Talk:Indianapolis 500

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Indianapolis 500: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
Priority 6  

Contents

[edit] Miscellaneous Chatter

I've added a whole new text to the page, based on a text published in a Portuguese magazine I used to work at (not a direct translation). I've expanded it a bit, but it's still missing some stuff.

Feel free to add to it, delete it, improve it, cut it, remix it, ignore it, whatever. --Pc13 16:57, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Someone added this:

The Indianapolis 500 or the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. never joined CART. The 500 was sanctioned by USAC through the era when CART entries dominated the 500, ending in 1995. The 500 did become a part of the CART series in terms of points from 1982 to 1995, but the Hulman-George family never had any voting rights in CART's organization.

I guess this should be verified and integrated. --SFoskett 02:38, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have a vague recollection that this is true, Indy was the last/only indycar race run under USAC rather than CART; that's why all those Novis and buick v6s etc. couldn't run anywhere else except indy. IIRC. (Usac still kept all the dirt track champ car races, though) Gzuckier 06:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The last Novi to run at the Speedway was qualified by then-rookie Bobby Unser in 1963; CART was formed in 1979. As said elsewhere, CART never sanctioned the race, its members only competed as individual teams that were also members of the owner-association that CART was. The Indianapolis 500-Mile Race has only had three sanctional bodies presiding over it in its history: the American Automobile Association (1911-1955), the United States Auto Club (1956-1997), and the Indy Racing League, now termed the IndyCar Series (1998-Present). Chr.K. 07:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, the Indy 500 never had any voting rights because it was en event and not a team. CART members were the teams that ran in the championship, hence the name Championship Auto Racing Teams. Perhaps a better way is to phrase it is that the Indy 500 joined the CART calendar. --Pc13 11:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article says, "Tony Stewart is the only driver to complete the full race distance (1100 miles {1770 km}) in both races on the same day." What year? Team(s)? Also, do the technical hilites bear mentioning? Like, say, George Salih's laydown-engined car? Or how different the Loti were? Trekphiler 05:35 & 05:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post Race?

I'm probably wrong, but I always understood that the winner was awarded a stainless-steel watch of some description. A Rolex Cosmograph, maybe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josh.Sinyor (talk • contribs) 01:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Really basic question

Why is it called the Indianapolis 500? --132.185.144.122 09:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Did you read the article? "The creation of a 500-mile race allowed the track to rapidly acquire a privileged status for automobile races. " --Xcali 12:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The technical name of the event has long been the Indianapolis 500-Mile Race. -- Chr.K. 07:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Traditions

Added the section with the bottle of milk tradition. If you can think of any other Indycar traditions, please add them to the section! And yes, fyi I was born 'n raised in Indianapolis. :) -Kasreyn

Lucky SOB! --Indyfan 05:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • How about the ones I just added? --Xcali 04:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) (raised just outside Indy)

[edit] who won in 1960?

1960 Indy 500 was won by Jim Rathmann, not Pat Flaherty.(moved from article) List_of_Indianapolis_500_winners seems to confirm this. ?? Gzuckier 16:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, Jim Rathmann won in 1960, after duelling until lap 196 with then-defending champion Roger Ward. Chr.K. 07:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This needs a real good editing re tense

Anyone got any objections if I edit it? Moriori July 2, 2005 09:40 (UTC)

[edit] Road surface

The article mentions the 3 million bricks paving the original track. When were the bricks replaced with a more modern surface?

  • The brick surface of the track was covered over with asphalt in stages, first beginning en masse in 1937, for the 25th 500, with the paving of the turns and short chutes. The backstretch was paved in 1940, leaving the mainstretch as the only part still brick, until after 1961. Upon that 50th running, the mainstretch was likewise paved, with the exception of a yard-long strip coming across the stretch at the start/finish line. This "yard of bricks" remains today, with most of the previous surface in place underneath the modern asphalt. Chr.K. 07:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rookie of the Year

