F1technical.net

Of course exactly zero is impossible, zero plus minus a very tight tolerance margin.

IMO FIA would consider 0 static camber because of
* Increasing tire failures, ruining the reputation of Pirelli
* the sport can't be wasting tires on straights, when the real world calls for longer lasting road car tires as tires are a big pollution concern as 300 MILLION tires stockpile in landfills EVERY YEAR.
http://www.crawfordrenewableenergy.com/ ... ste-tires/

The teams would redesign suspension geometry with increased camber gain to get the same negative camber for the outside wheel.

The challenge would be avoiding positive camber for rear wheels during hard braking. Or front tires during hard acceleration.

just a question: Under which load should the camber be 0? I think the camber changes if the car is compressed.

It wouldn't be easy to control it

McMrocks wrote:just a question: Under which load should the camber be 0? I think the camber changes if the car is compressed.

It wouldn't be easy to control it

That's the big question.

FIA could mandate 0 camber with driver and full fuel load. Yet with downforce cars would still have negative camber on straights.
They could set a compromise and say something like 0 camber at 500kg load. They would need to specify how much of this load would be split among front rear axles.

IMO even a 0 degree camber regulation at curb weight would be nice.

Running zero camber will wear / kill the outside shoulder of the tires. Plus, yes, there's the point of camber gain with travel.. but suspension travel on these cars is relatively small.

Honestly I don't think there would be a gain to a camber rule like this.

g-force_addict wrote:Of course exactly zero is impossible, zero plus minus a very tight tolerance margin.

IMO FIA would consider 0 static camber because of
* Increasing tire failures, ruining the reputation of Pirelli
* the sport can't be wasting tires on straights, when the real world calls for longer lasting road car tires as tires are a big pollution concern as 300 MILLION tires stockpile in landfills EVERY YEAR.
http://www.crawfordrenewableenergy.com/ ... ste-tires/

The teams would redesign suspension geometry with increased camber gain to get the same negative camber for the outside wheel.

The challenge would be avoiding positive camber for rear wheels during hard braking. Or front tires during hard acceleration.

Debris, not camber, caused Lewis's tire failure.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/106928

So they are fighting the symptoms instead of the decease.

I was having a hard time trying to figure out what would cause such a knee jerk reaction about such a non issue. Now I got it. Hamilton's blown tyre. [-o<

g-force_addict wrote: * Increasing tire failures, ruining the reputation of Pirelli

Because just making better tires is a hard thing to do, pretty much proves that Pirelli is a crappy manufacturer

* the sport can't be wasting tires on straights, when the real world calls for longer lasting road car tires as tires are a big pollution concern as 300 MILLION tires stockpile in landfills EVERY YEAR.
http://www.crawfordrenewableenergy.com/ ... ste-tires/

Maybe Pirelli should make longer lasting tires then?

I think anyone's guess here is "why doesnt Pirelli then just make more durable tires?" and imo that is the most logical solution, so that just leads me to believe that Pirelli is unable to make a decent tire.

It may also be possible to build adaptive camber into the tire. Some time ago while messing around with suspension settings with a NASCAR team in a lesser series, it was surprising that tire temperature profiles showed little response to camber change. Best I can figure the tire had a stiff belt and rather flexible outer sidewall such that it kept he tread flat on the pavement. From what little that can now be seen on TV, present wear patterns don’t show such compliance.

This seems like an awfully lengthy way to work around a problem - you are introducing a rule which you admit will just make teams compensate by altering their suspension geometry to gain more camber under loading.

The whole point of camber is to make your tire wear evenly, when you set it up the general rule is to have a constant temperature across the width of your tyre and that is when the camber is right. Teams don't want to have their tyres fail, and McLaren and Ferrari both made miscalculations and pushed the tyres too long and so they failed, thats their mistake in leaving their cars out that long, or setting the wrong camber to improve the handling but worsen tyre degradation. I remember when HAM was told by the Bridgestone engineers to do an extra pit stop at Monza because of how he drove he car compared to everyone else (although that was to do with the tyre wall) - its up to the teams to make the tyres work. Don't introduce a rule that the teams will just try to work around for the sake of two tyre failures caused by team miscalculation.

g-force_addict wrote:IMO FIA would consider 0 static camber because of
* Increasing tire failures, ruining the reputation of Pirelli
* the sport can't be wasting tires on straights, when the real world calls for longer lasting road car tires as tires are a big pollution concern as 300 MILLION tires stockpile in landfills EVERY YEAR.

Wouldn't a more practical solution be to give the teams tires that are better built and last longer?

We had that a number of years ago. We even had tires that lasted an entire race - but a few teething problems led to the knee-jerk reaction of reverting the rule.

Zero camber sounds to me like a typical F1 solution to a self-inflicted problem.