planetf1.com

pokerman wrote:

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Blake wrote:

jimmyj wrote:I get that this is primarily an F1 fan forum, but Indy and F1 are different. So why not enjoy them both?

Unfortunately that is usually nit the way it works in here.

Not he same angst for the F1 is boring thread though when comparing F1 with Indycar?

Pokerman, you sure are predictable. While you may feel an obligation to voice your thoughts on every thread (certainly your right) I don't. However, for what it is worth, I often find Indy Car racing less "boring" than F1. Please, this time, note the use of the word "often" in my declaration as a caveat.

Fair enough and that's why you didn't feel the need to post in the thread but it does feel like one can be critiqued but the other can't?

I am not sure what the relationship is that you are trying make?

And what is this critique of one, but not the other that you are calling me on? Initially, I read the OP of that thread and chose not to get involved. In this thread, I posted after seeing some making an issue out of the difference in all times, by pointing out that one shouldn't take much from it given the differences between the series demands. One is a spec series, the other is a series that prices itself on extreme technological advances... A story that I read tonight seems the of an Indy Car to be in the $5m range, an F1 car approximately $15m...That is just to build the car. The costs in fielding a team for the year shows a much greater difference. As Zoue posted in another thread, the braking development cost for F1 cars is greater than the yearly cost of a winning Indy Car!!!

I just tried to point out that one shouldn't be surprised at the time differences between the cars. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Nor does the lap speed automatically make one series better for racing than the other As it is, I like both apples AND oranges, Indy Car AND F1. Again...There is room for both series.

I'm glad they sorted out the ad break issues from the first race coverage in St. Pete - it was difficult to watch that one !

Overall an interesting race, and it's a shame about the SC rules but I guess that's the chance they take.

Looking forward to getting more out of my Sky F1 package this year. Just need to get Moto GP back now, I'm not paying for that as well..

The rookies look pretty handy which bodes well for the future of the sport.

Blake wrote:

kleefton wrote:

MB-BOB wrote:I watched about 15 minutes of this, then changed channels. The only interesting (humorous) part was the cars running 10 car lengths wide exiting turn 19. Nonsensical...

Indycars are so SLOW at COTA. I thought maybe 6 seconds slower than F1. Then I found this side-by-side comparison and was shocked...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ft3Ug_YthM

Spoiler alert: It's almost 20 seconds.

Yea i also thought tyey would be closer. But the actual gap between last years f1 pole and indy’s pole was 14 sec. Still quite sad actually.

It should be remembered that Indy cars use a spec chassis, weigh slightly more than F1 cars, have anywhere from 100 to 200+ less horsepower, and cost a considerable fraction of the cost of F1 cars. They also run Speedway E85 street fuel, not racing fuel. So why would you expect their times over a road course to be close?

In exchange, you generally have close racing and more cars capable of winning races...as well as the lower cost to field a team. Indy Car is not F1 nor does it claim to be. Two different approaches to open wheel racing, and, yes...there is room for both.

I didn't expect them to be on par with F1. I said in another thread that if they were within 5 sec that I would be impressed. It's just that no matter how you look at it, 14 sec is a ridiculous gap. I spoke to one of my friends who have been watching Indy and F1 a lot longer than I have and he is also surprised at the gap and also said that it used to be a lot closer than that.

This is still a professional series that has featured many ex F1 drivers and other very high caliber drivers and is supposed to be the fastest open wheel series in the United States. So to find that they are basically just as fast as an F2 car is "baffling" to me.

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Blake wrote:
Unfortunately that is usually nit the way it works in here.

Not he same angst for the F1 is boring thread though when comparing F1 with Indycar?

Pokerman, you sure are predictable. While you may feel an obligation to voice your thoughts on every thread (certainly your right) I don't. However, for what it is worth, I often find Indy Car racing less "boring" than F1. Please, this time, note the use of the word "often" in my declaration as a caveat.

Fair enough and that's why you didn't feel the need to post in the thread but it does feel like one can be critiqued but the other can't?

I am not sure what the relationship is that you are trying make?

