A case to go back to smaller wheels and tyres

[Adam43]

Those periods included refueling. As such there were more times a driver had light tanks and around pit stops there was always an incentive to get your in laps right for race points not just for the fastest lap point. Fastest pole at Monza was 2020.

And as pointed out, there are way more circuits were the lap record is more recent.

Fortunately the cars are being slowed to protect those rare halcyon days.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Those periods included refueling. As such there were more times a driver had light tanks and around pit stops there was always an incentive to get your in laps right for race points not just for the fastest lap point. Fastest pole at Monza was 2020.

And as pointed out, there are way more circuits were the lap record is more recent.

Fortunately the cars are being slowed to protect those rare halcyon days.

Also remembering that the cars were carrying ballast and running on grooved slicks designed to hamper their performance between 1998 and 2008.

These cars may be able to set lap records because of the massive aero allowed to accomplish just that, but they are way too fat to be considered anywhere close to the pinnacle of F1 design.

[Adam43]

And the benefit of a tyre war.

But I was merely commenting on the selective choice.

Every rule set is comedy in some way. But it is reasonable to consider that these most recent cars are (or were) the fastest. However that was achieved.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

And the benefit of a tyre war.

But I was merely commenting on the selective choice.

Every rule set is comedy in some way. But it is reasonable to consider that these most recent cars are (or were) the fastest. However that was achieved.

You are right about the comedy bit.

This is the the bit that just does my head in from 2000.

https://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns02353.html

"THE minimum weight limit in Formula 1 is 600 kilograms, complete with the driver .....

This was designed to reduce the cost of Grand Prix racing by getting rid of the need for expensive exotic lightweight materials. ....

...some of the top F1 cars these days carrying as much as 80 kgs of ballast "

So that is a (excluding ballast) 520 kg car including the driver, then we come along with a 795kg car and try and pass it off as the pinnacle of motor racing engineering.

Everyone bangs on about the sport and entertainment aspect of F1, but it is actually the engineering that has been most compromised at the alter of commercial interest.

What would a car properly designed for minimum weight and performance actually weigh?

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

I agree with you about the cars being too big and heavy and also take your point about smaller wheels having the same aesthetic impact when the cars themselves are smaller. We have big heavy wheels now because the cars are big and heavy, which makes the cars bigger and heavier still. That is an escalator I would like F1 to step off.

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

That’s a tribute to aero and powertrain engineering. The cars are awesome, but they are also much larger than previous generations of F1. You may well not mind that or think it a problem. Personally I’d rather they achieved their ‘fastest car on the planet’ title with less weight, shorter wheelbase … and big wide tyres

I fully agree with all the above!


The last V10's had a maximum wheelbase of 3.100mm.

In 2010, with the addition of KERS to the V8's, that went to 3.400mm.

Last generation cars had a maximum of 3.700mm.

For this generation they wanted to go back to 3.400mm, but after team objections (probably too much stuff to package on these ultra complex V6 hybrid's), they settled on 3.600mm.


I hope in 2026 with the drop of the MGU-H, we will be able to go back to 3.400mm or perhaps a 100mm less even. It depends on how bulky the electric components are going to be with their power so much increased. If we keep the tire diameter proportionate to the wheel base than a 3.300-3.400mm wheel based car would have an equally proportioned tyre diameter with 66-68cm compared to the current generation with 72cm. So the proposed 16-inch wheel with 67cm diameter tires would be pretty much spot on.

Originally Posted by wnut

What would a car properly designed for minimum weight and performance actually weigh?

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/c...-flow/4719283/

https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28901



Reasonable minimal weight with equal modern safety (good), equal cost saving on common parts (good) and the same equal chance system for heavier drivers (good):
V10 with KERS: ~685kg
V6 turbo with KERS: ~700kg

V10 without KERS: ~655kg
V6 turbo without KERS: ~670kg

2026 V6 turbo with very strong electric component: who knows but hopefully below 725kg.

[Greem]

One of the reasons the cars are heavier and "fatter" is mostly overlooked: driver safety. Time was (and it wasn't that long ago really!) that F1 cars were metaphorical bathtubs filled with fuel, with the driver's safety right at the bottom of the priority pile at the design stage.

