4 degrees of camber

[Bagwan]

Apparently , Newey was petrified that , having chosen a degree of camber on the fronts that was more extreme than the recommended four degrees , the tires were in danger of delaminating .

Obviously , the recommendation was put in for safety reasons , and the FIA are in charge of this aspect of the racing .

It would seems rather obvious to me that a simple tire angle measuring device could be employed to make sure that the racing is safe on the tires supplied .


The situation begs the question of who would be responsible for a major failure , if the recommendations regarding camber are disregarded .
If this was , indeed , that scary for Newey , then I say that this should be stopped right away .
He went into the unknown here , and risked his driver's lives for a win . That's just not right .

And , it would be a horrible end to a stellar career to cause something unthinkable in this way .


Pirelli's response , obviously feeling extremely vulnerable that this isn't regulated to begin with , has been to say they will be even more cautious in the future , recommending even less camber , so as to try to rein in the greedy teams .

This , of course , won't work , as the teams now know this will be the plan , so they'll likely just regard it as such , and go even more extreme .

From Newey's attitude about flaunting the recommendations , it suggests that Pirelli may already be down-grading the angle suggestion already .
They are supplied with all the data from the teams regarding the tires , so they can design them to the spec , so they know what Newey is doing .

When asked , Hembrey wouldn't reveal the angle Newey was setting them at , but it sure sounded like he wanted to .
Here , perhaps , is one of the keys to the speed of that Bull .
It may also be handicapping the others as well , if Pirelli is purposefully down-grading the camber angle because of the Bulls , and the rest are following orders .



Much as I hate the introduction of new rules during the season , I advocate getting some regulation in pronto here , so we don't have a disaster .

Pirelli should be allowed to recommend a maximum camber setting , and expect that the FIA will regulate it .

[janneppi]

It may also be handicapping the others as well , if Pirelli is purposefully down-grading the camber angle because of the Bulls , and the rest are following orders .


How do we know if other teams are withing Pirellis campber spec?

I'm not sure it's such a big safety concern as delaminating tyre would most likely will affect lap times before exploding, forcing a pit stop.

[Bagwan]

How do we know if other teams are withing Pirellis campber spec?

I'm not sure it's such a big safety concern as delaminating tyre would most likely will affect lap times before exploding, forcing a pit stop.

We don't , exactly , but we do know this , from Paul Hembery of Pirelli :
"So were left in a situation where one team in particular was stretching the limits of our recommendations and we felt that that in a race situation would create difficulties, and blistering."

If it was not a big safety issue , would Newey have said this ? :
“Frankly, at the end of the race, I was just very relieved that both our drivers were safe.”

[The Black Knight]

We don't , exactly , but we do know this , from Paul Hembery of Pirelli :
"So were left in a situation where one team in particular was stretching the limits of our recommendations and we felt that that in a race situation would create difficulties, and blistering."

If it was not a big safety issue , would Newey have said this ? :
“Frankly, at the end of the race, I was just very relieved that both our drivers were safe.”

Yeah, it was a self-created pickle RBR found themselves in on Sunday. I agree that a regulation change is needed here and I'm sure Newey would agree. He said a few races before the blown diffuser ban at Silverstone that he is in favour of a regulation change mid season on the grounds of safety. Well, if there was ever a need for a regulation change now, then this is it. Pirelli recommend the maximum camber angle at every GP and the teams can go under but not above it. It shoulds like RBR have been stretching the limits. They pushed it too far and both or either of their drivers could have paid the price this weekend.

[Bagwan]

You can tell that Hembrey's pi$$ed with Newey over this :
"...it depends how stupid you want to be. Ordinarily there should not be any concern; it is something that should be self regulating. Some of the images I saw today on two cars made me think that maybe they were not looking at the same images as me – or they did not have a high definition television. I don't know...".

And this doesn't sound happy either :
"Everything can be a safety issue if you continue beyond natural limits of using it, but you have to believe that the level of professionalism of people within the sport is such that they are not going to go that far."

And this is the "pickle" :
"In the end, what do you do? Do you make a change and end up creating a precedent? Do you make a change that would be seen to assisting one team and all the other teams, particularly with the result we had at the end? If we had, I think today you would not be asking me about this, you would be asking me why we helped Red Bull win the race? So it was a very difficult situation to be in."

Yeah , he's pi$$ed .

[janneppi]

If it was not a big safety issue , would Newey have said this ? :
“Frankly, at the end of the race, I was just very relieved that both our drivers were safe.”
It seems Redbull thought the safety concern wasn't big enough to warrant a smaller camber angle.

[Mark]

I dont think it was a massive safety concern. Just that the tyres may lose grip faster.

[ioan]

How do we know if other teams are withing Pirellis campber spec?

I'm not sure it's such a big safety concern as delaminating tyre would most likely will affect lap times before exploding, forcing a pit stop.

Indeed, it looks like McLaren were also running a higher angle then the one Pirelli were recommending.

McLaren didn't change set-up for tyres at Spa - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/94133)

[ioan]

You can tell that Hembrey's pi$$ed with Newey over this :
"...it depends how stupid you want to be. Ordinarily there should not be any concern; it is something that should be self regulating. Some of the images I saw today on two cars made me think that maybe they were not looking at the same images as me – or they did not have a high definition television. I don't know...".

And this doesn't sound happy either :
"Everything can be a safety issue if you continue beyond natural limits of using it, but you have to believe that the level of professionalism of people within the sport is such that they are not going to go that far."

And this is the "pickle" :
"In the end, what do you do? Do you make a change and end up creating a precedent? Do you make a change that would be seen to assisting one team and all the other teams, particularly with the result we had at the end? If we had, I think today you would not be asking me about this, you would be asking me why we helped Red Bull win the race? So it was a very difficult situation to be in."

Yeah , he's pi$$ed .

IMO Hembery is far from the level of F1 expertise that Newey and other F1 engineers have.
Call me the day they finally make a tire that can hold a candle to Bridgestone's tires and then I might listen to what Hembery blabbers.

[wedge]

A tyre manufacturer's guidelines should remain just that and teams should remain pushing the limits - but just don't go throwing toys out of the pram when you were advised not to go beyond a certain tolerance.

Colin Chapman would be spinning in his grave.

[wedge]

I dont think it was a massive safety concern. Just that the tyres may lose grip faster.

It is a massive safety concern. A very badly blistered tyre can compromise the structure of the tyre and delaminate.

[ioan]

There were comments during the week end about Pirelli and the FIA trying to force RBR to start the race on the prime tires from the pit lane.
I wonder why would that would have been good for everyone, but RBR.

Anyway RBR refused and it seems they judged teh tires better then Pirelli who actually builds them. No surprise really.

Seb gave Pirelli his own opinion about the situation before the start:

sebastian vettel mario isola pirelli spa belgium - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWkgG1lWkmk)

[Bagwan]

That's not the way I read the situation .

As I understand it , Pirelli expressed concern , Red Bull confirmed the camber angle , and were given the options of running as they were , or starting from pit lane , allowing for a tire change , and camber and/or pressure changes to stop the blistering .

They opted for staying put , rather than dealing with the safety concern in the pit lane .

And , judging by Newey's comments , they ran closer to disaster than he's ever done before .
It sounds like he feels more like he's been lucky here , rather than a good judge .

Who is held responsible if that disaster was to occur ?

[schmenke]

...were given the options of running as they were , or starting from pit lane , allowing for a tire change , and camber and/or pressure changes to stop the blistering ...


Can camber angle be changed after parc fermé?
How is this done? Is it relatively simple on an F1 car?

[ioan]

Can camber angle be changed after parc fermé?
How is this done? Is it relatively simple on an F1 car?

The question is if the camber angle was recommended before the race week end started.
The only driver in a top team who seemed not to have heavy blistering on his front left tire was Massa, the other ones were all having this problem.

In the end this is F1 and the tire supplier should provide F1 level tires that can cope with what the teams throw at them.
Michelin left F1 over a similar problem, Pirelli prefer to point the finger to the others instead of getting their fingers out of their rears and working hard.

PS: It is not simple to do especially as they will know bugger all about how the car will react to such setup change.

[Daniel]

The question is if the camber angle was recommended before the race week end started.
The only driver in a top team who seemed not to have heavy blistering on his front left tire was Massa, the other ones were all having this problem.

In the end this is F1 and the tire supplier should provide F1 level tires that can cope with what the teams throw at them.
Michelin left F1 over a similar problem, Pirelli prefer to point the finger to the others instead of getting their fingers out of their rears and working hard.

PS: It is not simple to do especially as they will know bugger all about how the car will react to such setup change.

Whilst I would love to throw crap Pirelli's way, if Red Bull were running to much camber and the others were burning their tyres trying to keep up then that's not Pirelli's fault strictly speaking.

[keysersoze]

I've never visually noted any unusual camber in F1, but Vettel's right-front was almost comical-looking. Very strange.

[wedge]

The question is if the camber angle was recommended before the race week end started.
The only driver in a top team who seemed not to have heavy blistering on his front left tire was Massa, the other ones were all having this problem.

In the end this is F1 and the tire supplier should provide F1 level tires that can cope with what the teams throw at them.
Michelin left F1 over a similar problem, Pirelli prefer to point the finger to the others instead of getting their fingers out of their rears and working hard.

PS: It is not simple to do especially as they will know bugger all about how the car will react to such setup change.

This problem runs across motorsport and not necessarily the fault of the tyre manufacturer.

For instance in NASCAR, teams may go beyond Goodyear's advice and wear the right-front tyres down to the cord.

When BTCC race at Thruxton some drivers go beyond Dunlop's advice on camber angles and tyre puncture are not uncommon.

[airshifter]

In answer to the original question, if a team sets up a car not within the recommendations given by the tire company, any consequence of a dangerous situation resulting from that is on the team IMO. F1 is about pushing limits as well all know. But when a team is pushing limits beyond a given spec and then pointing fingers at a supplier for a safety issue it's simply wrong.

As usual the FIA give lip service about safety issues, and didn't really get properly involved. Personally I think if Red Bull voiced safety concerns they should have measured the camber angles on the cars, and then forced Red Bull to correct the situation and start from pit lane. My guess is that the true intention of Red Bull was simply to start the race on fresh tires without penalty, due to screwing up their setup and eating up tires.

[The Black Knight]

Personally I'm in the majority when I say I like the challenge Pirelli have delivered to the sport. I could quite easily get annoyed and blame the misfortune of the team I am following on the concept of the tyres, but in all seriousness I think it has improved the racing. Ferrari fans could also use the tyres as an excuse but we all know the fundamentals of both teams have been more at errors than simply the tyres. Blistering tyres were safety concern at the last event and Ferrari and mainly Red Bull were quite vocal in their disaproval of the tyres issued it seemed. Safety was the main point raised but as it was said on here, they were that concerned about the safety of their drivers they did not wish to alter the camber back to the recommended degree as supplied by Pirelli? Ha of course not because the main concern for the teams was whether or not their tyres would last as long as the opposition in the first stint hence losing them the advantage they thought they had gained in qualifying. Safety was a cloak and dagger way of forcing the issue as they knew the FIA would need to take an interest with that angle. It didn't work however.. :)

I'm pretty much with you on that. In all likelihood, Newey was overreacting. McLaren were also blistering their tyres around Spa but they were not concerned about blowouts. In fairness, in 1998 the GoodYear tyres would blister on every set and no one was getting up in arms over it and remember MS tyre did explode on the pit straight in Japan. If Newey and RBR are that concerned then he should call for a regulation change so as teams can't go past the Pirelli recommended camber. Personally, I feel there was probably never any realistic chance of RBR starting from the pit lane.

[SGWilko]

I'm going to try to explain my thinking on this, so if you don't have a clue what I'm on about - I understand completely!!!! :)

The teams run a camber on the wheels so that during cornering, the loaded tyre effectively has all its tyre tread/face in contact with the road, accounting for the deformation of the tyre wall caused by such load. This gives the maximum grip in the corner. However, with this camber, when going in a straight line and not under great load, the part of the tyre that will get most wear is the inside shoulder. Spa, because of the speeds achieved along the straight immediately after Eau Rouge and with the added effect of DRS and KERS, the loads under speed in a straight line are increased.

I would guess that Newey knows his car better than Pirelli, and I'd guess Pirelli know their tyres better than Red Bull, so who is right and who is wrong?

Did the blistering of the tyre actually affect the construction and thus integrity of the tyre?

Only Pirelli will know that, and given their concern, you'd have to guess that it was an issue.

What we need to know also is - did other teams, with less severe camber angles also suffer the same tyre issues (albeit to a lesser extent) - again, this is something we don't currently know.

In conclusion, and in response to Bagwan's opening point, you'd say that, if (God forbid) one of the RB pilots came a cropper in Spa as a result of tyre failure, then the blame would be laid squarely with the team for running a set-up against Pirelli's advice.

It is a tough question, because who is to say that, by running a lesser camber angle, the RB car might have posed a greater danger to the integrity of the tyre through Eau Rouge. We know just how much downforce that car runs, and given that DRS was banned in Eau Rouge - maybe they had to run that angle for qualifying, and did not want the pit start penalty for the race?

Ifs and buts I guess.

One final point, given Newey's sensitivity to safety - after all, it was his car that was carrying Ayrton when he died - would he really be that dumb to put himself in a position?????

[The Black Knight]

One final point, given Newey's sensitivity to safety - after all, it was his car that was carrying Ayrton when he died - would he really be that dumb to put himself in a position?????

This is what surprised me the most about this whole situation. Adrian Newey has been exceptionally safety conscious since Ayrton died in his car 17 years ago. I was really taken aback that he did something that could potentially compromise the safety of the RBR drivers.

Maybe it's just a case that they have to do that to stay ahead? Sometimes to stay ahead of the game you need to make calculated risks and simply this one, on this occassion, didn't pay off. Other teams throughout the grid could be taking risks of equal magnitude but in different areas and we don't know about it yet.

[wedge]

This is what surprised me the most about this whole situation. Adrian Newey has been exceptionally safety conscious since Ayrton died in his car 17 years ago. I was really taken aback that he did something that could potentially compromise the safety of the RBR drivers.

Maybe it's just a case that they have to do that to stay ahead? Sometimes to stay ahead of the game you need to make calculated risks and simply this one, on this occassion, didn't pay off. Other teams throughout the grid could be taking risks of equal magnitude but in different areas and we don't know about it yet.

Political games.

Notice how it was just RBR who kicked up a fuss.

This was not black and white like a grid penalty but a grey area - not that I'm saying that safety was a smoking gun.

If RBR were that concerned about safety then why did they pit Vettel and put him back on softs?

[Bagwan]

Political games.

Notice how it was just RBR who kicked up a fuss.

This was not black and white like a grid penalty but a grey area - not that I'm saying that safety was a smoking gun.

If RBR were that concerned about safety then why did they pit Vettel and put him back on softs?

A game , or performance trumping safety , as it had when they chose not to start from the pits ?

Or , are you saying that Newey was feigning being nervous about the race , and blatantly lying about it afterwards ?

[Daniel]

A game , or performance trumping safety , as it had when they chose not to start from the pits ?

Or , are you saying that Newey was feigning being nervous about the race , and blatantly lying about it afterwards ?

It'll be interesting to see what Pirelli say. Were the tyres really that damaged or was it just the surface blistering and nothing more than that?

[Retro Formula 1]

This problem runs across motorsport and not necessarily the fault of the tyre manufacturer.

For instance in NASCAR, teams may go beyond Goodyear's advice and wear the right-front tyres down to the cord.

