8 ms·
The differences between an IndyCar and a F1 car
- dralley 11mo agoIronically, a lot of this is only relevant until... this Sunday. After Sunday, the F1 season is over, and 2026 cars will be very different. 2026 cars will have less downforce and less drag (closer to Indycar) but also "active" aerodynamics (elements on both the front and rear wings can flatten on-demand to reduce drag, or raise to produce more downforce) and a hybrid power unit closer to 50/50 split between ICE and electric horsepower than the current 85/15 split for F1 cars or 80/20 for Indycars. F1 next year will probably be chaos because there are so many different aspects that teams may have gotten wrong in development. --- There are some inaccuracies though regardless. I am pretty sure that teams do not go through multiple sets of brake pads in a weekend. They last several races, no different than Indycar.
- themafia 11mo agoAlso the end of DRS. Good riddance.
- entrep 11mo agoNot really. > Z-mode means the front and rear wings are closed which generates more downforce for the corners. In X-mode, the drivers can open the flaps which will reduce drag and increase speed.
- JetSetIlly 11mo agoThe problem with DRS is the zones and only being able to use it when close behind another car. My understanding is the X-Mode can be used pretty much anywhere and anytime.
- KeplerBoy 11mo agoSure, but it's no longer about a gap to the car in front.
- InitialLastName 11mo agoDriver-controlled aero has the potential to be way more interesting than the strictly-limited current DRS implementation. The most interesting DRS era was in 2011-2012 when drivers could operate it (almost) anywhere they wanted in practice and qualifying. There was an element of risk in how early you could open it exiting a corner, and we saw real mistakes from drivers pushing that limit. More driver controls leads to more opportunities for talented drivers to make a difference, which leads to a better sports product.
- scotchmi_st 11mo agoInterestingly there are discussions about moving back to having the majority of the power from IC engines as soon as the end of the decade, with synthetic fuels. Personally I can’t wait.
- jack_tripper 11mo agoI would like that too, but it's highly unlikely to happen since Audi and GM just entered the engine making business in F1 for the start of 2026 and they invested shit tonne of millions into engine R&D specifically for the new turbo-V6 regulations, so moving the goalposts again so soon would just rug-pull their investments, and such the FIA assured them the new regulations are gonna stay for a while. Bummer.
- monkeydust 11mo agoWhat's happening with synthetic fuels? I read while back Porsche investing in factories to produce but that was a few years ago, is it a bit of snake oil wrt to it's alleged green credentials or simply can't scale at an acceptable cost?
- nicholassmith 11mo agoThe World Endurance Championship has been using synthetic fuels since 2022 from TotalEnergies (https://competition.totalenergies.com/en/auto/endurance/wec/excellium-racing-100-new-100-certified-sustainable-fuel https://competition.totalenergies.com/en/auto/endurance/wec/...), there's also Sustain (https://sustain-fuels.com/ https://sustain-fuels.com/) in the UK as well who seem to be growing reasonably well but are a mix of sustainable & fossil fuels. There's some variability of how green they are, you still need to burn something so there's going to be emissions as well but they've been validated in the motorsport labs as being viable and they're starting to make their way to consumers.
- pbmonster 11mo ago> hybrid power unit closer to 50/50 split between ICE and electric horsepower Fun fact, at those ratios it would make a lot of sense to use an electric continuous variable transmission (eCVT) - connect the engine and the motor with a planetary gear set to the wheels, done. The electric motor spins backwards when going slow and forward when going fast. Those eCVTs can be lighter, more efficient an deliver more power across the entire range. But they're illegal in F1 - because they make the car sound boring.
- globular-toast 11mo agoHow Toyota's eCVT transmission works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppyK3ZlUbtM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppyK3ZlUbtM (Nerd snipe warning: the Weber Auto channel is brilliant and has lessons about all kinds of transmission and engine types). When it comes to something like F1 I think it's OK for efficiency to not be the top priority. Road vehicles absolutely should be as light and efficient as possible with strict limits on pollution (including noise). But it's OK for society to have a few things like F1 that are just for fun. We just don't want everyone to be driving F1 cars around their neighbourhoods or have an F1 race every week.
- pbmonster 11mo agoI think the F1 teams would all switch to racing versions of those transmissions the second they would be allowed to do so. The efficiency gains wouldn't even be important in comparison (until you start bringing significantly less fuel than your opponents), but just the reduction in weight and size (important for aero considerations) would be worth it. Also, the power gains from always running the ICE (and its turbo) at the perfect sweet spot in the power curve would be a giant advantage in racing.
