19 replies to this topic

[Blade07]

Hi everyone, I'm new to these forums and I'm not sure if this topic has been done before. Sorry if it has, but I'm really curious to know. How do the new F1 cars perform in comparison to Indy or Champ cars on road courses? I believe that back when the F1s used V-10s, they raced on the same track as either Indy Cars or Champ Cars (after they broke up). I forget where, but I believe it was Australia. According to what I read, the F1s lapped on average about 6 seconds faster.

I know that Indy cars were capable of higher top speeds in comparison to V-10 powered F1s but that they also accelerated slower and were not as quick through turns. How have things changed now that F1s have switched to smaller displacement V8s? Are F1 cars still the fastest in the world or have they now falled behind? I think I read somewhere that Indy Cars aren't very well suited to road racing since they primarily race on ovals. So I would imagine that F1s still lap faster. But what about Champ cars? I believe they still have turbos, use methanol fuel and use 2.65-liter V8s. I think they produce 850 horsepower. I think they also race on road courses more often in comparison to Indy cars. So are they now faster than the new F1s?

[Moose11]

They both race the same circuit in Montreal as well so thats a good marker.

[UrKo]

Moose11, on Apr 3 2006, 10:10 AM, said:

They both race the same circuit in Montreal as well so thats a good marker.

Last year I remember that ChampCar were about 5-6sec. slower in Montreal...

[funkejay]

UrKo, on Apr 30 2006, 01:33 PM, said:

Last year I remember that ChampCar were about 5-6sec. slower in Montreal...

Actually, the fastest of the ChampCar teams were lapping at close to the pace of the F1 backmarkers around Montreal in 2005, which is the only track that is still raced on by both series in the same configuration. All in all, that's pretty impressive for a series where the cars weigh in excess of 200 lbs more, and still use iron disc brakes.

In truth, the only reason that F1 cars have a lower top speed than the Indy cars is due to gearing and downforce configurations. If they were similarly configured, the F1 cars (even with the reduced displacement V8s) would achieve higher top speeds.

But no matter what else, F1 cars can stop, start, and turn on a dime, much better than any other series on earth.

[sliderule]

funkejay, on Apr 30 2006, 03:54 PM, said:

Actually, the fastest of the ChampCar teams were lapping at close to the pace of the F1 backmarkers around Montreal in 2005, which is the only track that is still raced on by both series in the same configuration. All in all, that's pretty impressive for a series where the cars weigh in excess of 200 lbs more, and still use iron disc brakes.

In truth, the only reason that F1 cars have a lower top speed than the Indy cars is due to gearing and downforce configurations. If they were similarly configured, the F1 cars (even with the reduced displacement V8s) would achieve higher top speeds.

But no matter what else, F1 cars can stop, start, and turn on a dime, much better than any other series on earth.

all is true but if the faster champ cars would be back of the grid f-1 cars, let me tell you that for their lack of technology f-1 for all I love it seems to b e going backwards at a very fast rate, max better allow them to exploit theit tekkies or they will be just a name and a trademark, one of many in this day and age

[Jean Todt]

sliderule, on May 1 2006, 03:55 AM, said:

all is true but if the faster champ cars would be back of the grid f-1 cars, let me tell you that for their lack of technology f-1 for all I love it seems to b e going backwards at a very fast rate, max better allow them to exploit theit tekkies or they will be just a name and a trademark, one of many in this day and age

indeed!
but imagine what would happen if only max hinted that f1 are also going to be allowed to use turbo/supercharger!   i am really suprised that those champ cars produce just 850 bhp even after they are turbocharged....

[UrKo]

abbas_gear, on May 1 2006, 02:06 PM, said:

indeed!
but imagine what would happen if only max hinted that f1 are also going to be allowed to use turbo/supercharger!   i am really suprised that those champ cars produce just 850 bhp even after they are turbocharged....

Limited tech......   that's why

[sliderule]

remember that popoff valve champcars use on their turbo systems is calibrates to allow minimal pressure, I'm not sure what the boost has gone down to these days but its really minimal, moreover what one should think about is that regardeless of champcar's turbocharging with f-1 new v8 both champcar and f1 engines are producing about more or less the same power but to champcars detriment they must have some, even if minimal, amount of lag. on top of it the weight of the cars obviously favors f-1 and the aero on f-1 obviously is superior. so again i must say that f-1 is becoming a money spending exercise without the necessary differentiation from other series. I wish f-1 was light years faster than champcars but as you can see in Montreal it wasn't.

Edited by sliderule, 01 May 2006 - 03:01 PM.

