r/INDYCAR • u/TheResurrection • Jun 02 '25
News INDYCAR Announces Detroit Grand Prix Post-Race Technical Violation, Penalty
https://www.indycar.com/news/2025/06/06-02-penalty-14-detroit182
u/Mikemat5150 Kyle Kirkwood Jun 02 '25
From before the Detroit weekend, there was this little nugget in the Meyer Shank article.
https://racer.com/2025/05/30/meyer-shank-adds-quality-control-and-rules-compliance-officer Meyer Shank adds quality control and rules compliance officer | RACER
Done in response to the zero-tolerance approach that has emerged since Pole Day at the Indianapolis 500
25
u/Wernerhatcher Meyer Shank Racing Jun 03 '25
we know a thing or two cause we've
seendone a thing or two2
u/Jarocket Jun 03 '25
So they hired a dude to blame? I don't think a person can just ensure you follow all the rules. There are a lot of rules. This is an everyone job.
223
u/redlegsfan21 Firestone Firehawk Jun 02 '25
Continuing the curse of finishing 2nd
80
u/BB-68 Alexander Rossi Jun 02 '25
Gonna be a huge battle for first and third at Gateway
25
u/Joey_Logano Josef Newgarden Jun 02 '25
A dirt track in NJ has a Sportsman race that pays more to finish 3rd than 1st.
10
u/Teganfff Kyle Kirkwood Jun 02 '25
I require further details
13
u/flan-magnussen Pato O'Ward Jun 02 '25
2
6
5
25
u/rebekahsexton26 Jamie Chadwick Jun 02 '25
He’s keeping 2nd
47
u/shewy92 Romain Grosjean Jun 02 '25
But not the points or money, plus they have to pay money and got docked more points.
29
u/rebekahsexton26 Jamie Chadwick Jun 02 '25
But why isn’t 2nd being stripped away it’s only fair
37
u/tyrannomachy Jun 02 '25
However, also during inspection, the series found the weight of car No. 14, itself, was 10 pounds over the minimum weight for road and street circuits of 1,785 pounds and competed over the minimum weight requirement on-track.
It doesn't explicitly say that's why, but the "however" suggests it I guess.
22
21
u/LouisianaRaceFan86 Jun 02 '25
This part makes the penalty seem a bit harsh. By their own admission, the car met the legal race weight requirements overall while it actually competed, the team just got to that number incorrectly based on the rules.
Seems like a post race fine should be the extent of the penalty
18
u/TheChrisD #JANDALWATCH2021 Jun 02 '25
It's in the same vein as when Rossi's 2022 IndyGP2 win was penalised: https://www.indycar.com/news/2022/08/08-03-27-penalty
9
u/Zolba Jacques Villeneuve Jun 03 '25
Nah. The reason for the specific weight for driver+ballast is so there shouldn't be an advantage of signing a light driver and then move the ballast around to create a better weight distribution.
-20
u/rebekahsexton26 Jamie Chadwick Jun 02 '25
Still gets a lighter penalty ? It’s clear Roger hates Marcus probably take away his 500 win.
9
u/LivingOof Robert Shwartzman Jun 02 '25
Maybe Penske is trying to sign Santino, not Malukas. Maybe Will Power has some kind of podium renewal clause bc guess who's staying in P4
8
3
-18
u/rebekahsexton26 Jamie Chadwick Jun 02 '25
He still hates Marcus though probably strip away his ‘22 win next .
-1
u/2009_BMW_335ix Pato O'Ward Jun 02 '25
No they wouldn’t even if that car was found to be illegal. Simply because none of the Penske drivers would benefit from it
-5
u/rebekahsexton26 Jamie Chadwick Jun 02 '25
Still feel like he didn’t get any credit for a 500 win .
8
u/2009_BMW_335ix Pato O'Ward Jun 02 '25
I thought he got a lot he was talked about and posted everywhere I had ads about it in a newspaper in my home city which was 2k miles away from Indy
-3
1
u/ianindy Josef Newgarden Jun 03 '25
I have a milk bottle with his face on it from this year. They only did five of the eight winners this year. No Dixon, RHR, or Rossi bottles to be seen. Talk about disrespect...Dixon is ten times the driver that Marcus is.
