Handling in ICR2 compared to GP2

Hello people In ICR2 on the road circuits (i.e Laguna and Toronto) and the way the car corners is totally different to the way GP2 corners. It seems you can corner much faster in GP2 without skidding off of the track. I realise the games are totally different made by different companies. But do Indycars in reallife handle as they do or is it just the simulation. Indycars seem much slower on corners compared to GP2. I have some possible answers brewing in my head. 1) The Circuits are just slower in ICR2 2) My Indycars are not set up that well (Running Standard settings) 3) The games are just simulations (This is the answer I guess!) 4) Indycars in Reallife just don't handle like Grand Prix cars (Assuming both sims are very true to life) I've never actually checked the speedo when cornering in both sims. An answer to this bruning question may make me feel better about my ok driving in GP2 and v.poor performance in ICR2. BTW I use a joystick (Currently getting the parts together for a Wallys World Wheel). Thanks in Advance for and Answers Mark

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Hello people > In ICR2 on the road circuits (i.e Laguna and Toronto) > and the way the car corners is totally different to the way > GP2 corners. It seems you can corner much faster > in GP2 without skidding off of the track. I realise > the games are totally different made by different companies. > But do Indycars in reallife handle as they do or is it > just the simulation. Indycars seem much slower on corners > compared to GP2. I have some possible answers brewing in my > head. > 1) The Circuits are just slower in ICR2 > 2) My Indycars are not set up that well (Running Standard settings) > 3) The games are just simulations (This is the answer I guess!) > 4) Indycars in Reallife just don't handle like Grand Prix cars > (Assuming both sims are very true to life)

I think that the answer is number 4. If you watch a real life Indycar race and F1 race, you'll notice that F1s just warp around curves compared to Indycars. That has to do with how the cars actually are different. The aerodynamics on F1s are much better and the car is actually lighter with smaller engines. It's almost like comparing a Lotus esprit to a Lambo diablo. I've actually driven a 1988 Lotus esprit turbo back in 1988 and I can tell you that I've never seen a streetgoing car that whips around tight bends like that one can. I'd like to drive a Diablo to compare and also a more recent model of the lotus too. One thing that could be done is to take both an Indycar and an F1 and try them both out on the same track to compare. But as Jacques Villeneuve (our local champion here in Quebec) said this about Indys compared to F1s: The F1 almost drives itself and it's really a competition about car and engine makers as Indycar is actually a competition between drivers since only 3 engines and 3 chasis choices are available. Another thing he said back in 1995 was that "Stepping into an F1 is like stepping into an F-15 as Indycars are more like a P-51 Mustang". Well, as most pilots know; a F-15 almost flies itself and a P-51 is much harder to pilot. Talking about Wallys world wheel, we've just completed a steering wheel and pedal unit of our own after browsing through his page. We've been working out the quirks for the last week, and today I tried my T1 wheel against my friend's custom designed wheel (the one I'm talking about) and we we're pretty even. And I used to blow him away very easily when he used a Joystick. BTW: during that test run, I was able to lap Taladega (a Nascar conversion) with my Indy and 252.619 MPH (My personal best after 3 days). What's unique about our wheel/pedal combo is it's customizability. Here's and example: Wheel: 1 - Lock to Lock fully adjustable from 170 degrees to 270 degrees 2 - Adjustable resistance when turning 3 - Adjustable "loose" part in the center 4 - Steering mounted shift buttons 5 - Hollow steering shaft that enables the wiring to go to the wheel without seeing it. 6 - Tilt steering Pedals 1 - Initial position adjustable 2 - Pedal travel adjustable 3 - Pedal resistance adjustable 4 - Floor mounted or*** from the top 5 - Adjustable Potentiometer feedback 5 - Adjustable progression (increase) of pedal resistance I'll be sending the original VRML .wrl file for both the Wheel and pedals to Wally very soon to be added into his page. This VRML file was used to plan out exactly what we needed and we manipulated the whole unit in 3D to see what the actual finished product would look like. IT's pretty close except some minor changes that we thought of when we started building the thing.The whole thing is very unique (especially the pedals). What's amazing is the special look it has. It's mostly metal and it's very clean and compact. Also has a nice shine to it when placed under lights. If you want more details as well as the VRML files, just e-mail me. See ya! Christian ---------

>Hello people >In ICR2 on the road circuits (i.e Laguna and Toronto) >and the way the car corners is totally different to the way >GP2 corners. It seems you can corner much faster >in GP2 without skidding off of the track. I realise In my understanding of Indycars and F1 cars, I do know for fact that F1 cars are MUCH lighter than Indycars. This could amount to faster cornering speeds, even if both had the same amount of grip. Also, this is why F1 cars are more nimble. The second thing is F1 cars probably have more grip than Indycars at moderate speeds, before the ground effects tunnels make a big difference. I'm not sure about this point, but I suspect so. The other thing is just a matter of perception. Unless the two sims run the same circuits (or if you find two corners in F1 tracks and Indycar tracks that is comparable), you can't truly compare the car's speed through the corners except through the feel. Maybe with some telemetry and simlar corners, this could be done scientifically. Gregory Fung Vancouver, B.C., Canada IICC3 Rebel Alliance Lola/Ford/Firestone ITCC Player's Ltd. Audi A4

: >Hello people : > : >In ICR2 on the road circuits (i.e Laguna and Toronto) : >and the way the car corners is totally different to the way : >GP2 corners. It seems you can corner much faster : >in GP2 without skidding off of the track. I realise F1 cars are much lighter than Indy cars. Years ago the minimum weight of a F1 was 540 kg. I think that the limit was raised but it is hardly more than 600 kg. A full tank should weight no more than 90 kg and an average driver is about 70 kg. I think than Indy cars weight more than 1000 kg, am I right? A good reason to have heavy cars is than you don't have to spend a lot of money in research to make cars lighter. On the other side a light car has better acceleration and cornering speed, and that's all you want from a race car. I remember that when Villeneuve tested a Williams for the first time he got very good lap times but he said that he should learn to run faster across corners (in particular he referred to the first turn at Silverstone: D. Hill made a much better intermediate time there.) So it seems that F1 cars really turn faster than Indy cars. Paolo ---- WWW: http://www.physics.sunysb.edu/~montra ETNOTEAM S.p.A. Tel: +39-2-26126-207 via A. Bono Cairoli 34 Fax: +39-2-26110755 I-20127 Milano, Italy

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.....

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >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.....

I think, you are wrong. The F1 car will not be as fast as an indycar on oval racecourses. The F1 chassis has a lot of more downforce, which costs a lot of energy at high speeds. And look at the total power output, a Indycar has a top of ca 950 hp, the F1 has 800 hp. This two reasons makes the F1 at Ovals slower. The lower weight of the F1 cannot compensate the better aerodynamic and the higher power output of the Indycar. At road courses you are right, the Indycar should be slower. But I would like to see how fast an Indycar goes on a high-speed F1 course like Hockenheim, Germany. Rainer Roesch -- ------------------------ '87 GPX 750 R

Okay twit. Here's the lesson for today: An IndyCar can go 240 mph. An F1 car can go 210 mph. Duh. I think that makes the IndyCar faster. Maybe you should learn something about the sport yourself. Why are you ignorant ***s always the ones with an attitude? Have a nice day. Your buddy, Krabmeat.

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >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.

> 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!!!! No, more like the F1's car's wheels would FALL OFF by themselves. I like both sports, but the reality is the current F1 cars are not designed to withstand such cornering forces. If F1 cars were designed to handle these loads, their weight would go up. How much we don't know, but since indycar chassis development is pretty advance, I would think that the "beefed up" F1 car would be just about as heavy. Now with the F1 engine rules they would be faster because they have more power, even with the equal weight. The same idea goes for street courses. F1 tracks are MIRROR smooth compared to some Indycar tracks like Clevland, Vancouver and Toronto. Gregory Fung Vancouver, B.C., Canada IICC3 Rebel Alliance Lola/Ford/Firestone ITCC Player's Ltd. Audi A4

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > 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!!!! > No, more like the F1's car's wheels would FALL OFF by themselves. I like > both sports, but the reality is the current F1 cars are not designed to > withstand such cornering forces. If F1 cars were designed to handle

these > loads, their weight would go up. How much we don't know, but since indycar

Quoted text (13 lines)

> chassis development is pretty advance, I would think that the "beefed up" > F1 car would be just about as heavy. Now with the F1 engine rules they > would be faster because they have more power, even with the equal weight. > The same idea goes for street courses. F1 tracks are MIRROR smooth > compared to some Indycar tracks like Clevland, Vancouver and Toronto. > Gregory Fung > Vancouver, B.C., Canada > IICC3 Rebel Alliance Lola/Ford/Firestone > ITCC Player's Ltd. Audi A4

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!

First lets get the gutter talk out of this newsgroup. Next let's answer this question with an educated reply. A F1 car is built for cornering, i.e more wing which transforms to more downforce, and ...more drag. A F1 car is also lighter, about 25% so. This lighter weight allows the higher rev (and very powerful) powerplant to accelerate very quickly. But this same lighter weight also causes the engine to be not nearly as durable. Probably a few laps at top speed before retiring. Also while a Indycar is heavier, it is also more aerodynamic, so when is gets up to speed it can maintain that speed better. D. Radecki

Sorry, I'ld like to correct my ignorance of engine performance. I thought the gasoline F1 engine would more than make up for the 15" of boost in the methanol engine (are they still running 45" pressure next year?) Gregory Fung Vancouver, B.C., Canada IICC3 Rebel Alliance Lola/Ford/Firestone ITCC Player's Ltd. Audi A4

Yeh, but even so, indy cars are not as technologically advanced as F1 cars

> First lets get the gutter talk out of this newsgroup. Next let's answer > this question with an educated reply. A F1 car is built for cornering, i.e > more wing which transforms to more downforce, and ...more drag. A F1 car > is also lighter, about 25% so. This lighter weight allows the higher rev > (and very powerful) powerplant to accelerate very quickly. But this same > lighter weight also causes the engine to be not nearly as durable. > Probably a few laps at top speed before retiring. Also while a Indycar is > heavier, it is also more aerodynamic, so when is gets up to speed it can > maintain that speed better. > D. Radecki Do not forhet that an Indy car is Turbo Charged. As for acceloration the F1 car can blow the Indy car away, doing 0-150 in an average of 7 seconds!

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://sneezy.dcn.ed.ac.uk/simnews/index.htm \._____\ [link lost in import: /~harmon/simnews]

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://sneezy.dcn.ed.ac.uk/simnews/index.htm \._____\ [link lost in import: /~harmon/simnews]

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

>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

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >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.

says...

Quoted text (14 lines)

>>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

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 [link lost in import] Netherlands - UK - Monaco - US - Australia - New Zealand

Quoted text (32 lines)

>> >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!!

Quoted text (10 lines)

> : > 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

> 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

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >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.

Quoted text (27 lines)

> 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.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> 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

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >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.

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

>>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 engineering design. f1 cars are they are built today don't have to go much faster than about 200-210 mph, since that is all the faster they can go at places like Imola and Hockeheim without substantially more power. If you design an IndyCar for that type of top speed, you get lapped by Hiro... they're different designs for different purposes. but you won't get them set up the same; they aren't the same thing. i don't have the figures to hand, but i'm pretty sure that f1 cars have higher downforce and higher drag than indycars, primarily because you must design an indycar to run 250mph to be competitive, and this leads the indycar designer to make very different engineering tradeoffs than an f1 designer. -- Brian Wong Enterprise Engineering

