NASCAR technical

Michael Diaz4... We aren't going to have a conversation this way.

I just wanted to mention that the blog post was pretty confusing and honestly contained some inaccuracies. It’s probably too late to fix it now, though. Tomorrow, I’ll dive a bit deeper into Formula 1 technical details—things like RPM, gearboxes, clutches, and all that. I’ve been following this stuff for a while, so I’m comfortable with the basics, but I’m still getting up to speed on the newer tech regarding energy recovery systems and DSR. Torque is such a massive factor during a race; whoever has more of it has the advantage in acceleration, especially if that torque hits at lower RPMs, making it much easier to power out of corners. Top speed on a straightaway is ultimately dictated by horsepower (though torque plays its part too), but I'll get into that more over the next few days. I really hope the rest of you jump in here with some helpful links...

Michael Diaz4 said:Torque is absolutely critical during a race; whoever has more has the advantage in acceleration, especially if that power hits early at lower RPMs, making it much easier to power out of corners. Of course, top speed on the long straights is ultimately driven by horsepower, though torque plays its part there too.

In my view, it’s not just about who has the highest raw torque numbers, but rather who manages that available torque most effectively—basically, where and how you deploy it.

The absolute worst-case scenario is having massive amounts of torque at low RPMs right when you're trying to exit slow corners; that’s a perfect recipe for spinning your tires and shredding them. You have to factor in that both turbo engines and electric motors tend to deliver peak torque at those lower RPM ranges.

I honestly think Mercedes has the edge here because they’ve mastered the delivery. They seem to have smoothed out the torque curve so that they develop maximum force at higher RPMs. That explains why they often have the most horsepower even if they don't necessarily boast the highest raw Nm figures (though, full disclosure, I don't know the exact Nm specs for everyone offhand).

You could see this play out during the last race between Ferrari and Williams in those closing laps. The Ferrari car would lose a bit of grip mid-corner, and then upon exiting, the rear end would step out, causing the tires to spin wildly. Meanwhile, the Williams looked incredibly planted, and even with DRS on the straight, the Ferrari just couldn't catch up. This is because the Mercedes-style power delivery keeps the torque reserves available in those higher RPM ranges (since you're accelerating on straights and shifting through gears, you're almost always sitting in that upper power band).
From what I can gather, both Honda and Renault struggle with that sudden "explosion" of torque when exiting corners, which ends up overloading the rear tires.

Perhaps the officials have finally figured out what kind of traction control system I've been running, though for now, I remain perfectly within the rules...🙂
It reminds me quite a bit of those old Red Bull cars, specifically regarding that unpredictable, non-linear throttle response...🙂

Honestly, I’d be pretty surprised if teams weren't utilizing battery charging and using the MGU-K to manage energy deployment, especially since there isn't any rule actually forbidding it.

mellowtiger83 said:If two engines put out the exact same horsepower, but one hits its peak at 12,000 RPM and the other at 15,000 RPM, are they really different in speed? Not fundamentally. They just demand a different driving style. At the end of the day, power is power, and that's what moves the wheels.

Diesel engines usually pack the most torque, but that doesn’t mean they’re the fastest. It just means they have the raw power needed to pull a heavy load—which is exactly why you see them dominating the trucking industry. Why the difference? It comes down to how the fuel burns. In a diesel, the mixture continues to combust all the way down to bottom dead center. With gasoline, the whole mixture burns off almost instantly.

Turbocharged engines generate more torque because they pre-compress the air. This leads to a much more powerful combustion stroke. More pressure, more explosion, more torque. Simple as that.

Two-stroke engines also pack an incredible amount of torque.

More torque doesn't automatically mean more speed. In fact, massive torque can actually be a nightmare on the track. We saw this during the turbo era of Formula 1—cars were nearly impossible to control because the power didn't roll on smoothly. Instead, you'd get these violent, unpredictable surges of momentum. It’s exactly the kind of thing you don't want when you're trying to manage a car at the limit. Makes the driver's job much harder, doesn't it?

So, if two engines produce the exact same horsepower, they’ll be equally fast. It doesn't matter how much torque they're pushing at a specific RPM. They just reach that peak power through different paths.

Horsepower is what actually defines an engine, not torque. Torque isn't raw power. It’s just one variable that changes depending on how you build the thing—whether it's naturally aspirated, turbocharged, diesel, turbo-diesel, rotary, or two-stroke. It all comes down to construction.
.

Look at it this way: Ford's 3500cc V8 produces less torque than Ferrari's 3500cc V12. It might have lower torque, but it delivers higher peak horsepower. You can't just assume the Ford engine is "weaker" simply because its torque numbers fall behind Ferrari's. In theory, it’s actually the opposite. The Ferrari engine is faster due to that raw power advantage—think Indianapolis or Daytona. Meanwhile, the Ford engine is more efficient, offering a much broader power band.

