Question

[MclarenGTR 0]

This is not a troll. I love F1 way over nascar, so dont think anything else. I was just wondering. If you put a nascar stock car, and a F1 car on a road course and made them race, who would win? I personall thing the F1 car any day. It goes faster, and can make tight turns like I have never seen. What do you guys think? Which car would be strongest in every area of the track? Would love to hear responses on this. I am trying to learn about F1, because all I know is stock cars.

[Quiet One 15]

This is not a troll. I love F1 way over nascar, so dont think anything else. I was just wondering. If you put a nascar stock car, and a F1 car on a road course and made them race, who would win? I personall thing the F1 car any day. It goes faster, and can make tight turns like I have never seen. What do you guys think? Which car would be strongest in every area of the track? Would love to hear responses on this. I am trying to learn about F1, because all I know is stock cars.

1) Even if you liked NASCAR more than F1 you would not be considered a troll, so don't worry. I can't remember a single ocurrence of somebody here being attacked because they like some other series more than F1. This is a forum for F1 lovers, just because it is about F1, but is not a forum for F1 partisans, where we gather to plan the slaughtering of everybody who does not like F1. Actually, we spend a surprising little time ourselves talking about F1 and a lot of time making semen jokes, come to think of it

2) Yes, F1 would probably win. Our more technical savvy members can give you the exact reasons behind (my technical knowledge is zero about F1 cars and even less about NASAR cars). But from out of the top of my head I can easily come up with the following reasons:

a ) Acceleration: F1 cars are among the fastest sport cars around, but even more noticeably they are the fastest cars in terms of acceleration. They can reach 100+ mph figures in a couple of seconds. So an F1 car would be hard to beat on a straight line merely by its terminal speed, but if we are talking about a road course, where cars need to constantly brake, turn and accelerate, then no other car on earth can catch an F1. Unless we are talking about Massa here...

b ) Tight turns: well, that is not that easy. I guess from your question that NASCAR cars are not designed to take tight turns. Actually, neither are F1 cars. Of course, F1 racetracks are much more variegated in F1 so you will find courses with really tight turns (Monaco, most notably). But for those races, F1 cars have to have their turn ratios specially modified. The advantage of F1 over NASCAR here is that the cars are noticeably lighter, tthe cars are completely custom built (unlike NASCAR cars) and the immense aerodynamic differences between both which takes us to...

c ) Main and obvious differences between stock cars vs open c#ckpit cars: open cars like f1 indy and such are much lighter, and accelerate faster than stock cars. As usualy said, these are more like planes flying upside down than cars. They need to aerodyamically generate lots of downforce to prevent them from taking off! Hence all the wings, winglets and winga-ma-boobs you seeon F1 cars. These cars can take turns at amazing speed and feel "glued" to the tarmac (again, we are not talking about Massa here, are we?). A NASCAR car trying to take turns at the speed of an F1 car would probably end up upside down.

So, short and sweet: an F1 is probably faster, certainly can accelerate faster and most certainly can take turns at much faster speed than any stock car. And yes, an F1 car will easily beat a NASCAR car. In fact, you would probably amazed at HOW EASILY an F1 car can beat a NASCAR car. I tried to find an F1 vs NASCAR head to head race on Youtube but I couldn't find any (odd). However, you have plenty of videos there posing an F1 against all sorts of cars (and even motoGP bikes, poweboats and planes!). Those will give you an idea of just how fast and powerful F1 cars are.

[Rainmaster 7]

F1 is surely stronger in almost every area: acceleration, braking, cornering speed and change of direction would all be much better (top speed might be similar or even better for NASCAR, though it would take them longer to reach it). I think the two major differences would be the power to weight ratios (F1 cars putting a premium on lightweight materials) and the generation of downforce (see Quiet One above). None of this is to say F1 is better as the two are very different disciplines, and certainly F1 teams spend much more money for the extra speed.

