(FIA)F1 vs (IRL)Indy car

[Daverytimes]

We all know that these two series are different, one builds their cars to show their technological prowess while the other buys their cars over the counter and upgrades them, one operates on 500 million dollar budget while the other operates on a measly 10 percent of that, one uses the best of technology while the other barely gets by. But this differences don't deter people from comparing them, because lets face it the closest thing there is to f1 is Indy cars. the reason am making this thread is because i haven't found a good reason why F1 fanboys are bashing the Indy cars (F1 fans in recent years have grown worse as young in-experienced kids come in contact with the series), considering that the difference in lap times are 5-10 seconds in Circuit Gilles Villeneuve.


PLEASE NO FANBOYISM, state why you like each series and why. Personally i like F1 over Indy car but i really commend the IRL for operating on such a low budget but yet being compared to the highest in Motorsport. I hope for some educated arguments 👍👍







DAVE

 

[TheCracker]

This really should have been posted in the Motorsports sub-forum.

F1 is the pinnacle of single seater motorsport (all motorsport really) IndyCar is just one countries premier open-wheeled series.

 

[Daverytimes]

This really should have been posted in the Motorsports sub-forum.

F1 is the pinnacle of single seater motorsport (all motorsport really) IndyCar is just one countries premier open-wheeled series.

I didn't see that, guess it most likely would be moved. and yes F1 is the pinaccle of racing and i think everyone agrees but why is it that people still come back to comparing it to Indy cars. Besides Indy cars are nothing but one countries open-wheel series, right? (I don't want to sound smart ).




DAVE

 

[Greycap]

Probably because IndyCar is the fastest class in North America while F1 is the fastest class in Europe. The fairer comparison would be GP2 vs. IndyCar, both are spec series to some extent and their lap times are quite comparable. They reach those times by different approaches though, IndyCar has the edge on full throttle sections thanks to more power but GP2 takes it back in cornering.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

This really should have been posted in the Motorsports sub-forum.

F1 is the pinnacle of single seater motorsport (all motorsport really) IndyCar is just one countries premier open-wheeled series.

Single seaters? Yes, F1 is top dog. But in comparison to other forms of motorsports, F1 is lagging...especially behind LeMans.

I say that b/c if F1 is a display or proving grounds for technical advances in motoring; why have Toyota, Honda, BMW, and a slew of other manufacturers left in recent years?

With a few exceptions, it's seems like F1 is a play thing for billionaires and oil regimes. Force India, Red Bull x 2, Virgin, and whatever an HRT is are a collection of automotive nobodies. Sure, Red Bull won a championship...but how did that help automotive industry that we're consumers of? It didn't.

The competition isn't even that great. You have studs like Alonso, Button, Vettel, Kubica sharing the same road as a dozen or so pay drivers. A mix of easily the best drivers in the world vs. those who have deep pockets & sponsorship. While this is present in every form of motorsport, I think the talent discrepancy is even wider in F1.

With LeMans, Audi has really taken the bull by the horns and the word 'diesel' followed by the word 'performance' isn't met with laughter. Other manufacturers have taken note and are pushing the envelope & rules. In the GT class, you can thank the Corvette team for engines available for purchase out of a catalog and blame them for getting rid of pop-up headlights. Damn them!

Indy, on the other hand, is somewhat of a joke. I think it is anyway. Clouded in politics from the OEMs and misplaced goodwill for using ethanol, it was supposed to become open-wheel NASCAR. That hasn't happened. It's boring to watch and no can really identify with the drivers or cars.

You watch a Grand Am or ALMS race; you can see the same cars you see on the road (sorta anyway). The drivers are usually American, which is important in the US, and the banging and crashing is good entertainment...the commentators? Not so much.

The way F1 has been trending; it'll become a spec series. It's too expensive to run a team, the ROI for factory teams is low, and every time they change the rules in the name of controlling budgets...teams have to spend even more money to stay competitive and within the rules.

Old F1 was romantic in that it was an 'anything goes' kind of series. You cheered for the beautiful losers (Mindari), stayed up to date b/c of the personalities (Eddie Jordan), and you watched the races b/c those were the best drivers on Earth driving the fastest cars engineers could design.

F1 may still be entertaining, but it's not relevant. Same goes for Indy.

In 5 years or so, it'll be endurance racing that'll be the pinnacle of motorsports. Speed + efficiency that will trickle down into vehicles on the showroom floor.

 

[TheCracker]

Single seaters? Yes, F1 is top dog. But in comparison to other forms of motorsports, F1 is lagging...especially behind LeMans.

Global economics have ment that all forms of motorsport are struggling at the moment, especially coming after a boom period.

LMS/ALMS has two manufacturers bidding for honors and a bunch of other LMP1 teams just making up the numbers. No one cares about LMP2. In the GT classes you basically have Ferrari vs Porsche. Despite the varied class system, i don't see a mass of variation or competition in top class sportscar racing either. It's a shadow of what it was in the 80's and early 90's.

