Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 26 votes

New Pirelli tyres and DRS - a disaster for F1 and racing


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
4031 replies to this topic

#3401 JaredS

JaredS
  • Member

  • 1,142 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 06 May 2013 - 15:50

Even thinking about the hard tyre individually, he´s right. The new hard tyre should be much easier to work with once we arrive to Europe than the early 2013 one. So yes, he´s right, they bring tyres easier to get into the correct range of temperature.


But you're missing the contradiction, if you consider the hard tyre individually. In 2012 he claimed that the 2013 compound would give a wider working range over the 2012 compound. Now, he's claiming that the 2012 compound will give a wider working range over the 2013 compound.

Advertisement

#3402 ApexMouse

ApexMouse
  • Member

  • 909 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 06 May 2013 - 15:57

No, he isn't.

#3403 JaredS

JaredS
  • Member

  • 1,142 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 06 May 2013 - 16:00

Key thing is that in end of 2012, Hembrey claimed that the main intent of the changes for the 2013 season was to a) widen the operating range to assist teams in getting the tyres working, and b) increase thermal degradation to increase number of pitstops and hence unpredictability and spectacle of racing. The thermal degradation is not a result of tyres not getting into their working range, but rather car/driver working the tyres too hard, generating too much heat.

What actually happened is that contrary to a), the tyres didn't actually have a wider operating range. Now Hembrey is coming out and saying that oops the tyres aren't actually working the way that Pirelli predicted and they can now see that going to the cooler conditions could potentially result in huge problems getting these supposedly "wider working range" tyres up to temp. So what they'll do is actually revert back to 2012 spec (which in 2012 they were admitting had a narrow working range) :drunk:

It smacks of them actually not understanding the tyres at all and the only reason they're reverting back to 2012 is simply because they are a known quantity and they are hoping that the teams knowledge of the 2012 tyres will help get some consistency.

#3404 JaredS

JaredS
  • Member

  • 1,142 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 06 May 2013 - 16:01

No, he isn't.


Yes he is :lol: ******

#3405 JaredS

JaredS
  • Member

  • 1,142 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 06 May 2013 - 16:09

Your reading comprehension needs work.

Theres a difference between temperature window and operating window.


Not reading comprehension, rather interpretation. Unfortunately I think you've got it completely wrong - I don't believe Hembrey is talking about something other than the tyre's working temperature when he refers to "working range".

I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but you'll have to explain what possible parameters other than temperature that are the key between having the tyres working and not working. Let's see who else will support you in this alternate interpretation of yours.

#3406 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,274 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 06 May 2013 - 16:12

But you're missing the contradiction, if you consider the hard tyre individually. In 2012 he claimed that the 2013 compound would give a wider working range over the 2012 compound. Now, he's claiming that the 2012 compound will give a wider working range over the 2013 compound.


I don´t think I´m missing it, more like you´re getting it out of nowhere. You´re missing that he said that "tyre will be more towards the 2012 spec" (and doesn´t even explain how), not "we´ll use the 2012 tyre". Maybe he just means the tyre is meant for cooler places and all that "it´ll be a narrow operative window one again" line is just in your mind.

If I tell you the 2020 F1 cars will be "more towards the early 2000´s ones" and you don´t know what I´m talking about, it could be them being more powerful, more unreliable, more aerodinamically twisty, easier to drive...

But hey, don´t miss a remote chance to moan about tyres.

#3407 ashley313

ashley313
  • Member

  • 224 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 06 May 2013 - 16:12

It isn't even about what range they are or aren't working in - its plain to see this year's tires are offering performance in a bigger window than last year's. But the difference now is that instead of the tire being to cold or too hot to offer optimum performance, the tire can now be too cold or too hot to physically stay together. THe compound didn't wear off the tire last year, the grip was just gone until you cooled or heated it back to where it was happy. This year the compound wears away and no amount of heating or cooling will make a tire with no compound on it grippy again.

#3408 JaredS

JaredS
  • Member

  • 1,142 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 06 May 2013 - 16:20

I don´t think I´m missing it, more like you´re getting it out of nowhere. You´re missing that he said that "tyre will be more towards the 2012 spec" (and doesn´t even explain how), not "we´ll use the 2012 tyre". Maybe he just means the tyre is meant for cooler places and all that "it´ll be a narrow operative window one again" line is just in your mind.



"We're introducing a revised version of our hard tyre in Spain, which is closer in characteristics to the 2012 tyre," said the Pirelli motorsport boss. "This new tyre gives us a wider working temperature window"

I already posted the above, but hopefully the underline and bold font makes it easier to see.

#3409 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,802 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 06 May 2013 - 16:22

Hembrey uses those phrases in other sources in the context of a single type of tyres, not as a combination of the two types of tyres. The difference between "wider working range" and "wider working temperature window" is non-existent. See Mark Gillan's comments in James Allen's podcasts.

Edit: In fact, even in the given sources and quotes, Hembrey is referring to a single type of tyre when he talks about a wider working range/window. He never talks about a wider working range of the paired tyre selection. It's really not up for debate.

Edited by boldhakka, 06 May 2013 - 16:31.


#3410 JaredS

JaredS
  • Member

  • 1,142 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 06 May 2013 - 16:35

From Pirelli's own website posted in Jan of this year http://www.pirelli.c...ormula-1-tires/

Key points of the 2013 tyre over the 2012 tyre:

- Faster warm up
- Quicker lap time
- More thermal degradation
- "The defining characteristic of the 2013 Pirelli Formula One tires is softer compounds all round, which will allow them to reach peak operating temperature faster"

So looking at the above, compared to the 2012 tyres, in every aspect it would seem reasonable to expect that the 2013 tyres would be better suited for the colder European temps than the 2012 tyres. According to Pirelli, they are softer than the 2012 tyres. They are supposed to warm up quicker than the 2012 tyres. They are supposed to reach peak operating temperatures faster than the 2012 tyres.

So why then are Pirelli reverting back to the 2012 tyre? Simply because the 2013 is not behaving how Pirelli themselves expected. Worryingly they are delaminating and causing real concern for safety. Pirelli are responding to this thankfully, but it is also an admission of failure by the tyre manufacturer. Except for the degradation aspect, they did not meet their design goals.

#3411 nada12

nada12
  • Member

  • 458 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 06 May 2013 - 16:39

http://www.motorspor...n_13050314.html

I didn't see this interview with Allison posted on any english website, so I translated the relevant part myself. Maybe anyone has seen the same quote in english somewhere.

Frage: "Die Reifenwahl ist für Barcelona anders als in den vergangenen beiden Jahren. Zudem wurde die harte Mischung überarbeitet. Was denkst du?"
Allison: "Wir haben die vergangenen Jahre die harten und weichen Mischungen gesehen. Wir sind daher ein wenig überrascht, dass sie auf die konservativeren Hart- und Medium-Reifen gegangen sind - obgleich sie den harten Reifen überarbeitet haben. Der neue harte Reifen ist vergleichbar mit dem letztjährigen Gummi; und gibt den besten Grip bei niedrigeren Temperaturen als zu Beginn des Jahres. Aber er passt besser zu den Arbeitsfenstern der anderen Mischungen, die in dieser Saison genutzt werden. Das sollte uns im Rennen gut liegen, und der Abstand zwischen Option und Prime sollte im Qualifying geringer sein als in den vorangegangenen Jahren, was uns mehr Auswahl gibt, wie wir Q1 und Q2 angehen wollen."


