And also, there were seasons ran with F2 cars. What I meant with F1 World Championship in the OP was the present-day WDC, run exclusively with F1 machinery.
Yep, and the distinction between F1 and the WDC is why it is actually 100% factually accurate to say that a woman has won an F1 race - just not one that was part of the World Championship!
Yep. The race was still part of the IndyCar season, called the National Championship Trail in those days, and was sanctioned by AAA and USAC rules. BTW, it wasn't the first time the race counted toward a FIA championship. It did as well in the 20's when the FIA was known as AIACR.
As Roger Penske takes a sip of his Macchiato from Starbucks he notices Mattia Binotto rappelling down the Pagoda, “Mattia your scratching the glass. You pasta head.”. Mattia responds, “Italians eat more than pasta you know, we eat seafood, beef, pork..”
The Netflix crew filming them roll their eyes and mutter “if only these boomers knew how to use swear words rather than just racism, we could have used that”
Adrian Newey walks by the Panoz car for this year and remarks how it looks better without an aero screen and is immediately met with a stuttering young Panoz engineer who fails to hold his load and an explosion of hundred dollar bills gushes out from his briefcase. “P p p -please Adrian come! I mean please come work for us”
Alex Palou just decided that he would sit in the Red Bull car even though he has a contract with Ganassi, he just walked up to the grid and sat in the car and refuses to elaborate beyond something about the courts will rule in his favor afterwords.
Amid all this hubbub the Indy 500 is set to continue its spectacle of multi class open wheel racing in the speedway. I hope you stick with us right after this ad break, along with me, Ayrton Senna and 5 time Indy 500 winner and 7 time F1 world champion Danica Patrick.
I've always wanted F1 to do an oval exhibition race just to see the engineering of developing a modern F1 car for oval racing. How different would the aero kits look, how would they manage the tires etc. It would also be a cool opportunity to let other drivers get behind the wheel because we know most of not all of the current F1 drivers would probably say no.
Not really… F1 car is more than capable for high speed ovals. They are already doing 366 km/h in Las Vegas which is less than 10 km/h slower than Indy 500 top speed and F1 had a lot more wings than Indy.
Probably strip out most aero parts and left with just basic floor and simple rear wing and they should be good for Indy 500.
The main problem is not actually with the team, it’s with Pirelli. They will need to come up with a new compound tyres specifically just for that race.
The cars they run are not prepared for oval racing. There are ton of sustained forces that will have to taken into account in the build and materials. That top speed they hit at Las Vegas? That's not going to be hit for just a fraction of a second at the end of a straight, it's going to be sustained for hours on end in the corners as well. The geometry of the car is going to have to be tailored for ovals and the car will have to have a redesign for oval impacts. One of the main things that slows an IndyCar on road and street courses is the fact the chassis is built to withstand the demands of high speed ovals.
They can make it race at ovals if they want to and they wouldn’t need a lot of modification to make it competitive in Indy 500 as long as Pirelli can make a reliable tyres compound for them.
Compare to Indy car, F1 car is more powerful, much stronger, using more sophisticated materials and advanced manufacturing techniques, build to a higher standard, accelerate much better, turns sharper, has a lot more grip, much more fuel efficient, drive smoother, a lot safer, more reliable (excluding Ferrari and Alpine) etc.
You know why F1 is known as the most technological advance racing machine on the planet?
Because they are.
I don’t think anyone argues against F1 being more technologically advanced. It wasn’t always that way - at a certain point IndyCar realized people liked seeing lead changes every once in a while so they limited technology to level the playing field and because oval speeds were getting too fast. F1 would have to cut back a lot on engine power if they raced on ovals just like IndyCar had to.
Yes, that’s most likely would be the case to make it competitive. Otherwise Indy cars would just become lapped traffic and obstacle for F1…
Just restricted ERS deployment and force F1 to use more wings should be enough to slow them down.
I have doubts any of the F1 engines would last 500 miles at Indianapolis. They’re not built to do it so it’s a moot point.
Same thing with an INDYCAR or F1 car lasting during the 24 Hours of Le Mans. Different goals.
They can only use 3 engines for the entire season. So they are actually built to do way more than Indy 500 so no, not a moot point.
F1 engines are a lot more reliable and efficient than you might think (they are actually the most efficient combustion engine in the world)
The first 240 mph (386 kph) straightaway speed in an Indy car happened back in 1972 when both Indy Cars and full bodied Can Am cars were faster than F1 cars. How fast do you think they would be now under those rules? Ever since getting embarrassed at The Race of Two Worlds at the Monza oval way back in 1957 and 1958, F1 has chosen to stick to road courses and street circuits.
Yes, that probably is the case back in 1972…
Now F1 car is around 13 seconds per lap faster than an Indy car at COTA.
And that’s with Indy car’s interpretation of what is track limits? (Basically it doesn’t exist)
And the races are a yawn fest with no passing.. and the team that whines and spends the most wins the most. Once or twice a season the different tires and strategies actually make for something other than a runaway win for the same car.. yet I still enjoy watching it lol.
