448 replies to this topic

[FullOppositeLock]

Only it's not clear at all. That's your interpretation of the situation and nothing more. For somebody who constantly demands evidence from others and sticks to exact wording to enforce their own POV, you're more than happy to jump to conclusions based on little or no evidence to match your existing opinions.

 

If I were a harsher person, I might accuse you of making things up and of having an active imagination. 

Not surprised to see you ignoring Isola's quotes there. You seem to have great difficulty assessing factual information that doesn't align with your preconceived views.

[Huffer]

Not surprised to see you ignoring Isola's quotes there. You seem to have great difficulty assessing factual information that doesn't align with your preconceived views.

 

Nope. There is nothing in Isola's comments to suggest that the construction of the tire was to blame for the failures. What Isola does say, is that one option after Baku was to run the different construction because it gives them "more margin".

 

The main issue here still being that the failed tires were running outside of the stated parameters. 

 

If we go down your route and interpret what's being said here, you could argue that Isola is stating that they can't trust certain teams to run within the operating parameters of the tires (even with the new TDD) and this should help limit issues caused by that.

Edited by Huffer, 26 June 2021 - 11:10.

[shure]

Nope. There is nothing in Isola's comments to suggest that the construction of the tire was to blame for the failures. What Isola does say, is that one option after Baku was to run the different construction because it gives them "more margin".

 

The main issue here still being that the failed tires were running outside of the stated parameters. 

 

If we go down your route and interpret what's being said here, you could argue that Isola is stating that they can't trust certain teams to run within the operating parameters of the tires (even with the new TDD) and this should help limit issues caused by that.

I don't think that argument is particularly strong.  Isola says they passed all the requirements asked of them and has confirmed they didn't do anything illegal.  I think it's almost impossible to conclude anything other than that Pirelli got their sums wrong and didn't factor in everything they should have done.  I mean, they pretty much admitted as much!  

[FullOppositeLock]

Nope. There is nothing in Isola's comments to suggest that the construction of the tire was to blame for the failures. What Isola does say, is that one option after Baku was to run the different construction because it gives them "more margin".

 

The main issue here still being that the failed tires were running outside of the stated parameters. 

 

If we go down your route and interpret what's being said here, you could argue that Isola is stating that they can't trust certain teams to run within the operating parameters of the tires (even with the new TDD) and this should help limit issues caused by that.

Untrue. Replace "stated" with "expected" and you would be right, then add who is responsible for determining the expectancy and you'll be getting somewhere.

[Requiem84]

The main issue here still being that the failed tires were running outside of the stated parameters.

For someone who tries to across as factual and knowledgeable, where do you see evidence for the claim that ‘the MAIN issue is tires being run outside the stated parameters’?

[Huffer]

Untrue. Replace "stated" with "expected" and you would be right, then add who is responsible for determining the expectancy and you'll be getting somewhere.

 

Alright, they expected the tires to be at a certain pressure and temperature at a certain point as dictated by the TDD's (when they were run). What they found was damage that pointed towards this not being the case.

 

Now add who is responsible for prepping the tires, and you'll be getting somewhere. 

[FullOppositeLock]

Alright, they expected the tires to be at a certain pressure and temperature at a certain point as dictated by the TDD's (when they were run). What they found was damage that pointed towards this not being the case.

Now add who is responsible for prepping the tires, and you'll be getting somewhere.

The rule in place at the time did not dictate a pressure “when they were run”, only a starting pressure and temperature which Pirelli stated all teams adhered to without exception. The actual pressures are a result of these starting parameters and outside conditions. This is what Pirelli misjudged. We’ve been over all this before. Even in the face of quite overwhelming new evidence (a further technical directive for France, a new construction of tire that Pirelli was already working on but was not ready for homologation date and now needs to be pressed through to avoid repeat), you still don’t acknowledge what’s staring you in the face: Pirelli ****ed up and shifted blame to the teams to avoid a PR disaster.

