Why did F1 switch to grooved tires?

[y2kgamer]

I know F1 used to race with slick tires (which gives you maximum traction in dry conditions).

Why did F1 switch to grooved tires?

What were the reasons for the switch?

 

[LoudMusic]

???

They run slicks on dry and grooves on wet.

 

[y2kgamer]

Compare older F1 cars in GT3 with the newer ones you see racing now.

The older F1 cars have slick tires that are completely smooth.

The newer F1 cars have grooved tires (even when it's dry).

I just wanna know why they switched.

NOTE: Yes, I know they used different tires for wet conditions.

 

[DQuaN]

Regulations were changed a few years ago. The authorities thought that conering speeds where becoming too high, so introduced grooved tyres to reduce speed and reduce cornering speed.

 

[y2kgamer]

Regulations were changed a few years ago. The authorities thought that conering speeds where becoming too high, so introduced grooved tyres to reduce speed and reduce cornering speed.

Ah, ok. Thanks a lot!

 

[fangorn_forest]

They could have just made the tires more narrow, but they figured by using grooved tires they could keep the wide tires, which cause worse drag than narrow tires would. Thus, they could reduce cornering speeds while retaining the low(sortof) straightline speeds.

 

[5 Watt]

They added groves because friction (grip) is completely dependent on surface area.

Actually, the smaller contact patch will put more stress on the surface of the tire. This will result in the tire needing to dissipate more energy (heat.) As result the tire manufactures had to make to tire harder (slower) to last.

But with tires now required to last a hole race I don’t know if the groves are really necessary any more.

 

[tw@]

Does F1 still use traction control? if so wouldnt it be more intresting to remove it and go back to slicks i also think each driver should get 5 laps in qualifing and their best lap would be their qualifing lap.

 

[Ev0]

I frankly believe reducing grip is a stupid way to regulate speed, since it makes already difficult cars to drive even more difficult. Why couldn't the FIA just introduce regulations to weaken engines?

 

[SouL]

The FIA have introduced regulations to "weaken engines".
After 89 Turbos were banned in an attempt to weaken the engines. I think it was initially thought that using Normally Aspirated engines would "cap" the power of the engines to about ~600 HP. But technology always improves and the normally aspirated engines that have been in use are creeping to same HP numbers seen in the turbo era.
Turbo engines back then could push 1200BHP in qualyfying trim (would last 3 - 4 laps, but cool nontheles) and around ~900HP for the race. Today's engines have upwards of 950 - 1000 (Or so Honda claims they can produce) HP.

The 2.5? litre V8s the FIA wants is an attempt to reduce engine power. But the cycle will repeat itself and teams/engine makers will find ways to get the most HP they possibly can out of it.

It's interesting that the new aero/tire changes are an attempt to reduce speeds. Since we're still seing lap times that are comparable to last year's lap times. And this is only the beginning of the year. The cars will only go faster from here on. Button smashed the lap record at Catalunya. How's that for slow?

I don't know what the new rules for Traction Control are.. but last year they were allowed. Launch control is what's banned. Though, Renault figured a clever way around that... but sadly hampered the car in other areas. Traction Control kicks in when the cars reach speeds in excess of 100MPH.

 

[tw@]

The whole point of these new regulations for 2005 was to reduce speed and the cost of running a f1 team. if the reulations for the V8s are introduced next year wouldnt it be more expensive to develop these engines?. that would mean the richer teams like ferrari, mclaren and williams would benefit more than the poorer teams like minardi who cant afford much development and would be off the pace even more. Also do you think the V8 engines would sound much different?

 

[iceburns288]

The contact patch of an F1 tire is actually about a max of 5 percent (rough estimate) of the total surface area of the edge of the tire (sidewalls don't count). The grooves, while small, remove a much larger portion of that contact patch than you would think just by looking at the tires.

 

[Majarvis]

...The 2.5? litre V8s the FIA wants is an attempt to reduce engine power...

2.4L V8's, actually, not 2.5...

