A case to go back to smaller wheels and tyres

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

If we look back 12 years, the following was being discussed in this forum:

'18" is being pushed by Michelin, as it would bring it in line with the sports car tyres that they produce. saves setting up a new production line I suppose. Personally I think it would look hideous.'

So the argument has been pushed for over 12 years now, but as much as posters hear might be convinced, it is not here that opinions need to be changed (hence my reference).

Pirelli and Michelin both say that 18" works for them when it comes to the production benefits - that is where the convincing needs to be done. And as much as we like to criticise, Pirelli and Michelin know a bit more than most posters about making tyres for motorsport.....

Now we're getting somewhere. Yes, I can see the argument for benefits in production with synergy with other classes. If you then consider the goals for the 2026 regulation, it then comes down to; does the cost saving in production for the tire manufacturer way up to the draw backs this large a tyre has especially in relation to the 2026 targets?


We'll see how F1 will answer this question in the coming months/years.



Alternatively one could also seek more synergy between the open wheel classes, which would technically make more sense. So instead seek conversion between F1/F2 and and Indycar and/or Super Formula for instance.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Seriously?

I know I can be pedantic at times, but this is a bit over the top. No, I was not a fly on the wall. How about I tweak my comment... "It was never stated to be a goal publicly". No doubt various aspects were discussed.

It's not an attack on you, I'm just pointing out that in the real world what is said publicly and behind doors are two different things.

- Shell puts out nice TV adds how green and progressive they are, but just couldn't resist that extra little discount they got on that Russian oil to help Putins war chest.

- There were never any parties at Downing street until there were.

- No politician ever goes to work for a company he has made policy for right?

Let's not pretend to we are more naive about this then we are. For Pirelli F1 is both a R&D investment as well as an marketing effort. The lower side wall helps on the R&D usefulness and the wheel size helps their market.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Why did I ever step back into this pointless thread.



Richard

Well the wheel size instead of side wall height argument does not make any technical sense and across 9 pages no technically sound argument has been made why wheel size rather than side wall height would have any positive influence on technology transfer from F1 to either other motorsport classes or the road. If you or crmalcolm don't want the thread to go in circles than better make an effort to address that point.

I'm not forcing anyone to participate in the thread.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Well the wheel size instead of side wall height argument does not make any technical sense and across 9 pages no technically sound argument has been made why wheel size rather than side wall height would have any positive influence on technology transfer from F1 to either other motorsport classes or the road. If you or crmalcolm don't want the thread to go in circles than better make an effort to address that point.

Or is it more: "Well the wheel size instead of side wall height argument does not make any technical sense to me and across 9 pages no technically sound argument that I agree with has been made why wheel size rather than side wall height would have any positive influence on technology transfer from F1 to either other motorsport classes or the road. If you or crmalcolm don't want the thread to go in circles then I need to recognise that valid counter arguments have already been made to the case I put forward." ?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

It's not an attack on you, I'm just pointing out that in the real world what is said publicly and behind doors are two different things.

I understand your point. My point is that I don't think every post needs to be qualified with an asterisk that explains it's just an opinion, etc. I think it was an extreme stretch to take my comment to mean that I was a participant in the "internal" discussion. So it came across a bit of "attacking me" vs. "attacking my post". And doing so via a pedantic point that didn't refute or respond to the point of my post.

Yes, occasionally people will make extraordinary claims and effectively say or infer they are "an insider". I think they do owe everyone some type of proof of who they are to back up their claims. But I have never gone down that path. I am not an insider. I am just a fan who I think is generally well read on some technical topics and have an engineering background. I also will say I am a very poor historian, which is why you never see me jumping into conversations about the specifics of some race decades ago, etc.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I'm not forcing anyone to participate in the thread.

You are correct. Nobody is forcing me. I just keep getting sucked back in as I need to learn its not my job to respond to comments that I feel are provably wrong based upon public information. So I am stepping back out unless there is some new information vs. rehash of whatever has already been discussed ad-nauseam for pages. That is not a comment against the topic which is fine and has been discussed. But at this point it just goes round and round with the same points being made and discussed. Look at V8 Fireworks post above about 15" wheels (to illustrate that the 11th commandment wasn't that F1 would always have 13" wheels). He made the same (good) point on page five. Maybe he will again in a handful of pages. I don't fault him as he is doing the same thing I am doing. I just need to step off the merry go round as I am getting dizzy.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Well the wheel size instead of side wall height argument does not make any technical sense and across 9 pages no technically sound argument has been made why wheel size rather than side wall height would have any positive influence on technology transfer from F1 to either other motorsport classes or the road. If you or crmalcolm don't want the thread to go in circles than better make an effort to address that point.

