Discussion:
Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes and Aerodynamics
Add Reply
D Munz
2018-07-09 19:27:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Kimi said something interesting following the British GP. He made the comment about the difference between the wake from the Red Bull versus the Mercedes. This is quoted from a number of sources (most slightly different which is interesting for a quote...) as saying:

"...once I was behind them [Red Bull] their wake seemed to affect my car a lot more than the Mercedes did; I was losing a lot of downforce and that upset the balance of the car."

I know Mercedes has made changes to their aero package. Could the net result of these changes also yield less turbulence off the rear of the car? Also, is there any prohibition (or performance penalty) to designing the aero package so that it creates a messy wake and disrupts a following car?

FWIW
DLM
build
2018-07-10 02:05:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D Munz
"...once I was behind them [Red Bull] their wake seemed to affect my car a lot more than the Mercedes did; I was losing a lot of downforce and that upset the balance of the car."
I know Mercedes has made changes to their aero package. Could the net result of these changes also yield less turbulence off the rear of the car? Also, is there any prohibition (or performance penalty) to designing the aero package so that it creates a messy wake and disrupts a following car?
FWIW
DLM
The RedBull has been the most difficult car to follow since 2009. So that is not new. What is new is that this year perhaps the Merc is the easiest car to follow.

In reference to the wake it would not be about the amount/volume of turbulence but rather the shape, etc. It is not a simple thing to describe and i'm not qualified to explain it, nor are any of the search engine couch experts especially the "bring back ground effect" fans.

[warning here follows a ramble]

The main thing stopping a resolution to the overtaking problem is vested interests. There are three influential teams who have the resources to solve the problem but they are focused on "what's in it for me".

A while back one of the pundits said that if downforce stops overtaking why is there more overtaking in the wet when wings are cranked up. Bloody stupid statement and if you can see why then you are half way to understanding that the answer to overtaking is too complex for amateurs like me and stupid pundits. These half baked ideas only ad confusion to the fans view of the problems.

BTW. There are two distinctive wakes, one is low and wide, the other high and narrow. It's the low and wide wake that disturbs when close and passing, say inside 0.5 secs. Beyond that distance the high wake has more effect. The 2019 regs for the front wing may address some but not all of the low wide wake, we'll see.

If you are interested Rory Byrne wrote or was interviewed about this a few years back. Start with that if you can find it.

There is an easy answer to overtaking, take away the aero and give them skinny tyres. We *know* that will work but we won't get 140k in the grandstands at Silverstone to watch it.

Finally, after Liberty brought in this years regs I'm less hopeful they will be capable of addressing the problem :-(

beers,
build
~misfit~
2018-07-10 08:45:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by build
Post by D Munz
Kimi said something interesting following the British GP. He made
the comment about the difference between the wake from the Red Bull
versus the Mercedes. This is quoted from a number of sources (most
"...once I was behind them [Red Bull] their wake seemed to affect my
car a lot more than the Mercedes did; I was losing a lot of
downforce and that upset the balance of the car."
I know Mercedes has made changes to their aero package. Could the
net result of these changes also yield less turbulence off the rear
of the car? Also, is there any prohibition (or performance penalty)
to designing the aero package so that it creates a messy wake and
disrupts a following car?
FWIW
DLM
The RedBull has been the most difficult car to follow since 2009. So
that is not new. What is new is that this year perhaps the Merc is
the easiest car to follow.
In reference to the wake it would not be about the amount/volume of
turbulence but rather the shape, etc. It is not a simple thing to
describe and i'm not qualified to explain it, nor are any of the
search engine couch experts especially the "bring back ground effect"
fans.
[warning here follows a ramble]
The main thing stopping a resolution to the overtaking problem is
vested interests. There are three influential teams who have the
resources to solve the problem but they are focused on "what's in it
for me".
A while back one of the pundits said that if downforce stops
overtaking why is there more overtaking in the wet when wings are
cranked up. Bloody stupid statement and if you can see why then you
are half way to understanding that the answer to overtaking is too
complex for amateurs like me and stupid pundits. These half baked
ideas only ad confusion to the fans view of the problems.
BTW. There are two distinctive wakes, one is low and wide, the other
high and narrow. It's the low and wide wake that disturbs when close
and passing, say inside 0.5 secs. Beyond that distance the high wake
has more effect. The 2019 regs for the front wing may address some
but not all of the low wide wake, we'll see.
If you are interested Rory Byrne wrote or was interviewed about this
a few years back. Start with that if you can find it.
There is an easy answer to overtaking, take away the aero and give
them skinny tyres. We *know* that will work but we won't get 140k in
the grandstands at Silverstone to watch it.
Finally, after Liberty brought in this years regs I'm less hopeful
they will be capable of addressing the problem :-(
Even keep the aero but mandate harder tyres, as wide as they like. That way
the track won't 'rubber in' and have a single clean line with the rest is so
dirty a car running on it needs a lap or two to clean the crap off the
tyres. It wasn't always like this.