I say that b/c if F1 is a display or proving grounds for technical advances in motoring; why have Toyota, Honda, BMW, and a slew of other manufacturers left in recent years?

Manufacturer commitment waxes and wanes on the whims of their boardrooms, always has done, always will do. F1 has a great depth of non-manufacturer teams that will always weather the financial storms and continue to provide the sport with highly competitive and innovative cars.

With a few exceptions, it's seems like F1 is a play thing for billionaires and oil regimes. Force India, Red Bull x 2, Virgin, and whatever an HRT is are a collection of automotive nobodies. Sure, Red Bull won a championship...but how did that help automotive industry that we're consumers of? It didn't.

All motorsport is populated by millionaires and these days billionaires. As the old saying goes, to make a million through motorsport, you have to start with ten.

No form of motorsport really helps the automotive industry anymore. The diesel technology that helps Peugeot and Audi win LeMans has more to do with the billions that those companies have ploughed into their road car programmes, this road car technology has trickled up to motorsport, not the otherway round. Audi and Peugeot have been at the forefront of diesel engine developments long before they thought of promoting it by taking it motor racing.

The competition isn't even that great. You have studs like Alonso, Button, Vettel, Kubica sharing the same road as a dozen or so pay drivers. A mix of easily the best drivers in the world vs. those who have deep pockets & sponsorship. While this is present in every form of motorsport, I think the talent discrepancy is even wider in F1.

F1 has more top-flight drivers at the moment than it ever has. It's also always had pay drivers that just make up the numbers. This will never change.

In the GT class, you can thank the Corvette team for engines available for purchase out of a catalog and blame them for getting rid of pop-up headlights. Damn them!

I think you can safely blame pedestrian safety regulations for getting rid of pop-up headlights in modern road cars

Indy, on the other hand, is somewhat of a joke. I think it is anyway. Clouded in politics from the OEMs and misplaced goodwill for using ethanol, it was supposed to become open-wheel NASCAR. That hasn't happened. It's boring to watch and no can really identify with the drivers or cars.

Indy was traditionally a bigger draw than NASCAR, it's only in relatively recent times that it's overtaken open-wheel racing for top honors in the US. The CART/IRL split damaged any credibility it had and allowed NASCAR to push through and become the US's top form of motorsport.

The way F1 has been trending; it'll become a spec series. It's too expensive to run a team, the ROI for factory teams is low, and every time they change the rules in the name of controlling budgets...teams have to spend even more money to stay competitive and within the rules.

Old F1 was romantic in that it was an 'anything goes' kind of series. You cheered for the beautiful losers (Mindari), stayed up to date b/c of the personalities (Eddie Jordan), and you watched the races b/c those were the best drivers on Earth driving the fastest cars engineers could design.

Again, this has always been, and will continue to be the case in F1.

Manufacturer support ebbs and flows, some teams quit but are replaced by new ones, yet it will continue to be the pinicle of motorsport because every young driver strives to be F1 World Champion. Whilst the cream of driver talent is in F1, manufactures and sponsors will want to be associated with it.

F1 may still be entertaining, but it's not relevant. Same goes for Indy.

What form of motorsport is relevant? And relevant to what?

In 5 years or so, it'll be endurance racing that'll be the pinnacle of motorsports. Speed + efficiency that will trickle down into vehicles on the showroom floor.

Within the next few years F1 is adopting fresh engine regulations. The 2.4 normally aspirated V8's will be replaced by 1.6 four cylinder turbos with energy recovery systems. If that's not relevant to the direction of road car engines, than i don't know what is.

 

[Perfect Balance]

considering that the difference in lap times are just 5-10 seconds in Circuit Gilles Villeneuve.
👍👍







DAVE

I don't think you realize just how much of an eternity 5-10 seconds is when talking about racing. Can you imagine 5-10 seconds a lap over a 60 lap race?

They're the fastest, most technologically advanced road course cars in the world. I find that interesting. Especially more interesting than a lesser version of the same thing (open wheel race cars). [/waits for someone to argue that NASCAR is just as technologically advanced.]

 

[mustangGT90210]

Maybe in the whole protecting the driver in a crash part, besides that Nascar doesn't strike me as anything you couldn't do in your back yard as far as the driveline goes

 

[Daverytimes]

I don't think you realize just how much of an eternity 5-10 seconds is when talking about racing. Can you imagine 5-10 seconds a lap over a 60 lap race?

They're the fastest, most technologically advanced road course cars in the world. I find that interesting. Especially more interesting than a lesser version of the same thing (open wheel race cars). [/waits for someone to argue that NASCAR is just as technologically advanced.]

