Lap Time Comparison F!/CART(Just for fun)

[Dave S]

I thought it might be interesting, though not especially relevant , to compare lap times. Bearing in mind the VAST differences in budgets.
Here's this years F1 times.
FORMULA ONE TIMES Source: Formula1.com

2002
1. 6. Montoya Williams 1:12.836 218.513
2. 1. Schumacher M Ferrari 1:13.018 217.968
3. 2. Barrichello Ferrari 1:13.280 217.189
4. 5. Schumacher R Williams 1:13.301 217.127
5. 4. Raikkonen McLaren 1:13.898 215.373
6. 9. Fisichella Jordan 1:14.132 214.693
7. 7. Heidfeld Sauber 1:14.139 214.672
8. 3. Coulthard McLaren 1:14.385 213.962
9. 11. Villeneuve BAR 1:14.564 213.449
10. 14. Trulli Renault 1:14.688 213.094
11. 12. Panis BAR 1:14.713 213.023
12. 8. Massa Sauber 1:14.823 212.710
13. 15. Button Renault 1:14.854 212.622
14. 16. Irvine Jaguar 1:14.882 212.542
15. 10. Sato Jordan 1:14.940 212.378
16. 17. de la Rosa Jaguar 1:15.089 211.956
17. 21. Bernoldi Arrows 1:15.102 211.920
18. 24. Salo Toyota 1:15.111 211.894
19. 20. Frentzen Arrows 1:15.115 211.883
20. 25. McNish Toyota 1:15.321 211.304
21. 23. Webber Minardi 1:15.508 210.780
22. 22. Yoong Minardi 1:17.347 205.769
Cart 1st Parctise:

da Matta 1:20:593 (P1)
Vasser 1:22:393 P19, slowest non-backup car

[Dave S]

Bearing in mind the time improvements by tomorrows qualifying I think they might possibly do better than predicted, 3-4 seconds slower. As well as the budget difference CART is also around 400lbs heavier

[Jordi]

Well, 1.8 seconds between da Matta and Vasser.
2.7 seconds between Montoya and Webber, and 4.5 seconds between Montoya and Yoong.

Talk about parity!

[macdaddy]

Friday's 1st-round qualifying:
da Matta 1:21.064

-8.228 secs from Montoya's pole.

Rain notwithstanding, that number should be reduced somewhat with Saturday's qualifying.

[macdaddy]

I was looking at CART's timing and scoring, and I think I looked at "Last Lap" instead of "Fast Lap".

da Matta's pole time was 1:19.465, a difference of 6.629 secs.

[Arneal]

These numbers would make more of an apples to apples comparison.

F1 Friday practice times from Montreal. Same source Dave used.

1 COULTHARD McLaren Mercedes 1m15.407s 2 MONTOYA Williams BMW 1m15.543s 3 M.SCHUMACHER Ferrari 1m15.788s 4 RAIKKONEN McLaren Mercedes 1m15.946s 5 R.SCHUMACHER Williams BMW 1m16.018s 6 SALO Toyota 1m16.259s 7 PANIS BAR Honda 1m16.333s 8 BARRICHELLO Ferrari 1m16.440s 9 VILLENEUVE BAR Honda 1m16.448s 10 FRENTZEN Arrows Cosworth 1m16.793s 11 DE LA ROSA Jaguar 1m16.801s 12 FISICHELLA Jordan Honda 1m16.989s 13 BERNOLDI Arrows Cosworth 1m17.018s 14 HEIDFELD Sauber Petronas 1m17.250s 15 BUTTON Renault 1m17.473s 16 MASSA Sauber Petronas 1m17.489s 17 IRVINE Jaguar 1m17.765s 18 WEBBER Minardi Asiatech 1m18.034s 19 SATO Jordan Honda 1m18.143s 20 MCNISH Toyota 1m18.311s 21 TRULLI Renault 1m18.465s 22 YOONG Minardi Asiatech 1m19.050s

[DNQ]

Shows you how rubbish Yoong is hey...won't that be something if a Lola champcar turns out to be faster than a Yoong piloted Minardi...

