This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

American Open Wheel Racing Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of open wheel auto racing in the United States, with an emphasis on IndyCar racing, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.American Open Wheel RacingWikipedia:WikiProject American Open Wheel RacingTemplate:WikiProject American Open Wheel RacingAmerican Open Wheel Racing Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Motorsport High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MotorsportWikipedia:WikiProject MotorsportTemplate:WikiProject Motorsportmotorsport High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Automobiles Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The image of "Modern IndyCar" is from 1994; current 2006-design IndyCars, like their Formula One counterparts, no longer use turbochargers, a change noticable by the air-box now visible at the top of the car, a development the car in the image does not have; a new image is thus requested/invited. --Chr.K. 23:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I've noticed that too. Or the caption could be changed. But a newer image would be nicer, reflecting the different high formula open-wheel sports.

• A new image would be better, but in the meantime I'm going to change the caption. It's confusing to have the 1993 Lola T93/00 labeled as being from 1993, when the 1994 Penske PC-23, only a year younger, is labeled "modern."

The Panoz DP01 could be useful too, the 2007 high-nosed champ car. Though there are no actual pictures yet, only mock-up drawings and the like.Helmetlad 19:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, added picture of DP01 as it's one of the newest and most advanced non-F1 cars in the world; ranked pictures chronologically.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.39.73 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formula SAE should be included here. It has been described as the largest engineering competition in the world.

Misterboston

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterboston (talk • contribs) 09:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the development of the open-wheel racing car is basically a history of automotive racing technology, and that of the cutting edge of motorsports in Europe and in America. The European technological dominance being lost to the Americans in the 1920s, and eventually being regained as U.S. groups focused more on the entertainment side of the sport, can likewise be told. Schematics on the current chassis make-ups for several open-wheel series can be given, to illustrate such matters as the differences inherent between the CCWS and IRL cars (including, most notably, the F1-like airbox and lack of turbocharger, on the latter, but the improved outright car capability of the former, giving rise to the question of whether driver talent is more important a focus than technology). Finishing out, there can be links to known speculation about the futures of open-wheel racing, both technologically, financially, and as a form of sport and/or entertainment. --Chr.K. 21:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the link to Australian Formula 2 because there already is a listing for Formula 2, and a link to Australian F2 from the F2 page. If we listed every open wheel racing series ever the list would get longer than the article content and cause people to roll their eyes and ignore the list. --Falcadore 03:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dating the two modern pic is a bit of overkill. Either use modern or the year - not both. It's bad language. --Falcadore (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See: http://www.indycar.com/news/story.php?story_id=10557 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:Dp01.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The external links section I added has been removed without comment. Actually I think this is probably a good idea, the one link there was of doubtful value and all I did was to move it from the text to comply with WP:MOS. Normally best to make some attempt at communication when reverting another person's work, however, especially as this particular edit removed two different people's efforts. Andrewa (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of the article suggests that open wheel race cars are inherently superior to closed wheel race cars. The evidence does not support this.

The technological excellence of F1 is amazing, but a similar closed wheel car could also be made.

That F1 has a formula with definite limits, and very good marketing does lead to a technological competition between builders.

On the other hand, a modern version of a closed wheel race car similar to the older can-am cars would have substantial aerodynamic advantages.

If a modern version of a can-am type car with the technological sophistication of a Brabham sucker car or a Chaparral variable wing car were to run against F1 my prediction would be that the can-am car would win. A Porsche 917 would absolutely devastate an F1 if the 917 were built with modern materials. F1 builders would enclose the wheels if the rules allowed it.

In terms of engines: One can purchase motorcycles for street use whose engines rival the capabilities of F1. The Ducati Desimodeci springs to mind. Of course an F1 engine could not run in a closed wheel car: it would die of embarrassment.

In terms of brakes: A modern road car has more technologically advanced brakes than an F1. I'm paraphrasing the F1 web site.

In terms of aerodynamics: Give me a brake! F1 cars may achieve pretty good down force but they are about as aerodynamic as a brick.

