50 replies to this topic

[Bruce]

With the original spec 2013 Pirelli tyre we had 4 different winners from 4 different teams in the first 6 races. Since the introduction of the new spec Pirelli tyre at the Canadian GP, we have had 3 winners from 2 different teams in the past 10 races, and only one multiple winner. Questions;

 

1) Do the results in the past 10 races suggest Mercedes and particularly Red Bull benefited from the design of the new tyre?

 

2) Why, if all teams were tasked with designing a car around a specific tyre, should those teams that were less successful in their efforts (particularly Mercedes) be rewarded by a rule change?

 

3) Having been rewarded with that rule change, why should Pirelli suddenly state that there would be "no further tyre changes for the 2013 season due to the fact that to do so would need the agreement of all teams, some of whom did not want their performance to be affected by such a mid-season change."- What about those teams that did not want their performance effected by the FIRST mid-season change? 

 

4) Was the drama at Silverstone (tyre delaminations) due to Pirelli's rush to a new tyre design mid-season?

 

5) Because of the Silvertsone issues, Pirelli, of course DID introduce another new tyre design... the stop gap was introduced in Germany (Vettel win) the new tyre was introduced in Hungary (Rosberg win) and of course every race since Hungary has been won by Vettel. Is this due in part to the tyres, or was Red Bull always going to achieve such dominance?

 

6) What really changed? The initial complaint from Mercedes and Red Bull was that tyres were impacting too much on race strategy; but it still does: witness radio calls to Webber and Vettel in the Indian GP where they are told to take it easy on their tyres as they must last the remaining distance... So it's the same as Spain - Go like hell and burn your tyres out or drive more sedately and preserve them, is it not? Also, does tyre strategy still not effect the race disproportionately? The entire race revolves around who starts on what tyre and who can make the rubbish one last longer, so again - what's changed?

 

7) What is in this for Pirelli? Why on earth should they want to pay the sort of money they are to provide tyres when this year is the result? Before Spain: "tyres are too slow" after Spain: "Tyres are too dangerous" After Germany: " Compound "X" is slow/rubbish". How does any of this benefit a key sponsor to F1?

 

8) Is it time to think about allowing competing tyre manufacturers back into F1 in spite of the Indy debacle? 

 

9) How does having a single tyre manufacturer benefit F1 when we have had a season like this one viz; tyres?

 

 

I do not suggest that the outcome of the WDC would have been markedly different; Red Bull have shown before that they can mount a challenge at any point in the season and make it stick (last year comes to mind), however, I do suspect that the season would have been much closer had there not been a radical change in tyres after Spain (the very fact that Red Bull and Mercedes lobbied for change after this race is suggestive - teams only want those changes that are a benefit to them - right?). A closer championship would have been better for EVERYONE - the fans, the drivers, even Vettel. 

 

 

[spacekid]

Thing is, relative performance of cars changes during the season anyway, depending on how the cars are developed. The most money usually helps.

 

How do we tease out the performance effect due to the tyres? How do we know the cars wouldn't have developed like this anyway?

 

I'm not saying the tyres haven't made a difference, just not sure how we can tell for sure, and by how much.

 

The tyre failures were a worry, and I think a change was necessary imo.

[Bruce]

Thing is, relative performance of cars changes during the season anyway, depending on how the cars are developed. The most money usually helps.

 

How do we tease out the performance effect due to the tyres? How do we know the cars wouldn't have developed like this anyway?

 

 

Absolutely - as I have stated - I still think that Red Bull would have pulled it out anyway - they tend to. But Mercedes certainly made a big step in tune with the tyre change - remember how they performed at Spain?

 

spacekid, on 28 Oct 2013 - 11:45, said:

The tyre failures were a worry, and I think a change was necessary imo.

 

Yes - of course - but the tyre failures occurred AFTER the first tyre spec change following Spain. 

[Bruce]

Relative speeds and the success of cars is impossible to pin on a single aspect, such as tyres - as spacekid suggests - but it would also be silly to suggest that a change as fundamental as the one made would have little to no impact on the season - if that was the case, why would teams have been lobbying for the change?

 

Still-  I expect that that will be a contentious issue in this thread. 

[SamH123]

With the original spec 2013 Pirelli tyre we had 4 different winners from 4 different teams in the first 6 races. Since the introduction of the new spec Pirelli tyre at the Canadian GP, we have had 3 winners from 2 different teams in the past 10 races, and only one multiple winner. Questions;

 

 

Canada?

