same guys consistently finishing at the back of the pack. Like I said before, start and parkers at a fair number of races.
@@Montgomery_N_Pottichen04I say they need to build a roadcourse outside the Nashville area, and make it fia grade level 1 but the size of Watkins glen!
The arbitrary 27-car limit also serves to help prop up the value of the charter spots via artificial scarcity. Prema will be the first indication of whether there is enough value there, followed by interest (or non-interest) other prospective entrants. As it stands I don’t see the financial sense for teams. There already exists a genuine scarcity of chassis, powertrains, personnel, funding, etc. that naturally limits the field. Without revenue growth and higher-paying sponsors I don’t see the value of the charter being far beyond the $1 mil/year in Leaders Circle cash it gives you a chance to fight for.
Far more relevant and successful than Indycar? Fam stfu I don’t wanna hear this from fans of a sport that let another racing series come in and replace it in its own country
Would be interesting to talk with some team owners for their thoughts. I am just a layman and maybe missing something but implementing a charter system would appear to have limited to no impact. Could IndyCar please release new chassis rules to constructors. Running a 13 year old chassis moves Indycar into an era of irrelevance.
Fun fact: the Indy 500 allows for 33 entrants because it’s a formula based on the amount of cars per amount of available track. One car per 400 feet of track. And that was instituted in 1919 when cars were going modern day highway speeds. Granted there are tons of advances in safety and technology, but there is a reason they still stick with 33 cars. So no, smaller tracks should not have comparable field sizes as Indy. It would be great for the demand to be so high on entrants to have bump days at races beyond Indy, but there is a point where racing goes backwards when there are too many cars on track, more so in open wheel racing. Charters also offer a point of mutual equity for owners who take the investment risk. Their business is their team, but there is a high degree of reliance on the series for their team (business) to be successful. Charters create an asset for the team for business succession planning, which is what every business deals with eventually. The issue is determining who gets a charter and what the criteria is to obtain one. If only Penske, Ganassi, and Andretti get charters, that would be a disservice to teams like ECR, AJ Foyt Racing, or RLL who are definitely on a lower tier but have put in the time and money to offer a competitive field to the big 3 to run with. For instance, if Arrow McClaren got a charter ahead of ECR or AJ Foyt Racing, that would be a slap in the face to what the grassroots of INDYCAR is all about. But there is still a place for charters for incentivizing the long term business interest in INDYCAR, if done correctly and fairly.
One of the good things about IndyCar is how random drivers and teams can enter in any race, which doesn’t really happen in other motorsports. Getting rid of that is getting rid of a small part of the sport’s character
F1: Blocks Andretti from entering Everyone around the Indycar paddock freaks out about it Also IndyCar: Lets put in a system that makes it harder for new teams to enter Make it make sense As a Nascar and IndyCar fan, never liked the charters and I hope this falls through
I usually go to Portland every year. But the last time I went I had to may way more to see the pit area and now the basic ticket price is 20 more this year. I think I'm going to pass this time
Charters are only a thing because the teams want to make more money, it’s like franchising in the Big Four sports. The problem is Motorsport works differently than stick and ball sports.
Excellent video. I waa not a fan of charters when nascar did it. Wasn't thrilled when Indycar started talking about it. After seeing this, I hope they come up with something better, if at all.
@@jeremywilson3684 look i dont love the current playoff system either and i can do with or without stages theyre whatever, but less road courses ? They are 5/38 on the current schedule dude lmao
The FIA (governing body) actually wants good improvements with more teams and less races. The FOM (teams) don't want new teams since that is seen as diluting their value and prize money. Plus if any team sells up its better to be a closed series and be forced to buyout one of the 10 teams. Liberty media wants as many races as possible with the 10 teams as strong as possible.
Charters can create their own issues, too, as NASCAR is finding out. Since charters are the only way to enter the series, they become extremely valuable. In the case of NASCAR it's the most valuable single thing they own with the possible exception of their team headquarters. That makes the barrier to entry extremely high. NASCAR is now finding out that provides the teams with a lot more leverage over the sanctioning body than they foresaw. The attempt by the owners to use that leverage has led to a great deal of heartburn in Daytona Beach. Or you could do what F1 is doing to Andretti and simply deny entry by setting up an endless series of new hurdles.
When CART first engaged in its competition with USAC team charters cost $75,000. It was then that many teams, including those with varied success ranging from Penske to Dale Coyne.
I think you would limit the number of cars so that the charter is worth sth. If they wouldn't limit the field size, there would be no guaranteed spots which is the current advantage of the charter (besides being eligible for Winners' Circle). Also, about WC, I'm sure that's not what Prema signed up for when they announced joining IndyCar. So this IS very deterring for new teams. Also the other thing would be if a chartered car retires they get 29th, instead of 27th. Although, both are worth 5 championship points.
Would never happen, but the 3 gohomers could qualify 1,2,3 and your telling me the 3rd fastest car on the weekend would have to go home. That's asinine!
the scary thing about charter system is that the charters will be technically owned by Penske, giving Penske control to okay and veto a deal if someone wants to sell their charter.
Race in Mexico on the F1 road track, give in an international appeal without having to go to far,....some of the tracks they use are not worthy of the series, you have to be more than one race, the 500, as good as it is, the series needs recognition not just one race.
This video definitely needed to be made and something I hope reaches those among the IndyCar paddock. If nothing else these are the concerns of basically every IndyCar fan and whenever the charter agreement comes together it is on them to make it make sense to us cause right now it doesn't make any.
I hate the field car count max at all races outside of the 500. We are doing exactly what we prided ourself in having over F1, just to do the same as them.
As a NASCAR fan who's currently going through the charter drama, I'd feel bad for Indycar fans if this actually happens. Edit: 3:54 ARROW MCLAREN TAKE NOTES THIS IS IMPORTANT
This charter system will only scare away part-time teams. Look what it did to NASCAR. I lost interest in NASCAR after the charters were implemented. Indycar will be the same. We don’t need to make the races “more exciting.” Instead of going forward, they will be taking several giant leaps backward.
You where watching nascar for the back markers that where eliminated thanks to the charter system? That’s why you were watching nascar for? Swear you people are dumber than a bag of bricks
I could see the charters if say big budget teams like Ferrari or Red Bull were gunna come to Indycar with truck load sized budgets that could squeeze out the original owners. But Indycar is miles away from that happening. Like you said none of this grows the sport forward.
