Rising downforce putting “totally unprecedented” loads on Formula 1 tyres

36 comments on “Rising downforce putting “totally unprecedented” loads on Formula 1 tyres”

1. 

   pcxmac (@pcxmac)
   17th December 2023, 1:53

   Might have something to do with the weight of the cars.
   1. 

      S
      17th December 2023, 5:17

      It does, yes – but the aero loads can exceed the physical mass of the car by 3x or more.
      The more downforce they generate, the more force (stress) that mass exerts on the tyres during cornering and braking events.
      A comparable racing car of this mass with less downforce has a lot more flexibility in tyre construction and compounds – and a much wider operating window as a result. Basically, less downforce = better racing, in many ways.

      F1 tyres are almost starting to resemble truck tyres in terms of construction these days, such are the stresses they are put under.
   2. 

      Crawliin-from-the-wreckage (@davedai)
      17th December 2023, 9:30

      Yeah I agree.
      I guess using retreads in the cause of “sustainability” is a non-goer.
   3. 

      Tristan
      17th December 2023, 12:54

      2026! There’s always something to look forward to in F1 I’m learning. ’26 going to be a big one on multiple fronts, shorter and lighter cars, can’t wait!
   4. 

      Zann (@zann)
      17th December 2023, 18:08

      it’s not really about the weight of the cars, that’s only 800kg, it’s the downforce which makes the load on the tyres more like 4,800kg! They could slash 100kg off the static weight that would only make 2% difference.

      They need to reduce it really, I mean it’s getting marginal for the drivers’ health as well, 5g on the brakes
      1. 

         anon
         17th December 2023, 18:50

         @zann the problem is that, if it were to also result in the cars becoming slower, it’s likely that there would be a noticeable public backlash.

         After all, if you look at the regulations from 2014 to 2016, the regulations in that period were written with the explicit intent of cutting the amount of downforce that the cars produced – and, by many accounts, the FIA did indeed succeed with that objective.

         However, when that also had the effect of slowing the cars down, many fans then complained that “the cars are too slow” – just look at how some posters on this site would complain that the cars were “slower than GP2 cars”, and similarly angry complaints about the cars lacking cornering performance. That, in turn, created the public pressure that saw the 2017 rule set being introduced to increase downforce levels, and thus make the cars much faster, to counteract those complaints.
         1. 

            Zann (@zann)
            17th December 2023, 21:51

            well lots of people said F1 was dooooooomed and they just weren’t gonna watch anymore now, when they put turbos on the exhausts and made them quiet as mice so you hardly need ear defenders :) okay, only 90dB or something

            But F1 is already by far the most powerful series anywhere, in circuit racing, I don’t think they need the last few percent of laptime from downforce. It keeps increasing by 5-10% a year, so where do you stop? Just stop at 2020 levels, something like that

            And F1 can do common sense sometimes, like they’re going to shrink the stupid huge macho tyres a bit so drivers can even see past them, a bit
            1. 

               Nick T.
               18th December 2023, 3:56

               In fairness to F1, the size of wheels came at the insistence of all the tire manufacturers bidding on F1. It wasn’t an F1 idea or initiative. The cars looked so much cooler with the smaller wheels and thick tires anyway.
            2. 

               anon
               18th December 2023, 9:55

               @zann and the consistent public pressure created by people moaning about the engines being too quiet is why the 2026 engine regulations now have clauses which are designed to make the engines louder – which means the example you’re giving is following exactly the same trend.
            3. 

               S
               18th December 2023, 10:52

               In fairness to F1, the size of wheels came at the insistence of all the tire manufacturers bidding on F1.

               However, the increase in tyre diameter was driven by Liberty, because as the cars’ size increased, the wheels proportionally started to look too small.
               So they didn’t just make the tyres wider with the change in wheel size, they also made them significantly taller.
               Hence the visibility issues driver mention now.
            4. 

               Zann (@zann)
               18th December 2023, 11:42

               according to Pirelli they wanted low profile but it was F1 who wanted 18″. And yes the 2026 engines are going to be louder but it’s to make them cheaper with dropping the H more than helping the deaf oldies who ruined their hearing back in the good old days to hear when they’re coming :)

               I don’t know why you can’t just post with one account instead of these different dumb/smart personas? It’s not very convincing. But anyway they’re still going to be 1000 bhp and the fastest around so they can cut back on the downforce a bit and still be awesome

               2% is 100/4800 and 4700/4800 is 98%
      2. 

