2021 model in the Sauber Wind Tunnel
Discussion
kambites said:
I think their biggest problem will be adapting to the relative lack of sidewall compliance. Tyre deformation apparently makes up roughly half of an F1 car's "suspension travel", and on small high-frequency bumps (like those on many kerbs) it makes up almost all of it.
I wonder if we'll see them running over the kerbs less with the new wheels? Probably wouldn't be a bad thing if we do.
Lower profile tyres are actually easier to engineer suspension for. Suspension components are made of predictable materials. A tyre sidewall is an undamped spring made of rubber.I wonder if we'll see them running over the kerbs less with the new wheels? Probably wouldn't be a bad thing if we do.
HardtopManual said:
Lower profile tyres are actually easier to engineer suspension for. Suspension components are made of predictable materials. A tyre sidewall is an undamped spring made of rubber.
Yes and no. They're "easier" in that the calculations to get the best results are simpler if you don't have to take into account sidewall flex. However, the fact you're removing your only suspension at the point of no unsprung mass (if that makes sense) will make it impossible to make the cars ride the rumble-strips on the kerbs as well as they can today. Of course that's an over-simplification; there will still be compliance in the new tyres. Just not as much. The new tyres still have a good 110mm of sidewall so they're hardly rubber bands.
Edited by kambites on Sunday 25th August 08:33
kambites said:
HardtopManual said:
Lower profile tyres are actually easier to engineer suspension for. Suspension components are made of predictable materials. A tyre sidewall is an undamped spring made of rubber.
Yes and no. They're "easier" in that the calculations to get the best results are simpler if you don't have to take into account sidewall flex. However, the fact you're removing your only suspension at the point of no unsprung mass (if that makes sense) will make it impossible to make the cars ride the rumble-strips on the kerbs as well as they can today. Of course that's an over-simplification; there will still be compliance in the new tyres. Just not as much. The new tyres still have a good 110mm of sidewall so they're hardly rubber bands.
Edited by kambites on Sunday 25th August 08:33
I'm not 100% sure if any teams to still calculate what mixture is best for each circuit but they certainly used too back when they could use any gas mixture. Regs still allow air or nitrogen so I guess it's optional so they can fine tune the tyres in this way still.
TheDeuce said:
There is another benefit to the current tall tyre walls too. The tyre wall suspension is to a degree 'active suspension' if the teams can get the setup just right. The teams can use air or nitrogen to fill the tyres. If they use all air or a combination of the two they modify how much the tyre pressure increases with temperature, effectively, the harder the car pushes the stiffer the tyres are to lean on. Or if they want no fluctuation is pressure, they can use straight nitrogen.
I'm not 100% sure if any teams to still calculate what mixture is best for each circuit but they certainly used too back when they could use any gas mixture. Regs still allow air or nitrogen so I guess it's optional so they can fine tune the tyres in this way still.
Are you sure about this? Nitrogen is a gas. And like any other gas it’s pressure is proportional to temperature. I have to admit that I am no expert on tyres, but I can tell you that the use of Nitrogen in most engineering systems is to reduce the risk of either fire or corrosion. It’s an oxygen scavenger.I'm not 100% sure if any teams to still calculate what mixture is best for each circuit but they certainly used too back when they could use any gas mixture. Regs still allow air or nitrogen so I guess it's optional so they can fine tune the tyres in this way still.
If there are other benefits I would love to hear of them.
Nampahc Niloc said:
Are you sure about this? Nitrogen is a gas. And like any other gas it’s pressure is proportional to temperature. I have to admit that I am no expert on tyres, but I can tell you that the use of Nitrogen in most engineering systems is to reduce the risk of either fire or corrosion. It’s an oxygen scavenger.
If there are other benefits I would love to hear of them.
I'm also not an expert. As I understand it nitrogen expands at a lesser rate, and/or retains less heat than air so the entire tyre hears slightly less.If there are other benefits I would love to hear of them.
RobGT81 said:
TheDeuce said:
I'm also not an expert. As I understand it nitrogen expands at a lesser rate, and/or retains less heat than air so the entire tyre hears slightly less.
Nitrogen is used because it's dry. The expansion rate of air(80% nitrogen) is almost exactly the same.My understanding was that nitrogen also held less temp so there was less potential thermal expansion, even if the rate of thermal expansion is more or less equivalent between the two.
Eric Mc said:
That's the sexiest F1 car I've seen in decades. If only the reality could match it.
Lol. Let's wait see. I'm thinking the basic shape and proportions are definitely better than what we have today at least...I'm equally certain that today's mish mash of sponsor decals will detract from whatever it could/should look like though!
TheDeuce said:
So in what way is nitrogen better? I understand in a road car tyre (nissan gtr for example) where it might be inflated for a year that dry gas is preferable. But what's the benefit of nitrogen in a single use tyre as in F1?
My understanding was that nitrogen also held less temp so there was less potential thermal expansion, even if the rate of thermal expansion is more or less equivalent between the two.
Its consistent. Water content in air tends to vary so you get less pressure consistency compsred to a dry gas. My understanding was that nitrogen also held less temp so there was less potential thermal expansion, even if the rate of thermal expansion is more or less equivalent between the two.
The current cars roll a lot, if they are using more ground effect that will have to be reduced, so you could see the cars stiffer than currently.
jsf said:
Its consistent. Water content in air tends to vary so you get less pressure consistency compsred to a dry gas.
The current cars roll a lot, if they are using more ground effect that will have to be reduced, so you could see the cars stiffer than currently.
But whatever the water content they will continue to add air until the desired pressure is achieved. Once that pressure is achieved, what is it about water content that causes a problem?The current cars roll a lot, if they are using more ground effect that will have to be reduced, so you could see the cars stiffer than currently.
Is it that as the heat increases it converts to steam = expansion? If so that would be why nitrogen is more stable than air when it comes to maintaining pressure.
I ask because I suppose there is no reason the teams couldn't control the moisture content of air, and subsequently the amount of expansion under heat. Some expansion could be very useful..
TheDeuce said:
But whatever the water content they will continue to add air until the desired pressure is achieved. Once that pressure is achieved, what is it about water content that causes a problem?
Is it that as the heat increases it converts to steam = expansion? If so that would be why nitrogen is more stable than air when it comes to maintaining pressure.
I ask because I suppose there is no reason the teams couldn't control the moisture content of air, and subsequently the amount of expansion under heat. Some expansion could be very useful..
You want zero water in there, using an inert gas provides this with the least agro.Is it that as the heat increases it converts to steam = expansion? If so that would be why nitrogen is more stable than air when it comes to maintaining pressure.
I ask because I suppose there is no reason the teams couldn't control the moisture content of air, and subsequently the amount of expansion under heat. Some expansion could be very useful..
Where you cant use nitrogen, you evacuate the air post tyre fitting and blow it up using a dry air compressor system.
When you are tuning a tyre to 0.1psi, every little helps.
jsf said:
You want zero water in there, using an inert gas provides this with the least agro.
Where you cant use nitrogen, you evacuate the air post tyre fitting and blow it up using a dry air compressor system.
When you are tuning a tyre to 0.1psi, every little helps.
But how does the water content make pressure more difficult to finely adjust when filling? Surely it's more about the water expanding in to steam when the interior temp exceeds 100c?Where you cant use nitrogen, you evacuate the air post tyre fitting and blow it up using a dry air compressor system.
When you are tuning a tyre to 0.1psi, every little helps.
And if they can use dry air, what is benefit of nitrogen?
I think it's not better as such; it's just easier (cheaper) to get nitrogen at 0% humidity than air at 0% humidity. Or to put it another way, the cheapest way to completely dry air is to simply extract the nitrogen and throw away everything else.
The reason you don't want water content (or more precisely that you want to control the water content), is that having water in the gas significantly affects the shape of the pressure vs temperature curve.
(obviously that's density at constant pressure, but pressure and constant volume would create a similar effect). You can see from that graph the more moisture in the air, the more acute the density drop-off (or pressure increase) as temperature rises and that the effect becomes significant long before the water boils.
The reason you don't want water content (or more precisely that you want to control the water content), is that having water in the gas significantly affects the shape of the pressure vs temperature curve.
(obviously that's density at constant pressure, but pressure and constant volume would create a similar effect). You can see from that graph the more moisture in the air, the more acute the density drop-off (or pressure increase) as temperature rises and that the effect becomes significant long before the water boils.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 27th August 07:11
ash73 said:
Disappointing. They should have 50% more ground effect and 50% less wing surface, imo. The rear wing should be smaller and the front wing should only extend to the inside edge of the front wheels.
From what I read the reason for the front wing dimensions in the '21 regs is to minimise the Y250 vortex which is responsible for a large amount of turbulence.
Interesting twist on the thread re tyres/pressures/air.
The FIA are to introduce a standard air pressure measuring devise in 2021. (Like the ECU & fuel flow sensor). It’s now out to tender.
Which does kind of suggest to me that some of the teams may be using ‘air’ that is more/less dense, and could well be blended to suit estimated tyre/track temps.
Like fuel which is now measured in KG, rather than litres, as the density can change.
Anyway interesting stuff and can’t wait for the techie’s to tell us all about it.
The FIA are to introduce a standard air pressure measuring devise in 2021. (Like the ECU & fuel flow sensor). It’s now out to tender.
Which does kind of suggest to me that some of the teams may be using ‘air’ that is more/less dense, and could well be blended to suit estimated tyre/track temps.
Like fuel which is now measured in KG, rather than litres, as the density can change.
Anyway interesting stuff and can’t wait for the techie’s to tell us all about it.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff