[Tech Issue] Pirelli-The Tyre Story..

[Mike Harte]

I must admit that the more that I hear about this, then the more I get confused. And what's more, I don't care because the whole thing is stupid. So now we have a race that is determined by how much fuel the driver uses, and by what tyres he chooses. So, it's tactics that will win the races, s*d how quick the car or driver is.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

not sure exactly how it works so i could be wrong.

one set of the softest available compound must be used in Q3. so if the 'option' tire still refers to the softest of the available compounds then the only requirement to use the option tire is in Q3

of the remaining 12 sets, Pirelli will then nominate two compounds, one of which must be used in the race.

so using LH as an example. 1 medium, 6 soft, 6 supersoft with one set of super softs reserved for Q3.

If Pirelli select the medium and softs as the race tires, then LH has to use at least one of those two compounds and is then free to select from the other three at his choosing. theoretically he could run the whole race using the soft compounds as that was one of the two nominated compounds and provided he has enough of them left.

What about the option tyre for the actual race?

[chillibowl]

again i may be wrong in my interpretation, but in the past the 'option' tire simply referred to the softer of the two compounds. as there is no requirement to run each of the 3 compounds during the race im not sure how important it is to make the 'option'distinction anymore.

so for OZ, the Medium, softs, and supersofts will be used...using past terminology the supersofts would be the 'option' tire i guess.

i thought i had it straight in my head before but typing it out something seems wrong or im doing a poor job of explaining. sorry.

this really is an example of over complicating what should be a rather straight forward thing.

[Sodemo]

One thing I disagree with with the tyre "design philosophy" is this notion of having a tyre grip "cliff". With this "cliff", what generally happens is that if a driver hits it, the tyres are next to useless which means a pit stop is basically 100% nessesary. What I would prefer to see is a progressive loss of grip so that a driver could struggle on if they so wished with a tyre that had a more balanced degradation. Let's face it, if a tyre is so badly worn it's 5 seconds a lap slower, there is no point staying on that tyre, however if a badly worn tyre can still put in reasonable lap times, drivers would be more inclined to stay on those tyres and see what happens in certain circumstances.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I must admit that the more that I hear about this, then the more I get confused. And what's more, I don't care because the whole thing is stupid. So now we have a race that is determined by how much fuel the driver uses, and by what tyres he chooses. So, it's tactics that will win the races, s*d how quick the car or driver is.

Ditto this!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

again i may be wrong in my interpretation, but in the past the 'option' tire simply referred to the softer of the two compounds. as there is no requirement to run each of the 3 compounds during the race im not sure how important it is to make the 'option'distinction anymore.

so for OZ, the Medium, softs, and supersofts will be used...using past terminology the supersofts would be the 'option' tire i guess.

i thought i had it straight in my head before but typing it out something seems wrong or im doing a poor job of explaining. sorry.

this really is an example of over complicating what should be a rather straight forward thing.

Thanks for explanation chillibowl.

Over complicating the situation. This is F1 all over. Just take the new Qualifying format. They are just not content to leave things as they are but they just have to constantly mess around with something and that's because, rather than actually deal with F1's underlying issues, they are looking for a quick fix.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

One thing I disagree with with the tyre "design philosophy" is this notion of having a tyre grip "cliff". With this "cliff", what generally happens is that if a driver hits it, the tyres are next to useless which means a pit stop is basically 100% nessesary. What I would prefer to see is a progressive loss of grip so that a driver could struggle on if they so wished with a tyre that had a more balanced degradation. Let's face it, if a tyre is so badly worn it's 5 seconds a lap slower, there is no point staying on that tyre, however if a badly worn tyre can still put in reasonable lap times, drivers would be more inclined to stay on those tyres and see what happens in certain circumstances.

They do have a ''cliff'' in IndyCar but it is more gradual. Then again there are also the fuel stops to contend with. So, the trick is to stay out longer by using less fuel and not wearing your tyres down the canvass.

[fredd1]

Originally Posted by wnut

Ditto this!

Glad I'm not alone....

[Greem]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

They do have a ''cliff'' in IndyCar but it is more gradual.

So... more of a hillside, then?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Greem

So... more of a hillside, then?

Yes, .

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by wnut

GP2 aero is however much simpler than F1 aero and the GP 2 cars have a greater percentage downforce contribution from the undertray than the F1, and the undertray is less affected by wake turbulence.










Additionally the GP2 cars run much shorter races and are less capable of loading the tyres than the F1 cars so the tyres are not quite as fragile as they are in F1.