: First lets get the gutter talk out of this newsgroup. Next let's answer : this question with an educated reply. A F1 car is built for cornering, i.e : more wing which transforms to more downforce, and ...more drag. A F1 car : is also lighter, about 25% so. This lighter weight allows the higher rev : (and very powerful) powerplant to accelerate very quickly. But this same : lighter weight also causes the engine to be not nearly as durable. : Probably a few laps at top speed before retiring. Also while a Indycar is : heavier, it is also more aerodynamic, so when is gets up to speed it can : maintain that speed better. : D. Radecki A race car can be trimmed or high-downforce, including Indycars. You are right about the engine, but that would be the determining factor, as it is a tradeoff, if you want alot of aero grip, you are going to give up top end (in an Indycar or a F1 car). Both can have high-downforce setups (at tight roadcourses) or trimmed setups (like Hockenhiem or Michegan). -- Robert B. McGehee RM Racing, Inc. www.olemiss.edu/~rbm www.inlink.com/~rmracing

: > : > >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..... : I think, you are wrong. The F1 car will not be as fast as an indycar on : oval racecourses. The F1 chassis has a lot of more downforce, which costs : a lot of energy at high speeds. : And look at the total power output, a Indycar has a top of ca 950 hp, the : F1 has 800 hp. : This two reasons makes the F1 at Ovals slower. The lower weight of the F1 : cannot compensate the better aerodynamic and the higher power output of : the Indycar. : At road courses you are right, the Indycar should be slower. But I would : like to see how fast an Indycar goes on a high-speed F1 course like : Hockenheim, Germany. : Rainer Roesch F1 cars have less horsepower but are much lighter. Indycars have more horsepower, but are heavier. There is no doubt that F1 cars are better on roadcourses, they are light and agile. As for the oval, I don't really know, more horsepower means more top end, regardless of weight (to a point). On a tight oval, the F1 car would be good, because high downforce setups are what is run, but on a big one like Michegan, assuming both cars geared properly with speedway setups, I would put my money on the Indycar. When Villneuve went to F1, I remember him saying that he didn't think the F1 car accelerated as hard as the Indycar when the boost came in. -- Robert B. McGehee RM Racing, Inc. www.olemiss.edu/~rbm www.inlink.com/~rmracing

: >The same idea goes for street courses. F1 tracks are MIRROR smooth : >compared to some Indycar tracks like Clevland, Vancouver and Toronto. : 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 I agree, it may look smooth, but a bump under high g-forces can rip the wheel right out of your hand. -- Robert B. McGehee RM Racing, Inc. www.olemiss.edu/~rbm www.inlink.com/~rmracing

>> 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. >Last time I checked F = m*a. There you go, you just said it yourself. a is acceleration, and at top speed there is almost no acceleration. The factors for top speed are power and friction. Friction includes rolling resistance, driveline resistance and aerodynamic drag. Your dynamic equation applies with accelerating bodies (in all directions). Gregory Fung Vancouver, B.C., Canada IICC3 Rebel Alliance Lola/Ford/Firestone ITCC Player's Ltd. Audi A4

> > I just have a comment for you for top speed. Weight does not affect > > overall top speed. Weight only affects acceleration and cornering. The

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > main thing things determining top speed are aerodynamic Co and HP. > Last time I checked F = m*a. > More weight means more friction which means a bigger force trying to slow > you down. Same speed with a bigger weight requires more HP. > Right? > -- > Miro. > ***** ***** > Chris Rea on the WWW: www.helsinki.fi/~wikgren/chrisrea.html > ***** *****

Well, I decided to test the formula last night. I have a 1991 Camaro Z28 1LE. This vehicle weight is 3200 lbs. and I weight 150 lbs. and the car was ~270 hp. The top speed of the vehicle with only me in it is 165 mph. So for the test, I found 3 brave friends (actually they jumped at the opportunity) to hop in the car with me to see if the top speed changed. The total weight of my friends was 530 lbs. This increased the total weight of the vehicle by 16%. The difference in weight between a F1 car and an Indycar is I believe to be about 20%. I was still able to hit 165mph but it did take about 3/4-1 mile longer to reach top speed. Unfortunately this is not very scientific because I was only able to perform the test once. I felt if I tried to perform the test again, the results may have become contaminated by an outside influence :)

