Hi

I have kept out of this discussion after the Aero Down force debate, and I now I am going to regret it but, neither shape or surface area is “king” it is a balance between the two that is important.

It does not mater what surface area you have, if the shape is not right it will not work.

It does not matter how big a surface area you have on a tyre contact patch, if the wheel is square you will go no ware.

And if you have a perfectly shaped tyre that has insufficient area again you will just spin your wheels and still get no ware.

Car design and performance is always a balance between many factors, size, shape, loading, speed and flexibility to name just a few.

It is not possible to say any one feature is “king”.

Now I am off two have a meal and a good bottle of wine and will be adding more to this debate.

Regards

Racer111

r macaw:

f.eric:

aveli666:

f.eric:

aveli666:

the difference is i have always defended surface area as king but you have gone from one parameter to another and failed miserably.

It's a shame you can't defend it with a consistent or logical argument... Oh well.

there is no shame involved here and if you read the thread you will find the logic. you can increase the performance of any part of f1 cars by increasing the the size of the contact surface interacting with another. for example the tyre contact patch, wing surface area, size of radiators and contact surfaces of bearings.

where is the logic in your line of thought? 

Be warned, if you really can't understand the lack of logic, after this I can't be bothered to point out further flaws.

 Okay, the lack of logic comes in your lack of understanding of even a single point. For example:

r macaw says this 'I think even you will have to conceed that two identically dimensioned shapes will have identical surface areas. But two surfaces of equal area can be a myriad of different shapes, one of which will be faster.'

Your reply to this is to say this 'very interesting point r macaw but how do you increase and decrease shape?'

Note the emboldened phrases. In the first he states a very simple statement. The section I have highlighted in yours shows that the question does not make sense. r macaw is very clear about the fact that it with equal area (note the use of the word 'equal'), different shapes can have a greater or lesser impact on the result. You then question the size of the shape (by using increase and decrease) not the change in shape. Do you not understand how illogical and irrelevant your question is?

It is the same with your bycicle wheels and talk of cutting INTO a track. What you have been saying in general doesn't make sense when considered as a whole. I may not understand all the maths involved, but the basics of what has been explained by the others does.

Thanks f.eric, you have summed up the point of the case simply and clearly for all to see.

The very fact that it is the word narrow that has been chosen to describe the tyre indicates dimensioned shape. Shape that is determinant over the quantity of surface area, shape that improves the turning ability of the narrow tyre over the wider tyre of the exact and equal contact surface area.

Also that the narrow tyre has been used in the arguement for improved turning performance, (which assumes a smaller contact surface area because it follows the previous vein of the flawed logic that wider tyres increase the surface area thus surface area is king.) clearly indicates that the following quote may not also be true.

 '...you can increase the performance of any part of f1 cars by increasing the the size of the contact surface interacting with another'

So your analysis of the flawed or lack of logic is spot on.

I would also refute that it is surface area of the wing that is the more determinant in downforce generated than shape of that wing. Shape being the determinant of how that surface area is presented to the airflow. It is volume in a cylinder determined again by shape rather than surface area. It is the reduction of surface area in bearings has developed from collets of soft metal of roller needles and balls.

There is another of my sports where they spend similar millions of dollars perfecting design and technology, yachting, particularily Americas Cup match racing, and indeed any form of one design racing, where the sail is determined by very strict rules into maximum dimensions that equate to exact surface areas being raced against each other. The skill in sail trim is to perfect the most performing sail shape from equally surfaced area sail.

The skill in F1 design is to get high degrees of performance efficiency over a much wider speed range. Hence the banning of bending (shape changing) wing surfaces of fixed area.

But I know I didn't need to explain any of that to you, as you can follow the logic even without the math.

 

you are right that shape is a very important parameter in all areas of f1 technology albeit it is a discrete variable. however it is not as important a parameter as surface area. teams are known to squable over tiny differences in surface area increments but will never argue over differences in shape, as important as it is. i will therefore say that shape is queen and surface area is king.

racer 111:

Hi

 

I have kept out of this discussion after the Aero Down force debate, and I now I am going to regret it but, neither shape or surface area is “king” it is a balance between the two that is important.

 

It does not mater what surface area you have, if the shape is not right it will not work.

 

It does not matter how big a surface area you have on a tyre contact patch, if the wheel is square you will go no ware.

