- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
The F14T nose has been touted as the most likely solution. Personally, I prefer the RB10 - as much as I dislike the team, I think the car is one of the best-looking ever made.
2014 F1 Mechanics/Aero; Design predictions to win the WCC/WDC. READ FIRST POST
- Thread starter LMSCorvetteGT2
- 302 comments
- 25,971 views
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I agree with you, the F14T is awful
- 15,532
- Cairo, Egypt
- GTP_SEMS
From next year, standing re starts will be effective after Safety car periods, what the?
plus other rulings https://twitter.com/SkySportsF1
plus other rulings https://twitter.com/SkySportsF1
- 1,516
- Florida
- MARCUSH17
- MARCUSH16
Good read on how the manufactures will be able to develop their engines.
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/changing-the-f1-engines-of-today/
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/changing-the-f1-engines-of-today/
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Here are the rendering from Pirelli on what the 18 inch wheels/tire setup will look like.
That looks...ridiculous! 
Not only that, there isn't any technical benefit to be gained. In fact it might well be detrimental to the handling of the cars, seeing as most of the suspension in a Formula One car comes from the tyres. Therefore less rubber equals less suspension, and less suspension equals less capability for the cars to handle the bumps. But of course, the FIA wants to 'get with da kool kidz, yo'! 
This whole saga has the vibe of an out-of-touch school principal bringing in some failed hip-hop group to rap to the students about why drugs are bad, thinking that they're being 'with it'. Sorry, but I think it's pathetic.
Not only that, there isn't any technical benefit to be gained. In fact it might well be detrimental to the handling of the cars, seeing as most of the suspension in a Formula One car comes from the tyres. Therefore less rubber equals less suspension, and less suspension equals less capability for the cars to handle the bumps. But of course, the FIA wants to 'get with da kool kidz, yo'! This whole saga has the vibe of an out-of-touch school principal bringing in some failed hip-hop group to rap to the students about why drugs are bad, thinking that they're being 'with it'. Sorry, but I think it's pathetic.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
That looks...ridiculous!
That's not what Pirellli says, the video they gave along with the renderings I put up gives technical reasons why this is a better option than the current tires. I still think they should make the rears wider to provide more mechanical grip and perhaps cut back slightly more on the aero. And no they're not trying to get with the...well I just rather not repeat it, this is a design approach that is used in many other cars because it's realistic to what manufactures are doing, and Pirelli would like to test it and get a return on its investment. WEC uses them, V8 supercars use them among other touring cars groups like DTM and Super GT. I don't see what the big issue is. I agree the front tires make it look a bit like a remote control car, but I'm sure if they work on it along with wheel design it will improve.
Also here is this...
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=/search?q=marca+f1&rlz=1C1PRFC_enGB547GB547&espv=2&es_sm=93&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&sl=es&u=http://www.marca.com/2014/07/08/motor/formula1/1404815594.html&usg=ALkJrhgEjReiKL_cBLGFo0s8WQ6C6beCsQ
Last edited:
Well the interesting thing about Pirelli's video is that they mention half a dozen times at least, that the new tyre will 'improve the performance of the cars'. But not once do they mention how it will actually do this. Which is why I find myself inclined to call it a load of cobblers!
See the thing with the cars from the WEC, V8SC, DTM and Super GT, is that they all have more suspension than a Formula One car; so they can afford to have lower profile tyres. But an F1 car relies much more heavily on the compression of the tyre to asorb bumps, because the suspension can't take as much as on other race cars. Therefore if you reduce the profile of the tyre, you're also reducing the effective suspension that the car has. So when it comes back down to earth after hitting a bump, it will be a lot more unstable. Which in-turn, increases the chances of an accident. And even if that doesn't happen, the suspension (and other components) will stand a bigger chance of failing, due to less cushioning from the impact. So all in all, not a smart move.
Of course Pirelli haven't been too keen on mentioning this, because as you said, there is money to be made for them in this. So they're just hoping that all the teams will jump on their bandwagon, and redesign the whole concept of their F1 cars, so that the benefits Pirelli have been speaking off will become true. Because that is what it will take for the new tyre to become effective. On current cars, an eighteen inch tyre will not be faster. So teams will have to spend a lot of money in order to develop a new concept, that will work with Pirellis. I'm just hoping the teams won't bite the bullet, on this occasion.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
...well there are these things called simulators and then there is the fact they're actually testing it instead of just putting them on race day.
