Pirelli 2013 ?

[pino]

Ok let's start the show :p : :s

[steveaki13]

Terrible, rubbish tyres. Disgrace. Joke and travesty.

Is that the sort of thing you were after Pino. ;)

[pino]

That and a bit more :p :

[donKey jote]

nice job Pirelli, now even kimi in a lotus can win :up:

tyres rule ! ;) :p :andrea:

[Robinho]

It was the first time they have used the super soft in Melbourne and it was cooler than the tyres optimum operating window. A few drivers got 10+ laps out of them at the start on top of the qually laps, so yes they were fragile, but they were ok. In hotter weather on a different track they'll probably be the tyre of choice.

Sent from the moon using a shoe

[steveaki13]

Yep

We need to wait and see how the tyres develop and how the teams get used to using them.

[Dave B]

Nothing wrong with the tyres: they behaved pretty much as predicted, notwithstanding the cooler ambient temperatures. The supersofts were designed for short stints, and keep in mind the race winner only made 2 stops.

[Robinho]

Spot on Dave

Sent from the moon using a shoe

[Knock-on]

Well, they're discussed on every other thread so they can have one of their own :)

Lets start with why they are changing the hard compound when 8 teams asked them not to?

Could it be because the most powerfull team in motorsport demanded it?

[AndyL]

Lets start with why they are changing the hard compound when 8 teams asked them not to?

And, indeed, when the hard compound is one that doesn't seem particularly problematic.

Unless there is more to Massa's tyre failures than they are admitting.

[kfzmeister]

Well, they're discussed on every other thread so they can have one of their own :)

Lets start with why they are changing the hard compound when 8 teams asked them not to?

Could it be because the most powerfull team in motorsport demanded it?

They are only slightly changing the hard compound. It will be a little closer to the 2012 spec tire. RB has issues with the softs (super), so no help there. Nice try. ...and i'm not even a RB fan.

BBC Sport - Pirelli resist Red Bull pressure to make tyres more durable (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22290968)

[Knock-on]

I thought it interesting their concern about Massa and Lawis tyre failures. Basically not concerned.

[Knock-on]

Mr Kfz. Lets talk about the hard. Monoco is a few races away so plenty of time before we worry about the ss ;)

[dj_bytedisaster]

It just shows that Pirelli seem to think that people are window licking idiots. Even though we saw in Bahrain that even the two hardest compounds may neccessitate 4 stops, which I think is a friggin' travesty to begin with, the real problems were had (not only by RB) with the two softer compounds, so changing the hard one is a complete joke. I'm with those, who say that it was changed to cover up a design flaw that lead to Lewis' and Felipe's tire problems in Bahrain.

We've had four races so far and all of them have been ridiculous eco runs with drivers doing delta times, so it is safe to say that Pirelli truly and properly f***ed up F1. Renewing their contract would be desaster. The quicker they're gone, the better.

We had some nifty action at Bahrain, but nearly all combatants were immediately punished by destroyed tires. The only ones without tire probs were Vettel and Raikönnen, who mainly just drove a controlled cruise.

[donKey jote]

I lurve the smell of burning rubber in the morning :bandit:

[kfzmeister]

Mr Kfz. Lets talk about the hard. Monoco is a few races away so plenty of time before we worry about the ss ;)

What else is there to say? Apparently, there were some issues with Massa, Hamilton and another car's hard compound rear tires coming apart in Malaysia and Bahrain. At first it was thought that some debris caused this damage, yet Pirelli concluded that their (softer than 2012) design might be the issue. They redesigned the hard compound tire and it is now closer to the more durable 2012 version. Obviously this is a safety issue and all teams were consulted.
The tires that Red Bull wants redesigned are the soft(er) compounds, yet Pirelli refuses to change them.
Pirelli were asked to change the design from last year and have produced exactly what they were asked to.
Whether one likes it, or not, it has brought more action to the sport.
To suggest that Pirelli has failed and should be removed is utter nonsense. I just don't get it. Are some people really that thick?
It it were Michelin and they were asked to design tires that produced the same results, would those same people ask for Michelin's removal?? I just don't understand that sort of logic.

[CaptainRaiden]

We've had four races so far and all of them have been ridiculous eco runs with drivers doing delta times, so it is safe to say that Pirelli truly and properly f***ed up F1. Renewing their contract would be desaster. The quicker they're gone, the better.

What would that achieve? Bernie would just ask another manufacturer to make fast degrading, low grip tyres.

Of course nobody likes to see F1 turning into a tactical battle centered around tyres, but at least these tyres throw a spanner in the mix, and teams like Lotus have an outside chance with Kimi. Otherwise with durable long-lasting tyres, the best car would win every time, and F1 would be just a one sided Red Bull domination.

[dj_bytedisaster]

To suggest that Pirelli has failed and should be removed is utter nonsense. I just don't get it. Are some people really that thick?
It it were Michelin and they were asked to design tires that produced the same results, would those same people ask for Michelin's removal?? I just don't understand that sort of logic.

Pirelli HAS failed. There is a difference between a fast-degrading tire and a fast-degrading tire that suddenly loses 5 seconds a lap. In F1 dimensions, that's a week. Last year Kimi lost all his achievement of a whole GP in a single lap - he went from podium to outside the points on a single lap.
Yes Bernie asked them to build tires with certain characteristics, but they overshot the goal and Hembery's arrogant attitude of:

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/3702/37283878.jpg

just adds to it. Well, newsflash, Pirelli - Tires that are shot after 15 miles are VERY WRONG. Drivers being told not to race to save tires is VERY WRONG.

The main problem here, however is when the friggin' midget decided to go single tire supplier. Back in the day suppliers developed tires that delivered the best possible grip for the longest possible time and drivers pushed the raw stuffing out of their cars until they started to beg for mercy. Now we get 'you can push a bit more, maybe, we think', 'don't fight, look after the tires'. It's a friggin' travesty.

And why should a team like RB suddenly be punished for building the best car? Shall they try to make their car worse, so the tires will work better? The Pirelli tires can nullify a team's development efforts completely. Have too much downforce and you're forced to dawdle around at half-throttle or you're forced to make your car aerodynamically worse to reduce strain on tires, which aren't fit for their intended purpose to begin with.

F1 has always been about building a car that is superior to the cars of the opposition. But these days we sabotage the best cars, so they won't outrun the mediocre? What sort of philosophy is that?
Hembery himself said that if they built a tire that would withstand the RB's cornering forces, the lemonade tins would win every race by miles. So what? Is it RB's fault that the other teams are too incompetent to build a car that can keep up? They did the same **** to Ferrari in 2005. What is this - Walldorf School? Should Usain Bolt run with a backpack full of weights to give the other runners a chance in the future? F1 is the only sport where you're punished for doing the best job...

[kfzmeister]

Oh, i see. Red Bull has a different set of tires than the rest of the grid. That makes sense now. Yeah, i agree. Why should Red Bull deliberately be given a completely different set of tires compared to the rest of the grid. That is just unfair BS.

And yes, tires that last 15 miles? Great point. How will they ever finish a race with tires that just don't get them to the checkered flag. Genius. Why didn't i see right through that.

Let's get a different tire manufacturer in there asap, that will give all teams the same kind of tire and allow teams to get to the finish line again. Then, will see some good racing. Right?

[CaptainRaiden]

F1 has always been about building a car that is superior to the cars of the opposition. But these days we sabotage the best cars, so they won't outrun the mediocre? What sort of philosophy is that?

Now where does the word sabotage come in? Did Bernie or Pirelli know that the Red Bull would be harder on its tires before the season began? Anywhoo, they are not doing so bad. Red Bull have won two out of four races, which shows that performance can easily be gained by a few setup tweaks. I don't get what the whole drama is about, TBH.


They did the same **** to Ferrari in 2005.

Whose fault is it if Michelin came up with a better tyre in 2005? :confused:

[dj_bytedisaster]

Now where does the word sabotage come in? Did Bernie or Pirelli know that the Red Bull would be harder on its tires before the season began? Anywhoo, they are not doing so bad. Red Bull have won two out of four races, which shows that performance can easily be gained by a few setup tweaks. I don't get what the whole drama is about, TBH.

On both occasions the two cars were running delta-times for sizable portions of the race, so in essence they made the tires work by not running as fast as they could have. Especially at Bahrain it was plainly visible. Vettel, who could pace himself, because the opposition had graciously cooked their tires (Rosberg) or just plainly fallen apart (Ferrari) made his tires work, while Mark, who actually had to race people spent quite a few laps of the race with destroyed tires, which contributed to his abysmal result.
Hembery recebntly admitted (after a similar claim from RB) that the RB car has so much more downforce than the other cars that it overloads the tires in the corners, especially with the flimsyfied tires of 2013 and that strenghening them to withstand the lateral forces of a RB in a corner would lead to them winning just about every race. If a supplier, who teams are forced to use with no chance to switch to an alternative says, that they know their product hampers certain cars, but they're not going to change them, lest these certain cars would win too much, in my opinion it constitutes distortion of competition or just plain ol' sabotage.
The main problem is, that back in the day, when testing wasn't a naughty word yet and we had more than one supplier, tires were designed to satisfy the cars they were going to be strapped to, while these days you design a car and if you have bad luck, Pirelli comes up with comedy tires that are overloaded by your car. I consider that a ridiculous situation.
This is also compounded by the fact that recently suspicions surfaced (http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news/2013/04/McLaren-_und_Sauber-Misere_Sind_Windkanalreifen_schuld_13042405.html) in the media (link is German only, sorry) that McLaren's and Sauber's current problems may be down to substandard scaled-down tires provided by Pirelli for wind tunnel testing. Bernie is known to blatantly temper with the rules should someone become too successful and Pirelli are whoring themselves as a tool for that very purpose.



Whose fault is it if Michelin came up with a better tyre in 2005? :confused:

For no apparent reason in 2005 tire changes were banned. If I remember 2004 correctly, the Michelin's were longer lasting than the Bridgestones, with the latter having a slight edge in the grip department. So by demanding that tire suppliers design ultra long lived tires this rule change clearly disadvantaged Bridgestone in 2005 and since Ferrari, the team that had utterly dominated F1 since 1999/2000, was the only top-team on Bridgestone, you'd have to come up with some really creative theory to come to any other conclusion than this rule change was designed to thwart Ferrari.
The only thing that this ridiculous rule change lead to was the Indy debacle and Kimi's shunt at the Nürburgring.

[Knock-on]

DJ. What teams had to make 4 stops?

[dj_bytedisaster]

Button and Rosberg had to make 4 stops.

[henners88]

Hembery recebntly admitted (after a similar claim from RB) that the RB car has so much more downforce than the other cars that it overloads the tires in the corners, especially with the flimsyfied tires of 2013 and that strenghening them to withstand the lateral forces of a RB in a corner would lead to them winning just about every race. If a supplier, who teams are forced to use with no chance to switch to an alternative says, that they know their product hampers certain cars, but they're not going to change them, lest these certain cars would win too much, in my opinion it constitutes distortion of competition or just plain ol' sabotage.
This to me sounds like the spirit of competition. If Red Bull have designed a car that carries so much down-force it ruins the tyres too quickly, then I fail to see how that is Pirelli's fault. Why should Pirelli be bullied into changing the specifications of their supplied tyres just so one team can run away and win every event and at their request? Every team is getting the same spec of tyre and it is their job to adapt their car to best suit the regulations. This reminds me very much of the Bridgestone Ferrari era where Ferrari dictated how they wanted the tyres to behave and even at one stage had a totally different spec to the other Bridgestone supplied teams.