 

And if you have a perfectly shaped tyre that has insufficient area again you will just spin your wheels and still get no ware.

 

Car design and performance is always a balance between many factors, size, shape, loading, speed and flexibility to name just a few.

 

It is not possible to say any one feature is “king”.

 

Now I am off two have a meal and a good bottle of wine and will be adding more to this debate.

 

Regards

 

Racer111

Racer 111. welcome to the nut house.

You are of course correct, which why this solution was offered to the debate.

quote:- And also as your own examples and admissions have shown, surface area is not king.

But you are welcome to change this to read.

Surface area and the shape of the surface area is king.

but only if you will admit you dont get a bigger surface area simply by putting on wider tyres. -: end quote.

It is after all a futile debate because the king issue has been used to proove the first thoery that grooved tyres will reduce the grip - which was stated did not have the desired effect of closing the difference between reliance on aero or mechanical by reducing both you gain nought towards overtaking- Then to proove that wider tyres improve grip simply by being wider, then to proove that narrower racing bicycle tyres chew on the tarmac better - then It has also been used to explain evolution and the reason why elephants could walk on water like insects if they were good enough drivers - which only Hamilton is.

And finally simply by increasing the surface area of everything in F1 from piston rings to aero wings and front wheels and steering wheels you can gain on performance.

We tried logic, we tried science, we tried examples, we tried schooling and we tried to impart knowledge about a multitude of variables and finding the optimum balance between them to produce the best for the situation.

But no, we have been reduced nay even challenged to come up with a single parameter that is more important than increased surface area, because surface area must be the most important otherwise the rules would not try to restrict the surface area by restricting the width, regardless of the fact that the two are not codependant.

Of course if Ross Brawn has simply said to increase overtaking we need to reduce the redirected drag tipping downforce moment of the vertical component of the rear wing to lessen the effect of the lack of oxygen in the cars wake whilst making the track surfaces stickier,  we may have missed the last few weeks of wonderful pointless debate. Or at least the debate would have focussed on the motives of Mr Devious RB himself.

Have fun.

r macaw:

f.eric:

aveli666:

f.eric:

aveli666:

the difference is i have always defended surface area as king but you have gone from one parameter to another and failed miserably.

It's a shame you can't defend it with a consistent or logical argument... Oh well.

there is no shame involved here and if you read the thread you will find the logic. you can increase the performance of any part of f1 cars by increasing the the size of the contact surface interacting with another. for example the tyre contact patch, wing surface area, size of radiators and contact surfaces of bearings.

where is the logic in your line of thought? 

Be warned, if you really can't understand the lack of logic, after this I can't be bothered to point out further flaws.

 Okay, the lack of logic comes in your lack of understanding of even a single point. For example:

r macaw says this 'I think even you will have to conceed that two identically dimensioned shapes will have identical surface areas. But two surfaces of equal area can be a myriad of different shapes, one of which will be faster.'

Your reply to this is to say this 'very interesting point r macaw but how do you increase and decrease shape?'

Note the emboldened phrases. In the first he states a very simple statement. The section I have highlighted in yours shows that the question does not make sense. r macaw is very clear about the fact that it with equal area (note the use of the word 'equal'), different shapes can have a greater or lesser impact on the result. You then question the size of the shape (by using increase and decrease) not the change in shape. Do you not understand how illogical and irrelevant your question is?

It is the same with your bycicle wheels and talk of cutting INTO a track. What you have been saying in general doesn't make sense when considered as a whole. I may not understand all the maths involved, but the basics of what has been explained by the others does.

Thanks f.eric, you have summed up the point of the case simply and clearly for all to see.

The very fact that it is the word narrow that has been chosen to describe the tyre indicates dimensioned shape. Shape that is determinant over the quantity of surface area, shape that improves the turning ability of the narrow tyre over the wider tyre of the exact and equal contact surface area.

Also that the narrow tyre has been used in the arguement for improved turning performance, (which assumes a smaller contact surface area because it follows the previous vein of the flawed logic that wider tyres increase the surface area thus surface area is king.) clearly indicates that the following quote may not also be true.

 '...you can increase the performance of any part of f1 cars by increasing the the size of the contact surface interacting with another'

So your analysis of the flawed or lack of logic is spot on.