When BTCC race at Thruxton some drivers go beyond Dunlop's advice on camber angles and tyre puncture are not uncommon.

Yep. Years ago when Tom Chilton came back at Thruxton, they ran him with more Camber than they knew the tyres could take. There was no way the tyres were going to finish the race but it would get Tom noticed and more sponsors.

4% though is pretty acute!! 3% is normally the max although there were some cars in the 60's running extreme camber and what I think were bike tyres. I guess that Pirelli will offer a rate of around 3% (and a min inflation) and if teams go outside that, then it's on their heads.

[Bagwan]

Have we got any geeks around here who can post any head-on comparison shots of the cars , pre-race , where we might be able to measure an angle or two ?
They need to be head-on , and at rest .

I'd like some idea of just how far the Bulls were beyond the recommended limit of four percent .

Clearly , from what both Newey and Hembery have said , it was significant .

[SGWilko]

Have we got any geeks around here who can post any head-on comparison shots of the cars , pre-race , where we might be able to measure an angle or two ?
They need to be head-on , and at rest .

I'd like some idea of just how far the Bulls were beyond the recommended limit of four percent .

Clearly , from what both Newey and Hembery have said , it was significant .

Done a quick Google search - nothing on camber angle comparisons for Spa 2011, but, and you'll like this, there is a fitness fair at Camber Sands on October 18th.....

[Bagwan]

Done a quick Google search - nothing on camber angle comparisons for Spa 2011, but, and you'll like this, there is a fitness fair at Camber Sands on October 18th.....

Lotsa lard waddling around an arena ... no thanks .

You know , it's kinda weird that you didn't find anything there .
If the angle is the real sticking point here , why isn't anyone asking the question ?

[Bagwan]

Ah , just googled "red bull camber" , came up with the BBC site , and read this from Newey :
"just a hair over four, four and an eighth, or something, just a tiny bit over".

That doesn't sound like a lot at all , but maybe it is .

[SGWilko]

Ah , just googled "red bull camber" , came up with the BBC site , and read this from Newey :
"just a hair over four, four and an eighth, or something, just a tiny bit over".

That doesn't sound like a lot at all , but maybe it is .

But, if 2 degrees was the safe limit (and I don't actually know what the limit was that Pirelli said was the safe maximum) then an extra 2 is quite a margin.....

EDIT - numpty alert - I've just read the article - 4 degrees max from the horses mouth!!!!

[Malbec]

We don't , exactly , but we do know this , from Paul Hembery of Pirelli :
"So were left in a situation where one team in particular was stretching the limits of our recommendations and we felt that that in a race situation would create difficulties, and blistering."

If it was not a big safety issue , would Newey have said this ? :
“Frankly, at the end of the race, I was just very relieved that both our drivers were safe.”

The important point here is that maximum camber allowed according to FIA regulations is 5 degrees. The RBRs were running at just over 4 degrees. Pirelli recommended below 4 degrees to stay safe.

In other words, Pirelli couldn't guarantee the safety of its tyres throughout the entire envelope that the FIA has declared legal.

While I think Pirelli have done a great job this season on this particular topic they messed up but they are doing a great PR job of covering up.

Of course the counter argument is that at no point were the tyres unsafe despite being used outside the camber angle recommended by Pirelli, there probably wasn't even a drop off in performance.

[Bagwan]

Would this all have been avoided if the teams were allowed more testing ?

Feedback is essential for both the teams and the tire maker .

[SGWilko]

Would this all have been avoided if the teams were allowed more testing ?

Feedback is essential for both the teams and the tire maker .

The million dollar question. Did they ever test at Spa in the old days? Might be a bit academic as the circuit is so unique, if they never test there they'd likely never replicate the issue. The wet practice sessions hampered proper tyre behaviour discovery this time around.

[Daniel]

Would this all have been avoided if the teams were allowed more testing ?

Feedback is essential for both the teams and the tire maker .

Can't have that. Makes FAR too much sense.

[Retro Formula 1]

The important point here is that maximum camber allowed according to FIA regulations is 5 degrees. The RBRs were running at just over 4 degrees. Pirelli recommended below 4 degrees to stay safe.

In other words, Pirelli couldn't guarantee the safety of its tyres throughout the entire envelope that the FIA has declared legal.

While I think Pirelli have done a great job this season on this particular topic they messed up but they are doing a great PR job of covering up.

Of course the counter argument is that at no point were the tyres unsafe despite being used outside the camber angle recommended by Pirelli, there probably wasn't even a drop off in performance.

I understand what you are saying but disagree with your analysis.

Just because a regulation says you can go to a maximum 5 degree, doesn't mean the tyre manufacturer is going to produce one that can go to that extreme. The reason the regulation limits the camber is to stop cars running on sidewalls and I would also imagine it goes back to stopping manufacturers producing round footprint tyres like a motorbike.

This is a good insight. McLaren, Ferrari followed Pirelli recommendations | Formula 1 Blog (http://www.formula1blog.com/2011/08/29/mclaren-ferrari-followed-pirelli-recommendations/)

[wedge]

A game , or performance trumping safety , as it had when they chose not to start from the pits ?

Or , are you saying that Newey was feigning being nervous about the race , and blatantly lying about it afterwards ?

Re-read my post.

I would go as far as to say RBR exploiting the safety concerns to manipulate as much control over damage limitation by arguing over a grey area.

[wedge]

Would this all have been avoided if the teams were allowed more testing ?

Feedback is essential for both the teams and the tire maker .

In NASCAR you have a competion yellow if practice is rained out.

But it was RBR making the biggest noise, not a collectve issue as was say Indy 2005.

I don't remember Kimi making a fuss after his race was compromised with the no tyre change rules in Nurburgring 2005 and ended up in a massive shunt.

[vhatever]

Last I checked, driving around a glorified piece of plastic with wheels 200 miles per hour isn't exactly a "safe" thing to do. Redbull obviously would have changed the camber if they had the opportunity to do ith without their drivers having to start from the pitlane. But the FIA painted them in a corner, and just like you expect out of people who driver 200 mile an hour pieces of plastic, they put their nuts on the table and drove with it. The reason this happened was the severe lack of dry weather testing.

[airshifter]

Just curious, did the FIA control the weather at Spa? The teams that had issues painted themselves into a corner IMO. They were hoping to dodge the regulations in the interest of "safety" but that "safety" wasn't a large enough issue to cause them to lose grid positions in the interest of maintaining said safety.

[vhatever]

Just curious, did the FIA control the weather at Spa? The teams that had issues painted themselves into a corner IMO. They were hoping to dodge the regulations in the interest of "safety" but that "safety" wasn't a large enough issue to cause them to lose grid positions in the interest of maintaining said safety.

The FIA could have allowed them to adjust the camber and not have to start from the pit lane. Red bull can't control the weather, either. They ahd no problem with that camber in the past so why would they at spa? But the FIA has been trying all year to screw over red bull to try to slow vettel down so whiny british trash doesn't start committing mass suicide. Apparently they decided to burn down london instead. Wouldn't surpside me at all if pirelli is being squeezed to try to take as much wind out of the sails of vettel/red bull as possible at this juncture and this blistering was entirely intended by them,

[kfzmeister]

You're kinda all over the place, it looks like.

The other teams were against allowing RB to be able to make a change, not FIA. Sorta like the Bridgestone runners didn't agree on letting them install a barrier at Indy in 2005, so that Michelin runners would be o.k.
FIA trying to screw over RB all year? Lol




This is a good insight. McLaren, Ferrari followed Pirelli recommendations | Formula 1 Blog (http://www.formula1blog.com/2011/08/29/mclaren-ferrari-followed-pirelli-recommendations/)

Ironic that this blog was written by Negative Camber?? Funny.

[vhatever]

You're kinda all over the place, it looks like.

The other teams were against allowing RB to be able to make a change, not FIA. Sorta like the Bridgestone runners didn't agree on letting them install a barrier at Indy in 2005, so that Michelin runners would be o.k.
FIA trying to screw over RB all year? Lol



Ironic that this blog was written by Negative Camber?? Funny.


Of course the other teams didn't want to allow them to do that. DUH. Seriously, i hope you didn't have to consult sherlock holmes to figure that one out.

And did you jsut start watching F1 last week? Cause if you followed the blown diffuser nonsense of this year, you would realize how stupid you look when laughing off the realit of FIA trying to screw over red bull.

[airshifter]

Why would the FIA or other teams allow Red Bull and Red Bull only to circumvent the regulations? This would be like giving the other teams a penalty for playing by the rules and running their cars within the specs set down by Pirelli.

I have no sympathy at all for Red Bull. They rolled the dice and took their chances and lost. They further played the safety angle but made it clear that safety wasn't their real concern, having the fastest car on track with disregard to safety was their real concern. It's either that, or they never felt it was really a safety issue and just wanted an exception to the rules.

:down:

[vhatever]

Why would the FIA or other teams allow Red Bull and Red Bull only to circumvent the regulations? This would be like giving the other teams a penalty for playing by the rules and running their cars within the specs set down by Pirelli.

I have no sympathy at all for Red Bull. They rolled the dice and took their chances and lost. They further played the safety angle but made it clear that safety wasn't their real concern, having the fastest car on track with disregard to safety was their real concern. It's either that, or they never felt it was really a safety issue and just wanted an exception to the rules.

:down:

I think you have totally lost the plot. This thread is about regulating camber settings. And since it appears you are totally confused about the difference between a recommendation and a regulation, you really should contemplate on it, preferably with a dictionary by your side.

[Daniel]

Whilst you're partly right, there's no need to be such an arse about it. The rules say you can run more camber, but Pirelli recommend less, so...........

[driveace]

It's only a recommendation that they should not exceed that camber,at the end of the day it's the engineers decision to what negative,or for that matter positive camber they run ,as is king pin inclination too!

[Daniel]

My guess is that they couldn't change the camber mid race without screwing things up. Tbh I doubt they were really as worried as they seem.

[vhatever]

I was rather surprised they pitted Vettel after the first stint and put him back on the option tyre even though they hadn't changed the camber. If safety was a major concern I'd like to know why a) they didn't make the recommended adjustments, and b) they put a driver back on tyres they knew blistered and risked his safety? I think they knew 'safety' would always be an angle that would gain interest, and to be honest I think they realised their tyres had suffered more than the opposition and wanted an advantage. It didn't happen and they proved safety wasn't the real concern once the race was underway. It didn't do them any harm and they won the race quite convincingly anyway.

You think they can change camber on four tires like adjusting a wing or something? ROFLMAO. Never heard anything so stupid.

[Bagwan]

Didn't the initial reports come out saying that it was Pirelli who went to Red Bull with concern , and not that Red Bull went asking the FIA about changing the camber ?
Hembery wouldn't give up the number on how much over they were .
But , Newey did .
Mind you , though , he wasn't very specific about it , at four and an eighth or so .

If this really did scare Newey as much as he stated it did , then we won't see the limit breached again .

But , this being the world of F1 , where rules are meant to be bent , Adrian just saw the limit , just down the road .


The rest were never going to agree with this change before the race if they weren't suffering as much .

It may be that this is all a ruse , to keep people feeling that Red Bull are on the back foot .
They did put him back on softs .
And , they did win the race and take second as well .
Perhaps Adrian expected bad wearing of the softs with a light car , and knew they would do better on heavy fuel for the second stint .

[ioan]

It looked like RBR were told by Pirelli that the tire is not safe to be run at the camber angle they were using it, only that this came after qualifying session and not before so if RBR made a setup change were doomed for the race.
In the end it came down to a FIA+Pirelli vs RBR fight and RBR won hands down.
Anyway I'm tired about the numerous tries to slow the RBRs this season. What next? RBR drivers only allowed to drive in reverse?

[ioan]

Didn't the initial reports come out saying that it was Pirelli who went to Red Bull with concern , and not that Red Bull went asking the FIA about changing the camber ?
Hembery wouldn't give up the number on how much over they were .
But , Newey did .
Mind you , though , he wasn't very specific about it , at four and an eighth or so .

As you say the reports point to Pirelli being the ones who started the battle on this one.

As for Newey not giving exact numbers, this is F1 he will keep his numbers secret as much as possible.

[kfzmeister]

And did you jsut start watching F1 last week? Cause if you followed the blown diffuser nonsense of this year, you would realize how stupid you look when laughing off the realit of FIA trying to screw over red bull.

How can you argue with this? ;)

[The Black Knight]

Last I checked, driving around a glorified piece of plastic with wheels 200 miles per hour isn't exactly a "safe" thing to do. Redbull obviously would have changed the camber if they had the opportunity to do ith without their drivers having to start from the pitlane. But the FIA painted them in a corner, and just like you expect out of people who driver 200 mile an hour pieces of plastic, they put their nuts on the table and drove with it. The reason this happened was the severe lack of dry weather testing.

The reason this happened was because RBR were stupid.

[SGWilko]

Yes I think that was what was stated as far as who approached who. Its also been reported that both McLaren and Ferrari had blistered tyres after final qualifying and made the adjustments recommended by Pirelli. I don't know what these adjustments are however.. :)

They would not have been allowed to make changes after final qualifying (save for tyre pressures) as the cars are deemed to be in Park Ferme.

[Daniel]

The reason this happened was because RBR were stupid.

RBR won therefore RBR weren't stupid :rotflmao:

[SGWilko]

RBR won therefore RBR weren't stupid :rotflmao:

Isn't that akin to saying that the chap that drives without insurance but does not get caught is clever because of the money he saves?

We do not know the severity of the damage to the constuction of the Pirelli tyre caused by Red Bull overstepping the recommended angle, if there was damage, then they are playing roulette in terms of safety.

Until we know just what damage was being done internally, it is all just conjecture......

[Daniel]

I must admit I don't fully understand how camber works. This is your chance big man to explain and shine. If you can explain it in simple terms I'd be grateful. :)

In what way?

Do you mean in terms of how you adjust it or what camber itself is?

In terms of adjusting camber there are many ways to do it and it really would depend on what type of suspension you're running. With a macpherson strut on the front of a car you would generally use an eccentric bolt which when turned will alter the camber OR as below you have a top mount which the strut bolts to through the middle and as you can see, it can be adjusted.


http://www.deutschnine.com/mm5/graphics/00000002/top-mount-camber-plates-03M.jpg

Now of course F1 cars don't run a macpherson strut......

[Daniel]

Isn't that akin to saying that the chap that drives without insurance but does not get caught is clever because of the money he saves?

We do not know the severity of the damage to the constuction of the Pirelli tyre caused by Red Bull overstepping the recommended angle, if there was damage, then they are playing roulette in terms of safety.

Until we know just what damage was being done internally, it is all just conjecture......

See the thing is, that's illegal. As Malbec stated, the FIA limit is 5 degrees of camber so they were legal. They won so I doubt they care so you can hardly call them stupid.

[The Black Knight]

RBR won therefore RBR weren't stupid :rotflmao:

I'll explain why you're wrong. I could go to the pub and drink 10 pints, drive home, not crash and get away with it. That doesn't mean it wasn't a stupid ****ing thing to do.

I'm not really expecting you to see this analogue but I figured I'd give it a shot.

[Daniel]

I'll explain why you're wrong. I could go to the pub and drink 10 pints, drive home, not crash and get away with it. That doesn't mean it wasn't a stupid ****ing thing to do.

I'm not really expecting you to see this analogue but I figured I'd give it a shot.

What you don't seem to understand is that there is no performance advantage to me drinking 10 pints. Running more camber than your competitors gives you an advantage.

