43 replies to this topic

[vee_eight]

Why do we still need grooved tires?

They were introduced to slow down the V10 cars.

Ummm...Max? Hello?

[Cplus]

Grooved tyres are a GOOD thing - we don't want to lose them.

[zac510]

What makes you think they were meant to slow down the V10 cars?

They were, however, meant to slow down the cars.

[wj_gibson]

Originally posted by Cplus
Grooved tyres are a GOOD thing - we don't want to lose them.

Just who's the "we" here?

[Ricardo F1]

They should all switch to the new Michelins . .

http://www.michelinm...e01102005a.html

[wawawa]

Originally posted by vee_eight
Ummm...Max? Hello?

They're planning to switch back to slicks in '07.

[carbonfibre]

Indeed slicks will be back in 2007 as far as i know.

[BRG]

A V8 car will go round a corner just as fast as a V10 one. So we still need to moderate cornering speeds until the one-make wooden slicks arrive in 2007.

[rugger]

Originally posted by vee_eight
Why do we still need grooved tires?

They were introduced to slow down the V10 cars.

Ummm...Max? Hello?

I'll get right on it

Seriously, why do people insist on banging their head against a brick wall?

[Dragonfly]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
They should all switch to the new Michelins . .

http://www.michelinm...e01102005a.html

In fact I was wondering wether Michelin used something from this technology for their 2005 tyres which had no match in the Bridgestone camp.

[Cplus]

Originally posted by wj_gibson


Just who's the "we" here?

I'll start by giving you a reason why there should be grooves.

Because it's better for spectators. As a spectator at the track or on the TV I can tell when the tyres of one cars are in significantly better shape than another.

Case in point - Alonso vs Webber/Heidfeld at Monaco. If they were all on slicks, you would have found it much harder to tell his tyres were going to be in trouble early and that the Williams would eventually catch him. End result? more enjoyable to watch.

Now your turn, give me a good reason why F1 should not have grooves?

[wj_gibson]

More slip angle (i.e. the cars can allow the rear ends to step out a little more) for one, and therefore greater scope for drivers to use oversteer with confidence. On the current grooved tyres, the slip angle is minimal and once you're over it there's not really any rescuing the car. Hence, the cars give the impression of teetering around on ice half the time. They thus encourage a homogeneity of driving styles.

[Bravo]

Furthermore, slicks allow getting off most of current aero downforce without significant change in corner speed performance. Result: more overtakes.

[Cplus]

both the comments above imply that the amount of grip available from the current tyres is low compared to equivalent slicks.

I'd put money on the fact that the current tyres offer a significant amount more grips than slicks circa 1998.

[Timstr11]

Originally posted by carbonfibre
Indeed slicks will be back in 2007 as far as i know.

Who told you that? Max will leave the tyre rules alone so that Ferrari can profit maximally
Usually Max is eager to bring forward new rules (e.g CDG wing) but he is obviously not eager to announce a single, control (slick) tyre rule for 2007.

[wawawa]

Originally posted by Cplus
both the comments above imply that the amount of grip available from the current tyres is low compared to equivalent slicks.

wj_gibson's argument is about slip-angles, not grip per se.

I'd put money on the fact that the current tyres offer a significant amount more grips than slicks circa 1998.

You mean '97

[zac510]

wj_gibson, why would you want to use oversteer? It is slow!

If slip angle increases with a single manufacturer slick in 2007, I'll eat my pink beanie. Anyway, so many factors that affect the slip angle, I'm not one to predict it.

[Clatter]

Originally posted by Cplus


I'll start by giving you a reason why there should be grooves.

Because it's better for spectators. As a spectator at the track or on the TV I can tell when the tyres of one cars are in significantly better shape than another.

Case in point - Alonso vs Webber/Heidfeld at Monaco. If they were all on slicks, you would have found it much harder to tell his tyres were going to be in trouble early and that the Williams would eventually catch him. End result? more enjoyable to watch.

Now your turn, give me a good reason why F1 should not have grooves?

I say BS. As a spectator I dont think you can make any sort of meaningful assessment on the tyres condition visually. How many times in the past did we see a driver with (especially front tyres) that looked shot, but they didnt change them anyway.

[Cplus]

well we disagree then. i reckon you can tell.

[zac510]

Originally posted by Clatter


I say BS. As a spectator I dont think you can make any sort of meaningful assessment on the tyres condition visually. How many times in the past did we see a driver with (especially front tyres) that looked shot, but they didnt change them anyway.

You have to be the kind of spectator that is interested in reading into events like that.

If you're not, then it should not matter to you whether it is grooved or slicked. You (in the third person) are only trying to justify an ideology in your head that the benefits of a slick tyre are greater to the entire F1 community than the benefits of a grooved tyre.