Although the Dallara GP2/11's bodywork is not that complex, it still generates quite a lot of downforce. There is simply no causality between complexity and effectiveness. Downforce levels were at their peak at the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix, but the cars were - especially to today's standards - quite simple.



The Renault powered Dallara GP2/11 is about fifteen kilograms lighter than a Formula One car, but is more than one hundred and fifty brake horsepower shy of engine power. The fastest GP2-drivers are faster than the slowest Formula One competitors on high-downforce tracks only. This not the case on low-downforce tracks like Spa-Francorchamps.
Although exact figures are unknown, this is a clear indication that the Dallara generates high levels of downforce.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Although the Dallara GP2/11's bodywork is not that complex, it still generates quite a lot of downforce. There is simply no causality between complexity and effectiveness. Downforce levels were at their peak at the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix, but the cars were - especially to today's standards - quite simple.

Regarding your causality argument, I would also say that what you are saying regarding simplicity of 1994 solutions vs. today is an incorrect comparison.

I am not intimate with the details of the rules from 1994, but imagine teams today (current aero knowledge, budget, etc.) building to the 1994 rules. Would the cars look like they did in 1994? Absolutely not. Its highly likely they would look much more like they do today (complex multi-element wings plus whatever else you could do then that has since been outlawed). You would have to mandate the simplicity via rules. Which in general is what has consistently been done. But that results in development money moving elsewhere.

Old cars were simple because they hadn't figure out how to make them as complex as they can now. As knowledge accumulates, so does the complexities of the solutions (when compared to previous cars).

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Old cars were simple because they hadn't figure out how to make them as complex as they can now. As knowledge accumulates, so does the complexities of the solutions (when compared to previous cars).

So reading the above, it might be fuel for the fire for a few (such as wnut and maybe Casper) who might zero in on the "increase in complexity is pointless" aspect of that.

Here is a better analogy...

If the "race" was to fly the farthest via heavier than air flight... The 1903 solution (Wright brothers) would have been pretty simple for today and would have flown roughly 200 ft. The 1969 version put a man on the moon. Clearly the Apollo program was more complex, but that is what was required to fly the distance they did. The complexity did not exist for the sake of being "complex".

Take Apollo engineers and drop them back into the Wright brothers workshop and I expect they could have used the same tools and materials to make something much better than what the Wright brothers did in 1903 and it would not look like the 1903 flier.

Richard

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Regarding your causality argument, I would also say that what you are saying regarding simplicity of 1994 solutions vs. today is an incorrect comparison.

I am not intimate with the details of the rules from 1994, but imagine teams today (current aero knowledge, budget, etc.) building to the 1994 rules. Would the cars look like they did in 1994? Absolutely not. Its highly likely they would look much more like they do today (complex multi-element wings plus whatever else you could do then that has since been outlawed). You would have to mandate the simplicity via rules. Which in general is what has consistently been done. But that results in development money moving elsewhere.

Old cars were simple because they hadn't figure out how to make them as complex as they can now. As knowledge accumulates, so does the complexities of the solutions (when compared to previous cars).

Richard

The current breed of cars are to a large extent the product of the regulations. There are very few area's which are not heavily regulated. As a consequence, a number of inefficiencies are created and teams are forced to work into the small details. Take the front wing as an example: central part have to neutral aerodynamically, forcing teams to use outer edges for multiple wing elements.

Having said that, multiple element wings are not something new to Formula One.


The 1983 Lotus-Renault

In the eighties, the use of multiple element wings both at the front and rear was a reaction to the banning of ground effect underbodies. That very regulations made the cars far less efficient. In 1982, an extra kilogram of downforce came with an equal drag penalty. One year later, that penalty had tripled as a direct consequence of the rule changes.

But as the regulations were still relatively free, designers were capable to free-up the airflow and engine development allowed them to use big wings in spite of a huge drag penalty. Within a couple of years, teams used rear wings consisting of no more than two or three instead of no less than five elements.



Gordon Murray went even further and designed the low-line Brabham BT55.



A well-developed evolution of that car won fifteen out of sixteen races two years later.


The 1988 McLaren-Honda

Let us take a look at that car's rear. It did not even have a so-called beam wing, although it was already introduced at that time.

As rule book thickened over the years, it has become very difficult for teams to make fundamental changes. It has become virtually impossible to design a car based on a new and radically different philosophy.

Think of the low-line car design. The regulations simply do not allow it, as even a minimum height of the engine cover is stipulated by the rules.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The current breed of cars are to a large extent the product of the regulations.