[Huffer]

For someone who tries to across as factual and knowledgeable, where do you see evidence for the claim that ‘the MAIN issue is tires being run outside the stated parameters’?

 

Because the damage was caused by what is called "standing waves". This point has been brought up several times, but you all seem to have a talent for ignoring this sort of thing. 

 

Standing waves are created when the tire experiences the need to generate a lot of energy during cornering, but the pressure is not (yet) high enough to support the tire. This damage isn't immediately fatal, but it can cause failure at a later stage as it weakens / breaks the sidewall either due to a gradual increase in temperature and pressure or because of a cycle of temperature and pressure increases and decreases (such as a safety car period).

[Requiem84]

And what makes you conclude that the damage caused by the ‘standing waves’ was a result of tires being run ‘outside the stated parameters’?

[shure]

Alright, they expected the tires to be at a certain pressure and temperature at a certain point as dictated by the TDD's (when they were run). What they found was damage that pointed towards this not being the case.

 

Now add who is responsible for prepping the tires, and you'll be getting somewhere. 

that's a strange conclusion. Isola has already said they were prepped in line with Pirelli's recommendations, so there's no argument there.  Something happened after that that Pirelli had not accounted for, so clearly their own prep was inadequate.  Which is why we have the new TD.  

 

The responsibility for anticipating the parameters in a race and setting the guidelines to cope with those rests with Pirelli. If things happen during a race which impact the pressures, then again Pirelli should account for that.  It's really odd that teams can be confirmed as having done everything that was asked of them correctly and in the same breath be faced with vague insinuations that they are somehow still guilty of doing something wrong.

[FullOppositeLock]

And what makes you conclude that the damage caused by the ‘standing waves’ was a result of tires being run ‘outside the stated parameters’?

The same place that made him conclude that Red Bull were using active sensors that predict when a wheel nut is fastened and pre-emptively signal its completion.

[shure]

Because the damage was caused by what is called "standing waves". This point has been brought up several times, but you all seem to have a talent for ignoring this sort of thing. 

 

Standing waves are created when the tire experiences the need to generate a lot of energy during cornering, but the pressure is not (yet) high enough to support the tire. This damage isn't immediately fatal, but it can cause failure at a later stage as it weakens / breaks the sidewall either due to a gradual increase in temperature and pressure or because of a cycle of temperature and pressure increases and decreases (such as a safety car period).

Nobody is ignoring the standing waves.  The question being asked is why Pirelli didn't anticipate them and build contingencies in their advice to the teams so that they wouldn't result in a blowout?  Are standing waves somehow unique to Baku?  The tyres should have been robust enough to cope with them.  Safety car periods aren't exactly an unexpected event.  

[Huffer]

And what makes you conclude that the damage caused by the ‘standing waves’ was a result of tires being run ‘outside the stated parameters’?

 

From Isola;

 

 

 

“When you have a lot of energy going into the tyres, with the pressure that is lower compared to the expectation, the result is that on the sidewall you have what we call standing waves.

 

Standing waves are said to be formed due to either instability (see. Pacejka (1981)) or being due to resonance (see Brockman and Braisted (1994)). In both cases, this can only happen if the sidewall is allowed to flex abnormally and "gives rise to large deflection variations" (Pacejka 2002, 2006). And the prime culprit here is that the tire is under inflated, resulting in instability or resonance (see Isola's comments above).

Edited by Huffer, 26 June 2021 - 11:54.

[Huffer]

Nobody is ignoring the standing waves.  The question being asked is why Pirelli didn't anticipate them and build contingencies in their advice to the teams so that they wouldn't result in a blowout?  Are standing waves somehow unique to Baku?  The tyres should have been robust enough to cope with them.  Safety car periods aren't exactly an unexpected event.  

