Race against real F1 drivers in real time!

kalmar · **Posted:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:27

KevR wrote:

MaliA wrote:

kalmar wrote:

Hi. What's this argument about? I'd like to help.

"Car braking is about brakes and not a lot to do with tyres"

No it's not. I'm not sure where you are quoting that from.

It's about what has the biggest influence on braking, the brakes or the tyres.

The answer is "It depends".
Glad to help, next.

KevR · **Posted:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:31

MaliA wrote:

Because, at present, brakes exist where they CAN lock a wheel up in a tiny amount of time, this has been the same for a long time. Now, tyre compunds are getting better and better and the tyres can grip more before lockig, so they have become the most important part of a braking system in an F1 car, that's why the FIA took steps to remove this grip, and not mess with the braking systems.

They do mess with braking systems, that's why technologies such as ABS and power brakes are not allowed.

As stated umpteen times now, braking is all about dissipating a car's kinetic energy and this is primarily achieved by the brakes.

Other components/aspects of the car also play a part in this to various degrees, the tyres are one of them.

As has also been stated, F1 tyre technology is centered around increasing cornering and acceleration speeds, not braking ability.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16560

KevR wrote:

However, for the sake of road safety, braking quickly has to be balanced with allowing the driver to maintain control of the vehicle.

ABS aids a driver in doing this, it is also why it is banned in F1.

From reading your posts you seem to be under the impression that the fastest way to stop a car is to lock up the wheels. This is wrong.

KevR · **Posted:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:41

markg wrote:

KevR wrote:

However, for the sake of road safety, braking quickly has to be balanced with allowing the driver to maintain control of the vehicle.

ABS aids a driver in doing this, it is also why it is banned in F1.

From reading your posts you seem to be under the impression that the fastest way to stop a car is to lock up the wheels. This is wrong.

It is wrong, you are correct. However, I am not under that impression.

If you lock the wheels, you don't maximise the braking potential of the vehicle as the tyres will lose traction.

MaliA · **Posted:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:42

KevR wrote:

markg wrote:

KevR wrote:

However, for the sake of road safety, braking quickly has to be balanced with allowing the driver to maintain control of the vehicle.

ABS aids a driver in doing this, it is also why it is banned in F1.

From reading your posts you seem to be under the impression that the fastest way to stop a car is to lock up the wheels. This is wrong.

It is wrong, you are correct. However, I am not under that impression.

If you lock the wheels, you don't maximise the braking potential of the vehicle as the tyres will lose traction.

The wheels lock as the tyres HAVE lost traction.

The longer tyres have traction, the quicker the car will stop.

kalmar · **Posted:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:44

MaliA wrote:

Because, at present, brakes exist where they CAN lock a wheel up in a tiny amount of time, this has been the same for a long time.

This isn't really relevant. Braking is not about ability to stop the wheel in a short time, it's about dissipating the energy whilst bringing the car to a stop *without* locking the wheel (if it was locked, the brake disc is not turning, so *no* further energy is dissipated!).

MaliA · **Posted:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:46

kalmar wrote:

MaliA wrote:

Because, at present, brakes exist where they CAN lock a wheel up in a tiny amount of time, this has been the same for a long time.

This isn't really relevant. Braking is not about ability to stop the wheel in a short time, it's about dissipating the energy whilst bringing the car to a stop *without* locking the wheel (if it was locked, the brake disc is not turning, so *no* further energy is dissipated!).

That's my point. So tyres have had to catch up so they don't lock and keep gripping under the same force that would lock less grippy tyres.

kalmar · **Posted:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:46

MaliA wrote:

KevR wrote:

If you lock the wheels, you don't maximise the braking potential of the vehicle as the tyres will lose traction.

The wheels lock as the tyres HAVE lost traction.

The longer tyres have traction, the quicker the car will stop.

They still have traction, but the coefficient of friction of a locked wheel is a lower than that of a wheel which more or less matches the road speed.

kalmar · **Posted:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:49

MaliA wrote:

kalmar wrote:

MaliA wrote:

Because, at present, brakes exist where they CAN lock a wheel up in a tiny amount of time, this has been the same for a long time.

This isn't really relevant. Braking is not about ability to stop the wheel in a short time, it's about dissipating the energy whilst bringing the car to a stop *without* locking the wheel (if it was locked, the brake disc is not turning, so *no* further energy is dissipated!).

That's my point. So tyres have had to catch up so they don't lock and keep gripping under the same force that would lock less grippy tyres.

No, it's *always* possible to lock the wheel. If it isn't, the brakes are undersized for the vehicle or the mechanical advantage from the brake pedal to the friction surfaces isn't sufficient.

If you've upgraded the tyres so that the wheels can no longer be locked, then you *must* upgrade the brakes as well, because this indicates that you are now brake limited.

MaliA · **Posted:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:52

kalmar wrote:

MaliA wrote:

kalmar wrote:

MaliA wrote:

Because, at present, brakes exist where they CAN lock a wheel up in a tiny amount of time, this has been the same for a long time.

This isn't really relevant. Braking is not about ability to stop the wheel in a short time, it's about dissipating the energy whilst bringing the car to a stop *without* locking the wheel (if it was locked, the brake disc is not turning, so *no* further energy is dissipated!).

