130 replies to this topic

[Tulerian]

I believe the problems at Silverstone were caused by an ill thought out change to the construction of the tires, and no subsequent testing. In no way do I place any portion of blame to any team however. This issue should have never arisen in the first place and changing tire specifications part way through the season which will adversely affect some teams is a major issue for them, and the sport as a whole. I also believe the issues from earlier in the season are not only related to some cars producing too much downforce, generating added heat and therefore not likely to affect other cars, but that there are fundamental structural issues with the tires which seem to be getting worse as the season goes on. Tires were failing at relatively low lap counts and temperatures at Silverstone. Where were the tire failures in pre-season testing?

In my view Pirelli has been modifying the tires as the season goes, for what purpose it can only be speculated. I also think this has occurred in previous seasons, hence strange patterns of cars falling in to, or out of, balance at different circuits which can't be explained.


This appears to show the difference in construction between tires in May and at Silverstone.

From F1technical: http://www.f1technic...=439957#p439957


If this is true could it be a major factor in some teams not being able to get consistent benefit from updates brought to races throughout the season? Perhaps the update would have worked with the tires several races earlier, but by the time they are brought to the car the balance/behaviour of the tires has changed?

Another thing about this whole affair really puzzles me. Why is the tire supplier chosen by Bernie and FOM? Surely this leaves it to open to manipulation by a party too concerned with the commercial side of F1. I would have expected the tire supplier to be chosen, controlled and communicated through by the FIA themselves to leave no doubt as to the independence and fairness to all competitors? As much as we can trust the FIA also...

[DanardiF1]

I really hope we can use this to get out of this 'entertainment' tyre malarkey and just get back (from next season) to tyres that are the peak of technology, at least in terms of grip and safety. If they are softer compounds that mean 1-2 pitstops fine, but they must be safe and must make the cars go faster. Drivers should be able to push without fears of the tyre 1. losing grip outside of their own control and now 2. failing on them.

I think Pirelli are easily capable of this, but at this point we have tyres that are significantly poorer both in performance and safety than what Bridgestone provided. Durability is not an issue because with the technology level these companies operate on, they can decide how long a tyre should last.

And it's embarrassing for F1 to be in this position when only 2 weeks ago Michelin were providing an intermediate tyre at Le Mans that had no tread, and provided slick compounds for teams that allowed for similar stint lengths and laptimes in both cold and hot conditions. That kind of tyre technology is available now, and F1 is in danger of falling into a 'dark age' where nothing truly progresses for the fear that the fans will disappear... the irony being that that lack of innovation and forward thinking will cost them many fans.

I too am disappointed in how this season has gone (just as I wasn't particularly enamoured with the massive unpredictability in early 2012). I too am fed up of talking and hearing about nothing but tyres in a control tyre formula. It makes me sad that many lap records on the calendar are nearly 10 years old now, and nobody in the sport seems to consider that a problem, especially when using tyres that are state of the art and provide more grip than before is possible.

Edited by DanardiF1, 01 July 2013 - 23:08.

[canon1753]

I always think it is bad when the sanctioning body tells the tire supplier what to do (2 compounds, make sure the tire degrades, etc) to enliven the show. It always comes back to sanity when you have a USGP 2005 or a British GP like yesterday.

About Michelin- they had all those trick Lemans tires in case Dunlop or Hankook or someone else showed up with better tires. Plus they want to keep supplying Audi and Toyota with tires, because they win.

[DanardiF1]

I always think it is bad when the sanctioning body tells the tire supplier what to do (2 compounds, make sure the tire degrades, etc) to enliven the show. It always comes back to sanity when you have a USGP 2005 or a British GP like yesterday.

About Michelin- they had all those trick Lemans tires in case Dunlop or Hankook or someone else showed up with better tires. Plus they want to keep supplying Audi and Toyota with tires, because they win.

But the point is that they make them at all.

I agree with your main point though. It's like trying to create circumstances that were successful beforehand but occured naturally.

Edited by DanardiF1, 01 July 2013 - 23:32.

[Markn93]

... I don't think you should believe everything you read.

Thanks for (effectively) clearing that up

[dans79]

BIG DEAL. Tyres were still inflated, there is no real safety concern here.

You missed the delamination breaking Hamilton's suspension in Bahrain didn't you?

Any time a component fails on a car as speed it's a safety issue, it doesn't mater if it's an F1 car, or the one setting in front of your house.

