2011 18" tyres...

[Jersey Tom]

Jersey Tom has been the most prominent in proving over and over again that this is not necessary nor realistic.

I can't remember that he has proved anything like that. If I remember right he just made a bunch of assertions. To prove something like that you have to review a bunch of business data that nobody would reveal to this forum.

Well, let's name some technologies that have EVER been developed in F1 or racing in general, and pushed out to consumer use.

Radial tires? No. Developed for consumer vehicles first, race application lagged a couple decades.

Electronic fuel injection? No. Developed in the consumer market, lagged race for decades as well.

High performance airfoils? No. Already heaps of research done, particularly for the military in the 2nd World War. Took a long time for someone to think to apply it to a car.

Applied vehicle dynamics? No.

Micro hydraulics? No. Developed outside of racing.

Traction control? No. Developed on consumer cars, brought to racing.

Sequential transmissions? Don't believe so.

Monocoque load-bearing frames and structures? No.

Formula 1 has historically been a good place for the creative application of technology which is developed outside the world of racing. It has never been a breeding ground for road-relevant technology. Don't need any business data to show that. The notion to make a magic change and have F1 spin off all these relevant technologies for your average Joe is just silly. Certain suppliers (like the Michelin example) like to make links between Race and Consumer development but it's really a stretch.

Look at the cars themselves. What's the consumer relevance of an open-wheel car? The Model T was kind of open wheel but we don't use those too often anymore. What's the relevance of developing cars to go as fast as possible when your average driver is worried about ride, noise, and if their car works with their Bluetooth hands-free?

What is racing or F1 specifically really going to contribute? What are a handful of teams with budgets in the tens to even hundreds of millions of dollars going to do? Put that in comparison to Ford Motor Company.. with an R&D budget somewhere in the 6-8 billion dollar range. I like this quote from a few years ago..

Ford's annual US$8 billion R&D budget would fully fund at least 3 entire seasons of Formula 1 - for all 11 teams, each with 2 primary cars and 1 backup, with their own engine development and construction teams, driver salaries - everything

Environmentally friendly technology will be developed, but it's comical to think that anything substantial is going to fall out of race applications. The whole 'green' racing concept is just masturbation.

[Jersey Tom]

The idea of team cost savings is silly as well. F1 teams don't pay for their tires, you know. Beyond that.. if a team has a budget, they will spend it. If there's an engine freeze, all that R&D money gets reallocated elsewhere. If track testing is restricted, all the money goes to equally expensive simulation engineers.

If you want to TRULY control costs, then run the teams like a pro sports organization (NFL anyway.. with a league revenue of 6+ billion dollars I might add). There's a salary cap to keep teams competitive and close. I think this is really what F1 needs more than any 'Green' malarkey. THAT is how you keep the racing close, exciting, and how you invite more teams.

[xpensive]

I wouldn't be so dead certain about this WB, open wheel racing in the US is dead because of the lack of customer orientation, where Nascar offers something much closer to the public's reality.

Open wheel racing in the US is dead because they killed it with a break away war. You can call that a lack of customer orientation but I rather call that stupidity.

Quite obviously WB, we can have our opinions of Tony George and his ways of making himself immortal, but at the end of the day, not even CART at its peak drew much attention to the media. I can remember being at the Cleveland race in 1996 and there was practically free entry for practice. Try to get admission for the Pocono 500, good luck.

[WhiteBlue]

F1 teams don't pay for their tires, you know.

That was true in the past. As it looks today there will be a significant cost increase related to tyres. They either pay or they will have to bear the cost of a tyre war. Bottom line:

In 2011 F1 teams will pay for their tyres!

[Just_a_fan]

Environmentally friendly technology will be developed, but it's comical to think that anything substantial is going to fall out of race applications. The whole 'green' racing concept is just masturbation.

Exactly what I've been saying. Just not quite so, er, succinctly

[autogyro]

Environmentally friendly technology will be developed, but it's comical to think that anything substantial is going to fall out of race applications. The whole 'green' racing concept is just masturbation.

Exactly what I've been saying. Just not quite so, er, succinctly

Exactly correct,although there are also things developed in motor racing that end up on road cars like disk brakes and mid engines to name just two, so it is not all a one way street.
You are missing the cardinal point though. It has nothing to do with making F1 completely green or of using F1 to develop road technology. Non of this matters.

It is the need to promote and market F1 in a way that remains acceptable to spectators and of even more importance sponsers. Tyre companies are one example They will not get involved with F1 unless it produces the right image for their products in the 'real' world. They care little about the opinions or what goes on within F1 because that does not sell their tyres. If F1 continues to just muddle along as an old boys network for aero people and playboys, it will have a short future in the current world economy.

[WhiteBlue]

Jersey Tom has been the most prominent in proving over and over again that this is not necessary nor realistic.

I can't remember that he has proved anything like that. If I remember right he just made a bunch of assertions. To prove something like that you have to review a bunch of business data that nobody would reveal to this forum.

Well, let's name some technologies that have EVER been developed in F1 or racing in general, and pushed out to consumer use.
...
Look at the cars themselves. What's the consumer relevance of an open-wheel car? The Model T was kind of open wheel but we don't use those too often anymore. What's the relevance of developing cars to go as fast as possible when your average driver is worried about ride, noise, and if their car works with their Bluetooth hands-free?

What is racing or F1 specifically really going to contribute? What are a handful of teams with budgets in the tens to even hundreds of millions of dollars going to do? Put that in comparison to Ford Motor Company.. with an R&D budget somewhere in the 6-8 billion dollar range. I like this quote from a few years ago..