...Traction Control kicks in when the cars reach speeds in excess of 100MPH...

100 km/h or 60 mph, not 100 mph...

 

[Ev0]

I'm well aware of past engine restrictions, such as the banning of turbos. But, there are tons of ways the FIA could restrict HP. Reducing air and/or fuel flow is an easy one.

 

[MJW]

They added groves because friction (grip) is completely dependent on surface area.

Actually, the smaller contact patch will put more stress on the surface of the tire. This will result in the tire needing to dissipate more energy (heat.) As result the tire manufactures had to make to tire harder (slower) to last.

But with tires now required to last a hole race I don’t know if the groves are really necessary any more.

No,the grooves are there because of the rules.It is all explained in one of the chapters of the rule book at www.fia.com .

 

[PS]

The FIA is muddling too much, they're going to turn it into a European version of Indy.

 

[Blake]

The new 2.4 V8s will get over 720 BHP with current power/litre outputs, I suspect this will increase steadily (hell, back in 2000 the engines were producing 840, now they are well over 900, engines will only get more powerful).

Blake

 

[MJW]

Will F1 cars be lighter when they will use these v8 engine,or will the rules force the teams to add more weight to stay at 605 kilograms?

 

[[FPV]Rusty]

if the v8 is being implied to slow hte cars down its probably that the same minimum weight limit will be enforced

 

[Blake]

Most cars weigh far less than 600 kgs now, teams add ballast, which is just a heavy metal, and position it strategically to help balance the cars. I think this years BMW has about 70kg of ballast to play around with, it is that far underweight.

Blake

 

[snypa]

if the v8 is being implied to slow hte cars down its probably that the same minimum weight limit will be enforced

This rule about engines is another example that proves the FIA doesn't think twice before acting.

Let's remember their 2 main objectives :
1. Increase security (like avoiding type of accident that happened to Ralf in Indy)
2. Minimize costs

In order to touch these targets, they decided to
- set new restrictions in aerodynamics (2005)
- change the V10 engines for a V8 engine (2006). For 2005, only one engine for two races.

If you look at the objectives, and the engine rule, you can notice this :

1. Ralf had a serious accident because he blew a tire at 300km/h. As a result, the cas was unstoppable and crashed into the wall. Why ? because after a difficult first lap, where several cars had a minor accident, there were millions of small carbon fiber particules on the track. these little thing are sharp like a shark teeth. So the only way to avoid Ralf's accident was to neutralize the race and clean the track (a real cleaning, not just a sweep). Does the new rules speak about that ? NO

2. What about the impact about safety of a V8 engine instead a V10 engine ? How many hp will be lost ? Maybe 200 at the beginning, for sure fewer after several races (like other said, you can't stop progress). Will there be a significant difference if the car crashes at 250km/h or 240 ? well I don't think so.

3. Minimizing costs was a priority. For 2006, the manufacturers will be obliged to make a totally new engine (and not a V10 without 2 cylinders, it doesn't work like that in F1, at such levels of technology). That's a lot of R&D costs. So again, the target is missed.

The FIA is muddling too much, they're going to turn it into a European version of Indy.

Yes I agree with you.

I really don't understand how such smart people can decide such rules. Without speaking about the image of the f1 which is now :
- a disciplin where if you're lucky, you avoid rain during qualification and start first on the grid, just due to the order you were placed in
- a disciplin where the Minardis try to enter although they don't match the 2005 specifications,saying they could not afford such costs. Then, after the others refuse, 2 new conform minardis go out of the box !! Magical !

What is this joke ???
I'm a real F1 fan, from the age of 6, but I'm starting to get bored of this. And this is not linked to the fact that ferrari has won everything from the last 5 years (in the 80's it was Mac laren, then williams). Formula 1 should stay the very high level of technlology, the most difficult challenge for drivers and engineers, and not be a show where the lukiest wins instead of the best one.

Sorry for being off topic, It' s been a long time since I wanted to say that.