The central tub of all of the cars is massively over-engineered compared to what it could be, but that's one of the reasons drivers like Grosjean & Alonso got to escape from extremely high speed crashes. Yes, they're laid up from carbon fibre and other complex composites to keep the weight down and strength up, but when you look at the mandatory crash test requirements they need a lot more material than they used to.

Make the cars lighter by all means, but don't compromise the human holding the steering wheel!

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Greem

One of the reasons the cars are heavier and "fatter" is mostly overlooked: driver safety. Time was (and it wasn't that long ago really!) that F1 cars were metaphorical bathtubs filled with fuel, with the driver's safety right at the bottom of the priority pile at the design stage.

The central tub of all of the cars is massively over-engineered compared to what it could be, but that's one of the reasons drivers like Grosjean & Alonso got to escape from extremely high speed crashes. Yes, they're laid up from carbon fibre and other complex composites to keep the weight down and strength up, but when you look at the mandatory crash test requirements they need a lot more material than they used to.

Make the cars lighter by all means, but don't compromise the human holding the steering wheel!

Greem absolutely. Above numbers is with all the current safety measures. Weight saving is mostly drivetrain and wheels/tires.

[Adam43]

Great chart on the weight increases. Thanks.

During that period we had a ban on refueling and then tighter limits on fuel tank size. The former will increase the average weight in the race and the later will reduce. Would be interesting to consider this. Ultimately we got a bigger increase in 2010 from that perspective.

However the qualifying pace will definitely be related to the above. Although there was that have to start on you qualifying rule thing.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

- The same tire wall height of the 2022 cars.
- Proper visibility
- Wheel size still nicely in proportion to the then smaller cars.
- Less aquaplaning
- Less spray
- Less (unsprung) (rotation) mass.
- Less drag
- Less aero interference
- 8cm wider opening leading to the venturi tunnels.

Great points!

You are not wrong on any of this, but are perhaps overlooking the main point of Formula One Management going to 725mm & 18" rim -- a tactical decision to allow suppliers like Michelin or Goodyear to transition from supplying Le Mans prototype tyres (which have those parameters) to supplying F1 tyres more easily.

It's true that Bridgestone still made 13" tyres for Super Formula and now Yokohama supplies 13" Super Formula, and Hankook were perfectly happy to supply 13" for one season on their F1 tender. But for whatever reason FOM has little interest in those tyre suppliers compared to the tender & commercial package of Pirelli.



[ If it was up to me I'd go to a true low profile, be it 16" or 18" doesn't matter, as undamped tyre spring is not good really and make the chassis engineers design more travel into their suspensions!

While heavier rotational mass of a larger wheel is not good, it's not like the undamped spring of a tall tyre sidewall is good either! It's really a compromise between the two. The concerns of F1 designers not wanting to make space for suspension systems with more travel seem to have won out in this instance. ]

[Sodemo]

I used to think that more weight would be a good thing as it would increase braking distances, but I think the knock on effect to car handling would be too great. I do think it’s ironic when so much emphasis is placed on efficiency but adding a load of weight to cars is the opposite of efficient. I can appreciate that it’s a necessary evil but just seems at odds with the messaging.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Great chart on the weight increases. Thanks.

You're welcome, though just to be clear I didn't make it, just the guy in the linked topic. But it does paint a clear picture.

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Great points!

You are not wrong on any of this, but are perhaps overlooking the main point of Formula One Management going to 725mm & 18" rim -- a tactical decision to allow suppliers like Michelin or Goodyear to transition from supplying Le Mans prototype tyres (which have those parameters) to supplying F1 tyres more easily.

It's true that Bridgestone still made 13" tyres for Super Formula and now Yokohama supplies 13" Super Formula, and Hankook were perfectly happy to supply 13" for one season on their F1 tender. But for whatever reason FOM has little interest in those tyre suppliers compared to the tender & commercial package of Pirelli.



[ If it was up to me I'd go to a true low profile, be it 16" or 18" doesn't matter, as undamped tyre spring is not good really and make the chassis engineers design more travel into their suspensions!