I didn't want to quote your entire post, but I didn't want any confusion as to what I am referencing...

In general I think I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I am not sure if you are trying to agree with me, or make a counter argument around my point that (at least with F1) as knowledge increases, that the complexity also increases. That should be true regardless of how free or tight the rules are. Also, that you can't forget what you have learned. The cars will NEVER look like they used to "naturally" or "by choice". It could only happen if forced via the rules.

We are a long way from the topic of this thread.

Richard

[chillibowl]

no need to go back on topic as this is far more interesting of a conversation then talking about Pirelli!

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

no need to go back on topic as this is far more interesting of a conversation then talking about Pirelli!

This is however a tyre thread ... 😊
Thank you guys !

[bjohnsonsmith]

I don't know what everyone else thinks but isn't time to start a generic "What's Wrong With F1" thread? So many threads on the F1 section, whether it's about Pirelli tyres, the problems with RBR, future rules, tend to turn into "What's Wrong With F1"

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I didn't want to quote your entire post, but I didn't want any confusion as to what I am referencing...

In general I think I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I am not sure if you are trying to agree with me, or make a counter argument around my point that (at least with F1) as knowledge increases, that the complexity also increases. That should be true regardless of how free or tight the rules are. Also, that you can't forget what you have learned. The cars will NEVER look like they used to "naturally" or "by choice". It could only happen if forced via the rules.

We are a long way from the topic of this thread.

Richard

I do not necessarily agree that development will increase complexity in every case. In fact, the past two years teams have done pretty much to make cars simpler in some ways. In 2014, they found out that the new hybrid power units very too complex to allow a repair of a damaged car within a short time.

A front- and rear interconnected suspension (FRIC) is indeed more complex than a conventional passive suspension, especially if the latter is not fitted with a mass damper. However, by today's standard a fully-active suspension would probably be less complicated than a current passive ones, as the latter needs to be adapted to any specific track and the active suspension does not.
A drive-by-wire is easier to develop and configure than a mechanical throttle linkage.
Although the Cosworth DFV was far less advanced than the turbocharged engines in the early-eighties, the privateers opted for the first, because it enabled them to save weight and exploit the ground effect aerodynamics to a large greater extend than without it.

We should watch out for cherry picking, but when it comes to complexity, there is certainly a big difference between regulations either promoting divergence and allowing teams to develop a car around a radically different philosophy or standardizing and/or homologating essential parts, allowing a refinement only and forcing teams to go into the smallest details. With strict regulations it is inevitable you end up with a car being developed from:



to this:



An increased complexity of certain parts is the logical consequence of constant development. With strict regulations, the focus will be on specific parts only, causing these to be increasingly complex. With open regulations the focus will be on the whole package - from aerodynamics to power units, from tires to transmissions. In such a legislative framework the cars' design as a whole will probably become increasing intelligent and creative, thus more complex in that respect.

If divergence would be allowed, cars would more easily find their sweet spots at different stages of the race, at different parts of the track and the balance regarding the performance differences would more likely to shift from track to track. It would mean that artificial gimmicks like the subject of the thread would no longer be necessary. In fact, it would make them look even more ridiculous than they already do.

[Richard C]

I can try to include some type of tyre discussion to keep this relevant to this thread but.... I just can't think of any. We really should try to take this discussion elsewhere. In fact I will try to make this my last post here in this thread unless it is about Pirelli/tyres.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I do not necessarily agree that development will increase complexity in every case. In fact, the past two years teams have done pretty much to make cars simpler in some ways. In 2014, they found out that the new hybrid power units very too complex to allow a repair of a damaged car within a short time.

It can't be an absolute, but I think you would agree that is not what I was saying. I would say that outside of some variance plus or minus that it would hold true. In your example it was maybe a reduction in complexity via familiarity.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

A front- and rear interconnected suspension (FRIC) is indeed more complex than a conventional passive suspension, especially if the latter is not fitted with a mass damper. However, by today's standard a fully-active suspension would probably be less complicated than a current passive ones, as the latter needs to be adapted to any specific track and the active suspension does not.

Agree, but... in this scenario complex FRIC, mass dampers, etc. are areas in which because other solutions have been outlawed, more complex ones were developed. Some might strongly disagree, but I strongly agree that it would be easier today to implement fully-active suspension. There would be less need for artificial complexity on the mechanical side.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

A drive-by-wire is easier to develop and configure than a mechanical throttle linkage.

