Kimi Returns - So What?

[dribbler 6]

It's funny that you say that because just a few days ago a read that Renault said they built everything around Kubica a suddenly he was gone and that was part of the problems why their drivers couldn't perform this season, I prefer to believe them and there was also a news talking about how Ferrari's car in Kimi's last season came to fit Massa more than Kimi because of the little time Kimi spent in the factory, I still prefer to believe them I could dig out for those article but I will get in trouble with my wife if I don't finish with the vacuum before she gets here but maybe latter I can get some time to find them.

EDIT: Found one and this is what they said:"Don't forget, we built everything around Kubica because he was the main asset of this company and the guy disappears after one week, so my main foundation was broken."

This is Boullier speaking and here is the link in case you want to check it out for yourself

Thanks for going to the time and trouble to find he article. I hope you managed to 'finish' with the vacuum before your wife came home and maybe even found the time to do some cleaning with it....

The thing is, to say that 'everything was built around Kubica' is a bit ambiguous. Without wishing to be pedantic, I would prerfer to see a quote that says 'the car was designed for Kubica' as opposed to a statement that could imply the team effort was 'built around him'.

For the technically adept amongst us (if there are any left) who can give an explanation of what the fundamental characterisitics of a car's design should be for differing driving styles? In English, how do you decide to build a car for someone that likes oversteer as opposed to understeer?

In my naivety, I have always believed that accomodating these preferences is all about set up (i.e. shifting ballast, spring and damper rates and down force levels). Most drivers talk about getting a 'balance' but I'm sure this does not mean a perfect ballance by definition. It means a balance that suits their style.

So for Button, for example, a perfect balance could be one that errs toward ultimate understeer, with no surprises at the back end. This could be achieved by having a stiffer front end, softer back end and slightly lower levels of down force at the front.

Schumacher likes a car to turn in on its nose. He's a late apex driver, taking the car deep to the outside of the corner before turning the front in sharply for a straighter exit. In this situation you need a car that will always turn in at the front, no matter what. It might make the back end move around and as such is more challenging, but its generally believed to be faster.

Rambling further, based on what I believe to be true above, I do not understand how Button does not ruin his front tyres more from front end scrub, and why Schumacher is struggling so much against Rosberg (apart from age and being out of the loop for while).

Sorry, I was making a point somewhere amongst all of the above. I think it was to do with cars being built for specific drivers....

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Who says that any Ferrari was built to suit Alonso or Massa?

The days of cars being built to supposedly suit a particular driver style (whateve the hell that is and how it precisley translates down the CAD/CAM trail at design stage) are a thing of the past.

Luca's public Massa school report tells you everything you need to know; Massa simply must try harder. If he was driving a car that was purely to suit Alonso, they would put up and shut up.

The only thing I agree with is that Alonso is probably receiving better attention at Maranello (apart from the race engineer departmnent where Smedley practically tells Massa what gear to be in on every corner).

Steve...listen carefuly, because I posted this point before in this thread. The developments that Ferrari brought in after Malaysia 2008 made the car more understeery than oversteery, which suited Massa's style!!!

For god's sake!!!! Does anyone hear me?????????

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Adrian Newey, designer of the championship-winning Red Bull RB6 and RB7, had this to say about Raikkonen while they were both at McLaren: “Kimi and Mika [Hakkinen] have a similar way of reporting on a car’s behaviour. It’s economical in terms of vocabulary — they don’t waste words, let’s put it that way! — but the words they do use are very accurate. If Kimi makes a comment about the car, it’s worth taking notice of that comment, just as it was with Mika.”

The comments Newey gives about Kimi's feedback is fascinating! This comes from the best car designer out there, which confirms my suspicions all along. Now I read in F1 racing that Kimi use to give feedback to ferrari engineers and if they could'nt implement, he would simply shrug it off. Which tell me that Ferrari is as much to blame for Kimi's performances during his "de-motivational" period before he got ousted. The fact that they are STILL struggling to compete with the top dogs confirms this....

ANY CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS???????