Pirelli might know they are supplying a tyre that hampers certain teams setups, but they also know there are teams on the grid that don't have the advantage Red Bull have at certain races too. So what though, that's racing and all Red Bull are doing now is doing what every successful team does when they feel they haven't quite got that edge consistently. They throw their toys out of the pram. The tyres are not brilliant and I hope they soon return to the type of racing where teams can push, but we have what is requested. Its not Pirelli's fault and indeed they have proven they can produce the type of tyre many fans want to see.

[dj_bytedisaster]

This to me sounds like the spirit of competition. If Red Bull have designed a car that carries so much down-force it ruins the tyres too quickly, then I fail to see how that is Pirelli's fault. Why should Pirelli be bullied into changing the specifications of their supplied tyres just so one team can run away and win every event and at their request? Every team is getting the same spec of tyre and it is their job to adapt their car to best suit the regulations. This reminds me very much of the Bridgestone Ferrari era where Ferrari dictated how they wanted the tyres to behave and even at one stage had a totally different spec to the other Bridgestone supplied teams.

Unless we have completely different understandings of F1...
Wasn't the whole point of F1 - since at least the late 70s - to build a car with maximum possible downforce? Since when has that changed to building the car with just low enough downforce to fit the tires, especially considering that with so few testing available it is a case of pin the tail on the donkey for the teams. As it is at the moment, RB and I would hazard a guess Ferrari, too have to lower the available downforce to fit the tires that are not fit for the intended purpose.
The Ferrari/Bridgestone situation was, as it should be. The supplier gave the teams what they want, not what Bernie thinks shall be enough for the peasantry. Back in those day we had the chance of seeing Schumacher duking it out with Kimi and Montoya right on the bleeding edge. What we get these days are historic car rallys with cars trying to hit a pre-determined lap time as accurately as possible. If I want that, I actually watch a historic car rally.
The racing was sort of exciting at Bahrain, but most of those who did battle paid for it with crippling tire degradation, while those in old-man-in-a-Volvo mode went without problems and could cruise away into the distance in eco-mode.


Pirelli might know they are supplying a tyre that hampers certain teams setups, but they also know there are teams on the grid that don't have the advantage Red Bull have at certain races too. So what though, that's racing and all Red Bull are doing now is doing what every successful team does when they feel they haven't quite got that edge consistently. They throw their toys out of the pram. The tyres are not brilliant and I hope they soon return to the type of racing where teams can push, but we have what is requested. Its not Pirelli's fault and indeed they have proven they can produce the type of tyre many fans want to see.

RB are po'ed, because they built what looks like the best car according to the standards that have been in F1 since the late 70s. Problem is, along comes Pirelli and changes the rules of the game mid-competition. So instead of building the best car you can, you now build one that is just slow enough in the corners to no destroy a substandard supplier product. That's ridiculous. I can't imagine that too many fans thought "Oh I want tires that disallow drivers to push the car to the limits anymore". Most, who think that the current tires are good for the sport, are secretly just glad that it prevents another year of RB domination. But this is F1, cut-throat competition and not politically correct, equal opportunity, non-competitive Waldorf school. Those who built the best car should win the races, not those, who manage to go just slow enough to not destroy the tires. There was nothing wrong with the late 2012 tires. They fixed something that wasn't broken and broke it even more in the process and if I recall correctly, the 'more aggressive approach' was a decision by Pirelli, not something the teams requested.

[henners88]

My understanding of F1 is that the regulations are never the same year on year. Regardless of what happened in the 70's we have tyre regulations where tyres no longer last 50 laps. Red Bull have produced a great car that doesn't always suit one significant component. That's their problem and I say that without laughing too hard.

[Knock-on]

Button and Rosberg had to make 4 stops.

Indeed, 7 drivers made 4 stops for tyres although it's worth pointing out that all 7 used the medium Tyres a minimum of twice. It's also worth pointing out that of the drivers that only made 2 stops (Kimi and PdR), they both opted for Med, Hard, Hard completing a maximum of 23 and 22 laps on them respectivley. So, in a 57 lap race, the optimum pit strategy was either a 2 or 3 stopper. The highest placed 4 stopper was Nico and I guess the reason he 4 stopped rather than Lewis's 3 stopper ws because he burnt them up.

So, we have lots of different stratagies which is what the FIA tasked Pirelli to do. Red Bull, Lotus and Ferrari seem to be getting the best performance out of them and the other teams (FI / Merc) are getting closer.

McLaren haven't got the hang of them at all and it's up to them to get to grips ;) with the Pirelli's. There are regulations in F1 and performance barriers and RB are the closest team to the optimum package.

What I don't like is that you have a tyre that most of the teams are developing to, and they want to maintain consistency to do this while one team seem to be able to elbow Pirelli to modifying the tyres to better suit them.

[AndyL]

What else is there to say? Apparently, there were some issues with Massa, Hamilton and another car's hard compound rear tires coming apart in Malaysia and Bahrain.

Only Massa I think, Hamilton's failure was with a medium tyre IIRC.

[dj_bytedisaster]

What I don't like is that you have a tyre that most of the teams are developing to, and they want to maintain consistency to do this while one team seem to be able to elbow Pirelli to modifying the tyres to better suit them.

You pretty much summed up what's wrong with them. Teams develop to the tires. That's fundamentally wrong. Pirelli delivers a component of substandard quality and the teams have to adapt the cars. That's putting the cart before the horse. They were tasked to spice up racing, but they practically disabled it. In all four races so far most drivers were engaged in consistency runs, rather than going fast. That's not racing that's a farce.
The low point was China with drivers being told not to fight back, when someone closed in on fresher tires and cars dawdling around, barely beating GP2 lap times. If that's the sort of racing you like, I'll invite you over to ze Fatherland in late August and you can watch me doing consistency runs in a 1982 Merc in the Neaderthal rally around Ratingen.

[henners88]

You pretty much summed up what's wrong with them. Teams develop to the tires. That's fundamentally wrong. Pirelli delivers a component of substandard quality and the teams have to adapt the cars. That's putting the cart before the horse. They were tasked to spice up racing, but they practically disabled it. In all four races so far most drivers were engaged in consistency runs, rather than going fast. That's not racing that's a farce.
The low point was China with drivers being told not to fight back, when someone closed in on fresher tires and cars dawdling around, barely beating GP2 lap times. If that's the sort of racing you like, I'll invite you over to ze Fatherland in late August and you can watch me doing consistency runs in a 1982 Merc in the Neaderthal rally around Ratingen.
You're trying to spin what others are saying now. Neither Knock-on or myself have suggested this is the type of racing we want to see. the discussion here is about how each of us understands the current regulations.

Who do you personally blame for the tyre situation, the FIA or Pirelli? You recently said Pirelli were rubbish and you wouldn't put them on your road car on principle, so do you exactly understand the situation?

Tyres are a consumable component that all teams have at their disposal. Its always been a gamble when new tyre compounds have been released, but with extensive testing teams had the advantage to understand the tyres better in previous seasons. Now we have a tyre that all team knew would be fast wearing and unpredictable at certain GP's, yet one team are complaining because their car carries too much down-force and they have lost an advantage they would have had in say the 2010 season. Red Bull need to work on adapting what they have because the tyres are not going to change in their favour any time soon. What Ferrari did all those years ago was not the correct way at all. They were developing tyre compounds to suit their own cars whilst holding an unfair advantage over fellow customers/opponents. That is as artificial as what we have today. I'm pretty sure those whining about the tyres are happy when their team/driver wins on them of course.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Who do you personally blame for the tyre situation, the FIA or Pirelli? You recently said Pirelli were rubbish and you wouldn't put them on your road car on principle, so do you exactly understand the situation?


Both. The FIA takes initial blame for using the tires to tamper with racing to begin with. With KERS and DRS and two compounds we already have enough measures to artificially influence racing. Why the need to make the tires deliberately crap on top of that? Pirelli's blame is growing by the year. They did what FIA told them to do and then made the tires not only crap, but ridiculous. The major problem with the Pirelli is, that it loses performance in ridiculous dimensions.
In former times, you would gradually lose tens of a second per lap the older the tires got and when they were shot you lost a second or two over a lap. Pirelli's tires loose up to 5 seconds from one lap to the other with no warning signs beforehand. Ask Kimi how it is to fall from podium to out-of-points in a single lap.
Yet late last season there was, what I felt the best compromise. Tires still degraded relatively quickly, but were durable enough to allow actual racing. Enter stage left - the pit stop zealots - crying foul that teams made only one stop at Austin. So Pirelli decided to make their tires even more crap, to force teams to do more pit stops. What is this pitstop fetish all about? More pitstops doesn't automatically mean better racing.

Yes, I don't put Pirellis on my car. Not because I think their road tires are as crap as their F1 tires, but because I am not prepared to support a company that makes a mockery of one of my favourite sports.

[Knock-on]

I share some of your frustration but it's really not Pirelli's fault. They have supplied exactly what was requested.

My ideal would be a tyre that you can race 100% on but lasts about 20 laps or a harder compound that is a half second a lap slower but lasts 30 laps. You can still race 100% on it but it just doesn't have as much grip.

Make the tyres so that as soon as their life is used, they drop off a second each and every lap.

[Zico]

DJ- I share your frustration too and agree with nearly everything you say above, I don't see how it's Pirellis fault though.

[kfzmeister]

McLaren haven't got the hang of them at all and it's up to them to get to grips ;) with the Pirelli's. There are regulations in F1 and performance barriers and RB are the closest team to the optimum package.


Isn't Macca's lack in performance this year down to the change in front suspension anyways??

[donKey jote]

Of course nobody likes to see F1 turning into a tactical battle centered around tyres,

I do ! :D :uhoh: :erm: :vader: :andrea:

[webberf1]

Pirelli is doing a kickass job. Stop whinging.

[P3ws]

I don´t really understand the complaints about the tires.
Pirellis has been used for some time now and all teams know pretty well that when they go off you loose a lot in lap-times.
The biggest teams surely have the resources to build the car slightly differently to cope with Pirellis.
When we had Michelin and Bridgestones we had cruise and collect races too. I can recall MS doing that just because his tires suited a certain track better. Such wins does not occur any more.
We do see a tremendous amount of wheel to wheel battles compared to 15 years back.
I can´t see anything wrong with the current situation.

[Knock-on]

Im with you there. My only real gripe is that if you push the tyres, it kills them. I want the best drivers fighting, not just managing the rubber.

Pirelli have supplied what was ordered but thats no reason they cant hone the product more.

[vhatever]

cheese-based tires = stupid, DRS = stupid, KERS = stupid.

yes, the do make races less predictable, hence "more exciting" for the adderall generation. but when you have crap like vettel opting to start from the pit lane( and nearly winning) and top teams opting to not even qualify in the 3rd round. Something is really f-ed up.

Sick of of the attempts to turn a sport into a video game.

[webberf1]

cheese-based tires = stupid, DRS = stupid, KERS = stupid.

yes, the do make races less predictable, hence "more exciting" for the adderall generation. but when you have crap like vettel opting to start from the pit lane( and nearly winning) and top teams opting to not even qualify in the 3rd round. Something is really f-ed up.

Sick of of the attempts to turn a sport into a video game.

In the early 2000s I was sick of 80% of races having virtually no action, and only once in a blue moon seing any kind of genuine wheel to wheel passion.

F1 has come a loooooooooooooooong way since those bad old days.

[webberf1]

Remember how you used to look at the season calendar at the start of the year and dread most of the boring parts of the season?

