A case to go back to smaller wheels and tyres

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Russell makes a good point though...the increasing size, weight, strength of the cars can make the them potentially more dangerous/less safe all be it he is unsure where that tipping point is.

And it's not just the higher kinetic energy that a heavier car carries due to weight it's also because of the higher density. A lighter car will loose more speed just moving through the air on it's way to a barrier just because of it's lower density. An extreme example is a feather compared to cannon ball. If you release both from a moving object the feather will loose speed much more quickly. Why? Because due to it's low density the force of the drag has to reduce much less kinetic energy (In a vacuum if you drop a feather and a cannonball they will fall just as fast).

but in the other article, Max also makes a good point basically saying, because of safety and batteries, good luck finding the areas where weight can be reduced.

i suppose it would have to be done incrementally, 10-15 kilos a year and then hopefully in 20 odd years the cars can get back to where they were 20 odd years ago?

but thats a long time to wait...a wild predication here (pulled more from sci-fi really) but in 20 years time, are we more likely than not to see cars on track being piloted remotely which would have the knock on effect of eliminating the need for weight and size added for safety reasons?

That's why I said above, if the FIA boss is serious about weight loss then the size of the cars and the size of the wheels/tyres will be a much softer target than safety or the chosen 2026 hybrid regulations.

I also posted somewhere that while they list weight and/or size reduction as a goal, it is generally at odds with other priorities they list and it is likely that any weight reduction might be minimal or some token amount (10s of kg and much much less than 100kg is my expectation).

Agree, 100kg will not happen. The amount of weight, from hybrid, electrification and battery size won't allow anything near a 100kg. If the FIA boss is serious about weight loss I think 750kg from the current 796kg due to a reduction in car and wheel/tyre size would technically be feasible. Technically maybe, if it is politically remains to be seen.

Lastly, given they have just recently switched to the larger tires (for practicality of supply reasons being a big driver), I don't see them reducing the diameter of the tires or wheels. I can imagine some potential reduction in width, but again, minor. Just like the switch from the old to new tire was probably a bit costly to the teams (new solutions to support the properties of the shorter sidewall, loss of prior data, etc.) there is no probably little appetite to switch back to a smaller diameter tire or wheel.

Richard

Keep in mind that under the cost budget, nothing can really become expensive. The only thing it could do is switch resources from one area to the other. To us fans, what difference does it make?

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

Somehow I think that if they lower the minimum weight rule by a few % every year but maintain the same safety and spending rules, the geniuses in the F1 factories will find a way.
Maybe leading to clever ideas and one of the mid/rear teams finding a breakthrough.

.

Allison seems to agree with you:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mercedes-f1-should-make-car-weight-a-team-problem/10483748/

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

Somehow I think that if they lower the minimum weight rule by a few % every year but maintain the same safety and spending rules, the geniuses in the F1 factories will find a way.

I don't know how I missed the first part about reducing weight over time in my initial response. I think that is a good idea. If the rules (and required components on the cars) can remain relatively stable, then I can see that they can have a schedule to reduce minimum weight over time as teams are able to optimize. With the new aero formula, as I mentioned teams initially had problems with being overweight. But I expect that is not an issue today. The point being over time they have been able to drop the weight. They do it so they can get underweight and then strategically place ballast in the locations that are optimal for performance as they bring the car back up to minimum.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

And it's not just the higher kinetic energy that a heavier car carries due to weight it's also because of the higher density. A lighter car will loose more speed just moving through the air on it's way to a barrier just because of it's lower density. An extreme example is a feather compared to cannon ball. If you release both from a moving object the feather will loose speed much more quickly. Why? Because due to it's low density the force of the drag has to reduce much less kinetic energy (In a vacuum if you drop a feather and a cannonball they will fall just as fast).

First, let me say I am personally in favor of smaller lighter cars.

As to the feather and bowling ball, your logic is accurate, however I think it generally not a significant factor. It's easy to make the point (and you do say it is an extreme example) when you compare a feather that may weight 0.0082 grams and a large bowling ball 7.26kg. The correct comparison (if we use relative 2013 to 2023 car weights) is a 5.85kg vs 7.26kg bowling ball. Given the distance between a long straight and crash barriers (150-200m?) how much MORE deceleration will happen on that smaller bowling ball vs. the larger bowling ball? Measurable? Absolutely! Will the ball still smash into the barrier very hard if it left the circuit at 350+ kph? For sure. KE would be high for both. I wouldn't want to be inside EITHER of those bowling balls.