Charters. Key question. What is the value of the team if its for sale Is it even worth anything? And that question WILL be asked when someone wants out. Will Penske manipulate the sale of another team? Wanna hear a real good understanding of the charter system. Dial back a couple of months to Kenny Wallace's YT site and listen to his interview of Kelley Earnhardt Miller and why her and Dale Jr don't own a NASCAR team. They talk charters but bottom line...they can afford to buy a team. Does it make money? Get over the billy bob talk and these are two very astute people. They don't paint a pretty picture going forward.
I don’t see how a charter system would make it more sustainable. If the going rate for a NASCAR charter is 20-50 million. I would think an Indycar charter would be 2-5 range. Since Prema is racing next season wouldn’t they just get 2 charters?
I don't want indycar to do charters cuz it's not working in nascar it's a huge problem in nascar whether it's a new team wanted to get into cup and get a decent pay.....you gotta have a charter....$40 million a team wants to come up from xfinity or trucks to cup......you gotta have a charter....$40 million a 1 or 2 car team wants to expand their team to 2 or 3 or 4 cars.....you gotta have a charter.....$40 million oh let's not mention the price keeps going up... oh nascar wants to get rid of the charters.....teams that paid.....PAID for a charter they just lose their money and get nothing in return
Guys guys guys... you are forgetting.. this is Roger's playground and he is the bully of the playground. And as long as it benefits him, or any entity that will bring him money he's all game. Remember, this is the VERY thing that caused CART including Roger to boycott the Indy 500. Roger doesn't give a shit about the fans, as long as he can ass-kiss them for their money. Roger only does what benefits roger, not the fans. The planned Charter system is complicated too. Thanks, Roger. Let's make it more complicated.
I appreciate your passion and the passion of all of our Indycar fans. We all long for the days where owners entered because they were passionate about racing and all of the nostalgic things. The reality we must face is that no matter the sport (football, baseball, basketball, hockey, college, etc.) sports are a business now. Please do not just click forward after seeing that comment, but understand this is what what Indycar must do to survive. We bemoan the fact that we are using the same chassis from 2012 and there has been very little innovation. We bemoan the fact that we only have two engine manufacturers. We want more parody in the sport instead of the same teams winning each week. Then we need to look at how other leagues achieve what we want. Why do fans love the NFL? Because they have purposely built parody into everything. Worst teams get better draft position and easier schedules. Success goes up and down. You really can win any week with the right strategy. Why do sponsors love the NFL, because there are so many eyeballs on it. Owners love it because they have value in their organizations because there is exclusivity so they invest more into it. Let's move that to racing and the top draw is F1. It has exclusivity, it has glamour, it has international flavor which brings fans, which brings sponsors which brings fiancial value for teams, which brings innovation which brings manufacturers. If we want our sport to survive long term, the sport has to change. New potential owners are not investing in a sport if they know they cannot get eyeballs to attract sponsors. Owners want eyeballs to get sponsors so they can have the finances to compete. Folks may say, well look at F1, only Red Bull wins. Well, not long ago it was Mercedes, and now McLaren is back and Ferrari is making moves. If Indycar can create exclusivity, then there there is ownership value. If there is a limit to the leadership circle then the owners have an interest in putting a winning team out there, not the former "start and park" that happened in NASCAR for several years. There is a lot more of course that goes into this (I would be happy to spend time with David in a video segment to discuss) but if we love Indycar, then the series needs to evolve into the business that it is and then we give ourselves the chance to grow like other leagues have. For this reason I am in favor of the move.
Ganassi are downsizing to the maximum number of charters they can get, so it seems likely they are downsizing because they (and/or their sponsors) see no point in running non-charter cars. To me charters look like a way to protect existing teams by discouraging, if not outright blocking, new teams. Like F1 are doing to Andretti.
Let’s be honest Andretti wouldn’t last long in F1 they can’t even beat Chip and Penske, they ain’t going to have a chance against Red Bull, Ferrari or Mercedes. They should focus on Indy before they think about F1.
Not a fan of the charter idea. The more the merrier as far as I am concerned. Let Prema and Abel in to boost the entry list to 30 at every track, why not? Mid Ohio and Toronto would be the only places where there could be issues
David, I agree with you on most of your points. However, I feel the 3 drivers per season is a move strictly aimed at Coyne. Let's face it, he hasn't fielded a competitive car in several years. And, I get it. He doesn't have the resources to invest in his team. If that's the case, he should sell the team to someone who will invest in the team. At least Ferruci has shown some pace recently for Foyt, so I can't put that team in the same light. Just my opinion.
Make it make sense, please. How does this benefit the series currently, attract new manufacturers or help it move forward? Seems overly complicated, I would think you'd want to have more cars and teams compete, at the very least maintain current participation.
I think, if they ever go back to Michigan or Pocono it would be stupid to limit the field to 27. I say 33 should be allowed there also. I realize we probably won't have that many anytime soon, but in the future you never know.
David, you need to understand that INDYCAR leadership has no interest in selling the concept to the fans. They really don’t care what their fans think about anything
The next time a big team has one of theirs bumped from the field at Indy, the conversation will crank up again about guaranteed spots, you can count on it.
There's part of me that thinks that this field size thing is about appeasing Honda. Chevy and Honda have both struggled to have enough engines through the year, but Honda always makes the most noise about engine supply. By limiting the engines through an arbitrary field size, they won't have to fight over who has what in May. The charter system in NASCAR and now IndyCar, come across like taking a company public. The potential for an influx of new money is too great for these smaller teams to ignore, regardless of the harm it may do to the sport and the teams.
Supercars in Australia brought it in and I’ve seen no benefit for the series. Teams are worth more and they spend lots of money racing but the racing is becoming less entertaining, ticket prices keep going up and spectator numbers are dropping.
The AOC are doing everything they can to get more cars on the grid each season in the WEC and at Le Mans including building more pit buildings at Le Mans. FOM, Penski/Indycar and NASCAR all seem to want to limited grids. The WEC is growing in popularity. The others are stagnant or declining in popularity. Maybe closed grids are not best for business...
I feel like charters will be one of the major things that leads to the undoing of major motorsports sanctioning bodies. It's basically the big teams pulling up the ladder behind them so they can have it all to themselves. I can kinda understand it, but it does the sport no favors.