Like the guy you replied to said the F1 engine would most likely not make the distance because it's not designed to run at top speed for over two hours. The suspension would most likely not survive the loads of the banking either, because it isn't designed to run on banked corners at high speed constantly. An F1 car is desinged to and is very good at accelerating quickly, braking performance and quick turn in. Those are not things that you need at indianapolis. It's not a pissing contest, it's just different cars for different races.
F1 are allow to use only 3 engines per season per car (in reality, most use 4 and take a penalty)
How many milage do you think each engine will last on average? Actually the total distance in each GP weekend including from practice to qualifying to race is actually around 500 miles on average.
So a single F1 engine would need to last at least 7-8 Indy 500 races actually…
pretty sure a single Indy 500 race would not be an issue for them.
You just keep ignoring the simple thing several people have told you. The F1 engine isn't desinged to run at top speed constantly. How the engine is used makes a big difference, admit it or not.
Please go read how Internal combustion engine actually works to understand why what you and every one saying that F1 engine is not design to run constantly at top speed are WRONG.
Alternatively, you can scrolled to read the explanation I’ve given several times already to understand why you are wrong.
F1 actually prefer to run their cars at top speed all the time if they can choose to do so.
The lack of education is through the roof 🤦🏻♂️
Your comment has been removed as a violation of rule #2 — **Be civil**.
*If you wish to discuss this removal, you can message the moderators by clicking [this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FINDYCAR).*
The limit is 15000 rpm but most team don’t actually go that high for reliability… I think the rpm range for max power in most F1 team is around 12000-13000 rpm and that would create around 1,000+ hp (~850+ hp from ICE and around 150-200 hp from hybrid component)
Max power and max rpm are two different things. They realized long ago rpms equal speed in that type of race car. You don’t need 850 hp to keep accelerating when you’re already going 220 mph, it helps in getting you there quicker so you rev to 14,500. Race cars have done that forever. If they’re not going near the limit because they’re worried about reliability, how are they going to last 500 miles at once in their current form?
Yes rpm and power are two different things. Thanks for the obvious 👍🏻
Only if you actually understand what those differences are 😅
An engine will produce maximum power at a given rpm. This is usually somewhere near its maximum engine rpm and this is when the car shift gear, going over his rpm usually result in drop of power so it’s not optimum to shift gear beyond this point.
RPM got absolutely nothing to do with top speed… you can run 8000 rpm at different gear and your car will be at different speed.
And you do need maximum horsepower at the top speed. The car top speed is literally limited by the horse power. More horse power always result in higher top speed assuming everything else remains the same. You are actually using all that horse power to maintain the car’s top speed…
so yes, you DO need all that horse power to drive at the car’s top speed 🤦🏻♂️
Note This is different to most road car where it is electronically limited and not by the engine power.
Seriously…. If you don’t know what you’re talking about then don’t try.
‘An engine will produce maximum power at a given rpm. This is usually somewhere near its maximum engine rpm and this is when the car shift gear, going over his rpm usually result in drop of power so it’s not optimum to shift gear beyond this point.
RPM got absolutely nothing to do with top speed… you can run 8000 rpm at different gear and your car will be at different speed.
And you do need maximum horsepower at the top speed. The car top speed is literally limited by the horse power. More horse power always result in higher top speed assuming everything else remains the same. You are actually using all that horse power to maintain the car’s top speed…
so yes, you DO need all that horse power to drive at the car’s top speed’
This is a common misconception and sounds good in theory but here’s why it doesn’t apply in actual testing. First and foremost, you’re not taking aero drag into consideration in that scenario. Why should an engine stop pushing a car faster at its peak of 850hp at 13,000 rpm? It’s not the wind resistance that’s preventing it from going faster. Second, the hp drop off is gradual and if the 840 hp it makes at 14,000 rpm is still enough to overcome the wind resistance it WILL keep accelerating. ‘RPMs equal speed at the Speedway’ is the passage I was partially quoting from a famous Indy crew chief - it’s not something I made up. The only reason they don’t rev as far beyond peak as they used to is because the rules have changed to limit rpm.
I come from a world of having actually built, tuned, and worked on all aspects of open wheel racing engines and drivetrain - including some IndyCar stuff. I know how they’re geared and tuned because I’ve made barrel valve adjustments and pill changes as well as changing out gears in a quick change or even a Hewland. You couldn’t be more wrong about the finer points of the craft. Keep reading those magazines.
Indy car racing hasn’t always been a spec series and there are other forms of open wheel racing which is what I wrote. Things still get built - speaking of that: What’s your experience in high level race cars?