[wj_gibson]

It's not really all that difficult to see graining and flat spots on slick tyres though.

Giving the dirvers the option of using oversteer does not mean that all cars will do so. Some drivers like high-spped oversteer because they can find more speed from hurling the car through the corners than driving with excessive finesse - most obviously Gilles Villeneuve, but of the current crop Juan Pablo Montoya seems to like it too. Thus, were Villeneuve driving in today's cars he might not have made the impact he did in 1979; he might have struggled, come to think of it.

Just my two pennies' worth anyway.

[mmmcurry]

Originally posted by Cplus

Case in point - Alonso vs Webber/Heidfeld at Monaco. If they were all on slicks, you would have found it much harder to tell his tyres were going to be in trouble early and that the Williams would eventually catch him. End result? more enjoyable to watch.

I can remember watching the British Gp in '97 and seeing how bad the blisters were on Hakkinens rear tyres, I think blisters are easier to see on slicks. You could see why he was being caught.

Steve.

[boostpressure]

Originally posted by wj_gibson
It's not really all that difficult to see graining and flat spots on slick tyres though.

Giving the dirvers the option of using oversteer does not mean that all cars will do so. Some drivers like high-spped oversteer because they can find more speed from hurling the car through the corners than driving with excessive finesse - most obviously Gilles Villeneuve, but of the current crop Juan Pablo Montoya seems to like it too. Thus, were Villeneuve driving in today's cars he might not have made the impact he did in 1979; he might have struggled, come to think of it.

Just my two pennies' worth anyway.

I reckon you can read 'Jacques Villeneuve' in that too. He was a big advocate for keeping slicks, alas his driving style certainly suited it more than grooves. Although I wouldn't say he, or anyone else, has really ever struggled with grooves.

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by wj_gibson
More slip angle (i.e. the cars can allow the rear ends to step out a little more) for one, and therefore greater scope for drivers to use oversteer with confidence. On the current grooved tyres, the slip angle is minimal and once you're over it there's not really any rescuing the car. Hence, the cars give the impression of teetering around on ice half the time. They thus encourage a homogeneity of driving styles.

Maybe oversteer drivers have easier time to control the car, but understeer driver can take benefit of more slip too... and too much sliding is always slow anyway.

[wj_gibson]

Too much sliding is always slow, but the key point about slicks having more slip angle than grooves is that the point at which the slide becomes "too much" is more open - i.e. the limit of adhesion can occur with the car at a rather more obtuse angle than is presently the car.

Furthermore, with slicks the drivers have rather mroe feel for the mechanical grip of the car, which allows more in the way of intuitive driving than at present.

[zac510]

Originally posted by wj_gibson
Too much sliding is always slow, but the key point about slicks having more slip angle than grooves is that the point at which the slide becomes "too much" is more open - i.e. the limit of adhesion can occur with the car at a rather more obtuse angle than is presently the car.

Yeah for sure, but if there is only Bridgestone in the competition next year then it is unlikely they will produce a soft tyre that can handle a high slip angle.

[wj_gibson]

Well that's certainly the case if there is a true control tyre - even in the days when there was a sole tyre supplier in the past (usually Goodyear) there was never a control tyre, but always different compounds that drivers could choose. A control tyre, constructed to detailed FIA specifications (as seems likely) will probably be a very hard tyre, sadly.

[zac510]

Well when Michelin joined Bridgestone, times dropped by around 5% each lap, so for all intents it might aswell be a control tyre.

[wj_gibson]

A control tyre is very specific because it means everyone runs on absolutely identical tyres throughout, which is a situation that (to the best of my knowledge) has never existed before in F1 history. When Bridgestone had their short-lived monopoly, drivers still had the choice of hard and soft compounds at all events. As far as I understand it, the control tyre would eliminate this kind of choice.

[le chat noir]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
They should all switch to the new Michelins . .

http://www.michelinm...e01102005a.html

Originally posted by Dragonfly


In fact I was wondering wether Michelin used something from this technology for their 2005 tyres which had no match in the Bridgestone camp.

If only they'd used them at Indy

[vee_eight]

Not only are the tires pointless, so are the narrow cars...

This is how bad F1 has lost the plot.

1997 car dimensions could have also been re-introduced this year...but no, we will radically change the cars all at once, with split rear wings and rev-limiters and FIA ECUs and 'standard brakes' and a full on mutiny to the GPWC...

[Lukin]

Originally posted by Cplus
I'd put money on the fact that the current tyres offer a significant amount more grips than slicks circa 1998.

So we'd put 1997 slick tyres on? And the R&D done with grooved tyres is in no way transferrable to slicks. Bummer.

