F1 vs Indycar, incredible pace difference
Discussion
I have watched both races of the season so far and enjoyed the racing.
Have been following loosely for a few years so familier (ish) with the drivers.
Whenever there is a helmet level cam you can see how much the cars are being "driven". Generally racing is good and the top drivers are of a very high quaility. The helmet can and moveable turrets are quite good in the coverage to give that perspective.
Couple of past F1 drivers been through the system.
Each series has its pros and cons, its just nice to be able to have a variety if i'm honest, im just annoyed its moved off BT onto Sky (im sure others see this as Visa versa for others who have Sky!).
From the COTA coverage it certainly seems there is a level of respect for F1 and the quality of drivers considering how much they were harping on about the amount of past experience Chilton and Ericsson apparently have at COTA....
Have been following loosely for a few years so familier (ish) with the drivers.
Whenever there is a helmet level cam you can see how much the cars are being "driven". Generally racing is good and the top drivers are of a very high quaility. The helmet can and moveable turrets are quite good in the coverage to give that perspective.
Couple of past F1 drivers been through the system.
Each series has its pros and cons, its just nice to be able to have a variety if i'm honest, im just annoyed its moved off BT onto Sky (im sure others see this as Visa versa for others who have Sky!).
From the COTA coverage it certainly seems there is a level of respect for F1 and the quality of drivers considering how much they were harping on about the amount of past experience Chilton and Ericsson apparently have at COTA....
The helmet cam is superb. Watching a slower Indycar is much more entertaining than watching a quicker F1 car. Those wheel inputs are fun to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZAUb4lb__Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZAUb4lb__Q
sgtBerbatov said:
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 downshiftThe Indycar rules have been changed regularly to keep speeds under control and they are now lapping slower than in 1996.
Yes, 2mph slower, but a lot less of an achievement on an oval compared to a proper track
Highest official recorded speed was set in a McLaren. Ah the halcyon days... haha
I think comparing the two series now, based on one track and after significant chopping and changing of format (Indy particularly) means you aren’t looking at the whole story.
Of course everyone knows that IndyCar, Champ Car, IRL, CART, whatever it’s been is a long complicated history but I think generally as a sport it’s viewed as far more ‘gladiatorial’ than F1. It’s common knowledge there’s been a number of high profile crashes and deaths in Indy compared to F1 recently, and with those mega bowl, short ovals and super speedway races, I’d argue to say that sometimes it’s the ultimate spectator sport.
Things probably haven’t been the same since the end of the CART days and the IRL with their spec formula taking over, but you can’t forget that for a long time the cars were absolute monsters and just as thrilling as an MP4/4 or FW11B or something. Yes Honda was putting out 800bhp perhaps, but in that era the CART cars were often 900+, and because above all races, the oval action was where the real fun was many cars were designed with that as primary. Extra weight and the rest of it.
Some people go on about Michael Andretti not cutting it when he slid across to F1 as evidence that it’s hard to crack; but I don’t think that’s the full picture. After all Villeneuve did it seemlessly, and with Andretti, he was in retrospect moving to a slightly destabilised McLaren - Senna was undecided, the second driver scenario was unknown, there hadn’t been a decision on the engine, then Senna opted in with four days to go, bulk of the money went from r&d to pay for him, and with the 23 lap practice rule, little chance to shine and tune into new tracks for the rookie. There was context.
These days Indy cars look a bit weak to me, but back then they were true beasts. Indy is a pale shadow of what it was, but comparing the series in a one-off way at this point in time doesn’t accurately reflect the status of both over many decades.
The undefeated Ilmor
Andretti and his Wildcat/Cosworth
The breakthrough Lola, the T90/00
Villenueve with a Cosworth XB?
Of course everyone knows that IndyCar, Champ Car, IRL, CART, whatever it’s been is a long complicated history but I think generally as a sport it’s viewed as far more ‘gladiatorial’ than F1. It’s common knowledge there’s been a number of high profile crashes and deaths in Indy compared to F1 recently, and with those mega bowl, short ovals and super speedway races, I’d argue to say that sometimes it’s the ultimate spectator sport.
Things probably haven’t been the same since the end of the CART days and the IRL with their spec formula taking over, but you can’t forget that for a long time the cars were absolute monsters and just as thrilling as an MP4/4 or FW11B or something. Yes Honda was putting out 800bhp perhaps, but in that era the CART cars were often 900+, and because above all races, the oval action was where the real fun was many cars were designed with that as primary. Extra weight and the rest of it.
Some people go on about Michael Andretti not cutting it when he slid across to F1 as evidence that it’s hard to crack; but I don’t think that’s the full picture. After all Villeneuve did it seemlessly, and with Andretti, he was in retrospect moving to a slightly destabilised McLaren - Senna was undecided, the second driver scenario was unknown, there hadn’t been a decision on the engine, then Senna opted in with four days to go, bulk of the money went from r&d to pay for him, and with the 23 lap practice rule, little chance to shine and tune into new tracks for the rookie. There was context.