Should there be a list somewhere(not necessarily in this article) listing all recipients of the Indy 500 Rookie of the Year award? --D-Day 15:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Added the link to the main page, presenting both nationality, starting and finishing position, year by year. Chr.K. 07:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse

User 24.250.206.138 just erased information of years 1996-2005, writing "no such event exists, see ChampCar World Series," inside the last hour. Requested that appropriate action be taken immediately. --Chr.K. 14:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If User 24.250.206.138 again causes childish damage to this article or those connected to it, I request that s/he (most likely a he, admittedly) be banned permanently from the Wikipedia site. --Chr.K. 11:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality indicators

Image is generally superior, to the human eye, to verbal writing. By the very nature of it being computer screen as a media, would not the best form of designating competitors to be able to identify the flag of what nation they come from, rather than writing it out? The Formula One pages do much of this. Likewise, why should competitor-nationality-identification in the race be solely for drivers? European auto-makers in the teens won, and Teams Lotus and McLaren won in the 60's and 70's. Even the Indianapolis Motor Speedway itself won in 1919, and Michelin as a tire manufacturer won in 1915 on DePalma's car. Are these nationalities to be ignored? --Chr.K. 14:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Put 'em all in. I'm in fav more fact of almost kind. Trekphiler 05:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It gets muddy later though. Like what nationality would Firestone be? It's an American brand owned by a Japanese company. What about Ford-Cosworth? An American company and a British company together. What about Galmer? The chassis was owned by Americans but assembled in England. I think this is a bit more complex of an issue than it looks on the surface. -Drdisque 05:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'd guess less than you think. Where do they do most of their business? Firestone's a U.S. coy, regardless Japanese ownership. Cosworth's British. Galmer, I'd say, is, too, ditto Lola & Reynard, & Eagle American (despite Len Terry). And if there are big disputes, iron 'em out here. Trekphiler 14:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7 years Bernie Ecclestone?

What about a "superstitions" 'graph? I've heard "no peanuts in the pits", since a wreck in the '30s was blamed on them, & "no green cars", tho I can't say why. Trekphiler 12:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This is a difficult subject to put in legitimate encylopedic form, because no comprehensive study has, insomuch as I am aware, ever been done of superstitions that have been in vogue at Indianapolis over the years. Track historian Donald Davidson has been asked this question on several occasions in recent years, but is a radio program such as The Talk of Gasoline Alley equivalent to a refined source? Certain Davidson's word is as trustworthy to Indianapolis fans as any book ever written, but would Wikipedia agree? Difficult to accomplish, this request (...but will try, anyway). --Chr.K. 11:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • And incidentally, green as a color on a car was considered bad luck throughout nearly all open-wheel motor racing in America, not merely Indianapolis; the superstition may even predate auto racing itself, going into still older sports, but this not yet confirmed. --Chr.K. 11:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Seems to me a "Superstions" page link could do the job, with a passing mention to incidents in an extended "History" section. No? As for sourcing, I've seen a little book on the history of the Speedway that mentions them all, which is where I first read it, back around 1977; author & title are lost to the mists of time, tho... And I saw recently in Cutter & Fendell's Encyclopedia of Auto Racing Greats (Prentice-Hall, 1973) green & peanuts issue was also seen in NASCAR, with peanut hulls (per Indy) blamed for a wreck. If green was bad luck in open-wheel, Brit teams must have howled over the international racing colors... =) Trekphiler 05:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Not heard of green as being an unlucky colour for cars over here in the UK - as noted British Racing Green is 'our colour' and ooh we all dream of owning a classic sports car in this colour. Maybe a localised American superstition? --mgaved 13:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error on the beginning

The part that states that the Indianapolis 500 is the one day sporting event with the most international viewers is incorrect, along time ago it was the most watched race in the USA, never was the most watches race in the world, but it was huge in the US now almost every NASCAR race gets more ratings in the US, and international audience doesn[t gets near F1 races worldwide. Someone should change that part.