[funkejay]

abbas_gear, on May 1 2006, 08:06 AM, said:

imagine what would happen if only max hinted that f1 are also going to be allowed to use turbo/supercharger!   i am really suprised that those champ cars produce just 850 bhp even after they are turbocharged....

sliderule, on May 1 2006, 10:00 AM, said:

remember that popoff valve champcars use on their turbo systems is calibrates to allow minimal pressure, I'm not sure what the boost has gone down to these days but its really minimal, moreover what one should think about is that regardeless of champcar's turbocharging with f-1 new v8 both champcar and f1 engines are producing about more or less the same power but to champcars detriment they must have some, even if minimal, amount of lag. on top of it the weight of the cars obviously favors f-1 and the aero on f-1 obviously is superior. so again i must say that f-1 is becoming a money spending exercise without the necessary differentiation from other series. I wish f-1 was light years faster than champcars but as you can see in Montreal it wasn't.

Recall as well, that Champcars use methanol fuel, not the exotic petrol mixtures that are in use in F1. Methanol (although it offers the advantage of being a renewable resource) has a significantly lower energy value than even road grade petrol, so you will never get the same power output from methanol compared to petrol. However, turbo-charging helps to improve (or 'boost') the power output of the methanol fed Champcar engines, which is why it has become ubiquitous with the series.

BTW - Champcar pop-off valves are uniformly set at about 40 inches, which equate to about 19 psi of boost. The governing body controls and dispenses the pop-off valves at random, and each one is a sealed unit. Any tampering with the pop-off valves will result in instant disqualification.

Edited by funkejay, 01 May 2006 - 03:12 PM.

[Ctrl300]

damn p, full control
Good to have your expertice around

[Yoda McFly]

  to the revivification of dead topics!

Just a few random thoughts to keep in mind:

Horsepower is a function of torque and rpm.  The way that (normally aspirated but exotically-fuelled) F1 engines make similar horsepower levels to similarly-sized (turbocharged and methanol-fuelled) Champcar engines is through revs.  While F1 has pushed revs near (over?) the 20k mark with the switch to V8s (cost-cutting?  my hairy white arse), Champcar limits them to around 10.5k.  

(Warning:  Rough math follows, and although I'm generally a fan of metrics, I've never figured this stuff out in anything else.   That said, horsepower is a stupid measure... anyway):  Assume 800HP and 19k RPM.  That's around 215 lb/ft torque being generated at that 19k rpm.  A 750HP Cosworth XFE at 10k rpm is making around 390 lb/ft ... (Yes, I know, HP and torque peaks typically occur at different RPM levels than absolute peak RPM, but the point is valid for the question asked).  I think they're running around 38 inches of boost this year.  Most importantly, the engine isn't running at its absolute peak tune.

A couple of interesting (to me, anyway) things come from this.  The damn things run forever.  Since they went to the spec formula, engine failures are nearly nil.  (I'm at work right now, and can't look it up, but reliability is well over 95%).  They've also added a feature that gives the driver 60 seconds worth of running at about 850HP; the marketing department calls it "Power to Pass," the drivers call it "Push to Pass..."  It's added a level of strategy (which the formula needs, but for other reasons that aren't  on topic for this thread).  Most importantly, though, is that a privateer team can buy an engine, and be guaranteed  that they're getting the same lump as the "works" team.  From the pure "grabbing the beast by the neck and driving it" standpoint, I've actually been enjoying Champcar more than F1 of late.  (Of course, the best budget can still buy the best engineering talent, and given equal drivers, a good engineer can make one car "more equal" than another).

Hmm ... I had other thoughts for this post.  Maybe tonight, after I get home from work...  It's about time to clock out.  

[cweil]

funkejay, on May 1 2006, 08:12 AM, said:

Recall as well, that Champcars use methanol fuel, not the exotic petrol mixtures that are in use in F1. Methanol (although it offers the advantage of being a renewable resource) has a significantly lower energy value than even road grade petrol, so you will never get the same power output from methanol compared to petrol. However, turbo-charging helps to improve (or 'boost') the power output of the methanol fed Champcar engines, which is why it has become ubiquitous with the series.

This is true, for the same amount of fuel. The benefit to methanol, though, is that it allows you to run MUCH higher static and dynamic compression ratios before detonation occurs. The vehicle is much less fuel efficient per distance, but it will also produce much more power. For example, a sprint car engine with max static compression on methanol (~14.5-15.5:1) will make in excess of 800 horsepower, whereas max static compression on pump-available gas (~12:1) will make about 550 or so horsepower.  It will use roughly twice as much fuel to do it, but does it never the less, and is actually cheaper than race grade fuel per distance.

For Champ Car, the methanol helps not only allow them to run higher compression (to ensure good torque output before boost threshold is reached) and higher boost pressure with a higher flowing turbine for a given boost threshold. Because of the added compression and much larger fuel quantity, there is much more energy in the exhaust relative to a similiarly setup gas engine.

