F1 Evaluating ‘Wheel Arches’

[CMSMJ1]

I don;t see why we don't get skinnier tyres and a higher minimum ride height.

The cars are still mindbendingly fast in the wet - losing another 5 seconds on the altar of them being safer (slower) and with less sprary due to the skinny tyres (relatively) is a good deal.

Sliding, car control and the ability to actually race in full wet conditions is the goal for me.

The current tyres are massive. Enormous - so why not reduce them?

[Big Tea]

I don;t see why we don't get skinnier tyres and a higher minimum ride height.

The cars are still mindbendingly fast in the wet - losing another 5 seconds on the altar of them being safer (slower) and with less sprary due to the skinny tyres (relatively) is a good deal.

Sliding, car control and the ability to actually race in full wet conditions is the goal for me.

The current tyres are massive. Enormous - so why not reduce them?

I think it is vision rather than speed or control that is the problem

[CMSMJ1]

I don;t see why we don't get skinnier tyres and a higher minimum ride height.

The cars are still mindbendingly fast in the wet - losing another 5 seconds on the altar of them being safer (slower) and with less sprary due to the skinny tyres (relatively) is a good deal.

Sliding, car control and the ability to actually race in full wet conditions is the goal for me.

The current tyres are massive. Enormous - so why not reduce them?

I think it is vision rather than speed or control that is the problem

I think that skinny tyres and higher, taller cars will be slower. The tyres will throw less water up, the aero will not suck as much from the roads and because everyone is slower then the risks are reduced.

Watching MOTOGP I see they ride in some disgusting conditions. I'd get you to watch Austria 2021..A great race. Or France 2021..

[JordanMugen]

The current tyres are massive. Enormous - so why not reduce them?

You mean for wet conditions only?

They only just put the rear tyres back to the width they were from 1972 to 1992 recently in 2017. It would be a shame to undo that (IMO positive) change already.

By all means reduce the front tyre width though, the way the front and rear tyres were scaled equally (with the front tyres previously never reduced in width) instead of installing a more rearward weight balance in 2017 was strange.

[CMSMJ1]

The current tyres are massive. Enormous - so why not reduce them?

You mean for wet conditions only?

They only just put the rear tyres back to the width they were from 1972 to 1992 recently in 2017. It would be a shame to undo that (IMO positive) change already.

By all means reduce the front tyre width though, the way the front and rear tyres were scaled equally (with the front tyres previously never reduced in width) instead of installing a more rearward weight balance in 2017 was strange.

Yes. Only for wet. The larger footprint is a disadvantage in the heavy wet and surely throws a significant amount of water up.

It would also make the brave switch to inters more viable as we moved to drier conditions!

[Pat Pending]

The current tyres are massive. Enormous - so why not reduce them?

You mean for wet conditions only?

They only just put the rear tyres back to the width they were from 1972 to 1992 recently in 2017. It would be a shame to undo that (IMO positive) change already.

By all means reduce the front tyre width though, the way the front and rear tyres were scaled equally (with the front tyres previously never reduced in width) instead of installing a more rearward weight balance in 2017 was strange.

Yes. Only for wet. The larger footprint is a disadvantage in the heavy wet and surely throws a significant amount of water up.

It would also make the brave switch to inters more viable as we moved to drier conditions!

Wouldn't that just make the current 'problem' worse, i.e. the wet tyres are so much slower than the inters?
Tbh, an arguably better bet might be to make the inters slower, so a) the wet-inters/slick progression is more even, and b) the switch from inters to slicks becomes much more of a tactical decision.

[CMSMJ1]

You mean for wet conditions only?

They only just put the rear tyres back to the width they were from 1972 to 1992 recently in 2017. It would be a shame to undo that (IMO positive) change already.

By all means reduce the front tyre width though, the way the front and rear tyres were scaled equally (with the front tyres previously never reduced in width) instead of installing a more rearward weight balance in 2017 was strange.

Yes. Only for wet. The larger footprint is a disadvantage in the heavy wet and surely throws a significant amount of water up.

It would also make the brave switch to inters more viable as we moved to drier conditions!

Wouldn't that just make the current 'problem' worse, i.e. the wet tyres are so much slower than the inters?
Tbh, an arguably better bet might be to make the inters slower, so a) the wet-inters/slick progression is more even, and b) the switch from inters to slicks becomes much more of a tactical decision.

