Re: What's fatser Indy 500 or Formula 1

Discussion in '2002 Ferrari F2002' started by ReeK, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. CART weigh 1550lbs = 703 kg
  2. Hello there, do you know anything about racing at all, about race setups, u r a dumb guy, let me explain, first of all Monza is not a oval, you have corners and have a chicane at the end of the 220mph straight, the braking of the car depends on the amount of wing its running, not only braking, the car has to run some wing to tackle the parabolica.
    So you expect the CART spec car to do some 250mph at the Monza straight??? Maybe you have to fit in some rockets.
    Just admire the fact that at Indy circuit, while travelling 1/3 the oval starting at turn 11 around 130kmph accelerating through the straight the F1 car was doing 350kmph at the end of the straight!!!! and the rest of the circuit is full of slow corners which requires some decent amount of wing.
    Can-Am series is of 1970s, its dead and gone. Then i could say F1 would kick your Can-Am's old ass if turbos were around, the turbos were doing nearly 1500 bhp in qualifying spec. And 900+ bhp in race spec. If the turbos were allowed today, the power figures would have been astounding, probably 2000+ bhp in qualifying and 1200+ bhp in race spec. Now do you have an answer to that?
  3. F1 has much more potential than now, but it is restricted by regulations to preserve safety.

    No turbos: in mid 80s horsepower for many car was well over 1000
    No slicks: in order to low the velocity in turns.
    min 600 kgr: actually many cars weights less (eg Ferrari 540 kgr)but they add weight to be in regulations.
    Limitations in width aerodynamics etc
  4. The Fact that F1 cars lapped about 6 secs per lap faster than the CART cars on the EXACT same track speaks for itself.
  5. Re:

    ch1c4n3, a F1 probably winning a Indy 500 on Monaco??? Of course it would win. Even Minardi would have won in Monaco against an Indy 500 car more than very easily, and probably would have lapped the Indy 500 car more than once. The Indy 500s are made to be raced on ovals, its design wasn’t made for high downforce tracks. Or the pilot that would drive the Indy 500 do the turns very, very, very slow, or it will end in the wall on the first corner.
    On Indy 500 track the F1 could win, if the race was just 2 laps. Just remember that in every F1 race there his corners, even in the fast Monza, so the pilots must put some downforce to tackle with these. If they keep the wing angle to a minimum and lengthen the gears, the F1 would possibly be faster than an Indy 500, but of course it wouldn’t be able to resist a full Indy 500 race distance.
    Even if the F1 isn’t faster in terms of top speed than Indy 500, just use a bit of common sense. The Formula 1 teams spend a lot of more money than Indy 500 teams, so this translates into a more technologically advanced car.
  6. And don't forget that the F1 cars could use higher gear ratios if they were to go around an oval. The F1 cars could beat CART cars even without the turbos because the engines are so much more refined and the cars are generally better throught the air.
  7. The comparison of CART to F1 is pretty interesting, although i do have a correction to make. An average modern F1 car produced a bit more than 800 hp. The F2002 produces 850-900, and the Williams and Mclaren produce a similar amount. The F1 cars weigh less than the champ cars and have a better downforce. They also have incredible results on a skidpad (over 1.5 gs) and have better acceleration than CART. On the circuit Gilles Villeneuve in Canada, the F1 cars were running 1:11s and 1:12 minute times, while the champ cars were doing 1:18s, so you decide <A BORDER="0" HREF=""><IMG BORDER="0" SRC=""></A>
  8. Firstly, i haven't had time to read everyone's replies, but has anyone mentioned that the Indy's run different fuel, compared to the F1's that run EEC approved unleaded.
  9. Just to add to the previous statement. Indy's run Methanol, while F1's run Unleaded Petrol.

    Although a race between the rwo would be very interesting, there are too many variables, and in any case, what track would they race on. It would have to be one with an equal number of turns and straights, to even it out a little.

    Let's say (hypothetically) taht the Indy's are faster:
    Then you'll have the Indy's miles ahead of the F1's on the straights, but the F1's would pass the Indy's on braking.

    So there's no real basis for comparison.
    (Apples and oranges).
  10. Just to add to the previous statement. Indy's run Methanol, while F1's run Unleaded Petrol.

    Although a race between the rwo would be very interesting, there are too many variables, and in any case, what track would they race on. It would have to be one with an equal number of turns and straights, to even it out a little.

    Let's say (hypothetically) that the Indy's are faster:
    Then you'll have the Indy's miles ahead of the F1's on the straights, but the F1's would pass the Indy's on braking.

    So there's no real basis for comparison.
    (Apples and oranges).
  11. If you'd bothered to read the entire thread you would know that both CART and F1 cars have already raced on the same circuit.
  12. F1 cars would kill CART and IRL cars around a true track. I consider a true track to be a track like F1. Oval's aren't that amazing. However, driving on a track with chicanes and hairpins and an occasional straightaway is more skill. The F1 cars accelerate faster than the others and handle much better.
  13. Actually the CART teams are just as spread in performance but they have slipstream to keep them all in a nice bunch - F1 is was similar around the old hokenhiem but in the infield section the cars which were only keeping up because they ran so little wing just got blitzed!!
  14. Everyone seems to forget that every Formula 1 team has to build its chassis, in CART there are only two chassis providers, Lola and Reynard. So every one must keep this in mind when they say that CART races are much tight than Formula 1.
  15. Only 2 chassis, and only 3 engines, and lots of "safety periods" all make for closer racing.
  16. 370KPH/230MPH is the top speed, but that is restricted by the exhausts, it is the same as the McLaren F1 road car which does 240MPH but Mclaren tested it without the exhaust and it pulled out 255MPH although this cannot be recorded in the record books as a car in the UK is not allowed to be produced without an exhaust!
  17. Minardis lapped a lot quicker than the CART pole time at the Montreal track.
  18. The two types of cars can't be compared. Would you compare a Skyline to a Viper? One is 4wheel drive twin-turbo, one is normally aspirated V-10, it makes no sense. Yet people do it anyway. Well, an interesting fact: my dad originally raised the sponsorship money to start newman/haas racing. If you follow the CART series, you might notice that Cristiano Da Matta is the current points leader, and is basically so far ahead, that the championship is already his. Da Matta races for Newman/Haas. Other championship winners from Newman/Haas include Mario Andretti and Nigel Mansel. Just thought you all might wanna know that.
  19. If i'm not mistaken both F1 and CART drove at montreal in canada and I heardt from olav mol from the dutch formule1 tv, the Minardy was over 7 seconds faster then any CART, so track difference is big. now the oveal racind, and the estimatios from the newest engins from Ferrari and BMW are about 900 HP, and the weight is 600 kg. and they drive on simple gasoliene and CART an IRL run on methanol whits has a higher combustion rate zo technicly more HP per littre, but they run whit 5 litre engins an F1 whit 3 litre whitout compressors and turbos. so wicht is more powerful per litre. i want to see how a F1 reaches 450 km/h o higher, it is posseble i think.
  20. CART have 2.65 litre engines.
  21. You are right when you say Formula 1 cars are better than Carts and Indy in almost every aspect, even considering they use normal gasoline.
    But CART uses 2.65 liter engines and Indy uses 3.5 liters, not 5.

    Formula 1 cars are the fastest machines around twisty racetracks. There's no argument about that.
  22. i'm sorry for my misunderstanding for the engine capasity. but is still think they can go faster then 450 km/h if you realise they can reacht 370 at sortoff 1,5 km, at monza.
  23. An F1, theoretically would lose to an Indy car on an oval circuit. Why - because of the aerodynamics under and ontop of the car. if u put 2 of them side by side, u can see that they are very different in aerodynamic setup. However, if u put both of them on a circuit with corners - eg Albert Park F1 circuit, Melbourne Australia (where i live) the results would be much different. The F1 would completely annihilate the Indy, why? - because of its setup. An F1 has soo much downforce it theoretically can drive upside down on the roof of a tunnel. This is probably the same for an indy, but the setup is different.

    Now, take the Ferrari Enzo for example - it has 775kg (1708pounds for u yanks n poms etc.) of downforce at 300 kmH (186 mph for yanks etc....). Now that is a road car..imagine what the Ferrari F1 is pulling at 300KmH!! - it is probably over 1000kg (work it out urself..i CBF'd nymore) of downforce. Now this also slows the car down, but it has soo much grip on the road that it can take the corners, even the sharp ones soo fast that it is unbelivable. Also, the move back to slicks in 2005-6 will increase that grip, so even more speed will be able to be achieved.

    I dont think that it has ever been done - an F1 vs the Indy, but they bloody should do it! - to rest all of our minds! - as i said different tracks and setups would alter the outcome.

    However, in the suspension depatrment, the 2 cars are so different. The Indy...having to cope with street circuits that have undulating surfaces like Fat Bastards ass are put at a very high dampening setup, while the F1 is a lot stiffer, as the tracks that they race on are flatter, and while some of them are street tracks, they are not as rough and tuff on the cars.

    Also, Indys are turboed, so the boost levels and pressure can be modified to produce more power, it is much harder to add power to the F1.

    All of this is IMO, but having read a lot about the cars, its probably fairly not saying that it is tho, im falling WAY short of that!

    BTW - i actually dont like IRL - racing around a circular oval has no point to it...Indy is OK, But nothing Beats the atmosphere, sound, or prestige of an F1 event!

    As Michael Shumacher once said..."I have nothing to Prove In Indy" - response from a Journalist if he ever thought of changing to an Indy drive... last thing...I know what car wins in safety...the F1 hands down...Indy is soo far behind in that department its not worth having a look at. If u look at the Gold Coast Indy 2002 crash before the start line...ull see why for urself...then compare it to the Martin Brundle Incident in the 1996 Melbourne F1 GP. His car and 2 of those Indys landed on their roof. Have a look at his cockpit after and theirs after, and ull see that his Engine actually snapped off from the back of his car..he was only left with him and the front wheels/wing assembly when he stopped. both of these crashed with the same sort of velocity and impact and the F1 looked like it survived better...probably cos of the engine snapping off. Correct me if im wrong, but im not too sure that indys do that.
  24. I just wanted to comment on the grip of these cars. I only know the figures for F-1, so if someone knows the grip of CART or IRL cars, it might help in the comparison. Every figure I've seen for F-1 (in this thread) falls incredibly short of the truth. F-1 cars actually have about 4.3g's of grip or more. I'm not sure which, but an issue of Road and Track, from last year, i believe, had an article on the Jaguar and it did 4.3g's on the skidpad. The new Ferrari has at least that, if not more. Quite impressive, I think.
  25. Tell me where there is a formula one track that lets the cars go 235 and i'm on my way!

Share This Page