Straight away I'd think.... Malaysia - boring, bahrain - boring, china - zzzzzzzzz, barcelona - boring, hungaroring - oh dear.... etc etc etc... and just praying for those odd rounds like Spa, Suzuka, Interlagos etc punctuating the boringness.

It just doesn't happen nowadays. Even on the most bland tracks F1 races can be very entertaining now and this alone has led to the F1 spectacle as a whole improving out of sight.

[kfzmeister]

In the early 2000s I was sick of 80% of races having virtually no action, and only once in a blue moon seing any kind of genuine wheel to wheel passion.

F1 has come a loooooooooooooooong way since those bad old days.

You can say that again. I can't say that i miss the Trulli train much. Lmao.

[vhatever]

Remember how you used to look at the season calendar at the start of the year and dread most of the boring parts of the season?

Straight away I'd think.... Malaysia - boring, bahrain - boring, china - zzzzzzzzz, barcelona - boring, hungaroring - oh dear.... etc etc etc... and just praying for those odd rounds like Spa, Suzuka, Interlagos etc punctuating the boringness.

It just doesn't happen nowadays. Even on the most bland tracks F1 races can be very entertaining now and this alone has led to the F1 spectacle as a whole improving out of sight.


Where does it stop? Imagine if UEFA said that soccer is too boring so from now on the goal keeper can't use his hands and defenders have to play barefooted. Gee it's so much better now we get all these goals! Stupid is stupid. KERS is probably the least stupid, and I don't have as much problem with it. But the randomness of the tires is definitely stupid, and DRS is by far the most stupid thing ever in F1. Anyone who doesn't realize the sheer stupidity of such things probably isn't too bright themselves.

[essie]

this probably would always be the case with f1

[Knock-on]

Vatever

Silly analogy. Just like moaning about someone picking a Daffodil and someone else complaining about if everyone else did.

This is F1. Its not written in stone and regs change frequently. Are you a purist thats against goal line technology then!

[steveaki13]

Yes

[Koz]

"Formula one no longer has anything to do with 'classic' racing," said Mateschitz.

"Today, it's not the fastest driver in the fastest car who wins, but the one with the optimum tyre management.

"We've even had to scale down our car, because the tyres were not lasting.

"If we really went as fast as we can, we would need 10 to 15 pit stops."


Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk Furious Red Bull boss Dietrich Mateschitz has slammed the current format of F1 - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/formula-1/furious-red-bull-boss-dietrich-1862678#ixzz2S3avo7Fh)
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

Furious Red Bull boss Dietrich Mateschitz has slammed the current format of F1 - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/formula-1/furious-red-bull-boss-dietrich-1862678)

[Koz]

Santa, could you please bring refueling back?

[AutoSociale]

Maybe it's not the purest form of racing, the tire issue has made the TV broadcasts of the races more entertaining this year. And probably helped keep Red Bull / Vettel from running away with the championship, again.

[kfzmeister]

Furious Red Bull boss Dietrich Mateschitz has slammed the current format of F1 - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/formula-1/furious-red-bull-boss-dietrich-1862678)

So what? Didi has joined the Whiny biatch circus. :rolleyes:

[dj_bytedisaster]

Maybe it's not the purest form of racing, the tire issue has made the TV broadcasts of the races more entertaining this year. And probably helped keep Red Bull / Vettel from running away with the championship, again.

The question is though: How far do you allow the tires to tinker with the race results?
Yes, we saw a lot of action in Bahrain, but it came at too high a price. Except for Checo, pretty much everyone, who took part in the hard fighting was punished by crippling tire degradation. Most notable example was Webber, who fought in the midfield and promptly cooked his tires, while his team mate could walk the race unchallenged, because he could cruise about in tire-saving mode.
Basically as it is now - if someone manages to get an early gap of 2 or 3 seconds, he'll go unchallenged for the rest of the race. You would have to push hard to close such a gap and it would cripple your tires. Hasn't got much to do with racing if you ask me.

[kfzmeister]

The question is though: How far do you allow the tires to tinker with the race results?
Yes, we saw a lot of action in Bahrain, but it came at too high a price. Except for Checo, pretty much everyone, who took part in the hard fighting was punished by crippling tire degradation. Most notable example was Webber, who fought in the midfield and promptly cooked his tires, while his team mate could walk the race unchallenged, because he could cruise about in tire-saving mode.
Basically as it is now - if someone manages to get an early gap of 2 or 3 seconds, he'll go unchallenged for the rest of the race. You would have to push hard to close such a gap and it would cripple your tires. Hasn't got much to do with racing if you ask me.

Vettel had to make a move early and get by The Rosberg. Same strategy that Alonso was trying to execute. Had Alonso's wing not stuck open, we would have seen a great battle for the finish. Two guys trying to pull ahead and get to that "open" air with the other having to follow behind and either cook his tires, or jump to another strategy on the fly. A fine line between racing too hard and not pushing enough. Really takes some skill and feel for the car/ tires.
Vettel's win looked too easy, but could easily have been an epic battle with Alonso. I'm sure we'll see some great drives between them coming up real soon.
Plenty of excitement throughout the grid, you already mentioned an awesome battle between Perez and Button.
Quite frankly, i love seeing Mercedes put it on pole, then struggling to keep ahead. Would they be better off by a different qualifying strategy? Are they taking the wrong approach to set-up?
Same with Ferrari. Pure race pace, yet not a pole setter. You can always count on them jumping towards the front and racing for the win. Their set-up beats Mercedes'.
I could go on. I have zero complaints. Then again, my team/ driver looks promising for the long-run (pun intended). :D

[henners88]

Furious Red Bull boss Dietrich Mateschitz has slammed the current format of F1 - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/formula-1/furious-red-bull-boss-dietrich-1862678)
I love British Tabloids like 'The Sun' or 'The Mirror' as they use certain buzz words to create sensationalism.

'Furious, anger, ranted etc etc'
These are often added to articles that are lifted from F1 related websites to spice the proceedings up.

[Koz]

I love British Tabloids like 'The Sun' or 'The Mirror' as they use certain buzz words to create sensationalism.

These are often added to articles that are lifted from F1 related websites to spice the proceedings up.

Actually it was an F1-related website (can't quite remember which) that specifically mentioned the quote by the Mirror.

[Koz]

So what? Didi has joined the Whiny biatch circus. :rolleyes:

10 to 15 pit stops @ maximum attack!
Awesome!

[henners88]

Actually it was an F1-related website (can't quite remember which) that specifically mentioned the quote by the Mirror.
Was it crash.net or planetF1? :p

[Koz]

pitpass - Mateschitz slams Pirelli tyres (http://www.pitpass.com/48964-Mateschitz-slams-Pirelli-tyres)

Happy?

[henners88]

Happy?
I had hoped you'd take it in the light hearted manner in which it was intended.

I wasn't after the real source of the quote. :)

[zako85]

You can't have a constant wheel to wheel action in a two hour long race without resorting to gimmicks. I am fine with the racing being slightly boring. At least this gives me some time during the races to reflect on the different strategies each driver is following, and the commentators will fill you need with interesting information on technical aspect or track history if nothing happens. But the races this year were so confusing, I often could not keep track of who is running what strategy. Even drivers did not understand what's going on. Everyone worried about saving tires, with some getting orders that sound like "let him through, we're not competing with this car", etc.

[Hawkmoon]

As long as F1 cars are dominated by aerodynamics then I am in favour of tyres being used to add a variable into the racing. I'd even go further and allow the teams to choose any of the four compounds they like at each race.

Designers would have to compromise their designs around which end of the tyre spectrum they preferred just as engine designers used to have to balance power and fuel consumption before the nonsense rules around engine homologation came into force.

[TheFamousEccles]

10 to 15 pit stops @ maximum attack!
Awesome!

Can you imagine? It would be chaos - excellent :vader:

[Mia 01]

Defending Lewis to no use.

[pino]

Nothing wrong with the tyres: they behaved pretty much as predicted, notwithstanding the cooler ambient temperatures. The supersofts were designed for short stints, and keep in mind the race winner only made 2 stops.

Dave, are you still sure about this ? ;)

[dj_bytedisaster]

Throw them out. They should never be allowed anywhere near a F1 paddock ever again. Just throw them out.

[Robinho]

Yeah, and get in Michelin, Bridgestone, Kumho, Cooper or Dunlop to make exactly the same tyres. Then you can bitch at them too.

I agree that these tyres are affecting THIS race too much, but overall this year are ok, plus this is one of, if not the highest, rate of degradation of the year. This is much about Merc failing to build a car that can do more than a lap. Its no coincidence that they are so quick over one lap, as they get the tyres to the operating temp quicker, and then burn them quicker also. Its hardly new, they e been like this for the last 2 seasons also

Sent from North Korea using the dark network

[Koz]

I agree that these tyres are affecting THIS race too much, but overall this year are ok, plus this is one of, if not the highest, rate of degradation of the year. This is much about Merc failing to build a car that can do more than a lap.

This is not to do with Merc, even though they are the worst at managing the tyres.

The fact that Marussia and Caterham were nearly the same laptimes as Red Bull, Lotus and Ferrari, suggest there is something inherently wrong here. No one is pushing.
This is not a race of speed, this is a race of who can save tyres. Half the field was lapped, FFS. Not because the cars lack pace, but because everyone is preserving tyres.

This isn't about speed this is solely about endurance. This is not what the pinnacle of motorsport should be about. I would rather have 0 overtakes than have a race of managing tyres.

[Koz]

Yeah, and get in Michelin, Bridgestone, Kumho, Cooper or Dunlop to make exactly the same tyres. Then you can bitch at them too.

The problem isn't Pirelli, the problem is the specification they were given.
The problem is there is no racing here, everything is artificial. An artificial show.

[donKey jote]

Dave, are you still sure about this ? ;)

one team did 4 stops on hards, another 3 on mediums...

the rest either need to learn how to use them, or bitch loud enough :p

[Ranger]

The Pirelli complaints are a bit excessive, except for those about the delaminations as they should not be happening.

[dj_bytedisaster]

The Pirelli complaints are a bit excessive,

They aren't excessive enough. Once Pirelli is gone for good, they'll seize. Give me back the tritanium Bridgestones of the 90's. Everything is better than the farce we were forced to witness today.

vettel just in interview: It's abit sad if you haven't got a single lap where you can push down the throttle. The hard tire is a bit of a grab into the loo.

says it all.

[donKey jote]

Delaminations are unacceptable if they also involve rapid air loss.

Otherwise, it's up to the driver/team to pit in time ;) :andrea:

[call_me_andrew]

I have a question.

How do we get at least three pit stops out of a race without refueling or silly putty tires?

[dj_bytedisaster]

I have a question.

How do we get at least three pit stops out of a race without refueling or silly putty tires?

Simple - mandatory pitstops. DTM has it in their rules that cars need to make at least two pitstops, if the tires are worn or not. In fact they can push the entire race, because they know that they have to stop at least two times anyways, so they can give their tires the rough treatment and race instead of pootling about in rubber conservation mode.

[Big Ben]

Simple - mandatory pitstops. DTM has it in their rules that cars need to make at least two pitstops, if the tires are worn or not. In fact they can push the entire race, because they know that they have to stop at least two times anyways, so they can give their tires the rough treatment and race instead of pootling about in rubber conservation mode.

That's even dumber than manufacturing bad tyres on purpose.

[Ranger]

They aren't excessive enough. Once Pirelli is gone for good, they'll seize. Give me back the tritanium Bridgestones of the 90's. Everything is better than the farce we were forced to witness today.

vettel just in interview: It's abit sad if you haven't got a single lap where you can push down the throttle. The hard tire is a bit of a grab into the loo.

says it all.