If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be multiple
racing lines which will result in more passing.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
build
2018-07-10 10:59:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
Post by D Munz
Kimi said something interesting following the British GP. He made
the comment about the difference between the wake from the Red Bull
versus the Mercedes. This is quoted from a number of sources (most
"...once I was behind them [Red Bull] their wake seemed to affect my
car a lot more than the Mercedes did; I was losing a lot of
downforce and that upset the balance of the car."
I know Mercedes has made changes to their aero package. Could the
net result of these changes also yield less turbulence off the rear
of the car? Also, is there any prohibition (or performance penalty)
to designing the aero package so that it creates a messy wake and
disrupts a following car?
FWIW
DLM
The RedBull has been the most difficult car to follow since 2009. So
that is not new. What is new is that this year perhaps the Merc is
the easiest car to follow.
In reference to the wake it would not be about the amount/volume of
turbulence but rather the shape, etc. It is not a simple thing to
describe and i'm not qualified to explain it, nor are any of the
search engine couch experts especially the "bring back ground effect"
fans.
[warning here follows a ramble]
The main thing stopping a resolution to the overtaking problem is
vested interests. There are three influential teams who have the
resources to solve the problem but they are focused on "what's in it
for me".
A while back one of the pundits said that if downforce stops
overtaking why is there more overtaking in the wet when wings are
cranked up. Bloody stupid statement and if you can see why then you
are half way to understanding that the answer to overtaking is too
complex for amateurs like me and stupid pundits. These half baked
ideas only ad confusion to the fans view of the problems.
BTW. There are two distinctive wakes, one is low and wide, the other
high and narrow. It's the low and wide wake that disturbs when close
and passing, say inside 0.5 secs. Beyond that distance the high wake
has more effect. The 2019 regs for the front wing may address some
but not all of the low wide wake, we'll see.
If you are interested Rory Byrne wrote or was interviewed about this
a few years back. Start with that if you can find it.
There is an easy answer to overtaking, take away the aero and give
them skinny tyres. We *know* that will work but we won't get 140k in
the grandstands at Silverstone to watch it.
Finally, after Liberty brought in this years regs I'm less hopeful
they will be capable of addressing the problem :-(
Even keep the aero but mandate harder tyres, as wide as they like. That way
the track won't 'rubber in' and have a single clean line with the rest is so
dirty a car running on it needs a lap or two to clean the crap off the
tyres. It wasn't always like this.
If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be multiple
racing lines which will result in more passing.
--
Shaun.
I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would exacerbate the problem.
geoff
2018-07-10 11:33:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be multiple
racing lines which will result in more passing.
--
Shaun.
I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would exacerbate the problem.
Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the harder
compound ones ?!!!

geoff
~misfit~
2018-07-10 12:06:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
--
Shaun.
I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would exacerbate the problem.
Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
harder compound ones ?!!!
LOL probably.

Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock hard. Some
formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track and don't self-destruct
quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat for the lack of... sticky they
could go wider.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
D Munz
2018-07-10 15:59:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by geoff
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
--
Shaun.
I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would exacerbate the problem.
Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
harder compound ones ?!!!
LOL probably.
Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock hard. Some
formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track and don't self-destruct
quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat for the lack of... sticky they
could go wider.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing. Or has that all gone away?

FWIW
DLM
~misfit~
2018-07-11 00:06:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D Munz
Post by ~misfit~
Post by geoff
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
--
Shaun.
I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would
exacerbate the problem.
Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
harder compound ones ?!!!
LOL probably.
Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock
hard. Some formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track and
don't self-destruct quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat for
the lack of... sticky they could go wider.
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change
thing. Or has that all gone away?
No it's still part of the remit. (To pollute the local environment with
various sized bits of discarded petrochemicals.)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
D Munz
2018-07-11 11:53:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by D Munz
Post by ~misfit~
Post by geoff
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
--
Shaun.
I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would
exacerbate the problem.
Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
harder compound ones ?!!!
LOL probably.
Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock
hard. Some formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track and
don't self-destruct quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat for
the lack of... sticky they could go wider.
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change
thing. Or has that all gone away?
No it's still part of the remit. (To pollute the local environment with
various sized bits of discarded petrochemicals.)
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Maybe they should find a way to make tires out of potatoes. They are doing that with disposable spoons, knives and forks over hear now.

An added benefit would be a feast at the end of the race as long as the temps were kept up! Imagine the sponsorship opportunities and the crowd crashing for a taste of their favorites tire!

FWIW
DLM
News
2018-07-11 12:03:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D Munz
Post by ~misfit~
Post by D Munz
Post by ~misfit~
Post by geoff
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
--
Shaun.
I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would
exacerbate the problem.
Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
harder compound ones ?!!!
LOL probably.
Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock
hard. Some formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track and
don't self-destruct quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat for
the lack of... sticky they could go wider.
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change
thing. Or has that all gone away?
No it's still part of the remit. (To pollute the local environment with
various sized bits of discarded petrochemicals.)
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Maybe they should find a way to make tires out of potatoes. They are doing that with disposable spoons, knives and forks over hear now.
An added benefit would be a feast at the end of the race as long as the temps were kept up! Imagine the sponsorship opportunities and the crowd crashing for a taste of their favorites tire!
FWIW
DLM
They could pick up crudités on the cool-down lap...
bra
2018-07-11 16:05:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D Munz
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing. Or has that all gone away?
Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys in Nevada are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away, and a shirt-pocket iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3 the weight ---- but no engineer or scientist on this planet can make a tyre last 52 laps of Silverstone?