The charter system is not working in nascar v8 supercars in aust and F1 and it will not work in indycar .and i will tell you why it stops new teams getting in like andretti in F1 and dale junior in nascar .also there are new teams that would like in at nascar but cannot afford the money to pay for a charter .and as time goes by the charters are only going to go up in price. It will become a boys club and more about politics than motor racing .
Don't like the charters one bit however limiting each CAR to only 3 drivers in a season is good. I mean why bring in a driver only to turf him out after 3-4 races due to poor results to be replaced by another driver who will get the same results and repeat again and again sometimes after only 1 or 2 races. How are these drivers expected to improve their ability especially the rookies if they jnow they are on borrowed time. Also some of these drivers get brought in to replace someone at a track that is not suited to them or the car, drive so much slower than the rest of the field, become a roadblock and then cuase problems when getting lapped and therefore get replaced for the next race. These team owners that chase pay drivers for the money (which is fair as this is a business as well as a sport) should actually develop the car with the money they are getting instead of blaming the drivers for the results. Sometimes it isnt the drivers fault but a bad strategy call from the crew chief but do you see them getting replaced every few races. Limiting drivers per car (not team but individual cars) helps the drivers get used to the car, helps drivers want to BE in Indycar not just for their money but ability and builds rapport between driver and crew chief and rest of the team because the way it is now, who's to say Dale Coyne works out a deal with say Nike to have a different driver in the car for every race weekend, no matter how good the driver is or isn't and it would also stop people like me with no racing experience getting a sponsorship deal with QANTAS to come over to the States and pwr a team so I can drive a one off race and putting the other drivers, officials and fans in jeopardy
The charter concept would sound more feasible if Indycar was on a better footing as a series. If the charter fees were to be used to better promote the series, add exciting events (the three weeks off in mid-late summer?) it would be easier to swallow. The whole RP owning the series and winning his own championship takes away from the sport.
I don't like the way that charter's gate keep the growth of the grid. I'm with David here, I need to see some strong concrete evidence that this is gonna benefit the product more than the leadership circle program does. I don't like this at all.
Zak Brown: Hired by Penske to help grow IndyCar Also Zak Brown: Huge proponent of the charter system. (he publicly stated on day 1 of his hire that he wants a 22-24 car cap) Good work, buddy, thanks. IndyCar is finally gaining popularity levels that it hasn’t seen since before the split, and they’re now actively trying to move the series backwards… Really starting to think Roger needs to sell the series
I mean look at NASCAR, they're a 36 car series. Xfinity gets 38-40 every week, but the cup series doesn't??? There has not been an interesting qualifying session in nascar in 5 years. All Daytona is now is JJ Yeley and some other joe schmo missing the field, and that's the only race where they can even feign excitement in qualifying. Indycar does (should) NOT want to become that, if they can avoid it.
It's so sad...us 90s babies remember races where the entry-list was damn near 50 cars...like.....they had provisional back in the day...but if used up and had no more...had to qualify....this everybody makes the race stuff is crappy...don't bring this to indycar
Putting aside the competition "benefits", the charter is like stocks or cryptocurrency. It has a certain value when you buy it, the price can go up (or down), but you don't have that dollar figure until you sell it. Why would any series want to incentivize owners to do that, and to whom would they sell? Vulture capitatists with no loyalty to racing? The charter only increases the startup cost of competing, which is already high enough. Also, while I respect what Michael Andretti has accomplished as a driver and an owner, he is a hypocrite for wanting this system in IndyCar. It is scarcely different from the system keeping him out of F1.
I'll say that the Indy 500 will be an "open" race in the Charter era until one of the top teams get bumped out then that rule gets changed to having charter teams effectively locked in.
How about at tracks with limited space, non charter teams must use the same single pit box for all of their cars? A la F1. Would possibly eliminate the “space” concerns.
How about the owners get charters, but every driver becomes a paid driver with the teams responsible for getting sponsors? Plus drivers have a “league” minimum salary and if a team wants to go away from pay drivers, they have to give up all charters.
All good points. Well thought out and reported. This got me thinking about back in the day how many times a fair number of cars didn't qualify and were "sent home". So just for giggle I recalled some old races from the 50s.... (yup I'm old).... and came across the 1954 Hoosier 100..... were 18 cars qualified and 19 were "sent home" ! If you check it out you'll see some incredible names of guys who didn't make the show. I bet there were not many whiners back then.... they manned up and worked to improve.
I can’t remember the last time indy car made a good decision when it comes to the actual helping the racing , it’s almost always trendy or ego based moves from a series that thinks it’s bigger and better then it actually is, they have all they need to make it amazing, which I thought about 3 , 4 , years ago was actually starting to happen with all the young talent and exciting racing, and it’s been one bad decision after another, in my opinion, and here we are losing fans as fast as we had just got um on board, I see less and less of the series , no practice, no qualifying, the races are riddled with yellow flags and rookie level crashes , never know who’s where and why till after the race news, and in the end it’s basically the same 5 or so racers that win races , and their always talking about moving teams or leaving the sport , it’s not interesting, and the decision they make only keep making it less interesting
The only way I would see it working as if you allow the team. Owners who have a car in the top ten to be guaranteed a charter for all his teams, and everybody else gets a two year charter, based on performance
I’ve said it from the start. Charters are a horrible horrible horrible idea. It’s possibly the WORST decision indycar ever made. I hope for the sake of the sport they scrap the idea.
David really trying to make me think Texas is coming back with these thumbnails... Also smaller fields is one of many things which makes f1 stupid. More cars is always better. Short Oval races are way better when there are more cars to pass, lead lap or not.
This is an Indy Car video but a lot of similarities to the Nascar Charter situation. My biggest hold up on the Charter system is how do, Nascar and Indy Car expect new manufacturers to come into the sport? The Charter system kills that from my viewpoint. It would be a positive for both series and the fans. Time will tell how this all whines up.