It relies on alot of things the tires only make up a portion not a larger degree, there would be other technical changes to go along with it, but WEC doesn't run all that much more suspension and groups like Toyota actually take what they learned from F1 and put that ducting/suspension and other work into their LMP program. As for the rest that's not fully true, and what experience do you have on that matter or what have you read that implies this?
From a technical stand point the things that would change are brakes, either rules on the suspension aggression or a bigger mechanical aspect, and then CFD design. All of that really isn't that much in the grand scheme of things compared to what teams are already doing. And since the FIA thinks it's fun to keep doing rule switches or threatening teams with them, what about the money that is being lost there?
Sometime back, while watching one of the practice sessions on the beeb, someone was talking about this very matter. Now I can't remember what race it was, or who it was talking (sounds convenient I know), but I recall it was someone whose words were worth taking note of. I wouldn't have bothered listening otherwise. Anyhow, as you clearly think I'm talking tosh, maybe you'll pay more attention to Craig Scarborough. He's not just a journalist, by the way. He is a technical expert on F1.
Seeing as quite a lot of things would have to be redesigned and tested, it would cost the teams a lot. As you've already said with the tyres, you can't just design new components and say 'There ya go gov, that'll do'. You have to design and redesign, which someone has got to be paid for. And then there's the testing. You have to build a number of prototypes of each component that has required a redesign, and test them; before producing the final product. That too, is more money down the drain. And as for the money that's been flushed away due to the FIA's constant regulation changing? All the more reason not to make the teams do it again too soon, if you ask me.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
You do know you're in an F1 thread right? And if you read the first post like it asks in the title you'd see my OP and see I quote Scarborough and we've done so throughout the thread. I don't need you to spoon feed me who to look into.
I don't think you're talking tosh, for one I question everyone so you're not special as you found out in the driver change thread I actually know what I'm talking about. And F1 along with many other racing series are the reason why I'm doing a second degree in Aero Engineering. So I know a thing or two and can figure others things out due to prior knowledge, and from what I've learned.
It already costs the teams alot, they're always redesigning things hence why Pirelli are testing now before the teams decide on a definitive route for the cars next year, and before the FIA sets the regs. As for testing you've got it wrong, that's what CFD, Wind tunnel days and simulators are for and at the worst Winter testing. The issue between us is you seem to think the cars are going to have them in Germany or Belgium when it's more likely Australia next year. So this "too soon" is somewhat myopic and misunderstood on your part. In what indication have they said these tires would be coming soon, Pirelli did a test for 2014 spec tires during this time last year and no one complained about the costs, why? Because it's most likely part of the Pirelli contract with the FIA to do these tests and the FIA will cover part of the cost and the rest is covered by R&D from Pirelli.
An R&D that already spends 200 million euros can cover the costs of such tests because they are part of R&D. So this idea that there is some mythical pot circulating around the paddock to pay for tire tests isn't true. Also once again FIA have been asking for more road car relevance from F1 this is part of it, and Pirelli want in to help their real world profits off the track.
- 9,089
- Scotland
You had me till the last sentence.
You're right, I overreacted when there was zero reason to. My apologies!
Not sure how you got the impression that I thought they were going to be introduced this year. By 'too soon', I was talking in regards to next season, or the season after (when Pirelli are currently suggesting introducing them). As in my mind, that is too soon. Especially seeing as the costs for teams rose by a substantial amount for this years new regulations; and the they'd surely have to do a major redesign (therefore more unnecessary money spending, due to fluctuating regulations; courtesy of the FIA) of their cars to accomadate the new tyres properly. For the larger teams it will just be more work; but for the smaller teams, it could well have big financial implications.
Also, I'm not really sure I understand what you're saying about testing. Sure, CFD will play a large part, and they'll do plenty of days in the wind tunnel. But while they are great for testing performance, durability of components is another matter. As far as I am aware, the only way to discover a components durability and safety, is to actually build it, and run it. Which costs money.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
They rise every time with new engine changes...then when they become produced with frequency they expense comes down. Why people cling to this idea that this is a permanent structure in regard to pricing isn't reality. Why would tires developed by Pirelli that are most likely paid through their R&D accounts likely to break the backs of smaller teams? The changes as I've said aren't as massive as banning a suspension system that has been in use for years and telling groups to try again.
...durability is an issue how? Also there are method of non destructive and destructive testing with cars that can be used and are probably used to test durability without extra on track testing.