 

It's at least partially why Pirelli increased the pressures that weekend. And they anticipated standing waves at Baku because of its long straight. It's not unique to Baku, but it's certainly something that makes the tires more prone to standing waves when the pressures are too low. 

 

This is a known issue with Baku (https://www.motorspo...-782624/782624/).

[Requiem84]

From Isola;




Standing waves are said to be formed due to either instability (see. Pacejka (1981)) or being due to resonance (see Brockman and Braisted (1994)). In both cases, this can only happen if the sidewall is allowed to flex abnormally and "gives rise to large deflection variations" (Pacejka 2002, 2006). And the prime culprit here is that the tire is under inflated, resulting in instability or resonance (see Isola's comments above).

I am reading that the pressure was lower than expected, I don’t read that ‘tires we’re run outside the stated parameters’?

[FullOppositeLock]

Nobody is denying any of that. What is being contested is that the pressure was lower than expected because the teams somehow lowered the pressure (you) versus the expectation was incorrectly predicted by Pirelli (us).

[Huffer]

I am reading that the pressure was lower than expected, I don’t read that ‘tires we’re run outside the stated parameters’?

 

They expected the tires to be at a certain pressure and temperature after being checked for the values stated in the tech regs. But that's not the case, and that's why we have the new TDD's on tire prep. 

Edited by Huffer, 26 June 2021 - 12:05.

[FullOppositeLock]

They expected the tires to be at a certain pressure and temperature after being checked for the state values stated in the tech regs. But that's not the case, and that's why we have the new TDD's on tire prep.

Bingo

[Huffer]

Bingo

 

No. Cherry picking some phrases and ignoring the rest doesn't mean anything, other than you're really good at ignoring context.

Edited by Huffer, 26 June 2021 - 12:09.

[FullOppositeLock]

I may have misunderstood your post. I thought you might have finally come to your senses, but that sounds less than promising. So I have to ask, what is “after being checked for the state values stated in the tech regs” supposed to mean if not the starting pressure and temperature checks executed on the starting grid..?

Edited by FullOppositeLock, 26 June 2021 - 12:10.

[Requiem84]

They expected the tires to be at a certain pressure and temperature after being checked for the values stated in the tech regs. But that's not the case, and that's why we have the new TDD's on tire prep.

So, you seem to agree the tires were run within the stated parameters, but that within those parameters the tire pressures were less than expected.

This makes your initial statement that ‘the main issue is the tires not being run within the stated parameters’ evidently incorrect and false. That is either due to a lack of understanding of the technical matters (incompetency) or it’s due to pushing a specific agenda.

I’ll let you chose which one is applicable.

[Huffer]

I may have misunderstood your post. I thought you might have finally come to your senses, but that sounds less than promising. So I have to ask, what is “after being checked for the state values stated in the tech regs” supposed to mean if not the starting pressure and temperature checks executed on the starting grid..?

 

As an example; removal of the tire blankets for longer periods of time before they are fitted to the car, which is something the TD tries to resolve. Another possibility is having the car stationary for prolonged period of times (more than 30 seconds) without tire blankets. Again something that the TD tries to resolve.

 

All these things (and other actions) happen after the minimum pressure checks. The end result being that the tires are cooler and have less pressure when they are run. That is, they are not running at the expected parameters.

Edited by Huffer, 26 June 2021 - 12:25.

[FullOppositeLock]

As an example; removal of the tire blankets for longer periods of time before they are fitted to the car, which is something the TD tries to resolve. Another possibility is having the car stationary for prolonged period of times (more than 30 seconds) without tire blankets. Again something that the TD tries to resolve.

 

All these things (and other actions) happen after the minimum pressure checks. The end result being that the tires are cooler and have less pressure when they are run. That is, they are not running at the expected parameters.

You are referring to rules that weren't in place at the time. We have no evidence if what Aston Martin and Red Bull did in Baku deviates from other teams, but even if so it was evidently wrong of Pirelli to assume things they couldn't be certain of or enforce. If they were worried about this they should have brought the recommendations in the TD forward, before their faulty product slammed two drivers into a wall sideways at 330kph.

