ISLAMATRON wrote:No comments/ideas about my propsed standard aerodynamic device to use each race car to blow the "clag" further off the racing line to help improve passing?
That would require a rather big, and very very inefficient design; I don't suppose it'll be very effective over more than half a meter, either. Plus, since it's essentially a part that damages the airflow an engineer wants, they'll simply do their best to direct air away from it.
ISLAMATRON wrote:No comments/ideas about my propsed standard aerodynamic device to use each race car to blow the "clag" further off the racing line to help improve passing?
That would require a rather big, and very very inefficient design; I don't suppose it'll be very effective over more than half a meter, either. Plus, since it's essentially a part that damages the airflow an engineer wants, they'll simply do their best to direct air away from it.
Attach it to the front wing endplate, then they cant design around it. I dont think it would have to be that large, or inefficient either. Even if it blows marbles from a meter outside the tires it would be an improvement, all we really need is the marble blown another car width off the racing line so 2 cars can enter the corner side by side.
Reckon the absence of grooves will reduce marbling as most of them occur when the tyre surface is scrubbed off to the edges and promptly falls off - no grooves means less 'edges'. With control tyres there is not the battle of previous years so they could go for hard compounds that last the distance. Dare I say 'economy' tyres in this suddenly cost-conscious sport, just remember that this stands to take a lot of grip away, but this might make for a tweak to the car setups to be deliberately hard on the tyres to get them to stick better.
ISLAMATRON wrote:Attach it to the front wing endplate, then they cant design around it. I dont think it would have to be that large, or inefficient either. Even if it blows marbles from a meter outside the tires it would be an improvement, all we really need is the marble blown another car width off the racing line so 2 cars can enter the corner side by side.
If it's on the front wing endplate, then sorry, I greatly doubt it would do any better than the regular airflow-disturbances around the wheels. I don't think a 15cm-long piece, no matter how curved, will form a flow strong enough to blow the marbles off the track.
Plus, I'm anti-standardization anyway: I can accept engines in the name of cost-cutting, and can put up with standard front sections, but this?
I read somewhere that tire advances in the past decade are such that, even with the grooved tires in F1 in recent years, they still have significantly more grip than the slicks from the mid-90s. I wonder if they've managed to improve the compounds so the increase in grip isn't solely at the expense of durability.
Perhaps this is why they didn't have as many marbles as in the old days... But then again, with aero being as poor as it way (comparatively) that might have played a much larger factor in the equation than marbles... maybe the opportunity for outbraking another car was just much greater (or getting on the throttle out of corners)
Maybe the answer is in moving back to slicks but then making tires from comparatively harder compounds than 2008 - so grip would be gained back in contact area but lost in loss of softness... maybe an even-ish swap?? Surely this in itself would reduce marbles to some extent? (unless the ideal operating temperatures of the tires climbs)
Interestingly, Max Mosley has hinted in his letter to FOTA that they should need to investigate with Bridgestone the possibility to create a tyre compound that prevents marbling.
Jersey Tom wrote:I still think a lot comes down to having a compound and to lesser degree construction that's not "razor edge" on breakaway, and gives the driver the confidence in really pushing the vehicle.
Exactly. The problem is not there being marbles or dirt off the race line. The problem is, that todays cars become virtually undriveable for about 2 or 3 turns after going over the marbles/dirt. I think the most reasonable approach should be to change that. So how could that be done? I'd suggest to construct tires, that are less sticky and thus pick up less of the dirt. The tires should also drop the marbles/dirt they picked up faster. And last but not least as you say, the tires need to have a lot wider threshold.
But I'm only being an armchair expert here. I can hardly tell if this is realistically possible without making the cars a lot slower which would not be desired.
I think most of the extra grip that an F1 tyre offers over a regular race tyre comes from its stickiness. If you reduce downforce, I fail to see how the slick improvement can be enough to reduce the stickiness. As I see it, the downforce reduction is larger than the increase in area because of slicks replacing grooved tyres.
This are my numbers:
I estimate that a car nowadays develops around 2.500 kg of downforce: that is 24.500 Newtons, give or take. If the regulations specify 12.000 Newtons tops, then you are left with less than half the current downforce levels.
A current tyre has 4 grooves, that are 14 mm wide. That is 5.6 cm less rubber (4 times 14 mm) when the tyres are new and 4 cm less rubber (4 times 10 mm) when the tyres are worn, because the grooves are tapered from 14 mm to 10 mm at the bottom. The front tyres are 12 inches wide or so, and the rear 14 inches or so, which means you are reducing only 2 inches or so in 12: that's only 1/6 (or roughly 16%) less grip because of the grooves.
The end result, roughly speaking, is 50% less downforce and 16% more mechanical grip: in the end you get around 30% less grip.
So, if you do not want to reduce handling and lap times significantly, you'll need more sticky tyres, thus increasing marbles.
Any corrections to this line of reasoning?
On the other hand, gecko tape or rails not being taking in account, you could use (as I think Tomba said before) tyres that do not produce such huge chunks, but rubber that produces smaller particles.
Another solution (a more expensive one) is to use a different surface for the track.
Ciro Pabón wrote:Any corrections to this line of reasoning?
That's true but only if marbles (relatively large chunks of rubber) form uniformly over the tyre surface. Somebody said here that they most likely worn from edges - and the change from groved tyres to slicks may change situation quite significantly.
Ciro Pabón wrote:Any corrections to this line of reasoning?
That's true but only if marbles (relatively large chunks of rubber) form uniformly over the tyre surface. Somebody said here that they most likely worn from edges - and the change from groved tyres to slicks may change situation quite significantly.
I have said that and have actually seen it a lot in karting (did you Ciro, too? Birel99? Anyone?). The first time I was in a kart race (I mean with an Engineering critical eye, because the "real" first time was when I was I spent the whole day analysing tyre wear patterns and looking closely to the rubber stcked to the track and the marbles away from the racing line.
My conclusion was the bread and butter one
The tyre is a piece of bread with a thick chunk of butter in it and sliding arround a track is like spreading butter... till it reaches to the edge and falls.
Its a mechanism of wear im exposing here and I think it will be less damaging in slicks.
"You need great passion, because everything you do with great pleasure, you do well." -Juan Manuel Fangio
"I have no idols. I admire work, dedication and competence." -Ayrton Senna
On the overtaking part, they are on the case part of it is the movable front wing flaps, the KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery System) to be introduced in 2009
Keep refueling, no tire changes during fuel stops allowed. That way the teams will try to go race distance with the tires like 2005 but know they can come in if a flat spot or dangerous puncture happens even though it will cost them a stop. Harder tires will also have less marbles and more lines through the corners. 2005 was a good season and we really only changed it because Bridgestone got smoked by Michelin. B'Stone also played up the Indy fiasco to get the rules altered for '06 because they couldn't compete with Michelin on race distance tires. Slick are even easier to make them go the distance.
Innovation over refinement is the prefered path to performance. -- Get rid of the dopey regs in F1
