Indy 500 postscript
 |
| Takuma Sato |
"No attack, no chance," has long been Takuma Sato’s mantra. And while the friendly, diminutive 40-year-old Japanese driver has always been fast, let’s be honest: "no attack, no chance" has for the longest been synonymous wrecked race cars on the tow truck, and overtime jokes at the Dallara factory more than it has racing glory.
Well, Takuma Sato changed all of that Sunday. Driving more like Rick Mears and less like well, himself, the driver of the No. 26 Andretti Autosport Honda scored a shocking, career-defining win in Sunday’s 101st Running of the Indianapolis 500 Mile Race. And while there are some Monday Morning Quarterbacks who will tell you we should have known a Sato win was coming, let’s be clear: there was very little prior to Sunday foreshadowing a Sato victory.
Remember, Honda had reliability problems all month and would lose a few engines during the race. What would make anyone think the Honda engine for the notoriously hard on equipment would last? Sato was with the fastest team of the month, Andretti Autosport; but with two former winners and an F1 champion in the stable, he was greatly overlooked. Yet it wasn’t Alexander Rossi, Ryan Hunter-Reay or Fernando Alonso that won. No, Sato. And while he came close to winning in 2012 that seemed more of a one-off than anything of consequence. After all, Sato had never recorded an oval finish better than fifth prior to Sunday.
[adinserter name="GOOGLE AD"]Also, other issues that might normally derail Sato, appeared Sunday. More than 25% of the field retired from contact; Sato kept his nose clean. After running in the front for much of the first half, a bad pit stop relegated the Japanese driver to the mid-pack. Sato rallied back and put himself in position to contend in the racing’s closing laps. And when it was three-time winner Helio Castroneves from the race’s most successful team closing on Sato, Sato didn’t flinch.
The net result was a victory in the Greatest Spectacle in Racing. But perhaps of greater significance to Sato is the fact, "no attack, no chance," a mantra for which Sato has never apologized in spite of what I would call significant contrarian evidence, now has a glorious place in racing immortality. Yes, what Sato did Sunday was not merely win the world’s greatest race; but, in doing so, validated his approach to racing. Does this win mean that all those Dallara spare parts jokes are a thing of the past? No. But we certainly now view those many Sato mishaps a lot differently than we did at noon Sunday.
And that, more than anything, is what Sato won on Sunday.
Further Revisiting
 |
| Helio Castroneves out front |
Sato’s win has given us the ability to reexamine his career through a different light. It also allows us to look back at his near miss in 2012. Entering turn 1 on the final lap, Sato spun trying to pass eventual winner Dario Franchitti before spinning and hitting the wall in turn 1.
As is his way, Sato never slammed Franchitti nor showed any bitterness at least publicly over what happened. However, he has broadly alluded to the notion that he believes Franchitti squeezed him, most notably noting at the banquet that year that while he was small he needed "a little bit more room."
This is why I found it so interesting that he went out of his way to praise the driving of Castroneves at the end of the race in the post-race interview, the banquet and perhaps elsewhere.
Of course, Castroneves has long been criticized as a dirty driver, while Franchitti always had a sterling reputation. Maybe, I’m reading too much into this but could Sato have been telling media and fans: you guys fawned over Dario, and crush Helio, but Helio is more the gentleman.
Again, maybe I’m reading too much into it, but I did note that he went out of his way to praise Castroneves, which can be contrasted with 2012.
Accident
 |
| Dixon came so close to having his skull crushed |
By now you’ve seen the scary crash involving Dixon and Jay Howard. If you read AR1 you know AutoRacing1 President Mark Cipolloni has long called for canopies to be added to Indy cars. I don’t claim to know the engineering side of this issue as well as Mark, and have often referred questions about to him.
That said, I can’t understand how after Dan Wheldon, Justin Wilson, Jules Bianchi and other close calls such as Dixon, we can’t agree: having functional fully-enclosed cockpits is the desired route going forward. Yes, there are issues that need to be vetted. Yes, I know that the solution is not as simple as just slapping on canopies in Detroit this weekend.
But this notion that the tradition of Indy car racing is open-cockpit is foolish. No one ever said the tradition of Indy car racing is non-seatbelt, or non-fire retardant driver suits. However, if you’re so hung up on tradition, how about this one: innovation. And this more than anything is an innovation the series needs going forward.
