Dixon engine issue creates a new challenge for Boles

Yesterday at 03:06 PM

New IndyCar president Doug Boles has his first competition decision to make after last week's full-field test at Sebring International Raceway.

Scott Dixon's brand-new engine completed four miles before it suffered a failure which stranded the No. 9 Chip Ganassi Racing Honda on Sebring's outer loop, and based on the series' rulebook, Dixon is the first driver of the season speeding towards a penalty.

The cause of the breakage was unknown at the time, but it was spoken of as a freak occurrence that wasn't related to anything done by the No. 9 crew nor its driver. It was also an isolated incident, as no known motor issues were experienced among the other Honda-powered teams at the test.

Dixon left the pits, returned after a single tour of the 1.67-mile short course, sat as his team looked over the car, and then departed for what would be another out-lap and approximately half of a second lap — 2.5 laps in total — before something went wrong inside his 2.2-liter twin-turbo V6 motor.

Under IndyCar's engine supply system, each entry receives four engines per season at a price of $1.6 million per lease. The four motors are meant to deliver 10,000 combined miles of service — including the final pre-season test — and if more than four are required, drivers are hit with grid penalties for every engine installed beyond the four 'approved' motors.

Once a fifth, sixth, or seventh 'unapproved' engine is used, a six-spot penalty on road/street courses and a nine-spot penalty on ovals is assessed. Although the penalty rule was originally drafted to keep engine suppliers from building powerful but costly short-lifespan motors, the modern application of the engine penalty system has been used to discourage manufacturers from making unnecessary late-season motor changes among their championship contenders.

With high-mileage engines being the most prone to failure, Chevrolet and Honda began calling for unapproved motor changes to place fresh powerplants in the cars of their front-running drivers — intentionally breaking the four-engine limit — to give those drivers the best chances of winning the title. In light of the anomaly that befell the No. 9 car at Sebring, the framework of the engine penalty system wasn't designed to account for such an oddity prior to the season.

With Dixon's four-mile testing plight in mind, the Ganassi driver will arrive at St. Petersburg and take part in Friday's opening practice session with his second motor already in service. With the first engine meant to complete approximately 2500 miles before being replaced, Dixon will reach the end of the 7500 miles of running with the remaining engines well before the season is over, thus triggering a grid position penalty at some point when a fifth is needed to complete the final races.

According to the rules, there are no provisions that would allow the series to make an exception for Dixon or any other drivers who might have suffered an instant failure in testing.

"It’s not fair in this case, but certainly, I have a vested interest," Ganassi managing director Mike Hull told RACER. "To look at the way the rule book is written, if an engine has to be changed because it no longer functions and cannot be remedied on the outside of the engine, the teams pay the price with a penalty down the road. And the manufacturers pay a price because once you get beyond the four (engines) with a particular car, that can no longer score Manufacturers' points.

"I believe many of the teams have asked that the rule be revisited, and every year they come back and say to the teams, 'Well, the engine companies like the rule,' so I don’t know what we’re supposed to do about it, and we’re just gonna have to race the way it is. You don’t have a choice. It's just disappointing."

Boles says he understands Hull's position on the matter but won't make an exception.

"As it relates to the rules, this is a 2025 engine issue, so it does put him in that situation where as you look down the road, there’s likely penalties," Boles told RACER. "I have not been asked by the internal team to address it, and I think the challenge we get into is, the rules are what they are."

The pre-season failure topic will be added to Boles' rules to review for 2026.