The differences between an IndyCar and a F1 car

2026 F1 changes and active aero

• Several commenters note the article will age quickly because 2026 F1 cars will have less downforce/drag (closer to IndyCar) plus driver‑controlled active aero (“X/Z modes”) and a ~50/50 ICE–electric power split.
• Expectation that 2026 will be chaotic as teams may misjudge many parameters, but within ~5 years performance will likely converge again.
• Debate on DRS: some celebrate its nominal end; others say X‑mode is just DRS generalized, but welcome that it’s usable anywhere and adds more driver skill and risk.

Powertrains, transmissions, and fuels

• Discussion of moving back toward ICE‑dominant power with synthetic fuels; some want it, others say it’s politically/economically unlikely after recent OEM investments in new hybrid rules.
• Synthetic fuels already used in WEC; “green” credentials and scalability seen as mixed but improving.
• eCVTs are described as ideal for 50/50 hybrids and potentially lighter/more efficient, but banned in F1; reasons given include regulations and preserving engine sound as part of the brand.
• Disagreement on how much more efficient F1 powertrains could realistically get without hurting lap time.
• Clarification that F1 brake calipers are aluminum alloys, not carbon fiber; only discs are carbon‑carbon.
• Some confusion over “100% sustainable” F1 fuel composition; noted that each engine supplier will run different blends.

IndyCar vs F1: speed, rules, and ethos

• Several stress that lap time gaps (e.g., ~10% at COTA) compound over a race and are actually huge competitively, despite appearing “only a few seconds.”
• Explanation that small cornering gains are extremely expensive; straight‑line speed is comparatively cheap.
• IndyCar seen as a tightly controlled spec series (single chassis supplier, many standard parts) versus F1’s bespoke designs within strict rules.
• Ethos contrast: IndyCar as “dudes racing cars” with strong on‑track action; F1 as a global, corporate tech arms race where the whole engineering organization competes. Both have fans for different reasons.

Other series and broader tech debates

• WEC/IMSA praised as a better compromise between open rules and competitive balance, though harder to follow due to many classes and drivers.
• Formula E criticized for weak promotion, street‑circuit choices, and “gimmicks,” though next‑gen cars may improve performance.
• Tangents on unconstrained series (Can‑Am), homologation concepts, cost caps, and whether motorsport tech still meaningfully trickles down to road cars.

Fan experience and access

• IndyCar lauded for cheap tickets and paddock access versus F1’s high prices and distance from the action.
• Strong support for more onboard/driver‑view coverage and VR experiences; trackside attendance is seen by some as less informative than TV or streaming.

Historical and factual notes

• Reminder that Indy 500 was once on the F1 calendar and that F1 and Indy regulations were closer through the 1980s–early 1990s.
• Minor corrections raised about the article’s weight comparison and various technical inaccuracies.