It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of automotive engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
Sir Tim
2018-07-12 06:20:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bra
Post by D Munz
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing.
Or has that all gone away?
Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys in Nevada
are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away, and a shirt-pocket
iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3
the weight ---- but no engineer or scientist on this planet can make a
tyre last 52 laps of Silverstone?
It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of automotive
engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do more than
one race on the same set of Dunlops.
--
Sir Tim
keithr0
2018-07-12 07:23:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by bra
Post by D Munz
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing.
Or has that all gone away?
Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys in Nevada
are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away, and a shirt-pocket
iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3
the weight ---- but no engineer or scientist on this planet can make a
tyre last 52 laps of Silverstone?
It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of automotive
engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do more than
one race on the same set of Dunlops.
Very true but cornering forces were a little less in those days.
Sir Tim
2018-07-12 08:24:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by keithr0
Post by Sir Tim
Post by bra
Post by D Munz
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing.
Or has that all gone away?
Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys in Nevada
are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away, and a shirt-pocket
iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3
the weight ---- but no engineer or scientist on this planet can make a
tyre last 52 laps of Silverstone?
It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of automotive
engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do more than
one race on the same set of Dunlops.
Very true but cornering forces were a little less in those days.
Also true, but surely tyre technology has improved commensurately?

The fact is that the current artificial situation is an attempt a) to
improve “the show” and b) to keep the name Pirelli in the public eye when
it is the only tyre supplier.
--
Sir Tim
D Munz
2018-07-12 12:00:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by keithr0
Post by Sir Tim
Post by bra
Post by D Munz
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing.
Or has that all gone away?
Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys in Nevada
are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away, and a shirt-pocket
iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3
the weight ---- but no engineer or scientist on this planet can make a
tyre last 52 laps of Silverstone?
It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of automotive
engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do more than
one race on the same set of Dunlops.
Very true but cornering forces were a little less in those days.
Also true, but surely tyre technology has improved commensurately?
The fact is that the current artificial situation is an attempt a) to
improve “the show” and b) to keep the name Pirelli in the public eye when
it is the only tyre supplier.
--
Sir Tim
I think you can add "c) and to keep people from moaning about the loss of refueling and the associated race strategies."

I know RASF1 has been through countless threads around the pros and cons of refueling but I still feel like we miss something with that bit of the strategy being taken out of the equation.

Consider some of the stuff we are seeing at the starts now. If we added light or heavy fuel loads into the mix. A lower grid car taking a punt on on a low-fuel start and moving up the order... Of would that screw things up in a dangerous or unexciting way? (Unexciting in that all the front runners would know they must have started on low fuel so they just wait them out.

I don't know.

AS a side thought, could they do something with the fuel flow limitations? Keep the max fuel load but allow the teams to mess with fuel flow dynamically during the race. Go ahead and jack up the flow but be careful or you might run out...

FWIW
DLM
~misfit~
2018-07-12 22:41:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D Munz
Post by Sir Tim
Post by keithr0
Post by Sir Tim
Post by bra
Post by D Munz
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change
thing. Or has that all gone away?
Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys
in Nevada are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away,
and a shirt-pocket iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my
boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3 the weight ---- but no engineer or
scientist on this planet can make a tyre last 52 laps of
Silverstone?
It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of
automotive engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do
more than one race on the same set of Dunlops.
Very true but cornering forces were a little less in those days.
Also true, but surely tyre technology has improved commensurately?
The fact is that the current artificial situation is an attempt a) to
improve "the show" and b) to keep the name Pirelli in the public eye
when it is the only tyre supplier.
--
Sir Tim
I think you can add "c) and to keep people from moaning about the
loss of refueling and the associated race strategies."
I know RASF1 has been through countless threads around the pros and
cons of refueling but I still feel like we miss something with that
bit of the strategy being taken out of the equation.
Consider some of the stuff we are seeing at the starts now. If we
added light or heavy fuel loads into the mix. A lower grid car
taking a punt on on a low-fuel start and moving up the order... Of
would that screw things up in a dangerous or unexciting way?
(Unexciting in that all the front runners would know they must have
started on low fuel so they just wait them out.
I don't know.
AS a side thought, could they do something with the fuel flow
limitations? Keep the max fuel load but allow the teams to mess with
fuel flow dynamically during the race. Go ahead and jack up the flow
but be careful or you might run out...
I think the fuel flow is there to stop teams using one driver as a hare to
benefit their choice for WDC. Can you imagine what Ferrari would do if they
could use Kimi even more to aid Sebastian?
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
M2T
2018-07-12 23:50:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by D Munz
Post by Sir Tim
Post by keithr0
Post by Sir Tim
Post by bra
Post by D Munz
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change
thing. Or has that all gone away?
Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys
in Nevada are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away,
and a shirt-pocket iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my
boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3 the weight ---- but no engineer or
scientist on this planet can make a tyre last 52 laps of
Silverstone?
It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of
automotive engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do
more than one race on the same set of Dunlops.
Very true but cornering forces were a little less in those days.
Also true, but surely tyre technology has improved commensurately?
The fact is that the current artificial situation is an attempt a) to
improve "the show" and b) to keep the name Pirelli in the public eye
when it is the only tyre supplier.
--
Sir Tim
I think you can add "c) and to keep people from moaning about the
loss of refueling and the associated race strategies."
I know RASF1 has been through countless threads around the pros and
cons of refueling but I still feel like we miss something with that
bit of the strategy being taken out of the equation.
Consider some of the stuff we are seeing at the starts now. If we
added light or heavy fuel loads into the mix. A lower grid car
taking a punt on on a low-fuel start and moving up the order... Of
would that screw things up in a dangerous or unexciting way?
(Unexciting in that all the front runners would know they must have
started on low fuel so they just wait them out.
I don't know.
AS a side thought, could they do something with the fuel flow
limitations? Keep the max fuel load but allow the teams to mess with
fuel flow dynamically during the race. Go ahead and jack up the flow
but be careful or you might run out...
I think the fuel flow is there to stop teams using one driver as a hare to
benefit their choice for WDC. Can you imagine what Ferrari would do if they
could use Kimi even more to aid Sebastian?
I've read that t would enable them to use Kimi to run away on the
straights and slow right down on the corners, making overtaking all but
impossible.
build
2018-07-12 12:52:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by bra
Post by D Munz
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing.
Or has that all gone away?
Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys in Nevada
are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away, and a shirt-pocket
iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3
the weight ---- but no engineer or scientist on this planet can make a
tyre last 52 laps of Silverstone?
It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of automotive
engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do more than
one race on the same set of Dunlops.
--
Sir Tim
Sir,
How often did that happen (used tyres)?
Were those cars on used tyres running last?
How was the passing back then?
Was there much/any?

