52 replies to this topic

[V8 Fireworks]

F1 and NASCAR share few technical regulations. For instance, the FIA does not demand the use of live rear axles or leaf springs in the premier open-wheel category. However, they do share a McLaren ECU and the use of high profile tyres - straight out of the 1970s.

While such an aspect ratio looks fantastic on a '69 Trans Am Mustang, in my opinion if viewed critically they look a little out of place on the chiselled lines of a modern F1 car. Like an afterthought tacked on due to the demands of the regulations.

There are many issues:

• Junior categories use similar tyres, however in my opinion this is only for the reason of being the same as F1.
• Michelin indicated a preference for 18" in their submissions.
• You'd guess that other tyre suppliers would probably prefer to supply lower profile tyres too.
• Engineering issues such as slow tyre warm up and side wall flexing issues could be apparently be solved with a lower profile tyre.
• The larger wheels would be heavier.
• Some observers think lower profile tyres would look better.
• However the history and tradition of using 13" is strongly in favour of the smaller size. For example, an emotive link is made between Ayrton Senna's blue and white Williams Renault or black and gold Lotus Renault and Bruno Senna's blue and white Williams Renault or black and gold Lotus-sponsored Renault. The balloon like tyres are in a sense a trademark of F1 competition, just as the tough disposable steel rims and similarly profiled tyres are for NASCAR.

Links
http://www.f1fanatic...e-sense-for-f1/
http://news.drive.co...0202-1qttv.html

[Seanspeed]

[GotYoubyTheBalls]

No, dumb question.

[Ulysses777]

It wouldn't look good with cars retiring at Monaco with broken wheels.

[IceSkyrim]

N

Both wheel and tire would weight much more and therefore have a bigger unsprung weight which is bad for the suspension set up.

As the tire wall would flex much less, high degres of camber would imply in tire wear at the extremities.

[Dunder]

I voted no to both.

Going back to your first paragraph, I would love to see an F1 car with a live rear axle - just for the comedy value.

[lustigson]

I believe there was talk of F1 adopting 16" or 17" wheels as a compromise, as part of the new-for-2013 rules — that were eventually pushed back to 2014 — but that idea was then scrapped, because having larger wheels and lower sidewalls would have a major impact on suspension et cetera.

Aren't there any Photoshops around with F1 cars on 16" to 18" wheels? I'd be curious to see how the cars would look. I know 18" wheels look great on sportscars.

<edit> Something like this:

Edited by lustigson, 23 April 2012 - 10:11.

[Ali_G]

Champcar used to run with 16s I think.




Surely running larger wheels would reduce unsprung weight as the tyre rubber weighs more than the ultra light alloys used in the metal wheels ? The major change would be in suspension geometry hence why the teams didn't want the change.

Edited by Ali_G, 23 April 2012 - 10:17.

[muramasa]

I wouldnt mind.

[wj_gibson]

Didn't Max Mosley try to explore this back in about 2001? I distinctly recall reading something about the FIA feeling that the chunky aesthetic of the tyres (which hasn't really changed much since) was anachronistic compared with the sleeker aesthetics of road tyres.

[SPBHM]

to many changes to the car suspension I guess...
I don't think that the current tyres and wheels have anything "obsolete", or not modern about them... the F1 cars are also quite low and compact looking, the proportions are not the same as in a modern road car,

[Hulkster]

In general I think the rules should allow more freedom, there should be less rules dictating that so many parts of each car must be identical.

Let the teams design their cars, if that means giant wheels, tiny wheels, three wheels, go for it.

Innovate and see what works best.

[Ali_G]

In general I think the rules should allow more freedom, there should be less rules dictating that so many parts of each car must be identical.

Let the teams design their cars, if that means giant wheels, tiny wheels, three wheels, go for it.

Innovate and see what works best.

I would imagine for the most part it's a cost issue.

Do you really want a tyre supplier having to supply various tyres of different sizes. In fact, it would prob double their costs as different tyres sizes would need two completely different development teams. Characteristics of both would be completely different.