I am not making a statement one way or another as to the safety of heavy vs lighter cars. In general, I think there is some validity to the argument that big heavy cars might create some unsafe situations. And you could clearly go too far in the other direction. My point is that if we don't like heavy cars, then focus on the real problem with them, which is not to try to ride on the coattails of "safety", but rather that they are big lumbering chunks vs. the nimble things we and the drivers want to have.

If you make this about "safety" then that could be solved in another way (add more safety features to the car which make it even heavier!) Fans, pundits, drivers, etc. are not helping by playing the "safety card" here. It is just grasping at straws.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Keep in mind that under the cost budget, nothing can really become expensive. The only thing it could do is switch resources from one area to the other. To us fans, what difference does it make?

That is actually an excellent point to make. That regardless of what the teams have to do the budgets are fixed. So nothing is more or less expensive. But it completely misses the point. Its not that teams have to spend more, but rather (as you say) they have to move money around. They have to spend in areas that don't want to spend in.

So lets say a new spec required closed cockpits next year. If you were anyone but Red Bull, you would be screwed because you will have to spend a large chunk of your budget to address a totally new chassis and the R&D cost of a closed cockpit chassis. Teams who are behind RBR would much rather spend their fixed budget on catching up to those faster than them.

It's not about the cost, it's about the pain and lost development opportunities. And as to us fans, would it make a difference? If we are unhappy about a team creating and maintaining dominance and other teams not having a way to engineer their way out of their poor performance, then yes, we would notice and care.

Richard

[Sodemo]

To be honest all motorsport seems to have gained weight. Hypercar, F1, touring cars, none of them weigh what they used to. I guess a lot of that is down to hybrid tech, but not all of it.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

Im an old fart now (and damned good at it!)
I love the look of the 70/80s big back wheels and small front wheels

Yeah, we ended up with the disproprtionate tyres as the rulemakers made the rear tyres narrower (twice I believe) but never made the front tyres narrower. Then when they wanted to make the tyres wider again, they scaled both the front and rear tyres up equally as the teams didn't want to redesign their cars for a different weight distribution.

Therefore we now have these fronts that are way too wide and look a bit silly, oh well. The rear tyres look perfect though IMO!

Edit -- Also it was Bridgestone in 1997 who brought the front tyres up to the maximum permitted 660mm diameter, the same as the rear tyres, whereas previously the Goodyear front tyres had been 640mm diameter (smallest than the maximum permitted). Since then the front tyres have been the same diameter as the rear tyres (so an increase to 670mm in 2017 and now 720mm in 2022).

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

If we are unhappy about a team creating and maintaining dominance and other teams not having a way to engineer their way out of their poor performance, then yes, we would notice and care.

The smaller teams always didn't have the money to develop their way out of bad choices. The whole point of the cost cap is to make this also apply to the larger teams!

The cost cap is to stop the wastefulness designing five different designs and choosing the best one, as the top teams could do but the smaller teams could not.

To make it a contest of skill and NOT brute force resources.

The only reason Ferrari and Mercedes remained on the backfoot is they chose to tweak their 2022 designs for their 2023 designs and only later decide that was the wrong choice and completely change their cars at the 6th-7th round. They didn't do an all-new design at launch when they had the chance to. Despite the cost cap, we were able to see that teams like Alfa Romeo, Aston Martin and Williams were also able to make such revisions over to this same style of downwashing design during the 2022 season, as long as they were economic about it.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

The smaller teams always didn't have the money to develop their way out of bad choices. The whole point of the cost cap is to make this also apply to the larger teams!

The cost cap is to stop the wastefulness designing five different designs and choosing the best one, as the top teams could do but the smaller teams could not.

To make it a contest of skill and NOT brute force resources.

The only reason Ferrari and Mercedes remained on the backfoot is they chose to tweak their 2022 designs for their 2023 designs and only later decide that was the wrong choice and completely change their cars at the 6th-7th round. They didn't do an all-new design at launch when they had the chance to. Despite the cost cap, we were able to see that teams like Alfa Romeo, Aston Martin and Williams were also able to make such revisions over to this same style of downwashing design during the 2022 season, as long as they were economic about it.

I am not sure if you are agreeing with me or maybe I was doing a bad job of communicating. But I agree with all of your points. My point was... layer on top of what you said the cost of adapting to new regulations. A fixed budget becomes more about compliance with regulations than about "go fast parts".