If INDYCAR does institute a charter system, I see it going the same way the NASCAR charter system has. Where the cost of a charter ends up outpacing the ROI for teams
There's all kinds of stuff that fans want and Indycar almost always ignores all of that and does stuff that has no fan appeal and may be a net negative in that regard. Then they wonder why they don't generate enough fan interest
@@Noman1010-nh6uh I want you to get to race because you earned that right not because you bought your way into the penske entertainment indy car series
What's the point of having 25 charters if only 22 will get paid out? The bottom three owners would be best served to just sell those charters and make a quick buck (especially if they still have 2 charters left). It's a terrible idea and it's not going to help grow the sport.
I'm not a fan of charters. I feel it ruined NASCAR's competitiveness, but if they're going to have them three per team is too many. Have 24 charters with each team having no more than two and races can be capped at 33 starters. Charters diminish championships.
So as the RACER article says, only the charter teams are eligible for Leaders Circle. That to me is limiting a long-tem viability of new entries, because you will never make any money even if you are a top 10 in points. And for current teams it doesn't make sense to sell (the example David gave with Ed selling a charter to Prema), because every season you are almost guaranteed to have at least in car in the Leaders Circle. Only time you would sell a charter is if you are cutting one car, but a) that doesn't grow the sport, and b) one car teams probably cannot work in current IndyCar, so you wouldn't do it anyway. This will just maintain the status quo, there will 'forever' be 3 Penskes, 3 Ganassis, 2 Coynes, etc. and your only way to enter long-time is to buy a charter instead of just showing up. We really won't see teams like Abel attempt more than the Indy 500, if even that.
It's so silly that we (American race fans) can be up in arms about Andretti not being able to get an F1 spot and just let Indycar get away with the same thing.
100%
What do you mean let them get away? Do you have Roger Penske's phone number? Give him a piece of your mind.
Did I miss something? Are there loads of people that are fans of this idea?
No one is blocking anyone. F1 has an approval process that applicants must go through. A Charter system allows anyone with enough cash to blow to come in and make an offer, like Justin Marks and Pitbull did with Chip Ganassi in NASCAR.
@Michael-pi8ps "...and then, OMG! 'Penske' caught 'Penske' cheating, then 'Penske' penalized 'Penske' for cheating! This is outrageous!!!"
I honestly don't understand this logic at all
No Charters! Limit the field to how many pit stalls are available at any particular track, and then the line-up is determined by qualifying. Some entrants will go home, so be it!
Field limits can stay at 28 for every track outside of the 500.
The problem with that is that it's super expensive to invest in getting a team set up. Going to the track and not making the race costs a lot of money. You're immediately way behind on owners points and sponsors drop you. When sponsors are gone, you're out of business. No one races on their own money at that level.
David I saw you on Carb Day and I said hi to you and you said hi back and tried to give me a fist bump but I didn't realize what you were trying to do until you had already passed me and I left you hanging and for that I just wanted to say I'm sorry.
We will make up for it next May!
I saw David at Sebring. He’s everywhere!
I saw David at Petit Le Mans at Road Atlanta last year. He is awesome and open to talk too.
I saw David on TH-cam!
I met him at Indy car Texas 2023 during the Indy/trucks double header. Awesome guy to talk to anything INDYCAR.
i dont get why Motorsport categories change everything but what they actually need to change...
Because the things fans think need to change aren't the things that actually need to change to make the changes fans want to see.
At a time when the sport needs engagement and involvement (which is now approaching levels of all time involvement) the mere thought of structuring the series to discourage new entries is ridiculous. I get limiting grid sizes at small tracks for capacity, safety, and quality of racing. Having bumping on merit at those places would be fantastic. But 30 cars at a place like road america seems doable. F1 had it right to an extent with pre qualifying in the late 80s-early 90s. It was merit based, you had to earn your way into the field out of pre qualifying, and if your team underperformed you got sent back into pre qualifying. Its ridiculous that hypothetically 4 cars fighting for 2 spots could put times in quick enough to lock out the first two rows yet two of them are sent home packing (yes i know it would probably never happen but you never know)
All the money from these charters better go towards new cars, new tracks/ a bigger schedule, and better marketing rather than commercials and advertising aimed at people that already watch Indycar. If this is really the way forward then we shouldn’t see doubleheaders outside of Iowa (because of the concert party appeal). Load up the schedule to 18-20 races and re-establish a northeast presence with a race there since thats where a huge portion of the population is concentrated. If these things happen, fine. But if a charter system is put in place and things remain as they are, its a complete face plant.
Great video as always David
As an F1 fan I can only fantasize about having more than 20 entries! 😒
Charters are the worst idea. One of the greatest things about IndyCar is and has been that it is open to enter for teams to take a crack at it and see how they go - a huge part of its charm.
Charters will always be terrible no matter what racing series it is
Charters are one of the reasons I stop tuning in to NASCAR.
I am strongly an opponent of the Charter system in NASCAR, especially if it affects our enjoyment of the sport. The Charter system has been a topic of disagreement for fans who feel it limits the competition.
If IndyCar were to adopt a similar approach, I and others reconsider our engagement with the series. This motorsport has always been about competition and the thrill of any racer having a shot at success. If that gets compromised by the NASCAR-Style Charter system, it could drive us away. We want to see fair competition. Not Worship Lord Penske.
@@ruddgrandprix-speedrunraci8515 charters are just exclusive and more expensive
@@ruddgrandprix-speedrunraci8515 If the financial aspects don't make sense for the leagues to exist as is, and teams don't have any valuable assets, then you have nothing to watch. But obviously you don't want to watch much at all since you already stopped watching despite the on track product not being effected.
All the stupid extra rules like guaranteed spots are the biggest problems. Charters themselves aren't inherently evil or anything, but it does make more sense in a series with 36 cars than 20 cars I will admit. Getting them to do it right is one thing.....but if people hate the idea of charters so much that they would rather the sports they supposedly like go bankrupt and vaporize before their eyes...then we might already be fucked
We've seen this with Nascar
43 car feilds with 43 full time teams with cars going home EVERY WEEK to just 37 full time teams and only 3 significant part time efforts in 2016, the first charter year. And only 2 teams have ever done all 36 races as an open car.
Most feilds these days are 36 cars with no open cars.
There is no f-ing point for charters, you kill teams and make them pointless in a year or two max
NASCAR didn't have 40+ full time race teams for the three years preceding the charters, they had 36, hence 36 charters. What they did have was a bunch of start and parks who leached purse money and only ran the full race at the highest paying tracks. Teams showing up to qualify at the back and run 20 - 30 laps before inventing a reason to park for the day brought absolutely nothing to the sport. The 36 teams who were given charters showed up and raced every week.
