A 23 year old F1 car is still faster than a current IndyCar

A 23 year old f1 car is far prettier than anything on the grid today, what a beauty.

Motogp is far slower than an f1 car but I know what series offer better racing.

 

On used tires too.

From what I can tell he hit 295 kph on the straight, and usually these old F1 cars aren't ran at max RPM's with the optimal gearing. That's impressive.

 

man look how ALIVE that car looks to drive! proper driving skill still needed to fight the car...F1 rule writers of today need to hang their head in shame...THIS is the F1 I know and love! And that noise...dear god.

Absolutely correct. I don't know who has it in their head but ever faster laptimes doesnt automatically make for better watching. In fact it makes for worse in the end...a 1 second gap between cars that lap 10 seconds faster than cars of yesteryear, looks far larger than a 1 second gap then. And to make an overtake, you need to be X % better on the brakes, which is nigh on impossible when the cars are this much faster, which such good brakes and tyres.

Yep absolutely correct. Don't forget that the tyres used are Pirelli ''demo'' tyres as well, which are quite a bit harder. And of course this car was designed with the bridgestone tyre characteristic in mind...so it could easily have gone 3-5 seconds or so faster with proper setup and pushing the car to it's real limit with no consequence of crashing.

 

"A 23 year old F1 car is still faster than a current IndyCar"

Yes, this is very true. What's the point though?
Spec/kit cars vs. mega buck, ulimate cars (which I have a passion for) that individual teams can produce.
Let us compare lap times of F1 vs. FV (even the latest)........a Cup car maybe.....next, eh? The exact same point would be made. One set of rules produces a faster car than another set of rules. What else is new?
I've got it.....An AA fuel dragster from the sixties could do a quarter mile in under 6 seconds at 200 mph; An F1 car from any time can't achieve that. The point would be???
Comparing apples to oranges says nothing about the importance of either series. They're each aimed at a different audience.
What scares me most is that F1 is heading down the road of IndyCar because uninitiated "fans" don't appreciate what F1 represented in regard to tech and just want a more IndyCar like "good" (close) "show".
I much rather they follow IndyCar ("level playing field") rather then to lower the bar for F1 (the display of the best driving the best produced).
(Yes, I repeat myself often, but it can't be said often enough.....)

 

I was surprised to see the current F1 cars to be 14 seconds faster around cota. I didn't expect it to be that much.

 

When is there no "consequence" (possibility?) of crashing when driving 10 tenths? There is a limit of coefficient of friction of any contact patch when overreached, guess what.....crash (or at least, an off).

 

We agree on a lot of stuff, but, I hafta' ask.....why not? They're totally different "animals".
(let's see....an off-the-shelf, thousands of dollars,"kit" car, vs. a mega million dollar one-off. Yes, to be expected. )

 

It's a 23 year old F1 car, cost to repair doesn't make economic sense if all one is doing is create a pretty pointless track record.

 

It's all on Pato. He's the greatest driver EVER!

 

I understand that. I wuz just referring to your "pushing it to it's real limit" which invariably means surpassing that limit during said limit's search......
You never know where that limit is 'til you cross it (hopefully just an off). Thus, practice and testing.....

 

Oh.....



Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Well.... at least he is better than the current F1 "champion"...

 

"I seeee........", said the blind man. Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

That old F1 car would explode into individual atoms if it got into the same type of wreck an Indy car gets into.

 

This is what the rules writers should attempt to achieve--cars that look alive while being driven at the limit.
The second thing rules writers should attempt to achieve is cars that sound alive when driven properly.

 

Again, why compare apples to oranges. IndyCars are designed for going flat out around ovals and F1 cars are not. We know that. 'Part of the reason F1 cars are quicker.
'Same as the above......different regs. for different purposes.

 

Sounds like fake news...might as well say current IndyCar is slower than a 21 year old ChampCar, which is actually faster than 23 year old F1 car. The track record is held by a 2000 ChampCar at 1:07.722. Much faster than that unofficial 1:10+.

Unofficial lap record belongs to Marc Gene in the Ferrari F2003-GA at 1'05.786. That is barely faster than the 2007 ChampCar time of 1'05.880 by Bourdais in testing. Both F1 cars and IndyCars (and ChampCars) could be faster if they choose to be, but they have regulations for safety reasons.

 

I don't think anyone would think it is an apples to apples comparison or even a direct comparison at all. It's just interesting to see that a 23 year old F1 car still has the performance to be faster than the latest spec of Indy car, with the car not even being optimized to be faster. It's impressive for the F1 car the same as it takes nothing away from the Indy car. As a matter of fact, the latest Indy cars still aren't as fast as the old 1999-2000 Champ cars. Those 900 hp cars were beasts! From this demo run, one could start to imagine how fast a 1998 F1 car would compare against those same Champ Cars from 1999 and 2000.

Just makes fun conversation to me.

 

I don’t care how much faster the the era cars are on the same track compared to the older cars
Did you year that MP-4 scream ???
When I first started to attend F1 races in Montreal you needed ear plugs in grandstand 12 . You could feel the reverb in your chest.
Cars might be faster but the fan experience sure
Isn’t the same .

 

Older Indy/Cart cars were faster too. It's the current formula thats slower.

 

Let's compare a '74 Silver Shadow to a new Beetle, I think that'd be interesting here on F Chat......same wavelength, no? Both passenger cars, correct?

 

'Taint nuttin'......
Mark (Donohue) Q'd on pole in '73 (48 years ago) with his 917/30 with a 57.374.....
Now, the track is 3/10s mile longer (2.2 vs 1.9) after that, but they wouldn't have cost Mark another 10 secs,.....'won't even consider on today's rubber (they were hard as rocks 50 years ago).
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Again however, what's the point? Diff regs., of course, diff speeds.

 

As powerful as the 917/30 was, it would never come anywhere close to a Formula 1 car in lap times. I bet it easily eclipsed 300 kph though, especially the old layout.

 

Not that it matters, but, I was comparing Mark's official time to BMW'tea's "The track record is held by a 2000 ChampCar at 1:07.722.2000."
Too boot, in the day, on the two circuits they both ran, Mark's 917 was quicker than the F1 cars (Mosport and 'Glen...by at least about a second).
With today's rubber, shocks, and it's qually boost, I truly believe it wouldn't be embarrassed.....even being an "ancient", space frame design (sheesh, not even an aluminum monocoque, let alone a carbon fibre one....).

Anywho, excuse the repetition, but, different rules for different tools.....there's just no point.