In terms of a comparison, the best I could find is: http://en.wikipedia...._at_the_circuit (

[MclarenGTR 0]

1) Even if you liked NASCAR more than F1 you would not be considered a troll, so don't worry. I can't remember a single ocurrence of somebody here being attacked because they like some other series more than F1. This is a forum for F1 lovers, just because it is about F1, but is not a forum for F1 partisans, where we gather to plan the slaughtering of everybody who does not like F1. Actually, we spend a surprising little time ourselves talking about F1 and a lot of time making semen jokes, come to think of it

2) Yes, F1 would probably win. Our more technical savvy members can give you the exact reasons behind (my technical knowledge is zero about F1 cars and even less about NASAR cars). But from out of the top of my head I can easily come up with the following reasons:

a ) Acceleration: F1 cars are among the fastest sport cars around, but even more noticeably they are the fastest cars in terms of acceleration. They can reach 100+ mph figures in a couple of seconds. So an F1 car would be hard to beat on a straight line merely by its terminal speed, but if we are talking about a road course, where cars need to constantly brake, turn and accelerate, then no other car on earth can catch an F1. Unless we are talking about Massa here...

b ) Tight turns: well, that is not that easy. I guess from your question that NASCAR cars are not designed to take tight turns. Actually, neither are F1 cars. Of course, F1 racetracks are much more variegated in F1 so you will find courses with really tight turns (Monaco, most notably). But for those races, F1 cars have to have their turn ratios specially modified. The advantage of F1 over NASCAR here is that the cars are noticeably lighter, tthe cars are completely custom built (unlike NASCAR cars) and the immense aerodynamic differences between both which takes us to...

c ) Main and obvious differences between stock cars vs open c#ckpit cars: open cars like f1 indy and such are much lighter, and accelerate faster than stock cars. As usualy said, these are more like planes flying upside down than cars. They need to aerodyamically generate lots of downforce to prevent them from taking off! Hence all the wings, winglets and winga-ma-boobs you seeon F1 cars. These cars can take turns at amazing speed and feel "glued" to the tarmac (again, we are not talking about Massa here, are we?). A NASCAR car trying to take turns at the speed of an F1 car would probably end up upside down.

So, short and sweet: an F1 is probably faster, certainly can accelerate faster and most certainly can take turns at much faster speed than any stock car. And yes, an F1 car will easily beat a NASCAR car. In fact, you would probably amazed at HOW EASILY an F1 car can beat a NASCAR car. I tried to find an F1 vs NASCAR head to head race on Youtube but I couldn't find any (odd). However, you have plenty of videos there posing an F1 against all sorts of cars (and even motoGP bikes, poweboats and planes!). Those will give you an idea of just how fast and powerful F1 cars are.

Woww nice, how did the Moto GP fare? Also top speed? Do F1 cars have rescrictor plates like nascar? I know F1 cars can exceed 200. Also if it raine during the race, you can slab on water tires ))

[Quiet One 15]

An F1 vs MotoGP vs Powerboat comparison. Again, that is basically a drag race on a short straight distance. On a couse (powerboat excluded of course) the differences would be more dramatic.

The closest to the restrictor plates used in NACAR (if they are what I think they are) is the rev limit on F1 cars. F1 cars have thei engines limited to 18,000 RPMs. I have no idea how fast an F1 car would actually race nowadays as engines have changed many times during the years, from powerful 12 cylinders to even more powerful V10 turbos to the actual 8 cylinders rev limited. But they can reach speeds of around 350kmh in racedays nowadays (only in the fastest circuits and with the fastest setups, though) which is close enough to 200 mph. I think the top speed of an F1 has been above 400 kmh (250+ mph) but I don't know what engine was used to set that record. The usual top speed is around 200mph (320-330 kmh)

Yes, there are basically 4 types of tires in a race day. The two compounds for dry weather can vary from race to race, as chosen by the tire provider (Pirelli):

1) a harder compound: these ones tend to last mmore than the softer one, at the cost of speed and grip.

2) A softer compund: usually known as "option" tires, these ones are of course faster that the harder compounds at the expense of durability. Both compounds are slicks and useless in rainy conditions. They have different colors so you can tell which car is using the harder compound and which one is on options. Regretfuly, I never recall the color codes but the commentary usually tells you

3) Intermediate tires: grooved tires for light to medium rainy conditions.