beers,
Sir Tim
2018-07-12 21:57:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by build
Post by Sir Tim
Post by bra
Post by D Munz
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing.
Or has that all gone away?
Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys in Nevada
are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away, and a shirt-pocket
iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3
the weight ---- but no engineer or scientist on this planet can make a
tyre last 52 laps of Silverstone?
It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of automotive
engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do more than
one race on the same set of Dunlops.
--
Sir Tim
Sir,
How often did that happen (used tyres)?
Were those cars on used tyres running last?
I can’t swear to it but I’m pretty sure I’m right. A friend of mine was an
executive with Dunlop at the time and was very friendly with Dick
Jefferies, the Dunlop racing manager so I think I may have heard it from
him (Stuart, my friend, always reckoned that Dick had the cushiest job in
Dunlop because he spent the whole summer tooling around Europe with the GP
circus getting a suntan and drinking pink gin).

Bear in mind that tyres were not as important then as they are now - the
1.5 litre Coventry Climax engine developed slightly less than 200 bhp and
aerodynamic downforce was minimal. All teams used Dunlop R5 or, later, R6
racing tyres and there were only two compounds: wet or dry. Slick tyres
were yet to make an appearance.
Post by build
How was the passing back then?
Was there much/any?
There was certainly plenty of passing, especially at Monza. Also plenty of
mechanical failures. Clark, Hill, Brabham and Surtees were the top men but
it was perfectly possible to buy a car from the works, enter it privately
and tool around at the back of the field enjoying yourself. Godin de
Beaufort, Pete Lovely and Bob Bondurant come to mind.
--
Sir Tim
M2T
2018-07-12 22:10:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by build
Post by Sir Tim
Post by bra
Post by D Munz
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing.
Or has that all gone away?
Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys in Nevada
are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away, and a shirt-pocket
iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3
the weight ---- but no engineer or scientist on this planet can make a
tyre last 52 laps of Silverstone?
It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of automotive
engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do more than
one race on the same set of Dunlops.
--
Sir Tim
Sir,
How often did that happen (used tyres)?
Were those cars on used tyres running last?
I can’t swear to it but I’m pretty sure I’m right. A friend of mine was an
executive with Dunlop at the time and was very friendly with Dick
Jefferies, the Dunlop racing manager so I think I may have heard it from
him (Stuart, my friend, always reckoned that Dick had the cushiest job in
Dunlop because he spent the whole summer tooling around Europe with the GP
circus getting a suntan and drinking pink gin).
Bear in mind that tyres were not as important then as they are now - the
1.5 litre Coventry Climax engine developed slightly less than 200 bhp and
aerodynamic downforce was minimal. All teams used Dunlop R5 or, later, R6
racing tyres and there were only two compounds: wet or dry. Slick tyres
were yet to make an appearance.
Post by build
How was the passing back then?
Was there much/any?
There was certainly plenty of passing, especially at Monza. Also plenty of
mechanical failures. Clark, Hill, Brabham and Surtees were the top men but
it was perfectly possible to buy a car from the works, enter it privately
and tool around at the back of the field enjoying yourself. Godin de
Beaufort, Pete Lovely and Bob Bondurant come to mind.
They would have been cross ply tyres, which allow the cars to slide
around a lot more, which adds to the "show".
build
2018-07-13 09:52:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by build
Post by Sir Tim
Post by bra
Post by D Munz
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing.
Or has that all gone away?
Yes, I recall that. Morgan 4/4s last 60-years, and USAF cowboys in Nevada
are hitting individuals in the ear 7,000 miles away, and a shirt-pocket
iPhone now has twice the megapixels of my boat-anchor Pentax, with 1/3
the weight ---- but no engineer or scientist on this planet can make a
tyre last 52 laps of Silverstone?
It is SUCH a feckin insult to the pride and integrity of automotive
engineers and scientists to shackle them in this way!
IIRC, back in the days of the 1500cc F1 cars sometimes used to do more than
one race on the same set of Dunlops.
--
Sir Tim
Sir,
How often did that happen (used tyres)?
Were those cars on used tyres running last?
I can’t swear to it but I’m pretty sure I’m right.
I'm not questioning whether you are right, you are usually reliable. I'm interested how often it happened. BTW, it still happens in some series but F1? even then. I'm curious how often it happened. I know BlackJack would not have raced on used tyres.
Post by Sir Tim
A friend of mine was an
executive with Dunlop at the time and was very friendly with Dick
Jefferies, the Dunlop racing manager so I think I may have heard it from
him (Stuart, my friend, always reckoned that Dick had the cushiest job in
Dunlop because he spent the whole summer tooling around Europe with the GP
circus getting a suntan and drinking pink gin).
Bear in mind that tyres were not as important then as they are now - the
1.5 litre Coventry Climax engine developed slightly less than 200 bhp and
aerodynamic downforce was minimal. All teams used Dunlop R5 or, later, R6
racing tyres and there were only two compounds: wet or dry. Slick tyres
were yet to make an appearance.
Post by build
How was the passing back then?
Was there much/any?
There was certainly plenty of passing, especially at Monza.
I'd question that assertion. Back then there was not much passing at all and the field was well spread over laps with gaps often measured in minutes.
Post by Sir Tim
Also plenty of
mechanical failures. Clark, Hill, Brabham and Surtees were the top men but
it was perfectly possible to buy a car from the works, enter it privately
and tool around at the back of the field enjoying yourself. Godin de
Beaufort, Pete Lovely and Bob Bondurant come to mind.
My knowledge of that era is restricted to memories of Motor Racing news race reports. In Oz we'd get them a week or two after GP's and only when Dad was feeling generous as magazines were considered expensive back then. :-)
Post by Sir Tim
--
Sir Tim
Bigbird
2018-07-13 13:08:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
My knowledge of that era is restricted to what I can look up on the
internet.
Fixed.