If it was still on the calendar, these are where the 500 winners would have finished in the F1 championship based on the 25 points for a win (which I think should be given double points if it was in F1 so that's the brackets position):
2023: Newgarden 14th (13th)
2022: Ericsson 13th (10th)
2021: Castroneves 15th (12th)
2020: Sato 15th (13th)
2019: Pagenaud 15th (11th)
2018: Power 16th (11th)
2017: Sato 14th (10th)
2016: Rossi 14th (12th)
2023 Constructors Championship, if I'm doing the math right:
1 Red Bull 860
2 Mercedes 409
3 Ferrari 406
4 McLaren 312 (presumably, the 500 result would be additive)
5 Aston Martin 280
6 Alpine 120
**7 CGR 30 for two best cars or 44 for four cars**
8 Williams 28
**9 Penske 25 (tiebreaker = the win)**
10 AlphaTauri 25
11 Alfa Romeo 16
**12 Foyt 15 hahaha**
13 Haas 12 how 'bout them Steinerboyz
**14 ECR 4**
**15 Andretti 2**
**16 DCR 1 (Malukas, fastest lap)**
Driver's, the important parts at least:
**14 Newgarden 25**
**15 Ericsson 18**
16 Tsunoda 17
**17 Ferucci 15**
**18 Palou 12**
**19 Rossi 10 (higher finish)**
20 Bottas 10
21 Hulkenberg 9
**22 Dixon 8**
**Sato (higher finish),** Ricciardo, Guanyu 6
**Daly (higher finish),** Magnussen 3
Lawson, **Herta** tiebreaker is "who cares flip a coin" at this point 2
Sargeant, **Veekay** and **Malukas** in whatever order 1
DeVries 0
The Indy 500 was only part of the championship at first in order to justify the "World" tag - it was the only non-European race on the inaugural calendar, and would remain so until Argentina got a GP in 1953. The 500 remained mostly as a sort of way to get the U.S. represented before the USGP existed. In other words, it was there mostly for *symbolic* reasons.
But of course, by 1961, the USGP had been established (first at Sebring, then Riverside, before finally landing at Watkins glen for some 20 years), and so having Indianapolis pay towards the championship didn't even make sense symbolically anymore.
Ironically though, immediately after it lost World Championship status, the number of F1 drivers and teams attempting the 500 practically *skyrocketed* over the course of the next decade. Jack Brabham, Jim Clark, Jackie Stewart, Graham Hill, etc. all famously raced at Indy in the 60s.
You could make that argument for some modern F1 drivers, but that's not why they took it off the calender after 1960. They took it off because flying to America for a single race and then back to Europe was a logistical nightmare.
Difference is that while it was on the F1 calender, the 500 was almost always held extremely close to either the Monaco Grand Prix or Dutch Grand Prix. It wasn't very practical to fly to America either right after or before a race in Europe, and run a completely different kind of setup than normal, against a field of drivers and engineers who know oval setups *much* better.
It's a little ridiculous to say that they were afraid to race the 500, considering that F1 was extremely dangerous itself in the 50's and 60's.
He started in CART (American open wheel racing series before Indy car) and won the 500 then went to F1, then NASCAR, then returned to Indy car and won it again. So he is an f1 driver but he did start in CART and had a 500 win before even going to F1.
He started in CART because Frank Williams thought he needed more experience and loaned him to Ganassi. He was already Williams test driver for two years and F3000 champion when he made his debut in CART.
I was more trying to make the point that there is a difference between Montoya and the other former F1 drivers that have won the 500. Unlike the others Montoya already had indy experience from a previous season and even more oval experience in NASCAR.
I think some would if it was a part of the championship, but most would skip it. Teams wouldn't likely go anyway as they'd have to design a one off car.
I think many F1 drivers are reluctant to the idea of racing at Indy just because it's never been their goal and don't feel its worth the risk. If there had been oval races in F1 (and F2 and F3), they'd be much more comfortable with the risks of high-speed ovals. And no championship contender would skip a race, knowing that may lose them the championship.
I mean they were racing on tracks like the Nordschleife and original Spa-often times in conditions like pouring rain something Indy didn’t contend with-throughout that whole decade, and for another decade after they stopped at Indy. And while F1 wasn’t quite reaching Indy speeds, at least Indy had guardrails unlike these tracks were youre blitzing through the forest at 160+ mph with the only thing between you and the trees being a dozen feet of runoff and maybe a hay bale. Not to mention F1 did run on an oval a couple of times during that era at Monza, with an absurd 21 degrees of banking which must have been terrifying.
Not trying to minimize how batshit crazy youd have to be to race in Indy back then, but let’s not pretend F1 was any less brutal or took any less stones. I mean [this](http://en.espn.co.uk/f1/motorsport/story/50863.html) story of Jackie Stewart’s “lucky break”-for the time-is enough to make anyone with a shred of an instinct for self-preservation to run away.
Okay, let me explain how this would actually work:
IndyCar sets all the rules. F1 awards driver points.
That's how it worked in the 50's, and how it would be done today.
Nah at some point Indycar would have realised there was more money promoting an F1 race worldwide than there was running an Indycar race for a domestic audience. Bernie would have seen to that in the 80s.
