A case to go back to smaller wheels and tyres

[Taxi645]

With the 2017 rules changes (which luckily have been turned back) we also went to much wider tyres. The 2017 care rule changes didn't have the desired effect (as expected). Unfortunately the wider tyres weren't cancelled along with it. In fact with the changes to the 18-inch wheels they have now also grown in diameter from 660mm to 720mm.

Why would narrower, lower diameter wheels and tyres be better:

Narrower:

- Less (unsprung) weight
- Less drag

- Less aero disturbance (also for the following car).
- Narrower car is more room for side to side action.
- Longer braking distances (so more room for overtaking on the brakes).
- More skill required on the throttle.
- Less corners become easily flat
- Better wet tyre performance.


Smaller diameter:

- Less (unsprung) weight
- Less drag
- Less aero disturbance (also for the following car).
- Better cockpit visibility

Why not use the change to the lower side wall to go back to a narrower 16-inch wheel/ 670mm tyre combo which would be much more inline with goals of the 2022 aero changes, would reduce the weight and the size of the cars again and all the other benefits of the narrower rubber (including being more suitable for very wet weather)?

It may not look like a 80's bedroom poster tyre, but otherwise be a much better choice. Missed opportunity in my book.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

With the 2017 rules changes (which luckily have been turned back) we also went to much wider tyres. The 2017 care rule changes didn't have the desired effect (as expected). Unfortunately the wider tyres weren't cancelled along with it. In fact with the changes to the 18-inch wheels they have now also grown in diameter from 660mm to 720mm.

Why would narrower, lower diameter wheels and tyres be better:

Narrower:

- Less (unsprung) weight
- Less drag

- Less aero disturbance (also for the following car).
- Narrower car is more room for side to side action.
- Longer braking distances (so more room for overtaking on the brakes).
- More skill required on the throttle.
- Less corners become easily flat
- Better wet tyre performance.


Smaller diameter:

- Less (unsprung) weight
- Less drag
- Less aero disturbance (also for the following car).
- Better cockpit visibility

Why not use the change to the lower side wall to go back to a narrower 16-inch wheel/ 670mm tyre combo which would be much more inline with goals of the 2022 aero changes, would reduce the weight and the size of the cars again and all the other benefits of the narrower rubber (including being more suitable for very wet weather)?

It may not look like a 80's bedroom poster tyre, but otherwise be a much better choice. Missed opportunity in my book.

The short answer: 725mm rolling diameter & 18" brings F1 tyres into line with Le Mans Hypercar & LMP2 tyres.

The longer answer: Remember that in 1993, the rear tyres were made narrower... But the front tyres were kept the same size! The narrow rear tyres from 1993 to 2016 were always a bit wrong IMO. [Car width was reduced to 2.0m in 1993 which was unfortunate, and then reduced again to 1.8m in 1998 which was even more unfortunate.]

Worse still, grooves were added to reduced the contact area of the tyres from 1998 until 2008 -- far from making the racing better by reducing mechanical grip, the rule change made the racing worse. Your suggestion that less mechanical grip would increase driver skill, simply wasn't borne out in reality.

The tyres were then scaled equally front-and-rear in 2017 to avoid the vehicles needing to be redesigned significantly. So you ended up with 2017 rears that were about the same size as 1992 rears (perhaps 20mm wider, 405mm vs the historic 385mm), but front tyres that were a lot wider than 1992 fronts (305mm vs the historic 245mm).

The 2021 regulations are correcting this somewhat -- reducing front tyre section from 305mm to 270mm, albeit not all the way back down to the traditional 245mm front tyre width.

W.r.t. total rolling diameter. I believe Goodyear always used 640mm (or rather the SAE equivalent of 25") for the front tyres, and 660mm (or rather 26") for the rear tyres. I think Bridgestone (joining F1 in '97 IIRC) however used 660mm (the maximum permitted diameter) for both the front and rear tyres, and this was the case for all F1 tyres until 2016.

In 2017, the Pirelli tyres increased negligibly in rolling diameter from 660mm to 670mm.

Personally, I would not wish F1 cars to return to narrow rear tyres. F1 rear tyres should be poster worthy!

I do think smaller rolling diameters would make the wide 18" tyres look better (say 640mm front and 680mm rear -- a V8 Supercar tyre is for instance a 680mm rolling diameter on an 18" rim), but F1 teams seem reluctant to design in significant suspension travel that would be required to accommodate such low profile rubber.

