[ptack]

One difference in the Indy car favor is that it's made to go much further than an F1 car. F1 cars are inherently limited by fuel and I'm not sure their systems could last for a 500 mile race. Then again, they're not designed to.

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by ptack

One difference in the Indy car favor is that it's made to go much further than an F1 car. F1 cars are inherently limited by fuel and I'm not sure their systems could last for a 500 mile race. Then again, they're not designed to.

If they had enough fuel, I don't know why you think they couldn't go 500 miles.

They use 3 engines for the course of 21 races. Assuming they have no reliability issues.

[yco]

in 2000's and before there were engines only for qualifying in F1.. like 30-40km tops engine operating lifespan.. so if they would need to race 500 miles they d go.. but in F1 all races is less than 300-310km total distance..

this engine rule and no fueling cause 2 things that i really hate and people is overlooking that.. when they have to use engines longer they try to save the engine in every possible moment.. reduces the pace.. and fuel limit.. same story every possible moment trying to fuel save.. less power, longer braking distances etc.. again lower pace.. its against the racing soul..

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by yco

in 2000's and before there were engines only for qualifying in F1.. like 30-40km tops engine operating lifespan.. so if they would need to race 500 miles they d go.. but in F1 all races is less than 300-310km total distance..

this engine rule and no fueling cause 2 things that i really hate and people is overlooking that.. when they have to use engines longer they try to save the engine in every possible moment.. reduces the pace.. and fuel limit.. same story every possible moment trying to fuel save.. less power, longer braking distances etc.. again lower pace.. its against the racing soul..

I'm with you. I'd like to see the fuel flow limits removed and see what these engines are actually capable of.

But no fuel restrictions, these engines would add another 500-600 hp easily.

And then safety becomes a concern again. With no fuel restrictions, these cars would see crazy top speeds at Mexico and Monza.

[ptack]

Originally Posted by OkieSnuffBox

If they had enough fuel, I don't know why you think they couldn't go 500 miles.

They use 3 engines for the course of 21 races. Assuming they have no reliability issues.

The way things are designed on such a cutting edge today the engines probably don't have very many extra continuous miles in them and it's not just the engine, the entire machine is designed to run as hard as possible without failing for a limited amount of time. There's no points given for building in excess durability across the entire system, especially if requires more weight, lower performance and more money. I would imagine the limiting factor today might be something minor like a filter or sensor that isn't made to run several hundred miles without servicing. A more extreme example would be comparing an Indy car to a 24 hours P1 car.

[Grumpy Old Man]

[jimbobiggens]

Originally Posted by Banilejo

How much does a top F1 team spend developing and building a car? How about IndyCar? Taking that into account maybe the difference is not that bad? I prefer F1 myself.

When I worked at Alumax the main entrance had a plaque describing the outstanding engineering that went into the creation of the Alumax plant in Jackson, TN. The cost to build the plant was $100,000,000.

Up in the casthouse was a full-sized display of Stefan Johansson and the Alumax indy car. Along with the pic was a statement that it had cost Alumax $100,000,000 in total to put their name on the side of the car.

I vividly remember thinking we were just a toy to the home office.