is f1 is crown jewel of motorsports?

[jaslfc]

is there a track where the carts/indy or f1 car races at... maybe we can see the difference in timing

[chippa]

DaveKillans i completly dissagree with you. F1 by far has the best performance out of all race sports. The reason they spend soo much money on it is because they need to when their using the best parts money can buy

[joseff]

Are the cars quicker? Naw, a Top Fuel dragster puts that to shame. Same with top end speed. Additionally, most NASCAR events average a much higher speed than F1. In cornering I believe that a full bodied car like a LMP most likely gets through the corners quicker. Braking? I do give that to F1.

Okay chippa, we're waiting for your arguments against the statement above.

[PNSD]

LOL an LMP quicker than an F1 at cornering ? Thats a joke right.

[zac510]

is there a track where the carts/indy or f1 car races at... maybe we can see the difference in timing

Canada


LMP cars are much heavier but what they do have over F1 is much less drag and hence their top speed potential is much higher.

[DaveKillens]

DaveKillans i completly dissagree with you. F1 by far has the best performance out of all race sports. The reason they spend soo much money on it is because they need to when their using the best parts money can buy

First off chippa, with all respect and sincerity, welcome to THE forum. I'm glad to meet you.
It's true that in F1 vast amounts of money are spent on the cars, and for each race the cars are assembled using the best materials, constructed with great care to the highest level of precision. But compared to the entire budget for a team, the actual costs of the actual cars that reach the grid is but a fraction. A great amount is spent on research and development, public relations, salaries, and so on. With all the restrictive rules, this has almost become a spec series, and vast amounts of resources are spent on trying to get the smallest improvement in components. In business terms, it's pouring money well past the point of diminishing returns. They are not efficient, and personally I'm not impressed by the huge budgets.
My own attraction to F1 is based on the actual racing, the personalities, and the drama. It's exciting, fascinating racing done by great drivers and teams on wonderful circuits.

[Ray]

This is where the future is. Sports are games, games for children. Is football a profession? NO. It's a game. Once adults take on top of that, all the joy is spoiled. Once you say "Let's go to work", instead of "Let's go to play", all the fun is taken away.

First off, Ciro, I LOVE your sarcasm. You have turned it into an art form.

When all my friends make fun of me about 'guys making left turns all day,' and racing (NASCAR for the most part in my case) not being a sport, I reply with a quote by Ernest Hemingway. "There are only three true sports: mountain climbing, auto racing, and bull fighting. All the rest are children's games played by adults."

I think F1 is not necessarily the crown jewel, but the best INTERNATIONAL racing series. The performance of an F1 car is unmatched. Except like Dave said, in certain areas of racing performance. Overall they are the best. I have not had the priviledge of seeing a race live, but I want to really, really bad.

[DaveKillens]

It's definitely worth the effort Ray. I've been to just about every major motorsport type .. NASCAR, CART, F1, even Can-Am. And F1 definitely is special, the excitement, cars, sounds, it's a very unique atmosphere and event.

[Rob W]

I guess that F1 leads the way, not in every area of performance as Dave rightly pointed out, but in development. Much of the areas of F1 performance where they're beaten is because the rules dictate limits on size, weight, materials etc. The same could be said of other series but no-one is ever going to convince the world that NASCAR is pushing any technical paths with regards to engine technology or gear-boxes or aero... but they built their series deliberately with these things to make it a) affordable and b) more stock (i.e. closer racing).

IRL and CART also both lack severely in technology stakes compared to F1 primarily because of 'sharing' rules which deny any one team the ability to have an exclusive chassis or engine. But they still out-perform F1 cars in some areas - because they're made for their specific intended purpose.

F1 as a matter of it's operational set-up contributes more to the motoring industry through flow-down technology and ideas than NASCAR, IRL and CART combined ever could. This is one reason F1 is the leader in motorsport. The pure competitive attitude amongst teams in technology spurs development along in a way which doesn't even exist in the US racing leagues.

Also, F1 on TV is a spectacle which no other form of motorsport has come close to (yet). The quality of footage, presentation and spectacle (for sponsors etc) is what sets it apart in many ways and, although this has nothing to do with the cars, is another reason of why F1 is considered the pinnacle of motorsport.

Rob W

[Ray]

I guess that F1 leads the way, not in every area of performance as Dave rightly pointed out, but in development. Much of the areas of F1 performance where they're beaten is because the rules dictate limits on size, weight, materials etc. The same could be said of other series but no-one is ever going to convince the world that NASCAR is pushing any technical paths with regards to engine technology or gear-boxes or aero... but they built their series deliberately with these things to make it a) affordable and b) more stock (i.e. closer racing).

IRL and CART also both lack severely in technology stakes compared to F1 primarily because of 'sharing' rules which deny any one team the ability to have an exclusive chassis or engine. But they still out-perform F1 cars in some areas - because they're made for their specific intended purpose.

