How come there is no super wet weather tyres?

[Jersey Tom]

Have you ever been to a full rain Formula-race yourself? The visibility in reality is always a lot better than what you might suspect based on television footage.

How can you make that assessment if you're not in the car? What the spectators see is meaningless. It's whether or not the DRIVERS can see worth a damn that matters.

In my experience, running in low grip conditions just does not make for good racing. Does it make for random results? Sure. So do blown motors and crap tires. Doesn't mean the racing is good. Like I say, I'd argue it just makes drivers more "defensive" in trying to keep the car on track rather than being driven to go on the "offensive" and make passes.

[jdlive]

It would be more random result in the dry than in such a scenario. In the dry it's at least 90% car anyway, not the case in the wet.

[Lycoming]

I don't see how that makes it safer.

F1 cars are already very safe. Look at some of the massive impacts these cars have had over recent years and each time the driver has walked away, without a scratch. Safety is paramount, yes, but these guys are not scared little girls. They sign up for this and accept the risks.

I guess strictly speaking a concussion that takes several weekends to fully recover from isn't really a scratch.

I still fail to see the spray-argument, the tracks are wide enough to use different driving lines to avoid spray.

Not always.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69JUz9BDrXQ

look at the wake behind heidfeld at exactly 0:54

The aquaplaning same story, I don't think they would ever be unable to make it round the track, even if that means driving 50 MPH tops.

Whats the difference between this and driving behind the safety car?

I have no issue with racing in the wet or in the rain. I have issues with racing when you can literally sail boats down the pitlane, as people did in canada 2011 to keep themselves entertained during the red flag period.

[Trocola]

My question is:

Why F1 needs wet weather tyres if they show the red flag every time it starts to rain?



Trocola

[mx_tifoso]

You say they red flag the track anytime it stars to rain? I would be hard pressed to believe that considering the fact that almost the entire weekend in England was rainy, and only when it is was an extremely unsafe and unproductive situation did they stop running (Q2). So yes, wet weather tyres are needed regardless of whether they race in monsoon conditions or not.

[CHT]

Have you ever been to a full rain Formula-race yourself? The visibility in reality is always a lot better than what you might suspect based on television footage.

How can you make that assessment if you're not in the car? What the spectators see is meaningless. It's whether or not the DRIVERS can see worth a damn that matters.

In my experience, running in low grip conditions just does not make for good racing. Does it make for random results? Sure. So do blown motors and crap tires. Doesn't mean the racing is good. Like I say, I'd argue it just makes drivers more "defensive" in trying to keep the car on track rather than being driven to go on the "offensive" and make passes.

it is only when things are wet and messy that the mid field drivers will be given a shot on the podium. And for me, that is what will make F1 more interesting instead of having rules that only protect the interest of the fortunate few who are driving for the top teams.

[Jersey Tom]

it is only when things are wet and messy that the mid field drivers will be given a shot on the podium. And for me, that is what will make F1 more interesting instead of having rules that only protect the interest of the fortunate few who are driving for the top teams.

I'd rather the rules (particularly budget cap) be set such that the mid field teams have more a shot at winning on ANY given race, and that we're not just relying on crutches like junk tires or ridiculous weather to randomize the result.

[mzivtins]

Twas five years ago...

Amazing torrential rain performances and not to mention the gentlemanly rough but clean wheel to wheel racing. Epic in my books.

So if the tyres can handle it and the chassis are given enough ride height, there is plenty of more running to be done should it rain cats and dogs.

Excuse my language... that was --- brilliant!!

I agree with the ride height agument, although the wets do give 10mm more ride height over slicks if i'm not mistaken?

But obvious you would want to change camber/tow etc etc to run good in the also... so yeah, parc firme ruins it all.

[jdlive]

Have you ever been to a full rain Formula-race yourself? The visibility in reality is always a lot better than what you might suspect based on television footage.

How can you make that assessment if you're not in the car? What the spectators see is meaningless. It's whether or not the DRIVERS can see worth a damn that matters.

In my experience, running in low grip conditions just does not make for good racing. Does it make for random results? Sure. So do blown motors and crap tires. Doesn't mean the racing is good. Like I say, I'd argue it just makes drivers more "defensive" in trying to keep the car on track rather than being driven to go on the "offensive" and make passes.

it is only when things are wet and messy that the mid field drivers will be given a shot on the podium. And for me, that is what will make F1 more interesting instead of having rules that only protect the interest of the fortunate few who are driving for the top teams.

