Future of full wet tyres in F1

Edited by midgrid, 07 July 2012 - 13:31.

FIA should also get rid of the parc ferme rule regarding things pertaining to wet and dry setup (ride height most importantly)

The teams should be given more freedom to make setup changes if weather conditions change between qualifying and the race. Running setups that are too "dry" for the conditions in order to ensure competitiveness in dry weather is more of a problem than the tyres IMO.

Edited by Zippel, 07 July 2012 - 13:36.

This is more of a technical question about the nature of the cars but felt it appropriate here, has the reduction in the width of the cars since 1998 been a significant factor for why the cars have been very tricky to drive during the wet?

Matter of too low ride height?

Grip is more to do with tyres I guess. Pirelli should make better wet tyres. We wouldnt have had a spain 1996 with Pirelli tyres.

The cars have less downforce than the cars from 2007-2008.

That also plays its part

Edited by Seanspeed, 07 July 2012 - 16:23.

I imagine its pretty close actually. In Monaco, Schumacher did a 1:14.3 for pole position. In 2007, Alonso ran a 1:15.7. Considering the cars now have less power, less grippier tires, but can use DRS(which isn't as useful at Monaco), I think the current cars might actually have more downforce.

EDIT: Scratch this post. I can think of several logic fails in it already since writing it. lol

I still think the downforce levels are pretty close, though.

Edited by Massa, 07 July 2012 - 16:33.

i think the pirelli wets are pretty decent, i like how the cars look on them.

These cars had less downforce since the new rules of 2009... But I think pirelli wet tyre are really bad.. And its why these drivers always go off with them.. I really want to see these car with Bridgestone wet tyres.

In fact, I have no faith on Pirelli tyres. I think they are very low in term of quality, and Bridgestone one was very very good.

lol wut?

The tyres are awful - it's not about how the cars look it's about performance and the performance isn't there.

That's rubbish...bridgestones had same problems or maybe even worse!

When Bridgestone had the same problem?

Edited by Massa, 07 July 2012 - 19:39.

Edited by george1981, 07 July 2012 - 19:44.

Korea 2010 the problem was the track surface.. So you take one race only ? Well, brigdgestone tyres was fine.

Clearly the only party involved that is capable of improving the show is the host. Bernie and the teams are hapyy not to run. The fans have no say.

So I put my hope in the consultants that broker these deals. With the following clause they could surely collect an additional half a million from the next third world nation whose democratically elected king/dictator/ruler signs a deal to host the Nth Formula One race of the season.

- It is the sole responsibility of the Formula One Management (FOM) to deliver a technical solution (cars/team equipment/track equipment and personnel) that allows the racing to continue (e.g. not to be red flagged) in case of rain or wind or high/low temperatures.

- Excluding a force majeure (e.g. hurricane/tsunami/earthquake) red flagging the race bacause of weather will result in a "insert the race fee in millions here" million dollar fine paid by FOM to the race host.

What you guys think? Could Mexico, Argentina, New Jersey or even London be smart enough to pull off a contract like this?

FOM and Bernie as their representative are the commercial rights holder and bring the show. No show, no pay.

When Bridgestone had the same problem?

And he'll just say red flags are part of the show outside his control. The promoters don't have the power to dictate terms, you either sign Bernie's contract or you don't have a race.

Edited by saudoso, 07 July 2012 - 22:10.

The governments that finance the races have the power and they want lots of tourists and fans that spend their money at their race.

These guys accept (and negotiate) the terms.

Making the cars capable of running in wet weather is a technical question that FOM can include to the concorde agreement should someone with enough leverage pressure them.

As I said the race funding governments are the only party that might have the interest to bring back wet running and abolish the excessive red flags that are killing the sport for spectators.

Those who mentioned ride height above.

These cars' bottoms will act as planing hulls when there is standing water on track.

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 08 July 2012 - 03:01.

fia red flags the qualy because it has nothing to do with cars nor drivers nor setup , its just aquaplaning where the driver is a complete passenger and it doesnt differentiate from a schumacher and a pic .not only that but the consequences of a car recovering from aquaplaning like massa . he could have been hit by 3 cars and if anyone tried to avoid him he will most probably aquaplane himself and into the barriers . fia do this for the safety of cars , drivers and marshals . some people need to GROW THE **** UP

The current extremes are 10mm taller total diameter which is clearly not enough, a poster in the live forum named josh suggested increasing that to 25-40mm or even more and I agree with him, it would be the easiest way to get the plank above standing water without messing too much with regulations, parc ferme etc.