F1 vs IRL vs NASCAR

[bigjon]

http://www.usgpindy.com/modules/pdf/...g-06102005.pdf

An interesting, if simplistic, comparison of F1, Indy and NASCAR machines.

[curveball]

Kind of interesting, would have been nice to see ChampCar stats too. Been so long since I followed US open wheel racing, I have no idea which is faster now.

[Mr V]

All well and good that link saying an IRL car has a bigger top end speed, but put it round a proper track

Just look at 2003 for example, a CART car will go faster than a F1 car round an oval (in theory - wonder what an F1 car would do if properly set up)- but the CART car went round the Canadian GP circuit 6 seconds a lap slower.

[curveball]

How much faster would F1 have been on true slicks too, since thats what CART ran/runs.

[LampCord]

That top speed is a joke.

Let's see...

F1:
HP - 900
weight - 1322 WITH driver
top speed 225

Cart
HP - 650
weight 1525 WITHOUT driver
top speed 230



Actually, I heard one of the Ferrari mechanics quoted a couple years back who said their simulations showed a theoretical top speed of about 300 mph without the wings.

[Silk Cut Jaguar]

I'm fairly confident if a top F1 team decided to visit an oval and set the cap up properly the IRL boys wouldn't see it again until it came around to lap them... again.... and again.

Without the restraints of a road course F1 cars would be rocket sleds.

[BootsOntheSide]

Within a couple of days of solid testing the F1 teams would be faster. Given a few months to design the perfect oval car within F1 regulations, and they probably could blitz them for performance. None of this is relevent to which is the better championship, of course, it's merely a technical comparison.

[LampCord]

Its just basic physics:

40% more hp + 20 % less weight = much faster. Not to mention the F1 cars are narrower and therefore offer less air resistance.

Oval, road circuit, dragstrip, doesn't matter. That's just WAY too much of an advantage.

I agree. The next time the CART driver would see the F1 car would be in his rear view mirror.

[luke]

Don't forget Champ Car's or IRL car's have standard chassis aprt from in the IRL when they have two.
With their budgets they do an extreamly good job to be as close as they are, and are a lot heavier, a lot less fancy areo dynamics and horsepower, and none of the electronic gizmos they use in F1 so the driver can have a nap.

[luke]

Dario Franchitti (Montreal 2002 in the Champ Car race):

"I think if we'd run our '99-spec cars here, when we had over 99 horsepower before reductions in turbo boost and softer tires owing competition from Goodyear we would have imbarassed some people."

Da Matta

"It's a pretty unfair comparison, since one side spends $200 million more than the other! I think that our designers and engineers are pretty smart if they can get this close with ten percent of the budget."

[curveball]

F1 would definitely be faster, however if they had to bump draft a NASCAR car, I think the NASCAR car might win!

[GP Racer]

NASCAR really does the most with the least out of all 3 cars.

They can push a 3500 lb car in excess of 220MPH, (without the restrictor plates), in an old school, normally aspirated, single cam-shaft, push-rod, carburated V-8 engine, full throttle for 500 miles. Not bad for a very low tech car!

And yes, they would certainly bump draft better than the F1 car!

[mac]

Originally Posted by luke

Dario Franchitti (Montreal 2002 in the Champ Car race):

"I think if we'd run our '99-spec cars here, when we had over 99 horsepower before reductions in turbo boost and softer tires owing competition from Goodyear we would have imbarassed some people."

Exactly.

The first year Champ Car visited Montreal was the year F1 lap times dropped drastically due to the tyre war.

It was also after Champ Cars had been dramatically slowed by a chassis freeze and engine modifications.

This makes the gap quite respectable for Champ Car as far as I'm concerned.

[zeus_m3]

Originally Posted by luke

Dario Franchitti (Montreal 2002 in the Champ Car race):

"I think if we'd run our '99-spec cars here, when we had over 99 horsepower before reductions in turbo boost and softer tires owing competition from Goodyear we would have imbarassed some people."