I don't claim to know everything about suspension setups, but I do know that the more camber you run (up to a point of course), the more cornering grip you have, but there's a tradeoff in terms of tyre wear on the inner edges of the tyres. There's no driving advantage to having 10 pints of beer so your analogy falls down.

[Dave B]

RBR chose to set their car up in a certain way despite the recommendations of their tyre supplier. It was a gamble which, on this occasion, worked perfectly for them with a 1-2 in the race. But that doesn't give them the right to expect to be exempt from the rules.

Imagine if they'd blanked off their brake cooling to air aero - nothing remotely illegal about that - but found it was leading to overheating. Would anybody expect them to be given dispensation to alter their car? And would anybody be blaming Brembo or whoever?

This looks like an excuse from the usual suspects to beat up on Pirelli again :\

[The Black Knight]

What you don't seem to understand is that there is no performance advantage to me drinking 10 pints. Running more camber than your competitors gives you an advantage.

I don't claim to know everything about suspension setups, but I do know that the more camber you run (up to a point of course), the more cornering grip you have, but there's a tradeoff in terms of tyre wear on the inner edges of the tyres. There's no driving advantage to having 10 pints of beer so your analogy falls down.

Again, it was worth a shot but, as I said, I didn't expect you to get it.

[Malbec]

As Malbec stated, the FIA limit is 5 degrees of camber so they were legal.

I'm going to have to put up my hands here and say my interpretation was wrong. There is no rule regarding camber.

I still think rbr was put in a spot by pirelli but by going against recommendations they took a risk. It happened to pay off for them this time but they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if the tyres had failed

[Daniel]

RBR chose to set their car up in a certain way despite the recommendations of their tyre supplier. It was a gamble which, on this occasion, worked perfectly for them with a 1-2 in the race. But that doesn't give them the right to expect to be exempt from the rules.

Imagine if they'd blanked off their brake cooling to air aero - nothing remotely illegal about that - but found it was leading to overheating. Would anybody expect them to be given dispensation to alter their car? And would anybody be blaming Brembo or whoever?

This looks like an excuse from the usual suspects to beat up on Pirelli again :\

I don't see what rules they've broken though Dave?

I'm sure they were monitoring things and if there was ever a chance of a tyre failure then bother drivers would have been brought in for new tyres.

[Daniel]

Again, it was worth a shot but, as I said, I didn't expect you to get it.

Because your analogy doesn't work

Drinking more bear - no performance advantage
Running more camber - performance advantage

[SGWilko]

I don't see what rules they've broken though Dave?

I'm sure they were monitoring things and if there was ever a chance of a tyre failure then bother drivers would have been brought in for new tyres.

They knew there was that risk, and wanted to be able to change their tyres for the start of the race.........

[The Black Knight]

Because your analogy doesn't work

Drinking more bear - no performance advantage
Running more camber - performance advantage

My analogy wasn't to do with performance gain it was to do with the action itself. Though, by driving myself home in a drunken slumber I would gain the money I'd have spent on a taxi home. So yeah, I gained something. Go me!

[SGWilko]

Because your analogy doesn't work

Drinking more bear - no performance advantage
Running more camber - performance advantage

Beer goggles can, sometimes, be an advantage....

Excessive camber = short term performance advantage against risk of tyre failure.

[Daniel]

I'm going to have to put up my hands here and say my interpretation was wrong. There is no rule regarding camber.

I still think rbr was put in a spot by pirelli but by going against recommendations they took a risk. It happened to pay off for them this time but they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if the tyres had failed
Completely agree. I really don't see how this is different for instance to Lewis Hamilton running on his inters too long that one year in Shanghai when he fell off the track. Didn't pay off for him, but if he hadn't have fallen off the track he'd have been in good shape.

At the end of the day this is racing and teams are forever pushing the limits regarding component design, sporting regs, tyre wear, fuel useage and so on. This is part of racing and I really don't see the fuss. They ran the tyre outside of Pirelli's recommendations so of course they shouldn't be allowed to change the camber settings after quali, but no rules were broken, there don't seem to be any "RBR drivers were laps away from certain death" stories and they won so who gives a ****? :)

People making up silly analogies about drink driving which are in no way appropriate doesn't help in this thread.

[Daniel]

They knew there was that risk, and wanted to be able to change their tyres for the start of the race.........

They can ask can't they? Anything illegal about asking? The FIA were 100% right for turning them down I have to say.

[Daniel]

My analogy wasn't to do with performance gain it was to do with the action itself. Though, by driving myself home in a drunken slumber I would gain the money I'd have spent on a taxi home. So yeah, I gained something. Go me!

Your analogy is pure rubbish. Driving drunk is ILLEGAL. RBR's actions were 100% legal, if against the recommendations of the tyre manufacturer and there was a clear risk/reward which RBR obviously got right in this situation.

[SGWilko]

They can ask can't they? Anything illegal about asking? The FIA were 100% right for turning them down I have to say.

Absolutely - but if there was no issue, why ask in the first place? Maybe they asked when they realised that Pirelli were right about the damage to the tyre integrity?

[Dave B]

I don't see what rules they've broken though Dave?
None, but they were asking to be exempted from parc fermé conditions to change the setup on their cars.



I'm sure they were monitoring things and if there was ever a chance of a tyre failure then bother drivers would have been brought in for new tyres.
Which is how it should be: if you choose to gamble on extreme setups and your gamble doesn't work they you should be penalised by dint of having to make extra pit stops. Not let off by being allowed to change your setup willy-nilly.

[SGWilko]

Your analogy is pure rubbish. Driving drunk is ILLEGAL. RBR's actions were 100% legal, if against the recommendations of the tyre manufacturer and there was a clear risk/reward which RBR obviously got right in this situation.

Hypothetically then - IF one of their drivers had an accident, would they be free from legal action should the driver be harmed and his career shortened.....?

Again. if's here, but the point is they were lucky, but were they right to put the drivers at risk?

[SGWilko]

if there was ever a chance of a tyre failure .

This is the point - does a team/driver have a warning before a tyre fails? I don't think you can manage the issue if you cannot see what is happening internally to the construction of the tyre......

[Daniel]

None, but they were asking to be exempted from parc fermé conditions to change the setup on their cars.


Which is how it should be: if you choose to gamble on extreme setups and your gamble doesn't work they you should be penalised by dint of having to make extra pit stops. Not let off by being allowed to change your setup willy-nilly.

Completely agree. I think RBR that if RBR were really worried then they should have manned up and took the penalty and changed the settings rather than asking for special dispensation for a problem that was self inflicted.

Were RBR being cheeky and perhaps to the extent of being whiney bitches? **** yes. But they won and as I said there seem to be no stories about how the Pirelli's were near to failure. I imagine that both Pirelli and RBR examined the tyres during the race and that they must have been deemed as being safe otherwise RBR wouldn't have continued on as they did. It's not like the championship fight is exactly close and they couldn't afford to drop some points.

[Knock-on]

I must admit I don't fully understand how camber works. This is your chance big man to explain and shine. If you can explain it in simple terms I'd be grateful. :)

Camber is quite straight forward really. I will refer to negative camber (top of tyres inwards)

Suspension on a F1 car is similar to a traditional Double wishbone setup on a road car (I mean similar before anyone jumps down my throat in that they have similar characteristics) in that under compression (cornering), weight is transferred to the outside tyre with compression and roll.

This dramatically heats up the outside of the tyre but when in a straight line, the inside of the tyre has most adhesion and hence builds up heat but not as much as during cornering. This leaves the middle of the tyre which is controlled by tyre pressure. F1 cars use inert tyre gas to minimise expansion during heating so the middle of the contact patch crowns during inflation. Hence under-inflation puts more pressure on the outer edges.

How much suspension movement,roll etc is defined by the strength of springs and determines optimum camber which is then tuned to the type of circuit (speed and corners) and weather conditions.

In Spa, there are some dramatic sections such as Eau Rouge into Rasillion and Blanchimont which put a lot of strain on tyres. Trying to get the balance right across the complete tyre contact patch is always a compromise because of the extreme change of load. Then you add the weather and teams are guessing on how to set the car up for Sunday.

I would also guess that RBR and McLaren increased tyre pressure slightly to level out the contact patch a bit and negate the camber slightly. The tyre will still blister but not as bad.

There is a small amount of fine adjustment that can be made to camber on a F1 car quite quickly but not in Parc Ferme conditions.

I guess that RBR were gambling on the soft side along with McLaren and struggled with the loading / unloading changes of tyre temp leading to overheating / cooling and blistering.

[Malbec]

there don't seem to be any "RBR drivers were laps away from certain death" stories and they won so who gives a ****? :)

That is only said with hindsight.

Back at Indy 2005 not a single Michelin tyre actually failed IIRC. It was just that Michelin detected abnormally high wear rates and couldn't guarantee their safety beyond a few laps. Presumably given your stance on RBR and Pirellis you would have been for the Michelin shod teams to ignore Michelin's recommendations and run the race regardless?

[The Black Knight]

Your analogy is pure rubbish. Driving drunk is ILLEGAL. RBR's actions were 100% legal, if against the recommendations of the tyre manufacturer and there was a clear risk/reward which RBR obviously got right in this situation.

It matters not if it's illegal. They went beyond the physical limitations of the tyre. They knew what they were doing when they did it and tried to backtrack out of it. It was a stupid ****ing decision. Surely even you can see that?

[Daniel]

Excessive camber = short term performance advantage against risk of tyre failure.

and one that they obviously got right.

If this were McLaren and they'd run this much camber and unlike RBR hadn't asked if they could change their tyres or camber settings, we would potentially be here talking about how it was a master stroke and how great Button is in these sorts of conditions or whatever. IMHO this is just a cheap shot at RBR, take a shot at them for creating a potential issue and then wanting special dispensation to lessen the potential risk, but they took the risk and they won and they should get the credit for that. If it turns out that they were a lap or two away from a failure on Eau Rouge or something like that then they deserve to be criticised rather a lot, but we simply don't know.

[Daniel]

It matters not if it's illegal. They went beyond the physical limitations of the tyre. They knew what they were doing when they did it and tried to backtrack out of it. It was a stupid ****ing decision. Surely even you can see that?

They didn't go beyond the physical limitations of the tyre. If they had the tyres would have failed. RBR took a calculated risk, crapped themselves and ended up winning.

[Daniel]

Hypothetically then - IF one of their drivers had an accident, would they be free from legal action should the driver be harmed and his career shortened.....?

Again. if's here, but the point is they were lucky, but were they right to put the drivers at risk?

The fact of the matter is that we don't know how far we were from seeing an accident. Were the RBR's on a razors edge? Or was it merely the tread which was suffering and was the construction of the tyre still sound? We simply don't know. I really would like to see if Pirelli or RBR come out and say anything about this.

[SGWilko]

That is only said with hindsight.

Back at Indy 2005 not a single Michelin tyre actually failed IIRC. It was just that Michelin detected abnormally high wear rates and couldn't guarantee their safety beyond a few laps. Presumably given your stance on RBR and Pirellis you would have been for the Michelin shod teams to ignore Michelin's recommendations and run the race regardless?

I think Ralf's tyre failed, and other Michelin runners suffered stress indictions that would have led to failure. The overall conclusion was that 6 laps was maximum achievable if going flat out on the final corner....

I may well be factually incorrect, but that is my recollection.

[SGWilko]

and one that they obviously got right.

If this were McLaren and they'd run this much camber and unlike RBR hadn't asked if they could change their tyres or camber settings, we would potentially be here talking about how it was a master stroke and how great Button is in these sorts of conditions or whatever. IMHO this is just a cheap shot at RBR, take a shot at them for creating a potential issue and then wanting special dispensation to lessen the potential risk, but they took the risk and they won and they should get the credit for that. If it turns out that they were a lap or two away from a failure on Eau Rouge or something like that then they deserve to be criticised rather a lot, but we simply don't know.

Well, no-one is slapping the McLaren boys or Lewis on the back for binning it by wearing down the tyres in China 2007, are they?

[Daniel]

I think Ralf's tyre failed, and other Michelin runners suffered stress indictions that would have led to failre. The overall conclusion was that 6 laps was maximum achievable if going flat out on the final corner....

I may well be factually incorrect, but that is my recollection.
That's how I remember it too. IMHO it's a different situation to what we were dealing with here. With the Michelin's at Indianapolis I think there was really a serious and almost inevitable risk of someone having a catastrophic failure at speed especially considering Ralph's failure AND the way Michelin looked at things and saw fit to ask if they could bring in new tyres for the weekend. I'm sure if Pirelli were that worried about a failure they would have made a LOT of noise and publicly "encouraged" RBR to change their settings and start from the pitlane.

[Malbec]

That's how I remember it too. IMHO it's a different situation to what we were dealing with here. With the Michelin's at Indianapolis I think there was really a serious and almost inevitable risk of someone having a catastrophic failure at speed especially considering Ralph's failure AND the way Michelin looked at things and saw fit to ask if they could bring in new tyres for the weekend. I'm sure if Pirelli were that worried about a failure they would have made a LOT of noise and publicly "encouraged" RBR to change their settings and start from the pitlane.

Pirelli were concerned enough about the situation to fly in extra sets of front tyres to cope with the reduced life. Also I'm sure you know that Pirelli did indeed inform RBR that they should change the camber settings and start from the pitlane, something RBR refused?

[SGWilko]

That's how I remember it too. IMHO it's a different situation to what we were dealing with here. With the Michelin's at Indianapolis I think there was really a serious and almost inevitable risk of someone having a catastrophic failure at speed especially considering Ralph's failure AND the way Michelin looked at things and saw fit to ask if they could bring in new tyres for the weekend. I'm sure if Pirelli were that worried about a failure they would have made a LOT of noise and publicly "encouraged" RBR to change their settings and start from the pitlane.

In fairness to Michelin, the isolated incident at Indy (similar in fact to the Bridgestone failure at Turkey) was borne of a change to the surface and hence vastly increased grip of the circuit. Bridgestone (by dint of their sister firm Firestone) already had advance running on such a surface through its involvement with Indycar, Michelin were neither notified of the circuit being diamond cut, nor had they had any prior running on the new surface.

[Daniel]

Pirelli were concerned enough about the situation to fly in extra sets of front tyres to cope with the reduced life. Also I'm sure you know that Pirelli did indeed inform RBR that they should change the camber settings and start from the pitlane, something RBR refused?

Maybe I didn't follow things as closely as some others, but Pirelli's words never seemed all that strong.

[SGWilko]

Pirelli were concerned enough about the situation to fly in extra sets of front tyres to cope with the reduced life. Also I'm sure you know that Pirelli did indeed inform RBR that they should change the camber settings and start from the pitlane, something RBR refused?

They would not have been allowed to use them though, would they - being limited to a certain amount of tyres for the entire weekend?

[Malbec]

Maybe I didn't follow things as closely as some others, but Pirelli's words never seemed all that strong.

Why would they need to be strong?

We cannot guarantee the physical integrity of the tyres if you run a camber over 4 degrees. What else do they need to say?

[Malbec]

They would not have been allowed to use them though, would they - being limited to a certain amount of tyres for the entire weekend?

I dunno about that. I've read Adam Cooper's excellent article on this on Autosport and it seems that there had been an agreement between all the teams that Pirelli should bring in the extra tyres to cover any problems, I presume they would have had dispensation from the FIA in that case.

His other points were that all teams were informed prior to Spa that 4 degrees was the maximum recommendation.

After quali Pirelli inspected all the tyres and found RBRs had worn beyond what was expected and safe. Pirelli weren't told that RBR were running beyond the recommended camber of 4 degrees and therefore assumed the problem was with the tyres themselves, hence the talk about bringing extra tyres. Once Pirelli found out they told RBR that excess wear was their problem not Pirelli's.