4) Full wets: for downpours, which have been increasingly common in the past few seasons since tracks like Thailand have been incorporated.

Races in rainy conditions are fun, albeit sometimes too chaotic to really enjoy some good driving (except for Button, that's the guy to watch under rainy conditions). Then come (in this order, IMHO) Lewis and Alonso among the main candidates that also excel at bad weather. Schumi and Barrichello are the other two to watch, but their cars aren't up to the challenge. And then there's Massa...

BTW, #46 is our good friend George and he is always right, except when he says I'm wrong. Like you, he looks nothing like his avatar (I have no idea which one is he wearing now, but I assume its the same he used to). He looks more like a transvestite jellyfish.

[MclarenGTR 0]

An F1 vs MotoGP vs Powerboat comparison. Again, that is basically a drag race on a short straight distance. On a couse (powerboat excluded of course) the differences would be more dramatic.

The closest to the restrictor plates used in NACAR (if they are what I think they are) is the rev limit on F1 cars. F1 cars have thei engines limited to 18,000 RPMs. I have no idea how fast an F1 car would actually race nowadays as engines have changed many times during the years, from powerful 12 cylinders to even more powerful V10 turbos to the actual 8 cylinders rev limited. But they can reach speeds of around 350kmh in racedays nowadays (only in the fastest circuits and with the fastest setups, though) which is close enough to 200 mph. I think the top speed of an F1 has been above 400 kmh (250+ mph) but I don't know what engine was used to set that record. The usual top speed is around 200mph (320-330 kmh)

Yes, there are basically 4 types of tires in a race day. The two compounds for dry weather can vary from race to race, as chosen by the tire provider (Pirelli):

1) a harder compound: these ones tend to last mmore than the softer one, at the cost of speed and grip.

2) A softer compund: usually known as "option" tires, these ones are of course faster that the harder compounds at the expense of durability. Both compounds are slicks and useless in rainy conditions. They have different colors so you can tell which car is using the harder compound and which one is on options. Regretfuly, I never recall the color codes but the commentary usually tells you

3) Intermediate tires: grooved tires for light to medium rainy conditions.

4) Full wets: for downpours, which have been increasingly common in the past few seasons since tracks like Thailand have been incorporated.

Races in rainy conditions are fun, albeit sometimes too chaotic to really enjoy some good driving (except for Button, that's the guy to watch under rainy conditions). Then come (in this order, IMHO) Lewis and Alonso among the main candidates that also excel at bad weather. Schumi and Barrichello are the other two to watch, but their cars aren't up to the challenge. And then there's Massa...

BTW, #46 is our good friend George and he is always right, except when he says I'm wrong. Like you, he looks nothing like his avatar (I have no idea which one is he wearing now, but I assume its the same he used to). He looks more like a transvestite jellyfish.

Very nice, and F1 cars have paddle shifting now? I watched driven, and they still had the on the side shifter.

[AleHop 0]

Very nice, and F1 cars have paddle shifting now? I watched driven, and they still had the on the side shifter.

Don't listen to them.

It all depends on the driver. If Fernando Alonso drove a 1925 Nascar car against a 2025 F1 car he surely would win. I heard Alonso has a twin brother somewhere so you can't be 100% sure.

[pabloh20 1]

Don't listen to them.

It all depends on the driver. If Fernando Alonso drove a 1925 Nascar car against a 2025 F1 car he surely would win. I heard Alonso has a twin brother somewhere so you can't be 100% sure.

That explains who shares the family brain cell

[HandyNZL 1]

Just to clarify a few things:

1. NASCAR chassis are infact custom built. Our South American friend has had one too many corn chips and has no idea what he is on about anymore - I mean he even thinks #46 has a human name - ha!. NASCAR teams have about 7 different chassis that they design and build, and the top teams will only use each chassis around three times. They have different chassis for different tracks; short oval, super speedway, road, high bank, low bank etc etc. As much as F1 uses swaybars and the like, so too do NASCAR with different asymetrical wheelbase setups, extreme camber and toe differences etc etc all to make the car self turn on the track. Each is technical in their own right.

