Jump to content


Photo

Future of full wet tyres in F1


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#1 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,432 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 07 July 2012 - 12:45

We red flag qualifying and races more often, and run races behind the safety car until the conditions permit inters. Ironically, teams are not allowed to run inters until the safety car comes in either.

Are teams simply not setting cars up for wet conditions? Can the cars run full wet conditions if set up properly?

Does the full wet tyre have a future in F1? At the moment, it seems to be a needless cost for the manufacturer.

Advertisement

#2 walkindude

walkindude
  • Member

  • 867 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 07 July 2012 - 13:06

They should make them with much deeper treads and capacity to disperse water.And FIA should also get rid of the parc ferme rule regarding things pertaining to wet and dry setup (ride height most importantly)

#3 greenman

greenman
  • Member

  • 564 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 07 July 2012 - 13:16

I think that most of the time they threw a red flag out in past couple of years, it actually was too wet for the full wets. Don't know whether it's the tyres or the cars, or even the circuit, but when you see half of the field just spinning around, it should be an indicator that it's a bit too wet to be safe. Maybe they need to bring back the "monsoon" tyres or what were they called...
The SC staying out until it's almost dry is a different issue though, and I agree here that it got a bit ridiculous lately. Hope it won't be the same today.

#4 King Six

King Six
  • Member

  • 3,230 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 07 July 2012 - 13:18

They are kind of pointless, whenever a track is deemed wet enough for wet tyres, it's deemed too wet to race/run anyway. Modern F1 only likes to run in the inters. Either make the wet tyres better or scrap them altogether and admit you don't like running in the wet anymore.

#5 makroncommander

makroncommander
  • Member

  • 133 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 07 July 2012 - 13:18

I think the problem is with how the tyres are built. The temperatures fall so drastically and the drivers are unable to retain any heat, this makes the cars dangerous to drive.

#6 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,872 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 07 July 2012 - 13:30

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 midgrid, 07 July 2012 - 13:31.


#7 fisssssi

fisssssi
  • Member

  • 1,071 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 07 July 2012 - 13:34

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


This^^

Wet-weather-compatible rules have become severely neglected lately.

#8 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 9,883 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 July 2012 - 13:34

Matter of too low ride height?

#9 greenman

greenman
  • Member

  • 564 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 07 July 2012 - 13:34

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.

Agree here... I think the whole parc ferme rule is the most ridiculous one in F1

#10 choyothe

choyothe
  • Member

  • 2,312 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 07 July 2012 - 13:35

They should just turn F1 into a dry-sport only seeing that's clearly what they want. Fans wouldn't have to deal with this crap every single time.

#11 Zippel

Zippel
  • Member

  • 1,051 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 07 July 2012 - 13:35

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?

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


#12 makroncommander

makroncommander
  • Member

  • 133 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 07 July 2012 - 13:40

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?


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.

#13 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,483 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 July 2012 - 13:50

Matter of too low ride height?


Yes, when you're only 5mm off the ground running in more than a light shower begins to get very difficult. They really need to make cars that can be raised a lot higher, and abolish most of parc ferme - as long as they don't do the typically daft thing and forget why they had these rules in the first place.

It's a cultural problem really. Teams built lower cars that struggle more with standing water, then spend far too money on qualifying only cars, the FIA react by stopping racing as cars can't stay on the track and introducing parc ferme regs, some drivers keep complaining that the conditions are undrivable, the FIA has no choice but to listen to them, etc etc. No ones ever seriously talked about rules and ways to run better in wet conditions, as a result we end up with little running in these conditions when we probably could.

#14 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,143 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 July 2012 - 16:10

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.


Way to ignore the rule changes we had since then.

#15 sheepgobba

sheepgobba
  • Member

  • 1,121 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 07 July 2012 - 16:12

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

That also plays its part

#16 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,656 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 07 July 2012 - 16:18

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

That also plays its part

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 Seanspeed, 07 July 2012 - 16:23.


