30 replies to this topic

[D. Heimgartner]

How come tire companies don't produce race tires that don't smoke when locked up? After today's big Talladega wreck, I just wondered how many fewer cars would get caught up in such incidents. I know that in OW racing, it isn't a big factor. Yet... there are instances where somebody, after spinning, lights up their tires and smokes up the whole track. Maybe by using a mixture of various compounds, tire companies could make tires that don't smoke? What do you guys think?

(I posted this at the TF, but got no response.)

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by D. Heimgartner
How come tire companies don't produce race tires that don't smoke when locked up? After today's big Talladega wreck, I just wondered how many fewer cars would get caught up in such incidents. I know that in OW racing, it isn't a big factor. Yet... there are instances where somebody, after spinning, lights up their tires and smokes up the whole track. Maybe by using a mixture of various compounds, tire companies could make tires that don't smoke? What do you guys think?

(I posted this at the TF, but got no response.)

With TC and LC smoking tires have almost completly dissapeared, aprt from the odd wussy puff when someone locks up real bad (JPM overtaking on cold tires has been single-handedly responsible for at least 50% of all smoke produced during this season's races).

[BMW FW22]

[thornwell]

Hey, I didn't see that wreck. . . but there are some brilliant quotes in this article from some of the drivers.

Click here to read it

[D. Heimgartner]

I'm glad you guys got a good laugh out of this.

:

[random]

(I posted this reply to your similar query in the tech forum.)

The "smoke" is simply the tire compound burning off when it's overheated. I suppose it's possible that with great effort and many millions of dollars a compound could be developed with a higher combustion temperature than commonly achieved when skidding a tire, but what's the point?

I suppose your worry is a driver not being able to see through tire smoke in a large Nascar style multi-car pileup. But there are far easier, off the shelf solutions to that problem. IR vision systems can see right through smoke, and ABS would prevent the tire-lockup that causes the tires to burn. Both of these technologies can be found today in consumer vehicles. Although I can't imagine Nascar ever allowing something so hi-tech into their cars.

Actions speak louder than words, and Nascar's actions haven't done much to assist in the safety of their drivers. Nascar seems especially loathe to make any change that impacts their traditions or patronages. They still have no permanent safety crew like the one in CART, largely because it would remove all the local race-by-race medical patronages. Quite a lot of safety equipment and installation is still just a recommendation, who knows why. And they haven't solved the crumple zone issue that's been dogging them for over 2 years. This delay in fixing the immense crumple zone problem is almost criminal, and will be when the next driver dies from a head on hit to the wall.

Smoke from tires is a pretty small matter compared to those huge safety concerns.

[The Fazz]

Do grooved steel tyres smoke?

[Option1]

Originally posted by D. Heimgartner
I'm glad you guys got a good laugh out of this.

:

Wow, you mean it really was a serious question? Who'd 've thunk it.

[The Fazz]

Originally posted by Option1
Wow, you mean it really was a serious question? Who'd 've thunk it.

Perhaps I owe Heimgartner a serious answer. I am not sure if smoking tyres is a real visibility hazard, as in the first, place I can't see how tyre smoke can completely remove visibility. Even then, I would think that drivers would take smoke as a cue to apply more caution. On the other hand, if tyre smoke was completely eliminated... would that remove the signal for other drivers to have a forehand warning of a driver in front having trouble?? What about blown engines??

Call me environmentally unfriendly, but I prefer tyre smoke... it adds to the spectacle.

[Pioneer]

Have you ever seen some in car cams of large NASCAR accidents?

There's so much tire smoke that the whole track is obscured completely like fog. The drivers are forced to rely on rooftop spotters to tell them which way to swerve. And sometimes even the spotters can't see through the smoke.

I don't see how you could make a useful tire that didn't smoke though. It would be so hard it wouldn't have any grip.

[Booster]

Originally posted by Pioneer
Have you ever seen some in car cams of large NASCAR accidents?

There's so much tire smoke that the whole track is obscured completely like fog. The drivers are forced to rely on rooftop spotters to tell them which way to swerve. And sometimes even the spotters can't see through the smoke.

I don't see how you could make a useful tire that didn't smoke though. It would be so hard it wouldn't have any grip.

Maybe it would be good for NASCAR, I don't know because I don't enjoy NASCAR at all so I don't really watch it. But in F1... when is the last time you've seen a track completely obscured with tire smoke ?

Like it was said, smoke from a blown engine is much more a problem than tire smoke. Not only is it dangerous for the smoke it generates but also the oil the engine spits out at that time.

