| Author | Message | ||
| Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Member Username: Ferraristuff Post Number: 487 Registered: 4-2003 |
Yeah Spa was fun too! Especially when you would get into the REALLY high speeds and it felt like the car was taking off! (which in most cases it did when I was driving... LOL!) Jack H | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 820 Registered: 3-2002 |
My system would always crash at the 'Ring. Loved Spa, though. | ||
| Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Member Username: Ferraristuff Post Number: 482 Registered: 4-2003 |
Hahahahaha! >>>You played GPL?! Oh my gosh! I tried that several times but only looped myself straight into the next wall. >>>can't get Grand Prix Legends to work with XP We're all freaks aren't we? I have exactly the same problems! Did like Monza in the Ferrari though... Nice long straights... Hahahahaha! But helas... XP now.. I did mamange one clean lap of the Nurburgring too... 13 minutes or so... too little "feeling" with what the car is doing IMHO but otherwise a GREAT sim! Jack | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 964 Registered: 10-2002 |
You played GPL?! Oh my gosh! I tried that several times but only looped myself straight into the next wall. Whoa! I need to get you hooked on GP4, you could become my worst nemesis.  | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 810 Registered: 3-2002 |
I bought a MOMO wheel over the winter. Don't use it as much as my last one (can't get Grand Prix Legends to work with XP) but I like it a lot. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 960 Registered: 10-2002 |
Haven't tried the Logitech Momo, maybe next year. The Sidewinder is actually quite ok. Too much plastic, but otherwise fine, good FF and really easy to install. Used a couple of Logitechs in the past, but worked through them within a season. But they aren't bad. I'm just a klutz... | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 264 Registered: 2-2003 |
Did you tried Logitech's MOMO-licensed steering wheel? All two versions? I hear the Logitech MOMOs are almost like the real ones. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 952 Registered: 10-2002 |
Actually sometime in the summer we might have a BBQ over at my home. But you're from the UK, aren't you? Anyway, yes it is a MS Sidewinder steering wheel. You hit on a good point there: As I said, this is about the 5th makeover of this sim. I have tried many different steering wheels and pedals in the past and these things can become a religion in their own right. Over the years I had better and worse wheels than this. However I learned an entire F1 season with practice, qualifying and races eventually kills whatever wheels/pedals you might have installed at the beginning of the season. So eventually in the off season it is time to rebuild. One of the most important parts of the wheel and pedals are their position so it feels comfortable and right. Also how solid they're anchored into the sim, so you have fudge factor. While using different wheels I constantly had to adjust their environment and that cost a lot of build time. So eventually I gave up, bought the most standard wheel there is and set everything up for it. MS will most likely continue to design their future wheels in the same style, so little future adjustments will be necessary. Hopefully. PS: Already set my sights on the next wheel for 2004: Looks like a Sidewinder, but with real leather in MOMO design. Yummy! | ||
| Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Member Username: Ferraristuff Post Number: 475 Registered: 4-2003 |
Andreas, when did you say you were organizing that F-chat GP4 party? BTW, looks like a sidewinder steering wheel. Correct? Jack H. | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 802 Registered: 3-2002 |
HOLY S**T!!! Dude, that's awesome. It even has the extinguisher...You should market these. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 945 Registered: 10-2002 |
Oh, well, Jack if you twist my arm that much...  This shows the sim as it currently is, about the fifth improved version since I started this several years ago. You sit in the cockpit, you have a brake and gas pedal at your feet, a steering wheel with forced feedback and F1 up and downshift pedals in your hands. Behind the car is a LCD projector throwing the picture onto the screen in front of the car and the two speakers to either side of your head give you the stereo sound.  A shot of the cockpit. The computer is btw in the right side pod, the sound system in the left. The software is GrandPrix 4, which has the best car physics model and Artificial Intelligence to control the other 21 cars (still 2002 season). | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 774 Registered: 3-2002 |
Andreas, I think you need to elaborate a little about that simulator of yours. | ||
| Frederick Thomas (Fred)
Member Username: Fred Post Number: 710 Registered: 2-2001 |
Actually at Indy a lot of passing happens when the cars are entering turn 3 also. That being said it is not uncommon at all to see cars passing exiting turns 2 or 4. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 934 Registered: 10-2002 |
