Indy - Why not run the full oval?

Originally posted by BorderReiver
...One thing is for certain though, Jim Clarks are very, very, very rare, equally competetive on ovals, circuits and in rallies.

Which is why I was not sure whether to use him.

Nonetheless it demonstrates that pure talent can almost make up for experience. And there is quite a bit of talent in the top half of today's F1 drivers. Not so sure about some of the bottom half though.

And I've wondered as well about how computer simulations might assist with learning an oval, that would help to some extent, compared to what Clark had to handle.

I am a romantic: give me talent! I'd like to think that talent with some practice is enough: and only by having an oval F1 race would we ever really know!

The difference is different forms of motorsports are far more specialized these days. It is much more difficult to move from series to another and succeed from the word go. For example, there are gazillions of setup changes you can do with modern WRC car, and if you fail to find the "sweet spot", even otherwordly talent won´t bring you stage wins. Clark was special talent, both because of his skills in F1 and his versatility. But today even that isn´t enough. IMO the same applies to F1 -> ovals. I have no question in my mind the best drivers out there would have no problems with driving nor wheel-to-wheel racing (race strategy could be something only experience can teach, though). When it comes to racing close to other cars without crashing, eg Räikkönen is as good as anyone I have ever seen, in any form of motorsports. BUT. If he moved to IRL/NASCAR and failed to figure out the optimal setup, his race would be doomed before the green flag.

Without trying to diminish oval racing in any way, let me repeat: Mansell, Zanardi and Montoya went to the States without any prior experience of ovals. If somebody comes to F1 without any prior experience of road courses and starts winning right away, I´ll tip my hat to that driver. Could this be done? I don´t know.

Anyway...it´s too bad the drivers aren´t allowed to race different cars anymore...

Originally posted by Spunout
The difference is different forms of motorsports are far more specialized these days. It is much more difficult to move from series to another and succeed from the word go. For example, there are gazillions of setup changes you can do with modern WRC car, and if you fail to find the "sweet spot", even otherwordly talent won´t bring you stage wins. Clark was special talent, both because of his skills in F1 and his versatility. But today even that isn´t enough. IMO the same applies to F1 -> ovals. I have no question in my mind the best drivers out there would have no problems with driving nor wheel-to-wheel racing (race strategy could be something only experience can teach, though). When it comes to racing close to other cars without crashing, eg Räikkönen is as good as anyone I have ever seen, in any form of motorsports. BUT. If he moved to IRL/NASCAR and failed to figure out the optimal setup, his race would be doomed before the green flag.

Without trying to diminish oval racing in any way, let me repeat: Mansell, Zanardi and Montoya went to the States without any prior experience of ovals. If somebody comes to F1 without any prior experience of road courses and starts winning right away, I´ll tip my hat to that driver. Could this be done? I don´t know.

Anyway...it´s too bad the drivers aren´t allowed to race different cars anymore...

Good post! Yes and IMO things are much tighter than they used to be, and the key success factors are different now.

Originally posted by BorderReiver
Clark even span on it, and managed to keep off the wall (which on an oval is considered as great a miracle as walking backwards on water while cleansing lepers blindfolded).

*Cough* 66 *Cough* Twice!

Edit with Le Mans stuff.
Clark also did win his class at Le Mans the only time he competed in it. Lotus were screwed over by the Frog Officials and Jim vowed never to go back again, which he didn't despite Chunkys efforts to convince him to have another go.
Pity with his Ford connections he would've ended up in a GT40 which would've been something else.

I would like to think that a racer is a racer and they'll race well after they have a good amount of practice with the car they are racing. I think Montoya will do fine in a Cup car next year, especially the second time through the tracks.
Maybe that is too idealistic, but it is what I think now.

BUT....
I do wonder how hard a transition it is to go from a wings and slicks and downforce series to an oval stockcar with very little downforce and a solid rear axle. That would probably be a tough transition. JPM will tell us next year.


