IndyCar Fan Reacts to Why IndyCar is Better than F1
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- original - - • Why IndyCar is Better ...
TIP JAR - - - - - streamlabs.com...
This will help improve the channel greatly, New webcam for better videos, Wheel for the hotlaps, or you can just buy me a cold drink 😎 I APPRECIATE YOU
Send us Stuff!! 😋 IWrocker 5225 Harrison Ave PO box # 6145
Rockford, IL 61125
Discord - - IWrocker CZcams - - / discord
LIKE and Subscribe! Have a great Day!
*Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. No copyright infringement intended. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS
The fact 2 teams in F1 can build a totally bespoke car with different aero philosophies to the each other, (albeit within the regs), and different engines, and can then go out and qualify within tenths of a second of each other is mindboggling imo
Word, yo.
Zandvoort, 2022 was about .6 seconds from Verstappen on down to place 8 or 9 in qualifying 2.
The entire F1 field is quite close, so it seems this home race for Max Verstappen.
Cmon Mercedes AmG second half comeback rally and win!
That would break the F1 fandom into pieces, but maybe increase viewership to levels beyind the glory days of turbos and tolulene fueled engines.
Thats why F1 is so engrossing
I love both but I’ll just never, ever agree with IndyCar being better than F1.
It’s just F1 is concentrating in engineering a piece of art, while Indy car is just more power for certain tracks only.
stop being everywhere >:^
It’s better in terms of racing but not in terms of engineering since Indycar isn’t about that
@@ninjawarrriorr3062 I'd say it is slightly better than F2 solely due to budget and driver experience (obvi since Indy is a main and f2 a feeder)
@@Cookivirus in terms of speed/engineering?
F1 cars also have "push to overtake" -button that is free to use when ever, it uses battery power to increase power. The DRS can be used only in certain zones on the track but can be used in tandem with the overtake button.
That one idiot that leaves ers on
Kind of weird that he knows so much about F1 but leaves the ERS out.
@@KingHoborg a lot of more casual fans don't know about ERS as it's a hidden thing that's never even shown on broadcast
@@emiliskog They don't mention it specidfically, but sometimes you'll hear them refer to "charging the battery". That also leads to the other big difference: IndyCar's "push to pass" is available whenever but for a limited amount of time per race. F1's ERS has no limitation as the rules go, but is limited in that the extra energy has to be built up over time when it's not being used, so a driver can realistically only use it for about half a lap before needing to charge the battery again.
@@TheDesignProf F1 cars also have the lights on the back that show when the cars are harvesting energy, I would imagine many people would google that to find out what it is even though they don't explicitly discuss it on the broadcasts.
I believe with "the car weighs 5 times more" he simply means, that because of the drag, the car gets pushed onto the track with 5 times it's weight.
I agree…. If there was a scale under the vehicle the reading would be 5 times higher because the vehicle is being pushed down but the mass and inertia of the vehicle would still be the same as 1 times.
The “5 times” would be reflected in the drag numbers instead.
yeah, more accurately would of been to say "the car's apparent weight is 5 times more." as weight is just determined by the effect of gravity, apparent weight is the sum of forces effecting how heavy an objects appears, which would include gravity and the downforce.
yeah, people usually use/understand "weight" instead of "mass". Mass will always be the same : 100kg for i.e., but weight depends (mostly) on gravity. On earth, gravity is around 10m s−2 (with a mass of 100kg, the weight is 1000N, N for newton).
But as F1 is speeding, the force on the car, make by the wing, increase so the weight increase too, but not the mass !
Not because of drag, but because of downforce. Though the means of generating downforce, also generate drag. They are not immediately interchangeable as drag efficiency differs between cars/series. Just taking drag into consideration and creating a slippery car would result in most of the drag not resulting into any downforce.
This. The car effectively weighs more, but the mass is of course constant.
I'm an engineer and have worked in both F1 (McLaren) and Indycar or CART Champ Cars as it was then (Lola).
I absolutely love both categories. This isn't a do you like cats or dogs conversation. It's more like a do you like chicken or beef conversation. You can like both for different reasons.
For me the F1 technical challenge is unlike anything else out there. The road course performance is off the charts. Indycar has a fantastic show, more equal performance and better variation in tracks. And the superspeedway top speeds are astonishing.
I enjoyed working in both but can easily say the stress and pressure is higher in F1 by miles. It's not a job for the faint hearted family man or woman. It owns you.
I still watch both series regularly and just enjoy them for what they are. I hope Indy can go more global again like it used to in the 90s and early 2000s. They should have a hybrid option soon to help with eco issues that might release a more global audience.
I still shout at the TV when McLaren cock up a pit stop... Or when they do well. It dies hard!
well said...
My grandfather was a tool and die maker for Indy cars in the early 1930s-40s. My great grandparents owned farmland where the Speedway is. I'm a little partial to the 500. But any racing will get my heart going.
The Cart Champ Cars was really Great , best of two Worlds !
Each have their own benefits and rule in their own "sphere" but it is the F1 car that is out ahead. The Indycar uses standard parts while the F1 car is pushing the boundaries. The number of car technologies that were showcased in F1 that went on to become car standard is immense.
F1 uses some standard parts, the fuel flow meter, the high pressur fuel pump, the Halo, the Fuel system primer pumps, the tyres for example. And uses also some transferable parts (a lot) or open source parts (a lot).
14:30 one thing about physics is that weight is NOT constant, yes mass is constant but weight and mass are separate factors. The downforce does make the cars weigh more which is why you measure in lbs of downforce. The drag factor is affecting by air passing over and getting stuck in areas that slow them down.
@@kanepreston18 Not necessarily, if you have another force acting, it sums with the force of gravity, doesn't have to be downforce, it can be centrifugal force when driving on uneven surface, like Eau Rouge, where the total weight increases at the bottom of the corner because centrifugal force is acting downwards as the car compresses down, while at Raidillon total weight decreases as the centrifugal force is acting upwards. Weight is just a force that always includes force of gravity, but it can also include other forces if they are present.
