I always thought the grooves were just a way to keep the tires from appearing too narrow. If Mosely's goal was to control cornering speed with tire qualities, why didn't he just require harder rubber. Apparently appearances are important or he would have legislated 6 wide slicks.
Newey suggested that grooves aren't the issue, the issue is just grip, and hard slicks would be as problematic as the hard grooved tires. I believe him, except I wonder if grooves are conceived to limit the usable tread depth. Do the rules require the tire to be abandoned before the groove dissapears from wear?
Is the current tire formulation, designed to force more pit stops (the vogue method to pass in tactical F1. Do the mandated grooves limit the usable tread depth, and provide an artificial limit on tire wear?
What was the usable rubber depth on the old slicks, and was it controlled by rules, or by the physics of tire stability?
One post suggested the Bridgestone F1 tires are harder than street tires. Does anyone have a comparative measure (durometers?) of the hardness of street tires, old F1 slicks, and current F1 grooved tires?
Tire questions
Started by
xfire
, Aug 17 1999 04:19
10 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
UPRC
-
- 4,716 posts
- Joined: February 99
Member
Posted 17 August 1999 - 09:48
sorry, no..... great post though!
------------------
http://www.angelfire.com/ns/scuderia
http://homepagetools...etinboard/UPRC/
------------------
http://www.angelfire.com/ns/scuderia
http://homepagetools...etinboard/UPRC/
#3
UPRC
-
- 4,716 posts
- Joined: February 99
Member
Posted 17 August 1999 - 09:49
sorry, no..... great post though!
------------------
http://www.angelfire.com/ns/scuderia
http://homepagetools...etinboard/UPRC/
------------------
http://www.angelfire.com/ns/scuderia
http://homepagetools...etinboard/UPRC/
#4
Megatron
-
- 3,688 posts
- Joined: January 99
Member
Posted 17 August 1999 - 10:43
I can not ansewer all your questions but I can say that at some tracks, the F1 tire is harder than that of the street tire.
They do this because of the grooves in the tires. If the compound was not hard, then the tire would just come apart.
The current tires are not to make teams make more pitstops. They are to simply slow cornering speeds.
Aside from those handicaps, another drawback from the groove tires is in the areodynamic department, particurally on the high speed circuts.
Drivers report that car weaving strangly on high speed straightaways.
The treadwear is not supposed to be any different than slicks. Early last year, many teams thought that if you ran the tire way down, you would have what basically amounted to a slick. This was proven to be untrue very quick.
FIA did not require harder rubber because two tire companies were competing with each other at the time and I am sure they felt one company might benifit more than the other and wants to avoid anything to do with that.
While grip may be the key to speeds, it is the way the grooves make the car drive which is the key. Many drivers report a serious understeer entering the corner while having a visous oversteer when they begin to accerlate.
You would proablly not have that with slicks, even if it was a very hard slick.
------------------
Death through Tyranny - Megatron
They do this because of the grooves in the tires. If the compound was not hard, then the tire would just come apart.
The current tires are not to make teams make more pitstops. They are to simply slow cornering speeds.
Aside from those handicaps, another drawback from the groove tires is in the areodynamic department, particurally on the high speed circuts.
Drivers report that car weaving strangly on high speed straightaways.
The treadwear is not supposed to be any different than slicks. Early last year, many teams thought that if you ran the tire way down, you would have what basically amounted to a slick. This was proven to be untrue very quick.
FIA did not require harder rubber because two tire companies were competing with each other at the time and I am sure they felt one company might benifit more than the other and wants to avoid anything to do with that.
While grip may be the key to speeds, it is the way the grooves make the car drive which is the key. Many drivers report a serious understeer entering the corner while having a visous oversteer when they begin to accerlate.
You would proablly not have that with slicks, even if it was a very hard slick.
------------------
Death through Tyranny - Megatron
#5
PDA
-
- 1,017 posts
- Joined: July 99
Member
Posted 17 August 1999 - 11:40
My understanding is that at the beginning of the year, the FIA asked Bridgestone to provide harder compounds than were used in 98 to try to stop the increase in cornering speeds. Bridgestone agreed on condition that they could take two tyre types to each race to ensure that the tyres would be a topic of conversation by the commentators.
The cars are examined at the end of the race and must have a minimum tread depth left.
The cars are examined at the end of the race and must have a minimum tread depth left.
#6
Schumi Fan
-
- 1,020 posts
- Joined: June 99
Member
Posted 18 August 1999 - 08:42
I may not be able to contribute greatly to this thread, but I read somewhere, in a racing magazine, that even the softest F1 tires are much (and I mean MUCH) harder than the hardest road tires. They have to be able to withstand up to 4G of cornering (I know, I am pointing out the obvious), so they have to be super-strong.
Just wondering, are the sidewalls and the tread made out of the same compound, or are they able to make the sidewalls harder?
Just wondering, are the sidewalls and the tread made out of the same compound, or are they able to make the sidewalls harder?
#7
xfire
-
- 14 posts
- Joined: August 99
New Member
Posted 18 August 1999 - 09:28
Thread summary
1. The grooves do artificially limit the tire wear.
2. We've all heard that the groovies are harder than road tires. (I'm reluctant to believe that, that is why asked about measurements)
3. Grooves seem to add some aerodynamic issues that slicks do not have.
New questions:
With slicks, did they use up more rubber than the grooves are deep? Why do worn slick tires degrade? I had shaved tires on my car once and they were amazingly stable in a slide. Do the slicks get rounded, or do they get hard from heat cycles, or do they get cupped? clearly new slick tires are faster, but why?