Would you like to fix all your posts "build" style?
build
2018-07-12 13:02:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D Munz
Post by ~misfit~
Post by geoff
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
--
Shaun.
I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would exacerbate the problem.
Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
harder compound ones ?!!!
LOL probably.
Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock hard. Some
formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track and don't self-destruct
quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat for the lack of... sticky they
could go wider.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing. Or has that all gone away?
FWIW
DLM
NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.
The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.
M2T
2018-07-12 14:20:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by build
Post by D Munz
Post by ~misfit~
Post by geoff
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
--
Shaun.
I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would exacerbate the problem.
Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
harder compound ones ?!!!
LOL probably.
Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock hard. Some
formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track and don't self-destruct
quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat for the lack of... sticky they
could go wider.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing. Or has that all gone away?
FWIW
DLM
NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.
The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.
Bullshit
Post by build
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pirelli-admits-f1-tyre-degradation-below-fia-target-885562/
Pirelli admits F1 tyre degradation below FIA target
News
2018-07-12 15:24:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by M2T
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
Post by geoff
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
--
Shaun.
I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would exacerbate the problem.
Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
harder compound ones ?!!!
LOL probably.
Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock hard. Some
formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track and don't self-destruct
quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat for the lack of... sticky they
could go wider.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now?  I seem to
remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change
thing.  Or has that all gone away?
FWIW
DLM
NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.
The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.
Bullshit
Post by build
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pirelli-admits-f1-tyre-degradation-below-fia-target-885562/
Pirelli admits F1 tyre degradation below FIA target
Truly, "designed-shyte" tires!
build
2018-07-13 09:33:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by M2T
Post by build
Post by D Munz
Post by ~misfit~
Post by geoff
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
--
Shaun.
I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would exacerbate
the problem.
Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
harder compound ones ?!!!
LOL probably.
Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock hard. Some
formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track and don't self-destruct
quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat for the lack of... sticky they
could go wider.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change thing. Or has that all gone away?
FWIW
DLM
NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.
The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pirelli-admits-f1-tyre-degradation-below-fia-target-885562/
Pirelli admits F1 tyre degradation below FIA target
That is an old 'beat-up' and written before that season started, we now know Pirelli hit tartgets that year.

Do you have any relevant reply?
~misfit~
2018-07-13 11:45:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by build
Post by M2T
Post by build
Post by D Munz
Post by ~misfit~
Post by geoff
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
--
Shaun.
I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would
exacerbate the problem.
Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
harder compound ones ?!!!
LOL probably.
Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock
hard. Some formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track
and don't self-destruct quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat
for the lack of... sticky they could go wider.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief
has a cozy little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change
thing. Or has that all gone away?
FWIW
DLM
NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.
The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pirelli-admits-f1-tyre-degradation-below-fia-target-885562/
Pirelli admits F1 tyre degradation below FIA target
That is an old 'beat-up' and written before that season started, we
now know Pirelli hit tartgets that year.
Do you have any relevant reply?
Don't be a wanker Bob - aguing semantics and thinking you're better than
others because they haven't caught on to your private dick-rubbing game.