You'll have to get over it - no amount of you whinging is going to force the FIA's hand.

You might not like it, but the tyres are the same for everyone. Red Bull especially need to shut up and work it out.

Eric Boullier is right.


"People need to get the right question," he said. "The question is not the tyres: it is because we did something that allowed our car to [look after the tyres].

"It is the same for everybody. There was some slight change for here [to the hard compound] which was to please the most complaining team.

Lotus thinks it would be unfair if Pirelli tweaks 2013 F1 tyres - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107403)

[N4D13]

Joe Saward has just written a rather interesting piece on Pirelli: Choices | joeblogsf1 (http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/choices/)

[steveaki13]

Pirelli will want to change them soon, because all of this cant be helping there image. Despite them making the tyres to order, many hold strong views against the company itself and that cant be good for business.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Pirelli will want to change them soon, because all of this cant be helping there image. Despite them making the tyres to order, many hold strong views against the company itself and that cant be good for business.

They've already lost quite a bit of business. A local tire shop is running Pirelli tires at pack-of-noodle prices :rotflmao: And even that isn't enough to sell 'em. Serves them right. :D

[jens]

Okay, here is so much tyre-talk going on in different threads that I do not know, where to really discuss. It would be good to move all of this into one thread, but it would take some effort and I'm not going into it right now. So let's try to be in one specific place.

After a glance through threads one of the main arguments (by Mr dj_bytedisaster) seemed to be that aerodynamics and downforce is the primary focus in F1 instead of tyre conservation exercise. Well, going through the history of F1 I can't really reach that conclusion. „Downforce“ isn't a specific requirement for F1 – it is just the force of nature, which the engineers once discovered would be wise to implement to maximize your car performance. But important gains have traditionally lied elsewhere too – like mechanical grip, suspension and – yes – tyre! work. And of course engines, which alas are now pretty much a non-factor except for their fuel-efficiency.

Once there was little emphasis on aerodynamics, no wings and even though it was still useful to design a car with a better airflow, downforce had less emphasis. Let's recall the famous Enzo Ferrari quote - „Aerodynamics are for those, who do not know, how to build good engines“. However, at some time engineers discovered that by adding wings there are big gains to be made in aerodynamical grip and from there onwards aerodynamics and chase for downforce has had an important influence. But this isn't a necessary paramount in F1.

However, I do have to admit that it sounds a bit funny if a car has „too much downforce“ like is claimed with Red Bull. We do know that throughout years FIA has tried to slow down F1 cars in several ways. One thing is that they have reduced engine capacity. Or like they banned ground effects already a long time ago. So now Pirelli tyre design is used as a mean to „slow“ F1 down in the interest in safety, which I am sure is a one of the goals in addition to the main task of making F1 exciting.

It is harsh on Red Bull. FIA and Pirelli are 'slowing' F1 down and they can't maximise their performance. But this is life and it has happened before. By 1993 Williams had developed high-tech eletronic gizmos, which they had to give up. Let's recall the engine freeze. Basically all those, who had an engine advantage, lost it. In 2006 Mercedes was underpowered, but thanks to rev-limiter they made big gains compared to competition and arguably became the most efficient engine on the grid. Now Red Bull is suffering due to „downforce restriction“ by tyres. But as said – this kind of suffering is not new.

However, I don't think the Red Bull situation is that bad. They have still won two races this year and are leading both championships. And chances are they will adapt and come good late in the season. Remember, last year in Spain Alonso was 2nd and Vettel 6th. Now they were 1st and 4th respectively. So perhaps this is just a bad circuit for RBR. They will bounce back. However, it is much more critical for Mercedes... but they haven't been able to manage tyres for many years already, so they can't find anyone else to blame for that.

We have a lot of discussion about whether Pirelli tyres are good for the show or not. To be honest, I am now feeling that they are really pushing the limits there. If drivers literally can't race at all (the defending driver in front just has to give up like Vettel did. Di Resta and Pérez couldn't overtake, because their tyres would get destroyed) and we have delaminations, then I think this is too much. It is good to have exciting races, but tyres can't be flatout dangerous. IMO we had a good balance back in 2011. And back then the tyres were more predictable as well, we didn't have a „lottery“ like in 2012 or what we have now.

However, Pirelli is forced to push the limits, because with every year teams are learning more and more about tyre conservation and if Pirelli doesn't move on, races would become processional again... Certainly teams are now much smarter in tyre conserving than they were in 2011, so Pirelli can't use the same tyres any more. But as seen, there has to be a limit in terms of how far Pirelli can really go.

[wedge]

I find the "its the same for everyone" a lame justification. The gearbox penalty is same for everyone but that's not to say there are those like Ross Brawn who think it needs revising.

A good example of tyre management can be found in MotoGP.

[jens]

I find the "its the same for everyone" a lame justification.

I agree, such claim alone can't hold much water. If it was decided that the whole field must race on three wheels, it would also be the same for everyone, but doesn't mean it would actually be a good idea. :laugh: It is useful for any kind of justification or argument to have some actual depth in it.

[dj_bytedisaster]

I agree, such claim alone can't hold much water. If it was decided that the whole field must race on three wheels, it would also be the same for everyone, but doesn't mean it would actually be a good idea. :laugh: It is useful for any kind of justification or argument to have some actual depth in it.

It isn't the same for all though. Nobody can tell me that Lotus' ability to manage the tire so much better than anyone else is a mere coincidence. You can argue that supplying a 3 year old design as a test car to Pirelli doesn't mean much, but it does. Even if the car is 3 years old, Lotus knows it's characteristics and therefore knows what sort of car characteristics the tire was designed to. As much as I would love to attribute the tire-magic to Kimi's superior driving skillz I can't help but feel that some are 'more equal' than others.
I think it would have been better for Pirelli to buy the HRT assets. May not be the fastest car in teh field - heck not even the fastest car in this half of the globe, but Pirelli isn't meant to win GP's anyway and such close ties to a current competitor sets up a definitive conflict of interests.

[Malbec]

However, I don't think the Red Bull situation is that bad. They have still won two races this year and are leading both championships. And chances are they will adapt and come good late in the season.

I think it should also be remembered that the result in Barcelona was not exactly a shock. Alonso/Kimi/Massa is a fairly reasonable podium. The quick guys with the exception of Mercedes were still at the front, the midfield teams in the middle and Caterham/Marussia bringing up the rear. It is not as if we had Pic outracing Vettel. Whatever people say of the tyres and the inability of some teams to get the most out of them the end result is pretty much the same.

As for RBR being 'unfairly' penalised, they can still turn things around this season and work out how to get the most out of the tyres. The same cannot be said for some of the regulation changes you talked of that penalised the teams in front like banning active suspension etc etc.

[jens]

Certainly an interesting point is being made about the Renault test car. Even if there isn't a direct co-operation/"conspiracy" (like some like to say), it still has an effect subconsciously. By this I mean that Pirelli engineers develop their understandings of an F1 car and its tyre management by the example of the Renault. They don't have a comparison data (of course I don't know, which test cars have they had in the past, maybe different). However, two different group of engineers (Lotus-Renault and Pirelli ones) have a pretty similar knowledge about some things. And even if they don't co-operate, they must understand or think about some things in F1 cars in similar ways, which results in the product they develop.

[jens]

As for RBR being 'unfairly' penalised, they can still turn things around this season and work out how to get the most out of the tyres. The same cannot be said for some of the regulation changes you talked of that penalised the teams in front like banning active suspension etc etc.

Even if it is not a direct penalizing or banning, I mean it indirectly - in both cases teams have to adapt to changes. Whether it is by the consequence of the randomness of situation/luck or well-known regulation change, it is still a challenge for engineers. Early in 1994 Williams was struggling without electronic gizmos slightly. Arguably they had based their design too much on 1993 and the car didn't respond well without some of the formerly included devices. However, the team adapted and they became stronger late in 1994, even more so in 1995 and 1996. Now also Red Bull has suddenly got tyres, which they have discovered do not work as well on their car as they did late in 2012 for instance. But again chances are that the engineers will adapt.

[Malbec]

Back in the day we had more than one supplier. Bridgestone gave Ferrari the tires Ferrari wanted. They might not have been to the exact liking of Sauber, Jordan and Minardi, but they worked just fine for them, too. Michelin provided a tire that fit the McLarens and the Williamses like a glove. maybe not perfect for the likes of jag or BAR, but they worked. It has been decided that now everyone has to use a single supplier and that supplier has the audacity to decide, who is allowed to win and who is not by deliberately producing an inferior product. If you think that today's situation is better, you have a strange idea of car racing.


Given Pino's post I've replied to you on this thread.

Clarify what on earth you mean by a tyre 'working'. Just about every tyre ever supplied in F1 has worked with the sole exception of Michelin Indy 2005. Pirellis this year work just as Bridgestones and Michelins etc before them.

You seem to think its fine for Bridgestone to optimise its entire design philosophy, testing schedules and compounds to suit just one team on the grid whilst its unacceptable for Pirelli to design a tyre that isn't completely to the liking of RBR? Do you realise that Honda once threatened to withdraw its OEM car and motorbike contracts with Bridgestone unless they started designing tyres suitable for the BAR yet Bridgestone still refused? How annoyed do you think a car maker has to be to threaten to withdraw lucrative OEM contracts? You think that is better than what is happening this year?

Can you see the flaw in your logic here?

I can understand that you are upset as an RBR fan but please keep your perspective. Anyway have fun defending your position! I'm off.

[Malbec]

But again chances are that the engineers will adapt.

Thats F1 for you.

Just about every season there is a regulation change designed to cut back the performance of the top cars. Coping with that and still winning is an integral part of F1 since its inception. I don't understand the sudden handwringing by some parties that this kind of change is alien to F1 because the team they like has been penalised.

[dj_bytedisaster]

I think it should also be remembered that the result in Barcelona was not exactly a shock. Alonso/Kimi/Massa is a fairly reasonable podium. The quick guys with the exception of Mercedes were still at the front, the midfield teams in the middle and Caterham/Marussia bringing up the rear. It is not as if we had Pic outracing Vettel. Whatever people say of the tyres and the inability of some teams to get the most out of them the end result is pretty much the same.

Except that there wasn't much racing going on. Did you see that Marussia almost unlapping himself when Vettel was in all-out tire-eco mode? Did you notice that the "fastest" lap was posted by a car that has continually proven itself to be a complete mis-design? Did you notice that said lap was a massive 5.5 seconds slower than qualifying? Everyone ran about at half throttle yet they still had to change socks four times. That the result looked somewhat believable is a coincidence and quite frankly it wasn't belieable, because the cars that locked out the front row were sabotaged with crippling tire-wear even though they ran 7 seconds slower than in qualifying.

[BDunnell]

Thats F1 for you.

Just about every season there is a regulation change designed to cut back the performance of the top cars. Coping with that and still winning is an integral part of F1 since its inception. I don't understand the sudden handwringing by some parties that this kind of change is alien to F1 because the team they like has been penalised.

I agree, but did you not, watching the race yesterday, consider the spectacle somewhat alien? To me it was deeply unsatisfactory. I don't consider the tyres especially unfair to any team over any other, but I'd simply rather not see so many tyre stops.

[wedge]

I think it should also be remembered that the result in Barcelona was not exactly a shock. Alonso/Kimi/Massa is a fairly reasonable podium. The quick guys with the exception of Mercedes were still at the front, the midfield teams in the middle and Caterham/Marussia bringing up the rear. It is not as if we had Pic outracing Vettel. Whatever people say of the tyres and the inability of some teams to get the most out of them the end result is pretty much the same.

