[HN Gopher] The differences between an IndyCar and a F1 car
___________________________________________________________________
The differences between an IndyCar and a F1 car
Author : 1659447091
Score : 105 points
Date : 2025-12-01 00:03 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.openwheelworld.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.openwheelworld.net)
| dralley wrote:
| Ironically, a lot of this is only relevant until... this Sunday.
| After Sunday, the F1 season is over, and 2026 cars will be very
| different.
|
| 2026 cars will have less downforce and less drag (closer to
| Indycar) but also "active" aerodynamics (elements on both the
| front and rear wings can flatten on-demand to reduce drag, or
| raise to produce more downforce) and a hybrid power unit closer
| to 50/50 split between ICE and electric horsepower than the
| current 85/15 split for F1 cars or 80/20 for Indycars.
|
| F1 next year will probably be chaos because there are so many
| different aspects that teams may have gotten wrong in
| development.
|
| ---
|
| There are some inaccuracies though regardless. I am pretty sure
| that teams do not go through multiple sets of brake pads in a
| weekend. They last several races, no different than Indycar.
| themafia wrote:
| Also the end of DRS. Good riddance.
| entrep wrote:
| Not really.
|
| > Z-mode means the front and rear wings are closed which
| generates more downforce for the corners. In X-mode, the
| drivers can open the flaps which will reduce drag and
| increase speed.
| JetSetIlly wrote:
| The problem with DRS is the zones and only being able to
| use it when close behind another car. My understanding is
| the X-Mode can be used pretty much anywhere and anytime.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| Sure, but it's no longer about a gap to the car in front.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| Driver-controlled aero has the potential to be way more
| interesting than the strictly-limited current DRS
| implementation.
|
| The most interesting DRS era was in 2011-2012 when drivers
| could operate it (almost) anywhere they wanted in practice
| and qualifying. There was an element of risk in how early
| you could open it exiting a corner, and we saw real
| mistakes from drivers pushing that limit.
|
| More driver controls leads to more opportunities for
| talented drivers to make a difference, which leads to a
| better sports product.
| scotchmi_st wrote:
| Interestingly there are discussions about moving back to having
| the majority of the power from IC engines as soon as the end of
| the decade, with synthetic fuels. Personally I can't wait.
| jack_tripper wrote:
| I would like that too, but it's highly unlikely to happen
| since Audi and GM just entered the engine making business in
| F1 for the start of 2026 and they invested shit tonne of
| millions into engine R&D specifically for the new turbo-V6
| regulations, so moving the goalposts again so soon would just
| rug-pull their investments, and such the FIA assured them the
| new regulations are gonna stay for a while. Bummer.
| monkeydust wrote:
| What's happening with synthetic fuels? I read while back
| Porsche investing in factories to produce but that was a few
| years ago, is it a bit of snake oil wrt to it's alleged green
| credentials or simply can't scale at an acceptable cost?
| nicholassmith wrote:
| The World Endurance Championship has been using synthetic
| fuels since 2022 from TotalEnergies (https://competition.to
| talenergies.com/en/auto/endurance/wec/...), there's also
| Sustain (https://sustain-fuels.com/) in the UK as well who
| seem to be growing reasonably well but are a mix of
| sustainable & fossil fuels. There's some variability of how
| green they are, you still need to burn something so there's
| going to be emissions as well but they've been validated in
| the motorsport labs as being viable and they're starting to
| make their way to consumers.
| pbmonster wrote:
| > hybrid power unit closer to 50/50 split between ICE and
| electric horsepower
|
| Fun fact, at those ratios it would make a lot of sense to use
| an electric continuous variable transmission (eCVT) - connect
| the engine and the motor with a planetary gear set to the
| wheels, done. The electric motor spins backwards when going
| slow and forward when going fast. Those eCVTs can be lighter,
| more efficient an deliver more power across the entire range.
| But they're illegal in F1 - because they make the car sound
| boring.