Could F1 run the oval? Yes. Would I like to see it? Time trials would be neat. Run it as a time trial event. Not racing. Ralf's hits at IMS were scary enough at the speed he was going. I don't think any of us want to see a modern F1 hit the safer barrier at 240mph.

Could F1 run the oval? Yes. Would I like to see it? Time trials would be neat. Run it as a time trial event. Not racing. Ralf's hits at IMS were scary enough at the speed he was going. I don't think any of us want to see a modern F1 hit the safer barrier at 240mph.

He didn´t hit the safer barrier, actually.

But still, both time trials and racing would be too dangerous IMO. The cars simply aren´t designed to take high-speed impacts with concrete walls.

Originally posted by Spunout
... But still, both time trials and racing would be too dangerous IMO. The cars simply aren´t designed to take high-speed impacts with concrete walls.

With respect Spunout, on what basis do you say that? Do you have anything we can read to verify that claim? I am not having a go at you, I am jsut interested in the issue.

For instance maybe the F1 cars aren't so bad, they are lighter than US cars, they have an advantage there. And they do travel quickly over several road coarses which have concrete walls, and they test on some tracks without ideal run offs. And the cars have a comprehensive crash program.

With respect Spunout, on what basis do you say that? Do you have anything we can read to verify that claim? I am not having a go at you, I am jsut interested in the issue.

Surely there are lots of quotes available, as this idea has been discussed before in USGP press conferences etc. With that been said what I wrote here was mostly my opinion, nothing more.

For instance maybe the F1 cars aren't so bad, they are lighter than US cars, they have an advantage there. And they do travel quickly over several road coarses which have concrete walls, and they test on some tracks without ideal run offs. And the cars have a comprehensive crash program.

Yeah, but I still think typical crashes on F1 courses are different. I am by no means an expert here, but it is my understanding the cars couldn´t survive crashing to concrete walls at high speed, even if the impact angles are (usually?) less severe compared to road courses. Ralf was good example: the car took the impact very well, but same cannot be said about human body.

I think they would need more metal around the drivers so the car could cave in and absorb impact energy. As it is, Now, if I am wrong, hopefully more engineering-minded folks will correct me.

The another thing is F1 cars are defitenitely more "nervous" on the limit, and I am not so convinced they could fully solve this problem for ovals. To me McNish/Suzuka 2002 is the perfect example of what should never ever happen on an oval, but what could happen with cars that are designed for road courses only. I actually think going trough that metal fence saved his life.

Basically, the history of oval racing has cases where somebody lost the rear end, overcorrected and ended up to the wall pretty much nose first. Most of them ended up very badly for the driver...

Originally posted by Spunout


Surely there are lots of quotes available, as this idea has been discussed before in USGP press conferences etc. With that been said what I wrote here was mostly my opinion, nothing more.



Yeah, but I still think typical crashes on F1 courses are different. I am by no means an expert here, but it is my understanding the cars couldn´t survive crashing to concrete walls at high speed, even if the impact angles are (usually?) less severe compared to road courses. Ralf was good example: the car took the impact very well, but same cannot be said about human body.

I think they would need more metal around the drivers so the car could cave in and absorb impact energy. As it is, Now, if I am wrong, hopefully more engineering-minded folks will correct me.

The another thing is F1 cars are defitenitely more "nervous" on the limit, and I am not so convinced they could fully solve this problem for ovals. To me McNish/Suzuka 2002 is the perfect example of what should never ever happen on an oval, but what could happen with cars that are designed for road courses only. I actually think going trough that metal fence saved his life.

Basically, the history of oval racing has cases where somebody lost the rear end, overcorrected and ended up to the wall pretty much nose first. Most of them ended up very badly for the driver...

Oh Spunout I am quite amazed with what you have said. Composites designed to deform are better material for safety than "metal". F1 designers realised that way back in the 70s. Do the US open wheelers have metal around them?