At the time there were 36, it’s killed the new teams
@@RC.41 In the past couple of seasons it has, previous to that there were charters to be had for 10 million or so. Dale Jr. has said he had multiple opportunities to buy at that price but didn't. If a new team couldn't afford to pay 10 mill for a charter they probably couldn't afford to be a sustainable team.
I highly doubt charters will go away in Cup, but I would like to see it expand to 40(if teams can show they have a viable plan) and three open cars.
@@eteocles4452
Year/Full time cars
2015...43
2014...41
2013...40
2012...40
2011...41
2010...43
2009...41
Except for 2004, with 36 full timers, 1996 was the last year with less than 40 (39).
@@NotSteveCook How many of those back markers actually ran every lap? Look at the same guys consistently finishing at the back of the pack. Like I said before, start and parkers at a fair number of races.
I just got my ticket for Nashville, first non-indy oval since Pocono 2019.
See you there!
I wish I was in Tennessee I’d go to Nashville all the time and I’d go to that superspeedway every time it’s held there.
@@Montgomery_N_Pottichen04I say they need to build a roadcourse outside the Nashville area, and make it fia grade level 1 but the size of Watkins glen!
I was at that race. Bad crash, rain shortened. A sad ending for Pocono. Hope this one goes better!
@@miketwotwentyhonestly goated idea
The arbitrary 27-car limit also serves to help prop up the value of the charter spots via artificial scarcity. Prema will be the first indication of whether there is enough value there, followed by interest (or non-interest) other prospective entrants. As it stands I don’t see the financial sense for teams. There already exists a genuine scarcity of chassis, powertrains, personnel, funding, etc. that naturally limits the field. Without revenue growth and higher-paying sponsors I don’t see the value of the charter being far beyond the $1 mil/year in Leaders Circle cash it gives you a chance to fight for.
IndyCar is my favorite sport...I fear this Charter BS will ruin it. 🙁
Indycar should look at what’s going on in NASCAR and ask themselves if they really want to potentially end up there.
That’s exactly what they want. They as business owners need their team entity to hold and have value beyond its physical assets.
@@sams-pg7hjReturn on investment.
Considering its about 3 times, maybe more popular than IndyCar and staying steady?
Nascar gets like 3x times the revenue indycar does
Far more relevant and successful than Indycar? Fam stfu I don’t wanna hear this from fans of a sport that let another racing series come in and replace it in its own country
Would be interesting to talk with some team owners for their thoughts. I am just a layman and maybe missing something but implementing a charter system would appear to have limited to no impact. Could IndyCar please release new chassis rules to constructors. Running a 13 year old chassis moves Indycar into an era of irrelevance.
Fun fact: the Indy 500 allows for 33 entrants because it’s a formula based on the amount of cars per amount of available track. One car per 400 feet of track. And that was instituted in 1919 when cars were going modern day highway speeds. Granted there are tons of advances in safety and technology, but there is a reason they still stick with 33 cars. So no, smaller tracks should not have comparable field sizes as Indy. It would be great for the demand to be so high on entrants to have bump days at races beyond Indy, but there is a point where racing goes backwards when there are too many cars on track, more so in open wheel racing.
Charters also offer a point of mutual equity for owners who take the investment risk. Their business is their team, but there is a high degree of reliance on the series for their team (business) to be successful. Charters create an asset for the team for business succession planning, which is what every business deals with eventually. The issue is determining who gets a charter and what the criteria is to obtain one. If only Penske, Ganassi, and Andretti get charters, that would be a disservice to teams like ECR, AJ Foyt Racing, or RLL who are definitely on a lower tier but have put in the time and money to offer a competitive field to the big 3 to run with. For instance, if Arrow McClaren got a charter ahead of ECR or AJ Foyt Racing, that would be a slap in the face to what the grassroots of INDYCAR is all about. But there is still a place for charters for incentivizing the long term business interest in INDYCAR, if done correctly and fairly.
The charter rule is horrible and kills the growth the series has been enjoying.
We’ve already seen Pratt and Miller give up because of it.
One of the good things about IndyCar is how random drivers and teams can enter in any race, which doesn’t really happen in other motorsports. Getting rid of that is getting rid of a small part of the sport’s character
F1: Blocks Andretti from entering
Everyone around the Indycar paddock freaks out about it
Also IndyCar: Lets put in a system that makes it harder for new teams to enter
Make it make sense
As a Nascar and IndyCar fan, never liked the charters and I hope this falls through
At least NASCAR leaves room for open teams
@@adammoss3741 Yeah the two open teams rule is ridiculous
@@nathansheeler1663 4
I usually go to Portland every year. But the last time I went I had to may way more to see the pit area and now the basic ticket price is 20 more this year. I think I'm going to pass this time
Sounds like a "Maclaren" rule more than a DC rule
Charters are only a thing because the teams want to make more money, it’s like franchising in the Big Four sports. The problem is Motorsport works differently than stick and ball sports.
Excellent video.
I waa not a fan of charters when nascar did it. Wasn't thrilled when Indycar started talking about it.
After seeing this, I hope they come up with something better, if at all.
0:25 Charters are the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. It's one of the three things that has ruined NASCAR.
I wished NASCAR will do away with stages, and adopt a point system like F1 racing, less road courses and charters
@@jeremywilson3684same here but they don’t care about proper motor racing they want manufactured excitement
@@jeremywilson3684 look i dont love the current playoff system either and i can do with or without stages theyre whatever, but less road courses ? They are 5/38 on the current schedule dude lmao
Ain’t this exactly what people are mad at F1 right now?😂
Not really. It’s more complex that that. FIA is fine with new teams, but the current teams aren’t interested in sharing the pot
yes
Not at all. With a Charter system you just buy in and you're good to go. F1 is a club you have to apply to be in.
@@brianmurray7980 actually you’d have to buy from the existing team that have one and if they ain’t interested in selling than your ain’t getting in.
The FIA (governing body) actually wants good improvements with more teams and less races.
The FOM (teams) don't want new teams since that is seen as diluting their value and prize money. Plus if any team sells up its better to be a closed series and be forced to buyout one of the 10 teams.
Liberty media wants as many races as possible with the 10 teams as strong as possible.
