strad wrote:Maybe I worded it wrong...They have used these sidewalls and designed the car and it's suspension around them. IF you were to change the sidewall you would have to completely redesign the suspension, and that is not something they seem to be inclined to want to do just now.
Well, actually yes, but all indications are it's the aerodynamics that teams are terrified of changing. The specific demands they made of Pirelli seem to be mostly about the aero shape of the tires at speed, and the requirement for them to exactly mimic the Bridgestones.
Jersey, I realize you've indicated you no longer wish to debate this, but really. We've seen this same debate throughout the history of the automobile. The engine guy wants the engine to be the overriding factor, and the chassis guy says he can't package that or can't use that powerband, and wants the engine guy to conform to his concepts.
I never meant to imply that the suspension guys should be blindly followed, but you have to admit that even on a F1 car suspension is still necessary. And if it's necessary then they get to have an input. It's no more fair to say suspension should be dictated by tires than to say the opposite.
Your implied claim is that current F1 tires have intrinsic value outside of the current regs, and that even with more open regs they could continue to be constructed in a similar manner. Would you care to elaborate? Why then did Michelin want different regs, specifically aspect ratio? In what way are the suspension guys fundamentally wrong in their predictions?