Why not have an F1 Indy 500 once a year?

[Poleman]

I still don't get why F1 cars on an oval can't happen.

F1 cars, even with the skinniest wings the rules allow, generate a huge amount of downforce. This allows you to pull over 5G (briefly and laterally) in some existing (not banked) fast corners.

A car with no downforce will see similar G forces (for longer and vertically) on a banked corner because the centripetal force from the banking is replacing the absent downforce.

The reason F1 cars can't race on an oval is that these forces are to some extent additive; an F1 car's driver would probably experience 8G on a banked turn that's giving a NASCAR driver a 3G turn. This increase in G-force combined with the increased duration it's experienced for and the fact that the majority of it is now vertical G-force would lead to drivers blacking-out in the turns. Then they crash, and someone probably dies.

Happily CART made this mistake in 2001 so F1 doesn't need to repeat it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_Firehawk_600

I never thought of the vertical G loads on a banked circuit...Very nice post WillerZ thanks =D>

[FW17]

I still don't get why F1 cars on an oval can't happen.

F1 cars, even with the skinniest wings the rules allow, generate a huge amount of downforce. This allows you to pull over 5G (briefly and laterally) in some existing (not banked) fast corners.

A car with no downforce will see similar G forces (for longer and vertically) on a banked corner because the centripetal force from the banking is replacing the absent downforce.

The reason F1 cars can't race on an oval is that these forces are to some extent additive; an F1 car's driver would probably experience 8G on a banked turn that's giving a NASCAR driver a 3G turn. This increase in G-force combined with the increased duration it's experienced for and the fact that the majority of it is now vertical G-force would lead to drivers blacking-out in the turns. Then they crash, and someone probably dies.

Happily CART made this mistake in 2001 so F1 doesn't need to repeat it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_Firehawk_600

I never thought of the vertical G loads on a banked circuit...Very nice post WillerZ thanks =D>

vertical g-force will be a function of speed, since an f1 car and nascar car in not going into the banked corner any faster the g-force will be same.

F1 car with wings flattened will produce less downforce than an cart car and have much more drag so let us not flatter ourselves here

banking at TMS is 24 deg, indy has a 9 deg banking speed carried through the corner is vastly different

the length and radius of corner at tms was unsitable to cart just as las vagas was unsuitable for irl last year

f1 at indy will be no different for to the current indy 500 with the exception of seeing 11 different chaises on track with a much more irritating engine noise that the crowd will leave

for car safety, the side pod will have to be extended closer to the front wheel axis to avoid a senna like wheel rebound (as it is exactly the way cars will end up on the wall), gear box crash structure will need to be lot stronger (to prevent a broken back like ralf`s)

[strad]

The reason F1 cars can't race on an oval is that these forces are to some extent additive; an F1 car's driver would probably experience 8G on a banked turn that's giving a NASCAR driver a 3G turn.

[raymondu999]

The reason F1 cars can't race on an oval is that these forces are to some extent additive; an F1 car's driver would probably experience 8G on a banked turn that's giving a NASCAR driver a 3G turn.

Perhaps you could elaborate on this insightful reply?

[WillerZ]

vertical g-force will be a function of speed

Yes.

an f1 car and nascar car in not going into the banked corner any faster the g-force will be same.

Doubtful. Admittedly I have only ever driven either in software simulations, but you can't keep your boot in round Indy in a NASCAR car in Gran Turismo 5; whereas you certainly can in an F1 car.

It would be interesting to know what the drivers were pulling through turn 13 in 2004; unfortunately I can find only various un-backed-up assertions that it was the highest loading ever seen in F1. Of course in 2004 it was just an acceleration zone onto the pit straight and they had reasonable wings to handle the infield corners; the loading at full-speed would be higher still.

[strad]

A The loads would not reach 8G
B You're confusing Texas at 24 degrees with INDY at a little over 9 degrees

[FW17]

I don't see difference between the two
one people rave about, the other one is despised

[Cam]

eh?

There's s distinct difference between the two. See the examples above - they show how both sides can be appeased by keeping true to both styles of racing. It'll never happen (probably) but the concept is good and remains true to both. A straight oval won't fly (or drive), as it's not where F1 is - nor would I want it to be (and this coming from a purist!). The ovals had their day and we can still watch them. Having a sweet mix of the two - would be awesome sauce - and I'd watch that in a heartbeat too. The drivers would probably enjoy it.

Take Marcus Ambrose from NASCAR - crap oval racer, great on track circuits. It would be good to see F1 drivers in a similar challenge and who can master the challenge. It's probably the only type of circuit missing from the calendar.

[wrcsti]

Take Marcus Ambrose from NASCAR - crap oval racer, great on track circuits. It would be good to see F1 drivers in a similar challenge and who can master the challenge. It's probably the only type of circuit missing from the calendar.

remember me?

But i agree Id like to see a bigger variety than the tilke drag racing tracks. Theres a reason most of the best races this year happened in non tilke tracks.

[Cam]

no, who's that? Whoever he is, so forgettable.......

[wrcsti]

Id like to add that about the G loading, with using the Firehawk 600 as an example. That was done in a 1.5 mile track, with speeds of 230mph at the start finish line, closer to 240 on corner entry. These indy/cart cars are built for high speed turning, and I mean very high speed, banked turning. Meaning they arent looking for much downforce, yet they have full ground effects to reduce drag (and again increase top speeds). F1 would likely use some sorts of infield which would mean higher downforce needed. Also on that Firehawk 600 they were only hitting 5g loads on the banking. By having a track with longer turns (daytona) they can get away with less g forces as the centripetal force will be lower because of the slower acceleration (acceleration in physics term, not racing terms) due to the larger arc of the turn. Id say an F1 likely wouldnt pull more Gs than nascar does at daytona. Again, because they will be coming out of slower turns when going into the banking. And with the new repaved daytona it is silky smooth meaning ride height can be more easilly set as compared to the old bumpy daytona. I honestly can not think of a better place for F1 to do oval ish racing in possibly the world.

[wrcsti]

no, who's that? Whoever he is, so forgettable.......

even the iceman has had troubles with oval racing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1giheWuPVYY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRi6WTzfq8o

[sknguy]

so what about the heritage when F1 ran Indy, Monza, and other oval circuits. Or do those not count?

Circuits certainly come and go, but how much history do these individual circuits have compared to the overall history of the series? There's a lot of things that have been a part of F1 history. An arguement could also be made that we go back to racing between hay bales with no run offs too but that isn't what F1 is about. Ovals were a part of the past, but the heritage began and remains road course racing.

[strad]

An arguement could also be made that we go back to racing between hay bales with no run offs too but that isn't what F1 is about

SHOULD BE

[flynfrog]

so what about the heritage when F1 ran Indy, Monza, and other oval circuits. Or do those not count?

Circuits certainly come and go, but how much history do these individual circuits have compared to the overall history of the series? There's a lot of things that have been a part of F1 history. An arguement could also be made that we go back to racing between hay bales with no run offs too but that isn't what F1 is about. Ovals were a part of the past, but the heritage began and remains road course racing.

do you really want to compare the heritage of Indy to F1? Or even the Monza oval for that matter. Or would you rather just declare what you think F1 should be and the rest of us agree.