Richard

[chillibowl]

while i appreciate that most hate DRS, my take away from Canada (and probably any time where these sort of DRS trains emerge) is that the battery and the extra 160hp (?) they deliver is far too effective of a defence.

granted the Williams update may have moved them significantly up the order but if they were to get rid of DRS all together, should they not also get rid of the battery and by way of added benefit, then be able to shed a lot of weight from these cars?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

should they not also get rid of the battery and by way of added benefit, then be able to shed a lot of weight from these cars?

Ditching the entire hybrid system would simply the power units and reduce their weight. But I just don't think its realistic (especially if F1 wants to keep manufacture involvement) to drop the electric aspect of the power unit.

To make sure we are on the same page. You called out the removal of the battery while I am talking the entire hybrid/electric side of the power unit. My point here is you can't have an electric power solution without a energy storage solution (such as a battery, capacitor, flywheel, etc.)

Richard

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

should they not also get rid of the battery and by way of added benefit, then be able to shed a lot of weight from these cars?

Of course, in excess of 50kg reduction, more with the removal of turbocharger and intercooler(s) and the radiators for the intercooler cooling fluid where present if air-water -- 70kg reduction if not more.

A return to naturally aspirated engines be they V8s or V10s would be lovely. E.g., the V8 was mandated at min. 95kg, but V10s before the multi-race rule when they only had to last one race meeting or even only one session were as light as 85 kg IIRC. Of course the cars would need to carry 40 to 50+ kg more fuel at the start of the Grand Prix however.

However a switch from turbo hybrid to naturally aspirated non-hybrid seems politically untenable.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Of course, in excess of 50kg reduction, more with the removal of turbocharger and intercooler(s) and the radiators for the intercooler cooling fluid where present if air-water -- 70kg reduction if not more.

A return to naturally aspirated engines be they V8s or V10s would be lovely. E.g., the V8 was mandated at min. 95kg, but V10s before the multi-race rule when they only had to last one race meeting or even only one session were as light as 85 kg IIRC. Of course the cars would need to carry 40 to 50+ kg more fuel at the start of the Grand Prix however.

However a switch from turbo hybrid to naturally aspirated non-hybrid seems politically untenable.

There is a solution; a V6 turbo with a simple KERS system would require only a small light energy storage solution and could be run on synthetic fuel.

That way they could:
- Stick with the current V6 turbo architecture.
- Call it hybrid
- Use sustainable fuel
- Have smaller environmental footprint overall due to lower production and logistic costs.
- Have a much smaller powerunit, which in turn allows smaller cars that again way less.
- Have a much much lighter end solution.

A sub 700kg car would be easily possible with all current safety improvements and the current cheaper common parts.

I think the reason they don't go for this solution is because:

- They want to be on a trajectory towards full electric in order to appear advanced and environmental friendly (while in fact the V6 turbo KERS overall would be a better solution also on that front.
- They want to be prepared if there is a big jump in battery tech and full electric racing would become F1 worthy.
- If they would go for a light solution the first full electric rules set some time after that would present a mayor weight increase and therefore draw a lot of criticism.

I think battery tech that would allow F1 levels of performance (lightweight handling wise) is still far away because energy density is just not improving anywhere fast enough. Eventually they might approach the lap times, but it would not be in the lightweight spirit and tradition of F1. To me it's a shame to compromising the performance of F1 cars that much that early because of unnecessary weight. There is enough time to transition to higher electric component in the drivetrain later because, as said, the battery tech to allow full electric F1 performance cars is still very far out.

Anyway, this is all a bit of topic I suppose.

[Taxi645]

I must admit my above post sounds a bit like pushing the agenda coming from Horner and Verstappen as of late. It's a coincidence and I happen to agree with them in this case, but also have strongly disagreed with Red Bull stance in the past.

Anyways, Verstappen gives his thoughts and would also like lighter cars with smaller tyres:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/v...ream/10492339/

"We can't go back to 500 kilos, 550 kilos, but I think where we are at the moment is way too heavy. We need to look into that.

"Also, I think the tyres, these big tyres, you don't really see a lot when you go into corners in terms of hitting an apex. So, I prefer the smaller tyres. It was a lot more fun."

I don't agree with all that is said, but mostly agree.

Earlier we talked about how this was not on the agenda and no one was talking about the tyre size. I wonder if the media will pick up on it more now that the raining world champion gave his thoughts.

My impression for the moment is that the stakeholders most strongly linked to bigger manufacturers are in favour of maintain the agreed 2026 rules and mainly RB and the FIA president are pushing for something lighter.

[S griffin]

Not really sure about going to smaller tyres. The mechanical grip is less with them, meaning the aero becomes more important.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Not really sure about going to smaller tyres. The mechanical grip is less with them, meaning the aero becomes more important.

