Is McLaren boss Brown’s vision for IndyCar the right one?

A longer calendar, no non-championship races, saying goodbye to ‘old-fashioned’ cars and looking beyond a new franchise system that ‘doesn’t really change much’.

There’s a lot to process from a 1,500-plus word letter to IndyCar fans from McLaren CEO Zak Brown.

He has written similar letters before, and this one is apparently meant to praise IndyCar for the areas where the car has performed well over the past year, and to point out a number of things that Brown believes need to change.

As someone who comes from amateur racing himself, but also runs a Formula 1 program, Brown has a unique perspective on all the ingredients that make up IndyCar and how those ingredients are mixed elsewhere.

Let’s take a closer look at some of the points Brown raises.

The charter system

What Brown said

• “The dial doesn’t move”
• Must be a “true franchise model”

The details of the charter system are not public, so we can’t go into too much detail here.

In principle, charters should operate like franchises: each team purchases a franchise unit and can then resell it to any new team that wants to join in the future, giving the team a tangible market value.

Ideas for this system go back to the 90s and probably earlier. The biggest stumbling block has always been that chartered teams automatically want to participate in the Indianapolis 500, since that’s where most of the sponsorship comes from. But that would really dilute the practice of bumping and pissing off IndyCar fans.

Last month, a revised proposal for the charter was sent to the teams.

“From a business perspective, I understand the desire for the newly developed charter system for IndyCar teams, but what is being presented now doesn’t really change anything in my opinion,” Brown said.

“We need a structure that aligns the teams with the growth of the series. Perhaps we should therefore transform the charter system into a true franchise model, with a defined revenue stream that ensures long-term viability for the participants.

“Healthy teams make for better racing, and better racing makes for a better experience in North and South America for IndyCar fans.”

A full franchise model, if done right, gives teams tangible value when they join, so in theory it’s a good idea. Right now, teams invest millions in their facilities and equipment, but when they leave, those are the only saleable assets they have. A franchise system means they can sell their charter (read: affiliation) as well.

But those values ​​will be lower if the charter doesn’t offer guaranteed access to the Indy 500. A half-baked charter system won’t provide the value that a full franchise scheme, which Brown seems to favor, could. But is it worth breaking one of the Indy 500’s longest-standing traditions — bumping — and irritating an already fickle fan base?

This could be a first step towards a more complete franchise model in the future, which could also be a good move.

But it’s also worth considering another factor in all of this, and that is that the stronger a series becomes and the more valuable a franchise becomes, the more power the series can wield over those teams. That’s what happened in NASCAR in recent weeks, where teams were given an ultimatum to sign a new deal.

There are many possible outcomes to play with.

The technical aspects

What Brown said

• Some R&D is “invisible” to fans
• “Critical” to proceed with new chassis

Brown is right. Whether you’re talking about the teams’ so-called secret wind tunnels – McLaren likes to point to Ganassi and Penske when they talk about this – or the development of dampers (which was actually an accident, but is arguably the most important part of an IndyCar that teams have proper development control over), these things are invisible to fans.

It’s hard to explain them better, especially when teams understandably don’t want to give up those secrets.

IndyCar doesn’t want to be a total spec formula, but it also doesn’t want to fail in what it leaves open for development. As some fans will remember from the aero kit era – a great idea in principle but one that proved tricky to execute – it’s a tricky balance to strike.

All you see, the car, is – despite some aerodynamic changes and the addition of the aeroscreen – a 2012 design, which Brown says is “outdated.”

He admitted that work is underway on the 2027 chassis, but that “it is vital that we move forward quickly”.

“We need to make sure our cars look more modern and are faster than ever,” he added.

The calendar

What Brown said

• A six month calendar is too short
• Expansion desired on the east coast and ‘metro markets’
• Convention centers are good hosts
• Vegas, an example of what investing in locations yields

Brown is right that this year’s calendar has been short in terms of start-to-finish time, but I would argue that it has felt much longer than that suggests. Part of that is the prolonged hiatus caused primarily by the Olympics, which NBC wants to cover in its entirety – meaning that IndyCar has essentially had to pause or sacrifice adequate TV coverage for that period.

As a result, other breeds were also transferred.

Expansion into U.S. markets will be very important for IndyCar. Brown called a “return to Denver long overdue,” and it is widely expected to be the destination for the 2026 street race that IndyCar has discussed without disclosing the location.

