rec.autos.simulators

by **John Wallac** » Mon, 04 Nov 1996 04:00:00

You're kidding?! Have you seen in car footage of Mexico or Interlagos?
Even Senna said that he could barely hold the wheel or grasp the gear
shift, these tracks were like farm roads!

Cheers!
John

_________________________________
__ _____| |_____ __
________| |__| :| John Wallace | |__| |________

\ :| |::| :| Team WW Racing TSW | |::| | /
> :| |::| :|_________________________________| |::| | <
/ :|__|::|____/ * Sim Racing News * \____|::|__| \
/______:/ \::/ http://www.racesimcentral.net/\::/ \._____\
http://www.racesimcentral.net/~harmon/simnews

by **John Wallac** » Mon, 04 Nov 1996 04:00:00

An F1 car is far more nimble and could drive rings around an Indycar.
The twistier the track, the more advantage for F1, the faster the track,
the more the pendulum swings toward an Indycar.

Really, this is like saying that a greyhound is faster than a racehorse.
Who knows which is faster, but I'd like to see the greyhound jump
Becher's Brook, or the horse catch a rabbit.

.....?

There's something on the tip of my tongue about pots and kettles.. :)

Cheers!
John

_________________________________
__ _____| |_____ __
________| |__| :| John Wallace | |__| |________

\ :| |::| :| Team WW Racing TSW | |::| | /
> :| |::| :|_________________________________| |::| | <
/ :|__|::|____/ * Sim Racing News * \____|::|__| \
/______:/ \::/ http://www.racesimcentral.net/\::/ \._____\
http://www.racesimcentral.net/~harmon/simnews

by **Guy Brossea** » Tue, 05 Nov 1996 04:00:00

I remember what Mario Andretti said about this a few years back.
Of course the F1 is a little better in acceleration and under braking,
but mainly that is because it is much lighter. Indycars are bigger,
heavier, and safer. But there is no question that the indycar is much
faster in straights. Therefore on ovals, it would be no contest.

But all this is because regulations are different. If F1 cars
reintroduced turbo engines, maybe it would be different.

But to be honest, for us spectators, Indy provides more action, more
leaders change, more passing etc. Some F1 races are boring after a while
because the leader is so far ahead. Also the teams are more evenly
matched in indy.

Guy Brosseau

by **Antoine Renau** » Wed, 06 Nov 1996 04:00:00

>On a track like Michigan where the cars are running almost flat out
>continuously there would be no contest. An Indycar can reach a top speed
>of around 250 mph. An F1 car can get to maybe 230 mph.

What is the basis for this comparison, have you ever seen F1 car race
on ovals? Of course if you take an F1 car with a setup made for slow
speed corners and put it against an indycar boosted for oval
performances you'll get higher speed from the indycar... But if you'd
set up a F1 car properly for oval racing (i.e. minimal downforce,
asymetric setup, etc...) you'd probably benificiate from the weight
advantage the F1 has. Simple physics: Supposing the same grip for
the two cars you would get better speed in turns from the liter car.

A. Renault

by **Eric Franze** » Wed, 06 Nov 1996 04:00:00

> >On a track like Michigan where the cars are running almost flat out
> >continuously there would be no contest. An Indycar can reach a top speed
> >of around 250 mph. An F1 car can get to maybe 230 mph.

> What is the basis for this comparison, have you ever seen F1 car race
> on ovals? Of course if you take an F1 car with a setup made for slow
> speed corners and put it against an indycar boosted for oval
> performances you'll get higher speed from the indycar... But if you'd
> set up a F1 car properly for oval racing (i.e. minimal downforce,
> asymetric setup, etc...) you'd probably benificiate from the weight
> advantage the F1 has. Simple physics: Supposing the same grip for
> the two cars you would get better speed in turns from the liter car.