Same idea as a diesel, really- less latent energy content per quantity, but the manner in which it is used offsets that, with different pros and cons for each fuel.

[Ferrariphile]

I have not much more to add because Yoda explained it pretty well other than the IRL uses a 9:1 ethanol/methanol mix and will be 100% ethanol next year.

[pumpdoc]

We don't talk gIRL on this forum

[Yoda McFly]

Yeah, I prefer not to get into the Injury Racing League ...  

[F1 FANatic]

Yoda McFly, on Jul 19 2006, 11:16 PM, said:

  to the revivification of dead topics!

Just a few random thoughts to keep in mind:

Horsepower is a function of torque and rpm.  The way that (normally aspirated but exotically-fuelled) F1 engines make similar horsepower levels to similarly-sized (turbocharged and methanol-fuelled) Champcar engines is through revs.  While F1 has pushed revs near (over?) the 20k mark with the switch to V8s (cost-cutting?  my hairy white arse), Champcar limits them to around 10.5k.  

(Warning:  Rough math follows, and although I'm generally a fan of metrics, I've never figured this stuff out in anything else.   That said, horsepower is a stupid measure... anyway):  Assume 800HP and 19k RPM.  That's around 215 lb/ft torque being generated at that 19k rpm.  A 750HP Cosworth XFE at 10k rpm is making around 390 lb/ft ... (Yes, I know, HP and torque peaks typically occur at different RPM levels than absolute peak RPM, but the point is valid for the question asked).  I think they're running around 38 inches of boost this year.  Most importantly, the engine isn't running at its absolute peak tune.

A couple of interesting (to me, anyway) things come from this.  The damn things run forever.  Since they went to the spec formula, engine failures are nearly nil.  (I'm at work right now, and can't look it up, but reliability is well over 95%).  They've also added a feature that gives the driver 60 seconds worth of running at about 850HP; the marketing department calls it "Power to Pass," the drivers call it "Push to Pass..."  It's added a level of strategy (which the formula needs, but for other reasons that aren't  on topic for this thread).  Most importantly, though, is that a privateer team can buy an engine, and be guaranteed  that they're getting the same lump as the "works" team.  From the pure "grabbing the beast by the neck and driving it" standpoint, I've actually been enjoying Champcar more than F1 of late.  (Of course, the best budget can still buy the best engineering talent, and given equal drivers, a good engineer can make one car "more equal" than another).

Hmm ... I had other thoughts for this post.  Maybe tonight, after I get home from work...  It's about time to clock out.  

a cuple of beefs with what you said but i mostly agree
1. F1 cars use fule thats 98% the same as the super unleaded you buy at any German gasstation, i say german because American fule usaly contains less octain and has a fulemixture that is less concerned about emissions also i found this out from RTL the german TV channel that covers F1(one of their mini Dokumentaries)
2. you cant really compair the IRL cars that are supercharged with the F1 cars that arent, you should see what the actual numbers on the IRL engins before supercharging
3. as for speed of f1 cars, the real restrictions on speed are straits on tracks, an Indy car can reach much higher speeds on an oval then an F1 car on a road course, if you remember Honda did speed tests in the mojave desert with their car WITHIN F1 regs and reached 415km/h but again had to slow because the runway was too short,

the one thing Indy cars have on F1 cars is fule efficancy, due to running at almost half the rpm the fule consumption is much lower, like driving 150km/h on the highway in 5th gear as comparied to 150 in 3rd(trune 150 in 3rd is not really possible unless your in a high end sports car but you get what i mean)

[jackgarrett]

champ cars are about 6 seconds slower still.

[Yoda McFly]

F1 FANatic, on Jul 28 2006, 05:35 AM, said:

a cuple of beefs with what you said but i mostly agree
1. F1 cars use fule thats 98% the same as the super unleaded you buy at any German gasstation, i say german because American fule usaly contains less octain and has a fulemixture that is less concerned about emissions also i found this out from RTL the german TV channel that covers F1(one of their mini Dokumentaries)
2. you cant really compair the IRL cars that are supercharged with the F1 cars that arent, you should see what the actual numbers on the IRL engins before supercharging
3. as for speed of f1 cars, the real restrictions on speed are straits on tracks, an Indy car can reach much higher speeds on an oval then an F1 car on a road course, if you remember Honda did speed tests in the mojave desert with their car WITHIN F1 regs and reached 415km/h but again had to slow because the runway was too short,

the one thing Indy cars have on F1 cars is fule efficancy, due to running at almost half the rpm the fule consumption is much lower, like driving 150km/h on the highway in 5th gear as comparied to 150 in 3rd(trune 150 in 3rd is not really possible unless your in a high end sports car but you get what i mean)

Uhh ...