| globular-toast wrote:
| How Toyota's eCVT transmission works:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppyK3ZlUbtM (Nerd snipe
| warning: the Weber Auto channel is brilliant and has lessons
| about all kinds of transmission and engine types).
|
| When it comes to something like F1 I think it's OK for
| efficiency to not be the top priority. Road vehicles
| absolutely should be as light and efficient as possible with
| strict limits on pollution (including noise). But it's OK for
| society to have a few things like F1 that are just for fun.
| We just don't want everyone to be driving F1 cars around
| their neighbourhoods or have an F1 race every week.
| pbmonster wrote:
| I think the F1 teams would all switch to racing versions of
| those transmissions the second they would be allowed to do
| so.
|
| The efficiency gains wouldn't even be important in
| comparison (until you start bringing significantly less
| fuel than your opponents), but just the reduction in weight
| and size (important for aero considerations) would be worth
| it. Also, the power gains from always running the ICE (and
| its turbo) at the perfect sweet spot in the power curve
| would be a giant advantage in racing.
| globular-toast wrote:
| Yeah, but a huge part of F1 is the sound. It's iconic in
| the true sense of the word. I can totally understand them
| wanting to protect it as part of the brand. Enthusiasts
| might be into other types of motor racing, but F1
| _sounds_ fast. Everyone understands that.
| Gare wrote:
| Well, they could add speakers that make vroom-vroom
| noises.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| Correct, it has been done and got shutdown immediately.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_FW15C
| rurban wrote:
| Mercedes is running with a CVT again for some years
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| By rule, all F1 teams have to use a sequential gearbox.
| It is section 9.7.1 of Technical regulations:
|
| _9.7.1 The number of forward gear ratios must be 8.
| Continuously variable transmission systems are not
| permitted._
| dralley wrote:
| They are not.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| I believe F1 cars are actually incredibly efficient.
|
| You can only take so much fuel and fuel is also weight. You
| can only win if you use the available fuel to propel you
| forwards efficiently.
| dontlaugh wrote:
| Definitely, but the weight of the fuel doesn't matter
| that much and they allowed quite a bit of fuel. Cars
| wouldn't gain much by being twice as efficient if they
| were any slower.
| toast0 wrote:
| > But they're illegal in F1 - because they make the car sound
| boring.
|
| I can confirm, my CMAX has an eCVT, and the engine noises are
| boring. Either it's off, or it's running in a pretty limited
| range, you _can_ get a bit of fun rev increasing noises if
| you drive it just right... but mostly boring. My 81 VW
| Vanagon is much more fun to drive even if it 's objectively
| worse at everything in terms of acceleration, top speed,
| wheel slip, etc; although the turning circle on the cmax is
| garbage, so the vanagon wins there. The VW makes fun sounds
| as you go from low rpm to redline several times as you work
| through the gears, and the cmax is just droning along.
| PaulRobinson wrote:
| Right now we're in a stage of the current regs where 5
| manufacturers can be within tenths of a second of each other in
| qualifying, and the other 5 are not _that_ far out. Five
| different teams have gone away with the technical regulations,
| gone into completely different factories, wind tunnels and
| simulator setups, some of them have bought in components like
| engines and suspension but basically have had to build and test
| everything else and work out all the aero across the wings and
| floor, and come out over a 5km track to be within meters of
| each other.
|
| If you think about that a bit, it's kind of crazy and mad.
|
| But it also means to shake things up you need to throw the dice
| again. It's like this generation has evolved to find the peak
| apex design and configuration for each and every circuit to the
| point where teams with more limited resources can now get
| competitive (yay for Williams last week!), and it's time for a
| new generation.
|
| I agree next year could be chaos. I think teams that have been
| consistently applying discipline and consistency will continue
| to do well (Red Bull, McLaren, Mercedes), those that are
| catching on will continue to rise (William, Haas), and those
| who haven't realised that's the name of the game yet (Ferrari,
| Alpine), will continue their passion-fuelled mismanaged
| decline. The new players (Audi taking on Sauber, Cadillac), are
| going to be interesting to watch.