[Speedworx]

da Matta pole = 1:18.9

difference - 6.1

[macdaddy]

F1 cars are 10% faster, with 10x the budget. Equalize the weight and give them both carbon-fibre brakes, and they'd be 4 or 5% faster with 10x the budget.

[MA2]

Hi! It's me, your old favorite, back once again! Sorry for the name change, but I forgot all my old passwords, etc.

Anyway, just to refresh everyone's memory:

Just 2 years ago, before the current F1 tire wars started that dropped F1 times by about 8 seconds, Schumacher took the poles in '99 and '00 at 1:19.288 and 1:18.439, barely anything faster than the current choked down Indy cars that still run on pretty hard tires.

Not bad for a bunch of so-called wannabes on 1/10th the budget!

[Jay]

The difference given to us at the press conference was 6.231 seconds between pole times.... excellent if you consider we're running with teams that have budgets of about $200 million less than the main players in F1.

[The Red BARon]

I was not at all suprised at the huge time difference (watch a car go by at 200mph and count to six it's a long way. Then, next time around count to twelve...) on a road circuit, CART has never been as fast as F1. CART has run faster lap times on ovals we all know that but that is more a factor of the circuit, rather than the car, being faster.

There is no road racing course in the world where a CART car would even approach the speed of F1. That much is obvious and I am a little surprised to see some forumers here expecting to see the reverse. An 850 hp car weighing 750kg will never be faster than an 850 hp car weighing 600 including the driver. Electronic driver aids, tyre wars etc make no real difference to this fact of physics.

If F1 cars still had ground effect like CART has (a massive performance advantage), the F1 times would be another 4-5 secs faster still. You all elect to not mention this. What if F1 cars were still allowed turnos. In the mid 80s they were running 1500hp in qualifying from only 1.5 litre engines.

As for the drivers, I do not believe there are drivers who are specifically F1 or CART anymore, with a few exceptions like Michael Andretti. They are just all good professionals. The drivers are interchangeable - Montoya was an F1 test driver for Williams who was lent out to Chip Ganassi for a couple of years until Frank Williams had a seat available. He blew the field away and returned to F1. Jacque Villeneuve has been champion at both. Da Matta is another of the south American/European school of driving (British F3 championship) who is doing well in CART. He would also do well in F1.

I think you should cease to think of drivers as belonging to one series or another. They don't. And as for the cars - what are you so proud of? It's not as if the cars are North Amerian. They are all built down the road from me here in England so I'm not sure what you are trying to prove by claiming they are better than F1 in the first place.

Each formula has its place. I love them both and will be at Rockingham this year (as I was last year) to watch what I hope will be a superb race.

PS - CART Montreal was a boring race no more exciting than the F1 GP in June.

[Jay]

Who said the Champ cars were better than the F1 cars? I think Da Matta said it best when he said that for $200 million less in budget, 6.2 seconds isn't bad! He also said that he thought a big reason for the difference was the tyre war in F1. According to Da Matta, if the Champ cars were using F1 tires they could have been within 2-3 seconds of them. He also said that if they were running the 99' spec cars with increased boost and softer tires they would likely be almost on par with F1.

So, for $200 million per team less...not bad!

No, the Montreal race wasn't that great, although it was a little more interesting than the F1 race (was at both). I think Cart will have a lot more passing next year when it will basically be a spec. series... I think it will likely be a high speed Toyota Atlantics deal..which would be amazing!

[Flatspot]

Hi Red BARon:

I'm not sure people here are trying to say one is better than the other, just making comparisons to the two formulas.

I believe your right on target when you state that there are too many differences to make a direct comparison of the cars. In a thread on the F1 forum this was pointed out already. A CART car could no sooner beat an F1 car on a road circuit at the typical road circuit distance than an F1 car could beat a CART car at 500 miles on an oval. Neither formula is meant to do what the other formula does.