I'll happily second all of Jack's comments and am also very happy to see a fellow GP4 player. If any of you ever want to check this out, come by my house and sit in my sim. The point about the wind tunnel is well taken. Notice how Sauber is struggling this year? They used to do their development work in the Swiss 'Air Force' wind tunnel in Emmen (near Lucerne). But they only got so many hours there. So they realized, that they need their own tunnel and started building one near their factory in Hinwil. However construction will go through all of this year, hence they'll fall behind even more. You can expect their 2005 car to be good, with a lot of optimism their 2004 car, but this season is ruined. Similar thing happened to Ferrari. Their cars got faster and WC finally clinched once they had their new wind tunnel up and running. It is that important. Allegedly the Sauber tunnel will be even more advanced the Ferrari's. Maybe they send some Ferrari cars to Hinwil... One more word about Indy: Having said all that about the setup, race setup will be likely to have a focus on more straight line speed as the only realistic point to overtake is in the first turn (F1 parlance) at the end of the s/f line. It doesn't matter to much to be slow on the infield as overtaking is difficult there anyway. ...ok, nuff said, going back to GP4 practicing for Zeltweg | ||
| Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Member Username: Ferraristuff Post Number: 447 Registered: 4-2003 |
Andreas is right, just go play GP4 on your PC and you get a pretty good feeling for what wings, ride heights etc do to / for the handling of a modern F1 car. The basic difference in "result" from the front and rear is pretty big. Basically, the rear wing configuration determines the amount of downforce (with as by-product drag). The front wing does not create a whole lot of downforce but is used to balance the car, i.e. more front wing will cause a car to oversteer as the downforce is "transferred" to the front wheels, giving the rear wheels less "grip" etc. That is also why you will see teams like Minardi struggle on high downforce tracks and often UNDERsteer there. Bearly being able to create enough downforce (compared with the top teams) and then not being able to transfer enough of that little bit to the front wheel to balance the car. On the brakes: Cabron brakes or steel brakes don't make an awful big difference in stopping distance. Main issues are wear & tear and unsprung weight (and $$$ !!!). I vividly remember the Le Mans 24 Hours in 2000 and filming in the Hezemans pits (Viper). They were running the car on steel brakes instead of carbon as most teams were. The reasoning was simple: Carbon brakes were a US$ 50.000 extra at that time. The team was realitvely small (also in $$$). Carbon discs would last the full 24 hours hours with 2 (estimated) brake pads changes. Steel discs would require to be exchanged 2 x during the 24 hours and also 2 x a pads change. While changing the pads, changing the discs would only take 1 minute extra pit time. They figured that 2 minutes extra in the pits during a race which lasts 1,440 minutes (24 hours) thus only gaining 0.14% was NOT worth US$ 50.000.... Jack is right about the "drag issue". All those wings up in the air on a F1 car do create drag which is basically "bad". However, the challenge is to take advantage of it... If you manage to accelerate the air OVER the car (by making it smooth and forego wings), you create a vacuum there which will "lift" the car and reduce the grip on the road so you want to keep the air on top of the car and consequently you put wings on it which create the downforce but also slow the car down when down force is not needed (i.e straight line). If you manage to accumulate air behind the car and reduce the amount of air on / in the front of the car (basically creating a high pressure air pocket behind and a low pressure pocket at in front of the car) the car will be "pushed" forward simply by laws of nature. (First discovered by Elio Zagato and Ercole Spada when they chopped off the tail of the round tail Alfa Romeo Giulietta SZ and found a 10 KM/H top speed increase...). Highly challenging topic and much of the development $$$ of F1 teams go into that and NOT having your own windtunnel to experiment and develop the aerodynamics of your car puts you at the back of the pack (i.e. Minardi again). Jack | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1544 Registered: 6-2001 |
Interesting story about Indy. A client of my got a ride a few years back in an Indy car. The car had an outdated chassis, but a very good motor. It was with a secondary time, but at that stage of my client's career, he wasn't going to be too choosey. They set the car up with little wing, and got some absolutely great speeds down the chute. My client was scared shitless about the handling, and knew that the car was not driveable during the race with the same set up. Qualified about 15th, ran poorly during the race, but ended up about 10th due to attrition. Art | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 912 Registered: 10-2002 |