And what is this critique of one, but not the other that you are calling me on? Initially, I read the OP of that thread and chose not to get involved. In this thread, I posted after seeing some making an issue out of the difference in all times, by pointing out that one shouldn't take much from it given the differences between the series demands. One is a spec series, the other is a series that prices itself on extreme technological advances... A story that I read tonight seems the of an Indy Car to be in the $5m range, an F1 car approximately $15m...That is just to build the car. The costs in fielding a team for the year shows a much greater difference. As Zoue posted in another thread, the braking development cost for F1 cars is greater than the yearly cost of a winning Indy Car!!!

I just tried to point out that one shouldn't be surprised at the time differences between the cars. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Nor does the lap speed automatically make one series better for racing than the other As it is, I like both apples AND oranges, Indy Car AND F1. Again...There is room for both series.

Indeed but when F1 is judged to be boring because of the lack of overtaking that's mainly a product of the cars being so much faster than Indycars, Indycars being 14 seconds slower than F1 cars is probably mainly because of the crude aero which conversely allows the car to follow more closer and allow easier overtaking.

You may judge that as a criticism of Indycars but it also explains why the racing appears to be that much closer.

Races for paying spectators is a show! F1 in comparison to IndyCar is not putting on much of a show on track. F1 may have the highest tech in the engineering world - but as it gets displayed in a F1 race car what is the show that it puts on? F1 in its present form has all the show of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade without the floats and balloons.

F1 needs to produce their show on the track - not in the design rooms.

pokerman wrote: Indeed but when F1 is judged to be boring because of the lack of overtaking that's mainly a product of the cars being so much faster than Indycars, Indycars being 14 seconds slower than F1 cars is probably mainly because of the crude aero which conversely allows the car to follow more closer and allow easier overtaking.

You may judge that as a criticism of Indycars but it also explains why the racing appears to be that much closer.

For a paying spectator they want to SEE competition on track, not in the wind tunnels and CFD computers, which is all you get to see in F1.

Track limits with painted lines are BS. Track limits need to be self enforcing - walls, grass, sand traps, 'sausages', something that has the POTENTIAL to cause car damage if that limiting 'device' gets involved with a car. No one has issues with track limits at Monaco - immovable objects define the limits, not painted lines.

mmi16 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Indeed but when F1 is judged to be boring because of the lack of overtaking that's mainly a product of the cars being so much faster than Indycars, Indycars being 14 seconds slower than F1 cars is probably mainly because of the crude aero which conversely allows the car to follow more closer and allow easier overtaking.

You may judge that as a criticism of Indycars but it also explains why the racing appears to be that much closer.

For a paying spectator they want to SEE competition on track, not in the wind tunnels and CFD computers, which is all you get to see in F1.

Track limits with painted lines are BS. Track limits need to be self enforcing - walls, grass, sand traps, 'sausages', something that has the POTENTIAL to cause car damage if that limiting 'device' gets involved with a car. No one has issues with track limits at Monaco - immovable objects define the limits, not painted lines.

I also want to see a fair run race not races determined by how lucky you might be with safety cars, spec cars, spec engines, the driver makes the difference, then the driver that is making the difference gets robbed of victory by some strange safety car rule that no other series uses, a rule that often reshuffles the field so I would be guessing that's why it's used?

So Indy car has everything in place for exciting racing but the actual on track racing is still not considered entertaining enough, let's have a rule that gives us the opportunity to reshuffle the pack everytime we have a safety car?

Regarding track limits I agree that some physical method needs to stop cars gaining advantage by exceeding track limits, however how Indycar dealt with it was still ridiculous.

pokerman wrote:

mmi16 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Indeed but when F1 is judged to be boring because of the lack of overtaking that's mainly a product of the cars being so much faster than Indycars, Indycars being 14 seconds slower than F1 cars is probably mainly because of the crude aero which conversely allows the car to follow more closer and allow easier overtaking.

You may judge that as a criticism of Indycars but it also explains why the racing appears to be that much closer.

For a paying spectator they want to SEE competition on track, not in the wind tunnels and CFD computers, which is all you get to see in F1.

Track limits with painted lines are BS. Track limits need to be self enforcing - walls, grass, sand traps, 'sausages', something that has the POTENTIAL to cause car damage if that limiting 'device' gets involved with a car. No one has issues with track limits at Monaco - immovable objects define the limits, not painted lines.