Hungary, 3 races later, was the start of the new spec tire (with Germany's tires being part 2012/2013 in a way that I can't remember)

The stat from Hungary makes it far clearer that RB benefited from the change (as Newey confirmed this weekend)

[RealRacing]

The tyres at the beginning of the season up until Siverstone were dangerous. Some would argue that even afterwards they continue to be dangerous. FA has said, as late as the last 2 races, that they are very inconsistent, with tyres of the same compound sometimes behaving markedly different in terms of degradation. This would point to a manufacturing problem, so the exclusive responsibility of the supplier. The last GP was a clear demonstration that the soft tyres were rubbish and the mandatory change rule ridiculous. Drivers and fans alike have protested all season long that these tyres are not allowing all the potential close racing that the drivers want and the fans deserve. I don't necessarily see the need for a change of supplier, just a tweak in philosophy let's put it that way: give teams X number of compounds that they can use for a given weekend, which would allow them to safely push close to the limit for a given window of laps, eliminate the mandatory change and let drivers choose the best strategy based on their cars, driving styles and set up. Increase the number of sets they can use so that they are not worried about using them up and can experiment a bit more on-track for their and the spectator's benefit. Oh, and don't give Hembrey that much air-time...

[spacekid]

I guess I'm pretty relaxed about it all.

 

I think the direction apparently given to Pirelli to construct tyres that create 'interesting' races is silly. I also think the testing limitations have ultimately created needless problems (I put the blame mostly on Pirelli for building tyres with an unusually high failure rate, and their PR on the subject annoyed me, but the process of getting the siutation fixed was not all their fault).

 

The issues you raise are points for discussion, but overall I think they are just part of the cut and thrust of a season. I'm far more bothered by the fundamental problems that led to them.

[EvanRainer]

The 2012 tyres were fine. They were changed over the winter with the specific goal to stop Red Bull  for whatever reason. The mess that followed was a direct result of that.

 

No one had a chance to design the car around the new tyres, the claim is laughable and has been debunked and most people now admit the obvious which is that Lotus and Ferrari who were the main benefactors of the winter tyre changes simply lucked into their early season advantage due to pre-existing car characteristics.

 

So a better question is, what was wrong with the 2012 tyres in the first place?

Edited by EvanRainer, 28 October 2013 - 16:14.

[undersquare]

I don't remember Mercedes complaining about the original spec.  I thought that was all Red Bull.

 

As I understood it the original spec had a steel belt and soft sidewalls and wouldn't take the forces from Red Bull's level of downforce.

 

And it was fine until teams wanted to run them in the opposite direction from the one they'd been designed for. Pirelli mistakenly allowed that, and then all the Silverstone failures were on tyres that were being run backwards.

 

So afaik all they really had to do was enforce the directionality of the original design, which would have been much fairer as the OP says; but there was too much hysteria.

[rockdude101]

With the original spec 2013 Pirelli tyre we had 4 different winners from 4 different teams in the first 6 races. Since the introduction of the new spec Pirelli tyre at the Canadian GP, we have had 3 winners from 2 different teams in the past 10 races, and only one multiple winner. Questions;

 

1) Do the results in the past 10 races suggest Mercedes and particularly Red Bull benefited from the design of the new tyre?

 

2) Why, if all teams were tasked with designing a car around a specific tyre, should those teams that were less successful in their efforts (particularly Mercedes) be rewarded by a rule change?

 

3) Having been rewarded with that rule change, why should Pirelli suddenly state that there would be "no further tyre changes for the 2013 season due to the fact that to do so would need the agreement of all teams, some of whom did not want their performance to be affected by such a mid-season change."- What about those teams that did not want their performance effected by the FIRST mid-season change? 

 

4) Was the drama at Silverstone (tyre delaminations) due to Pirelli's rush to a new tyre design mid-season?

 

5) Because of the Silvertsone issues, Pirelli, of course DID introduce another new tyre design... the stop gap was introduced in Germany (Vettel win) the new tyre was introduced in Hungary (Rosberg win) and of course every race since Hungary has been won by Vettel. Is this due in part to the tyres, or was Red Bull always going to achieve such dominance?

 

6) What really changed? The initial complaint from Mercedes and Red Bull was that tyres were impacting too much on race strategy; but it still does: witness radio calls to Webber and Vettel in the Indian GP where they are told to take it easy on their tyres as they must last the remaining distance... So it's the same as Spain - Go like hell and burn your tyres out or drive more sedately and preserve them, is it not? Also, does tyre strategy still not effect the race disproportionately? The entire race revolves around who starts on what tyre and who can make the rubbish one last longer, so again - what's changed?

 

7) What is in this for Pirelli? Why on earth should they want to pay the sort of money they are to provide tyres when this year is the result? Before Spain: "tyres are too slow" after Spain: "Tyres are too dangerous" After Germany: " Compound "X" is slow/rubbish". How does any of this benefit a key sponsor to F1?

 

8) Is it time to think about allowing competing tyre manufacturers back into F1 in spite of the Indy debacle? 

 

9) How does having a single tyre manufacturer benefit F1 when we have had a season like this one viz; tyres?

 

1) Yes & No. Mercedes have gone backwards, Red Bull far superior than early form.

