Somebody school me on formula 1 tires... why the tall sidewalls? In street tires, the more extreme, the lower the profile. Shorter sidewalls, less flex, more cornering traction... Seems like in anything except F1, the tires are very low profile.
Full Version: OT: Formula 1 tire profile
trying to keep the racing competitve with grooves and tall sidewalls...
lower sidewall, less flex, therefore less grip.
Low profile tires looknice, but do not grip as well as properly proportioned tires.
Rich
Low profile tires looknice, but do not grip as well as properly proportioned tires.
Rich
hmm...good question. after some thinking i remember seeing ricers (hondas) removing their blinged out rims in the front w/ steel rims and regular radials to gain more traction. And since top fuel dragsters need all the traction they can use at the rear they've got fatties. Similar to dragsters, the F1 cars have about the same amount of HP. Concluding my assumption...
| QUOTE (dlo914 @ Jan 28 2006, 04:00 PM) |
| Similar to dragsters, the F1 cars have about the same amount of HP. Concluding my assumption... |
top fuel dragsters make up to 6000hp. the motor life is measured in seconds..... usually, they have 4 injectors per cylinder, run on alcohol/methanol etc and run 70+ pounds of boost.
F1 cars dont make anywhere close to that.... BUT they last alot longer....
I almost mentioned "except drag cars" in my original post but didn't think it would go there. Also keep in mind that the front tires on an F1 car are higher profile than the rear tires of a GT car.
| QUOTE (Aaron Cox @ Jan 28 2006, 04:03 PM) | ||
top fuel dragsters make up to 6000hp. the motor life is measured in seconds..... usually, they have 4 injectors per cylinder, run on alcohol/methanol etc and run 70+ pounds of boost. F1 cars dont make anywhere close to that.... BUT they last alot longer.... |
actually top fuel is 85% nitro and 15% methonal.f1 i believe has a 13"rim rule so side wall hieght is related to contact patch. f1 tire rules i think also state tire dementions, nascar does the same.
google racing tires and i/m sure all this will be explained. oh. and heat durabily from heat and cornering forces track debrie all kinds of stuff.
| QUOTE (Aaron Cox @ Jan 28 2006, 03:03 PM) | ||
top fuel dragsters make up to 6000hp. the motor life is measured in seconds..... usually, they have 4 injectors per cylinder, run on alcohol/methanol etc and run 70+ pounds of boost. F1 cars dont make anywhere close to that.... BUT they last alot longer.... |
FI cars are in the 1000hp range?
i thouhgt f1 was 650-700hp
isnt the technology/knowledge gained from F1 tires influencing the making of street tires?
Thanks Troy. That's making sense.
Shoulda Googled it, but it's more fun to discuss it in the garage.
Shoulda Googled it, but it's more fun to discuss it in the garage.
no prob. 
ok let lets chew it.
the grooves stupid plan the tire manf. just made thre tires so that when the tire wore down past the grooves they had the same grip as a slick. duh wouldn't you . soo f1 makes them change the tire and have to finish the race with _ amount of groove left.
ok let lets chew it.
the grooves stupid plan the tire manf. just made thre tires so that when the tire wore down past the grooves they had the same grip as a slick. duh wouldn't you . soo f1 makes them change the tire and have to finish the race with _ amount of groove left.
Isn't the tire restriction standard for all formula type racing? Those formula Vee guys have to race with stock wheels and tires. I don't know, really. I'm kinda impartial to open wheel racing. At least for today.
The tires have tall sidewalls because the rules dictate maximum and minimum diamter of the tire, and the diameter of the rim. When the rules were laid down in the 1970s, they made sense based on tire technology of the day. Now, they're an anachronism, but kept as they are because: small rims mean small brakes, thus restricting outright speed (theoretically), which was a great idea until carbon-carbon brakes made them work so well even with the small diameters; tall sidewalls mean more flex, which keeps speeds down due to more limited cornering forces, except the tire makers manage to get more stiffness, and now more than 80% of the suspension travel in an F1 car is in the tire sidewalls (direct quote from an F1 designer); the FIA is a bunch of bloody-minded idiots.
There's been talk recently of changing the tire rules, but only to reduce rim diameter even more, or do some other stupid thing to try to make the cars slower. The rules basically aren't there to allow fully optimized cars. They're there to throw up big barriers the designers have to overcome.
The rules now restrict virtually everything on the cars, so you don't see innovative ideas anymore, because they don't fit the rules.
Next year, with the one tire manufacturer again, the rules makers can dictate things like tire compounds to control speeds, and will do so. Grooves will apparently disappear soon, and tire changes are back for next year.