@@kanepreston18 Your equation is correct in cases where gravity is the only force acting, in other cases other forces are added or detracted to make up total weight.
Aye, weight is equal to the mass of an object, multiplied by the sum of all forces acting upon that object.
I always found trigonometry to be a very stale subject at school.. but once I got into mechanical engineering, and started going through mass distribution in structures.. boom.. it just clicked.
I think my eldest was maybe 12 at the time, and was well into mathematics, so when I showed her what I was doing at uni, her eyes lit up, and she consumed everything I threw at her.
Vectors are a far more interesting medium for teaching trig, than ladders against walls.. and a damn site more useful.. and naturally lead into far more complex ideas.
There are a huge number of race series where everyone is driving exactly the same car (or very near to it) and it's really a competition of drivers. If you like that, that's great (and I like it too), but Formula 1 in racing cars and Americas Cup in yachting are nearly unique in being primarily an ENGINEERING challenge, with the drivers somewhat secondary. As we saw last year, you can take George Russell out of the last car on the grid and put him in Lewis Hamilton's car and he comes within a hair of winning his only race in it. And that's what I like about F1. If you want a driver's series there is EVERYTHING ELSE. It would be sad if we didn't have at least some series where the focus is on engineering and technology. The cost for a complete season for a top F1 team, including design, salaries etc is pretty high. In 2019, Mercedes spent $484 million, Ferrari $463 million, and Red Bull $445 million. There is now officially a budget cap of $140 million but that only covers specific things.
Add a rain to a f1 race and it's competition of drivers too.
Not to mention, those new innovations nearly always trickle down to everyday cars. ABS, active suspension etc all came from F1 first. It's one of the reasons the major manufacturers get involved.
You make a great point 👍
Very well said. Also if you spend 400million you want the best drivers in the world to drive it.
That's always been my argument. There is no point in comparing the two. F1 is a constructors championship and pretty much everything else is a spec drivers championship. Being into design and engineering, I am far more fascinated with F1. And with this new crop of cars, there is plenty of overtaking. It's not always picked up by the broadcasting team (Tsk, Tsk) but it's happening.
I'm not so sure a IndyCar would beat a F1 car on a oval. I bet you can adjust the down-force to the point a F1 can go over 400 km/h with ease, it has the power to do it.
True, even old F1 car from 2004 can produce 401 KM/h on straight.
just use baku/monza low downforce spec. im sure this car capable to beat current indycar
@@runninginthe90s75 And between 2002 and 2004 they looked the best too.
hybrid engines suffer a lot without corners to recharge the battery. even if you create a completely new aero concept, this generation engines are not good for ovals.
@@rehannoor4961 That's still too much drag compared to the slim aero of indy in ovals. You'd need to overhaul the aero completely. Maybe this year cars with ground effect have a better chance to trim aero to be more competitive in an oval, but still, the engine would need to be remade to support the high revs and no corners to recharge the battery.
236 mph on an oval!
231 by Bottas was on a circuit.
pretty sure if the F1 Cars get an Oval Steup they will top the 236.
On F1 tracks the need to find a setup that works on straights and tight corners, that stuff is not needed at an Oval.
The Champ Cars had more than 250 Mph Top Speed in Michigan, in Texas with a lap average of 235 Mph ...
What you're not taking into account is if you put an F1 car into an Indy race there's no need for them to run so much downforce so they would run a slicker aerodynamic set up making them faster. They also have the provision to alter the gearing to increase top speed further.
True, but with gearing set for the entire season in advance, that would still limit them.
Within the current F1 regulations even the most slippery car possible would most likely fall behind an IndyCar in that aspect, but with the extra power it would certainly bring the two closer. Covered rear wheels for example are not allowed in F1 and would make a huge difference.
You have to remember that F1 cars could do indy 500 on 3 pit stops because they are so easy on fuel. Im not sure If the tires would be able to take it but i think it is possible. Meanwhile indycars have to make like 7-8 pitstops. Im not sure how much time would be saved by F1 car just because it does not need to make so many pit stops but it would matter.
Frankly, it's impossible to tell. Remember that part of the HP of an F1 car comes from recharging batteries - that's primarily done via braking. Not that much braking on an oval, so they'd effectively chug useless ballast around with them ...
Suspension and floors aren't made to run on bankings like that either, especially not for such a long time.
To me it'd depend on how much you allow F1 teams to adjust their cars before going on ovals. If you give them the leeway to essentially develop an "oval kit" - which I'd say is fair, given that IndyCar also doesn't just drive the same chassis on ovals as normal ... yeah, they'd probably be smashing the Indycars, but, eh. With that much more money spend why wouldn't they; that's just not a fair competition.
@@Sp4mMe Had completely forgotten about the MGU-K, that’s a really good point. Also I agree with the second part. F1 cars adhering to F1 regulations would struggle to keep up even with fuel saving as they are still about 5mph off the pace. However with altered trim and setup the better power to weight would make them absolute bullets.
F1 Champion Nigel Mansell went straight from F1 to Indycar and he blitzed everyone. Winning the Indy championship in his first season. Michael Andretti went from Indycar to F1 and he could hardly make it through a race without crashing. He achieved one third place for the entire season. That says to me that an Indycar is easier to drive than an F1 car is.
And then Jacques Villeneuve went from winning the '95 IndyCar Driving Championship, Indy 500 and the '97 F1 Drivers Championship, I think Villeneuve was 1 point away from the title in his Rookie year '96. Your comparison is pretty selective.
