Red Bull RB7 Renault

[Raptor22]

"There are three primary factors; tire force level, pavement texture and tire surface temperature. The major factor of these three is the sustained or instantaneous tire force level. Accelerometer measurements show that cornering or lateral forces are chiefly responsible for wear in contrast to longitudinal (driving and braking) forces and the test system is designed to operate on the basis of such cornering forces. The wear rate depdnds on tire cornering force raised to an exponent."

ACCELERATED TIRE WEAR UNDER CONTROLLED CONDITIONS. 2. SOME FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE TIRE WEAR

Veith, A G, Goodrich (B F) Research and Development Center

I guess one could say the more downforce allows greater lateral cornering forces... and greater wear.

Brian

Absolutley. the force level creates the shear stress in the tyre tread and that is chiefly responsible for the wear, excluding wheel spin.

What seems to be forgotten is that F1 tyres work at coefficients of riction >1 which is actually adhesion coefficients. We're talking about mild glue here, and passenger car tyre theory does not apply completely

[lebesset]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/91730

this I DO believe from RB

[PlatinumZealot]

You have wear and degradation. How do you guys define and classify degradation?

[wrcsti]

You have wear and degradation. How do you guys define and classify degradation?

Wear would be the progressive loss of tire mass left on the track surface in the form of dust and marbles. Degradation would be the tire gaining unfavorable characteristics because of outside factors such as wear, stress, heat, etc.

[Lurk]

src: http://www.f1talks.pl

[Owen.C93]

Smallest source in the world lol.

[speedsense]

You have wear and degradation. How do you guys define and classify degradation?

Wear would be what the driver/car/track have caused to the tire whether used well or abused.
Degradation could be natural (as designed by the manufacturer, for instance a qualifying tire that only lasts 2-3 laps) or unintentional degradation due to instances outside of the manufacturers control (storage time, shipping, care of the tire-,mountings,sunlight,over/under inflation, etc.) iMHO

[f1motta]

Rear wing



Same source but a little bit bigger http://www.f1talks.pl/?p=8612&nggpage=3&pid=2632

[beelsebob]

You have wear and degradation. How do you guys define and classify degradation?

Wear would be what the driver/car/track have caused to the tire whether used well or abused.
Degradation could be natural (as designed by the manufacturer, for instance a qualifying tire that only lasts 2-3 laps) or unintentional degradation due to instances outside of the manufacturers control (storage time, shipping, care of the tire-,mountings,sunlight,over/under inflation, etc.) iMHO

My understanding was quite the contrary. Wear is what happens when you race on the tyre for a long time – the rubber wears away. Degradation on the other hand is what produces all the marbles – the structure of the tyre starts to degrade and throw chunks of rubber off.

[kalinka]

But wear does not necessary means that the tyre is loosing performance. If the wear is designed by manufacturer in a way that the structure of the tyre remains intact for a long time, you could loose quite a lot of the tyre surface material without performance loss. So for me degradation means performance loss ( significantly slower lap times ), and wear means just loosing little bits/layers of the tyre surface without loosing (much) performance.

[FW17]

Newey says that the Renault system is set up as it is to provide exhaust valve cooling and that to ban it with immediate effect would introduce a reliability issue, which would unfairly disadvantage them. He says that the methods others have used to get the same aerodynamic effect, do cross the line.
Clearly the exhaust valve cooling was Renault’s argument that persuaded the FIA to relent on the ban on a technology that is known by F1 engineers as “TD015″.

“Certainly, in the case of Renault, then they open the throttle to full open on the over-run for exhaust valve cooling, and that’s part of the reliability of the engine. It has been signed off through the years for dyno testing and for them to change that would be quite a big issue, because the engine’s not proven that it would be reliable if the throttle remained closed in that situation.
“Obviously if other people are going further and perhaps firing the engine on the over-run then clearly exhaust valve cooling is not part of that and that would be something that presumably they would need to explain to keep Charlie (Whiting, technical delegate) happy.”

[Mandrake]

^ Do I understand it correctly, that Renault Engines are requiring the Overrun for valve cooling? And that even before the EBD this has been done?

If yes, a ban on special engine maps that use overrun purely for the purpose of keeping the flow alive would leave the Renault powered cars with the system active, while all the others would have to remove it? (Given that the FIA doesn't ban it on the Renault due to reliability stuff....)

[i70q7m7ghw]

I call BS, they didn't have this at the start of 2010 and the engines are homologated. There is no way Renault has always had an engine that required such valve cooling all this time.

[gridwalker]

Using fuel as a means of cooling is nothing new. I first read about it in an old book about Alain Prost's time at the Renault team during the early 80's : They used the fuel for both cooling and running a rudimentary anti-lag system.

There was actually a bit of an arms race between teams at the time, as they had not yet perfected the water injection techology required to encase fuel droplets with a layer of water to enhance the cooling effect. I believe that this was another valuable technology that was quickly stamped on by the FIA, so teams reverted to simply using excess fuel as coolant.

It is just another reason why I believe that the "F1 is a proving ground for real world technology" argument is nothing but marketing BS.

[PlatinumZealot]

Newey is being clever here...

RedBull DOES fire the engine to feed the EBD. He only wants it to look like they use only a non-fired overrun for valve cooling which anyone with half a brain knows is not the full story.

RedBull does stand to loose out if the rule is implemented because overun valve cooling (not anything new) is not enough to blow the diffuser the way they are doing it.