Penske's disqualified, Abel still out ?

[Lotus7]

Of course we all only know what was published publicly, but if two cars get disqualified in qual for being illegal, and get "sent to the back", wouldn't that be considered "behind whoever qualified slowest"?

I'm trying to figure out why Abel isn't starting 32nd, and one of the Penske's isn't starting at all .......

[DaveW]

Of course we all only know what was published publicly, but if two cars get disqualified in qual for being illegal, and get "sent to the back", wouldn't that be considered "behind whoever qualified slowest"?

I'm trying to figure out why Abel isn't starting 32nd, and one of the Penske's isn't starting at all .......

Good question, but, IMO, the disqualification and penalty was already verging on an "over the top" response to a VERY minor modification. I can understand why it was so severe, but some degree of relating the penalty severity to offense benefit would also have made sense.

[Jerry Kehoe]

What seems to be missing in the discussion with the two Penske cars being sent to the back of the field is that they passed tech the first day and would have qualified simply on time. Did they have the modified parts on? Who knows but they passed then so that should be the standard. After all perhaps nearly the entire field could have had some detail that could have been illegal at some point but once they actually passed it is a mute point. The cars were initially pulled because the only things they were allowed to adjust were the wing angles, tire pressure and they were doing more than allowed leading to the penalty. Pretty simple.

[R. Pare]

https://www.indycar.com/news/2025/05...nske-penalties

[R. Pare]

Interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xdfz-VS0vM

[Lotus7]

Good question, but, IMO, the disqualification and penalty was already verging on an "over the top" response to a VERY minor modification. I can understand why it was so severe, but some degree of relating the penalty severity to offense benefit would also have made sense.

David, I respectfully disagree. As I read it, the component is a "no touch" item, so no degree of leeway as I see it.
Penalties that scale with the severity of intent is a slippery slope (in racing anyway I think.

If our car is only 1 pound light at the end of next weekends qualification session, how far back the grid would you move me? and for 5 pounds?

[DaveW]

David, I respectfully disagree. As I read it, the component is a "no touch" item, so no degree of leeway as I see it.
Penalties that scale with the severity of intent is a slippery slope (in racing anyway) I think.

If our car is only 1 pound light at the end of next weekends qualification session, how far back the grid would you move me? and for 5 pounds?

Good points, and I have to agree with your point of view. It just seemed out of proportion.

[BLS]

Short of there being an accident in front that catches them up, I predict by race end they will be up front and in contention.

I have not seen a video/pic of Roger recently. Damn, we're all getting old...

[Lotus7]

Good points, and I have to agree with your point of view. It just seemed out of proportion.

no argument, but since I’m not Adrian Newey I don’t know if and how much this helped them, but it seems outside the concept of “exploring the limits of the grey areas”.

lots of interesting facts (and opinions) published since my first post.

[DaveW]

no argument, but since I’m not Adrian Newey I don’t know if and how much this helped them, but it seems outside the concept of “exploring the limits of the grey areas”.

lots of interesting facts (and opinions) published since my first post.

From the description of the violation it sounded to me sorta like putting duct tape over a body seam. Pretty mild to cause that heavy a penalty.

[Rick Kirchner]

From the description of the violation it sounded to me sorta like putting duct tape over a body seam. Pretty mild to cause that heavy a penalty.

What gets me is that it's in an area of heavily disturbed flow anyway. For such a minor possible improvement, why risk it? Evidently it's on last year's winning car in the museum....

[SteveG]

What gets me is that it's in an area of heavily disturbed flow anyway. For such a minor possible improvement, why risk it? Evidently it's on last year's winning car in the museum....

I've read on the internet that it was done for cosmetic purposes, they didn't like the sharp edges of the "stock" part. And Penske racing has been using the modified part since last year. Someone in the Indy paddock is playing politics at an opportune time.

[Lotus7]

I've read on the internet that it was done for cosmetic purposes, they didn't like the sharp edges of the "stock" part. And Penske racing has been using the modified part since last year. Someone in the Indy paddock is playing politics at an opportune time.

Smoothing out a surface that experiences airflow is more than cosmetic. And I've already agreed that its "likely" not significant, but my point was once you open Pandora's box, where do you draw the line? I think it was Marshall Pruett who pointed out yesterday that the bigger story here is the Tech process (or lack of). Cheers.

[Fred Michael]

From the description of the violation it sounded to me sorta like putting duct tape over a body seam. Pretty mild to cause that heavy a penalty.