After all, the wide 2017 tyres & increased max. car width have very welcomely made F1 cars back into awe-inspiring wide beasts that corner in a thrilling manner (I say they are still too narrow at 2.0m, and FIA should go back to the iconic 2.15m maximum car width regulation used from ~1972 to 1992)!

The modern F1 racers are a far cry from the sluggish, lazily cornering cars of 2014, that were quite the disappointment. In some cases, those 2014 cars with narrow tyres & low downforce were up to 10 seconds per lap slower than a modern 2020 F1 or classic 2004 F1 car. Those 2014 cars were WAY too slow, far from being a driving challenge, they were just boring with commentators like Mark Webber noting that the drivers did not find them sufficiently stimulating, and that the step from F2 (GP2) to F1 was far too easy.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

It may not look like a 80's bedroom poster tyre, but otherwise be a much better choice.

I'm not sure that is clear cut. You want more mechanical grip so the cars can be driven harder and be more exciting to watch.


Lovely! *Wide load coming through!*


That's just not right. Looks like it has been squashed or something, very strange.


Much better!

I really think it is a shame that nothing more than the dimensional regulations were detrimental to the look of a whole era of F1 cars. The 2017 cars finally saw a return to some nice proportions -- even if the teams are now exploiting the (unregulated) length of the cars to the maximum.

The length will be reduced in 2022, but only by around 200mm less than the current longest cars (max. wheelbase 3600mm). That's all the teams were willing to agree to. FIA originally proposed 3400mm maximum wheelbase, but the teams refused this (too much redesign work apparently).

[S griffin]

We need wider tyres for more mechanical grip. One of the worst things F1 did was to ditch slicks and go to those horrible grooved tyres. That not only reduced mechanical grip, but also meant teams put on more aero to compensate that, thereby compounding the problem of keeping speeds down and making the racing better

[Taxi645]

This simply is not true. Case in point; take a 2004 Ferrari F2004:

- 1.8m wide
- 324mm wide contact patch (380mm - 4 x 14mm, from the grooves, that's equal to the pre 2017 contact patch with).
- Blistering fast (records only recently broken by the 2017 gen. cars).

So the car nor tire does need to be that wide to be fast. The reason the pre 2017 cars look funny like in your picture is because the high and narrow rear wing. If you look at a F2004 rear shot it looks fine,. Why, because there is a normal rear wing on it:



I agree the wider cars and tires look even better, but to me that absolutely does not weigh up to the disadvantages listed in the opening post.

If you compare the available track width between a 1.8m car and a 2.15m one you loose 70cm of track width in the side to side situations we so desperately want to see more of. If that does not sound like a lot, imagine the apex coming in 70cm and what that does to the ability to take a tighter corner with to cars side by side.

Compared to the 2016 season the frontal area of the tires will have grown a massive 34%! Furthermore drivers are already sounding the alarm bells over the visibility with this tire size, not being able to see the kerbs (remember there will be an additional air deflector on the front wheels as well). Something the larger diameter rain tires would only make worse in already challenging visibility conditions in the rain. Imagine not being able to see standing water because a huge tire is in your view.


As you say though, the cars need to be shorter to be in proportion with the 1.8m width.

[Taxi645]

The problem with aquaplaning has the potential to become much worse for 2022 for two reasons:

1 Same tire surface, but less downforce means aquaplaning more likely.
2 Downforce from the bottom of the car obviously has much more chance to be disrupted by standing water than downforce from the top of the car.

For the latter problem Gary Anderson has suggested a larger increase in tyre diameter for the rain tires, but with the already huge diameter proposed for 2022, the visibility problem would only get worse. One more reason to stick with smaller diameters for the dry tires.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/gary-...le-in-the-wet/

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

I'm not sure that is clear cut. You want more mechanical grip so the cars can be driven harder and be more exciting to watch.


Lovely! *Wide load coming through!*


That's just not right. Looks like it has been squashed or something, very strange.


Much better!

I really think it is a shame that nothing more than the dimensional regulations were detrimental to the look of a whole era of F1 cars. The 2017 cars finally saw a return to some nice proportions -- even if the teams are now exploiting the (unregulated) length of the cars to the maximum.

The length will be reduced in 2022, but only by around 200mm less than the current longest cars (max. wheelbase 3600mm). That's all the teams were willing to agree to. FIA originally proposed 3400mm maximum wheelbase, but the teams refused this (too much redesign work apparently).