Da Matta

"It's a pretty unfair comparison, since one side spends $200 million more than the other! I think that our designers and engineers are pretty smart if they can get this close with ten percent of the budget."

It's all because of deminishing return just like road cars. An Enzo is 20 times more expensive than let's say a Mitsubishi EVO or Corvette, but the performance gap is less than 20 seconds a lap. When you reach a certain point in performance, money/improvement becomes an exponential function.

[enemy-ace]

Originally Posted by curveball

How much faster would F1 have been on true slicks too, since thats what CART ran/runs.

This isn't really relevant as it comes down to more rubber compound than tread pattern.
Regardless of which is quicker, all I know is there is a USGP, 24hr of Lemans and Portland Champ Car this weekend. I am in a racing Utopia.

[curveball]

Originally Posted by enemy-ace

Regardless of which is quicker, all I know is there is a USGP, 24hr of Lemans and Portland Champ Car this weekend. I am in a racing Utopia.

Not to mention a NASCAR race in HD I think I am gonna be useless at work on Monday from lack of sleep!

[Wrex]

F1 would be quicker, and quiet frankly, it bloody well should be!

As stated, with the money, weight, power that F1 has available, it should cream the other 2. Interesting comparison though.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by curveball

How much faster would F1 have been on true slicks too, since thats what CART ran/runs.

Originally Posted by enemy-ace

This isn't really relevant as it comes down to more rubber compound than tread pattern.

It has to be relevant, that FIA went for grooves because they would slow the cars down.

Whilst tyre technology has allowed F1 to be quicker than before with grooves, they (F1 cars) would be even quicker with slicks now, than they would be with grooves. (allowing for 8 seasons 1998 - present in [slick] tyre development)

[luke]

Originally Posted by mac

Exactly.

The first year Champ Car visited Montreal was the year F1 lap times dropped drastically due to the tyre war.

It was also after Champ Cars had been dramatically slowed by a chassis freeze and engine modifications.

This makes the gap quite respectable for Champ Car as far as I'm concerned.

I agree, and Btw I didn't mean 99 horsepower, meant 900HP.

[Snrub]

As was mentioned, in F1 the tires have increased the speeds of the cars by a massive amount. If you slapped some Champ Car or IRL spec Bridgestone/Firestone slicks on a F1 car it would be much slower than it is currently.

Originally Posted by luke

I agree, and Btw I didn't mean 99 horsepower, meant 900HP.

'99 Champ Car levels were in excess of 1000hp.

Originally Posted by LampCord

Cart
HP - 650
weight 1525 WITHOUT driver
top speed 230

That's the IRL, that's not Champ Car (formally CART). Currently Champ Car is at 750hp. The world record for the lap speed at an oval was set at 241mph at Fontana in 2001.

Right now F1 is a LOT faster than it was just a short time ago. There is a huge visual difference as well. Watch a 5+ year old race and compare it to today. It doesn't even look like the same sport. At the moment there is no comparison between the speeds of a F1 car and the two US open wheel series. If you go back a few years ago, that isn't the case.

Originally Posted by GP Racer

NASCAR really does the most with the least out of all 3 cars.

Yes and no. All racing series other than perhaps Can-Am in the 70s or an anomoly like the Porsche 917 (which could lap faster than a F1 car) put artificial limits on what their cars can do. For instance if one compared ~99 Champ Car to F1, it's obvious that there was more technology and money in F1, but it was a matter of F1 chosing a less efficient path to get their speed. For instance, why do Nascars weight 3400lbs and have a solid rear axle? The engine technology might be limited in some ways (like no FI), but they could probably have all that newer stuff and save money if they didn't spend so much on development within their current limitations. I'd bet that if you put a 70's Porsche twin turbo V12 Cam-Am engine in a Nascar it would be a heck of a lot faster and cost less.