2. Honda BAR set the land speed record for an F1 car using a rear wingless car. It had a single vertical plane atop the engine cover though for straight line stability. I can't remember the top speed they hit, but the whole project was to top 400kph. They did this and some. The engine was the homologated V8, but with 20,000ish RPM

3. John Bernard designed the flappy shifters for the Ferrari race team way back in 1989. This was light years ahead of any road car, and infact what you have in some road cars is trickle down tech from F1. Paddle shift became de-riguer for any self respecting F1 team from 1995 (the last time a fully manual 'box was used). This is why, today, HRT are the only team without paddle shift. They have no self respect. (Actually that is only half true...they have paddle shift.)

4. Driven is a Hollywood movie staring Sylvester Stallone. Apart from some very nice Lola's and Reynards, the rest leaves a lot to be desired. However, the coin trick should be debunked by Mythbusters. I think that would be a fun episode that proves you can not melt a coin into a race tyre, no matter how sticky it is.

5. The restrictor plates run in NASCAR are used to control air intake into the engines. Airflow is the number one consideration for making horsepower. If you haven't got airflow, it doesn't matter how high your cams lift, or if you have a steel forged crank or some highly polished one. You need the right amount of air to make the fuel go bang in the piston chamber. Many forms of motorsport use restrictor plates as a means of ensuring all cars have the same airflow, and to ensure people are not honing open inlet manifolds to get an advantage. Also different cylinders use differing amounts of air due to firing order, and it is infact a benefit to have some cylinder inlets larger than the others so as to address this difference. For example, on a Kent Crossflow engine, the engine of choice on Formula Ford from 1969 to 1998/9, cylinders 2 & 3 starve for air whilst cylinders 1 & 4 cycle through the exhaust stroke. This can be addressed by using (illegal) larger bore inlets. F1 does have a restriction, however it is only expressed as a maximum inlet size, and the FIA homologate all the engines (ie check em, bag em and tag em) to ensure that no one is exceeding the size. The reduction / restriction of the RPM is two fold. In simple terms, the higher the RPM, the more horsepower you will get (there are a few other factors involved, but when it boils down, RPM is the controlling factor). This is why an F1 car can produce 750BHp with a 2.4 litre engine. It is why my Formula Ford can produce 116Hp at 5700rpm and is only 1600cc, and why a Formula Junior / Formula 3 car from 1965 can produce 125Hp with 1000cc - it runs at 10000rpm. Likewise, a low revving engine can acquire high horsepower by having large capacity - think a 5000cc, 7500rpm CanAm car from the 1970's. The other reason why F1 cars are limited to 18000rpm is to give longer life...each engine has to last 3 race weekends on average. Pulling the rpm down from what was once 20000rpm to a measly 18000rpm means the engines are now only running at 90% of capacity, and thus much less stressed. The 2014 engines will rev around 15000rpm, but are going to have a turbo (to push more air in) to make up the difference. The downside to high rpm running engines is that the powerband is much smaller. A modern F1 cars powerband is about 16000-18000rpm. So only 2000rpm out of 18000 is actually of much use out on track. Thus the cars are geared to maintain the revs in those areas. However, gearing a car is a whole other issue.

[Quiet One 15]

What he said.

Ish.

[Rainmaster 7]

+1 (ish).

[Caesar 0]

yes

[HandyNZL 1]

FFS (ish)

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Just to clarify a few things:

1. NASCAR chassis are infact custom built. Our South American friend has had one too many corn chips and has no idea what he is on about anymore - I mean he even thinks #46 has a human name - ha!. NASCAR teams have about 7 different chassis that they design and build, and the top teams will only use each chassis around three times. They have different chassis for different tracks; short oval, super speedway, road, high bank, low bank etc etc. As much as F1 uses swaybars and the like, so too do NASCAR with different asymetrical wheelbase setups, extreme camber and toe differences etc etc all to make the car self turn on the track. Each is technical in their own right.

