My individual time was staggered between a GT3 RS road test in northern Florida earlier in the week (more on that in a later column), the paddock at the Sebring 12-hour and a hurried trip back to Atlanta to catch all the weekend’s back-to-back racing that was scheduled to run almost non-stop throughout the weekend.

It was with no small regret that I drove straight through Gainesville without stopping at the GatorNationals. In the old days, i.e. when I was younger, taking in the 12 hours at Sebring on a Saturday and either the GatorNationals or the NASCAR race in Atlanta on the same weekend was a standard option. (My deadlines were based on the bi-weekly publication of On Track; since the magazine was published in California, deadlines for race reports could be as late as 8 p.m. on Monday, making it possible to cover more than one event during a weekend.)

In the paddock at Sebring, the focus was dominated by the presence of yet another V-12 turbo diesel prototype, this one from France, as well as the improved aerodynamics and drive train of the Acura prototypes. The latter are the forerunners of a full-blown, in-house version of a prototype to be built by Honda Performance Development with an eye on winning at the Le Mans 24-hour when the new rules era begins in earnest in 2010.

Oh yes, there was some talk about ethanol blends of fuel, at best a petit bon mot for endurance racing’s claim to be on the technical cutting edge. Up the road at the GatorNationals, they’ve been using a methane blend, with a dash of nitro, for quite some time now to routinely achieve speeds of well over 300 mph. The Indy 500 was won many times with methanol in the tank. So the breast beating on the 10 percent ethanol blend used at Sebring — as well as on the not-your-typical-diesel found in the Peugeot and Audis — seems a little over the top, as the Brits like to say.

It used to be that there was a lot more emphasis on British racing green than green racing, of course. Nowadays, there’s a mixture of saving greenbacks by not so gently tamping down the technical regulations and on going green in order to promote the idea of being on the technical cutting edge.

I must say it was one of my British colleagues who brought up another popular topic of discussion: the F1 race in Australia. Without traction control, the cars were visibly sliding through some of the corners — just like the good ol’ days. That had more than a few craggy, seen-it-all journalists excited. Since racing journalists are fans at heart with a large dash of skepticism, this was a sure indication F1’s decision to ban traction control was playing very well.

Traction control has saved me, if not my insurance company, on at least two major occasions on wet, steep, downhill bends. So it’s a modern miracle as far as I’m concerned. The GT3 RS, meanwhile, was capable of taking any entrance or exit ramp at 90 to 100 mph due to the modern miracle of racing-developed chassis for road cars. But clearly all the action in the Australian Grand Prix demonstrated that the absence of traction control produces a more compelling form of racing than last year’s version of the world championship.

That brings us, ahem, to today’s topic of discussion. Which racing cars display the most technology on the track? And, is than an even valid question in the era where the entertainment quotient on TV is the single most important driving factor in the health of any racing series?

On the first question, I would suggest that the full-bodied Le Mans prototypes seen at Sebring may now be the most sophisticated racing machines in the world. Alternate fuels aside, with the downforce of full bodywork and traction control, they corner as well, if not better, than any other type of racing machine. Given that the Le Mans rulebook allows for a wide variety of engine types and fuels as well as two categories of prototypes based on weight, the sheer freedom of choice for manufacturers puts them one step ahead in technical diversity, if nothing else.

These days, F1 is limited by its need to align entertainment value with cost control, the jettisoning of traction control being the lastest example. In addition to standard spec Honda engines, IndyCar must produce a vehicle strong enough to withstand the punishment of oval racing, hence its relative slower cornering speeds on road courses. The drag racers are limited as straightliners. And NASCAR has been aligned with carburetors, pushrod engines and standard suspensions since midway in the last century. Its Car of Today reflects age-old values by limiting certain technical parameters in the car construction while borrowing wings and front splitters from road racing as a more race worthy solution to aerodynamics.

Meanwhile, the Daytona Prototypes that race in the Daytona 24-hour have achieved close side-by-side racing that keeps the driver in the equation with limited technology by design. They use common parts in the suspension and ignition. Most significantly, the Daytona Prototypes are heavily restricted in body dimensions and their horsepower output is based on a relatively low standard output.

The second question: how important is sheer technology in motor racing?

That is most likely in the eye of the beholder. A cultural bias — the human equivalent of traction control — likely has far more to do with determining a fan’s response to any racing series or type of car. Both NASCAR and F1, which are not coincidentally the world’s most popular forms of racing, have made major changes to put more emphasis on the driver being in control of his destiny while subtracting technology.

I doubt very much that these decisions will slow down the popularity of either F1 or NASCAR in the least, and more than likely will accelerate it in both cases. Much as in Melbourne, they were sliding, bashing and crashing on Sunday in Tennessee, too.

Jonathan Ingram can be reached at jonathan@jingrambooks.com.