2) They shouldn't

3) Because the changes directly improved Red Bull only. Lotus haven't massively improved, Ferrari have gone backwards, same with Mercedes.

4) Yes & No. Not sole cause but equal responsibility

5) The tyres have massively helped Red Bull's dominance from that point onwards.

6) Rather than what's changed, it's a case of going back to what worked perfectly for one team at the detriment of others who did make changes and innovate.

7) It's not really about the results or internal sport talk but brand awareness and publicity, both areas are monopolized within F1 for maximum profit.

8) If the tyres are proved safe enough, then yes, why not?

9) Having a sole supplier probably results in lower costs for the teams and more control in design/compound.

 

J.

[redreni]

I don't think it's possible to tell for sure, but Force India were definitely strongly against the changes and Red Bull were strongly for them, and the change in those two teams' fortunes since Hungary won't surprise the rational one little bit.

 

From a pure sporting standpoint I'm tempted to say that the intention on the part of the sole tyre supplier to soften up the compounds and change the construction was made clear to everybody well in advance, and there is no fairness in rewarding those who ignored that and designed a car that would be quickest on the previous year's tyres. On the other hand, if they tyres were of dangerous construction, which they obviously were when exposed to very high g-loading at Silverstone, then it's not realistic to expect them to stay the same.

 

There was far too much arguing and playing politics in the way in which the tyres were changed, with Red Bull getting pretty much exactly what they'd been asking for and then disappearing happily off into the sunset, which leaves a bit of a sour taste in the mouth. With Mercedes, I don't think it's quite that clear cut; they had dreadful tyre problems everywhere up to and including Barcelona, then they had Monaco where they avoided tyre dramas but only by driving at about 40mph for most of the race. Then we had Canada where nobody suffered any tyre dramas, and then we had Silverstone where they appeared to have got their tyre wear in order, but only by running them out of spec, which may have contributed to Hamilton's tyre failure there. Then the tyres were changed and, although they gained in terms of durability, as everyone did, their durability is still amongst the worst on the grid. They also appear to have lost their qualifying advantage since the change of tyres. So whether they've gained from the switch to the 2012 compounds with the new construction really depends on whether they would have been able to cure the severe degradation issue they had with the previous tyre.

 

In any event, Pirelli should certainly have spotted the problems earlier, declared that they were making essential changes to the compounds and construction for safety reasons, and done it without allowing weeks and weeks of inaction and in-fighting and refusals on the part of Pirelli to acknowledge that their product was unsafe, leading ultimately to the Silverstone debacle. Ultimately the problems all stem from the introduction of race tyres that have never been tested on representative cars on a representative track in representative temparatures. Hopefully that lesson has been learned, though judging from what Pirelli were saying at Budhh, it looks rather as if it hasn't.

[RealRacing]

 I'm far more bothered by the fundamental problems that led to them.

100%

[andyF1]

The tyres at the beginning of the season up until Siverstone were dangerous. Some would argue that even afterwards they continue to be dangerous. FA has said, as late as the last 2 races, that they are very inconsistent, with tyres of the same compound sometimes behaving markedly different in terms of degradation. This would point to a manufacturing problem, so the exclusive responsibility of the supplier. The last GP was a clear demonstration that the soft tyres were rubbish and the mandatory change rule ridiculous. Drivers and fans alike have protested all season long that these tyres are not allowing all the potential close racing that the drivers want and the fans deserve. I don't necessarily see the need for a change of supplier, just a tweak in philosophy let's put it that way: give teams X number of compounds that they can use for a given weekend, which would allow them to safely push close to the limit for a given window of laps, eliminate the mandatory change and let drivers choose the best strategy based on their cars, driving styles and set up. Increase the number of sets they can use so that they are not worried about using them up and can experiment a bit more on-track for their and the spectator's benefit. Oh, and don't give Hembrey that much air-time...

 

This. Why can't we have regulations like this, similar to the regulations there were in the late 80's and early 90's. The rule that annoys me the most is the mandatory change. The FIA really need to consider getting rid of it

[redreni]

The 2012 tyres were fine. They were changed over the winter with the specific goal to stop Red Bull  for whatever reason. The mess that followed was a direct result of that.

 

No one had a chance to design the car around the new tyres, the claim is laughable and has been debunked and most people now admit the obvious which is that Lotus and Ferrari who were the main benefactors of the winter tyre changes simply lucked into their early season advantage due to pre-existing car characteristics.

 

So a better question is, what was wrong with the 2012 tyres in the first place?

 

They weren't meeting their design specs, to provide two and three stop races. Nearly every race in the second half of 2012 was won on one stop. Everyone knew the compounds would be softened up. Nobody knew what would happen to the construction, admittedly, so the assumptions about tyre characteristics that went into teams' 2013 designs were nothing more than educated guesswork, but that's not to say the teams who made the best educated guesses should be penalised at the expense of teams that made bad ones, is it? 