The main reduction should be in diameter, which would not cause a significant drop in grip. If it is done in a wider effort to make the cars lighter one could also afford also slightly narrower tires without loosing lap time.

[Taxi645]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...vamp/10517789/



Well narrower wheels would be a start. If they keep their thinking cap on a little longer they will also reduce the other dimension; the diameter.

Speaking in an exclusive interview with Motorsport.com's Italian site, the FIA's head of single-seaters Nikolas Tombazis said that the main shift will be in the size of the car.
"With the dimensions of the wheels, which will be narrower, plus with the rear wing and the car in general, we aim to reduce the weight of the cars by around 50kg," he said.

[crmalcolm]

I get the feeling this thread is now in the position where it has been decided that smaller wheels and tyres is the solution, and now the challenge is to make the problem fit that solution?

[Sodemo]

I dont know what smaller tyres is going to achieve? Less mechanical grip? (because thats proven to be smart in the past).

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I get the feeling this thread is now in the position where it has been decided that smaller wheels and tyres is the solution, and now the challenge is to make the problem fit that solution?

Originally Posted by Richard C

I also posted somewhere that while they list weight and/or size reduction as a goal, it is generally at odds with other priorities they list and it is likely that any weight reduction might be minimal or some token amount (10s of kg and much much less than 100kg is my expectation).

Apologies for quoting myself. We speculated a lot on this late last year and some earlier this year as to the outcomes. The FIA is saying the target is 50kg which is around what I expected. I think it is a mostly token value, also realistic and at least not an increase.

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I dont know what smaller tyres is going to achieve? Less mechanical grip? (because thats proven to be smart in the past).

The Motorsports article linked earlier calls out the initial concerns about the new power unit regulations resulting in cars that might need to lift and coast, drop down a gear, etc. on long straights, but they are saying that was based upon teams using current car models vs potential 2026 cars (smaller, less drag, maybe active aero). I think that once you are up to speed it is less about the weight as it is the drag, so I suspect that reducing the tire width is as much about drag as it is weight reduction and probably absolutely zero about wet weather spray reduction. I fully expect wheel diameter to remain the same as now.

As someone called out earlier in this thread (or maybe somewhere else) I think there is an excellent idea of having a progressive weight reduction schedule within a specific power unit and technical spec. Set a minimum weight for the new formula. As usual, teams will initially struggle to make minimum weight. Some might even be over at start, but after a few seasons teams will have figured out how to pull weight out of the cars for strategic ballast purposes. But if there was a schedule for minimum weight creeping slight down over time, that would result in lighter cars due to less ballast. This would likely be minimal reduction, but it would be going in the right direction.

Richard

[bathurst77]

The problem for me with the current wheels is that they are generally ugly with horrible looking stickers. If they looked like an old fashioned chromed mag wheel, with five spokes or something, I would be all for them!

[HDTVKSS]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

The problem for me with the current wheels is that they are generally ugly with horrible looking stickers. If they looked like an old fashioned chromed mag wheel, with five spokes or something, I would be all for them!

im pretty sure they are underneath the plastic wheel covers? IIRC the wheel covers are there to clean up some air and make following easier.

whilst I dont mind the black covers, I do agree that some standard looking wheels would be nice.

[Sodemo]

I mean, I am not necessarily doubting the science, but cars didnt have much of a problem passing or getting close decades ago and they never had wheel covers. I think a few of these measures implemented are cutting off their nose to spite their own face.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I mean, I am not necessarily doubting the science, but cars didnt have much of a problem passing or getting close decades ago and they never had wheel covers. I think a few of these measures implemented are cutting off their nose to spite their own face.

You are ignoring all of the other massive differences between cars decades apart. There is more going here than just wheel covers.

Aesthetically I prefer the older open wheel look, but they do serve a purpose.

Richard

[Sodemo]

Main problem in my eyes are that the wings are just too big, too much surface area. The front wing is now huge, it looks like a ski slope. If the front wing had the dimensional profile of something the size of an old IRL oval wing, the DF generated would be a fraction of what is currently generated.

[NaBUru38]

I love formula cars with smaller front wheels, just for the looks.

[Taxi645]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...ight/10528768/

"F1 could ditch 18-inch wheels for 2026 in bid to drop car weight"

"Perhaps a better way, which is being evaluated, would be to change tyre size entirely and move away from the 18-inch wheels that have been a part of F1 for the ground effect era."

[Sodemo]

I dont agree with cars being made narrower. Typically, narrower cars = less drag, which if you want organic "non DRS" passing - isnt always a good thing.

One step forward, two steps back.