- globular-toast 11mo agoYeah, but a huge part of F1 is the sound. It's iconic in the true sense of the word. I can totally understand them wanting to protect it as part of the brand. Enthusiasts might be into other types of motor racing, but F1 sounds fast. Everyone understands that.
- PaulRobinson 11mo agoRight now we're in a stage of the current regs where 5 manufacturers can be within tenths of a second of each other in qualifying, and the other 5 are not that far out. Five different teams have gone away with the technical regulations, gone into completely different factories, wind tunnels and simulator setups, some of them have bought in components like engines and suspension but basically have had to build and test everything else and work out all the aero across the wings and floor, and come out over a 5km track to be within meters of each other. If you think about that a bit, it's kind of crazy and mad. But it also means to shake things up you need to throw the dice again. It's like this generation has evolved to find the peak apex design and configuration for each and every circuit to the point where teams with more limited resources can now get competitive (yay for Williams last week!), and it's time for a new generation. I agree next year could be chaos. I think teams that have been consistently applying discipline and consistency will continue to do well (Red Bull, McLaren, Mercedes), those that are catching on will continue to rise (William, Haas), and those who haven't realised that's the name of the game yet (Ferrari, Alpine), will continue their passion-fuelled mismanaged decline. The new players (Audi taking on Sauber, Cadillac), are going to be interesting to watch. But within 5 years, everyone will be back to within a few tenths of each other over a 5km circuit, and we'll probably need to go again...
- jabl 11mo agoShame they're getting rid of the MGU-H just when it's starting to roll out in production road cars (the latest 911, specifically).
- madduci 11mo agoAnd Formula E comes with its 4the generation, becoming closer to actual F1, but with more acceleration
- somat 11mo agoI think the big failure of formula e was the way they failed to promote pit replaceable battery packs. It is debatable how much motorsport tech trickles down to improve our daily motor tech, I think this was much more the case early on and now days the sport tech is so rarefied it does not help us much. But mass market electric cars are still fairly new and I think that sporting competitiveness can do a lot of good here. The big one that was missed were easy to replace generic battery packs. But I also think the biggest failure in f1 was the removal of refueling, so what do I know? footnote: in nascar it was the five bold lugnuts, the pit stops with five bolt lugnuts were absolutely gorgeous compared to the single bolt they use now... and we wept.
- dralley 11mo agoThe failure of Formula E is that they don't have F1TV or some similar convenient streaming platform, and they leaned too hard into gimmicks.
- dogman1050 11mo agoFor me, the failure of Fe is all the races are run on street courses with few high speed turns and no elevation change through the lap. That, and they sound like an NBA games with more tire squeaking noise than the propulsion system sounds. I'm really looking forward to this weekend's F1 finale. Three drivers have a shot at the top three spots in the championship.
- dralley 11mo agoThe Gen4 Formula E cars should be interesting. Much more capable.
- Refreeze5224 11mo agoI don't follow F1 at all, but I do see references to it a ton more than I ever used to, so I assume it is surging in popularity. Why would they make such drastic changes for 2026? Is it to intentionally shake things up and make it more interesting? If so, I love that that is something they are willing to do. Most pro sports are pretty traditional and change quit slowly. Even the fastest changing league (in my opinion), the NBA, still changes quite slowly.
- dralley 11mo agoRegulation changes are pretty common (they happen every couple of years, 2014, 2017, 2022, 2026 etc.) and basically yes they do serve to intentionally shake things up. Regulation changes are not typically as large as this though - this is definitely the biggest change in more than a decade. All the regs changes since 2014 have mostly left the engines alone and changed only the aerodynamic rules, whereas 2026 combines a huge change to both engines and aerodynamic rules. Part of the appeal of F1 is the constant technological development arms race aspect so it's not just that it shakes up the order but that it's pushing the arms race in a direction that manufacturers (e.g. Honda, Ford, Audi, Mercedes, GM) are interested in. The 50/50 hybrid split was aimed at attracting manufacturers and keeping them interested in the sport and it has been basically successful at doing so, so long as it doesn't turn into a disaster lol. Active aerodynamics is controversial but somewhat necessary to make the 50/50 split work, because otherwise the cars would be too draggy.
- krbaccord94f 11mo ago[flagged]
- DiggyJohnson 11mo agoWhat is your point?
- bonsai_spool 11mo agoThis is an automated bot account
- thunderbong 11mo agoSure looks like it. All the comments from this account are just some statements. No opinions or suggestions at all!
- ljf 11mo agoThere seems to he a good chunk of them here these days - I guess they are easier than ever to make. I just down vote them and flag them and hope that disuades them creators.
- Mistletoe 11mo agoIt’s fascinating, what is the purpose? It spouts pure gibberish pretty much.
