Why is IndyCar shelving its manufacturer war?

It's no surprise really. IndyCar's long-awaited decision to freeze aero development and implement a standard kit for Chevrolet and Honda teams in 2018 has been applauded by the team owners who were opposed to the aerodynamic project in the first place.

Like it or loathe it, the topic of aero kits has dominated IndyCar over the past two years. It's been the talking point in a variety of senses, from early issues like bits falling off too easily, to Chevy and its partner Pratt & Miller overwhelming the draggy effort from Honda and Wirth Engineering across 2015, to the Japanese manufacturer controversially winning a bid to be allowed to overhaul its design for this season.

The thought of freezing the kit began to gain traction around this year's Indianapolis 500 and the races that followed, because it was getting too late in the year to start designing new aero kit parts.

There are many benefits for IndyCar - financial, competitive and commercial. And there is obvious positioning from the series to try to bring in other marques to compete against Honda and Chevy.

"You can't ask new engine manufacturers to get involved with these guys having two years of development on the aero kits," says IndyCar vice president of technology Bill Pappas. "The idea is to try to get something where [development] is frozen and then come to an agreement on a common kit so we can get more manufacturers involved.

"There is interest from other manufacturers, absolutely. People see there's a reason to be here. It's a great series with great competition and it would be great to get another manufacturer or two involved."

IndyCar CEO Mark Miles believes it's the right moment to put a freeze on the current kit so the series and its partners have time to come up with a proper standard set-up for the 2018 season.

However, he talks of the next-generation chassis being further along.

"I think everybody is pleased with the competitive balance we have right now," Miles tells Autosport. "If each manufacturer thinks the other one is a little bit ahead, then that's probably a good place to be. It's definitely good racing.

"There are two ways to improve the economics in our paddock: one is to make it easier for them to increase sponsorship by increasing our fan engagement numbers, and the other is to intelligently give them the chance to reduce costs.

"Our team is working on some really good ideas with the paddock to do that. One is to deregulate in a way that they can make some components to see if there is a more efficient way to do some testing.

"We are quite close to laying out the whole programme for the next couple of years and that will be good for our programme and for our health. There are substantial changes to this car [coming] that nearly constitutes a new car, so I'm more focused on that. It will be a few years before there is an entirely new car."

As far as enticing an additional engine manufacturer to the series goes, Miles only says: "It's early days, but to have clarity around the aero package is very good to start that conversation."

The competitive argument is also compelling, particularly as the series is firmly aligned to a single-make chassis.

Honda team owners such as Michael Andretti, Sam Schmidt and Dale Coyne have been publicly critical of the aero kit project, believing tens of millions of dollars have been spent, and when the field was effectively split in half competitively it was a step back for the three-year spell of close racing that a standard Dallara DW12 package had created.

When aero kits were introduced for the 2015 season, Chevrolet teams had a decided edge. A Chevy started every race on pole, and though Graham Rahal was able to mount a title tilt he was the only Honda driver to come close to doing so. Honda asked for rule 9.3 to be implemented to allow it to make improvements outside of the working areas that could be refined each season.

Chevrolet teams retain an advantage on track, but the gap has been cut dramatically. Publicly at least, the manufacturer recognises the part it has to play in ensuring IndyCar retains a strong competitive element.

"We have worked very diligently to develop our aero kit with our engineering and aero team and our race teams," says Jim Campbell, Chevy's US vice president of performance vehicles and motorsports.

"The results have been very good the last couple of years in terms of our performance as a contributing factor, combined with great drivers and teams and our engine programme.

"We'll work with the sanctioning body on how you can get great racing and keep the costs down. We will work closely with them like we do with any series.

"The good news is they set the rules and are working with the manufacturers and our race teams on what is the forward view of the aero packages."

Still, it begs the question: was it worth the effort? After spending a significant amount of money on development, only to have the kits frozen after two years, was the project worthwhile?

"The rules were the rules and the aero package was part of the rules set," Campbell says. "We worked very hard on delivering a package that delivered the right combination of downforce, drag and engine performance. Last year was a great example and it worked.

"We must have a sustainable IndyCar Series, absolutely. Chevrolet is involved in five racing series and we work closely with every sanctioning body to work on rules that create great racing [and] keep the costs in a reasonable range."

Sustainability is also touched on, albeit briefly, by Campbell's counterpart at Honda, Art St Cyr, who admits: "I would be in favour of not spending any more money on the aero kit."

The obvious issue is the lack of manufacturer competition. Campbell admits "we want areas where we can deliver our engineering excellence and innovation and deliver great racing", but it's difficult to see where that's possible beyond engine supply if the chassis is identical and there's a standard kit.

"If we can get that combination it's a sweet spot," says Campbell, but striking it is tough. IndyCar arguably needs it from a marketing perspective: 'enter our series and pit your tech versus your rivals' to show you are the best'.

Not that aero kits were successful in that regard: nobody came forward to join existing engine suppliers in developing Honda and Chevy aero kits, hence that standardised package from 2012 to '14.

For the teams, though, competition will remain. David Faustino, Will Power's Penske race engineer, points out that figuring out how to best utilise aero kits has given his team the edge in the current era.

"I don't think they should freeze everything," he says. "They should give each manufacturer one box instead of three [referring to the limited areas the manufacturers were allowed to improve each season].

"Let them pick their Achilles' heel from this season and fix something and that's it. I'm more for a two-thirds freeze than a full freeze.

"Any time there is change it's good for us so I'm 50/50 on a standard kit. But it's a good opportunity if we do get new body kits again for us to get ahead. I would welcome it."

Faustino was in favour of the aerodynamic project, highlighting the manufacturer differentiation it provided - the cars are now visibly different - but accepts it hasn't quite leant itself to close racing.

"I don't think the racing on road courses is quite as good with all the downforce," he says. "As a fan I would probably like to see something cleaner so the cars can follow each other closer. Having distinction between the manufacturers beyond the engine was good. Whether they did it the right way...

"IndyCar would have had a different set of regulations [if it did it again] that allows the cars to follow closely with less disturbance and still let the manufacturers do something, with just a matter of deciding what to work on."

Not everyone is aligned in the same way on that competition element, though. Honda team boss Coyne believes the series should ditch aero kit competition a year early and revert to a standard spec for 2017.

IndyCar president Jay Frye announced the standard aero kit with the message that it was made "on what is best for the future" of the series, but Coyne says the category's prospects would be stronger had it gone down a different path earlier.

"We should go back to the DW12 for next year then bring the new car in," he says. "They might think it's a step backwards, but we had great racing with that car. Fans want to see good, close racing and passing.

"I pounded the table at the Detroit owners' meeting three years ago that we shouldn't do aero kits because Honda is going to spend $10million, Chevrolet is going to spend $10million and the owners are going to spend $10million.

"We should have taken that money together and bought our way up or out of the existing TV contract and get everything on network television.

"We could have done that for two years with that kind of money. As it turns out Honda and Chevrolet spent a lot more than $10m.

"We should have got the sport fixed before worrying about that sort of stuff."

Coyne claims the original decision was taken because "the engineers ran the sport and that was a mistake".

He adds: "We should have gone to the CEO of Honda and Chevy and asked, 'Do you want to sell cars? Or do you want the engineering department to grow itself?' They would have gone with selling a lot more cars."

An equal playing field should lend itself to great racing and a greater shot at success for each manufacturer.

By removing an obvious element of brand identity and competition, important for manufacturers and the fans, IndyCar will hope that proves to be the case.