F1 cars can be made stable, its just wing settiings. If you think the teams don't know how to achieve that, then it really is a shame they don't do an oval, you'd be surprised. Honda's on salt F1 did have a vertical tail wing on the back, but don't let that fool you, the wing allowed the downforce to be lowered for high speed. Oh and that wing on the Honda was legal. And the Honda clocked over 400KMH one way, on a slippery surface, with no control problems.

F1 would get around any problems with ovals. If jack Brabham, Jim Clark and all the rest of the many old F1 cars could do so with cars not wind tunnel tested and with teams of 40 people, I think teams with 1,000 people and bus loads of PHDs and wind tunnels and drivers worth 100s of millions would have no problems. Every race F1 designers put special aero packages and suspension sets for the peculiarities of each track. Look at all the wings and cooling tricks at Monaco. For an oval, they'd turn up with oval machines.

F1 is the crew that has pioneered open wheel safety. The cars are lighter, they have massive deformation tests and its built right into them. When Renault put in their mass damper, they had to crash test the tub again, those cars are immensely safe, and they are beautifully well built. F1 drivers have massive crashes in races and testing all the time. its the high speed safety of the cars that has saved so many driver's lives.

You've argued that F1 drivers couldn't race an oval. But they already have, and they've been able to turn up and outdrive everyone. Claims the cars are unsafe are silly. Even if the current F1 cars actually are unsafe, F1 would bring in a different safety package, and a different F1 car, they have the dollars, 10 points is worth many millions of dollars.

Its quite foolish to say they would not be safe, when you basis is bias, rather than an informed opinion.

Oh Spunout I am quite amazed with what you have said. Composites designed to deform are better material for safety than "metal". F1 designers realised that way back in the 70s. Do the US open wheelers have metal around them?

The "metal" part wasn´t meant to be taken literally, but whatever...

F1 cars can be made stable, its just wing settiings. If you think the teams don't know how to achieve that, then it really is a shame they don't do an oval, you'd be surprised. Honda's on salt F1 did have a vertical tail wing on the back, but don't let that fool you, the wing allowed the downforce to be lowered for high speed. Oh and that wing on the Honda was legal. And the Honda clocked over 400KMH one way, on a slippery surface, with no control problems.

...On straight line. NOT comparable to going around corners.

And making on-the-limit race cars stable is much, much more than wing settings.

F1 would get around any problems with ovals. If jack Brabham, Jim Clark and all the rest of the many old F1 cars could do so with cars not wind tunnel tested and with teams of 40 people, I think teams with 1,000 people and bus loads of PHDs and wind tunnels and drivers worth 100s of millions would have no problems. Every race F1 designers put special aero packages and suspension sets for the peculiarities of each track. Look at all the wings and cooling tricks at Monaco. For an oval, they'd turn up with oval machines.

Oh, absolutely. But we are talking about redesigning almost the entire car here.

You've argued that F1 drivers couldn't race an oval. But they already have, and they've been able to turn up and outdrive everyone. Claims the cars are unsafe are silly. Even if the current F1 cars actually are unsafe, F1 would bring in a different safety package, and a different F1 car, they have the dollars, 10 points is worth many millions of dollars.

Its quite foolish to say they would not be safe, when you basis is bias, rather than an informed opinion.

It´s quite foolish to accuse someone for bias if you suffer from lack of reading comprehension.

It wasn´t me who argued that F1 drivers couldn´t race on oval.

I suggest you to read the previous posts in this thread

Originally posted by Spunout
It´s quite foolish to blame someone for bias if you suffer from lack of reading comprehension.

It wasn´t me who argued that F1 drivers couldn´t race on oval.

I suggest you to read the previous posts in this thread

Yes it is, I am sorry for thinking so!

Its a shame there is no one here who knows more about the comparable safety, it would be interesting to find out more. For instacne, F1 cars are designed to handle all sorts of intrusion. When an F1 takes to the air, it will often rotate, even flip, and where it will land is not very predictable. The cars are designed to handle all sorts of random direction intrustions. Coupled to their weight benefit, they could well be safer.