So this brings up a interesting point that I am not sure if my earlier comments made clear. Today, given the complex electronic nature of these engines/PSUs, it would make little sense to run a mechanical cable from the throttle pedal back to the engine (as you say). So it would be easier to just do an e-throttle/drive-by-wire. But.. all things being equal, compare the overall complexity of a drive by wire system to a mechanical throttle. Even with the level of automation today, it is a more complex solution. It requires a great deal of software, hardware, etc. So very much more complex, but to a degree somewhat "free" in the context of F1 PSUs. A shorter way is to say that complexity can sometimes be easy. This is using an absolute scale (nuclear weapon > machine gun > bow and arrow > rock > nothing) for measuring complexity and the easiness a function of "when" you do something. Meaning it's easy to do drive by wire now. Not so easy in the 1960's.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

With strict regulations, the focus will be on specific parts only, causing these to be increasingly complex. With open regulations the focus will be on the whole package - from aerodynamics to power units, from tires to transmissions. In such a legislative framework the cars' design as a whole will probably become increasing intelligent and creative, thus more complex in that respect.

I agree, but ultimately the limiting factor will be the budget. Today given the restrictions everyone plays in the same small boxes. If it was more open, there would be more initial divergence until teams again converged on ideas that work.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

If divergence would be allowed, cars would more easily find their sweet spots at different stages of the race, at different parts of the track and the balance regarding the performance differences would more likely to shift from track to track. It would mean that artificial gimmicks like the subject of the thread would no longer be necessary. In fact, it would make them look even more ridiculous than they already do.

This is an area that I am not sure I agree with you, or rather I agree, but am not sure if the resulting performance differences would really help the racing (i.e. the show). I would say that your examples are just as likely down to chance (

So one scenario is...

Two teams choose two different technical paths that result in two cars that have different strengths and weakness and have overall performance when measured at the "lap" level. So you might have multiple mid-lap passing and great racing over an entire race.

The other (and in my opinion more likely scenario is...

Two teams choose two different technical paths that result in two cars that have different strengths and weakness and but have very different overall performance when measured at the "lap" level. There will be little on track action short of passing backmarkers and the winner may lap a large portion of the field. Depending upon how good a team is able to keep it's secret sauce secret, it could dominate for quite awhile. And lastly, whoever has the most money can experiment more and come up with more ideas that others may not have the time or money to create. That is why (I get to harp on one of my favorite topics)... I think you are on the generally correct track, but it would require budget constraints (caps or whatever else you want to call it) to keep an even playing field.

Specifically to your Audi/Porsche battle above. While brilliant (I am a big WEC fan), that is somewhat an engineered example of my first example. In which the regulations are still pretty tightly controlled, but allows for variance of solution. But even then... to the point of convergence... Audi it looking to generally replicate the Porsche situation by moving up to a higher MJ class. They got beat, so they are going to go in the same direction Porsche went. Will we see that type of back and forth battle in 2016? And to the 1982 season, I would say that is down to luck or statistical chance more than anything. You create a scenario for randomness (i.e. different solutions) and at some point you WILL have a season show up much like my first scenario above (back and forth racing). But for every one of those, you have a number of others that are dominated by one team or another.

Richard

[Adam43]

God forbid a choice of tyres and tyres (combined with a driver who takes advantage of that) wins a race. If only it could be more like the old days, like with Fangio's famous win at the 1957 German Grand Prix.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Now the thread's back on track, I hope Pirelli won't ever be persuaded to make grooved tyres.

[chillibowl]

Pirelli will always do what they are told to do so you better hope the FIA/FOM dont ask them for that change!

i am actually trying to figure out if there is a way to blame them for the shortfalls in quali.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Now the thread's back on track, I hope Pirelli won't ever be persuaded to make grooved tyres.

Never say never I suppose, but this will never happen !

[Mike Harte]

Progress at last on the testing front for the 2017 tyres.

Pirelli has reached agreement with the teams to conduct testing of the new tyre constructions and compounds that are due to come into force for next season. The teams have all agreed that Pirelli may use a 2012-14 car with adapted suspension to test the new, wider tyres followed by the use of a 2015 car also with adapted suspension.

Next, the change to the 2016 sporting rules to allow this have to be agreed by the F1 Commission, which should be a mere formality, followed by being rubber stamped by the WMSC.

The major problem is which team/s Pirelli choose to work with; so far Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Red Bull and Williams are showing interest in participating.

See: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/te...ng-687207/?s=1