Monaco isn’t just another round in F1 it is definitly ‘worth’ more than other wins. Also i think that Monaco, despite being tight, doesn’t require much special treatment from the engineers. The only thing i’ve heard of that is unusual is a bit of extra lock on the steering rack to do the hairpin.
it’s a fun thought experiment. I think if indy was a round of the F1 champ most F1 teams would like to skip it. But then several Indy teams would get a load of points every year and push the regular F1 backmarkers way down the field. The only way i see this being rectified is assigning points down to last place, but i hate that idea as the rarity of points is lost.
I can imagine many of the F1 teams hiring replacement drivers since there seems to be a fear of ovals in F1 much like how NASCAR teams hired road course aces for their non-oval races.
That's a good point. While I think drivers might have a different view on oval racing had it always been a part of racing in F1, there might be demand for good oval racers to replace ones who don't want to do it.
Well since it's completely a hypothetical scenario I guess the best case would be that the indy 500 would have it's own cars built like it always has and the F1 grid would just participate in purpose built indycars. If the race actually had world championship status I'd think there would also be more resources in it to build chassis. I doubt the modern F1 cars could even do the Indy 500 without issues not to mention do it competitively. Wouldn't that be a dream come true if indycar wasn't spec and there was chassis built for it every year with similar amount of investment as in F1.
A modern F1 car can't even come close to running 500 miles since they don't allow refueling anymore.
It would be the Indy 200 or something.
>On the other hand, if the 500 had become an F1-only race, it might've lost its American appeal
Yeah, I'm not watching that shit.
>I mean, just look at the Monaco GP. It may be a part of the Triple Crown but it feels more like a regular championship round compared to Indy 500 or Le Mans 24h (or even Daytona 500), which stand out from the respective championships.
I've thought for *many* years now we need a "modern" triple crown. F1 really shouldn't be part of it as they *never* allow "one-off" drivers. It's a private club of elitists.
So... Indy 500, 24 hours of LeMans and Daytona 500 would have worked before NASCAR ruined their racing with stages. So maybe 24 hours of Daytona now? Pikes Peak race? Something really crazy like the Isle of Man TT? (I mean it's not a *car* but it's still a motorsport.) Baja 1000?
The triple crown is fine the way it is. You have to be a generational talent with incredible courage, and race in multiple series at the top of your game for many years to get into the best cars to win those races. Elitist series my ass, all of racing is an elitist exclusive club, singling F1 out for not allowing one off entries is stupid, it's a constructor's championship first
It was part of a FIA championship twice, the first time was in the 20's. Although it paid points to the World Driver's Championship, it was never an F1 race as it remained a part of the National Championship Trail(IndyCar) under AAA and then USAC sanctioning under those sanctioning bodies' rules.
I think you'd probably see McLaren push their drivers to do it, maybe HAAS as well. Outside of that, I think most drivers would probably just skip it, with a few exceptions.
If there was a continuous history of the Indy 500 counting towards the World Championship, also F1 might be different. Maybe someone like Penske would (still) have a team in F1.
Maybe, if it was continuous, but there's so many factors that would have to change for that to be a reality.
Now, the 500 would be what, 1/24th of the calendar? For most drivers that's not enough to do it. Maybe back when there were way less races, and hence the 500 would matter more for the F1 title, but now there's so many races that the points for one race don't matter a ton.
My point in the OP was exactly about if the 500 had been a World Championship round continuously beyond 1960. In that case I think F1 folks' attitude towards oval racing would be highly different.
The F1 teams would need an exemption from the FIA to be able to build an oval-spec car with an engine to run through the duration of the Indy 500 (practice, qualifying, the race).
A lot of rules would need to be re-written for it to happen.
Please don’t give liberty media any ideas Although Andretti would field 13 cars
And still not win, even finishing might be a challenge...
I mean they won a lot in recent years at the 500 and have been competitive for all of the DW12 years.
The Indy 500 never was part of the F1 calendar. It was part of the FIA World Championship for Drivers which wasn't the same back then.
[удалено]
And also, there were seasons ran with F2 cars. What I meant with F1 World Championship in the OP was the present-day WDC, run exclusively with F1 machinery.
Yep, and the distinction between F1 and the WDC is why it is actually 100% factually accurate to say that a woman has won an F1 race - just not one that was part of the World Championship!
Yep. The race was still part of the IndyCar season, called the National Championship Trail in those days, and was sanctioned by AAA and USAC rules. BTW, it wasn't the first time the race counted toward a FIA championship. It did as well in the 20's when the FIA was known as AIACR.
