Red Bull RB15

[carisi2k]

I wonder if they are having a balance issue as well as an aero problem. Regardless of how much HP the Honda is producing it is a much different layout to the Renault and maybe this is causing some teething issues with how the car needs to be laid out. It is clear they will figure it out but essentially the only data they have has been from 10 days of testing, 8 hours of free practice, 2 x qualifying sessions and 2 races. The Toro rosso isn't as much of a B team to help out as the Haas is for ferrari which is essentially a replica.

[gandharva]

Red Bull sees potential for big "free gains" with Honda in the future, just from improving the packaging of the Japanese power unit in its car.

[yener]

More downforce would normally increase tyre wear

Why? With less downforce the car generally ends up sliding more, which is worse to tire wear than a force the tire was designed to take.

More downforce will also increase cornering speeds and the load on the tyres.
Considering that formula one cars are not made to slide, more downforce should mean more tyre wear.

It would mean more tyreload, but wheelspin at almost every corner where you have a lack of grip will hurt the tyres way more than when you have more downfoarce / tyreload.

Remember Nico's first win with the Merc W03. He had to be really gentle with his tyres. That was a fast car, but it also had a really narrow operating window to get the tires working right.

[DiogoBrand]

Why? With less downforce the car generally ends up sliding more, which is worse to tire wear than a force the tire was designed to take.

More downforce will also increase cornering speeds and the load on the tyres.
Considering that formula one cars are not made to slide, more downforce should mean more tyre wear.

It would mean more tyreload, but wheelspin at almost every corner where you have a lack of grip will hurt the tyres way more than when you have more downfoarce / tyreload.

Remember Nico's first win with the Merc W03. He had to be really gentle with his tyres. That was a fast car, but it also had a really narrow operating window to get the tires working right.

Unless the car has a fundamental flaw, or the driver isn't very good, less downforce doesn't mean he'll spin his tyres all the time. It just means he'll have lower cornering speed and higher top speed on the straights.

And yes, different downforce levels have benefits and downsides in regard to tyre wear, it will also vary from circuit to circuit. But in Formula One I believe higher downforce creates more tyre wear.

[PhillipM]

For a given laptime, more downforce creates less tyre wear.

That's the trick, it's all well and good saying if the driver is good he'll keep the slip down, but if he needs to achieve a given laptime, less downforce = more tyre surface slip.

[etusch]

And yes, different downforce levels have benefits and downsides in regard to tyre wear, it will also vary from circuit to circuit. But in Formula One I believe higher downforce creates more tyre wear.

I am not sure about that. When I compare it with motogp, for example, in qualifying they generally changes only rear tyre for a secont attempt. When I think about it, it feels a bit strange in the first sight that they are braking very hard. So front tyres also must be in bad condition. But during braking bike is only on front tyre and blocking front means fall. but rear tyre handles big power and very fast acceleration until 300+ km/h speeds.

With higher df with F1 car you can take turns with higher speeds. So there are two things to help front tyres. first; you need to down ( for example) from 300 to 110 instead of 100 km/h, that is lesser brake, second; higher df creats drag to help braking. ( This maybe neutrilised by shorter braking distance with same brake pressure but still lesser working time ). Maybe as 3d one; being more stable on braking compared to lesser df set-up.
Same things can be said for rear too more or less.

[DiogoBrand]

And yes, different downforce levels have benefits and downsides in regard to tyre wear, it will also vary from circuit to circuit. But in Formula One I believe higher downforce creates more tyre wear.

I am not sure about that. When I compare it with motogp, for example, in qualifying they generally changes only rear tyre for a secont attempt. When I think about it, it feels a bit strange in the first sight that they are braking very hard. So front tyres also must be in bad condition. But during braking bike is only on front tyre and blocking front means fall. but rear tyre handles big power and very fast acceleration until 300+ km/h speeds.

