Oval racers and the phobia of rain...WTF?

[kwong2001]

So I watched a little bit of the Indy 500, and they stopped the race due to rain. Nascar also stops a race or doesn't race at all if it rains. Motorcycle racers race in the rain (which i would consider much more hazardous given the lack of a cage around them). Last weekend the Motogp race got rained out like 5 laps into it or something, and before switching bikes midway through the race, there were many guys that stayed out for a good amount of laps while on slicks even though the track got VERY wet.

Personally I love watching rain races just because it's way more technical and it's not just a matter of equipment and money, but rather skills. With that said, why don't oval racers race in the rain? Is it purely because they have no run-off or something else?

 

[Lessen]

With that said, why don't oval racers race in the rain? Is it purely because they have no run-off or something else?

That's a good possibility. I'm not really a big fan of stopping for rain myself. I say let 'em run some rain tires and get out there. The commentators always say things about how dangerous it is even with rain tires but c'mon... it's raining, they're gonna slow down. The basics of racing is still the same no matter what the conditions... they are gonna go as fast as they possibly can given the circumstances they are given.. If it's wet and they have to slow down 30 mph in the corner then so be it. Let 'em race!

 

[Rolex]

They're convertibles. You never drive in a hard rain with the top down. It's bad for the upholstery.

You also have to realize that their vision is compromised with rain on the windshield and the helmet face shield.
I hate to see the race stopped after 113 laps, because we'll NEVER know what could have been.
On the bright side, everyone got to go home. No one hurt or killed because of a wet track.

 

[Lessen]

You also have to realize that their vision is compromised with rain on the windshield and the helmet face shield.

that's very true. I didn't think of that.

 

[kwong2001]

You also have to realize that their vision is compromised with rain on the windshield and the helmet face shield.

Not sure about that, I can't imagine going 220mph with my head in the wind, hell, it'd be my guess that the aerodynamics wouldn't have any wind concentrated on their head and therefore they'd get little to no water on the shields. Besides, F1 races in the rain, and they probably have similar aerodynamics.

And gotta think too, motorcycles are out in the open which no protection from the wind/rain, and like I said, they still race in the rain.

 

[Rolex]

My all weather tires didn't stop me from driving today.

 

[HeartBreak]

My all weather tires didn't stop me from driving today.

So that's who won the race..... Congrats Rolex!

 

[Mondo]

Oooh nooo! Rain!

The Formula 1 guys do 180mph+ speeds in the wet with no fuss at all.
The fundamental difference is, F1 does weather development and has the needed wet weather tires. Even though they may only use them once or twice in a season, the teams all have a supply of wet weather rubber. Money talks in motorsport and developing these tires costs millions of dollars, and with F1 holding the majority of its events in Europe, they are prepared for the unpredictable climates all over the globe.

Here's some great footage of the F1 boys in the rain
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gn56BoncPA"]Dutch driver Jos Verstappen overtaking in the wet[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lha_ZqWxCJA"]Michael Schumacher qualifying in the wet with an average lap time of 269km/h or 168.5 mph[/ame]

Before we scream "traction control" and "idiot proof semi autro cars", here's some [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqZBJCFS_Ng"]old school 1977 footage of an F1 Montreal qualifier[/ame]
And for our American freinds, here's [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE13zilzvXE"]American F1 driver Eddie Cheever in the old 1000BHP+ Turbo F1 cars at the very wet Detroit racetrack[/ame]

I think the oval racers could race in the wet if MotoGP, F1 and LeMans can!
However, I think that the development of wet weather tires and equally important, developing wet weather setups for the cars could prove to be a costly exercise. Also, would the American audiences/fans sit out for a few hours in a wet race day? I have and know I would again, but I'm just plain stupid!

 

[jetmechG550]

Oval guys do not have a wet weather tire for one. Plus, they usually carry more speed into the turns. Look at the longer straights like Michigan, Charlotte, Atlanta where NASCAR Cup cars go into the turns at 190+, carry through the turn and do it again. IRL carry more speed than that into the turns. Developing a tire that will stick in the wet at those speeds is not feasible given the budget for tire development. NASCAR does ( or did) have a rain tire for the road course races. Not sure about IRL since they just started including road courses. I'm a bigger F1 fan than anything but they do have a rather extenisive budget for one thing to put money into tire development, they are fast but do not carry constant 190+ speeds around the entire track. On another note, since NASCAR and IRL usually aren't traveling more than across the country, they usually have the luxury of waiting a day where as in F1 they're traveling thousands of miles at a crack, around the globe. The logistics is unbelieveable in F1 so they can't usually push a race back one day.

 

[kwong2001]

It may be too costly for some, but certainly with all the money nascar teams throw into their programs each year, they could afford to do wet weather testing/setup.

 

[Lessen]

It may be too costly for some, but certainly with all the money nascar teams throw into their programs each year, they could afford to do wet weather testing/setup.

well, I'm not really sure about the hard numbers but the cost of running a cup team doesn't even remotely compare to the cost of running an F1 team. I think I heard somewhere a couple years ago about the cost of a full season sponsorship for 1 car. I think the Cup teams were somewhere in the 7-8M range where as an F1 sponsorship could run upwards of 20M per year. Don't quote me on those numbers but it's something vastly different like that.