[FullOppositeLock]

As an aside @Huffer, whilst I know I can come across as (and maybe am) a condescending prick at times, I do appreciate the passionate back and forth and the exchange of ideas and argument . To me, it's part of the fun of being a member of this forum and by delving deeper than my (technical) comfort zone allows me to learn things I didn't know before. Let me know if you feel I'm going too far and I'll try to tone it down a notch.

[Huffer]

You are referring to rules that weren't in place at the time. We have no evidence if what Aston Martin and Red Bull did in Baku deviates from other teams, but even if so it was evidently wrong of Pirelli to assume things they couldn't be certain of or enforce. If they were worried about this they should have brought the recommendations in the TD forward, before their faulty product slammed two drivers into a wall sideways at 330kph.

 

Yes, but those rules were in response to Baku. Whilst I'm of the mind that simply waiting for something to go wrong before acting is just bad practice, I don't think there was scope for Pirelli to suspect the teams would do anything untoward. After all, their own engineers would have stressed to the teams the importance of running the tries within a certain set of parameters and not trying to do something untoward due to issues of safety.

I don't think it's exactly right to say that Pirelli should have considered that the teams may try to find ways to have the tires outside of the expected parameters. I think it's perfectly acceptable that Pirelli only realised what may have been happening when they examined the damage to the tires and asked themselves 1) when do we usually see this failure mode 2) How could this have happened when the rules are designed to prevent what we discovered in #1.

 

As for Pirelli being a faulty product....I agree with you there. I know this seems contradictory, given that I'm of the mind the teams have a part to play in the tires failures. If the tires were truly robust, they wouldn't need such high pressures to guarantee sidewall stiffness - but with that said, I reckon Pirelli had done their homework and given teams the best direction they could on running the tires safely. 

 

As an aside @Huffer, whilst I know I can come across as (and maybe am) a condescending prick at times, I do appreciate the passionate back and forth and the exchange of ideas and argument . To me, it's part of the fun of being a member of this forum and by delving deeper than my (technical) comfort zone allows me to learn things I didn't know before. Let me know if you feel I'm going too far and I'll try to tone it down a notch.

It's all good, matey. I think we're both guilty of certain things to some degree. The important thing is that, at the end if the day, we're enjoying ourselves in these discussions. I've always said that the group noun for engineers should be "argument" as in "an argument of engineers" Because that's really true. We love a good argument.

With that said, I'll try to be more respectful in the future because I really haven't been towards you and others. 

[shure]

It's at least partially why Pirelli increased the pressures that weekend. And they anticipated standing waves at Baku because of its long straight. It's not unique to Baku, but it's certainly something that makes the tires more prone to standing waves when the pressures are too low. 

 

This is a known issue with Baku (https://www.motorspo...-782624/782624/).

well all that does is just hammer another nail in Pirelli's coffin, doesn't it?  If they know that standing waves are going to be an issue at Baku in particular, then shouldn't they factor that in better than they did?  I mean, going by that article they've known this for at least 5 years, so it really looks like they didn't cover all the bases properly on that one.  

 

Unless it's passed me by they haven't exactly explained what the teams did that was so different as to cause these issues (other than vague inferences), nor why they would only do that with one of their drivers.  Seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors to me but given they knew the dangers at Baku then it falls on them to take extra precautions.  It looks like they hoped the higher pressures would take care of it but they have to look at themselves on this one and just admit they messed up, instead of trying to apportion vague blame elsewhere

[Huffer]

well all that does is just hammer another nail in Pirelli's coffin, doesn't it?  If they know that standing waves are going to be an issue at Baku in particular, then shouldn't they factor that in better than they did?  I mean, going by that article they've known this for at least 5 years, so it really looks like they didn't cover all the bases properly on that one.  