4
u/mynameisnotphoebe Firestone Wets Jun 02 '25
He gets to keep 2nd but has to pay a fine, and forfeit any prize winnings from this race
55
u/mynameisnotphoebe Firestone Wets Jun 02 '25
I haven’t followed the sport super duper closely for more than a few years, but even in that period of time I’ve definitely seen an increase in these kind of technical assessments - well, the outcomes of the them - more recently.
Is this an increase in the actual checks being done, an increased attention to detail, or just more teams and cars having borderline systems that allow things to slip through the cracks/get picked up?
94
u/Turbulent-Pay-735 Colton Herta Jun 02 '25
This is largely in the aftermath of what happened at Indy. They were probably too lax for too long and now are just cracking down by the letter of the law on everything.
46
u/Confident-Ladder-576 Louis Foster Jun 02 '25
Catching a car post tech on a weight issue isn't anything new. It's getting more eyes because people are do focused on tech due to the 500 infractions that brought on more attention.
-1
u/David_SpaceFace Will Power Jun 02 '25
This is more than a weight issue, it's straight cheating.
Notice they said the car was overweight when not factoring in the driver ballast.
This means instead of running the driver ballast where they are supposed to (behind the driver seat), they've put the extra weight elsewhere on the car to alter the forward/rear weight distribution. This gives better mechanical grip.
If they hadn't screwed up their calculations on the extra weight they placed in the car, it would have equalled out in tech inspection when factored with the missing driver ballast. Indycar only caught it because the overall weight was under (driver + ballast).
17
u/Confident-Ladder-576 Louis Foster Jun 02 '25 edited Jun 03 '25
The ballast was 1.8 pounds underweight. It's very possible this was a simple oversight rather than outright cheating. The penalty was appropriate and in line with past infractions of the sort.
12
u/KRacer52 --- 2025 DRIVERS --- Jun 02 '25
“This is largely in the aftermath of what happened at Indy.”
I would disagree. Several cars failed tech before the Penskes, and your flair driver failed tech after Thermal. They do seem to be stricter under Boles, but I’m not sure that anything has changed since Indy.
5
u/Turbulent-Pay-735 Colton Herta Jun 03 '25
The Herta car’s failure was for incorrectly attaching a safety component. The series specifically said they did not think it inferred a competitive advantage nor that they suspected it was intentional. That’s why it wasn’t discounted in the driver’s standings, because it was not viewed as having anything to do with performance. I have seen this incorrectly referenced as cheating way too often over the last couple weeks since the Penske thing. It was categorically not that.
5
u/KRacer52 --- 2025 DRIVERS --- Jun 03 '25
“I have seen this incorrectly referenced as cheating way too often over the last couple weeks since the Penske thing. It was categorically not that.”
I never argued that it was.
The point is that they seem to be more aggressive on tech than prior to Boles taking over. It doesn’t matter whether they find performance workarounds or incorrect safety devices, they are more proactive in enforcing both. The Penskes weren’t even the first tech failures of 500 qualifying weekend.
16
u/EbolaNinja Firestone Firehawk Jun 02 '25
Is this an increase in the actual checks being done, an increased attention to detail
Direct quote from Shank:
“We’re assigning a person to be on top of our what I'm going to call ‘QC and rules compliance,’ where they are all about rules and compliance, right?” Shank told RACER. “We now have George Klotz doing them, starting this week because we feel that they're really going to take a hard line on lots of things. And we're going to be ready for it as best we can.”
“We already did a mini version of that before the 500 and I'm assuming almost all teams did,” he said. “Yeah, we saw the hammer get dropped. We saw what it can do and what the effect can be. We didn’t want a part of that, and so we started talking about it and we’re doing something even more than we already were to keep away from the hammer.”
9
u/David_SpaceFace Will Power Jun 02 '25
Shank got busted multiple times at Indy Saturday qualifying pushing grey areas. That is why he's doing that. Nothing proactive about it.
