xpensive wrote:Interesting issue this, however somewhat embarassing to my mind, as I belong to those convinced that the introduction of the grooves in 1998 had never taken place if Max had consulted some F1 designers. But the aim was clear, to reduce cornering speed, which it initially did.
The rule was proposed by tyre companies. The FiA took the advise because they wanted to compensate for rapidly increasing tyre performance. I don't think that team designers had any advise on offer regarding that issue. Of course with hindsight everybody is the master of prediction.
from JANUARY 6, 1997 BY PETER WRIGHT
http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft00253.html
Back in 1995, as the new 3 litre, stepped "flat" bottom cars settled down, it quickly became apparent that it would not be long before they were about as quick as the old 3.5 litre, true flat bottom cars. As well as the need to prevent cornering speed escalating again to levels that created circuit safety problems, two further issues raised their heads: drivers were finding it increasingly hard to overtake; and nearly all the great, 4th gear corners had gone, replaced with 2nd gear, stop-go bends, to the chagrin of spectators and drivers alike. Max Mosley tasked the Formula 1 Technical Working Group with making proposals for a means of regulating, and if necessary reducing, all aspects of performance to a level that cancelled out performance gains due to normal development. At the same time, research was to be carried out into ways of improving overtaking, particularly enabling drivers to race their cars close to each other without loss of aerodynamic stability. The Group members (Technical Directors and Chief Designers of all the teams) were given the opportunity to avoid scrapping all their R&D and design work every few years, as had often been the case in the past, and suggesting a means of regulating performance by adjusting some "low cost" feature of the car.
The main culprit in preventing overtaking was the aerodynamics. Powerful front wings, coupled with sensitive flat bottoms, were causing such a change in downforce and aerodynamic balance in the wake of another car, that drivers did not dare get up close in corners for fear of understeering off the track. A significant reduction in front wing and overall downforce was thought to be the answer. 40% model tests of two cars, one behind the other, in the Imperial College's wind tunnel proved otherwise - it's not that easy!
The focus shifted to the tyres. They had been narrowed from 18 ins to 15 ins for 1993 and, quite apart from the cost of new moulds that have to be born by the tyre companies (at least two suppliers in 1998), any further narrowing would put top speeds up above the 340 kph being attained at Hockenheim. Reducing the contact patch area, without reducing the size of the tyres, seemed a possible solution and so discussions were opened with both Goodyear and Bridgestone. Neither were totally negative and the constructors were interested. Putting circumferential grooves in the tread provides a relatively easy way of regulating grip, when or if further reductions in grip are needed in the future. Eventually, tread area will have reduced to a level where compounds have to become harder to last adequately, in spite of tyre competition, and perhaps the dreaded tyre "marbles" that generate a single racing line will disappear and we will return to the days when tyres wore to rubber dust.
You see that F1 was a constant struggle to keep performance in a safe bracket and the tyre war wasn't helping that issue. The article says that the constructors initially showed interest which confirms that consultations were conducted.
Over many years there have been a lot more instances that the constructors did not rely on consultations than the FiA.