Others pointed out to me however, and they're correct, that the comparisons were inevitable as this is the first time a direct comparison of the formulas was really available. What the hell, it's all fun! Have fun in Rockingham!

[Jay]

Just a correction, it was Franchitti that said that the 1999 champ cars would be close if not on par with the F1 cars...not Da Matta.. My bad, it was a long day.

[I Ate Yoko Ono]

Originally posted by Jay
Who said the Champ cars were better than the F1 cars? I think Da Matta said it best when he said that for $200 million less in budget, 6.2 seconds isn't bad! He also said that he thought a big reason for the difference was the tyre war in F1. According to Da Matta, if the Champ cars were using F1 tires they could have been within 2-3 seconds of them.

But, but, but, if, if, if - banging on about the tyre war quote completely misses the point Jay. IF F1 had ground effect aerodynamics like in CART, IF F1 still had turbo engines with 1986 boost, IF F1 still had slick tyres etc etc..........the gap would be more like 12-15 seconds anyway.

As for the $200 million (possibly more for the likes of Ferrari) surely you understand the theory of diminishing returns. You have to spend huge amount of money in a restrictive formula to find the next tenth of a second. CART would be no different if it were a series with 11 manufacturers. Sadly within a year I suspect it will be one(Lola).

Don't get me wrong. CART is awesome and I have a lot more time for it than I do for IRL (although even that is growing on me as more quality teams and drivers enter it - Penske with De Ferran/Castro Neves all raised its profile immeasurably this year). Point of fact, the Rockingham race last year was awesome and I'll be there every year they hold a race (only 3 weeks to go!!) which is more than I can say for F1.

But you also have to be realistic about the speed and technology in F1, it is quite staggering and unparalleled (hope I got all the "l"s in the right place in tha last word). F1 teams employ far more people, money and technology than any Lola or Reynard ever has or likely will.

[MA2]

IAYO - F1 DOES use ground effects. It's just that they can't use venturi tunnels.

Of course all of the rules are different! Trying to compare the cars technologically is indeed fruitless, but pointing out the reasons for F1's giant increase in speed during the tire wars is usefull, as well as pointing out the ways that CART has slowed down the cars during that same time period.



PS: F1 cars currently produce about 5-6000 lbs of downforse at speed, vs CART's 3000 or so. To use your comparison,if CART had the same boost levels as 1986, and the same ground effect package as 1986, and the same wing package, the would be producing 1500 HP in race trim, and develop 14000 lbs of downforce!

No one is trying to say that F1 cars aren't superior or fasterm - all that is being pushed is the fact that they are't all that terribly far apart considering the reletive rules packages and the monies spent.

[Mal]

If you look at Ferraris budget against Minardi's you will see how much money it takes to gain just 2/3 secs at this level.
Also Chris Pook himself is quoted todays as saying F1 is the pinnacle of the sport. But that doesn't mean its the best racing -That can probably be found in Formula Ford!

[I Ate Yoko Ono]

Originally posted by MA2
IAYO - F1 DOES use ground effects. It's just that they can't use venturi tunnels.

To use your comparison,if CART had the same boost levels as 1986, and the same ground effect package as 1986, and the same wing package, the would be producing 1500 HP in race trim, and develop 14000 lbs of downforce!

No one is trying to say that F1 cars aren't superior or fasterm - all that is being pushed is the fact that they are't all that terribly far apart considering the reletive rules packages and the monies spent.

No I still think you've got it wrong, sorry. You are using the ifs, not me, but if you insist....
My quote was if F1 had ground effects LIKE CART....Once again you are using ifs....IF F1 still had turbos those 1.5litre engines producing 1500 hp in 1985 with ancient technology would now be two or three times that reliably in race trim. If F1 still had sliding skirts and venturi tunnels as pioneered by Lotus way back in the 70s when all USAC cars were flat bottomed(pioneered by Lotus for singles seaters before you get all excited and mention Chaparrall used them in the late 60s in sportscars).