 

Unless it's passed me by they haven't exactly explained what the teams did that was so different as to cause these issues (other than vague inferences), nor why they would only do that with one of their drivers.  Seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors to me but given they knew the dangers at Baku then it falls on them to take extra precautions.  It looks like they hoped the higher pressures would take care of it but they have to look at themselves on this one and just admit they messed up, instead of trying to apportion vague blame elsewhere

 

I think the only way Pirelli could adequately deal with Baku, would be to make a spec tire for the track. Perhaps they should have, and the cost be dammed. 

 

And Pirelli haven't really explained anything, this is true. But they can't really do so without concrete evidence. All they can do is to interpret what the damage was and what they know about the causes of that damage is telling them. I don't see it as them covering their backsides - it's just there's only so much they can determine without a wealth of data on things such as tire pressures. 

[Huffer]

So, you seem to agree the tires were run within the stated parameters, but that within those parameters the tire pressures were less than expected.

This makes your initial statement that ‘the main issue is the tires not being run within the stated parameters’ evidently incorrect and false. That is either due to a lack of understanding of the technical matters (incompetency) or it’s due to pushing a specific agenda.

I’ll let you chose which one is applicable.

 

Or a third option; you're misprersenting what has been said with the sole aim of making a personal dig.

 

I agree that the tires were within the minimum parameters within the rules when they were checked. But then the tires were outside of those params when run, because there's a fair bit of wiggle room in the rules as written to allow them to cool and drop in pressure. I don't really see how this is a difficult thing to understand or to understand that the new TD's are designed to prevent that from happening.

 

I understand the argument that Pirelli should make more durable tires with more room for variations in minimum pressures, and it's one that I agree with. However, with that said, these are the tires that the teams have been given and I think Pirelli have been quite clear in their communication that they expect the tires to be run within the stated parameters to ensure structural integrity. Just because I think the tires provided by Pirelli are awful, it does not automatically follow that they should shoulder the blame for the tire failures. 

 

And it's true that there's no evidence that AM or RBR were doing anything to reduce pressure, such as letting them cool. However, with that said, how else can anybody explain the type of damage that the tires exhibited? The only other explanation is that perhaps the minimum pressures demanded by Pirelli were not high enough, but then we'd have seen more than just two cars with these failures. 

 

Lastly, regarding the use of the word "stated" and "expected". I think it's a purposefully obtuse argument to make to try and argue that use of word or the other in this context somehow  invalidates that is being said. If a manufacturer states that a part must be run within certain parameters, then there's the expectation that this is what will be done. There's also the expectation that, if it is run outside of those stated parameters, the part will not perform as expected. 

[shure]

I think the only way Pirelli could adequately deal with Baku, would be to make a spec tire for the track. Perhaps they should have, and the cost be dammed. 

 

And Pirelli haven't really explained anything, this is true. But they can't really do so without concrete evidence. All they can do is to interpret what the damage was and what they know about the causes of that damage is telling them. I don't see it as them covering their backsides - it's just there's only so much they can determine without a wealth of data on things such as tire pressures. 

I don't disagree with this too much, other than to add that they did try to shift the blame onto the teams to be fair and that was rather unnecessary IMO.  Because that was guesswork and they would have been better off just saying that they needed to issue further guidelines to ensure that this can't happen again, rather than try to make out the teams were doing something they shouldn't have.  Leave it at "unexpected conditions they hadn't accounted for," rather than a vague inference that the teams were being naughty. As you say, they didn't have evidence, so they shouldn't be putting best guesses out there which makes out others are doing something wrong "in the interests of performance." Because by their own admission the teams followed the guidelines properly, so the issue really is that the guidelines were inadequate.  They've strengthened those now so let's see if that's enough, but the way they handled it was not professional IMO.