Then why did Mansell spin on his very first CART test? Michael Andretti was no slouch behind the wheel, even if he wasn't a superstar like Mansell, and even then Mansell was propelled to the championship not on the road and street tracks, but on the ovals. He won the CART title more because he joined a veteran team who knew how to set the car up than because of his own brilliance as a driver. No, Michael's real problem was that he joined McLaren right when they hit the hard times, and that he couldn't gatecrash the love affair between Ron Dennis and Mika Hakkinen. He spent 1993 begging to go testing, and being brushed off because Ron's contract said he had to give Mika seat time. That left no seat time for Michael, so no time to get comfortable with the car. I think if he'd been patient enough to stick around and benefit from the Mercedes engine, things could've been different. But hey, we'll never know.
@@TrainWreck444 you think wrong. In 1996 damon hill won the Championship with 97 points over villeneuve, with 78. Thats 2 races distance. And taking into account that reliability was pretty much inexistent those days... But yeah he was a rookie. He won it the next year because damon hill was gone because of contractual disagreements. In fact, villeneuve is considered as one of the worst world champions ever. When he stopped having the dominant car he drowned into the irrelevancy. He performed pretty bad until he was kicked put mid-season. So, his commentary was not actually selective
@@TrainWreck444 another good choice would be grosjean. In F1 he was considered an erratic, dangerous, unpredictable driver. By the time he crashed in bahrein he had been told he had no seat in F1. And even with pretty hard burns he performed well in his rookie season of indycar.
Alex palou had no seat in F1 even thought he won F2. Ericsson was in the top 3 of worst drivers at the time. Alexander rossi, takuma sato, bourdais, rosenqvist, montoya... All of them were kicked out or didnt even make it into F1
triple world champion nelson piquet failed terrible at indycar, rubens barrichello never got to grips with indycar. very few f1 drivers mastered indycar after f1 and indeed vice versa. i mean how many indycar and f1 drivers went on to be competitive at le mans and sportscars... does that mean sportcar racing suck?? no it doesnt, it means they are different series.
the F1 cars shown in the video are last years cars, they have a completely new aero package this year and are able to slip stream and get a lot closer to the car in front , and the 5g downward pressure created by the aero is enough, allegedly, to allow the cars to travel on the roof of the Monarco tunnel .... upside down !!!!
I think that these are 2019, because the merc is silver
Just a little more than 1G would be enough, of course.
Actually, many years ago the McLaren Team did run one of their F1 cars upside down - doesn't seem like there is any surviving footage, but I saw it when I worked at Kenwood (Mclaren Sponsors and provider of 99% of Comms equipment at racetracks). Later on Michael Schumacher drove a Mercedes sports car upside down in a tunnel for a few seconds. Most of that was accomplished by inertia. But the crazy thing is that the modern F1 cars can produce enough downforce to run upside down until they run out of fuel, not just for a few seconds. When they decommission the Cern Laboratory it would provide a great track to test it ;)
There's reasons why categories where drivers race very similar/identical cars are so good when it comes to racing (Indycars, Nascar or the WEC GT categories with their BoP);
And there's also reasons why categories where manufacturers have some freedom to build and explore how and what they feel will work, such as F1.
The reason why I used to love the 2012-2016 LMP1 Hybrid category was because of how insane those battles were in cars built by different manufacturers with different strenghts and weaknesses. It's that type of racing everyone expects from F1 which has, sadly, been missing for a few years now.
17:57 Most of these drivers lost their seat in F1. Grosjean would 100% still be an F1 driver if he hadn't been booted by HAAS
Haas was low on money and they needed to get a German Driver for sponsor money. so thats why they got Schumacher Junior and Mazepin *who got booted out cause of the Ukraine invasion)
@@OlafvanEss I think the point is very few drivers go from Indy to F1. Indy is where F1 drivers go to retire.
Really important point: drag and downforce are NOT the same thing from a physics perspective.
In flight, there are four forces at play: gravity, thrust, drag, and lift. Lift is it's own upward force that can overcome the force of gravity on objects with large mass (airplanes). Weight is mass times the force of gravity, which always points straight down. Lift provides opposing force from gravity. More thrust (which is the force in opposition to drag), equals more lift. How much does an airplane weigh while flying? Effectively less than the airplane does while on the ground. That's literally what's required for it to be in the air.
Formula 1 wings are exactly like airplanes but upside down. The wings do not create drag, the wings are actually very slippery, extremely slippery. The wings create the exact same lift force that airplane wings do, but instead of up opposing gravity, it's pointed down WITH gravity. I like to think of it as the wings 'sucking' the car into the ground. The downforce created by Formula 1 aero packages amplifies the force of gravity by fivefold, as explained in the video. Thus, the effective weight of the car while driving fast is actually five times what it actually weighs when it's standing still, just like the airplane, but reversed. This "extra weight" means more friction between the tires and the ground, which means they can maintain higher speeds through turns and corners. This is at the expensive of straight-line top speed, because faster speed means more downforce, same with airplanes.
Across the 10 Formula 1 teams, there is a great variety in their setups, either towards 'less downforce more straight-line speed' or 'more downforce more cornering speed' strategies. Or somewhere balanced in the middle. This leads to certain teams performing better at certain tracks that align with their setups (twisty tracks for max downforce teams, and tracks with lots of straights for lower downforce teams). I think it adds an interesting dynamic to Formula 1 compared to other racing disciplines. For what they are, all the teams are at the cutting edge of innovation and engineering for all components of the vehicle. And they all have their own independent solution to the various engineering problems the sport presents.
I am 42 years old and I have enjoyed motorsport since 1992 when I was still very young, I must say that in terms of emotions and fun, my ranking is led by F1, followed by WEC, WRC, Indy cars and DTM. In terms of emotions, I prefer F1 and the WRC, in terms of technological development, F1 and the WEC LMP1 cars are far above the rest. And in terms of equality of conditions and greater uncertainty in the definitions, I prefer Indycars and DTM. Each category is different and it would be silly not to enjoy them all for simple sports fanaticism.
Seen a video a couple years ago of F1 cars perfoming their party trick of playing the teams countries national anthems by using a computer tuning program to control the engine revs.
