Red Bull RB7 Renault

[horse]

I read the Horner stated that they were using the tyres better than everyone else for qualifying, but that you cannot do it in the race, so I'm assuming this has something to do with suspension set-up, maybe their softer setting is getting more from the tyre?

I think they just can't push the Pirellis as hard in the race as they can in qualifying.

This Mark Hughes article on the BBC lends some weight to that. He argues that the high downforce of the RB will reduce the lifetime of the tyres, saying that the tyres only have so much "energy". Obviously tyres don't have any energy, but I guess he means that their efficiency will drop off after using a fixed amount of slip. So Red Bull use it up quicker than the less aggressive (better balanced?) McLaren.

What's weird for me about that though is that I though high downforce was supposed to be more caring on tyres because you got less sliding?

[Redragon]

I am not into technical staff but Does the regulations say something about how much should be the distance on the rear wing when is close?. We are seen different flaps and I notice some have bigger gap when they are close.
It is just a thought but I wanted to share it

[scarlet]

I read the Horner stated that they were using the tyres better than everyone else for qualifying, but that you cannot do it in the race, so I'm assuming this has something to do with suspension set-up, maybe their softer setting is getting more from the tyre?

I think they just can't push the Pirellis as hard in the race as they can in qualifying.

This Mark Hughes article on the BBC lends some weight to that. He argues that the high downforce of the RB will reduce the lifetime of the tyres, saying that the tyres only have so much "energy". Obviously tyres don't have any energy, but I guess he means that their efficiency will drop off after using a fixed amount of slip. So Red Bull use it up quicker than the less aggressive (better balanced?) McLaren.

What's weird for me about that though is that I though high downforce was supposed to be more caring on tyres because you got less sliding?

It's a compromise. Too much downforce and you squash the life out quicker. Too little and as you say, excessive sliding wears them down.

Another factor not yet discussed, if the Bulls are taking more performance from their tyres in the quali sessions, this means that they have less performance left in the tyres for the first stint of the race. Either they have to pit first out of all the front runners (useful for undercut but not for overall strategy), or the drivers have to drive extra carefully to eke the tyres lifetime out and make them last long enough. This would equate to a slower relative race pace in the first stint, or in further stints having pitted earlier.

Personally, I expect that it's a combination of all the factors outlined plus some unknowns as well.

[hollus]

Has anyone wondered if their DRS is designed not to be as effective as it could be? So they can still use it in the race, but in qualifying can use it more to drop the drag but still maintain a reasonable level of downforce on the car? So instead of losing a lot of downforce, they lose less but are able to use it more and they have achieved a fine balance between it?

That would make a lot of sense if you expect to get pole position more often than not. By being ahead, you do not get to use DRS much in the race, so why compromise for that scenario? By doing that you are also more likely to get that pole position in the first place, as a self fulfilling prophecy.

[ringo]

The more force over the tyre the better.
I don't buy that they are taking more life out of them becuase of downforce.

They are taking more life out of them becuase they are using the DRS in areas where it's not supposed to.
The car has so much downforce that even when unballanced (under drs use), and wearing the tyres disproportionately it's still sticking to the track.
I'd say in qualifying they are scrubbing the tyres more and messing up the balance because of using DRS to take downforce of the rear in the turns.
I could be totally wrong as i'm no tyre guru, but more downforce is the reason why those guys get the longest tyre life over the other teams.

Unless they are setting up the camber and toe aggressively, i see no reason why "30 points" more down-force is punishing their tyres.

Horner is beating around the bush with that, but what we do know is that the car wasn't working as perfectly on the new hard tyre. Which could simply be due to data gathering and learning the tyre.

[hardingfv32]

1) Agreed, "The more force over the tyre the better". There is no logic to believe otherwise.

2) "I'd say in qualifying they are scrubbing the tyres more and messing up the balance because of using DRS to take downforce of the rear in the turns." Is it logical to think that RB can take pole by almost a second and not have a perfectly balanced car?

3) is there any evidence the RB is hard on tires?

Brian

[siskue2005]

I am not into technical staff but Does the regulations say something about how much should be the distance on the rear wing when is close?. We are seen different flaps and I notice some have bigger gap when they are close.
It is just a thought but I wanted to share it

Its an optical illusion, and there is restriction on how much you can open
http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/05/2 ... pen-wider/

[ringo]

1) Agreed, "The more force over the tyre the better". There is no logic to believe otherwise.