> A. Renault

I just have a comment for you for top speed. Weight does not affect
overall top speed. Weight only affects acceleration and cornering. The
main thing things determining top speed are aerodynamic Co and HP.

by **Brian Bus** » Wed, 06 Nov 1996 04:00:00

says...

>>On a track like Michigan where the cars are running almost flat out
>>continuously there would be no contest. An Indycar can reach a top speed
>>of around 250 mph. An F1 car can get to maybe 230 mph.

>What is the basis for this comparison, have you ever seen F1 car race
>on ovals? Of course if you take an F1 car with a setup made for slow
>speed corners and put it against an indycar boosted for oval
>performances you'll get higher speed from the indycar... But if you'd
>set up a F1 car properly for oval racing (i.e. minimal downforce,
>asymetric setup, etc...) you'd probably benificiate from the weight
>advantage the F1 has. Simple physics: Supposing the same grip for
>the two cars you would get better speed in turns from the liter car.

>A. Renault

This is all a pretty meaningless arguement. f1 cars are designed to fit in
a certain rules set. This rules set is continuously changed to 'slow' the
cars down, but the technology keeps pushing them faster. Indycars have a
different set of rules, and are trying to compete with other indycars
using the same rules. you may as well compare them to motorbikes, or grand
prix speed boats, or the space shuttle. which is faster?

brian

by **Max Galvi** » Wed, 06 Nov 1996 04:00:00

Now, personally I think I know a few things about F1 (some of our
readers would argue) so I'll stick my oar in. As it stands the Indycar
would***all over an F1 car on an oval, simply because F1 cars are not
designed to do that sort of thing. If, however the designers and engine
manufacturers were given a while to adapt their chassis and engines I'm
sure the F1 cars would do better. This is simply due to the fact that F1
is more technically advanced.

For someone who professes to know about F1 I've no idea how you could
come out with the sentence:

You CANNOT set them up the same. You may as well compare BTCC and the
ITC or NASCAR. Same kind of formula (single seaters), different cars!

This isn't a personal attack but I really wish that people wouldn't use
this newsgroup for *ahem* technical discussions about racing, they
belong in r.a.s.f1 (probably).

--
Max Galvin
Editor

Atlas Team F1 - The Journal of Formula One Motorsport
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Netherlands - UK - Monaco - US - Australia - New Zealand

by **T. Dougl** » Wed, 06 Nov 1996 04:00:00

>> >Well, of couse they corner better, F1 cars that is. You have to keep in
>> >mind that a Indycar is built for speed, not handleing. If you took a
>> >Formula One car and a Indycar on a oval, the indycar would eat it up, but
>> >put them both on a road circut, the Formula One car would kill it!

>> >Steven Daniels
>> >Bretzmna Motorsports

>> This is the most absurd thing I have heard in a long time!!!! Anyone
>> who knows anythig about Auto Racing knows he F1 cars are the fastest
>> cars in the sport....(track racing, that is) If an F1 car and an
>> Indycar were equally setup and let loose on a track such as Michigan,
>> the F1 car would blow the Indycar's wheels off!!!!

>> J.Walsh (sirglock)

>> P.S. Learn a little more about the sport before you reply to this
>> post, please.....

>Wrong, wrong, wrong....Indycars have turbo charged engines capable of
>approx 900 hp. F1 cars are non-turbo charged engines capable of approx
>750-800 hp (not positive on an exact figure).

>On a track like Michigan where the cars are running almost flat out
>continuously there would be no contest. An Indycar can reach a top speed
>of around 250 mph. An F1 car can get to maybe 230 mph.

>In othere words the F1 car would be getting lapped quite quickly after
>the start of the race.

>These are facts....I suggest you learn a little more about the cars
>before you spout off.

