Okay, how about airless tires for F1?
Discussion
http://www.bridgestone.co.jp/corporate/news/201311...
If F1 is supposed to be at the forefront of tech (which we all know is a bit of a porky given that F1 teams are actually at the forefront of F1 regulations), why not airless tires? Might sound a bit mad but why not? The tech may not be there yet but something like F1 would certainly speed up development.
If F1 is supposed to be at the forefront of tech (which we all know is a bit of a porky given that F1 teams are actually at the forefront of F1 regulations), why not airless tires? Might sound a bit mad but why not? The tech may not be there yet but something like F1 would certainly speed up development.
These things have been around for years and there isn't much technology to develop. The main problem with them seems to be that the same size tyre needs to have different characteristics for each vehicle it is used on, depending on weight, suspension characteristics etc.
That change can easily be accommodated with a pneumatic tyre, just change the air pressure.
With the airless tyres the vast range of different sizes/characteristics needed would appear to rule them out for the foreseeable, notwithstanding the cost of developing the basic system which would appear to have a very small benefit for a massive cost.
I remember being at an international tyre industry conference in the early 90s when the Michelin PAX system and other RFT systems were being developed and the subject of airless tyres came up. The keynote speaker, a top Pirelli man as I recall, declared air to be the most important and useful component in the modern tyre and that he couldn't see it ever being eliminated from the mass market. There was no disagreement.
That change can easily be accommodated with a pneumatic tyre, just change the air pressure.
With the airless tyres the vast range of different sizes/characteristics needed would appear to rule them out for the foreseeable, notwithstanding the cost of developing the basic system which would appear to have a very small benefit for a massive cost.
I remember being at an international tyre industry conference in the early 90s when the Michelin PAX system and other RFT systems were being developed and the subject of airless tyres came up. The keynote speaker, a top Pirelli man as I recall, declared air to be the most important and useful component in the modern tyre and that he couldn't see it ever being eliminated from the mass market. There was no disagreement.
I was given a couple of airless tyres for my mountain bike, this in the 90s. A friend had tried them in town and didn't get on with them and as I cycled 15 miles or so each day off road he thought they might suit me. They were phenomenally expensive and with having to pay half the new price hanging over me I might have been a bit critical. But it is fair to say I found them dreadful. They were unresponsive, slow - took more energy to push through rough ground, and made the bike a bit difficult to control. They were better, or rather less bad, on the road but on cobbles they were a bit too exciting for me.
I might have got used to them but when my friend asked after a week how I was getting on my rather negative response suggested to him that he might stand a better chance of selling them on with someone else. So he asked for their return. I was glad to see them off the bike.
That said, never got a puncture, which were the bane of my life. I used to carry two inner tubes with me and I never got through a week's cycling on the Downs without at least four punctures until the airless tyres.
I eventually got a plastic strip that went around the inner tyre and this, to a great extent, cured the puncture problem but the criticisms I had of the airless tyres was the same as for the tyres with the strip of plastic except about 50% less. Perhaps I should suggest this to Pirelli?
I might have got used to them but when my friend asked after a week how I was getting on my rather negative response suggested to him that he might stand a better chance of selling them on with someone else. So he asked for their return. I was glad to see them off the bike.
That said, never got a puncture, which were the bane of my life. I used to carry two inner tubes with me and I never got through a week's cycling on the Downs without at least four punctures until the airless tyres.
I eventually got a plastic strip that went around the inner tyre and this, to a great extent, cured the puncture problem but the criticisms I had of the airless tyres was the same as for the tyres with the strip of plastic except about 50% less. Perhaps I should suggest this to Pirelli?
VladD said:
I thought they used Nitrogen in tyres these days rather than air?
The important consideration is that they use a dry gas - presence of water vapour makes control of tyre pressures more difficult (presumably because water has a phase change with the range of working temperatures of the tyre).Got to ask,why not use tyres with air in?Solid tyres are normally only used where there is risk of punctures eg factory floors covered in nails or bits of metal and they handle pretty nastily over about 15mph (I know thrust ssc has solid tyres but I don't fancy that on a twisty b road either).If someone was daft enough to let me in their racing car I would want air in the tyres,or maybe helium if it would help unsprung weight.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff