Stupid question about F1 tires

[elp_jc]

The concensus is the lower the tire profile, the better handling, right? We all know F1 cars have the highest cornering ability of any car by far, right? So why do they wear such tall tires??? Couldn't find the full size designation anywhere, but they look like at least a 60 aspect ratio in the front and 50 in the rear. What's surprising is how little flex they show, even at cornering forces exceeding 3Gs. Just curious at the explanation.

And yes, I wonder why the wheels are not bigger with lower profile tires, which would allow bigger brakes/rotors while maintaining the same diameter. Most race (and performance) cars follow that formula, no?

[the///Mthree]

Formula 1 cars use the tires sidewall as suspension. Street cars have such soft suspension that you want a harder(shorter) sidewall.

[elp_jc]

Originally Posted by the///Mthree

Formula 1 cars use the tires sidewall as suspension. Street cars have such soft suspension that you want a harder(shorter) sidewall.

But they have suspension at all 4 corners, no? Yeah, those huge sidewalls sure help to absorb road bumps, but a suspension can definitely do a better job, correct? Couldn't the reason be to limit performance, much the same way as the 18K rpm cap? Functionally, it just doesn't make sense to me. And thanks a lot for your reply .

[URBAN LEGEND]

OK from an F1 junkie here. Current F1 tires are that size not for performance but because thats what the sporting regs dictate. FIA does not want these cars getting any faster. However they might go to 18 inchers in the not so distant future.

[O-cha]

Originally Posted by elp_jc

The concensus is the lower the tire profile, the better handling, right? We all know F1 cars have the highest cornering ability of any car by far, right? So why do they wear such tall tires??? Couldn't find the full size designation anywhere, but they look like at least a 60 aspect ratio in the front and 50 in the rear. What's surprising is how little flex they show, even at cornering forces exceeding 3Gs. Just curious at the explanation.

And yes, I wonder why the wheels are not bigger with lower profile tires, which would allow bigger brakes/rotors while maintaining the same diameter. Most race (and performance) cars follow that formula, no?

You don't want to fit bigger stuff on an f1 car, they fit the smallest everything possible, their clutches will literally fit in the palm of your hand.

[rzm3]

Overall weight, unsprung mass, rotational mass are also considerations. Rubber is obviously lighter than aluminium alloy (or whatever exotic material F1 wheels are made of).

[scrufy]

Originally Posted by rldzhao

Rubber is obviously lighter than aluminium alloy (or whatever exotic material F1 wheels are made of).

I'm not so sure about that. They have some pretty light unobtanium alloys nowadays.

[elp_jc]

Thanks for all the great answers folks . I don't know why the hell they just don't impose a restriction on engiine size, materials, and rpm to control expense, like it's in effect now, plus some other worthy restrictions, but why the hell not let the teams loose on the rest? Letting just one damn tire manufacturer is absolute crap IMO. And dictate how the tires need to be made even worse. But at least I understand those tires better. Thanks again folks.

Hey, does anybody know the full F1 tire sizes (front and rear)? I'm talking about 275/65/17F, 325/55/17R, or whatever they are. And if you know how much they cost, it'd be great info too . Thanks again.

[O-cha]

Originally Posted by elp_jc

Letting just one damn tire manufacturer is absolute crap IMO.

No it's not the cost to develope the tires is huge, it's not like the companies are chomping at the bit to supply them. Additionally when there were multiple manufacturers a lot of times one would have the advantage, and teams didnt swich back and forth AND the manufacturer would provide data to their favorite teams a lot to help them.

[E90SLAM]

Originally Posted by elp_jc

Thanks for all the great answers folks . I don't know why the hell they just don't impose a restriction on engiine size, materials, and rpm to control expense, like it's in effect now, plus some other worthy restrictions, but why the hell not let the teams loose on the rest? Letting just one damn tire manufacturer is absolute crap IMO. And dictate how the tires need to be made even worse. But at least I understand those tires better. Thanks again folks.

Hey, does anybody know the full F1 tire sizes (front and rear)? I'm talking about 275/65/17F, 325/55/17R, or whatever they are. And if you know how much they cost, it'd be great info too . Thanks again.

All I remember F1 rims are 13"...talking about small size...