Its a shame there is no one here who knows more about the comparable safety, it would be interesting to find out more. For instacne, F1 cars are designed to handle all sorts of intrusion. When an F1 takes to the air, it will often rotate, even flip, and where it will land is not very predictable. The cars are designed to handle all sorts of random direction intrustions. Coupled to their weight benefit, they could well be safer.

For sure it would be great to hear the opinion of some F1 engineer...that would be the only way get better answers than our guessing. Still, let´s imagine Ralf had hit the Indy wall nose first. What do you think would have happened?

Originally posted by Spunout
For sure it would be great to hear the opinion of some F1 engineer...that would be the only way get better answers than our guessing. Still, let´s imagine Ralf had hit the Indy wall nose first. What do you think would have happened?

I'd have to ask an engineer, just the same question we'd both have to ask concerning whether another type of open wheeler hit a wall at high speed.

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


As we have seen, even with the rear wing removed F1 cars don't go remotely close to 300 mph.

On a low grip surface in a rarified atmosphere....get a grip man.
You are comparing apples with oranges there.

A little addition to the information about the 1963 Indy 500: Jones' car was leaking from an oil tank on the side, and when the level dropped, stopped leaking. By the time the officials would have black-flagged him, the issue was moot. Also, the officials were a little embarrassed at the time about prematurely black-flagging Jim Hurtubise, whose supercharged Novi had coughed up some oil through the breather in the pits and left oil there. Although individuals might have been a bit leery about giving the win to the rear-engined Lotus, such an outcome would have made Indy front page news around the world, and garnered far more interest for the next year's race. So it would have been okay with the powers in charge.

Sorry I don't have a cute avatar. I must find one someday.

SP

Melbourne Park said:

"....Composites designed to deform are better material for safety than "metal". F1 designers realised that way back in the 70s. Do the US open wheelers have metal around them? .....

F1 is the crew that has pioneered open wheel safety. The cars are lighter, they have massive deformation tests and its built right into them. When Renault put in their mass damper, they had to crash test the tub again, those cars are immensely safe, and they are beautifully well built. F1 drivers have massive crashes in races and testing all the time. its the high speed safety of the cars that has saved so many driver's lives...""


Perhaps not all of F1 is up to the same high standard. Photo from Bob Heathcote/autoracing1.com at Monterey Historics.

http://www.alfabb.co...hp?t=6155&pp=40

"ralt 12"

it's a bit misleading to use that foto as an issue of safety or strenght, that car had a modified footbox to accommodate the owner/drivers lanky frame.

cheers,

lee

"ralt 12"

it's a bit misleading to use that foto as an issue of safety or strenght, that car had a modified footbox to accommodate the owner/drivers lanky frame.

cheers,

lee

Well, that's interesting.This is the first I've seen that this car was modified from the factory construction. At the time, an email was circulated (to folks who have Ferrari F1 cars or other F1 cars) that goes like this (partial excerpt):

>And the last point....do you really think that ANYBODY who was a national
>Ferrari franchise holder ...like this guy is for Holland, would actually
>have the balls to cobble together a car that was never to see a track again
>--and surely Ferrari would have made that very clear---as it carries HUGE
>liability issues not to mention that he could (and did) embarrass Ferrari
>whom he works for/with....And in fact, that he chose, inspite of Ferrari,
>to
>run it right in front of them at a world-class event where every car is
>well
>known, documented, and scrutinized AND where Ferrari was the "honoured
>mark"
>for that year????......plus there was an actual FACTORY test team that had
>been sent over to run the current F1 car...and like those guys didn't know
>the car to begin with,....and WOULDN'T NOTICE or tell the Goodfellas back>at
>Maranello???
>


There were a lot of good reasons in addition to this. But the driver would have to be a fool to take the car out having impaired the strength of the tub. Not to mention, it broke off at the upper thigh, which would require a massive amount of cash to actually modify in the first place, not to mention it would be unsaleable after any mods like this. Ferrari would be unable to run it as part of the Clienti program.