RBR and McLaren lobbied Charlie Whiting for fresh tyres without getting a penalty (McLaren ran theirs at 4 degrees) who was about to give them dispensation, until the other teams who were running at 3 degrees pointed out that this was unfair. Thats why RBR were told they could go as they were or change setup and start from the pitlane.

In other words RBR initially suggested that excess tyre wear and blistering was because the tyres were inherently unsafe. Once it was revealed that they were outside Pirelli's setup recommendations they tried to have their tyres changed without penalty. I find it difficult to have sympathy with RBR's position.

[SGWilko]

I dunno about that. I've read Adam Cooper's excellent article on this on Autosport and it seems that there had been an agreement between all the teams that Pirelli should bring in the extra tyres to cover any problems, I presume they would have had dispensation from the FIA in that case.

His other points were that all teams were informed prior to Spa that 4 degrees was the maximum recommendation.

After quali Pirelli inspected all the tyres and found RBRs had worn beyond what was expected and safe. Pirelli weren't told that RBR were running beyond the recommended camber of 4 degrees and therefore assumed the problem was with the tyres themselves, hence the talk about bringing extra tyres. Once Pirelli found out they told RBR that excess wear was their problem not Pirelli's.

RBR and McLaren lobbied Charlie Whiting for fresh tyres without getting a penalty (McLaren ran theirs at 4 degrees) who was about to give them dispensation, until the other teams who were running at 3 degrees pointed out that this was unfair. Thats why RBR were told they could go as they were or change setup and start from the pitlane.

In other words RBR initially suggested that excess tyre wear and blistering was because the tyres were inherently unsafe. Once it was revealed that they were outside Pirelli's setup recommendations they tried to have their tyres changed without penalty. I find it difficult to have sympathy with RBR's position.

Well, that makes things less cloudy. So Pirelli stated 4 degrees was the max recommended camber at the start of the weekend then?

[Malbec]

Well, that makes things less cloudy. So Pirelli stated 4 degrees was the max recommended camber at the start of the weekend then?

No, not at the start but from before the weekend. Most teams played safe and went for about 3 degrees

[Daniel]

In other words RBR initially suggested that excess tyre wear and blistering was because the tyres were inherently unsafe. Once it was revealed that they were outside Pirelli's setup recommendations they tried to have their tyres changed without penalty. I find it difficult to have sympathy with RBR's position.

I don't think anyone has said they sympathise with RBR?

[vhatever]

The reason this happened was because RBR were stupid.

Mclaren's tires were blistering, too, and RBR finished 1-2. So if RBR is stupid, what does that make mclaren?

[SGWilko]

Mclaren's tires were blistering, too, and RBR finished 1-2. So if RBR is stupid, what does that make mclaren?

All the tyres were blistering on the shoulder - this is down to the softer compounds of the Pirelli's and the specific loads on the tyre's shoulders on the run between Eau Rouge and the next corner. Specifically, it is the length of the straight and the speed attained (exaserbated by the additional speed afforded by both KERS and DRS) that creates the heat on the shoulder and causes the rubber to erupt.

[Big Ben]

I must admit I don't fully understand how camber works. This is your chance big man to explain and shine. If you can explain it in simple terms I'd be grateful. :)

maybe later. he's doing his homework now. damn school!

[Big Ben]

Mclaren's tires were blistering, too, and RBR finished 1-2. So if RBR is stupid, what does that make mclaren?

They're all smart people. You're not however.

[Daniel]

All the tyres were blistering on the shoulder - this is down to the softer compounds of the Pirelli's and the specific loads on the tyre's shoulders on the run between Eau Rouge and the next corner. Specifically, it is the length of the straight and the speed attained (exaserbated by the additional speed afforded by both KERS and DRS) that creates the heat on the shoulder and causes the rubber to erupt.

Exactly, and because all the tyres were doing it, we can't really say for sure whether RBR's tyres were actually that bad compared to others

[SGWilko]

Exactly, and because all the tyres were doing it, we can't really say for sure whether RBR's tyres were actually that bad compared to others

OK - rephrase that. Only the Red Bulls were blistering the tyre in such a short space of time - Vettel radioed after about 5 or 6 laps that the tyres were heavily marked.

[The Black Knight]

They didn't go beyond the physical limitations of the tyre. If they had the tyres would have failed. RBR took a calculated risk, crapped themselves and ended up winning.

Ok I'll rephrase. They nearly went beyond the physical limitations of the tyre and put both their drivers lives at risk in doing that. It worked out well for them in the end but that doesn't mean it was a stupid thing to do. Obviously they were ****ting themsevles because they brought both their drivers in so early. It could have ended up in disaster as easily as it ended up in a win. A team should never put either of their drivers in that position.

[The Black Knight]

Mclaren's tires were blistering, too, and RBR finished 1-2. So if RBR is stupid, what does that make mclaren?

McLaren didn't get their fannies in knots over it. They got on with the job. They knew their tyres would last.

[Daniel]

Ok I'll rephrase. They nearly went beyond the physical limitations of the tyre and put both their drivers lives at risk in doing that. It worked out well for them in the end but that doesn't mean it was a stupid thing to do. Obviously they were ****ting themsevles because they brought both their drivers in so early. It could have ended up in disaster as easily as it ended up in a win. A team should never put either of their drivers in that position.

With all due respect, neither you nor I know how close the RBR's were to having a tyre failure so to make it look like they only just got away with it is probably untrue.

I think I may have mentioned it half a dozen times so far, but NONE of us know how damaged the tyres were and whether the damage was to anything other than just the tread or whether the carcass was compromised.

You can keep on going on about it, but you have no actual knowledge as to whether the tyres were close to failing or not :laugh:

[SGWilko]

McLaren didn't get their fannies in knots over it. They got on with the job. They knew their tyres would last.

No-one knows if a tyre will last - tyres fail for many different reasons. The point perhaps here is that McLaren, along with all other teams bar Red Bull, kept to or within Pirelli's stated maximum camber angle.

[Daniel]

OK - rephrase that. Only the Red Bulls were blistering the tyre in such a short space of time - Vettel radioed after about 5 or 6 laps that the tyres were heavily marked.

More camber will do that of couse, the question is whether or not they were close to a failure or not. We simply don't know.

[The Black Knight]

No-one knows if a tyre will last - tyres fail for many different reasons. The point perhaps here is that McLaren, along with all other teams bar Red Bull, kept to or within Pirelli's stated maximum camber angle.

Whitmarsh said they were confident their tyres would last and that's why they didn't get up in arms over it. Tyres can blow up for no reason at anytime but it's all about ones own confidence level. I have no idea what McLaren's camber angle was so it's specualation to say whether they were over it or not. I'd imagine they weren't and if they were, I'd imagine that they did so confident that their tyres would last which is why they weren't bothered about it.

[Daniel]

No-one knows if a tyre will last - tyres fail for many different reasons. The point perhaps here is that McLaren, along with all other teams bar Red Bull, kept to or within Pirelli's stated maximum camber angle.

:up:

Completely agree. Sadly I think The Black Knight seems to want to put the boot into RBR for some strange reason and to do so feels the need to make out that the RBR drivers were in grave danger when we simply don't know how bad the tyres actually were.........

[Daniel]

Whitmarsh said they were confident their tyres would last and that's why they didn't get up in arms over it. Tyres can blow up for no reason at anytime but it's all about ones own confidence level. I have no idea what McLaren's camber angle was so it's specualation to say whether they were over it or not. I'd imagine they weren't and if they were, I'd imagine that they did so confident that their tyres would last which is why they weren't bothered about it.

Completely agree. That must be why McLaren asked for a new set of tyres :rolleyes: :laugh: :rotflmao:

[The Black Knight]

With all due respect, neither you nor I know how close the RBR's were to having a tyre failure so to make it look like they only just got away with it is probably untrue.

I think I may have mentioned it half a dozen times so far, but NONE of us know how damaged the tyres were and whether the damage was to anything other than just the tread or whether the carcass was compromised.

You can keep on going on about it, but you have no actual knowledge as to whether the tyres were close to failing or not :laugh:

Given Adrian Newey's relived experession at the end of the race and his now famous I'm happy to see you two comment to his drivers at the end of the race... what would you conclude?

[The Black Knight]

Completely agree. That must be why McLaren asked for a new set of tyres :rolleyes: :laugh: :rotflmao:

When did McLaren ask for a new set of tyres and who did they ask for a new set of tyres, Daniel?

[Malbec]

Whitmarsh said they were confident their tyres would last and that's why they didn't get up in arms over it. Tyres can blow up for no reason at anytime but it's all about ones own confidence level. I have no idea what McLaren's camber angle was so it's specualation to say whether they were over it or not. I'd imagine they weren't and if they were, I'd imagine that they did so confident that their tyres would last which is why they weren't bothered about it.

Not quite true, McLaren were more bothered about the issue than other teams that ran a more conservative camber.

The difference is, as already pointed out, McLaren stuck to Pirelli's recommendations while RBR didn't. Therefore if McLaren had a failure they could hold Pirelli responsible, RBR couldn't.

[Daniel]

Not quite true, McLaren were more bothered about the issue than other teams that ran a more conservative camber.

The difference is, as already pointed out, McLaren stuck to Pirelli's recommendations while RBR didn't. Therefore if McLaren had a failure they could hold Pirelli responsible, RBR couldn't.

Enough of these facts please, especially when they get in the way of having a dig at RBR.

[Daniel]

When did McLaren ask for a new set of tyres and who did they ask for a new set of tyres, Daniel?

Are you unable to read? The answers to these questions are only a page or two back....

[The Black Knight]

Not quite true, McLaren were more bothered about the issue than other teams that ran a more conservative camber.

The difference is, as already pointed out, McLaren stuck to Pirelli's recommendations while RBR didn't. Therefore if McLaren had a failure they could hold Pirelli responsible, RBR couldn't.

Yeah I agree completely here. Again, RBR were the team that didn't stick to Pirelli's recommendations, which, as I said already, was really stupid. Ferrari also stuck to Pirelli recommendations.

[The Black Knight]

Enough of these facts please, especially when they get in the way of having a dig at RBR.

They don't get in the way of it, they support it.

Regards the other point with McLaren, I haven't read through all of the thread, so if there is mention of McLaren requesting new tyres I have not read it. It's irrelevant anyway. The issue, as pointed out, and what I've been saying all along is that RBR were stupid and could paid a heavy price.

[SGWilko]

When did McLaren ask for a new set of tyres and who did they ask for a new set of tyres, Daniel?

Malbec kindly referred to an Andrew Benson column - the FIA were apparently ready to allow them to change, but backtracked when they found out that RB were over the 4 degree recommended limit. According the BBC, McLaren ran at 4 degrees, not over as Red Bull did.

[SGWilko]

Sadly I think The Black Knight seems to want to put the boot into RBR.....

That's his prerogative you know.....

[Daniel]

They don't get in the way of it, they support it.

Regards the other point with McLaren, I haven't read through all of the thread, so if there is mention of McLaren requesting new tyres I have not read it. It's irrelevant anyway. The issue, as pointed out, and what I've been saying all along is that RBR were stupid and could paid a heavy price.


It's like talking to a brick wall! :rolleyes:

The fact that McLaren's tyres were also blistering is not irrelevant.

Neither you nor anyone on here actually knows how close the tyres were to failing, you come on here with emotive language in place of facts and knowledge just so you can have a dig at one team. I could say that they were absolutely fine and there was no chance of failure and you could say that if they'd done another lap both drivers would be dead and both of us would be wrong because we simply do not know. Those are the FACTS.

At the end of the day this is racing and it's part of the allure. I bet you anything if it were McLaren who had run more than the recommended camber and got away with it then you'd be congratulating them on their master stroke :rolleyes:

RBR won, deal with it.

[Daniel]

That's his prerogative you know.....

Should we tolerate this though? It's no better than the people who see that Lewis has one sideburn longer in a press conference than the other and who criticise him for it and would happily have him banned for it.

[The Black Knight]

That's his prerogative you know.....

On the contrary, and despite what your post suggests, I quite like RBR as a team. I am a great admirer of Adrian Newey’s in particular. My whole point in this thread from the start has been to call how silly it was of RBR to go beyond Pirelli’s recommended camber angle. I think we can all agree, maybe with the exception of Daniel, that this was a risky decision that could have ended in either of or both their drivers being harmed. This is my point. RBR pushed the limitations. Pirelli gave the recommendation with good cause and RBR in good conscience should have adhered to that.

[SGWilko]

Should we tolerate this though? It's no better than the people who see that Lewis has one sideburn longer in a press conference than the other and who criticise him for it and would happily have him banned for it.

Not potentially harmful to his health though, is it?

Do you suppose Newey was being blase with his concern for the tyres durability, or a real concern?

If it's a real concern, you'd summise that they were indeed, sailing more than just a little too close to the wind methinks.

Anyway, we get that you disagree with The Black Knight.

[The Black Knight]

It's like talking to a brick wall! :rolleyes:

The fact that McLaren's tyres were also blistering is not irrelevant.

Neither you nor anyone on here actually knows how close the tyres were to failing, you come on here with emotive language in place of facts and knowledge just so you can have a dig at one team. I could say that they were absolutely fine and there was no chance of failure and you could say that if they'd done another lap both drivers would be dead and both of us would be wrong because we simply do not know. Those are the FACTS.

At the end of the day this is racing and it's part of the allure. I bet you anything if it were McLaren who had run more than the recommended camber and got away with it then you'd be congratulating them on their master stroke :rolleyes:

RBR won, deal with it.

No Daniel I wouldn't. Please stop applying your limited view of the world to me. I will never advocate a team that goes beyond safety limits and puts their drivers lives at risks. The only relevant piece we need to know here is that RBR took a risk and ignored Pirelli's advice which it can only be said was given on safety grounds. NO team should ever ignore safety advice from any party with which they are involved. If RBR were to do it and they were confident that their tyres would last i.e. they had data to support it then I wouldn't have an issue with it. Clearly they shot in the dark, realised they may have made a mistake, pissed their pants and were in all probability very lucky to get away with what they did. Safety should never be ignored.

[Daniel]

On the contrary, and despite what your post suggests, I quite like RBR as a team. I am a great admirer of Adrian Newey’s in particular. My whole point in this thread from the start has been to call how silly it was of RBR to go beyond Pirelli’s recommended camber angle. I think we can all agree, maybe with the exception of Daniel, that this was a risky decision that could have ended in either of or both their drivers being harmed. This is my point. RBR pushed the limitations. Pirelli gave the recommendation with good cause and RBR in good conscience should have adhered to that.

Thing is, Pirelli is in F1 to look good, having your tyres blister is not necessarily going to make you look good. A blistering tyre though doesn't necessarily indicate a tyre that is in imminent danger of failure. Neither you nor I ACTUALLY know whether there was a danger of a failure or not. We do not know. We don't know!!!!!!

[Knock-on]

Daniel is correct that we do not know just how marginal the tyres were or if they would fail. However, RBR and to a lesser degree McLaren were pretty concerned.

TBK is correct that setting the cars up with excessive camber was pretty stupid. It came off on this occasions but if there had of been a failure, would have been in deep crap.

But, there is no need to start attacking the poster Dan so possibly best to leave it there.