[zac510]

Originally posted by Lukin

And the R&D done with grooved tyres is in no way transferrable to slicks. Bummer.

true? Well regardless, the slip angle would go down with a wider tyre right? So I don't know if the people on this forum know what they really want!


vee_eight, do you have any constructive posts?

[Lukin]

Originally posted by zac510
true? Well regardless, the slip angle would go down with a wider tyre right? So I don't know if the people on this forum know what they really want!

Heh I was actually being a smart arse sorry mate! Should of put a question mark after it.

I would assume there is a (probably slight) difference in design between the slick and an equivalent groove to account for the varying nature of the deflection, but surely it can't be that different. The construction and compound knowledge of the grooved tyre 'era' would no doubt apply if they went back to slicks.

Ben is the man to speak to about that one!

[baddog]

Originally posted by zac510


true? Well regardless, the slip angle would go down with a wider tyre right? So I don't know if the people on this forum know what they really want!

I dont think thats strictly the case if you are talking about going from grooves to slicks. Grooves have characteristics based on their profile not just their area, and a basic characteristic is "snap".. the tyre is either gripping or gone. hence this limits controlled sliding as a possibility.

Shaun

[BorderReiver]

Originally posted by Cplus


I'll start by giving you a reason why there should be grooves.

Because it's better for spectators. As a spectator at the track or on the TV I can tell when the tyres of one cars are in significantly better shape than another.

Case in point - Alonso vs Webber/Heidfeld at Monaco. If they were all on slicks, you would have found it much harder to tell his tyres were going to be in trouble early and that the Williams would eventually catch him. End result? more enjoyable to watch.

Now your turn, give me a good reason why F1 should not have grooves?

No . . wait . . I haven't finished . . .



Right, now that's out of my system . . .

Is that really the best you can do?

[zac510]

Originally posted by baddog


I dont think thats strictly the case if you are talking about going from grooves to slicks. Grooves have characteristics based on their profile not just their area, and a basic characteristic is "snap".. the tyre is either gripping or gone. hence this limits controlled sliding as a possibility.

Shaun

So what you are saying is that they have a low slip angle..

Lukin, I'm starting to imagine how increased downforce affects the sidewall construction which in turn affects the slip angle and it is really starting to get way out of my ability to comprehend it all! Too many variables for this armchair engineer

[baddog]

Originally posted by zac510


So what you are saying is that they have a low slip angle..

Yes, and a change to wider slicks might increase the slip angles not decrease them

Shaun

[eoin]

Originally posted by Lukin




I would assume there is a (probably slight) difference in design between the slick and an equivalent groove to account for the varying nature of the deflection, but surely it can't be that different. The construction and compound knowledge of the grooved tyre 'era' would no doubt apply if they went back to slicks.

One of the main draw backs of grooved tyres, from a speed point of view, is that they are less rigid than a slick. I would assume that the tyre carcass, compound and construction would be quiet different as everything in F1 needs to be optimised.

However if F1 went back to slicks now i dont think we would see a huge jump in performance- nothing like the drop off we had when grooves were first introduced. It seems people mainly want slicks back for ascetics reasons...

[zac510]

Originally posted by baddog


Yes, and a change to wider slicks might increase the slip angles not decrease them

Shaun

All other things equal, a wider tyre will have less slip angle.

[baddog]

Originally posted by zac510


All other things equal, a wider tyre will have less slip angle.

Of course, but that is irrelevant when talking of peoples wish to move to slicks no?

[zac510]

There would be more contact patch for the same width.

[Cplus]

Originally posted by Lukin


So we'd put 1997 slick tyres on? And the R&D done with grooved tyres is in no way transferrable to slicks. Bummer.

you and i both know thats not what i was saying.

Originally posted by eoin
However if F1 went back to slicks now i dont think we would see a huge jump in performance- nothing like the drop off we had when grooves were first introduced. It seems people mainly want slicks back for ascetics reasons...

This is my exact point. I don't believe the performance advantage would be that great. and the visual element and nostalgia is the big driver for people wanting them back.

and I still stand by the "better for the spectator" comment - no matter how hard people chcukle.

[BorderReiver]

Originally posted by Cplus

This is my exact point. I don't believe the performance advantage would be that great. and the visual element and nostalgia is the big driver for people wanting them back.

and I still stand by the "better for the spectator" comment - no matter how hard people chcukle.

Larger, slick tyres, increase the aerodynamic footprint of a car, while at the same time increasing drag and relative mechanical grip for a tyre of the same size due to larger contact patch.

This is more conducive to slip streaming, non aerodynamic "lossy" grip and therefore overtaking.

What ever baffling and piffling reason you can offer up for "the good of spectators" (honestly, guaging tyre wear isn't really one of the fundemental reasons for watching motorsport you know. Hell, I've even driven in races where I could give a toss about the aesthetics of how grainy my tyres look) really is small, small fry compared to that.