Thoughts on 2012 tyres?

[marcush.]

the fixed weight distribution just narrows down the development possibilities and sure it should lead to the tyre development converging to something suitable or unsuitable for all cars...
if this also is the true reason for some drivers -notably Massa- they cannot come back to former levels of performance? Idon´t think so ...Massas style relied on made those wide front Bridgestones click methinks ..

[bhall]

Again you're placing the blame in the wrong quarter. The mandated weight distribution was agreed between the teams for last year and extended into this year by the teams! It has nothing to do with 'the show' and everything to do with the teams not wanting one car design or another to luck into a weight balance that proved optimal for the tyres and that the others wouldn't be able to copy until the following season.

I'd also like to add that it was apparently also for cost saving reasons: http://totalf1.com/full_story/view/3894 ... ntil_2013/

I don't remember placing the teams upon a pedestal and in the rarefied air of Billy Dee Williams and other infallible beings. I can think of plenty of reasons why Mercedes, Williams and even Ferrari would want to handicap matters as much as possible.

There's enough responsibility to go around without even mentioning the frothing masses who lap this stuff up like they've never had a meal in their lives.

[myurr]

I have no problem accepting that, it's just that you accused the powers that be of engineering a show. They didn't, the teams wanted to cut costs and reduce risk of one of them getting it badly wrong or really really right.

[bhall]

From the Monaco thread...

It is what it is. You like this racing; I don't. Our views will always be colored by that dynamic. So, why argue about it?

Again I can be swayed if you can provide solid evidence for your position. You made very specific claims about tyre performance being a lottery, i.e. random luck, and that this was widely admitted up and down the pit lane. I tried to demonstrate that neither was true and asked you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

You refused to do so, so I can only conclude that your views are emotionally biased (as you seem to admit because you just don't like this style of racing) or you simply aren't interested in understanding the impact of the tyres as you have already made up your mind.

This is a great example of why I walked away from the discussion. I noticed quite a bit of mental gymnastics going on, and I simply don't bother with such things. When I see that someone is only going to see what they want to see, I'm done.

The conversation centered around the artificial nature of the action produced by these tires. The wild card comment was merely an aspect of the discussion. In fact, it was but one of the specific claims you just mentioned. So, don't make it appear as if it was the alpha and the omega.

You defined wild card to mean random. I walked away, because along with that assumption, you required that "solid evidence" not come in the form of driver comments. So, don't sit atop a high horse and accuse me of possessing an unwillingness to have my thoughts challenged.

And please don't assume an emotional basis for my views unless you're willing to say the same of yourself.

You don't like it and I do - both are just opinions.

Frankly, I'm just not interested in discussing this with you anymore. Your assumptions make it both too difficult and too obvious that you're only out to win.

[myurr]

From the Monaco thread...

It is what it is. You like this racing; I don't. Our views will always be colored by that dynamic. So, why argue about it?

Again I can be swayed if you can provide solid evidence for your position. You made very specific claims about tyre performance being a lottery, i.e. random luck, and that this was widely admitted up and down the pit lane. I tried to demonstrate that neither was true and asked you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

You refused to do so, so I can only conclude that your views are emotionally biased (as you seem to admit because you just don't like this style of racing) or you simply aren't interested in understanding the impact of the tyres as you have already made up your mind.

This is a great example of why I walked away from the discussion. I noticed quite a bit of mental gymnastics going on, and I simply don't bother with such things. When I see that someone is only going to see what they want to see, I'm done.

The conversation centered around the artificial nature of the action produced by these tires. The wild card comment was merely an aspect of the discussion. In fact, it was but one of the specific claims you just mentioned. So, don't make it appear as if it was the alpha and the omega.

You defined wild card to mean random. I walked away, because along with that assumption, you required that "solid evidence" not come in the form of driver comments. So, don't sit atop a high horse and accuse me of possessing an unwillingness to have my thoughts challenged.