Sorry. I missed this challenge to contribute.

So you say that you are looking for evidence that the tire change decision was made based upon the 18" tire being an "improved" or "better" technical solution that will act as a way for F1 to influence or transfer technology down to road cars (road relevancy).

My opinion is that you will not find any. And it is a bad assumption that F1 technical decisions are predominantly (or even significantly) driven by "improved technology". I would argue that F1 technical decisions (particularly the big ones) are predominantly drive by commercial reasons. Thing such as "How do we improve the racing?", "How do we attract new manufactures?", "How can we control costs?", or in the case of tires "How do we attract more potential suppliers?" (not the only factor, but a big one) It has been stated many many times that while the cars are works of art from a mechanical design and construction perspective and will use many modern techniques in their design and construction (CFD, additive manufacturing) and will sometimes also bring forward new innovations (new coatings for internal components, high efficiency power units) that they are in general, far away from "state of the art". If driven by "technical improvements", the cars could be so much faster and would look very different. Just look at how the regulations if anything are about banning innovation and creating a tighter box vs. the opposite. F1 gives small areas for creativity, but you very much must color within the lines and you are only given a few crayons to color with. Where is the active aero, active suspension, etc.?

This thread is putting forth arguments for smaller wheels and tires. I think you have argued for both smaller diameter and also narrower width. I think the arguments can hold merit in specific, but generally very narrow uses cases. And also in some ways can be viewed as just as arbitrary as 18" vs 13" wheels. I would say that many who support the 13" wheels do so just because they like the look and continuity from the past and not for technical reasons! That in total, the arguments are not compelling enough to change anything. Again, my opinion.

My personal opinion is that we are only a handful of races into these new regulations. And while there was some initial concerns by various people (including drivers) around the new tires, generally they have not been a problem. F1 from a technical perspective (again my opinion) is trying to solve specific problems and with the new 2022 regulations are interested now in refinement vs. any new major leaps. So I can imagine that 2026 is mostly going to be a evolution of 2022 regulations and not another revolution. This is on the assumption that the new ground effect aero concept continues to work and that teams get a handle on how to make them work. The current instability (such as Mercedes struggles) should not be unexpected at all. It was extensively talked about going into the season that someone was going to get it wrong. It was just unexpected that it would be Mercedes. But some teams are making it work. So if some can make it work, others will solve their problems.

Back to tires and 2026. Assuming things continue to be OK, I see nearly zero chance that anything significant will change. If anything does change, I can imagine maybe width tweaks, but that would be it. I would be absolutely shocked if they moved away from 18" wheels in 2026. But again, we are only a handful of races into a new spec.

Richard

[S griffin]

I think the move to 18 inch hasn't been a bad one, it doesn't affect things too much. I haven't seen too many benefits, but we haven't seen any negatives really. So it can stay

So far the rules this year have worked quite well, hope 2026 rules don't take a step in the wrong direction, especially after this year. I expect teams will get on top of things as the season goes on.

I'll wait to see what 2026 brings.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I understand your point. My point is that I don't think every post needs to be qualified with an asterisk that explains it's just an opinion, etc. I think it was an extreme stretch to take my comment to mean that I was a participant in the "internal" discussion. So it came across a bit of "attacking me" vs. "attacking my post". And doing so via a pedantic point that didn't refute or respond to the point of my post.

Yes, occasionally people will make extraordinary claims and effectively say or infer they are "an insider". I think they do owe everyone some type of proof of who they are to back up their claims. But I have never gone down that path. I am not an insider. I am just a fan who I think is generally well read on some technical topics and have an engineering background. I also will say I am a very poor historian, which is why you never see me jumping into conversations about the specifics of some race decades ago, etc.