Gary Anderson made some comments regarding Lando's accident that probably need some thought.
He was referring to the aquaplaning problems induced by water under the car and that from the onboard it appeared that Landos car stepped out at the rear.
Yes he corrected but at that time the front appeared to suddenly grip and spear him off the road.
Anderson commented that the front actually had plenty of grip but the the rear was light due to either the bump at Eau Rouge or water under the rear of the plank.

Are we getting to the point where the preoccupation with aero is actually giving us cars that are inherently more unstable in inclement weather and that we should take an axe to the continued significance of underbody aerodynamics?

If the aero is responsible for throwing up increasing amounts of water, reducing vision, which was the main concern over Sundays race conditions,
then it would seem that the sport may be wearing concrete gumboots.

Next years aero may be no better in diffusing the water from hanging in the air and if a major cut and cancel is needed leaving the teams to influence technical changes may be exactly the wrong approach. Its not just tyres, but the whole aero development phase is having an influence in creating issues in wet weather racing.

Id be happy to go back to 70's/80's size cars and tyres.
what we have is not working well for anyone, drivers or spectators/fans.
Max V recently commented that it wouldnt matter if the cars were 5 secs a lap slower if it made for better racing/drivability.

[Kempi]

Wasn't the issue with standing water that not the tires would aquaplane but the car itself due to the ride hight limiting plank? In that case tire width would not have much of an effect.

Will we still have the plank next year? Or will the underbody aero remove it for room for the tunnels?

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Kempi

Wasn't the issue with standing water that not the tires would aquaplane but the car itself due to the ride hight limiting plank? In that case tire width would not have much of an effect.

Will we still have the plank next year? Or will the underbody aero remove it for room for the tunnels?

The plank is only 30mm wide. I think it remains.

the drivers on Sunday said that visibility was the primary issue.
One of them, I think it was George, remarked that over 200kph you might as well be driving down the straight with your eyes shut.
That situation is not what we want in F1 at all.

[Sodemo]

I guess the FIA are caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to these kind of things. They need the aero for when its wet in order to have grip, however they say the increased aero wake is kicking up more spray. Then there is the arguemnt about aquaplaning, again a conundrum, they want wider tyres when its wet to clear the standing water, but monsoon conditions cause the wider tyres to aquaplane. My understanding of how it worked with the older Bridgestone tyres was that the monsoon tyre was actually a narrower tread, I am guessing to combat exactly that - the likelihood of aquaplaning. I assume F1 doesnt have a monsoon tyre any more though, since any such conditions now automatically renders it undriveable in the eyes of the race stewards.

[Casper]

F1 does not need aero assistance, they have just convinced themselves and others that they do. It came about by chance and everyone in F1 blindly followed. Granted the cars would be a lot lot lot slower but I bet the racing would be more interesting if mechanical grip was the primary source of adhesion. The rabbit is out of the box and headed up the cul de sac and every few years someone bleats loud enough, the rules get changed and the result is usually worse or no better.

I am not convinced that next year will be radically different as I was not convinced the last two changes were going to affect the status quo and at the moment I am batting 100 not out on those two. The single biggest problem everyone agrees on is aero has stuffed F1 so getting rid of it seems to be the obvious answer but then I'm thick and don't get why it was ever allowed.

If cars were still relying on mechanical grip today and somewhere this season Mercedes decided to add a wing because some genius had come up with the idea RB & Marko would go beserk saying the thing breaks every rule known to man and should never be let into F1 ever. Excuse my ranting and I had better not keep going, my hatred of aero is starting to show.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Its not just tyres, but the whole aero development phase is having an influence in creating issues in wet weather racing.

Well the flat floor regulation between the axles (introduced in '83 I think) was the FIA's solution to cut ground effects in the first place! There was even a 100mm minimum ride height rule, which unfortunately was then dropped shortly thereafter.

The cars still have a flat floor to this day, albeit with a step now -- it's just that the rule doesn't say that the flat floor has to be parallel to the ground, so the whole flat floor is placed at an angle of attack to create more ground effect downforce (smart chap that Adrian Newey who introduced this idea in 2009)!

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Casper

F1 does not need aero assistance, they have just convinced themselves and others that they do. It came about by chance and everyone in F1 blindly followed. Granted the cars would be a lot lot lot slower but I bet the racing would be more interesting if mechanical grip was the primary source of adhesion. The rabbit is out of the box and headed up the cul de sac and every few years someone bleats loud enough, the rules get changed and the result is usually worse or no better.

