New squarer tyres for 2012 by Pirelli

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.

Post Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:35 pm

NonNewtonic wrote:
neilbah wrote:if the profile is more square, would this make the use of camber outside the design limit more detrimental?


Yes indeed a more square profile tyre will push the engineers to run more camber to gain maximum grip which increase the risk of blistering


That's a bold statement.
Grip is a four letter word.

2 is the new #1.
Jersey Tom
 
Joined: 29 May 2006
Location: Huntersville, NC

Post Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:33 pm

In general why would you square up the thread?

Does imply the contact patch has change or has the construction been change to provide the same contact patch as last year?

Brian
hardingfv32
 
Joined: 3 Apr 2011

Post Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:15 pm

Jersey Tom wrote:That's a bold statement.

Bold but true?
Forum guide: read before posting

"You do it, then it's done." - Kimi Räikkönen

Por las buenas soy amigo, por las malas soy campeón.
mx_tifoso
 
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Location: North America

Post Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:25 pm

PNSD wrote:Did not Renault cite one of the reasons they lost performance from 2007 onwards was because of incorrect wind tunnel calibration, and CFD modelling relating to the change in profile from Michelin to Bridgestone? It was a problem which took years to sort they said.


Yes. Ferrari also forced Bridgestone to produce rounded shouldered tyres throughout that era, even though they then had less mechanical grip, for aerodynamic reasons.
myurr
 
Joined: 20 Mar 2008

Post Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:09 pm

So then why bother in this case of a spec tire?

Brian
hardingfv32
 
Joined: 3 Apr 2011

Post Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:07 pm

mx_tifoso wrote:
Jersey Tom wrote:That's a bold statement.

Bold but true?


Not necessarily.
Grip is a four letter word.

2 is the new #1.
Jersey Tom
 
Joined: 29 May 2006
Location: Huntersville, NC

Post Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:29 pm

Jersey Tom wrote:Not necessarily.


Are these question you should not answer or do you think they are questions we should be able to answer without your expert opinion?

Brian
hardingfv32
 
Joined: 3 Apr 2011

Post Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:01 am

JerseyTom, I posed it as a question so that you might actually share some of your wisdom on this besides saying yes or no.
Forum guide: read before posting

"You do it, then it's done." - Kimi Räikkönen

Por las buenas soy amigo, por las malas soy campeón.
mx_tifoso
 
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Location: North America

Post Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:07 am

So they made a cavity shape change. Than in itself may not be obvious to answer what it will do for camber trends. I'm sure there were construction changes in there as well. Probably substantial construction differences from track to track.

Maybe the camber trends are different. Maybe they're no different. Maybe the performance envelope is similar but the durability is different. It's just not a straightforward thing to answer. Pirelli probably won't / didn't know until test data was generated.
Grip is a four letter word.

2 is the new #1.
Jersey Tom
 
Joined: 29 May 2006
Location: Huntersville, NC

Post Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:30 am

PNSD wrote:Did not Renault cite one of the reasons they lost performance from 2007 onwards was because of incorrect wind tunnel calibration, and CFD modelling relating to the change in profile from Michelin to Bridgestone? It was a problem which took years to sort they said.

Perhaps they did. But there are indicators that the mechanical constructions of the Michelins and Bridgstones differed substantionally. The difference required the c.g. to be moved forward for mechanical, rather than aero reasons. Aero changes followed, rather than lead, the c.g. change. The history of the 2007 onwards Bridgstones has already been aired in these forums.
DaveW
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2009

Post Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:26 am

In 2011 Renault thought the front tires would require more downforce, so they went with their forward style exhaust. They seem to be uncompromising and generally wrong with their choices.

Brian
hardingfv32
 
Joined: 3 Apr 2011

Post Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:27 am

Jersey Tom

Thanks, off to see what cavity shape is.

Brian
hardingfv32
 
Joined: 3 Apr 2011

Post Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:58 am

Just the shape of the actual mold the tires are cured in.
Grip is a four letter word.

2 is the new #1.
Jersey Tom
 
Joined: 29 May 2006
Location: Huntersville, NC

Post Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:17 am

失败者找理由,成功者找方法
raymondu999
 
Joined: 4 Feb 2010

Post Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:14 pm

DaveW wrote:
PNSD wrote:Did not Renault cite one of the reasons they lost performance from 2007 onwards was because of incorrect wind tunnel calibration, and CFD modelling relating to the change in profile from Michelin to Bridgestone? It was a problem which took years to sort they said.

Perhaps they did. But there are indicators that the mechanical constructions of the Michelins and Bridgstones differed substantionally. The difference required the c.g. to be moved forward for mechanical, rather than aero reasons. Aero changes followed, rather than lead, the c.g. change. The history of the 2007 onwards Bridgstones has already been aired in these forums.



I think the aero issue which is made reference to it is not whre to shift aero load to comply with tyre force characteritics, it is instead related to the vortices developed by the shape of the tyre itself and their interaction with the car shape from an aero point of view
twitter: @armchair_aero
shelly
 
Joined: 5 May 2009

PreviousNext

Return to Aerodynamics, chassis and tyres

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests