F1 vs Indycar, incredible pace difference

[Kraken]

Daston said:

Shame FE won't run a car at the track so we can see how they compare.

I have been seeing much more indicar feeds on social media, are they ramping up their PR? Also where can you watch it in the UK?

Yet another thing that is Sky only I'm afraid.

FE would be miles behind. They are much heavier and a lot less power.

[HighwayStar]

TheDeuce said:

Henry Fiddleton said:

Watching the Indy Car highlighted everything that is wrong with F1.

Laptimes are not particularly important.

I never noticed the cars were actually slower on screen.

The drivers had to fight to control the cars.

Power outweighed grip.

The cars seemed very robust; the amount of knocks some took and carried on was massively impressive.

The cars did not loose "aero" grip (guessing they didn't have it) when in close range.

The winning car, to me at least as mild fan looking in, was not the team with the biggest budget. Stock/shared parts seemed to do the trick.

The tyres seemed to work - or at least dropped off, but were quicker.

Once the track limits are sorted, its a win for me.

Well done Indy car.

The reason most of the above is different, is that it's made possible by Indycar being a sport all about the driver. So they don't have to worry about the outright performance of the cars, and as you note, can focus instead on making the cars as robust as they can do, whilst still maintaining enough grip and speed to make for 'fast' racing. All the cars are effectively the same, so it doesn't really matter what the level of down force is, so long as it's sufficient to race. Same for top line speed, all approx the same, so it doesn't matter what it is, so long as it's fast enough to look fast to the audience.

In F1 the cars/constructors are also competing, so the teams have to be free to develop their own cars and components. That does lead to far more fragile cars and sensitive cars.

I personally like the dual aspect of F1, I like the off track development race and the twists and turns it throws up throughout each season. But I will admit I would also like the idea of finding out which driver is 'best' on a level playing field - which Indycar offers.

How is this for an idea: After each F1 season completes, all drivers are handed an Indycar and have one more race. It would be pretty epic for an F1 driver to win the WDC - AND, then go on to prove that when everyone has the same car, he is still quickest.. or not.

I get the whole Indy Car thing, same cars... 2 different engine suppliers though. I've watched a few races over the year, different seasons, but I just doesn't grab me. I can't get into it at all. When a top line F1 driver has been in an Indy car he's generally been up to speed pretty quickly. Mid field F1 drivers have done well out there. The other way round, not so much. Villeneuve and Montoya, success. Andretti, great in Indy Car, hopeless in F1.

[TheDeuce]

HighwayStar said:

I get the whole Indy Car thing, same cars... 2 different engine suppliers though. I've watched a few races over the year, different seasons, but I just doesn't grab me. I can't get into it at all. When a top line F1 driver has been in an Indy car he's generally been up to speed pretty quickly. Mid field F1 drivers have done well out there. The other way round, not so much. Villeneuve and Montoya, success. Andretti, great in Indy Car, hopeless in F1.

I prefer F1 too, only ever watched a handful of indycar races.

The near super-human abilities of F1 drivers are definitely part of the draw for me. Not all the drivers on the grid are world champion material, some are better than others, but all are very, very fine drivers when it comes to car control and quick thinking/reflexes. Less frenetic racing series I can just about imagine an average person with enough time, money and determination could learn how to do the job fairly effectively - but I think at F1 speeds you pretty much have to be born with the raw talent - in addition to all the hard work and training on top of that of course.

[37chevy]

lets be honest, its daft trying to compare the 2. IndyCar is compromised somewhat with having to do mixed courses ie oval, street and road courses and lets not forget the budget difference. each one of those seconds behind an F1 car equates to 30 million dollars....pretty eye watering, and did you really feel like Indycars seemed slow during the race? I didn't, I was more interested in the great racing it was producing

Also for reference, the 1:46 of an IndyCar is the same as an LMP1 car around COTA....and the fastest race lap in F1 pre the new rules was around 1:41, so not exactly slow...just F1 is bloody fast

Edited by 37chevy on Monday 25th March 14:32

[CanAm]

super7 said:

The Indycar at Indianapolis for the 500 is a completly different animal to the "Road" track car that's used elsewhere. The Oval cars are stripped of any drag, have little downforce, run with a stagger and are totaly optimised for an oval track with no "real" corners. I am 99% sure that if you specced an F1 car with the same downforce levels they would meet or even beat 236mph.... Therefore, comparing an F1 car to an Oval specced indycar is not a fair comparison.

And neither is comparing an F1 car to the current standardised Indy car.

Granted the Honda F1 managed almost 247mph at Bonneville, but with even lower downforce than Indy 500 cars and set up solely for driving in a straight line.

[37chevy]

CanAm said:

super7 said:

The Indycar at Indianapolis for the 500 is a completly different animal to the "Road" track car that's used elsewhere. The Oval cars are stripped of any drag, have little downforce, run with a stagger and are totaly optimised for an oval track with no "real" corners. I am 99% sure that if you specced an F1 car with the same downforce levels they would meet or even beat 236mph.... Therefore, comparing an F1 car to an Oval specced indycar is not a fair comparison.

And neither is comparing an F1 car to the current standardised Indy car.

Granted the Honda F1 managed almost 247mph at Bonneville, but with even lower downforce than Indy 500 cars and set up solely for driving in a straight line.

Actually I’d doubt that an F1 car could beat an Indycar around an oval.

Remember Champ Car hold the closed speed circuit record at around 242mph av. the race had to be cancelled though because drivers were getting dizzy....so think the human aspect would stop an F1 car beating the oval record.

Oh and please, 247....that’s slow, a top fuel car can do that in less than 3 seconds....


...all this comparison is meaningless in reality. Horses for courses n all that

[sgtBerbatov]

Robberto said:

CanAm said:

The lap record at Indy is over 236mph. I don't think an F1 car has ever had a measured top speed as high as that in race trim.

The Indycar rules have been changed regularly to keep speeds under control and they are now lapping slower than in 1996.

Montoya recorded close to 234mph on a track that had corners you actually have to brake for and properly accelerate out of rather than a lift and single downshift

Yes, 2mph slower, but a lot less of an achievement on an oval compared to a proper track

Ah, the halycon days of BMW powered Williams cars that challenged the front of the grid.

[Munter]

I fell asleep on the sofa after about 10 laps. But that said, I've done the same to F1 as well in the past. (Wadda you mean I'm getting old!)

I did feel something was missing. But I couldn't tell you exactly what it was. Probably just that I'm not invested in the history of the teams/drivers with Indy car.

I did however enjoy the mazda MX5 race, with breakfast this morning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shzb4k6qoPc

I'll try and give Indy another shot as it sounds like the 2nd half of the race was more exciting.

[37chevy]

Munter said:

I fell asleep on the sofa after about 10 laps. But that said, I've done the same to F1 as well in the past. (Wadda you mean I'm getting old!)

I did feel something was missing. But I couldn't tell you exactly what it was. Probably just that I'm not invested in the history of the teams/drivers with Indy car.

I did however enjoy the mazda MX5 race, with breakfast this morning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shzb4k6qoPc

I'll try and give Indy another shot as it sounds like the 2nd half of the race was more exciting.

Don’t think it’s the best track for Indycar tbf. Much better on street circuits or classic circuits like road Atlanta/ mid Ohio

[TheDeuce]

37chevy said:

Actually I’d doubt that an F1 car could beat an Indycar around an oval.

Remember Champ Car hold the closed speed circuit record at around 242mph av. the race had to be cancelled though because drivers were getting dizzy....so think the human aspect would stop an F1 car beating the oval record.

Oh and please, 247....that’s slow, a top fuel car can do that in less than 3 seconds....


...all this comparison is meaningless in reality. Horses for courses n all that

Surely that's another reason why an F1 car potentially could exceed that speed - because with an F1 driver in the seat, they're more likely to be able to cope with those repetitive direction changes. think how much more lateral G force an F1 driver is used to before even getting to an oval. I think nascar and indycar both see around 2G in the ovals, an F1 driver regularly sees 5G.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJRh9FG83d0

Granted thereis a difference between several direction changes and a constant left, but general training for and tolerance of G force would surely help keep dizziness at bay long enough to take the record.

[37chevy]

TheDeuce said:

Surely that's another reason why an F1 car potentially could exceed that speed - because with an F1 driver in the seat, they're more likely to be able to cope with those repetitive direction changes. think how much more lateral G force an F1 driver is used to before even getting to an oval. I think nascar and indycar both see around 2G in the ovals, an F1 driver regularly sees 5G.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJRh9FG83d0

Granted thereis a difference between several direction changes and a constant left, but general training for and tolerance of G force would surely help keep dizziness at bay long enough to take the record.

I disagree, Indycar drivers are much more used to coping with g forces on an oval.