[Seanspeed]

As a Ferrari fan, I can say that Mr. Luis isn't entirely reliable.

[Otaku]

nice photo - thanks for posting
Someone ask before in the other thread, if the tyres who "exploded" were run against the intended direction, this one was, as if you look at the barcode sticker it says "R", but I don't think that this makes a huge difference to the underlying problem in this case, but it shows nevertheless, that the teams "give a s....." about what the tyre manufacturer says/recommends and the same goes for pressures and camber settings.

That's true, but maybe R stands for Rear, and not Right. Maybe they only label them with F (front) and R (rear), and teams can run them on the left or on the right as they want.

[DanardiF1]

I'm not disagreeing with your overall statement, but I think you overlook some aspects of the bigger picture.
Michelin did tender for the 2010 F1 contract, but people/teams didn't wanted to pay what they were asking for.
Producing good tyres is not "cheap", so why should any company, who is confident in the quality of their product, sell it below price?
Just to be in F1? That's a reason, if you are desperate for market share, but I think Michelin, Bridgestone and Good Year/Dunlop doing quite alright without F1 at the moment.
So, some people (teams) will have to touch their own nose, as often in life, you get what you (are prepared) to pay for. If you pay bananas, don't be surprise if you get monkeys.
Tyre manufacturers, don't really fall over themselves for the "honor" to supply tyres to F1, that shows you something - F1 isn't really "sexy" for them, nor is it for most (car) manufacturers.
That's a point, which should be addressed at some point, as it looks for now, F1 is one the way to safe themselves to death, the so called "cost reduction measures" may just have prolonged it for a couple of years, but haven't really addressed anything.
If teams complain about a 1-1.5 Mill price tag for ~1800 tyres delivered and mounted around the world, plus engineering support and some other freebees, then they are really out of touch with reality, and shouldn't really complain about what they get. They get what they have bargained for.

LeMans and other top flight racing programs on OEM level, are normally "financed/offset" via OEM supply deals, be it tyres or some other components, this is one of the reason why you see Michelin and BOSCH going out of their way to supply the likes of Audi, Toyota or other manufacturers in their factory racing programs.
Apart from Mercedes and Ferrari, there are not many "customers" for tyre suppliers in F1.
Someone like RBR, Williams or FI don't buy many tyres for their day to day business, which makes it a lot less attractive for a company like Michelin or Bridgestone to get involved.
Pirelli thought they could do it, on the cheap and make a bargain, but they maybe going to regret their assessment in light of the latest developments, and it will send a quite sobering message to the likes of Hankook or Yokohama who may consider to getting involved.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying. And I was being more general in my point just to say that I find it mad that F1 tyres nowadays are nowhere near the best you can find in motorsport, and despite it's top billing is in danger of becoming a dinosaur not just technologically but in attitude and appeal too.

[MikeV1987]

I am going to say this even though my favourite driver is currently leading the championship.

This is the worst season in F1 I have ever witness. I don't care about boring races and processions. Sport is that from time to time, and I think people should of dealt with it better, instead of demanding entertainment.

With all that has gone on this season positively stinks.

Great post, F1 is becoming a joke imo.

[Otaku]

Teams do run them as they want, because there is no provision in the rules (yet) to stop them, the same goes for tyre pressures and camber settings.
Pirelli can (so far) only make a recommendation, the final call lays with the race engineer/team, that's pretty standard practice in most race series around the world.

Have a look at this photo, you can clearly see "L" for "Left" on the bar code label.
Seeing that the tyres front and rear have different dimensions, and most likely will physically not fit at the wrong axle, their is little need to specifically mark them, if they would run the same dimensions front and rear, it would be a different matter.

Cool, a picture is worth 1000 times more than words

[Brother Fox]

I think the Right and Left markings (if thats for certain what they are) need to be looked at then.

Are the stickers put there by Pirelli or the teams?

If by Pirelli then there must be a reason for specifying it.

[Oho]

Seeing that the tyres front and rear have different dimensions, and most likely will physically not fit at the wrong axle..

Well these days perhaps but as a matter of fact Tyrrel qualified at Hockenheim in 1998, if I correctly recall, with four front tyres. This just a a curiosity, otherwise I doubt any team would get fronts and rears confused.

Edited by Oho, 02 July 2013 - 05:51.