As for modifying the tires to make them "smokeless", it doesn't mean that the tires would be harder. It just implies that you modify the "smoking temp" of the compound by modifying it's ingredients. Mechanical properties (hardness for instance) are not always related to flash point or fusion point and so on. Ex : Nomex... soft enough to make clothing... yet, very high ignition point.

Cheers

[Pioneer]

Well not to be rude... but if go back and read the first post, it mentions the big Talladega wreck, and um... that would be NASCAR. It IS a problem there.

I still can't think of a good solution though.

[Booster]

Originally posted by Pioneer
Well not to be rude... but if go back and read the first post, it mentions the big Talladega wreck, and um... that would be NASCAR. It IS a problem there.

I still can't think of a good solution though.

Oh you're not rude at all my friend. Like I said, I can't talk about NASCAR because I don't follow it. I just volunteered my thoughts regarding F1 and smoke point in tire issue. That's all.

[Yelnats]

Originally posted by random
(I posted this reply to your similar query in the tech forum.)

The "smoke" is simply the tire compound burning off when it's overheated. I suppose it's possible that with great effort and many millions of dollars a compound could be developed with a higher combustion temperature than commonly achieved when skidding a tire, but what's the point?

I suppose your worry is a driver not being able to see through tire smoke in a large Nascar style multi-car pileup. But there are far easier, off the shelf solutions to that problem. IR vision systems can see right through smoke, and ABS would prevent the tire-lockup that causes the tires to burn. Both of these technologies can be found today in consumer vehicles. Although I can't imagine Nascar ever allowing something so hi-tech into their cars.....Etc, Etc...

I disagree that ABS would have a significant effect on tire smoke in NASCAR pileups. The smoke we see is 90% caused by the tires sliding sideways and no technology, ABS included can prevent this. As for eliminating tire smoke, I see this as a problem similar to the introduction of smokeless powder a hundred years ago. It's a case of developing a tire compound that combusts without huge quantities of visible particles, a development far more likely than a incombustable compound, an imposibility considering the chemicals and physical characteristics of a racing tire.

[pRy]

Surely Smoke is actually a good thing. I mean, if you imagine coming onto a straight and seeing smoke, your immediate reaction is "woah someone may be in trouble" and you are aware. Rather than seeing no smoke, and slamming into a car that is coming off the wall.

There is no smoke without fire as they say.

[Andre]

It's a bit off topic, but it seems the IRL is going to adopt tyre warmers in the near future.

http://www.indystar....irlnotes21.html

I think it's a great idea. I heard one of the reasons CART decided not to adopt tyre warmers was to cut costs. I don't know how expensive these things are, but considering how many accidents could have been avoided by the use of tyre warmers, I think the advantages in the long run far outweight the initial cost.

[Ali_G]

Yelnats: What about Active Stability Systems and Yaw Control. I though these were designed to sort oversteer out.

Niall

[random]

IIRC, tire warmers are made by just one company in the UK and they cost a few grand a set.

ABS would solve a lot of the tire smoke issue. If you are able to brake in a straight line, even on water and oil you won't get sideways and cause huge clouds of smoke.

But as I posted in the tech forum, IR HUD's are a far easier fix. The technology is tested and would be a very ecomomical solution to the tire smoke issue. Probably costing less than $1k a car.

[vapaokie]

Sorry, but when 27 cars are out of control across 5 lanes of pavement, smoke doesn't matter much. There is simply no where to go, whether you could see the cars or not. Hank Parker made it through only by being far enough back when it started to get stopped before hitting anyone. The problem is the big pack, and that's really only an issue at Daytona and Talledega. The racing there hasn't been very good since the plates went on, but the cars had to be slowed down after Bobby Allison went into the fence in the trioval about 1987. Had he kept going into the crowd, we wouldn't be discussing this here at all, there wouldn't be racing in the US (ie., Switzerland since the Le Mans tragedy). I don't think that anyone has a good answer yet, even now after 15 years.

With 1/3 smaller (650 vs ~900) cfm rate carbeurators, the Busch cars are faster than the Cup cars! My personal belief is that the cars are too slick, and too stable, they need way more drag to slow them down. Quit screwing around with the power, which is removing the drivers ability to drive the car. At the plate tracks there is no throttle response, back off and you go all the way to the back. So you drive with the right foot to the floor, and use the brakes to make the small adjustments you would normally make with the throttle. This problem is where the 2001 aero package came from, to try to allow the guys to drive the cars by having more throttle response. Unfortunately, it didn't work.