You are correct. Nobody is forcing me. I just keep getting sucked back in as I need to learn its not my job to respond to comments that I feel are provably wrong based upon public information. So I am stepping back out unless there is some new information vs. rehash of whatever has already been discussed ad-nauseam for pages. That is not a comment against the topic which is fine and has been discussed. But at this point it just goes round and round with the same points being made and discussed. Look at V8 Fireworks post above about 15" wheels (to illustrate that the 11th commandment wasn't that F1 would always have 13" wheels). He made the same (good) point on page five. Maybe he will again in a handful of pages. I don't fault him as he is doing the same thing I am doing. I just need to step off the merry go round as I am getting dizzy.

Richard

Like many of the threads on Ten Tenths this is another one where I act as an interested spectator without adding my own contributions. I gain interesting knowledge by doing so and am often amused/entertained by the way that differing views are exchanged. Sometimes however I find the exchanging of different views less entertaining (to say the least) but I must say that I think that in the post above you have xplained your position and reasoning in a very clear and non-confontational way, which I applaud
(I must now also add that this doesn't mean that I think that everyone else who has explained their position in this thead has been confrontational!)

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I must say that I think that in the post above you have xplained your position and reasoning in a very clear and non-confontational way, which I applaud

Thanks.

And apologies to Taxi645 or anyone else who may be on the receiving end of some of my "forceful" posts. I strive to be non-confrontational, but I also can be passionate about topics and sometimes I feel I come across too strong in retrospect. I do mean the best and try to be civil.

Richard

[Sodemo]

Its odd in an world where the environment is at the forefront of automotive decisions, they should decide to make the tyres larger and heavier, thus using more fuel to push them around the track.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Its odd in an world where the environment is at the forefront of automotive decisions, they should decide to make the tyres larger and heavier, thus using more fuel to push them around the track.

The "environmentally friendly" Porsche Taycan Turbo S EV weighs 2295kg and comes with 21" wheels.

While "eco" should mean the below, a nice sensible ultra-aerodynamic three wheeler EV on skinny fully-faired tyres, the below just doesn't seem to be what people want.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Sorry. I missed this challenge to contribute.

So you say that you are looking for evidence that the tire change decision was made based upon the 18" tire being an "improved" or "better" technical solution that will act as a way for F1 to influence or transfer technology down to road cars (road relevancy).

Sort of. I'm saying I think the side wall height for technology synergy/transfer is much more relevant than the wheel size. I think the idea to go to 18" initially had merit, but ended up (after discussions with the teams) with such a large diameter than it's just too big for open wheel class racing.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

My opinion is that you will not find any. And it is a bad assumption that F1 technical decisions are predominantly (or even significantly) driven by "improved technology". I would argue that F1 technical decisions (particularly the big ones) are predominantly drive by commercial reasons. Thing such as "How do we improve the racing?", "How do we attract new manufactures?", "How can we control costs?", or in the case of tires "How do we attract more potential suppliers?" (not the only factor, but a big one) It has been stated many many times that while the cars are works of art from a mechanical design and construction perspective and will use many modern techniques in their design and construction (CFD, additive manufacturing) and will sometimes also bring forward new innovations (new coatings for internal components, high efficiency power units) that they are in general, far away from "state of the art". If driven by "technical improvements", the cars could be so much faster and would look very different. Just look at how the regulations if anything are about banning innovation and creating a tighter box vs. the opposite. F1 gives small areas for creativity, but you very much must color within the lines and you are only given a few crayons to color with. Where is the active aero, active suspension, etc.?

Agree, a lot of stuff was and (sometimes still is) is not always done because it makes technical sense. That's why I like the decision making since Ross Brawn is at the helm. First logical, worthwhile keenly chosen targets are set. Then with analytic method tech regulations are drawn up to achieve those goals. Just the tire dimensions to me seem not to follow that same logic.



This is so much better than how it happened with Berny where those who played it smartest got there way and I made a right mess of the regulations and the racing.

This thread is putting forth arguments for smaller wheels and tires. I think you have argued for both smaller diameter and also narrower width. I think the arguments can hold merit in specific, but generally very narrow uses cases. And also in some ways can be viewed as just as arbitrary as 18" vs 13" wheels. I would say that many who support the 13" wheels do so just because they like the look and continuity from the past and not for technical reasons! That in total, the arguments are not compelling enough to change anything. Again, my opinion.