 

[Blake]

a disciplin where the Minardis try to enter although they don't match the 2005 specifications,saying they could not afford such costs. Then, after the others refuse, 2 new conform minardis go out of the box !! Magical !

You don't really think Paul Stoddard was doing that because they couldn't safely race 2005-spec cars do you?

Blake

 

[snypa]

You don't really think Paul Stoddard was doing that because they couldn't safely race 2005-spec cars do you?

Blake

No, I was just meaning that the cars in 2005 specification were ready. And that stoddard just played a dangerous game, saying he could not afford to have such cars. In reality he just wanted to gain a few seconds, by entering a 2004 specification car. Which is unfair, as everybody has to follow the rules (Jordan did it, why not Minardi ? )
I just wanted to point that, because I found it was ridiculous. It's not because you're the last that you should have an unfair advantage. In Basketball, the last teams don't have the right to put a 6th player on the field, do they ?

Regards,

Snypa

 

[GilesGuthrie]

This rule about engines is another example that proves the FIA doesn't think twice before acting.

Let's remember their 2 main objectives :
1. Increase security (like avoiding type of accident that happened to Ralf in Indy)
2. Minimize costs

In order to touch these targets, they decided to
- set new restrictions in aerodynamics (2005)
- change the V10 engines for a V8 engine (2006). For 2005, only one engine for two races.

If you look at the objectives, and the engine rule, you can notice this :

1. Ralf had a serious accident because he blew a tire at 300km/h. As a result, the cas was unstoppable and crashed into the wall. Why ? because after a difficult first lap, where several cars had a minor accident, there were millions of small carbon fiber particules on the track. these little thing are sharp like a shark teeth. So the only way to avoid Ralf's accident was to neutralize the race and clean the track (a real cleaning, not just a sweep). Does the new rules speak about that ? NO

2. What about the impact about safety of a V8 engine instead a V10 engine ? How many hp will be lost ? Maybe 200 at the beginning, for sure fewer after several races (like other said, you can't stop progress). Will there be a significant difference if the car crashes at 250km/h or 240 ? well I don't think so.

3. Minimizing costs was a priority. For 2006, the manufacturers will be obliged to make a totally new engine (and not a V10 without 2 cylinders, it doesn't work like that in F1, at such levels of technology). That's a lot of R&D costs. So again, the target is missed.

I really don't understand how such smart people can decide such rules. Without speaking about the image of the f1 which is now :
- a disciplin where if you're lucky, you avoid rain during qualification and start first on the grid, just due to the order you were placed in
- a disciplin where the Minardis try to enter although they don't match the 2005 specifications,saying they could not afford such costs. Then, after the others refuse, 2 new conform minardis go out of the box !! Magical !

What is this joke ???
I'm a real F1 fan, from the age of 6, but I'm starting to get bored of this. And this is not linked to the fact that ferrari has won everything from the last 5 years (in the 80's it was Mac laren, then williams). Formula 1 should stay the very high level of technlology, the most difficult challenge for drivers and engineers, and not be a show where the lukiest wins instead of the best one.

Sorry for being off topic, It' s been a long time since I wanted to say that.

You raise some interesting points.

Firstly, on the slight reduction in accident speeds, you need to remember that momentum (the force of impact) squares with speed, so higher impact speeds to have significant effects on impact energy, and a small reduction in speed can produce a large reduction in impact energy.

Secondly, I fully agree with your comments on the way that the Indy race was handled. Not once but twice (as in two separate accidents) was the field forced to drive through the debris from an accident. I disagree with the use of the Safety car in these extreme accidents, feeling instead that it should only be used to protect the marshals in the event of an off-track accident. If the cars have spread shards all over the track, the race should be stopped, in my view.

Your other points are less specific, but equally valid. They show that you're aware fo the issues surrounding Formula 1 rule making, but you are perplexed by it. You may wish to investigate some of the more commercial aspects behind running the sport, and also consider some of the history that has gone before and which makes the sport as it is today. I suggest you read Timothy Collings' "The Piranha Club".

