Kyle Larson failed Indy 500 and Coca-Cola 600 double attempt this past Sunday, capturing the attention of motorsports fans and reigniting debate over NASCAR’s controversial new rule that penalizes drivers who arrive late to the Coca-Cola 600. The resulting fallout has left industry insiders questioning the feasibility of any future “Double” attempts and whether NASCAR’s policy has forever altered the nature of this rare motorsports achievement.
Industry Figures Clash Over Impact of Larson’s Attempt and NASCAR’s Policy
After Kyle Larson faced back-to-back disappointments at the Indianapolis 500 and the Coca-Cola 600, significant disagreement broke out between The Athletic’s Jeff Gluck and Jordan Bianchi. This debate focused on whether the concept of the Double—a driver competing in both marquee races in a single day—has been effectively quashed. Larson crashed out of the Indy 500 on Lap 91, never making it to the point where NASCAR’s penalty would have taken effect. Still, the rules hovered in the background, intensifying scrutiny of each decision and its consequences.
This season, NASCAR introduced a rule: any driver who arrives late at Charlotte Motor Speedway for the Coca-Cola 600 faces the loss of all playoff points for the year. With Larson’s schedule, if he had managed to finish the Indy 500, reaching Charlotte on time would have been impossible. Even if he had been in the top-10 at Indy, Jeff Gluck asserted that his team, Hendrick Motorsports, would have had to pull him from the car due to the new policy.
“Honestly, yeah. I think they would have pulled him because of the new NASCAR rule, which is freaking stupid,”
—Jeff Gluck, Journalist, The Athletic
Jordan Bianchi, however, defended NASCAR’s side. He argued on The Athletic’s podcast that the organization’s priority is having its star drivers present at their own premier events for fans rather than having them race elsewhere. Bianchi also suggested that the IndyCar Series could help by moving the start time of the Indianapolis 500 earlier in the day to reduce schedule conflicts.
“If I’m NASCAR, I’m OK with this. … I want my star driver there. The driver who is considered one of the best in the world, I want him there,”
—Jordan Bianchi, Journalist, The Athletic
Bianchi went on to frame the matter as a business decision, raising questions about whether NASCAR’s ratings saw significant gains due to Larson’s participation in both events. In his view, it is not NASCAR’s responsibility to enhance the appeal of the Indy 500—protecting its own interests must come first:
“It’s not my job to boost the Indy 500. Yeah, do I want to see the Double? It’s great. At the end of the day, I’m a businessman and I’ve got to do what’s best for business. … Did NASCAR’s ratings shoot up incredibly because Kyle Larson did the Double?”
—Jordan Bianchi, Journalist, The Athletic
How NASCAR’s Double Penalty Shapes Team Decisions
Gluck offered a different perspective, arguing that the presence of top drivers at landmark races creates momentum, benefiting NASCAR’s business by drawing additional fan interest and media exposure. Larson himself was a media focal point throughout the month, participating in interviews and raising awareness about the Coca-Cola 600. However, under the current rules, if a driver like Larson misses the start at Charlotte because of extended time at Indy, the cost is immense—not just for the driver but for any team considering a similar attempt.
“It’s OK if he doesn’t make it on time,”
—Jeff Gluck, Journalist, The Athletic
According to Gluck, the penalty is excessive, stripping a driver of all playoff points for the current and remaining regular season and effectively ending their championship hopes. This harsh consequence, he suggested, will deter others from attempting the Double in the future, regardless of any small schedule changes by IndyCar or NASCAR.
“It’s because of this rule that is going to limit drivers from wanting to put the effort into doing this because they know the consequences are. It’s a gamble. You’re gambling with the weather, the time and the red flag. All this effort this entire month, the people it took to go back-and-forth, the logistics, the travel planning, the practices. … There’s an unbelievable amount that goes into this, just to park your car in the middle of the race or not get to do it after all that, it’s not worth it. The Double is dead. The Double is dead, for now, and it’s because of the NASCAR policy. It’s not because of anything else, in my opinion.”
—Jeff Gluck, Journalist, The Athletic
Inside the Broader Debate: Business Interests versus Racing Tradition
The saga around Kyle Larson failed Indy 500 and Coca-Cola 600 double attempt has exposed a rift among racing stakeholders. Names like Christopher Bell and Ryan Blaney have already surfaced as possible future “Double” candidates, but with the new policy in place, Gluck believes they are unlikely to try. While some, like Bianchi, insist that the priority must remain squarely on protecting NASCAR’s own interests and ensuring star drivers are visible at core events such as the Coca-Cola 600, others argue that the spectacle and challenge of the Double serve to raise the profile of both series and create unique stories in motorsports.
As the debate stretches across organizations including Hendrick Motorsports and reaches venues like Charlotte Motor Speedway and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, industry figures like Jeff Gluck and Jordan Bianchi continue to spar over NASCAR’s evolving role as both a business and a sporting institution.
Significance and Uncertain Future for Double Attempts
The immediate effect of NASCAR’s rule is clear: after Kyle Larson failed Indy 500 and Coca-Cola 600 double attempt, the door to further Double tries appears virtually shut, at least for now. While the intense logistics, grueling schedules, and dependence on unpredictable factors like weather and red flags have always made the Double a rare achievement, the new playoff penalty policy makes it an even riskier proposition. Unless NASCAR or IndyCar adjust start times, rules, or event coordination, star drivers and their teams may see little reason to pursue a Double in the coming years, and fans may lose out on watching these historic feats unfold.
The outcome for 2024 signals a turning point in how cross-series attempts are managed and valued, and the ongoing debate between business priorities and sporting challenges will likely shape event planning and driver decisions for years to come.
