If you look at any sports car today, the profile of the tires is really low -- sometimes just like a rubber band around the rim. Why do they spec F1 tires to be like giant balloons? Wouldn't the tires have less sidewall flex (and thereby better control) if they had a lower profile like street tires? And wouldn't they then have some benefit in that you could learn from low profile tires how better to construct street tires or have better suspension systems that have lower profile tires like most high performance cars? And wouldn't lower profile tires have less unsprung weight? And a smaller surface area to brush against other cars or walls if it hits them? It seems to me with all the FIA "concern" that we need racing technology to continue so it may eventually carry over into street machines, why not tires and suspensions as well? I cannot believe the geniuses in motor racing couldn't design as good if not better a suspension with lower profile tires like everyone in the world uses today on their own sports cars.
No kidding. Just watching the slow_mo's and seeing the tyres(rears especially) "gyrating" side to side when they go over the curbs....you think Pirelli would minimize this with a larger diameter rim(O.Z.) and low profile tyres to minimize the stresses put on the suspension. Have we not seen some of the suspension just break(not brake) on a couple of cars due to these wider tyres and the transfer of these stresses due to the side to side gyrations i.e. Haas ( I believe). Plus they look cool....edit photo's Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login . Image Unavailable, Please Login
It acts as a suspension piece. Edit: http://blackflag.jalopnik.com/watch-how-an-f1-cars-tires-function-as-part-of-their-su-1761118144
I understand that but... why don't street Ferrari's have low profile tires if there's an advantage to it in racing?
Low profile tires on street cars are for looks and are not for much of a performance advantage...same reason cars have 20"+ wheels now.
Yes and is part of the puzzle. Think of it this way. Lets say there was no tire just wheel and infinately hard rubber. Now think of the higher profile tire as a spring. Air pressure to a point makes the tire spring rate change within a window. Then the suspension engineers have to match spring rates of coils and bars with the spring rate of the tire and how that effects grip on the perfect surface that does not exist. Then add in some bumps and how you control the tire on ground with dampers to control grip. The puzzle is hugely complex. The game in racing is all about who figures out how to manage the tires.
https://www.formula1.com/en/championship/inside-f1/rules-regs/tyres-and-wheels.html The sidewalls of F1 cars are really, really stiff as they are today, the current size is nothing more than regulations. Just like everything in F1, to keep the performance in check.
Wasn't the wheel size limited in order to limit the size of brake discs? With smaller wheels, you have smaller brake discs, less ventilation, and more heat-buildup, thereby increasing stopping distances. While the rolling circumferences of tires increased to deal with higher speeds, the actual size of the wheel remained frozen by the regulations. All the best, Andrew.
http://www.racer.com/f1/item/116732-ecclestone-michelin-ideas-bad-for-f1 (read towards the end) http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/09/27/should-f1-switch-to-18-inch-wheel-rims/ (Throwback rationale)
This is the proper and full explanation - wheel sizes were restricted to 13" diameter waaay back in the 70s, 80s, to prevent brake rotors growing ever larger and providing better performance. The change to carbon discs was a game changer that transformed braking performance and got around the wheel size limit, making it irrelevant in limiting brake performance, but then F1 traditionalists like Bernie refused to allow a change, and the F1 designers had got used to designing suspensions around the sidewall flex characteristics of the 13" tires and didn't want to start over. I think they should switch to 17" or 18" wheels, and just put a diameter limit on brake rotor size, pad area, or duct size to control brake performance... or, if they genuinely want to limit costs, regulate a switch back to iron rotors... even the carbon ceramic rotors on exotic cars are far, far less expensive than the carbon rotors on F1 cars.
When they renegotiated the tyre contract just a few years ago, Bernie (at the time) insisted in keeping the 13'' wheels, with the high profile. Michelin proposed to tender only if 15'' wheels minimum were allowed to follow the practice in other series. Pirelli accepted the status quo and its bid won the contract.