|
| But within 5 years, everyone will be back to within a few
| tenths of each other over a 5km circuit, and we'll probably
| need to go again...
| jabl wrote:
| Shame they're getting rid of the MGU-H just when it's starting
| to roll out in production road cars (the latest 911,
| specifically).
| madduci wrote:
| And Formula E comes with its 4the generation, becoming closer
| to actual F1, but with more acceleration
| somat wrote:
| I think the big failure of formula e was the way they failed
| to promote pit replaceable battery packs.
|
| It is debatable how much motorsport tech trickles down to
| improve our daily motor tech, I think this was much more the
| case early on and now days the sport tech is so rarefied it
| does not help us much. But mass market electric cars are
| still fairly new and I think that sporting competitiveness
| can do a lot of good here. The big one that was missed were
| easy to replace generic battery packs.
|
| But I also think the biggest failure in f1 was the removal of
| refueling, so what do I know?
|
| footnote: in nascar it was the five bold lugnuts, the pit
| stops with five bolt lugnuts were absolutely gorgeous
| compared to the single bolt they use now... and we wept.
| dralley wrote:
| The failure of Formula E is that they don't have F1TV or
| some similar convenient streaming platform, and they leaned
| too hard into gimmicks.
| Refreeze5224 wrote:
| I don't follow F1 at all, but I do see references to it a ton
| more than I ever used to, so I assume it is surging in
| popularity.
|
| Why would they make such drastic changes for 2026? Is it to
| intentionally shake things up and make it more interesting? If
| so, I love that that is something they are willing to do. Most
| pro sports are pretty traditional and change quit slowly. Even
| the fastest changing league (in my opinion), the NBA, still
| changes quite slowly.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| IndyCar is one of the coolest competitions on earth that nobody
| cares about. Not just the 500, which is amazing, but the full
| calendar schedule.
| epolanski wrote:
| Personally I can't get excited about oval circuits.
| lolbert291 wrote:
| clutch your tinkle about it some more
| rozap wrote:
| True, but that's kind of a good thing as a fan. Cheap tickets,
| and you get to wander around the paddock as they prep the cars
| before the race, even with a regular ticket. That level of
| access in F1 is not possible for regular people.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| Its so interesting that the difference between Indy and F1 in
| terms of lap times is objectively marginal but subjectively
| extreme.
|
| I would have guessed given the extreme cost difference between
| them there would have been a significant gap (like 30 seconds)
| but the fact that it's only a few seconds difference is
| surprising.
| vortegne wrote:
| making a car go fast on a straight bit of road is relatively
| cheap. making a car take a corner a couple tenths of a second
| faster is very expensive. and there's only so many corners in a
| lap. add up those tenths - that's your few seconds of
| difference!
| nolito wrote:
| Not really. F1 regularly changes the rules to make the cars
| slower for safety reasons.
|
| F1 is on a completely different level than IndyCar. The drivers
| are also on a different level compared to anything else.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Getting faster is hard and expensive really. You can be pretty
| cheap and still be quite fast.
|
| On other side, F1 has for very long time kept speeds down when
| new innovative ways to gain it has been discovered. For some
| reason I can not understand drivers and spectators dying in
| accidents is bad look for the sport... As such it really is not
| best we could technically do.
| 0x457 wrote:
| I love F1 (Give my boy Lando his WDC!), but I wouldn't mind a
| more unhinged version without human drivers, at least not in
| the cockpit. Not going to happen because ones and zeros can't
| sell expensive watches like F1 drivers.
| trevwilson wrote:
| If you haven't seen it, there's actually been a couple
| races of autonomously controlled formula-type cars at the
| Abu Dhabi circuit:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9LLZ5mb5cA
| anon98356 wrote:
| I'm not sure it is objectively marginal. At Circuit of the
| Americas where they have both raced recently the difference in
| lap time is about 10 seconds. That doesn't sound like a lot but
| is close to 10% of the lap. The F1 race is 56 laps so by the
| end an Indycar is going to be 5 or 6 laps down. Throw in the
| fact an Indycar can't do 56 laps without refueling and it might
| be closer to 7 laps. In motorsport that is extreme
| fcatalan wrote:
| I think the cars reflect pretty well the intended ethos and
| "vibes" of both competitions. Indycar still feels a bit like
| "dudes racing cars" while F1 has become a corporate hi-tech
| extravaganza.