- wartijn_ 11mo agoMy guess would be it’s to have accounts with some comment history that can be used for spam. Otherwise you’ll always be spamming from accounts with green names.
- DiggyJohnson 11mo agoIndyCar is one of the coolest competitions on earth that nobody cares about. Not just the 500, which is amazing, but the full calendar schedule.
- epolanski 11mo agoPersonally I can't get excited about oval circuits.
- lolbert291 11mo agoclutch your tinkle about it some more
- cardiffspaceman 11mo agoI attended the Long Beach and Laguna Seca races in 1995. Nothing in common with ovals except they were closed loop, just like Monte Carlo.
- dave333 11mo agoThink of an oval as two straights connected by two Eau Rouge nearly flat style corners. Short one mile ovals offer some of the best racing as there are multiple lines around the corners and you can often race side by side. An F1 race on something like the Milwaukee Mile would be absolutely fantastic with the leaders coming through traffic after about 10 laps.
- rozap 11mo agoTrue, but that's kind of a good thing as a fan. Cheap tickets, and you get to wander around the paddock as they prep the cars before the race, even with a regular ticket. That level of access in F1 is not possible for regular people.
- AndrewKemendo 11mo agoIts so interesting that the difference between Indy and F1 in terms of lap times is objectively marginal but subjectively extreme. I would have guessed given the extreme cost difference between them there would have been a significant gap (like 30 seconds) but the fact that it’s only a few seconds difference is surprising.
- vortegne 11mo agomaking a car go fast on a straight bit of road is relatively cheap. making a car take a corner a couple tenths of a second faster is very expensive. and there's only so many corners in a lap. add up those tenths - that's your few seconds of difference!
- nolito 11mo agoNot really. F1 regularly changes the rules to make the cars slower for safety reasons. F1 is on a completely different level than IndyCar. The drivers are also on a different level compared to anything else.
- Ekaros 11mo agoGetting faster is hard and expensive really. You can be pretty cheap and still be quite fast. On other side, F1 has for very long time kept speeds down when new innovative ways to gain it has been discovered. For some reason I can not understand drivers and spectators dying in accidents is bad look for the sport... As such it really is not best we could technically do.
- 0x457 11mo agoI love F1 (Give my boy Lando his WDC!), but I wouldn't mind a more unhinged version without human drivers, at least not in the cockpit. Not going to happen because ones and zeros can't sell expensive watches like F1 drivers.
- trevwilson 11mo agoIf you haven't seen it, there's actually been a couple races of autonomously controlled formula-type cars at the Abu Dhabi circuit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9LLZ5mb5cA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9LLZ5mb5cA
- fcatalan 11mo agoI think the cars reflect pretty well the intended ethos and "vibes" of both competitions. Indycar still feels a bit like "dudes racing cars" while F1 has become a corporate hi-tech extravaganza. Both have their appeal, but I feel Indy produces better actual racing for the spectator despite being slower and less refined technically. I do watch both.
- zeroc8 11mo ago[flagged]
- jabl 11mo agoI think they lost it when they started dictating what kind of engines teams can use. Just limit the max fuel flow, and then let the teams go wild. Want to use a gas turbine? Go for it!
- theflyingelvis 11mo agoThis! I have said this for years now. It would open up the sport to some real innovation.
- dralley 11mo agoThe "kids" are on average a lot better at driving than most of the "adults" of 30 years ago. Pay drivers barely exist anymore, and even e.g. Stroll is not bad compared to the pay drivers of decades past, who were genuinely terrible. V10s are overrated. They sound nice, yes, but ask the drivers who have actually driven them and they actually prefer the V6T hybrids in a lot of ways. It turns out that actually sitting inches away from the V10 with the associated noise and vibrations kinda sucks.
- squigz 11mo agoAnd MX-5 Cup is better than both!
- themafia 11mo agoThey put a few full NASCAR races recorded solely from a drivers perspective up on youtube every once in a while. I never appreciated that sport until I started watching those. It's far more brutal and compact than I ever had expected with the shift in perspective making all the difference. It's "dudes racing for their lives."
- tossaway0 11mo agoThe reason these series always get compared is because Indy’s tight rules make it less compelling while F1’s more open rules make it less competitive. WEC (and IMSA a bit) solve those problems but they have so many drivers and teams that it takes a lot of dedication to follow along. In the end you end up wondering if your favorites could hack it in the WRC.
