How does tyre width affect grip in Formula 1?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KevinS
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Friction Width
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between tire width, grip, and friction in Formula 1 racing. It emphasizes that the amount of dry friction is determined by the normal force and the friction coefficient, rather than the size of the contact surface. A wider tire does not inherently provide more grip; instead, it allows for the use of softer rubber compounds without compromising tire lifespan. This softer rubber is what enhances grip. Theoretical explanations clarify that while frictional force is proportional to contact area, increasing surface area decreases pressure, leading to a balance where only the object's weight matters. In practice, wider tires reduce material stress during high-speed cornering, preventing failures that can occur with narrower tires.
KevinS
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi!

In a non-related forum I'm trying to convince some people that the amount of dry friction has nothing to do with the size of the contact surface, just the normal force (Fn) and the friction coefficient. In this case it's about formula1, tyre width, wear and grip.

I say a wider tyre does not give more grip, but it allows you to use softer rubber without reducing the lifespan of the tyre. It's the softer rubber that gives you more grip.

Can someone point me to a website that explains this matter (normal force, friction coefficient) clearly? They don't seem to believe ME... :frown:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are correct, theoretically.

It is easily explained, but read the full explanation:

the amount of frictional force is proportional to the surface area of contact, but it is also proportional to the pressure with which the two surfaces are "pressed" together.

If you increase the surface area however, you will by definition decrease the pressure since pressure is "weight divided by surface area." So a change in surface area will cause two counterbalancing effects that leave, as you said, only the weight of the object to be considered.

Back to the real world: as you said, larger tires are used in order that softer material can be utilized. The greatest force required from the tires occurs during cornering. If a certain force were required to make a turn at high speeds with thin tires, the material itself could fail (similar to the fact that a rubber band will snap). You can see that this happens in racing when you get a close look at the old tires at they are replaced: small chunks are often ripped out.

THis failure is not a failure of the frictional force; rather, it is a "stress" related failure of the material. Wider tires will reduce the stress per unit area of each tire (sticklers: yes, I know that's redundant!).
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top