Charters can create their own issues, too, as NASCAR is finding out. Since charters are the only way to enter the series, they become extremely valuable. In the case of NASCAR it's the most valuable single thing they own with the possible exception of their team headquarters. That makes the barrier to entry extremely high. NASCAR is now finding out that provides the teams with a lot more leverage over the sanctioning body than they foresaw. The attempt by the owners to use that leverage has led to a great deal of heartburn in Daytona Beach. Or you could do what F1 is doing to Andretti and simply deny entry by setting up an endless series of new hurdles.
When CART first engaged in its competition with USAC team charters cost $75,000. It was then that many teams, including those with varied success ranging from Penske to Dale Coyne.
I think you would limit the number of cars so that the charter is worth sth. If they wouldn't limit the field size, there would be no guaranteed spots which is the current advantage of the charter (besides being eligible for Winners' Circle).
Also, about WC, I'm sure that's not what Prema signed up for when they announced joining IndyCar. So this IS very deterring for new teams.
Also the other thing would be if a chartered car retires they get 29th, instead of 27th. Although, both are worth 5 championship points.
Right On David!! Make a career change and run IndyCar!!! Your opinions are valid and make Hopefully someone at the top is listening 😮
INDYCAR WE DON'T WANT CHARTERS!!! WE'RE NOT NASCAR!!!
Would never happen, but the 3 gohomers could qualify 1,2,3 and your telling me the 3rd fastest car on the weekend would have to go home. That's asinine!
the scary thing about charter system is that the charters will be technically owned by Penske, giving Penske control to okay and veto a deal if someone wants to sell their charter.
Race in Mexico on the F1 road track, give in an international appeal without having to go to far,....some of the tracks they use are not worthy of the series, you have to be more than one race, the 500, as good as it is, the series needs recognition not just one race.
Indycar is an American sport
This video definitely needed to be made and something I hope reaches those among the IndyCar paddock. If nothing else these are the concerns of basically every IndyCar fan and whenever the charter agreement comes together it is on them to make it make sense to us cause right now it doesn't make any.
I hate the field car count max at all races outside of the 500. We are doing exactly what we prided ourself in having over F1, just to do the same as them.
As a NASCAR fan who's currently going through the charter drama, I'd feel bad for Indycar fans if this actually happens. Edit: 3:54 ARROW MCLAREN TAKE NOTES THIS IS IMPORTANT
More cars could race at different tracks and Indycar will agree, it would help.
This charter system will only scare away part-time teams. Look what it did to NASCAR. I lost interest in NASCAR after the charters were implemented. Indycar will be the same. We don’t need to make the races “more exciting.” Instead of going forward, they will be taking several giant leaps backward.
You where watching nascar for the back markers that where eliminated thanks to the charter system? That’s why you were watching nascar for? Swear you people are dumber than a bag of bricks
I could see the charters if say big budget teams like Ferrari or Red Bull were gunna come to Indycar with truck load sized budgets that could squeeze out the original owners. But Indycar is miles away from that happening. Like you said none of this grows the sport forward.
Down with the charters!
Charters. Key question. What is the value of the team if its for sale Is it even worth anything? And that question WILL be asked when someone wants out. Will Penske manipulate the sale of another team? Wanna hear a real good understanding of the charter system. Dial back a couple of months to Kenny Wallace's YT site and listen to his interview of Kelley Earnhardt Miller and why her and Dale Jr don't own a NASCAR team. They talk charters but bottom line...they can afford to buy a team. Does it make money? Get over the billy bob talk and these are two very astute people. They don't paint a pretty picture going forward.
Unnecessary system. Look at NASCAR, the system is a complete failure
I hate it too. Especially with how much Armstrong and Lundqvist are gonna get shafted.
They might not get shafted if they were better.
@@ckcoolic they are miles better than Simpson.
I don’t see how a charter system would make it more sustainable. If the going rate for a NASCAR charter is 20-50 million. I would think an Indycar charter would be 2-5 range. Since Prema is racing next season wouldn’t they just get 2 charters?
I don't want indycar to do charters cuz it's not working in nascar it's a huge problem in nascar whether it's a new team wanted to get into cup and get a decent pay.....you gotta have a charter....$40 million a team wants to come up from xfinity or trucks to cup......you gotta have a charter....$40 million a 1 or 2 car team wants to expand their team to 2 or 3 or 4 cars.....you gotta have a charter.....$40 million oh let's not mention the price keeps going up... oh nascar wants to get rid of the charters.....teams that paid.....PAID for a charter they just lose their money and get nothing in return
Guys guys guys... you are forgetting.. this is Roger's playground and he is the bully of the playground. And as long as it benefits him, or any entity that will bring him money he's all game. Remember, this is the VERY thing that caused CART including Roger to boycott the Indy 500. Roger doesn't give a shit about the fans, as long as he can ass-kiss them for their money. Roger only does what benefits roger, not the fans. The planned Charter system is complicated too. Thanks, Roger. Let's make it more complicated.
Finally someone gets it and tells the truth look at the history of his team ask Mario
The only way charters have value, IMO, is if they give the teams a vested interest in the series.
Its not for us david, Its for the teams. You know that. That's why no-one besides us diehards know about it.
I appreciate your passion and the passion of all of our Indycar fans. We all long for the days where owners entered because they were passionate about racing and all of the nostalgic things. The reality we must face is that no matter the sport (football, baseball, basketball, hockey, college, etc.) sports are a business now. Please do not just click forward after seeing that comment, but understand this is what what Indycar must do to survive. We bemoan the fact that we are using the same chassis from 2012 and there has been very little innovation. We bemoan the fact that we only have two engine manufacturers. We want more parody in the sport instead of the same teams winning each week. Then we need to look at how other leagues achieve what we want. Why do fans love the NFL? Because they have purposely built parody into everything. Worst teams get better draft position and easier schedules. Success goes up and down. You really can win any week with the right strategy. Why do sponsors love the NFL, because there are so many eyeballs on it. Owners love it because they have value in their organizations because there is exclusivity so they invest more into it. Let's move that to racing and the top draw is F1. It has exclusivity, it has glamour, it has international flavor which brings fans, which brings sponsors which brings fiancial value for teams, which brings innovation which brings manufacturers.
