Pirelli extreme wet tyres

[Juzh]

Remember china 2009? There was 4-5 times as much water, rain and spray that day compared to what we had in japan this year and after 8 laps they let the field go racing. Bridgestones were simply better in every single way. Wear, deg, grip, overall quality.. the lot.

[trinidefender]

Remember china 2009? There was 4-5 times as much water, rain and spray that day compared to what we had in japan this year and after 8 laps they let the field go racing. Bridgestones were simply better in every single way. Wear, deg, grip, overall quality.. the lot.

The cars from the Bridgestone era had a lot more downforce than they do now. More downforce means the tyres were made to look much more grippy than they actually were. More downforce means a car is much less likely to aquaplane. More downforce means a tyre compound can be made much harder and still grip. The cars then didn't slide around as much as today therefore the tyres didn't have to deal with the scrubbing as much. Look at Sochi, the surface was grippy which meant that the cars weren't sliding around much and look how long Rosberg lasted on his set of tyres.

[SectorOne]

The cars from the Bridgestone era had a lot more downforce than they do now. More downforce means the tyres were made to look much more grippy than they actually were. More downforce means a car is much less likely to aquaplane. More downforce means a tyre compound can be made much harder and still grip. The cars then didn't slide around as much as today therefore the tyres didn't have to deal with the scrubbing as much. Look at Sochi, the surface was grippy which meant that the cars weren't sliding around much and look how long Rosberg lasted on his set of tyres.

Driver´s have commented on specifically the tire grip being much better in the Bridgestone era.
It came up when they were asked about Verstappen and how he would handle these cars.

Given the fact that aero only works in a certain range (noticeably) they can deduce how much grip a certain tire has from another.

[Lycoming]

Aero has somewhat less of an effect in the wet though, simply due to the lower speeds involved.

[flmkane]

Remember china 2009? There was 4-5 times as much water, rain and spray that day compared to what we had in japan this year and after 8 laps they let the field go racing. Bridgestones were simply better in every single way. Wear, deg, grip, overall quality.. the lot.

The cars from the Bridgestone era had a lot more downforce than they do now. More downforce means the tyres were made to look much more grippy than they actually were. More downforce means a car is much less likely to aquaplane. More downforce means a tyre compound can be made much harder and still grip. The cars then didn't slide around as much as today therefore the tyres didn't have to deal with the scrubbing as much. Look at Sochi, the surface was grippy which meant that the cars weren't sliding around much and look how long Rosberg lasted on his set of tyres.

Your mostly correct, but in 2009 they'd just introduced the new aero rules and downforce was very low compared to 2008.

However, in 2010 the cars had the highest downforce levels EVER (at least according to Adrian Newey, the RB06 did).

So I think the Pirelli wet tyres being crap is still the best explanation. It's been mentioned on the forum even back in 2011, and recently Hamilton stated that the Bridgestone wets were better.

[trinidefender]

Remember china 2009? There was 4-5 times as much water, rain and spray that day compared to what we had in japan this year and after 8 laps they let the field go racing. Bridgestones were simply better in every single way. Wear, deg, grip, overall quality.. the lot.

The cars from the Bridgestone era had a lot more downforce than they do now. More downforce means the tyres were made to look much more grippy than they actually were. More downforce means a car is much less likely to aquaplane. More downforce means a tyre compound can be made much harder and still grip. The cars then didn't slide around as much as today therefore the tyres didn't have to deal with the scrubbing as much. Look at Sochi, the surface was grippy which meant that the cars weren't sliding around much and look how long Rosberg lasted on his set of tyres.

Your mostly correct, but in 2009 they'd just introduced the new aero rules and downforce was very low compared to 2008.

However, in 2010 the cars had the highest downforce levels EVER (at least according to Adrian Newey, the RB06 did).

So I think the Pirelli wet tyres being crap is still the best explanation. It's been mentioned on the forum even back in 2011, and recently Hamilton stated that the Bridgestone wets were better.

2010 had the highest levels of downforce? I'm slightly skeptical about that. 2004 levels were pretty high but the cars were lighter and had the V10 so that might be flattering the downforce levels. Or 2008? Can you find a quote about this?

[SectorOne]

2010 had the highest levels of downforce? I'm slightly skeptical about that. 2004 levels were pretty high but the cars were lighter and had the V10 so that might be flattering the downforce levels. Or 2008? Can you find a quote about this?

I´m curious as to why 2004 comes to mind all the time? Lap records?
The main three years/eras that i have seen thrown about was 1, fan cars/ground effect cars, 2, 2008 and 3, 2010 with Newey saying the RB6 probably generated the most downforce in F1 history.

But 2004? How so? Front wing is tiny and basic, the central portion of the diffuser was big but not sure how that would stack up against 6 more years of aerodynamic knowledge and a double diffuser.

As far as 2010 being the most DF year in F1,

But Newey added the performance of the 2011 car with exhaust-blowing didn’t quite reach that of the 2010 car when double diffusers were legal:

“The RB6 was probably the car with the most downforce in the history of F1, more even than the legendary spoiler cars of the 1980s. We measured up to 5.5G of lateral acceleration.

“It could go flat out through Copse at Silverstone, and on the sharp bend on the back straight at Barcelona [Campsa].”

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/03/11/w ... 014-newey/

[Belatti]

Bridgestone where too good simply because in rubber war times development is pushed at max. Pirelli probably invested a small fraction of what Bridgestone or Michelin did and the invested was not aimed at performance, but at wear/grip scale.

[acosmichippo]

Remember china 2009? There was 4-5 times as much water, rain and spray that day compared to what we had in japan this year and after 8 laps they let the field go racing. Bridgestones were simply better in every single way. Wear, deg, grip, overall quality.. the lot.

But lately hasn't the limiting factor in wet conditions been visibility, not grip? At least that's the impression I got, despite Bianchi's crash.

[SiLo]

Usually once they get racing the rain clears quite quickly because you have an entire field of cars clearing 4x65 litres per minute. They should just let them race more and the drivers can deal with it. I know I would for the amount they are getting paid.

[SectorOne]

... because you have an entire field of cars clearing 4x65 litres per minute

Per second, not minute. And it´s at 300km/h it does that.