With higher df with F1 car you can take turns with higher speeds. So there are two things to help front tyres. first; you need to down ( for example) from 300 to 110 instead of 100 km/h, that is lesser brake, second; higher df creats drag to help braking. ( This maybe neutrilised by shorter braking distance with same brake pressure but still lesser working time ). Maybe as 3d one; being more stable on braking compared to lesser df set-up.
Same things can be said for rear too more or less.

So first you gave me an example to show that in MotoGP, despite the front tyre handling braking forces almost by itself, they only change the rear tyre.
Let's ignore that.
Then you proceeded to explain that in F1 higher downforce may cause less tyre wear because it helps with braking.
Yes, it will make for lower top speed and more drag, wich will make for shorter braking zones, but it also has the effect of increasing the load on the tyres during braking, which will result in a bit more tyre wear. I agree that for braking zones, higher DF will likely result in less wear, but that's not the only thing the tyres do.

As I said before, lower downforce will create situations that increase tyre wear, but it will also create situations where it helps with tyre wear. I believe that ultimately it will make for lower tyre wear than high downforce, but it's okay if you don't agree.

[matteosc]

And yes, different downforce levels have benefits and downsides in regard to tyre wear, it will also vary from circuit to circuit. But in Formula One I believe higher downforce creates more tyre wear.

I am not sure about that. When I compare it with motogp, for example, in qualifying they generally changes only rear tyre for a secont attempt. When I think about it, it feels a bit strange in the first sight that they are braking very hard. So front tyres also must be in bad condition. But during braking bike is only on front tyre and blocking front means fall. but rear tyre handles big power and very fast acceleration until 300+ km/h speeds.

With higher df with F1 car you can take turns with higher speeds. So there are two things to help front tyres. first; you need to down ( for example) from 300 to 110 instead of 100 km/h, that is lesser brake, second; higher df creats drag to help braking. ( This maybe neutrilised by shorter braking distance with same brake pressure but still lesser working time ). Maybe as 3d one; being more stable on braking compared to lesser df set-up.
Same things can be said for rear too more or less.

So first you gave me an example to show that in MotoGP, despite the front tyre handling braking forces almost by itself, they only change the rear tyre.
Let's ignore that.
Then you proceeded to explain that in F1 higher downforce may cause less tyre wear because it helps with braking.
Yes, it will make for lower top speed and more drag, wich will make for shorter braking zones, but it also has the effect of increasing the load on the tyres during braking, which will result in a bit more tyre wear. I agree that for braking zones, higher DF will likely result in less wear, but that's not the only thing the tyres do.

As I said before, lower downforce will create situations that increase tyre wear, but it will also create situations where it helps with tyre wear. I believe that ultimately it will make for lower tyre wear than high downforce, but it's okay if you don't agree.

I cannot see any situation in which less downforce generates less tyre wear. This is given a certain laptime: any team tries to have as much downforce as they can afford considering the related drag. Yes, more force means more wear in theory, but the vast majority of the degradation, in terms of wear and temperature, comes from sliding. RedBull was always going for the higher downforce and I didn't see them once struggling for tyre wear.

[FittingMechanics]

It probably boils down to this.

Higher downforce car ran on the limit (lap time 1:15:000 for example) = highest tire wear.
Lower downforce car ran on the limit (lap time 1:16:000) = high tire wear
High downforce car ran under the limit (lap time 1:16:000) = lower tire wear
Lower downforce car ran under the limit (lap time 1:17:000) = lowest tire wear.

You all are right, higher downforce means more tire wear, but it also allows the car to run under the limit and manage the race to reduce tire wear. Imagine a car being 2 seconds faster a lap, on merit, that car would probably have no issues managing the tires as the drivers can drop the pace in places where tires are hurting and nurse them.

[etusch]

Load has affects on tyre life but not much as much as wheelspin or brakes' revers force on the tyre. When cruising wheels are just turning and affected by load only (except rear tyre, rear is relaxed during braking compared to front - regenarative brake or brake bias affects this )
Cars makes a lot of braking in a stint (10-15 laps long ) or bloking and lost its life.