[e34]

The 2012 tyres were fine. They were changed over the winter with the specific goal to stop Red Bull  for whatever reason. The mess that followed was a direct result of that.

 

No one had a chance to design the car around the new tyres, the claim is laughable and has been debunked and most people now admit the obvious which is that Lotus and Ferrari who were the main benefactors of the winter tyre changes simply lucked into their early season advantage due to pre-existing car characteristics.

 

So a better question is, what was wrong with the 2012 tyres in the first place?

 

If you open a thread asking for ways to stop Red Bull, I guarantee you that in less than one hour you will have several proposals way more effective than that conspirational "anti-RBR" tyre supposedly FIA asked for. 

 

And for lucking into an advantage, what's wrong with that? One could say that Red Bull lucked into an engine that allowed all sorts of gray mode operations. And yet when those gray mode operations were cut, they cried a river because their performance would be affected, and their engines would explode. 

 

And, come to think of it, and considering the lack of new and experienced drivers, what was wrong with free testing during the season? 

[EvanRainer]

They weren't meeting their design specs, to provide two and three stop races. Nearly every race in the second half of 2012 was won on one stop. Everyone knew the compounds would be softened up. Nobody knew what would happen to the construction, admittedly, so the assumptions about tyre characteristics that went into teams' 2013 designs were nothing more than educated guesswork, but that's not to say the teams who made the best educated guesses should be penalised at the expense of teams that made bad ones, is it? 

 

First of all, the one stop races towards the end of 2012 had a lot to do with inexplicable conservative choices by Pirelli and not just the teams figuring out the tyres.

 

Secondly, the issue was with changing the construction of the tyres not softening up.

 

@e34

 

This wasn't the first thing they tried to change to hinder Red Bull and keep it close. And as far as the supposedly part, Hembrey himself said that they couldn't change the tyres back because that would mean RBR destroying everyone, implying that Red Bull winning is a bad thing and all but admitting that stopping them from running away with it was what they were trying to achieve.

 

Nothing wrong with lucking into an advantage, I just find ridiculous the claim that teams had a chance to design their cars around the new tyres. There is no time to do so, especially with no testing, and the main characteristics of almost all the top cars remain unchanged (lotus being good with the tyres, Ferrari understeery etc etc)

[EthanM]

Ferrari had precisely one good race, Spain. Of course the fact they got to do a 1000km tyre test on the exact same track a week before the race didn't like ... gift them the win. Nooooooooooo. They had designed the car to suit the 2013 tyres. Which they had only run for 10 laps in Brazil 2012 .... Seriously ...

 

Tyres were changed twice, once in Germany and second time in Hungary. The steel belt construction was fragile and no, it wasn't "just" Silverstone, there were tyre failures in Bahrain, on tyres that fitted fitted correctly and not against Pirelli's rotation guidelines, and even on the Ferrari.

 

The 2013 tyres were built to flatter those that had failed to claw back df. The tyres had an effect on red bull's performance but they were not the only factor, Red Bull always had the edge on high speed corners and that's what the tyres targetted, peak aero loads, Pirelli just engineered a max load that was well below what RB was doing in 2012. It's a ridiculous way to use the tyre supplier as an arbiter of performance. And it's as ridiculous having Hemberey in Malaysia telling the world "what do you want us to do? build more durable tyres? They (Red Bull) would lap the whole field"

[JSDSKI]

Race cars are designed around the parameters of the regulations, practical knowledge, and theories about improvement "to get faster".  There are a lot of variable within those three areas.   Some variables have more impact on perfomance.  Tire construction, edge shape,  and deformation under load is a major variable in the aero age - especially in open wheel cars.   It's also the variable that is easiest to change.  That's why FIA use tires to manage pace and racing.

To Bruce's original point: all cars have a setup sweetspot and all cars have design limits to manage that sweetspot.  If a team designs, calibrates, and develops a car around a spec tire and then that tire is changed mid-season then some teams will benefit and others lose.  There are aspects of vehicle design that cannot be easily modified without creating and manufacturing a completely different car.

When a tire creates a different airflow than the tire for which a car was designed and developed - and the best path for the new airflow hits a chassis dimension or demands a different mechanical load and suspension hard point then a team is forced into compromise.  They cannot simply design, build, and homologate a new chassis in a few weeks based upon today's guesses about the new tire after one race or test.  Especially when the end of the season brings in completely new regulations.     

The season's result's and actual on track racing reveal the dramatic effect the tire change had.  What happened after Silverstone when tire construction was reverted to the old spec?   The fan's lost the excitement of a competitive season.  Again. 

 

Keep in mind, when considering this issue, no driver, team member, or race fan was injured or worse, by changing the tires. All in all, the right decision was made mid-season. 

[Bruce]

 

 

So a better question is, what was wrong with the 2012 tyres in the first place?

 

I suppose that you would have to ask Mercedes and Red Bull that, wouldn't you? After all - they were the ones who lobbied to have them changed - and suceeded in said lobbying. 