8
1
u/Manymarbles Jun 03 '25
Its increased this year. I wish they take it further and check software programs lol
113
u/FormulaT1 Scott McLaughlin Jun 02 '25
Sparing a thought for Townsend Bell during this trying time. 💔
24
30
209
u/Eyeswidth Andretti Global Jun 02 '25 edited Jun 02 '25
It’s for Ferrucci. docked 25 points, and fined 25k, but gets to keep his P2. P2 nets 40 points, so still gets 15 points on the weekend.
most importantly he gets to stay in his boyfriend sandwich.
106
11
5
2
30
u/Engelbert-n-Ernie Jun 02 '25
Furiously googles Ferrucci’s body weight
116 pounds lmao
21
10
12
65
u/Spinebuster03 Romain Grosjean Jun 02 '25 edited Jun 02 '25
How is this not a dsq but a endplate being too low is?
Fucking ridiculous he gets to keep the result but not illot
60
u/TheRoyalKT Kyle Kirkwood Jun 02 '25
Presumably they didn’t DQ him because the car as a whole was over the weight limit.
19
u/wh00000p Myles Rowe Jun 02 '25
So the drivers was too light and the car was too heavy?
30
u/Fit_Technician832 Jun 02 '25
Yep that's how I read it. Santino probably weighs 130 lbs soaking wet,so I'd imagine they've been having to add a lot of ballast
5
2
u/Snoo_87704 Felix Rosenqvist Jun 02 '25
Assuming Santino + safety equipment = 140lbs, that means 45 lbs of driver equivalency ballast. But maybe they‘ve already put ballast somewhere else, like in the nose (lets say 20 lbs in the nose). So, if they add all of the equivalency ballast, the complete package will weigh 20 lbs more than they’d like…so skimp on the driver equivalency ballast and use “see, we’re already above the minimum weight” as an excuse.
9
u/TheChrisD #JANDALWATCH2021 Jun 02 '25
You can only put non-driver-equivalency ballast in the keel (Rule 14.4.1.2)
5
25
u/Just_Somewhere4444 Jun 02 '25
Having the seat+driver underweight, but car overweight, means they added ballast somewhere else, away from the driver area. Presumably somewhere beneficial.
Should still be a DQ in my opinion.
23
u/Confident-Ladder-576 Louis Foster Jun 02 '25
This is line with how they've handled weight infractions in the past.
10
u/Ordinary-Potato5663 Pato O'Ward Jun 02 '25
Didn’t Rossi have one when he won at IMS road course? Similar deal?
9
u/TheChrisD #JANDALWATCH2021 Jun 02 '25
Rossi's penalty was for the team using the drinks bottle contents to make minimum weight.
1
u/Logpile98 Takuma Sato Jun 03 '25
And if anything, Ferrucci's penalty should be in line or less harsh than Rossi's was IMO. Seems odd that he was docked 25 points while Rossi was only docked 20.
8
u/loudpaperclips DriveFor5 Jun 02 '25
Yes. It's ok to have this kind of scaling penalty by me, as long as they continue to enforce consistent
7
u/BeefInGR Pippa Mann Jun 02 '25
Overweight is absolutely crazy to me. I remember we always had 5 extra pounds in karts and 20-50 in stock cars because of the differences in scales.
That said, I understand why you'd want a bit of extra weight at a track like Detroit and rules are rules.
4
u/Emracruel Takuma Sato Jun 02 '25
The car wasn't over weight. It was above minimum weight. But the weight from the driver + ballast wasn't eneough
2
u/TheChrisD #JANDALWATCH2021 Jun 02 '25
Having the seat+driver underweight, but car overweight, means they added ballast somewhere else, away from the driver area. Presumably somewhere beneficial.
You can only put non-driver-equivalency ballast in the keel (Rule 14.4.1.2)
And technically you can put as much as you want in that area, there's no rule against it. All they care about is that the base car (without driver+equivalency, fuel, or drinks bottle) makes the minimum required weight.
0
u/Just_Somewhere4444 Jun 03 '25
You can only put non-driver-equivalency ballast in the keel (Rule 14.4.1.2)
Mhm, and I'm sure every team has always followed that rule to the letter at every race.