2. Honda BAR set the land speed record for an F1 car using a rear wingless car. It had a single vertical plane atop the engine cover though for straight line stability. I can't remember the top speed they hit, but the whole project was to top 400kph. They did this and some. The engine was the homologated V8, but with 20,000ish RPM

3. John Bernard designed the flappy shifters for the Ferrari race team way back in 1989. This was light years ahead of any road car, and infact what you have in some road cars is trickle down tech from F1. Paddle shift became de-riguer for any self respecting F1 team from 1995 (the last time a fully manual 'box was used). This is why, today, HRT are the only team without paddle shift. They have no self respect. (Actually that is only half true...they have paddle shift.)

4. Driven is a Hollywood movie staring Sylvester Stallone. Apart from some very nice Lola's and Reynards, the rest leaves a lot to be desired. However, the coin trick should be debunked by Mythbusters. I think that would be a fun episode that proves you can not melt a coin into a race tyre, no matter how sticky it is.

5. The restrictor plates run in NASCAR are used to control air intake into the engines. Airflow is the number one consideration for making horsepower. If you haven't got airflow, it doesn't matter how high your cams lift, or if you have a steel forged crank or some highly polished one. You need the right amount of air to make the fuel go bang in the piston chamber. Many forms of motorsport use restrictor plates as a means of ensuring all cars have the same airflow, and to ensure people are not honing open inlet manifolds to get an advantage. Also different cylinders use differing amounts of air due to firing order, and it is infact a benefit to have some cylinder inlets larger than the others so as to address this difference. For example, on a Kent Crossflow engine, the engine of choice on Formula Ford from 1969 to 1998/9, cylinders 2 & 3 starve for air whilst cylinders 1 & 4 cycle through the exhaust stroke. This can be addressed by using (illegal) larger bore inlets. F1 does have a restriction, however it is only expressed as a maximum inlet size, and the FIA homologate all the engines (ie check em, bag em and tag em) to ensure that no one is exceeding the size. The reduction / restriction of the RPM is two fold. In simple terms, the higher the RPM, the more horsepower you will get (there are a few other factors involved, but when it boils down, RPM is the controlling factor). This is why an F1 car can produce 750BHp with a 2.4 litre engine. It is why my Formula Ford can produce 116Hp at 5700rpm and is only 1600cc, and why a Formula Junior / Formula 3 car from 1965 can produce 125Hp with 1000cc - it runs at 10000rpm. Likewise, a low revving engine can acquire high horsepower by having large capacity - think a 5000cc, 7500rpm CanAm car from the 1970's. The other reason why F1 cars are limited to 18000rpm is to give longer life...each engine has to last 3 race weekends on average. Pulling the rpm down from what was once 20000rpm to a measly 18000rpm means the engines are now only running at 90% of capacity, and thus much less stressed. The 2014 engines will rev around 15000rpm, but are going to have a turbo (to push more air in) to make up the difference. The downside to high rpm running engines is that the powerband is much smaller. A modern F1 cars powerband is about 16000-18000rpm. So only 2000rpm out of 18000 is actually of much use out on track. Thus the cars are geared to maintain the revs in those areas. However, gearing a car is a whole other issue.

lovely stuff!!!

[Delta 0]

To me, the most telling thing is cornering speed, that is where Formula 1 cars really come into their own, nothing even comes close to them.

[armil 3]

Just to clarify a few things:

4. Driven is a Hollywood movie staring Sylvester Stallone. Apart from some very nice Lola's and Reynards, the rest leaves a lot to be desired. However, the coin trick should be debunked by Mythbusters. I think that would be a fun episode that proves you can not melt a coin into a race tyre, no matter how sticky it is.

Correct if I'm wrong but in the same movie (driven) the Indy Cars drove to the city and pop open the sewer top just by drove over them thanks to the ground effect; that will be a nice myth to try too

[Quiet One 15]

Correct if I'm wrong but in the same movie (driven) the Indy Cars drove to the city and pop open the sewer top just by drove over them thanks to the ground effect; that will be a nice myth to try too

What about testing Emilio Estevez stunto from Freejack where his car goes flying and crashes against a bridge? Petrov would be ideal for that one.

BTW, that awful movie is great for two reasons: Mick Jagger, and the fact that the "distant future" with time travellers and body snatchers was...2009.