2) "I'd say in qualifying they are scrubbing the tyres more and messing up the balance because of using DRS to take downforce of the rear in the turns." Is it logical to think that RB can take pole by almost a second and not have a perfectly balanced car?

3) is there any evidence the RB is hard on tires?

Brian

for 3, i'd say no. There is evidence they are the best on the tyres.
The harder compound used in Barcelona was their only "weakness", and that could be down to familiarity.
Horner just wants the car to look like it has an Achilles heel. It doesn't.

That car can get on pole without being balanced for every corner. An unbalanced Mclaren is still miles ahead of a balanced HRT or Virgin. No reason why a momentarily unbalanced RB7 can't take pole.
These redbull guys don't give a rat's anus where the DRS is used in qualifying , They're snapping it up like a camera shutter all over the track and the car shows no sign of lost grip. It has more than enough to keep itself planted.

Never heard Vettel complain about tyres. Not even Mark. Mark just uses them too angrily.

If anything these guys go to max engine power setting when the DRS is open to add some more rear downforce.
Some wacky engine setting that works along DRS i guess?

[speedsense]

The more force over the tyre the better.
I don't buy that they are taking more life out of them becuase of downforce.

They are taking more life out of them becuase they are using the DRS in areas where it's not supposed to.
The car has so much downforce that even when unballanced (under drs use), and wearing the tyres disproportionately it's still sticking to the track.
I'd say in qualifying they are scrubbing the tyres more and messing up the balance because of using DRS to take downforce of the rear in the turns.
I could be totally wrong as i'm no tyre guru, but more downforce is the reason why those guys get the longest tyre life over the other teams.

Unless they are setting up the camber and toe aggressively, i see no reason why "30 points" more down-force is punishing their tyres.

Horner is beating around the bush with that, but what we do know is that the car wasn't working as perfectly on the new hard tyre. Which could simply be due to data gathering and learning the tyre.

Give a driver more downforce and he will go quicker, still putting the car to limit of adhesion (when he needs to) without going over (at a higher cornering speed than others with less DF) . The driving "envelope" in every corner ( not over or under) at the limit for a F1 driver is a very small one, they put the car on the limit from entry to exit.
Down force is only increasing the MPH. It also increases the work of the tire, which will shorten it's life, though not as quickly as the car that is difficult to drive or being overdriven to catch a car with higher DF, thus an increase of sliding the car.
Drivers who are considered good with saving tires, don't drive at the limit but slightly under it, to conserve their tires. As Button stated that with the Pirelli's, he had to back off so much that he was under the DF produciton ability of the car and the car would slide, purely due to lack of speed. Even for Button the Pirelli's are a difficult challenge.

IMHO, Downforce means less chances of sliding the car (saving potential damage to the tire), but is an increase in the work load of the tires, so yes, more caring for the tire, but not a longer life than a car with less down force (but not being over driven and abusing the tire).

As this is the first race of the year that the RB7 was "tested" in a race condition, were the car spent most of the race driven at the limit, the pit stop lengths of the tire stint, when measured against the Mclaren, shows the Mclaren is using it's tires more efficiently. All except the last two stops when the teams matched pitstops (I believe) for tactical reasons. This was also true of the first stint of Auzzie, when Hamilton did more laps (3) before pitting, the rest of the race a wash due to the broken splitter. Yet, the RB7 has more downforce? If it was "more" caring on the tire and making it last longer, why stop before the other teams? (speaking of the options)
An increased DF causing more work load of the contact patch, means more area on an abrasive surface (asphalt). Somehow more work equals less wear? But the driver less likely to abuse the tire because he's driving a more stable platform and less likely to "have to" exceed the car, is more caring and more friendly to the tire. In that respect you have a point, but less tire wear? not a physical probability.

[Fil]

I'm sure Jersey Tom would be the first to say it's never this simple, but a surface's level of abrasion only matters when slip is encountered. Additional downforce usually will delay the onset of this.
There's too many variables in tyre wear to only look at the comparative downforce levels though, so this argument will go in loops.


There's a pretty good write-up of the strategy calls in Spain by James Allan (shock/horror! praise for him on F1T??). It's worth a read if not just for the opposing strategic risks that Red Bull and McLaren took.