These days Indy cars look a bit weak to me, but back then they were true beasts. Indy is a pale shadow of what it was, but comparing the series in a one-off way at this point in time doesn’t accurately reflect the status of both over many decades.
The undefeated Ilmor
Andretti and his Wildcat/Cosworth
The breakthrough Lola, the T90/00
Villenueve with a Cosworth XB?
tigerkoi said:
I think comparing the two series now, based on one track and after significant chopping and changing of format (Indy particularly) means you aren’t looking at the whole story.
Of course everyone knows that IndyCar, Champ Car, IRL, CART, whatever it’s been is a long complicated history but I think generally as a sport it’s viewed as far more ‘gladiatorial’ than F1. It’s common knowledge there’s been a number of high profile crashes and deaths in Indy compared to F1 recently, and with those mega bowl, short ovals and super speedway races, I’d argue to say that sometimes it’s the ultimate spectator sport.
Things probably haven’t been the same since the end of the CART days and the IRL with their spec formula taking over, but you can’t forget that for a long time the cars were absolute monsters and just as thrilling as an MP4/4 or FW11B or something. Yes Honda was putting out 800bhp perhaps, but in that era the CART cars were often 900+, and because above all races, the oval action was where the real fun was many cars were designed with that as primary. Extra weight and the rest of it.
Some people go on about Michael Andretti not cutting it when he slid across to F1 as evidence that it’s hard to crack; but I don’t think that’s the full picture. After all Villeneuve did it seemlessly, and with Andretti, he was in retrospect moving to a slightly destabilised McLaren - Senna was undecided, the second driver scenario was unknown, there hadn’t been a decision on the engine, then Senna opted in with four days to go, bulk of the money went from r&d to pay for him, and with the 23 lap practice rule, little chance to shine and tune into new tracks for the rookie. There was context.
These days Indy cars look a bit weak to me, but back then they were true beasts. Indy is a pale shadow of what it was, but comparing the series in a one-off way at this point in time doesn’t accurately reflect the status of both over many decades.
Re Andretti at McLaren... yes there were lots of things going on within the team but he had one fundamental problem. He struggled/failed to get the car off the line once the lights went out.Of course everyone knows that IndyCar, Champ Car, IRL, CART, whatever it’s been is a long complicated history but I think generally as a sport it’s viewed as far more ‘gladiatorial’ than F1. It’s common knowledge there’s been a number of high profile crashes and deaths in Indy compared to F1 recently, and with those mega bowl, short ovals and super speedway races, I’d argue to say that sometimes it’s the ultimate spectator sport.
Things probably haven’t been the same since the end of the CART days and the IRL with their spec formula taking over, but you can’t forget that for a long time the cars were absolute monsters and just as thrilling as an MP4/4 or FW11B or something. Yes Honda was putting out 800bhp perhaps, but in that era the CART cars were often 900+, and because above all races, the oval action was where the real fun was many cars were designed with that as primary. Extra weight and the rest of it.
Some people go on about Michael Andretti not cutting it when he slid across to F1 as evidence that it’s hard to crack; but I don’t think that’s the full picture. After all Villeneuve did it seemlessly, and with Andretti, he was in retrospect moving to a slightly destabilised McLaren - Senna was undecided, the second driver scenario was unknown, there hadn’t been a decision on the engine, then Senna opted in with four days to go, bulk of the money went from r&d to pay for him, and with the 23 lap practice rule, little chance to shine and tune into new tracks for the rookie. There was context.
These days Indy cars look a bit weak to me, but back then they were true beasts. Indy is a pale shadow of what it was, but comparing the series in a one-off way at this point in time doesn’t accurately reflect the status of both over many decades.
I get the whole thing re ovals... there is a lot more to it that just driving round as fast as they can, knowing when to go high, go low, slip streaming (or drafting as they call it). I appreciate the skill, knowledge and sheer balls to be in there but as a visual spectacle it's not for me.
Kraken said:
Just goes to show that laptime is pretty irrelevant (to a point) for the racing itself. I've always said a handful of cars battling wheel to wheel at 2 minute laps is far more exciting than a procession at 1:30 laps. Ideally cars battling wheel to wheel at 1:30 would be nice but the priority should be the battles to start with rather than the pursuit of lap time for its own sake.
Agree.Moto GP is slow compared to F1, but the action is better.
sparta6 said:
Kraken said:
Just goes to show that laptime is pretty irrelevant (to a point) for the racing itself. I've always said a handful of cars battling wheel to wheel at 2 minute laps is far more exciting than a procession at 1:30 laps. Ideally cars battling wheel to wheel at 1:30 would be nice but the priority should be the battles to start with rather than the pursuit of lap time for its own sake.
Agree.Moto GP is slow compared to F1, but the action is better.
Why do they have to be the same?
Robberto said:
sgtBerbatov said:
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 downshiftThe Indycar rules have been changed regularly to keep speeds under control and they are now lapping slower than in 1996.