I also want to see a fair run race not races determined by how lucky you might be with safety cars, spec cars, spec engines, the driver makes the difference, then the driver that is making the difference gets robbed of victory by some strange safety car rule that no other series uses, a rule that often reshuffles the field so I would be guessing that's why it's used?

So Indy car has everything in place for exciting racing but the actual on track racing is still not considered entertaining enough, let's have a rule that gives us the opportunity to reshuffle the pack everytime we have a safety car?

Regarding track limits I agree that some physical method needs to stop cars gaining advantage by exceeding track limits, however how Indycar dealt with it was still ridiculous.

Fortunately, F1 never has Safety Cars effect results.

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mmi16 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Indeed but when F1 is judged to be boring because of the lack of overtaking that's mainly a product of the cars being so much faster than Indycars, Indycars being 14 seconds slower than F1 cars is probably mainly because of the crude aero which conversely allows the car to follow more closer and allow easier overtaking.

You may judge that as a criticism of Indycars but it also explains why the racing appears to be that much closer.

For a paying spectator they want to SEE competition on track, not in the wind tunnels and CFD computers, which is all you get to see in F1.

Track limits with painted lines are BS. Track limits need to be self enforcing - walls, grass, sand traps, 'sausages', something that has the POTENTIAL to cause car damage if that limiting 'device' gets involved with a car. No one has issues with track limits at Monaco - immovable objects define the limits, not painted lines.

I also want to see a fair run race not races determined by how lucky you might be with safety cars, spec cars, spec engines, the driver makes the difference, then the driver that is making the difference gets robbed of victory by some strange safety car rule that no other series uses, a rule that often reshuffles the field so I would be guessing that's why it's used?

So Indy car has everything in place for exciting racing but the actual on track racing is still not considered entertaining enough, let's have a rule that gives us the opportunity to reshuffle the pack everytime we have a safety car?

Regarding track limits I agree that some physical method needs to stop cars gaining advantage by exceeding track limits, however how Indycar dealt with it was still ridiculous.

Fortunately, F1 never has Safety Cars effect results.

Hahahahahaha

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mmi16 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Indeed but when F1 is judged to be boring because of the lack of overtaking that's mainly a product of the cars being so much faster than Indycars, Indycars being 14 seconds slower than F1 cars is probably mainly because of the crude aero which conversely allows the car to follow more closer and allow easier overtaking.

You may judge that as a criticism of Indycars but it also explains why the racing appears to be that much closer.

For a paying spectator they want to SEE competition on track, not in the wind tunnels and CFD computers, which is all you get to see in F1.

Track limits with painted lines are BS. Track limits need to be self enforcing - walls, grass, sand traps, 'sausages', something that has the POTENTIAL to cause car damage if that limiting 'device' gets involved with a car. No one has issues with track limits at Monaco - immovable objects define the limits, not painted lines.

I also want to see a fair run race not races determined by how lucky you might be with safety cars, spec cars, spec engines, the driver makes the difference, then the driver that is making the difference gets robbed of victory by some strange safety car rule that no other series uses, a rule that often reshuffles the field so I would be guessing that's why it's used?

So Indy car has everything in place for exciting racing but the actual on track racing is still not considered entertaining enough, let's have a rule that gives us the opportunity to reshuffle the pack everytime we have a safety car?

Regarding track limits I agree that some physical method needs to stop cars gaining advantage by exceeding track limits, however how Indycar dealt with it was still ridiculous.

Fortunately, F1 never has Safety Cars effect results.

What did you think of the track limits not being enforced?

Having stewed on it for a bit since the weekend....

...First off, that was fairly fun, wasn't it?

Like a lot of the F1 purists in here I wasn't overly enamoured with the end of race lottery with the pit closing during the yellow, but as has been succintly put already in here, it's not like the SC hasn't ever shook things up in F1.

The cars look fun to drive.... like, properly fun. There is certainly a lot to be said and enjoyed about watching F1 cars tearing around like precision missiles on wheels (and I certainly do enjoy it) but watching the amount of wheel sawing and counter steering constantly going on was also a pretty good advert for the skill required. Yes, the cars were noticeably slower but for me..... it didnt really affect the overall enjoyment.