Link?
@@fqeagles21 Look it up on CZcams.
@@fqeagles21 Search for "Compilation of national anthems and songs played by F1 engine"
It would be interesting to see an F1 car set up for the Indianapolis ‘oval’ - with some aero adjustments I suspect it would be fairly slippery.
Excellent vid as always mate - really enjoy the results you get from the time you spend doing these
Back in the day when Senna was still alive and f1 raced in Phoenix, penske brought a couple f1 cars to the oval track. They were pretty quick but didn't lap quite near the indy cars. I'm sure the f1 cars weren't adapted to an oval except gearing and running lower downforce wings. The thing with f1 engines is they arnt designed to be ran full throttle for hours on end, that's when the fragility of them comes into play
I doubt they’d ever get down to as slippery as indies tho, the enclosed rear wheels of Indy cars significantly help with drag, a ridiculous amount of F1 cars drags come from their open wheels, iirc 30-50%
Oval racing is in my opinion Mickey Mouse racing. Get a F1 and a IndyCar to Monaco. Its about driving Corners fast
They raced in indy in the early 2000s
I have watched Indy car for years and seen some amazing races. It’s a shame that the number of oval races has reduced over the years and the races outside of America have dropped off. As much as I love it only the Indy 500 would come close to being as big a spectacle as an F1 race. There isn’t any doubt that F1 is the king of open wheel racing.
I actually prefer car races not to be all the same, having a bit of diversity in design and engineering makes it more interesting. It is pretty much the reason I stopped watching V8 supercase here, was much much better when the field was open to two litre 4 pots etc.
but a lot of things you see being used and developed in f1 trickles down to road cars
Same, I stopped watching "supercars" in 90s..only watched last 5 years or so waiting for Brock to retire..
Much prefered the mixed fields.
@@sopcannon i disagree, endurance racing and testing does alot more for supercars than f1.
Two major differences are Indy car is a domestic championship and F1 is a world championship, a bit like comparing the super bowl to the FIFA World Cup.
Number 2 is Indy car is about entertainment, F1 is about engineering, so much technology filters down to the average road car.
Part of the reason so many F1 drivers go to Indy car is there are only 20 seats in F1, so if you can’t cut the mustard in F1 you take a step down in class, very few go the other way, if any.
I discovered your channel because of the Rally reactions. I just love watching insane Rally, and others reacting to it. I’ve never cared for F1 Indycar, or NASCAR, but I’ve learned a ton and had no idea F1 and Indycar were so different. Oddly this is the video that made me hit the Subscribe button for you. Love your chill, good-natured, genuine attitude. Keep it up!
Thank you so much! Great to hear, welcome 👍😎 much more to come
The only thing stopping me watching Indycar is it means an extra subscription, and then all you get is cutting to friggin ads every 5 minutes
Actually yes, an F1 car could in theory drive upside down because there so much downforce. Imagine 5G pushing on your chest when accelerating. Well there is the equivalent of 5G pushing the car down=5 times heavier.
When accelerating they dont get 5g, not even close. And he talks about 5g downforce for the car the driver does not feel any downforce.
@@oguztokur3673 I didn't say it does.
An F1 engine is siezed at room temperature. The tolerances are so tight that in order to turn over and start, the oil must be warmed and circulated to warm the block and open up the gaps.
F1 development by Honda, Mercedes, ferrari, Aston Martin, eventually filters into production cars. Stering wheel paddle shift gearboxes were an F1 development
Indy will always play second fiddle to F1, both are awsome though.
Yep
I’m a Brit but a big IndyCar fan, but I grew up with F1 and love that too.
They both offer different things and thankfully they both exist and we don’t really have to pick one and get to enjoy them both
Lamento que 99% dos europeus não pensam como você e tratam a indycar como "lixo americano" sem sequer entender que foi em Indianapolis que nasceu o carro de monoposto, com Ray Harroun.
Você consegue explicar por que existe esse nojo em relação a Indycar, a mais antiga categoria do automobilismo?
I think it is unfair to even put a current f1 car against an indie car. If f1 knew they were going to race at an oval they would develop a new aero package and engine modes for it. Overall I consider them different. If the pinnacle of racing tech is what you want f1 is for you. If close racing and a personal experience is what you want indie all the way.
This exactly, even now the aero pack as they have could pretty much just put their system in the lowest drag and they would still be there honestly.
I think what he means by the car weighing more the faster it goes is that at 1G of downforce, the tires have say 650kg of force pressing down on them, at 5Gs that's 3250kg of force pressing down on the tires, which means not only does the car have to overcome the aero friction which is drag, but it also has to overcome the friction generated between the tire and the road. So he is correct in it being heavier and having to overcome that, but the bigger issue is the aero drag.
Very interesting video Ian, good choice. I also learned a lot from it, main point being the concept behind the two. F1 is more who can create the best car, (usually the team with the most money, seems unfair) Indy is more of an even playing field. That said they are both great to watch.
theres budget limits this year onwards. and not only do you need to develop your car for the current season out of that budget, but also develop the next year's car from the same pot.
F1 cars use to sound awesome when they ran V12 engines. Today V6 turbos sound like a bag full of hornets compared to the old days. lol
Still better than Indy (not in sound)
I will say tho, f1 doesn’t just have DRS it does also have its ERS to do “push to pass” type functions, and they used to be able to adjust their engine settings to get more power
Sorry but ERS is not a "push to pass" as it's controlled by the engine mapping and it pre-set for the entire race. F1 "push to pass" system was KERS and was last used in 2011
I've been into F1 for a long time. I got into Indy back in the early 90's. What impressed me about Indy was watching the driver taking his hand off of the steering wheel and manually shifting gear on the Oval tracks at full speed. My favourite motorsport is Top Fuel drag racing.😀
I like them both although F1 for me is better, some of the stuff we see between supercars/normal cars is because of F1 manufacturing trickled down.