So, strength is one thing, but torque is quite another, right?

This is easily one of the best posts I've come across lately.

Unlike this one:

stormybadger8 said:Torque is damn important. If you’ve got max power at 12,000 RPM, that's huge. Honestly? It’s way better than having that same power sitting at 15,000 RPM. Why wouldn't it be?
It’s pretty straightforward, really. In the real world of Formula 1, an engine hitting its peak power at 12,000 RPM is always going to be significantly more powerful than one that doesn't peak until 15,000. Simple math, isn't it?
Why doesn't a Formula 1 car hit 15,000 RPM during a single lap? Or even just for a tiny fraction of the race? If you take a look at the driver tracking data, those peaks only seem to reach around 13,000 or 14,000. Why the gap?😉 Even at that 10,000 to 12,000 mark, you’re still looking at at least 30%, if not 50%, of a lap.
Besides that, if you've got more torque at lower RPMs, isn't that engine clearly going to be much better when you're trying to punch it out of a corner?

That’s exactly what you see when comparing Williams and Ferrari. Ferrari might actually be faster on a single lap when they're out there solo, but if they're stuck behind a Williams, they're stuck. Why? Because the Williams has much better traction coming out of the corners and superior acceleration.
It’s almost irrelevant that Ferrari pulls nearly the same top speed as Williams, which suggests the engines might actually be in the same ballpark regarding raw power... but Williams struggles to hit that number even when they aren't carrying a full load compared to how easily Ferrari does it. 😉

What exactly are you looking for, Tibidragi? 🤦

Just look at what Bernie did to us 🤦

rowdyrider12 said:So basically zero downforce—good luck hitting those corners...

But hey, they're still making overtakes—real ones, not just thanks to DRS.😉

neonfox65 said:But there are still overtakes happening—and they’re organic ones, not just some artificial boost from the DRS. 😉

Is overtaking really such a rare phenomenon? Even in series like the NASCAR Cup Series, you see plenty of it. When you're dealing with consumer-grade, budget-friendly technology where almost every car on the grid is built nearly identical, you lack the complex aerodynamics that define top-tier racing. In those scenarios, passing happens naturally. But then again, we aren't talking about Formula 1, are we? We're talking about NASCAR or the Cup Series.

rowdyrider12 said:Max in a Ferrari 2017....
Makes sense to me...

http://www.gptoday.com/full_story/vi...ari_from_2017/

Pure nonsense

“However, I know that Max has a long-term contract with Red Bull, which also includes 2017,” he added.

William Bennett53 said:You see overtaking in series like the Skoda Cup too—it’s just cheap, consumer-grade tech where all the cars are basically identical, zero aero, and boom, you get passing. But that isn't Formula 1, that's just NASCAR or the Skoda Cup...

Look, we're talking about open-wheel cars here—how Formula 1 used to be back before wings were everywhere—and honestly, it wouldn't be a bad idea to bring that back. Aero has just killed the ability to pass. Now they're stuck inventing things like DRS or messing with tire compounds just to force artificial overtaking instead of actually fixing the root cause...

neonfox65 said:We are discussing open-wheel cars here and how Formula 1 used to be—back when they didn't rely so heavily on wings—and it wouldn't be a bad idea to return to those roots. Aerodynamics have effectively killed overtaking. Now, they have to invent things like DRS or different tire compounds just to manufacture artificial passing opportunities instead of actually addressing the root cause of the problem.

I see. I assumed you were once again offering those tedious praises for American racing in glorified technological buckets. Formula 1 represents the absolute pinnacle of racing technology, and aerodynamics are simply the byproduct of pure engineering. No one is suggesting there aren't negative side effects; we are all aware of them. However, the solution isn't to regress Formula 1 into something resembling the era before Colin Chapman or even today's IndyCar.

Honestly, IndyCar has way too many wings on them these days. Look, I get that Formula 1 needs to be the absolute peak of technology, but if you ask me, we should ditch all that aero stuff and just focus on increasing mechanical grip instead...

neonfox65 said:Honestly, even today's IndyCar series seems to be overdoing it with the wings. While I agree Formula 1 needs to remain the absolute pinnacle of technology, if you ask me—we should ditch the aerodynamics entirely and focus more on increasing mechanical grip instead.

Wait, why on earth would we get rid of aerodynamics altogether?? Just so we can have even slower cars, right? So everyone can go back to complaining about how sluggish they are.