If we want our sport to survive long term, the sport has to change. New potential owners are not investing in a sport if they know they cannot get eyeballs to attract sponsors. Owners want eyeballs to get sponsors so they can have the finances to compete. Folks may say, well look at F1, only Red Bull wins. Well, not long ago it was Mercedes, and now McLaren is back and Ferrari is making moves. If Indycar can create exclusivity, then there there is ownership value. If there is a limit to the leadership circle then the owners have an interest in putting a winning team out there, not the former "start and park" that happened in NASCAR for several years.
There is a lot more of course that goes into this (I would be happy to spend time with David in a video segment to discuss) but if we love Indycar, then the series needs to evolve into the business that it is and then we give ourselves the chance to grow like other leagues have. For this reason I am in favor of the move.
Ganassi are downsizing to the maximum number of charters they can get, so it seems likely they are downsizing because they (and/or their sponsors) see no point in running non-charter cars. To me charters look like a way to protect existing teams by discouraging, if not outright blocking, new teams. Like F1 are doing to Andretti.
Let’s be honest Andretti wouldn’t last long in F1 they can’t even beat Chip and Penske, they ain’t going to have a chance against Red Bull, Ferrari or Mercedes. They should focus on Indy before they think about F1.
Not a fan of the charter idea. The more the merrier as far as I am concerned. Let Prema and Abel in to boost the entry list to 30 at every track, why not? Mid Ohio and Toronto would be the only places where there could be issues
No locked in spots for the Indy 500. The guy that won the race last yr damn near missed the show this yr
David,
I agree with you on most of your points. However, I feel the 3 drivers per season is a move strictly aimed at Coyne. Let's face it, he hasn't fielded a competitive car in several years. And, I get it. He doesn't have the resources to invest in his team. If that's the case, he should sell the team to someone who will invest in the team.
At least Ferruci has shown some pace recently for Foyt, so I can't put that team in the same light.
Just my opinion.
"he hasn't fielded a competitive car in several years" Malukas was not competitive between 2022-2023? he got 2 podiums with Coyne equipment.
You should have way more subscribers. Idk what people are doing
A charter system makes qualifying pointless and deters new teams to try to enter the sport.
David - your enthusiasm, excitement and concern about IndyCar gets me fired up. Thanks for the videos as always. Cheers.
Make it make sense, please. How does this benefit the series currently, attract new manufacturers or help it move forward? Seems overly complicated, I would think you'd want to have more cars and teams compete, at the very least maintain current participation.
I think, if they ever go back to Michigan or Pocono it would be stupid to limit the field to 27.
I say 33 should be allowed there also.
I realize we probably won't have that many anytime soon, but in the future you never know.
David, you need to understand that INDYCAR leadership has no interest in selling the concept to the fans. They really don’t care what their fans think about anything
This sounds like a great way to lose sponsors
The next time a big team has one of theirs bumped from the field at Indy, the conversation will crank up again about guaranteed spots, you can count on it.
There's part of me that thinks that this field size thing is about appeasing Honda. Chevy and Honda have both struggled to have enough engines through the year, but Honda always makes the most noise about engine supply. By limiting the engines through an arbitrary field size, they won't have to fight over who has what in May. The charter system in NASCAR and now IndyCar, come across like taking a company public. The potential for an influx of new money is too great for these smaller teams to ignore, regardless of the harm it may do to the sport and the teams.
Supercars in Australia brought it in and I’ve seen no benefit for the series. Teams are worth more and they spend lots of money racing but the racing is becoming less entertaining, ticket prices keep going up and spectator numbers are dropping.
The AOC are doing everything they can to get more cars on the grid each season in the WEC and at Le Mans including building more pit buildings at Le Mans. FOM, Penski/Indycar and NASCAR all seem to want to limited grids. The WEC is growing in popularity. The others are stagnant or declining in popularity. Maybe closed grids are not best for business...
I feel like charters will be one of the major things that leads to the undoing of major motorsports sanctioning bodies. It's basically the big teams pulling up the ladder behind them so they can have it all to themselves. I can kinda understand it, but it does the sport no favors.
Very good analogy!
If they want to be like F1 then should force everyone to only have two cars max.
If they have to have consistent drivers, they need consistent liveries too. Five driver suits is way more confusing than a few guys not making a race.
The charter system is not working in nascar v8 supercars in aust and F1 and it will not work in indycar .and i will tell you why it stops new teams getting in like andretti in F1 and dale junior in nascar .also there are new teams that would like in at nascar but cannot afford the money to pay for a charter .and as time goes by the charters are only going to go up in price. It will become a boys club and more about politics than motor racing .
Don't like the charters one bit however limiting each CAR to only 3 drivers in a season is good. I mean why bring in a driver only to turf him out after 3-4 races due to poor results to be replaced by another driver who will get the same results and repeat again and again sometimes after only 1 or 2 races. How are these drivers expected to improve their ability especially the rookies if they jnow they are on borrowed time. Also some of these drivers get brought in to replace someone at a track that is not suited to them or the car, drive so much slower than the rest of the field, become a roadblock and then cuase problems when getting lapped and therefore get replaced for the next race. These team owners that chase pay drivers for the money (which is fair as this is a business as well as a sport) should actually develop the car with the money they are getting instead of blaming the drivers for the results. Sometimes it isnt the drivers fault but a bad strategy call from the crew chief but do you see them getting replaced every few races. Limiting drivers per car (not team but individual cars) helps the drivers get used to the car, helps drivers want to BE in Indycar not just for their money but ability and builds rapport between driver and crew chief and rest of the team because the way it is now, who's to say Dale Coyne works out a deal with say Nike to have a different driver in the car for every race weekend, no matter how good the driver is or isn't and it would also stop people like me with no racing experience getting a sponsorship deal with QANTAS to come over to the States and pwr a team so I can drive a one off race and putting the other drivers, officials and fans in jeopardy
The charter concept would sound more feasible if Indycar was on a better footing as a series. If the charter fees were to be used to better promote the series, add exciting events (the three weeks off in mid-late summer?) it would be easier to swallow. The whole RP owning the series and winning his own championship takes away from the sport.
I don't like the way that charter's gate keep the growth of the grid. I'm with David here, I need to see some strong concrete evidence that this is gonna benefit the product more than the leadership circle program does. I don't like this at all.