Taping seams is legal.
Modifying a crash structure most definitely is not.
The penalty was not enough. Abel should be in. The 2 and 12 cars should be out and there should be 32 starters

[Steve Davis]

I've seen basically NOTHING about exactly WHAT the modification was. I just read that it was the interface to the chassis where the attenuator is located against it. Seems it would (MIGHT) have been 'legal' to modify (adjust) that interface on the chassis side.. but NOT LEGAL to adjust on the attenuator side. Might have been 'legal' to have taped that junction.. but not 'easy' since it would have been a 'rough square'. Much easier to just fill the gap with 'something'.. to make it LOOK PRETTY instead of ugly. It's obvious that 'pretty' is important to fans and sponsors. I've seen NO PIX of exactly what is in play here. Anyone know EXACTLY what was 'found'? I also read that it was 'pointed out' by Chip Ganassi as they were in pit lane.. and THAT is what brought it to the attention of tech.

Also seems 'odd' that NO ONE has posted a picture of the exact infraction... but I guess not many people have ACCESS to the cars to take pix since this all started. However, I would think that there would be several hundred pix of that 'area' of the car in which it would be visible.
Steve

[Mike B]

This article has a very detailed explanation and in my opinion, comes to the right conclusion. Penske should be starting 11th and 12th because they passed tech on the day they qualified in the Fast 12. That would've likely been the outcome for any other team but the penalty needs to be overly drastic for Penske because of "the optics".

https://www.motorsport.com/indycar/n...m-is/10724722/

[DaveW]

This article has a very detailed explanation and in my opinion, comes to the right conclusion. Penske should be starting 11th and 12th because they passed tech on the day they qualified in the Fast 12. That would've likely been the outcome for any other team but the penalty needs to be overly drastic for Penske because of "the optics".

https://www.motorsport.com/indycar/n...m-is/10724722/

My opinion exactly !!!

[Rick Kirchner]

There's always been issues with Tech at Indy. Back in the USAC days we had guys that were not in any kind of technical job in their normal life running things (the guy that ran my committee drove a snack delivery truck). USAC often relied on former drivers and Chief Mechanics (I believe Phil Casey was one) to run Tech.

Kevin Blanch is another one. Started as a painter, then mechanic, then chief mechanic. He was very successful in that, but I'm not sure that's the background required to write good rules and produce the processes required to verify the rules.

Rules are like drawings in manufacturing. They describe the min and max requirements of a given item. How you make that item, and determine the item meets spec, requires processes and tooling, and more levels of verification. Then the people that use that tooling have to actually know and follow the processes in detail.

IIRC Indycar takes the rulebook, hands it off to some engineering company, and they produce the inspection equipment. But that's just the measurement side. There of course, are other levels of inspection that you would think require a checklist and possibly pictures and examples of what's allowed and what's not allowed (or you would expect that at this level).

[Fred Michael]

I've seen basically NOTHING about exactly WHAT the modification was. I just read that it was the interface to the chassis where the attenuator is located against it. Seems it would (MIGHT) have been 'legal' to modify (adjust) that interface on the chassis side.. but NOT LEGAL to adjust on the attenuator side. Might have been 'legal' to have taped that junction.. but not 'easy' since it would have been a 'rough square'. Much easier to just fill the gap with 'something'.. to make it LOOK PRETTY instead of ugly. It's obvious that 'pretty' is important to fans and sponsors. I've seen NO PIX of exactly what is in play here. Anyone know EXACTLY what was 'found'? I also read that it was 'pointed out' by Chip Ganassi as they were in pit lane.. and THAT is what brought it to the attention of tech.

Also seems 'odd' that NO ONE has posted a picture of the exact infraction... but I guess not many people have ACCESS to the cars to take pix since this all started. However, I would think that there would be several hundred pix of that 'area' of the car in which it would be visible.
Steve

There are lots of photos of the blended area on the sides of the attenuator. The bottom line is that it is specifically stated that the attenuator cannot be blended and they have gotten away with it for well over a year.
Today it seems that Roger has finally had enough and dropped the hammer. Now heads need to roll in the tech crew (but they probably won't)

[hdsporty1988]

Today Penske announced that Cindric, Ruzewski, and Moyer all parted ways with the team. All were longtime employees. Since Cindric stepped back to only running the Indycar operation and was doing some broadcasting I thought he would be leaving soon anyway.

[BLS]

This article has a very detailed explanation and in my opinion, comes to the right conclusion. Penske should be starting 11th and 12th because they passed tech on the day they qualified in the Fast 12. That would've likely been the outcome for any other team but the penalty needs to be overly drastic for Penske because of "the optics".

https://www.motorsport.com/indycar/n...m-is/10724722/

Thanks for the link, best explanation I've seen, and if it is remotely accurate (I believe it is) then Penske is being punished for being successful, not because of some true cheating. This appears to be nothing more than an attempt to make an ugly part look better. A part that was made ugly by a poor process IMO.