I say we lean into the aero, bring back strong ground effects, and give them beefier engines—then we'll actually see them flying around the track where they belong. Let's not try to regress to some retro style from the 50s or 60s just for the sake of nostalgia.

jadeseal7 said:Why would they ever get rid of aerodynamics?? Just so we can have even slower cars, right? So everyone can go back to complaining about how slow they are...

Look, you could just crank up the horsepower and solve that—that's the easiest part. But if you really want to see actual racing, you've gotta ditch the front and rear wings entirely, like they do in Formula Ford. Instead of messing around with DRS and all those artificial gimmicks just to force an overtake, they should actually look at the root cause and fix that...

neonfox65 said:Increasing engine power is easy enough; anyone can solve that. The real issue is the aero. They should strip back those front and rear wings to something more akin to Formula Ford style, then we might actually see some real racing. Instead of relying on DRS and all these artificial gimmicks to manufacture overtaking, why not just identify the actual root cause and fix the regulations properly?

Did I ever say you were the one calling the shots for the series...?

William Bennett53 said:Did I say you were calling for a cup series or something?...

I don't follow you. Formula Ford is still open-wheel—honestly, Formula 1 could probably learn a thing or two from them.

jadeseal7 said:Why on earth would they get rid of aerodynamics? So we can have even slower cars? Because clearly, that’s exactly what everyone wants—more people crying about how slow they are.

Exactly. 👍
de Ferran absolutely nailed it with this quote:

He’s convinced it’d be a massive mistake for Formula 1 to go swinging for the fences with huge rule changes just because a bunch of recent fan surveys suggested it. Not exactly a genius move.

Henry Ford once noted that if he’d actually bothered to ask folks what they wanted, they probably would’ve just asked for faster horses. Same goes for Steve Jobs—if he’d waited around for people to tell him what they needed, nobody would have ever dreamed up the smartphone.

"Look, understanding the fan base matters, sure," de Ferran said. "But at the end of the day, the actual product being delivered has to be driven by the people running the business."

And besides, if they actually went ahead and slapped some aero restrictions in place, the same crowd screaming for it would be the first ones whining that Formula 1 is boring and completely sucks. 😁

The only thing Formula 1 actually needs is to do the exact opposite of all those half-baked ideas about adding even more restrictions. 🤦

What we actually need to do is just scrap this mountain of rulebook restrictions and let the engineers and crews have their way. Let them actually build what they want.
So, you're telling me aero development and engine builds are just completely wide open? Total freedom. Great.

And we really need to set some dead-simple rules, like:
Look, the rules basically say the car can be "as quiet and small as you want," while also saying it needs to be "as loud and huge as possible." Make it make sense.
The rulebook says the car can only have an engine up to a certain displacement and a specific number of cylinders... that's it.
Testing is allowed, literally, all the damn time...

Whatever. Let them keep doing whatever they want, as long as they can afford it.
All this whining about things being too expensive? It’s exactly what caused this mess. We ended up spending way more than we used to just to stay in place. There’s zero actual progress happening because the rules are so restrictive that you can't even dream of a revolutionary breakthrough without having an absolute mountain of cash.

That’s exactly why the big players with actual money stay away from Formula 1. Let's be real: no serious manufacturer wants to jump into this circus just to humiliate themselves like Honda or Renault did. Why would they sink a fortune into specialized tech that has zero application for their street cars? Plus, there's no guarantee they'll even be competitive out of the gate. From a marketing standpoint, it’s a massive gamble—you're more likely to end up looking like a total joke than actually selling cars. Not exactly the kind of commercial you want.

What we really need is to just scrap this mountain of restrictions in the rulebook—let the engineers and teams actually have some freedom to decide what they want to build and how...

Look, we tried that once, and all it did was trigger rule changes that led us straight to the current mess—which isn't any better. And trust me, if fans had to choose between crazy tech and actual racing, they’d pick the racing every single time. I mean, who cares if two drivers are battling it out and one has a massive turbo engine or whatever—if the racing is good, people are happy. Even Briatore said something similar like ten years ago, and he was spot on. If only Formula 1 would finally get the hint...

neonfox65 said:But then again, isn't it true that we still see plenty of overtakes occurring naturally, without any assistance from the DRS? 😉

Is it just me, or has DRS become an absolute eyesore? It feels like we’ve traded genuine racing skill for a glorified button that artificially manufactures overtaking opportunities, doesn't it?
Should we not consider lifting the fuel flow restrictions, doing away with tire compounds altogether, and perhaps even rethinking the entire qualifying format? Imagine if every driver were simply allocated a single set of tires specifically for qualifying, and that was the end of it. Wouldn't that simplify things?