I think the current problemis that no-one runs the wet tyres at all and we don;t get races that run unless a safety car is on track.

Making them run - even if it is another 10s slower is, in my view, better than rolling around behind the SC until it is safe to go to inters?

[PhillipM]

The solution to the inters/wets problem is just to get rid of the inters.

[CMSMJ1]

The solution to the inters/wets problem is just to get rid of the inters.

If it were only that easy eh?

Am trying to think the last time we had a wet/dry only option.

I'm thinking inters came in as part of Michelin vs Bridgestone and so... what.. hmm.. 2001 ish??

I remember the Michelin inters were crap. Some races..Silverstone 2003? Where Frentzen in a very soon to be bankrupted Arrows team was making huge progress before the motor broke. A famous quote from him " they were easy meat"

I think a tyre war would help a lot!

[Cuky]

The solution to the inters/wets problem is just to get rid of the inters.

If it were only that easy eh?

Am trying to think the last time we had a wet/dry only option.

I'm thinking inters came in as part of Michelin vs Bridgestone and so... what.. hmm.. 2001 ish??

I remember the Michelin inters were crap. Some races..Silverstone 2003? Where Frentzen in a very soon to be bankrupted Arrows team was making huge progress before the motor broke. A famous quote from him " they were easy meat"

I think a tyre war would help a lot!

Actually it was a tyre war that led to a rule that teams have to choose only one type of wet weather tyre for the weekend in 2003 and they had to do it in advance. A lot of trouble in Interlagos that year came down to most teams bringing inters whilst it was full wet conditions. Also during that era Bridgestone was cleaning the floor with Michelin when Inter conditions were on the track, while Michelin had a better full wet tyre. Micheline clawed a bit of disadvantage in inter conditions by developing "shallow wet" tyre that had thread pattern similar to that of a full wet tyre, but grooves weren't cut as deep. At least that is how I remember it from the top of my head.


PS: Frentzen was in Sauber for 2003, Arrows went bankrupt midway during the 2002 season.

[Greg Locock]

Big: I think it is vision rather than speed or control that is the problem

exactly. The problem is spray suppression for following cars. not performance.

[CMSMJ1]

The solution to the inters/wets problem is just to get rid of the inters.

If it were only that easy eh?

Am trying to think the last time we had a wet/dry only option.

I'm thinking inters came in as part of Michelin vs Bridgestone and so... what.. hmm.. 2001 ish??

I remember the Michelin inters were crap. Some races..Silverstone 2003? Where Frentzen in a very soon to be bankrupted Arrows team was making huge progress before the motor broke. A famous quote from him " they were easy meat"

I think a tyre war would help a lot!

Actually it was a tyre war that led to a rule that teams have to choose only one type of wet weather tyre for the weekend in 2003 and they had to do it in advance. A lot of trouble in Interlagos that year came down to most teams bringing inters whilst it was full wet conditions. Also during that era Bridgestone was cleaning the floor with Michelin when Inter conditions were on the track, while Michelin had a better full wet tyre. Micheline clawed a bit of disadvantage in inter conditions by developing "shallow wet" tyre that had thread pattern similar to that of a full wet tyre, but grooves weren't cut as deep. At least that is how I remember it from the top of my head.


PS: Frentzen was in Sauber for 2003, Arrows went bankrupt midway during the 2002 season.

Thanks for using your better memory

I agree with you. So the rules need to stipulate a tyre that can be used to start a race in a deluge!

[clownfish]

They were supposedly testing this at Silverstone recently, did anybody see any pics?

For ref:
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... ilverstone

[CaribouBread]

First rain test a failure

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... lverstone/



Some interesting bits from the article

The race management would decide under which conditions they would be used. An example: In the event of heavy rain with poor visibility, everyone would be obliged to deploy the "Spray Guards". Even if things improved, they stayed with the car until the end of the race.

[AR3-GP]

First rain test a failure

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... lverstone/



Some interesting bits from the article

The race management would decide under which conditions they would be used. An example: In the event of heavy rain with poor visibility, everyone would be obliged to deploy the "Spray Guards". Even if things improved, they stayed with the car until the end of the race.

Would the race have to be red flagged to fit them? Or would it become part of the pitstop challenge?