Q: Over the last couple of days I have heard nonstop criticism towards McLaren, Arrow and Schmidt/Peterson for releasing James Hinchcliffe, and I don’t quite understand why. James Hinchcliffe has been in the series for nine years and driven for some of the best teams. In those nine years, he has won a total of only six races, never contended for a championship, and hasn’t been overly impressive in the Indy 500 (the race, not qualifying). In five years with SPM, he won three races including the debacle in New Orleans.

I don’t know the exact figures, but I would assume that Arrow, McLaren and SP are pouring millions of dollars into their organization. I don’t place 100 percent of the blame on Hinchcliffe for the performance at SPM, however Robert Wickens jumped in one of the cars as a rookie and was instantly competitive. All I am saying is that the combination on that team wasn’t working, and for how much money the owners and sponsor pour into it, they deserve the right to do what they want. Pato was extremely fast in lesser equipment this year, so I don’t doubt he will perform at a high level. I am curious to know your opinion of the decision?

Derek E.

RM: I don’t think anyone disagrees with your logic of a team finding the best or most promising talent available, but the outrage is more about the way Hinch found out. My opinion is that I love the way Pato drives, I’m a big Askew fan and I think Hinch is a good driver and a great ambassador.

Q: I just read Derek Daly’s article on RACER.com regarding what’s happening at Arrow McLaren SP. I wholly agree with his assessment that the two young drivers will not consistently win because of their like styles. Hinch would have been the feel sensitive opposite to helping achieve the optimal performance of each other. We all know that Hinchcliffe was between a rock and a hard spot if he was to stay, but Daly appears to have nailed it when arriving at his conclusions pertaining to the two driving styles proven over time. Your thoughts?

Dan Moore, Placerville, CA

RM: I encouraged DD to submit it because it’s an interesting take on the two styles of race driver and both can work under the right circumstances. The best example I have is JPM. Montoya could have cared less about setup and studying data, and all he ever told engineer Morris Nunn was “to get it close” and he’d be fine. It was a great match because Mo was one of the best – just like JPM. Because all the cars today are pretty much spec, not sure you have to have Mario or Uncle Bobby’s chassis acumen to succeed as long as your engineer gets you close and you’ve got obvious skill like O’Ward. Is it tougher to find that extra two-tenths? Probably, and best thing for JPM was that he had Jimmy Vasser to lean on, whereas Pato and Oliver are rookies. But I’m not saying they don’t have the technical skills to succeed. Let’s give them a couple years.

And here’s our obligatory ‘get a Daly photo into the Mailbag at all costs’ shot. The contract doesn’t stipulate a particular Daly. Image by LAT

Q: I read with great interest Derek Daly’s article regarding the “missing ingredient.” Maybe it was just poor timing, but as I read it, I could not help but think the end would bring us to the conclusion that Conor was the “missing ingredient” and should have been selected over O’Ward or Askew for the presence of a more “seasoned” team leader. While he stopped short of that, I’m sure it was a lightly veiled dig at the Arrow McLaren SP driver selection.

I was disappointed in this, since I’ve always held Derek in very high regard dating back to his drives in the Candy Tyrrell cars in the late ’70s and early ’80s, where he certainly over-delivered for Ken Tyrrell. That said, I’m a Daly fan, both father and son. Do you think Conor has a realistic shot at a good seat in 2020, or is he destined for Carlin, which has certainly failed to impress? In many respects I’m hopeful Foyt throws the required money at a revamped program, finds a damper expert, and has Conor return to that second seat. The combination of Conor and Tony provide both components of Derek’s required ingredients. Any chance?

John Del Rio, Tennessee

RM: No doubt Derek is referencing Conor’s strengths and the disappointment that McLaren didn’t go with him, but his premise is certainly viable. I thought Conor’s performance at Carlin this year was a great example of what a chassis man could accomplish – he literally kept changing that car and made them competitive. I wish Trevor would hire him full-time but he needs money, and I’m not sure CD will have any. I asked A.J. a few weeks ago about bringing Conor back and he wasn’t against it, but not sure the feeling is mutual.

Q: I just read Derek Daly’s column on RACER and I really enjoyed his perspective. I had never heard that analogy on drivers, especially when he mentioned Michael Schumacher always having the fastest car, and the reason being is because he provided such great feedback – not just the crew giving him a great car. I also like his comparison between the IndyCar drivers. I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

CAM in LA

RM: The best chassis guys in IndyCar’s golden era were A.J., Mario and Uncle Bobby. Those were the days when you didn’t have engineers or computers – just your butt telling you what you felt. But those three were plenty savvy about shocks, weight, ride height, rake, cross-weight and eventually wings and aerodynamics. On the flipside, Gordon Johncock, Lloyd Ruby and Al Unser didn’t have much chassis smarts, but were naturally talented and the first two made up for their lack of knowledge by driving the wheels off their car every time out. Unser once said that if Johncock had his setup skills he would have won 20 more races. And Big Al was just so smart behind the wheel in a race taking whatever the car had that day.