Chevrolet positive over IndyCar’s universal 2018 aerokit

On the eve of Chevrolet winning its fifth Manufacturers Championship in the six years since it returned to the sport, Kent said he felt IndyCar had done the right thing for the branch of the sport.

“We’ve had great success with and without the aerokits,” he said. “We look forward to 2018, as IndyCar looks to carry the series forward with its longterm vision of going back to a common kit to make the sport more interesting – hopefully for new fans but also for new engine manufacturers.

“We support that and we’ll continue to work hand in hand with our teams to make sure they’re ready for the 2018 season.”

However, Kent was also keen to emphasize that he did not feel the aerokits were a bad idea per se.

“I do think the aerokits moved the series forward,” he said. “They moved the performance level up, I think there were things we learned about safety, and I think as the plan for 2018 comes together, we’ll take those learning steps and make the ’18 kit very attractive for the participants and the fans.

“The kits did what they set out to do, which was 1) create some differentiation between the cars, and 2) provide the manufacturers with the opportunity to outwork, out-engineer and hopefully outperform their competition. And I believe the Chevrolet kit did that.

“But as time rolls on, there’s a new chapter, and we’re supportive of the way they’re trying to go. We would love to see another engine manufacturer join the series.”

Although back in March, Kent told Motorsport.com that he liked the visual point of differentiation between the aerokits – and later added that there he felt there were “no areas where the aerokit did not perform as it set out to do” – he pointed out that the differences between Pratt & Miller’s Chevy kit and Honda Performance Development’s kit were less overt now.

He also indicated that the speculation that IndyCar would also allow the individual teams more engineering freedom in 2018 was accurate.

He said: “I think if you look at the cars now, over time they have started migrating toward the two looking the same [whereas] the new car will offer the chance for all the cars to look different.” 

Anticipating collaboration over the 2018 kit

Kent said that although Pratt & Miller excelled itself in coming up with an aerokit superior to Honda Performance Development’s version, he wasn’t sure who would be designing the universal kit for 2018.

“I’m not really sure what our role will be, or who will be responsible for development,” he said. “I’d like to believe that Chevrolet will be asked for our input on the kit. It’s wise to take our learnings and I would anticipate a collaborative effort between Chevrolet, Honda and IndyCar to ensure that the learnings from this aerokit on the performance side and the safety side are carried forward.”

Kent said he welcomed the fact that from 2018 there will be more importance on an engine’s power, torque and drivability.

“It will definitely put more focus on the engine, but it’s all the other elements, too. It’s the teams, the execution, the drivers and everyone learning how to use the kit, too.”

On the subject of making the Verizon IndyCar Series more appealing to potential new car manufacturers, Kent observed that asking a third marque to come up with ‘just’ an engine made the series more enticing than if the brand was expected also to produce an aerokit.

He said: “Aerokits are expensive, as is any element of racing when you’re working to try and find that little advantage over the competition. So while they had great benefits, they are also expensive and we believe that was a deterrent to new engine manufacturers. And coming into a series where Honda and Chevrolet already had a couple of years of experience on the aerokit could put them at a competitive disadvantage. So if you eliminate the aerokit part of it, hopefully it will be more attractive on the pure engine side.”

Keen to retain current engine formula

Kent insisted that IndyCar’s current engine formula, of a turbocharged 2.2-liter V6 running alternative fuel and direct injection is relevant.

“One of the key drivers in us coming back into the series [in 2012] was that the engine was relevant to what we put in our production cars,” he said, “and that technology will remain relevant for years to come. So we’re not advocating any significant change to the engine architecture.

“We’re always open to discussion with IndyCar if there is a need to change the architecture in the interest of the series. Just like with the aerokit, we’re willing to work with IndyCar.

“But looking at what we race today, I think the current architecture should be relevant to anyone out there – V6s and turbocharging and direct injection is normal across the marketplace. So I don’t believe there’s a need for a total reset to attract someone new. There may be a need to make some minor revisions, but I don’t foresee a wholesale change.”