[Starish]

I would imagine for the most part it's a cost issue.

Do you really want a tyre supplier having to supply various tyres of different sizes. In fact, it would prob double their costs as different tyres sizes would need two completely different development teams. Characteristics of both would be completely different.

Time for a tyre war then? Bring n the Michelin man.

Edited by Starish, 23 April 2012 - 13:05.

[V8 Fireworks]

Champcar used to run with 16s I think.

One sweet ride.

Surely running larger wheels would reduce unsprung weight as the tyre rubber weighs more than the ultra light alloys used in the metal wheels ?

I guess they are referring to the diameter of the continuous part of the rim itself, rather the reduction in side wall material for more spokes.
e.g., 40% more rim material at 18" vs 13".

[MattPete]

Champcar tire ratios is the way to go. It should have been done years ago.

[Ali_G]

One sweet ride.



I guess they are referring to the diameter of the continuous part of the rim itself, rather the reduction in side wall material for more spokes.
e.g., 40% more rim material at 18" vs 13".

I can't imagine anything but a reduction in total unsprung weight and hence better suspension characteristcs.

[Tenmantaylor]

Why would low profile be modern? Because dem Renault 5 Turbos is got some fat rims yo'!?

Higher profile tyres give lower weight cars more grip. This is provided by the tyre wall movement and the ability to handle higher loads of downforce without upsetting car balance. There is more give and movement in the tyres than the suspension on an F1 car. Changing the profile height would mean a complete chassis/suspension redesign for all teams. Where is the incentive? So you think they look nicer?

[FPV GTHO]

Champcar was 15". Not sure what Indycar run but its probably the same.

I voted yes for low profile, but no for high profile tyres looking stupid. I dont think an 18" tyre, certainly a jump strait too that, would be ideal but i think they could at least do 15-16. Despite the major suspension changes necessary, it would be for the better. It would mean more work is done by the actual suspension as opposed to tyre flex etc, and understanding the tyres is a much harder science.

[BRG]

Why would low profile be modern? Because dem Renault 5 Turbos is got some fat rims yo'!?

Yes. I was looking at a Merc SLK the other day (a real hairdresser's car) and it had 35% ratio tyres at the back - like rubber bands. All the sports prototypes (Audi, Peugeot etc) have been using far bigger wheels and lower aspect ratio tyres for years, out of choice, so there is clearly a perceived advantage. Suspension design should not be an issue - the data exists elsewhere and anyway, the teams supposedly start with a clean sheet each year.

But having said all that, it ain't broken, so why fix it?

Edited by BRG, 24 April 2012 - 13:05.

[MichaelPM]

TL;DR
Classical mechanics > modern idiocy

Although for F1 the issue shifts to suspension stiffness, it's still a negative impact on performance I'm sure.

[Ali_G]

Why would low profile be modern? Because dem Renault 5 Turbos is got some fat rims yo'!?

Higher profile tyres give lower weight cars more grip. This is provided by the tyre wall movement and the ability to handle higher loads of downforce without upsetting car balance. There is more give and movement in the tyres than the suspension on an F1 car. Changing the profile height would mean a complete chassis/suspension redesign for all teams. Where is the incentive? So you think they look nicer?

Surely the extra sidewall flex could be mimiced by running slightly softer suspension ? Surely this would be beneficial as suspension movement would be more regular and better understood than sidewall flex ?

[Alfisti]

IMHO the Champcar above has it right, 18's would be insane and would look stupid. A slightly bigger wheel with a slightly smaller sidewall than they have now would be ideal.

[MattPete]

Old post from 2010 showing different tires on a Ferrari:


Current 13-inch


15-inch


Champcar 15-inch (27 vs. 26 diameter rear tire)


Proposed 18-inch

[Alfisti]

Yeah that shows what I mean, the Champcar has it right.

[Baddoer]

Everyone will moan, team principles, technical directors, tyre suppliers, drivers complaining... So answer is simple: they could, they should but they wont.

