Why IndyCar's 2020 innovations had contrasting fortunes at Iowa

It's hard to know if there is valid cause to say that IndyCar's new-for-2020 aeroscreen saved Rinus VeeKay's life last Friday night at Iowa Speedway, because it's impossible to know what would have happened had it not been there. This writer recalls several accidents in open-wheel racing where severe head trauma appeared a worryingly likely prospect, only for the driver to escape with nothing worse than a headache.

Among those that stick out are Patrick Tambay's Haas Lola launching over Martin Brundle's Tyrrell at the 1986 Monaco Grand Prix, and Nelson Piquet's Lotus in blinding spray running into the back of Piercarlo Ghinzani's Osella at Adelaide in 1989, jacking it up to where the Italian's car rode up the nose of the Lotus. Both Brundle and Piquet were left with tyre marks on their crash helmets.

At least when Bryan Herta's Reynard was mounted by Alex Barron's All American Racers Eagle at Road America in 1998, you could pretty much tell that Herta was OK, as Barron's car was propped up by the rollhoop on Herta's Team Rahal machine, leaving plenty of room for Herta underneath. But it's still a marvel that Helio Castroneves wasn't seriously injured when Alexander Rossi's Andretti Autosport car rode over the cockpit area of the Team Penske machine exiting the pits at Pocono in 2016.

The point is, drivers do have seemingly miraculous escapes - but we can all be extremely glad for VeeKay that his cockpit was surrounded by the aeroscreen last Friday. The Dutch rookie slowed when the mid-race restart was called off, but Colton Herta immediately behind did not - either because his spotter didn't call it, or because Herta didn't hear him - and suddenly launched off the Ed Carpenter Racing-Chevrolet at an awkward angle that sent it over VeeKay's aeroscreen frame.

Speaking to Autosport, IndyCar president Jay Frye - one of the prime motivators of this safety measure - was too modest to say that he felt vindicated but, as the analysis of the accident continues, he clearly felt some degree of reassurance about its decision to deviate away from the halo used in Formula 1 and its supporting categories.

Frye (below) said: "We've brought all the data back, we're going through it, we're analysing everything that we have - still photos and video footage from the outside, onboard cameras, and the actual piece on the car - and from every indication that we see, did it have a positive effect on the outcome of the incident? Absolutely.

"Going back to the hotel that night, it did bring a degree of comfort that the aeroscreen was on that car. For now, I'd say it would be speculation to state what degree it helped, but it certainly looked like it had a very positive effect on the outcome of that incident. There were markings on the top frame and on the screen, so yeah, we're so glad it was on the car.

"Honestly, to me it's an engineering marvel by all the people who worked on it. From the Red Bull guys, Pankl's 3D printing titanium frame which is off the charts technology-wise, our own people who stated the specifications, and the drivers who advised and supported.

"Remember, we went to them at Spring Training in 2019 to tell them our plans and ask for their input, and one year later at Circuit of The Americas, we had 26 cars sitting there each equipped with an aeroscreen."

"The halt on the season may have been a blessing in disguise from that point of view, because maybe if we'd been making adjustments driven off feedback at races when it wasn't so hot, through March and April, it might have given us a false sense of security" Jay Frye

Of course, that was in the cool of a Texas February and since then there have been mild public comments from the drivers regarding cockpit heat and/or lack of airflow, and it's clear they've been diplomatic.

Behind the scenes, their comments to IndyCar have been strong enough to prompt adjustments to the piece. New airflow channels were opened at Road America, while at Iowa there was a duct mounted on the aeroscreen top to send more air down into the cockpit. The quest to keep improving this situation does not stop.

"It was hot at Sebring when we tested, it was hot at the Speedway when we tested, but cooling didn't seem to be a huge problem," recalls Frye.

"But we got to a point - the same point we got to with the testing of the universal aerokit [introduced at the start of 2018] - where we handed off to the teams, and kept an open mind, asked them to see what they thought.

"They all used the aeroscreen at the COTA test, gave us their feedback, then there were a couple more team tests at Sebring just before the season was supposed to start - and then suddenly everything shut down for the coronavirus pandemic.

"Obviously that kind of put the next stages of aeroscreen airflow development on pause, and because there's no mid-season testing, that's why you're seeing modifications from race to race. It's being done in public view, as it were.

"But I think the halt on the season may have been a blessing in disguise from that point of view, because maybe if we'd been making adjustments driven off feedback at races when it wasn't so hot, through March and April, it might have given us a false sense of security.

"As it is, our season finally got underway with Texas in June, and then the Indy road course, Road America and Iowa in July, and so now we're getting 'real-time' feedback, in game conditions, from drivers about the effects of heat in cockpits surrounded by an aeroscreen. And when we get it sorted out - and we absolutely will - we'll be good to go.

"Right now, we've already got four or five other things that we want to try. But as you know, we like to gather information from as many people as possible, so after the Iowa races with the duct on the top of the screen, some drivers thought it was good, some thought it didn't have enough effect, others said it made no difference at all.