Play GP4 on your home PC and learn all about front/rear wing setups in regards to the track and to the car's handling: Front wings in F1 produce more downforce and barely affect top speed. Used mostly to correct under/over steer. Alters greatly the breaking points. Rear wings produce a lot of downforce and drag. Can be used to correct over/understeer, but is mostly used for downforce and affects top speed a great deal. As with every race car, the trick is to find the optimum trade-off. Jack is quite right: Monaco has not that many high speed sections (tunnel about the only one) and is all about grip, so the cars used the most wings to have the most downforce and latest breaking points. Monza on the other hand is all about speed, few turns, so you can 'see through' the rear wings. Indy btw is an interesting combination of both track elements and traditionally it never really mattered much, whether you set your car up for top speed or cornering speed. You'd loose/win on the other half of the track regardless. | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 767 Registered: 3-2002 |
F1 cars have many more options in regards to the element configurations on their rear wings. They were restricted a little this year, but depending on which track they run, you will see several wing elements at places like Monaco, fewer at high speed courses like the old Hockenheim. I remember reading somewhere where they claimed the purpose of a rear wing on F1 cars was to create drag. Drag is a byproduct of the downforce being produced. | ||
| Ken A (Zff)
Junior Member Username: Zff Post Number: 52 Registered: 12-2002 |
I've read that the drag on an F1 car is considerably more than a modern road car. I'm sure it's not the drag they're concerned about so much as the efficent use of it. | ||
| Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Member Username: Ferraristuff Post Number: 443 Registered: 4-2003 |
>>>It was all the rage in F1 I miss Colin Chapman! Jack | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 908 Registered: 10-2002 |
   Not an engineer, but looking at my pics from a few years back, the CARTs don't look to me like using much underbody venturi. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 434 Registered: 11-2002 |
Jack, Yes you are undoubtably right about the venturis. I do know that a certain area of length of the floor of an F1 has to be flat ... not sure of the rules here though. My understanding is that CART are still using ground effect floors like the 80s (?) F1 cars and thus possibly more downforce potential in the floor than an F1 ... but I could be wrong. It was all the rage in F1 then but it is amazing how things change and the engineers find other ways to do the same thing better. Pete | ||
| Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Member Username: Ferraristuff Post Number: 441 Registered: 4-2003 |
PSK, the F1 bottoms are not entirely flat. A lot of the "not created by wings" downforce of F1s comes from the venturi at the back. Simply accelerating the air that passes under the car thereby kinda creating a vacuum under it and taking advantage of the airpressure on the top of the car. Don't know if venturis are used in CART and Indy. Jack | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 433 Registered: 11-2002 |
Hmmm, It would be interesting to see which produces the most down force. My understanding is that a F1 cars body produces alot of down force, even though it has to have the flat bottom. Thus it is not just the wings. The most important thing is to generate down force without creating drag. This is where Adrian Newy used to have the advantage with his McLarens. Thus I wonder if the CART winged floor would produce more down force, or more drag than a F1 car? Definitely the wings are heaps smaller. The CART cars definitely do not look as glued to the road as F1 cars, seem to bonce all over the place. Performance differences I see are: * Weight ... CART cars are heaps heavier, i.e. half the weight again. * Tyres ... CART have narrower wheels, even though they run slicks. I also think they might run harder compounds than F1. * Aerodynamics. * Traction control ... do not think CART has that. As for the engine, I think the power would be similar ... around 850hp each. The CART should have more torque ... thanks to the turbo, but not sure. And the brakes. Well when Zanardi was racing for Williams he did not like the Carbon brakes, or could not get used to the feel or something, so they converted his car to steel brakes. Well steel brakes have advanced heaps too and now brake as well as carbon brakes. The only difference is the unsprung weight advantage of carbon. In the end CART is a racing series which has 2 or 3 chassis's you can buy and a few engines to choose from (or only one, not sure). F1 is about technology and pushing the boundaries, CART is not it is a racing show. F1 in my opinion now has too many restrictions and rules and is endanger of becoming just another racing series/show. Restrict the engineers with F1 and you loose more than half the show ... This is the biggest difference and why CART will always be slower, ie. the chassis providers do not have to push the boundaries because as long as they are doing alright they have a customer, it is just a business with no great technology incentive. In F1 if they are not winning they are not their ... end of story, sponsors pull out and team struggles, and hence the lap time improvements every year. Pete | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 900 Registered: 10-2002 |