 

[Blake]

No, I was just meaning that the cars in 2005 specification were ready. And that stoddard just played a dangerous game, saying he could not afford to have such cars. In reality he just wanted to gain a few seconds, by entering a 2004 specification car. Which is unfair, as everybody has to follow the rules (Jordan did it, why not Minardi ? )
I just wanted to point that, because I found it was ridiculous. It's not because you're the last that you should have an unfair advantage. In Basketball, the last teams don't have the right to put a 6th player on the field, do they ?

Regards,

Snypa

I don't ever remember hearing him say he could not afford to do it, in fact he constantly mentioned that he could get the cars to 2005 specs if need be, but he thought it was dangerous because they were untested.

I don't think this whole thing was really about the cars complience to the rules, I believe it was a challenge of Max Mosleys authority, and it worked too. I mean do you really think that one of the most popular events on the F1 calendar is in danger of being cancelled by mean Mr. Max, no chance.

Blake

 

[[FPV]Rusty]

a disciplin where the Minardis try to enter although they don't match the 2005 specifications,saying they could not afford such costs. Then, after the others refuse, 2 new conform minardis go out of the box !! Magical !

You mean the cars that ended up racing in australia that dfid meet specifications? they werent two new minardi's, htey took a hacksaw to em (okay it mighta been a bit more technological than that) to get the cars to comply, it was the same car, but htey need to cut some bits off, raise the front spoiler & do somthin with the rear, i dunno, something.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

You mean the cars that ended up racing in australia that dfid meet specifications? they werent two new minardi's, htey took a hacksaw to em (okay it mighta been a bit more technological than that) to get the cars to comply, it was the same car, but htey need to cut some bits off, raise the front spoiler & do somthin with the rear, i dunno, something.

Err. Yeah. The last three words of this post sum it up. Please try to construct your sentences with things worth saying.

You don't just "take a hacksaw" to F1 car parts. I think that they had to machine new mountings for the rear wing, but the rear wing itself, and the front wing were both pre-manufactured.

I thought that the Minardis racing in Australia was actually something of a climbdown for Stoddart. It seemed churlish to complain about the rules, saying they weren't legal and that he couldn't afford to design new parts with the short lead times that the rules left him, then turn up in Australia with 2005-spec bits. Seemed odd.

Anyone who's interested should read the Max/Paul correspondence. It's there for all to see on the FIA web site.

 

[lsucowboy]

I don't get it... I have been watching Formula 1 for the past 3 or 4 years and they have always used grooved tires. I know before that, I don't know what year, but definately in the 80's they used slicks. My thoughts are that the grooves help cool the tires by increasing surface area near the contact patch. Also, it seems to help airflow.

 

[snypa]

I thought that the Minardis racing in Australia was actually something of a climbdown for Stoddart. It seemed churlish to complain about the rules, saying they weren't legal and that he couldn't afford to design new parts with the short lead times that the rules left him, then turn up in Australia with 2005-spec bits. Seemed odd.

Exactly what I wanted to say, I totally agree. Generally speaking, I would say that Stoddard makes a lot of political noise, instead of keeping focused on the technical part in order to improve his cars. I know he's a businessman, I know it's hard for the small teams, but I'm fed up with these types of behavior. Stoddard says that Ferrari hurts the F1, but what about him ? F1 fans want to see fair races, won by the best of the pack. Not people that complain all the time in order to save some bills.

 

[Blake]

I don't get it... I have been watching Formula 1 for the past 3 or 4 years and they have always used grooved tires. I know before that, I don't know what year, but definately in the 80's they used slicks. My thoughts are that the grooves help cool the tires by increasing surface area near the contact patch. Also, it seems to help airflow.

Grooved tires were introduced in 1998, though origionally the front tires only had 3 grooves and the rears had 4, in 1999 all tires had to have 4 grooves. They have no advantages over slicks, they were introduced by the FIA to reduce cornering speeds.

Blake