That may be so but not barely a third of the race I found myself not caring and paid very little attention for the rest of race. Even at the end of the race I could not say that I could appreciate the efforts by the drivers on the podium. I found myself beyond caring.

The desperate need to entertain has meant watching F1 is like spending afternoons being forced to watch Michael Bay movies.

I have far greater respect for MotoGP than F1. It is devoid of action these days but the narrative of the race is far more invigorating than F1. The overtakes are now few and far between but greatly satisfying when performed; tyres are much talked about but tyre management is respected - the joy of watching Marc Marquez waiting to pounce is greater than seeing Alonso win a race.

[zako85]

That may be so but not barely a third of the race I found myself not caring and paid very little attention for the rest of race. Even at the end of the race I could not say that I could appreciate the efforts by the drivers on the podium. I found myself beyond caring.


We have too many expectations from F1. I don't think constant wheel to wheel racing is sustainable or natural for F1. This situation is not different from many "typical" races of the past. Thorny starts. Some cars qualified much better than they could race. By the end of 10-15th lap the order is sorted out, and nothing much happens in the top ranks until the end of race. So were many races of the 90s when a one or two cars dominated the rest of grid, as well as say many races of 2011. That's the way F1s. Not much different from football, where players kick the ball for hours without scoring a goal. I do think that getting rid of DRS would actually make racing more exciting. Perhaps we will have less overtakes, but we will have more close racing and fights. Unfortunately, some people don't seem to find it interesting to watch two cars fighting each other for twenty minutes to finally see an overtake, or none at all.

[Malbec]

I agree, but did you not, watching the race yesterday, consider the spectacle somewhat alien? To me it was deeply unsatisfactory. I don't consider the tyres especially unfair to any team over any other, but I'd simply rather not see so many tyre stops.

Of course it was unsatisfactory, however Pirelli claim they will change compounds in the future to prevent a repeat.

I think Pirelli are treading a fine line but what I like is that they respond directly to criticism.

[Malbec]

Even at the end of the race I could not say that I could appreciate the efforts by the drivers on the podium.

Really? I appreciated their efforts very much.

I agree that F1 at the moment is definitely not about a set of sprints between pitstops, but being a racedriver is as much about managing various systems and keeping them in their optimal operating window as it is about driving. Those that managed that best ended up on the podium. Does it sound sexy? Nope. Is it the reality of a sport which is utterly dependent on machinery? Yep. The podium drivers did a great job in managing their cars throughout the race and they got their reward.


I have far greater respect for MotoGP than F1. It is devoid of action these days but the narrative of the race is far more invigorating than F1. The overtakes are now few and far between but greatly satisfying when performed; tyres are much talked about but tyre management is respected - the joy of watching Marc Marquez waiting to pounce is greater than seeing Alonso win a race.

Swings and roundabouts. F1 used to be like that too and I remember when people would point at the relative abundance of overtaking in MotoGP as a sign of where F1 should be headed. Now the tables have turned and people want overtaking to be more difficult again. Fickle things aren't they, motorsport fans.

[Malbec]

Except that there wasn't much racing going on. Did you see that Marussia almost unlapping himself when Vettel was in all-out tire-eco mode? Did you notice that the "fastest" lap was posted by a car that has continually proven itself to be a complete mis-design? Did you notice that said lap was a massive 5.5 seconds slower than qualifying? Everyone ran about at half throttle yet they still had to change socks four times. That the result looked somewhat believable is a coincidence and quite frankly it wasn't belieable, because the cars that locked out the front row were sabotaged with crippling tire-wear even though they ran 7 seconds slower than in qualifying.

Everyone knows how tyres work, if you push them hard you get a better laptime but a shorter life. Go easy and you eke more laps out of them at the expense of speed. The Pirellis are no different, just more extreme.

Yes I saw the Marussia hovering for several laps behind Vettel, on fresh tyres and pushed hard vs the German who was taking it easy on his old ones. End result? It ended up either one or two laps behind Vettel.

You claim that the results are coincidence is rather bizarre given that at the moment Marussia, Caterham and Williams have not scored points while RBR lead the championship followed closely by Ferrari. What a shocking turn of events, I'd never have expected the championship tables to have looked like that, would you?

[AndyL]

I agree, such claim alone can't hold much water. If it was decided that the whole field must race on three wheels, it would also be the same for everyone, but doesn't mean it would actually be a good idea. :laugh:

That's not a very good example because F1 sidecars are a hoot ;)

[Big Ben]

Rubbish tyres or not.. RBR's approach is rather pathetic. Everybody has to work with the same tyres, yet instead of adapting the car to the existing conditions they expect the conditions to be changed for them... and deny the advantage of those who designed their cars with more focus on the tyre issue. If we're at it why not shorten the race to 3 laps for Mercedes?

[henners88]

For those beside themselves about the tyres, Pirelli are bringing the proposed changes forward to the Canadian GP. Hembrey announced it on twitter about 30 minutes ago. Apparently its a combination of the 2012 spec tyres and this season to encourage two to three stops per race.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Looks like even the dwarf has had it. Although I'm not too sure about the source, looks like quite a run-down rag to me, so it could be a fabrication.
Ecclestone critical of tires (http://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-autosport/399363/Bernie-Ecclestone-slams-tyre-quality)

Was reported in some of the more credible German media too, though

had to laugh about Ecclestone's photo in Der Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/sport/formel1/formel-1-ab-kommender-saison-wieder-mit-den-vorjahresreifen-a-899749.html) He looks like a pissed out of his skull drug addict :rotflmao:

[henners88]

Looks like even the dwarf has had it. Although I'm not too sure about the source, looks like quite a run-down rag to me, so it could be a fabrication.
Ecclestone critical of tires (http://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-autosport/399363/Bernie-Ecclestone-slams-tyre-quality)
The Daily Express is one of the better tabloids here in the UK, but still reports gossip like any paper. When fans use sources like the Star, Sun, Mirror, Daily Mail, you have to worry.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Ah, the Daily Fail. Love that rag. they're more hilarious than 9gag :D

[wedge]

Really? I appreciated their efforts very much.

Barely a third of the race run and I lost interest. I watched the podium and I was beyond caring. Sad isn't it? When a when person when invests their life into the sport and suddenly it is crumbling.



Swings and roundabouts. F1 used to be like that too and I remember when people would point at the relative abundance of overtaking in MotoGP as a sign of where F1 should be headed. Now the tables have turned and people want overtaking to be more difficult again. Fickle things aren't they, motorsport fans.

I never said overtaking should be more difficult and be more boring to watch.

I was pointing out that crap tyres isn't the be all and end all and I still maintain it is bandaid to the over-reliance of aero even though mechanical grip is just as important now.

I wouldn't fully enjoy watching a series of football matches ending with 7/8 goals because it means the teams can't defend and likewise don't particularly enjoy watching F1 at the moment because of the tyres.

I'd like to be entertained but I managed to understand and appreciate the facets of a good race isn't necessarily with lots of overtaking and nor should every race have an abundance of overtaking. If the don't masses don't get it then tough s**t. Sorry, but that's how I feel at the moment.

[Bagwan]

The main objection here seems to be that there were too many stops .

Pirelli agrees . And , they have said the main goal is to aim for two to three stops , instead of the three to four that we just saw .

Would all be in favour of that , or is Pirelli the evil beast that can do nothing but bad things that should never be invited to dinner again ?

[steveaki13]

.I do think that getting rid of DRS would actually make racing more exciting. Perhaps we will have less overtakes, but we will have more close racing and fights. Unfortunately, some people don't seem to find it interesting to watch two cars fighting each other for twenty minutes to finally see an overtake, or none at all.

This is spot on. I am glad others see it, we just need F1 to realise its a sport and not a "show" and make these changes. Some of the best races have seen a race long duel not a one straight pass.

[steveaki13]

The main objection here seems to be that there were too many stops .

Pirelli agrees . And , they have said the main goal is to aim for two to three stops , instead of the three to four that we just saw .

Would all be in favour of that , or is Pirelli the evil beast that can do nothing but bad things that should never be invited to dinner again ?

I have nothing against Pirelli but would not be happy with that personally.

Why must there be an aim of how many stops to have. Give teams free reign and supply 3 or 4 compounds, give some really hard tyres that will do the whole race but slower. Then range it to super softs that last 5-6 laps for super sprints. Then you probably get a range of strategys naturally and even if not then you get an honest race and no gimmicky aiming for 3 stops.

Get F1 back to its intended state. 20-26 of the best drivers and teams combining to win a championship and end the theatrical production we have seen the last 2 years.

[Bagwan]

I have nothing against Pirelli but would not be happy with that personally.

Why must there be an aim of how many stops to have. Give teams free reign and supply 3 or 4 compounds, give some really hard tyres that will do the whole race but slower. Then range it to super softs that last 5-6 laps for super sprints. Then you probably get a range of strategys naturally and even if not then you get an honest race and no gimmicky aiming for 3 stops.

Get F1 back to its intended state. 20-26 of the best drivers and teams combining to win a championship and end the theatrical production we have seen the last 2 years.

It used to be that the tire supplier brought a ton of tires to the race , and scads of the things went unused .
This was extremely expensive , not to mention insanely wasteful .

Two compounds , both raced alleviates some of this burden .

To get to a compromise , they could offer more than the regular number of compounds , two , by having the teams nominate which of the colours they wish , picking two of four or even six , a certain amount of time before the race , giving Pirelli the lead time it needs to match each team's needs .
The one thing that this would do perfectly is drop the decision in the teams's laps , so Pirelli wouldn't be carved up so much for choosing for them .

[steveaki13]

It used to be that the tire supplier brought a ton of tires to the race , and scads of the things went unused .
This was extremely expensive , not to mention insanely wasteful .

Two compounds , both raced alleviates some of this burden .

To get to a compromise , they could offer more than the regular number of compounds , two , by having the teams nominate which of the colours they wish , picking two of four or even six , a certain amount of time before the race , giving Pirelli the lead time it needs to match each team's needs .
The one thing that this would do perfectly is drop the decision in the teams's laps , so Pirelli wouldn't be carved up so much for choosing for them .

This could work.

Good Idea

[donKey jote]

the joy of watching Marc Marquez waiting to pounce is greater than seeing Alonso win a race.

hmmmmmm... it's pretty close, specially when he pounces on Lorenzo in the last corner :up: :D :andrea:

[CNR]

Pirelli urges F1 to relax test rules - IOL Motoring F1 Grand Prix | IOL.co.za (http://www.iol.co.za/motoring/f1-grand-prix/pirelli-urges-f1-to-relax-test-rules-1.1515749#.UZK9ZJ1--Uk)
Formula One must allow in-season testing to avoid the risk next year of tyres lasting only a handful of laps and races being cut short, according to Pirelli motorsport director Paul Hembery. Under fire for the quick-wearing 2013 compounds that led to a blizzard of pitstops in Spain on Sunday, Hembery warned that a current testing ban made it harder for the Italian company to meet significant technical challenges coming in 2014.

[CNR]

I think it would be a smart move for teams to have tyre test days in 2013 cars

[webberf1]

All the moaners saying F1 is dying to them need to calm down.

Face it, the old F1 is no longer economically or commercially viable. F1 will live for a long time to come because its not standing still, its moving into the 21st century and staying relevant. Sure, there will be hiccups like Barcelona along the way, but for the most part F1 is getting better and better. And if you want a sign that it is in good health, just look at the fact that one of the world's leading manufacturers is about to make its comeback into the sport.

[wedge]

This made my urine and blood boil:


Hembery said that Pirelli's move to more aggressive tyres for this season had not taken into account the kind the performance steps that leading teams found over the winter, which had put the tyres under too much stress.