Got spoilt a bit with the end result, but watching a proper kid coming through to win was nice as well. Herta got major lucky in getting the win, but the podium looked more than on from early doors. He certainly looked the real deal, as did O'Ward. With the history those 2 already have together in their short careers, that could be a rivalry for the forseeable future.

....and then, the elephant in the room. I _get_ why they did away with the track limits, and I understand (though don't entirely agree) with the reasoning behind it, but to watch them so totally, totally take the gherkin at pretty much every available oppertunity was a little disappointing, though again, that could be me watching this through the rose tint of 25 years of F1. Ferruci seemed to be on a mission to use the yellow sausages in an attempt to be the first racing driver to make it into space (the best place for him, perhaps?) and there was an awful lot of 'defending' that was simply driving off the track and maintaining a higher speed than would ordinarily be used to corner. Wont be an issue at most tracks, but it wasn't great.

Overall, I personally will be watching the next race for sure. It's not F1, but it's not F1-lite either, it's different but still a decent watch. The liveries remind me of a different age, and the presentation of the whole thing feels like a bit of a throwback too, but in a nostalgic way rather than 'looks old and crappy'.

I've watched worse on a Sunday night

Edit: Forgot the pitstops! Yeah, this is properly nuts in a great way. I'm all for F1 going down the road of limiting the number of people at the pitstops. The sub 2 second wheel changes are poetry in motion but watching just 4 guys do all the work was fun, and it would put another differentiator between the teams.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote: I also want to see a fair run race not races determined by how lucky you might be with safety cars, spec cars, spec engines, the driver makes the difference, then the driver that is making the difference gets robbed of victory by some strange safety car rule that no other series uses, a rule that often reshuffles the field so I would be guessing that's why it's used?

So Indy car has everything in place for exciting racing but the actual on track racing is still not considered entertaining enough, let's have a rule that gives us the opportunity to reshuffle the pack everytime we have a safety car?

Regarding track limits I agree that some physical method needs to stop cars gaining advantage by exceeding track limits, however how Indycar dealt with it was still ridiculous.

Fortunately, F1 never has Safety Cars effect results.

What did you think of the track limits not being enforced?

Personally, mikey, I did not like it. I found it difficult to get used to initially, and think that if they wanted to extend the track in certain corners... especially Turn 1, they should have painted the lines accordingly. Still, I am not sure that it was necessary and would have preferred that they had enforced a tighter line. I have little doubt that had they done so, the drivers would have for the most part stayed on the track, or not been allowed to gain position as in F1.

Blake wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote: I also want to see a fair run race not races determined by how lucky you might be with safety cars, spec cars, spec engines, the driver makes the difference, then the driver that is making the difference gets robbed of victory by some strange safety car rule that no other series uses, a rule that often reshuffles the field so I would be guessing that's why it's used?

So Indy car has everything in place for exciting racing but the actual on track racing is still not considered entertaining enough, let's have a rule that gives us the opportunity to reshuffle the pack everytime we have a safety car?

Regarding track limits I agree that some physical method needs to stop cars gaining advantage by exceeding track limits, however how Indycar dealt with it was still ridiculous.

Fortunately, F1 never has Safety Cars effect results.

What did you think of the track limits not being enforced?

Personally, mikey, I did not like it. I found it difficult to get used to initially, and think that if they wanted to extend the track in certain corners... especially Turn 1, they should have painted the lines accordingly. Still, I am not sure that it was necessary and would have preferred that they had enforced a tighter line. I have little doubt that had they done so, the drivers would have for the most part stayed on the track, or not been allowed to gain position as in F1.

Do they normally enforce track limits in Indycar?

mikeyg123 wrote:

Blake wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
What did you think of the track limits not being enforced?

Personally, mikey, I did not like it. I found it difficult to get used to initially, and think that if they wanted to extend the track in certain corners... especially Turn 1, they should have painted the lines accordingly. Still, I am not sure that it was necessary and would have preferred that they had enforced a tighter line. I have little doubt that had they done so, the drivers would have for the most part stayed on the track, or not been allowed to gain position as in F1.

Do they normally enforce track limits in Indycar?

As far as I can recall, mikey. I have never seen them do anything like that. Of course, COTA is a much different (ie wider) track than many that they race on, and they do have a fair number for street courses on their schedule as well... so maybe I just had not noticed?