Yeah.

Not sure what any of this has to do with anything, but I'll touch on your points ... First, it's been acknowledged in this thread that ChampCar and IRL use Methanol rather than petrol, which instantly puts them at a disadvantage... (And IRL is changing (presuming that the formula survives, pray to $DIETY that it doesn't) to meth/ethanol and/or straight ethanol soon).

Not sure what octane ratings are available in Europe (especially since octane can vary depending on which method is used to actually measure it, and in general, it's only slightly more useful than horsepower as a measurement, but anyway ...), but here in the States, 92 is about the best you can hope for in a "street legal" pump gas ... In the Republik of Kalifornia (which I am unfortunate enough to be a subject of), the best we can get is 91 ... I could put some of the 106 that I run in my kart into the car, but that's fscking expensive ...)  And here, it's all about hitting the emissions numbers, and having the right kit; if you can make better emissions numbers, but don't have the right kit, your screwed.  We have oxygenated cat urine for fuel because it makes it easier to hit the numbers ... Notice that turbo-diesels are comparatively rare here, despite their superior emissions and performance numbers...

I know the theory that F1 cars use "mostly pump-grade" petrol, but, let's face it ... Would the sport really need "fuel technology partners" if it was truly pump gas?  (It's not like it was 20-odd years ago, but it ain't pump gas ...)

2.  What does this have to do with anything?  First, the IRL uses NA engines.  Notice that they all have F1-style airboxes above the drivers' heads.  ChampCar (different series) has turbos.  Either way, why should I compare the output of a lump that's designed to be supercharged, but doesn't actually have a supercharger on it with one that's not designed for it?  Each engine has a totally different torque curve, that's representative of what the lump (and series) are designed for.  The Injury League only needs the gears below 5th or 6th for acceleration.  They can get away with lower torque and lower-energy fuels, without going to motorcycle-crushing revs.  F1 and ChampCar, intended for road courses (or a mixture of road and ovals in the case of CCWS), need that mystic quality called driveability.  F1 engines, despite their obnoxious torque curves (I can virtually guarantee that an F1 lump idles faster than your road car redlines) achieve this by using fuel that's powerful enough to provide the "grunt" you need coming off the corner, and, more importantly, are able to rev up to redline so quickly, that the fact that they produce less "paper torque" than a CCWS engine becomes irrelevant.  CCWS engines are a "compromise" (although designed before either of the current "competing" formulae) that allows enough horsepower to be really fast in a straight line, but still have tonnes of torque to pull away from the line.  (There's a reason that drag racing (the ultimate torque-whores) has not allowed turbochargers for well over 40 years...  Yet they're all supercharged, just not turbo-supercharged...)

3.  Again, irrelevant.  No one is contesting straight line speed.  We all know what F1 cars are capable of in a straight line, based on Indianapolis, and what 'Duh did at Bonneville.  Either way, it's not germaine to the OP's question.

Heh.  Now that I've ranted for a while, I realize that I've lost my original point.  Oh, well...

To answer the OP's questions:  (and he still only has one post ... probably bailed.  n00b.)
F1 <> IndyCar <> ChampCar.  Three different formulae, designed to three different goals.  

"who's fastest?"
Define fast, please?  In a straight line, typically the IndyCar will be the fastest; they're the only ones that currently run the superspeedways, where trap speeds above 240mph are common.  

The fastest race average was done with a ChampCar, on a superspeedway (Jimmy Vasser at Fontana, in ... '03?  I don't remember the exact year, but it was the last year ChampCar ran at Fontana; the race average was a little over 190mph...)  

The quickest over a road course?  F1, without a doubt.  They're lighter across the board, they're lighter in terms of unsprung mass, and they have a superior power/weight ratio.  Plus, they're physically smaller.  Simple proof of this concept has been mentioned earlier in this thread:  Compare the F1 times at Villeneuve to the ChampCar times ...

Different strokes for different folks, kids.  

Personally, I have no interest in watching the crapwagons.  F1 has legislated itself into near-irrelevance for me ... the only places where I still see racing, in the classic sense, in open-wheel cars is ChampCar, GP2, Atlantics, Star Mazda ...

You can have F1.  

Edited by Yoda McFly, 06 October 2006 - 07:29 AM.

[stopkidding]

jackgarrett, on Aug 4 2006, 03:45 AM, said:

champ cars are about 6 seconds slower still.

considering toyota alone spend more money than the entire champ car series, 6 seconds is quite an acceptable gap. F1 cars are over engineered and over designed! but I love it!

[jaq]

pumpdoc, on Jul 20 2006, 02:20 PM, said:

We don't talk gIRL on this forum

I'm so glad to hear that. gIRL should never be talked about in any forum except gIRL forums, not here.