Of course you all realize that the sports cars of old thin lemans 1991 era.
These would Kill indycars due to the better areodynamics on a course such as
Michigan. Do not try to argue with this beasuse it is fact. so The old
sports cars were teh fastest cars in Msport!!

by **David Gar** » Wed, 06 Nov 1996 04:00:00

> : > This is the most absurd thing I have heard in a long time!!!! Anyone
> : > who knows anythig about Auto Racing knows he F1 cars are the fastest
> : > cars in the sport....(track racing, that is) If an F1 car and an
> : > Indycar were equally setup and let loose on a track such as Michigan,
> : > the F1 car would blow the Indycar's wheels off!!!!
> : >
> : > J.Walsh (sirglock)
> : >
> : > P.S. Learn a little more about the sport before you reply to this
> : > post, please.....

This is a prime example of someone who knows absolutly nothing about the
dynamics of open wheel cars.
if you've studied indycars or F1 cars you will see how off the wall your
statements are. I really dont know
if this post is worth replying to. If you've ever read anything about
these cars (obviously you havent)
you will find that the indycar has a better acceleration rate(due to
boost) and top end speed. The F1 car has better cornering attributes.
This is because formula cars are designed for nothing but road courses.
I really would try to make sure I had studied at least something about
these cars before posting babble. -DG

by **Gregory Fu** » Thu, 07 Nov 1996 04:00:00

> You are wrong about the cornering forces. F1 can pull between 4 and 5
>g's. Indycars are unable to achieve this on the road courses. The only
>places I am aware of that they are able to pull that kind of cornering
>force is at New Hampshire and when they used to race at Phoenix. I know
>one thing for sure, if I were to hit a wall at Michigan at 240+ mph, I
>would much rather be in an Indycar!

yes, 4-5 lateral g's but have you considered how the high banking transfers
force downwards? at most, I would guess an F1 car never experiences more
than 3 times its weight in downforce. At Michigan, with such steep
banking, the downforce due to both momentum and aerodynamic devices is very
substantial.

Gregory Fung

Vancouver, B.C., Canada

IICC3 Rebel Alliance Lola/Ford/Firestone
ITCC Player's Ltd. Audi A4

by **Sean Graha** » Thu, 07 Nov 1996 04:00:00

> >On a track like Michigan where the cars are running almost flat out
> >continuously there would be no contest. An Indycar can reach a top speed
> >of around 250 mph. An F1 car can get to maybe 230 mph.

> What is the basis for this comparison, have you ever seen F1 car race
> on ovals? Of course if you take an F1 car with a setup made for slow
> speed corners and put it against an indycar boosted for oval
> performances you'll get higher speed from the indycar... But if you'd
> set up a F1 car properly for oval racing (i.e. minimal downforce,
> asymetric setup, etc...) you'd probably benificiate from the weight
> advantage the F1 has. Simple physics: Supposing the same grip for
> the two cars you would get better speed in turns from the liter car.

> A. Renault

My basis for this statement is based on facts given to me from
announcers (at Hockenheim, where wing settings are at their lowest, the
announcers specifically stated max. speeds attainable by F1 cars), as
well as my own observations. Without turbo engines the F1 cars just
don't have the power that the 1996 Indycars have.

I mean Vasser averaged 234+ miles per hour around Michigan with reduced
boost to 40" from usual 45". With his boost at full he would probably be
close to averaging 240 mph around the track. An F1 car can't even get to
that speed let alone average it.

by **Sean Graha** » Thu, 07 Nov 1996 04:00:00

> says...

> >>On a track like Michigan where the cars are running almost flat out
> >>continuously there would be no contest. An Indycar can reach a top speed
> >>of around 250 mph. An F1 car can get to maybe 230 mph.

> >What is the basis for this comparison, have you ever seen F1 car race
> >on ovals? Of course if you take an F1 car with a setup made for slow
> >speed corners and put it against an indycar boosted for oval
> >performances you'll get higher speed from the indycar... But if you'd
> >set up a F1 car properly for oval racing (i.e. minimal downforce,
> >asymetric setup, etc...) you'd probably benificiate from the weight
> >advantage the F1 has. Simple physics: Supposing the same grip for
> >the two cars you would get better speed in turns from the liter car.

> >A. Renault

> This is all a pretty meaningless arguement. f1 cars are designed to fit in
> a certain rules set. This rules set is continuously changed to 'slow' the
> cars down, but the technology keeps pushing them faster. Indycars have a
> different set of rules, and are trying to compete with other indycars
> using the same rules. you may as well compare them to motorbikes, or grand
> prix speed boats, or the space shuttle. which is faster?

> brian

I agree, but I felt it was important to set some F1 fanatic straight
about the truth with regards to speeds at Michigan.

I have no doubt that on any road course in the world an F1 car would
beat an Indycar hands down.

by **Asgeir Nes?e** » Thu, 07 Nov 1996 04:00:00

> This is all a pretty meaningless arguement. f1 cars are designed to fit in
> a certain rules set. This rules set is continuously changed to 'slow' the
> cars down, but the technology keeps pushing them faster. Indycars have a
> different set of rules, and are trying to compete with other indycars
> using the same rules. you may as well compare them to motorbikes, or grand
> prix speed boats, or the space shuttle. which is faster?

> brian

I do agree, but of course it gives meaning to discuss the differences
between F1 and Indycar? I mean, here we have two completely different
organisations governing two pretty similar events (after all), they have
slightly different goals, and they use quite different methods to
achieve these goals. I like both formulas, but there are some facts
here:
F1 is in comparison to Indycar much lighter, and much more fragile (this
explains the lighter weight). Because it is lighter, it is quicker in
terms of acceleration. They do also handle easier in turns. However, the
Indycars do have much more power available, and this means that it can
achieve a much higher max speed. OK, then it all boils down to this: Do
we want high max speeds or do we want handling in turns?

I think the indycar is the more versatile of the two formulas as it is
used on tight, bumpy and extremely twitchy circuits as well as banked,
wide ovals with insane avg. speeds...

2 cents only...

Asgeir

by **Michael Bar** » Fri, 08 Nov 1996 04:00:00

> >Well, of couse they corner better, F1 cars that is. You have to keep in
> >mind that a Indycar is built for speed, not handleing. If you took a
> >Formula One car and a Indycar on a oval, the indycar would eat it up, but
> >put them both on a road circut, the Formula One car would kill it!

> >Steven Daniels
> >Bretzmna Motorsports

> This is the most absurd thing I have heard in a long time!!!! Anyone
> who knows anythig about Auto Racing knows he F1 cars are the fastest
> cars in the sport....(track racing, that is) If an F1 car and an
> Indycar were equally setup and let loose on a track such as Michigan,
> the F1 car would blow the Indycar's wheels off!!!!

> J.Walsh (sirglock)

> P.S. Learn a little more about the sport before you reply to this
> post, please.....

You are completly full of shit. The Indycar would pass the F-1 car by
the end of the first lap and lap it in about 5 more. The Indycar makes
about 300 more horsepower and has far less drag.

by **Seppo Kurk** » Fri, 08 Nov 1996 04:00:00

Anyone want a Target-Ganassi GP2 car?

I painted that last night, looks decent for a non-indy Ganassi...
Email me for that one, or to put it on your homepage, please do not reply
to the ng.

Seppo

rec.autos.simulators

Handling in ICR2 compared to GP2

Handling in ICR2 compared to GP2

Handling in ICR2 compared to GP2

Handling in ICR2 compared to GP2

Handling in ICR2 compared to GP2

Handling in ICR2 compared to GP2

Handling in ICR2 compared to GP2

Handling in ICR2 compared to GP2

Handling in ICR2 compared to GP2

Handling in ICR2 compared to GP2

Handling in ICR2 compared to GP2

Handling in ICR2 compared to GP2

Handling in ICR2 compared to GP2

Handling in ICR2 compared to GP2

Handling in ICR2 compared to GP2

Handling in ICR2 compared to GP2