|
| Both have their appeal, but I feel Indy produces better actual
| racing for the spectator despite being slower and less refined
| technically. I do watch both.
| squigz wrote:
| And MX-5 Cup is better than both!
| themafia wrote:
| They put a few full NASCAR races recorded solely from a drivers
| perspective up on youtube every once in a while. I never
| appreciated that sport until I started watching those. It's far
| more brutal and compact than I ever had expected with the shift
| in perspective making all the difference. It's "dudes racing
| for their lives."
| rkomorn wrote:
| Some of the most racing fun I've had in video games was
| actually NASCAR games.
|
| The whole race was constant jostling for position. There was
| almost always someone within a car length/width, and zero
| room for error. From what I've seen on TV and YT, it seemed
| pretty spot on.
|
| Unfortunately I was also bad at driving with a PS2 controller
| so I was the danger on the track.
| bjackman wrote:
| In general the driver's perspective has always seemed
| underused to me. In F1 at least (where the cars are insanely
| stiff), unless there are overtakes in progress, watching from
| the trackside cameras just looks like cars driving round a
| track. Whereas from the driver's view you can see the car
| reacting to the track and the driver reacting to the car.
|
| People complain a lot that the TV coverage spends too long on
| the driver's girlfriends. For me I think it spends too long
| looking at the cars (from the outside)!
|
| I guess part of this is just that the image quality from
| onboards is not so sleek. But if it was up to me I think like
| 60-70% of the airtime would be from onboard.
| temp0826 wrote:
| Sounds like a killer app for VR- observing from the
| driver's perspective, being able to switch to whoever you
| want. How many cameras are in those cars I wonder?
| Someone wrote:
| If you have an Apple Vision Pro, you can. See
| https://www.lapz.io/, https://www.forbes.com/sites/barryc
| ollins/2024/10/02/this-in...,
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z9OlYcfLmTY
| bjackman wrote:
| They have a lot of cameras and they offer a paid service
| where you can stream from any driver's onboard.
| Unfortunately this is out of sync with the main broadcast
| which kinda kills its value for me...
|
| I think VR would make most people sick as it's a very
| bumpy view.
| jabl wrote:
| I once got free tickets to a race (DTM, German touring
| cars), and to be honest I don't know why people go to them.
| You saw a small section of the track, and occasionally cars
| whizzed by. No idea who was in the lead, who was behind, or
| what was happening in the race in general. Much better to
| watch on TV.
| GJim wrote:
| > unless there are overtakes in progress
|
| I don't think F1 cars have overtaken each other since the
| 1990's.
|
| If you want to see overtaking, stick to watching the
| Superbikes instead.
| bramhaag wrote:
| The poor advertisers don't get great exposure from the
| helmet cam shots, so we mostly get the boring, wide-angled
| shots instead on the broadcast.
| twothreeone wrote:
| Interesting.. I agree on the description but my experience was
| opposite. I enjoyed F1 much more, though I really enjoy all the
| technical stats and talks with the teams/engineers that develop
| the cars and find it to be an equal part of the whole thing as
| the actual racing itself.
| easyThrowaway wrote:
| The best comparison I can think of is that in a Indycar race,
| it's every driver against each other, meanwhile in Formula 1
| you can feel it's the whole team that's actually taking part in
| the race, and the car on track is just the tip of the iceberg
| of the process.
| zeroc8 wrote:
| Used to be a big Formula 1 fan as a kid, growing up in Niki
| Lauda's home town (of 2000 people). Formula 1 lost it when they
| moved away from the V10. And when they started putting kids in
| the cockpit instead of real men.