While heavier rotational mass of a larger wheel is not good, it's not like the undamped spring of a tall tyre sidewall is good either! It's really a compromise between the two. The concerns of F1 designers not wanting to make space for suspension systems with more travel seem to have won out in this instance. ]

What I suspect what happened is, F1/Pirelli perhaps initially wanted to switch to 18-inch wheels with about 690mm tires. The aero of the new cars and the simplified suspension requires the suspension to be set up pretty hard. I could image that the teams argued that with this already very stiff suspension, making the tires that unforgiving would put to much stress on the suspension and make the ride for the drivers almost unbearable. As a result of these discussions with the teams, the tire wall height was increased with the diameter eventually going up to 720mm (730mm on the full wet’s).

Now the tire diameter had gotten a bit out of hand, but so much fuss had been made about going to the 18-inch wheel that they couldn’t go back to 17-inch or even 16-inch because they would’ve lost face and the whole marketing bla bla of going to the “road relevant” 18-inch wheels would be undermined. So now we’re stuck with this contraption. Synergy with the LMP tyres is limited because the tyre wall ended up higher after-all and compound requirement is very different (LMP: built to last, F1: earlier, controlled drop of to promote pit-stop/strategy interest).

In my opinion, if the synergy is that limited anyway (the tyres are certainly not interchangable between F1 and LMP). Then that whole part of the argument for 18-inch drops away. I would then say, it was a nice idea in theory but it did not work out in practise. Acknowledge that you now don't have the synergy and a very poor design for an open wheel class car and go back to something that does have a more modern side wall height, but on a rims size that makes actual sense for the car used. Any synergy in side wall technology would still be there in a smaller wheel size.

[Mike Harte]

I reply to V8 Fireworks, although FOM may have some input into the decisions about how the cars are regulated - they do sit on the frameworks committee meetings, alongside the teams and suppliers (sometimes even potential suppliers) - the awarding of contracts for tyres and other things such as the standardised ECU are made by the FIA. Or so I believe.

[Taxi645]

Broken record coming in:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/w...cerns/8204993/

After, Vettel, Verstappen and Norris now also Albon and Latifi raise concerns over visibility:

“On open tracks, you can see far ahead of you. With the blind spots of the tyre and all the deflectors, it takes away a lot of that immediate view as you're looking into the corner.
"So what you end up doing is you're looking actually further around the corner.
“However, on a street track, obviously past a wall, there's only more wall, so you can't see much around it. I think that's going to be the tricky one."

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Broken record coming in:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/w...cerns/8204993/

After, Vettel, Verstappen and Norris now also Albon and Latifi raise concerns over visibility:

“On open tracks, you can see far ahead of you. With the blind spots of the tyre and all the deflectors, it takes away a lot of that immediate view as you're looking into the corner.
"So what you end up doing is you're looking actually further around the corner.
“However, on a street track, obviously past a wall, there's only more wall, so you can't see much around it. I think that's going to be the tricky one."

Saying it is raising a concern is an interpretation. He only says it will be tricky - I've heard the same being said about finding the biting point of the clutch....

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Saying it is raising a concern is an interpretation. He only says it will be tricky - I've heard the same being said about finding the biting point of the clutch....

True. Words are from the article title BTW. That said, if five drivers mention it, it probably is not trivial. We'll see the coming season how much of an issue it really is.

[Sodemo]

Didn’t they say the same thing about the Halo before they were all told to fall in line?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

True. Words are from the article title BTW. That said, if five drivers mention it, it probably is not trivial. We'll see the coming season how much of an issue it really is.

Understood - although have five drivers said it's dangerous (or a concern), or have five drivers been asked if the visibility is reduced?

My point being - if there is a journalistic narrative being pushed, then asking drivers if the visibility is reduced will get the answers the journalists are looking for.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

True. Words are from the article title BTW. That said, if five drivers mention it, it probably is not trivial..

Albon spent the year racing a Ferrari GT car where he can't see the tyres at all, I doubt it's a major problem!