- parpfish 11mo agoI think that an ideal race league would use WRC-inspired homologation rules and little else (except for some safety features) Any chassis size. Whatever aero you want. Any engine size/configuration. The only constraint is that it needs to be something you can put into production. we’d get to see a Cambrian explosion of weird race car variants that would make race day strategizing wild. and we’d really get to showcase cool creative engineering. And we’d eventually see the benefits of that engineering trickle down into normal production cars we all drive
- rgmerk 11mo agoIt's been done. Look up the Can-Am series. At best, it would last a couple of years until the cars got way too fast for the tracks, and the manufacturers were no longer prepared to invest in it because there was no commercial return in it for them. The idea that there is any significant relationship between what makes a good production car, even a sports car, and a racing car was always dubious and today is frankly nonsensical. The way to make a car fast round a race track basically comes down to the amount of downforce it can produce, and the power of the engine. Downforce is almost completely irrelevant to road driving, as taking corners fast enough to generate cornering forces of over 1G is frankly suicidal on the road. As for engines, aside from the fact that the internal combustion engine is doomed in road transport (despite what the current administration thinks), producing an engine with performance that exceeds what even good drivers are capable of handling without electronics doing the job for them was solved at least 20 years ago, and continues to be a solved problem despite tightening of emissions standards. In any case, while lighter, smaller, lower cars remain the preferred option for motorsport applications, all anyhbody wants to actually buy, particularly in the United States, is gargantuan SUVs and pickup trucks, which makes any application of motorsport technology for the road moot.
- pmontra 11mo agoThis is the last season with Renault as a F1 engine manufacturer. Their team (Alpine) will use Mercedes engine from 2026. There will be many changes next year. Audi enters as manufacturer with its own team (they bought Sauber.) The two Red Bull teams will use their own Red Bull engine, with the help of Ford. Honda will power Aston Martin. The new Cadillac team will use Ferrari engines and build its own engine for 2028.
- jorisboris 11mo agoIn the old Michel Vaillant comics the f1 and indy cars seem to be interchangeable, they compete in each other’s championships Not sure if true given that it’s fiction, but they do seem to be based on reality
- easyThrowaway 11mo agoUp until the late '80s-early '90s cars and rules were rather similar, and drivers like Andretti or Mansell were able to move between categories with relative ease. I'd say that the rift become apparent in '94, after the safety changes introduced due to Senna's Death and the massive shift in pilot training brought by Michael Schumacher.
- jecel 11mo agoThe Indy 500 was actually part of the official Formula 1 calendar from 1950 to 1960, though the two series diverged after that. Some Indy features (refueling, changing tires even if they didn't have a puncture, safety cars) got adopted by F1 through the 1980s, specially as F1 started to lose audience to the American series in the early 1990s.
- rascul 11mo agoThere was a time when the Indy 500 was part of both the F1 and IndyCar championships (whatever they were called at the time).
- mk_stjames 11mo agoThe table lists F1 cars as having "Carbon fiber brake calipers". This is glaringly incorrect. All current brake calipers are machined from aluminum, specifically Aluminum-Lithium or Aluminum-Copper alloys. There is a rule denoting bulk elasticity modulus limit on brake calipers of 80 GPa, which was set just at that to allow the more exotic Lithium Aluminum alloys but to dis-allow Titanium alloys or anything else stiffer (There was experimentation with Titanium calipers in the past.) Absolutely no calipers are made from composites, CF, graphite, or otherwise. Discs are Carbon-carbon.
- ides_dev 11mo agoThe biggest difference that stood out to me was that the fuel compositions are almost exactly opposite; 85/15 ethanol/gasoline for Indy and 10/90 for F1. I was able to find plenty of articles saying that next year F1 will move to a "100% sustainable fuel", but none that actually mentioned the composition. Is it likely to move closer to the make-up of the Indy fuel?
- dralley 11mo agoEvery engine supplier has their own fuel supplier contract so the fuels won't be completely identical.
- cricalix 11mo agoTangentially related would be Adrian Newey's memoir "How to build a car"; he talks about both F1 and Indy cars he worked on. ISBN 9780008196806
- dboreham 11mo agoAll designed either in England or Italy though..
- minton 11mo ago> An IndyCar is heavier than a Formula 1 car: while a Formula 1 car weighs 1759 pounds / 798 kg including the driver, an IndyCar weighs 1700 pounds / 771 kg on road and street courses, excluding the driver. This seems to contradict itself.
- nickff 11mo agoThe statement implies an assumption that the drivers weigh / mass more than 59 lbs. / 27 kg, as they are included in the first measurement, but not the second. This is a reasonable assumption, as even Indycar drivers are all adult males, and none are small enough to weigh / mass less than that.
- jodleif 11mo agoThe huge difference with f1 is that each team more or less make their own _bespoke_ car (except engine). With indycar is much more of a spec series where Dallara(?) makes the chassies for each team.