: : :: Well, I decided to test the formula last night. I have a 1991 Camaro Z28 :1LE. This vehicle weight is 3200 lbs. and I weight 150 lbs. and the car :was ~270 hp. The top speed of the vehicle with only me in it is 165 mph. :So for the test, I found 3 brave friends (actually they jumped at the :opportunity) to hop in the car with me to see if the top speed changed. :The total weight of my friends was 530 lbs. This increased the total :weight of the vehicle by 16%. The difference in weight between a F1 car :and an Indycar is I believe to be about 20%. I was still able to hit :165mph but it did take about 3/4-1 mile longer to reach top speed. :Unfortunately this is not very scientific because I was only able to :perform the test once. I felt if I tried to perform the test again, the :results may have become contaminated by an outside influence :) : Ahh..did you make your sure speedo is calibrated??? Not being a smart ass..just making sure the tests were valid..

Bravo DG

Gregory Fung wrote Bear in mind that the top speed attainable by any car on any racetrack is determined by acceleration. A car's top speed on an oval track is reached not long before the driver has to brake. This is the basic principle of setting gear ratios. You want to car to accelerate as fast as possible until the track forces the brakes to be applied. Surely, a higher speed may be attained if the car can accelerate faster. An F1 car's acceleration (read *gear ratio*) dictates the top speed. For example, gearing 6th gear too long for a given straight will reduce top speed - not because the gears couldn't drive the car faster, but because the car can't accelerate to a higher speed in time for the next corner. This also applies to ovals even if it is only the corner slowing the car down (as opposed to brakes). Jet

Quoted text (14 lines)

>Bear in mind that the top speed attainable by any car on any racetrack >is determined by acceleration. A car's top speed on an oval track is >reached not long before the driver has to brake. This is the basic >principle of setting gear ratios. You want to car to accelerate as >fast as possible until the track forces the brakes to be applied. >Surely, a higher speed may be attained if the car can accelerate >faster. An F1 car's acceleration (read *gear ratio*) dictates >the top speed. For example, gearing 6th gear too long for a >given straight will reduce top speed - not because the gears >couldn't drive the car faster, but because the car can't >accelerate to a higher speed in time for the next corner. This >also applies to ovals even if it is only the corner slowing the >car down (as opposed to brakes).

I agree, but this makes such as small difference that the bigger factor on a racetrack becomes the exit speed of corners. By having a lighter car you can corner faster, so you exit faster and have a chance to hit a higher top speed. But we're sidesteping from something I wanted to answer. Sorry, I've lost track of the original arguement. You said something about using F=ma or something right? Gregory Fung Vancouver, B.C., Canada IICC3 Rebel Alliance Lola/Ford/Firestone ITCC Player's Ltd. Audi A4

> 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. Hmmm... I think you'll find that an F1 car has better acceleration, braking, and cornering. Just because Indycars have turbos doesnt mean they accelerate quicker, the weight (or lack of) in an F1 car more than makes up for any power disadvantage, and the same lack of weight (among other things) gives F1 cars an advantage in cornering. Indycars have two big advantages - Top end speed (due to the aforementioned power advantage), and greater grip from less drag, due to ground effects long since outlawed in F1. Basically, F1 cars are very quick, Indycars are very fast. F1 cars are designed for nothing but road courses, because they race on nothing but road courses. Indycars were designed for nothing but ovals, and havent changed much over time, even though they now (I think) race on about as many road courses as ovals. I would too... -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Mike Sharpe | VISIT MY HOMEPAGE! | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | "Only a few more laps to go and then the action will begin, | | unless this is the action, which it is." - Murray Walker | -----------------------------------------------------------------