[EthanM]

I suppose that you would have to ask Mercedes and Red Bull that, wouldn't you? After all - they were the ones who lobbied to have them changed - and suceeded in said lobbying. 

 

you 're confused

[Bruce]

I don't remember Mercedes complaining about the original spec.  I thought that was all Red Bull.

 

As I understood it the original spec had a steel belt and soft sidewalls and wouldn't take the forces from Red Bull's level of downforce.

 

And it was fine until teams wanted to run them in the opposite direction from the one they'd been designed for. Pirelli mistakenly allowed that, and then all the Silverstone failures were on tyres that were being run backwards.

 

So afaik all they really had to do was enforce the directionality of the original design, which would have been much fairer as the OP says; but there was too much hysteria.

 

iirc Mercedes did complain after Spain - so did Red bull. 

 

As to Silverstone, this was the new tyre, as provided in Canada - so race two of this spec - perhaps I am mis-reading your quote - do you suggest that "enforcing the directionality of the "original" design" refers to the "new design (provided by Pirelli for  Canada, or are you mistakenly inferring that the tyre raced at Silverstone were of the original 2013 spec?

[Bruce]

you 're confused

 

...only by your response. 

[Bruce]

 

Nothing wrong with lucking into an advantage, I just find ridiculous the claim that teams had a chance to design their cars around the new tyres. There is no time to do so, especially with no testing, and the main characteristics of almost all the top cars remain unchanged (lotus being good with the tyres, Ferrari understeery etc etc)

 

The suggestion that a team designed their car around a new tyre is based upon the fact that some teams got it right, and some teams did not. All teams knew that tyres would change for 2013, and so all teams were making educated guesses about where the design would go and how best they could benefit from that - any argument so far?

 

Some teams got it "righter" than others - I think that that is clear from the start of the season. So - the question is - why penalize those teams that lucked or guessed their way into a good situation at less than a thid of the way into the season because another team is not happy with the way things are going????

 

Brawn built a double diffuser in 2009 and the FIA declared it legal. I'm sure that many teams would have liked it outlawed for no other reason that it would increase their competitiveness - but the FIA stated that this was approved and that was that - how was 2013 different? Why would Pirelli and the FIA backtrack?

[Bruce]

Ferrari had precisely one good race, Spain. 

 

I think that one would comprehensively argue that China was a good race for Ferrari too... they won, after all. 

 

Their only weak race was Bahrain - where Alonso finished 8th and Masa 16th. Oh - and Alponso finished 2nd in Australia with Massa 4th. It would be more honest to say that Ferrari had precisely one POOR race - Bahrain. 

[Bruce]

Race cars are designed around the parameters of the regulations, practical knowledge, and theories about improvement "to get faster".  There are a lot of variable within those three areas.   Some variables have more impact on perfomance.  Tire construction, edge shape,  and deformation under load is a major variable in the aero age - especially in open wheel cars.   It's also the variable that is easiest to change.  That's why FIA use tires to manage pace and racing.

To Bruce's original point: all cars have a setup sweetspot and all cars have design limits to manage that sweetspot.  If a team designs, calibrates, and develops a car around a spec tire and then that tire is changed mid-season then some teams will benefit and others lose.  There are aspects of vehicle design that cannot be easily modified without creating and manufacturing a completely different car.

When a tire creates a different airflow than the tire for which a car was designed and developed - and the best path for the new airflow hits a chassis dimension or demands a different mechanical load and suspension hard point then a team is forced into compromise.  They cannot simply design, build, and homologate a new chassis in a few weeks based upon today's guesses about the new tire after one race or test.  Especially when the end of the season brings in completely new regulations.     

The season's result's and actual on track racing reveal the dramatic effect the tire change had.  What happened after Silverstone when tire construction was reverted to the old spec?   The fan's lost the excitement of a competitive season.  Again. 

 

Keep in mind, when considering this issue, no driver, team member, or race fan was injured or worse, by changing the tires. All in all, the right decision was made mid-season. 

 

I strongly agree with you post... all up until the last sentence. 

 

Keep in mind that prior to the change in spec, no one was injured or worse by a tire either. The only place where this looked likely to happen was at Silverstone, AFTER the decision by Pirelli to change the tyre (under pressure from various teams) - so yes - the decision to alter that spec was correct as a safety issue. But WHY did they alter the original spec in the first place?

[EthanM]

...only by your response. 

 

 

scroll up and reread what you responded to a person asking what was wrong with the 2012 tyres in the first place ...

[Bruce]

scroll up and reread what you responded to a person asking what was wrong with the 2012 tyres in the first place ...

 

Oops! Apologies! 

[Bruce]

 It's a ridiculous way to use the tyre supplier as an arbiter of performance. 