Well I've stated a few times I'm not arguing to go back to 13''. V8 Fireworks has explained how 13'' came about in the past (by regulations). These regulations have been caught up by time. I think there were sound reasons to have moved away from the 13'' wheels with balloon tires. It's just that what they've eventually gone for is just much too big, heavy and draggy for open wheel class racing.

My personal opinion is that we are only a handful of races into these new regulations. And while there was some initial concerns by various people (including drivers) around the new tires, generally they have not been a problem.

They are a problem because they contribute to the increased mass issue drivers are increasingly complaining about over the last few seasons. As said unsprung rotational mass is the worst you can have.

Back to tires and 2026. Assuming things continue to be OK, I see nearly zero chance that anything significant will change. If anything does change, I can imagine maybe width tweaks, but that would be it. I would be absolutely shocked if they moved away from 18" wheels in 2026. But again, we are only a handful of races into a new spec


Richard

I feel, (even more so after F1 shared there goals for the 2026 regulations) that the only way F1 would retain 18'' for 2026 is if the side wall is further reduced or if wheel fairings are introduced. The first would first have to go passed the teams and the latter would make F1 look a lot like prototypes and less like open wheel racing. We will see.

Based on the way things are done since Ross Brawn is in charge, based on scientific method and the 2026 goals communicated, to me it is much more likely we go to smaller wheels and tires again (just not 13'' small).





Earlier up thread we were discussing wheelbase. Pat Symonds of F1 has since indicated to Auto-motor-und-sport that they are indeed targeting 3.300mm for the wheel base. That's quite a big reduction over the 3.600mm we have now. Cars so much smaller (length and width) would just look very weird with the tires we have now.

Anyways, here are some calculations of the 3 most recent tire dimensions we've had and 3 options for the future:



P.S. Also apologies for being a bit over confrontational at times. Working on it...

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

If this "problem" (and I view the problem as "inability to race at all in heavy rain") was to become more frequent then maybe options should be examined. But right now, this is the very definition of a "corner case". This stuff is pretty rare. There are any number of other potential issues that might cause problems. It makes little or no sense to try to prevent relatively rare situations that don't have significant lasting impact. Especially if the solutions are baggage (physical and financial) that have to be carried all of the time (wet, dry or otherwise)

I believe the cost to solve these problems is not worth the benefit. I am very curious about your thoughts on this being a corner case and why you think it needs to be solved?

Richard

Well, we have had some more races now.


Let's take the last two:

- Singapore:
They postponed the race a whole hour so they could skip the full wets. That made the race less interesting because by allowing the track to become dry enough for inters, the racing line became dry much sooner obviously and overtaking off line was close to impossible.

- Japan:
The problem with spray/visibility from the combination of the wide tires and the ground effect was so severe that they could not even safely race from a standing start on inters. Let alone wets.

Now we know Pirelli's wets aren't as good as their inters, however I think it's hard to reason there is not a problem if inters or wets have plenty of grip and there is no problem with aquaplaning, but the drivers indicate the main problem is the visibility because of the spray. If you can't even start the race on inters because these wide tires cast up too much water and we are faced with delayed races, laps behind the safety car, inability to start on full wets and being deprived of more laps in wet conditions (which I and I suppose many find the most interesting), I don't think you can reasonably argue it's only a corner case problem any more and it's actually a systematic problem caused by the combination of the width of the tires and the ground effect of the current regulations.

[bathurst77]

I want 70s stylewheels, huge rear wheel and smaller fronts, and while they are at it full side skirts, and gloss black jps/essex livery..
and..well dammit I just want 20+ of...

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I don't think you can reasonably argue it's only a corner case problem any more and it's actually a systematic problem caused by the combination of the width of the tires and the ground effect of the current regulations.

So we can either look at just this year or look at a full 12 months. If only 18 races, that is 11%. For a full 12 months, that is 26 races and 8%. I suspect if you took an even larger sample size, it (significant rain events/season) might shrink a bit more.

So you want to...

1. Make the tires narrow
2. Do something (?) with the ground effects

So to help improve (not eliminate) roughly less than 10% of the races, we should degrade the remaining 90+% of the races? I think most would agree that the ground effects solution is helping racing. But lets say we go back to larger front/rear wings. They are still going to throw spray up. Maybe not as much, but I think we can find photos from prior aero generation with significant amount of spray in rain races.