Shape, stickyness or something else?
I think this discsussion will help me come to an opinion about future tire rules. Not that anyone with any influence will ask or care. Currnetly I think that the FIA interest in slowing down the cornering speed with hard tires is not completely ill founded. But, a new tire formulation (and aerodynamic configiration) is needed that makes the cars slide in a controlled manner, at that dimninished corner speed. I'd love to see the cars move around more, if the cars are still controllable. That's the way the were years ago, and it made great viewing (and passing!).
1. The grooves do artificially limit the tire wear.
2. We've all heard that the groovies are harder than road tires. (I'm reluctant to believe that, that is why asked about measurements)
3. Grooves seem to add some aerodynamic issues that slicks do not have.
New questions:
With slicks, did they use up more rubber than the grooves are deep? Why do worn slick tires degrade? I had shaved tires on my car once and they were amazingly stable in a slide. Do the slicks get rounded, or do they get hard from heat cycles, or do they get cupped? clearly new slick tires are faster, but why?
Shape, stickyness or something else?
I think this discsussion will help me come to an opinion about future tire rules. Not that anyone with any influence will ask or care. Currnetly I think that the FIA interest in slowing down the cornering speed with hard tires is not completely ill founded. But, a new tire formulation (and aerodynamic configiration) is needed that makes the cars slide in a controlled manner, at that dimninished corner speed. I'd love to see the cars move around more, if the cars are still controllable. That's the way the were years ago, and it made great viewing (and passing!).
#8
PDA
-
- 1,017 posts
- Joined: July 99
Member
Posted 18 August 1999 - 12:03
The aerodynamic instability is, I think, not so much due to grooved tyres, but to the narrow track of the cars.
Re tyres going "off". The problem is caused by the tyre exceeding its optimum operating temperature. When that happens, the compund starts to more or less revulcanize. Chemical changes occur and the surface of the tyre "grains" changing its grip characteristics, or if it overheats very badly, it starts to "blister" where pieces of the tread start to lift from the carcase and are then worn away. We saw a lot of this in the last year of slicks when Goodyear and Bridgestone were making softer and softer compunds to be competitive.
BTW, back in the good old days of wide slicks and relatively unlimited aerodynamics, there was almost no passing. There never has been a lot of passing in F1.
Re tyres going "off". The problem is caused by the tyre exceeding its optimum operating temperature. When that happens, the compund starts to more or less revulcanize. Chemical changes occur and the surface of the tyre "grains" changing its grip characteristics, or if it overheats very badly, it starts to "blister" where pieces of the tread start to lift from the carcase and are then worn away. We saw a lot of this in the last year of slicks when Goodyear and Bridgestone were making softer and softer compunds to be competitive.
BTW, back in the good old days of wide slicks and relatively unlimited aerodynamics, there was almost no passing. There never has been a lot of passing in F1.
#9
xfire
-
- 14 posts
- Joined: August 99
New Member
Posted 18 August 1999 - 22:22
PDA - I was refering to the real old days, like the late 60s with green, bullet shaped cars; wingless, that wound through courses with slides and swoops like rally cars on gravel.
#10
SlowDrivr
-
- 150 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 19 August 1999 - 02:08
Why did cars before about the 70's slide around so much and get such large yaw angles around corners? Why is it today that is the slow way around an asphalt track while back then it was the fast way?
Also, why where the tires back then so skinny? Did they not know that more rubber on the ground gives more grip or where the manufacturers not able to make wider tires?
Also, why where the tires back then so skinny? Did they not know that more rubber on the ground gives more grip or where the manufacturers not able to make wider tires?
#11
PDA
-
- 1,017 posts
- Joined: July 99
Member
Posted 19 August 1999 - 10:12
xfire - I remember the racers of the sixties very well. For example, in 63, Jim Clark was (always) on pole, led from the start and opened up a gap at 1 second per lap and won the race or broke. Just like Mika in Hungary. there was little overtaking.
SD - way back then the tyre companies had not learned the technology required to make wide tyres. Slicks didn't come in until (I think) 1970 in F1 and early examples proved very difficult to drive because of strong vibration while cornering. When you are in a tyre war, you can only make gradual improvements, because if you make a big change, and get it wrong, you are wrong all year. When you are the only supplier, there is little incentive to be innovative.
Re yaw angles. We used to think that the cars of the sixties were much less spectacular than the fifties. If you want to see perhaps the greatest drive (by maybe the greatest F1 driver) displaying what nowadays look to be impossible slip angles, try to get a video of Fangio in 1957 at the French GP at Rouen. everybody was saying that he was past it (47 years old) at it must have got to him, because he lapped the entire field.
SD - way back then the tyre companies had not learned the technology required to make wide tyres. Slicks didn't come in until (I think) 1970 in F1 and early examples proved very difficult to drive because of strong vibration while cornering. When you are in a tyre war, you can only make gradual improvements, because if you make a big change, and get it wrong, you are wrong all year. When you are the only supplier, there is little incentive to be innovative.
Re yaw angles. We used to think that the cars of the sixties were much less spectacular than the fifties. If you want to see perhaps the greatest drive (by maybe the greatest F1 driver) displaying what nowadays look to be impossible slip angles, try to get a video of Fangio in 1957 at the French GP at Rouen. everybody was saying that he was past it (47 years old) at it must have got to him, because he lapped the entire field.