[Mike B]

A part that was made ugly by a poor process IMO.

I'd like to see a clear picture of what the mod looked like with the "bright glue". Fred, can you help out?

[Steve Davis]

This article has a very detailed explanation and in my opinion, comes to the right conclusion. Penske should be starting 11th and 12th because they passed tech on the day they qualified in the Fast 12. That would've likely been the outcome for any other team but the penalty needs to be overly drastic for Penske because of "the optics".

https://www.motorsport.com/indycar/n...m-is/10724722/

This also points out that issues are often 'just noticed' (or FOUND) at inopportune times... As in the case of SCCA, a Runoffs Champion that has run in 'x' configuration for 14 years and has always 'survived' post tech.. is NOT a guarantee that 'x' is LEGAL in future events.

It has to be incredibly difficult for tech inspectors to "inspect" every single fastener, junction, interface, etc at every single location on every single car. And often 'something' can escape 'notice' for many years before it gets 'noticed' by either tech, or another competitor and pointed out.

Just because a car passed tech 'yesterday' .. or even 5 minutes ago.. is still not a guarantee that it is 'legal' the next time it gets looked at.

I have crossed 'the scales' at events several times in the past at weights that are EXACTLY matched to 'allowed' minimums. Several times even after adding extra weight from previous day scale weights... but there are never any guarantees for the NEXT ROLL across the scales. Not sure about Indy and F1 or even NASCAR, but MOST scales only read in increments of ONE POUND. SO.. is a car that took a 'checkered flag lap' and then came across the scales ONE POUND light a 'cheater'? My last win at Sebring I declined a checker lap (because I scaled TEN POUNDS different in 2 scales weights the previous day).. then scaled at EXACTLY minimum weight in impound. Sometimes, it's pretty difficult to guess right!

I tend to agree with the many that have suggested that the max penalty allowed SHOULD be have been starting the 2 and 12 at the back of the group where they last PASSED tech on the previous day. Pretty good guess that the attenuator on both cars was IDENTICAL on each day (as well as other prior races in 2025). I don't think they are 'cheaters'.. just ideal 'cleaner uppers' of observable things that make for nicer pix. Also, IMHO, it wasn't was necessary to dismiss 3 important members of the Penske Team as a result of this 'finding'. It makes it LOOK LIKE they have been CHEATING KNOWINGLY in the past, which I seriously doubt.

Steve

[BLS]

I'd like to see a clear picture of what the mod looked like with the "bright glue". Fred, can you help out?

I believe this is unmodified:


And this is definitely the blended seam:

[Steve Demeter]

Pretty small chaange.

But as pointed out, severe penalties are due to Roger owning the series and the optics involved....

[DaveW]

https://racer.com/2025/05/21/indycar...3b18-274291801

This adds a lot more depth to understanding the penalty.

[R. Pare]

The modification was ( from what I can see here) blending the 2 parts with some sort of putty:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Qa889qHL6z8?feature=share

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhpbg0EjCa8

[Fred Michael]

Thanks for the link, best explanation I've seen, and if it is remotely accurate (I believe it is) then Penske is being punished for being successful, not because of some true cheating. This appears to be nothing more than an attempt to make an ugly part look better. A part that was made ugly by a poor process IMO.

At 240mph tiny things matter. It might not matter very much but it's surprising where things do make a difference and where they don't.
You also try things that seem ridiculous in the wind tunnel only to completely surprise yourself with the outcomes, so it might be a surprise what this could actually do.
From experience I doubt this is much but it's not nothing and it is definitely not allowed by the rules (there are several locations on the car where filler is specifically banned)

[BLS]

https://racer.com/2025/05/21/indycar...3b18-274291801

This adds a lot more depth to understanding the penalty.

Seems to me that the penalty is not for the infraction itself...

[BLS]

At 240mph tiny things matter. It might not matter very much but it's surprising where things do make a difference and where they don't.
You also try things that seem ridiculous in the wind tunnel only to completely surprise yourself with the outcomes, so it might be a surprise what this could actually do.
From experience I doubt this is much but it's not nothing and it is definitely not allowed by the rules (there are several locations on the car where filler is specifically banned)

I agree the rules were broken, that much is clear. Why, and does the penalty fit the crime seems to be the question. I have found nothing that suggests anyone believes this was any enhancement performance wise.

Anyway, Penske has acted and I think it will all be put behind come Sunday afternoon.