[Gridfire]

"My Corsa C has 19 inch rims with 255/25/19R tyres stretched over them despite the very provable fact that these make my car handle like absolute ****".

Is that something along the lines of what you were thinking? Small wheels with large tyre walls are superior to the currently fashionable low profile wheels in a number of areas. In fact the only good reason I can think of to have larger rims would be to be able to fit larger brakes, which are restricted by the rules anyway.

The only reason I can see that the tyre manufacturers would express an opinion for lower profile tyres is for marketing purposes - they would look more like the road tyres they sell. The fatter tyre walls provide both extra suspension to handle the kerbs and protection for the driver against shocks beyond that which the car's mechanical suspension provides. Also the tyre wall flex actually gives a driver a small warning when grip is about to be exceeded. It can be felt through the wheels and the seat when a car with thick tyres is about to lose traction, unlike through very low profile tyres which give up with no warning at all.

Engineering doesn't care about fashion. Changing the wheels just because they would look more modern is a laughable idea.

[BigCHrome]

Hell no. Larger wheels would make the cars look beyond horrible. Besides low profile tires would mean less brand exposure for the tire manufacturer because you would barely see the logo.

[MatsNorway]

No 18inch.. Yeeesess.. FIA allways overdo everything.

Whats wrong with going just one inch up pr year or second year to feel it out. Its called evolusjon i heard its fairly stable.

[SPBHM]

Old post from 2010 showing different tires on a Ferrari:


Current 13-inch


15-inch


Champcar 15-inch (27 vs. 26 diameter rear tire)


Proposed 18-inch

18s is so ugly, the rest is OK,

another reference

[Crafty]

Nah, leave it alone.

If there was any benefit to running a low profile the teams would push for it through the TWG, but there isn't, so they don't.

Screw how it looks, going faster is the only thing that counts.

[Ali_G]

Nah, leave it alone.

If there was any benefit to running a low profile the teams would push for it through the TWG, but there isn't, so they don't.

Screw how it looks, going faster is the only thing that counts.

Why would the teams care if it would benefit all teams equally. A lower profile would give many gains such as more wheel rigidity and lower unsprung weight.

The reason the teams don't want it is the added cost of a suspension redesign and possibly having to redesign the front of the monocoque to accomodate any changes.

Edited by Ali_G, 24 April 2012 - 21:53.

[Bloggsworth]

Only if you want drivers to have a shelf-life of about two years before their teeth are shaken loose and all the discs in their spines look like wet digestive biscuits...

[Ali_G]

Only if you want drivers to have a shelf-life of about two years before their teeth are shaken loose and all the discs in their spines look like wet digestive biscuits...

Suspension will obviously be softened to take account of less sidewall movement though.


I believe Alan Jones once tested a Williams running without springs after the side skirts were banned.

[MattPete]

Only if you want drivers to have a shelf-life of about two years before their teeth are shaken loose and all the discs in their spines look like wet digestive biscuits...

Don't be so F1-centric: just because things are done one way in F1 does not mean it is the best way (more often than not, it's due to rules designed to limit, not enhance, performance).

CART, ChampCar, and IRL have been running with lower profile tires for 30+ years, thank-you (never mind Indy Lights, Formula Nippon, etc.)

[thiscocks]

I imagine the cars would need a fair bit more suspension travel with larger wheels (smaller sidewalls). I think it would be interesting to open the rules to say you can use 13-15" wheels with the same diameter tyres so the option is there if teams think any advantage can be gained.

I think changing the rules just for the sake of looks is pointless, as this is subjective anyway.

[FPV GTHO]

When Bridgestone came in, they wanted lower profiles but was blocked by Goodyear. When Michelin came in they too wanted lower profiles but were blocked by Bridgestone. Both Pirelli and Michelin were looking at lower profile, but whilst Pirelli were merely interested, Michelin wanted to use their 18" LMP tyres.

[klyster]

Those slow motion shots of the current tyres on the chicanes and curbs etc..are a good indicator why they won't change to low profile tyres any time soon.