[Daniel]

No Daniel I wouldn't. Please stop applying your limited view of the world to me. I will never advocate a team that goes beyond safety limits and puts their drivers lives at risks. The only relevant piece we need to know here is that RBR took a risk and ignored Pirelli's advice which it can only be said was given on safety grounds. NO team should ever ignore safety advice from any party with which they are involved. If RBR were to do it and they were confident that their tyres would last i.e. they had data to support it then I wouldn't have an issue with it. Clearly they shot in the dark, realised they may have made a mistake, pissed their pants and were in all probability very lucky to get away with what they did. Safety should never be ignored.

:laugh:

AS I keep on saying, we don't actually know how close the tyres were to going pop, we don't know if the 4 degree recommendation (note: RECOMMENDATION) is there to stop tyres blistering or wearing quickly which won't look good for Pirelli, or whether there is a genuine risk of the tyres going boom. To say " ignored Pirelli's advice which it can only be said was given on safety grounds" is not necessarily true, like I say, it could be safety or it could be just there to make the tyres last longer and make Pirelly look better. We don't know one way or the other.

Do you honestly think that when that first set of tyres came of Seb's car that Adrian and Pirelli weren't looking at them to see whether there had been damage done to the carcass or not? Do you think they went through the whole race genuinely not knowing? I somehow doubt that this is the case.

[SGWilko]

we don't know if the 4 degree recommendation (note: RECOMMENDATION) is there to stop tyres blistering.

Not to stop the blistering, clearly, because Ferrari for example, who we know are easy on their tyres, and were running only 3 degrees camber, still blistered the shoulder.

To me, this showed the extent of Pirelli's concern, and justifies their uneasyness in respect of Red Bulls camber angle.

[SGWilko]

when that first set of tyres came of Seb's car that Adrian and Pirelli weren't looking at them to see whether there had been damage done to the carcass

You won't know that until Pirelli gets the tyre off the rim, and inspects the internal surface of the tyre.........

I'd imagine tyres already run in such a manner from qualifying 1 and 2 were subsequently inspected thus, and a reasoned level of concern was then raised by Pirelli.......

I very much doubt Pirelli licked a finger and stuck it in the air to draw their safety concerns.

[Daniel]

Daniel is correct that we do not know just how marginal the tyres were or if they would fail. However, RBR and to a lesser degree McLaren were pretty concerned.

TBK is correct that setting the cars up with excessive camber was pretty stupid. It came off on this occasions but if there had of been a failure, would have been in deep crap.

But, there is no need to start attacking the poster Dan so possibly best to leave it there.

I COMPLETELY agree with you there. What I dislike (and what I was attacking) is people presenting supposition as fact. It's entirely possible that the tyres were very much marginal or that they could have gone another 10 laps. Without knowing either way I think it's extremely silly to attempt to present either view as being definite and therefore making statements to the effect of one team risking the lives of their drivers. I love to deal with facts, they're great and you can actually prove things one way or another with them, speculation is fine a well, but you have to realise that it's only speculation and you can never say for sure.

[Daniel]

You won't know that until Pirelli gets the tyre off the rim, and inspects the internal surface of the tyre.........

I'd imagine tyres already run in such a manner from qualifying 1 and 2 were subsequently inspected thus, and a reasoned level of concern was then raised by Pirelli.......

I very much doubt Pirelli licked a finger and stuck it in the air to draw their safety concerns.

Of course, it may be that Pirelli was right on the money and RBR were dicing with death, or Pirelli may have been conservative and RBR were running the tyre within safe parameters.

[The Black Knight]

Of course, it may be that Pirelli was right on the money and RBR were dicing with death, or Pirelli may have been conservative and RBR were running the tyre within safe parameters.

Which I'm sure is exactly why Newey, one of the most experienced men on the grid, was so nervous for his drivers... because RBR ran within safe parameters. Something not fit with this picture to you?

Given Newey's nervous demeanour and considering RBR were considering starting their drivers from the start of the grid, do you not think that they were indeed very close to the limit of the tyres and they knew that? Would it not make sense?

[The Black Knight]

:laugh:

AS I keep on saying, we don't actually know how close the tyres were to going pop, we don't know if the 4 degree recommendation (note: RECOMMENDATION) is there to stop tyres blistering or wearing quickly which won't look good for Pirelli, or whether there is a genuine risk of the tyres going boom. To say " ignored Pirelli's advice which it can only be said was given on safety grounds" is not necessarily true, like I say, it could be safety or it could be just there to make the tyres last longer and make Pirelly look better. We don't know one way or the other.

Do you honestly think that when that first set of tyres came of Seb's car that Adrian and Pirelli weren't looking at them to see whether there had been damage done to the carcass or not? Do you think they went through the whole race genuinely not knowing? I somehow doubt that this is the case.

Since the tyres were blistering at a 4 degree camber angle anyway it is unlikely the 4 degree recommendation was given on the grounds of looking good. Pirelli’s foremost responsibility is to the safety of the drivers. Clearly, at Spa, RBR’s went beyond this and **** themselves.

[Daniel]

[quote="The Black Knight"]Which I'm sure is exactly why Newey, one of the most experienced men on the grid, was so nervous for his drivers... because RBR ran within safe parameters. Something not fit with this picture to you?

I think you're getting it all back to front here.

McLaren wanted to replace their tyres too and RBR simply saw an opportunity to advantage themselves and dress it up safety concerns. You can't fault them for trying I guess. RBR never actually talked about starting from the pits, it was of course an option they would have been allowed to choose IF they had felt there was grave danger to the safety of the drivers.

Personally I feel that you can't have your cake and eat it. McLaren and RBR reaped the reward of running camber and you can't allow them to then get rid of the tyres which were worn because of the camber.

You seem to be interpreting everything with a huge amount of bias, I'm a big safety person, I'd love it if the cars had canopies on them, I wish drivers wouldn't hit each other at high speed and I appreciate the potential for running too much camber to cause a tyre failure, but what this actually on the cards? As I keep repeating, we don't know. Till RBR or Pirelli come out and issue a statement we don't know. We literally do not know and to say that it was or wasn't at the moment is pure speculation.

[Daniel]

Since the tyres were blistering at a 4 degree camber angle anyway it is unlikely the 4 degree recommendation was given on the grounds of looking good. Pirelli’s foremost responsibility is to the safety of the drivers. Clearly, at Spa, RBR’s went beyond this and **** themselves.

Ferrari were running closer to 3 degrees of camber and were still getting blistering.

Obviously Newey wasn't happy, that much is plain to see, but do you honestly think with the lead that they've got, that he wouldn't have just started them both from the pitlane with a fresh set of tyres and reduced camber if he had real concerns?

[555-04Q2]

Never would have thought that a subject on camber would get 13 pages of posts and counting :crazy:

[Daniel]

Never would have thought that a subject on camber would get 13 pages of posts and counting :crazy:

That's the danger of supposition, you never thought it would make it to 13 pages but it did :D

[SGWilko]

Never would have thought that a subject on camber would get 13 pages of posts and counting :crazy:

13? I'm on the last post on page 7! :p

[Daniel]

13? I'm on the last post on page 7! :p

5 for me.

[ioan]

Yes I think that was what was stated as far as who approached who. Its also been reported that both McLaren and Ferrari had blistered tyres after final qualifying and made the adjustments recommended by Pirelli. I don't know what these adjustments are however.. :)

False report. They would have had to start from the pit lane if they did setup changes after the qualy.
Don't believe everything you read.

[ioan]

RBR chose to set their car up in a certain way despite the recommendations of their tyre supplier. It was a gamble which, on this occasion, worked perfectly for them with a 1-2 in the race. But that doesn't give them the right to expect to be exempt from the rules.

What rules did they not obey?

[ioan]

If this were McLaren and they'd run this much camber and unlike RBR hadn't asked if they could change their tyres or camber settings, we would potentially be here talking about how it was a master stroke and how great Button is in these sorts of conditions or whatever.

I guess this pretty much sums up this whole thread! :up:

[ioan]

Since the tyres were blistering at a 4 degree camber angle anyway it is unlikely the 4 degree recommendation was given on the grounds of looking good. Pirelli’s foremost responsibility is to the safety of the drivers. Clearly, at Spa, RBR’s went beyond this and **** themselves.

I guess the **** mean :up: :up: :up: :up: !

[Dave B]

What rules did they not obey?
Read what I posted. They didn't break any rules, but applied to breach parc fermé conditions without sanction.

[ioan]

Read what I posted. They didn't break any rules, but applied to breach parc fermé conditions without sanction.

It wouldn't have been the first time when a team would be granted the possibility to make changes in parc ferme due to a safety issue.

[Dave B]

It wouldn't have been the first time when a team would be granted the possibility to make changes in parc ferme due to a safety issue.

But it would have been due entirely to RBR knowingly ignoring the recommendations of their tyres supplier.

As I said earlier, imagine they'd blanked off their brake cooling ducts against Brembo*'s advice, then discovered in Q that the brakes overheated. Would anybody be taking cheap shots at Brembo?

*or whoever their brake supplier is.

[steveaki13]

I have just shown what a light weight fan I am, I left this morning 3 pages into Camber, and returned now to see 8. And the light weight I am didn't read all 5 pages on camber.

My guess is that the debate got heated for at least 2 of those pages. :p :

[ioan]

But it would have been due entirely to RBR knowingly ignoring the recommendations of their tyres supplier.

As I said earlier, imagine they'd blanked off their brake cooling ducts against Brembo*'s advice, then discovered in Q that the brakes overheated. Would anybody be taking cheap shots at Brembo?

*or whoever their brake supplier is.

They didn't have much dry running until qualy as far as I remember so not sure what the situation was, but did Pirelli make the recommendations before or after qualifying?

[ioan]

I made it clear I didn't pin all my beliefs on what had read, but thanks for the advice.

I hope you have the same stance 'on what had written'! ;)
Just joking.

[airshifter]

I think you have totally lost the plot. This thread is about regulating camber settings. And since it appears you are totally confused about the difference between a recommendation and a regulation, you really should contemplate on it, preferably with a dictionary by your side.

It is you that has lost the plot. I'm quite aware of what I posted, and very aware that it's not your place to decide what I can post. RBR ran the tires beyond the Pirelli spec. I did not imply or state this created a rules violation, simply that RBR put themselves in the situation of having tire problems.

RBR then requested an allowance for new tires without starting from the pit lane, thus requested to circumvent the regulations regarding parc ferme.



I'd have someone retrieve the dictionary for you, but it's apparent that due to cranial rectumitis your head is in the way. :)

[The Black Knight]

Which I'm sure is exactly why Newey, one of the most experienced men on the grid, was so nervous for his drivers... because RBR ran within safe parameters. Something not fit with this picture to you?

I think you're getting it all back to front here.

McLaren wanted to replace their tyres too and RBR simply saw an opportunity to advantage themselves and dress it up safety concerns. You can't fault them for trying I guess. RBR never actually talked about starting from the pits, it was of course an option they would have been allowed to choose IF they had felt there was grave danger to the safety of the drivers.

Personally I feel that you can't have your cake and eat it. McLaren and RBR reaped the reward of running camber and you can't allow them to then get rid of the tyres which were worn because of the camber.

You seem to be interpreting everything with a huge amount of bias, I'm a big safety person, I'd love it if the cars had canopies on them, I wish drivers wouldn't hit each other at high speed and I appreciate the potential for running too much camber to cause a tyre failure, but what this actually on the cards? As I keep repeating, we don't know. Till RBR or Pirelli come out and issue a statement we don't know. We literally do not know and to say that it was or wasn't at the moment is pure speculation.

My Dear Daniel, I see what you're saying. However, this is a forum of discussion and most people here, barring a few, think outside the box and for themselves. Thinking for yourself involves drawing your own conclusions based on facts with which you are presented. Sometimes our conclusions can differ. When this happens we discuss our conclusions with each other. This is the nature of debate. If we all stuck to bare facts and made no suppositions based on those facts then we would have nothing to discuss.

It is very clear from Newey's demeanour throughout the Belgium GP and the fact that he had tears in his eyes as both his drivers crossed the finish line that he was very worried about his drivers. The only conclusion I can come to is that he was indeed very worried about the possibility of RBR's tyres delaminating. I base this conclusion on events leading up to the Grand Prix and what Newey and RBR said afterwards. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to the conlusion that RBR were bricking it.

Whether tyre failure was actually on the cards or not? I don't really know. I would imagine that were the drivers left out there for long enough then it probably was. Therefore, based on everything else, my opinion is that RBR needlessly took a sily risk, went beyond Pirelli's 4 degree camber recommendation and both drivers could have paid the price.

Pirelli's motivations for recommending 4 degrees camber is subject to scrutiny of course. However, as far as we know, no other team went beyond their recommendations. RBR were clearly concerned for their drivers. This would draw me to conclude that Pirelli's recommendation was suggested, at least partially, on safety grounds and when this is forms part of a recommendation it should NEVER be ignored.

[Daniel]

Possibly one of the best responses I've ever seen here. :laugh: :up:

I concur :D

[The Black Knight]

Ferrari were running closer to 3 degrees of camber and were still getting blistering.

Obviously Newey wasn't happy, that much is plain to see, but do you honestly think with the lead that they've got, that he wouldn't have just started them both from the pitlane with a fresh set of tyres and reduced camber if he had real concerns?

Well, that's not really up to Newey, is it? That decision is down to Christian Horner. As mentioned already, I have huge admiration for Adrian and if given the choice I believe he would have started the cars from the pitlane. Again, this is just my opinion. Horner, being team principal, has more to lose by doing that. It reflects particularly bad upon him if his team stretches the limits of performance and have to start at the back of the grid because of it. It also reflects bad upon him if the tyres blow out because of the teams own error caused by a conscious decision they made. They took the risk and it paid off. Either way, they made a silly mistake and brought the whole situation upon themselves.

[Bagwan]

The teams have been issued a recommended camber limit of 3.75 degree's for Monza by Pirelli its been announced on Autosport.

That's what Hembery said they would do . Drop the recommended maximum angle .

Anyone betting against the Bulls breaching the max again , now that the max is minimized ?

[ioan]

It is you that has lost the plot. I'm quite aware of what I posted, and very aware that it's not your place to decide what I can post. RBR ran the tires beyond the Pirelli spec. I did not imply or state this created a rules violation, simply that RBR put themselves in the situation of having tire problems.

RBR then requested an allowance for new tires without starting from the pit lane, thus requested to circumvent the regulations regarding parc ferme.

That is not true, they didn't ask to change the tires, Pirelli told them to change the camber angle but they were not allowed to do it without starting from the pitlane.



I'd have someone retrieve the dictionary for you, but it's apparent that due to cranial rectumitis your head is in the way. :)

I guess some can insult other forum members around here while considering themselves smart in doing so! LOL

[ioan]

That's what Hembery said they would do . Drop the recommended maximum angle .

Anyone betting against the Bulls breaching the max again , now that the max is minimized?

Most probably that is the idea behind the move.

[wedge]

Pirelli's motivations for recommending 4 degrees camber is subject to scrutiny of course. However, as far as we know, no other team went beyond their recommendations. RBR were clearly concerned for their drivers. This would draw me to conclude that Pirelli's recommendation was suggested, at least partially, on safety grounds and when this is forms part of a recommendation it should NEVER be ignored.

With that attitude no team would ever hire you.

Racing is about pushing the limits.

Many, many teams across motorsport are willing to take advice with some degree of salt.

[ioan]

Well you attempt to put people down in most of your posts and airshifters line was much better and intelligent sounding than anything you've ever come up with.. :p ;)

You're way of judging intelligence recommends you for a footy commentator position, or alternatively you could take Eddie Jordan's place in the BBC team! :rotflmao:
You asked for it, so don't come crying. :p

[Knock-on]

I think this is as close to a definitive narrative of the whole sorry mess. Looks like RBR are getting peoples backs up.