         Tristan
         17th December 2023, 22:43

         Where’s that 2% number from?

         A lighter car will mean regulations can cut back aero elements. If they just cut back drastically aero elements now then the cars would be sluggish and slow.
   5. 

      Nick T.
      18th December 2023, 3:53

      Yes, these cars are fat pigs. Their lack of agility is one of the reason F1 seems so dull these days. That and their cruise liner size. Open wheel cars should not be bigger than a Ford F-250.
2. 

   Jere (@jerejj)
   17th December 2023, 6:20

   Yet another country or region-specific F4.

   I don’t really see a need to bring forward the LV GP race start time & if that were to happen, it could be like 1 or 2 hours at max because the 22:00 choice was predominantly for viewers in Europe, after all.
   1. 

      SteveP
      17th December 2023, 8:27

      don’t really see a need to bring forward the LV GP race start time & if that were to happen, it could be like 1 or 2 hours at max because the 22:00 choice was predominantly for viewers in Europe, after all.

      How did having the race at 6am UTC made it Euro-friendly? (UTC = GMT +/- a bit)
      LA is UTC -7 so a 13:00 local start time would put the race at 20:00 UTC and thus early/mid-evening viewing.

      I think a night race is to avoid people seeing Vegas in daylight.
      Street race locations are rarely scenic, and if you watch the daylight tour of the track, you will note that Vegas excels at the not scenic.
      1. 

         Jere (@jerejj)
         17th December 2023, 17:44

         SteveP Maybe 6 in UTC, but 7 & 8 further east, not to mention those are precisely the same as for the Australian & Japanese GPs, so no worse in comparison.
         1. 

            SteveP
            17th December 2023, 20:26

            I was actually pointing out that the timing can’t be marked as being for euro-friendliness, as the euro-friendly timing would involve midday(ish) timings for early evening viewing while placing the race at a traditional mid-day / early afternoon timing for USA west-coast and later in the afternoon for east coast.
            Basically, the late evening slot only makes sense if you’re trying to hide facets of Vegas in the darkness. Other than that, it isn’t a convenient viewing time for anywhere other than the Oceania patch.

            As others have said, the timing isn’t good for the USA and doesn’t help improve US viewing figures.
   2. 

      MichaelN
      17th December 2023, 10:14

      The best way to have a night race and good viewing hours is to race on Sunday morning before sunrise.

      They could get away with an even later Saturday evening start for F1’s core markets, Europe and East Asia, but that would be very bad for the US East Coast and South America.
   3. 

      SteveR (@stever)
      17th December 2023, 14:31

      The late start time was partly due to not closing streets to allow gambling access. Agree about how ugly and tacky that place is. MichaelN, a before sunrise race would be awful for spectators and U.S. viewers; the gate is how Liberty pay for the race, as they, not a track owner, are paying for the whole thing.
3. 

   SteveP
   17th December 2023, 9:06

   Tyre pressures of 30pisi ?
   Hmm, just short of the tyre pressures in a Honda Civic, I wonder what the downforce on that is?

   Exor is the single largest shareholder in automaker Stellantis and Dutch healthcare equipment maker Phillips

   I know this is a direct quote from the Reuters article, so Keith isn’t to blame for the misspelling of Philips (there should be only one “l” in the company name)
4. 

   MichaelN
   17th December 2023, 10:11

   Earlier this week it was another Mansell, now another Wurz. If motorsport truly wants to be a more inclusive and diverse sporting scene, the accessibility of junior series needs some massive help, and the best way to provide that is to break down the financial barriers. For kids without extremely wealthy parents or very connected parents, the jump into single seaters is often too expensive, so a lot of talent is lost. Forever. The FIA can get the needed money by increasing entry fees on its top series, and setting up new, and expanding existing, “scholarship” programs.
   1. 

      Red Andy (@red-andy)
      17th December 2023, 13:31

      Not to take away from your main point (which largely I agree with), but Christian Mansell is not related to Nigel.
   2. 