Jack, you're right. Dragwise a CART is probably worse off than a F1. But drag isn't everything. I'm quite certain the gains through the downforce offset those negatives. I still remain convinced it is the heavy weight, that causes them to be so much slower. It is something you can actually experience yourself. While driving a CART replica in an oval it felt a lot heavier and a lot less agile than the F1 on a road course. I compared it to riding a cannon ball (no I'm no Muenchhausen). | ||
| Vincent (Vincent348)
Junior Member Username: Vincent348 Post Number: 237 Registered: 4-2003 |
art, You should have mail. vincent. | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 762 Registered: 3-2002 |
CART's cars are wider, which increases the forward surface area as well. | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Junior Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 123 Registered: 5-2002 |
What about the metal detector commercial, where the guy finds his wife a new ring (I think this is on speed, maybe not)? Good stuff. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1539 Registered: 6-2001 |
The champ cars use the bottom of the car. That's why the wings are so small, their getting a little help. These cars pull 2, 3 gs in the corners. While they are slower than the F1s, they are still awesome to watch if you can get up close. Art | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 896 Registered: 10-2002 |
Actually a Champ car can be even less of a brick than a F1 when in oval configuration: Champ cars use very simple and small front wings for ovals to get the top speeds. On road and street courses they use 'snow plows' as front wings. So no, that's not necessarily the reason. Also I don't think driver talent is responsible for the time differences. It's really more, what has been mentioned here before: More weight (less acceleration) and lesser brakes. Enginewise I can't say, those turbos are pretty powerful too. I *believe* they use slicks, so tirewise they actually have an advantage. Also from an aerodynamics perspective as they don't have to have the flat undertrays like F1 cars. | ||
| Andy Falsetta (Tuttebenne)
Junior Member Username: Tuttebenne Post Number: 117 Registered: 3-2003 |
Aren't Champ cars more of an aerodynamic "brick" than an F1 car (more weight - more wing?)? And I guess we are talking about the same driver testing a Champ car versus an F1 car? If not, then Champ car drivers could be another reason why a Champ Car is slower than an F1. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1178 Registered: 3-2002 |
there is also the issue of brakes. f1 cars have carbon discs and pads, whereas champ cars have steel discs and some form of regular pad. braking distances are considerably more, and therefore they would probably post slower lap times on the same circuits. | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 261 Registered: 2-2003 |
Yeah, I've seen most of the new Hewlett Packard ads, including the WilliamsF1 ad, the 'arresting an Eastern European criminal', the 'Porsche 911 turbo in France ad' among others. I think it's HP's new worldwide ad campaign. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1532 Registered: 6-2001 |
The main reason the CHAMP cars are slower than the F1 are the tires and wheels. If the CHAMP cars had wider wheels, bigger tires, and a little less weight, the times would be more appropriate. They have more HP, but the cars are 500#s heavier. Art | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 885 Registered: 10-2002 |
A little OT, but yes, those wood chipper commercials are the worst: Watch it closely what happens to that wood etc after the machine goes past. They always cut the film so you don't see the results, but for the most part, those bushes are still there, he just drove over them. I love it... | ||
| Ken A (Zff)
Junior Member Username: Zff Post Number: 51 Registered: 12-2002 |
>>> Good point Ken, but at least that commercial normally plays for select audience, like during F1 GPs. I saw it once during an episode of "Friends"! <chandler> Could it *BE* any more misdirected? </chandler> Don't even get me started on the commercials that actually DO air during an F1 race on Speed. Ameridebt? DR Chipper? DR Super-weed-whacker? What is this, NASCAR? | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 884 Registered: 10-2002 |
Good point Ken, but at least that commercial normally plays for select audience, like during F1 GPs. What puzzles me more are the street ads showing a Williams F1. Does anybody in the US even know, what that car is or more important care about it? Well, I won't tell HP as I'm happy they support the team... | ||
| Ken A (Zff)
New member Username: Zff Post Number: 50 Registered: 12-2002 |
>>>> BTW: Anybody else seen that HP commercial where Ralf and JPM remotely control their F1s? I always get a kick out of it, despite the fact, that it is utter nonsense. I wonder how many people in the US even recognize JPM.. or even worse, Ralf? | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 882 Registered: 10-2002 |