Question: „The choice of tyres for Barcelona is different than in the past two years and the hard tyre was redesigned. What are your thoughts?”
Allison: “The last few years here we saw the hard and soft tyres, so we’re a little surprised that they chose the hard and medium, even though they revised the hards. The new hard tyre is comparable to last year's, and offers the best grip at lower temperatures than earlier this year. But it fits better to the working ranges of the other compounds that are being used this season. It should suit us well in the race, and the gap between option and prime in qualifying should be smaller than in years past, which gives us more options on how to attack Q1 and Q2.”


The translation isn't great, but you should get the gist. Allison thinks the new hards have a lower temperature working range.  ;)

#3412 JaredS

JaredS
  • Member

  • 1,142 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 06 May 2013 - 16:46

http://www.motorspor...n_13050314.html

I didn't see this interview with Allison posted on any english website, so I translated the relevant part myself. Maybe anyone has seen the same quote in english somewhere.





The translation isn't great, but you should get the gist. Allison thinks the new hards have a lower temperature working range.;)


Yes we all agree on that. Interview in English here http://www.planetf1....h-James-Allison

The problem though is that it contradicts a couple of Pirelli's key design intents for the 2013 compounds.

- Faster warm up
- "The defining characteristic of the 2013 Pirelli Formula One tires is softer compounds all round, which will allow them to reach peak operating temperature faster"

So the hard 2013 compound is as soft as the medium 2012 compound. Then it's also got softer sidewalls. It's designed to warm up faster. It's designed to get to working temp faster. If it worked as designed, it should actually have a lower working temperature range than the 2012 hard compound.

But for whatever reason, it's doesn't. The 2013 hard compound is behaving in a way that Pirelli did not predict. From a technical pov I think that's a failing. But they're not even admitting it, which is even worse. They've blamed various cars and drivers, yet they've quietly gone about changing the compound and in fact given the impression they're doing it for the teams. In reality they're sh*t scared that tyres will delaminate frequently.

edit: It also shows they themselves simply don't understand the tyres. They've come at the end of last year and said our new tyres are designed to get to temp faster. Not only does the hard tyre not get up to temp faster, it actually gets up to temp far slower and enough for them to quickly revert back to the old hard tyre spec. It's not just the rubber compound I fear they are going to change but also the sidewall stiffness etc.

Of course I don't know for sure but I strongly suspect that when they mention it will be "closer to the 2012" tyre, they don't just mean the compound chemistry. I mean, we already know that a softer compound (this year's hard being as soft as last year's medium) will heat up faster if all other things are equal. Problem is all other things aren't equal. The sidewall stiffness, though supposed to make heat up quicker, has thrown some unknown spanner into things. I suspect that they will actually go back towards a stiffer sidewall for the hard compound. If they do this, that's a huge problem for those teams who have got their aero to work properly around the softer sidewall tyre deflection. Obviously I'm speculating for this part, but let's see how it goes.

Edited by JaredS, 06 May 2013 - 16:53.


#3413 nada12

nada12
  • Member

  • 458 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 06 May 2013 - 16:59

Yes we all agree on that. Interview in English here http://www.planetf1....h-James-Allison

Must have missed the part where everybody agreed on that. Thanks for the link.

#3414 Torsion

Torsion
  • Member

  • 627 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 06 May 2013 - 17:01

Yes we all agree on that. Interview in English here http://www.planetf1....h-James-Allison
So the hard 2013 compound is as soft as the medium 2012 compound. Then it's also got softer sidewalls. It's designed to warm up faster. It's designed to get to working temp faster. If it worked as designed, it should actually have a lower working temperature range than the 2012 hard compound.

But for whatever reason, it's doesn't. The 2013 hard compound is behaving in a way that Pirelli did not predict. From a technical pov I think that's a failing. But they're not even admitting it, which is even worse. They've blamed various cars and drivers, yet they've quietly gone about changing the compound and in fact given the impression they're doing it for the teams. In reality they're sh*t scared that tyres will delaminate frequently.


Well making the tyres softer to get them up to temperature quickly may have failed because as the compounds get softer, teams push them less and less to ensure that they can run them for considerable stints. So could it be that the teams are not pushing the tyres as much as last year because the they are softer.

Edited by Torsion, 06 May 2013 - 17:08.


#3415 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 06 May 2013 - 19:11

It's one of the "problems" of the Internet, everyone can take /use quotes or parts thereoff you support any point he/she is wanting to make.


To be fair, this is not a problem limited to just the Internet. It extends into every day writing from supposed "trusted sources". :)

#3416 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 06 May 2013 - 21:52

@TC3000 - you seems to know a thing or two about rubber and tires; may I enquire whether you could make an educated guess how specs for 2013 season might have been defined for them? To re-phrase my question, do you believe that spec were discussed with Pirelli in quantitative or as merely general targets, thus responsibility for specific tire performance rests with the manufacturer? Considering the ease how they changing compounds for the next race, I am incline to believe later.

Perhaps I should add, strong voices are being heard on this forum that Pirelli delivered precisely what doctor ordered, whereas I was more of opinion that objectives and targets were so vaguely defined, that really tire is what Pirelli manufactured, and there is no way to verify adherence to any order because specificity in that order by their customer (whoever that is), does not exists. Your thoughts?

#3417 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 07 May 2013 - 13:30

^ I think you are trying to confuse "Pirelli delivered precisely what doctor ordered" and "objectives and targets were so vaguely defined". By precisely doctor ordering, it does not mean the teams and FIA gave Pirelli working range, durability stretch, degradation rate, etc. They were told in no uncertain terms that they were to give softer and quicker degrading tyres that gives scope for strategy variations and uncertainty. That's precisely what they delivered. They could go about it in reasonably general terms without being very accurate about it. Of course it was all not merits and virtues and they have made mistakes along the way. But for the most part they have delivered what FIA wanted them to.

#3418 JaredS

JaredS
  • Member

  • 1,142 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 07 May 2013 - 13:37

now on a lighter note, and to show, that there not all what Pirelli says makes technically "sense", here two quotes from them.

at the beginning of the year, they had the following to say about the tyre selection for Australia:



but they also said, later on in Bahrain:



Now, that makes you wonder, why they would bring a tyre which they just declared to be "ideal for low ambient temperatures" :)

So, let's remain critical, and try to distinguish between the "marketing speak" and technical reasoning.
Not everything which is said and written on the Internet or in the press makes sense, and some "experts" just state their own opinion/interpretation of things, just like anyone (myself included) on forums like this.

After reading the interview with James Allison (and assumimg what he says is true, which may or may not be the case - it's F1 after all) , it seems, that the "new" hard, has indeed a lower working temperature, but is said to be more "durable" (harder) at the same time.
That is entirely possible, temperature alone does not tell the whole story about a tyre, but would be an interesting development.
One could reason, that is to account for "apparently" lower temperatures during the European summer, but if I wanted to be "unkind" one could say, it's a way to migrate a possible issue with the new hard tyre, which may has surfaced in Bahrain (Massa/Hamilton).
I doubt, we will ever find out the truth, but it's "interesting".
Hard and soft are "relative" terms, and not really well suited to assess what is really going on, and tyre temperature can be seen in two ways as well, one is the surface temperature and the temperature in the tread, the other is the "bulk" temperature inside the tyre, near the construction. It's the later, which is critical, for the structural integrity of the tyre / delamination etc.
The bulk temperature is mainly the result of the "mechanical work/deformation" of the tyre construction (walking/flex etc.), and rubber is still a reasonable well "insulator", it's difficult to "cool" the inside of the tyre. A very critical area in this respect is where the belt joins the sidewall, some manufacturers call this area "the hinge".
A "harder" compound, generates "normally" less heat during deflection (lower loss modulus), which would help if there is an issue, and if it has a lower working temperature as well, then an "overheating" compound (at a lower working temperature range) --> loss of grip, could reduce the loads/deformations of the construction, could relief bulk temperature and stress for the construction in this area, helping to reduce the risk of more structural failures.

