NASCAR v. IndyCar v. Formula 1

[Déjà Bru]

I am confronted today with this array on the Sports Media web site:

I am prompted to finally ask, what are the differences among these racing circuits?

I am vaguely aware that there is a big difference between the types of race cars in NASCAR versus the others. But what about IndyCar v. Formula 1? Is it like leagues or rival organizations like PGA and LIV?

What else? What defines NASCAR v. IndyCar v. Formula 1? Any help to promote understanding would be appreciated.

[Westheim]

F1 and Indycar are open-wheel racing series with purpose-built race cars with an open cockpit, front and rear wings, and the wheels sticking out at the four corners. NASCAR pretends it's a stock car racing series, but there's nothing stock about those cars, they're more like touring cars with a highly regulated car frame and sheet metal silhouette that is made to look like a Ford or Chevy with some decals.

F1 is the pinnacle of motorsports as far as racing at purpose-built asphalt race tracks is concerned (so we exclude rallying and other more exotic ventures at this point). Everybody wants to drive in F1, and if they claim they don't want to drive in F1, they're lying. This is especially true for Indycar drivers. Note how F1 washouts always fail downwards to Indycar (or Formula E, f.e.), but the reverse is not true.

NASCAR is not really the same type of racing as F1/Indy and there hasn't been any meaningful overlap where drivers went back and forth between series since about the late 70s. Single gimmick races in NASCAR's #91 Trackhouse car by f.e. Kimi Räikkönen as in recent years don't count as "meaningful".

NASCAR is mostly racing on ovals; until recently all but two of the NASCAR Cup schedule were oval races, but recently they added a few more road course events (like this Mexico race, which is new on the calendar), and for a few years they have had a street race in Chicago, where the racing is awful and the weather is usually too.

Indycar has a rather balanced mix between oval races (like the Indy 500), road courses and street races, ever willing to give way to the foolish desire to let open-wheel cars slam into unprotected concrete barriers and send wheels and other debris flying into crowds. Never mind the injury risk.

F1 until the mid-2000s only had one street race in Monaco, but since then has given in to this stupidity as well and gradually added more street courses (Singapore, Baku, Vegas...) and events in glorified parking lots (Sochi (pre-'22), Miami, Vegas...). Decades-long series organizer Bernie Ecclestone selling out to the US shills of Liberty Media has only accelerated the brain rot in that regard.

Funnily, among the three circuits in question here, it's Indycar that's driving on the oval this weekend at what used to be called Gateway Motorsports Park. It's a 1.25-mile, egg-shaped oval across the river from St. Louis, within sight of the Arch.

NASCAR goes to Mexico City, where F1 also has an event in the fall. They use a bastardized version of the 2.7-mile GP circuit. The facility as built included an oval, but as far as I know you can't drive on that anymore as it was partially overbuilt. Fun Fact: the circuit is named Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez after a pair of racing brothers from the 1960s, both of whom died young and in their race cars. The younger one was killed at this very race track, while the older one burned to death in a crash at the Norisring, about 50 miles from my place.

F1 races at the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, also named for a race car driver that died in his race car. That 2.7-mile circuit was initially cobbled together out of roads on an artificial island constructed for Expo '67 in Montreal (where the Montreal Expos also got their name), but has been much refined over the years and is now one of the more technical circuits on the schedule. It's perhaps most famous for the final chicane, which has the "Wall of Champions" on the outside, so called because a number of F1 world champions have crashed out of races through hard contact with that wall.

[Déjà Bru]

Comprehensive, thanks. How's your patience level? Mind a few more questions?

"Open-wheel"? Versus "Closed-wheel"?

"Purpose-built" I think I get. Built for the purpose of racing versus "stock car", I believe. A stock car is "an automobile that has not been modified from its original factory configuration" which even to this uneducated mind comes off as a crock. NASCAR cars look a bit more like my car, but that's it.

I looked up "rallying": Rallying is a wide-ranging form of motorsport with various competitive motoring elements such as speed tests (sometimes called "rally racing" in United States), navigation tests, or the ability to reach waypoints or a destination at a prescribed time or average speed. Rallies may be short in the form of trials at a single venue, or several thousand miles long in an extreme endurance rally."

None of NASCAR, IndyCar, or Formula 1 is like that; the fastest car wins. I ran across this article that points out the difference between Rally Racing vs. Circuit Racing (which includes NASCAR, IndyCar, and Formula 1, I believe). Thus Rally could have been a fourth branch of auto racing that I could have asked about, yes?

Heh, now a rally stock car may really resemble my car if this picture is at all typical.



So, NASCAR is a separate beast but I am under the impression that IndyCar and Formula 1 are of the same species. I remember when I asked in the Forumula 1 thread about the Indianapolis 500, you were decidedly dismissive. Indeed, it's like PGA and LIV only that the newer Formula 1 has surpassed the older IndyCar, unlike the golf situation (yet). Agree with this assessment?

[low]

I knew West would be in here to help you out.