How do touring cars drivers like Sutton cope when all can they see is the dashboard? https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SCNEOQS42KU/maxresdefault.jpg But they do, so I wouldn't worry about it, even if the Grand Prix driver sits quite a bit lower.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Understood - although have five drivers said it's dangerous (or a concern), or have five drivers been asked if the visibility is reduced?

It would be nice if the front tyre diameter was less, but it is what it is, oh well.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

“However, on a street track, obviously past a wall, there's only more wall, so you can't see much around it. I think that's going to be the tricky one."[/I]

Onboard with Jamie Whincup around Sydney Homebush street circuit for a bit of fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk1sVuYxvSU

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Albon spent the year racing a Ferrari GT car where he can't see the tyres at all, I doubt it's a major problem!

How do touring cars drivers like Sutton cope when all can they see is the dashboard?

It would be nice if the front tyre diameter was less, but it is what it is, oh well.

This (I think) sums up the debate.

There are some (many?) who are not in favour of the 18" wheel for many factors, and are trying to formulate an argument against their use in F1. However a lot of the 'evidence' is just a recognition of the situation, none of it as actually an issue that needs to be resolved.
Every time I hear a driver talk about difficulty, challenge, adapting etc, I'm reminded of the amount of times F1 cars are claimed to be 'too easy' to drive.

[Taxi645]

The problem is not that they don't see the tires, the problem is they see too much of the tires and a result not seeing what they need to see.

Here is an article with James Allison from 1.5 years back: https://www.racefans.net/2020/06/04/...lower-allison/

I think what he is "trying to formulate" is a more acute summary of the situation: It's a worse racing tyre, but it is what it is and we'll will make due.

I feel we are not really furthering the discussion much and will refrain from posting more talking about lack of visibility from the drivers until we get some races going and especially Jeddah and Monaco. Then we know a bit more what how much the visibility is really going to be an issue.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

The problem is not that they don't see the tires, the problem is they see too much of the tires and a result not seeing what they need to see.

Here is an article with James Allison from 1.5 years back: https://www.racefans.net/2020/06/04/...lower-allison/

I think what he is "trying to formulate" is a more acute summary of the situation: It's a worse racing tyre, but it is what it is and we'll will make due.

I feel we are not really furthering the discussion much and will refrain from posting more talking about lack of visibility from the drivers until we get some races going and especially Jeddah and Monaco. Then we know a bit more what how much the visibility is really going to be an issue.

Again - there is an interpretation to what is being said. Allison doesn't say it is a worse racing tyre, but that in terms of outright performance it is worse. (The article is also nearly two years old so not based on any experience of the tyre).

If I (selectively) look at some other things he says in that article about the new tyres:
'a step backwards for car performance but could make the competition closer'
'the new tyres are going to be heavier, lower grip and worse for ride – all other things being equal. So they’re going to slow the cars down by somewhere between a second and two seconds, something like that.'
'aesthetically they appeal to some people'
'aligning our world better with the road car world means it’s probably more relevant, what we are doing, to the road cars. That’s important'
'If you have a lower-profile tyre because there’s less tyre and that tyre is more rigid in its sidewall, it moves less. And so it presents less of a dilemma to the car designer. So if you were in the FIA and FOM and wanting the grid to compress up, there’d be more of a catfight from front to back, having tyres that don’t interfere so much with the aero is a good thing from our point of view.'
'this new tyre is an opportunity'


So I can read that article as an argument for tyres that will:

• make the competition closer.
• have lower grip.
• have worse for ride.
• slow the cars down.
• have aesthetic appeal.
• align with road cars.
• don’t interfere so much with the aero.
• present an opportunity for grid change.

which could all be seen as positives for the sport?

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Again - there is an interpretation to what is being said. Allison doesn't say it is a worse racing tyre, but that in terms of outright performance it is worse. (The article is also nearly two years old so not based on any experience of the tyre).

If you manage to interpret his direct quote as anything else than yes, further discussing is of no use:

“All things being equal the bigger rims, low-profile rubber is always going to be a worse tyre than the sort of tyres that we have on our racing car today,”

It may not be based on experience with this particular tyre, but it is based on his vast experience as a motorsport engineer at the highest levels.