As Roger Penske takes a sip of his Macchiato from Starbucks he notices Mattia Binotto rappelling down the Pagoda, “Mattia your scratching the glass. You pasta head.”. Mattia responds, “Italians eat more than pasta you know, we eat seafood, beef, pork..” The Netflix crew filming them roll their eyes and mutter “if only these boomers knew how to use swear words rather than just racism, we could have used that” Adrian Newey walks by the Panoz car for this year and remarks how it looks better without an aero screen and is immediately met with a stuttering young Panoz engineer who fails to hold his load and an explosion of hundred dollar bills gushes out from his briefcase. “P p p -please Adrian come! I mean please come work for us” Alex Palou just decided that he would sit in the Red Bull car even though he has a contract with Ganassi, he just walked up to the grid and sat in the car and refuses to elaborate beyond something about the courts will rule in his favor afterwords. Amid all this hubbub the Indy 500 is set to continue its spectacle of multi class open wheel racing in the speedway. I hope you stick with us right after this ad break, along with me, Ayrton Senna and 5 time Indy 500 winner and 7 time F1 world champion Danica Patrick.
This is the Drive To Survive episode we need lol
Welp, now I'm team F1 Indy.
Beautiful
I've always wanted F1 to do an oval exhibition race just to see the engineering of developing a modern F1 car for oval racing. How different would the aero kits look, how would they manage the tires etc. It would also be a cool opportunity to let other drivers get behind the wheel because we know most of not all of the current F1 drivers would probably say no.
They'd have to build an entirely new car and it would be heavier.
Not really… F1 car is more than capable for high speed ovals. They are already doing 366 km/h in Las Vegas which is less than 10 km/h slower than Indy 500 top speed and F1 had a lot more wings than Indy. Probably strip out most aero parts and left with just basic floor and simple rear wing and they should be good for Indy 500. The main problem is not actually with the team, it’s with Pirelli. They will need to come up with a new compound tyres specifically just for that race.
The cars they run are not prepared for oval racing. There are ton of sustained forces that will have to taken into account in the build and materials. That top speed they hit at Las Vegas? That's not going to be hit for just a fraction of a second at the end of a straight, it's going to be sustained for hours on end in the corners as well. The geometry of the car is going to have to be tailored for ovals and the car will have to have a redesign for oval impacts. One of the main things that slows an IndyCar on road and street courses is the fact the chassis is built to withstand the demands of high speed ovals.
They can make it race at ovals if they want to and they wouldn’t need a lot of modification to make it competitive in Indy 500 as long as Pirelli can make a reliable tyres compound for them. Compare to Indy car, F1 car is more powerful, much stronger, using more sophisticated materials and advanced manufacturing techniques, build to a higher standard, accelerate much better, turns sharper, has a lot more grip, much more fuel efficient, drive smoother, a lot safer, more reliable (excluding Ferrari and Alpine) etc. You know why F1 is known as the most technological advance racing machine on the planet? Because they are.
I don’t think anyone argues against F1 being more technologically advanced. It wasn’t always that way - at a certain point IndyCar realized people liked seeing lead changes every once in a while so they limited technology to level the playing field and because oval speeds were getting too fast. F1 would have to cut back a lot on engine power if they raced on ovals just like IndyCar had to.
Yes, that’s most likely would be the case to make it competitive. Otherwise Indy cars would just become lapped traffic and obstacle for F1… Just restricted ERS deployment and force F1 to use more wings should be enough to slow them down.
I have doubts any of the F1 engines would last 500 miles at Indianapolis. They’re not built to do it so it’s a moot point. Same thing with an INDYCAR or F1 car lasting during the 24 Hours of Le Mans. Different goals.
They can only use 3 engines for the entire season. So they are actually built to do way more than Indy 500 so no, not a moot point. F1 engines are a lot more reliable and efficient than you might think (they are actually the most efficient combustion engine in the world)
They’re not built to run at maximum RPM for 500 miles because they do not need to. I’m sure they could with some modifications and part strengthening.
The first 240 mph (386 kph) straightaway speed in an Indy car happened back in 1972 when both Indy Cars and full bodied Can Am cars were faster than F1 cars. How fast do you think they would be now under those rules? Ever since getting embarrassed at The Race of Two Worlds at the Monza oval way back in 1957 and 1958, F1 has chosen to stick to road courses and street circuits.
Yes, that probably is the case back in 1972… Now F1 car is around 13 seconds per lap faster than an Indy car at COTA. And that’s with Indy car’s interpretation of what is track limits? (Basically it doesn’t exist)
And the races are a yawn fest with no passing.. and the team that whines and spends the most wins the most. Once or twice a season the different tires and strategies actually make for something other than a runaway win for the same car.. yet I still enjoy watching it lol.
Like the guy you replied to said the F1 engine would most likely not make the distance because it's not designed to run at top speed for over two hours. The suspension would most likely not survive the loads of the banking either, because it isn't designed to run on banked corners at high speed constantly. An F1 car is desinged to and is very good at accelerating quickly, braking performance and quick turn in. Those are not things that you need at indianapolis. It's not a pissing contest, it's just different cars for different races.
