Andretti Cheating Methods Exposed (photos)

There have been conflicting theories about what exactly Andretti Global did to warrant two disqualifications from the Indianapolis 500. The initial statement announcing the penalties seemed intentionally vague and raised more questions than it answered.

After a week of journalistic prodding by Racer’s Marshall Pruett, IMS and IndyCar President Doug Boles finally granted an interview on the post-race penalties. Read the full interview here

Here is what we learned:

• The 28 of Marcus Ericsson and 27 of Kyle Kirkwood had front suspension Energy Management System covers that were not installed “as supplied” by Dallara. (they were modified)
• Only the top 12 finishers were subject to post-race technical inspection.
• Even after both Andretti cars in the top 12 failed technical inspection for the same reason, no attempt was made to check the 26 of Colton Herta (17th) or the 98 of Marco Andretti (DNF). This is in contrast to the handling of the Penske epoxygate saga from qualifying weekend where IndyCar chose to inspect the attenuator of the wrecked 3 car of Scott McLaughlin who did not even participate in that day’s qualifying session due to the damage sustained from his crash in morning practice.
• Even though the original statement on the Andretti disqualifications from May, 25 said "these modifications provided the capability of enhanced aerodynamic efficiency to both cars.” the application of the rule was pass/fail with no regard for the actual advantage gained or any intent behind the modification.

If you thought the Energy Management System might have something to do with an engine computer or maybe some hybrid component you’d be in good company but you’d be wrong. The Energy Management System is the inelegant name Dallara gave to the system of Kevlar tethers that keep each wheel assembly and both wings attached to the chassis in the event of a crash. Perhaps the name was more descriptive in Italian.

This is the only known photo taken of the Andretti cars in that fateful technical inspection after the Indy 500. Looking at the right front suspension you can see that the EMS covers have been removed and the a-arms are visible. You can see a black spacer on the front leg of the a-arm and a yellow spacer on the rear leg.

These are not Dallara supplied parts. They do not resemble anything supplied by Dallara. This means Andretti fabricated these pieces from scratch themselves with the goal of manipulating the geometry of the EMS covers.

You can easily tell by the profile of the black spacer that their goal was to tilt the leading edge of the cover downward. Since the front suspension arms are some of the first surfaces to meet the oncoming air, they are incredibly sensitive aerodynamically. Even the slightest adjustment to this zone can reap big rewards.

This is not news to anyone in the paddock, I’m told that every team pays a lot of care and attention to these pieces and rotating these covers forward is a common goal. The key difference here is that the changes most teams make can only be measured with calipers and easily fall within the bounds of “fitment” allowable within the rules. Unlike the Penske infractions from the week before, this modification would have given the Andretti cars a clear advantage, and a big one at that. One engineer speculated that these changes made to the front suspension could result in a reduction in drag similar to reducing the rear wing angle by 1-1.5 degrees but without the loss of downforce and stability. This could unlock potential gains of ~.250 mph in faster average speed, a massive advantage around Indianapolis.

The IndyCar rulebook is not well written. Several of the recent infractions were found to be illegal not because it broke a rule but because it wasn’t specifically allowed in the rules. Asking for forgiveness instead of permission is not a valid strategy here. While it does have some specific language about what scoring changes need to be made in the event of a tech inspection failure (which were first applied correctly in the Penske attenuator case then ignored the next day) specific grid, personnel, and monetary penalties for off-track infractions are left wide open. This is why Rule 9.3.1. has been invoked in each of these cases as a catch-all rule that essentially allows IndyCar to penalize anyone for anything as they see fit.

Rule 9.3.1. Improper Conduct – Any member attempting to or engaging in unsportsmanlike conduct, unsafe conduct, or conduct detrimental to racing; INDYCAR; and/or to the NTT INDYCAR SERIES, whether during an Event or on/off the Track, may be subject to any or all penalties.

For years now the consequences for breaking these unwritten rules have been left open to interpretation and filtered through the vague and unfocussed lens of Rule 9.3.1. It’s easy to see how, after 13 years with the DW-12 chassis, lines have been blurred, crossed, and blurred again. To borrow an engineering term it’s a problem of stacked tolerances.

Andretti Global's cheating efforts however were never going to go under the radar. Manufacturing your own parts to reshape the covers from the inside out blatantly disregards the rulebook and the simple fact that Andretti chose to appeal their disqualifications had me scratching my head.

That was until I realized that within the convoluted rules outlining the IndyCar penalty review process there is a provision requiring all parties to keep the results of the review confidential. Andretti had no hope of getting the infractions thrown out and virtually no chance of getting the penalties reduced. The penalties were identical to those dropped on Team Penske for a much lesser crime only a week before. That was never their goal. By making sure that IndyCar was bound by this confidentiality clause they succeeded in keeping the details quiet and limiting the embarrassment to their team and sponsors.

Most of us know Doug Boles as an IndyCar lifer, affable host of his Behind the Bricks video series and former co-owner of the IRL’s fan favorite Panther Racing but theres more to him than that. J. Douglas Boles, Esq. is a lawyer by trade with some history in politics before switching to business. A serious man for these serious times and a steady hand on the wheel as IndyCar navigates some rough terrain in an ever-changing motorsports landscape.

Lawyers are like vampires, they may wield some formidable powers but they are also bound by some pretty inane rules. President Boles, being the former, seems to have felt he could not share any new details that weren’t already included in the original penalty statement for fear of breaching this confidentiality clause and being turned into a bat. I mean sued.

In reality, this only served to draw out this process weeks longer and left the job of disclosing the details of the actual cheating to a scrub like me.

When asked by Marshall Pruett whether IndyCar would consider being more forthright with the public about the infractions they choose to penalize, even providing photo or video evidence when necessary, Boles said that he would be open to it. “It would eliminate some of the rumor and speculation. It would be clear what the violation was. So it's definitely something to be considered.” I personally would love to see it. There’s a new independent sanctioning body on the way for IndyCar in 2026 but I see no reason to wait. Transparency can start today.

‍

The comment section is on X @BenScruggsGP