As for safety, look at the seats, they have come a long way in the past 1 1/2 years. As for the cars themselves, I agree that they do need crumble zones. But the inner roll cage needs to be maintained to meet the crash needs of the vehicle. Multiple impacts are much more the norm in Cup racing than the exception, as in open wheel racing. How you strike the balance between these two competing needs, I don't know. Apparently, neither do the professional engineers working on the teams either. While the cars aren't perfect, they are pretty good. Two wrecks in two days- 51!?!?!?!? cars involved. All of one driver bit his tongue!, that was it for injuries.

Random-
"But there are far easier, off the shelf solutions to that problem. IR vision systems can see right through smoke, and ABS would prevent the tire-lockup that causes the tires to burn. Both of these technologies can be found today in consumer vehicles. Although I can't imagine Nascar ever allowing something so hi-tech into their cars."

Ali_G-
"What about Active Stability Systems and Yaw Control. I though these were designed to sort oversteer out."

It's called cost. The top cup teams are running on ~$15 million, compared to Ferrari's ~$200 million. Technology is kept to a minimum to keep costs somewhat reasonable. As is, with the current economy, there are several teams not able to run the full schedule this season, led by the folding of Carter-Haas.

Random-
"Actions speak louder than words, and Nascar's actions haven't done much to assist in the safety of their drivers. Nascar seems especially loathe to make any change that impacts their traditions or patronages. They still have no permanent safety crew like the one in CART, largely because it would remove all the local race-by-race medical patronages. Quite a lot of safety equipment and installation is still just a recommendation, who knows why. And they haven't solved the crumple zone issue that's been dogging them for over 2 years. This delay in fixing the immense crumple zone problem is almost criminal, and will be when the next driver dies from a head on hit to the wall."

A bit of unfair hyperbole, NASCAR has hardly been sitting behind the scenes doing nothing. Just because there haven't been mandated (publicly announced) changes, does not equal lack of action. There is an argument for allowing some freedom in finding solution to safety problems. Once again, I refer to the seats- all improvements have come from freely allowed innovations by the teams. The big drawback with the new seats is that peripheral vision is almost gone, making the accident more likely in the first place.

Much of the improvements in car safety the past several years have come from one team in particular- the Roush organization. The owner, Jack Roush was in a plane crash Friday night. Critical condition through the weekend, upgraded to serious yesterday. Here's hoping for a complete and quick recovery.

Separately- soft walls may be coming to the Indy 500 next month. RPM 2nite was reporting this weekend that they are in final go/no go tests today. Here's hoping they get the go, and when the first driver tests it for real (at speed, on the track), they show improvement in deceleration.

[random]

Cost has nothing to do with the reason you won't see technology based safety systems in Nascar. IR Vision systems, ABS and Active Yaw systems are cheap. Even the racing versions only cost a few thousand dollars, small money even for Nascar. And if they mandated the versions found the in parts bins of the big-3 auto manufacturers, the costs would be even lower.

Everyone knows Nascar is locked into a 1960s spec racing formula and is terrified of technology. Even their new black box recorder had to be specifically designed for Nascar so that it could never, possibly link into any other systems on the car.

Nascar continues with a climate of secrecy that approaches lunacy, and is the strongest believer in the Not Invented Here syndrome. It's very possible more drivers will die due to Nascar's misplaced pride, secrecy and inaction.

BTW, soft walls are a joke. The Indy 500 could take hours to run if someone brushes those walls a few times. A Teflon coated no-friction wall would be a lot safer. I think the soft walls will just create a mess on the track and prevent little injury.

[vapaokie]

Cost has everything to do with it random. Do you really think that off the shelf passenger car parts would hold up to the rigors of racing (heat, vibration, etc.)? Specialized racing applications would have to be developed, and that means $$$. If off the shelf parts will work, then how come our beloved F1 cars are built out of specialized components, rather than off the shelf?

As for your technologies, would they make things safer? Not likely. NASCAR is pushing the limits of safe speeds at several other tracks than Daytona and Talledega (Atlanta and Texas are far more of a challenge). The hard braking that ABS is good for would truthfully only apply at the road course events, and maybe Martinsville, locking the brakes rarely happens otherwise outside of coming into a pit stop. Traction control and yaw control would likely serve to make the cars even faster, once again compounding the problem. IR? Once again, when the track gets blocked by smoke, there generally isn't anywhere to go whether you can see or not. BTW, what racing series is using it? I'm not familiar with any, but I could be wrong.