The Red Bull Pirelli saga: What really happened (2 (http://bbs.hellof1.com/2662871.html)

[airshifter]

That is not true, they didn't ask to change the tires, Pirelli told them to change the camber angle but they were not allowed to do it without starting from the pitlane.

"Discussions between the teams, the FIA and Pirelli took place on the morning of the race with one option being replacement front tyres for the top ten, who had to start the race on the tyres they qualified on. However, several other teams believed that that would be unfair and vetoed the measure. As a result the likes of Red Bull, McLaren and Ferrari were faced with the dilemma of whether to allow their cars to start with their existing set-ups or change them and start from the pit lane. "

Red Bull nearly started Belgian Grand Prix from the pit lane | Belgian Grand Prix | Formula 1 news, live F1 | ESPN F1 (http://en.espnf1.com/belgium/motorsport/story/57687.html)

Quotes are a wonderful thing. Surely you can provide a link showing where Pirelli, without being approached, told RB to change the camber angle? The change was suggested only after RB went crying and wanting fresh tires for the race start... without the penalty of changing tires.

[The Black Knight]

With that attitude no team would ever hire you.

Racing is about pushing the limits.

Many, many teams across motorsport are willing to take advice with some degree of salt.

And what would you know about what a team would and wouldn't hire?

There is no problem in pushing the limits reliability wise... not when it comes to safety. If RBR had reason to doubt Pirelli's camber angle suggestion then fair enough. Clearly they were wrong if they did. One should never put your drivers lives at unnecessary risk. Maybe that's why RBR are in the lead of the championship though. They have taken more risks than anyone else and it has paid off, except this time they pushed it to the point of where they had reason to believe they may have pushed it too far.

[The Black Knight]

You're way of judging intelligence recommends you for a footy commentator position, or alternatively you could take Eddie Jordan's place in the BBC team! :rotflmao:
You asked for it, so don't come crying. :p

In fairness to Eddie Jordan I think that this year he has developed as a pundit quite dramatically and has now found his niche. I quite like him.

[wedge]

And what would you know about what a team would and wouldn't hire?

Why is Adrian Newey regarded as a genius?


There is no problem in pushing the limits reliability wise... not when it comes to safety. If RBR had reason to doubt Pirelli's camber angle suggestion then fair enough. Clearly they were wrong if they did. One should never put your drivers lives at unnecessary risk. Maybe that's why RBR are in the lead of the championship though. They have taken more risks than anyone else and it has paid off, except this time they pushed it to the point of where they had reason to believe they may have pushed it too far.

Pushing the limits leads to greater risk and therefore safety.

In NASCAR, teams will sometimes go beyond Goodyear's recommendations, pop a tyre and slam their driver into a concrete wall and nobody calls those teams being dangerous and foolhardy.

[Mia 01]

In fairness to Eddie Jordan I think that this year he has developed as a pundit quite dramatically and has now found his niche. I quite like him.

A lot of talk from some people. Rbr will cope this race and probably even win this race.

[ioan]

Pirelli to FIA: Mommy these bad kids are not listening to me! ;(

Pirelli ready to ask FIA to enforce camber restrictions at Monza - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/94362)

:rotflmao:

[The Black Knight]

I really don't understand your problem with Pirelli at all??? :confused:

I don't think that even ioan understands his problem with Pirelli. Declaring Pirelli to be the FIA's children, eludes to a pretty warped understanding of the purpose rubber serves even in a domestic sense :p :

[Bagwan]

Pirelli to FIA: Mommy these bad kids are not listening to me! ;(

Pirelli ready to ask FIA to enforce camber restrictions at Monza - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/94362)

:rotflmao:

While you do have a point to a certain degree here , about the whiny tone of some of the articles about this , it seems to me that Hembery and his company went through an un-necessary scare at the last GP .

They never got the chance to run Spa before the race in the dry , so when things started looking like they might have serious delamination issues , they started imagining a situation like the Indy six car race .
Panic ensued , as they had assumed all had adhered to the recommendations .

And , just like you or I , when one gets the shatner scared out of them , we tend to get a little hot under the collar .

They were looking at a Michelin-esque disaster , and thought the reputation of the company was seriously at risk .



Do you take issue at all with the fact that Pirelli issues recommendations as to the maximum degree of camber ?

[Malbec]

I really don't understand your problem with Pirelli at all??? :confused:

His stance on Pirelli does make ioan out to be a rather peculiar little man indeed...

[Malbec]

They never got the chance to run Spa before the race in the dry , so when things started looking like they might have serious delamination issues , they started imagining a situation like the Indy six car race .
Panic ensued , as they had assumed all had adhered to the recommendations .

Just to clarify Bagwan, I know what you mean but I don't want you misquoted, Pirelli panicked until they realised that RBR wasn't following their recommendations but initially suggested to Pirelli they were.

[Mia 01]

I don't think that even ioan understands his problem with Pirelli. Declaring Pirelli to be the FIA's children, eludes to a pretty warped understanding of the purpose rubber serves even in a domestic sense :p :


Nope, the problem is that a driver has to take care of his tires over a whole race stint.

[henners88]

Its that simple.

[Bagwan]

To the press , Newey stated something like "not much , maybe an eighth or so" , and later , I have read it was 4.3 .

With a little more info , having just seen then drop the level just a quarter of a degree , for safety sake , from 3.5 to 3.25 , it lets us see it in a clearer view .
The difference over , that the Bulls were running was , in fact , pretty significant . Newey well understated the overage to the press , trying to push the blame onto the tires .

[Mia 01]

Are you suggesting Vettel and Webber were not looking after their tyres on the 3 lap qualifying run and had effectively ruined their tyres before the race had even started? Is that what you think all this fuss was about???
Suggesting, nope, that´s you. The whole issue is a no one created of people...... And lets see, this year he´s out, next year is rise or the verdict is out.

[Mia 01]

Who is he? and what do you mean "he's out"????????
You said drivers were responsible for looking after their tyres and I wondered how that was relevant to the Red Bull/Pirelli tyre issue????
The issue, what issue, but that on the other hand could be a issue for you, if it isn´t already.

[steveaki13]

I really don't understand your problem with Pirelli at all??? :confused:


I don't think that even ioan understands his problem with Pirelli. Declaring Pirelli to be the FIA's children, eludes to a pretty warped understanding of the purpose rubber serves even in a domestic sense :p :

I think Ioan worked for Pirelli and was sacked when his radical new idea for a tyre compound was deemed inferior to the other Pirelli lines.

[Bagwan]

Thats the way I read it too and was a little annoyed by their admission that they believed their drivers were at great risk. If they truly believed they were at such a risk I think they would have pitted both drivers for prime tyres rather than putting them back out on options during the first stop. It suggested to me Red Bull were more concerned about the disadvantage their setup had during the race, but it ended up working for them. Newey seemed genuinely concerned after the race but who knows if they had to carry on the concern because the safety card had been played? Pirelli have taken action for Monza and issued an official limit recommendation, and its purely in the teams court now to decide how they interpret this IMO.

As I recall they split the tire stategy , putting Vettel back on softs , and Webber on to primes .

That was a risk , but maybe not as much as it seemed , as the car would use the tires much differently on heavy fuel . They pitted them early enough , to deal with the scorched remains of quals .

One must assume that the camber maximums would apply to the hard tires , too , and since Newey was concerned about the drivers coming home at all , we must assume Pirelli would have concerns about the high camber levels affecting the construction of even the primes , since they would need to be of the same basic construction , in different compounds , to be relevent in set-up .


I believe they either need to regulate this , or leave it alone entirely .

Had the camber settings been adhered to , we would have Pirelli re-designing tires right away , or dropping the degree of camber angle , as they have seen fit to do already , despite the admission fron the Bulls .

If they re-design , to fit with more radical camber angles , the teams will only push farther into the unknown , making the issue a vicious circle , with the eventuality being that the safety will be compromised at some point to a much higher degree .

If they issue lower maximums , the teams will treat them as such , and push the envelope even more than Newey did in the last race , knowing it's low to start with .



I'd think that , rather than regulate , that they should have all learned a lesson here .

Newey , hopefully was scared enough to not risk another run so close to the edge .

And , Pirelli now , hopefully understands they need not panic until all information is in , as they swim among sharks .



Hey , maybe they could publish the angle of anyone above the recommended max .

[Daniel]

Are we still going on about this?

[Mia 01]

What? Are you even aware of what this thread is about and what we were discussing?

I have never known someone take part in so many threads and have so little to say that is relevant. I'm almost lost for words here?? :confused:

I´m not suprised.

[Mia 01]

What? Are you even aware of what this thread is about and what we were discussing?

I have never known someone take part in so many threads and have so little to say that is relevant. I'm almost lost for words here?? :confused:
"is relevant" And yours are? Your opinion? It´s easy to make a as ....le of himself. Is it two years now and you are still h...e. Please continiou in the same way, at least it gives a laugh.

[The Black Knight]

"is relevant" And yours are? Your opinion? It´s easy to make a as ....le of himself. Is it two years now and you are still h...e. Please continiou in the same way, at least it gives a laugh.

He is here 3 years 7 months from what I can tell.

[steveaki13]

"is relevant" And yours are? Your opinion? It´s easy to make a as ....le of himself. Is it two years now and you are still h...e. Please continiou in the same way, at least it gives a laugh.

Sorry don't quite understand most of your posts Mia.

[Daniel]

Sorry don't quite understand your posts Mia.

Same here. I've had a gastric flu for the last 4 days and I thought it might be nice to come on here and get away from the diarrhea....... :rolleyes:

[ioan]

I really don't understand your problem with Pirelli at all??? :confused:

Don't worry, sometimes it's just not there for you to understand.

[ioan]

I think Ioan worked for Pirelli and was sacked when his radical new idea for a tyre compound was deemed inferior to the other Pirelli lines.

Good one! :up:
But no I would never wok for a rubber making company! :laugh: Especially bad quality rubber! ;)

[ioan]

I believe they either need to regulate this , or leave it alone entirely .

Would it be OK to regulate the setups that were left alone until now?
Isn't F1 already over-regulated?

Maybe now henners' also understands why I have a problem with the way Pirelli tries to push F1 into the wrong direction? One can hope.



If they re-design , to fit with more radical camber angles , the teams will only push farther into the unknown , making the issue a vicious circle , with the eventuality being that the safety will be compromised at some point to a much higher degree .

There is a limit over which the teams have no interest to push the camber angle as they would be losing performance no matter how great the tires are.

[steveaki13]

Good one! :up:
But no I would never wok for a rubber making company! :laugh: Especially bad quality rubber! ;)

Oh... and I was so sure. :p

[ioan]

Oh... and I was so sure. :p

Crystal ball needs servicing! :)

[ioan]

To the press , Newey stated something like "not much , maybe an eighth or so" , and later , I have read it was 4.3 .

With a little more info , having just seen then drop the level just a quarter of a degree , for safety sake , from 3.5 to 3.25 , it lets us see it in a clearer view .
The difference over , that the Bulls were running was , in fact , pretty significant . Newey well understated the overage to the press , trying to push the blame onto the tires .


Whitmarsh was quote giving the following numbers for Spa:


"We changed the camber coming here because Pirelli reduced the allowance by half a degree. It was 4.5 and it went to 4.0."

[Bagwan]

Whitmarsh was quote giving the following numbers for Spa:

It seems it was right to reduce the settings . Was it not ?

Presumably , the maximums are given depending on the track surface , and likely temperatures .

[airshifter]

What Pirelli have done going to the FIA makes perfect sense to me. AFAIK the teams have no requirement to give Pirelli the specifics of the camber angles they are running, but by involving the FIA Pirelli is asking that when needed the FIA steps in to find if the tires are being run within the recommendations given.

If tires were having issues and teams were running within the recommended specs, Pirelli would have a problem to fix and potential safety issue caused by them. If tires are having issues when running camber angles outside of recommendations, Pirelli places the safety concern on the teams.

During the play of practice on SpeedTV they were talking about the fact that Pirelli suggested they might file a suit for slander against RB until RB backed down. And I really don't blame them much for doing so. They have provided tires within the suggested requirements, and have provided the FIA and teams with recommendations on settings for the tires. When RB chose to go outside of those parameters they acted as if there was a safety issue caused by the tire supplier, when in fact it was caused by the team.

[ioan]

So now a recommendation has become a law enforced by the FIA? I wonder why this is needed.

Another rule in the middle of the season designed to limit one team's performance and improve the show!

Did Bridgestone ever asked the FIA to enforce camber angle recommendations?

What next? Pirelli will recommend the highest and least wing angles to be run by the teams and then ask the FIA to enforce it?

How long before the tire manufacturer will shape F1 to suit it's incompetence?

I know that the 'knowledgeable' McLaren and Ferrari fans will flame me for this cause they expect these new 'rules' to handicap RBR and thus give a chance to their favorite drivers, but hey everything is 'fair' in today's show biz.

Does anyone know if the Autosport 6 hours will be broadcasted? Maybe we can watch some real motorsport this week.

[wedge]

Did Bridgestone ever asked the FIA to enforce camber angle recommendations?

Because they were never produced aggressive compounds to improve the show.

We have no tyre war and therefore no grounds to say that Pirellis are crap.

Interesting to point out that Scarbs reckons some teams are pushing their luck with camber and Hembrey being worried.

#35 The Flying Lap: Italian GP Preview with Romain Grosjean and ScarbsF1 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2kFnEA03Uw#t=21m51)

Safety great importance. No, sorry, how silly of me, its a company saving face.

[ioan]

Because they were never produced aggressive compounds to improve the show.

Frankly these tires are miles slower than the Bridgestones, and the Bridgestones could take serious beating on the fastest tracks while not looking like cow pie after a couple of laps.
So what is aggressive about Pirelli compounds are the Pirelli's made engineered fail? I don't think so.

[ioan]

How does this 'rule change' help McLaren and Ferrari over Red Bull? Firstly there is no rule change, just a tyre supplier recommending a camber angle to the teams, and secondly Red Bull have adapted to the tyre regulations better than anyone. Ferrari and McLaren experienced blistering of their tyres at Spa just like Red Bull and there is nothing in this that plays to the advantage of either team.

Setup can be pushed over the limit regardless of the tyre manufacturer, and the fact Pirelli have recommended a safe camber angle goes to prove they are doing their jobs brilliantly. Bridgestone and Michellin tyres experienced blistering in years gone by and this is nothing new, and I can't understand your gripes at all. And please no more PM's insulting me please! :rolleyes:

A recommendation that is enforced by the FIA during race is a rule, and this rule didn't exist before, so it's a rule change. Elementary logic, Watson.

PS: If you don't want to be insulted, then please do not insult others for a start.

[Bagwan]

Frankly these tires are miles slower than the Bridgestones, and the Bridgestones could take serious beating on the fastest tracks while not looking like cow pie after a couple of laps.
So what is aggressive about Pirelli compounds are the Pirelli's made engineered fail? I don't think so.

The complaint with Bridgestone , after the tire war with Michelin pushed both makers to go long on endurance , was that they aided in the procession , in that they did not drop off in performance suddenly or early , making for less passing , and less action .

They were working to achieve the maximum distance at the maximum speed .
Now , that makes you look pretty good as a tire maker , but it was having a lot of folks complaining about the sport in general , and losing interest .
"You can't pass in F1 !" , they said , and , they were right .