It's pure speculation on my part, so don't take it as gospel, I'm just thinking out loud, and could well be totally wrong.
Maybe their is no malicious intent, and all they wanna do, is make life easier for some teams in the cooler European summer, but maybe there is a bit more to this, then meets the eye on first sight.


Thanks and loving your posts, fascinating - please stay around! :up:

I agree, I don't believe there is malicious intent on Pirelli's part. However I don't think even they completely understand how their own tyres behave when mixed with the variables of car/setup/driver/track layout/asphalt grade/temperature etc.

#3419 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,802 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 07 May 2013 - 13:38

^ I think you are trying to confuse "Pirelli delivered precisely what doctor ordered" and "objectives and targets were so vaguely defined". By precisely doctor ordering, it does not mean the teams and FIA gave Pirelli working range, durability stretch, degradation rate, etc. They were told in no uncertain terms that they were to give softer and quicker degrading tyres that gives scope for strategy variations and uncertainty. That's precisely what they delivered. They could go about it in reasonably general terms without being very accurate about it. Of course it was all not merits and virtues and they have made mistakes along the way. But for the most part they have delivered what FIA wanted them to.


The FIA wasn't involved at all. There was no single authoritative entity (say, Bernie) who gave Pirelli the direction they've gone in. It was some sort of collective signaling by the teams and Bernie, but nothing official. If it was official, RBR would have swamped that channel with petitions to change the tyres. Instead they had to go to the press and Pirelli directly. None of this is Pirelli's fault, obviously. But let's not pretend that Pirelli have delivered something that was asked of them in some sort of official capacity. If there was a document or request in writing, Pirelli would have brought it up the instant they heard the least bit of criticism (and rightly so).

It's clear as day that most of the parties involved are winging it. They've done a reasonable job so far, but they seem to have swung and missed in the early part of 2013, including testing. Time will tell if they all redeem themselves or not.

Edited by boldhakka, 07 May 2013 - 13:54.


Advertisement

#3420 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 07 May 2013 - 14:22

It is not a matter of being official. Who gave the contract to Pirelli? What was told to Pirelli while being given that contract? Who has a stake in the FIA's series? Who else has stakes in commercial F1? RBR could not have done anything to stop the kind of tyres being provided. FIA frames the regulations for its series F1 and RB does not have a veto against that.

#3421 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,802 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 07 May 2013 - 14:27

There are no regulations about tyre behavior. This should be obvious. Unless you think the FIA just changed the regs and asked Pirelli to change the hard tyres. Not up for debate mate. Please stop mentioning the FIA in this thread, they aren't involved directly with how the tyres behave.

Edited by boldhakka, 07 May 2013 - 14:32.


#3422 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 07 May 2013 - 15:21

Pirelli has a contract with FIA. If you think FIA should not be mentioned in this thread, then you are in the wrong thread. I did not say tyre regulations. FIA regulates the sport. They signed a contract with Pirelli and it does have some terms on how the tyres would be provided. So stop acting like there is nothing governing tyre supply to F1.

#3423 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,802 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 07 May 2013 - 15:50

Pirelli has a contract with FIA. If you think FIA should not be mentioned in this thread, then you are in the wrong thread. I did not say tyre regulations. FIA regulates the sport. They signed a contract with Pirelli and it does have some terms on how the tyres would be provided. So stop acting like there is nothing governing tyre supply to F1.


How the tyres are provided and tyre supply have nothing to do with how the tyres behave on track, which is the topic of this thread.

Insisting on faux credibility by looping in the FIA and mixing in irrelevant matters such as tyre supply (which the FIA presumably do have a say over) to support the claim that the FIA asked for tyres that behave this way is really transparent and nobody is going to buy it.

There was nothing ever put in writing about Pirelli tyre behavior. Too bad you can't digest that :D

Edited by boldhakka, 07 May 2013 - 15:53.


#3424 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 07 May 2013 - 16:20

If you think FIA roped in Pirelli to provide rock-hard super-durable tyres, you are living in denial. You think FIA has nothing to do with this and Pirelli provided this quicker degrading tyres to everyone's shock and surprise, good for you!

#3425 VoltagE

VoltagE
  • New Member

  • 29 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 07 May 2013 - 16:41

now on a lighter note, and to show, that there not all what Pirelli says makes technically "sense", here two quotes from them.

at the beginning of the year, they had the following to say about the tyre selection for Australia:



but they also said, later on in Bahrain:



Now, that makes you wonder, why they would bring a tyre which they just declared to be "ideal for low ambient temperatures" :)

So, let's remain critical, and try to distinguish between the "marketing speak" and technical reasoning.
Not everything which is said and written on the Internet or in the press makes sense, and some "experts" just state their own opinion/interpretation of things, just like anyone (myself included) on forums like this.

After reading the interview with James Allison (and assumimg what he says is true, which may or may not be the case - it's F1 after all) , it seems, that the "new" hard, has indeed a lower working temperature, but is said to be more "durable" (harder) at the same time.
That is entirely possible, temperature alone does not tell the whole story about a tyre, but would be an interesting development.
One could reason, that is to account for "apparently" lower temperatures during the European summer, but if I wanted to be "unkind" one could say, it's a way to migrate a possible issue with the new hard tyre, which may has surfaced in Bahrain (Massa/Hamilton).
I doubt, we will ever find out the truth, but it's "interesting".
Hard and soft are "relative" terms, and not really well suited to assess what is really going on, and tyre temperature can be seen in two ways as well, one is the surface temperature and the temperature in the tread, the other is the "bulk" temperature inside the tyre, near the construction. It's the later, which is critical, for the structural integrity of the tyre / delamination etc.
The bulk temperature is mainly the result of the "mechanical work/deformation" of the tyre construction (walking/flex etc.), and rubber is still a reasonable well "insulator", it's difficult to "cool" the inside of the tyre. A very critical area in this respect is where the belt joins the sidewall, some manufacturers call this area "the hinge".
A "harder" compound, generates "normally" less heat during deflection (lower loss modulus), which would help if there is an issue, and if it has a lower working temperature as well, then an "overheating" compound (at a lower working temperature range) --> loss of grip, could reduce the loads/deformations of the construction, could relief bulk temperature and stress for the construction in this area, helping to reduce the risk of more structural failures.

It's pure speculation on my part, so don't take it as gospel, I'm just thinking out loud, and could well be totally wrong.
Maybe their is no malicious intent, and all they wanna do, is make life easier for some teams in the cooler European summer, but maybe there is a bit more to this, then meets the eye on first sight.


One thing which is making Pirelli's task even harder is that the first time all the compounds are really used in real environment and machinery is after they are used the first time in a GP weekend.
So it is only natural that there will be things that didn't work like they planed as they could not test those tires on real 2013 spec car.

If the only thing that needs tweaking after the constructional changes they did from previous years tires to this year are for only one spec tire that needs to bee a litle bit harder that it is and have a lower working range then I would say that they have done hell of good job.

PS. Nice reading your posts TC

#3426 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 07 May 2013 - 16:44

Pirelli has a contract with FIA. If you think FIA should not be mentioned in this thread, then you are in the wrong thread. I did not say tyre regulations. FIA regulates the sport. They signed a contract with Pirelli and it does have some terms on how the tyres would be provided. So stop acting like there is nothing governing tyre supply to F1.