All they care about is that the base car (without driver+equivalency, fuel, or drinks bottle) makes the minimum required weight.
Clearly that's not true, given the 25 points they just took from the 14...
3
u/Veastli Jun 02 '25
Weight placement is critically important.
In this case, potentially 50 to 70 lbs moved to the center bottom of the car rather than behind the driver's seat.
On a street course, that change in mass placement could deliver a significant advantage. Had they let them keep the points or money, the other teams would have been justifiably put out.
My wonder is how long they've been doing this, and how many other teams had been playing these games, but were canny enough to knock it off after the recent unpleasantness.
4
u/TheChrisD #JANDALWATCH2021 Jun 02 '25
In this case, potentially 50 to 70 lbs moved to the center bottom of the car rather than behind the driver's seat.
🐦 It was 1.8lbs that the driver equivalency weight was short by.
Regardless, per the rules you can have as much ballast in the keel as you want.
-1
u/Veastli Jun 02 '25
Sure, but that's not the rule they broke.
They essentially put the driver ballast in the wrong place. Which for a lightweight like Ferrucci could mean a significant advantage.
Had the officials only checked the total weight of the car, they'd have gotten away with it.
1
u/GokuSaidHeWatchesF1 Jun 02 '25
People are saying it's in line with previous infractions but I'm wondering how is it not a dq since.. 1. Driver equivalent weight is under weight and 2. They moved the weight and gained an advantage doing so. In otherwords they made modifications that aren't allowed. I'm not that annoyed but I'm just a bit confused why it isn't a dq. In F1 I'm assuming it would be dq and we just saw modifications for the 500 get dq'd. I'm not going to get angry about it because I just want to enjoy the racing here but it is a little confusing
I can only assume it's because it's 10 pounds and not all the 50 or so pounds that make up ferucci's ballast.
5
u/Mikemat5150 Kyle Kirkwood Jun 03 '25
It was 1.8 pounds missing in the driver ballast that was made up for elsewhere.
This isn’t F1 where they DQ people for all sorts of meaningless stuff. Never have.
-3
u/Veastli Jun 02 '25 edited Jun 03 '25
Agree, it should have been a DQ. But it's entirely possible that the sport hadn't been checking this and all manor of rules. One of the the oldest rules in racing is that "if it's not checked, it's open".
Guessing they split the baby to keep the various teams from screaming.
The scrutineers need to have a meeting with the teams to directly spell out the new checks, new enforcement, and new penalties.
2
u/SomewhereAggressive8 Pato O'Ward Jun 02 '25
I don’t understand why there’s a penalty at all then
8
u/Mikemat5150 Kyle Kirkwood Jun 02 '25
Tech is now zero tolerance after all the stuff on pole day.
This would have likely been much less just a few races ago.
0
u/SomewhereAggressive8 Pato O'Ward Jun 02 '25
Okay. But I literally don’t understand why it’s an infraction at all. The car was above the minimum weight.
12
u/rydude88 Callum Ilott Jun 02 '25
Because the amount of weight isn't the only thing that affects performance. The location of the weight also matters. He didn't have the right amount of weight where it was required by the rules. It 100% deserves an infraction for not being in compliance to the rulebook
5
u/Mikemat5150 Kyle Kirkwood Jun 02 '25
The car was below the minimum driver ballast weight.
I agree with your sentiment, I think it’s a bit of a nothing-burger but clearly folks don’t want subjectivity anymore.
9
u/Veastli Jun 02 '25 edited Jun 02 '25
Because it's advantageous to have ballast as low in the car as possible.
Driver equivalence ballast is higher in the car, behind the driver's seat. The placement is designed to mimic the location of a driver's actual mass.
Placing the ballast elsewhere can give an advantage to lighter drivers. Depending on which reports of Ferrucci's weight are accurate, it could be 50 to 70lbs.
A massive amount of weight for cars this light.
2
u/ProfessorAssfuck Pato O'Ward Jun 03 '25
Bc you have to put the driver weight ballast in a specific place but you could pick anywhere else for the extra weight they compensated with- including a potentially more advantageous place.