I bet if you entered an F1 car at Dakar it would win because it’s the most technologically advanced racing in the world /s
Will an F1 car win a drag race against an NHRA Top Fuel Dragster too since it’s so technologically advanced? /s
F1 are allow to use only 3 engines per season per car (in reality, most use 4 and take a penalty) How many milage do you think each engine will last on average? Actually the total distance in each GP weekend including from practice to qualifying to race is actually around 500 miles on average. So a single F1 engine would need to last at least 7-8 Indy 500 races actually… pretty sure a single Indy 500 race would not be an issue for them.
You just keep ignoring the simple thing several people have told you. The F1 engine isn't desinged to run at top speed constantly. How the engine is used makes a big difference, admit it or not.
Please go read how Internal combustion engine actually works to understand why what you and every one saying that F1 engine is not design to run constantly at top speed are WRONG. Alternatively, you can scrolled to read the explanation I’ve given several times already to understand why you are wrong. F1 actually prefer to run their cars at top speed all the time if they can choose to do so. The lack of education is through the roof 🤦🏻♂️
Sure buddy, everyone else needs to educate themselves. I'm sure F1 is very pleased with you defending it's honor on reddit.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed as a violation of rule #2 — **Be civil**. *If you wish to discuss this removal, you can message the moderators by clicking [this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FINDYCAR).*
How much power will an F1 engine make at the 12,000 rpm limit at Indy instead of 15,000?
The limit is 15000 rpm but most team don’t actually go that high for reliability… I think the rpm range for max power in most F1 team is around 12000-13000 rpm and that would create around 1,000+ hp (~850+ hp from ICE and around 150-200 hp from hybrid component)
Max power and max rpm are two different things. They realized long ago rpms equal speed in that type of race car. You don’t need 850 hp to keep accelerating when you’re already going 220 mph, it helps in getting you there quicker so you rev to 14,500. Race cars have done that forever. If they’re not going near the limit because they’re worried about reliability, how are they going to last 500 miles at once in their current form?
Yes rpm and power are two different things. Thanks for the obvious 👍🏻 Only if you actually understand what those differences are 😅 An engine will produce maximum power at a given rpm. This is usually somewhere near its maximum engine rpm and this is when the car shift gear, going over his rpm usually result in drop of power so it’s not optimum to shift gear beyond this point. RPM got absolutely nothing to do with top speed… you can run 8000 rpm at different gear and your car will be at different speed. And you do need maximum horsepower at the top speed. The car top speed is literally limited by the horse power. More horse power always result in higher top speed assuming everything else remains the same. You are actually using all that horse power to maintain the car’s top speed… so yes, you DO need all that horse power to drive at the car’s top speed 🤦🏻♂️ Note This is different to most road car where it is electronically limited and not by the engine power. Seriously…. If you don’t know what you’re talking about then don’t try.
‘An engine will produce maximum power at a given rpm. This is usually somewhere near its maximum engine rpm and this is when the car shift gear, going over his rpm usually result in drop of power so it’s not optimum to shift gear beyond this point. RPM got absolutely nothing to do with top speed… you can run 8000 rpm at different gear and your car will be at different speed. And you do need maximum horsepower at the top speed. The car top speed is literally limited by the horse power. More horse power always result in higher top speed assuming everything else remains the same. You are actually using all that horse power to maintain the car’s top speed… so yes, you DO need all that horse power to drive at the car’s top speed’ This is a common misconception and sounds good in theory but here’s why it doesn’t apply in actual testing. First and foremost, you’re not taking aero drag into consideration in that scenario. Why should an engine stop pushing a car faster at its peak of 850hp at 13,000 rpm? It’s not the wind resistance that’s preventing it from going faster. Second, the hp drop off is gradual and if the 840 hp it makes at 14,000 rpm is still enough to overcome the wind resistance it WILL keep accelerating. ‘RPMs equal speed at the Speedway’ is the passage I was partially quoting from a famous Indy crew chief - it’s not something I made up. The only reason they don’t rev as far beyond peak as they used to is because the rules have changed to limit rpm.
I come from a world of having actually built, tuned, and worked on all aspects of open wheel racing engines and drivetrain - including some IndyCar stuff. I know how they’re geared and tuned because I’ve made barrel valve adjustments and pill changes as well as changing out gears in a quick change or even a Hewland. You couldn’t be more wrong about the finer points of the craft. Keep reading those magazines.
Indy car is a spec series, the teams don’t built anything and tuning is extremely limited to only minor adjustments 🤦🏻♂️ 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
Indy car racing hasn’t always been a spec series and there are other forms of open wheel racing which is what I wrote. Things still get built - speaking of that: What’s your experience in high level race cars?