I understand that racing is all about shaving off that last millisecond from your time, but their simply is nothing that i can think of that is closer to f1 times. NASCAR is in no way technologically advanced, neither are Indy cars but that whats amazing about it. Indy cars don't cost that much and they are the closest thing to f1 there is, even LMP cars that cost a fortune cant come up to class (in terms of cornering speed, but of course lmp's serve a different purpose altogether.) to F1 but Indy cars which cost quite less comes close (I may be wrong and if i am correct me). 👍







DAVE

 

[CarolinaBlue704]

but why is it that people still come back to comparing it to Indy cars. Besides Indy cars are nothing but one countries open-wheel series, right? (I don't want to sound smart ).DAVE

If the IRL were based in Europe I doubt it would ever be compared to F1. It would be compared to F3 and GP2. And like F3 and GP2, it would most likely be used as a "feeder" series for Formula 1.

But since it's based in America and it's our most popular open-wheel series, it gets compared to F1. It's the same reason NASCAR and F1 get compared all the time, even though they have nothing in common.

considering that the difference in lap times are just 5-10 seconds in Circuit Gilles Villeneuve.

Just 5-10 seconds?

Circuit Gilles Villeneuve is a little more than 2.5 miles long. 5-10 seconds faster for 1 lap around a track that short is a HUGE gap. It's not even close in the racing world.

And I don't hate the IRL by any means, so don't think I'm bashing it. The only thing keeping me from being a big fan of the series is the fact that they race on too many oval tracks for my liking.

 

[Jim Prower]

Well, looking at the evolution of both cars, I think it comes down to the types of courses they traditionally race on.

in the early '50s, you could put an F1 car on the grid of the Indy 500, though the liberal displacement rules meant you couldn't do the same in Europe with an Offy-powered roadster. However, about the time the rear-engine revolution came about, the two paths diverged. Championship race cars became longer, heavier and MUCH more powerful thanks to the Turbocharger, something F1 wouldn't take advantage of 'till the '80s. The advent of the Turbo Offy and, shortly later, turbo variants of the DFV, meant that the cars had to be a bit larger physically for stability at ridiculously high speeds around the oval tracks. F1 cars, which didn't run at such high speeds, needed to be smaller and lighter due to the twisty nature of the road courses.

Of course, the champ cars (see where CART got the name?) also ran road courses, but the biggest, most important race of the season was at Indy, so the cars tended to be built around ovals. There was a real switch towards road courses in the late '80s/early '90s, often on the street circuits near to where the F1 series had raced a few years earlier. It may be part of why Champ Car ran mostly road races in the last days of its existence. As a result, the chassis builders had to build allrounders rather than pure oval-track bandits.

I imagine that if you put slim wings on an F1 car, you'd have one handful driving it around Indy's flat turns at 240. I'm sure in that situation most drivers would trade the maneuverability for some mass and stability. Then again, an Indy car might be a bit awkward to get around the Monaco Hairpin.

 

[Ardius]

As has been stated already, the comparison is moot because they are barely related beyond being open-wheel series.
There is as much similarity as there is between a Formula Ford and an F1 car.

At one point, Indycar/CART was close to the same level as F1, I'd say the early 90s was the definite peak where you might be able to say they rivalled each other. Not in speed (because they are designed for different purposes) but in popularity, driver skills, team quality and race quality.
Problem was though, CART was still American-based, it was still a national series. Whereas F1 has always been an international series, and so will always be percieved by the public as being above Indycar.

This is easily displayed quite visibly when you ask people to think of the greatest racing drivers ever. You will rarely hear people refer to Indycar drivers, though some, e.g. Jim Clark, did drive them.

As for relevance to road cars, quality of drivers, quality of racing...road car relevance is only an excuse for manufacturers to use on their shareholders, for us fans it doesn't matter. The quality of drivers in both series is at its highest ever. Today's pay drivers are GP2 champions (Pastor Maldanado), A1GP race winners (Narain Kathikeyan), etc...which is far more than can be said for pay drivers of the past.
Quality of racing is a debatable subject. But personally I've found recent F1 seasons to have been the best for a while. Indycar/Champcar has waned partly because of the split and subsequent drop in the quality of the drivers. It seems to be getting better though.

A good reason why F1 "fanboys" "bash" Indycar is because the quality of the drivers is quite low. Why is this? Well, for a start, the open-wheel motorsport ladder isn't great in America. If you're a young American racing driver wanting to get somewhere, you're limited in options. While the low-level local racing is very good in the States, the F3/Formula Ford level doesn't appear to be fantastic. This makes it difficult for their to be any kind of talent pool and for young drivers to really have an interest in getting to Indycar. Which also leads into why its filled with European and South American drivers, who have had far better, competitive junior categories to rise up through and F1 drivers to inspire them. Which then leads to F1, GP2, etc being saturated with drivers that they then look for drives elsewhere (Indycar, SuperGT, DTM, LMS, ALMS, Superleague) to get noticed.
In America, its more likely that you would be inspired by NASCAR than Indycar or F1.
This is also why there are rarely any American F1 drivers anymore - you are almost required to move to and race in Europe, which is obviously very expensive and difficult to convince American sponsors to back (as they also don't have the inspiration to promote drivers to F1 level or Indycar).

Ironically, what Indycar needs is for F1 to return to the States, and for an American driver to become successful in F1. Hopefully then people would start investing the money so that American interest and therefore talent can increase.