The Business of Formula 1 report [Sylt/Reid] has following note within:

"This is the most authoritative report yet on the commercial,
organisational and operational aspects of Formula One.
Highly recommended reading for anyone involved - or
considering getting involved."
Dr. Christoph Walther, CEO, CNC AG, advisors to the car
manufacturers participating in Formula One


Have you read that report, and do you understand F1 operational structure? I am merely asking because the role and strategy of the teams’ technical suppliers, including the tyre manufacturers is described within this report. Lack of understanding, and confusion by outsiders I think stems from fact, that very few really are privy how this all comes together. FiA (JT) coming out not to long ago and promising revamping regulatory voting structure on strategic decisions (instead 70% down to simply majority) is not helping, if this was not clarified later in public in terms who is actually running the show today, and what is exactly current situation on bodies like Technical Working Group, Competitiveness Group, etc. Other than insiders, very few can really speak to that subject with any precision. Organized chaos, running the show from seat of the pants, and similar thought sneak into one's minds, but in reality - we do not know, and perhaps they don't want to make it public. There are literally gazillions accredited members of media, and one would think that someone would sit down, and clarify it, and if they did, I am yet to find it. (That report BTW is for sale - cost pretty penny).

Edited by Sakae, 07 May 2013 - 16:46.


#3427 jimbox01

jimbox01
  • Member

  • 140 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 07 May 2013 - 16:59

How the tyres are provided and tyre supply have nothing to do with how the tyres behave on track, which is the topic of this thread.

Insisting on faux credibility by looping in the FIA and mixing in irrelevant matters such as tyre supply (which the FIA presumably do have a say over) to support the claim that the FIA asked for tyres that behave this way is really transparent and nobody is going to buy it.

There was nothing ever put in writing about Pirelli tyre behavior. Too bad you can't digest that :D


:) Don't wish to get involved in any arguments, but how did the FIA invite companies to tender for the supply contract without specifying what it was they wanted them to supply?
Also, it would be unusual not to include a service/performance level agreement within the supply contract, so if Pirelli are failing to supply what was specified, then it's up to the FIA to enforce the agreement.

Just for info, this is the invitation to tender for sole tyre supply that was put out in 2006: http://argent.fia.co...pdf?openelement
I would assume Pirelli etc. went through a similar process for the current agreement.

#3428 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,802 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 07 May 2013 - 17:26

:) Don't wish to get involved in any arguments, but how did the FIA invite companies to tender for the supply contract without specifying what it was they wanted them to supply?
Also, it would be unusual not to include a service/performance level agreement within the supply contract, so if Pirelli are failing to supply what was specified, then it's up to the FIA to enforce the agreement.

Just for info, this is the invitation to tender for sole tyre supply that was put out in 2006: http://argent.fia.co...pdf?openelement
I would assume Pirelli etc. went through a similar process for the current agreement.


I don't know. It's a simple elimination exercise. If there was a written document specifying, in however vague or precise terms, that Pirelli should try and make tyres a little challenging and create aggressive compounds, then Pirelli would have pointed to the existence of said written document when the criticisms started pouring in (including from the current triple WDC). Similarly, RBR would have lobbied to have the document changed/amended instead of going to the press or lobbying Pirelli directly.

A little experience and judgement are required to see these things. It doesn't mean the FIA were kept in the dark, or that they haven't given their blessings to this approach, but it's so clear that no official written document was handed to Pirelli with regards to this philosophy.

In some ways it lets Pirelli off the hook.

You have to also think about how one would quantify "make the tyres challenging and aggressive", given the changing cars, tracks, and other parameters. I don't think the FIA could do it even if they tried. So a service level agreement would not be feasible, at least regarding these aspects of the tyres.

Also Pirelli would be silly to agree to any such terms given that they have been handed an old car which doesn't quite allow them to simulate the loads correctly. So again, a service level agreements would not be feasible with regard to making the tyres challenging and aggressive.

Guess I'm alone on this one. Doesn't matter, but it's clear as day to me.

Edited by boldhakka, 07 May 2013 - 17:35.


#3429 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 07 May 2013 - 17:33

Technical specifications

12.6.3 Tyre specifications will be determined by the FIA no later than 1 September of the previous season. Once determined in this way, the specification of the tyres will not be changed during the Championship season without the agreement of all competing teams.


One has to then assume, that changes for forthcoming race were approved by all teams. (Or 70%, or simple majority? I will be damn if I know what the score is).

"Tyre specification" - I assume again - regulation is referring to composition or physical characteristics of compounds, because those are not included with the Tech. Regulations.

Edited by Sakae, 07 May 2013 - 17:37.


#3430 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,473 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 07 May 2013 - 17:50

I don't know. It's a simple elimination exercise. If there was a written document specifying, in however vague or precise terms, that Pirelli should try and make tyres a little challenging and create aggressive compounds, then Pirelli would have pointed to the existence of said written document when the criticisms started pouring in (including from the current triple WDC). Similarly, RBR would have lobbied to have the document changed/amended instead of going to the press or lobbying Pirelli directly.

A little experience and judgement are required to see these things. It doesn't mean the FIA were kept in the dark, or that they haven't given their blessings to this approach, but it's so clear that no official written document was handed to Pirelli with regards to this philosophy.

In some ways it lets Pirelli off the hook.

You have to also think about how one would quantify "make the tyres challenging and aggressive", given the changing cars, tracks, and other parameters. I don't think the FIA could do it even if they tried. So a service level agreement would not be feasible, at least regarding these aspects of the tyres.

Also Pirelli would be silly to agree to any such terms given that they have been handed an old car which doesn't quite allow them to simulate the loads correctly. So again, a service level agreements would not be feasible with regard to making the tyres challenging and aggressive.

Guess I'm alone on this one. Doesn't matter, but it's clear as day to me.

Like you said, its impossible and pointless to include in a contract that Pirelli needs to make higher-wearing tires as it is something unquantifiable. It makes more sense that they were asked to create these higher-wearing tires as part of the deal, though. It gives Pirelli a guideline on what is expected of them while still allowing them to work somewhat autonomously in acheiving it.

To pretend that the FIA has had no say in all this and that Pirelli have just gone through all of this and risked hurting their reputation purely by their own choice seems extremely hard to swallow.



#3431 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 07 May 2013 - 17:50

I don't think anyone would/could provide a detailed brief to Pirelli, or any other manufacturer for this matter, for a variety of reasons.
Firstly, the one giving a detailed specification would need to assume responsibility if it proved insufficient, think about a Indianapolis/Michelin scenario, who would want to assume responsibility for something like this? Pirelli turning around and saying, well, we are sorry, but that's what you have ask for. I don't nobody in their right mind, neither FIA nor Eccelstoane/FOM would be crazy/stupid enough, to do that.
Secondly, even if the FIA would hire someone, with the necessary technical skills, to spec such a tyre(s), that does not mean Pirelli (or anyone else) would be able to produce them, that way.
Not because, they are incompetent, but because every manufacturer goes about "making tyres" in their own way. Michelin has their own way/philosophy as have Bridgestone, Pirelli and others. Some maybe closer together in their way then others, but still everyone has it's own philosophy about their product.
Therefore any manufacturer, keeping in mind, it is his name (Pirelli in this case) on the line, would take it too kindly, if you were trying to tell them how to do their job.
There are some other things to consider such as patents etc. etc., Pirelli (or someone else) may know how to do something, but can't do so, because someone else holds a patent on a specific application.

To make a long story short, at the end of the day, the buck stops at Pirelli's desk. They signed up for the job, now they have to do it.

Having said all this, I think it is possible, that they were ask, to have a look at some aspects of how they approach the job.
This race in Canada in 2010 is said to have been given as an "example" - Like "could we have more of these"?



This, I think is a possibility, and Pirelli may have agreed to this, but then again, it is/was their decision to do so, I doubt anyone could "force" such a approach onto them. (against their will).
Keep in mind, that at the end of 2010, their were not that many companies overly enthusiastic about F1, Bridgestone just walked out, saying thanks and giving a s... about F1, and not many others putting up their hand. Could/would have Avon (one of the others candidates in the running AFAIR) have done a "better" job? Maybe, who knows, but who is Avon?
A small(ish) company doing mainly clubsport and track day tyres, being quite popular in things like Rallycross, Hillclimbs and Historic Motorsports (Boss series). They have done F3000 (GP2) in the past and make tyres for the BOSS series (old(er)/ex F1 and Indycars run by privateers) AFAIK. ( put I maybe not completely up to date with the latest developments).
Would they apart from the engineering expertise have the financial, logistic and marketing muscle to do such a project? Maybe, but maybe not.
Who else was "seriously" interested at the time?

So Pirelli may have seen this as an opportunity and jumped on it, fair game IMHO.
But let's have a look from a technical perspective, to what happened in Canada, basically Bridgestone "f.... u..", less dramatic then Michelin in Indy, but doing a mistake, "guessing wrong" nonetheless.
I don't blame them, not do I glee them for it, these things happen (shit happens) and sometimes it happens to the best, no shame in it.
They brought the "wrong" tyre for the conditions at the weekend, people struggled to get them into the window, mainly having cold graining issue (not reaching Tg), struggling to "switch the tyre on", and therefore experiencing higher then normal wear rates. (the compound being to "brittle" due to the low temperatures).
It made for an unpredictable and entertaining (for same) race, because everyone was "on their back foot" trying to adjust "on the go" to the situation at hand.

Now, it may be possible at some places with low temperatures and smooth tarmac, to do something like this, but I'm reasonable sure, that you will "struggle" to do that on a regular basis, at most of the F1 tracks. Bringing a tyre that is "too hard". Technically it's "safe", you are unlikely to see any structural problems,you just have a slow(ish) tyre, that wears a lot and is difficult to drive, but unlikely to fail otherwise.
The second point is, that it worked well in Canada, because nobody was expecting/anticipating this. People (teams/engineers) in F1 are normally quite "sharp" (quick learners), you bring such a tyre three weekends in a row, they will raise to the challenge and (try to) adapt to it. The "surprise moment" will be lost, and the "trick" will become less effective over time.
Pirelli choose the other way, bringing tyres that are "too soft", because you can almost always do so, the other side effect is, that such a tyre is still "quick(er)" at least for a short while. But technically it's a bit more challenging, to find the balance, because if you get it "wrong" you can get into hot water, and seeing structural failures. Something nobody like to see, no PR will paper over this.
No tyre manufacturer in their right mind, wants to see a tyre explode or disintegrate in front of a TV audience of millions of people. It's a no-no.
Performance and wear issues are one thing, that's not the "end of the world" in a controlled tyre formula, with enough PR you can explain that away, and sooner or later people will believe it, but safety is paramount. There always will be some tyre failures, in any form of racing, if people see two cars touching and one ends up with a flat/damaged tyre, most people can rationalize this, no problem.
If they see, someone running over a piece of debris or going way off track and having a puncture, they can relate to it, just what happens to you and me on the road from time to time.
Tyre failures "out of the blue" are a different story, and in this respect, I'm reasonable sure that Pirelli was not "happy" with what happened in Bahrain, whichever way they may paint this in the press.
To be fair, technically their is the possibility, that they just got unlucky, and that all failures were caused by debris, that could happen.
But while debris is a valid reason, it also can be abused as a default excuse, nearly everything can be explained with "debris strike" when it comes to catastrophic tyre failures, and it's hard to prove the opposite. So let's see what the next races bring.

All in all, I think, they have done a reasonable job, maybe not the best possible but reasonable, and most of the time, with a margin of safety, which would not be a concern to me (but maybe to others).
Spa when RBR hat their blistering issues, has shown, at least to me, that they approaching a limit condition. It's not the end of the world, but at this moment, this tyre on this car, was on the limit.
It's something you are not seeing very often in a "controlled tyre" formula, because most manufacturers don't want to cut it that close, and in a controlled formula, their is no need to do it, but you see it regularly in a "tyre war" as people will/are forced to push the limits. Bahrain has raised some flags at least for me, and the next races especially Spa, Monza and Suzuka will show if their is reason for concern or if they have a "handle" on it.
IMHO (which is that this), they have painted themselves into a corner, they chose to go "on the aggressive" side of the curve, and I have no issue with this whatsoever, but as people adapt to the situation, and they try to keep them guessing, they are pushed more and more down this road, and their is a end, as in how far you can go.
As long as they keep a handle on safety/structural side of things, I don't mind too much what they are up to. It's what they do, and the teams will have to deal with it. Sure some will not be happy, nobody is, when things are made more difficult for them, but I don't mind that to be honest.
If someone claims to be a top team, top engineer or top driver, he should prove it, again and again, and raise to the challenge, not relay on things he has may done in the past.

Horner had to say this after Bahrain:


As long as this is the case, I see not much wrong with it. Nobody said it was meant to be easy. As long it is possible to get it right, and getting it wrong does not land someone in the hospital or worse, I can life with it. The onces aspiring to be "the best" or "top", should raise to the challenge and do so weekend after weekend - INHO.
To be fair so far, RBR has done just that, sure they make a lot of noise and try to sway the balance in their favor, but that is just part of F1, call it politics, gamesmanship or what you like, but despite all the complaining, they also react on the technical side, and try to get on top of things, and I for one respect this. If they would only complain, and not doing anything about it technically, it would be a different story.

So after a lot of ramblings, for me the buck stops with Pirelli, but I don't think, that on balance, they have done such a bad job overall.
But they may find themselves between a "rock and a hard place" in the future. Unless they come up with some "wonder material" I don't think, they have much more scope trying to be more and more aggressive without risking structural/catastrophic tyre failures too, and I doubt, that they take this light hearted.
So, they may need to come back a bit, or at least can't keep pushing the compounds down a notch year after year. In both cases, that would mean, things become "predictable" again, and their is nothing any engineer likes more, because it makes life a lot easier. :-) Better the devil you know, and all this.
But for F1 it means, that things will settle down a bit, and some sort of pecking order will emerge again (may different from the one before), with little room for "surprises".
If this is considered "bad", then maybe it's time for some "full course yellows" or the like.

Well, it's a long rant anyway, so at the end, maybe a short excursus into racing history, not even F1.
There was a time when some of Bridgestone's best (rain)tyres were willingly traded in for a set of Pirelli's and/or Michelins.
At the time, that was quite big news, and met with a lot of laughter/sarcasm. So, as you see, everyone started somewhere, and Rome was not build in a day.
Not even for Bridgestone :) - all in good fun & spirit.


Makes sense - exemplary write up. Thanks, TC3000.

#3432 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 07 May 2013 - 18:25

I would more think of this as in dimensions.
They can't come and bring a wider tyre or say, we now want 15" rims.

