Lets assume this example is from a perfect world with a perfect driver. I understand that when changing downforce, springs must be changed to compensate, but lets ignore that.
Setup A is "High" downforce and setup B is "Low" downforce. Every other aspect of the car is the same. The driver NEVER overloads the tires with steering input or locks brakes and does not make ANY mistakes. What setup will yeild more tire wear, assuming everything is equal but downforce levels?
How about changing a cars roll stiffness with ARB's, springs, chassis strength etc. How will a "Soft" car wear its tires compared to a "Stiff" car? Again, our driver is perfect! NO MISTAKES!
I know this is fictional and impossible, I am just trying to understand what wears tires faster?
Any information regarding tire wear is appreciated (besides driver error).
I think that the more roll resistance the higher the wear because of the unequal distribution of lateral load between the left and right side tires.
With downforce, does it make any difference? It is an outside force not related to lateral load distribution and effects both sides equally. ASSUMING THE DRIVER IS PERFECT.
Well, IMO.. thinking of it in this "perfect driver" sense is going to probably lead you to the opposite conclusion of how things work in the real world. More on that later, maybe.
There is NO such thing as a perfect driver, and because of that there are some implications on tire wear. It's one thing to simplify a concept.. it's another to throw reality out the window.
First things first tho... increased roll resistance does not mean more load transfer between LS and RS tires.
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.
if you increase roll ,depending on the outlay of the suspension -in case of a F1 Car equal length wishbones = no change in camber in bump, but a lot in roll every time you induce roll into the suspended part of the car this will inevitably lead to a less than perfect contact patch.You rely on having a very low CG to have the smallest leverage possible to avoid roll ,if you need a ARB to control roll you will transfer load from the inside to the outside tyre ,reducing total load bearing capacity..so you have to spring it harder ,this leading to the risk of porpoising and putting too much force into the tyre...
so obviously everyone tries as much as possible to go underweight and place as much ballast lowlowlow .
Plus:the tyre is load sensitive ,so adding load does not add grip by the same margin this is converging towards zero gain for added load.
therefore load transfer is bad as soon as you are operating near the optimmum tyre loads ,as any more load transfered to that tyre will leed not to a gain in grip ,but abuse of the tyre ,rising temps, less grip.
so you want to have the car experiencing as little load transfer as possible ,you really want to achieve the situation that the inner wheels take their share of providing grip ,as you will inevitably have the outer tyres loaded up to the max
anyways when cornering.
Very view drivers actually can feel which tyre is the limiting one when cornering
,at least that was my impression.
but there is one case where it works: if your front tyres are way too big compared to the rears ,you could gain(front grip) by introducing more transfer,as this will work the tyre harder and bring it into his working window ,and you can rely on just the outside front cornering.But of course this should be corrected with weight distribution change to the front ,not with inducing roll!
On a sideline increasing roll at the front will of course also affect the rear and so the gain at the front may as well be a loss in ultimate grip in the rear ...so
things are interrelated very much and without proper daata you will struggle to find more than the small peaks in performance when achieving some plateau of balance.
ah yes ,this represents my personal knowledge and experience aquired in years of racing low downforce cars.
It is my opinion and not meant to be the all and ever standing truth of car setup.I still learn a lot from other guys and especially JT has made me think about tyre and tyre use quite a bit .
Always sort of thought the goal was to load the working tires up with
all they will take until the point they start slipping or they blister.
I would think more down force would be important since slowing down isnt
very high on the list of options.
gambler wrote:Always sort of thought the goal was to load the working tires up with
all they will take until the point they start slipping or they blister.
Not sure I agree with that... treads blister if they're too hot. Heat comes from deflection (and abuse).
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.
if you load up the tyre just because you can ,this does not necesaryly give any advantage in terms of laptime.
there is a buzzword in describing a cars behaviour which is flat ,you will not want to hhave lateral loads for longer than necessary ,just because all the gs will also slow you down.
the same should be true with excessive downforce ...if you do not need the force to avoid tyre slip ,it will not give an advantgae to push the tyres harder into the tarmac,but you will of course work the carcass and the tyre surface harder ,raising temps and shorten life.
Birel99 wrote:So it is safe to say that the driver has the biggest impact on tire life?
What do teams do for endurance events when double or triple stinting tires is an advantage? Reduce camber? What else?
Thanks!
Reducing camber would imply you did not use the tyres evenly before ,that cannot be the goal.
Making tyres live for longer is very much a driver thing .You willhave to make sure not to overdo it but still be fast.
I´d say the usual variables remain as they are but you may need to think about how to work with the dampers as these can have a big impact on generating heat in the tyre.