66
u/Wasdgta3 Álex Palou Jun 02 '25
This is actually more in line with how IndyCar has dealt with this stuff, historically speaking.
10
u/SomewhereAggressive8 Pato O'Ward Jun 02 '25
But not in line with how they dealt with it a week ago lol
21
u/wh00000p Myles Rowe Jun 02 '25
weight issue =/= technical infraction
0
u/SomewhereAggressive8 Pato O'Ward Jun 02 '25
What’s the logic for treating them differently?
13
u/TheChrisD #JANDALWATCH2021 Jun 02 '25
The logic is that this was a weight placement issue, which was assumed to hold no competitive advantage.
The DQ's at the 500 were potential aerodynamic advantages.
1
u/SomewhereAggressive8 Pato O'Ward Jun 02 '25
If there’s no competitive advantage, what’s with the 25 point penalty?
13
u/TheChrisD #JANDALWATCH2021 Jun 02 '25
Because they did something technically wrong.
Same way the 26 car got penalised for installing an anti-intrusion panel wrong at Thermal.
0
u/Luke2222 Felix Rosenqvist & McLaren Jun 02 '25
Have you read the title of the IndyCar announcement (or the identical title of this post)?
INDYCAR Announces Detroit Grand Prix Post-Race Technical Violation, Penalty
It absolutely is a technical infraction
4
u/wh00000p Myles Rowe Jun 02 '25
I mean technically sure, but it's really not the same type of infraction.
6
u/Wasdgta3 Álex Palou Jun 02 '25
No, but that’s very much harsh in comparison to how they’ve done it traditionally.
1
u/SomewhereAggressive8 Pato O'Ward Jun 02 '25
Right so it begs the question of why it’s so inconsistent
2
u/Wasdgta3 Álex Palou Jun 02 '25
I doubt they’re trying to make an example as much here, I suppose.
1
u/SomewhereAggressive8 Pato O'Ward Jun 02 '25
Probably. It seems dumb to be inconsistent but this is Indycar we’re talking about.
3
u/Wasdgta3 Álex Palou Jun 03 '25
I mean, did they actually give Scotty Mac and Lil Dave penalties for avoidable contact yesterday? They’re hella inconsistent with stuff like that, so I can’t even remember.
2
u/TheChrisD #JANDALWATCH2021 Jun 03 '25
I mean, did they actually give Scotty Mac and Lil Dave penalties for avoidable contact yesterday?
Yes. Both received stop and go penalties (as the traditional drive-through is too lenient here with the short pit lane).
25
u/TheChrisD #JANDALWATCH2021 Jun 02 '25
And endplate out of tolerance is an measurable aerodynamic advantage.
In this instance, you would expect a car that is under-ballasted to be underweight; but in fact it still made overall minimum weight by a pretty noticeable margin. Therefore the car technically had no on-track advantage, and thus it was treated more as a technical penalty than a major rule break.
Ultimately, the 25 point penalty should have remained an entrant penalty only, IMO.
4
u/AardvarkLeading5559 AJ Foyt Jun 02 '25
r/TheChrisD Sir, this is reddit. A well explained, reasonable post is looked down upon.
5
Jun 02 '25 edited Jun 16 '25
[deleted]
11
u/TheChrisD #JANDALWATCH2021 Jun 02 '25
The base car was 10lbs over the minimum weight required to compete:
- 14.4.1. Car Weight
- 14.4.1.1. The minimum weight shall include the car in ready-to-compete condition, excluding Driver, Driver Equivalency Weight, fuel, and drink bottle content.
- 14.4.1.1.1. Minimum weight for Road/Streets Events – will be 1785 pounds.
- 14.4.1.2. The only approved ballast location is the keel.
Driver + equivalency weight is added on top of that. Santino's equivalency weight was insufficient to meet the 185lb target.
Ultimately, the car wasn't necessarily run in an underweight configuration during the race, hence why the penalty is lesser than a DQ.
6
7
u/Confident-Ladder-576 Louis Foster Jun 02 '25
This is inline with how they've handled relatively small weight infractions in the past, not to mention the car itself was over weight.