"They have basically been stressing everything far too much, and probably we underestimated the performance," he said.

Pirelli to change Formula 1 tyres from Canadian Grand Prix - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107421)

It's not naivety, its sheer utter incompetence.

This time last year we had the disillusionment of the tyre lottery so why was there a need to aggressively create different construction? The lack of testing feels too much of an excuse.

[Knock-on]

This made my urine and blood boil:



It's not naivety, its sheer utter incompetence.

This time last year we had the disillusionment of the tyre lottery so why was there a need to aggressively create different construction? The lack of testing feels too much of an excuse.

A big problem is the lack of Testing. Pirelli are trying to develop a Tyre for an elite racing series with scanty, inadequate data. The last time something like this happened was Michelin in the USGP with the Diamond cut track that ripped the Tyres to shreds. The Tyres were fine but a new track surface that Bridgestone had statistical data on and Michelin didn't made the French look like Muppets.

Now we have Pirelli trying to supply ALL teams for ALL races with next to no statistical data. That's crazy and if Pirelli shoulder some responsibility, it is that they should have refused to supply without adequate info.

[wedge]

A big problem is the lack of Testing. Pirelli are trying to develop a Tyre for an elite racing series with scanty, inadequate data. The last time something like this happened was Michelin in the USGP with the Diamond cut track that ripped the Tyres to shreds. The Tyres were fine but a new track surface that Bridgestone had statistical data on and Michelin didn't made the French look like Muppets.

Now we have Pirelli trying to supply ALL teams for ALL races with next to no statistical data. That's crazy and if Pirelli shoulder some responsibility, it is that they should have refused to supply without adequate info.

Testing doesn't bother me much. It's the need to produce even more of s**t tyres than last year. Was there one?

Michelin - I sympathise as there excuse is a tyre war. At some point someone is going to bring a crap tyre - it happened to Goodyear in the late 90s with graining and blisters. Its just that the extent and ramifications of a tyre war were shown up on that day at Indy.

[dj_bytedisaster]

There was not much wrong with the tires last year. Once the teams understood them and the tire lottery was over, the racing was actually quite good. Most races had 2-3 stops with the rare one-stopper by opportunistic midfield teams. Then Pirelli went ahead and tried to fix something that wasn't broken. This is the biggest gripe I have about them.

[AndyL]

Testing doesn't bother me much. It's the need to produce even more of s**t tyres than last year. Was there one?

The need, or at least the motivation, would be this stated goal of having 2-3 stops per race. Most races in the second half of last season were 1-2 stops, with 1 stop being the preferred strategy at some of the later ones.

[wedge]

The need, or at least the motivation, would be this stated goal of having 2-3 stops per race. Most races in the second half of last season were 1-2 stops, with 1 stop being the preferred strategy at some of the later ones.

And that's a bad thing, is it? (Not that I'm having a go at you, it was a question posed to everyone)

This:


There was not much wrong with the tires last year. Once the teams understood them and the tire lottery was over, the racing was actually quite good. Most races had 2-3 stops with the rare one-stopper by opportunistic midfield teams. Then Pirelli went ahead and tried to fix something that wasn't broken. This is the biggest gripe I have about them.

[AndyL]

And that's a bad thing, is it? (Not that I'm having a go at you, it was a question posed to everyone)

I don't think it really makes any difference how many pit stops they aim for. Whether the target is 1, 2, 3 or 4 stops, they are inevitably going to have to make the tyres progressively more difficult to deal with as the teams get progressively better at managing them. The alternative is to have no target lifespan for the tyres, and eventually get to the point where the option tyre lasts an entire race. I'm sure a lot of fans would be quite happy with that, but it doesn't seem to be what the FIA wants.

There is a tyre war going on. It's between the teams trying to make the tyres last as long as possible, and Pirelli trying to stop them.

[Ranger]

Then Pirelli went ahead and tried to fix something that wasn't broken. This is the biggest gripe I have about them.

Why are you blaming Pirelli?

Think about it. Why would a business re-design and re-manufacture a working product at great financial and PR cost to them, if they were not being remunerated for doing so?

I refuse to believe they are that stupid.

Pirelli is contracted to provide a service to F1 Management, whom I'm going to assume dictate the tyres they would like to see, in order to get varied and unpredictable races.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Why are you blaming Pirelli?

Because they ****ed up big time. If you accept a contract that obliges you to manipulate a components characteristics to someone else's guidelines, you're doomed to get it right or you'll look like complete pillocks, which they do currently, IMHO.
First of all, your claim that latter races were mostly 1-stop is wrong. Austin was the only race all season in which the majority of teams did only one stop. The need for more pitstop is the ******* brainchild of someone at FIA. I for once get absolutely nothing out of more stops and without having numbers to prove it, I'd hazard a guess that I'm not the only one, who thinks so.
The F1 audience isn't only made up of people like us, who seek education about the inner workings of F1 and spend our time discussing it afterwards. Quite a big portion, if not the majority of audience are casual viewers, who watch because of certain drivers or certain cars and pride themselves on knowing the difference between a pitstop and a pitpull and they couldn't give a rat's arse either on how many times they dive for the pits. In fact it could be counter productive to expose them to more pitstops. More on that later.


Think about it. Why would a business re-design and re-manufacture a working product at great financial and PR cost to them, if they were not being remunerated for doing so?

Because they made an utterly stupid business decision. These things happen. Microsofts Vista and Windoze 8 are example from a different world of business. Product that failed because they were not properly designed or too radical for the audience to accept. Pirelli may get great advertising exposure out of their F1 contract, but it is also a contract with the devil. They're setting themselves up as a bit of a villain by constantly yapping on about how they're going to make it even harder for the teams.
That isn't help that Hembery suffered an acute case of piss-poor communication skills lately. Twice this season he threatened that more durable tires would hand the title to Red Bull. The Red Bull Brigade certainly had a field day with that and even to me as one, who doesn't believe in slavishly supporting one driver or team and automatically hate all others, this sounded like a very dumb thing to say. F1 teams aren't charitable organizations, they are multi-million profit-orientated companies. With a clever Lawyer, I'm pretty sure that RB could even have given them a bad head ache in the EU courts. Microsoft has been slapped with astronomical fines for something as small as bundling Internet Exploder. Willfully meddling with economic competition is a very unclever idea on the European Market.
I believe Hembery, when he says that the changed tires are not the result of RB applied pressure. What he left unsaid is the rather too aggressive 2013 tires is starting to hit their core business - selling tires to you and me. For the casual observer, like the ones described earlier, the intricate workings of why Pirelli did what they did is largely unknown. All they see is a tire that barely lasts a dozen laps and seeing the radio transmissions to drivers not to fight against being overtaken to conserve the tires. If I had a Euro for every team-radio that mentioned tires, I could have gone on hiatus for at least two weeks and that were only the few that were actually publicly shown. My stepfather and my brother run a car garage near the Autobahn. In Marc/April people started to change back to summer tires. And they told me that "No Pirellis, please" has been a rather frequent request lately. Others like me avoid them just to vote with the wallet. In my opinion Pirelli hurts the sport and I'm not prepared to support a company that delivers dull eco-run races.


I refuse to believe they are that stupid.

Maybe they're not stupid in the sense of roaming the streets at night making animal noises and licking windows, but this unnecessary overmanipulated 2013 tires that hurt the majority of the field and led to major parts of the races being comprised of non-racing, was certainly a colossally stupid business decision. And that's why thy're currently trying to correct it at the costs of the two teams that actually designed their car to work with tires made of cheese.


Pirelli is contracted to provide a service to F1 Management, whom I'm going to assume dictate the tyres they would like to see, in order to get varied and unpredictable races.

And they delivered just that, but I didn't hear any news last year in which FIA asked Pirelli to make the tires more crap. The only people, who complained about Austin's one-stop race was Pirelli because they felt soundly beaten by the engineers of the teams. And out-of-the-blue came a Pirelli announcement that they would use a more aggressive approach for 2013. It didn't feel like good news to me back then and the current fiasco unfortunately proves it.

[kfzmeister]

For cryin' out loud, is there an ignore button?

[dj_bytedisaster]

Yes there is - it's in your user profile

[Knock-on]

Do what I do, just jump to the next post.

Methinks DJ gets some sort of pleasure out of bashing his head against a brick wall. Either that or just likes posting the same stuff every other post.

For the record DJ, we get it. You don't like the current tyres and think thay are a conspiracy to handicapp Red Bull :laugh:

Now, back to the moon landings :D

[airshifter]

For cryin' out loud, is there an ignore button?

Think of it as spam/trolling acceptance training, or for training in a child care field (coping with whining kids). :D

[Bagwan]

Be nice now , kids .
This is , after all , a Pirelli thread .
If there is a place for a Pirelli rant , this is it .

On some points , you're right dj .
The press hasn't been kind to them , and some sales drops may have already occurred .

But , perhaps at some of the shops , they might try to mention the mandate , and actually educate some of the public about what the issues are that have created the situation we see now .
I guess that would only apply in shops that had people that understand what makes a tire suitable for it's use .

Restricted testing has made the job of tire making extremely difficult to start with .

Then , adding it be coupled with having the teams forced to race two distinctly different compounds , makes the teams automatically compromised into making both work , or running a short stint on one that doesn't .
To some , this looks like racing , and to others it looks like a bad job on at least one compound from Pirelli .

That's all bad enough , but add in that the attempt is to get a specific number of pit stops , and the mandate is almost impossible to live up to without a few hiccups along the way .

Hembrey said they perhaps should have used the next step up in hardnesses for this race after seeing the way both compounds worked . That simple change might have done it .

Perhaps there was bias shown in the choice , to hobble RedBull , but who knows ?

[kfzmeister]

New, "tougher" tire to help RB and Mercedes.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/376794_1745922168879428_1393305210_n.jpg

[Ranger]

This is the only logical thing to do.


Pirelli's planned mid-season Formula 1 tyre tweaks are set to be much smaller than originally anticipated after the FIA ruled that changes will only be allowed on safety grounds.

Sources have revealed that the governing body has told Pirelli that it is happy to accept - and is indeed keen for - alterations necessary to prevent a repeat of the rear tyre delaminations that have struck at the last few events.

But, in a blow to outfits like Red Bull hoping further tweaks would help them overcome tyre difficulties they have faced, the FIA has made it clear it will not tolerate further changes aimed at reducing the number of pitstops or decreasing degradation.

FIA declares Formula 1 tyre tweaks can only be for safety - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107487)

[henners88]

Evil Pirelli must have brainwashed the FIA! Grrrr :(

[dj_bytedisaster]

Well, FIA obviously don't want a whole host of appeals and counter-appeals, as their latest communications suggest that Ferrari and Lotus would probably have appealed a significant tire change. The only sfatey-relevant issue is the frequent delaminations, so I suppose Pirelly will merely improve the stability of the tires' flanks. Considering that except for Silverstone no other highly abrasive track is coming, this might be all it needs, but if he have more eco-processions and drivers endlessly being told not to race, I doubt the dwarf will hold still too long. After all, if people get bored of delta times, it'll hurt ratings and subsequently Bernies wallet and that's a sort of pain he can't withstand very long.

[Knock-on]

Mercedes: no ground to rue limited scope of Pirelli's tyre tweaks - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107543)

Nice to see Toto taking responsibility and not whining like Red Bull.

[Dave B]

Dave, are you still sure about this ? ;)
You rang? :wave:

Yes, still sure. Some teams, notably Lotus-Renault-Genii-Cuthbert-Dibble-Grubb, have produced cars which manage the tyres well. Others have struggled and whinge about it. When the rules and equipment are the same for everybody then I have very little sympathy for people who whine about said rules, and respect for those who get on and do the job.

