Q: Is IndyCar is planning to accept more chassis constructors than Dallara? What is the problem with the engine leases? Especially with Chevrolet engines, the same problems of the late 80's and early 90's with the Chevrolet-Ilmor engine? And Goodyear is planning to return to IndyCar? And the next years will be more engines than Chevrolet and Honda ?

Ismael Orellan, Cagua, Venezuela

RM: No new cars for the foreseeable future, the only engine lease problem was that Lotus couldn’t deliver a competitive engine so Chevy and Honda had to bail them out. Goodyear might if Firestone left but no tire wars. Only two engines in 2014.

Q: What is the latest on Shank getting an engine deal and what is the likelihood we see a fourth Ganassi, second RLLR, second Schmidt and/or second Coyne entry in 2013?

Ray Hando

RM: I spoke with him a couple weeks ago and he’s still working on trying to secure sponsorship so I just hope he gets to run the Indianapolis 500 with A.J. Allmendinger.

Q: IZOD has been real quiet recently. Just wondering how long before IndyCar is without a title sponsor again?

Rich K., Palmerton, Pa.

RM: There were supposedly on their way out after 2012 but it sounds like one more year. IZOD lost interest after Allen Sirkin retired.

Q: What’s the deal with Andretti engineers? The team goes through them like KV Racing went through Crapwagons, and can never seem to keep the good one … I don’t really buy Marshall’s theory that success leads to being stolen by other teams — surely Andretti would have the money to keep these guys and they would want to stay if it was a good place to work. My theory is that Michael is hard to work with and not a ‘people guy,’ but that is pure theory based on actions and what has been said/not said over the years. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you don’t see nearly that kind of turnover with Ganassi and Penske engineers, so something continues to be amiss.

Randy Mizelle

RM: Don’t think it’s Michael, per se, but it does have that revolving door look doesn’t it? Eddie Jones, Allan MacDonald and now Tino Belli.

Q: I've always found the kerfluffle about horsepower a confusing one. People say they want it for higher speeds, but that doesn't make any sense. More power down the straight away leads to more braking into the turns and the such. And that's what people really want. The more you have to get on the brake and actually work to negotiate a corner, the more chances for bravery. But too much horsepower can be dangerous, and prohibitively expensive. So what's the solution? Less downforce, obviously. Forcing the cars to provide less downforce would provide all of the effect of higher output engines, without any of the cost and essentially mitigating a great deal of the danger. It was well in effect at Texas this year, as the cars struggled on worn tires to keep it together. As a fan, all I want is good racing. I don't want it because all of the cars are the same, I want it because of the work of the teams and drivers. Less downforce makes that work and it would be especially apparent at road and street courses, thus improving the quality of what were already great races.

Daniel Hodge

RM: You speak for most of the drivers, they want that less downforce/more power formula and, thankfully, Will Phillips listened to them about downforce at Texas and Fontana. Love to see the 3-2-1 marker used again at Indianapolis.

The opinions reflected herein are solely those of the above commentator and are not necessarily those of SPEED.com, FOX, NewsCorp, or SPEED.

Robin Miller brings 40 years of experience to his role as SPEED.com's senior open-wheel reporter, and serves as a frequent contributor to SPEED Center and Wind Tunnel with Dave Despain.