One aspect we haven't mention is access: F1 used to be cool, but since the commercialization begun, it is now close to impossible to see them up close. E.g. unless you have official press credentials, there is NO way to watch them in pit lane during a session. Even with the VIP pass you only get to stroll by the closed pits. I remember visiting the GP at Brands Hatch. I was a big Alan Jones fan and had a picture with me for him to sign. A Williams mechanic took me into the garage and then to the trailer park into Alan's RV for the sig. Unthinkable today. I don't know how IRL is, but I have been at several CART races and they're quite delightful. For a few bucks you get a pit pass and you can stroll behind the garages up and down and watch the mechanics work on the cars and watch some of the drivers. Of course the fact, that they're all basically use the same chassis/engine helps in regards to less secrecy. Yet still they always covered their suspension settings. So from a fan perspective, you're actually better off with the 'lesser' formulas. And btw: A Champ car looks amazingly high tech under its skin. But the technology is definitely < F1. I believe last year (?) Champ cars for the first time ever run on the Montreal circuit as well and there several seconds behind the F1 lap times. They might call themselves 'the fastest cars', which might be true for flat out straight speed, but not around turns. | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 257 Registered: 2-2003 |
Tony George now owns the trademark IndyCars as of this year I believe, since I assume CART realises that it's misleading. Their logo now show a silhouette of an Indycar, with the words INDYCAR and Indy Racing League in smaller fonts. CART now uses the name ChampCars. Oh, CART also refers to the publicly traded company that runs the championship. The official name for CART is now "Bridgestone presents The Champ Car World Series powered by Ford". Quite a mouthful. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1525 Registered: 6-2001 |
MFZ: CART had trademarked the term INDY CARS. Tony George can't use that term because of that. That's the confusion. Art | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1524 Registered: 6-2001 |
Championship Auto Racing Teams (CART) | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 880 Registered: 10-2002 |
I thought it was Brutto as in brutto horse power. No? | ||
| noel smith (Noel)
Member Username: Noel Post Number: 263 Registered: 2-2003 |
Brake.horse.power???? | ||
| Rob Lay (Rob328gts)
Board Administrator Username: Rob328gts Post Number: 4758 Registered: 12-2000 |
b = brake (I think) c = championship | ||
| noel smith (Noel)
Member Username: Noel Post Number: 262 Registered: 2-2003 |
thanks guys, great expalinations. there is so much that i don't know. one more: what does the "c" in CART stand for? while i'm exposing my vast ignorance, what does the "b" in b.horser.power stand for? as in b.h.p. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 878 Registered: 10-2002 |
One interesting footnote in regards to the grooved tires in F1: While Lauda was still team manager of Jaguar he decided to take the F1 for a quick test himself since his drivers complained about it being a dog. Lauda had the hardest time keeping the car under control and went off about three times before calling it a day. That's how unstable the cars have become with the diminished downforce (through restricted aerodynamics) and the grooved tires. Mind you, this is the same Lauda who won three WC on slicks and who also said, that with today's electronic driver aids in the cars, he could put a monkey in the cockpit... Yeah, you could put a monkey in the cockpit, but the car wouldn't do a darn thing. BTW: Anybody else seen that HP commercial where Ralf and JPM remotely control their F1s? I always get a kick out of it, despite the fact, that it is utter nonsense. | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 252 Registered: 2-2003 |
Hey Art, how about explaining the Can Am/ALMS/Le Mans/Grand Am split while you're at it? Also, Noel, F1 did used slicks, but then grooves were added. The FIA (that's the world governing body that sanctions the championship) added one grrove at first in 1998, and then added two more in 1999. Andreas reasoning is quite correct, the grooves makes the cars harder to control and thus harder to make a pass. A side effect of the introduction of grooves is that Goodyear withdrew from supplying F1 tires, leaving Bridgestone as the sole supplier (until Michelin returned). F1 didn't used to be as boring as they say it is now. Again, the low number of passing opportunities can be blamed to that. The cars have different dimensions (sizes) obviously, and rules are different in regards to how much wing your car can have, how many elements you can use in the wing itself, how big the wing can be, the height of the cars from the ground etc. The shape of the Formula 1 cars that you see now first appeared in 1983 and has been refined over the years, either through rules or through the teams own innovations. In F1, each team would normally design their own chassis, and use either their own engines (Ferrari, Renault and Toyota do this) or use an engine from their carmaker partner (Williams with BMW, McLaren with Mercedes Benz, Jaguar with Ford-Cosworth and BAR with