He told Motorsport.com: “The whole idea of going to aerokits was to raise the profile of the series and the manufacturers within it, and to bring new fans in. So any decision about the future of the kits needs to be centered around whether or not the goals we had were met.

“Aerokits were meant to gain more interest and to show a manufacturer’s technical abilities, but the other side of it is that they do not bring truly open development, you’re still forced to work within boxes and it’s expensive for the manufacturers and the teams.

"If the teams can’t create enough sponsorship interest to cover the costs, are the benefits being outweighed by the negatives?”

Jay Frye, IndyCar's president of competitions and operations, told Motorsport.com that changing the rules already set in place for 2017 and ’18 would require "somewhat of a consensus" between the various stakeholders within the Verizon IndyCar Series.

St. Cyr agreed with Frye. Asked if the decision on the future of aerokits needs to be made by the series, the manufacturers and how much the manufacturers need to consult their teams, St. Cyr said: “Everybody deserves a voice. We need to make sure we have common ground with our teams and with our rivals on how to go forward.”

However, St. Cyr also stated that if that 'common ground' was the Verizon IndyCar Series continuing with the rules as they stand – two aero kit development boxes opened for 2017, and two more in 2018 – Honda Performance Development was prepared to work within that framework.

He declared: “We are Honda Motor Company. The main impetus for us is the engine side; we absolutely want to compete. But we also want to compete in the pinnacle series of open-wheel racing in North America, so we'll comply with whatever it takes to do that and do that effectively.

“Honda is a big supporter of open-wheel racing in America, and whatever we can do to strengthen IndyCar, we will do. We’ve demonstrated that we want to be here. We’ve been in U.S. open-wheel racing for 22 years continuously, the only manufacturer to do that, while others come and go.

“Aerokits were not something we were looking to do in the first place," he added. "We questioned whether that was the right direction. But we’re here now, so we’ll work with IndyCar and all its partners in terms of thinking, ‘What is best for IndyCar next? What’s the best way to grow the sport? What are our goals?’”

Time is pressing

St. Cyr did emphasize that a decision to continue with the rules or to halt manufacturer development of aerokits would need to come quickly, in the best interests of saving money.

He declared: “Whichever way the decision goes, the sooner the better. As we developed the 2016 kit, we could see strengths and weaknesses and therefore areas where we might have development opportunity [for 2017]. And when you’re in competition, you’re always developing the engine, always developing the aerokit, so that has never stopped.

“We have to play by the rules as they stand right now so at HPD we’re planning on two development boxes for next year and two boxes in 2018. But as soon as we get past Indy, things get serious, because that's when we start making prototype parts, testing in the windtunnel, and so on.

"So if there’s going to be a change in direction by the series and all its partners, then the sooner we can all reallocate our efforts and resources, the better.”

Rising costs were inevitable but not predictable

For the 2016 season, IndyCar engine lease prices were raised from $750k to $1m, and there was much speculation that rather than specifically being attributable to engine development, this price was raised to help Chevrolet and Honda cover the higher-than-expected costs of aerokit development.

St. Cyr said that while the escalating price of competing in IndyCar was inevitable once Honda had competition again from 2012 onward, the extent of the expense had still surprised all parties involved.

“As soon as you introduce competition, costs go up because you’re always looking at ways to improve this or that – everything in fact,” he said. “The work never stops.

"But what was not quite foreseen was how expensive it would be for the teams, for the manufacturers, and the fact that we did not get an increase in fan interest that justified the cost.

“I’m not going to say how much we’ve spent on developing aerokits," he continued, "but it’s never been our intention to make money on these things. What we earn or don’t earn on these aerokits is secondary to whether it benefits the series.”

Identity less clear now

Although one of IndyCar's intentions with the aero kits was to make Chevrolet-powered cars and Honda-powered cars more visually distinct from each other, several high-profile IndyCar personalities – including Roger Penske and Chevrolet’s director of motorsports Mark Kent – have already observed that in the second year of manufacturer aerokits, the designs have converged.

St. Cyr concurred, and added: “When we first introduced aerokits, they were as different as they were ever going to be, and yet if you’d asked a casual fan the differences, he or she would have just looked at them and said, ‘They’re the same; they’re open-wheel cars.’

“Well-informed IndyCar fans can tell you the differences between the two kits. But are we trying to appeal to the hardcore enthusiast or are we trying to expand our reach?

“So that’s the point, isn’t it? What are we doing with aero kits? Would the investment in aerokits be better used to build the series as a whole? We must have conversations about this.”

On the subject of attracting new fans, St. Cyr also believes that switching to spec bodywork would be a chance for the designer of a spec aerokit to make IndyCars more visually appealing, rather than just aero-efficient.

“I think if we go to spec, we have a chance to improve the way the cars look, which has to be a consideration,” he said. “If the cars are beautiful, I think that gets more people interested in IndyCar. You know, young kids wanting to buy the Matchbox models of our cars is a good thing.”

Rule change wouldn’t cause cost regrets

During the past off-season, after elongated discussions, Honda re-signed its contract with IndyCar – a two-year deal with a three-year option.

Asked whether he would have signed so readily had he known Honda had just spent an eight-figure sum developing aero kits that may be ditched by September, St. Cyr told Motorsport.com: “Well, part of the discussion about the contract extension was to make sure our vision of the future was aligned.

“We want to be here because it’s a chance for us to demonstrate technical expertise, a chance for us to train our engineers, and a chance for us to prove ourselves and achieve at the highest level, which is what our founder Soichiro Honda was all about.”

Pushed on whether IndyCar rule makers should have a longer-term vision, so that tech decisions are more definitive – or less easily reversible – St. Cyr sprung to the series’ defense.

He said: “It’s good to have a long term vision, but the reality of the present day facts have to allow you to make a change if it makes sense. So I’m not upset, angry or even disappointed that we have that flexibility to rethink and redirect.

“If, for the longterm success of IndyCar – which is our primary interest – we as series stakeholders need to make a technical direction change, it’s reasonable to contemplate our shortterm as well as longterm direction.

“It’s not in anyone’s best interest to blindly follow a path without the opportunity for changing if we’re all in agreement that it’s the wrong path.”