 

But is this not what is done with consistency in F1? It makes about as much sense as saying "it is ridiculous to use the imposed ride height of a car (as defined by FIA rules) as an arbiter of performance", or "it's ridiculous to use wing dimensions (as defined by the FIA) as an arbiter of performance.

 

You can bet that Pirelli didn't just wander into F1 and dream up some sort of abstruse concept of what they wanted to do... the FIA pretty much imposed it. Why? Because there are two things that the FIA needs to do - 1 - keep speeds down where possible to increase saftey, and 2) give teams with less money a chance to succeed. Tyres are only 1 of many ways to achieve these. 

[undersquare]

iirc Mercedes did complain after Spain - so did Red bull. 

 

As to Silverstone, this was the new tyre, as provided in Canada - so race two of this spec - perhaps I am mis-reading your quote - do you suggest that "enforcing the directionality of the "original" design" refers to the "new design (provided by Pirelli for  Canada, or are you mistakenly inferring that the tyre raced at Silverstone were of the original 2013 spec?

After Canada Pirelli changed the glue but they were the same steel-belted construction.  I can't find an outright complaint by Merc, just Brawn saying later on in Germany as a matter of fact that it hurt them when they were banned from running them backwards in the race.  Earlier afaik Merc just said they weren't opposed to a change in construction, istr they even issued a restatement of this,

[Bruce]

After Canada Pirelli changed the glue but they were the same steel-belted construction.  I can't find an outright complaint by Merc, just Brawn saying later on in Germany as a matter of fact that it hurt them when they were banned from running them backwards in the race.  Earlier afaik Merc just said they weren't opposed to a change in construction, istr they even issued a restatement of this,

 

Actually  - as far as I can see you're right. The only person I can find rally complaining about the tyres after Spain is Christian Horner. 

[redreni]

Ferrari had precisely one good race, Spain. Of course the fact they got to do a 1000km tyre test on the exact same track a week before the race didn't like ... gift them the win. Nooooooooooo. They had designed the car to suit the 2013 tyres. Which they had only run for 10 laps in Brazil 2012 .... Seriousy

Yes I‘m sure it gave them a big advantage. It‘s called doing your homework. The others were napping.

[JSDSKI]

I strongly agree with you post... all up until the last sentence. 

 

Keep in mind that prior to the change in spec, no one was injured or worse by a tire either. The only place where this looked likely to happen was at Silverstone, AFTER the decision by Pirelli to change the tyre (under pressure from various teams) - so yes - the decision to alter that spec was correct as a safety issue. But WHY did they alter the original spec in the first place?

It's really really hard to predict exactly when and where a failure will happen much less when that failure will cause injury or worse. 

 

I suspect FIA was simply trying to improve race competition.  Pirelli thought the change would work.  Unhappily, it failed in "live" real world testing. I'd rather see a complete grid tire test in preseason and maybe one in the middle of the season rather than the current hit or miss scheme.  Computer simulation only takes you so far. Personally, I don't see any conspiracy or intention favoring one team or another.  I think FIA, Ecclestone, along with the teams and sponsors, are all too aware and sensitive to the "procession races" possibility a spec series creates.  FIA want it mixed up.  Tires are the fastest, cheapest, and easiest means to do so. 

 

Perhaps FIA should pay Mr. Newey a nice sum to go design America Cup cats.  That could open up competition!

[JSDSKI]

The suggestion that a team designed their car around a new tyre is based upon the fact that some teams got it right, and some teams did not. All teams knew that tyres would change for 2013, and so all teams were making educated guesses about where the design would go and how best they could benefit from that - any argument so far?

 

No argument... but understand that the designs were not quite so hit or miss as you imply.  The cars were designed around a data set that Pirelli gave to the teams - data provided on the first version of the 2013 tire.  Teams that made certain choices - even radical choices - based on that data set would be screwed when the tire was changed.

 

Red Bull (and Mercedes) on the other hand already had a winning design and theory for their cars.  I suspect they weren't going to do much but fine tune their existing cars no matter what Pirelli would have released.  Ferrari and McLaren had already decided to "go radical" in search of a leap in performance.  It was their last shot with this regulation set - before 2014.  McLaren's car was on the back foot from the first few minutes on track in pre-season.  Ferrari, otoh, were in the hunt - barely, but still competitive.  Mercedes had learned a trick or two and was starting to get a handle on the wear issue.  They were coming to the front. 

 

The tire failures (probably due to the lack of real track testing) gave Red Bull another opportunity to regain an upper hand.  They grabbed it.  And won everything again.

Edited by JSDSKI, 28 October 2013 - 20:09.

[Disgrace]

The tyres at the beginning of the season up until Siverstone were dangerous.

 

Spot on. The 2013 tyres were a complete joke and the British Grand Prix was a farce of the highest order. Don't forget that the "debris" excuse was already long since worn out by this point anyway.