Honda) or buy engines from the above mentioned suppliers (Minardi and Jordan with Ford, Sauber with Ferrari). In CART/IRL, you can buy the chassis from specialized manufacturers. CART uses chassis from Lola and Reynard (the technology was purchased from the now-bankrupt company), though probably only one or two teams are running Reynards. All CART teams uses the Ford-Cosworth turbo engine and Bridgestone tires, at least until 2005 when CART reviews the rules and allows the old as well as new engine suppliers to return to the series. IRL teams uses chassis from Dallara and G-Force, while they can use engines from Chevrolet, Honda and Toyota. Honda and Toyota used to run in CART, but a dispute with CART's rulemakers and the fact that they want to run in the Indianapolis 500 race (which is to open-wheel racing what Daytona is to NASCAR) made them switch. Infiniti (Nissan) and Oldsmobile also used to provide IRL engines, but bowed out due to the increasing development costs and the arrival of serious rivals like Toyota and Honda. The confusion over CART with Indy probably comes from the fact that several CART team owners either fielding a team in both IRL and CART championship or that they usually compete in CART only, but come Indy 500 weekend, they will enter one or two cars for their regular CART drivers to race in Indy. As you'd expect, they use IRL-spec cars in place of their CART cars when racing in Indy. Several CART teams used to do this, like Marlboro Team Penske and Target Chip Ganassi Racing to name two, but in 2003, they have either joined IRL and left CART completely, or like I wrote above, entered both championships simultaneously. | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 754 Registered: 3-2002 |
Personally, I prefer to demonize Tony George and make him the villain. Thanks for the info, though. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1517 Registered: 6-2001 |
Jack: Sorry I could fully respond before, but my understanding about the IRL CART split is that the CART owners were demanding bigger and bigger portions of the pie. Tony George felt that his track was the jewel of CART and he wasn't getting enough money. Additionally, because of Emmerson Fitipaldi, et al, the field for CART was being filled by South Americans, because they were bringing substnatial money (up to 4M for a year ride). There were very few American drivers, the economics had driven them from the field. Tony wanted to reduce the cost of racing, bring more Americans into the field. He did decrease the cost, initially it cost about 2 - 3 Million to field an IRL team for a year. That grew to about 7 - 8 million today. CART is still more expensive, with the top teams spending 10 - 15 million per year. The biggest flaw in the IRL is that they only run on ovals, but I've heard that this may change soon. Their my .02. Art | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 751 Registered: 3-2002 |
There are no boring races, only boring fans! Noel, it's interesting to read your questions, since they seem to reflect the same confusion most people have who aren't completely up on open wheel racing. I would say that, rather than trying to read about all the differences here, check out some races on TV or, better yet, in person. It's not that important to really know the differences yet. Enjoy all of it, figure out which it is you like best, and the rest of the details will come. By the way, Rob's list is a pretty good one. Open wheel cars have always had a sexier appeal, but there's a lot of great "closed wheel" racing out there today. ALMS, GT, etc. Good to see it getting more air time. | ||
| Rob Lay (Rob328gts)
Board Administrator Username: Rob328gts Post Number: 4753 Registered: 12-2000 |
The best racing I like to watch as a spectator is... 1) Amateur Club Racing - Large fields, huge variance in driver skill, and very close racing and many wrecks. 2) World Challenge Touring - Every race I watch has been a real thrill. 3) 12 and 24 Hour Endurance Racing - The ultimate of sports car racing and many Ferraris have been racing the past couple years. 4) F1 Racing - Not much passing, but just amazing watching how these advanced machines get around a circuit and the Ferrari factor is huge here too. 5) ALMS, GA, Euro GT, and other Pro series that Ferraris race in. 6) Trans Am - Big muscle cars banging each other around a track for an hour. 7) IRL - I know a sin to like oval racing, but this has been some of the most exciting racing to watch the past couple years. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 867 Registered: 10-2002 |