The word "atificially" shouldn't be there, D Munz made a mistake with his
phrasing. They ARE designed to degrade (non-artifially) and drop fucking
large lumps of rubber all over the track - which is what he meant and you
know it. Have another drink petty person.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
t***@gmail.com
2018-07-13 15:25:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Have another drink petty person.
While you sit there, stoned out your tree,
on over prescribed drugs, paid for by
tax dollars, because you are too fucking
stupid to look after your sad self.
Alan Baker
2018-07-13 15:55:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
Post by M2T
Post by build
Post by D Munz
Post by ~misfit~
Post by geoff
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
--
Shaun.
I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would
exacerbate the problem.
Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
harder compound ones ?!!!
LOL probably.
Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock
hard. Some formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track
and don't self-destruct quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat
for the lack of... sticky they could go wider.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief
has a cozy little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change
thing. Or has that all gone away?
FWIW
DLM
NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.
The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pirelli-admits-f1-tyre-degradation-below-fia-target-885562/
Pirelli admits F1 tyre degradation below FIA target
That is an old 'beat-up' and written before that season started, we
now know Pirelli hit tartgets that year.
Do you have any relevant reply?
Don't be a wanker Bob - aguing semantics and thinking you're better than
others because they haven't caught on to your private dick-rubbing game.
The word "atificially" shouldn't be there, D Munz made a mistake with his
phrasing. They ARE designed to degrade (non-artifially) and drop fucking
large lumps of rubber all over the track - which is what he meant and you
know it. Have another drink petty person.
While they are designed to degrade, that doesn't automatically mean they
have to drop lumps of rubber.
~misfit~
2018-07-12 22:51:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by build
Post by D Munz
Post by ~misfit~
Post by geoff
Post by build
Post by ~misfit~
If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
--
Shaun.
I can't agree. As we have clearly seen harder tyres would
exacerbate the problem.
Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the
harder compound ones ?!!!
LOL probably.
Also (as is probably obvious to most) I meant hardER - not rock
hard. Some formula run tyres that stick quite well to the track and
don't self-destruct quite so readilly. To compensate somewhat for
the lack of... sticky they could go wider.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief
has a cozy little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Aren't the tires artificially designed to degrade now? I seem to
remember Perelli being given lap targets to push the tire change
thing. Or has that all gone away?
FWIW
DLM
NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.
Yeah right, that's been addressed. (!)
Post by build
The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.
Bullshit. If all cars are on the same compound (or thereabouts) and there're
no marbles off-line (and less rubbering-in on-line) then there is potential
for lots MORE passing. (Which is why I bought it up.)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
t***@gmail.com
2018-07-13 01:57:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Bullshit. If all cars are on the same compound (or thereabouts) and there're
no marbles off-line (and less rubbering-in on-line) then there is potential
for lots MORE passing. (Which is why I bought it up.)
Take your excessive gay fucking parentheses,
and shove them up your stink hole cunt,
you fucking piece of shit, whiny, crybaby,
asshole.
geoff
2018-07-13 03:03:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by ~misfit~
Bullshit. If all cars are on the same compound (or thereabouts) and there're
no marbles off-line (and less rubbering-in on-line) then there is potential
for lots MORE passing. (Which is why I bought it up.)
Take your excessive gay fucking parentheses,
and shove them up your stink hole cunt,
you fucking piece of shit, whiny, crybaby,
asshole.
Hey texarsehole, don't hold back. Say what you REALLY feel. C'mon, let
it all out !

geoff
~misfit~
2018-07-13 11:38:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by ~misfit~
Bullshit. If all cars are on the same compound (or thereabouts) and
there're no marbles off-line (and less rubbering-in on-line) then
there is potential for lots MORE passing. (Which is why I bought it
up.)
Take your excessive gay fucking parentheses,
and shove them up your stink hole cunt,
you fucking piece of shit, whiny, crybaby,
asshole.
Hey texarsehole, don't hold back. Say what you REALLY feel. C'mon, let
it all out !
Texiebaby is sooo easy to trigger.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Bigbird
2018-07-13 09:53:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by build
NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.
The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.
Bollocks.

Less grip, less marbles and less pitstops do not equal less passing.
build
2018-07-13 10:32:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Less grip, less marbles and less pitstops equal less passing.
Fixed. I agree
Bigbird
2018-07-13 13:06:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Fixed. I am a lying cunt.
Fixed. I agree.
geoff
2018-07-14 00:48:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by build
NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.
The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.
Bollocks.
Less grip, less marbles and less pitstops do not equal less passing.
That would be "Less grip, fewer marbles, and fewer pit-stops...." I believe.

geoff
bra
2018-07-14 01:26:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, July 13, 2018 at 5:48:19 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:

Less grip, less marbles and less pitstops do not equal less passing.
Post by geoff
That would be "Less grip, fewer marbles, and fewer pit-stops...." I believe.
geoff
Don't call the FIA, they'll call you.

"Information" retains its singular form in most English, and in legal vocabulary one can "lay AN information"

It has plurals in some other languages. When Canada reached a trade deal with Saudi Arabia, the joint document referred to "the sharing of informations".