[TheDeuce]

37chevy said:

TheDeuce said:

Surely that's another reason why an F1 car potentially could exceed that speed - because with an F1 driver in the seat, they're more likely to be able to cope with those repetitive direction changes. think how much more lateral G force an F1 driver is used to before even getting to an oval. I think nascar and indycar both see around 2G in the ovals, an F1 driver regularly sees 5G.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJRh9FG83d0

Granted thereis a difference between several direction changes and a constant left, but general training for and tolerance of G force would surely help keep dizziness at bay long enough to take the record.

I disagree, Indycar drivers are much more used to coping with g forces on an oval.

I honestly don't know which is hardest to deal with, regular repetitive 2G or regular 3-5G in mostly different directions each time. I did google just now but couldn't find any clear comments from drivers who have done both.

What's your theory to why/how it's worse?

[thegreenhell]

cheddar said:

For the first time ever a direct comparison between F1 and Indycar lap times has been seen as the Indycar Series ran their inaugural event at Circuit Of Americas yesterday.

Fastest lap Indycar: 1.46 seconds
Fastest lap F1: 1.32 seconds

I knew that F1 cars would be quicker but FOURTEEN SECONDS!

Is that F2 pace? Or even F3?
Some of you will know.

It's not the first time ever that there's been a direct comparison. From 2002-2006 The Champ Car series (as it was known then) raced in Montreal on the same Circuit Giles Villeneuve as F1. They were typically around 6 seconds slower than F1 then, but both F1 and Indy regulations have changed many times over since then.

[37chevy]

TheDeuce said:

I honestly don't know which is hardest to deal with, regular repetitive 2G or regular 3-5G in mostly different directions each time. I did google just now but couldn't find any clear comments from drivers who have done both.

What's your theory to why/how it's worse?

Not saying it’s better or worse, but Indycar drivers are already used to/ more adapted to those loads so your assumption that an F1 driver could beat biology and do better doesn’t stack up

[Bradgate]

I saw the Indycar qualifying at COTA on Sky F1 and I couldn’t believe the speed difference. Initially, I thought I must be missing something. How could they possibly be that much slower? It certainly puts the speed of current F1 cars into perspective. They are absolute monsters.

[HighwayStar]

Munter said:

I fell asleep on the sofa after about 10 laps. But that said, I've done the same to F1 as well in the past. (Wadda you mean I'm getting old!)

I did feel something was missing. But I couldn't tell you exactly what it was. Probably just that I'm not invested in the history of the teams/drivers with Indy car.

That fairly much says it... none of it has the things that draw me to F1, WRC or even MotoGP. Yes there are characters and rivalries but like a movie with a poor script and actors, I just don’t care what happens.

[37chevy]

Bradgate said:

I saw the Indycar qualifying at COTA on Sky F1 and I couldn’t believe the speed difference. Initially, I thought I must be missing something. How could they possibly be that much slower? It certainly puts the speed of current F1 cars into perspective. They are absolute monsters.

Again, its all relative. IndyCar isn't slow, theyre the same pace as an LMP1 car.....the real question is, would you prefer close racing, overtaking etc or faster cars?

[37chevy]

HighwayStar said:

That fairly much says it... none of it has the things that draw me to F1, WRC or even MotoGP. Yes there are characters and rivalries but like a movie with a poor script and actors, I just don’t care what happens.

agree with this, I love watching IndyCar but I need a driver or team to get behind to add tension to any series that im watching. I get that with F1, WEC, IMSA because I know the teams/ drivers, I used to have it with ChampCar so will get it again with IndyCar, just needs time to build up that fan/ driver relationship

[Eric Mc]

Outright speed is not that relevant to me. I prefer to see dynamic cars (i.e. cars that are difficult to control and move about a lot) and evidence that the driver is really barely on top of the car. That's why I like historic racing because you can see so much of what the driver has top do to get the most out of the car.

Some of my favourite races have been from relatively slow series, like historics, Caterhams, Cooper 500ccs types etc.

[Kraken]

TheDeuce said:

The near super-human abilities of F1 drivers are definitely part of the draw for me. Not all the drivers on the grid are world champion material, some are better than others, but all are very, very fine drivers when it comes to car control and quick thinking/reflexes. Less frenetic racing series I can just about imagine an average person with enough time, money and determination could learn how to do the job fairly effectively - but I think at F1 speeds you pretty much have to be born with the raw talent - in addition to all the hard work and training on top of that of course.

Can't say I agree with that. Any of the top Indycar drivers could drive an F1 car well as could many top drivers in others series. If F1 drivers were so far ahead of other drivers then they would destroy everyone on the way up and when they move onto other series. That is not the case.