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Boullier has more excuses than Jenson had in his playboy phase. The team built a highly radical car which they couldn't maintain or develop successfully. I hear what Eric says but a better TP wouldn't be saying it. Kubica could get competitive pace out of a garden shed. The whole outfit needs grabbing by the scruff of the neck and shaking up. It would have in my day at the Regie, that's for sure. More's the pity they sold out and not to Dave Richards either. Kimi is in for a shock joining a midfield team and a young whipper-snapper like Grosjean snarling at his heels won't help at all. It is interesting to note that Heidfeld scored 34 points in the 8 races he finished as opposed to Bruno who managed 2 in the same span. Gerald Lopez has said publicly that the team have no time to develop young drivers. What's with the Grosjean caper then, not to mention the copious string of reserves they have in tow? I can't help thinking that a stronger TP like Berger, for instance, a far more conservative car and the recruitment of a seasoned points scorer like Nick, Rubens or even Kovi will take the new Lotus team a lot closer to their ultimate goal.

I see your god has spoken...pray you'll listen to him.

Button: 'Raikkonen return came as a shock'

Jenson Button admitted he was shocked when he heard the news that Kimi Raikkonen would be returning to Formula 1 with Renault (Lotus) next season. The McLaren driver believes the Finns return to the grid can only be seen as good news for the sport, and Button expects Raikkonen to be on the pace almost immediately. "It was a shock to me that he's going to be racing for the team he is," Button told reporters at the Race of Champions. "I was really surprised when they announced Kimi. I thought he had a chance at Williams. "I think it's really good for the sport. As a driver, he's very, very competitive. If he really wants to race, he's going to be quick. "From what I've heard from the engineers at McLaren, he knows what he's doing in terms of engineering and setting up the car. "It's good to have him back and the races will be more fun and obviously the evenings after the races will be more fun," added Button, in regard to Raikkonen's famous love of partying.

[yurp 0]

Thanks for going to the time and trouble to find he article. I hope you managed to 'finish' with the vacuum before your wife came home and maybe even found the time to do some cleaning with it....

The thing is, to say that 'everything was built around Kubica' is a bit ambiguous. Without wishing to be pedantic, I would prerfer to see a quote that says 'the car was designed for Kubica' as opposed to a statement that could imply the team effort was 'built around him'.

For the technically adept amongst us (if there are any left) who can give an explanation of what the fundamental characterisitics of a car's design should be for differing driving styles? In English, how do you decide to build a car for someone that likes oversteer as opposed to understeer?

In my naivety, I have always believed that accomodating these preferences is all about set up (i.e. shifting ballast, spring and damper rates and down force levels). Most drivers talk about getting a 'balance' but I'm sure this does not mean a perfect ballance by definition. It means a balance that suits their style.

So for Button, for example, a perfect balance could be one that errs toward ultimate understeer, with no surprises at the back end. This could be achieved by having a stiffer front end, softer back end and slightly lower levels of down force at the front.

Schumacher likes a car to turn in on its nose. He's a late apex driver, taking the car deep to the outside of the corner before turning the front in sharply for a straighter exit. In this situation you need a car that will always turn in at the front, no matter what. It might make the back end move around and as such is more challenging, but its generally believed to be faster.

Rambling further, based on what I believe to be true above, I do not understand how Button does not ruin his front tyres more from front end scrub, and why Schumacher is struggling so much against Rosberg (apart from age and being out of the loop for while).

Sorry, I was making a point somewhere amongst all of the above. I think it was to do with cars being built for specific drivers....

Car designs tend to go faster if the balance that the driver likes is pretty much in the sweet spot of that car design. If a car is designed around a driver then the car's fastest set-up (let's call that the default/neutral set-up) is generally one where the balance suits that particular driver - that inevitably means that that driver has more leeway in tinkering with the set-up each race and finds his balance easier and that the car is designed to go at it's fastest using something close to that neutral set-up. Another driver may be able to find their own "balance" by tweaking the set-up more, but that will take the car further away from it's inherent design characteristics at which it performs at it's fastest.

So - taking under/oversteer. If you design a car for Schumi, you'd design the neutral set-up to be more oversteery than if you designed it for Button. Yes - if you swapped their cars over, they could fiddle to find the best balance for themselves in each other's cars, but they wouldn't go as fast as in their own all other things being equal, because that car wasn't designed to be at its fastest when set-up in the other driver's configuration.