Thank god for tradition and restrictions! Putting SUV size wheels on sports cars is the dumbest fashion statement (stolen from the rap music scene) and I am so thankful that F1 has not jumped on the band wagon where street cred and thug life equal 23 inch wheels on every new sports car design as designers try to be trendy.
Low profile tyres were created for technical reasons. They have less sidewall deformation and therefore provide better handling. That's why they were largely adopted for performance cars. Nothing to do with fashion statement, rap music, street cred, thug life or trend.
In my experience, the bigger the sidewall, the more difference you can make to performance with strategic pressures and such too, you can create/reduce grip at will and specific to conditions both in the surface and weather-wise. The overarching reason was of course to restrict performance in braking, so speeds were kept in check in that department (hence the development of ceramics). When it comes to looks, I'm not so sure f1 cars do look better with bigger rims, I actually like the flex of the tyres as it gives us a good idea of the forces the tyres are coping with, and introduces the chance of punctures which with the inevitably harder low profile constructions will likely be even more limited
If restricting braking performance was the aim in limiting wheel size to 13', the rules have left a big loophole: inboard brakes are not banned.
It feels like an inevitable change sooner or later. The implications are negligable on braking as even at 13inches the brakes are more powerful than the rubber can cope with. Bigger wheels will require a complete rethink for the suspension guys (not a big deal) and the issue is not just stiffness but weight related as bigger wheels weigh more, so unsprung mass would increase. Overall I don't really care what they do as I think the wheels look great in either size.
20 inch wheels would make F1 cars look like wheelchairs. Steel brakes would expand the window and result in more overtakes. Not such a bad idea.
Don't go taking my name in vein Aussie! You know full well Andrew rarely makes sense hehehehehe. It's not my fault you were fooled this time around
If all of the drivers are using the same steel brakes, they will all brake in the exact same place as each other, just a lot earlier than they would with carbon brakes. You might get some drivers suffering from brake fade in races that will hamper them, and force them to slow down into corners, but that then raises safety concerns about cars suddenly being unable to stop in time in the event of an accident/incident. You could argue that going back to an old style three pedal - H shift pattern gearbox would make F1 racing more interesting, what with the skill required to do heel 'n' toe gear changes, and the possibilities of missing gears during a rushed gear change - But should F1 really take such backwards steps?
^^I agree. Bring back H shift gearbox where missing a shift can be disastrous on race results. It would be bound to happen in a place like Monaco with thousands of shifts.
Inboard brakes didn't need to be banned as the downsides to their application compared to outboard brakes created their own demise! For a start, if you want to put inboard brakes up front, you need a complex rotating drive shaft running from the hub to the brake disc. Then the front brake discs would have to be mounted to the outside of the cars nose section somehow, where they would create a massive air-disruption to the delicate air flow over the rest of the car - That would simply be unacceptable. Inboard front brake discs would be an engineering and aero nightmare! At the rear, inboard brake discs would cause a disruption to the air flow to the rear wing, and the requirements for brake cooling would interfere with with the cars air flow, both directly, and indirectly. The original advantage of inboard rear brakes was the removal of a heavy rotational mass in the wheel that could affect the operation of the suspension quite badly, but that was back in the days of heavy steel brake discs. With the advent of carbon brakes, that disadvantage disappeared over night. The advantages of fitting the brake discs inside the wheels is that they are out of the direct airflow, the extracted hot air can be guided back onto the car to add to the cars aero performance, and the heat from the brakes can assist with keeping the tyres in their optimum operational temperature range. Added to all that, the F1 technical regulation 11.3.2 states : 11.3.2 All discs must have a maximum thickness of 32mm and a maximum outside diameter of 278mm. So even if you had inboard brake discs, they could not be any larger than outboard brake discs. With today's F1 cars, there are no literally no pro's to having inboard brake discs, and a whole host of con's that make them an instant no -go for any team!