I don't have much to add. I stopped watching NASCAR shortly after Brian France, Jr., Mike Helton, and Robin Pemberton ruined the sport. Indycar I haven't watched since the 90's.

One important thing to note, is F1 cars can stop on a dime. Their braking systems are unrivaled in motor racing.

As for this weekend's tracks, Canada is one of the best F1 tracks and Mexico City is one of the worst.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

"Open-wheel"? Versus "Closed-wheel"?

Technically yes, although "closed-wheel" is a term that nobody really ever uses.

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

"Purpose-built" I think I get. Built for the purpose of racing versus "stock car", I believe. A stock car is "an automobile that has not been modified from its original factory configuration" which even to this uneducated mind comes off as a crock. NASCAR cars look a bit more like my car, but that's it.

The NASCAR Chevy etc. only looks a bit like your car though. There's not a screw in that #24 Axalta Chevy that would also be found in your car. Stock cars haven't been stock in at least 50 years.

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I looked up "rallying": Rallying is a wide-ranging form of motorsport with various competitive motoring elements such as speed tests (sometimes called "rally racing" in United States), navigation tests, or the ability to reach waypoints or a destination at a prescribed time or average speed. Rallies may be short in the form of trials at a single venue, or several thousand miles long in an extreme endurance rally."

Not sure about navigation tests and the like. This is rally racing; there's also rallycross, which pits cars directly against each other on short dirt tracks, but I know very little about either one.

In general, you still want to be fastest. Everything else sounds a bit like a novelty to me.

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

None of NASCAR, IndyCar, or Formula 1 is like that; the fastest car wins. I ran across this article that points out the difference between Rally Racing vs. Circuit Racing (which includes NASCAR, IndyCar, and Formula 1, I believe). Thus Rally could have been a fourth branch of auto racing that I could have asked about, yes?

Yeah, but it's not a very big branch these days. I can't tell you all that much about it though, I never really watch any of it.

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Heh, now a rally stock car may really resemble my car if this picture is at all typical.

Attachment 1068310

So, NASCAR is a separate beast but I am under the impression that IndyCar and Formula 1 are of the same species. I remember when I asked in the Forumula 1 thread about the Indianapolis 500, you were decidedly dismissive. Indeed, it's like PGA and LIV only that the newer Formula 1 has surpassed the older IndyCar, unlike the golf situation (yet). Agree with this assessment?

My answer was not supposed to be dismissive. From 1950 to 1960 the Indy 500 was part of the F1 world championship - for reasons that are genuinely hard to explain these days. At no point were the two series even run to the same car/engine specifications, and there was hardly any "cross-pollination" between the F1 and Indycar circuits in terms of drivers from one camp competing with the other.

Formula 1 is also far older than Indycar. F1 has been around as a championship since 1950, with a precursor in the interwar "European Championship" that was run in the 1930s. Indycar was only founded in the 1990s as a breakaway series from CART (which has since gone under); even though there has been some sort of continuity back to WW2 in the top-level of American open-wheel racing - although governing bodies (AAA, USAC...) have come and gone.

I know nothing about golf, as it bores me to absolute death, so I can't answer any PGA/LIV questions.

[Déjà Bru]

Thanks for the responses, guys. Now, don't let this thread derail your 2025 F1 and NASCAR Season threads. Keep those up because this was only about general information.

[LD84]

One other thing I have noticed from the different race leagues, is that F1 races tend to be much shorter. Both in distance covered, and actual time investment.
Most F1 races are 1.5-2 hours unless there is a major accident or some weather related catastrophe.

When I lived in the US, I watched a few NASCAR races. And they tend to be very long. 3-5 hours.
They are more like endurance races. But modern technology means most cars tend to finish the race unless there is a large accident.

Indy Car races also tend to be pretty long. But I won't lie, I barely pay attention to Indy Car. It is second or even third tier to F1 and the personalities are not that interesting to me.

And oval racing is just boring to me.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by LD84

One other thing I have noticed from the different race leagues, is that F1 races tend to be much shorter. Both in distance covered, and actual time investment.
Most F1 races are 1.5-2 hours unless there is a major accident or some weather related catastrophe.

When I lived in the US, I watched a few NASCAR races. And they tend to be very long. 3-5 hours.
They are more like endurance races. But modern technology means most cars tend to finish the race unless there is a large accident.

Would you say that's because NASCAR vehicles are built sturdier? Those Indy and F1 cars look rather spindly to me.

[LD84]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Would you say that's because NASCAR vehicles are built sturdier? Those Indy and F1 cars look rather spindly to me.

That is possible. It could also be because of the less technical nature of oval racing, is less demanding on the drivers mentally.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Would you say that's because NASCAR vehicles are built sturdier? Those Indy and F1 cars look rather spindly to me.

Well yes. NASCAR vehicles are like 3,500 pounds, which is easily double of what an F1 car weighs.

In general, NASCARs are like tanks, which is why Alex Bowman can have this type of crash, and come back the next week and complain only about a bit of back soreness.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by LD84

That is possible. It could also be because of the less technical nature of oval racing, is less demanding on the drivers mentally.