Where does the footbox mod trail begin? How "lanky" is Kroymans?

ralt 12

he is over 6ft, but i'm not sure of his exact hieght, well i've some dodgy work by some very big teams, it doesn't surprise me that that blokes team thought they could modify the footbox.

lee

ralt12 I had thought that composite F1 cars were not able to be used for racing after they are 'retired', because there are issues about fatigue with them. I am surprised Ferrari have sold one to the public.

That Ferrari seems to have had a major structural failure despite the rest of the car looking untouched: it looks far from certifiable even for the time IMO.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
ralt12 I had thought that composite F1 cars were not able to be used for racing after they are 'retired', because there are issues about fatigue with them. I am surprised Ferrari have sold one to the public.

That Ferrari seems to have had a major structural failure despite the rest of the car looking untouched: it looks far from certifiable even for the time IMO.

Ferrari sell off most of their old F1 cars.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
ralt12 I had thought that composite F1 cars were not able to be used for racing after they are 'retired', because there are issues about fatigue with them. I am surprised Ferrari have sold one to the public.

That Ferrari seems to have had a major structural failure despite the rest of the car looking untouched: it looks far from certifiable even for the time IMO.

Euroboss is mostly rewtired f1 car's.

What about composite boats?

They are sold second hand all the time and they are beaten pretty bad by wawes and drifting stuff in the sea

Originally posted by Stian1979


Euroboss is mostly rewtired f1 car's.

What about composite boats?

They are sold second hand all the time and they are beaten pretty bad by wawes and drifting stuff in the sea

I had thought FI cars were not sold to be able to be raced ... wow.

Yes composite boats are sure sold. And they can be readily repaired. Their main problem when old is moisture getting into the resin and into the composite core.

Incidentally, the super maxis have guys who try to repair them while they race, and then they repair them after the race. They go over all the cracks around the bulkheads with carbon tape and epoxy resin, and then they tell the owner and the builder/designer what went wrong. In the Volvo round the world boats, they often back off going full speed because of an issue with the hull, or a known stress condition that they feel might cause a failure. Those Volvo 70s are designed to cruise at steady 32 knots, which is amazing.

However F1 cars often fail their first crash tests. So if a collector or whatever starts mucking about, it would surely compromise the structure and its crash worthiness. But that posted crashed car was obviously not stuck together properly.

Dudley and Stian1979 are correct; Not only does Ferrari sell most of their older F1 machinery through their "Clienti" program, but the EuroBoss and U.S. BOSS grids are largely comprised of cars with composite tubs.

Buying a car with a composite tub is like buying any other F1 car; once you get it, you have to entirely check it to make sure it has structural integrity. We bought Tyrrell 018/1 as a bare tub in the Stoddart Auction, and it was either going to be good--as it had been repaired--or it was going to make a good wall hanging. Since the carbon is so thick on these tubs, we had the help of the folks at Boeing, who determined that it was indeed good to go.

You then use a very mild agent to remove the paint (in our case, baking soda). And it then looks like this-- http://nelson-motors.../new_page_1.htm

What a horrible idea.

Originally posted by ralt12
Dudley and Stian1979 are correct; Not only does Ferrari sell most of their older F1 machinery through their "Clienti" program, but the EuroBoss and U.S. BOSS grids are largely comprised of cars with composite tubs.

Buying a car with a composite tub is like buying any other F1 car; once you get it, you have to entirely check it to make sure it has structural integrity. We bought Tyrrell 018/1 as a bare tub in the Stoddart Auction, and it was either going to be good--as it had been repaired--or it was going to make a good wall hanging. Since the carbon is so thick on these tubs, we had the help of the folks at Boeing, who determined that it was indeed good to go.