[Knock-on]

High-degradation F1 'not boring' for drivers - Paul di Resta - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107545)

Interesting take from Paul. No matter what the Tyres are like, you still have to race.

[markabilly]

High-degradation F1 'not boring' for drivers - Paul di Resta - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107545)

Interesting take from Paul. No matter what the Tyres are like, you still have to race.

Yeah, Hamilton gets all excited about being passed by a Caterham.....he is hardly bored.

But one must ask:

The reason for any company to involve itself as a participant or a sponsor, is to obtain "free advertizing" and enhance their image by associating with a winning team or proving their products to be winners.




Same for Pirelli--supply great tires and impress the world with their abilities and talents and garner much free advertizing, but that is not happenning right now.

The goal is that they must give the FIA and the Bernie bunch what they want; in the process, they are catching much grief and hence the name and any associated goodwill is going down the toilet at what would appear to me to be a great cost in the intanigbles of company image


Michelin was not happy about that Indy cancellation as well as the one tire for the whole race rule. Afterall, popping tires in a race with accompanying crashes does not build confidence that the tires are great on your car.
And it made them look bad in a large market, to the point that once they realized what the FIA wanted, they had no real interest in being involved anymore.



So what happens when Pirrelli finally decides that the negative publicity is not worth making the FIA and crew happy, and simply walk away :confused:

[dj_bytedisaster]

So what happens when Pirrelli finally decides that the negative publicity is not worth making the FIA and crew happy, and simply walk away :confused:

If Pirelli quits, I'll open a beer and toast to good riddance. Bridgestone will bring back their tritanium tyres and we'll have real racing again - everybody wins.

[ioan]

Mercedes: no ground to rue limited scope of Pirelli's tyre tweaks - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107543)

Nice to see Toto taking responsibility and not whining like Red Bull.

After getting a 1000kms of in-season tire testing, sure thing! Oh the irony of that post!

[steveaki13]

If Pirelli quits, I'll open a beer and toast to good riddance. Bridgestone will bring back their tritanium tyres and we'll have real racing again - everybody wins.

Unless the FIA ask for equally soft tyres.

I think really any tyre supplier would be looking bad if they had been preparing these types of tyres.

[henners88]

Unless the FIA ask for equally soft tyres.

I think really any tyre supplier would be looking bad if they had been preparing these types of tyres.
Indeed. Fans who think Pirelli have decided the regulations are laughable. Then again something so simple has proven incredibly difficult to explain.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Indeed. Fans who think Pirelli have decided the regulations are laughable. Then again something so simple has proven incredibly difficult to explain.

Pirelli were asked to provide tires to create an artificial show. That they accepted that is a bad business decision to begin with. On top of that they overshot the target with the 2013 tires by miles. The 2013 tires aren't fast degrading they are pure and simple crap.

[Bagwan]

So , everyone went for a one-stop strategy , and drove slowly enough to do so .

Given that there was significant advantage there , available in the tires , to go much faster , is it Pirelli's fault that none of the teams trusted that they could race through the field , taking another pit stop ?

Shouldn't somebody be slagging the teams for not allowing the drivers to race ?

Kimi showed you could do it in the final lap .
Sutil showed it was possible .

But , passing in Monaco is just too risky , isn't it ?
It's what we want to see , but it's too risky , isn't it ?
It's what everyone talks about after every race , but passing is too risky , isn't it ?

Nah , let's just slag Pirelli . It's all their fault .

[steveaki13]

So , everyone went for a one-stop strategy , and drove slowly enough to do so .

Given that there was significant advantage there , available in the tires , to go much faster , is it Pirelli's fault that none of the teams trusted that they could race through the field , taking another pit stop ?

Shouldn't somebody be slagging the teams for not allowing the drivers to race ?


Yes. Although teams want to win, they have to realise they need allow drivers to race, but ultimately these modern day regs tell teams to be cautious and conserve. Not use a new engine or whatever each race and so go for it as it will be binned afterwards.




Kimi showed you could do it in the final lap .
Sutil showed it was possible .

But , passing in Monaco is just too risky , isn't it ?


Yes it is risky but not too risky. Sutil showed you can do it without danger, but in F1 every pass should be risky. Monaco is a different type of challenge but still one you can race and pass in.




It's what we want to see , but it's too risky , isn't it ?


No. See above



Nah , let's just slag Pirelli . It's all their fault .

The unreasonable do this. Others look at the bigger picture. F1 is dying and its only a small part to do with tyres.

[Bagwan]

Yes. Although teams want to win, they have to realise they need allow drivers to race, but ultimately these modern day regs tell teams to be cautious and conserve. Not use a new engine or whatever each race and so go for it as it will be binned afterwards.

Yes it is risky but not too risky. Sutil showed you can do it without danger, but in F1 every pass should be risky. Monaco is a different type of challenge but still one you can race and pass in.

No. See above

The unreasonable do this. Others look at the bigger picture. F1 is dying and its only a small part to do with tyres.

I found it really curious , Steve , that none of the teams seemed willing at all to go fast .
Granted , it costs a lot of time to stop there , but seeing the times drop seconds over a lap when they went hard said to me that it wouldn't be that far away from adding another stop .
Had someone done this , it might have harried the front-runners into worrying their tires too much , making it more of a tightrope for them .
Heck , I thought maybe at least one of the backmarker guys might throw one in , if only to get some air time for the team in a charge through the field , only to fall out of contention when reality sets in .

But , no , not one of them trusted that their drivers could pass in Monaco .



And , I'll admit , that I am more than a little tired of hearing about how badly Pirelli is making tires , when it should be the responsibility of the teams to get as much out of them as they can , and deal with the result .
If they aren't working , then make it work .
If you can't make it work , then get more testing .

So , now that Merc has had their time with Pirelli , all the rest should be allowed to do exactly the same .

That can give Pirelli all it needs to make a tire for next year that is fair for all .

And , that can give all the teams the testing they need to get things right .

[steveaki13]

I know. You would think the Mclarens might as well have gone all out to try and move up the field rather than protect tyres running 7th and 8th at the time.

As you say it was weird how know one at all was willing to change tactics early on and all excepted running where they were

[dj_bytedisaster]

As you say it was weird how know one at all was willing to change tactics early on and all excepted running where they were

That's 2013 in a nutshell. Bahrain showed very unmistakably, what happens if you try to race with the current 2013 tyres. Hamilton raced and dropped back, so did Rosberg. Webber raced and his tyres died on him like mayflies, while his team mate on the same tyres nursed away to an easy victory because he had to fight no one and could do his delta-times undisturbed.
So the decision for the teams in Monaco wasn't that hard. Stay where you are and nurse the tires or try to overtake on a track were it is all but impossible to do so and risk having to do 2 or three stops, because the darn things quit their job at the drop of a hat as soon as you try pushing the loud-pedal. Wasn't that difficult a decision to make, was it?

[greencroft]

Excuse my ignorance but does the tyre wear that the teams are suffering (the wear rather than the delaminations) come from having too much downforce meaning that more energy goes into the tyre to dissipate which causes the rubber to be ripped off the surface or is it too little downforce which means the whole tyre surface slides over the asphalt and the friction from the sliding takes the tyre surface up and out of its operating temperature range and rips it up?

Or is it all a balance problem front to rear?

Also, when people talk about good mechanical grip versus good aerodynamic grip, what is their respective impact on tyre wear?

It is all so much simpler on my forest rally tyres - we have wider ones, narrower ones, harder ones and softer ones. We look at the weather forecast in the morning, choose a set because we only have enough wheels to run one type all day, then stick with it. Of course like any driver, it is fashionable to moan that you are on the "wrong "ones but usually it's just an excuse for being slow on the day!

[markabilly]

If Pirelli quits, I'll open a beer and toast to good riddance. Bridgestone will bring back their tritanium tyres and we'll have real racing again - everybody wins.

as I was saying, why are they still involved with F1 because it would not seem to be helping their corporate image at all. The latest word is that Michelin and Hancock have both said they have no interest in being part of this circus. My money says that Bridgestone is even more NOT interested in being forced to create crap tires to keep Bernie and his crew selling their product :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[markabilly]

Pirelli were asked to provide tires to create an artificial show. That they accepted that is a bad business decision to begin with. On top of that they overshot the target with the 2013 tires by miles. The 2013 tires aren't fast degrading they are pure and simple crap.

They gave F1 what it was asking for and so you are blaming the wrong party. Why would Michelin and Hancock say they want nothing to do with this circus????? duh :rolleyes:

[zako85]

They gave F1 what it was asking for and so you are blaming the wrong party. Why would Michelin and Hancock say they want nothing to do with this circus????? duh :rolleyes:


I think Pirelli should worry about the PR fallout. Millions of people are watching F1 racing on TV across the world, and I bet that during each race, every commentator happens to say a thing or two about not so fine properties of Pirelli tires. Most people also do not really know that Pirelli delivers tires that were requested. Instead many will think that Pirelli can't make a tire that can last more than 15-20 laps. While a lot of sane people understand that F1 tires have nothing to do with the tires that Pirelli sells to consumers, the overall PR that Pirelli is getting out of this is not very positive IMHO.

[markabilly]

Something that has been overlooked, is that I am not so sure tires were all that better some ten years ago. Back then the pit stops were primarily based on fuel consumption, so tire degradation was mostly unnoticed until that rule cam about regarding using one set for the entire race. If the ban on refueling had been in place, one probably would have seen the same complaints. :dozey: And under the current rules, there must be two different compounds, so one compound is clearly not going to work as well as the other compound. :vader:

[call_me_andrew]

No, the tires must have been better 10 years ago. I base this on the fact that cars would go faster as their fuel tanks emptied. If the tires were as soft as they are today, then laps speeds would be consistent across a stint.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Something that has been overlooked, is that I am not so sure tires were all that better some ten years ago. Back then the pit stops were primarily based on fuel consumption, so tire degradation was mostly unnoticed until that rule cam about regarding using one set for the entire race. If the ban on refueling had been in place, one probably would have seen the same complaints. :dozey: And under the current rules, there must be two different compounds, so one compound is clearly not going to work as well as the other compound. :vader:

Ten years ago we had competition between two tyre manufacturers. They would simply have produced a stronger tyre instead of one that is specifically made not to last more than a dozen laps.

[Koz]

No, the tires must have been better 10 years ago. I base this on the fact that cars would go faster as their fuel tanks emptied. If the tires were as soft as they are today, then laps speeds would be consistent across a stint.

Well clearly, there is going to be a difference when the tyres are designed to last 60 laps instead of 6.

[Koz]

I found it really curious , Steve , that none of the teams seemed willing at all to go fast .
Granted , it costs a lot of time to stop there , but seeing the times drop seconds over a lap when they went hard said to me that it wouldn't be that far away from adding another stop .
Had someone done this , it might have harried the front-runners into worrying their tires too much , making it more of a tightrope for them .
Heck , I thought maybe at least one of the backmarker guys might throw one in , if only to get some air time for the team in a charge through the field , only to fall out of contention when reality sets in .

But , no , not one of them trusted that their drivers could pass in Monaco .

Lets assume they went for this. What if after 5-6 laps of driving at a car's potential the tyres just fall off the cliff?

There is a reason why the race leader was pulling away from the Marussias and Caterhams at less than a second a lap.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Lets assume they went for this. What if after 5-6 laps of driving at a car's potential the tyres just fall off the cliff?