And please don't assume an emotional basis for my views unless you're willing to say the same of yourself.

You don't like it and I do - both are just opinions.

Frankly, I'm just not interested in discussing this with you anymore. Your assumptions make it both too difficult and too obvious that you're only out to win.

Sorry but you are being ridiculous. There is no definition where you can call something a wild card and a lottery but not consider there to be a random element. Name one lottery where there is no random element. Just one, anywhere. Ever.

Either you are deliberately using overly flowery language to try and talk down the racing because you don't like it, or you are being disingenuous. You don't want to discuss it any more as you can't back up your accusations, so instead hide behind further accusations.

[Steven]

May I remind you guys that this is supposed to be a technical thread, considering that it is located in the technical section?

I fail to see how the discussion on the last few pages is anything technical, but rather bickering about the effect it has on racing.

[xpensive]

Probably because the Pirellis are marginal in that respect, let's try a simple analysis;

- Lateral Force; F = mass * speed^2 / corner radius. Radius is a constant so forget about it.

- For the sake of argument, let's assume that maximum F is proportional to vertical load as F = N *mu.

- Suppose vertical load on one tyre with a full load of fuel is 200kg of mass plus aero load, say 5000 N.

- 120 liters and 100 kg later, if evenly distributed over four wheels, vertical load will be some 4750 N, only 5% less.

- As a consequence, max lateral Force F will also go down with 5%, while mass have decreased with 12.5%,
speed can increase to compensate as follows, see first formula;

Speed 2 = Speed 1 *(0.95/0.875)^0.5, which gives; Speed 2 = 1.042 * Speed 1.

A 4.2% speed increase might not seem much, but at 200 km/h it actually is.

I wonder how the 4.2% change in cornering speed compares to real lap-times with a 100 kg difference in fuel-load, any ideas?

[marcush.]

maximum cornering force is rising with normal load increase but you will quickly reach a point when this is not a linear relation anymore and for a given increase in normal force you get ever less increase of cornering force.

[xpensive]

That is true of course, but one of the assumptions were that friction force was proportional to normal such, even JT agreed?

But again, 4.2% on an 80 second lap is 3.4 sec, is that in line with the real lap-times and a 100 kg fuel-load difference?

[marcush.]

I´d think you have hit the nail on the head ...sort of ....one would assume 100kg of added mass would excessively rob the car of forward and breaking acceleration capabilities as well so we get near the time difference caused by the added weight..andlook :no sim tools!
to put added mass into perspective this little calculator does give a nice overview for the impact of corner exit speeds ,aero drag influence power ,losses ,and of course weight ..nice for playing around a bit:


http://baranidesign.com/acceleration/acceleration.html

[xpensive]

Indeed, and not even using Planck's constant, can you believe it?

[Tim.Wright]

But again, 4.2% on an 80 second lap is 3.4 sec, is that in line with the real lap-times and a 100 kg fuel-load difference?

Remember, the 4.2% increase in speed is only during the traction limited phases of the lap. If you assume this is 25% of the lap you have a delta of 0.85sec which I think is plausible

Tim

[marcush.]

you carry the loss in cornering speed along the straight more or less ...so i´d guess 25% of the lap is a bit too optimistic.
also you need to brake earlier as you need to go in slower as well so little by little the lap time creeps up..
weight is your enemy

[Nando]

I think Pat Fry got the head on the nail or whatever you say in english

Basically the reason for all this unpredictability is that the tires are super-sensitive to temperatures.
Small changes makes for massive performance deficits.

[ArchAngel]

Teams say 'no' to free Q3 tyres?? Bosses Opposed To Qualy Tyres

I suppose the tyre-challenged teams that tend to bring up the rear among Q3 qualifiers wish to reserve the right to use the 'sit-out-Q3-&-save-tyres' gambit, while leaving the frontrunners to fill up the front rows yet start the race on used tyres.