[Lotus7]

Indycar has put out a definitive statement saying last years winning car remains the winning car, all the while sporting the same illegal mods (at least as displayed in the museum; not sure anyone believes it didn't race like that).

Is there a specific Statute of Limitations rule on reviewing/changing race results?

[Peter Olivola]

Indycar has put out a definitive statement saying last years winning car remains the winning car, all the while sporting the same illegal mods (at least as displayed in the museum; not sure anyone believes it didn't race like that).

Is there a specific Statute of Limitations rule on reviewing/changing race results?

I'm sure there is. We have it in SCCA Road Racing.

Is there some personal reason you can't let this go? Has this so deeply offended you that you have to display your outrage at every opportunity? How does this affect you personally?

I'm neither a hater or fanboy of the Penske organization. I respect them and recognize that any team with their history is going to be a challenge to any sanctioning body. They have been penalized for non-compliance.

What are you getting out of continuing the conversation? You might want to consider seeing someone about this obsession.

[John Nesbitt]

I'm sure there is. We have it in SCCA Road Racing.

Is there some personal reason you can't let this go? Has this so deeply offended you that you have to display your outrage at every opportunity? How does this affect you personally?

I'm neither a hater or fanboy of the Penske organization. I respect them and recognize that any team with their history is going to be a challenge to any sanctioning body. They have been penalized for non-compliance.

What are you getting out of continuing the conversation? You might want to consider seeing someone about this obsession.

Of course, one could equally well ask why anybody would get wound up about someone else's questions and concerns.

[DaveW]

Peter & Ian,

Ruling on a marginal rules violation like this has always been extremely difficult. I have been the beneficiary of some and the victim of others during my 57-year racing career, so I can see both sides of the issue.

There will always be controversial decisions that are like this one. I am extremely glad I am not in a position to have to make them.

It's much more fun to voice opinions when they have no consequence.

[E1pix]

What are you getting out of continuing the conversation? You might want to consider seeing someone about this obsession.

Welcome to ApexPsyche.com.
< rolling eyes here >

Rules are meant to be followed. Break them, and there’s consequences. For as much as Roger’s done to further racing, he’s also reaped the benefits in billions — so I don’t see his involvement as a “favor” to racing as much as for his own wealth. Firing team members is solely optics.

Anyone remember the acid-dipped Camaro to lower the Center of Gravity? That was about 56 years ago, and we have no idea what else he’s gotten away with.

The idea of a lesser punishment in this case — towards any competitor much less a series and circuit owner — would be ugly. I agree this should have been caught in Tech, but no Inspector is as responsible as an owner is.

Sounds like Ganassi finally pointed it out when beneficial to his team, drivers, and backers — and that’s shrewd, fair game, and unlike the Penske mods, entirely legal.

[DaveW]

https://www.amazon.com/Unfair-Advant.../dp/0837600693

Always has been a part of racing.

[Mike B]

https://www.amazon.com/Unfair-Advant.../dp/0837600693

Always has been a part of racing.

This should be on the bookshelf of every racer, right next to the Smith books. It shows the origins of the Penske style of management and has an underlying philosophy that can (and should) be applied beyond racing. I suspect if this book was written today it would include a chapter dealing with Attenuator-gate.

[E1pix]

I despise cheaters in equal proportion to liars.

A good thing is they tend to out themselves in saying “Everyone cheats,” or “Everyone lies.”

Nothing beats being proven legal after winning both a race *and* a protest. Cheaters deserve solo time in their own sandbox, provided it’s actually a catbox.

[Peter Olivola]

Welcome to ApexPsyche.com.
< rolling eyes here >

Rules are meant to be followed. Break them, and there’s consequences. For as much as Roger’s done to further racing, he’s also reaped the benefits in billions — so I don’t see his involvement as a “favor” to racing as much as for his own wealth. Firing team members is solely optics.

Anyone remember the acid-dipped Camaro to lower the Center of Gravity? That was about 56 years ago, and we have no idea what else he’s gotten away with.

The idea of a lesser punishment in this case — towards any competitor much less a series and circuit owner — would be ugly. I agree this should have been caught in Tech, but no Inspector is as responsible as an owner is.

Sounds like Ganassi finally pointed it out when beneficial to his team, drivers, and backers — and that’s shrewd, fair game, and unlike the Penske mods, entirely legal.

I think it's reasonable to say that the history of the past 40 years of the Indy 500 is Penske vs. Ganassi. I think it's also reasonable to recognize the dynamic that has generated between the two teams. I would hope I don't have to spell out what I'm driving at.

[E1pix]

I can read, and even interpret… seems you’re suggesting both named frontrunners are cheaters.

And/or that all are?