"So we've got different people working on alternatives. I mean, based on FIA regulations comparing outside ambient temperatures with in-cockpit temperatures, it's not out of whack - it's within those regulations.

"But still, we understand that the air is not moving, it's just stagnant despite the ducts, and you've also got heat soak, so we appreciate that further development is required. We've got to get air moving out of the car, as a priority, rather than just air blowing into the car. We have plenty ideas and several people working on it."

It's worth noting that while some may snicker at the appearance of the aeroscreens from full-on head-on, and make derogatory comments involving welding masks or wastepaper baskets, this aeroscreen has been an 'add-on' to an existing chassis. The hope is to better integrate it into IndyCar's 2022 chassis - but Frye admitted that is not presently a consideration. IndyCar's priority is improving the situation right now.

"The 2022 [aeroscreen] development is not yet the prime concern," he says, "but it will be when we've found solutions that everyone's OK with in the current version, what we're dealing with today. But that will give us guidance for the configuration of the next version.

"I think we've gotten really good data, and great feedback from drivers and teams, over the first five races of the season regarding airflow in the cockpit and I think you've seen progress from event to event.

"It's always going to be hotter in the cockpits than it was before the screen was introduced, and the drivers accept that. But it's still our duty to make sure that heat is manageable, and for sure we can get it to where it's better for them than it is right now."

"It's still our duty to make sure that heat is manageable, and for sure we can get it to where it's better for them than it is right now" Jay Frye

While the aeroscreen was getting its first major test, IndyCar also rolled out a new qualifying format for the Iowa double-header. Where typically, with the exception of the Indianapolis 500, the grid for oval races is determined by the best average over two flying laps (as opposed to four at the 500), at Iowa the driver's first flying lap determined their grid slot for race one on Friday evening, while their second set the starting position for Saturday evening's race two.

If you think that sounds like the immediately brave drivers are rewarded for the start of race one, you'd be correct. Conor Daly took his and Carlin's first IndyCar pole by clocking the fastest time on his first flyer, but still had enough in the tank to set the third quickest time for race two. But it also meant that if a driver had a moment exiting Turn 4, they would be punished with loss of speed for not only race one but also race two.

Runaway championship leader Scott Dixon qualified 17th and 18th for Chip Ganassi Racing, which seemed terrible until Team Penske's Simon Pagenaud got struck by misfortune. When his car failed to fire for his qualifying run, it consigned him to the back of the grid for both races, which seemed profoundly cruel.

That the 2016 series champion was able to rise from that last position to win race one was deeply impressive, even allowing for the caution period(s) that worked in his favour. He also recovered to finish fourth in race two. Yet to most objective observers, it didn't seem fair for Pagenaud to get punished twice for one failure.

Yet Frye says he liked the format, which he admits IndyCar "normally wouldn't have thought about trying" without the compressed weekend schedules at each event.

"We're very conscious of the manpower at each race weekend, and that we've been needing to get to the track at 4.30am to go through the [COVID-19] screening," he says. "The teams have to come in early because they have a set slot to be screened, and so the days become very long. So we had to consider ways to make the overall weekend better for everybody.

"So at Iowa we did away with qualifying on the Saturday and set grid positions by one session on Friday, [where the] first flying lap sets the grid for the first race, [and the] second flyer sets the grid for the second race. I have to say, it was fun to watch and it was easy to explain on NBCSN [TV network]. And with qualifying out of the way in one session, it meant that on Saturday, the teams could come in at 11am instead of 6am."

Ganassi driver Marcus Ericsson tells Autosport that he also enjoyed the qualifying format, after landing 10th on the grid for race one and ninth for race two.

"I thought it was pretty cool," says the ex-F1 racer, who finished ninth in both races. "It was quite interesting to look at the grids for the two races. There was quite a big spread for the guys who got a big first lap in and then dropped off on the second, and the others who were perhaps under-driving on the first lap to see what they had from the car, and then nailing the second one.

"So I think the shake-up of the grid between race one and race two was pretty cool, and I hope it's a format they keep at any double-headers on ovals over the next couple of years."

Given that usual qualifying procedure on ovals had always depended on both laps being strong, Ericsson said his approach for Iowa's split between laps one and two in the qualifying session wasn't any different than usual. Whatever the format, it was always going to be hugely important to get both laps as near the limit as possible.

"I went into it with my normal mindset for oval qualifying," Ericsson explains. "I had to go as quick as possible for both laps."

Fair point. And so the fact that the cars were then put in parc ferme conditions - in other words, they qualified with race set-ups - was more significant than the qualifying procedure itself. Still, fate's decree seemed chronically unfair to Pagenaud last weekend, and one would hate to see gimmicks replace a meritocratic system.

While the aeroscreen is here to stay, one imagines Pagenaud may not be the only one glad to see IndyCar's other 2020 innovation left behind in Iowa.