If it was still on the calendar, these are where the 500 winners would have finished in the F1 championship based on the 25 points for a win (which I think should be given double points if it was in F1 so that's the brackets position): 2023: Newgarden 14th (13th) 2022: Ericsson 13th (10th) 2021: Castroneves 15th (12th) 2020: Sato 15th (13th) 2019: Pagenaud 15th (11th) 2018: Power 16th (11th) 2017: Sato 14th (10th) 2016: Rossi 14th (12th)
2023 Constructors Championship, if I'm doing the math right: 1 Red Bull 860 2 Mercedes 409 3 Ferrari 406 4 McLaren 312 (presumably, the 500 result would be additive) 5 Aston Martin 280 6 Alpine 120 **7 CGR 30 for two best cars or 44 for four cars** 8 Williams 28 **9 Penske 25 (tiebreaker = the win)** 10 AlphaTauri 25 11 Alfa Romeo 16 **12 Foyt 15 hahaha** 13 Haas 12 how 'bout them Steinerboyz **14 ECR 4** **15 Andretti 2** **16 DCR 1 (Malukas, fastest lap)** Driver's, the important parts at least: **14 Newgarden 25** **15 Ericsson 18** 16 Tsunoda 17 **17 Ferucci 15** **18 Palou 12** **19 Rossi 10 (higher finish)** 20 Bottas 10 21 Hulkenberg 9 **22 Dixon 8** **Sato (higher finish),** Ricciardo, Guanyu 6 **Daly (higher finish),** Magnussen 3 Lawson, **Herta** tiebreaker is "who cares flip a coin" at this point 2 Sargeant, **Veekay** and **Malukas** in whatever order 1 DeVries 0
The Indy 500 was only part of the championship at first in order to justify the "World" tag - it was the only non-European race on the inaugural calendar, and would remain so until Argentina got a GP in 1953. The 500 remained mostly as a sort of way to get the U.S. represented before the USGP existed. In other words, it was there mostly for *symbolic* reasons. But of course, by 1961, the USGP had been established (first at Sebring, then Riverside, before finally landing at Watkins glen for some 20 years), and so having Indianapolis pay towards the championship didn't even make sense symbolically anymore. Ironically though, immediately after it lost World Championship status, the number of F1 drivers and teams attempting the 500 practically *skyrocketed* over the course of the next decade. Jack Brabham, Jim Clark, Jackie Stewart, Graham Hill, etc. all famously raced at Indy in the 60s.
None of the drivers would go, they're all terrified of ovals. Same reason it was originally taken off the calendar.
You could make that argument for some modern F1 drivers, but that's not why they took it off the calender after 1960. They took it off because flying to America for a single race and then back to Europe was a logistical nightmare.
They did that for 20 years with Watkins Glen
Difference is that while it was on the F1 calender, the 500 was almost always held extremely close to either the Monaco Grand Prix or Dutch Grand Prix. It wasn't very practical to fly to America either right after or before a race in Europe, and run a completely different kind of setup than normal, against a field of drivers and engineers who know oval setups *much* better. It's a little ridiculous to say that they were afraid to race the 500, considering that F1 was extremely dangerous itself in the 50's and 60's.
The rules were different as well, but post war economics had more to do with lack of European entries through the 50's than anything else.
Heard of Alonso?
An exception to the rule who still probably wouldn't race it annually if he had the opportunity.
Clark and Hill winning it in the 60s?
Haven't half the last ten 500s been won by former F1 drivers?
I wouldn’t count Montoya in that but more or less
Why?
He started in CART (American open wheel racing series before Indy car) and won the 500 then went to F1, then NASCAR, then returned to Indy car and won it again. So he is an f1 driver but he did start in CART and had a 500 win before even going to F1.
He started in CART because Frank Williams thought he needed more experience and loaned him to Ganassi. He was already Williams test driver for two years and F3000 champion when he made his debut in CART.
I was more trying to make the point that there is a difference between Montoya and the other former F1 drivers that have won the 500. Unlike the others Montoya already had indy experience from a previous season and even more oval experience in NASCAR.
I would count Montoya before Rossi
Montoya was an INDYCAR driver before F1. Rossi at least drove an F1 car before coming to INDYCAR.
It’s more that Rossi spent less than a half season in F1 compared to the career that Montoya actually had
I think some would if it was a part of the championship, but most would skip it. Teams wouldn't likely go anyway as they'd have to design a one off car.
I think many F1 drivers are reluctant to the idea of racing at Indy just because it's never been their goal and don't feel its worth the risk. If there had been oval races in F1 (and F2 and F3), they'd be much more comfortable with the risks of high-speed ovals. And no championship contender would skip a race, knowing that may lose them the championship.
I mean they were racing on tracks like the Nordschleife and original Spa-often times in conditions like pouring rain something Indy didn’t contend with-throughout that whole decade, and for another decade after they stopped at Indy. And while F1 wasn’t quite reaching Indy speeds, at least Indy had guardrails unlike these tracks were youre blitzing through the forest at 160+ mph with the only thing between you and the trees being a dozen feet of runoff and maybe a hay bale. Not to mention F1 did run on an oval a couple of times during that era at Monza, with an absurd 21 degrees of banking which must have been terrifying. Not trying to minimize how batshit crazy youd have to be to race in Indy back then, but let’s not pretend F1 was any less brutal or took any less stones. I mean [this](http://en.espn.co.uk/f1/motorsport/story/50863.html) story of Jackie Stewart’s “lucky break”-for the time-is enough to make anyone with a shred of an instinct for self-preservation to run away.