Pirelli came in , knowing they would have guys like you , Ioan , who see they traits of the tires they have supplied as short-comings , rather than triumphs of balance in a world where the target is always moving .
That's a little more the way I see it , but I do get where you are coming from .

Now that we're far enough into the season for them to have worked out most of the issues , do you agree that the racing has been better as a result of the teams needing to deal with the disparate wear rates of the tires ?

Do you , or anyone else , know if Bridgestone issued camber limits when they supplied ?

[ioan]

The complaint with Bridgestone , after the tire war with Michelin pushed both makers to go long on endurance , was that they aided in the procession , in that they did not drop off in performance suddenly or early , making for less passing , and less action .

They were working to achieve the maximum distance at the maximum speed .
Now , that makes you look pretty good as a tire maker , but it was having a lot of folks complaining about the sport in general , and losing interest .
"You can't pass in F1 !" , they said , and , they were right .


Pirelli came in , knowing they would have guys like you , Ioan , who see they traits of the tires they have supplied as short-comings , rather than triumphs of balance in a world where the target is always moving .
That's a little more the way I see it , but I do get where you are coming from .

Now that we're far enough into the season for them to have worked out most of the issues , do you agree that the racing has been better as a result of the teams needing to deal with the disparate wear rates of the tires ?

Do you , or anyone else , know if Bridgestone issued camber limits when they supplied ?

Bridgestone issued recommendations no limits, and they never asked the FIA to police and enforce their recommendation and turn them into rules, additional rules that never existed before in the sport, and which further limits the creativity of the engineers.
Exactly what we were all against for years already stupid and restricting rules due to incompetence in making a competitive race tire.

I'm getting my asbestos coat now as the keyboard jockeys will be flaming soon. :\

[vhatever]

The complaint with Bridgestone , after the tire war with Michelin pushed both makers to go long on endurance , was that they aided in the procession , in that they did not drop off in performance suddenly or early , making for less passing , and less action .

Oh, and don't forget the tires made the race much more SAFE for the drivers when they didn't randomly fall off.

Gee, and I thought we are "all about the safety".


This is just another bull**** attempt by the morons at the FIA to slow down Vettel.

Too bad he destroyed the field today.

[ioan]

You seem to think me disagreeing with you is an insult where I tend to class PM's asking me to grow up and get a life along with comments about my nationality an insult!

Back to the topic, you would like to see evidence the FIA asked Pirelli for tyres that degrade after a few laps? Have you got evidence to suggest this wasn't in the spec as proposed by the FIA? Its a double edged sword, you can't demand evidence then dismiss the links given, only to provide nothing to support your stance in return.

I think you are looking for troubles and I am not willing to go that way.
If you have a problem write a PM.

[ArrowsFA1]

Frankly these tires are miles slower than the Bridgestones...
Is that another unsubstantiated claim?

The cars may be slower this year, but if that's the case it's due to a number of factors. The FIA has always introduced rules to curb the speed of the cars for safety reasons. Once again Pirelli are not to blame for that, and their tyres cannot be compared with those run under different regulations.

If teams, and it's not only Red Bull, are pushing the limits of the tyres then either the FIA should change the regulations relating to tyres, or the teams should adhere to Pirelli's recommendations.

As the advert on the tv just said "simples".

[Knock-on]

I hate to admit it but ioan in his blind hatred for Pirelli has actually stumbled onto a valid point.

I don't think the FIA should make a change to the regulations to limit camber. It's up to a team how they set their car up and if a team is stupid enough to exceed a Tyre manufacturers recommendation, then that's up to them. There is also the argument that after running at a recommended 4 degree (for example), a team looks at how their tyres perform and decide that they can run more.

However, it's not fair to Pirelli if a team exceeds the recommendation with insufficient data to back up the decision and then blames the Tyres as RBR did. In this circumstance it should be made abundantly clear that it's the teams fault and not the Tyres.

I would suggest that the teams declare their Camber angle after Qualifying and this is made public knowledge. That way, the commentators and us the fans (remember us Jean Todt?) will be aware of what is going on and Pirelli won't get negative publicity in the event of a preventable tyre failure.

As for the safety aspect? It is the teams responsibility and always has been to protect their drivers and how they configure their cars.

[ioan]

Is that another unsubstantiated claim?

Depends how good you are at Maths.

They've got DRS and KERS back this season plus much softer rubber and yet the lap times are still slower.

But who knows, maybe it's because of the moon phase! :rolleyes:

[ioan]

I hate to admit it but ioan in his blind hatred for Pirelli has actually stumbled onto a valid point.

If they would deliver F1 level quality product I wouldn't even say a word about them, instead they are even asking for rule changes mid season to cover their less then optimum product.

This precedent is rather dangerous because more can follow soon and before not too long we will be watching GP1 (well those who will decide to keep watchin' it).

[Big Ben]

Since all pirelli threads have been infested can we start a new one... the ioanfree pirelli thread? If I were a psychiatrist I would find the discussion interesting but now I really have to look for worth reading material... not only I have to skip what Ioan says but there´s plenty of naive people around trying to have a sensible discussion with him and they are failing miserably. Just imagine that half of my countryboys behave likes this... it´s just awesome :rolleyes:

[airshifter]

If anyone can quote a rules change, please quote it. I don't know of any rules change.

Pirelli have simply asked the FIA to help them check car setups in the event they have tire problems, to find out if the problem is the tire or the setup. We've already had one episode of RB crying foul when in fact their setup caused the problem. Personally I think if the team claims the car was unsafe they should have been forced the change the tires and/or camber angle and started from pit lane.

Really RB only thought it was unsafe when they stood to gain an advantage. If forced to give up the advantage, it was safe enough to run the cars.

[vhatever]

I hate to admit it but ioan in his blind hatred for Pirelli has actually stumbled onto a valid point.

I don't think the FIA should make a change to the regulations to limit camber. It's up to a team how they set their car up and if a team is stupid enough to exceed a Tyre manufacturers recommendation, then that's up to them. There is also the argument that after running at a recommended 4 degree (for example), a team looks at how their tyres perform and decide that they can run more.

However, it's not fair to Pirelli if a team exceeds the recommendation with insufficient data to back up the decision and then blames the Tyres as RBR did. In this circumstance it should be made abundantly clear that it's the teams fault and not the Tyres.


Oh, I jsut saw the flag.

I would suggest that the teams declare their Camber angle after Qualifying and this is made public knowledge. That way, the commentators and us the fans (remember us Jean Todt?) will be aware of what is going on and Pirelli won't get negative publicity in the event of a preventable tyre failure.

As for the safety aspect? It is the teams responsibility and always has been to protect their drivers and how they configure their cars.

I can't believe how long you been here with so many posts and this is the kind of nonsense you post?? I assume you have been watching F! all that time? What the hell are you talking about? Should the FIa regulate how many laps you can drive on any given tire, too? Cause that's way more risky then driving with a camber that tends to blister the tires.

Your entire nonsnse about pirelli and tire failure is so mindbogglingly retarded and so detached from reality I can only.... Oh wait I see the flag.


Suddenly "it" all makes so much sense.


What a joke.

This is nothing more than the inbred trash running the FIA trying to screw over vettel/red bull. The end. They don't care about the drivers. They don't care about "brand name". Last i checked, purposely making garbage tires doesn't exactly raise your stock as a "good" tire company.

[steveaki13]

Oh wait I see the flag.


Suddenly "it" all makes so much sense.


What a joke.

.

What is your problem with the English or any other nation then?

[vhatever]

What is your problem with the English or any other nation then?

Nothing. But it does explain such responses, as bigotry and jingoism tend to breed such "logic".

[ArrowsFA1]

As for the safety aspect? It is the teams responsibility and always has been to protect their drivers and how they configure their cars.
True, but but in the last 20yrs or so the FIA has increasingly stepped in when there is any hint of a safety issue (largely as a result of Imola 1994), and it seems clear there have been safety concerns with the tyres in Spa and again this weekend.

If the teams are going beyond the limits of the tyres, against all the advice of Pirelli, then the FIA see it as their job to step in.

There are some comparisons to be made with the Indy GP fiasco. I know the problem then was the tyres themselves, not the use of them by the teams, but Michelin made suggestions as to how the tyres could be made to last and so actually race. In this case the FIA rejected those suggestions and a race of sorts could go ahead because there was another tyre supplier in F1.

Now, there is no alternative. The FIA wanted a single tyre supplier (the motivation for the treatment of Michelin) so that it could use the tyres as a means to slow speeds and 'spice up the show'.

It's an example of the way the FIA regulates almost every aspect of the cars, to the extent that teams and designers have a very small window for development and innovation.

That's the way F1 is in 2011. I don't particularly like it but unless and until the regulations are freed up it's what we have.

[henners88]

Nothing. But it does explain such responses, as bigotry and jingoism tend to breed such "logic".
I'm sorry but since your second post on here and consistently since you have been making anti British statements, what is the problem?

[Knock-on]

What is your problem with the English or any other nation then?

Just ignore Tamburello. He's a funny little man that has personal issues. You have far more chance of ioan dressing us as a Pirelli girl than Tamburello posting a intelligent entry.

[steveaki13]

Just ignore Tamburello. He's a funny little man that has personal issues. You have far more chance of ioan dressing us as a Pirelli girl than Tamburello posting a intelligent entry.

When I joined Tamb was in his dying days before being banned or whatever, but I obviously missed some fun before that then.

[Knock-on]

I agree Arrows. The FIA have a habit of trying to turn F1 into a nanny series.

[vhatever]

True, but but in the last 20yrs or so the FIA has increasingly stepped in when there is any hint of a safety issue (largely as a result of Imola 1994), and it seems clear there have been safety concerns with the tyres in Spa and again this weekend.

If the teams are going beyond the limits of the tyres, against all the advice of Pirelli, then the FIA see it as their job to step in.

There are some comparisons to be made with the Indy GP fiasco. I know the problem then was the tyres themselves, not the use of them by the teams, but Michelin made suggestions as to how the tyres could be made to last and so actually race. In this case the FIA rejected those suggestions and a race of sorts could go ahead because there was another tyre supplier in F1.

Now, there is no alternative. The FIA wanted a single tyre supplier (the motivation for the treatment of Michelin) so that it could use the tyres as a means to slow speeds and 'spice up the show'.

It's an example of the way the FIA regulates almost every aspect of the cars, to the extent that teams and designers have a very small window for development and innovation.

That's the way F1 is in 2011. I don't particularly like it but unless and until the regulations are freed up it's what we have.


You mean safety is in mind when they constantly screw with the tires so the teams have no clue what they are getting race weekend? When they purposely make them drop off percipitously? When they want drivers struggling to keep grip after ~10 laps.

You mean safety was in mind when they tried to ban the diffusers, even though the cars were designed with the stability afforded by those diffusers?

You mean safety was in mind when they restarted a race that was almost entirely done in monsoon-like conditions this year, yet for the past 20+ years they would have just ended that race and called it a weekend?

[pino]

I can't believe how long you been here with so many posts and this is the kind of nonsense you post?? I assume you have been watching F! all that time? What the hell are you talking about? Should the FIa regulate how many laps you can drive on any given tire, too? Cause that's way more risky then driving with a camber that tends to blister the tires.

Your entire nonsnse about pirelli and tire failure is so mindbogglingly retarded and so detached from reality I can only.... Oh wait I see the flag.




Suddenly "it" all makes so much sense.


What a joke.

This is nothing more than the inbred trash running the FIA trying to screw over vettel/red bull. The end. They don't care about the drivers. They don't care about "brand name". Last i checked, purposely making garbage tires doesn't exactly raise your stock as a "good" tire company.



Listen I don't have time for this, so I am only going to ask you once: quit personal insults/comments right now...or you will be history in here !

[vhatever]

Listen I don't have time for this, so I am only going to ask you once: quit personal insults/comments right now...or you will be history in here !

Time for what? Is calling someone's argument illogical/nonsensical a "personal insult"? If so, I'd wonder how anyone could still be posting here cause I see 2309743074230974 times worse every day.


Or are you refering to me calling the FIA inbred?

Does the FIA have an account here? ROFL.

[ioan]

So are a few people more in favour of durable tyres that last two thirds of the race and keeps the pack in a steady order?

Artificially created overtaking opportunities =/= racing and it will never be.

There was great racing in F1 before and there will be also after this crap tires phase. The problem is with the viewers not with the sport itself.

[ioan]

I'm enjoying the racing now like I did 23 years ago when I started watching.

That's you business, not everyone is you.

[Knock-on]

I'm with Henners. Not everyone is you ioan.

I bet if you took a poll, you would find more people prefer the action we are getting this year to the snorefest of a few years ago.

[ioan]

I'm with Henners. Not everyone is you ioan.


What a surprise! :laugh:

Nature and its laws...

[Knock-on]

Wait for it Knockie you'll get a PM telling you you are an uncivilized Brit with no class. lol

The normal ones from a certain banned member threaten to do me over :laugh: I may be an uncivilised Brit, but an uncivilised Brit that would have no problem throwing a bitch slap to a snivelling keyboard jockey that hides behind a screen :laugh:

Bring it on :D

[ioan]

The normal ones from a certain banned member threaten to do me over :laugh: I may be an uncivilised Brit, but an uncivilised Brit that would have no problem throwing a bitch slap to a snivelling keyboard jockey that hides behind a screen :laugh:

Bring it on :D

Thus spake the keyboard jokey from his screen! :rotflmao:

[airshifter]

True, but but in the last 20yrs or so the FIA has increasingly stepped in when there is any hint of a safety issue (largely as a result of Imola 1994), and it seems clear there have been safety concerns with the tyres in Spa and again this weekend.

If the teams are going beyond the limits of the tyres, against all the advice of Pirelli, then the FIA see it as their job to step in.

There are some comparisons to be made with the Indy GP fiasco. I know the problem then was the tyres themselves, not the use of them by the teams, but Michelin made suggestions as to how the tyres could be made to last and so actually race. In this case the FIA rejected those suggestions and a race of sorts could go ahead because there was another tyre supplier in F1.

Now, there is no alternative. The FIA wanted a single tyre supplier (the motivation for the treatment of Michelin) so that it could use the tyres as a means to slow speeds and 'spice up the show'.

It's an example of the way the FIA regulates almost every aspect of the cars, to the extent that teams and designers have a very small window for development and innovation.

That's the way F1 is in 2011. I don't particularly like it but unless and until the regulations are freed up it's what we have.

Well stated post.

I've often been curious about the Indy fiasco and never found a direct answer. Why didn't the FIA step in and keep the Michelin shod tires from competing? As far as I know it was a universal decision of the teams, but they were not prohibited from racing. When that much data is available to let the teams and FIA know that it would cause an unsafe condition beyond reasonable, there should have been no choice in the matter for the teams.

I remember them playing a radio transmission from Coulthard during the warm up lap with him stating for the record that he still wished to race.

[Daniel]

Well stated post.

I've often been curious about the Indy fiasco and never found a direct answer. Why didn't the FIA step in and keep the Michelin shod tires from competing? As far as I know it was a universal decision of the teams, but they were not prohibited from racing. When that much data is available to let the teams and FIA know that it would cause an unsafe condition beyond reasonable, there should have been no choice in the matter for the teams.

I remember them playing a radio transmission from Coulthard during the warm up lap with him stating for the record that he still wished to race.
The Indy race still stinks IMHO. Michelin wanted to fly other tyres in..... why not let them? I think the biggest losers there were the fans and the sport.

[airshifter]

The Indy race still stinks IMHO. Michelin wanted to fly other tyres in..... why not let them? I think the biggest losers there were the fans and the sport.

