Chode; first, thanks for finding the video. Very interesting.
Second; there are always going to be apples and oranges arguments to be made when considering F1 and Indycar. I did some research on the 2007 U.S. Grand Prix and the 2016 Indycar Grand Prix, both run at IMS.
2007: Alonso ran 1:11.925 for the fastest qualifying lap. The circuit was 4.192 km.
2016: Simon Pagenaud ran 1:08.6748 his fastest qualifying lap. The circuit was 3.925 km.
In addition to basic length differences, the 2007 road course included turn complexes inside turn 4 and at the south end of Hullman Boulevard. The 2016 configuration included a turn complex inside of Turn 1. On the whole, the 2007 Grand Prix circuit would have to be considered more challenging. So I would have to consider the F1 car to be superior in terms of performance, which should come as no surprise to anyone.
For the sheer engineering and technology, nothing is superior to F1. They are the most advanced racing machines on the planet, and they had better be for all the money and talent that goes into making them. And for the G forces and physical requirements to run a race, the F1 car is far more demanding because of the technology. I remember the Top Gear episode when Richard Hammond took an F1 car for a spin (literally) and said “this car wants to react faster than I can think.”
However, when it comes to watching a race, I prefer IndyCar. It is much more competitive as in most races, any one of a half dozen to ten drivers are capable of winning, depending on the breaks. In an IndyCar race, it is rare for a driver to lead wire-to-wire. In F1, its pretty standard stuff. I think Alonso said it best: F1 is a constructor’s championship, while IndyCar is a driver’s championship. I follow drivers, not cars, for the thrill of the sport. I understand there are fans who love F1 exactly for the technology. Nothing wrong with that; I enjoy watching F1 too. It’s just a matter of taste. I will never get into an argument over which series is “better” because they are apples and oranges.