| jabl wrote:
| I think they lost it when they started dictating what kind of
| engines teams can use. Just limit the max fuel flow, and then
| let the teams go wild. Want to use a gas turbine? Go for it!
| theflyingelvis wrote:
| This! I have said this for years now. It would open up the
| sport to some real innovation.
| dralley wrote:
| The "kids" are on average a lot better at driving than most
| of the "adults" of 30 years ago. Pay drivers barely exist
| anymore, and even e.g. Stroll is not bad compared to the pay
| drivers of decades past, who were genuinely terrible.
|
| V10s are overrated. They sound nice, yes, but ask the drivers
| who have actually driven them and they actually prefer the
| V6T hybrids in a lot of ways. It turns out that actually
| sitting inches away from the V10 with the associated noise
| and vibrations kinda sucks.
| rpcope1 wrote:
| Honestly after going down to the local circle track to watch
| the Legend cars, modified , Whelen and actual honest to God GM
| B-bodies from the 80s, along with other open wheel and general
| cool shit, it's not hard IMO to find (and be directly involved
| in) actual racing than watch "NASCAR" Cup series or F1. Legend
| cars on a road track in particular kind of takes me back to
| watching the super bike races (which were about as real and
| hardcore actual racing as you'll get) at Mid Ohio.
| 56J8XhH7voFRwPR wrote:
| the corporate hi-tech "extravaganza" has only come recently
| with its rise in US popularity. While you are not wrong I think
| thats just one part of the sport. Indycar is just racing and
| strategy. F1 is technical development, racing, strategy, and
| team performance. I like both but while I find the racing
| better in Indy, I follow F1 much more closely because I really
| enjoy the technical side of the sport. I also think 10 teams
| (soon to be 11) and 20 drivers (soon to be 22) that race in
| every race makes it easier to stay invested throughout the
| season.
| carlCarlCarlCar wrote:
| Your take is disingenuous.
|
| At the 2025 Indy 500 they had Tom Brady driving laps in an Indy
| car engaged in banter witb the broadcast team up before the
| race started. Then a US military propaganda moment flying
| Blackhawk helos over the track to titillate their target
| audience.
| bigfishrunning wrote:
| I think the GP poster was referring to the actual race, and
| not the peripheral parts of the event -- I don't know much
| about racing in general, but even with the extra "propaganda"
| you mention, they didn't seem disingenuous
| carlCarlCarlCar wrote:
| I watch both here and there, not every race. Both Indy and
| F1 have very similar format with the "peripheral" parts.
|
| OP had to have been referring to the "peripheral" parts of
| the race, as it's the only time celebs are trotted out.
|
| They don't have Ja Rule calling the action during F1 races;
| they aren't getting Ja Rules input when there is a crash.
|
| The celebrities are nowhere to be found during the actual
| F1 race.
| lisbbb wrote:
| I followed Indycar this past season, watched nearly every race
| and had planned on attending a race but then didn't make the
| trip. I'm not sure what Indycar is trying to be, tbh. The Indy
| 500 is a spectacle, the rest of the season is not nearly as
| interesting. There's some good racing, but F1 is more
| technically interesting and maybe better overall. NASCAR is
| boring as hell, just stage-managed bullshit like pro wrestling
| and I have not followed it in over 20 years.
| tossaway0 wrote:
| The reason these series always get compared is because Indy's
| tight rules make it less compelling while F1's more open rules
| make it less competitive.
|
| WEC (and IMSA a bit) solve those problems but they have so many
| drivers and teams that it takes a lot of dedication to follow
| along.
|
| In the end you end up wondering if your favorites could hack it
| in the WRC.
| parpfish wrote:
| I think that an ideal race league would use WRC-inspired
| homologation rules and little else (except for some safety
| features)
|
| Any chassis size. Whatever aero you want. Any engine
| size/configuration. The only constraint is that it needs to be
| something you can put into production.
