4 degrees of camber

I'm going to try to explain my thinking on this, so if you don't have a clue what I'm on about - I understand completely!!!! :)

The teams run a camber on the wheels so that during cornering, the loaded tyre effectively has all its tyre tread/face in contact with the road, accounting for the deformation of the tyre wall caused by such load. This gives the maximum grip in the corner. However, with this camber, when going in a straight line and not under great load, the part of the tyre that will get most wear is the inside shoulder. Spa, because of the speeds achieved along the straight immediately after Eau Rouge and with the added effect of DRS and KERS, the loads under speed in a straight line are increased.

I would guess that Newey knows his car better than Pirelli, and I'd guess Pirelli know their tyres better than Red Bull, so who is right and who is wrong?

Did the blistering of the tyre actually affect the construction and thus integrity of the tyre?

Only Pirelli will know that, and given their concern, you'd have to guess that it was an issue.

What we need to know also is - did other teams, with less severe camber angles also suffer the same tyre issues (albeit to a lesser extent) - again, this is something we don't currently know.

In conclusion, and in response to Bagwan's opening point, you'd say that, if (God forbid) one of the RB pilots came a cropper in Spa as a result of tyre failure, then the blame would be laid squarely with the team for running a set-up against Pirelli's advice.

It is a tough question, because who is to say that, by running a lesser camber angle, the RB car might have posed a greater danger to the integrity of the tyre through Eau Rouge. We know just how much downforce that car runs, and given that DRS was banned in Eau Rouge - maybe they had to run that angle for qualifying, and did not want the pit start penalty for the race?

Ifs and buts I guess.

One final point, given Newey's sensitivity to safety - after all, it was his car that was carrying Ayrton when he died - would he really be that dumb to put himself in a position?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

One final point, given Newey's sensitivity to safety - after all, it was his car that was carrying Ayrton when he died - would he really be that dumb to put himself in a position?????

---

This is what surprised me the most about this whole situation. Adrian Newey has been exceptionally safety conscious since Ayrton died in his car 17 years ago. I was really taken aback that he did something that could potentially compromise the safety of the RBR drivers.

Maybe it's just a case that they have to do that to stay ahead? Sometimes to stay ahead of the game you need to make calculated risks and simply this one, on this occassion, didn't pay off. Other teams throughout the grid could be taking risks of equal magnitude but in different areas and we don't know about it yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

This is what surprised me the most about this whole situation. Adrian Newey has been exceptionally safety conscious since Ayrton died in his car 17 years ago. I was really taken aback that he did something that could potentially compromise the safety of the RBR drivers.

Maybe it's just a case that they have to do that to stay ahead? Sometimes to stay ahead of the game you need to make calculated risks and simply this one, on this occassion, didn't pay off. Other teams throughout the grid could be taking risks of equal magnitude but in different areas and we don't know about it yet.

---

Political games.

Notice how it was just RBR who kicked up a fuss.

This was not black and white like a grid penalty but a grey area - not that I'm saying that safety was a smoking gun.

If RBR were that concerned about safety then why did they pit Vettel and put him back on softs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

Political games.

Notice how it was just RBR who kicked up a fuss.

This was not black and white like a grid penalty but a grey area - not that I'm saying that safety was a smoking gun.

If RBR were that concerned about safety then why did they pit Vettel and put him back on softs?

---

A game , or performance trumping safety , as it had when they chose not to start from the pits ?

Or , are you saying that Newey was feigning being nervous about the race , and blatantly lying about it afterwards ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

A game , or performance trumping safety , as it had when they chose not to start from the pits ?

Or , are you saying that Newey was feigning being nervous about the race , and blatantly lying about it afterwards ?

---

It'll be interesting to see what Pirelli say. Were the tyres really that damaged or was it just the surface blistering and nothing more than that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

This problem runs across motorsport and not necessarily the fault of the tyre manufacturer.

For instance in NASCAR, teams may go beyond Goodyear's advice and wear the right-front tyres down to the cord.

When BTCC race at Thruxton some drivers go beyond Dunlop's advice on camber angles and tyre puncture are not uncommon.

---

Yep. Years ago when Tom Chilton came back at Thruxton, they ran him with more Camber than they knew the tyres could take. There was no way the tyres were going to finish the race but it would get Tom noticed and more sponsors.

4% though is pretty acute!! 3% is normally the max although there were some cars in the 60's running extreme camber and what I think were bike tyres. I guess that Pirelli will offer a rate of around 3% (and a min inflation) and if teams go outside that, then it's on their heads.

Have we got any geeks around here who can post any head-on comparison shots of the cars , pre-race , where we might be able to measure an angle or two ?
They need to be head-on , and at rest .

I'd like some idea of just how far the Bulls were beyond the recommended limit of four percent .

Clearly , from what both Newey and Hembery have said , it was significant .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Have we got any geeks around here who can post any head-on comparison shots of the cars , pre-race , where we might be able to measure an angle or two ?
They need to be head-on , and at rest .

I'd like some idea of just how far the Bulls were beyond the recommended limit of four percent .

Clearly , from what both Newey and Hembery have said , it was significant .

---

Done a quick Google search - nothing on camber angle comparisons for Spa 2011, but, and you'll like this, there is a fitness fair at Camber Sands on October 18th.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Done a quick Google search - nothing on camber angle comparisons for Spa 2011, but, and you'll like this, there is a fitness fair at Camber Sands on October 18th.....

---

Lotsa lard waddling around an arena ... no thanks .

You know , it's kinda weird that you didn't find anything there .
If the angle is the real sticking point here , why isn't anyone asking the question ?

Ah , just googled "red bull camber" , came up with the BBC site , and read this from Newey :
"just a hair over four, four and an eighth, or something, just a tiny bit over".

That doesn't sound like a lot at all , but maybe it is .