Basic gist: Red Bull pitted earlier than they could've. McLaren pushed their tyres further than they should've. Both for good, measured, reasons.

We have observed Red Bull always tend to pit on the early side, before the tyres start to really lose performance, it is built into their tactical thinking. McLaren in contrast, are willing to run a little longer on the tyres and it brings them very close to Red Bull. In Spain by running a few extra laps they managed to keep their drivers in clear air, where in contrast Red Bull compromised Webber’s race early on by bringing him out in traffic after his first stop on lap 10

[Raptor22]

I read the Horner stated that they were using the tyres better than everyone else for qualifying, but that you cannot do it in the race, so I'm assuming this has something to do with suspension set-up, maybe their softer setting is getting more from the tyre?

I think they just can't push the Pirellis as hard in the race as they can in qualifying.

This Mark Hughes article on the BBC lends some weight to that. He argues that the high downforce of the RB will reduce the lifetime of the tyres, saying that the tyres only have so much "energy". Obviously tyres don't have any energy, but I guess he means that their efficiency will drop off after using a fixed amount of slip. So Red Bull use it up quicker than the less aggressive (better balanced?) McLaren.

What's weird for me about that though is that I though high downforce was supposed to be more caring on tyres because you got less sliding?

Higher downforce = more weight on the tyre. Since shear forces inside the tyre also lead to degradation .
With more weight to support the tyre structure and rubber compound has to resist a great shear load. Exceeding that limit leads to palling (marbles) of the tyre and that takes tread and life away. You only want to load the tyre to the point just below the treads shear strength

[horse]

Right so the tyre generates cornering force because it slips, right?

Now, the more downforce you apply to the tyre, the more cornering force it will generate for a given amount of slip.

Thus, surely it makes sense that, if you generate more downforce you require the tyres to slip less than a rival with less DF for a given circuit and, assuming slip is the main cause of degradation, the car with more DF will wear tyres more slowly.

But, Raptor, you're saying that it's more than the amount of slip that's degrading the tyres, it's a loading limit that the Red Bull is surpassing. Is that correct?

That almost implies that there is a peak performance for a race, that can not be surpassed.

[Raptor22]

Right so the tyre generates cornering force because it slips, right?

Now, the more downforce you apply to the tyre, the more cornering force it will generate for a given amount of slip.

Thus, surely it makes sense that, if you generate more downforce you require the tyres to slip less than a rival with less DF for a given circuit and, assuming slip is the main cause of degradation, the car with more DF will wear tyres more slowly.

But, Raptor, you're saying that it's more than the amount of slip that's degrading the tyres, it's a loading limit that the Red Bull is surpassing. Is that correct?

That almost implies that there is a peak performance for a race, that can not be surpassed.

There is a peak performance for any given tyre on a given day at a given track.

Slip = wear due to friction, sort of rubbing an eraserover a piece of paper.

Shear = equals haveing too much downforce that the eraser does not slip, it just breaks somewhere above the contact area.

Also remember that downforce = pressure on the contact patch. Pressure generates heat through increased adhesion. ERvery tyre also has a temperature limit that if exceeded leads to a change in molecular make up of the tyre at the contact patch. That can manifest itself as a "Shine" where the rubber has hardened, or it can result in grainng where small areas of rubber literaly break away from the surrounding rubber.

So yes, every tyre has a performance limit. Loading the tyre to the performance lmit for one lap will degrade it but no as severely as loading it for 15laps at the same load. So you either take the load off the tyre to make it last longer or you stop for tyres more often.

[kalinka]

A (probably) stupid question : If we consider all these things with tyre performance, is it possible that RBR had so much DF, that they have to increase the tyre pressure slightly to prevent tyre-deforming under high load ? Probably even if it's true, it's again only could be just a piece in the puzzle...?

[marcush.]

it is very obvious the RBR7 is just short of actually hopping through the corners ...there is massive vertical movement which has to lead to load oscillations in the contact patches..quite interesting they are able to control it and be quickest.Their aero is not that rideheight sensitive methinks and thats clearly counter intuitive considering they have flexi wings and floors to keep their fancy bodywork as close to the ground as possible...well at least at the front the rear is so high that rear rideheight oscilations will not really matter ..