Think about chips and rice cakes. You can add salt to a rice cake to please a salt-loving eater, but that would then detract from what makes the rice cake "good" (I ****ing hate rice cakes), which is their "healthiness". On the other hand, you can forgo the salt on your chips for someone with heart problems, but that would make them bland.

In adapting the vehicle to a driver through set-up, some of it's essential speed will be lost. If however, you feed salty chips to a salt-lover you won't diminish the noble chip. Rice cakes on the other hand are always Sh#t, so there's just no chance of coming out on top there.... think HRT.

[Schumikonen 2]

Car designs tend to go faster if the balance that the driver likes is pretty much in the sweet spot of that car design. If a car is designed around a driver then the car's fastest set-up (let's call that the default/neutral set-up) is generally one where the balance suits that particular driver - that inevitably means that that driver has more leeway in tinkering with the set-up each race and finds his balance easier and that the car is designed to go at it's fastest using something close to that neutral set-up. Another driver may be able to find their own "balance" by tweaking the set-up more, but that will take the car further away from it's inherent design characteristics at which it performs at it's fastest.

So - taking under/oversteer. If you design a car for Schumi, you'd design the neutral set-up to be more oversteery than if you designed it for Button. Yes - if you swapped their cars over, they could fiddle to find the best balance for themselves in each other's cars, but they wouldn't go as fast as in their own all other things being equal, because that car wasn't designed to be at its fastest when set-up in the other driver's configuration.

Think about chips and rice cakes. You can add salt to a rice cake to please a salt-loving eater, but that would then detract from what makes the rice cake "good" (I ****ing hate rice cakes), which is their "healthiness". On the other hand, you can forgo the salt on your chips for someone with heart problems, but that would make them bland.

In adapting the vehicle to a driver through set-up, some of it's essential speed will be lost. If however, you feed salty chips to a salt-lover you won't diminish the noble chip. Rice cakes on the other hand are always Sh#t, so there's just no chance of coming out on top there.... think HRT.

That's what I thought about this issue and also what I read and hear the F1 people and fans talking about so there must be some truth about it even though I think I may be wrong as I don't know much about but like I said this is what I've been finding in the news for years up until today, how can we explain Webber's season if this incorrect? the only likely (or very unlikely) explanation would be that Red Bull messed up his car on purpose or maybe he lost his motivation (like people said it happened to Kimi) o we can blame his broken shoulder at the end of 2010 (like in Massa's accident) or maybe a secret girlfriend dumped him (like it happened to LH) and I don't think any of this would be the right answer.

[Schumikonen 2]

The comments Newey gives about Kimi's feedback is fascinating! This comes from the best car designer out there, which confirms my suspicions all along. Now I read in F1 racing that Kimi use to give feedback to ferrari engineers and if they could'nt implement, he would simply shrug it off. Which tell me that Ferrari is as much to blame for Kimi's performances during his "de-motivational" period before he got ousted. The fact that they are STILL struggling to compete with the top dogs confirms this....

ANY CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS???????

I don't think you will hear much about this, they prefer to ignore it or will say "well that was at that time but now we don't know how motivated he is..."

[Schumikonen 2]

Thanks for going to the time and trouble to find he article. I hope you managed to 'finish' with the vacuum before your wife came home and maybe even found the time to do some cleaning with it....

I am not the one on the picture in the Pics of you thread, I was actually cleaning with it not having fun maybe if it were a little bit less dustier...

[Schumikonen 2]

The thing is, to say that 'everything was built around Kubica' is a bit ambiguous. Without wishing to be pedantic, I would prerfer to see a quote that says 'the car was designed for Kubica' as opposed to a statement that could imply the team effort was 'built around him'.

I thought of that too but on the other hand the only build cars, you can say the whole team structure was built around him but he was out of the season a couple of month before the start of the season if I remember correctly so they had plenty of time to make some adjustments for the replacement driver and remember also that every time have two drivers so at least Petrov had to be fast in this car and not being affected by the Kubica being out of the team.

Now if you think the car was designed around Kubica then you have a big problem if he is out and you don't have a driver with similar driving style, at least this is what I think about it.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

I am not the one on the picture in the Pics of you thread, I was actually cleaning with it not having fun maybe if it were a little bit less dustier...

Schumikonen, come on man, you can't do vacuum stuff around the house... if your wife ever tells u to do vacuuming, place a table in the middle of the room and have your feet up with a cold beer I say!

We have to dictate the order around the house, otherwise they take advantage (I hope Steph don't see this 'is true)

[dribbler 6]

Car designs tend to go faster if the balance that the driver likes is pretty much in the sweet spot of that car design. If a car is designed around a driver then the car's fastest set-up (let's call that the default/neutral set-up) is generally one where the balance suits that particular driver - that inevitably means that that driver has more leeway in tinkering with the set-up each race and finds his balance easier and that the car is designed to go at it's fastest using something close to that neutral set-up. Another driver may be able to find their own "balance" by tweaking the set-up more, but that will take the car further away from it's inherent design characteristics at which it performs at it's fastest.

So - taking under/oversteer. If you design a car for Schumi, you'd design the neutral set-up to be more oversteery than if you designed it for Button. Yes - if you swapped their cars over, they could fiddle to find the best balance for themselves in each other's cars, but they wouldn't go as fast as in their own all other things being equal, because that car wasn't designed to be at its fastest when set-up in the other driver's configuration.

Think about chips and rice cakes. You can add salt to a rice cake to please a salt-loving eater, but that would then detract from what makes the rice cake "good" (I ****ing hate rice cakes), which is their "healthiness". On the other hand, you can forgo the salt on your chips for someone with heart problems, but that would make them bland.

In adapting the vehicle to a driver through set-up, some of it's essential speed will be lost. If however, you feed salty chips to a salt-lover you won't diminish the noble chip. Rice cakes on the other hand are always Sh#t, so there's just no chance of coming out on top there.... think HRT.

But what is it about the design of the car that makes it one way or the other? What is the 'neutral set-up' to which you refer? Surely we are talking about such fine details that simply moving a bit of ballast could change the fundamental design characteristics from one that is understeer to one that is oversteer biased.

I want to know what the actual things is at design stage that makes a designer say "x component must be shaped in this way to create y result". I simply cannot see it.

F1 cars are designed around dimensions and regulations that are fixed. How much scope is there within this to make a car that has one type of handling characteristic? It is my belief that all cars are designed for perfect balance with individual preferences decided by the driver at set up stage. This is surely the most logical and safest way to design a car.

[Schumikonen 2]

Schumikonen, come on man, you can't do vacuum stuff around the house... if your wife ever tells u to do vacuuming, place a table in the middle of the room and have your feet up with a cold beer I say!

We have to dictate the order around the house, otherwise they take advantage (I hope Steph don't see this 'is true)

I'll do that as soon as I get a job, right now I have to take care of the baby and the house and everything that have to be done while my wife is working.

[Schumikonen 2]

But what is it about the design of the car that makes it one way or the other? What is the 'neutral set-up' to which you refer? Surely we are talking about such fine details that simply moving a bit of ballast could change the fundamental design characteristics from one that is understeer to one that is oversteer biased.

I want to know what the actual things is at design stage that makes a designer say "x component must be shaped in this way to create y result". I simply cannot see it.

F1 cars are designed around dimensions and regulations that are fixed. How much scope is there within this to make a car that has one type of handling characteristic? It is my belief that all cars are designed for perfect balance with individual preferences decided by the driver at set up stage. This is surely the most logical and safest way to design a car.

if it was that easy to control balance in that way it would be very difficult for us to hear about over and under-steering, we have seen driver suffering from one of those problems almost an entire season, drivers can adjust a lot of things in the c#ckpit to fix the changes in the car balance as the fuel gets burned and tires worn out but certain cars have a tendency to one of those over or under-steering and the drivers and engineers have to find the set up to correct this problems or to create according to the case.

[yurp 0]

But what is it about the design of the car that makes it one way or the other? What is the 'neutral set-up' to which you refer? Surely we are talking about such fine details that simply moving a bit of ballast could change the fundamental design characteristics from one that is understeer to one that is oversteer biased.

I want to know what the actual things is at design stage that makes a designer say "x component must be shaped in this way to create y result". I simply cannot see it.