[FullOppositeLock]

From the Silverstone pre race thread:

The tyre pressures are very high: 25.0 psi front | 23.0 psi rear

Compared to last year:
GBR: 25.0 psi front | 21.0 psi rear
70A: 27.0 psi front | 22.0 psi rear

What would rear pressures have been with the old tyre spec? 25 psi? 27?

[jpm2019]

Just getting this topic on page one, ready for the rage after another horrible pirelli performance.

[DaddyCool]

You read my mind jpm2019. Hopefully we're both wrong.

[DaddyCool]

So we just peacufully accept that Pirellis blow up without any pre-warning on tracks that put above average load on the tyres? Can we just please ****can this joke of a manufacturer?

[FLB]

So we just peacufully accept that Pirellis blow up without any pre-warning on tracks that put above average load on the tyres? Can we just please ****can this joke of a manufacturer?

Pirelli granted F1 contract extension until 2024 (autosport.com)

[FLB]

Toto Wolff confirming on Sky there was no warning for Bottas's issue. No prior vibration.

 

 

Worrying.

[chrcol]

In Pirelli's defense as much as I am not a fan of their tryes, the drivers pushed past the max recommendation, and even alonso an experienced driver kept going over kerbs at end of race when he didnt really need to.

[F1 Mike]

Aye didn't they recommend 30 laps maximum? Bottas was about 35 I think on that set?

[ARTGP]

In Pirelli's defense as much as I am not a fan of their tryes, the drivers pushed past the max recommendation, and even alonso an experienced driver kept going over kerbs at end of race when he didnt really need to.

Norris did 20 laps....

[Tiakumosan]

I was thinking these days .. since the update on the middle of the year, we don't hear too much about he tyres anymore, be it because of failures or drivers complaining that they are too inflated. Then this happened.

[dissident]

Aye didn't they recommend 30 laps maximum? Bottas was about 35 I think on that set?

There wasn't a max. lap recommendation per se, from what I understood.

 

They just stated that the Mediums would be good for 30 laps (40 for the Hards), but that was based on tyre performance, not integrity.

[JeePee]

This could cause a mega crash in Jeddah, which will also put massive loads on the tyres.

[ARTGP]

This could cause a mega crash in Jeddah, which will also put massive loads on the tyres.

 

Simply lovely.

 

And we already know these tires couldn't survive the high speeds and long straight in Baku....

Edited by ARTGP, 22 November 2021 - 09:11.

[Claymore25]

Norris did 20 laps....

Vettel did around 26/27 laps with the soft and the rest with mediums and had a good performance without degradation.

 

 

The main problems is always the same: Pirelli's tyres blow up without notice.

[Clatter]

So we just peacufully accept that Pirellis blow up without any pre-warning on tracks that put above average load on the tyres? Can we just please ****can this joke of a manufacturer?

 

Which manufacturers have ever supplied a tyre that gave a warning before a blow out?

[Clatter]

Vettel did around 26/27 laps with the soft and the rest with mediums and had a good performance without degradation.

 

 

The main problems is always the same: Pirelli's tyres blow up without notice.

 

Did the Michelins or Bridgestones give a 5 minute warning then?

[ARTGP]

Did the Michelins or Bridgestones give a 5 minute warning then?

Lol. I think the point is, if this was Michelin or Bridgestone’s product, they would be criticized all the same.

The fact that tire blows at all, is the main issue. The lack of warning is just a cherry on top.

Edited by ARTGP, 23 November 2021 - 21:52.

[FLB]

So... It turns out the kerbs *were* an issue in Qatar:

 

https://www.autospor...ilures/6846421/

[DaddyCool]

"Excessive kerb usage" LMAO

 

I thought F1 was about on-the-limit racing? 

[ARTGP]

Pirelli must be so relieved that the spotlight is elsewhere at the moment after potential championship deciding failures in Baku (MV,LS), Qatar (Williams, Bottas), and Abu Dhabi (Norris).

Edited by ARTGP, 16 December 2021 - 02:22.