[1BMW4fun]

F1 wheels are 13in. Also about the brakes, due to the material they used, it must be at a certain temp (up to a thousan degrees) for them to work like them suppose to, so bigger rotors would cool them down too fast and not able to maintain that temp.

[ptack]

Originally Posted by scrufy

I'm not so sure about that. They have some pretty light unobtanium alloys nowadays.

It's still true for normal cars that more tire sidewall is less mass, but I agree that it's probably no longer the case at this level. There are a few wheel makers offering expensive CF wheels for those willing to pay so I can imagine that it will only be a matter of time before you see something similar in F1 - as soon as they prove to be reliable.

[UltimateBMW]

Originally Posted by ptack

It's still true for normal cars that more tire sidewall is less mass, but I agree that it's probably no longer the case at this level. There are a few wheel makers offering expensive CF wheels for those willing to pay so I can imagine that it will only be a matter of time before you see something similar in F1 - as soon as they prove to be reliable.

CF wheels are banned. Most cars currently are using a Magnesium alloy in their wheels.

Magnesium is as light as alum wheels but as strong as steel.

[topcat87]

Originally Posted by elp_jc

The concensus is the lower the tire profile, the better handling, right? We all know F1 cars have the highest cornering ability of any car by far, right? So why do they wear such tall tires??? Couldn't find the full size designation anywhere, but they look like at least a 60 aspect ratio in the front and 50 in the rear. What's surprising is how little flex they show, even at cornering forces exceeding 3Gs. Just curious at the explanation.

And yes, I wonder why the wheels are not bigger with lower profile tires, which would allow bigger brakes/rotors while maintaining the same diameter. Most race (and performance) cars follow that formula, no?

errrrr NO.

theres a few episodes on best motoring or top gear australia u should check it out. there should b a balance as everything. A little bit of sidewall give more flex and grip

[elp_jc]

Originally Posted by 1BMW4fun

it must be at a certain temp (up to a thousan degrees) for them to work like them suppose to, so bigger rotors would cool them down too fast and not able to maintain that temp.

You just fit smaller cooling ducts . Bigger brakes are always going to be better for racing, and possibly without having to use exotic materials. Isn't one of the goals of F1 to make the sport less expensive???

Originally Posted by topcat87

there should b a balance as everything. A little bit of sidewall give more flex and grip

Of course; you're not going to be riding on wheels. We're talking tire sizes fitted to top sports cars, which depending on width, use from 25 to 35 aspect ratio. The Veyron can reach 250 mph, and a few others can also reach 210/215 mph or so, which is the top speed seen on F1 cars (and only on Monza. The only other track that reaches 200 is Spa; all others are below), so tire technology is already there. Those cars don't see G-forces F1 cars see, but I wonder if those tires could take them . And if F1 cars could use current tire/wheel technology, it'd further reduce costs. Just thinking out loud folks .

[escobar929]

Originally Posted by elp_jc

You just fit smaller cooling ducts . Bigger brakes are always going to be better for racing, and possibly without having to use exotic materials. Isn't one of the goals of F1 to make the sport less expensive???


Of course; you're not going to be riding on wheels. We're talking tire sizes fitted to top sports cars, which depending on width, use from 25 to 35 aspect ratio. The Veyron can reach 250 mph, and a few others can also reach 210/215 mph or so, which is the top speed seen on F1 cars (and only on Monza. The only other track that reaches 200 is Spa; all others are below), so tire technology is already there. Those cars don't see G-forces F1 cars see, but I wonder if those tires could take them . And if F1 cars could use current tire/wheel technology, it'd further reduce costs. Just thinking out loud folks .

since when? teams blow money like its going out of style

[E90SLAM]

Originally Posted by escobar929

since when? teams blow money like its going out of style

Since budget cap? and FIA/FOM has been passing more regulation to restrict the development of new parts?

Engine design freeze, shared cockpit (or whatever they called), new aero regulations, engine useage, tire ration (only a certain sets of tires can be used).

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by E90SLAM

shared cockpit

oh the mental picture...

[E90SLAM]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

oh the mental picture...

ohhh....a bunch of mechanics in a pit sharing a C*ck....



i was gonna say shared "Monocoque"....i know it won't pronounce right anywayz...

I believe FIA provides or have strict restriction of the F1 cars especially around teh Monocoque....that's why you see USF1 have the Monocoque sitting on the table but just no chassis or suspension or watever build around it....