F1 cars are designed around dimensions and regulations that are fixed. How much scope is there within this to make a car that has one type of handling characteristic? It is my belief that all cars are designed for perfect balance with individual preferences decided by the driver at set up stage. This is surely the most logical and safest way to design a car.

I see what you're getting at and I agree that the differences must be fairly small. I'll also admit I don't know enough technically to go into the finer details (you'd need someone qualified enough to actually design F1 cars for that).

However, we can see how different in nature the RB is from the Macca this last year. The RB makes all its lap time in the slow corners while the Macca goes fast in a straight line. So we can deduce that although the differences are very small in overall lap time, the different tacks taken during design can result in cars with very different neutral set-up characteristics and very different natures as a result.

Now - back to my reasoning for saying that different cars can suit different drivers better... Say Newey was designing a car for Schumi. He'd think to himself 'This man likes oversteer, I shall give him an inherently oversteery car and make it go bloody fast in the that guise'. So he would design a car around a neutral set-up that was naturally more oversteery in nature. If you then had a driver like Button jump into that car, he would have to adjust the set-up far more than Schumi to find his own 'best balance' in that car. As a result, he would take that car further away from it's neutral set-up which is further away from how Newey designed it. In doing so, that is likely to scrub some speed off the overall lap time because Newey had designed the aero, KERS, traction, exhaust system and everything else to work well in an oversteery set-up configuration.

To clarify, the "neutral set-up" would be the "out of the box" version of the car. I would assume that that neutral set-up would allow both more and less front wing to an equal extent, it would allow for as much ballast to be moved forward as backwards, it would allow for the front wheel camber to be adjusted equally in both directions (all settings would be at their 50% position with as much allowance for them to be moved up as down).

Personally I preferred my rice cake analogy.

[Insider 0]

I see your god has spoken...pray you'll listen to him.

Button: 'Raikkonen return came as a shock'

Jenson Button admitted he was shocked when he heard the news that Kimi Raikkonen would be returning to Formula 1 with Renault (Lotus) next season. The McLaren driver believes the Finns return to the grid can only be seen as good news for the sport, and Button expects Raikkonen to be on the pace almost immediately. "It was a shock to me that he's going to be racing for the team he is," Button told reporters at the Race of Champions. "I was really surprised when they announced Kimi. I thought he had a chance at Williams. "I think it's really good for the sport. As a driver, he's very, very competitive. If he really wants to race, he's going to be quick. "From what I've heard from the engineers at McLaren, he knows what he's doing in terms of engineering and setting up the car. "It's good to have him back and the races will be more fun and obviously the evenings after the races will be more fun," added Button, in regard to Raikkonen's famous love of partying.

he's just setting him up to knock him down - the way he did with Hambone

[Schumikonen 2]

he's just setting him up to knock him down - the way he did with Hambone

I don't like that comment, not even a little.

[HandyNZL 1]

Bollocks bollocks bollocks

The only part that is designed around a driver is the blimmin' seat.

Everything else can be tuned in or tuned out. Ergo:

Understeer Corrections

Raise front tire pressure.

Lower rear tire pressure.

Soften front shocks. Stiffen Bump.

Stiffen rear shocks.

Lower front end.

Raise rear end.

Widen front track.

Install shorter front tires.

Install taller rear tires.

Install wider front tires.

Install narrower rear tires.

Soften front sway bar.

Stiffen rear sway bar.

More front toe out.

Reduce rear toe in slightly.

Increase front negative camber.

Increase positive caster.

Soften front springs.

Stiffen rear springs.

May need more front suspension travel.

Install wider front wheels.

Use softer front compound if possible.

Use harder rear compound if possible.

Remove weight from front of vehicle.

Add weight to rear of vehicle.

Drive a different line.

Use weight transfer to your advantage.

High Speed. Increase front wing downforce.

Too much front brake bias.

Oversteer Corrections.

Lower front tire pressure.

Raise rear tire pressure.

Stiffen front shocks.

Soften rear shocks.

Raise front end.

Lower rear end.

Reduce rear track.

Install taller front tires.

Install shorter rear tires.

Install narrower front tires.

Install wider rear tires.

Stiffen front sway bar.

Soften rear sway bar.

More front toe in.