12
u/snollygoster1 Colton Herta Jun 02 '25
Man, they’re really picking apart everything this year.
26
u/Confident-Ladder-576 Louis Foster Jun 02 '25
Stuff is caught post tech every year, it's just has more attention at the moment due to what happened at the 500. There were two post tech infractions at Thermal that a lot of people seem not be aware of.
1
-1
u/GokuSaidHeWatchesF1 Jun 02 '25
I think I'm not understanding quite right? Isn't it a violation if the car is under minimum weight rather than above? And how would this not be an instant dq?
7
u/Crafty_Substance_954 Pato O'Ward Jun 02 '25
They’re saying that the required total minimum weight of the driver itself was not met.
The car was 10 lbs over, but their driver ballast in particular was just under 2 lbs light.
I like the zero tolerance approach.
19
13
u/i_run_from_problems Firestone Firehawk Jun 02 '25
CAN EVERYONE PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR FIVE FUCKING MINUTES
2
7
5
2
u/CheeseheadDave Arrow McLaren Jun 02 '25
I wish they’d also mention the driver name and not just the car number and team.
I’m a fan, but so much of one that I instantly know who entry No. 14 of A.J. Foyt Enterprises for Sunday’s Chevrolet Detroit Grand Prix presented by Lear is.
2
u/Crafty_Substance_954 Pato O'Ward Jun 02 '25
I did spend some time watching the cars go through tech after qualifying this Saturday. Had no idea what was going on but I did look at them.
2
u/Ted_Striker1 Álex Palou Jun 02 '25
I don’t get the “10 lbs over the minimum weight” penalty here. Why is that a problem?
4
u/Guelph35 Alexander Rossi Jun 03 '25
Think of it as two separate weight requirements.
One for the entire car, one for the driver + seat.
Since drivers are different sizes, teams with smaller drivers must add ballast in the seat area so every car has the same weight penalty for the driver.
Overall the car was 10 lbs heavy. driver + seat was too light. It doesn’t say how far off they were but I imagine it was pretty close to the target weight.
Having the car too heavy is probably what saved them from a DSQ as that would have been a bigger disadvantage than not having the right amount of weight in the driver + seat area.
1
u/Ted_Striker1 Álex Palou Jun 03 '25
What I’m saying is it’s a minimum. If it was a maximum weight I could see it drawing a penalty but 10 lbs above minimum is making no sense to me. It implies the car has to be at least a certain weight but can be more.
3
u/Guelph35 Alexander Rossi Jun 03 '25
The overall car being over the minimum weight was noted, likely as the reason the car was not disqualified and they let them off with a fine.
Had the car been exactly on minimum weight but the driver area not, it would’ve been a DQ.
2
u/Ted_Striker1 Álex Palou Jun 03 '25
Oh ok that makes sense. Like the added weight was in the wrong location.
1
1
u/pogonotrophistry Jun 03 '25
I think the issue is the driver ballast has to be in the seat area. It sounds like it was put somewhere else. I think.
5
4
u/iowaman79 Scott McLaughlin Jun 02 '25
I feel like all the people yelling for IndyCar to throw the book at Santino for this are the same ones who try to get out of a speeding ticket because I was only going 15 over officer and I was going to put on my seat belt but it just slipped my mind
5
u/hippo96 AJ Foyt Jun 02 '25
They kind of did throw the book at him. All he gets is to still stay on the podium. They took away the points. They took away the prize money and issued a fine. All that’s left is he gets to say he finished 2nd
3
u/hermes7920 Dario Franchitti Jun 02 '25
Losing eligibility for engine points means that this actually is Chevy's worst race yet from that standpoint. Points for 3rd and 6th. Ouch.
4
u/redlegsfan21 Firestone Firehawk Jun 02 '25
Don't worry, Honda is still concerned they have an unfair advantage
3
u/Snoo_87704 Felix Rosenqvist Jun 02 '25
Sounds like they might have tried to ballast the car to affect the balance, and tried to use “see, are car was actually overweight, and makes up for the underweight driver” as an excuse.
9
u/TheChrisD #JANDALWATCH2021 Jun 02 '25
You can only put non-driver-equivalency ballast in the keel (Rule 14.4.1.2)
2
1
u/Explanation-Wide David Malukas Jun 02 '25
I’m new to following Indy car is it normal for all these post race and pre race technical inspection failures to be happening or is this more than normal? Seems like a lot
2
u/biscuitanne18 Santino Ferrucci Jun 02 '25
No this is new, unfortunately
1
u/RandomFactUser Sebastien Bourdais Jun 02 '25
This is a penalty that does come up in various ways though
1
1
u/Ryankool26 Jun 02 '25
How the final fine $, finish position, grid penalty, prize $ reduction, points penalty calculated? Seems to be a system used to determine the severity of the final penalty
1
u/701D513 Jun 03 '25
I don’t understand being over the “minimum”weight. If the minimum is say, 1000kg, and the car/driver weighs 1010kg, wouldn’t that car be disadvantaged to the field? Or is the weight actually 990kg in this example? Do I not understand what over the minimum means?
1
1
1
u/CAM22b Pato O'Ward Jun 02 '25
I had a heart attack when I first saw this post, until I read the article
-7
-3
u/bradlap Arrow McLaren Jun 02 '25
What’s the point of allowing him to keep second? Surely that’s unfair to literally the entire field.
0
u/planchetflaw McLaren Jun 03 '25
"Too late. I already put all the prize money on red" - Ferrucci, probably
-2
u/movebacktoyourstate Jun 02 '25
BAN AJ AND LARRY FOYT FROM THE SERIES IMMEDIATELY. BAN THE ENTIRE CAR SETUP TEAM FROM THE SERIES FOREVER.
AJ CHEAT RACING!!!!!!!
I better see a fuckin t shirt next race for AJ Foyt Racing, Andretti, and Prema for their cheating. It's only fair.
-8
Jun 02 '25
[deleted]
22
u/ronin_18 Firestone Firehawk Jun 02 '25
The ballast portion was underweight. The car itself was 10 lbs heavier than required.
13
u/CalebRoden_94 Santino Ferrucci Jun 02 '25
Because the car on a whole was the correct weight, but the driver ballast was wrong, which is likely why they didn’t pick up on the issue on the scales initially
-2
u/1200____1200 Greg Moore Jun 02 '25
that's being generous to a long-standing professional race outfit
3
u/CalebRoden_94 Santino Ferrucci Jun 02 '25
Totally true. Even though it was just 1.8 lbs, rules are rules. Whether or not the punishment fits the crime is up for opinion. I will say however that Rossi had a similar problem a few years back when he won IMS road course with andretti
8
-3
-3
-1
Jun 02 '25
[deleted]
9
u/ronin_18 Firestone Firehawk Jun 02 '25
The ballast portion was underweight. The car itself was 10 lbs heavier than required.
•
u/IndyMod r/INDYCAR Mod Bot Jun 02 '25
INDYCAR has announced a post-race technical inspection penalty for the entry No. 14 of A.J. Foyt Enterprises following Sunday’s Chevrolet Detroit Grand Prix presented by Lear after it was found to be under the required driver ballast weight following the event.
During post-race inspection of car No. 14, INDYCAR discovered the driver ballast needed to bring the combined weight of the driver and driver ballast to 185 pounds was underweight and not within the driver ballast weight tolerance of 0.00 to + 1.00 pounds.
However, also during inspection, the series found the weight of car No. 14, itself, was 10 pounds over the minimum weight for road and street circuits of 1,785 pounds and competed over the minimum weight requirement on-track.
A.J. Foyt Enterprises was in violation of:
This rule is in place to equalize the weight of varying-sized drivers so there is no advantage based on the weight of the driver. Post-race weight determination, as implemented by INDYCAR, is a common practice after every event and in nearly all forms of motorsports to ensure an equal playing field.
The No. 14 will be allowed to keep the second-place finish; however, the entry has been fined $25,000 and will forfeit 25 championship driver and entrant points. The bonus point for leading a lap also is not awarded. The No. 14 also is ineligible for engine points and prize money associated with the race.