To my untrained eyes, they look alike. Are they?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No, in a number of ways. “Indy” or champ cars are generally set up more for oval racing. They incorporate ground effects under the car, which are outlawed in F1. They also are less technologically advanced in terms of computer usage.
F1 cars are faster, better engineered, and much more complex. They produce more downforce, to the point of actually being able to drive on the ceiling of a tunnel (theoretically). They are the most advanced automobiles on Earth, to the point that F1 technology is adapted to street cars.
Both CART and F1 raced at Montreal this season. As I recall, the CART polesitter would not have qualified for the F1 race based on his time.
I’m not the best expert, but maybe this will get someone’s attention.
-brianjedi
Search this forum for “formula cars”; this was discussed about six or seven months ago.
all my cites are here, but there is info all over the web.
Indycars have either 3.5L, 700hp normally aspirated (IRL) or 2.65L, 900hp turbo (CART) 32 valve V8 engines, and F1 cars have 3.0L 40 valve normally aspirated V10s that make about 800hp.
F1 cars weigh about 1300lbs fully loaded, and Indycars weigh at least 1550 (CART) or 1620 (IRL) empty.
I’m having trouble finding details on F1 downforce for comparison, but according to this, the front wing assembly alone on an indycar is capable of producing 1500lb of downforce. This is in addition to the rear wing, which can produce an additional 3000, and the chassis venturi tunnels.
Both cars are amazing pieces of machinery, but I’m getting tired of hearing all the europhiles bash Indy racers and saying their cars are faster.
Something else to remember is that all three leagues INTENTIONALLY change the rules regularly to slow down the cars, both for safety reasons and to foster competition.
CRAP. that blank link I posted above should point here: http://www.indymotorspeedway.com/vstech.htm
Joe_Cool the selective quote you give appears to imply that it is reasonable to compare the average speed of Indy cars on a banked oval with the top average speed achieved in an Italian grand prix. Unless I am very much mistaken, the Italian GP is conducted on a standard GP track, that is to say, one with a series of tight curves in either direction, and probably one major and one minor straight.
That is frankly bordering on ludicrous.
Further, you point to the top speed achieved by F1 at the end of a straight, and appear to imply that since this is lower than the average achieved by an Indy car, that means something. It may do. It may mean that the top speed of an Indy car is higher. But it is not a simple matter. As I’m sure you know, downforce is traded off against top speed, because downforce creates drag. F1 cars use more aggressive wings because cornering and grip on their tight turning circuits results in an overall lower time than if they use a less aggressive wing and thereby achieve a higher top speed.
If you set up an F1 car to run on the Indy 500 banked oval, I don’t know whether it would have a faster top speed or not. But it is not the clear cut exercise that you seem to imply.
One thing however is in no doubt, if one reads the whole of the site you cite. Other than on a banked oval, an F1 is going to piss on a CART or Indy car. The former’s power to weight ratio, and advanced electonics leave the latter in the dust.
Quoting selectively isn’t going to change that.
Quoting selectively? Give me a break. In fact, comparing the Indycar one lap record with the F1 straightaway speed record is being charitable to the F1 driver, not the other way around, since Indy straightaway speeds are obviously higher than the lap average speed.
Since you’re so knowledgeable, I’m sure you know that the three cars (F1, CART, and IRL) are built and tuned for very different purposes. Surely you also know that things such as wings, ground effects, tires, etc are interchangeable and adjustable depending on need.
Obviously you’re aware that while a fine Japanese sword is far sharper and harder than an ax head, it is not suited for chopping down a tree, and while an ax is by far the better tool for trees, the sword is unmatched at cutting a human body into pieces.
By the same token, F1 cars are built specifically for cornering and accelerating. The aerodynamics are much more aggressive, gear ratios and wheel sizes are smaller, in order to maximize acceleration and downforce.
IRL cars run exclusively on oval tracks. They have much more conservative aerodynamics, taller gears, higher revving engines, etc. Because they are designed to go faster and farther (how many F1 races are 500 miles?).
CART cars are built to be adaptable - they run both ovals and street courses. On street courses they are not as fast as F1 cars due mainly to minimum weight regulations. But so what? Next you’ll be telling me that boxers are inferior because they don’t wrestle. :rolleyes:
As I stated above, Indycars are heavier because of rule restrictions, imposed by the governing bodies in order to intentionally slow the cars to make the competition more level - not because they are inherently inferior, as F1 fans like to claim.
However, if you’d like to support your position with some facts, instead of unsubstantiated whining, I’m sure we’d all be very interested.
Comparing the average lap speed at the Indy 500 and the average lap speed at Monza (site of the Italian GP) have absolutely nothing in common.
quote:
Indy Cars will qualify for this year’s Indy 500 with average speeds over 220 mph. Arie Luyendyk qualified in 1996 with an average speed of 236 mph.
Peter Gethin qualified with the fastest time in F1 history at the Italian GP in 1971 with an average speed of 150.754. F1 cars, at the end of a straight, reach a maximum speed of around 212.5 mph (340 kph).
The Indianapolis CART/IRL track requires only moderate braking into turns 1 and 3. The speed of a CART/IRL car there rarely drops -below- 185 mph (296 kph) during qualifying.
On the other hand, Monza has 8 turns in the current F1 layout, two of which require an entry speed of about 115 kph (initial chicane and Variante della Reggia chicane) and three additional turns that require entry speeds under 160 kph.
A current F1 car, at the end of the front straight at Monza will reach about 350 kph. However, that’s accelerating from 165kph (in Parabolica) in about 1000 meters, and at that point, the driver has to brake for the initial chicane.
Besides that, discussing “top speed” as a measure of technological advancement is utterly stupid. Nearly all race cars are limited to top speed by their gearing. If a WRC Peugeot 206 only goes 205 kph, is it then “less advanced” than a 1985 Saab Turbo street car? Of course not.
However, given equal conditions, like in Montreal this year, it is obvious that an F1 car will beat a ChampCar hands down on a road course.
The reasons for this are:
- Lighter weight (and the attending)
- Better acceleration
- VAAAAASTLY better braking
- Electronic assistance (traction control & semiauto boxes)
Obviously, a ChampCar is designed for ovals and road courses, so it has to make design compromises, but the electronics alone make an F1 car “more advanced.”
But recently, the racing has certainly been better in ChampCar.
I don’t really understand why people get in a tizzy about how “advanced” a car is. Better to judge the series on its merits. Which is why I’ll continue to watch WRC, and pay scant attention to either open class series.
- Christian
“Open wheel series,” is what I meant, of course.
As far as the facts that were requested:
2002 Grand Prix of Canada:
In qualifying:
Juan Pablo Montoya (pole) ran a 1:12.836 for an average speed of 218.513 km/h
Backmarker Yoong ran a 1:17.347 in a Minardi (teehee).
2002 Molson Indy Montreal
In qualifying:
Cristiano Da Matta (pole) ran a 1:18.959 for an average speed of 197.619 km/h.
That ought at least to settle which is faster on a road course, for all the reasons listed above.
Cheers,
- Christian