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mmi16 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Indeed but when F1 is judged to be boring because of the lack of overtaking that's mainly a product of the cars being so much faster than Indycars, Indycars being 14 seconds slower than F1 cars is probably mainly because of the crude aero which conversely allows the car to follow more closer and allow easier overtaking.

You may judge that as a criticism of Indycars but it also explains why the racing appears to be that much closer.

For a paying spectator they want to SEE competition on track, not in the wind tunnels and CFD computers, which is all you get to see in F1.

Track limits with painted lines are BS. Track limits need to be self enforcing - walls, grass, sand traps, 'sausages', something that has the POTENTIAL to cause car damage if that limiting 'device' gets involved with a car. No one has issues with track limits at Monaco - immovable objects define the limits, not painted lines.

I also want to see a fair run race not races determined by how lucky you might be with safety cars, spec cars, spec engines, the driver makes the difference, then the driver that is making the difference gets robbed of victory by some strange safety car rule that no other series uses, a rule that often reshuffles the field so I would be guessing that's why it's used?

So Indy car has everything in place for exciting racing but the actual on track racing is still not considered entertaining enough, let's have a rule that gives us the opportunity to reshuffle the pack everytime we have a safety car?

Regarding track limits I agree that some physical method needs to stop cars gaining advantage by exceeding track limits, however how Indycar dealt with it was still ridiculous.

Fortunately, F1 never has Safety Cars effect results.

Not to the extent of putting the leaders to the back of the field hence having their races totally ruined, and I'm talking of what happens now and not in the distant past.

Poker, it was a matter of when the Safety Car was deployed and the fact that the leaders had not pitted yet, but needed to do so. The safety car deployment closes the pits, and, I agree that is something that Indy Car should review. It isn't a conspiracy to keep things close any more than it is in F1.

Somewhere earlier before the race was run, I believe you commented that you were glad to see the Indy Cars at COTA and that you would be critiquing it. I don't care what it is, if one is looking for fault one can find it. Nothing is perfect, auto racing is no different, be it IndyCars, NASCAR, or F1.

Blake wrote:Poker, it was a matter of when the Safety Car was deployed and the fact that the leaders had not pitted yet, but needed to do so. The safety car deployment closes the pits, and, I agree that is something that Indy Car should review. It isn't a conspiracy to keep things close any more than it is in F1.

Somewhere earlier before the race was run, I believe you commented that you were glad to see the Indy Cars at COTA and that you would be critiquing it. I don't care what it is, if one is looking for fault one can find it. Nothing is perfect, auto racing is no different, be it IndyCars, NASCAR, or F1.

It's not a good rule and that's me being nice compared to Will Power who said it's a bs rule that only Indycar does in comparison to other series.

I am very much sceptical about why they do it, I'm conscious of the American way of entertainment comes first and there's nothing I guess entertaining about drivers dominating races but it's certainly entertaining if they get shuffled to the back and have to try and make their way to the front again?

Regarding me saying I was going to critique the race that was in response to the F1 is boring thread which compared it to the more entertaining Indycar series, then this thread appeared so I posted here as well.

Fair enough, poker. Thanks for the clarification regarding the F1 is boring thread.

Blake wrote:Fair enough, poker. Thanks for the clarification regarding the F1 is boring thread.

No problem, for the record I've watched both Indycars races and qualifying sessions this season.

Blake wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Blake wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
What did you think of the track limits not being enforced?

Personally, mikey, I did not like it. I found it difficult to get used to initially, and think that if they wanted to extend the track in certain corners... especially Turn 1, they should have painted the lines accordingly. Still, I am not sure that it was necessary and would have preferred that they had enforced a tighter line. I have little doubt that had they done so, the drivers would have for the most part stayed on the track, or not been allowed to gain position as in F1.

Do they normally enforce track limits in Indycar?

As far as I can recall, mikey. I have never seen them do anything like that. Of course, COTA is a much different (ie wider) track than many that they race on, and they do have a fair number for street courses on their schedule as well... so maybe I just had not noticed?

cool, thanks for answering.

This discussion makes me happy. It means we are paying attention to IndyCar!