WTH would Teflon coated non-friction walls do to improve safety? Please enlighten me. The problems with the walls in Cup and oval racing in general are not a matter of cars sticking to the wall, but the rate of deformation (or lack thereof) of the car as it hits. Soft walls in the sense of the styrofoam we have seen at Watkins Glen (ask Jimmie Johnson), and the engineered plastic they used on the inside wall before pit lane at Indy (ask Luyendyk (sp?) from the IROC race a couple of years back) worked in slowing the deceleration, cleanup is the major issue. RPM2nite's story intimated that the new forms they are testing for the outside walls don't have that issue. That is, they maintain their integrity. I would like to see what they are working on, as the other forms I have seen would take up too much runoff area on corner exit. The cars are already using every inch of real estate off the corners.

"Everyone knows Nascar is locked into a 1960s spec racing formula and is terrified of technology. Even their new black box recorder had to be specifically designed for Nascar so that it could never, possibly link into any other systems on the car."

Right on the black box, they are trying to keep computer control systems out of the cars. They are plenty fast enough, bordering too fast, without them. The teams were just recently warned not to incorporate traction control systems into the ignition systems- a la F1 engine mapping.

"Nascar continues with a climate of secrecy that approaches lunacy, and is the strongest believer in the Not Invented Here syndrome. It's very possible more drivers will die due to Nascar's misplaced pride, secrecy and inaction."

It's very possible more drivers will die in F1, CART, and the other series preferred on this board. Rather nasty nature of the beast. The 12 years between Villeneuve and Ratzenberger lulled the F1 community into a sense of invulneribility to this fact. I sincerely hope the 8 years since Senna is not having a similar effect.

The tone of your comments in general borders more on an irrational dislike/hatred of NASCAR, rather than true concern for improving the cars. If you don't like the series, fine, leave discussions on it alone. Don't couch your vitriol in disingenuous pleas about safety, conveniently leaving out the fact that the cars perform fairly well in most of the impacts they see.

[vapaokie]

Found more info on the soft walls being tested for Indy-

http://my.brickyard....hp?story_id=639

[random]

vapaokie, check your facts, it's not about cost.

ABS, traction control, yaw control (etc...) are all available in hardened racing versions from various manufacturers. Look in any issue of Racecar magazines and you'll find suppliers of this technology. It's not that expensive but does require wheel spin sensors, accelerometers and (generally) a centrally located ECU. It's this technology that Nascar wants to prevent at all costs. The monetary prices are quite reasonable by Nascar standards.

One of many links I found for racing traction control systems, this one costs a whopping $800. http://www.bavarianp.../rl.html#config

BTW, have you ever visited a Nascar shop? The bigger shops have the highest tech, very expensive CNC machines and litteraly millions of dollars of testing and fabrication technology. Nascar shops no longer look very different from open wheel shops.

The IR HUD (AFAIK) is not a common racing part, but there's no reason the automotive OEM part wouldn't work. This option costs less than $1000 on a new car. http://www.raytheoni...d3a/summary.htm

[vapaokie]

Maybe upfront costs of technology are not that much, but factor the costs of developing the systems to make them better- that's where the real costs come from. The engine management systems in the F1 cars aren't what make the electronics an expensive part of the package; it's the people it takes to run and develop them. With onboard computers, now you are adding software developers, and even more engineers- mechanical, electrical, computer to integrate them. Costs grow exponentially as you are adding people.

Once again I come back to what do you accomplish by adding the technologies proposed? So now you can see the track completely blocked with the heads up IR. Does nothing to change the fact that there is no where to go because all the cars are running too close together. I still haven't heard an argument for ABS. Yaw control and traction control will make the cars easier to drive (hello, running argument on this board about technology ruining the racing in F1!) and faster- better grip, no wheelspin, more aceleration sooner. There is hardly a real need to speed the Cup cars up. When these big wrecks happen, they usually start by someone hitting someone else and turning them, or someone running in the back of someone lifting the throttle. No system you proposed is going to prevent these accidents. The problem is not a matter of not being able to see where to go, it's having no where to go. The only solution is getting the cars spaced back out, as they were 15 years ago before the plates had to be put on. They were supposed to be a stopgap measure, but no one has been able to come up with a better solution.

I have been to the shops. Yes, they are very developed. Still the top teams are running on about $15 million/car. Well below the top open wheel circuits where all the technology is used.