We all have driven road cars in traffic at lets say 100 kph and due to the spray it has VERY hard to see and drive. That is with VERY narrow tires and at low speed. So even with narrow tires, spray will continue to be a problem. Factor in ANY reasonable F1 aero solution plus race speed and it would continue to be bad. Maybe a bit less than now, but still bad enough to cause the problems you call out.

In my opinion, you proposal continues to be a solution that would not work well enough (reduces not solves), would degrade dry performance (not inline with F1 goals) and I think with your numbers it remains a rare problem (I personally would still say "niche" or "edge case" but those are subjective thresholds)

There is the question of why not race in conditions like this? They could and probably have in the past. I think F1 remains very sensitive in a post Bianchi world to race in significantly wet conditions. So they are VERY hesitant to let them race (heavy equipment incorrectly on the Suzuka circuit this weekend probably reinforces this). Also given the propensity for damage and the cost caps, I suspect most teams also probably don't want to race in poor conditions. Maybe in the future they might loosen it up a bit and let them race in challenging conditions. But there will always be situation (regardless of how conservative your technical regulations) in which it is probably just too bad to let them race on the circuit. That number will never get to zero.

Richard

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

So we can either look at just this year or look at a full 12 months. If only 18 races, that is 11%. For a full 12 months, that is 26 races and 8%. I suspect if you took an even larger sample size, it (significant rain events/season) might shrink a bit more.

So you want to...

1. Make the tires narrow
2. Do something (?) with the ground effects

So to help improve (not eliminate) roughly less than 10% of the races, we should degrade the remaining 90+% of the races? I think most would agree that the ground effects solution is helping racing. But lets say we go back to larger front/rear wings. They are still going to throw spray up. Maybe not as much, but I think we can find photos from prior aero generation with significant amount of spray in rain races.

We all have driven road cars in traffic at lets say 100 kph and due to the spray it has VERY hard to see and drive. That is with VERY narrow tires and at low speed. So even with narrow tires, spray will continue to be a problem. Factor in ANY reasonable F1 aero solution plus race speed and it would continue to be bad. Maybe a bit less than now, but still bad enough to cause the problems you call out.

In my opinion, you proposal continues to be a solution that would not work well enough (reduces not solves), would degrade dry performance (not inline with F1 goals) and I think with your numbers it remains a rare problem (I personally would still say "niche" or "edge case" but those are subjective thresholds)


There is a bit of a pattern emerging. You take one thing out of a whole list of reasons why I reckon something is not a good idea and go on a complete tangent about it, pretending that one thing out of the whole list is the single reason why I'm arguing against something. In this case even stating things I never said (2. do something about ground effect) the complete opposite of my (stated) opinion. I'm sorry but that won't lead to a meaningful discussion.

You wanted to know my thoughts about it being a corner case, I made an argument, after having given it more time and races, that it is not and furthermore it detracts from the most interesting races, namely wet races (even if they are rare). Meaning that it detracts more from a season that just the percentage of races because it compromises potentially the most exiting ones.

There is the question of why not race in conditions like this? They could and probably have in the past. I think F1 remains very sensitive in a post Bianchi world to race in significantly wet conditions. So they are VERY hesitant to let them race (heavy equipment incorrectly on the Suzuka circuit this weekend probably reinforces this). Also given the propensity for damage and the cost caps, I suspect most teams also probably don't want to race in poor conditions. Maybe in the future they might loosen it up a bit and let them race in challenging conditions. But there will always be situation (regardless of how conservative your technical regulations) in which it is probably just too bad to let them race on the circuit. That number will never get to zero.

Richard

Personally I suspect today it's more of a problem because today's intricate aero design energizes the air around and beneath the car more to a highly turbulent mess which is then intermixed with more water from these wider tires to form a mist with finer droplets and than sucked into the air more strongly by the ground effect and the diffuser and rear wing.


This finer mist opposed to just spray stays suspended in the air longer leading to worse visibility. This last bit is just my gut feeling which is not backed up by facts.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

You wanted to know my thoughts about it being a corner case, I made an argument, after having given it more time and races, that it is not and furthermore it detracts from the most interesting races, namely wet races (even if they are rare). Meaning that it detracts more from a season that just the percentage of races because it compromises potentially the most exiting ones.

