Schmidt likes the look of the new IndyCar bodykit

The new IndyCar look.

Following IndyCar’s release of more images of next year’s ‘universal’ aerokit, team owner Sam Schmidt says he’s impressed with its looks although is reserving judgment on how well sponsor names will appear on the bodywork. He spoke to David Malsher of Motorsport.com.

DM: What do you think of the new car?

SS: I saw it at the last owners’ meeting and I think it looks good. I was interested to see if it would compromise our commercial opportunities running brands on the engine cover; we need to maintain as much space as we can, so we’ve made that point in the meetings. We need it to be attractive to fans while also being functional, so it’s not without its inherent challenges.

But I do like the fact we’re going back to one kit and can get rid of all this other junk.

The IndyCar shock program puts 0.00 new fans in the grandstands and costs the teams $millions. The shocks need to be 'spec'. Anything that doesn't bring new fans into the sport needs to be 'spec'.

What do you say to the fans who don’t want spec cars?

I’d say that when you have such a small box to work in, the cars don’t look that much different anyway, so why force the manufacturers go to the huge expense of developing something that makes so little difference to the fans? Let’s put that money into marketing the sport.

From what you’ve heard from IndyCar, will the boxes that the teams will individually be allowed to work in be enough for a team’s engineers to show their innovative ideas?

Yes, and it would be great to have a completely open situation, but we’re still treading a fine line for now. That’s why the commercial side of it is so important because teams have to pay for that kind of technical progress. So until we get a better TV deal and get better attendance and can therefore offer more fan and media exposure to our commercial partners, we don’t have enough to offer to justify those partners covering the price of expansion of engineering departments.

It would be different if we had three chassis manufacturers, three engine manufacturers, two tire manufacturers and they were all contributing to the expense of development, then that would be a different perspective. But unfortunately we’re not in that situation.