Ford's annual US$8 billion R&D budget would fully fund at least 3 entire seasons of Formula 1 - for all 11 teams, each with 2 primary cars and 1 backup, with their own engine development and construction teams, driver salaries - everything

I don't understand why you waste a lot of space showing the technology transfer from road cars to F1. It has nothing to do with the issue of this thread. The issue is why Michelin want 18 inch wheels and how they are going to be different to 13 inch wheels.

Manufacturers enter and leave F1 and the reasons for that are simple. They enter when they perceive an advantage for their brand and product image from F1 participation. For tyre suppliers it is difficult to get positive brand recognition unless they are beating a competitor. This is why Bridgestone and Michelin demand 80 mil $ for a tyre supply without tyre competition. Michelin effectively buys advertising space if they incur some cost of supplying F1. They advertise their brand. At the same time they risk that any negative publicity from tyre failures or problems negatively reflect on their brand.

Lets have a closer look at the product image then. The positive product image hinges on the ability of the consumer to identify the product they buy with the product used in F1. All tyres are round and black. But some racing tyres look more like the expensive performance road tyres that consumers buy. So in order to generate product recognition the tyre supplier needs to make the F1 tyre look as similar to the road tyre as possible. The consumer will care a rats ass if the construction and the compounds are all different. Appearance is all that counts.

To the common bloke in the pub it will be highly irrelevant if the winning car is an open wheel single seater or a LMP1 if he can make a connection between his tyre and the one on the race car. For the tyre supplier it will make a big difference. F1 gives him huge television exposure which Le Mans racing will never generate. And this is in a nut shell why Michelin will have 18 inch wheels or demand additional money. The product image transfer they crave for is dependent of visual recognition.

[Jersey Tom]

Certainly the visibility of racing is important for sponsors and suppliers.

But I ask this... does your average F1 viewer care if the tires are 13 or 15 or 18 or 20" diameter? In terms of bringing in more viewers, I don't think anyone is going to say "Oh! F1 runs 18" wheels That's just like my 350z! I'm going to watch now."

Likewise I don't think there's anyone saying "Well I can see Bridgestone has made some good 13" race tires.. but since I have 15" wheels I don't see how it's relevant. I'm going to buy Goodyears like NASCAR instead."

It's just so much of a non-issue and seemingly would have no tangible positive impact. Bottom line, changes in engineering and driven by established needs. I don't see the need to go to 18", nor do I understand what it would gain for Michelin. It's significant in that it impacts the drivers, the teams, the wheel manufacturers, the shock manufacturers, etc. That's a LOT of change and incurred cost outside of the tire manufacturer. Aren't we trying to reduce costs on the whole?

[WhiteBlue]

I don't see the need to go to 18", nor do I understand what it would gain for Michelin.

I have explained that while you were writing this. viewtopic.php?p=161838#p161838

It's significant in that it impacts the drivers, the teams, the wheel manufacturers, the shock manufacturers, etc. That's a LOT of change and incurred cost outside of the tire manufacturer. Aren't we trying to reduce costs on the whole?

Practically all components of an F1 car are exchanged from year to year. If F1 manages the tech rules sensibly the additional cost for other suppliers can be substantially reduced as Paddy Lowe points out.

[DaveW]

Well, let's name some technologies that have EVER been developed in F1 or racing in general, and pushed out to consumer use.

You paint a fairly damning picture, JT, but I'm not going to argue the point with you (although I confess to the temptation). I would just like to observe that a few years ago, before carbon-based composites appeared on passenger aircraft, British Aerospace formed a technical relationship with Williams GP. I wonder why?

[Jersey Tom]

Cost of purchasing a product is one thing (ie buying a new set of wheels). But the R&D cost in designing all new wheels, brakes, shocks, etc is non-trivial.

I'm just callin it like I see it, as a tire engineer involved in motorsport. Take it for what it's worth.

End of my story.

[xpensive]

Cost of purchasing a product is one thing (ie buying a new set of wheels). But the R&D cost in designing all new wheels, brakes, shocks, etc is non-trivial.

I'm just callin it like I see it, as a tire engineer involved in motorsport. Take it for what it's worth.

End of my story.

With all due respect for you profession JT, the way you portray the horrors of the 18" rims, the 1998 change to grooved tires and 1800 mm track must have been monstrous, no?

[Jersey Tom]

Not saying it's an abomination.. just saying it's a big change that impacts a lot of people and is going to require significant R&D and on-track testing. It's a change without a pressing need (that's obvious to me anyway.. the tires aren't blowing up, and the cars handle just fine).

Cutting (or molding) grooves in a tread is one thing. Whether or not that was warranted or a wise choice is a separate point of debate. Completely changing a tire's structure, springrates, adding mass to the corners of the car.. that's a significant change. On a car that gets most of it's wheel rate from the tire and needs critical ride height control.. think of how significant a change just the tire springrate is.

[WhiteBlue]

Well, the proof will be in the pudding. If they stay with 13 inch wheels your points will be confirmed. If they move to 18 inches there are economic reasons to do so or they wouldn't do it. So we simply have to wait and see.

[aral]

The demand for 18" rims poses a lot of problems for the car designers. Currently, the tyres act as a springing medium, absorbing a lot of the shock loads on suspension.If low profile tyres are to be used, the stiffer sidewalls will transfer far more severe shocks into the suspension arms, etc.

The designers currently do not know which tyre is to be used, so cannot finalise suspension design for 2011. Further, larger rims will allow larger discs to be used, further shortening braking distances and loading the suspension even further.

As the effectiveness of the current discs is one of the reasons contributing to lack of overtaking, more effective brakes will aggravate the lack of overtaking. Maybe, if the larger rims are agreed, then disc size should be limited. Or maybe this would be an opportune time to return to steel discs.