      Dex
      17th December 2023, 14:28

      I’d rather they give the money to science projects, hospitals in Third world countries or something like that. I don’t care if someone can’t afford to drive in F1. What you say makes sense (I agre with Andy, Mansell isn’t related), and I’m all for that; but on the other hand I don’t feel sorry for those who can’t drive racing cars for fun. So like I said, I’d rather see guys like Stroll indirectly finance something more important; but the reality is that most of the money goes to shareholders. F1, at the top level, is not full of good people. Hell would offer a more pleasant company.
   3. 

      anon
      17th December 2023, 19:11

      MichaelN, right now, the FIA isn’t interested in “setting up new, and expanding existing, “scholarship” programs” – they’re stating in their financial statements that they want to shift their money into different projects instead.

      You can shout all you want about wanting more money for the FIA, but they’re not funding those sorts of projects because of a shortage of funding – it’s because they’re not interested in doing so.
5. 

   Coventry Climax
   17th December 2023, 10:49

   Pirelli have insight, as do the FiA and all teams, in the cornering speeds of F1 cars as well as the weight of them.
   With those two knowns, it allows you to calculate how much force is needed to keep the cars on track: centrifugal and centripetal forces need to be equal for that. That second force is solely executed through the grip of the tyres. Pirelli (should?) know exactly how much grip their compounds have, and at what tyre pressures. They mandate tyre pressures, so they probably already know the downforce levels, but even so, the remaining aspect of the equation is downforce, which can thus be calculated.
   OK, the above is obviously simplified, but for any tyre company with a decent R&D department, this should be a given and the values known.
   But even if you fail at the above, in F1 you can just ask the FiA to have these essential and critical numbers more or less made known through the teams.
   The numbers don’t even need to be exact; ‘in the range of’ is more than sufficient.

   Then put these values on the y-axis in a graph, with ‘years’ on the x-axis, and it’s easy to guess where the downforce levels will go, especially in years with stable rules.

   Pirelli never ceases to amaze me. In a negative sense.
   1. 

      Coventry Climax
      17th December 2023, 10:52

      By the way, that exact same calculation applies to the strength of the sidewalls.
   2. 

      SteveP
      17th December 2023, 15:30

      They mandate tyre pressures

      Lower than the MOT mandated (manufacturer specified) tyre pressures for a Honda Civic, apparently.
      1. 

         Coventry Climax
         17th December 2023, 17:19

         Civic tyre pressures. Very interesting. And how is that related to what I’m saying?
         1. 

            SteveP
            17th December 2023, 20:35

            Pirelli mandating tyre pressures, which Stella labels as “very high”, and the tyres still have problems, yet a fairly lightweight bog basic domestic vehicle runs on higher tyre pressures. Higher performance road cars are running on higher pressures.

            There seems to be a difference of opinion between Pirelli and the teams over what the tyre pressures should be.
            1. 

               Coventry Climax
               17th December 2023, 22:31

               Ah, OK.
               From the pure technical point of view, what pressures other types of cars run may not be that relevant. Height and construction of the wall, speed of rotation, expected lifetime, sideways forces that, despite me saying F1 is hardly the pinnacle anymore, are still higher than most any other car; all of those, even compared to top end supercars, make up for a different ‘use case’. Even when these supercars ‘really’ go to the track, they likely don’t run the tyres that were fitted for the showroom anymore – or the tyre pressures. (I say ‘really’ because I don’t mean the occasional track day use case.)

               Anyway, again, to me, the apparent inability to predict downforce levels in F1 is incomprehensible and unacceptable.
            2. 

               S
               18th December 2023, 3:04

               Anyway, again, to me, the apparent inability to predict downforce levels in F1 is incomprehensible and unacceptable.

               Your assumption is incorrect, though.
               The issues (if there are actually any at all) are mostly (if not entirely) subjective, not objective or technical.
               Teams ultimately want the most tyre performance in every area (traction, durability, feedback and a wide thermal operating window) – but no such tyre can ever exist. Every aspect of racing tyre design involves compromise.
               They could make the tyres more durable and with a wider thermal operating window, but they’d inevitably be slower and not give as much useful feedback to the driver/data engineers. The drivers (and then the so-called fans) call this characteristic ‘unsatisfying.’
               This is not a Pirelli issue, it is a universal scientific constraint common to all manufacturers. The laws of physics cannot be broken. Not even by Bridgestone or Michelin…