|
| we'd get to see a Cambrian explosion of weird race car variants
| that would make race day strategizing wild. and we'd really get
| to showcase cool creative engineering. And we'd eventually see
| the benefits of that engineering trickle down into normal
| production cars we all drive
| rgmerk wrote:
| It's been done. Look up the Can-Am series. At best, it would
| last a couple of years until the cars got way too fast for
| the tracks, and the manufacturers were no longer prepared to
| invest in it because there was no commercial return in it for
| them.
|
| The idea that there is any significant relationship between
| what makes a good production car, even a sports car, and a
| racing car was always dubious and today is frankly
| nonsensical.
|
| The way to make a car fast round a race track basically comes
| down to the amount of downforce it can produce, and the power
| of the engine. Downforce is almost completely irrelevant to
| road driving, as taking corners fast enough to generate
| cornering forces of over 1G is frankly suicidal on the road.
|
| As for engines, aside from the fact that the internal
| combustion engine is doomed in road transport (despite what
| the current administration thinks), producing an engine with
| performance that exceeds what even good drivers are capable
| of handling without electronics doing the job for them was
| solved at least 20 years ago, and continues to be a solved
| problem despite tightening of emissions standards.
|
| In any case, while lighter, smaller, lower cars remain the
| preferred option for motorsport applications, all anyhbody
| wants to actually buy, particularly in the United States, is
| gargantuan SUVs and pickup trucks, which makes any
| application of motorsport technology for the road moot.
| paganel wrote:
| There is no power-network in existence, not in the medium-
| to-long term, that would allow tens of millions of cars
| (mauve hundreds of millions if we talk at the continent-
| wide level) to get all electric, the physics isn't there
| and it won't be. You're correct though, it could be that
| the next US administration will try to copy the bureaucrats
| here in Europe and try to go the let's-ban-the-petrol-
| engine route, which would, in practice, mean that only the
| well-to-do consumers (like most of the users on this forum)
| will be able to still have personal cars.
| ViewTrick1002 wrote:
| Electrifying the transportation sector is generally seen
| as a 15-25% increase in grid demand.
|
| These are vehicles which most can schedule their charging
| to take advantage of low electricity prices and therefore
| low demand.
|
| The uprating needed is quite insignificant.
| paganel wrote:
| > Electrifying the transportation sector is generally
| seen as a 15-25% increase in grid demand.
|
| Quote on that? A developed country like the US has
| problems even now, see California (with the yearly fires
| there) or Texas. And how do you solve the "last-mile"
| connections without regularly starting fires everywhere?
| (on account of all those higher-voltage thingies being
| closer to residential units).
| rgmerk wrote:
| The 15-25% of demand number is pretty similar to the
| number I've seen in multiple places. Furthermore, cars
| have an economic lifespan of approximately 20 years, so
| that increase in demand will take place over a couple of
| decades.
|
| Furthermore, if you're smart about it, you charge the
| vehicle at times when the grid is oversupplied with
| electricity. This typically occurs between midnight and
| about 5-6am, and in areas with a lot of solar, during the
| middle of the day. This is already widely implemented,
| with utilities in many jurisdictions offering things like
| EV charging time-of-use tariffs, and customers with
| rooftop solar systems (which are much cheaper in, say,
| Australia, than they are in the USA) installing smart
| chargers which are configured to run when they have a
| surplus of electricity from their home solar systems.
| This will ensure that EVs are making use of the existing
| grid, rather than increasing peak demand and requiring
| new grid infrastructure.
|
| Furthermore, "vehicle to grid" systems can allow EVs to
| feed electricity back into the grid at peak times (with
| their owners getting paid for this service).
|
| Given all of the above, while EVs will contribute to an
| overall increase in demand for electricity, they will do
| so in such a way as to minimise the need for extra
| infrastructure, and they will do so slowly enough as to
| allow such infrastructure to be built.
| paganel wrote:
| > if you're smart about it, you charge the vehicle at
| times when the grid is oversupplied with electricity.
|
| Like I said, this EV mania is targeting the well-off
| middle-classes, those that "are always smart about it".