[BRG]

Only if you want drivers to have a shelf-life of about two years before their teeth are shaken loose and all the discs in their spines look like wet digestive biscuits...

What nonsense. They use low profile tyres at Le Mans - for 24 hours - and teh drivers seem to survive remarkably well, despite 12 hours at the wheel. And their shelf life is much longer than F1 drivers.

Edited by BRG, 25 April 2012 - 11:03.

[FPV GTHO]

Those slow motion shots of the current tyres on the chicanes and curbs etc..are a good indicator why they won't change to low profile tyres any time soon.

Because theyre just going to put on 18 inch wheels and be done with it.

That tyre jounce is precisely why some within F1 want to get rid of high profile rubber! It is uncontrollable without the use of mechanisms such as tuned mass dampers and J dampers, which is a relative black art compared to contemporary spring rates and damping.

[undersquare]

Low profiles would look FAR better.

Lol at all these imaginary technical problems, they are easily dealt with.

[Kraken]

It's something that a lot of firms bidding to supply tyres for F1 wanted to do to make the product more "relevant" to the road user and more in-line with tyres used at Le Mans etc. The F1 teams were against it because of the costs of re-engineering their cars.

[Sevach]

Absolutely, yes.

[Bloggsworth]

Suspension will obviously be softened to take account of less sidewall movement though.


I believe Alan Jones once tested a Williams running without springs after the side skirts were banned.

What - and ruin the effect of all that aerodynamic research over the last 20 years! Not if the designers had anything to do with it. Drivers are a necessary evil, they get in the way of the packaging.

[King Six]

Yeah, would be nice to see the look changed. There are far too many conservatives in F1, especially the fanbase, which never made any sense to me but whatever. Ayrton Senna blah blah blah, yawn.

However the current tyres don't look silly either...

Edited by King Six, 25 April 2012 - 14:35.

[Gridfire]

Yeah, would be nice to see the look changed. There are far too many conservatives in F1, especially the fanbase, which never made any sense to me but whatever. Ayrton Senna blah blah blah, yawn.

However the current tyres don't look silly either...

It's nothing to do with conservatism. I happened to really like the crazy winglets and horns on the 2006 F1 cars. It is just to do with Engineering.

Fashionable trends, such as low profile tyres for no purpose other than aesthetics, should have absolutely nothing to do with the pinnacle of motorsport engineering that F1 is supposed to be. If such wheels and tyres were technically a better fit for their purpose, then fair enough - otherwise, why even suggest it?

[Ali_G]

What - and ruin the effect of all that aerodynamic research over the last 20 years! Not if the designers had anything to do with it. Drivers are a necessary evil, they get in the way of the packaging.

The car overall suspension would be identically as soft. The only change would be that the softness would be transferred from the tyre wall flexing to the actual suspension.

In fact, it would be beneficial for aerodynamics as having the tyres flex less would be one less variable in terms of maintaining a constant ride height vs having the suspension soft enough for the driver.

[Dunder]

The car overall suspension would be identically as soft. The only change would be that the softness would be transferred from the tyre wall flexing to the actual suspension.

In fact, it would be beneficial for aerodynamics as having the tyres flex less would be one less variable in terms of maintaining a constant ride height vs having the suspension soft enough for the driver.

Vertically maybe but the lateral deformation of the sidewall is a huge contributor to the car's handling. With a lower profile we would be dealing with much lower slip angles and trying to recover some of that compliance from the suspension components would be a huge (and very interesting) challenge.

[Ali_G]

Vertically maybe but the lateral deformation of the sidewall is a huge contributor to the car's handling. With a lower profile we would be dealing with much lower slip angles and trying to recover some of that compliance from the suspension components would be a huge (and very interesting) challenge.

Very interesting point. Wonder could the construction of the tyre walls be adapted to give similar sideways flex compared to a tyres with a large tyre wall.

I'd imagine to do the same via suspension would require some sort of interesting joint between the wheel hub and the suspension to allow more flex longitudinally ?