Two questions may resolve this:

1. Is it grammatically correct?
2. Do you want to do business with Saudi Arabia or not?
Bigbird
2018-07-14 05:46:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by Bigbird
Post by build
NO they are not "artificially" designed to degrade!
The tyres are designed to meet a very specific criteria.
The harder the tyres the less passing opportunities.
Bollocks.
Less grip, less marbles and less pitstops do not equal less passing.
That would be "Less grip, fewer marbles, and fewer pit-stops...." I believe.
You'll never be a speech writer; audience and alliteration supercede. :)

/steps off soap box/

t***@gmail.com
2018-07-10 17:34:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Are you suggesting that softer tyres shed fewer marbles than the harder
compound ones ?!!!
Go fuck your yourself.
Usless fucking idiot.
~misfit~
2018-07-11 00:08:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
Post by D Munz
Kimi said something interesting following the British GP. He made
the comment about the difference between the wake from the Red Bull
versus the Mercedes. This is quoted from a number of sources (most
"...once I was behind them [Red Bull] their wake seemed to affect my
car a lot more than the Mercedes did; I was losing a lot of
downforce and that upset the balance of the car."
I know Mercedes has made changes to their aero package. Could the
net result of these changes also yield less turbulence off the rear
of the car? Also, is there any prohibition (or performance penalty)
to designing the aero package so that it creates a messy wake and
disrupts a following car?
FWIW
DLM
The RedBull has been the most difficult car to follow since 2009. So
that is not new. What is new is that this year perhaps the Merc is
the easiest car to follow.
In reference to the wake it would not be about the amount/volume of
turbulence but rather the shape, etc. It is not a simple thing to
describe and i'm not qualified to explain it, nor are any of the
search engine couch experts especially the "bring back ground effect"
fans.
[warning here follows a ramble]
The main thing stopping a resolution to the overtaking problem is
vested interests. There are three influential teams who have the
resources to solve the problem but they are focused on "what's in it
for me".
A while back one of the pundits said that if downforce stops
overtaking why is there more overtaking in the wet when wings are
cranked up. Bloody stupid statement and if you can see why then you
are half way to understanding that the answer to overtaking is too
complex for amateurs like me and stupid pundits. These half baked
ideas only ad confusion to the fans view of the problems.
BTW. There are two distinctive wakes, one is low and wide, the other
high and narrow. It's the low and wide wake that disturbs when close
and passing, say inside 0.5 secs. Beyond that distance the high wake
has more effect. The 2019 regs for the front wing may address some
but not all of the low wide wake, we'll see.
If you are interested Rory Byrne wrote or was interviewed about this
a few years back. Start with that if you can find it.
There is an easy answer to overtaking, take away the aero and give
them skinny tyres. We *know* that will work but we won't get 140k in
the grandstands at Silverstone to watch it.
Finally, after Liberty brought in this years regs I'm less hopeful
they will be capable of addressing the problem :-(
Even keep the aero but mandate harder tyres, as wide as they like.
That way the track won't 'rubber in' and have a single clean line
with the rest is so dirty a car running on it needs a lap or two to
clean the crap off the tyres. It wasn't always like this.
If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be multiple
racing lines which will result in more passing.
Often the 'multiple racing line' thing is what makes wet races so exciting.
So why not stop the frangible tyre thing and allow that at every race?
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Sir Tim
2018-07-11 10:07:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
Post by D Munz
Kimi said something interesting following the British GP. He made
the comment about the difference between the wake from the Red Bull
versus the Mercedes. This is quoted from a number of sources (most
"...once I was behind them [Red Bull] their wake seemed to affect my
car a lot more than the Mercedes did; I was losing a lot of
downforce and that upset the balance of the car."
I know Mercedes has made changes to their aero package. Could the
net result of these changes also yield less turbulence off the rear
of the car? Also, is there any prohibition (or performance penalty)
to designing the aero package so that it creates a messy wake and
disrupts a following car?
FWIW
DLM
The RedBull has been the most difficult car to follow since 2009. So
that is not new. What is new is that this year perhaps the Merc is
the easiest car to follow.
In reference to the wake it would not be about the amount/volume of
turbulence but rather the shape, etc. It is not a simple thing to
describe and i'm not qualified to explain it, nor are any of the
search engine couch experts especially the "bring back ground effect"
fans.
[warning here follows a ramble]
The main thing stopping a resolution to the overtaking problem is
vested interests. There are three influential teams who have the
resources to solve the problem but they are focused on "what's in it
for me".
A while back one of the pundits said that if downforce stops
overtaking why is there more overtaking in the wet when wings are
cranked up. Bloody stupid statement and if you can see why then you
are half way to understanding that the answer to overtaking is too
complex for amateurs like me and stupid pundits. These half baked
ideas only ad confusion to the fans view of the problems.
BTW. There are two distinctive wakes, one is low and wide, the other
high and narrow. It's the low and wide wake that disturbs when close
and passing, say inside 0.5 secs. Beyond that distance the high wake
has more effect. The 2019 regs for the front wing may address some
but not all of the low wide wake, we'll see.
If you are interested Rory Byrne wrote or was interviewed about this
a few years back. Start with that if you can find it.
There is an easy answer to overtaking, take away the aero and give
them skinny tyres. We *know* that will work but we won't get 140k in
the grandstands at Silverstone to watch it.
Finally, after Liberty brought in this years regs I'm less hopeful
they will be capable of addressing the problem :-(
Even keep the aero but mandate harder tyres, as wide as they like.
That way the track won't 'rubber in' and have a single clean line
with the rest is so dirty a car running on it needs a lap or two to