Yeah F1 is far superior to indycar and I'm not a fan of indycar racing. But I grew up in the schumacher era but have seen documentaries about that 70s John Players lotus F1 car and how the ground effect lotus designed for their car was such a difference to lap times that no other cars could keep up. And I'm sure that later on down the line when other teams knew what it was, they all started putting it on their cars but I'm sure it got banned because it was making cars so much faster round the track they said it was becoming too dangerous or something like that. But yeah F1 is far far better in every single way than indycar, they are just a faster Formula 2 car.
@@NUFC82 Yeah i agree with you.
Downforce is measured by how much the wind pushes the car into the track, the faster the car goes the more downforce it produces ergo the car gets heavier the faster its going
you have to remember that there are only 4 engine manufacturers on the F1 grid, and Mercedes is building engines for 3 other teams as well as them selves which is 40% of the grid, that's why the F1 budget does not include engines
It would be trivial to separate the development cost from the construction cost as well as the cost specifically for the engines they build for themselves versus for the other teams. But then they wouldn't get an unfair advantage in being able to outspend everyone else...
The reason DRS can only be used in specific sections of the track is that they achieve higher speed by reducing the drag by opening the rear wing but that also means much less downforce at the rear end which can cause accidents if the driver used it at turns.
By the way DRS are not enabled in the first 3 laps, because the tires temperature will not be up to the optimum window on these laps. And if the track is so wet the race control will disable them.
F1 pulls a lot of revenue, and that's why they are able to afford hundreds of millions of dollar budgets.
Mexico City is the highest altitude track on the F1 calendar, so the air is very thin up there. Bottas' top speed was done with an aero package similar to one used for Monaco, the slowest track in the season.
Top speed of the Indycar at Indianapolis is much more than for everywhere else, due to the very low downforce setup (I don't think they run that set up on any other track). I am not sure what speeds Indycars go on road courses.
F1 cars have been slower in a straight line since they added a bunch of downforce, made the cars wider and made the tyres wider.
F1 cars could be configured for much less downforce if they were to run at Indy, but I suspect would not be quite as fast in a straight line. At Indy they would likely need to stop for fuel only twice, maybe only once. But the Pirellis would probably be done after a couple of laps.
There is an overtake button in formula One too. It utilises the electric motor that is on the same shaft as the turbo. The car in front often uses that extra power button to fight off the dr's bonus the car behind gets.
C'est fini l'ERS, maintenant ce sont les équipes qui définissent l'utilisation des batteries souvent à l'accélération etc mais le pilote ne peut pas l'utiliser quand il le veut.
Downforce is directly related to drag with no alterations of mass. More tyre pressure for higher corner grip with no weight change impacting directional or velocity changes
Less tyre pressure means more grip moron. More pressure is less rolling resistance
The person to ask about the difference between race car types would be Mario Andretti. Andretti won the 1978 Formula One World Championship, four IndyCar titles (three under USAC sanctioning, and one in CART), and IROC VI. To date, he remains the only driver ever to win the Indianapolis 500 (1969), Daytona 500 (1967) and the Formula One World Championship
"the faster you go, the more you weigh" is correct. While mass doesn't change, weight does, since weight is a force (mass x acceleration), in this case acceleration is combination of aero and gravity pulling/pushing the car to the ground.
There used to be an A1-series. All the same cars ( open cars like Indy and F1 ), just different setups made by the teams. Teams were from countries, so you had an English team, a German, an Australian etc. It was created by some rich oil sheik who loved racing. It was really cool. Check that out Ian. See what you can find online. I would really like to see you making a video about that. I think you would love the A1 series.
Since the 2021 season, the (electronic) rev limit is 15k rpm. But yes, they used to go up to 20k rpm. The high-tech is actually what makes F1 interesting (for petrol heads).
Another fun fact is that an F1 car can brake from 60 MPH to a dead stop in about 1.5 seconds. So that's roughly 4 seconds for 0 to 60 back to 0. The 2004 Ferrari only needed 16 meters (53 ft) to come to a halt from 60 MPH.
indy cars raced in Australia for a numbers of years
gold coast indy 300
there is a better system than push to pass in F1 called energy recovery system(ERS) which drains the battery to produce more power
and the battery is charged by the MGU-K(kinetic energy) and MGU-H(heat energy)
Mass and weight are two different things. Weight can increase based on the gravitational pull. For example, you will weigh about 1/4 less on the moon because of a reduced "G" force. Your mass will not change, however.
I like how fast the indicars go and i do hate how much power the money gives you in f1 but in the end motorsport for me involves a lot of turns and varying tracks and not just speeding around in a circle. I just feel even though the money has a lot of impact in f1 it is still the sport that demands more skill from the drivers side and also needs more precision from the car.
I took my son to Watkins Glen the last race there in 1980 when the noise was just crazy compared to now.
Honestly for me F1 is more of a show of engineering art.
If I want to watch a racing series where cars are relatively even I watch DTM. I guess it's highly regional too. I grew up living half an hour away from Nurburgring so obviously DTM and GT Series is basically flowing through my veins while also having Michael Schumacher as the national racing idol making F1 interesting. Would I have lived in the US, Nascar and Indycar would probably be my way to go.
Same about football in Europe in comparison to American football
As Nigel Mansell once said: "Firstly the cars aren't too complicated. They have no traction control, for example, which means you can spin if you try too hard and damage your tires if you're not careful with your driving style."
> That^s the guy that won the F1 championship, switched to Indycar and won that... twice (all in three years)
The reason why the could go so fast at the Mexican grand prix is because the air there is thinner, so they run super high aero while still being incredibly fast. Thinner air means less drag of course. Usually at fast tracks like monza they run as little aero as possible, gonna be interesting to see the new cars around there. Especially once teams get rid of the bouncing
IndyCar is like the F2 series, same chasis and engine, is like someone talk shit about NBA because some rookie league in other country is cheaper and "equal".