Increase rear toe in.

Reduce front negative camber.

Reduce positive caster.

Stiffen front springs.

Soften rear springs.

May need more rear suspension travel.

Install wider rear wheels.

Use harder front compound if possible.

Use softer rear compound if possible.

Add weight to front of vehicle.

Remove weight from rear of vehicle.

Driver may be going in too deep.

Driver may be getting on the throttle to early.

High Speed. Increase rear wing downforce.

Too much rear brake bias.

Sorry for the fonticidal tendencies there, but copy and pasting out of my race car setup documents.

[yurp 0]

Thank you for the corrections Handy. Good to know one when I'm speaking crap (wifey tells me that as a rule of thumb, if my mouth is moving, there's probably Sh#t coming out).

I was working on my own assumptions and limited knowledge, so I will bow to your greater knowledge without delay.

BUT...

I still remain very slightly unconvinced by your argument. Sorry. Going through you list I see "Drive a different line."

As we know - different drivers tend to take/like different lines. So that's not setting the car up to suit the driver (i.e. any car will suit any driver), but rather a car's innate characteristics suiting a specific driver - which is what I was arguing all along. If you say to Button "you'll have to drive a different line in this car because you need to compensate for the amount it oversteer it gives compared to how you like it" while saying to Schumi "you can take your normal line into corners because this car innately oversteers to the degree you like" then surely that car suits Schumi more that Button. No?

I got a nice laugh out of part of your quote too...

I like the way they tell you to "Install wider front tires." and then 10 or so lines LATER "Install wider front wheels."

I can imagine someone having a hell of a time trying to get the ****ing b#####d w#nker Sh#tty wide front tyres on the old frigging pig-arsed bollocking front thinner wheels for an hour or so, then reading down a few lines and going bat-Sh#t insane.

[freaky2 1]

Someone was saying sumthin' about Kimi back in F1? I guess that's my cue for coming back over here and expressing my hopes of him not screwing it up and making us look bad.

I sincerely hope that team Poochie can improve at least a bit... Kubica was doing well for a while. And I do believe that Kimi is still capable of 'outdriving' a car, as long as he wants to do it ^^

By the way, I'm following with curiosity the Understeer/Oversteer debate, carry on.

[Quiet One 15]

Me too. Everytime I am about to post something, somebdoy post whatever I was going to post, with the only difference that that person usually knows what he/she is talking about, so I end up refraining myself

Some minor points, though, mostly as not to forget myself what it felt like posting claptrap:

@car suiting drivers: I won't trouble myself searching for the quote, but it's there somewhere if someone cares enough to look it up: some driver/TP/crew member/WOW spammer said once "The main things that are built specifically for the driver are the seat and the helmet (remember the troubles Kubica trying to get inside the car). So I'm with Craig on this. Although I bet that is an oversimplification, my understanding was that most of the other tweking is done either via setup of the car or by some adjustments to the general outline based on the driver's feedback. For that, you need a driver that fulfills two roles at least, he must be the leading driver (and thus, guys will pay more attention to whatever he has to say over the other guy) and the guy must be clear (so what he say will translate to a better itegration with the car's inherent characteristics)

That brings us to the next point:

A number two driver will find that the car development is making driver #1 feel more and more comfortable about the car, while #2 must adapt and can only make the setup settings needed to make the car better for himself. At first I bet the differences aren't too high, as the car's inherent characteristics aren't too close for either, but as times goes on, he might end up struggling moe and more. Why? Because not only some developments make it easire for #1, but also because #2 is (by definition) worse at making the setup changes needed to close the gap (there are exceptions, of course, I am talking as a general rule). This is a minor problem if #2 style is close to #1, or if #2 is actually better at setup in which case he might end up with a car feeling more comfortable for him than for #1 (see this year at Macca, for such an example)

Mind you, this all goes just to explain what would make a driver feel more tuned to his car, which is always a GOOD thing, but not necessarily a must to be the best. You can outdrive your team mate who feels more comfortable with the car than you, if you are faster even if not so atuned with the car.

I hope this added enough confusion. If not, please let me know and I will make an even more confusing post.

ANyways. I just wanted to say I agree with Craig, mostly.

[dribbler 6]

ANyways. I just wanted to say I agree with Craig, mostly.