I would also refute that it is surface area of the wing that is the more determinant in downforce generated than shape of that wing. Shape being the determinant of how that surface area is presented to the airflow. It is volume in a cylinder determined again by shape rather than surface area. It is the reduction of surface area in bearings has developed from collets of soft metal of roller needles and balls.

There is another of my sports where they spend similar millions of dollars perfecting design and technology, yachting, particularily Americas Cup match racing, and indeed any form of one design racing, where the sail is determined by very strict rules into maximum dimensions that equate to exact surface areas being raced against each other. The skill in sail trim is to perfect the most performing sail shape from equally surfaced area sail.

The skill in F1 design is to get high degrees of performance efficiency over a much wider speed range. Hence the banning of bending (shape changing) wing surfaces of fixed area.

But I know I didn't need to explain any of that to you, as you can follow the logic even without the math.

 

The basics of most concepts are generally pretty simple, it is the specific details that take the effort to work out. If those basics don't make sense then the rest of the details won't either.

racer 111:

Hi

 

I have kept out of this discussion after the Aero Down force debate, and I now I am going to regret it but, neither shape or surface area is “king” it is a balance between the two that is important.

 

It does not mater what surface area you have, if the shape is not right it will not work.

 

It does not matter how big a surface area you have on a tyre contact patch, if the wheel is square you will go no ware.

 

And if you have a perfectly shaped tyre that has insufficient area again you will just spin your wheels and still get no ware.

 

Car design and performance is always a balance between many factors, size, shape, loading, speed and flexibility to name just a few.

 

It is not possible to say any one feature is “king”.

 

Now I am off two have a meal and a good bottle of wine and will be adding more to this debate.

 

Regards

 

Racer111

good point racer111 but even you must know that there is always only one king.

it is always the case that when people lose ground in a debate they turn to misqouoting the opposition and making personal attacks as brawn experienced in his fight to keep his double diffuser. instead of the other teams putting forward their case they called him arrogant amongst other names.

aveli666:

jack 67:

Where is the logic in taking two opposite view points but then insisting you are correct on both occasions. You were quite insistent that thinner tyres offered more grip. How does this tally with surface area being king?

It doesn't matter what else you say. Untill you can admit you were wrong on this then any further discussion is futile.

i don't know if i should encourage someone like you who insults a whole nation of people just for the sake of arguing. what wrong have the people done? 

Could you explain what nation I have insulted and how I have insulted said nation?

aveli666:

racer 111:

Hi

 

I have kept out of this discussion after the Aero Down force debate, and I now I am going to regret it but, neither shape or surface area is “king” it is a balance between the two that is important.

 

It does not mater what surface area you have, if the shape is not right it will not work.

 

It does not matter how big a surface area you have on a tyre contact patch, if the wheel is square you will go no ware.

 

And if you have a perfectly shaped tyre that has insufficient area again you will just spin your wheels and still get no ware.

 

Car design and performance is always a balance between many factors, size, shape, loading, speed and flexibility to name just a few.

 

It is not possible to say any one feature is “king”.

 

Now I am off two have a meal and a good bottle of wine and will be adding more to this debate.

 

Regards

 

Racer111

good point racer111 but even you must know that there is always only one king.

it is always the case that when people lose ground in a debate they turn to misqouoting the opposition and making personal attacks as brawn experienced in his fight to keep his double diffuser. instead of the other teams putting forward their case they called him arrogant amongst other names.

This is quite true. An example of this is someone than on this very forum, who has accused people who take a different stand point of being diseased! The same person changes his argument half way through an argument and then throws insults at anyone that points this out.

It's hard to believe, I know, but it happens!

jack 67:

aveli666:

jack 67:

Where is the logic in taking two opposite view points but then insisting you are correct on both occasions. You were quite insistent that thinner tyres offered more grip. How does this tally with surface area being king?

It doesn't matter what else you say. Untill you can admit you were wrong on this then any further discussion is futile.

i don't know if i should encourage someone like you who insults a whole nation of people just for the sake of arguing. what wrong have the people done? 

Could you explain what nation I have insulted and how I have insulted said nation?

you know better what you wrote about a nation of people because you wrote it. do you not remember wrting about any nation and asking if they don't do certain things?

aveli666:

jack 67:

aveli666:

jack 67:

Where is the logic in taking two opposite view points but then insisting you are correct on both occasions. You were quite insistent that thinner tyres offered more grip. How does this tally with surface area being king?