Something else about the engine cost for f1, the engines are designed to last a third of the f1 season.
Also f1 has something similar to the push to pass button that Indy cars have but it is based off of battery charge.
I definitely prefer IndyCar racing. They have less aero and are more slippery so they can race closer to each other than F1 cars. I also hate DRS in F1 because it just makes for artificial overtakes because of F1's inability to race close to each other. The 2022 F1 cars have helped a lot, but it's still nowhere close to where it needs to be. Hopefully they'll continue to evolve the 2022 cars to increase their ability to follow each other so we can eventually get rid of DRS. The speed difference with DRS is also just dangerous, especially if the passing car is already faster on the straights and is using ERS. It also just creates so many ridiculous instances like at the Jedda GP this year where Verstappen and Leclerc were basically coming to complete stops trying to let the other through so they could have DRS down the straight to overtake them back. Would have been a very violent crash if there was a backmarker or another car battling for position behind them.
Wish F1 would be to IndyCar's Push to Pass. F1 has their energy system as well with ERS, but ERS can be regained and is only limited to how much you can use per lap while P2P is limited to how much you can use over the full race which is 200 seconds. It adds a lot more strategy in whether you want to save your P2P to be able to overtake/defend in the end or if you want to burn it and gain as many positions and gain as much of a gap now but risk a safety car catching them right back up. DRS was always supposed to be temporary just to allow cars to actually pass each other, and I P2P makes for much better racing than both ERS and DRS. Love the technology in F1, but they make for such boring racing and what racing it does have is just artificial with every overtaking coming from either DRS or pit stops. Especially noticeable around tracks without long enough DRS like Monaco where the race is basically won in qualifying. Meanwhile in IndyCar, you have Colton Herta sending it around the outside of some of the tightest and twitchiest sections making insane overtakes at the Alabama GP
The only F1 drivers to go to Indy were drivers who were dropped by F1 because they weren’t good enough
Great reaction as always man
There's a difference between weight and mass. Yes, the mass of the car will not change (outside of fluid loss such as fuel and drink water). However, with the mass of air flowing over the aero on the car will increase the weight that the tires experience, in essence making the car "weigh "more even though the mass of the car doesn't change. This was shown in an episode of Top Gear where James May (I think...it could of been Richard Hammond) took a Ford Escort (I think) with some serious front and rear wing to a wind tunnel and placed it on a scale inside the tunnel and showed how the weight of the car pushing against the road surface with massive downforce steadily and gradually increased as the speed of the air flowing over the car increased. Subsequently, the flipped the aero over and showed how lift decreases the weight of the against the road surface.
In short, while the mass of the vehicle DOESN'T change in any significant way, the mass of the air pushing down on the car DOES significantly change with speed which in turn increases the weight of the vehicle. Essentially, it's like going from the earth to the moon. On earth your weigh, let's say for simplicity's sake, 220lbs. If you go to the moon and weigh yourself there you'll find that the scale reads far less than the 220lbs it read on earth. Your mass never changed, but the force that pushes you the the ground (yes, I understand gravity is not a force that pushes you against the ground but rather pulls you into the ground) has decreased which results in a lower weight indicated on the scale.
9:25 there isn't only the DRS there is also the Overtake Button which gives you extra Power to Overtake or Defend against an Overtake. If you Push the Overtake the Battery lows itself but if you Brake or go slow at a Saftey Car Phase it will charge itself again. And can be used whenever the Driver wants it and Needs it.
Kers has been outlawed for a literal decade, but.. uh ok
Engineer to the rescue... The drag is not the goal of the wings. The drag is a consequence of the desired effects.
When you turn the car wants to go straight so it exert a force to the side of the car (centripetal force). The tyres conteract that force by glueing on the road, this is called friction force. The maximum amount of force that the tyres can take before slipping on the road is calculated by the coefficient of friction of the tyres multiplied by the weight of the car ! The faster you go on the same turn, the higher is the centripetal force on the car, but the friction force remain the same... the only ways to increase the friction force is either to increase the coefficient of friction of the material (better rubber) or increase the force pushing down on the tyres. The way we do that is with those wings, the wings take the wind, since the wing have a certain angle part of the force exerted by the wind on the wing would drag the car back and part would push the car down. The faster you go, the higher would be the force pushing down the car. This force on a formula 1 can be up to 4 times the weight of the car. Making the car virtually weighing 5 times more. That why there was an incident of a formula 1 car that lost a wheel on a straight line a few year ago. The car went so fact that down force became so high that the wishbone broke under the load
Formula One is *the highest class* of international racing for open-wheel single-seater formula racing cars sanctioned by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA). This video seems to be "IndyCar is better than F1 ... because it's cheaper" (and nothing wrong with being cheaper - that means its more _accessible_ which is a good thing, but F1 is about the _cutting edge_ of engineering)
Yeah, cheaper only makes it better if you happen to run an indicar team. I don't give a damn how cheap it is. F1 is the top and I watch it because of that.
13:59 Actually it does make sense. Drag only limits the cars top speed by increased wind resistance in a horizontal lvl. However the wings dosent just create drag, they use that drag to create an enormous amount of downforce pushing the car down into the track which in turn increases the cars weight. The faster u go the more drag and downforce those wings creates due to G-forces and in turn the more power the engine needs to push the car forward. Its very easy to test this. Try and run a fixed distance and so how fast u can run. Now lets do the same but simulate it with a gravitational force of 2g. Carry some1 that weighs the same as u and run that same distance. That is essentially what is happening to the car when it creates downforce and for every added g-force those wings creates u take that number and multiply it with the weight of the car and that is the minimum amount of thrust the engine needs to generate to keep accelerating the car. Eventually u get to the point where the drag and added weight due to downforces is the same as the engines maximum thrust and the car simply cant go any faster, it´s top speed.