Indycar has had some bad ideas in the past but this one is one of the worst.
Zak Brown: Hired by Penske to help grow IndyCar
Also Zak Brown: Huge proponent of the charter system. (he publicly stated on day 1 of his hire that he wants a 22-24 car cap) Good work, buddy, thanks.
IndyCar is finally gaining popularity levels that it hasn’t seen since before the split, and they’re now actively trying to move the series backwards… Really starting to think Roger needs to sell the series
I mean look at NASCAR, they're a 36 car series. Xfinity gets 38-40 every week, but the cup series doesn't??? There has not been an interesting qualifying session in nascar in 5 years. All Daytona is now is JJ Yeley and some other joe schmo missing the field, and that's the only race where they can even feign excitement in qualifying. Indycar does (should) NOT want to become that, if they can avoid it.
It's so sad...us 90s babies remember races where the entry-list was damn near 50 cars...like.....they had provisional back in the day...but if used up and had no more...had to qualify....this everybody makes the race stuff is crappy...don't bring this to indycar
At least 40 nascar xfinity cars at midohio for the 3 or so years they were there. they had pit space.
NASCAR of course has charters at the top level. It is a terrible idea for them and just as bad for Indy Car
Putting aside the competition "benefits", the charter is like stocks or cryptocurrency. It has a certain value when you buy it, the price can go up (or down), but you don't have that dollar figure until you sell it. Why would any series want to incentivize owners to do that, and to whom would they sell? Vulture capitatists with no loyalty to racing? The charter only increases the startup cost of competing, which is already high enough.
Also, while I respect what Michael Andretti has accomplished as a driver and an owner, he is a hypocrite for wanting this system in IndyCar. It is scarcely different from the system keeping him out of F1.
I'll say that the Indy 500 will be an "open" race in the Charter era until one of the top teams get bumped out then that rule gets changed to having charter teams effectively locked in.
How about at tracks with limited space, non charter teams must use the same single pit box for all of their cars? A la F1. Would possibly eliminate the “space” concerns.
How about the owners get charters, but every driver becomes a paid driver with the teams responsible for getting sponsors? Plus drivers have a “league” minimum salary and if a team wants to go away from pay drivers, they have to give up all charters.
All good points. Well thought out and reported. This got me thinking about back in the day how many times a fair number of cars didn't qualify and were "sent home". So just for giggle I recalled some old races from the 50s.... (yup I'm old).... and came across the 1954 Hoosier 100..... were 18 cars qualified and 19 were "sent home" ! If you check it out you'll see some incredible names of guys who didn't make the show. I bet there were not many whiners back then.... they manned up and worked to improve.
I can’t remember the last time indy car made a good decision when it comes to the actual helping the racing , it’s almost always trendy or ego based moves from a series that thinks it’s bigger and better then it actually is, they have all they need to make it amazing, which I thought about 3 , 4 , years ago was actually starting to happen with all the young talent and exciting racing, and it’s been one bad decision after another, in my opinion, and here we are losing fans as fast as we had just got um on board, I see less and less of the series , no practice, no qualifying, the races are riddled with yellow flags and rookie level crashes , never know who’s where and why till after the race news, and in the end it’s basically the same 5 or so racers that win races , and their always talking about moving teams or leaving the sport , it’s not interesting, and the decision they make only keep making it less interesting
Maybe 2 teams will to buy charters?
Chip Ganassi having 5 cars is ridiculous
Why?
The only way I would see it working as if you allow the team. Owners who have a car in the top ten to be guaranteed a charter for all his teams, and everybody else gets a two year charter, based on performance
Hate the charger system. It’s going to destroy IndyCar
Keep the drivers to keep marketing consistent? WHAT marketing?
I’ve said it from the start. Charters are a horrible horrible horrible idea. It’s possibly the WORST decision indycar ever made. I hope for the sake of the sport they scrap the idea.
David really trying to make me think Texas is coming back with these thumbnails...
Also smaller fields is one of many things which makes f1 stupid. More cars is always better. Short Oval races are way better when there are more cars to pass, lead lap or not.
This is an Indy Car video but a lot of similarities to the Nascar Charter situation. My biggest hold up on the Charter system is how do, Nascar and Indy Car expect new manufacturers to come into the sport? The Charter system kills that from my viewpoint. It would be a positive for both series and the fans. Time will tell how this all whines up.
Charter's cannot work unless you limit each team to two cars.
The charter system sucks. Just look at Nascar.
David Don't Back Down.
If INDYCAR does institute a charter system, I see it going the same way the NASCAR charter system has. Where the cost of a charter ends up outpacing the ROI for teams
There's all kinds of stuff that fans want and Indycar almost always ignores all of that and does stuff that has no fan appeal and may be a net negative in that regard. Then they wonder why they don't generate enough fan interest
Well the charter system killed the car count in Nascar so yeah indycar go right ahead
You want back markers?
@@Noman1010-nh6uh I want you to get to race because you earned that right not because you bought your way into the penske entertainment indy car series
What's the point of having 25 charters if only 22 will get paid out? The bottom three owners would be best served to just sell those charters and make a quick buck (especially if they still have 2 charters left). It's a terrible idea and it's not going to help grow the sport.
Here’s the difference. Can an Indycar team sell a charter in 5 years and make 10 million. Probably not
They would probably have to pay someone $10 million to take them.
I'm not a fan of charters. I feel it ruined NASCAR's competitiveness, but if they're going to have them three per team is too many. Have 24 charters with each team having no more than two and races can be capped at 33 starters. Charters diminish championships.
David protected spots have been a thing of the past for over a decade...
So as the RACER article says, only the charter teams are eligible for Leaders Circle. That to me is limiting a long-tem viability of new entries, because you will never make any money even if you are a top 10 in points. And for current teams it doesn't make sense to sell (the example David gave with Ed selling a charter to Prema), because every season you are almost guaranteed to have at least in car in the Leaders Circle. Only time you would sell a charter is if you are cutting one car, but a) that doesn't grow the sport, and b) one car teams probably cannot work in current IndyCar, so you wouldn't do it anyway. This will just maintain the status quo, there will 'forever' be 3 Penskes, 3 Ganassis, 2 Coynes, etc. and your only way to enter long-time is to buy a charter instead of just showing up. We really won't see teams like Abel attempt more than the Indy 500, if even that.