Whoa, lots to answer, so let's get started: - The ultra cool pass of Mika on MS was actually at the end of the long straight in Spa. - Yes, I'm suggest at least one or two ovals for F1. Don't care where they are, but the good ones are mostly in the US. Oval racing is different from everything else and I'd like to see them race there. When F1 came to Indy, the NASCAR/IRL crowd couldn't believe, that F1 would race there even in the rain. So much for those whimps. Sorry I just can't get the hang of IRL/NASCAR at all, but that's just me. - Jack, I envy you for that piece of Monza history. That's even better than a piece of the Berlin wall. - Tillman, I think there is no hope for you becoming a F1 fan. I don't mean that out of disrespect. One of my best buddies thinks just like you, loves NASCAR, IRL etc and can't understand why I think they're totally boring and why I love F1. It's a bit like soccer vs football or baseball. I don't get those sports, but love soccer. Maybe it's a cultural thing. - Noel, grooved tires were introduced to reduce the speeds in the turns and hence make F1 safer. That did happen indeed. Unfortunately they also make the cars a lot more driving on the edge and therefore more difficult to pass with. If you're a tiny bit off on your speeds/braking points or off the line in the dirt part of the track, you loose too much adhesion and off you go. - People who think F1 is boring are normally saying that because of the little passing for position that is going on. IRL and NASCAR and CART on ovals have tons of passes. Problem is, they don't really count until you're in the last lap. In F1 you have a few passes for position, but they normally stick and make a world of difference. That's where my soccer vs football analogy comes in: A soccer match could be great with a lousy 1:0 result, whereas a football score could be 35:20 and IMHO is boring as hell. What makes all these sports interesting or boring is really how much you understand what's going on. I admit I know nothing about football or baseball, therefore it is a bore. - F1 never really race a full oval (unless you count the F1 cars taking place in Indy in the fifties and sixties), but they would certainly be entertaining. - The cars'technology is way different. The underlying monocoque idea and architectures are similar, but the details are different. For one it is because of the different rules and regulations and second it is a question of money thrown at them. But the major difference lies in the fact, that F1 stipulates every team to build its own chassis, whereas in CART and IRL (and NASCAR) you can buy your chassis off the shelf, throw your engine in it (if it doesn't already have one) and go racing. Much cheaper, but also much less technical competition. Also a reason, why the races are closer. - IRL races at Indy on the oval. CART does not. F1 races only in turn 1 (Indy parlance), parts of the s/f line and then goes onto its own infield. Hence doing a mix. - Again IRL is only ovals, CART is ovals, road courses and street circuits. F1 is road courses and 1 street circuit (Monaco). so, time for lunch | ||
| noel smith (Noel)
Member Username: Noel Post Number: 254 Registered: 2-2003 |
Now I know I'm dumb and all, but I still don't really get it. questions I still have: why do grooved tires make a race less interesting?(why don't they use slicks?) what makes F1 boring? or are you saying F1 is only boring on an oval? what is the difference in the cars? I mean other than the turbos, they look basically the same to me. let me clear up another thing, the IRL doesn't race at Indy(????), but F1 does? other than that IRL is ovals and CART is tracks/streets. and F1 is all of the above? | ||
| Tillman Strahan (Tillman)
Member Username: Tillman Post Number: 607 Registered: 11-2001 |
MFZ, The fact you had to go back three seasons to find two examples of competitive passing in F1 merely emphasizes my point. I've been watching for the past three seasons. I know that's not much, but I'm the target market that the series has to get involved if it is to make an impact in the states. I am a CART, IRL, NASCAR, F1, anything with wheels and a motor racing fan, but F1 is _not_ interesting on the track. | ||
| Jack Habits (Ferraristuff)
Member Username: Ferraristuff Post Number: 421 Registered: 4-2003 |
>>>(Except maybe the old Monza.) I have a chunk of concrete (track surface) of the old Monza oval on my mantle piece as a memory of better (racing) times... Jack | ||
| Ken A (Zff)
New member Username: Zff Post Number: 46 Registered: 12-2002 |
Andreas, are you suggesting ovals in F1? Bite your tongue! Keep ovals as far away from F1 as possible! (Except maybe the old Monza.) | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 242 Registered: 2-2003 |
F1 still has awesome passing moments. Last year, there was Kimi and Montoya's battle, in 2000, Mika Hakkinen did an awesome pass involving Michael Schumacher and backmarker Ricardo Zonta in the BAR Honda at Nurburgring, I believe. | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 241 Registered: 2-2003 |
Remember when F1 had exciting races? Tons of passing? I believe Speed TV in the US is showing the 1993 F1 season (Senna's last full season EVER!), so Noel, if you got Speed, check out the schedule and make sure you watch/tape it! Anyway, F1 suckiness can be traced to these two reasons: grooved tires and wide and longer bodywork. | ||
| noel smith (Noel)
Member Username: Noel Post Number: 252 Registered: 2-2003 |
so true.... | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 747 Registered: 3-2002 |
I know it's more complicated than ego. I was just being careful not to build Tony George up as a hero figure for Noel. He's still new to racing and very impressionable. | ||
| Tillman Strahan (Tillman)
Member Username: Tillman Post Number: 606 Registered: 11-2001 |
