Tyres and performance numbers

robinh · Jan 23, 2004

There is a great deal of performance number comparison data on this site but none that I can see that takes into account much, if anything, about the tyres.

The new tyres that are available today can help make a significant difference to the performance numbers posted (0-60, lap times etc) and I wondered if this was something that could be taken into consideration in any real way.

For example Autocar (Christmas special) indicated that the BMW CSL (Pilot Sport Cup) stopped in 40.8m to stop for 70mph with the Cup tyres and 45.7m with standards Continentals.

I know that the Pilot Cup will not allow for good acceleration until they are really warm and then the grip like mad, something we all know about.

With cars ever faster and comparrisons being made to 0.1 second (my car's faster than yours) surely the tyres need to be considered now as thay can make a real and significant difference to measurements.

Does anybody have any ideas of these differences and how they could be taken into account?

BTW I'm not asking which tyre is best, just how to account for differences in tests

Mitch Alsup · Jan 23, 2004

In a very real sense, the only FAIR way to account for the advancement of tire technology is:

Go get a healthy older car, put modern rubber on it, and test it under controlled circumstances on a track.

So, for example, at my track (TWS) an F355 on 2003 r-compound tires should provide about 6.0 seconds of lap time gain over max performance streets, full race slicks are another full 4 seconds faster. Enough people have done this experiment that 6.0 seconds is usefully accurate (mean or average), however, the standard deviation is well over 0.5 seconds.

Take a F348 on 1990 its original street rubber, and put modern street rubber on it--probably get around 4 seconds per lap faster; put modern r-compounds and you might get 10 seconds faster than the original tires.

So, comparing an older car originally measured in some controlled way at the time of its introduction with a modern car also carefully measured in the same way at the time of its introduction tells you little.

robinh · Jan 23, 2004

Mitch Alsup said:

In a very real sense, the only FAIR way to account for the advancement of tire technology is:

Go get a healthy older car, put modern rubber on it, and test it under controlled circumstances on a track.

So, for example, at my track (TWS) an F355 on 2003 r-compound tires should provide about 6.0 seconds of lap time gain over max performance streets, full race slicks are another full 4 seconds faster. Enough people have done this experiment that 6.0 seconds is usefully accurate (mean or average), however, the standard deviation is well over 0.5 seconds.

Take a F348 on 1990 its original street rubber, and put modern street rubber on it--probably get around 4 seconds per lap faster; put modern r-compounds and you might get 10 seconds faster than the original tires.

So, comparing an older car originally measured in some controlled way at the time of its introduction with a modern car also carefully measured in the same way at the time of its introduction tells you little.
Click to expand...

It does require some direct comparison but today we are not talking about the differences between street and racing rubber, but between tyres like the Pilot Sport Cup and the P0 Corsa which on the face of it appear to be similar but which I have already read offer significant advantages over each other in different conditions for example low temperature affects each of these tyres differently.

For a insight into what I mean just look at racing tyre technology where cars win or lose races on their tyres not on their 0-60 etc.

It bothers me to read small differences being put down to differences in the car when these could potentially be simply put down to tyres.

Conversations

Alerts

Tyres and performance numbers

robinh Formula Junior

Mitch Alsup F1 Veteran

robinh Formula Junior

Share This Page