You then use a very mild agent to remove the paint (in our case, baking soda). And it then looks like this-- http://nelson-motors.../new_page_1.htm

Beautifull!

Have an F1 race at Martinsville, VA.

.5 mile track, very little banking in the turns. Safety shouldn't be much of a problem.

Is this unrealistic? Maybe lapped traffic would be dangerous?

Question for those who would/should know. (those who have raced)
The informative post from BorderReiver got me thinking.
Is it likely that Qualifying on an oval is not very representative of the difficulty involved
on RACING on an oval?

I remember years ago (around 1993) Lyn St. James qualified on the front row of the Indy 500.
(no I'm not writing this just to pick on lady racers). I also remember that Lyn rarely if ever
even raced on the CART/ChampCar road/street courses.
So, the logical (conclusion might be that road racing is much more difficult than oval racing.

However, I'm suggesting here, that racing on a oval brings in a whole host of problems such
as those that BorderReiver discussed, while qualifying on an oval is not particularly difficult.
Maybe that's why the average fan thinks that oval racers are less skilled than their road racing
counterparts.
Just a thought.

Qualifying is definitely not that big of a deal.

Matt Kenseth is notorious for qualifying between 20th and 30th and finishing in the top 10, whereas Ryan Newman is notorious for winning the pole and finishing out of the top 20.

At restrictor plate tracks, qualifying means virtually nothing. Once you get out on the track racing, everything is so different... Everything sorts itself out really quickly.

Oval racing is awesome. So underrated...

Race craft is literally everything on an oval (well along with the ability to understand your ca and set it up, if you can't do that on an oval, go home). Bizarrely an oval has vastly, vastly more variables than a road circuit and the oval driver must adapt during the course of an event. If he or she cannot read the circuit, how it is changing, and how those changes are affecting him/her and those around him/her then the only outcome is failure.

I've been in 25 lap stock events where the circuit I've finished on has been massivly different to the circuit I started on, in line, braking areas and where passing becomes possible. It constantly shifts and if you don't read those conditions correctly you'll lose or shunt. This is an environment where, afterall, a small change in air temperature can mean that the line you took 10 laps ago will now put you in the wall . . .

Then you also have to factor in the unforgiving aspect of the sport, a single, minor, mistake will at the very least knock you from 1st to 10th quicker than it takes to blink, and at worst have you going home with a car that's been put through the meat-grinder. Not something that generally happens in circuit racing.

I've competed, with very limited success, in both disciplines and I'll tell you for a fact that oval racing is just as great a challenge as circuit driving. A different type of challenge yes, but no less tough. Threading the needle at Monaco and getting to the front (and staying there) at somewhere like Talledega or Indy are both as impressive as each other.

The reason the circuit racer's art is so celebrated is because, to the untrained eye, it's far more easy to see it at work.

The main question here has nothing to do with driver talent or with the skill involved in the different types of racing. F1 cars are not designed to race on oval tracks and are not built to withstand the impacts with the walls. A F1 race on the Indy oval would result in four or more drivers DEAD within 20 laps.

Originally posted by Andretti Fan
The main question here has nothing to do with driver talent or with the skill involved in the different types of racing. F1 cars are not designed to race on oval tracks and are not built to withstand the impacts with the walls. A F1 race on the Indy oval would result in four or more drivers DEAD within 20 laps.

I'd say F1 cars have more crash safety in them than the Indy cars. And their lower mass would lessen the impact on the side rails.

I agree that its a terrible idea. I can't stand watching open wheel cars race on ovals longer than a mile, its not what they are designed to do and its just an awful idea... I just wait for someone to get killed.

I like the idea of an F1 race at Bristol, Martinsville, Loudon, Milwaukee, Richmond, or Pheonix.

Originally posted by BorderReiver
Race craft is literally everything on an oval (well along with the ability to understand your ca and set it up, if you can't do that on an oval, go home). Bizarrely an oval has vastly, vastly more variables than a road circuit and the oval driver must adapt during the course of an event. If he or she cannot read the circuit, how it is changing, and how those changes are affecting him/her and those around him/her then the only outcome is failure.