 

I'm completely against changing the rules of the game half-way through (Michelin front tyres, mass dampers, off-throttle diffuser blowing among these manipulations) but reverting to the 2012 tyres was the only sensible decision.

 

That it benefitted the already dominant team is irrelevant.

[undersquare]

Spot on. The 2013 tyres were a complete joke and the British Grand Prix was a farce of the highest order. Don't forget that the "debris" excuse was already long since worn out by this point anyway.

 

I'm completely against changing the rules of the game half-way through (Michelin front tyres, mass dampers, off-throttle diffuser blowing among these manipulations) but reverting to the 2012 tyres was the only sensible decision.

 

That it benefitted the already dominant team is irrelevant.

Except that all the tyres that went at Silverstone were being run reversed.

[Disgrace]

Except that all the tyres that went at Silverstone were being run reversed.

 

As allowed by Pirelli. Were the earlier failures like Hamilton's in Bahrain and di Resta's in Barcelona also on run reversed tyres?

[Bruce]

Spot on. The 2013 tyres were a complete joke and the British Grand Prix was a farce of the highest order. 

 

Well - fair enough  - BUT AGAIN>>> The tyres at the British Grand Prix had ALREADY BEEN CHANGED BY PIRELLI in order to address the complaints of a certain team... 

 

So - please - stop moaning about Silverstone as if it were some sort of cumulative result - it WAS NOT - it was a result of Pirelli changing tyres in the middle of the season because red Bull demanded it and the FIA caved. 

[Bruce]

Look - in 2005, when there were 2 tyre suppliers, the FIA happily scotched the US Grand Prix in order to "preserve the rules". Oh - you had 7 teams screaming safety issues - but the FIA happily put all of them in a position where they had no choice but to NOT RACE in order to preserve the status quo. 

 

Come 2013, and Christian Horner has a good whine about the tyres and suddenly everybody has to jump. Why is this? 

 

The FIA's reaction in 2005 was a clear "if your tyres are dangerous, SLOW DOWN". 

 

In 2013 they fell all over themselves to change it because 1 team complained. Pay attention to that - in 2005 they were quite happy to blow their reputation in the US (and worldwide, really) to make an empty point. Yet this year, when similar complaints are made with far less justification, they fall over themselves to make changes for the 3x reigning WDC and CC... why?

[apoka]

In 2013 they fell all over themselves to change it because 1 team complained. Pay attention to that - in 2005 they were quite happy to blow their reputation in the US (and worldwide, really) to make an empty point. Yet this year, when similar complaints are made with far less justification, they fall over themselves to make changes for the 3x reigning WDC and CC... why?

 

I don't think they made that change for RB. In fact, when you look at the interviews, they emphasized that the strongest team would benefit and that people may not want that. My impression was that they wanted to avoid RB domination, but since everybody was starting to laugh about the tyres or consider them unsafe, they had to do something. Having "interesting" (= random?) races is one thing, but having serious accidents because of that is too much risk for Pirelli.

[Bruce]

I don't think they made that change for RB. In fact, when you look at the interviews, they emphasized that the strongest team would benefit and that people may not want that. My impression was that they wanted to avoid RB domination, but since everybody was starting to laugh about the tyres or consider them unsafe, they had to do something. Having "interesting" (= random?) races is one thing, but having serious accidents because of that is too much risk for Pirelli.

 

...and when was that that people were starting to "laugh" about "unsafe" tyres? After Silverstone? And again - read my last post - in 2005 the FIA HAPPILY said - tyres not safe? DON"T RACE THAN!. 

 

 

a little different, I think you will agree, to the milquetoast, cringingly apologetic stance they took this year... why?

[DanardiF1]

My problem with every Pirelli tyre since 2011 is that it no longer seems to be that a driver can eke out his tyres down to his own skill, style or setup. Tyre life is very fixed to a car, which to me inherently fixes the competitive order. There is now no chance for someone like Jenson Button to do one of his insane tyre stints, because lap time falls off over mileage driven at 60% not down to what a driver chooses.

 

The original 2013 tyres were designed to slow down one team in comparison to others, and whatever I think of that team I think that's unfair. They designed a control tyre, that is meant to be fair to everyone, that in it's basic concept was unfair to one or more teams. The mid-season change was only going to help that same team whilst again changing things for everyone else... again equally unfair. As for why they changed them... well they were becoming a laughing stock, and the failures at Silverstone in particular were dangerous and unnecessary. Partly because the tyres were crap, partly because Pirelli were crap in making sure the teams used them correctly, and partly because of this stupid remit that the tyres should make the race interesting. Now they're just a series of farces, where every car but one has to trundle round at 60% just to make a tyre last 10 miles!

 

Pirelli have cocked up their time in F1 so far. Their tyres are poor (intentional or not), they have had a poor handle on teams in terms of enforcing their guidelines, and they haven't exactly conducted themselves well in the media. They can fix all this by producing better tyres from next season onwards. Tyres that degrade chemically not physically and therefore tyres that drivers as well as teams have some control over in tyre life. Tyres that can handle more than a set distance if treated well. Just decent tyres. I'm fedup of a control tyre being the main talking point of every weekend. It should be the one consistent element, something that you know each week at each track is going to perform.