Lastly, NASCAR is a completely different theory of racing. It has never been about being the pinnacle of automotive technology. It has been about minimizing the contribution of the car, so that the drivers and teams play the largest role in who wins. Its not like F1 where Ferrari, Williams, McLaren, and Renaults's technology is so far ahead of everyone else that it doesn't matter who is driving the car, Minardi, Arrows, or Jaguar aren't going to win the race.

[Yelnats]

Originally posted by random
vapaokie, check your facts, it's not about cost.

ABS, traction control, yaw control (etc...) are all available in hardened racing versions from various manufacturers. Look in any issue of Racecar magazines and you'll find suppliers of this technology. It's not that expensive but does require wheel spin sensors, accelerometers and (generally) a centrally located ECU. It's this technology that Nascar wants to prevent at all costs. The monetary prices are quite reasonable by Nascar standards.

One of many links I found for racing traction control systems, this one costs a whopping $800. http://www.bavarianp.../rl.html#config

BTW, have you ever visited a Nascar shop? The bigger shops have the highest tech, very expensive CNC machines and litteraly millions of dollars of testing and fabrication technology. Nascar shops no longer look very different from open wheel shops.

The IR HUD (AFAIK) is not a common racing part, but there's no reason the automotive OEM part wouldn't work. This option costs less than $1000 on a new car. http://www.raytheoni...d3a/summary.htm

I wasn't on your list but I might as well be. As for off the shelf racing yaw control systems, I havn't seen anything about an effective racing system yet and would be extemely dubious even if I did. Until I see one in use in a high end racing series I will remain so. I would be pleased if you could post any information on a system because as discussions in the tech forum have indicated, a race quality yaw control system is no where on the horzon yet. Just because someone sells a Traction Control system for 1k doesn't mean it works, my Crown Vic Police Interceptor has one but I turn it off when the roads get slippery because I can out drive it but my wife loves it.

[Croaky]

There's already a between-the-shelves technology to stop tyres going sideways and smoking. It's widely used on supermarket trolleys. The tyre has the ability to swivel through 360 degrees, so if the trolley turns sideways the wheels just swivel so they can keep rolling.
In my experience the only drawback is a slight loss of steering response.

[Frans]

smokeless tires is not such an bad idea, only I like the smoke in the races.... of the tires, ...

It's so racing-natural...

If you wanna use the safety issieu's to get talks into this, well, good luck, they will laugh and suggest iron, steel or wooden tires maybe, .... but I think they will always keep smoking.. comes psuedo-natural with racing.

On the other hand, an Michelin developed thing about tires, is the Pax-system, when punctioned, or blown, the tire will not get empty, just a part of the tire, that would improve safety much more...

the F1-pax-tire.. or something.. yeah,... maybe even smokeless? Putting some Anti-Smoke into the tires, and when they wanna make smoke, the anti-smoke deveice will eliminate all smoke into , euh einvisible air?

;)

cool idea that smokless tire, maybe something when the tobacco sponsors have to go, that will come.. who knows?;)

[Robbie]

Originally posted by Croaky
There's already a between-the-shelves technology to stop tyres going sideways and smoking. It's widely used on supermarket trolleys. The tyre has the ability to swivel through 360 degrees, so if the trolley turns sideways the wheels just swivel so they can keep rolling.
In my experience the only drawback is a slight loss of steering response.

[vapaokie]

Originally posted by Frans

On the other hand, an Michelin developed thing about tires, is the Pax-system, when punctioned, or blown, the tire will not get empty, just a part of the tire, that would improve safety much more...

Goodyear has a similar system for the Cup cars, used on the high-speed tracks- an inner liner, or tire within a tire. If the outer tire is punctured and deflates, you can keep going on the inner liner to get back to the pits. Adds a whole new problem though. If the air pressures equalize between the liner and the outer tire, the car becomes a real handful to keep under control.

[Frans]

I'm sure they can adjust the software of the car, (engine management for example) to deal with that.

suuuuuuuuuuure, OF COURSE!!!!! Why not?;)

[Sammyed]

Originally posted by pRy
Surely Smoke is actually a good thing. I mean, if you imagine coming onto a straight and seeing smoke, your immediate reaction is "woah someone may be in trouble" and you are aware. Rather than seeing no smoke, and slamming into a car that is coming off the wall.

There is no smoke without fire as they say.

I agree specially on the last sentence, I recall the incident between JPM and Jos back in Brazil ´01...JPM´s wheels did not smoke (as we know he braked kinda late) so Jos hit him.