We will just have to disagree on this point.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Personally I suspect today it's more of a problem because today's intricate aero design energizes the air around and beneath the car more to a highly turbulent mess which is then intermixed with more water from these wider tires to form a mist with finer droplets and than sucked into the air more strongly by the ground effect and the diffuser and rear wing.


This finer mist opposed to just spray stays suspended in the air longer leading to worse visibility. This last bit is just my gut feeling which is not backed up by facts.

Maybe it is worse? You are stating a problem or a cause to a problem. What is your proposal to address the aero aspect? We know what it looks like with the current and prior aero concepts (Lots of spray for both). What is your third option? While I think you can make tweaks to either of those, I don't think it will change things much with respect to spray. The only other options are enclosed bodywork with regulation based methods to capture or reduce spray (convert F1 into prototype cars) or remove the aero (convert F1 into powerful Formula Ford cars). You might get some fan traction here with that last option. But there is zero chance of it happening. And in the end, it is the tires that contribute the most and again, in my opinion zero chance of that changing for the reasons you have stated.

Overall, I would like to see others (here or elsewhere) to champion this idea. And I don't see that. Because if it is just the two of us talking (you for it, me very much against it), I don't see the conversation progressing. It's just the same for/against arguments.

I do respect your opinion even if I don't agree with it.

Richard

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

We will just have to disagree on this point.

Maybe it is worse? You are stating a problem or a cause to a problem. What is your proposal to address the aero aspect?

None, for this thread anyways. The purpose of this thread is to make a case for smaller, narrower and lighter wheel and tires combo’s and the reasons why (wet race visibility being one of them). The purpose of this thread is not to try to solve the visibility problem in wet races.
I will say though that would be an interesting subject for another thread. A separate narrower wheel and tyre for the wet would both spray less water into the air and keep the spray further away from the suction and turbulence underfloor and diffuser. I can’t imagine that being a suitable solution though because of:
- Brake system integration
- Aero interaction problems
- Logistics

Overall, I would like to see others (here or elsewhere) to champion this idea. And I don't see that. Because if it is just the two of us talking (you for it, me very much against it), I don't see the conversation progressing. It's just the same for/against arguments.

For me that is okay. I have tried to make a sound argument why I think this would be the better direction without any agenda rather than trying to bring F1 forward. That’s all I can do.

From the FIA’s side:
They have just made the switch to 18”. Starting to discuss smaller wheels again so shortly after the switch would give the impression of mismanagement, waste of resources and loss of face. It’s more likely that in say 1.5 years, in light of their stated goal to make the car smaller and lighter again they will say something in line of: “The switch to 18’’ wheels and tires at the time was done based on sound reasons. For 2025/2026 however our main focus is even stronger on lighter cars with a smaller environmental footprint. With these lighter smaller car, it is only logical to go with smaller, lighter and more efficient wheels as well to improve both the racing and our footprint”.
Something along those lines. For the FIA there is no incentive to discuss smaller wheels and tires any earlier than they need to because it will cause them to loose face right after the switch to 18’’.

From the press side:
- I think most journo’s lack the inside technical analytical ability.
- Journalist generally are critical (one hopes) followers, they are not the ones in organisations and businesses making things happen.
- Reputation (journalists have a reputation to look after. Why stick your neck out if you can also safely explain how everything came about after it already happened?). ?
- Clickbait: If a journo who does know what he is talking about like Gary Anderson takes the initiative to post an article about this without it being a hot topic because the FIA hasn’t started putting it on the agenda then it will receive a certain amount of clicks. If however the FIA did put it on the agenda that same article would get say 10x as many clicks. So if you look at it from a (press) business point of view, the ratio between time spend and clicks received is better when it is already a subject of debate because somebody from inside F1 has put it on the agenda.

Discussing Max vs. Leclerc, Max vs. Lewis, Horner vs Wolff, budget cap drama that you can earn clicks with any day. It’s the same for political press, the juicy personal stuff always get’s everyone’s pulse going. Boring policy matters, not so much.


BTW, Max and Charles don’t consider it corner cases:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/v...elli/10382680/

He has even volunteered to help Pirelli with the wet races situation.