 

[jetmechG550]

Bridgestone had a team of engineers working alone with Ferrari over the years before this year. Michellin had the same with their top teams Renault and McLaren. Goodyear does not do that with NASCAR nor does Firestone (which is a division of Bridgestone) do that with the IRL. Ferrari paid ungodly amounts of money for their own special R&D on tire compounds which is prolly more than a NASCAR Cup team single car budget for a year.

 

[kwong2001]

Interesting, I'd of thought the tire sponsors would have done much of the R&D, so it would just be a matter of trying to figure out the setup on the cars or something. But surely the tire manufacturers would have a something they could throw on the car. Just seems kind of a waste to schedule a race and then get rained out, or stop midway through. Gotta feel sorry for the guys that are sticking back and waiting to make the big pass at the end of the race.

Somewhat off topic: Man I hate firestone, I had some FR690's that came stock on my Corolla and those tires were complete JUNK. They sucked in the rain. Now, Ironically, I got some Bridgestones RE960AS and couldn't be more happier (for the money). Now if they'd only give me the feedback like the s-03's did...

 

[Rolex]

The Firestone "Indy 500 Firehawk" tires I have on my car are classed as 'sticky' due to the additional silicone added to the mix.
When you're talking about traveling over 200 MPH, any type of street tire would tear itself up very quickly.
The aerodynamics of F1 cars and Indy cars is very different. The wings, ground effects and suspension are 2 entirely different sciences.
F1 is built for acceleration and handling in esses and hairpins. Indys are built for flat out speed.
The ground effects in an Indy car at top end, would allow it to travel inverted, and still stick to an upside down track. It has the effects of an upside down airplane wing.
It's these aerodynamic effects that allow it to turn on the oval and stay on the track at those speeds. The addition of rain would make it a deadly ride.

 

[kwong2001]

A good number of sizes of Bridgestones' RE050A pole position tires are rated at 186mph with a load rating for each tire at 1600lbs, and they all have the AA rating for rain, which means the best wet weather traction (testing only braking though). Although with a treadwear rating of 140, they surely couldn't stand to run for a long period of time. But keep in mind, if the indy or nascar cars ran the oval in the rain, they wouldn't be going the same speed as in the dry. I'd bet either one would be well within the 186mph.

Interestingly, at a press release, Michelin put some Pilot Powers 2CT tires on a Yamaha M1 motogp bike (250hp), and had Colin Edwards ran 5 laps with them, and the tires from my understanding weren't that chewed up. Even more amazing, the laptimes Edwards made were only 8 seconds slower than his fastest laptime at that circuit.

I dunno though, knowing how much of race technology trickles down to street tires, and considering how advanced tires have become, I still can't see tires being that much of an issue.

 

[jetmechG550]

Are motogp races as long as say NASCAR, IRL or F1? I mean, they don't pit do they and change tires? Also there's a rather large weight difference between a bike and an open wheel car. Not knocking ya, just saying there's quite a lot to consider outside of using a tire that can run in the rain.

 

[kwong2001]

MotoGP doesn't change tires midrace, although AMA they do change tires in the Daytona 200, but i'm not sure if they race in the rain, probably have to read up on the rule book. Anyhoo, last MotoGP race was at Le Mans, which was a 28 lap race, each lap being 2.6 miles that comes out to 72.8 miles on one set of tires.

Quick look at a random F1 race, at the 2007 Australian GP, Kimi Räikkönen won the race. He made 2 pit stops, and it was a 58 lap race. With each lap being 3.3 miles, that's 191miles total, or 95.5 miles per pit stop.

Not sure what that proves lol (it's kinda late), but that's a difference of 22.7 miles. Keep in mind though, while the MotoGP bikes weigh somewhere in the neighborhood of 350lbs, they also have the contact patch of the width of an inch or less.

It'd be easier to do better analysis if I could find the average force generated on the tires then compare the contact patch. But it's kinda hard to compare apples and oranges.

btw, i totally just got another deja vu lol

 

[supercharged]

For F1 it would actually be 63.6 miles because
Start
1st set of tyres
Pitstop 1
2nd set of tyres
Pitstop 2
3rd set of tyres
Finish

speeking of racing in the rain i had a kart race on sunday running full slicks through 2in deep puddles (aquaplane heaven) and it was great fun admittedly you slow down quite a bit but its still good racing

Also i thought most oval tracks were banked most of the way round so wouldn't the water just run off

 

[Mondo]

For F1 it would actually be 63.6 miles because
Start
1st set of tyres
Pitstop 1
2nd set of tyres
Pitstop 2
3rd set of tyres
Finish

Some F1 teams adopt a 1 stop strategy though, so it would be two sets of tires in the actual race

 

[supercharged]

Some F1 teams adopt a 1 stop strategy though, so it would be two sets of tires in the actual race

i know i was just correcting kwong
his info was for 2 stops

Quick look at a random F1 race, at the 2007 Australian GP, Kimi Räikkönen won the race. He made 2 pit stops, and it was a 58 lap race. With each lap being 3.3 miles, that's 191miles total, or 95.5 miles per pit stop.