You might be right there, as that makes sense, and compounds, as you explained so aptly earlier, would have been left to Pirelli. Open question remains, who, and under what authority actually specified tires we have. Was that BE alone, or teams got together for a working lunch, tossed a few ideas around, and a tire 2013 was born?

Edited by Sakae, 07 May 2013 - 18:26.


#3433 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 07 May 2013 - 19:13

Interesting reading TC, thanks for sharing.

Sakae, I think that would depend on who is pulling the strings in F1 at the moment. I just think the pending IPO also has a lot to do with the tire situation as perhaps it's a way to jack up the viewership levels (casual fans who don't find racing interesting if it is processional) to make F1 look more valuable. Certainly nothing would be put down in writing, but "suggestions" would be given as to what perhaps MrE "thinks" should happen. That of course may as well be a papal bull.

#3434 jimbox01

jimbox01
  • Member

  • 140 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 07 May 2013 - 23:37

I don't know. It's a simple elimination exercise. If there was a written document specifying, in however vague or precise terms, that Pirelli should try and make tyres a little challenging and create aggressive compounds, then Pirelli would have pointed to the existence of said written document when the criticisms started pouring in (including from the current triple WDC). Similarly, RBR would have lobbied to have the document changed/amended instead of going to the press or lobbying Pirelli directly.

A little experience and judgement are required to see these things. It doesn't mean the FIA were kept in the dark, or that they haven't given their blessings to this approach, but it's so clear that no official written document was handed to Pirelli with regards to this philosophy.

In some ways it lets Pirelli off the hook.

You have to also think about how one would quantify "make the tyres challenging and aggressive", given the changing cars, tracks, and other parameters. I don't think the FIA could do it even if they tried. So a service level agreement would not be feasible, at least regarding these aspects of the tyres.

Also Pirelli would be silly to agree to any such terms given that they have been handed an old car which doesn't quite allow them to simulate the loads correctly. So again, a service level agreements would not be feasible with regard to making the tyres challenging and aggressive.

Guess I'm alone on this one. Doesn't matter, but it's clear as day to me.


This is from the 2006 invitation to tender:

7.8 The MANUFACTURER will liaise closely with the FIA on TYRE performance and make such adjustments as the FIA may require in order to keep car performance, particularly cornering speeds, within acceptable limits.


It would be fair to assume a similar clause exists in the current agreement, which would mean the FIA can force Pirelli to make changes to the tyres, not just in terms of technical specification, but actual on-track performance. However, given Jean Todt's generally low profile approach to F1, it's highly unlikely we would ever find out whether or not the FIA is exercising its' rights, or to what extent.

The only thing we can be reasonably sure about, is that it's up to the FIA to agree / specify changes to any aspects of tyre performance that effect safety. Whether or not they'd go as far as asking Pirelli to spice up the show is another matter entirely, but it's unlikely Pirelli would make any significant changes without first consulting them - not if there's a performance clause in the contract. (can excessive tyre degradation cause safety issues?)

Also, the implication of this clause is that even when Bridgestone were sole supplier, teams weren't necessarily provided the best/fastest/most durable tyres Bridgestone could possibly make, the tyres were only ever as 'good' as the FIA allowed them to be.

Finally, the 2006 tender document contained a clause which required the manufacturer to provide a 100 million euro guarantee / indemnity against any legal action resulting from a failure to provide tyres to the required standard, or a failure to provide sufficient quantity of tyres. Assuming this is in the current agreement, it's easy to understand why Pirelli are reluctant to admit any responsibility for what happed to Hamilton's tyres - or any tyre defects or performance issues come to that.

#3435 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,802 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 08 May 2013 - 04:39

Like you said, its impossible and pointless to include in a contract that Pirelli needs to make higher-wearing tires as it is something unquantifiable. It makes more sense that they were asked to create these higher-wearing tires as part of the deal, though. It gives Pirelli a guideline on what is expected of them while still allowing them to work somewhat autonomously in acheiving it.

To pretend that the FIA has had no say in all this and that Pirelli have just gone through all of this and risked hurting their reputation purely by their own choice seems extremely hard to swallow.


I don't think the FIA were kept in the dark. I just think that Bernie and FOTA were the ones who made the request for challenging and aggressive tyres, and the FIA didn't object (as long as safety was taken into account). I further think that it was all done verbally (this aspect of it).

Given that, I think it's disingenuous to say that Pirelli did what the FIA asked them to do. Is all I'm saying.

Edited by boldhakka, 08 May 2013 - 04:49.


#3436 jimbox01

jimbox01
  • Member

  • 140 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 08 May 2013 - 09:25

This is a quite normal legal requirement, to put a "limit" on any possible claims.
I don't think Hamilton's or Massa's defects so far some into this. It's to protect against "Indianapolis" type of event. Were the FIA or FOM would be forced to "call off" a race due to no suitable tyre being
available at the time. While I'm sure that Pirelli is "uneasy" about what happened in Bahrain, it will not because of this clause in their contract, because they can migrate this kind of problem, by invoking pressure and camber limits and the like. See, what happened in/after Spa when RBR had the blistering issues.
As long as it affects single teams/drivers, they can and will "blame" it on them. If 1/2 of the field starts to being affected by this, it becomes a different story.
You will also read in this tender, that the tyre supplier will provide the data to the teams and the FIA, if their would be a "detailed" brief for a tailor made tyre, it would be other way round.
Sure the FIA will always reserve the right to have a say in this, and at the end of the day it's "their" championship, so they will call the final shoot.

Heavily degrading tyres would be only a safety issue, if pit stops where banned, now it's just up to the teams to stop in time. And sometimes, they (teams) decide to "roll the dice" and at times lose out
big time. Remember Hamilton getting stuck in the gravel trap at the pit entry on tyres who were worn down "to the canvas". Who is to blame for this? Bridgestone or McLaren? As I said before, you can make any tyre fail if you want to, it's not difficult either.

When you read the tender document, you will see, it's 90% commercial and legal and just a little bit "technical". No specific performance terms mentioned, lap times minimum stint length on any compound etc. etc. , because that would be very difficult to frame. Even if you ask the teams, they would not be able to make up their mind, even within a single team, the aero-guys would want "this tyre" and the vehicle dynamic/suspension guys "that tyre". Look at all the drama with the engines, they are not going to agree on anything quick and in unison.

These supply deals are 90% commercial, how much money we are going to get, spend and who is getting what.
This is what matters first and foremost. Sure safety is a consideration, and will be taken serious, but a poorly performing tyre is not necessary "dangerous", in the greater scheme of things.
I'm sure their were not many considerations given to the guys in the teams who need to make this (or any other) tyre work. They are the last in line, take it or leave it, it's not that they (teams) really have any alternative.
Look at the new engines, half the grid is not sure if they can afford this change, but it's done anyway, not much consideration given if Marussia or any other team will go out of business because of it.
I don't think, that the situation in terms of a tyre supply deal are a lot different.

I agree with what you have said in respect to the general situation, as in "what we saw, was not the best possible tyre Bridgestone could have made" - I totally agree, and why would they.
It's going to cost (a lot of) money, and unless it's a tyre war, where the reputation of the company is at stake, why spend all this extra money.
You said, they only made the tyres, that the FIA let them make, yes maybe, but you could turn this argument around and say, they only made a "good enough" tyre so that they meet their contractual obligations. And Pirelli will hold it similar, why would they want to spend more money then they have to? As long as the FIA is not going to kick them out, they have more or less "Carte Blanche" to do what they do. Then, even if the FIA &/or FOM/teams are unhappy, what is the alternative? How many people beating a path to FIA headquarter at the moment asking to be allowed to supply tyres for F1?
How "sexy" is F1 for a global supplier at the moment? Does Michelin, Dunlop, Bridgestone etc. "need" F1 at the moment? Would it make sense fo them to come back/getting involved?

On a side note:
Anyone, who races on any race tyre anywhere in the world, in any series I have be involved in, factory team or private weekend racer, will have been made to sign a waiver like this on:


Doesn't matter if it's LeMans, or the club weekend somewhere around the world or where ever.
Doesn't matter it's Brigdestone, Michelin, Dunlop or whoever.
I can't speak with any certainty for F1, but for many other series around the world, including FIA world championships with a controlled tyre supply.
Therefore I would be surprised, if a similar waiver is not used by Pirelli with respect to the teams, which brings us back to the Hamilton/Massa tyre(s).
So far, legally, is a none issue, let's see how things develop from here.

Thanks for that, just a couple of points:
the unfair contract terms act specifically prohibits the exclusion of liability for negligence where death or personal injury are concerned, which means it doesn't matter what manufacturers put in their terms, they are still liable if it can be proved they were negligent. Other types of loss resulting from negligence can be excluded (in business but not consumer contracts) but only if it is reasonable to do so – the reasonableness test also takes into account the relative bargaining position of both parties. This is what the law says, but in practical terms your average club racer isn't going to have the resources to challenge a major tyre manufacturer, so they can effectively do what ever they want - might be a different kettle of fish if a major F1 star was involved though.

Companies use disclaimers all the time (e.g. on the back of race tickets), but that doesn’t mean those terms are enforceable, they’re really just there to deter potential claims.
(this applies to contracts governed by British and EU law, don’t know about other countries)

I completely agree with you about sole suppliers only spending as much as they need to, but the point still remains that the FIA have been using tyres as a means to limit / control the performance of cars for a long time now – tyre widths were reduced and then groves introduced not that long after Senna died weren’t they? Obviously things have been taken to extremes now and tyres are being used for more than simply limiting cornering speeds, but it’s not as if it’s something they’ve only just thought of.

I strongly suspect there's a lot more to this than meets the eye in terms of the amount of influence and/or control the FIA has over the situation. The statements coming out of some teams (e.g. RBR) are clearly aimed at someone, and it isn’t necessarily Pirelli because they’re contractually bound to treat every team fairly, and therefore can’t make changes that might be seen to be adversely effecting some teams.
However, in all likelihood, if the FIA are happy with what Pirelli are doing in terms of fulfilling the brief, then they’ll let them get on with it, but it they’re not, then they’ll have the option of stepping in and demand changes.
We haven't heard a squeak out of the FIA about anything since Todt took over, but that doesn't mean they're not doing anything.


#3437 ApexMouse

ApexMouse
  • Member

  • 909 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 08 May 2013 - 18:01

10 points for TC3000.

Posts of 3000% percent better quality than most of the circlejerk in here.

#3438 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 08 May 2013 - 18:06

Tyres have decided championships in the past, and will do in the future, it just comes with the territory ask Nigel Mansell and Williams about this one.
Looks like a classical detreading event (not much different to what happened with Hamilton in Bahrain and before in Turkey), it cost him the championship, who was going to sue the manufacturer?
Posted Image


While tires have decided championships in the past, I've simply maintained that Pirelli tires were rubbish in their previous appearances in F1. When there were other manufacturers involved in F1 on the tire said, Pirelli was never the best tire, and in some cases it was not even the second, but the third best choice.

#3439 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,274 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 08 May 2013 - 18:12

While tires have decided championships in the past, I've simply maintained that Pirelli tires were rubbish in their previous appearances in F1. When there were other manufacturers involved in F1 on the tire said, Pirelli was never the best tire, and in some cases it was not even the second, but the third best choice.


I´ve got zero experience and knowledge about these eras, so I won´t dispute that at all... but I fail to see how that lack of performance in a remote tyre war era has any relevance in the current single supplier situation. The boxes you have to tick are totally different in these scenarios.

Advertisement

#3440 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 08 May 2013 - 19:00

I´ve got zero experience and knowledge about these eras, so I won´t dispute that at all... but I fail to see how that lack of performance in a remote tyre war era has any relevance in the current single supplier situation. The boxes you have to tick are totally different in these scenarios.


I suppose what I am saying is that even with all the years that have gone by since Pirelli's last involvement, their tires still do leave something to be desired even when they have no competition from any other manufacturer.

Of course we can also blame the other manufacturers who simply did/do not want to be involved in F1 any longer. Say Goodyear had decided to come back to F1, what is the likelihood they would have manufactured tires with the characteristics of the Pirelli tires? I have a hard time believing that among the big name tire manufacturers, they would have produced tires in this manner. But of course it depends on what one desires out of grand prix racing too.

I was rewatching the 1993 San Marino Grand Prix last night. The drivers started on rain tires, came into the pits when the racing line dried out and switched to slicks around lap 10 or so. That was it for the rest of the race which was 61 laps total. Of course only Prost and Schumacher completed all 61.

Did it kill the race? Not as far as I could tell. Was there the [artificial] excitement we see today? No, it was just racing at the end of the day. The tire talk was focused more on the changing track conditions than what the silliness is that goes on during broadcasts now with degradation and the like. No talk of extreme tire management or operating windows. I believe a genuinely good tire single manufacturer in general will obviously supply the tires, but they will just sort of be there. You know who the tire manufacturer is, but they don't occupy center stage the way it Pirelli does at the moment. I wasn't bored by the lack of pit stop battles that we so often see now. Watching guys flying round the Tamburello trying to stay in each other's slipstream was exciting, as was watching to see if someone would successfully outbrake the other into Tossa.

I think part of the problem in this topic is that you have conflicting ideas of grand prix racing should be about. Is there any truly set definition on what it should be? Not really. But we have over 100 years worth of data to see what did and did not work historically. I view the tire situation much the same as the idea to bring back refueling in 1994; an incredibly short-sighted move that only helped to make the actual racing duller than ever.

#3441 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,274 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 08 May 2013 - 19:46

I suppose what I am saying is that even with all the years that have gone by since Pirelli's last involvement, their tires still do leave something to be desired even when they have no competition from any other manufacturer.


You definetely didn´t understand what I was implying about the boxes to tick in the different situations.

Of course we can also blame the other manufacturers who simply did/do not want to be involved in F1 any longer. Say Goodyear had decided to come back to F1, what is the likelihood they would have manufactured tires with the characteristics of the Pirelli tires? I have a hard time believing that among the big name tire manufacturers, they would have produced tires in this manner. But of course it depends on what one desires out of grand prix racing too.


Speculation. I can say too others would have tried the same Pirelli did and got the balance worse.

No talk of extreme tire management or operating windows. I believe a genuinely good tire single manufacturer in general will obviously supply the tires, but they will just sort of be there. You know who the tire manufacturer is, but they don't occupy center stage the way it Pirelli does at the moment.


Fair enough. But when even the dull 2007-2008 tyres were in the spotlight with the "if they pick soft compound Ferrari wins, if they pick hard one McLaren wins" and the "they can´t cope with Hamilton´s driving" stories, one has to wonder if that´s possible. As far as I´m concerned, we get 2 vs 3 stop races (OK), a reasonably low number of failures over the 2 full seasons we had, and just a couple of races where it went too far with degradation (even Bridgestone did, remember Australia 2009). So only the "these tyres favour X" talks remain as a reasonable compliant, and to be fair we have that no matter which single supplier and tyre we have, it´ll always be better for some. It´s always going to be the case. Yes, Pirelli is in the spotlight, because some choose to put them there no matter what they do.