Agreed. Considering all the options the FIA had, there was no excuse to not hold a proper race, even if only the Bridgestone teams scored points.

[steveaki13]

Artificially created overtaking opportunities =/= racing and it will never be.

There was great racing in F1 before and there will be also after this crap tires phase. The problem is with the viewers not with the sport itself.

I think the problem is people not understanding the problems F1 had with overtaking issues and whether it be Bernie or FIA or whoever they jump into these constant quick fixes that maybe leave long term fans a little cold.

The other issue is for the die hard fans. Is although we may feel DRS is no fair or the tyres are a bit too variable, alot of people I know who might watch F1 a few races a year or every know and then love the new Nascar style passing as all they want is constant in your face action and crashes. (We might not like it but those I speak to do want crashes)

And unfortunatley their will always be way more casual fans saying yes for these things than us avid every race watchers saying no. I therefore suppose its inevitable these days that F1 will continue down this route.

My personal prefrence was always for a simple weekend and race structure like we had pre 2003.

[ioan]

I think the problem is people not understanding the problems F1 had with overtaking issues and whether it be Bernie or FIA or whoever they jump into these constant quick fixes that maybe leave long term fans a little cold.

The other issue is for the die hard fans. Is although we may feel DRS is no fair or the tyres are a bit too variable, alot of people I know who might watch F1 a few races a year or every know and then love the new Nascar style passing as all they want is constant in your face action and crashes. (We might not like it but those I speak to do want crashes)

And unfortunatley their will always be way more casual fans saying yes for these things than us avid every race watchers saying no. I therefore suppose its inevitable these days that F1 will continue down this route.

My personal prefrence was always for a simple weekend and race structure like we had pre 2003.

Agree.
I have a bit of a hard time digesting that F1 has become a direct competitor to Hollywood action movies with 110% action needed to convince the couch armies. What a shame.

[ArrowsFA1]

No problems with the tyres yesterday :D

[Malbec]

The Indy race still stinks IMHO. Michelin wanted to fly other tyres in..... why not let them? I think the biggest losers there were the fans and the sport.

The Michelin shod teams refused to compete if they had to pit every 4 laps or so. The FIA were happy for them to compete as long as they stayed within the recommendations Michelin gave them.

The problem was that the Michelin shod teams then wanted the course to be changed so that the banking was taken at a slower speed, but that would have invalidated the circuit insurance and the FIA rightly refused on behalf of the track owners.

It was a dark day for F1 but it was avoidable if the teams had really put their minds to it.

[Knock-on]

The fundamental problem with Indy was that it was resurfaced and Bridgestone were the only manufacturer that had knowledge of it's abrasive properties.

As soon as the problem became apparent, the FIA should have allowed Michelin to fly some hard tyres in.

It would have been ridiculous and dangerous to have all those teams pitting every 4 laps and unfair on the Brigstone shod teams to change the track, even if it wouldn't have invalidated the insurance.

[Daniel]

The fundamental problem with Indy was that it was resurfaced and Bridgestone were the only manufacturer that had knowledge of it's abrasive properties.

As soon as the problem became apparent, the FIA should have allowed Michelin to fly some hard tyres in.

It would have been ridiculous and dangerous to have all those teams pitting every 4 laps and unfair on the Brigstone shod teams to change the track, even if it wouldn't have invalidated the insurance.

Exactamundo. That incident and the subsequent adoption of what turned out to be far less superior Pirelli tyres in the WRC make me smell a rat there's any deal done between the FIA and tyre companies.

I may remember wrong, but as Knockie said, Michelin offered to bring new tyres in and the FIA said no.

If that has coloured my opinion of the negotiations for the tyres for this year somewhat, then I apologise.

[Malbec]

The fundamental problem with Indy was that it was resurfaced and Bridgestone were the only manufacturer that had knowledge of it's abrasive properties.

Bridgestone had never seen the newly recut surface either although their US subsiduary Firestone had raced there a few weeks before. Its unlikely that Bridgestone were able to knock together a new tyre structure and compound in the little time they had available, I think their tyres were just more conservatively designed.

Michelin weren't allowed to bring new tyres because the teams according to the regulations had to select tyre type by Saturday morning and were only allowed a choice of two compounds, not three. Also its debatable whether Michelin would have been able to bring across the huge quantity of tyres required in time, or even had the stock available.

[Daniel]

Bridgestone had never seen the newly recut surface either although their US subsiduary Firestone had raced there a few weeks before. Its unlikely that Bridgestone were able to knock together a new tyre structure and compound in the little time they had available, I think their tyres were just more conservatively designed.

Michelin weren't allowed to bring new tyres because the teams according to the regulations had to select tyre type by Saturday morning and were only allowed a choice of two compounds, not three. Also its debatable whether Michelin would have been able to bring across the huge quantity of tyres required in time, or even had the stock available.

It's not silly to assume because MIchelin offered, that they could have supplied enough tyres in time.

[Malbec]

It's not silly to assume because MIchelin offered, that they could have supplied enough tyres in time.

They could have offered whatever they wanted knowing that it was too late to bring them over and that they wouldn't have been accepted anyway.

[Daniel]

They could have offered whatever they wanted knowing that it was too late to bring them over and that they wouldn't have been accepted anyway.

Tis a possibility!

[Knock-on]

Bridgestone had never seen the newly recut surface either although their US subsidiary Firestone had raced there a few weeks before. Its unlikely that Bridgestone were able to knock together a new tyre structure and compound in the little time they had available, I think their tyres were just more conservatively designed.

Michelin weren't allowed to bring new tyres because the teams according to the regulations had to select tyre type by Saturday morning and were only allowed a choice of two compounds, not three. Also its debatable whether Michelin would have been able to bring across the huge quantity of tyres required in time, or even had the stock available.

Firestone had supplied a high speed single seater series which raced on the surface. It is undoubtable that they would have supplied information to their parent company which then made a decision on which tyres to supply.

As for whether Michelin would be able to supply replacement tyres, we only have their word on that but I see little reason to doubt them. We had a similar issue at Spa when RBR were complaining that the Pirelli's were failing and Pirelli offered to the FIA to fly overnight replacements for the whole field until it transpired that RBR were operating the tyres outside of recommended parameters.

[Malbec]

Firestone had supplied a high speed single seater series which raced on the surface. It is undoubtable that they would have supplied information to their parent company which then made a decision on which tyres to supply.

Probably but not necessarily. You're assuming that inter-departmental communications within Bridgestone were fine. That isn't/wasn't necessarily the case.


As for whether Michelin would be able to supply replacement tyres, we only have their word on that but I see little reason to doubt them. We had a similar issue at Spa when RBR were complaining that the Pirelli's were failing and Pirelli offered to the FIA to fly overnight replacements for the whole field until it transpired that RBR were operating the tyres outside of recommended parameters.

Pirelli offered to supply 10 extra pairs of front tyres, thats 20 tyres so the top 10 could replace theirs. They had to ship 17 tyres from Britain to Belgium.

Michelin would have had to ship 7 teams' worth of tyres, enough to last them through the whole raceday and bring them from France to Indianapolis overnight, and even then they didn't know how long the harder compound tyres would last for so wouldn't have known how many would have been enough. Thats over ten times more tyres over a much greater distance than Pirelli had to deal with.

[wedge]

There are some comparisons to be made with the Indy GP fiasco. I know the problem then was the tyres themselves, not the use of them by the teams, but Michelin made suggestions as to how the tyres could be made to last and so actually race. In this case the FIA rejected those suggestions and a race of sorts could go ahead because there was another tyre supplier in F1.

Not really.

Michelin could not give assurance to all their teams, whereas at RBR were desperate to find the limit and seemed like they found it.

The 1997 Spanish GP is up on YT. All the Goodyear shod cars suffered blistering but the tyres held up.

A better example would have been 2008 Brickyard 400 where the NASCAR was regarded as a massive fail in that Goodyear's tyres struggled to go over 10 laps. Thankfully this scenario wasn't replicated at Spa this year.


Now, there is no alternative. The FIA wanted a single tyre supplier (the motivation for the treatment of Michelin) so that it could use the tyres as a means to slow speeds and 'spice up the show'.

It's an example of the way the FIA regulates almost every aspect of the cars, to the extent that teams and designers have a very small window for development and innovation.

Don't agree with this at all. In fact I find it rather daft. Regardless of the rules racecar engineering is about maximising what's available.

If it isn't complex diffusers then then its trick exhaust diffusers and following years the geeks will claw back more DF in some way.


If the teams are going beyond the limits of the tyres, against all the advice of Pirelli, then the FIA see it as their job to step in.

This I do agree with. The nannying and try to pre-empt incidents. Aggressive racing is fine their books and yet for wet races it seems we have to wait for an indication of a dry/racing line before the SC is released.

[Knock-on]

Probably but not necessarily. You're assuming that inter-departmental communications within Bridgestone were fine. That isn't/wasn't necessarily the case.



Pirelli offered to supply 10 extra pairs of front tyres, thats 20 tyres so the top 10 could replace theirs. They had to ship 17 tyres from Britain to Belgium.

Michelin would have had to ship 7 teams' worth of tyres, enough to last them through the whole raceday and bring them from France to Indianapolis overnight, and even then they didn't know how long the harder compound tyres would last for so wouldn't have known how many would have been enough. Thats over ten times more tyres over a much greater distance than Pirelli had to deal with.

We're getting way past what information is available or even logical.

There is no evidence that I know of that there was a communications breakdown between Firestone and their parent company and logistically, getting the tyres across the Atlantic would be a piece of cake. They could be flown in a Michelin Corporate Jet over to Indy and the airport is a few miles from the circuit.

Anyway, it's history and can't be proved :)

[Knock-on]

Thus spake the keyboard jokey from his screen! :rotflmao:

LOL I missed this one ioan.

I've met dozens of people off this forum over the years and I think they will confirm I'm hardly a shrinking violet that would hide behind a screen :D

[Bagwan]

We're getting way past what information is available or even logical.

There is no evidence that I know of that there was a communications breakdown between Firestone and their parent company and logistically, getting the tyres across the Atlantic would be a piece of cake. They could be flown in a Michelin Corporate Jet over to Indy and the airport is a few miles from the circuit.

Anyway, it's history and can't be proved :)

Michelin only had the Barcelona-spec tire available , and could not guarantee they would work any better .
They had at least eight tires that failed or were close to failing , across a number of teams .

And , Jarno took pole on fumes , as Toyota clearly saw they would never be allowed to start the race at all .

The weather that weekend wasn't hot , either , with the temps in the 70F range .

Michael won , for the first time that year .

[ioan]

Michelin weren't allowed to bring new tyres because the teams according to the regulations had to select tyre type by Saturday morning and were only allowed a choice of two compounds, not three. Also its debatable whether Michelin would have been able to bring across the huge quantity of tyres required in time, or even had the stock available.

Exactly.
It takes some time to produce a minimum of 14 x 3 sets of F1 tires (168 tires) and have them delivered from France to the US. The tires available were not adapted either to the track. Not to mention that they would have had to race with a tire that was not tested on that track.

Michelin claimed they could bring in other tires knowing full well that the FIA wouldn't allow for those to be used. It was a good move for them to be seen in a somewhat positive light in that mess and throw the responsibility on the FIA's shoulders.

[ioan]

Michelin only had the Barcelona-spec tire available , and could not guarantee they would work any better .
They had at least eight tires that failed or were close to failing , across a number of teams .

And , Jarno took pole on fumes , as Toyota clearly saw they would never be allowed to start the race at all .

The weather that weekend wasn't hot , either , with the temps in the 70F range .

Michael won , for the first time that year .

^ what Baggy said! :up:

[ioan]

LOL I missed this one ioan.

I've met dozens of people off this forum over the years and I think they will confirm I'm hardly a shrinking violet that would hide behind a screen :D

I was just pointing out the irony! ;)

[Mia 01]

Its also worth mentioning in Indy '05 the FIA proposed to put in a temporary chicane which was agreed with the teams with only one team objecting. Ferrari.

Sorry off topic. :)

On this one I agree with you, Ferrari played real dirty that race. Only six cars competed and if I don´t remeber wron MS on the last lap letted Rubens by, he was whining a lot that year.

[steveaki13]

On this one I agree with you, Ferrari played real dirty that race. Only six cars competed and if I don´t remeber wron MS on the last lap letted Rubens by, he was whining a lot that year.

It was 2002 when Schumacher let Barrichello past on the line for the closest finish +0:00:010 :)

In 2005 Schumacher won over Barrichello after nothing happened. :o

[Mia 01]

It was 2002 when Schumacher let Barrichello past on the line for the closest finish +0:00:010 :)

In 2005 Schumacher won over Barrichello after nothing happened. :o

Sorry aki, my memory failed this time.

[Malbec]

On this one I agree with you, Ferrari played real dirty that race. Only six cars competed and if I don´t remeber wron MS on the last lap letted Rubens by, he was whining a lot that year.

Ferrari did nothing wrong. They turned up with tyres that were fine and shouldn't have been penalised for having them. It was for Michelin and the teams that used them to come up with a solution.

The Michelin teams proposed the chicane, not the FIA. Max Mosely vetoed the chicane because it would represent a significant change to the circuit, sufficient to invalidate the insurance covering the race and the FIA couldn't check the safety of the layout in time for the race. If an accident had happened the FIA and the circuit at Indy wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.

Ferrari may have lobbied the FIA not to allow the changes but they did not make that decision.

[kfzmeister]

Ferrari may have lobbied the FIA not to allow the changes but they did not make that decision.

Ferrari indirectly made that decision by not agreeing to the proposed chicane. All teams had to agree.
I remember hearing that a big part about them not "giving" in to the chicane is because at some other point previously, Ferrari was faced with a similar scenario (although perhaps not tire related) and Michelin runners were asked to make accommodations, yet declined.
This, then, became a sort of payback for Ferrari. They were not in the championship hunt that year, so win at Indy was meaningless.

[SGWilko]

It was 2002 when Schumacher let Barrichello past on the line for the closest finish +0:00:010 :)

In 2005 Schumacher won over Barrichello after nothing happened. :o

...but still the Shoe felt the need to block his teammate as he exited the pits - just in case a Jordan troubled them..... :laugh:

[ArrowsFA1]

...but still the Shoe felt the need to block his teammate as he exited the pits - just in case a Jordan troubled them..... :laugh:
:laugh:

To be fair Monteiro and Karthikeyan could have been a threat. Albers and Friesacher probably weren't though :p

[Knock-on]

Ferrari did nothing wrong. They turned up with tyres that were fine and shouldn't have been penalised for having them. It was for Michelin and the teams that used them to come up with a solution.

The Michelin teams proposed the chicane, not the FIA. Max Mosely vetoed the chicane because it would represent a significant change to the circuit, sufficient to invalidate the insurance covering the race and the FIA couldn't check the safety of the layout in time for the race. If an accident had happened the FIA and the circuit at Indy wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.

Ferrari may have lobbied the FIA not to allow the changes but they did not make that decision.

Totally agree.

Ferrari were under no obligation whatsoever to agree to the chicane and it would have negated the Tyre advantage they had. I can't think of any team that would throw away the chance of a sure win just to help out the competition.

The onus for sorting this mess out was on the FIA. It was impossible for Michelin to anticipate the particular qualities of the diamond cut surface pattern without prior testing, which was information Bridgestone had access to.

This was a clear case of Force Majure with a circuit surface being out of the ordinary to what was found at every other circuit. It was the FIA's responsibility to step in and make sure a proper race happened instead of bringing the sport into dispute.