I never said it was anything to do with the costs of the tyres; if I gave off the impression that that's what I meant, then my apologies for being confusing. What I have been trying to say, is that teams will have to design their cars around the technical challenges that will be bought about, by the new tyre. Rather than simply develop from the concept of the previous years car at the end of it's life; as is a common concept with teams during a period of stable regulations. Now this costs teams more money, due to the extra man-hours and resources spent in R&D for a completely new car. Because they will have to make completely new cars. It says at the bottom of the Autosport article; 'teams will need significant notice ahead of the introduction of the new tyres, given the work that will need to be done on suspension, aerodynamics and brakes'.
Most components need to be strength and durabilty tested in one way or another; the suspension and brakes being no exception. A safe (or as safe as an F1 car can be), reliable car, doesn't just happen by accident. To conclude, the following incident was due to a fault with an experimental part, during a practice session (which teams often end up using as test sessions now, due to a shortage of in-season testing). They reverted to using the previous suspension uprights afterwards. Can you imagine what could have happened, had they raced them without testing them first?
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Okay and the teams are always redesigning due to the FIA, why a tire redesign that I've yet to hear the teams complain about is an issue other than the shallow idea of "they look bad", has not yet been seen or demonstrated. It's not a common concept at all...the only team that did a direct flow from one car to the next and is still doing that is RBR. Every other team has done pretty much complete redesigns exterior wise while testing other designs internally that can't be seen. For example the Mclaren MP4-27 isn't related all that much to the 28 or the 29. No it doesn't cost teams more money in R&D and I'll tell you why, it's because there R&D is limited, thus if they can't get it right the first time (hence why no one is going to catch MGP this year). The wind tunnels can only run 60 hours a week, and the teams can only use 40 teraflops of CFD solving, then obviously the limitations on the test. Which by all accounts from teams and FIA is a cost saving measure.
Now if teams want to waste money during the season on a new Wind Tunnel or super computer I can see an expense issue from your point of view. However, it's not all that wise considering it didn't help Ferrari any and from there own words hurt their progression in 2013.
Also I don't read Autosport because of it's bias and sensationalism at times, I stick to an actual tech magazine that sticks to facts and doesn't have this over tone of rhetoric (Racecar Engineering). However, even though I don't read it I myself said in the last post the very thing you've claimed autosport to have.
So yes it's obvious teams would need notice this year in the next month of so and not say December, since many teams (McLaren and Ferrari) are already looking and have started next years car.
Okay one incident really doesn't prove much Raikkonen had a failure in 2006 on a proven part and all it took was a flat spotted wheel to create a vibration that eventually caused it to implode. Also no one is saying these parts wont get tested, you that's the idea of R&D so where you're getting this inane idea of "imagine if they raced them without a test oh my!?", I don't get why you're asking a rhetorical question. As I said there are test done at the facilities before winter testing even happens, there has to be to be so they know that the car will hold up in simulated track conditions. The car doesn't just get built then put out on the track and that's the first test of speed, endurance and durability.
Hence the test Pirelli is doing and not just handing out 18 inch tires.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
It's also worth noting that the teams will stall for as long as possible to give themselves plenty of time to plan around the changes - especially if they know the changes are coming in, rather than simply being talked about. Pirelli have pretty much ruled out the 18" wheels before 2016, and they're talking about putting them on GP2 first (GP2 being a spec series, it's less prone to fluctuating performance).
- 24,005
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
I'm failing to find any point in changing to a 18" wheel. From the multitude of articles i've read, the only reason seems to be that 13" wheels are used at the budget end of the domestic road car market, where as 18" is more the norm...
Like anything else on a Formula One car, or any single-seater for that matter, has any kind of visual link to a road car. It's like changing the seat design from a carbon shell with a custom foam insert to a leather Recaro with 5-way electronic adjustment. It's just changing things for the sake of change. It's not advancement if it doesn't give any advantage, and certainly doesn't benefit the sport if it will cost teams more money and widens the gap between the richer teams and those that already struggle to keep up with development of the latest found regulation loop holes.
Like anything else on a Formula One car, or any single-seater for that matter, has any kind of visual link to a road car. It's like changing the seat design from a carbon shell with a custom foam insert to a leather Recaro with 5-way electronic adjustment. It's just changing things for the sake of change. It's not advancement if it doesn't give any advantage, and certainly doesn't benefit the sport if it will cost teams more money and widens the gap between the richer teams and those that already struggle to keep up with development of the latest found regulation loop holes.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
@TheCracker why would the exterior have to matter to engineering, understanding, and trickle down technology that is road car relevant? Also in extreme conditions that F1 gives how would this not benefit in an R&D function to road car using the same diameter tires?