#17 joshb

joshb
  • Member

  • 3,336 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 07 July 2012 - 16:19

Deeper grooves in the tyres and a wider circumference on the X-Wets to raise ride height by more than the paltry 5mm they do now. (Maybe 15-20mm)
Yes the modern wets are very efficient and kick up more spray but the SC ran for SEVEN laps in the GP2 race when a standing start wasn't a complete no-no

#18 King Six

King Six
  • Member

  • 3,230 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 07 July 2012 - 16:19

None of the drivers are even making a fuss about it any more, Hamilton from Korea 2010 is a completely different man now for Britain 2012, he's been moulded into the modern face of the sport. The GP2 race today had huge safety car periods, probably 40-50% of the race from what I read. The next generation of drivers are going to be even worse than the current drivers. It's almost inevitable that F1 is gearing towards becoming a dry only event. The teams themselves refuse to set the car up for the wet, and so they complain that conditions are undrivable when it is wet. Di Resta said Force India went for a dry set up, who the **** is running that team? How can you spend millions of pounds a year on an F1 team to come to the conclusion that the best way forward is a dry set up for this GP. It just boggles the mind.

It's frustrating, but at the end of the day. The drivers, the teams, the FIA...they all do not want to race in the wet and that is too many forces to go up against. It's a losing battle for the fans and unfortunately only reflects the cultural shift that has happened in the sport over the past few years.

#19 sheepgobba

sheepgobba
  • Member

  • 1,121 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 07 July 2012 - 16:26

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.



I am not so sure because in the dry I think the slick rubber is considerably superior to the grove rubber we had in 08 and hence we see faster or closer times.

If memory serves me right I remember back in 08 PDR did a time 2-3 seconds quicker with slick rubber compared to grove.

Advertisement

#20 Vesuvius

Vesuvius
  • Member

  • 6,101 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 07 July 2012 - 16:27

Monsoon tyres back please, like we did have few years ago.

#21 Massa

Massa
  • Member

  • 4,413 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 July 2012 - 16:29

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.

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


#22 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,881 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 07 July 2012 - 16:37

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

if the issue is the plank/low ride height, make bigger extreme wet tyres.

#23 Octavian

Octavian
  • Member

  • 703 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 07 July 2012 - 16:51

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


lol wut?

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




#24 Vesuvius

Vesuvius
  • Member

  • 6,101 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 07 July 2012 - 17:22

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.


That's rubbish...bridgestones had same problems or maybe even worse! It's because of the less downforce and the absence of monsoon tyres.

#25 Vesuvius

Vesuvius
  • Member

  • 6,101 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 07 July 2012 - 17:23

lol wut?

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


And the problem is FIA, they tell what kind of tyres to do and Pirelli makes what they are told to do.

#26 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,881 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 07 July 2012 - 19:23

there dry tyres are mostly pap, but im not seeing anything worse with there wets or inters than bridgestone. the cars get sideways more, but thats cool to watch :)


#27 Massa

Massa
  • Member

  • 4,413 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 July 2012 - 19:26

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


When Bridgestone had the same problem?

#28 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,447 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 07 July 2012 - 19:27

I have a feel it has to do with

1. Ride heights being low and not adjustable due to Parc ferme rules
2. Maybe the threads in the tyres aren't as big
3. The drivers took more risks in the past



#29 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,952 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 07 July 2012 - 19:37

When Bridgestone had the same problem?

Just remember Fuji 2007 and Korea 2010.....

#30 Massa

Massa
  • Member

  • 4,413 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 July 2012 - 19:38

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

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


#31 george1981

george1981
  • Member

  • 848 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 07 July 2012 - 19:43

It's not just the tyre/car performance that brings out the safety car it's the visibility too. The current wet tyres kick up 60 litres of water per second as we were told numerous times today, 24 cars x 60 litres x 110s (cross over time today for wet/inter today) = a lot of spray or 158400 litres per lap. A race like Spa 1998 would either be red flagged or run under the safety car just on visibility alone these days.

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


#32 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,952 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 07 July 2012 - 19:45

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

Korea 2010 was mainly visibility, like so many other occasions.
And there are enough examples of Q sessions red flagged in the Bridgestone era like Brazil 2009 or Malaysia 2010.

I don't say that the Bridgestone tyres were a problem. The quality of the wet tyres isn't the problem at all. Not in the Bridgestone days and not now.
The main problems are ride height (as a result of the parc ferme rules) and visibility (partly as a result of tyre width specifications).

#33 turssi

turssi
  • Member

  • 1,558 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 07 July 2012 - 19:53

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?