Introducing regulations similar to Formula Ford is certainly something F1 could consider.

The Formula Ford regulations say this:

12.1 Bodywork:
(a) Any device designed to aerodynamically augment the downforce on the vehicle is prohibited. These devices specifically include aerofoils, venturi tunnels, skirts, nose fins and spoilers of any kind.
(b) Integration of aerofoils and spoilers by design or the mismatching of bodywork and/or chassis panels
and members is also prohibited.
(c) The bodywork must totally enclose the engine inlet manifold and filter with an opening for the passage of air.
(d) The uppermost surface of the bodywork must not extend more than 25mm above the top surface of the rollover hoop. See additional note in Table of Dimensions, Appendix A.
(e) The upper rear bodywork (located above the wheel centerline) is permitted to extend rearwards for a maximum of 375mm from a line drawn through the rear wheel axis. The maximum height at any part wider than 1100mm ahead of the front wheels is not to exceed the front wheel rim height.
(f) The shape of the bodywork behind a vertical line drawn from the highest point of the roll-over bar must not include any reflex curves or flat surfaces which are capable of augmenting downforce.
(g) The lower rear bodywork (located below the wheel centreline) is only permitted alongside and beneath the engine and may only extend from behind the cockpit to a line drawn through the rear wheel axis.
(h) The incorporation of suspension or other fairings in this bodywork is prohibited.
(i) It is not permitted to construct any suspension member in the form of an aerofoil or to incorporate a spoiler in the construction of any suspension member. The use of suspension fairings separate from this bodywork is prohibited.
(j) The use of composite materials using carbon fibre reinforcement is prohibited.

https://www.formulaford.org.au/technical

At about 200 words, the Formula Ford bodywork rules are about 1/100th the length of the 2022 Formula One bodywork rules.

Originally Posted by Casper

my hatred of aero is starting to show.

Why you hate aerodynamics? Without humans having some understanding of (steady-state) aerodynamics, planes that fly couldn't be made. It takes some level of wind tunnel testing and optimisation to make sufficiently efficient aerofoil profiles.

Our understanding of the non-steady-state aerodynamics and hyrodynamics used by birds/insects and fish to fly and swim respectively, is actually not that great on the other hand. That's more related to deliberately stalling the wing/tail fin and releasing vortex cores in order to produce a momentary surge in lift or thrust respectively (more lift or thrust than could be obtained with a steady-state wing or sail).

With respect to motor vehicles, it's simple physics that the friction force of the tyre is F = (Normal force)*friction coefficient. Where the normal force on the tyre is of course equal to the corner weight + downforce. If you can increase the normal force on the tyre and thus traction of the tyre without increasing the actual weight of the vehicle, it is only logical to do so!

Increasing the weight of the vehicle to increase traction is obviously undesirable, since F=ma, and more mass makes a car accelerate slower both longitudinally and laterally for a given longiditudinal or lateral force. Doing it using air pressure instead is surely 'terribly clever'? After all air pressure alone is enough to lift a 400 tonne Boeing 747 off the ground, so why not harness it on a motor vehicle too?

[PS. I'm with the folks who believe Gustave Whitehead may have made the first powered flight, his knowledge of gliders and his knowledge of building lightweight engines make it seem more likely he achieved it first. The Wright Brothers flyer on the other hand was a bit of deathtrap, and has caused nothing but trouble & injury for those who have built replicas -- it's a very unstable craft compared to the Whitehead craft.]

PPS. There's still some aerodynamic development in Formula Ford. It's obviously about minimising the drag of your bodywork design, to give the least possible slipstream to your competitors.

[Greem]

Mods: please merge this with the "how to fix" thread, as that's where it's going.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Why you hate aerodynamics?

As a former glider pilot I should parse that statement, aero in Professional open wheelers might define it a bit more. It has forced open wheel racing and F1 in particular down an unsustainable expensive path and along the way and it was the wedge that forced out the privateers initially as they could not compete against the factory teams. Some would label me as an Idealist and you would be right and the heyday of my dreams will never return.

Everything that is wrong with F1 started when aero was introduced.....I think.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Kempi

Wasn't the issue with standing water that not the tires would aquaplane but the car itself due to the ride hight limiting plank? In that case tire width would not have much of an effect.

Will we still have the plank next year? Or will the underbody aero remove it for room for the tunnels?