So I can read that article as an argument for tyres that will:

• make the competition closer. Would be the same with a 16-wheel tyre with the same tyre wall height.
• have lower grip. Would be the same with a 16-inch wheel with the same tyre wall height, although not to the same degree (unsprung weight).
  
• have worse for ride. Would be the same with a 16-inch wheel with the same tyre wall height.
• slow the cars down. Would be less so with a 16-inch wheel with the same tyre wall height.
• have aesthetic appeal. Some like, some don't.
• align with road cars. Would be the same with a 16-inch wheel with the same tyre wall height.
• don’t interfere so much with the aero. He is referring to the lower tyre wall flexing making it easier for smaller teams to accurately model aero in all situation with less computing power. This is literally what I have been arguing up thread and this would be the same for a 16-inch wheel with the same tyre wall height. The difference is that with the 16-inch wheel, you not only have this aero advantage of the lower tyre wall, but also have the aero advantage of having a smaller object interfering with the flow of air around the car.
• present an opportunity for grid change. Would be the same with a 16-inch tyre with the same tyre wall height.

which could all be seen as positives for the sport?

That why I suggested this article as a summary, it points out why it's a worse tyre everything else being equal, but it is also acknowledges the realities and broader aspects surrounding it's introduction even if it's 1.5 years old.

Anyway I'm pretty much done for the moment. I'm not here to argue for arguments sake. It's becoming a bit of a slug fest. Most arguments have been brought forward (and were ignored, forgotten or little effort was made to understand them), new insights are not likely now. So as said I will refrain from adding to the subject till there will be more real life experience.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Greem

One of the reasons the cars are heavier and "fatter" is mostly overlooked: driver safety. Time was (and it wasn't that long ago really!) that F1 cars were metaphorical bathtubs filled with fuel, with the driver's safety right at the bottom of the priority pile at the design stage.

The central tub of all of the cars is massively over-engineered compared to what it could be, but that's one of the reasons drivers like Grosjean & Alonso got to escape from extremely high speed crashes. Yes, they're laid up from carbon fibre and other complex composites to keep the weight down and strength up, but when you look at the mandatory crash test requirements they need a lot more material than they used to.

Make the cars lighter by all means, but don't compromise the human holding the steering wheel!

Small problem to the safety theory (which should not be comperomised), the monocoque of the 2019 cars weighed approximately 35 kg!

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Would be the same with a 16-inch wheel with the same tyre wall height.

16" would work, but 15" (and possibly 16" I need to check) tyres were already used in F1 since over 50 years ago and banned over 35 years ago. I feel like if they wanted to go to 15" to align with USAC racing and Indycar racing they could have done it years ago... Back in the 1980's even, or the 90's, or the 00's, or the 10's...

So if they are going to bother to change now, I suspect they feel they may as well change directly to 18" which is a standard size for racing car tyres in both LMP, GT and Touring Car. There seems little use in going to the intermediate 16" size.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I feel we are not really furthering the discussion much and will refrain from posting more talking about lack of visibility from the drivers until we get some races going and especially Jeddah and Monaco. Then we know a bit more what how much the visibility is really going to be an issue.

F2 have already been racing around Monaco with these 725mm high 18" tyres, albeit without the wheel fairings. There were no particular issues.

Onboard with Theo Pourchaire at Monte Carlo for a bit of fun, Pourchaire seems to have no difficulty in placing the car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=395fYmc4QaY

The original 18" tyres with a smaller total diameter - 7 years ago, that's how slow things change in F1! - were certainly more pleasing, but it is what it is. F2 have raced the LMP diameter tyres without issue.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by wnut

Small problem to the safety theory (which should not be comperomised), the monocoque of the 2019 cars weighed approximately 35 kg!

I've seen quotes (none of them authoritative in any way) that the monocoque weighs 35kg, 50kg, 80kg and in one case 99.1kg, all of these being before any additional stuff like steering wheels, seats, drinks bottles, wiring looms, pedal box & pedals, leg foam, cockpit surround and halo are added in.

However, I was referring more to the visual perception of the cars being "fat". They look the way they do because there's simply more _stuff_ around the driver.

I'm quite liking the variation we're getting this year though.