F1 as a matter of it's operational set-up contributes more to the motoring industry through flow-down technology and ideas than NASCAR, IRL and CART combined ever could. This is one reason F1 is the leader in motorsport. The pure competitive attitude amongst teams in technology spurs development along in a way which doesn't even exist in the US racing leagues.

Also, F1 on TV is a spectacle which no other form of motorsport has come close to (yet). The quality of footage, presentation and spectacle (for sponsors etc) is what sets it apart in many ways and, although this has nothing to do with the cars, is another reason of why F1 is considered the pinnacle of motorsport.

Rob W

Dude, do you know anything about the history of NASCAR? Ever heard of Smokey Yunick?

[chippa]

I agree with you ray that the actual finished product of the car is only a farction os the money spent, but still with out spending that money on salarys and research you wouldnt have a car as good as they do "on the grid" but you are right. Joseff i am to tears that you compared a dragster to a F1. A dragster does a huge speed and allmost brakes down after a few hunderd Kilometers. A F1 would there is no way a LMP gets through the corners faster, the F1 is more grace full the way it glides through the bends instead of screaching through them.

[Rob W]

Dude, do you know anything about the history of NASCAR? Ever heard of Smokey Yunick?

Dude. Yes. I saw Days Of Thunder

Actually, what I said was clearly not about performance of the cars but the mindset of the series. NASCAR is not about innovation. It is essentially a stock-car racing series. Things have been done over the years both legally and illegally to tweak the nth out of the cars but it all boils down to a series geared for close-racing and the spectator who is at the oval - not broader international TV fans of motorsport. Formula One is aimed at those people and it shows in the drivers, the technology, the sponsors, the motoring companies and tire involved and the TV stations which license the TV rights.

Absolutely I've heard of Smokey Yunick.

Rob W

[Tom]

Wiki is very mossleading on Smokey Yunick:

Patents
Yunick is the inventor of at least nine US patents.

Patent Number Filed Title
4,068,635 January 17, 1978 Pressure vent
4,467,752 August 28, 1984 Internal combustion engine
4,503,833 March 12, 1985 Apparatus and operating method for an internal combustion engine
4,592,329 June 21, 1984 Apparatus and operating method for an internal combustion engine
4,637,365 October 22, 1984 Fuel conditioning apparatus and method
4,862,859 March 2, 1988 Apparatus and operating method for an internal combustion engine
5,246,086 March 15, 1991 Oil change system and method
5,515,712 June 17, 1994 Apparatus and method for testing combustion engines
5,645,368 May 29, 1996 Race track with novel crash barrier and method

See, I could have sworn there were internal combustion engines before and he seems to have patented the same thing twice.

Anyway CART and IRL cars both run on Methanol which is instantly enough to make them incomparable to F1 machines on Petrol. The American cars are also heavier and run on slick tyres so there's too much between them.
Drag racers often don't last 500m before combusting such is their running conditions. i heard of a funny car which managed to get from 0-100mph in less then a second, consider it takes just over 3 for an F1 car to acheive that, although the F1 car can get back to 0mph in andother 3secs and the Dragster would probably take another 10 secs.

[manchild]

I also think that F1 is very weak nowadays relative to top speeds and average speeds it had several decades ago when all teams together spent less money per year than what Ralf's salary is today.

In the early 70 F1 lapped Monza close to 250 kph of average speed, nowadays it does it with 270kph. Big deal. Top speeds are also not that impressive anymore since you can buy street legal cars that go faster.

Over 300 kph top speed is not stunning anymore. If FIA took more care of the safety and prevented tragedies in the early 90s I think that F1 in 2007 would exceed 400 kph top-end speed on fast circuits with average over 300.

In general, huge money isn't spent on best designs or best technology but on constant attempts to follow frequent and ridiculous rule changes imposed by FIA.

[Ray]

The same could be said of other series but no-one is ever going to convince the world that NASCAR is pushing any technical paths with regards to engine technology or gear-boxes or aero... but they built their series deliberately with these things to make it a) affordable and b) more stock (i.e. closer racing).

That is a completely untrue statement. There are advancements in cylinder heads alone that help street cars. For like the past 30 years. I mentioned Smokey because just his work alone has helped the big car manufacturers for many years up until his death. If you guys would like I will drag up some info, but there is WAY too much of it for a simple post here.

But yes Rob, I agree with you about the series' goal. It is geared towards the fans and close racing. But what's wrong with that? Sure they may not have fancy wings and 19,000 rpm engines, but they do contribute greatly to the advancement of the regular passenger cars everyday. And that does not mean they don't have advanced technology in them either. They look very simple, but at the same time they are pretty advanced. Hell, the piston speeds in an engine at Talladega is faster than any F1 engine. Looks can be very decieving.

Glad you saw Days of Thunder. Kinda like TOPGUN, in it's bad/horribleness but yet they are both such good movies.