had a question on the engineering of the great F1 racecars. the tires have grooves in them. why is this? in a lot of other races they use full slicks, where contact patch is at a maximum and there are no grooves. is it a regulation? is it aerodynamics? wouldn't they want to maximize the contact patch for more grip? here's a pic of those tires:

http://f1.racing-live.com/photos/2003/suzuka/diapo_313.jpg
by the way... in this picture, did his front spoiler just fall off?? :shock:

yes, i do belive somehting is going on with the front there. I'm guessing that somehow it would give it more grip, because no other race cars need to corner so hard. Follow up question: is that negative camber on the front wheels or posative?

had a question on the engineering of the great F1 racecars. the tires have grooves in them. why is this? in a lot of other races they use full slicks, where contact patch is at a maximum and there are no grooves. is it a regulation? is it aerodynamics? wouldn't they want to maximize the contact patch for more grip? here's a pic of those tires:

http://f1.racing-live.com/photos/2003/suzuka/diapo_313.jpg
by the way... in this picture, did his front spoiler just fall off?? :shock:


The groves are there to SLOW the cars down, they were getting to damn quick with full slicks. The groves give the cars a little less surface area to slow them down a little. And yes And yes the front wing was just knocked off.

The pilot just crashed and the front spoiler fell off, that's all.
Slicks were used in F1 in the older days. Follow Blucams answer.
And this is negative camber.

yeah. racing cars love using that crazy negative camber, almost looks like the wheels are gonna fall off. i wonder how often they have to replace the suspension.

edit... hmm... crazy camber like that really just wears out tires like crazy, which they replace like 5 times a race anyway huh...

yup the cars where getting too fast so that was the most easily regulated way of slowing them down. It wasbrought about after Senna's crash and stuff like that.
The negetive camber will give you more cornering grip, but less straight line grip.

the pic is of schumacher when he simply crashed in suzuka

The pilot just crashed

we call them drivers jim :D

Oh sorry, we call them pilots in Greek so I directly translated. :D :oops:

had a question on the engineering of the great F1 racecars. the tires have grooves in them. why is this? in a lot of other races they use full slicks, where contact patch is at a maximum and there are no grooves. is it a regulation? is it aerodynamics? wouldn't they want to maximize the contact patch for more grip? here's a pic of those tires:

http://f1.racing-live.com/photos/2003/suzuka/diapo_313.jpg
by the way... in this picture, did his front spoiler just fall off?? :shock:


The groves are there to SLOW the cars down, they were getting to damn quick with full slicks. The groves give the cars a little less surface area to slow them down a little. And yes And yes the front wing was just knocked off.

That's the six time World Champion! That's Michael Schumacher!

so basically the grooves are there to make the contact patch less and slow them down. basically it'll just slow down their acceleration, right?

so basically the grooves are there to make the contact patch less and slow them down. basically it'll just slow down their acceleration, right?

Mainly it gives them less grip to slow them down in the turns and stuff.
Even with the grooves the cars still stick like glue. Amazing if you ask me.

so basically the grooves are there to make the contact patch less and slow them down. basically it'll just slow down their acceleration, right?

theyll have a very similar top spped ( if not higher with the reduced friction) but with less friction comes less grip - both straight line and lateral grip.

http://f1.racing-live.com/photos/2003/suzuka/diapo_313.jpg
by the way... in this picture, did his front spoiler just fall off?? :shock:

Do you have to use this pic, it's not funny you know. I almost died when that happened.

But indeed, it is a regulation. I thought it is there since 1998. But in my opinion they should go back to slicks, manual gearbox, and the other stupid electronic things like traction control

But indeed, it is a regulation. I thought it is there since 1998. But in my opinion they should go back to slicks, manual gearbox, and the other stupid electronic things like traction control

yeah thats a good idea - lets make cars that will go 160mph around corners with no electronics as safety and make them have to change a manual gearbox in the middle. Lets have many more incidents like with senna.
not to mention the stunt in the technological advance of both F1 and the car world. :roll:

so how fast o you think these cars could do turns if they had full slicks? I'd imagine there would be a point were the driver would have harm come to him due to the g forces.

so how fast o you think these cars could do turns if they had full slicks? I'd imagine there would be a point were the driver would have harm come to him due to the g forces.

the g's wouldnt be a problem - people can take upto 10g's (not advised though!). F1 drivers around corners wouldnt get anywhere near that.
The harm comes when the amount of forces is put on the mechanics of the car - steering (as with Senna supposedly) or suspension. Secondly when forces like that are on the tyres if there is any inconsistency on the surdace i.e. oil/water/carbonfibre then the effects would be terrible.
So its in everyones interest to limit the cornering speeds of F1 cars.

what happened to senna anyway? I think that mnight have happened before my time.

what happened to senna anyway? I think that mnight have happened before my time.

He died at monza from a mechanical fault with his steering column, which meant he crashed into the barrier at a ridiculous speed.
Few know the real story precisely though :roll:

what happened to senna anyway? I think that mnight have happened before my time.

He died at monza from a mechanical fault with his steering column, which meant he crashed into the barrier at a ridiculous speed.
Few know the real story precisely though :roll:

That's true. They never told the exact story.
And it wasn't monza but Imola. 1 may it's exactly 10 years ago.

...of course it was imola - sorry had monza on my mind...

obvioulsy it was trajic but at least F1 has become so much more safer ever since.

...of course it was imola - sorry had monza on my mind...

obvioulsy it was trajic but at least F1 has become so much more safer ever since.

That's true, it has become super safe,. Just look at some crashes.
M. Schumacher England 1999, only a broken leg.
Burti Hockenheim and Belgium 2001, only a little headache(don't know what the exact name is of that what i mean :oops: )
Sato Austria 2002, same as burti
And there are some other chrashes, but it is a fact that F1 has become very safe

Formula 1 cars are SUPER safe now. They have to pass crash tests and the carbon fiber tubs they use are ultra strong.

Of course F1cars are safe. It they weren't, they'd be called nextel cup cars.

nextel cup is the former winston cup right?

Of course F1cars are safe. It they weren't, they'd be called nextel cup cars.

What do you mean by that? Those cars are VERY safe now.

Any idea why quantity of fuel is determined by kg and not by litre in F1?

Burti Hockenheim and Belgium 2001, only a little headache(don't know what the exact name is of that what i mean :oops: )

I think it's named a concussion :P

Any idea why quantity of fuel is determined by kg and not by litre in F1?
Because it's the weight that matters in F1. Besides, when you know the density and the volume of sth then you can find the weight, and vice versa.

Any idea why quantity of fuel is determined by kg and not by litre in F1?

any calculations the engineers make will be determined by weight - and they need to know the weight of fuel as opposed to the relatively useless volume of fuel.