Tyres - What's the problem?
- Thread starter cider_and_toast
- Start date
I know every one accross the board agrees the biggest problem seems to be an over reliance on aero down force but since I'm no very little about aerodynamics I'm finding it hard to get to route cause.
One of the most quoted issues is that when two cars are running closely together the car behind looses grip due to the turbulant air of the car infront. Now thinking about this, the only time the whole front end of a car is behind the whole rear end of the car infront is when you are on the straight. This is the time when you actually want less down force because you want more straight line speed. It used to be called slip streaming !!!
When two cars are following each other through a corner, there is very little time when the cars are actually running directly behind each other, While there will be some effect from the diturbed air of the first car I can't see how the car behind would be affected so badly.
If you drew a 90 degree corner on a piece of paper, draw one car clipping the apex (see what I did there!) and draw the second car entering the corner, now draw too lines back from the sides of the first car and that should be the zone of air disruption, the car entering the corner will hardly be in it, if at all.
This to me seems to be why the Tilke-a-dromes have long straights with slow-ish corners. With faster sweeping bends the car behind will perhaps spend more time in the turbulant zone and therefore, so we are told, their aero suffers.
One of the most quoted issues is that when two cars are running closely together the car behind looses grip due to the turbulant air of the car infront. Now thinking about this, the only time the whole front end of a car is behind the whole rear end of the car infront is when you are on the straight. This is the time when you actually want less down force because you want more straight line speed. It used to be called slip streaming !!!
When two cars are following each other through a corner, there is very little time when the cars are actually running directly behind each other, While there will be some effect from the diturbed air of the first car I can't see how the car behind would be affected so badly.
If you drew a 90 degree corner on a piece of paper, draw one car clipping the apex (see what I did there!) and draw the second car entering the corner, now draw too lines back from the sides of the first car and that should be the zone of air disruption, the car entering the corner will hardly be in it, if at all.
This to me seems to be why the Tilke-a-dromes have long straights with slow-ish corners. With faster sweeping bends the car behind will perhaps spend more time in the turbulant zone and therefore, so we are told, their aero suffers.
C_a_T said:
Yeah but the two lines aren't parallel to the sides of the car to begin with and as the car follows it's arc, the expanding area of hot, messy, eddying disruption follows an arc, too, into which the following car is about to drive.
Yesterday Alonso kept diving off the racing line out of Vettel's turbulence to cool the Ferrari down. That's how far you need to get out of the way when you're that close behind.
Muddytalker
Points Scorer
I'm sure there's some that could explain it better, but the problem is this:-
In order to get within the slipstream, you need to be exiting a corner closely behind the lead car.
To do this you really need to take the corner at least as fast, or faster than the lead car.
Cornering speed is dependent on aero grip (wings) and mechanical grip (tyres). Currently, the balance is much in favour of aero grip.
When following a car, your aero grip is affected due to the turbulent 'dirty air'. This dirty air doesn't project behind the lead car in a staright line, it follows the car around the bend and forms a buffer, pushing against the following car.
As your cornering speed is mostly dependent on the aero grip, and the aero grip is affected by the dirty air, so the cornering speed of the 2nd car is affected, and cannot corner as quickly (plus it has the effect of putting more stress on the tyres, causing wear issues).
It would appear that this buffer is longer than the distance required for a slip-stream effect. Hence no overtaking unless you have a power advantage/the lead car has other issues which reduce his exit speed.
The solution is to swing the cornering grip towards the tyres, so the cornering speeds are less affected by the dirty air.
In order to get within the slipstream, you need to be exiting a corner closely behind the lead car.
To do this you really need to take the corner at least as fast, or faster than the lead car.
Cornering speed is dependent on aero grip (wings) and mechanical grip (tyres). Currently, the balance is much in favour of aero grip.
When following a car, your aero grip is affected due to the turbulent 'dirty air'. This dirty air doesn't project behind the lead car in a staright line, it follows the car around the bend and forms a buffer, pushing against the following car.
As your cornering speed is mostly dependent on the aero grip, and the aero grip is affected by the dirty air, so the cornering speed of the 2nd car is affected, and cannot corner as quickly (plus it has the effect of putting more stress on the tyres, causing wear issues).
It would appear that this buffer is longer than the distance required for a slip-stream effect. Hence no overtaking unless you have a power advantage/the lead car has other issues which reduce his exit speed.
The solution is to swing the cornering grip towards the tyres, so the cornering speeds are less affected by the dirty air.
Muddytalker
Points Scorer
cider_and_toast said:
To an extent, this is true. But it's better to have a fast corner leading onto a straight into a slower corner.
The other element is brakes. When the (steel) braking zone was 150m, the cautious would brake at 160m, the racers at 140m and Ronnie Peterson at 120m, hence gaining upto 40m at a higher speed.*
With today's brakes, the zone is 60m, the cautious brake at 65m, and Lewis Hamilton at 50m, so even the best overtaker in the business has less of a 'margin' to make gain. Plus, I believe I'm right in saying steel brakes would degrade more over the race, particularly when starting with a full fuel load, so the braking distances would be quite high early on, and fade later on in the race. Again with carbon brakes, the wear rate appears to be less.
*Figures taken are rough guesses, made to illustrate the changin' of the ways
Added:- I also have a theory that elevation also makes a difference, in that the turbulence has less effect on the car if it's following on a slope, where power/traction may be more effective relative to aero grip. See Interlagos, Spa, and to a lesser extent Brands Hatch.
snowy
Champion Elect
Brogan said:
Very interesting legalese, which totally disregarded all of the work done by the F1OWG and their recommendations concerning the diffuser because it wasn't submitted as evidence. Most likely because it didn't refer specifically to a design of diffuser that didn't exist when they conducted their tests and made the recommendations to standardise or severly restrict rear diffuser design.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