If there's passing on the track, it's IRL. If there's passing only in the pits, it's F1 If it's on at midnight on the Home Shopping Channel, it's CART. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1508 Registered: 6-2001 |
Jack: The reason that the IRL was formed was a little more complex than Tony George's ego. When I get some time, I'll add to this column. Art | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 744 Registered: 3-2002 |
Or, to simplify things, here we go: Once upon a time, drivers enjoyed the freedom to cross over from one series to another, which meant we had A.J. Foyt going from Daytona to Indy, Mario Andretti from Indy to Monaco, and Jimmy Clark going from Monaco to just about anything he could get his hands on. In the 70's, there was a rebellion between some of the Indy owners and the sanctioning body, USAC. They formed CART, which sprang careers for the likes of Michael Andretti and Al Unser Jr., and revived those of Emerson Fittipaldi, Danny Sullivan and Eddie Cheever. This is what we have come to know as Indy Car Racing. Except for one little thing--they don't race at Indy. In the mid 90's, Indy track heir/owner and notorious silver-spooner Tony George decided he wanted to be just like the big boys, so he formed his own series, using his jewel, the Indy 500, to leverage teams over into his fledgling all-oval series, known as the IRL. To ensure that CART teams couldn't compete in his races, he had his own car formula drawn up which uses normally-aspirated V-8 engines pulled from local Indianapolis junkyards. The goal of the IRL was to be less expensive than CART, which it is, by a couple bucks a year. Meanwhile, while all this has been going on, Formula One has reigned supreme as the pinnacle of motor racing, at least technology-wise. While Tony George may have felt CART was too pricey, the budgets in F1 rival the GDP of some countries. Unfortunately, most of the developmental expenses have gone into exotic materials and micro-subtle aerodynamic improvements, all of which are invisible to the racing fans. The series travels to all of the best, most exotic destinations in the world, plus Indianapolis. So, if you turn on your TV and see open wheel cars racing, here's how you can tell which series it is: If the race is in the US, and it's a road course, it's CART. Unless it's Indy, in which case it's F1. If the race is being run on an oval, it's probably IRL, but not necessarily. CART still has some ovals on its schedule, but not as many. IRL races only ovals, but there is talk of adding road courses. If the finish is thisclose, then it's IRL. They're very proud of themselves for producing NASCAR-style racing in fenderless cars. F1 races in Japan, but on a road course. CART used to race in Japan, but on an oval. Now, IRL races there. I hope that helps sort things out for you... | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 235 Registered: 2-2003 |
The FIA banned turbos because the boost levels were getting higher and higher and thus increasing the hp and speed gained. Supposedly Honda was very close to achieving 1 hp : 1 cc ratio (yes, 1500 hps on a 1.5 liter turbocharged engine) for their qualifying engines. By the end of the turbo era, those 1.5 liter turbos were making around 1000 hps reliably. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 852 Registered: 10-2002 |
F1>CART>IRL is about right. F1 and IRL uses normally aspirated engines, CART uses turbos. Aside from that F1 does road races and 1 street race. CART does road races, street races and oval. IRL does only ovals. Much has been said about the superiority of F1, so I won't repeat it here. However my own $ 0.02 would be, that even F1 could learn a few tricks from the other two series: - turbos are cool IMHO - add more street races - add a couple of ovals If you want to be the pinnacle of motor racing, you should at least try some of the other stuff. I'm not a big fan of oval racing, but a couple of them with their very different strategies etc would behoove F1. | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 231 Registered: 2-2003 |
I thought Indy (IRL) didn't use turbos anymore? CART still uses turbos on the Cosworth XFEs they are running as standard equipment I believe. Yes, IRL (Indy Racing League) was formed by Tony George in reaction to the (then) spiralling costs of running a CART team, but isn't it ironic that nowadays, running a CART team is probably cheaper than an IRL team. CART has standard engines and tires, and basically all of them run on the Lola chassis, while in IRL, you have Honda, Toyota and Chevrolet engines to choose from, while on the chassis side, Dallara has a slight edge on the Panoz's G-Force in terms of teams that run them. I hear Sam Hornish's team is one of the more under-funded teams in IRL right now. | ||
| Omar (Auraraptor)
Member Username: Auraraptor Post Number: 512 Registered: 9-2002 |
in terms of $, its indy<cart<F1 money means alot of things. indy was ment to be a reaction to the high price of cart. Indy uses turbos..F1 is against turbos (now) | ||
| noel smith (Noel)
Junior Member Username: Noel Post Number: 247 Registered: 2-2003 |
Okay, I know you guys are going to think i'm from mars or a little light in the loafers, but i'm just recently getting into racing and I was wondering if someone can explain the difference between: Indy, CART, and F1?? |