Bah! Why does the sheep shagging Kiwi arrive in the late afternoon of the discussion and receive all the plaudits?

I said in the early morning of this thread that cars aren't built around drivers. Where's my bloody recognition?

While we're at it, where are my bloody fags? Ah, that's right, I have just given up.

You're all b#####ds and the world sucks.

*Takes a deep breath* (because now he can).

[Quiet One 15]

Bah! Why does the sheep shagging Kiwi arrive in the late afternoon of the discussion and receive all the plaudits?

I said in the early morning of this thread that cars aren't built around drivers. Where's my bloody recognition?

While we're at it, where are my bloody fags? Ah, that's right, I have just given up.

You're all b#####ds and the world sucks.

*Takes a deep breath* (because now he can).

Give me a hug

[dribbler 6]

Give me a hug

Aww, thanks brother Andres. You're so much better than sucking on a fag.

[HandyNZL 1]

Thank you for the corrections Handy. Good to know one when I'm speaking crap (wifey tells me that as a rule of thumb, if my mouth is moving, there's probably Sh#t coming out).

I was working on my own assumptions and limited knowledge, so I will bow to your greater knowledge without delay.

BUT...

I still remain very slightly unconvinced by your argument. Sorry. Going through you list I see "Drive a different line."

As we know - different drivers tend to take/like different lines. So that's not setting the car up to suit the driver (i.e. any car will suit any driver), but rather a car's innate characteristics suiting a specific driver - which is what I was arguing all along. If you say to Button "you'll have to drive a different line in this car because you need to compensate for the amount it oversteer it gives compared to how you like it" while saying to Schumi "you can take your normal line into corners because this car innately oversteers to the degree you like" then surely that car suits Schumi more that Button. No?

I got a nice laugh out of part of your quote too...

I like the way they tell you to "Install wider front tires." and then 10 or so lines LATER "Install wider front wheels."

I can imagine someone having a hell of a time trying to get the ****ing b#####d w#nker Sh#tty wide front tyres on the old frigging pig-arsed bollocking front thinner wheels for an hour or so, then reading down a few lines and going bat-Sh#t insane.

A tyre is the black thing attached to the wheel, which is the magnesium alloy thing attached to the wheel hubs.

You can change the width of the wheel (rim), without changing the width of the tyre, and vice versa.

A skinny rim, with a wide tyre produces cantilever tyres - i.e. rather bulbous and over hanging the rim. This means that the tyre goes through much more lateral stress, and moves around on the rim, as you can appreciate. Hence wider rims will reduce this, and stop the tyres wandering. If the tyre is wandering then that corner of the car is stepping out of line.

So, it is correct in stating Wider Front Tyres, AND, Wider Front Wheels. Changing each will give a different feel in the car, and different response.

However, you can run cantilevered tyres, BUT you then need to adjust ride height, roll centers, bump steer, and camber etc. Case in point is on my own Formula Ford which is a 1974 Lola T340. The majority of the Lola T340's were sold into the USA where they ran slicks on the same skinny rims that UK/NZ/RSA ran narrower grooved tyres on (the Dunlop CR82). The slicks were wider and overhung the rim. Now that I race it on grooved tyres again, which are narrower, we have had to alter the suspension and swingarm/A-arm location points to re-adjust the roll center to suit. We have also widened the rims for 5" to 5.5", but still using the same tyre.

When we test / race, we go about adjusting mainly the tyre pressures, sway bar stiffness and spring preload (i.e. ride height) to dial in and out over/understeer. All of which can be observed by looking at the wear on the tyres themselves - where is the grain located, are the tyres scuffing across, is there only one hot side (or middle) etc. The goal is to achieve even graining patterns and even heat across the tyre.

And all that before we start playing with toe, bumpsteer and camber, which aid your turning ability.

Brake bias also plays a part as you don't want the back end locking up first, otherwise you will end up facing the other way - so in the wet you move the bias forward a click or two.

Weight distribution also plays it's part, but in terms of F1, they have a prescribed ballast, so that rules out playing with that.

[yurp 0]

Some minor points, though, mostly as not to forget myself what it felt like posting claptrap

I like it when people write the most important stuff first