And another article on the F1 wet weather problems (for those who have a prime account):

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/h...tion/10383229/

I do respect your opinion even if I don't agree with it. [IMG]file:///C:/Users/cspro/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

BTW, Max and Charles don’t consider it corner cases:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/v...elli/10382680/

He has even volunteered to help Pirelli with the wet races situation.

I think Max was offering to help improve the performance of the full wet as it's performance was not good given the performance of the intermediates.

But in that article Charles did call out the spray.

Ferrari's Charles Leclerc believed one important aspect that needs looking at is the amount of water thrown up by the current tyres, as that makes it hard for drivers to see through the spray.

"I think a big problem of these cars is just the visibility," he said. "So whatever we can do to try and improve the visibility and minimise the spray, especially behind the cars, this will be hugely beneficial.

"I believe that sometimes we can actually run for the conditions of the track but just because of the visibility, because it's so dangerous being behind and you don't see anything, that we end up not running at all.

"We should try and find a solution, for some reason, to try and minimise the spray."

The spray is a problem. But it has been around forever. I am not against a solution, I just don't agree with the solutions in this thread. I really don't think there IS a solution that does not conflict with other requirements already talked about in this thread.

I did see this on reddit and I immediately thought of this thread and it made me smile.



Richard

[chillibowl]

a silly question perhaps, but if you reduce the amount of spray are you not you also reducing the amount of water these cars are capable of clearing off the racing line?

perhaps better visibility (from less spray) but over a longer period of time is the better option...i dont know but it seems that with respect to different tire sizes one problem is potentially being traded for a different one?

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think Max was offering to help improve the performance of the full wet as it's performance was not good given the performance of the intermediates.

But in that article Charles did call out the spray.


The spray is a problem. But it has been around forever. I am not against a solution, I just don't agree with the solutions in this thread. I really don't think there IS a solution that does not conflict with other requirements already talked about in this thread.

I did see this on reddit and I immediately thought of this thread and it made me smile.



Richard

That nice of you to add the quote from Leclerc. Indeed, let's just agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

a silly question perhaps, but if you reduce the amount of spray are you not you also reducing the amount of water these cars are capable of clearing off the racing line?

perhaps better visibility (from less spray) but over a longer period of time is the better option...i dont know but it seems that with respect to different tire sizes one problem is potentially being traded for a different one?

Yes, I think that is true, it would take longer to dry the track, but you start racing sooner because the car were better suited to race in very wet condition. I will post further on the wet weather subject in the future rule changes thread.

[S griffin]

I do think it's a bit silly that at Suzuka they didn't restart until it was basically time for inters. I mean what's the point of full wets if you're going to do that? Maybe Pirelli need to up their game in that regard

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I do think it's a bit silly that at Suzuka they didn't restart until it was basically time for inters. I mean what's the point of full wets if you're going to do that? Maybe Pirelli need to up their game in that regard

I don't think the 'issue' is with the tyres.

As many have said here - the Pirelli Wet Tyres perform perfectly well. It is the other factors that make the conditions unsafe, this includes visibility, spray and aquaplaning. If Pirelli made the Wet Tyre better, there would be even more spray and even less visibility. And we all know how much people want lighter, not heavier cars.

Part of the solution is already on the car - in the form of the front wheel 'shrouds'. If they were to adopt something along this line on the rear but that was able to direct spray to the edges of the track, then the visibility would be improved.

Just think of when you have driven past a lorry on the motorway - because of the wheel guards, a lot of the spray is sent to the side. If you follow a lorry, the spray is not too bad. When you pull alongside, you get the worst visibility at about 30 degrees to the side.

[S griffin]

I'm not so sure. A lot of drivers have felt that Pirelli's wets haven't been suitable enough. OK Pirelli has been in F1 for over 10 years now, so only Lewis, Fernando and Seb would know what it was like before with Bridgestone, but even so, it's something to think about

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I did see this on reddit and I immediately thought of this thread and it made me smile.



Richard

Not quite "mud flaps", but they are considering closing up the wheels with covers! If they do this just for wet races, I can imagine it might screw with some aero that is optimized for dry running.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...blem/10401854/

Richard

[Teretonga]

some movement toward a wet day solution in the latest regulation discussions.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...kBIrF7Xa8.html