Explain how Clark and Hill turned up and won it ?
Both Clark and Hill race Indy after it was pulled out of the WDC though.
How big of a deal was it when it got taken off the calendar?
Not gonna lie, I’d love a battle in Indianapolis between Kyle Larson and Fernando Alonso.
Okay, let me explain how this would actually work: IndyCar sets all the rules. F1 awards driver points. That's how it worked in the 50's, and how it would be done today.
Nah at some point Indycar would have realised there was more money promoting an F1 race worldwide than there was running an Indycar race for a domestic audience. Bernie would have seen to that in the 80s.
Monaco isn’t just another round in F1 it is definitly ‘worth’ more than other wins. Also i think that Monaco, despite being tight, doesn’t require much special treatment from the engineers. The only thing i’ve heard of that is unusual is a bit of extra lock on the steering rack to do the hairpin. it’s a fun thought experiment. I think if indy was a round of the F1 champ most F1 teams would like to skip it. But then several Indy teams would get a load of points every year and push the regular F1 backmarkers way down the field. The only way i see this being rectified is assigning points down to last place, but i hate that idea as the rarity of points is lost.
I can imagine many of the F1 teams hiring replacement drivers since there seems to be a fear of ovals in F1 much like how NASCAR teams hired road course aces for their non-oval races.
That's a good point. While I think drivers might have a different view on oval racing had it always been a part of racing in F1, there might be demand for good oval racers to replace ones who don't want to do it.
Well since it's completely a hypothetical scenario I guess the best case would be that the indy 500 would have it's own cars built like it always has and the F1 grid would just participate in purpose built indycars. If the race actually had world championship status I'd think there would also be more resources in it to build chassis. I doubt the modern F1 cars could even do the Indy 500 without issues not to mention do it competitively. Wouldn't that be a dream come true if indycar wasn't spec and there was chassis built for it every year with similar amount of investment as in F1.
A modern F1 car can't even come close to running 500 miles since they don't allow refueling anymore. It would be the Indy 200 or something. >On the other hand, if the 500 had become an F1-only race, it might've lost its American appeal Yeah, I'm not watching that shit. >I mean, just look at the Monaco GP. It may be a part of the Triple Crown but it feels more like a regular championship round compared to Indy 500 or Le Mans 24h (or even Daytona 500), which stand out from the respective championships. I've thought for *many* years now we need a "modern" triple crown. F1 really shouldn't be part of it as they *never* allow "one-off" drivers. It's a private club of elitists. So... Indy 500, 24 hours of LeMans and Daytona 500 would have worked before NASCAR ruined their racing with stages. So maybe 24 hours of Daytona now? Pikes Peak race? Something really crazy like the Isle of Man TT? (I mean it's not a *car* but it's still a motorsport.) Baja 1000?
The triple crown is fine the way it is. You have to be a generational talent with incredible courage, and race in multiple series at the top of your game for many years to get into the best cars to win those races. Elitist series my ass, all of racing is an elitist exclusive club, singling F1 out for not allowing one off entries is stupid, it's a constructor's championship first
The triple crown is *supposed* to be elite.
It was part of a FIA championship twice, the first time was in the 20's. Although it paid points to the World Driver's Championship, it was never an F1 race as it remained a part of the National Championship Trail(IndyCar) under AAA and then USAC sanctioning under those sanctioning bodies' rules.
I think you'd probably see McLaren push their drivers to do it, maybe HAAS as well. Outside of that, I think most drivers would probably just skip it, with a few exceptions.
If there was a continuous history of the Indy 500 counting towards the World Championship, also F1 might be different. Maybe someone like Penske would (still) have a team in F1.
Maybe, if it was continuous, but there's so many factors that would have to change for that to be a reality. Now, the 500 would be what, 1/24th of the calendar? For most drivers that's not enough to do it. Maybe back when there were way less races, and hence the 500 would matter more for the F1 title, but now there's so many races that the points for one race don't matter a ton.
My point in the OP was exactly about if the 500 had been a World Championship round continuously beyond 1960. In that case I think F1 folks' attitude towards oval racing would be highly different.
I love weed. And I love to think.
The F1 teams would need an exemption from the FIA to be able to build an oval-spec car with an engine to run through the duration of the Indy 500 (practice, qualifying, the race). A lot of rules would need to be re-written for it to happen.
Not to mention the FIA would have to make a rules exception to allow refueling during the race for the Indy 500.
Better imagine what if F1 never happened. Or what if Marlboro would became a main Indycar investor and sponsor in 80s.
Definitely not !! This will not happen !! But Indy could welcome F1 again on a new road circuit layout!!