I will admit that i am vastly in favor of F1 mainly becouse i dont se the appeal of watching oval racing. however Indycar can sometimes be intresting to watch when they are not on ovals due to very close racing. However Indy do have a big problem when it comes to race rules and enforcement of those rules on proper race tracks imo. Just a few days ago i saw an Indy race on a track (not oval) and i´m not kidding when i say that close to 25% of the drivers were at some point in that race getting forced of the track or driven into by another driver and not a single 1 of those incidents ever resulted in any race punishment. I´m not saying that F1 is perfect there are some strange rulings at times there to. But cmon that race was a fucking joke. Yes it was raining but they hade rain tires on and they are supposed to be within the top 1% of race drivers.
IWrocker and most commenters simply don't know difference between mass and weight. I'll copy here my comment: "At 5G car weight is 5 times! Don't mess up weight (wich is Force and mesured as F = m*a (mass times acceleration) and in this case it pushing itself to the ground with acel of G. So F=m*G) and mass wich is constant and simply kg/pounds..."
Indy cars go 236mph only at Indy. 500. Its just one event out of 15 or so other races. F1 are capable to reach 220mph on every track even street circuits
They both have their place and should be appreciated for their differences. Simple as that
They used to be allowed to use V12 engines in F1 (apparently hardly anyone used it because it was too heavy compared to how much power it gave). Pretty much everyone used V10. The biggest problem was that cars got too fast, so they limited it to V6. Also claiming it was to make developments relevant to regular road cars, like the fuel efficiency thing
I'm sure someone else pointed it out, but the wings actually do make the car 'heavier'. Think about it this way: You're pushing an empty wheelbarrow at a nice clip. Now fill it with with sand, that's the down force. You're not getting the same speed for the same push. Now, imagine that it's metaphysical sand: The harder you push, the more sand there is in the wheelbarrow.
I believe F2 and F3 have more spec parts, to both keep down the cost but also to even the field
To be honest, when I watch racing, I absolutely love watching the amazing cornering in F1. There's just something about a car like that going around a corner so sharply and fast. It's breathtaking, for me. Then again, I don't watch much F1, and I've never watched Indiecar
Weight is not the same as downforce. It's the amount of mass of an object that makes it hard to accelerate not the downforce. The downforce is produced by an upside down wing pushing the car into the ground so that it has more grip and accelerates or breaks faster especially in slower corners.
Current F1 engines rev to around 11000 to 12000 rpm - depending on the enginemode.
They could rev higher, but the fuelflow is limited (max 100kg/h at any moment when then engine is running) which makes higher rpm unnecessary.
The old V8s reved to around 20k, which was limited by the speed the fuel-air mixture burns through in the combustioncamber. It wouldn‘t make sence to open the exhaust valve when the mixture isn‘t fully burned.
A few comments, as a latercomer: Mass does not change, weight is the force of gravity on mass. Also, F1 drivers tend to ”retire” to indycar, once they can no longer get an F1 seat (with 2 notable exceptions: Kimi Räikkönen and Fernando Alonso, who both went to drive indy just for kicks). Oh, and F1 aero is customized for each track, so assuming they would race against indycar on an oval, they could easily make the car faster
Tbh $125k for a standard, almost mass-produced race engine is REALLY high.
Should be more like $60k, and that still includes a good profit for GM/Honda.
It isn't that complicated to build a race engine with those specs today.
Racing in general has been better at Indycar over the last 5 or so years (As far as I know), but with the current regulations F1 is crawling back some big ground on that aspect. Accounting everything, F1 is always better for me
The faster an F1 goes the faster the air flows around it generating more downforce and drag which requires more power to overcome. Below a certain speed they pretty much rely on mechanical grip alone, that's why people trying out F1 cars for tv shows and whatnot struggle so much as it takes a huge commitment to go fast enough where aero starts doing its job.
9:50
If you could use it any time, drivers would use it the same time cancelling out any usefulness. And you can't really use DRS in corners, as the name says, it's drag reduction system. If you open it mid-corner, part of your downforce disappears and you fly off the circuit.
Nigel Mansell pulled off something that will surely never be seen again when he went to IndyCar as the reigning F1 world champion in 1993, and won the American series' title at the first attempt.
On top of the ERS that wasn't mentioned that other people have already commented on, another thing to note is that Formula 1 power units are comprised of several components, of which each driver is only allotted a certain number for a season and any further usage requires taking on a penalty. So not only are they 1.6L V6 turbos generating 1000 bhp, each driver is only allotted 3 engines *per year*. There is 22 races this year and each race must be around 300km (Monaco excepted). Couple this with free practice sessions and qualification, which just about doubles the total mileage that a car must go through in a season. This puts a total seasonal mileage at a rough estimate of 13200 kilometers or 8360 miles *using only three engines*. And this doesn't include any engines lost due to mechanical failure or crashes.
Naturally most teams are expected to take on a 4th or even a 5th engine at some point this year due to reliability and/or performance concerns but an estimated goal of 2800 miles for a 1000 bhp engine is just insane reliability.
Drag is essentially the slickness of a car passing through the air. Think of the difference between a brick and a bullet.
Downforce is essentially an upside down aircraft wing. Imagine putting your hand out the window while driving. Lift the front and your hand goes up, lower the front your hand goes down. A plane is up for lift and a car wing is down for downforce. That air downforce adds weight to your hand and is measured in kg so 1000 kg is a lot of force pushing down. It’s like putting a giant hand pushing down on the car while cornering. This is why it literally adds weight to the car.
Sorry, I tried to keep it simple.
Mass does not change with speed but weight does.
Mass is the measure of the amount of matter in a body. Mass is denoted using m or M.
