Since it still uses ancient carburetor engines they used 30 years ago? And what's fun about watching this race? You just look at cars going in circle. Essentially — Not really. It could look that way. These teams spend $75,00-$150,000 on an engine, and you can't actually believe that the technology is somehow primitive?? It's really just relative. Example: The Indy 500 has always permitted engines of different types to compete against each other, limiting each type of engine to dimensions that are designed to equalize any advantage held by one type of engine over another. In the sixties they even raced a couple of turbine powered cars in the Indy 500. They were fast, but all fell just a few laps short of the five hundred miles. They were even dominant. In the nineties the Roger Penske noticed that the high revving Indy Car engines were all in the same horse power boat, and couldn't gain an advantage over it's similar competitors, so he turned to ILMOR Engineering (an F1 race engine manufacturer that Penske owned a part of) to have a low revving push rod engine (much like they use in NASCAR) for one race. The Indy 500. Low revving push rod engines were allowed greater engine displacement at Indy. Roger won another Indy 500 that year, and his cars just drove away from the competition all day. In 1013 a Renault with a duel overhead cam, four valve per cylinder, cross flow head equipped race car won the Indy 500. Engines like that have been available for a very long time, but in racing the only thing that matters is that all of the competitors are on the same page, and are running under an equitable rules package. Any technology, when everyone can do the same thing, or not.