Hallelujah

[jdlive]

I don't see how that makes it safer.

F1 cars are already very safe. Look at some of the massive impacts these cars have had over recent years and each time the driver has walked away, without a scratch. Safety is paramount, yes, but these guys are not scared little girls. They sign up for this and accept the risks.

I guess strictly speaking a concussion that takes several weekends to fully recover from isn't really a scratch.

I still fail to see the spray-argument, the tracks are wide enough to use different driving lines to avoid spray.

Not always.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69JUz9BDrXQ

look at the wake behind heidfeld at exactly 0:54

The aquaplaning same story, I don't think they would ever be unable to make it round the track, even if that means driving 50 MPH tops.

Whats the difference between this and driving behind the safety car?

I have no issue with racing in the wet or in the rain. I have issues with racing when you can literally sail boats down the pitlane, as people did in canada 2011 to keep themselves entertained during the red flag period.

No safety car would be racing still. Even in that vid, with the right tyres and at appropiate speeds, they could have raced. But like someone correctly said, that would lessen the chances of one of the top teams winning...

[Cam]

With F1 being a 'development' series, it's entirely realistic that they could overcome any major issues while running in extreme wet by either a) adjusting the regs to allow additional setup changes and/or b) by ensuring the fundamental design of the car is able to run in the wet in the first place.

The comment about the massive rooster tails got me thinking about how I saw the DeltaWing at LeMans in the wet and it had no rooster tail. The wash came out the back flat and very close to the road surface. It was so dramatic that I actually commented that fact on the Deltawing thread.

If they can put a man on the moon and a rover on Mars, I'd be a 100% certain they can overcome some wet road surface and actually run at a reasonable pace in any conditions just short of a typhoon. Anyone who says they cannot simply does understand invention and engineering. F1 is about making it happen, not walking away from it because it's too hard.

• Maybe traction control gets switched on when DRS gets switched off?
• Maybe increased ride height (no floating) and changing wings (limiting rooster tails)?
• Maybe even look at 4WD?

Any developments that make driving fast in wet conditions would easily find their way into domestic applications, how is that not a win for everyone.

What I'm trying to say is that the answers are there to keep the show running, have a great race and we can still see development and technical prowess which F1 holds as it's own. You just have to think positively to find answers.

[Lycoming]

Would all of that really be worth it to deal with conditions that occur perhaps once every 2 years?

The americans can't even get back to the moon now, they don't have anywhere near the required amount of either money or motivation. I don't see how the situation is much different in F1.

Sure, they could make the cars driveable in a river. But would it really be an F1 car still?

I would also argue that changing conditions, ie. a drying track or intermittent rain is more interesting to watch. Keeps the strategists on their toes and the drying line and close running make for good action.

And besides, I don't think anybody who was at Montreal in 2011 was dissapointed with the show they got in the end. I'm sure it was worth the wait, despite the uncovered grandstands.

[Cam]

yeah, but we'll never know the show we might have got. For all we know it might have been the greatest of all time. Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

F1 is definitely trying to make the show more relevant to a wider section, for various reasons, proving they can run in wet conditions helps that. F1 is also the pinnacle of motorsport, so why wouldn't they have a race car that can run in all conditions? Why be like everyone else and run for cover when it gets too wet? That's easy. It is a technical problem to keep these cars on a very wet track. It's an engineering problem and one I would have thought the boffins in the back would be gasping to show they were kings at it. Regardless of whether it's a once a year problem or not - be the best, in all areas.

We already have cars which are better at different tracks, I see this as one more hurdle great teams can master.

[CHT]

Would all of that really be worth it to deal with conditions that occur perhaps once every 2 years?

The americans can't even get back to the moon now, they don't have anywhere near the required amount of either money or motivation. I don't see how the situation is much different in F1.

Sure, they could make the cars driveable in a river. But would it really be an F1 car still?

I would also argue that changing conditions, ie. a drying track or intermittent rain is more interesting to watch. Keeps the strategists on their toes and the drying line and close running make for good action.

And besides, I don't think anybody who was at Montreal in 2011 was dissapointed with the show they got in the end. I'm sure it was worth the wait, despite the uncovered grandstands.

I think it happen at least twice a year. I recall Malaysia, Japan, Korea, Silverstone, SPA etc

[bergzy]

I think a super wet weather tire would be called a 'hull'!

Hehehe...

Couldn't resist.