Weight is the measure of the amount of force acting on a mass due to the acceleration due to gravity. Weight usually is denoted by W. Weight is mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity (g).
as they just mentioned in the US , F1 is going to be bigger than the Superbowl for viewers ...the Miami Grand Prix got 20% more traffic than the Superbowl...😮🎉
I think it's like comparing Moto GP to car racing or boats racing to aeroplane racing it's all really enjoyable to watch within the rules to the discipline.
The main diff between Indy and F1 is, Indy races are a spectacle while F1 races are a spectacle AND the test bed for Tech innovations.
F1 is mostly a tech R&D test bed (especially with the FIA regulations). With those innovations being translated to consumer cars a couple of years afterwards.
With F1 part of the fun is the fact that different teams go with high aero or low aero, sometimes the smaller teams use low aero in order to catch up a bit, My favourite has always been Le Mans and the other 24hr endurance series, not usually much overtaking, but usually changes of conditions, night and day, rain and part reliability and usually a few crashes
Current Indy cars are designed and built by Dalara Italy, they now have a plant in Michigan
the presenter isn't entirely wrong about drag, all he was saying is the air pushing down on it has the same effect as adding more weight to the car as it gains speed; not saying that the car literally gains mass as it accelerates.
One must not forget that for a lot of teams F1 serves (or served) as a testing ground for consumer cars development. Its also marketing. In 2018 on advertising in US alone, Mercedes spent 650 million USD. One could argue that the 400 million spent on development is well worth it, given those facts.
It's not just drag. That's what "downforce" is. The more air you put over the aero surfaces, the more the vehicle gets pushed into the ground...as if it was heavier. He said 5 G's of downforce....that's 5 times the weight of the vehicle. At speed, those cars could drive upside down on the ceiling in a tunnel.
Big time F1 fan and I think a fair comparison is impossible but I would say F1 is more about innovation (ABS, Active suspension, Traction control and Launch control is some of the things that's here because of F1, also the reason car manufacturers get involved) and Indy car is more just about Racing, the reason why F1 is so expensive. I love the technical stuff and teams pushing each other's engineers to get like 0.001 sec advantage and you have 10 teams with different engine and aero packages that many times will have a starting grid that differ less than 3 sec from car number 1-20. The reason F1 drivers move to Indycar is usually because they lost there seat in F1 or retired. They can compete in Indycar because all teams have same specs where in F1 money rules and the biggest spenders normally end up In front but also makes it way more special when a midfield team manage to beat the frontrunners. One thing I think that needs mentioning is the fanbase, F1 is by far the 2nd most popular sport on the planet only topped by soccer/football and the reason why F1 teams can spend that kind of money is obviously they get that kind of sponsorship.
I wish f1 cars still revved that high
As a long time F1 fan I've been getting into IndyCar in the last few years and enjoying both. There's a different philosophy behind F1 and IndyCar in that IndyCar is designed for every car to have relatively similar level of performance and close racing between drivers, while F1 is primarily more an engineering challenge.
I would say that when F1 gets it right and there's tight competition between two or more closely matched teams and drivers, like we had least year between Verstappen/Red Bull and Hamilton/Mercedes and look to be having again this year between Red Bull and Ferrari, then F1 has the best racing on the planet. But with more open competition in F1 there's always the risk that one team will have a clearly dominant car and will just walk away with it. When that happens they have deserved it since they just did better job than anyone else, but it's pretty boring for fans.
New nothing about Indycar before this, now have a lot of respect for the sport.
IIRC a Formula 1 car will go up to about 18,000RPM and can't idle. It's why you see/ear them revving all the time, if the car falls under a certain RPM ( I think about 8,000) the car stalls.
Edit : Formula 1 cars are also kept on "life support" between races. They have warm fluids pumped around certain systems to keep them from seizing up.
Edit Edit : Formula 1 tracks are also not oval. Pretty much all of the tracks are unique shapes and lengths.
F1 is the pinnacle! A lot of what is in this years F1 cars will start to appear in !ndycar, LMS etc, even road cars in about 5 years time. F1 is not just racing, its about innovation. Its for world leaders.
14:12 The car does not have to move 5 times the weight. It increases aerodynamic drag and friction, which do slow the car, but you also get 5 times the grip to corner and accelerate with.
In penultimate race of 1996 three cars clocked the qualification time within one thousandth of second, Jacques scored his time, Michael has his time +0.000, ahd H.H. Frentzen had his time +0,000. Pole position went to Jacques, because he set the time ealier than other two drivers. Dont take me wrong, but drama in F1 is magnitudes higher than any other form of motorsport.
F1 cars also have ERS (different to ERS) which is a battery boost to the cars performance which they can press anytime if they have saved energy in the battery.
The 5 g isn't the downforce, is the maximus lateral acceleration that the car can withstand during cornering. The actual downforce that a F1 car can produce is maybe closer to a 1000kg witch means that at a certain speed the car weights at least twice as much as normal.
I think a simple way to compare it, is that Indy is more dependent of the talent of driver rather than the car since most cars are practically identical. F1 is a combination of the best research and development, engineering, techs, and drivers. F1, literally has the some of the most brilliant engineers in the world working on the cars. Both are great series but there is no comparison, F1 is simply the epitome of motorsports.
3:15 before the cost cap this year at 140 million drivers salarys and fascilities excluded the biggest teams (fer , rb , merc) would spend about 300 -400 million annually
F1 also has push to pass. The MGU-H and MGU-K systems. H turns heat from exhaust into electrical energy and K turns kinetic from a spinning rotor into energy so braking which is all fed into the two 60kwh batteries. Its about 130hp on demand.
You get a certain amount of usage per lap.
It does way more applying downward force makes things heavier the more more you apply
in the end of the 90`s and the early 2k`s both series was absolutly great. i loved and i miss the time :)
DRS is only allowed in certain part of the tracks because, as the name suggest, it reduces drag drastically so its dangerous to allow that on curves. F1 have what is called ERS (push pass button) which is basically a battery boost which charges with every lap they do.