[DOF_power]

Tire Blanket Ban 'Ludicrous' In View of Senna's Fatal Crash

Formula one veteran David Coulthard has criticised the decision to ban tyre-warming blankets from 2009.

The Red Bull racer expressed his concern after the recent Jerez tests, where the blanket ban along with slick tyres and reduced downforce - all part of the 2009 regulations package - were tried together for the first time.

Coulthard, 36, thinks ridding the sport of tyre blankets is not only unsafe, but will drive up testing costs.

"We would have to do more laps than is currently necessary just to bring the tyres up to a representative temperature," the Scot told ITV.
"I think it is a ludicrous idea to ban them," he added.

It is understood that F1's Technical Working Group originally proposed the ban as a way of slowing the cars, because Bridgestone will be forced to produce tyres able to operate at lower temperatures.

The blanket-less tyres will also be safer because they will be designed to not lose as much pressure during safety car periods, the TWG is understood to have also found.

Coulthard disagrees, recalling that running too-cold tyres have contributed to Ayrton Senna's fatal crash in 1994.

[Racer Duck]

hmmm, he makes a good point.

but, I wonder if some of it isn't that the drivers have gotten spoiled by having the tires at temp when they are put on and thus at full grip?

what is wrong with the drivers actually having to take it easy until they build up tire temperatures?

and I do understand the increased testing costs caused by the extra laps. but that's such a minor cost in time and fuel it really doesn't merit mention.

to me the primary focus is safety and the drivers being put into an uncomfortable zone. I believe the better drivers will be less affected by this than the lesser drivers. kind of like adding a new corner to a race track.

[DOF_power]

The tires aren't really full of grip at start. That's why the warm up lap. Put them together and they help, but it takes some time for them to be fully warmed up.
Then there's factor of the chassis, witch is probably the overwhelming one. A top chassis will keep the tires in optimal working temperature and reduce the degradation while making them bite hard. The main problem with an overly tire optimised chassis is that it can be horribly unbalanced.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

The tires aren't really full of grip at start. That's why the warm up lap. Put them together and they help, but it takes some time for them to be fully warmed up.
Then there's factor of the chassis, witch is probably the overwhelming one. A top chassis will keep the tires in optimal working temperature and reduce the degradation while making them bite hard. The main problem with an overly tire optimised chassis is that it can be horribly unbalanced.

to me, that statement means that after a tire change it's a crap shoot how the car will handle.

it seems to me, then, that the answer is to insure the tires aren't the cause for optimizing the chassis. still, if they are the point of traction I don't see how to alleviate the problem without something drastic, like single brand tires or some other obviously controversial measure. maybe the right solution is to take away the warming blankets.

thus, the real problem is teaching the drivers how to be a bit more patient while the tires warm up - yes, I know .. drivers aren't a patient lot and some just won't do it no matter what the potential consequences.

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

to me, that statement means that after a tire change it's a crap shoot how the car will handle.

Even beyond that. There are only 2 to 5 laps per race when the car really behaves as it should at its very best. Those are the magnificent laps.
The rest is just dealing with the car by modifing the differential settings, TC settings, brake bias settings, for Indy also the weight-jacker settings (as it is a form of movable ballast it's banned in F1) and front wing angle of attack at the pit stop. Sometimes the behaviour changes from one lap to another.


The Championship winning Renaults of 2005 and 2006 were heavily optimissed for the Michelins by being heavy at the rear both in weight/mass and aero-load. This made them understeer, sometimes badly. Alonso dealt with this by (sometimes) entering ealry into the curve then applying a very hard lock combined with 4/5 brakes witch forced induced entry oversteer allowing him to carry speed then get the bebefit with the neutral exit (with that speed). Team mate Fisichella on the other hand couldn't deal with so much oversteer and was sometimes as much as 2 seconds per lap slower. He was even slower when he had a newer more powerfull engine evolution than Alonso.

With the Bridstones of today the weight needs to be shifted twards the front of the car. And McLaren with their short wheelbase ran out of room and had to put ballast onto the nose of the car. Also they needed to make a lighter composite gearbox to shave weight ar the rear. That's why they had some gearbox problems, Alonso at the French GP and possibly LH at the Brazilian GP.

This started with the 1970 Lotus 72 designed by Colin Chapman. That's why some old drivers consider the pre-wings/pre-slick and/or pre Lotus 72 cars the best handling and best balanced cars.

This is how F1 cars are build today; for everything you gain you also lose something.
Chassis-tire optimissation sacrifices ballance, agility demands sacrificing stability, aerodynamic downforce (needed due to high power to weight ratio) demands sacrificing suspension movement, and in the end to make the cars drivable tons of electronics, hydraulic and mechanical systems are needed.

it seems to me, then, that the answer is to insure the tires aren't the cause for optimizing the chassis. still, if they are the point of traction I don't see how to alleviate the problem without something drastic, like single brand tires or some other obviously controversial measure. maybe the right solution is to take away the warming blankets.

Teoretically the cars should have more suspensions movement (due to less downforce), be better balanced, more predictable and slower like the "good old days".

I don't think however that the balance, predictabillity and suspensions kissing the track like in the Maserati 250F of Fangio and Moss or the Lotus 25 of Clark will ever return.

The cars will more likely be closer to the horrible Auto Union C type, but this time with all sorts of mechanical/hydraulical systems and hidden-illegal electronics to make them controlable.

thus, the real problem is teaching the drivers how to be a bit more patient while the tires warm up - yes, I know .. drivers aren't a patient lot and some just won't do it no matter what the potential consequences.

Kubica said he wanted TC witch would make things easier, but also V10 engines witch would make the cars far more demanding then the curent V8s.
Drivers want to go faster, not slower.