I wasn't bored by the lack of pit stop battles that we so often see now. Watching guys flying round the Tamburello trying to stay in each other's slipstream was exciting, as was watching to see if someone would successfully outbrake the other into Tossa.


Well that has nothing to do with tyres. You still have sweepers and cars going close around them. You still have guys outbraking others.


I think part of the problem in this topic is that you have conflicting ideas of grand prix racing should be about. Is there any truly set definition on what it should be? Not really.



There´s another difference. Some of us cope with the series being not how we want and still manage to get fun from it, and rate the current state of the series fairly without falling in the nostalgia camp. I´d kill to get the cars back to the old proportion between front and rear wings, but still I admit the change was for better in the racing aspect. All others can say about a certain change away from their preferences is "this is the end of F1", "the past was better".

But we have over 100 years worth of data to see what did and did not work historically. I view the tire situation much the same as the idea to bring back refueling in 1994; an incredibly short-sighted move that only helped to make the actual racing duller than ever.


As this is purley subjective, I´ll give my view and say I had never had as much fun as the last 4 seasons, despite the ton of things that I dislike like the rev limited engines and the silly wings. Still best era I´ve seen by a country mile in my 15 years as a grown up informed fan.

#3442 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 08 May 2013 - 20:17

There´s another difference. Some of us cope with the series being not how we want and still manage to get fun from it, and rate the current state of the series fairly without falling in the nostalgia camp. I´d kill to get the cars back to the old proportion between front and rear wings, but still I admit the change was for better in the racing aspect. All others can say about a certain change away from their preferences is "this is the end of F1", "the past was better".


Here's the problem, you can't disregard the past if you've seen/lived the past. There's lessons to be learned from it all. Was everything all rosy in the past? Certainly not. There were plenty of drivers who did not like the ground effects cars at all. And there were guys who did not like the switch from manual H pattern gearboxes to semi-auto paddle shifters. What my point is, is that given the tremendous volume of data out there with grand prix racing in general, one can look at the good and the bad to see what works and does not. I thought in the middle of the past decade the aero was already out of control, but at the same time I couldn't help but think, "Goddamn these cars are insanely fast."

As this is purley subjective, I´ll give my view and say I had never had as much fun as the last 4 seasons, despite the ton of things that I dislike like the rev limited engines and the silly wings. Still best era I´ve seen by a country mile in my 15 years as a grown up informed fan.


I won't say I've not had any fun with the past few years because I have. I just think when one looks at the overall picture, the past few years leaves a bit to be desired. There's a combination of factors at play that when put together, are not ideal. I get the tires help create a show for the casual fan, or even the long-term fan, but if a show is what is desired, then there are better ways to go about it than as presently constituted. For the claimed pinnacle of motorsport to resort to the current tires is absurd as it makes the entire thing look like a car packed with 20 clowns. It makes me look at the entire thing with the question of, "This is really the best they are willing to do with tires?" I say that with the thought of trying to explore new boundaries, not helping to inadvertently perpetuate the real truth that F1 has become increasingly obsolete with regards to pushing boundaries that actually matter. There's too much of that invisible guiding hand at play, and not enough of that free-spirited attitude which made F1 what it is; the environment has become too controlled.

#3443 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 08 May 2013 - 21:11

Whilst paradoxically everyone in here has his slice of truth in this, I am still unable to digest various conflicts that exist. One cannot continually ignore calls for keeping cost down, yet after all these investments into design and building of a new prototype, then in the very last moment just before season starts, this Pirelli guy shows up with their wonderful tire, which negates in one weekend several months everyone's effort that was invested into a new design, and when races start, teams are struggling with remedial measures at great cost, marketing campaigns instead blitz and shine are muddy when races are lost, yet people then say - isn't this exciting? Minnows caught up with a big fish. To me it doesn't makes sense at all.

Coordination between tire manufacturer and more testing earlier on before season launch are the answers, IMO.

__________

Voices are being heard, that track testing should come back, as simulators in reality are sort off failure, and not even the best toys cannot come even close to track ride. According to some articles from this morning, four teams are pushing for it, whereas others are resisting. I hope they all will come to their senses, and we will see in March cars again race ready, instead in debugging tire-related setup mode.

#3444 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,739 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 May 2013 - 23:42

its worth noting that pirelli has mostly / only had troubles with the hard tyre over the few seasons now.

and they wherent able to make tyres last in lmp2, or previously in f1 (both cases tyre war)

and they have gone for sole supplier contracts in recent years.

spot the pattern?

#3445 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,802 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 09 May 2013 - 01:28

Nice spectacular photos and lots and lots of text about detreading events. But they're irrelevant to this thread.

#3446 TC3000

TC3000
  • Member

  • 1,021 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 09 May 2013 - 02:27

Nice spectacular photos and lots and lots of text about detreading events. But they're irrelevant to this thread.


fixed
apologize wont happen again I promise
enjoy

#3447 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 09 May 2013 - 05:21

Nice spectacular photos and lots and lots of text about detreading events. But they're irrelevant to this thread.

Don't understand the tone of this post. There are many childish posts in this thread that add no value to the discussion and often off-topic. TC3000, even if some of his posts are long and have some off-topic content, has been for the most part directly related to the thread and others have indirect contexts to the thread. He has been one of the best posters I have seen for a while, his post-cotents are quite knowledgeable and useful to many. You can tell by the sheer amount of acknowledgements he has got. Why such a tone? Why not be nice to people?

#3448 packapoo

packapoo
  • Member

  • 731 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 09 May 2013 - 05:24

Whilst paradoxically everyone in here has his slice of truth in this, I am still unable to digest various conflicts that exist. One cannot continually ignore calls for keeping cost down, yet after all these investments into design and building of a new prototype, then in the very last moment just before season starts, this Pirelli guy shows up with their wonderful tire, which negates in one weekend several months everyone's effort that was invested into a new design, and when races start, teams are struggling with remedial measures at great cost, marketing campaigns instead blitz and shine are muddy when races are lost, yet people then say - isn't this exciting? Minnows caught up with a big fish. To me it doesn't makes sense at all.

Coordination between tire manufacturer and more testing earlier on before season launch are the answers, IMO.

__________

Voices are being heard, that track testing should come back, as simulators in reality are sort off failure, and not even the best toys cannot come even close to track ride. According to some articles from this morning, four teams are pushing for it, whereas others are resisting. I hope they all will come to their senses, and we will see in March cars again race ready, instead in debugging tire-related setup mode.


:up: :up:

#3449 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,802 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 09 May 2013 - 13:57

fixed
apologize wont happen again I promise
enjoy


:rolleyes: Yeah, you didn't over-react at all there.

@Sakae: I think Bernie/FOTA asked them to make challenging tyres. We can fault Pirelli for going too far perhaps, but their intentions have been in line with what Bernie/FOTA asked them to do in the first place.

Edited by boldhakka, 09 May 2013 - 13:58.


#3450 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 09 May 2013 - 14:15

:rolleyes: Yeah, you didn't over-react at all there.

@Sakae: I think Bernie/FOTA asked them to make challenging tyres. We can fault Pirelli for going too far perhaps, but their intentions have been in line with what Bernie/FOTA asked them to do in the first place.

I have rough idea what people think about process. My point was, that perhaps whole current setup needs massive revision, because of imbalance, as there is no point to build a really expensive car prototype over winter, which is then reduced to warehouse forklift by a tire in February.