As Brown points out, stadiums and convention centers are worth checking out, although NFL stadiums are best avoided during the season.

The Vegas example – that of a race promoted by F1 itself – is an interesting point. IndyCar tends to be very pragmatic in its investments and it seems unlikely that they would throw a lot of money at a brand new street race out of their own pocket, but it could be a risk worth taking.

We’ve seen IndyCar promote events and bring more of them in. Of all the things to worry about in IndyCar, aside from Olympic years, the series has done a lot on the calendar in recent years and seems to have delivered what the fans want. Or at least is working towards it.

The exception to this seems to be international racing. Brown pointed to the fact that IndyCar was defeated by NASCAR in Mexico, and reaffirmed his belief – which I share 100% – that staying in the Americas is the most realistic and cost-effective option at this point.

“I think we’re going to see more growth in key markets closer to home, so let’s focus on the Americas and not get distracted,” Brown said. “Focusing on these regions makes a lot more strategic sense, building on our established fan base.”

Mark Miles, president of IndyCar parent company Penske Entertainment, has suggested in recent weeks that an international series could be launched this offseason, but Brown floated a vision that is widely accepted in the paddock.

“Non-championship races are a distraction we can do without,” Brown said. “Without championship points, these events are more exhibition than real competition and they only serve to dilute the competitive nature of the series.”

Brown also wants to see doubleheaders eliminated. But with only one of the 16 events on the calendar next year, a one-off doesn’t seem all that troubling. Especially when that event is Iowa, which has hosted some of the world’s biggest music stars.

I generally agree with Brown that doubleheaders “don’t add much value” and “reduce the exposure of the series over a 17-race season.” I think you should try to get as many fans as possible to watch one race in a weekend instead of two. Although there is an argument that fans generally enjoy a race more than qualifying, so should we tear up the ‘traditional weekend’ format further?

Brown’s assertion that doubleheaders “don’t add much for the fans in-person compared to the action they already experience in a standard, single-race weekend” doesn’t necessarily ring true for me. An extra race at the expense of a practice is always going to be better for fans in person — and if the format helps the event bring the likes of Carrie Underwood or Ed Sheeran to Newton, Iowa, I’m all for it.

Speaking of practice, Brown wants to practice more on street and road circuits.

I can see why he says that, because he is in charge of a team with a lot of resources. He claims that a higher level of preparation will increase the quality of the competition, but I fear that in reality you would see the rich teams using this time to get further away from the teams without those resources.

What I totally agree with is that it would be better to make more tyres available so that teams don’t have to ration them and can make better use of their time.

The TV package

What Brown said

• More TV angles and cameras needed
• A camera or microphone at the race management would be good

It seems like every racing series is constantly being called upon to spice up their coverage with more cameras, better angles, and better direction. Nevertheless, Brown is right to see this as a clear area for improvement for IndyCar, and he’s also right to want to see more efforts to better explain the series to a more casual audience.

With Fox taking over NBC’s TV rights next year, there’s a chance for a reset and new input.

Taking it a step further, it would be great to get rid of the silly jargon like ‘primary’ and ‘alternate’; just call the tires ‘hard’ and ‘soft’. Simple. Why make things more complicated than they need to be?

Brown also called for a camera or microphone at the race control, but it is unclear whether this is a serious proposal or a convenient setup. He then added: “Maybe they can also explain how to use ‘push-to-pass’ and when it is and is not legal to use it!”

I think race control is a place where they need more privacy than the presence of live cameras allows. The easy solution to this – although perhaps not ideal for TV – is for stewards to provide written reports of incidents, as is done in other series.

At this point you’re at a point where as a fan you have no idea why certain decisions are made in a certain way. Even the drivers are kind of putting two and two together and hoping to get four.

Drivers understanding the rules of wheel-to-wheel combat and explaining those rules well to fans is absolutely crucial to the fundamental understanding of a racing series. I can’t believe we’re still doing without some of those basic things.

---

Ultimately, you have to remember that Brown is a team owner with his own agenda, and that shows in his presentations.

But he’s also a racer, and someone who’s been watching the races since he was a kid, and he knows that a better and stronger IndyCar is better for his business, so there’s a lot of weight in what he says and suggests.

Brown is one of the most media-savvy team owner/managers in the IndyCar series. Even if you don’t agree with all of his suggestions, there’s something to appreciate about his perspective on his priorities and interests that you don’t often get from his peers.