#34 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,483 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 July 2012 - 20:02

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?


No way, not in the slightest when you negotiating with Bernie. Besides, FOM aren't the ones who make the rules, why should they take that penalty?

#35 turssi

turssi
  • Member

  • 1,558 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 07 July 2012 - 20:11

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

#36 Fourjays

Fourjays
  • Member

  • 242 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 07 July 2012 - 20:52

I'd introduce a way to test the rain faill and visibility, and only red flag it when the tests "fail". Then the usual suspects can moan all they want - if they still don't like it they know where to park the car. Only then do I think we can start to look at technical causes because at the moment there is a lot of moaning from drivers and we're frequently being told by commentators how things look ten times worse for them than they actually are.

To be fair we have had a few extreme cases in recent years. I'm not entirely convinced today was one though as it looked no worst than 2008. I got the impression that it was mostly red flagged because of the iffy way Massa rejoined the track after a somewhat predictable spin. But even if you consider it bad enough at the point it was red flagged, it was perfectly ok long before the restart actually occured.

#37 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,483 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 July 2012 - 20:58

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


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.

#38 blackonyx4

blackonyx4
  • Member

  • 1,284 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 07 July 2012 - 21:07

When Bridgestone had the same problem?



Your nickname is looking better on Pirelli's than on Bridgestone's.

#39 turssi

turssi
  • Member

  • 1,558 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 07 July 2012 - 21:53

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.


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.

Advertisement

#40 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,744 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 07 July 2012 - 22:07

:up: Those who mentioned ride height above.

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

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


#41 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,483 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 July 2012 - 22:09

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.


Perhaps they may want more running in the rain and the promoters might even care what the spectators think - certainly no one else cares about the fans who've paid a lot of money and have waited patiently in appalling rain. But they have no power to force anything on Bernie. It's quite clear that most of them want a Grand Prix at almost any cost and none of them want to lose it by trying to play hardball with Bernie, and besides even if they tried Bernie would just walk away and take the race somewhere else.

#42 turssi

turssi
  • Member

  • 1,558 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 07 July 2012 - 22:30

If this is the case, then there truly is no hope for full wet running in the future.

#43 cutchemist42

cutchemist42
  • Member

  • 103 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 07 July 2012 - 22:51

Montreal last year showed you what the FIA thinks of wet racing. They did not remove the safety car until inters conditions.

Get rid of the parc ferme rule for wet racing.

#44 chrcol

chrcol
  • Member

  • 1,010 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 07 July 2012 - 23:24

I remember 2008 many races with ferrari spinning of and no SC, that was proper wet racing.

Now it seems as soon as its too wet for inters then the SC is out or red flag, then SC doesnt go in until ready for inters.

I think its a combination of modern wet tryes not so good, drivers been less willing to take risks (not all of them tho I suspect some like lewis are ok with it), and the teams not liking repairing crashed cars. As well as the fact it doesnt look good for teams/drivers on tv when they crash for their image.

Its not a lot to do with safety I think as in the wet they drive much slower and all serious injuries in F1 I remember occur in dry conditions.

#45 Cavani

Cavani
  • Member

  • 905 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 08 July 2012 - 00:22

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

#46 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 2,901 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 08 July 2012 - 02:28

And therefor, one should look at some things to make it possible to race in these conditions. It was possible earlier!

#47 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 6,250 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 08 July 2012 - 03:00

:up: Those who mentioned ride height above.

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

Quite simple really, just change the rules to a higher mininum ride height. Taller wet tyres will also help, they usually are anyway. Or at least on tintops they are. Last ones I played with rolled out about 3" larger and rubbed on the guards a bit.
No guards on an F1, YET!

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


#48 cutchemist42

cutchemist42
  • Member

  • 103 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 08 July 2012 - 03:54

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


Explain Montreal last uear then.


#49 slideways

slideways
  • Member

  • 3,312 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 08 July 2012 - 05:01

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.

#50 joshb

joshb
  • Member

  • 3,336 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 08 July 2012 - 07:16

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.


cheers, but yeah, 5mm is nothing, (the width of the plank itself is 10mm by comparison and that's thin)
Get the ride height up to somewhere near road car territory and add slightly deeper grooves in the tyres and aquaplaning would be much reduced. The only problem then would be a bit more spray kicked up