Yes, 2mph slower, but a lot less of an achievement on an oval compared to a proper track
Highest official recorded speed was set in a McLaren. Ah the halcyon days... haha
37chevy said:
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
As daft as it may be to compare the two its fascinating analysing how and what F1/motorsport should be.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
Honestly, could anybody tell that the Indycars were that slow compared to F1?
F1 has greater aero and grip but they go like rails round corners so how can commitment, bravery and the sensation of speed be translated to viewers at home? On the other hand the drivers enjoy the challenge of the physical dexterity to man handle the cars vs the G forces inflicted on to the drivers has meant drivers training harder and harder year on year since going back to the wider cars - just witness how Bottas has bulked up this year.
ICs with less downforce/grip looked more exciting to watch to the naked eye as the cars moved around more, far more traction limited with rear end movement far more dramatic than F1 and the steering wheel having to be worked far more.
In terms of the racing they were - in my eyes - about equal, regardless of P2P/DRS; race leader looked certain of checking out but it seems IC year on year has underdogs winning races just as you have with Herta winning at COTA and perhaps there's the rub. Greater engineering parity gives closer competition for lesser teams teams to win races regardless of a dominant team/driver over a season. Brawn/Liberty want cheaper parts, control costs, more parity; the teams want an arms races, a development war as that is the purity of F1.
As good as Indycar has been for a number of years. Why is it seemingly nobody watching it apart from the Indy500?
Munter said:
Why can't we have F1 going for laptimes/strategy/technology, and lower car formula/Moto GP for on track action?
Why do they have to be the same?
They don't but do you really think F1 is sustainable if all they care about is what amounts to high speed chess with no action? There is no doubt that there is a hardcore of fans who would enjoy that but I seriously doubt there are enough to generate the billions F1 needs.Why do they have to be the same?
CanAm said:
Robberto said:
sgtBerbatov said:
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 downshiftThe Indycar rules have been changed regularly to keep speeds under control and they are now lapping slower than in 1996.
Yes, 2mph slower, but a lot less of an achievement on an oval compared to a proper track
Highest official recorded speed was set in a McLaren. Ah the halcyon days... haha
“Before Saturday, no one had driven a faster lap in F1 history than Juan Pablo Montoya. Back in 2004, during the first part of qualifying in Italy, the Colombian had hustled his BMW-powered Williams around Monza’s historic Temple of Speed at an average of 262.242 km/h (162.9 mph).”
According to Wikipedia
“In testing one month prior to the 2005 Italian Grand Prix, Juan Pablo Montoya of the McLaren-Mercedes F1 team recorded a record top speed of 372.6 km/h (231.5 mph),[29] which got officially recognised by the FIA as the fastest speed ever achieved by an F1 car , even though it was not set during an officially sanctioned session during a race weekend. In the 2005 Italian GP Kimi Räikkönen of McLaren-Mercedes was recorded at 370.1 km/h (229.9 mph). This record was broken at the 2016 Mexican Grand Prix by Williams driver Valtteri Bottas, whose top speed in race conditions was 372.54 km/h (231.48 mph).[30][31] However, even though this information was shown in FIA's official monitors, the FIA is yet to accept it as an official record. Bottas had previously set an even higher record top speed during qualifying for the 2016 European Grand Prix, recording a speed of 378.035 km/h (234.9 mph), albeit through the use of slipstream drafting.
Kraken said:
Munter said:
Why can't we have F1 going for laptimes/strategy/technology, and lower car formula/Moto GP for on track action?
Why do they have to be the same?
They don't but do you really think F1 is sustainable if all they care about is what amounts to high speed chess with no action? There is no doubt that there is a hardcore of fans who would enjoy that but I seriously doubt there are enough to generate the billions F1 needs.Why do they have to be the same?
If the cash slows up, development will slow down, things will level off a bit among the teams, then someone will spend cash to win, and around we go again.
Lets enjoy it for what it is, not try and make it something it isn't and hasn't been.
Bullitt Five-Oh said:
cheddar said:
Fastest lap F1: 1.32 seconds
What's the fastest lap without the engine party mode mumbo jumbo please? 1.37 secs. This is a much fairer comparison since Indycar don't get to enjoy any of that 100+ milion w
k.k in the same way though, for some reason?Also, you can't possibly know what the F1 lap times were without the highest 'party' engine modes being used. There are too many variables. I'm pretty sure the top teams leave the engines turned down in Q1, and the lap times were still in the low 1m 34secs. They were doing 1m 33secs in Practice.
The only 'fair' comparison is the pole position times of the two cars, as this is when they are both lapping the same circuit as fast as they possibly can with low fuel and no thought of tyre preservation.
Not sure why so many people are getting so defensive. It's simply a discussion of the two formats as they currently stand. Being slower doesn't mean the racing is any less enjoyable (quite often the reverse). I love watching the Formula 2 races on a GP weekend, the racing is often brilliant.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff