OpenAI is helping a racing team find speed in places the human eye cannot see. Its researchers are working with Chip Ganassi Racing to make sense of the data coming off its IndyCars. NASCAR teams chase those same margins every weekend. So why has IndyCar become the more visible home for this kind of AI partnership? Former NASCAR driver Landon Cassill apparently has the answer.
Watch What’s Trending Now!
“Is NASCAR losing the culture war? F1 is winning that culture war of celebrity interest and high-tech interest. American brands are spending tens of millions of dollars more in F1 than they are in NASCAR, despite NASCAR being 65% of all motorsports. Despite the fact that NASCAR’s viewership on a Sunday is four times the size of F1’s,” Cassill said on The Money Lap.
His comparison raises an awkward question. A large audience should make NASCAR attractive to sponsors, but companies increasingly want more than millions of people seeing their logos. They want partnerships that show what their technology can do and give them a story worth telling. Parker Kligerman brought that problem into focus when the conversation turned to artificial intelligence.
“Just think about the most talked-about companies right now, by far. Put aside what they do and all the people. I can’t believe you mentioned that, but AI, OpenAI, and Anthropic. They’re not NASCAR,” Kligerman said.
OpenAI’s relationship with Ganassi is a good example. The partnership began after OpenAI researcher Joyce Ruffell met team executives at a Women in Motorsports event in Indianapolis. What followed was a collaboration.
A Ganassi IndyCar has more than 200 sensors and can generate nearly one billion data points per hour during a race. Engineers must turn that information into decisions about car setup, strategy, and performance. OpenAI’s tools help them find answers faster, giving engineers more time to focus on improving the car. The partnership has also become a public-facing project through the R&D documentary series.
OpenAI gets to demonstrate its technology against a real challenge. Ganassi gets another resource to help it compete. Fans get a look at the work behind the racing. It is a more substantial proposition than simply putting a logo on a car. For Cassill, that makes the choice surprising.
“There’s a perception there that, in my opinion, NASCAR’s losing that culture war,” he said. “The fact that AI companies will invest in IndyCar over NASCAR, to me, is astonishing, because more money in engineering resources is being spent on NASCAR than IndyCar.”
NASCAR once had corporate America lining up
The suggestion that NASCAR struggles to attract major companies would have sounded strange during the sport’s commercial boom. In 2005, Fortune reported that NASCAR had 106 Fortune 500 companies as sponsors, more than any other sport. By 2015, NASCAR reported that more than one in four Fortune 500 companies used the sport in their marketing.
FedEx, Home Depot and Lowe’s became familiar names in the garage. These companies used drivers, teams and races to promote products and build customer loyalty. NASCAR had something businesses valued: an audience that followed the sport closely and recognised the brands supporting it.
That corporate connection has weakened. A 2023 BlackBook Motorsport analysis found that Fortune 500 companies accounted for around 60% of primary sponsors at the 2005 Daytona 500. By 2023, that share had fallen to roughly 20%. Major companies have not disappeared from NASCAR, but the change shows why attracting new corporate partners matters.
Formula 1 offers global exposure, celebrity access and an image closely tied to luxury and advanced technology. IndyCar has found a way to make its engineering work relevant to a company at the centre of the AI boom. NASCAR must convince potential partners that it offers something equally valuable.
It would be unfair to suggest NASCAR has done nothing to attract technology companies. Qualcomm has worked with Trackhouse Racing, while Hendrick Motorsports has partnered with Check Point Software Technologies on cybersecurity.
Those relationships show that technology companies are willing to invest in NASCAR. The question is whether the sport can make these partnerships as visible and compelling as OpenAI’s work with Ganassi.
That brings Cassill’s criticism back to perception. NASCAR can have sophisticated engineering departments and still struggle to turn that expertise into a story that excites outsiders. Its competitors are making the connection between racing and technology easier for the public to see.