               Then there’s F1’s target letter requiring the tyres be on the softer side, meaning they will inevitably be compromising on thermals and durability. Softer tyres will always be more thermally reactive than harder ones, due to increased stresses induced from additional friction with the surface and resulting higher G-loads.
               Further to that is that they still want tyres that are pre-heated in tyre blankets (to make things easier for the teams and for more immediate on-track excitement without any dwell time) – thus meaning the tyres still have no concrete requirement for a wider thermal operating window. Instant performance takes priority – this factor is deeply baked into the tyre design requirements, and therefore, the chemistry and construction of all F1 tyres.
               You blame Pirelli – the the issues are entirely on F1 and the teams. And the ‘fans’ who, largely, don’t really know what they want or how to get it.
            3. 

               anon
               18th December 2023, 10:23

               Coventry Climax, the methodology you are describing is largely a reactionary approach – i.e. you are reacting to the results of the back analysis of data from the cars already being on track.

               However, for a tyre manufacturer that has to start producing tyres with a significant lead time to ensure that they have a large enough stockpile of tyres for the opening races of the season, the approach you describe has the flaw that you are relying on the cars running on track before you can make any revisions to the design of the tyres.

               If you look at the 2024 season, the first test starts on the 21st Feb, whilst the first race weekend starts on the 7th March – that gives you 16 days between the 2024 cars first appearing on track and the start of the first race weekend.

               You don’t seem to have accounted anywhere for the time lags that occur throughout the process you talk about – what you are talking about is a requirement to back analyse that data, produce revised designs, test those designs to evaluate their performance, potentially undertake further iterations on the design and then, once settled on that revised design, get the FIA to approve the use of that revised design, put it into production and ship it out to the venues that those tyres are going to be used at.

               It also relies on the assumption that you have sufficient data across the full tyre range as well for you to be able to properly evaluate how the tyres are performing, which is not necessarily the case.

               We’ve seen how, for example, the teams would often discourage their drivers from running in wet conditions during the pre-season tests due to the first races of the season following on very closely, but that in turn has also resulted in data from wet weather running being rather limited. At the same time, asides from the inherent variability in wet weather running, the teams also run rather different set up in those conditions, so you can’t necessarily just extrapolate from dry to wet conditions easily.

               It’s not to say that what you’re describing can’t be done – it’s that, in practice, what you are describing is actually not a particularly quick process, and one that has problems when it comes to the opening races of a season where you are having to design tyres without having the data you describe.
            4. 

               Coventry Climax
               18th December 2023, 15:35

               @anon: What you say is more or less (we’ll get to that) correct, however you fail to see it is exactly my point for being amazed: Had it been their first year, OK, but after so many years, with all prior knowledge, to still not be able to predict growing downforce levels?

               The ‘process’, as you call it, that I describe, is not something they they should start with now, they should have started that 11 years ago already, and kept their data up to date. Also, I disagree it is a slow process, unless Pirelli they still run 8088 processor based home computers in their R&D department and an algol program, which would not surprise me at all. (For those unfamiliar with the history of programming languages: Algol dates back to around ’58-’60 !)

               Anyway, it is somehow exactly like you describe: At the start of every season, it feels like they are completely in the dark, then their own investigations always blame failures on others first, and secondly on the lack of testing opportunities. Apparently you buy those excuses and even enhance them with your wet/dry and setup narrative, as if Pirelli’s shot in the dark predictions depend on pre-season testing data, where you and I both know that by then they’re already waaayyyyy too late.

               F1 teams however, in the mean time, manage to design and build complete F1 cars without much physical testing, which makes it even more silly that a self designated major tyre manufacturer can’t even come up with a decent product – after 11 years on the job.
               There’s not a single employer in the world that would not have sacked an employee with such a track record.
               And please, no nonsense about them just making what the FiA requires.
6. 

   Dex
   17th December 2023, 14:23

   Yet we don’t improve the tires, because… because.
   1. 

      theRealMax (@millionus)
      17th December 2023, 18:19

      Pirelli said the same last year and the year before that. Let me think, what should they do…. take your calculations and add a bit more..! Not rocket science Pirelli.
7. 

   Jb
   17th December 2023, 19:48

   Retreads? They’re slicks

Comments are closed.