I recently got an Email from a poster who wanted to know
the difference(s) between an F1 car and an Indy Car.
I replied with a pretty lame discussion, not being an
expert or even a well informed fan.
So, could someone who does know of these things discuss
the differences?
I, and I suspect that others as well, would appreciate it.
I'm referring to the REAL cars and not the simulated ones.
My impression is that Indycars are limited to 8 cyls, are
more powerful, horsepowerwise, can be turbocharged...
F1 cars are limited to a certain cc's, have better suspension
as in cornering, and can be as much as 12 cyls. From there
it gets real hazy.
Please inform us all. Thanks
JEB in Vegas
Quoted text (31 lines)
> Here's the actual answer to the question: > Under current rules Indycar engines are limited to 2.65 litres, They have > eight cylinders, two overhead cams per cylinder bank and four valves per > cylinder. All are turbocharged and are given blowoff valves that limit > boost to 40 inches Hg, down from 45 inches last year. They run on > ***. > Indycars make about 800-875 hp in their current state and have a minimum > weight of around 1500lbs. > Indycars have underbody ground effects, carefully limited by rules. They > have wings limited by surface area. > Formula 1 cars have 3.0 litre four stroke piston engines of unlimited > specification. > Engines make between 700-800 hp and run on high-octane "pump gas". > The minimum weight for a F1 car is about 1200 lbs, giving them a better > power-to-weight ratio than an Indycar. They are allowed carbon fibre > brakes as opposed to the IndyCar's steel brakes, this gives them much > better stopping capacity. > F1 cars have flat bottoms that generate less downforce than an IndyCar's > ground effects. Most downforce is generated by their wings and a small > diffuser at the rear of the undertray. This wing-based downforce makes it > hard for a F1 car to follow another closely around a corner, as the > front-running car's rear wing will take the downforce off the following > car's front wing, causing understeer in the following car. This is one of > the biggest reasons there is little passing in F1. > I think the differences in driving GP2 as opposed to ICR2 are fairly > representitive of the differences between the cars. > Anyway, I hope this answers some of your question. > Robin. > R.Quoted text (15 lines)
>I recently got an Email from a poster who wanted to know >the difference(s) between an F1 car and an Indy Car. >I replied with a pretty lame discussion, not being an >expert or even a well informed fan. >So, could someone who does know of these things discuss >the differences? >I, and I suspect that others as well, would appreciate it. >I'm referring to the REAL cars and not the simulated ones. >My impression is that Indycars are limited to 8 cyls, are >more powerful, horsepowerwise, can be turbocharged... >F1 cars are limited to a certain cc's, have better suspension >as in cornering, and can be as much as 12 cyls. From there >it gets real hazy. >Please inform us all. Thanks >JEB in VegasHere's the actual answer to the question:
Under current rules Indycar engines are limited to 2.65 litres, They have
eight cylinders, two overhead cams per cylinder bank and four valves per
cylinder. All are turbocharged and are given blowoff valves that limit
boost to 40 inches Hg, down from 45 inches last year. They run on
***.
Indycars make about 800-875 hp in their current state and have a minimum
weight of around 1500lbs.
Indycars have underbody ground effects, carefully limited by rules. They
have wings limited by surface area.
Formula 1 cars have 3.0 litre four stroke piston engines of unlimited
specification.
Engines make between 700-800 hp and run on high-octane "pump gas".
The minimum weight for a F1 car is about 1200 lbs, giving them a better
power-to-weight ratio than an Indycar. They are allowed carbon fibre
brakes as opposed to the IndyCar's steel brakes, this gives them much
better stopping capacity.
F1 cars have flat bottoms that generate less downforce than an IndyCar's
ground effects. Most downforce is generated by their wings and a small
diffuser at the rear of the undertray. This wing-based downforce makes it
hard for a F1 car to follow another closely around a corner, as the
front-running car's rear wing will take the downforce off the following
car's front wing, causing understeer in the following car. This is one of
the biggest reasons there is little passing in F1.
I think the differences in driving GP2 as opposed to ICR2 are fairly
representitive of the differences between the cars.
Anyway, I hope this answers some of your question.
Robin.
R.
Quoted text (18 lines)
>>I recently got an Email from a poster who wanted to know >>the difference(s) between an F1 car and an Indy Car. >>I replied with a pretty lame discussion, not being an >>expert or even a well informed fan. >>So, could someone who does know of these things discuss >>the differences? >>I, and I suspect that others as well, would appreciate it. >>I'm referring to the REAL cars and not the simulated ones. >>My impression is that Indycars are limited to 8 cyls, are >>more powerful, horsepowerwise, can be turbocharged... >>F1 cars are limited to a certain cc's, have better suspension >>as in cornering, and can be as much as 12 cyls. From there >>it gets real hazy. >>Please inform us all. Thanks >>JEB in Vegas>i love both and indy cars have up to 900 hp (honda) while F1 with only
>3 liters can manage a mere 720 + hp.(renault)
I think the 1994 Ferrari had som 850+ BHP! That's with the 3.5 litres V12.