[Timstr11]

A switch to kevlar belt for Nurburgring to be confirmed later today, so this theory can go out of the window:
http://www.telegraph...Grand-Prix.html

[Vesuvius]

A switch to kevlar belt for Nurburgring to be confirmed later today, so this theory can go out of the window:
http://www.telegraph...Grand-Prix.html

If they already used kevlar tyres without (all) teams knowing it, the scandal still exists.

[ExFlagMan]

That's true, but maybe R stands for Rear, and not Right. Maybe they only label them with F (front) and R (rear), and teams can run them on the left or on the right as they want.

I think even the thickest of mechanics could not confuse a front tyre with a rear -unless you have not been taking notice for the last 30 odd years there is a slight difference in size between them.

[Szoelloe]

If they already used kevlar tyres without (all) teams knowing it, the scandal still exists.

They obviously didn't though.

[Otaku]

I think even the thickest of mechanics could not confuse a front tyre with a rear -unless you have not been taking notice for the last 30 odd years there is a slight difference in size between them.

Well these days perhaps but as a matter of fact Tyrrel qualified at Hockenheim in 1998, if I correctly recall, with four front tyres. This just a a curiosity, otherwise I doubt any team would get fronts and rears confused.

[Talisker]

Are people seriously suggesting that Pirelli could have made such a radical change to tyre construction, i.e. from steel to kevlar, and none of the highly skilled team mechanics and specialists who handle the tyres never noticed? Seems very hard to believe. One obvious change I would imagine is that the kevlar ones might be a bit lighter, which would definitely be noticed given the attention to the cars weight.

[ExFlagMan]

And they ran with 6 wheels in 1976, including 4 front wheels, so their mechanics must have been very confused then.

Edited by ExFlagMan, 02 July 2013 - 08:32.

[DampMongoose]

Are people seriously suggesting that Pirelli could have made such a radical change to tyre construction, i.e. from steel to kevlar, and none of the highly skilled team mechanics and specialists who handle the tyres never noticed? Seems very hard to believe. One obvious change I would imagine is that the kevlar ones might be a bit lighter, which would definitely be noticed given the attention to the cars weight.

Has anyone come up with an answer as to how Paul di Resta was underweight in quali?

[Oho]

It wasn't a mistake, it was a nice stunt that probably netted them quite a few spots on the grid. The front tyres were able to take one hot lap and the reduced drag gave them clear speed advantage on the long straights Hockenheim used to primarily consist of.

[ExFlagMan]

A few comments regarding the claim by Warwick that the kerbs had been that way since 2009 so couldn't be a cause of the tyre failures.
I though the Arena Layout was not used till 2010 - certainly not for any major meeting anyway.
Also found an interesting point that had forgotten about - in 2010 Webber and Rosberg complained about the new kerbs at Silverstone as they had a big sausage hump running along behind the FIA sawtooth kerb and were afraid that they would launch a car. http://f1fanatics.wo...at-silverstone/ The photo in the link shows the design.
Not sure when they changed them but as I said before - those kerbs at T5 looked pretty new.

[ZooL]

Has anyone come up with an answer as to how Paul di Resta was underweight in quali?

His body weight was 1.5kg lower than normal.

[wj_gibson]

I'm not sure it was '98 when Tyrrell did that - I would think the fact that the fronts had 3 grooves and the rears 4 would mitigate against being able to do that without being seen. More likely it was '97 or earlier.

[wrighty]

the topic is over there.....

[Oho]

I'm not sure it was '98 when Tyrrell did that - I would think the fact that the fronts had 3 grooves and the rears 4 would mitigate against being able to do that without being seen. More likely it was '97 or earlier.

You are probably right about the year 97, that said they did not have to hide it, at the time they did not violate any rules.

[jimjimjeroo]

It was the tyrrell yamaha 024

[Gilles4Ever]

Can we please get back to the topic

[camberley]

Reports concern Pirelli again! This time they are accused of not filing a report to the FIA that they had changed the construction of the tyres prior to the British Grand Prix.


Pirelli changed tyres without consent at Silverstone - report

[Szoelloe]

Reports concern Pirelli again! This time they are accused of not filing a report to the FIA that they had changed the construction of the tyres prior to the British Grand Prix.


Pirelli changed tyres without consent at Silverstone - report

Hehehehe, Marca? LOL?


"I can assure you that the tyres (at Silverstone) were the same construction as the ones used in Barcelona,"