Edited by DanardiF1, 29 October 2013 - 06:44.

[undersquare]

As allowed by Pirelli. Were the earlier failures like Hamilton's in Bahrain and di Resta's in Barcelona also on run reversed tyres?

AFAIK the early failures were the tread coming unglued from the carcass, which they fixed. Then the later ones were the carcass separating at the junction between the belt and the sidewall, and these were all being run reversed.

[stanga]

Interesting that RBR admit the mid-season tyre change was a key part of the reason for their wins in both championships. I suspect the result might not have changed either way, but it would have been closer.

[fastwriter]

Absolutely - as I have stated - I still think that Red Bull would have pulled it out anyway - they tend to. But Mercedes certainly made a big step in tune with the tyre change - remember how they performed at Spain?

 

spacekid, on 28 Oct 2013 - 11:45, said:

The tyre failures were a worry, and I think a change was necessary imo.

 

Yes - of course - but the tyre failures occurred AFTER the first tyre spec change following Spain. 

 But only after the Silverstone debacle they changed the construction of the tire - and not only the compound as before. This change was only done because of the safety issues. Pirelli didn't want to do that before and even the FIA did not want to change the tire regulations, despite the constant criticisms from some teams. So no conspiracy theory there. Bad luck for the teams that designed their cars to the early 2013 tire specs to much. Good luck for Teams like Red Bull, Lotus, Sauber and to a lesser extent Mercedes that their cars work better with the current tire construction than the cars of the rest.

[PayasYouRace]

...and when was that that people were starting to "laugh" about "unsafe" tyres? After Silverstone? And again - read my last post - in 2005 the FIA HAPPILY said - tyres not safe? DON"T RACE THAN!. 

 

 

a little different, I think you will agree, to the milquetoast, cringingly apologetic stance they took this year... why?

 

It might have something to do with the fact that there were two tyre suppliers in 2005, and only one provided unsafe tyres at Indy, only at Indy. The race went ahead albeit with six starters. It wasn't all that exciting, but it was fair.

 

Had Michelin been the sole supplier that year, either Indy wouldn't have happened or something would have had to be changed because it would have affected all participants. That's what's happened this year. All the teams were in the same situation.

[PayasYouRace]

This. Why can't we have regulations like this, similar to the regulations there were in the late 80's and early 90's. The rule that annoys me the most is the mandatory change. The FIA really need to consider getting rid of it

 

I've felt since the sole Bridgestone supply in 2007, and even more so since Pirelli replaced them, that the Goodyear model of single tyre supply from that time would be ideal. 4 compounds on offer, teams choose which ones (maybe limit to 2 preferred) to run at which races, whenever they want. Generous limit on tyre sets to keep costs reasonable.

[F1ultimate]

 

 

“‘Going back to 2012 tyres, for sure, helped us,’ said Newey, while adding there was “no single magic bullet’ and other factors also played a part.’The 2013 tyres were much more load sensitive. It was much more easy to damage them if you put too much load into them.’ - Adrian Newey

 

http://uk.reuters.co...N0II44N20131028

[josepatches]

The 2012 tyres were fine. They were changed over the winter with the specific goal to stop Red Bull  for whatever reason. The mess that followed was a direct result of that.

 

So a better question is, what was wrong with the 2012 tyres in the first place?

 

 

 

Also if we take a look to the 2012 season Red Bull wasn't so stronger in the first half just like this year. They solved their issues and were able to improve the car during the season.

 

The changes of the tyres help them but it wasn't the main reason why Red Bull have the best car again at the end of the season. They did the same  in 2012 and the tyres were the same all year.

[Kelateboy]

Except that all the tyres that went at Silverstone were being run reversed.

 

Some teams like Mercedes switched the tyres around, ie. left to right and visa-versa. I don't think all the teams did it, certainly not RBR.

[ReeVe]

iirc Mercedes did complain after Spain - so did Red bull. 

 

As to Silverstone, this was the new tyre, as provided in Canada - so race two of this spec - perhaps I am mis-reading your quote - do you suggest that "enforcing the directionality of the "original" design" refers to the "new design (provided by Pirelli for  Canada, or are you mistakenly inferring that the tyre raced at Silverstone were of the original 2013 spec?

 

this is completely wrong, there was no "new tyre". There were delaminations in Bahrain, Pirelli wanted to change the tyre construction but it was blocked by Lotus and FI and came up with a compromise, using a different bonding agent. Which in laymans terms means they used a different glue to fix the compound on to the tread. However the further blowouts at Silverstone forced the issue, because nobody could guarantee any more that for example when they got to Spa the tyres could handle the loads.