As for power, the 3.0 V10s of 2005 were all making roughly 900hp. The 2.4 V8s for '06 and beyond appear to be in the 600hp range, though it's expected that will rise swiftly. For comparison, the 3.0 Cosworth DFV V8 of 1968 made 400hp, and was the most powerful engine in F1 at that time. Within a couple of years, the Cosworths were making so much power people were contemplating 4wd or six-wheeled cars (with four drive wheels in back, Williams built a prototype of this) to try to get acceptable traction out of the tires of the period. More downforce and better tires fixed that, and by the height of the turbo era in 1984, the engines were making as much as 1200hp in qualifying, for a few laps. They've never been that powerful since.
There's been talk recently of changing the tire rules, but only to reduce rim diameter even more, or do some other stupid thing to try to make the cars slower. The rules basically aren't there to allow fully optimized cars. They're there to throw up big barriers the designers have to overcome.
The rules now restrict virtually everything on the cars, so you don't see innovative ideas anymore, because they don't fit the rules.
Next year, with the one tire manufacturer again, the rules makers can dictate things like tire compounds to control speeds, and will do so. Grooves will apparently disappear soon, and tire changes are back for next year.
As for power, the 3.0 V10s of 2005 were all making roughly 900hp. The 2.4 V8s for '06 and beyond appear to be in the 600hp range, though it's expected that will rise swiftly. For comparison, the 3.0 Cosworth DFV V8 of 1968 made 400hp, and was the most powerful engine in F1 at that time. Within a couple of years, the Cosworths were making so much power people were contemplating 4wd or six-wheeled cars (with four drive wheels in back, Williams built a prototype of this) to try to get acceptable traction out of the tires of the period. More downforce and better tires fixed that, and by the height of the turbo era in 1984, the engines were making as much as 1200hp in qualifying, for a few laps. They've never been that powerful since.
James:
These discussions are no fun when someone that knows what they are talking about shows up.
These discussions are no fun when someone that knows what they are talking about shows up.
| QUOTE (lapuwali @ Jan 28 2006, 06:53 PM) |
| The tires have tall sidewalls because the rules dictate maximum and minimum diamter of the tire, and the diameter of the rim. When the rules were laid down in the 1970s, they made sense based on tire technology of the day. Now, they're an anachronism, but kept as they are because: small rims mean small brakes, thus restricting outright speed (theoretically), which was a great idea until carbon-carbon brakes made them work so well even with the small diameters; tall sidewalls mean more flex, which keeps speeds down due to more limited cornering forces, except the tire makers manage to get more stiffness, and now more than 80% of the suspension travel in an F1 car is in the tire sidewalls (direct quote from an F1 designer); the FIA is a bunch of bloody-minded idiots. There's been talk recently of changing the tire rules, but only to reduce rim diameter even more, or do some other stupid thing to try to make the cars slower. The rules basically aren't there to allow fully optimized cars. They're there to throw up big barriers the designers have to overcome. The rules now restrict virtually everything on the cars, so you don't see innovative ideas anymore, because they don't fit the rules. Next year, with the one tire manufacturer again, the rules makers can dictate things like tire compounds to control speeds, and will do so. Grooves will apparently disappear soon, and tire changes are back for next year. As for power, the 3.0 V10s of 2005 were all making roughly 900hp. The 2.4 V8s for '06 and beyond appear to be in the 600hp range, though it's expected that will rise swiftly. For comparison, the 3.0 Cosworth DFV V8 of 1968 made 400hp, and was the most powerful engine in F1 at that time. Within a couple of years, the Cosworths were making so much power people were contemplating 4wd or six-wheeled cars (with four drive wheels in back, Williams built a prototype of this) to try to get acceptable traction out of the tires of the period. More downforce and better tires fixed that, and by the height of the turbo era in 1984, the engines were making as much as 1200hp in qualifying, for a few laps. They've never been that powerful since. |
Yeah. Thats what I thought. And now we can talk about the unfair FIA biasing towards Ferrari and the planned move to a different racing organization in 2010. Or 2008. One that will be sponsored heavily by japanese auto manufacturors. Yeah thats right.
The only limits I would like to see is horse power. Everything else should be unlimited. There should be no retrictions on aerodynamics, tires, brakes, suspension etc.
Cheers, Elliot
Cheers, Elliot
F1 tires have a fairly stiff sidewall (unlike drag tires)
Most of the suspension travel on an F1 car comes from tire deflection
Current carbon suspension arms are designed to flex a certain amount. They're more like leafsprings than hinges
As noted... all just stoopid rule restrictions that the manuf. need to work around
On LeMans prototype cars you'll see 18 and 19inch wheel/tire combos
Most of the suspension travel on an F1 car comes from tire deflection
Current carbon suspension arms are designed to flex a certain amount. They're more like leafsprings than hinges
As noted... all just stoopid rule restrictions that the manuf. need to work around
On LeMans prototype cars you'll see 18 and 19inch wheel/tire combos
Makes me wonder what F1 cars could do if all restrictions were removed.