[DiogoBrand]

I cannot see any situation in which less downforce generates less tyre wear. This is given a certain laptime: any team tries to have as much downforce as they can afford considering the related drag. Yes, more force means more wear in theory, but the vast majority of the degradation, in terms of wear and temperature, comes from sliding. RedBull was always going for the higher downforce and I didn't see them once struggling for tyre wear.

The vast majority of degradation doesn't come from sliding, Formula One cars ideally don't slide. The vast majority of degradation comes from lateral and longitudinal forces being applied on the contact patch, and guess what? Those forces will increase with more downforce.

Load has affects on tyre life but not much as much as wheelspin or brakes' revers force on the tyre. When cruising wheels are just turning and affected by load only (except rear tyre, rear is relaxed during braking compared to front - regenarative brake or brake bias affects this )
Cars makes a lot of braking in a stint (10-15 laps long ) or bloking and lost its life.

Load itself doesn't have a significant effect on tyre life, but more load will allow you to accelerate, corner and brake harder, which will affect tyre wear deeply.
So I still mantain that more downforce = more tyre wear.

[matteosc]

Load has affects on tyre life but not much as much as wheelspin or brakes' revers force on the tyre. When cruising wheels are just turning and affected by load only (except rear tyre, rear is relaxed during braking compared to front - regenarative brake or brake bias affects this )
Cars makes a lot of braking in a stint (10-15 laps long ) or bloking and lost its life.

Load itself doesn't have a significant effect on tyre life, but more load will allow you to accelerate, corner and brake harder, which will affect tyre wear deeply.
So I still mantain that more downforce = more tyre wear.

Yes, but with a significant better lap time... How can you compare two cars which are going at different speed to make this argument? At this point you can compare a car with downforce with one with lift and the one with lift is having surely less tyre wear. Hovercrafts have no tyre wear after all.

[DiogoBrand]

Load has affects on tyre life but not much as much as wheelspin or brakes' revers force on the tyre. When cruising wheels are just turning and affected by load only (except rear tyre, rear is relaxed during braking compared to front - regenarative brake or brake bias affects this )
Cars makes a lot of braking in a stint (10-15 laps long ) or bloking and lost its life.

Load itself doesn't have a significant effect on tyre life, but more load will allow you to accelerate, corner and brake harder, which will affect tyre wear deeply.
So I still mantain that more downforce = more tyre wear.

Yes, but with a significant better lap time... How can you compare two cars which are going at different speed to make this argument? At this point you can compare a car with downforce with one with lift and the one with lift is having surely less tyre wear. Hovercrafts have no tyre wear after all.

Being able to accelerate, corner and brake harder doesn't necessarily mean you'll have better laptimes. Do you even know what drag is?

[matteosc]

I cannot see any situation in which less downforce generates less tyre wear. This is given a certain laptime: any team tries to have as much downforce as they can afford considering the related drag. Yes, more force means more wear in theory, but the vast majority of the degradation, in terms of wear and temperature, comes from sliding. RedBull was always going for the higher downforce and I didn't see them once struggling for tyre wear.

The vast majority of degradation doesn't come from sliding, Formula One cars ideally don't slide. The vast majority of degradation comes from lateral and longitudinal forces being applied on the contact patch, and guess what? Those forces will increase with more downforce.

I strongly disagree. Tyre degradation cannot be simply linked to downforce. Tyres in every car slide, as this is the way in which they apply a longitudinal force to the ground. The higher the downforce, the lower the sliding for a given longitudinal force to the ground.
There are many other arguments about tyre degradation, involving temperature and overheating etc, but saying that a F1 car "don't slide" is definitely wrong on so many levels.

Edit: longitudinal or lateral force, to be exact. That is breaking or turning.

[PhillipM]

The vast majority of degradation doesn't come from sliding, Formula One cars ideally don't slide.

Formula One cars slide everywhere, if you don't understand that I think your theory of downforce = wear is flawed right from the start.