ROTY
A controversy broke out Monday afternoon when it was announced that Fernando Alonso was voted Indianapolis 500 Rookie of the Year. The two-time Formula One World Champion qualified fifth and led the race 4 times for 24 laps. Unfortunately, while running 8th on lap 179, Alonso’s Honda engine expired resulting in a rather unrepresentative 24th place finish.
Of course finishing 21 places ahead of the Spaniard was another rookie, Dale Coyne Racing’s Ed Jones. The Dubai native qualified an impressive 11th and during the race rebounded from some early hardships to finish an impressive third in his debut Indy 500.
 |
| Some feel Ed Jones was robbed, but Alonso won the vote based on the criteria |
Given this discrepancy in not only finishing position but the fact that Jones is a true first-year driver at the top-level, while Alonso is a two-time Formula One World Driver’s Champion and has the sixth most wins of any F1 driver EVER, one might easily conclude: Jones got the shaft!
Not so fast.
To begin, let’s acknowledge that 2017 was a unique year with two standout rookies, who would have been slam-dunk choices in 95% of Indy 500s. Other than perhaps choosing to debut in the wrong year, neither Alonso nor Jones did anything wrong – inside or outside the car.
Further, given the way IMS defines rookies, Alonso and Jones were equally eligible for the same consideration despite any discrepancy in their previous achievements and therefore deserved equal consideration from voters. From the INDYCAR Rule Book:
A Driver is a Rookie Driver in the Indianapolis 500 Mile Race if the Driver has not participated a previous Indianapolis 500 Mile Race.
Feel free to disagree with the logic but the rule is simple: both Jones and Alonso were Rookie Drivers.
Also, to suggest that Jones deserved the nod over Alonso simply because he finished better doesn’t understand the process IMS uses for determining the award. Per the instructions for media members voting:
Selection criteria for Rookie of the Year should be based upon (a) the driver’s skill, (b) sportsmanship, (c) accessibility and conduct, and (d) finishing position. Each criteria should be considered the same as any other.
Ok, so there were four categories. Jones clearly wins category (d). There was nothing to suggest either driver did anything that would have disqualified them from category (b), so no real edge there. As for category (a), given his speed throughout the month and fact he was in contention for the win until his engine expired I think one could argue for Alonso. And while there is nothing to indicate Jones was inaccessible (as if Sports Center and the New York Times were being big-timed by Ed Jones), I’d argue greater demands were naturally placed upon Alonso this year given his worldwide renown.
Now, the point of the above is not to argue for one driver or the other. The point is that given the process in place, the choice was not nearly as clear-cut as many would have you suggest. See, an argument could easily be made for Alonso being the best in two of the 4 categories with nothing to really separate the two in the third. By the reading of the procedure that makes a vote for Alonso, a reasonable decision.
Last, people have suggested the notion of having co-rookies of the year. The problem with that is the process IMS has opted for is a vote, which means advocating for co-rookies is synonymous to advocating for the voting to be rigged.
Ultimately, feel free to question the process IMS uses which judges a rookie in the truest sense of the word on the same level as a two-time World Champion. Go ahead and say you’d have given your vote to Jones. You’ll get no argument here.
But the notion that Alonso winning is somehow a travesty of justice, doesn’t even begin to understand the nature of the process in place.
Gutierrez
 |
| Signing Gutierrez will be huge for IndyCar if they ever get a race in Mexico again |
Look, I get business is business and I don’t know the business details of Esteban Gutierrez driving for Dale Coyne Racing at Detroit this weekend. That said, could there have been a more uninspiring choice than Gutierrez, who has been nothing but mediocre in Formula One and Formula E?
Also, when such seats become available and teams don’t look to either series veterans or products of the series’ junior categories, the value of IndyCar as a whole is undermined. After all, if teams opt for mediocre drivers from outside the program, what good is the program, and why are aspiring drivers competing in the ladder series?
To be clear, I don’t know Esteban Gutierrez and have nothing against him. I’m merely saying that this signing does nothing for the series in the short or long term. Further, when such situations arise, the series should be active in seeing to it that drivers who will benefit the sport have access to such opportunities.
Brian Carroccio is a columnist for AutoRacing1. He can be contacted at BrianC@AutoRacing1.com