Last edited:
- 24,005
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Not sure i follow the first part of what you're saying, but as far as 18" F1 tyre development benefiting road car use, i think there are more suitable race series for that kind of cross development. A 600kg car that creates huge amounts of downforce is a very different beast to the average 1500+kg road car with negligible amounts of downforce. The tyres of a GT or Touring Car would be a more relevant platform for that sort of development.
I think the time has passed where technology developed in F1 has much potential benefit to road car development. F1 rules are so restrictive that any new break through these days is for stuff that wouldn't have any benefit to a road car. Ironically, the soon-to-be-banned FRIC suspension, is one area that may have some use in road cars. Double diffusers? Blown diffusers? Coanda effect exhausts? Less so.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Sorry forgot a comma it's late and I probably should have headed out but can't sleep. Anyways it should have said "What does the exteriors look have to do with engineering, understanding, and trickle down to road car relevance?" While this is true that they're different, the R&D still works. The process these cars go through tires and at the extremes done is much quicker to collect, analyze and then start proto testing toward road tires then the classes you suggest. Also the classes you suggest may not want Pirelli or are contracted with another group. Perhaps Pirelli see this as the best option compared to those, there is a whole host of things.
That's not true just a couple months ago the teams who built engines and even Honda were touting how they're already having a trickle effect to their current projects and how the outlook even beyond that looks good. The point is even though rules make restrictions these are cars created in an extreme environment either way and though you may not see the road relevance they do. Also who cares about FRIC, I do think it's dumb that it's going to be banned most likely next year outright but it has basically hit it's ceiling life.
Some times the opposite happens when a team is allowed to keep items, and that is the notion that they become to complacent and old hat and just like Push rod front suspension was the norm forever it isn't anymore. Teams will make themselves try and test new ways to see if it works or go back to old methods to see if they can make them work better to get the edge on others. By doing so innovation is found with or without the FIA intervention.
- 24,005
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
I meant to add 'with the exception of the latest engine regs' 
Still think F1 is a poor platform for any kind of road tyre development - it's just a premium place for Pirelli (or whoever) to advertise their wares.
There are so many more GT and Touring Car series the world over, that any scale of development in these arenas is bound to be so much quicker than a single single-seater series could ever be. And as the cars are more relevant, the data received will be more relevant.
Push rod front suspension has little benefit to road car use, unless you are building a low-volume hypercar or trackday special.
Still think F1 is a poor platform for any kind of road tyre development - it's just a premium place for Pirelli (or whoever) to advertise their wares.
There are so many more GT and Touring Car series the world over, that any scale of development in these arenas is bound to be so much quicker than a single single-seater series could ever be. And as the cars are more relevant, the data received will be more relevant.
Push rod front suspension has little benefit to road car use, unless you are building a low-volume hypercar or trackday special.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I meant to add 'with the exception of the latest engine regs'
Still think F1 is a poor platform for any kind of road tyre development - it's just a premium place for Pirelli (or whoever) to advertise their wares.
There are so many more GT and Touring Car series the world over, that any scale of development in these arenas is bound to be so much quicker than a single single-seater series could ever be. And as the cars are more relevant, the data received will be more relevant.
Push rod front suspension has little benefit to road car use, unless you are building a low-volume hypercar or trackday special.
Like who though, they're worse than F1 even because they are spec. The only thing better than F1 for development is WEC and series like it. There is no touring car series I know of that helps road relevance.
Also the pull rod as I'm saying wasn't anything to do with relevance to road cars I was addressing your other point, which was that the FIA is so restrictive teams can't innovate. That was an example that shows us they can innovate on their own even without the FIA intervention because the same principles for years and years at some point need to advance. I would agree unless you drive a Lambo, upper end Ferrari, Aston or whatever your suspension isn't that closely related to F1, well and if you drive a new Z/28.
Either way I agree that F1 could be far more innovative like there were in the past if the rules were more open. However, that goes against the other side which is upset that F1 is still to expensive.
- 1,516
- Florida
- MARCUSH17
- MARCUSH16
Good read on coloured carbon fibre composites:
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/an-interesting-new-business/
Building a complex fiber weaving contraption that can weave art into carbon fiber pieces is the next step? Embroidery vs decals.
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/an-interesting-new-business/
Building a complex fiber weaving contraption that can weave art into carbon fiber pieces is the next step? Embroidery vs decals.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Similar threads