| The populist backlash against all this is well-warranted,
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| Most cars only drive a few miles each day. It's not that
| big of a challenge.
| parpfish wrote:
| I didn't think can-am cars were homologated?
|
| It's easy for a manufacturer to make a couple hand crafted
| cars with insane specs. But by requiring homologous, it
| adds a unique kind of restriction where it's a car that
| they have to be able and willing to make at scale. That
| requires buy-in from industrial engineers as well as
| business/marketing folks
|
| Edited to add: just learned that homologation doesn't mean
| exactly what I thought it did. So my parent thread should
| have been about "sec-style homologation" specifically and
| not just "homologation" generally. The idea is that you
| need to have a car built in production in order to be
| homologated
| rgmerk wrote:
| The old Group A touring cars of the 1980s and early 90s
| are perhaps closer to what you're thinking of.
|
| Nissan built the R32 Skyline GT-R and killed the category
| (and birthed a legend in the process, admittedly).
| pmontra wrote:
| I favor little regulation and tight cost caps. Example: you
| get 100 millions, 100 kg of this kind of gasoline per race,
| do whatever you want.
|
| Any chassis size is probably not a good idea because cars
| collide with each other and they must do it safely. So maybe
| rules should define a box that cars must fit into, with the
| parts that get in touch with other cars at given places and
| with given shapes. Example: we don't want spear like nose
| cones at the same height of the heads of drivers of other
| cars. No halo can protect against that.
|
| The problem with little regulation is that manufactures will
| be frightened to enter because it's easy to have a
| championship in which the one with the bright idea wins all
| the races and the other ones are scattered 2, 5, 6, 7 seconds
| behind.
|
| We had something like that with the CanAm
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can-Am
|
| A lot of innovation and crazy designs.
| wqaatwt wrote:
| > tight cost caps. Example: you get 100 millions
|
| The effect of that in F1 was a huge increase in team
| profits and significant decrease in real wages for ordinary
| employees of those teams.
| squigz wrote:
| > The reason these series always get compared is because Indy's
| tight rules make it less compelling while F1's more open rules
| make it less competitive.
|
| I'm new to racing, but can you elaborate on this? How are F1's
| rules "open"? They seem just about as strict if not more so
| than IndyCar to me? At least I don't think IndyCar has "ahead
| at the apex" rules?
|
| > In the end you end up wondering if your favorites could hack
| it in the WRC.
|
| I'm glad I'm not the only one. Screw "Grill the Grid" or
| whatever nonsense they're doing on YouTube now; let's see the
| F1 grid do a rally.
| pmontra wrote:
| There are technical regulations and sporting regulations. I'm
| not very familiar with IndyCar anymore but my feeling is that
| F1 got stricter on technical regulation but IndyCar is even
| stricter: only one chassis and more standard parts. However
| F1 sporting regulations seems to be tighter. The classic
| clash between Villeneuve and Arnoux in 1979 would be
| unthinkable now. Not only they would be black flagged and
| stopped for a GP but no driver would even think about doing
| those kind of overtaking attempts.
| rgmerk wrote:
| For what it's worth, the most entertaining circuit racing in
| the world happens at grassroots level featuring slow, cheap
| cars that permit a lot of drafting.
|
| The faster the cars get, in the main, the less overtaking
| occurs.
| defrost wrote:
| Watching a winner of 80+ NASCAR races ride along for a hot
| lap of the Australian Bathurst 1000 course is fairly
| entertaining ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLkLtBkUVuo
|
| V8 Supercars on Mount Panorama don't disappoint.
|
| Course map and lap:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANALNcF7QrI
| rgmerk wrote:
| Yes, this year's Bathurst finale was quite the spectacle if
| you haven't seen it!
|
| But while Supercars can be entertaining, they are in some
| ways a faster version of the categories I'm describing -
| they don't have much downforce and not that much mechanical
| grip either, so they're pretty slow in corners even if they
| are respectably fast in a straight line.
