Indy & F1
 

Has got to be some reason that these two don't have a friendly two race show down.
America, pick an oval. Europe, pick a road race track.
I remember back in (I think 1992) I went to laguna Seca and saw Michael Andretti
win that road course.
Got to be something stopping these two great state of the art racing factions from not wanting to do this. It would be great revenue across the board.
Anyway... back to the rain delayed trials.

Anyone know why?

What's the point? Indy cars are not anywhere the same as F1..

Incidentally, this was done once before.

Zeke .. I didn't know they raced once before.

If they did and F1 was the better, so be it.
If it was just dialog then let us get it on and prove how superior F1 is. I think you might be right.

I would rather see head to head on road courses . I wonder if WIll Power or Alexander Rossi in a IRL car could beat a Williams F1 car on a road course ?

race of two worlds in the 50's at monza on the old oval before that

indy guys did better that time

but f-5000 is not indy rules even if they had some indy drivers there :rolleyes:
turbo offies on alcohol made a lot more power then stock blocks on gas in 71

There are no current IRL cars and they would suck worse against the current F1 cars.
The only reasonable comparison between the 2 types of formula cars would be the old Champ cars with a single turbo V8 like the Ilmor against the newer single turbo V6 of F1. But there's still the hybrid thing to consider. The older CART engines could do 15,000 RPM and generate 800+ HP.

It's still not much of a match as the CART and Champ Cars are heavier. The aerodynamics are way different as well.

This 'race' between the 2 will never happen.

An F1 car would absolutely kill an Indycar on a road course. I wouldn’t bet against them on an oval, either.

On a 1-lap basis,maybe not a huge delta between the two. But an F1 car is designed to run about 200 miles per race. No way the motor/gearbox would last through a full 500 mile race like next weekend's. Not really a fair comparison, IMO.

The closest recent comparison I can think of is at COTA. Not a side by side situation but interesting none the less. Almost 15 seconds per lap difference favoring the F1 car.

Here's the story.

https://jalopnik.com/heres-how-indycars-lap-times-at-cota-compare-to-formula-1832587157

What ever the speed differences, the Indy car package these days make for much more interesting on track close quarters action. And the Indy series is including more road and street courses in their calendar these days too.

How ever fast the F1 cars are these days, I keep falling asleep during the parades, I mean races.

Cheers Richard

The COTA thing is interesting, as I was under the impression that for the longest time, it was F1 that did not want their cars running on the same tracks as IndyCars. Which is why there were no tracks where both F1 and IndyCar/CART/Champ Car raced. Well, at least until COTA.

I thought so. All opinions, spread sheets, speculation and just talk.
Put them them on a road course. 250 miles. Done. Let's do it. All talk and no walk.
All act and no back.

Most of the F1 cars have to go for 5 races with the same drivetrain. So 500 miles is easy.

No, actual lap times. I’m guessing you must not have looked at the link, but it’s hard to argue with actual, measured performance. Indy cars are not in the same league as F1 cars. They might do better against an F2 car.

Indy and F1 are apples and oranges. Different technology restrictions, pit stop restrictions, refueling versus not refueling, tire options. Might as well compare the NHRA to either of the them. If you want to compare drivers then have an IROC series.

BTW, for all the F1 snobs that say Indycar is second class, check with Alonso and McLaren.

Marcus Ericsson had a great comparison of the two recently, wish I could find the article. He said the braking in F1 is the difference, astonishing braking in F1. He described how much easier the F1 car is to drive compared to the Indycar and how much of a physical toll the Indycar takes. Much like Hamilton who has stated F1 cars are way too easy to drive and don’t take enough physical toll on the drivers compared to other athletes

Agree. There's more passing in a good drag race than in your average F1 race.

I'm biased in favor of the home team, I recognize, but I really like the personalities in Indycar. You've got Ganassi and Penske, but there are lots of other teams with great chances of winning any race. Seeming shoe-ins from overseas can miss the cut, and shoestrings like Pippa Mann and a team of dirt track racers can make it, even in today's world. Great stuff that you just don't find anywhere else.

I'd love to see Bourdais win it.

It's not the total mileage to which I was referring. Try holding an F1 throttle wide open--with just breathing it a bit for the 4 corners--for that distance and see if the reliability remains.

It is a harsh environment.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1558339904.jpg

Tevuren's got a strong point there.
The last time that F1 tried to race at Indy's combination oval/ road course, only a few teams were able to compete in the race.

"2005, only six cars competed in the race due to problems with tires supplied by Michelin. The cars using Michelin tires withdrew from the race after the formation lap, leaving only the six cars that competed on Bridgestone tires to run the race."

If I remember correctly the drivers also were on the brink of passing out with the sustained G loads experienced in the long sustained high G turns at Indy, that did in the tires.

I wonder if the Indy cars were racing on the same course there at Indy in those years, and if so how the lap times compare?

With the amazing areo developments in F1 ( thanks Won and Capt Ahab )
It might require fighter pilot like G suits for F1 drivers to manage the loads imposed on them by the performance of modern F1 cars at a track Like Indy.

Cheers Richard

the ruling bodies of each try to dictate a rules package with track layout and safety in mind.

If F1 didn't change their track layouts, adding chicanes, etc, then the performance of the F1 car would have to be dialed back by the ruling body.

Indy has to run at tracks where there isn't run off. They'd lose their audience if they put in chicanes.

This means they have to dial the cars back via the rules much further than F1 as they have less control of safety via track changes.

Safer barriers have helped Indy cars be at very high speeds, but the Indy cars could be much faster if they added Chicanes on each straight of Indy...(Imagine the outrage!)

In both F1 and Indy, whatever the teams come up with to go faster than intended will result in a new set of rules with speeds in mind.

In terms of spending, this is not so much dictated by the rules but by the value of the money stream to the teams. Teams will find a way to spend their money no matter what attempt is made to cut costs.

The rise of virtual testing came about from attempting to cut costs by limiting real testing. It is possible that this has made it even harder for starting teams as the process of calibrating virtualization without testing is extremely difficult.

Tires also play a part, what sort of degredation is the series aiming for? You can compare one lap runs, but what happens when you go longer? Porsche did their wide body 911's not for qualifying speed, but for the long run advantage.

An aspect that hasn't been mentioned is that you could take the budgets for Indy Car and make a car that is much faster than a F1 car. It just would not be eligible for either series.

Both series are limiting the potential for lap time according to track adaptions and their view of what results from budget and knowledge of the teams.