There is technically no way to tell how many actually listen, as the Indianapolis 500-Mile Race can be heard broadcast wherever English is spoken. I know that the 320 million mark is one of the most recent estimates, placed as of 2005 in, so far as I remember, an issue of the Indianapolis Business Journal. On the subject of NASCAR, event ratings have been going down compared to 2005 throughout the season (and the 500 itself had higher ratings in '05 than the Coke 600 at Charlotte), save at the high-speed Tetris tracks of Daytona and Talladega. As for F-1 beating it, you may have a point. --4.224.201.195 05:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

While it has the highest one day attendance, the official attendance is not disclosed.

Annony has it right ... the article is NOT talking about TV ratings, but on-site attendance. I think the numbers are generally estimated in the range of 250-350 thousand. -- Mycroft.Holmes 16:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official name of the race

Indianapolis 500-Mile Race, not Indianapolis 500. The latter is, granted, ubiquitously used, even on the tickets, but the actual name, since 1981, has been the Indianapolis 500-Mile Race. Ask universally-knowledgable Speedway historian Donald Davidson if you don't believe me. As admittedly attempted to do personally before, the name should be adjusted. --4.225.21.208 10:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Leave the name alone. Add the "official" name to the opening summary paragraph.--Buckboard 10:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Would love to. From here on out, I claim the universal rights to tell people that total accuracy is not needed for this site, and to act on such. Thank you very much for it. --Chr.K. 01:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In cases such as this, the most commonly used name supercedes the technical name. Besides, it's still referred to as "Indianapolis 500" and "Indy 500" in plenty of official documents, press releases and ads, so the question is moot. Crabapplecove 23:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table on the top right side

When you compare the nature of the 1995 and 1996 races, the only thing that had changed was politics; the nature of the cars was almost universally equal, since the normally-aspirated formula was not introduced until 1997. With that as the case, I submit that the table should be changed to identifying the different sanctioning bodies of the race since its inception, which are easy enough to know: Founding-1955, the American Automobile Association; 1956-1997, the United States Auto Club; 1998-Present, the IndyCar Series. --Chr.K. 13:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...and quality and importance scales

I'm going to classify the article with a B-rating, and Top importance, for the following reasons: 1) There is far more than stub material present, but a lot of other necessary things, such as the order of events throughout the month of May, the order of ceremonies the morning of the race, and more technical aspects of how things are done for the event itself (such as the ancient yet unique ten mile average speed qualifying system), are missing; 2) In importance rating for Indiana: it's the Indianapolis 500. Self-explanatory. I'll copy the reasons for the article mentioned as being for it at the top, as well. --Chr.K. 14:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is the Indy 500 the largest one day sporting event?

This may just be a misunderstanding on my part, but surely the 1.1 to 1.6 billion estimated television audience for the 2002 World Cup Final (soccer) dwarfs the Indy 500? Maybe you don't count that as a one day event? Where do you get your source concerning this? I have found others which don't seem to include it at all as one of the biggest sporting events;

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=34780

This article, based on worldwide TV figures in 2005, cites the Super Bowl (a one day event) as the biggest (93 million) followed by the Champions League Final (73 million) and then by the Canadian Grand Prix (53 million).

The 2004 television figures (without a World Cup Final) are as follows;

1. Football: Euro 2004 final Portugal v Greece 153 million 2. Olympic Games: opening ceremony 127 million 3. Olympic Games: closing ceremony 96 million 4. American football: Super Bowl 95 million 5. Olympic Games: men's 100m metres 87 million 6. Olympic Games: men's 200m freestyle swimming 66 million 7. Formula one: Monaco grand prix 59 million 8. Football: Champions League final Porto v Monaco 56 million 9. Basketball: NBA finals 25 million 10.= Tennis: Wimbledon women's singles final 21 million 10.= Tennis: Wimbledon men's singles final 21 million 12. Cycling: Tour de France final stage 16 million 13.= Football: FA Cup final Millwall v Man Utd 9 million 13.= Horseracing: Grand National 9 million 15. Rowing: University Boat Race 5 million

There is no mention of the Indy 500.

In fact, although no ball was kicked, 350 million watched the draw for the World Cup!

http://www.kirkdorffer.com/ontheroadto2008/2005/12/biggest-sporting-event-in-world.shtml

Although I don't doubt the interest the Indy 500 generates (otherwise I wouldn't have read the article!) I have to admit to doubt concerning your figures. If the SuperBowl generates 93 million viewers (98% of whom are from North America) how could the Indy 500 - which arguably (I admit I have no proof of this) generates less worldwide interest - draw in 320 million? If we were to apply the same percentage of the makeup of the worldwide TV audience as the SuperBowl, that would mean that EVERYBODY in the USA (pop. 290 million) and Canada (pop. 30 million) watches the Indy 500! One month old babies included!

On the other hand you can show me proof of what you say, I'll go to bed this evening quite happy in having learned something I didn't know. Your sincerely,

Andrewduff 15:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a misunderstaning. The "size" refers to the number of "on site" spectators, not TV ratings. I haven't seen the article's number, but I think the number of spectators at IMS is somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000. -- Mycroft.Holmes 16:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that the main article makes the claim that the "500" has the largest attendance for both on-site and TV ratings. I'm skeptical about that. On-site? Probably. TV? Mmmmm ... I don't think that's right. -- Mycroft.Holmes 19:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be two issues here:
  1. Is the 500 the largest attended one-day sporting event? With 350,000 - 400,000 attendance, I think it is. Even though official attendance figures are not available, the news media will give unofficial estimates based on the knowledge of the number of seats and an estimate of how many are empty.
  2. Does it have the largest TV audience? Perhaps not. In fact, I suspect that the Daytona 500 has a larger TV audience.
Perhaps we could agree to this wording:
"The Greatest Spectacle in Racing" is one of the oldest and richest motorsport events in existence, having the largest attendance and one of the largest TV/radio audiences (recent estimates placing the latter in excess of 320 million) of any single-day sporting events worldwide. [citation needed] While the official attendance is not disclosed by Speedway management, news media estimate attendance in excess of 350,000.
--rogerd 19:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


I'll leave the actual wording to you - after all it is your article! However, in my opinion, you should emphasise the unique aspect of the Indy 500 - that it physically pulls in at least 350000 spectators (probably closer to 400000) every year, in just one day, no other sporting event comes close to that. I seem to remember that football matches at the Marecana in Brazil could have more than 200000 people, and at Hampden Park in Glasgow (Scotland) the record is around 150000, again for football (soccer).

Without becoming too philosophical, the amazing thing about the race is that in this day and age, when you can easily sit at home and watch the race (in more comfortable conditions), it still attracts massive crowds. Soccer attendances in lots of countries are falling because of television. Not the Indianapolis 500. It's almost like a sort of pilgrimage, or if you excuse the term, a Motorsport Mecca. For the organisers of the Indy 500, all those people must create a logistical nightmare, and pulling that off year after year is, for me, a much greater feat than putting cameras around the track and beaming out the images.

Which leads me back to my original gripe - I still believe that he 320 million figure for a TV audience is far too big. Do you really think 4 times as many people watch the Indy 500 than they do the SuperBowl? That said, I have no evidence to contradict you - as you seem to have no evidence to confirm it (which is why you ask for a citation, I suppose?). What to do then? Either you leave the figure in (if you trust it enough) or leave it out while saying "huge TV audiences" or something to that effect. Either way I'll accept your decision, I have no wish to impeach on all the work you have done.

What I guess I'm trying to say is that the uniqueness of the Indy 500 comes not from the television audience but from it's huge crowds. In fact, in comparison, how many people watch it on TV hardly seems important - what is important is beng present. No point in trying to compete with 1.6 billion that watched the World Cup Final, when you can smile proudly in knowing that only 70000 were actually THERE...

I hope this helps, and in any case thankyou for having taken your time to write about the race in the first place. Yours, Andrewduff 19:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


I found this, which could help;

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand/2004-05-28-hiestand_x.htm

It talks about TV ratings of about 4.6% of american households (i.e. 11 million people). I must say I doubt very much that outwith the USA this race is more popular than, say, Formula One races, which pull about a maximum of 60 million worldwide. Also;

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/motor/irl/indy500/2004-05-27-attendance-count_x.htm

Which would put the actual figure for spectators in situ at around 270000.

