The most common questions I get from new fans (which is great because it requires a bit of Indy’s rich history to answer):
#1 why do the cars have wings – I then explain how decades of racing led engineers and drivers to figure out that these generated more downforce, allowing the cars to corner better

#2 any question about the engines – although I usually state my disdain for Honda and wish for turbos, I explain the basic specs, the max HP and speeds, and what new engines are coming in another year.

Only times I get annoyed is when people make fun of oval racing (I get that you think it’s boring…but last week was a road course and you thought THAT was boring to so shutup) and when they refer to the Indycar’s wings as “spoilers” (damn you, NASCAR)

Susan, when the Indianapolis 500 first started, getting a car from its inventor’s garage or barn to the Speedway took some time. (That’s also why it’s the MONTH of May, and not the week of May). So qualifications were stretched out to allow all cars that entered to actually GET to Indianapolis and make an attempt. Now of course, with semis and cargo planes, you can get to Indianapolis pretty quickly, but tradition persists.

There’s nothing technical stopping a car builder from doing that; as far as I know, it’s simply against the rules to do so. There’s enough knowledge out there engineering-wise to make the cars stick to corners and still be slick enough on straights to attain high speeds, but all racing series (yes, even F1) puts some sorts of limits on their design to keep the human factor an important part of racing, as well as to keep the race from becoming nothing more than an engineering battle (although arguably, F1 is exactly that nowadays).

Let’s also remember that, even without movable wings, back in 1996 cars were fast enough yet stuck to corners well enough that drivers were complaining about “grey-outs” while qualifying for the Texas Firestone Firehawk 600. Even the modern Dallara “crapwagon” (Paul Tracy’s moniker) can generate some serious cornering forces. My point here is that a technological marvel of design can easily exceed human capabilities to handle; the military has already seen that with their jet fighters and attack craft, and those pilots don’t pull G’s for hours at a time like an Indycar driver does (although they arguably pull more of them at any one time, and in dimensions that a car never will move in). If all-out performance were allowed, we’d be seeing larger engines with turbos (or maybe even turbine engines), huge, movable wings, and insanely wide, soft tires. But a driver would black out driving that at oval speeds.

Personally, I’m in favor of movable wings. But I simply don’t see anyone out there making a rush to push for them because of 1. Engineering complexity, therefore cost, (think of how much even a cheap airplane costs), and 2. The purist notion that exists saying “driving” doesn’t involve managing airfoils, but only steering, accelerating, and braking. But hey, who am I? Just some random guy who “participates” in races by watching them on the couch.

I think Tony George, back when he was in charge, believed it to be unneighborly to cut the entire 500 crowd loose so late in the evening on a Sunday. As you know, Susan, the Speedway adjoins residential areas on 2 sides, 3 if you count the fact that residential neighborhoods are what’s on the other side of the golf course. That feeling has just stuck for years.

At least that’s the explanation I heard. If someone knows the answer more definitively, please correct me.

Formula 1 tried that once. Drivers pitted about two times in a race to refuel. So if a tire got damaged, you would lose a lot of time pitting when the rest didn’t. That’s what happened at the United States Grand Prix: Michelin’s tires were terrible and they weren’t allowed to change them during the race, so they dropped before the green lights and just six cars started the race. Anyway, short-spanning tires make cars change performance more quickly, so races are more interesting.

“Why does it take two days to qualify at Indy, but at other tracks it takes an hour and a half?”

It’s a tradition, you know. And it sells a lot of tickets, so why change it?

“Instead of making those wing adjustments during pit-stops, why can’t they control the wings from inside the car?”

First, because it’s safer. Moving parts are more likely to get lost, and losing a wing can cause a disaster. Second, because it’s expensive. Not too much, of course, but cars are too expensive already (they always are). Formula 1 will try that this year, but as a push-to-pass system. That is, drivers will have the choice to unload their cars for a few seconds to get a higher top speed to overtake other cars (or try not to get overtaken.)