Originally Posted by Westheim

Well yes. NASCAR vehicles are like 3,500 pounds, which is easily double of what an F1 car weighs.

In general, NASCARs are like tanks, which is why Alex Bowman can have this type of crash, and come back the next week and complain only about a bit of back soreness.

Thanks. I will reveal my secret now. I was thinking of applying to all three circuits as a race car driver but now I believe I will stick with just NASCAR.

[Déjà Bru]

Hmmm. Come to think of it, what's the pay scale? Which circuit pays the most, do you know?

[LD84]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Hmmm. Come to think of it, what's the pay scale? Which circuit pays the most, do you know?

It is really hard to find data on this.

But it seems to be

F1 drivers


Large gap


Nascar

Another gap but smaller

Indy Car



F1 drivers do not get paid out of a prize pool per race. A prize pool does not exist.
They work off fixed contracts and sponsorships.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by LD84

It is really hard to find data on this.

But it seems to be

F1 drivers


Large gap


Nascar

Another gap but smaller

Indy Car



F1 drivers do not get paid out of a prize pool per race. A prize pool does not exist.
They work off fixed contracts and sponsorships.

So that begs the question, why is IndyCar so inferior in a number of ways including, it seems, prestige? For one thing, I thought that they were the senior circuit but Westheim says otherwise. This is what led me wrong, but I see he is correct about the relatively recent debut of the current manifestation of IndyCar.

The IndyCar Series, officially known as the NTT IndyCar Series for sponsorship reasons, is the highest class of American open-wheel car racing in the United States, which has been conducted under the auspices of various sanctioning bodies since 1920 after two initial attempts in 1905 and 1916. The series is self-sanctioned by its parent company, IndyCar, LLC., which began in 1996 as the Indy Racing League (IRL) and was created by then Indianapolis Motor Speedway owner Tony George as a competitor to Championship Auto Racing Teams (CART). In 2008, the IndyCar Series merged with CART's successor, the Champ Car World Series and the history and statistics of both series, as well as those from its predecessors, were unified

I get the feeling that you guys rank them like this in prestige:


1. Formula 1






2. NASCAR






















3. IndyCar (The same order as pay scale, but with larger gaps.)

[Westheim]

F1 salaries scale similarly to MLB contracts. Rookie drivers might get $1M or less, but the winners and world champions will command $25M to $50M a year.

That is before you add sponsorships and related marketing stunts.

[Syd Thrift]

F1 used to “race” at Indy, or at least they counted it on the Grand Prix circuit throughout the 50s. I don’t think anyone actually competing in F1 won points on the circuit with only a couple guys (I believe including Fangio, the guy whose record for most championships won was broken by Schumacher) flying over to compete at all. They technically didn’t even run to F1 standards but they included the race results for prestige reasons. In case you were ever wondering why Bill Vukovich has F1 wins…

[low]

My memory may be a bit faulty, but I recall in the very early 2000's that Michael Schumacher estimated to be making around $80 million per year. The only pro athlete he trailed at the time was Tiger Woods, who we all know made an absolute killing just from his endorsements.

[LD84]

Originally Posted by low

My memory may be a bit faulty, but I recall in the very early 2000's that Michael Schumacher estimated to be making around $80 million per year. The only pro athlete he trailed at the time was Tiger Woods, who we all know made an absolute killing just from his endorsements.

He would threaten to leave Ferrari every season. Ferrari knew it was a bluff, but would increase his salary anyways.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

F1 used to “race” at Indy, or at least they counted it on the Grand Prix circuit throughout the 50s. I don’t think anyone actually competing in F1 won points on the circuit with only a couple guys (I believe including Fangio, the guy whose record for most championships won was broken by Schumacher) flying over to compete at all. They technically didn’t even run to F1 standards but they included the race results for prestige reasons. In case you were ever wondering why Bill Vukovich has F1 wins…

Fangio attempted the 1958 Indy 500 but did not qualify. This was his penultimate entry into an F1 event; he would later enter himself with a Maserati into the 1958 French GP, finishing fourth, and then retired on the spot after having won the F1 crown in 1951 and every year from 1954 through 1957 with a total of four different constructors.

Alberto Ascari, the 1952 and 1953 F1 world champion, entered the 1952 Indy 500 and qualified 19th, but retired from the race early.

Originally Posted by low

My memory may be a bit faulty, but I recall in the very early 2000's that Michael Schumacher estimated to be making around $80 million per year. The only pro athlete he trailed at the time was Tiger Woods, who we all know made an absolute killing just from his endorsements.

Those Schumacher numbers would also include endorsements though. The entire budget of a frontrunning F1 team around that time (like Ferrari) would have been around $200M, at a time when there were no limitations on testing and much less limitations around what you can actually build into that car.

The current budget caps in place are $130M-ish, but excluded from that are the salaries for the three highest-paid team members, which will regularly be the two drivers and the team prinicipal or the aerodynamic genius on staff; the latter probably at Aston Martin, now that they snatched Adrian Newey to totally build a car for Sir Lancelot to win the championship with, and who is their current team principal anyway...?