F1technical.net

Will F1 lead the development of carbon nanotube tires?
Would these tires be extremely sticky and longlasting compared to regular f1 tires?

While carbon nanotubes may be harmful to humans, pretty much like asbestos, research shows this can be prevented by using short length nanotubes.

g-force_addict wrote:Will F1 lead the development ...

I don't think so, F1 will not lead any useful development anytime soon, especially not in tires.

There is no competition, why would some company want to invest money in development of new technologies?

I think one of the best best places where (more or less) relevant tire development is still done today is Le Mans.

Btw. have you some links to this nanotubes tires story?

Plus I personally doubt the FIA would allow it if the teams wanted it. They don't only attack downforce in the FIA...

What's a tire?

KeithYoung wrote:Plus I personally doubt the FIA would allow it if the teams wanted it. They don't only attack downforce in the FIA...

Keith, you may get a distorted view of the FiA policies if you judge them by the F1 rules. They do not have as much of a big influence as the name of the regulations seems to stipulate. F1 regulations are very much based on what the teams and the commercial rights holder bring into the rule making process in the F1 commission. The FiA has no right to initiate legislation unless it is safety related. Hence a huge chunk of the sometimes annoying rules come from the teams. I do not think that the FiA has an agenda in the type of material the tyre manufacturer uses. Thy would probably support any research that has road relevance because they have a strong mobility arm. This constituency is interested to see road relevant research being conducted in the F1 arena.

I may have said that slightly incorrectly. I was mostly trying to say that I doubt it will be allowed.

why do you think we will ever have or need carbon nanotube tires. They really haven't proven good for anything in the real world.

The thing is, with a single tyre supplier, there is no pressure on the tyre manufacturers to develop any new technologies. That is not a swipe against the single tyre supplier rule, its just the fact of the situation.

I don't know where our friend got this idea from (actually judging on all of his other similar topics I'm convinced he is under the influence of some kind of Hallucinogen) but any development like this would be the job of a university or similar research institute.

KeithYoung wrote:I may have said that slightly incorrectly. I was mostly trying to say that I doubt it will be allowed.

Ok, I understand. So what are the reasons for your pessimism? Let me have a guess! The niggling conservatism of the regulators when it comes to allow any freedom except the freedom to create new aero configurations where the teams can spend millions of $$$ to eek out a competitive advantage?

Well I think they do regulate wind tunnel time etc, but I'm not certain of that.

I am largely ignorant on the subject but from what I've seen the regulators try to make the cars slower.

What are they good for?
I hear these nanotubes technology quite often recently.
If it’s as harmful as asbestos is than is this technology already dead in my opinion.

KeithYoung wrote:Well I think they do regulate wind tunnel time etc, but I'm not certain of that.
I am largely ignorant on the subject but from what I've seen the regulators try to make the cars slower.

Wind tunnel time is regulated by the team's agreement in a half hearted attempt to control aerodynamic development cost. But is has never stopped any team to spend $50 - 100m in an attempt to out develop the others.

Of course you are correct that all regulators including the FiA must somehow balance the the natural progression of performance somehow. If they do not do that the circuit safety and car safety standards would have to be increased much more than they are intended to increase and beyond the economic power of the owners. So performance cuts will always happen.

With the 2014 formula F1 has introduced fuel mass flow limitation. This is the ideal instrument to balance the performance without intrusive measures to the engineering of the cars. I believe we will see a lot less conflicts over safety related performance cuts due to this paradigm shift.

On the topic of nano tubes in tyres I doubt very much that the teams or the FiA would have any care. The teams have to pay the supplier a fixed price whether the tyres have nano tubes or not. So I think it is entirely up to the supplier to make that decision.

mep wrote:What are they good for?
I hear these nanotubes technology quite often recently.
If it’s as harmful as asbestos is than is this technology already dead in my opinion.

Nanotubes have many uses. We recently came across the new enhanced Ultracapacitors that are based on vertically arranged nanotubes. The material is also used in plastics and paints. In most products it is going to be firmly contained inside a fixed matrix or housing so that none of the stuff will get easily released into the air. So we should not have too much to worry.

Asbestor has been used in applications were it could easily become airborne, which is very silly considering that people knew about the problems it created for a long time. There is also a difference in price. Nanotubes are prohibitively expensive compared to asbestos. So they will never be used as a building material or in road surface application.

In a tyre the tubes would be embedded in a chemically cross linked matrix from where they cannot be released in their original shape. You have to shred the tire to very fine dust to get to the structural level where the tubes are found. In that process the brittle tubes would be ground up and would loose the shape that is causing the toxic effect.

Wb your arguments for it come along too easy for me.
It is the same as people said asbestos is save, or nuclear power is save. There are still countries (Kanada) which don’t want to know anything about the danger of asbestos.
Yes these nanotubes might be save as long as they are in their matrix but what happens in case of an accident, or when there is a fire, or when a part has to be grinded, cutted, or during manufacturing in general, or recycling of used parts???
We should be very careful in the use of such materials. They should only be used for essential applications and only when no other alternative exists.
Definitely not in motorsports. I completely support when the FIA bans such materials.

I would not be surprised when it once comes out that the carbon dust generated in a crash is a health threat as well. It might be worth then considering a revival for aluminium or steel honeycomb crash structures.

mep wrote:Wb your arguments for it come along too easy for me.
It is the same as people said asbestos is save, or nuclear power is save. There are still countries (Kanada) which don’t want to know anything about the danger of asbestos.
Yes these nanotubes might be save as long as they are in their matrix but what happens in case of an accident, or when there is a fire, or when a part has to be grinded, cutted, or during manufacturing in general, or recycling of used parts???
We should be very careful in the use of such materials. They should only be used for essential applications and only when no other alternative exists.
Definitely not in motorsports. I completely support when the FIA bans such materials.

I would not be surprised when it once comes out that the carbon dust generated in a crash is a health threat as well.

I think it is not a well reasoned argument. The chemical industry is using megatons of poisonous agents year in year out and nobody required them to do anything but make sure the stuff does not get released. You do not accidentally drink rat poison, do you? And you would not ask the authorities to prohibit the use because there could be an accident if people use it foolishly. There is no comparison with asbestos as I have already pointed out and the comparison with nuclear waste is plain ridiculous.