Actually, I didn't originally insert the attendance or TV viewing figures, but I did revert your changes (wrongly) when you disputed them. One of the things that keeps the attendance up, is that the 500 is blacked out in the Indianapolis area, and can only be watched on TV locally on a tape-delayed basis the evening of the race. Besides that TV coverage, the Speedway maintains an extensive radio network, which, when combined with the TV ratings, perhaps accounts for the 320 million figure. I think that without substantiation, it should be removed. --rogerd 03:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Attendence of the 500 is not merely fans in the stands, but the unquantifiable number in the infield, many of whom were interviewed on Race Day 2005 as explaining that they preferred to enjoy a family picnic of sorts on the backstretch family area to sitting on the seats. The crowd of 2006 was easily large enough to incorporate 80,000 people, if not more; I would know because I was sitting in turn three and could see it, all the way down past turn two. --Chr.K. 18:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
There's another way to look at it. What other single event (not part of a playoff series, like World Cup or Super Bowl) draws such a crowd? And that millions around the world know? Trekphiler 05:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Off the pacecar

I've heard only 2 TV celebs drove it, Leno being one. Anybody think mentioning them's worth including? Trekphiler 14:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, there have been quite a few (even notwithstanding the question of defining what constitutes a "celebrity"). Here's a list: [1]. Chuck 01:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need for new material on events throughout month

The historical and modern uniqueness of the manner of Indianapolis rookie orientation, practice, qualifications and final practice should be put in. For all the talk of traditions, the actual "nuts and bolts" of preparation remains unaccounted for. --Chr.K. 07:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FIA World Championship

The Indy 500 was part of the FIA World Championship from 1950 to 1960, in that drivers were credited with World Championship points. However, this only gets a passing mention in this article. Someone with sufficient knowledge should expand on this. Philsy 14:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's only given passing mention because it's considered a very minor part of Indianapolis 500 history.--Mycroft.Holmes 15:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ten years is hardly a minor part! ;-) Philsy 15:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The 500 is 96 years old and coming up on 91 races, 10 races is a somewhat minor part of its history. Also, the fact that drivers were awarded World Championship points did not effect the essence of the race. It was still contested with front engine (largely offy-powered) AAA/USAC championship cars and the race itself was still sanctioned by AAA and USAC. Very few Grand Prix drivers showed up for the event and most of those who did still would have if they were not given World Championship points. While an interesting footnote in its history, the World Championship connection was not very important. -Drdisque 17:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DNQ's

I think in the individual race articles, there should be a listing of all drivers who did not qualify for the race, if known. Thoughts? --D-Day 19:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. DH85868993 02:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's generally known who was on the entry lists + who turned laps in a car. If we use these rather liberal guidelines for who DNQed, that's certainly doable. However, if you require that the driver actually made a qualifying attempt and either waved off, was too slow, or was bumped, that could be a bit more difficult. -Drdisque 05:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let's just say anyone who was on the entry list for now. The only exception would be the duplicate entries that sometimes pop up. --D-Day 17:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Qualifying chronology (including wave-offs, bumps, withdrawls, etc.) from 1967 to the present is available at here. Here's an example of the 1983 chronology. This information was drawn from the official IMS daily trackside reports. --Mycroft.Holmes 03:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qualifying

I think this article could benefit from information regarding what the teams are doing throughout May to qualify a car for the field.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaedglass (talk • contribs)

This is an encyclopedia article, not a news bulletin. -Drdisque 19:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Such information is fine: see the specific dedicated pages for individual races, however. --Chr.K. 16:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] not enough basic info

it has good content on history and traditions and stuff, but very little on the techincal steps that the race takes. like how people qualify...what acutally happens in the race...regulations...penalties...rules....i mean....do they just qualify for a whole month then run 200 laps not from the grid but after a rolling start and thats it? also, why do they end the thing if it rains? without completing the 200 laps? isnt it kinda random and up to luck then?

The basic information is going to be hard to put in without something like Donald Davidson's new book, because the specifications for the race have shifted with the times. In the first race, starting order was date of entry...in the 1930s, qualification runs were ten laps rather than four. Regarding the month-long period of practice and qualifications, that was historically to give everyone as much time as possible to prepare for the race, a situation which admittedly favors the more powerful and constantly-prepared operations in regards to the win, but helps smaller independent teams succeed in making it in, later in the month. As for whether of not they should run in rain, I don't think tire technology is up to running a soaking-slick highway at speeds in excess of 220 mph; I for one would favor trying, but the potential for catastrophic accident (read: dangerously high speed in such conditions) means that the authorities would be unlikely to allow it. And finally....yeah, pure luck is involved, as is the wild-pirahna nature of the battles for position that take place when people know storms are approaching. --Chr.K. 03:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
o, thank you. before people mistake me for being too whiny, i want to say i thank everybody for everything on wikipedia. but can't we just put what the current rules are? and put th rule changes in the page of "history of" or detail the whole thing in "rules of indy 500" or something?
A big reason of why they don't race on ovals in the rain is that they would just line up in the dry groove and it would be impossible to pass because off-line would be both wet AND covered in tire marbles. Those laps would be slow and meaningless. -Drdisque 23:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
We can put those rules in, but several of them actually make little sense to American fans, recently, since they are almost always connected back to what was done in previous years. For instance: qualifying; it is the average speed over a four-lap run, not the current standard, at most American tracks, of the fastest between two laps. The reason is that the Indy style massively predates the latter one; same with no "provisional" spots for past champions: for American stock car racing, not having your "superstars" automatically make it is insane, and yet for Formula One, it is the most normal thing in the world to have the possibility of not making any given race, if not good enough. Such a section on rules, if we put it in, will need to have a lot of detail. --Chr.K. 16:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I made an attempt to describe the qualifying procedure. It's long and probably confusing to an outsider, but I decided that comprehensive and correct was better than simplified and incomplete. Also, if someone knows the exact years that they went to speed-based qualifying, capped the field at 33, and began using 4 lap attempts, I think that would be useful. -Drdisque (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

---> Come on, where are the basic details like 280 gallons of fuel alloted per driver? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.68.234 (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest of all motor races?

Le Mans began in 1923; Indy in 1911. If it's not the oldest auto race in the world, someone please inform. --Chr.K. 05:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The first French Grand Prix was in 1906. DH85868993 05:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The Brooklands circuit in the UK opened in 1907, it was a banked racing track. It hosted what might have been the first 24 hour race in 1907. It was won by an Australian, Selwyn Edge. --mgaved 12:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Neither of which is still held at those original tracks, which was the meaning of the statement of Oldest. Indianapolis is still Indianapolis. --Chr.K. 16:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, well it wasn't clear (to me) that's what you meant by "oldest". In that case I would agree that the Indianapolis 500 is (to the best of my knowlegde) the oldest (circuit) race still held at the original track. But I also note the Shelsley Walsh Speed Hill Climb which was first held in 1905 - which as far as I'm aware makes it the oldest motorsport event still held at the original venue. -- DH85868993 23:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Then that information should be tweaked, and the circuit-course detail added. --Chr.K. 08:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indianapolis 500-Mile Race

I am currently looking at the front cover of the 2007 Indianapolis 500 program, and emblazoned on the upper margin, right between the 2007 symbol (which labels it as Indianapolis 500), are the words INDIANAPOLIS, on the left side, and 500-MILE RACE on the right side. I'm sure others have the program, and can obviously verify.

I would ask for this page be renamed the Indianapolis 500-Mile Race, due to the fact that it is more historically accurate in the long term (and it's the term Tony Hulman, among others, once preferred, if the stories are accurate). Discuss. --Chr.K. (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before approximately 2 years ago. The consensus was that while the name was technically correct, nobody calls it that and that article names should be the name most commonly used that differentiates it from other articles. -Drdisque (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)