F1technical.net

shelly wrote:Do you have a precise quote for the simulator having 60gb ram only? it seems very little

From page 91 of the 150 thread:

Javert wrote:In an interview to Italian newspaper Autosprint, according to Massa, Ferrari simulator "has only 60 mb ram", "can't simulate Pirelli degradation" and "not all races in the WC are inserted in it".

Massa adds "a solution that here has a 7 tenths gain, has a 2 tenths gain on the track" and "we can't fully simulate G-Forces, here there's much less effort".

I thought their simulation package was much better than McL's one, but I must amend me

Ferrari should really improve their simulator

(the issue was later decided that it should be 60GB and not MB

DaveW wrote:but accurate tyre models are required for it to be realistic.

Was thinking about how to test or validate a tire model. Or get data about tire consistency.

It seems like we can measure cornering force, temps, slip angles, etc., but how do we deal with the tracks surface condition? Seems like a chicken and egg situation. Are there ways to assess track surface conditions that can be related to the tire model?

Brian

Pirelli did exactly what was asked of them...and it sucks.
22,000 pounds of clag was cleaned up after some of the races...11 tons of rubber that came off the tires,,,ON PURPOSE, destroying the ability to go off line. I think it was and is just plain stupid. Between that and the DRS there has never been such contrived racing...if you can call it that.

The governing body has also altered the use of tyre allocations, with drivers now allowed to use all tyres from the start of practice. Previously, only three sets were permitted.

Allowing teams to mix & match tyres - a recognition of tyre inconsistency, perhaps.

I assume mix and match within a given compound?

Is this practical? How do you measure consistency? Can they afford the extra laps (heat cycles) to successfully match the tire sets?

Is this change really about tire inconsistency?

Brian

hardingfv32 wrote:Is this change really about tire inconsistency?

Brian

I could certainly see that being the case.

hardingfv32 wrote:I assume mix and match within a given compound?

Absolutely.

hardingfv32 wrote:Is this practical? How do you measure consistency? Can they afford the extra laps (heat cycles) to successfully match the tire sets?

Start by measuring properties at ambient?

hardingfv32 wrote:Is this change really about tire inconsistency?

Your thoughts?

DaveW wrote:
Start by measuring properties at ambient?

hardingfv32 wrote:Is this change really about tire inconsistency?

Your thoughts?

1) Like tire spring rates and durometer testing. What else?

2) I thought it might have something to do with more activity on Fridays, but had not really formulated anything. It would seem that inconsistent tires would be good for the show and that the FIA would not be interested in helping the teams solve a problem... if it does indeed exist.

Brian

I don't get mix and match out of this????????

Is there a device that can simulate what tires go through say for a lap? We know there are engine dyno's which do precisely this to an engine. Would a contraption that could in essence attempt to emulate what a car actually does on the road, be even economically let alone practically feasible?

godlameroso wrote:Is there a device that can simulate what tires go through say for a lap? We know there are engine dyno's which do precisely this to an engine. Would a contraption that could in essence attempt to emulate what a car actually does on the road, be even economically let alone practically feasible?

Now you have to make it portable so each team can have a tester at the track, as you don't get your tires mounted until the day before the event. What about the fly-a-ways?

Brian

F&M testing every tire? No. For too many reasons to list.

If you want to sort tires, a tape measure is one place to start.

DRCorsa wrote:

ubrben wrote:

DRCorsa wrote:Pirelli constructed a set of tyres according to FIA's requirements.
Pirelli would have been able to construct a super grippy tyre lasting more laps. But that wasn't what they had been asked to provide.

Rubbish - that's their level. Let's not confuse engineering with PR.

Ben

Pirelli's level is rubbish along with their 139 years of experience and history.
OK, i am not here to disagree with you, if only you provide some handy facts proving that Pirelli is unable to simulate and control the wear rate of their tyres.
I don't know if this is an anti-italian "extension" of the traditional anti-Ferrari theme, but let's not ignore some facts.

From Racecar Engineering magazine, February 2011:

"Our modelling is really very advanced. We have been developing it over the last 10 years, and now we are able to simulate a lot of tyre characterstics, the contact patch, the friction coefficient, the cornering forces, high-speed rigidity, rolling resistance and all of the items connected with fatigue in any part of the structure. We did a huge amount of this before building up a prototype tyre. It is very similar to what happens with simulation on a grand prix car where they model every charaqcteristic." Maurizio Bioiocchi, Pirelli's R&D director

"We were also asked that it perhaps not be as durable as the 2010 tyre after a car did nearly a full race distance without changing. I am guessing we will have a number of races where two changes will be required, as the wear rate has been engineered to be higher than 2010. The engineers are different though. They would like one set of tyres, then concentrate on the car, but the team principals think differently. It is a different design input. We could make them last the whole season, but we also want entertaining races!" Paul Hembery, Pirelli's motorsport director

I'm not anti-Italian at all. I love working with Ferrari (in GT) and have done successfully this year.

My best experience of Pirelli's level was the Spa LMS race last year. Racing Box ran two Lola LMP2 cars. A pro-driver car on sponsored Pirellis and a gentleman driver car running another tyre brand. The gents outqualified the pros. When the tyre life is a fixed demand - i.e. two fuel tank stints in LMP2 the grip level from Pirelli was not competitive.

I don't mean to devalue Pirelli. Developing tyres at this level is a challenging job, but as someone with some experience of the job I'd respectfully contend that most of what the Pirelli guys are quoting is PR guff that bears very little relation to what's actually going on. And I say that as someone who can spout PR guff with the best of them.

The (sad?) reality is that most quotes on technical topics vary between outright lies and manipulation on the part of the person being quoted.

Ben

Pirelli did their job EXTREMELY well in 2011.

Tires are the most advanced component in F1. They are also safety-critical components (unlike engines for example) which makes tire supply even more difficult.

There are probably around 6 or 8 companies in the world that could plausibly make usable F1 tires. In contrast, there are probably 100-200 companies in the world that can make engines that weigh 100 kg and put out 750 hp.

Ever notice that engines have a large cottage industry of component suppliers, designers, builders, and tuners? Ever notice there is no equivalent industry for tires? That's because tires are too difficult.

Pirelli succeeded with around a year for design/development/etc. In contrast, Mercedes is about to start running their 2014 engine on the dyno now. The conservatism and pace of engine development is quite slow compared to what Pirelli had to deal with.

There were a few blown engines during 2011. When this happened, people congratulated the engine companies for their overall reliability. Were there any Pirelli failures in 2011? The closest I can think of is Vettel's mystery rapid deflation in Abu Dhabi. And now we are debating whether Pirelli did their job well. Amazing.

Don't tell me the Pirelli tires had this and that problem with wear or handling. Those tires were perfectly drivable, reliable and safe.