That's my point. So tyres have had to catch up so they don't lock and keep gripping under the same force that would lock less grippy tyres.

No, it's *always* possible to lock the wheel. If it isn't, the brakes are undersized for the vehicle or the mechanical advantage from the brake pedal to the friction surfaces isn't sufficient.

If you've upgraded the tyres so that the wheels can no longer be locked, then you *must* upgrade the brakes as well, because this indicates that you are now brake limited.

Agree with that, but, given that racing cars CAN lock their wheels (and you see it quite often) it is not unreasonable to suggest that at this current time, the tyres are more important than the brakes.

Quote:

The tires are the single greatest influence on braking ability. I don't believe for a moment that a sports car, even stock, will have any problem locking up its tires when the brakes are applied heavily. Fancy brake components are developed to deal with heat build up. The cheapest brake pads you can buy from a motor factors will give excellent braking ability, but not for continued hard use. Racing brake pads are generally a lot worse initially, requiring heat to work, but will last race distances. He wasn't doing race distances, just a few laps at a time to try for lap times. This is also the reason for grooved or cross drilled brake discs. Believe what you like, it's absolutely not my problem.

I was agreeig o that originally, I think.

KevR · **Posted:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:55

MaliA wrote:

Agree with that, but, given that f1 cars CAN lock their wheels (and you see it quite often) it is not unreasonable to suggest that at this current time, the tyres are more important than the brakes.

Not for braking there not. The tyres aren't responsible for the dissipation of anywhere near the same level of kinetic energy.

kalmar · **Posted:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:58

MaliA wrote:

kalmar wrote:

MaliA wrote:

kalmar wrote:

MaliA wrote:

Because, at present, brakes exist where they CAN lock a wheel up in a tiny amount of time, this has been the same for a long time.

This isn't really relevant. Braking is not about ability to stop the wheel in a short time, it's about dissipating the energy whilst bringing the car to a stop *without* locking the wheel (if it was locked, the brake disc is not turning, so *no* further energy is dissipated!).

That's my point. So tyres have had to catch up so they don't lock and keep gripping under the same force that would lock less grippy tyres.

No, it's *always* possible to lock the wheel. If it isn't, the brakes are undersized for the vehicle or the mechanical advantage from the brake pedal to the friction surfaces isn't sufficient.

If you've upgraded the tyres so that the wheels can no longer be locked, then you *must* upgrade the brakes as well, because this indicates that you are now brake limited.

Agree with that, but, given that f1 cars CAN lock their wheels (and you see it quite often) it is not unreasonable to suggest that at this current time, the tyres are more important than the brakes.

I'd still say that's faulty logic. The brakes must and will always be sufficient to lock the tyres, so you can't base a conclusion on that.

kalmar · **Posted:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:04

Imagine that the F1 car is on a giant treadmill...

MaliA · **Posted:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:05

kalmar wrote:

Imagine that the F1 car is on a giant treadmill...

It's fast getting that way, isn't it?

kalmar · **Posted:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:09

I'm maintaining that it's daft to say that one is "more important" than the other.

If you want, define the problem in terms of whether improvements in braking are easier to achieve through spending money on the brakes or the tyres.
Even then, you can't really take either part in isolation, the function is a compromise within the car as a whole. Shrug.

MaliA · **Posted:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:14

So, Ashley Cole attended his brother's wedding without Cheryl, then?

KevR · **Posted:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:17

MaliA wrote:

So, Ashley Cole attended his brother's wedding without Cheryl, then?

The cad!

metalangel · **Posted:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 20:04

kalmar wrote:

Imagine that the F1 car is on a giant treadmill...

So it slams on its brakes and locks its wheels, the treadmill keeps spinning and the car is flung backwards off the back, right?

Meanwhile, Lara Croft jumps over the cab of a moving truck to shoot the driver through the windshield while landing in her mate's jeep.

:attitude:

Dudley · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 8679

MetalAngel wrote:

Meanwhile, Lara Croft jumps and all forward motion ceases instantly.

:attitude:

FTFY.

CUS · **Posted:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 20:25

Ahem. I know that I'm Cunty McTwat and all that, and if I ever thought that my opinion mattered, I'd probably not feel the need to ever express it. But:

Can we please stop with all the tedious 'LOL REMEMBER WHEN STU SAID THAT?' stuff, such as y'know, physics n' that?

It's dull, and hey, if nothing else, I think it just makes us look childish and bad.

Okay. That's all I wanted to say. Please return to your F1 thread or whatever, sorry.

Dudley · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 8679

Yes Miss.

*Goes to stand in corner*

CUS · **Posted:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 20:38

It was a polite request, sir, not an order.

Which is better, F1 or Nascar?

kalmar · **Posted:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 20:49

What, was that a Stu reference? WHOOSH I say. Whoosh.

F1 is better but still almost terminally boring.

Be Excellent To Each Other

Race against real F1 drivers in real time!
Not that revolutionary

Who is online

Be Excellent To Each Other

Race against real F1 drivers in real time! Not that revolutionary

Who is online

Race against real F1 drivers in real time!
Not that revolutionary