I wouldn't remove ALL restrictions.
My F1 rulebook would include all of the current safety regulations for the cars, which have been very successful at ensuring driver's survive terrible shunts. I would, however, completely drop all rules governing everything else, including engine size limits.
Physics will take care of limiting power, by limiting available traction. You can make way too much power simply by using a large, slow-turning engine, which would be vastly cheaper than a 19,000rpm 3.0 V10. Better tires will come along, but I suspect we're close to physical limits now. Remember that slicks first came into being as an answer to the huge power from 3.0 F1 engines, and they were a great leap forward in tire technology, which hadn't progressed all that much in the prior decade.
Make pitstops impractical by limiting stops to 2 crewmen, so even a 1 tire change will take some time, and ban adding fuel during a pitstop. This limits traction by simply requiring tires last the race, but also allows tire changes during the race in case of punctures or flat-spotting. By forcing teams to start the race with 100% of the fuel they need, you indirectly limit power, and encourage efficiency. Fewer crewman also means smaller and cheaper teams, and a safer pitline.
However, doing all of this could easily produce cars that are nearly undrivable by humans (they pull 4G now, and CART's experiences at Texas World Speedway a few years ago suggest that 6G is a practical upper limit). You may end up with an even worse situation than now wrt to passing.
And you still get into the situation where one well-heeled team destroys everyone else. The last nearly unlimited series was Can-Am, which was eventually dominated by the Porsche 917-30 (all 1500 turbocharged hp), and everyone else packed up and went home.
My F1 rulebook would include all of the current safety regulations for the cars, which have been very successful at ensuring driver's survive terrible shunts. I would, however, completely drop all rules governing everything else, including engine size limits.
Physics will take care of limiting power, by limiting available traction. You can make way too much power simply by using a large, slow-turning engine, which would be vastly cheaper than a 19,000rpm 3.0 V10. Better tires will come along, but I suspect we're close to physical limits now. Remember that slicks first came into being as an answer to the huge power from 3.0 F1 engines, and they were a great leap forward in tire technology, which hadn't progressed all that much in the prior decade.
Make pitstops impractical by limiting stops to 2 crewmen, so even a 1 tire change will take some time, and ban adding fuel during a pitstop. This limits traction by simply requiring tires last the race, but also allows tire changes during the race in case of punctures or flat-spotting. By forcing teams to start the race with 100% of the fuel they need, you indirectly limit power, and encourage efficiency. Fewer crewman also means smaller and cheaper teams, and a safer pitline.
However, doing all of this could easily produce cars that are nearly undrivable by humans (they pull 4G now, and CART's experiences at Texas World Speedway a few years ago suggest that 6G is a practical upper limit). You may end up with an even worse situation than now wrt to passing.
And you still get into the situation where one well-heeled team destroys everyone else. The last nearly unlimited series was Can-Am, which was eventually dominated by the Porsche 917-30 (all 1500 turbocharged hp), and everyone else packed up and went home.
I shouldn't have said ALL restrictions. I was just imagining where it could go without performance restrictions that purposely hold back the capabilities of the technology. I don't want to see safety suffer.... But that will always be diametrically opposing paradox I guess.
Thanks James... Your posts are always full of great, solid info.
Thanks James... Your posts are always full of great, solid info.
I think that if you remove some of the rediculous rules, you would then reduce the R&D exspedatures for some of the smaller teams. Ferrari, Willaims and McLearn would still spend 100million per season, but a Sauber or Minardi would at least be able to be on the lead lap when the checkered flag drops...
I woul git rid of those hidious canards on the uprights! They look like Zirg!
I woul git rid of those hidious canards on the uprights! They look like Zirg!
| QUOTE (Rand @ Jan 28 2006, 10:24 PM) |
| I shouldn't have said ALL restrictions. I was just imagining where it could go without performance restrictions that purposely hold back the capabilities of the technology. I don't want to see safety suffer.... But that will always be diametrically opposing paradox I guess. Thanks James... Your posts are always full of great, solid info. |
Drivers are a dime a dozen.
A say atleast let them go to Ti rollcages and framework.
And otherwise. I like those proposed rules. Thats a very good plan. With the two pit workers and all. And the 100% fuel capacity.
But remember- you could always limit the refill speed. Used to be the fastest that GRAVITY would fill. So no pressurized pumps.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.