I've been in 25 lap stock events where the circuit I've finished on has been massivly different to the circuit I started on, in line, braking areas and where passing becomes possible. It constantly shifts and if you don't read those conditions correctly you'll lose or shunt. This is an environment where, afterall, a small change in air temperature can mean that the line you took 10 laps ago will now put you in the wall . . .

Then you also have to factor in the unforgiving aspect of the sport, a single, minor, mistake will at the very least knock you from 1st to 10th quicker than it takes to blink, and at worst have you going home with a car that's been put through the meat-grinder. Not something that generally happens in circuit racing.

I've competed, with very limited success, in both disciplines and I'll tell you for a fact that oval racing is just as great a challenge as circuit driving. A different type of challenge yes, but no less tough. Threading the needle at Monaco and getting to the front (and staying there) at somewhere like Talledega or Indy are both as impressive as each other.

The reason the circuit racer's art is so celebrated is because, to the untrained eye, it's far more easy to see it at work.

Thank you.
Your posts explain things very well.
All those years as a kid worshipping Foyt, Unser(s), Mario, Johncock, weren't wasted!

I can respect a driver and team work in an oval circuit, but i just cannot like it.

Oval races are very dull to me, i just can't imagine a F1 car racing in such a non-complex kind of track, the cars themselves are too powerful and amazing machines to be reduced to steering only left or only right.

Originally posted by Denier
Have an F1 race at Martinsville, VA.

.5 mile track, very little banking in the turns. Safety shouldn't be much of a problem.

Is this unrealistic? Maybe lapped traffic would be dangerous?

Actually, Martinsville is surprisingly dangerous. because of its paper clip shape. This means that a car that goes straight on at the turn-in point is going to impact the wall at a big angle (same as in Loudon). And, empirically speaking, lower banking probably increases the severity of such impacts rather than decreasing it.

The angle of impact would be greater, but the speeds would be dramatically slower.

Using NASCAR as an example, the accidents at Bristol are typically far worse than the accidents at Martinsville. A stock car goes through the turns at Bristol at over 100MPH (I believe) due to the high banking, whereas at Martinsville they are down around 60MPH.

Of course these speeds would be quicker in F1, but regardless I would expect for Martinsville to be safer than Bristol.

Just picture an F1 race at Martinsville. It would be awesome madness.

Originally posted by BorderReiver
...I've competed, with very limited success, in both disciplines and I'll tell you for a fact that oval racing is just as great a challenge as circuit driving. A different type of challenge yes, but no less tough. Threading the needle at Monaco and getting to the front (and staying there) at somewhere like Talledega or Indy are both as impressive as each other...

Thanks for the inside take BorderReiver. I hadn't thought of it so in depth before.

Originally posted by Andretti Fan
The main question here has nothing to do with driver talent or with the skill involved in the different types of racing. F1 cars are not designed to race on oval tracks and are not built to withstand the impacts with the walls. A F1 race on the Indy oval would result in four or more drivers DEAD within 20 laps.

Specially true with the F1 Safety and medical staff. At indy the assistance is car side almost before the spinning stops. I watch Ralf S. sit unconcious in his car at Indy for minutes while the F1 Safety car tried to get out of the pits and going the whole way round the track to get to him, while if they had gone down pit lane they could have be to his assistance way faster. If this had happen in an IRL race the nearest safety crew would have been trackside just a few hundred feet from when he hit the wall.

There is also the problem of "dirty air" in the case of running on ovals. With today's excessively efficient aero packages, any car running close to another through one of the turns is surely prone to a loss of downforce that is potentailly catastrophic once the cars are lapping at speeds of 200mph.

We would basically need to have a very specific aero package for F1 on the oval that would effectively render the cars for Indy completely different from the cars used for the rest of the season.

I'll ask you another question:
Why do we need a driver?