That's one of the points Gary Anderson made; possibly the increase in diameter of the wet tires should be more pronounced to make sure downforce does not fluctuate as much and the risk of the plank hitting the water is reduced. Problem is, as said the tire diameter is already very large with the new 18-inch wheels and tyres. Going even bigger for the wets might not work out that well. Additional you have the aero bit on the inside which made not allow a much larger diameter wet tyre.

[Taxi645]

Pirelli has no idea how to tackle the extra spray caused by the wider tyre:


https://www.racefans.net/2021/10/02/...nd-up-02-10-4/


"F1 introduced a wider specification of front and rear tyres in 2017. Front wheels grew from 245mm wide to 305mm, while rears went from 325mm to 405mm.

Pirelli’s head of motorsport Mario Isola says this has increased the volume of water the tyres can lift by over 40%. This has made visibility during wet races worse."

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Pirelli has no idea how to tackle the extra spray caused by the wider tyre:


https://www.racefans.net/2021/10/02/...nd-up-02-10-4/


"F1 introduced a wider specification of front and rear tyres in 2017. Front wheels grew from 245mm wide to 305mm, while rears went from 325mm to 405mm.

Pirelli’s head of motorsport Mario Isola says this has increased the volume of water the tyres can lift by over 40%. This has made visibility during wet races worse."

That is not Pirelli's fault, because they didn't mandate the use of wider tyres. The blame for that lies at the feet of the rule makers, the FIA.

It is quite obvious that with wider wheels and tyres that well made tyres will disperse a greater volume of water, i.e. increase the amount of spray. And unless the rules are changed to include covered wheels, the problem will always be there, but that would only reduce the spray fairly marginally.

[Adam43]

Maybe mud guards aren’t such a bad idea?

If designed well maybe it could help the aero problem too? Although superficially I’d assume it would make things worse. Hopefully someone can set me right on the internet

For fun you could only fit it if they was a chance of rain. That might be a silly.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

That is not Pirelli's fault, because they didn't mandate the use of wider tyres. The blame for that lies at the feet of the rule makers, the FIA.

I did not mean to imply it was Pirelli's, so agreed.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Maybe mud guards aren’t such a bad idea?

If designed well maybe it could help the aero problem too? Although superficially I’d assume it would make things worse. Hopefully someone can set me right on the internet

For fun you could only fit it if they was a chance of rain. That might be a silly.

Just make them all race Caterhams. Wheel guards are mandatory at the start of a race but optional after the first corner

[chillibowl]

surely though, had the tires lifted less water from the track, it still would have been too wet to race at Spa?

rather, by virtue of the tires displacing less water the track would have been even wetter?

sure visibility is a major concern but so to is a soaking wet track....not sure i entirely follow the criticism here.

damned if you do damned if you dont?

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Greem

Just make them all race Caterhams. Wheel guards are mandatory at the start of a race but optional after the first corner

yes. Solves the downforce problem too.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

surely though, had the tires lifted less water from the track, it still would have been too wet to race at Spa?

rather, by virtue of the tires displacing less water the track would have been even wetter?

sure visibility is a major concern but so to is a soaking wet track....not sure i entirely follow the criticism here.

damned if you do damned if you dont?

Agree. Doesn't matter what path they follow, there will always be occasional situations where one detail of that path could be handled better by another solution - at some point, things won't be optimal in all respects and that's where compromise on the best balance (of probabilities) comes into play.

If wider tyres means that the cars can move towards downforce playing a smaller part in overall performance, I'm all for the wider tyres - even though they do throw up more spray in a damp / wet race situation.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

surely though, had the tires lifted less water from the track, it still would have been too wet to race at Spa?

rather, by virtue of the tires displacing less water the track would have been even wetter?

sure visibility is a major concern but so to is a soaking wet track....not sure i entirely follow the criticism here.

damned if you do damned if you dont?

If you have a wider tyre (for the same downward force applied on them), there is a larger risk of aquaplaning. To reduce this the tire needs to displace more water, throwing it in the air and compromising visibility. So yes damned if you do, damned if you don't, but because of the wider tire.

If the tire had been narrower you would not have to displace so much water to prevent the standing water from being a a problem and visibility would increase also. Yes displacing more water could make the track try sooner (if there is a bit of wind so it doesn't just fall back on the track), but you first have to be able to run the cars for that to happen in the first place.

As said, wet races generally are considered the most exciting ones to watch, everything that could be done to improve the situation is valuable. It's not that going back to narrower tyres would be the magic bullet, it's not a black and white thing. However narrower tyre would improve the chances considerably to be able to race in the more difficult circumstances.