In terms of power to weight: With a monocoque carbon fiber frame a closed wheel race car could be in the same weight class as F1. EdEveridge (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, this article is somewhat biased. Closed-wheels cars have lots of aerodynamic advantages over their open-wheels counterparts; these are generally seen as the "pinnacle of power" in automobile racing simply because of the hefty investments builders put into it, as noted above. As further argument, for example, in the decision made by RBR design team to make Red Bull X2010 into a closed-wheels car: even though this car was never really built, the advantages of this formula were so great that they chose it over a open-wheels format. This article needs some serious revision. 200.252.231.60 (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously fictional race cars have no place in this arguement. Computer games cars and non-existant versions of modern Can-Am cannot be used to argue a case anymore than Superman can be used to make a case the America is superior to other countries. --Falcadore (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The argument wasn't about the car, or even about its feasibility, but about the design decision of using a closed-wheel configuration because of its inherent aerodynamic advantages over open-wheel configuration. But anyways, if you want further evidence, see Le Mans Prototype, Pescarolo 01 and Ferrari F10. LMPs have "cost and technology" that "makes them comparable to Formula One cars, including reaching higher maximum speeds than Formula One.". Pescarolo 01 is a 2-seater (even though they are always occupied only by a single person) that weighs 925kg, and still it supposedly reaches higher maximum speeds than the Ferrari F10, for example, a single-seater that weighs a mere 620kg. An argument could be made about acceleration and deceleration, and since I don't have any figures about that in hand, I'll concede that F1s probably do better in that regard, if nothing else because of their low weight. Even so, LMPs have better durability, as they are made to race endurance races. This very article goes as far as saying that "exposure of the wheels to the airstream causes a very high aerodynamic drag at high speeds". That's beyond the point, though. What is important is that, objectively, if nothing else, it can't be said that open-wheeled cars are superior to their closed-wheeled counterparts. This article's point of view is clearly biased in that regard. 200.252.231.60 (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Falcadore, arguments of how fast closed-wheel cars "might" be if their developers received the same "investment" as F1 cars are irrelevant. Weight has a bigger influence over a car's performance than it's aerodynamic properties (hence why F1 cars have an absolute minimum weight specified in the rules, but not an absolute minimum drag coefficient). I'm also sceptical that closed-wheel cars do have any aerodynamic advantages over open-wheelers; the wheels cut a tiny cross section and the body of an open-wheeler is so much smaller than a closed-wheeler.

Ultimately this is all academic, as the fact is that the open-wheel racing cars available to draw comparison from today are faster than their closed-wheel counterparts. The implied superiority of open-wheelers is correct. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Frank Dernie, who has some claim to know what he’s talking about, CFD of the airflow around an exposed rotating wheel has not yet reached the same level of sophistication as for that around immovable objects and requires an enormous amount of computer time to arrive at an answer that’s at best a vague approximation of on-track reality. Mr Larrington (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately this is all academic because the faster open-wheel car class is F1 and a car faster than F1 has been built and it has closed wheels https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7bG9sP0jGg So no, closed wheel is intuitively more aero, and there is a car to prove it. Open wheels are forced by regulation to make the car look like a real race car and not some beefed up sports car or maybe because car crashes are part of the show, and open wheels are a crash magnet. It definitely is not a speed issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1957 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Amazon, I bought the book "Nigel Mansell's Indy-Car Racing," a great book which features photos and information about the 1993 Kmart-Texaco sponsored race team. Mansell drove the #5 car; Mario Andretti drove the #6 car. Kmart had a logo on the spoiler. But my question, which might be relevant enough for someone to work into this wikipedia article, is about the rear spoiler. Some races, Mansell had a black spoiler, and some races, Mansell had a white spoiler. Each spoiler had the Kmart logo. The car was white, regardless of which spoiler was used. Why the two different colors for the spoiler? 206.192.35.125 (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a place for Q & A. These talk pages are for discussing how to make the articles better. If you have more of these sort of questions its probably better you find a motorsport nostalgia forum like Autosport's forums or a specific Champ Car/CART forum. That having been said, paint is purely cosmetic. The normal reason for otherwise similar looking team mate cars having a small but distinctive difference is purely for identification purposes. So the team can easily a quickly identify which of their cars is on the TV screen or is coming down pitlane towards them. --Falcadore (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read what I wrote: Did I not say: My question might raise a valid point which could possibly be re-worked into the article. COnsidering one drove the #5, and one drove the #6, I question whether identification of the cars was the reason for a white spoiler versus a blakc spoiler. Anybody ELSE want to give an opinion? 206.192.35.125 (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't be a worthwhile addition. It's not something specific to opeen-wheel racing. You might notice for example Audi Le Mans cars have different coloured wing-mirrors for identification purposes. Its frequently used in all kinds of touring cars and motorcycles, and is not significantly different to the Dakar Rally Minis each being painted a different colour. It's happened in Air Racing, trucks and so on and so forth. In short, it isn't an Open-wheel car issue. --Falcadore (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Offenhauser is another open-wheel car. --Helium4 (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Formula Indy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 20 § Formula Indy until a consensus is reached. 65.92.244.237 (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect F-Indy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 20 § F-Indy until a consensus is reached. 65.92.244.237 (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to clean up/fix these conversions in the Drving section, and perhaps elsewhere. In the beginning of this section, the speed 360kph is converted to 220mph. In the next sentence, 369.9kph is coverted to 229.8mph. Anyone with some semblance of intelligence knows kph doesn't equal mph 1 to 1... The 369.9kph conversion is correct, but the 360kph should be 223.7mph. I would have made the correction myself, but there is some conversion formula used, which is beyond my editing skills. Left the way it is, it does appear embarrassing...and quite wrong. AA Pilot16 (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]