Wouldn't the major problem be getting the engines to run for more than about 5 minutes?

Because it would be PAINFULLY, MIND NUMBINGLY, DEPRESSINGLY, SUICIDE INDUCINGLY, STOMACH BURSTINGLY, HEART MURMURINGLY, BRAIN MELTINGLY, SOUL SAPPINGLY, ANUS LOOSENINGLY, CIRCULATION STOPPINGLY, SKIN WRINKLINGLY, MURDER MOTIVATINGLY boring.

Originally posted by Calorus
Because it would be PAINFULLY, MIND NUMBINGLY, DEPRESSINGLY, SUICIDE INDUCINGLY, STOMACH BURSTINGLY, HEART MURMURINGLY, BRAIN MELTINGLY, SOUL SAPPINGLY, ANUS LOOSENINGLY, CIRCULATION STOPPINGLY, SKIN WRINKLINGLY, MURDER MOTIVATINGLY boring.

was that supposed to be funny or amuse anyone?

Originally posted by wj_gibson
There is also the problem of "dirty air" in the case of running on ovals. With today's excessively efficient aero packages, any car running close to another through one of the turns is surely prone to a loss of downforce that is potentailly catastrophic once the cars are lapping at speeds of 200mph.

We would basically need to have a very specific aero package for F1 on the oval that would effectively render the cars for Indy completely different from the cars used for the rest of the season.

The teams would know this, and create accordingly. And then, by doing so, they would offer up the solution to the aero problem that they claim they are incapable of finding for the other races. Win, win, win. I like the idea of the full Indy track being used. I believe every race ought to have a character of it's own - ought to offer a challenge different from the other tracks, and that, where possible, reflects the motor racing heritage of the country involved. Indianapolis would do that splendidly for the USA, just as Silverstone (with the modifications proposed a few years ago) would reflect the 'airfield' beginnings and development of British post-war racing.

Personally, I think it is more likely that the teams will simply warn their drivers not to get too close to the cars around them, rather than modify the aerodynamics. I'm talking about an entirely new aerodynamic package altogether, with completely different wings and so on, rather than an extreme variant of the existing ones such as that run at Monza. And that would require some kind of legislation by the FIA because the ideal dimensions would inevitably lie beyond the current aero parameters.

Originally posted by Calorus
Because it would be PAINFULLY, MIND NUMBINGLY, DEPRESSINGLY, SUICIDE INDUCINGLY, STOMACH BURSTINGLY, HEART MURMURINGLY, BRAIN MELTINGLY, SOUL SAPPINGLY, ANUS LOOSENINGLY, CIRCULATION STOPPINGLY, SKIN WRINKLINGLY, MURDER MOTIVATINGLY boring.

Oh you mean just like any other F1 race.

Originally posted by Calorus
Because it would be PAINFULLY, MIND NUMBINGLY, DEPRESSINGLY, SUICIDE INDUCINGLY, STOMACH BURSTINGLY, HEART MURMURINGLY, BRAIN MELTINGLY, SOUL SAPPINGLY, ANUS LOOSENINGLY, CIRCULATION STOPPINGLY, SKIN WRINKLINGLY, MURDER MOTIVATINGLY boring.

afraid some one might pass on track??
or god forbid lap side by side??
while I would hate an all oval F-1
once a year will be a nice change
and that is the track to run on
long history of F -1 cars and drivers there
put a chicane on the front if they must but run the damm oval!!!!

Originally posted by angst


I like the idea of the full Indy track being used. I believe every race ought to have a character of it's own - ought to offer a challenge different from the other tracks, and that, where possible, reflects the motor racing heritage of the country involved. Indianapolis would do that splendidly for the USA, just as Silverstone (with the modifications proposed a few years ago) would reflect the 'airfield' beginnings and development of British post-war racing.

Not sure how a 60 mile road course in France could be achieved, though, sadly...

I've always said F1 should run an oval a year.

Indy might not be suitable however.