In a game of technological ifs and buts of things banned from F1 over the years, it would win hands down easily over CART, which is why the original comparison of "if, if, if, if, if, if, but, but, but, but then surely English built Champcars would be faster than English built Williams and McLaren F1 cars" was pointless.

This was my original point which is not being understood. For every CART if and but I could hit back with something more significant for F1. F1 doesn't even use slick tyres!

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by I Ate Yoko Ono
This was my original point which is not being understood. For every CART if and but I could hit back with something more significant for F1. F1 doesn't even use slick tyres!
(my emphasis added)

Yet your whole argument was started by da Matta saying if CART ran F1 tires, they'd only be 2-3 seconds down. What exactly is your point? How are one set of "ifs and buts" more significant than another?

I've shown elsewhere that a rough parity might have been seen in 1999 or possibly 2000. That was all Franchitti was stating. The fact is that CART cars are marginally slower now than they were two years ago, while F1 is significantly faster. The rulesmakers of both series are purposely trying to slow down (or at least not speed up) the cars, and F1's technological march has outstripped FIA's ability to counteract the improvements. Particularly with respect to tires, as da Matta said.

No one here is trying to argue that F1 isn't technologically superior to CART. It's understood that the cars are lighter, have more restrictive engine requirements, aren't allowed the downforce configurations that Champcars are, and have a tire configuration that should compromise their performance. That F1 has improved in the face of these restrictions shows just how well that extra money has been spent.

[MA2]

IAYO:

Once again you show that the blinders are on too tight!

From what I am reading between your lines, it seems that we actually agree on most points, and the main one being that direct comparisons and all the "ifs" are pointless - no one is arguing that F1 is faster and more technologically advanced than CART. That just happens to be the factual way that the two classes are designed, nothing more.

The point that you seem to continually miss is that the two formulas are in reality a lot closer to each other in terms of speed than the purist F1 pundits would like to admit, ESPECIALLY if you consider the reletive amounts of money being spent.

The point about the tires is only to promote speculation about just how much faster F1 would still be IF they weren't benefiting from the current tire war. My own speculation is that they would still be faster, but the gap would have shrunk considerably, like maybe down to 2 seconds instead of the current 6+.

On another note, the hillarious thing about the narrow, grooved tires is that the cars immeadiately went faster than the year before! So much for slowing the cars down!

Ah, Max! You are soooooo smart!

[Flatspot]

Hit this horse again I'm not sure he's dead yet!

[StuiE]

Originally posted by Jay
Who said the Champ cars were better than the F1 cars? I think (Franchitti) said it best when he said that for $200 million less in budget, 6.2 seconds isn't bad! He also said that he thought a big reason for the difference was the tyre war in F1. According to Da Matta, if the Champ cars were using F1 tires they could have been within 2-3 seconds of them. He also said that if they were running the 99' spec cars with increased boost and softer tires they would likely be almost on par with F1.

So he's saying that F1 grooved tyres would be faster? or a tyre war with CART tyres would have them heaps faster?

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by gtr69
So he's saying that F1 grooved tyres would be faster? or a tyre war with CART tyres would have them heaps faster?

I think he means your second interpretation. I doubt just bolting on F1 tires would improve Champcars over their current slicks.

After all, the baseline year that people are suggesting the two cars would have had similar lap times is 1999-2000. At that point F1 had single-manufacturer grooved tires. They would have been far less of a tire than CART's slicks. Now their improvement is worth a huge amount of the 6 or 7 seconds they've shaved off their Montreal times.

If (say) Goodyear had been in CART pushing Firestone/Bridgestone to develop their compounds, the thinking is they would have developed at roughly the same pace. Conversely, if Michelin were not in F1, the Bridgestone tires would not have developed nearly as much (or in a different direction, reducing off-line marbles maybe?)

Is the horse dead yet?

[I Ate Yoko Ono]

Originally posted by paul-collins


Yet your whole argument was started by da Matta saying if CART ran F1 tires, they'd only be 2-3 seconds down. What exactly is your point?

paul you've made an honest mistake. I was arguing against the person who said that which would explain your confusion over my argument.
IAYO