It doesn't matter what else you say. Untill you can admit you were wrong on this then any further discussion is futile.

i don't know if i should encourage someone like you who insults a whole nation of people just for the sake of arguing. what wrong have the people done? 

Could you explain what nation I have insulted and how I have insulted said nation?

you know better what you wrote about a nation of people because you wrote it. do you not remember wrting about any nation and asking if they don't do certain things?

I do not recall insulting an entire nation. You will have to jog my memory.

I would guess you are once again trying to draw attention from the fact that YOUR WRONG!  

jack 67:

aveli666:

jack 67:

aveli666:

jack 67:

Where is the logic in taking two opposite view points but then insisting you are correct on both occasions. You were quite insistent that thinner tyres offered more grip. How does this tally with surface area being king?

It doesn't matter what else you say. Untill you can admit you were wrong on this then any further discussion is futile.

i don't know if i should encourage someone like you who insults a whole nation of people just for the sake of arguing. what wrong have the people done? 

Could you explain what nation I have insulted and how I have insulted said nation?

you know better what you wrote about a nation of people because you wrote it. do you not remember wrting about any nation and asking if they don't do certain things?

I do not recall insulting an entire nation. You will have to jog my memory.

I would guess you are once again trying to draw attention from the fact that YOUR WRONG!  

without having to repeat the insult, it was directed at an eastern european country. 

aveli666:

jack 67:

aveli666:

jack 67:

aveli666:

jack 67:

Where is the logic in taking two opposite view points but then insisting you are correct on both occasions. You were quite insistent that thinner tyres offered more grip. How does this tally with surface area being king?

It doesn't matter what else you say. Untill you can admit you were wrong on this then any further discussion is futile.

i don't know if i should encourage someone like you who insults a whole nation of people just for the sake of arguing. what wrong have the people done? 

Could you explain what nation I have insulted and how I have insulted said nation?

you know better what you wrote about a nation of people because you wrote it. do you not remember wrting about any nation and asking if they don't do certain things?

I do not recall insulting an entire nation. You will have to jog my memory.

I would guess you are once again trying to draw attention from the fact that YOUR WRONG!  

without having to repeat the insult, it was directed at an eastern european country. 

Either show where I have insulted a nation or dont say that I have. This has to be right down there with calling people diseased. Is there no depths you wont sink to to try and divert attention from the fact that YOUR WRONG!

aveli666:

well jack67, if you cannot recognise that you insulted a whole nation i cannot help you any further.

Wrong poster aveli. So yes, Jack is right, you are wrong.

aveli666:

well jack67, if you cannot recognise that you insulted a whole nation i cannot help you any further.

I see. So you are not able to show where I have insulted an entire nation. If this is the best you can do Aveli then I pity you.

You have to face up to the fact that YOUR WRONG. You have been shown to be wrong. Everyone that reads this thread can see YOUR WRONG. Trying to pretend I have deliberately insulted an entire nation will not alter this fact.  Your attacks on me are mis placed. I did not make you contradict yourself. I have not made anything up. I have not told any lies. I have merely quoted your own words to show that you have done a u turn and contradicted yourself.

The effort you put into these silly attacks on me and others would be better directed into coming to terms with this. Thinner tyres do not offer more grip. You have said so yourself. Accept it and embrace your new understanding.

jack 67:

aveli666:

well jack67, if you cannot recognise that you insulted a whole nation i cannot help you any further.

I see. So you are not able to show where I have insulted an entire nation. If this is the best you can do Aveli then I pity you.

You have to face up to the fact that YOUR WRONG. You have been shown to be wrong. Everyone that reads this thread can see YOUR WRONG. Trying to pretend I have deliberately insulted an entire nation will not alter this fact.  Your attacks on me are mis placed. I did not make you contradict yourself. I have not made anything up. I have not told any lies. I have merely quoted your own words to show that you have done a u turn and contradicted yourself.

The effort you put into these silly attacks on me and others would be better directed into coming to terms with this. Thinner tyres do not offer more grip. You have said so yourself. Accept it and embrace your new understanding.

 

Isn't it "You're Wrong"?