Yes, WOW! That sound was great! I'm sorry that we are not to hear this
anymore :(
/Martin
Quoted text (15 lines)
>SNIP ON THE FIRST MESSAGE > In > developmental costs alone, F1 is 10 times the cost of indy car. > i love both and indy cars have up to 900 hp (honda) while F1 with only > 3 liters can manage a mere 720 + hp.(renault) its like comparing a > corvette to a ferrari the vete may be a bit faster but the feel and > the passion don't compare with the ferrari. > as for the engines indy car is about a season behind in r and d. > i.e. last years ferrari v12 18000 rpm. WOW. > you can buy an indy car at a few select shops in the world but there > aint no place to buy and F1 car, you must build it from scratch. > JeffSenna used pit to car radio constantly - I have F1 videos where they
will run a full in-car race lap with Senna using the McLaren feed, and
he's constantly chatting with his engineer about conditions, other car's
grip levels, how his car feels etc etc.
_________________________________
__ _____| |_____ __
________| |__| :| John Wallace | |__| |________
\ :| |::| :| Team WW Racing TSW | |::| | /
> :| |::| :|_________________________________| |::| | < / :|__|::|____/ * Sim Racing News * \____|::|__| \
/______:/ \::/ http://sneezy.dcn.ed.ac.uk/simnews/index.htm \::/ \._____\
http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~harmon/simnews
On Wed, 31 Jul 1996 12:11:29 +0300, Roey Lehman
>Hi . you forgot to mention a few things (maybe) like the difference of
>fuel. Indycars use methanol. Cleaner, and more dangerous in a fire
>(nearly invisible) while F1 cars use reguler (high octane) fuel.
I thought that methanol was actually considerably _safer_ since it
burns at a much lower termperature and can be extinguished by water.
The invisible flames are a problem, but the water thing means that all
they need to do is squirt some water at the refil nozzle as a
precaution.
I believe that they do have radio, but it might not be a two-way
affair (so the driver can tell his pit that he is coming in, but not
the other way around). We never get to hear the car to pit radio in F1
(unlike Indy) since the signals are scrambled (paranoid or what? <g>)
Richard
<snip>
F1 cars DO have car2pit radios. Some drivers (like Senna used to) hate
being disturbed on the track and prefer the pit boards.
Yus
Gee,... how deep shall we get into this discussion? There are a few false
statements that were made in the preceding messages, and I couldn't
resist clearing up the confusion (at the risk of adding to it).
F1 engines are actually bigger than Indy engines (3.0 litres versus
2.85+-, if remember correctly), but Indy engines are turbocharged (with
limited boost). Horsepower figures are scarce and the ones that do exist
are vague, but it is generally thought that F1 engines produce 700 - 780
horsepower; Indy engines produce around 800+. The F1 engine typically has
much better throttle response due to it's non-turbocharged nature (ie.
instantaneous), whereas Indy engines have a small lag in throttle
response and the power is not produced in such a linear form, due to the
turbocharged nature. What this means is that an F1 car would have quick
acceleration throughout it's rev range and be very quick off slow
corners; Indycars produce lots of power when staying at high revs (on an
oval, especially superspeedways), but when they drop speeds for slow
corners, turbo boost drops and they experience more of a lag upon exiting
the corner. Still very quick, just slower than an F1 car. (note: F1 used
to allow turbos and in the Late 80's a turbocharged 1.5 litre F1 engine
produced 1000+ HP, but they were phased out in favor of normally
aspirated engines).
F1 cars are signifficantly lighter than Indycars; I cant remember the
exact figures, but I think an F1 car weighs about 1200 lbs, which is
around 3/5ths of an Indycar's weight. Naturally this means that the F1
car has less momentum to fight against so it is quicker in its
acceleration, braking, and cornering. Several other factors come into
play here also, but just think of an F1 car as a much lighter, more agile
race car.
F1 teams must build their own car (Don't ask me what the deal is on the
Ligier/Benetton, I don't understand exactly how they get around this),
Indycars are made by factories and purchased by the teams (with the
exception of Roger Penske and Dan Gurney, who choose to build his own).
Engines are either leased from the manufacturer or provided to the team
free of charge (usually the case with the better, "factory" teams) in
both leagues. Ferrari F1 are the exception in that they produce their own
engine .
Tire regulations differ in each series also.
F1 does have two-way radio communication between the pits and the driver,
just like Indycar. We don't get to here the communication on the TV
coverage, and frankly I can't blame them (the teams) - if I was spending
$200+ million to field my F1 team, I wouldn't want anyone listening in to
my strategy discussions either. It is there, it just isn't openly
disclosed like it is in Indycar.
Besides that, there are many more regulations which dictate car
dimensions and equipment regulations for each series, which I won't bore
you with here. Suffice to say that the primary difference lies in the
weight, dimensions, downforce regulations and power supplies.
If I have made any mistakes, please correct me. The numbers above are
from memory and sometimes my memory ain't that good. I have been a fan
for almost 15 years now and have absorbed much from the sport, but I'm
sure many of you can elaborate on what I've said above.
Paul
>Hi . you forgot to mention a few things (maybe) like the difference of
>fuel. Indycars use methanol. Cleaner, and more dangerous in a fire
>(nearly invisible) while F1 cars use reguler (high octane) fuel.
I think this visibility problem is more than made up by its easy to
extinguish (just add water). Methanol is WAY safer than gasoline.
Gregory Fung
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