clean the crap off the tyres. It wasn't always like this.
If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be multiple
racing lines which will result in more passing.
Often the 'multiple racing line' thing is what makes wet races so exciting.
So why not stop the frangible tyre thing and allow that at every race?
Or introduce Bernie’s water sprays :-)
~misfit~
2018-07-11 14:10:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
Post by D Munz
Kimi said something interesting following the British GP. He made
the comment about the difference between the wake from the Red
Bull versus the Mercedes. This is quoted from a number of
sources (most slightly different which is interesting for a
"...once I was behind them [Red Bull] their wake seemed to affect
my car a lot more than the Mercedes did; I was losing a lot of
downforce and that upset the balance of the car."
I know Mercedes has made changes to their aero package. Could the
net result of these changes also yield less turbulence off the
rear of the car? Also, is there any prohibition (or performance
penalty) to designing the aero package so that it creates a messy
wake and disrupts a following car?
FWIW
DLM
The RedBull has been the most difficult car to follow since 2009.
So that is not new. What is new is that this year perhaps the Merc
is the easiest car to follow.
In reference to the wake it would not be about the amount/volume of
turbulence but rather the shape, etc. It is not a simple thing to
describe and i'm not qualified to explain it, nor are any of the
search engine couch experts especially the "bring back ground
effect" fans.
[warning here follows a ramble]
The main thing stopping a resolution to the overtaking problem is
vested interests. There are three influential teams who have the
resources to solve the problem but they are focused on "what's in
it for me".
A while back one of the pundits said that if downforce stops
overtaking why is there more overtaking in the wet when wings are
cranked up. Bloody stupid statement and if you can see why then you
are half way to understanding that the answer to overtaking is too
complex for amateurs like me and stupid pundits. These half baked
ideas only ad confusion to the fans view of the problems.
BTW. There are two distinctive wakes, one is low and wide, the
other high and narrow. It's the low and wide wake that disturbs
when close and passing, say inside 0.5 secs. Beyond that distance
the high wake has more effect. The 2019 regs for the front wing
may address some but not all of the low wide wake, we'll see.
If you are interested Rory Byrne wrote or was interviewed about
this a few years back. Start with that if you can find it.
There is an easy answer to overtaking, take away the aero and give
them skinny tyres. We *know* that will work but we won't get 140k
in the grandstands at Silverstone to watch it.
Finally, after Liberty brought in this years regs I'm less hopeful
they will be capable of addressing the problem :-(
Even keep the aero but mandate harder tyres, as wide as they like.
That way the track won't 'rubber in' and have a single clean line
with the rest is so dirty a car running on it needs a lap or two to
clean the crap off the tyres. It wasn't always like this.
If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be
multiple racing lines which will result in more passing.
Often the 'multiple racing line' thing is what makes wet races so
exciting. So why not stop the frangible tyre thing and allow that at
every race?
Or introduce Bernie's water sprays :-)
But that would just be silly. ;-)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
News
2018-07-11 11:41:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by ~misfit~
Post by build
Post by D Munz
Kimi said something interesting following the British GP. He made
the comment about the difference between the wake from the Red Bull
versus the Mercedes. This is quoted from a number of sources (most
"...once I was behind them [Red Bull] their wake seemed to affect my
car a lot more than the Mercedes did; I was losing a lot of
downforce and that upset the balance of the car."
I know Mercedes has made changes to their aero package. Could the
net result of these changes also yield less turbulence off the rear
of the car? Also, is there any prohibition (or performance penalty)
to designing the aero package so that it creates a messy wake and
disrupts a following car?
FWIW
DLM
The RedBull has been the most difficult car to follow since 2009. So
that is not new. What is new is that this year perhaps the Merc is
the easiest car to follow.
In reference to the wake it would not be about the amount/volume of
turbulence but rather the shape, etc. It is not a simple thing to
describe and i'm not qualified to explain it, nor are any of the
search engine couch experts especially the "bring back ground effect"
fans.
[warning here follows a ramble]
The main thing stopping a resolution to the overtaking problem is
vested interests. There are three influential teams who have the
resources to solve the problem but they are focused on "what's in it
for me".
A while back one of the pundits said that if downforce stops
overtaking why is there more overtaking in the wet when wings are
cranked up. Bloody stupid statement and if you can see why then you
are half way to understanding that the answer to overtaking is too
complex for amateurs like me and stupid pundits. These half baked
ideas only ad confusion to the fans view of the problems.
BTW. There are two distinctive wakes, one is low and wide, the other
high and narrow. It's the low and wide wake that disturbs when close
and passing, say inside 0.5 secs. Beyond that distance the high wake
has more effect. The 2019 regs for the front wing may address some
but not all of the low wide wake, we'll see.
If you are interested Rory Byrne wrote or was interviewed about this
a few years back. Start with that if you can find it.
There is an easy answer to overtaking, take away the aero and give
them skinny tyres. We *know* that will work but we won't get 140k in
the grandstands at Silverstone to watch it.
Finally, after Liberty brought in this years regs I'm less hopeful
they will be capable of addressing the problem :-(
Even keep the aero but mandate harder tyres, as wide as they like.
That way the track won't 'rubber in' and have a single clean line
with the rest is so dirty a car running on it needs a lap or two to
clean the crap off the tyres. It wasn't always like this.
If the tyres don't shed kilos of 'marbles' then there will be multiple
racing lines which will result in more passing.
Often the 'multiple racing line' thing is what makes wet races so exciting.
So why not stop the frangible tyre thing and allow that at every race?
Note to Tilke: install trackside sprinkler systems
Loading...