| defrost wrote:
| Spectacle, for some, isn't about the speed alone, it's
| also about risk and skill.
|
| The bare minimum of downforce and grip in tight corners
| on a mountain pushes the skill requirement to, uhhh, over
| 9000.
|
| I used to spend hours every day at 252 km/hr (156
| miles/hr) 80m above the ground. That got dull fast as it
| was in dead straight headings for 20km or so at a time.
|
| ( Did have to keep an eye out for birds taking off over
| lakes, power lines, etc. though )
| pmontra wrote:
| This is the last season with Renault as a F1 engine manufacturer.
| Their team (Alpine) will use Mercedes engine from 2026.
|
| There will be many changes next year. Audi enters as manufacturer
| with its own team (they bought Sauber.) The two Red Bull teams
| will use their own Red Bull engine, with the help of Ford. Honda
| will power Aston Martin. The new Cadillac team will use Ferrari
| engines and build its own engine for 2028.
| jorisboris wrote:
| In the old Michel Vaillant comics the f1 and indy cars seem to be
| interchangeable, they compete in each other's championships
|
| Not sure if true given that it's fiction, but they do seem to be
| based on reality
| easyThrowaway wrote:
| Up until the late '80s-early '90s cars and rules were rather
| similar, and drivers like Andretti or Mansell were able to move
| between categories with relative ease.
|
| I'd say that the rift become apparent in '94, after the safety
| changes introduced due to Senna's Death and the massive shift
| in pilot training brought by Michael Schumacher.
| jecel wrote:
| The Indy 500 was actually part of the official Formula 1
| calendar from 1950 to 1960, though the two series diverged
| after that.
|
| Some Indy features (refueling, changing tires even if they
| didn't have a puncture, safety cars) got adopted by F1
| through the 1980s, specially as F1 started to lose audience
| to the American series in the early 1990s.
| rascul wrote:
| There was a time when the Indy 500 was part of both the F1 and
| IndyCar championships (whatever they were called at the time).
| mk_stjames wrote:
| The table lists F1 cars as having "Carbon fiber brake calipers".
|
| This is glaringly incorrect. All current brake calipers are
| machined from aluminum, specifically Aluminum-Lithium or
| Aluminum-Copper alloys. There is a rule denoting bulk elasticity
| modulus limit on brake calipers of 80 GPa, which was set just at
| that to allow the more exotic Lithium Aluminum alloys but to dis-
| allow Titanium alloys or anything else stiffer (There was
| experimentation with Titanium calipers in the past.)
|
| Absolutely no calipers are made from composites, CF, graphite, or
| otherwise. Discs are Carbon-carbon.
| ides_dev wrote:
| The biggest difference that stood out to me was that the fuel
| compositions are almost exactly opposite; 85/15 ethanol/gasoline
| for Indy and 10/90 for F1.
|
| I was able to find plenty of articles saying that next year F1
| will move to a "100% sustainable fuel", but none that actually
| mentioned the composition. Is it likely to move closer to the
| make-up of the Indy fuel?
| dralley wrote:
| Every engine supplier has their own fuel supplier contract so
| the fuels won't be completely identical.
| cricalix wrote:
| Tangentially related would be Adrian Newey's memoir "How to build
| a car"; he talks about both F1 and Indy cars he worked on. ISBN
| 9780008196806
| dboreham wrote:
| All designed either in England or Italy though..
| minton wrote:
| > An IndyCar is heavier than a Formula 1 car: while a Formula 1
| car weighs 1759 pounds / 798 kg including the driver, an IndyCar
| weighs 1700 pounds / 771 kg on road and street courses, excluding
| the driver.
|
| This seems to contradict itself.
| nickff wrote:
| The statement implies an assumption that the drivers weigh /
| mass more than 59 lbs. / 27 kg, as they are included in the
| first measurement, but not the second. This is a reasonable
| assumption, as even Indycar drivers are all adult males, and
| none are small enough to weigh / mass less than that.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-12-04 23:01 UTC)