There is a reason why the race leader was pulling away from the Marussias and Caterhams at less than a second a lap.

Van der Gaarde drove the fastest lap at lap6, so he was actually faster than the "leader". The only way to save F1 is to not extend Pirelli's contract. Another year of Pirelli skullduggery would be catastrophic.

[donKey jote]

yawn :s nore:

:andrea:

[pino]

dj...we understood that :s nore:

[airshifter]

Once again we see some cars go 50 laps into a race on a single set of tires, keeping them up in the points. But of course this is impossible, since the tires can only last 6-8 laps. It seems to me that the FIA are intentionally asking for a tire that will shake up pit strategies, and also possibly setups on a car. If you want big downforce, expect more tire changes. Or you can go lower downforce and make the race a 1 or 2 stopper.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Once again we see some cars go 50 laps into a race on a single set of tires, keeping them up in the points. But of course this is impossible, since the tires can only last 6-8 laps. It seems to me that the FIA are intentionally asking for a tire that will shake up pit strategies, and also possibly setups on a car. If you want big downforce, expect more tire changes. Or you can go lower downforce and make the race a 1 or 2 stopper.

The medium tyre was ok, IMHO. Canada isn't very hard on tyres, like Barcelona or Silverstone. The WTF factor was the huge difference between the two compounds with most people not getting much more than 15 laps out of the super soft, while the harder one almost goes a race distance. A tyre that can't go much more than a dozen laps on one of the more tyre-friendly circuits is quite useless in my book. The race was quite good, even though most people only made 2 stops, some even went with a single visit to the mother ship. This whole idea that we need forced pitstops for a race to be entertaining is just wrong. Austin last year had only few pitstops and was one of the better races, same goes for Canada, while the pitstop-fest at Barcelona was shockingly boring. I think we'd see better races if TPTB stopped meddling with things and binned all the artificial 'show elements', like DRS or manipulative tyres.

[wedge]

Excuse my ignorance but does the tyre wear that the teams are suffering (the wear rather than the delaminations) come from having too much downforce meaning that more energy goes into the tyre to dissipate which causes the rubber to be ripped off the surface or is it too little downforce which means the whole tyre surface slides over the asphalt and the friction from the sliding takes the tyre surface up and out of its operating temperature range and rips it up?

Or is it all a balance problem front to rear?


Tyre wear isn't the problem, its thermal degradation. If you overheat the tyres the lap times tumble. Different tracks will give you different balance problems.

Basically the tyres are too soft and the construction of the tyre has lended itself to the delaminations. This is why I squarely blame Pirelli. I mean, regardless of the lack of testing, why on earth develop a softer tyre when in their experience a car will be quicker via downforce especially with stable regs. Its arrogance and madness.

[jens]

I think the tyres were pretty good in Canada, enabling various strategies (one or two stops). The only problem is that the gaps between teams were too big. So perhaps the tyres are still tricky enough, so not all teams/drivers can get them work properly.

[steveaki13]

I think the tyres were pretty good in Canada, enabling various strategies (one or two stops). The only problem is that the gaps between teams were too big. So perhaps the tyres are still tricky enough, so not all teams/drivers can get them work properly.

It was unusual to have such field spread but remember Spain 2011 was it. We had a similar thing. These things happen sometimes.

I personally this race was more acceptable in terms of tyres.

[markabilly]

Ten years ago we had competition between two tyre manufacturers. They would simply have produced a stronger tyre instead of one that is specifically made not to last more than a dozen laps.

no. ten years ago, we had in season testing to develop tires. makes all the difference. hence all the whining and jumping around about the in season testing by Merc. Red Bull who has the advantage now, does NOT want in season testing....
Meanwhile yet again there were other issues behind the scenes. Where Bridgestone had been able to enjoy the benefits of in-season testing in 2007 and 2008, Pirelli have operated under an in-season testing ban. For Bridgestone when the ban came in for 2009 it was also less of a problem because they weren't looking to mix things up each year, but rather to evolve development of their tyres and therefore existing data was more beneficial for them. Whereas Pirelli have to figure out how to do something different each year[without any meaningful testing], balancing allowing teams to extract performance while at the same time not evolving in line with the cars, so existing data of related to the current tyres is less relevant for them. What it boils down to is that Pirelli are expected to figure out four types of dry tyre that provide 2-3 pitstops across the field at 18-20 different circuits on the calendar each year, while allowing the cars and drivers to showcase their performance, with very minimal information to inform them. from an excellent article pitpass - Tyre Warring (http://www.pitpass.com/49273-Tyre-Warring) more from same article
Then came the Canadian GP in 2010. In a departure from the single-pitstop-only-because-necessary strategy, the Bridgestone super-soft and medium tyre didn't work as well on the track and drivers were forced to two and three stop to get through the race. It was unpredictable, interesting strategically and promoted on-track action with drivers on a grippier tyre overtaking those with less grip. Bridgestone were horrified because it was a departure from their steady and reliable image, but the fans were delighted. The sport had now confirmed the benefits of having a sole tyre supplier: that they could be part of the solution to creating an on-track spectacle. well they got what the fia and fans wanted :rolleyes:

Ca?m on thông tin duo?c chia se? trên ba`i dang tin cu?a ba?n. Chu?c ba?n tha`nh công. Thanks!

[dj_bytedisaster]

no. ten years ago, we had in season testing to develop tires. makes all the difference. hence all the whining and jumping around about the in season testing by Merc. Red Bull who has the advantage now, does NOT want in season testing....

Where does Red Bull have an advatage now? They won on a track that was very easy on the tyres. And please get your facts right - RB is one of Ferrari's strongest allies in the bid to re-introduce in-season testing.

[Nem14]

Pirelli has warned that there will be more four-stop races this year because some teams voted down their recommended changes.

Pirelli apparently doesn't get that if they had done their job properly, teams wouldn't have to vote on anything.

Pirelli also seems unaware of the first rule of holes.
1. When you suddenly and inexplicably discover yourself in a deep hole - stop digging.

[Knock-on]

Is it a Bird? Is it a Plane. No, it's DJ on final approach to thread :D

[dj_bytedisaster]

I've said my piece about Pirelli often enough ;) They've made their bed, now they have to sleep in it and if sales in our area are anything to go by, it isn't very comfy :p

[Knock-on]

:laugh: I like 'laid back' DJ. Much more fun :up:

Serious question though, if Pirelli made a tyre that you could race flat out but had to change 4 times and coupled it with a tyre that you could nurse like PdR did and only stop once, would that be bad?

If I understand you correctly, it tyres that you can't push on that you don't like isn't it?

I think we all want to see more pushing which is the fundamental problem at the moment but without more testing, it's hard to 'guess' the correct compound.

4 is excessive I think but 3 and 1 for different strategies seems ok. Lets hope for a bit more testing to get the formula right. Being objective, would you agree?

[dj_bytedisaster]

:laugh: I like 'laid back' DJ. Much more fun :up:

Why thank you, kind Sir :D


Serious question though, if Pirelli made a tyre that you could race flat out but had to change 4 times and coupled it with a tyre that you could nurse like PdR did and only stop once, would that be bad?

If I understand you correctly, it tyres that you can't push on that you don't like isn't it?


What I want gone is the endless 'don't race the guy behind you' and 'go slower, look after the tyres' team radios. If a Caterham is faster than the leading car as happened at Monaco, something is fundamentally wrong. Quickly degrading tyres aren't evil by themselves, but the artificially engineered characteristic that makes them bad. If they degrade, they completely go into the abyss. Stay out one lap too long and you lose 5 seconds. In F1 standards that's a week and it makes teams so bloody scared of racing that they tell the drivers not to race at all. If we had a tyre that loses a second after 'going off', there'd still be a chance of salvaging a race. In that regard Pirelli overshot the target with the 2013 tyres and they deserve every second of the bad press.

[airshifter]

Pirelli stock is doing just fine. I guess the shareholders really don't care what the haters think, they are cashing in. :)

[dj_bytedisaster]

Pirelli stock is doing just fine. I guess the shareholders really don't care what the haters think, they are cashing in. :)

Wouldn't the stock be falling if people were cashing in? ;) My understanding is that 'cashing in' means selling stock, right?
And besides, a lot of stock holders probably don't even follow F1. Pirelli's taken quite a bit bad PR out of it and they've upset more than just a few fans. It's not only the Mercedes and RB brigades either. Reading the faceborg page of Pirelli Motorsport is quite an enlightening experience. They take a lot of negative responses and ridicule. In fact it's gotten so bad that they've started deleting negative comments and have employed a claquer by the name of Dean Hale, who posts pro-Pirelli propaganda all day and tries to obfuscate matters, whenever a post is critical of Pirelli's influence on F1.
The negative PR they're catching isn't something like a blown-up factory that influences stock immediately. It has long-time consequences. Germany might not be very representative, with considerable amounts of Vettel and Merc fans, but at least here Pirelli have lost a sizable portion of the spring business, when people change from winter tyres to summer tyres. It was so noticeable that my brother, who has recently taken over the garage and towing service of the parents, decided not to order Pirelli tyres for the winter season, simply because people refused them in spring and he can't afford to have these things rotting away in the shelves.

[henners88]

Pirelli stock is doing just fine. I guess the shareholders really don't care what the haters think, they are cashing in. :)
Quite. Although the more die-hard fans amongst us are unhappy at times with the FIA's chosen tyre regs, the casual observer sees F1 as being unpredictable and rather exciting at the moment. Pirelli are not exactly suffering from negative public perception at the moment that is for sure.

[SGWilko]

I don't see an issue for Pirelli TBH. What was more of a disaster was the situation Bridgestone got themselves into at Ferrari. All your eggs in one basket, developing for one specific team/driver, then making a turd of a tyre and shooting yourselves in the foot several at most tracks in 2005!

[steveaki13]

Serious question though, if Pirelli made a tyre that you could race flat out but had to change 4 times and coupled it with a tyre that you could nurse like PdR did and only stop once, would that be bad?

If I understand you correctly, it tyres that you can't push on that you don't like isn't it?

I think we all want to see more pushing which is the fundamental problem at the moment but without more testing, it's hard to 'guess' the correct compound.

4 is excessive I think but 3 and 1 for different strategies seems ok. Lets hope for a bit more testing to get the formula right. Being objective, would you agree?

I think that would be ideal. 2 or even 3 compounds which teams can mix and match for a range of 0 stops to 3 stops, but tyres that can be raced on. (Although obviously a 0 or 1 stop would need some nursing, but if need be the soft tyres can be pushed to the limit for 10-15 laps.

The currant issue is the lack of being able to push the tyres at any point

[steveaki13]

I don't see an issue for Pirelli TBH. What was more of a disaster was the situation Bridgestone got themselves into at Ferrari. All your eggs in one basket, developing for one specific team/driver, then making a turd of a tyre and shooting yourselves in the foot several at most tracks in 2005!

yes the problem was they had only Ferrari, Jordan and Minardi and left themselves fighting a Michelin tidal wave.

[Koz]

Yet another tyre failure for Perez this time?

[truefan72]

to me this is hogwash. I squarely blame mclaren for this. in all likelihood they underinflated the tire.
Sky sport need to stop withj the fear mongering etc

I remember the same rubbish during the michelin days after the usa gp where it was obvious that toyota's setup was the culprit not michelin. but teams and their egos always seem to think the problem is never theirs.
This is just another phony issue in my book.

just shameful talk on sky sport

[janneppi]

Oh dear... :D

[webberf1]

Wow. So, just as Indy 2005 rang the death bells for Michelin, is the fate of Pirelli now being sealed?

[webberf1]

Mind you, I'll just say this: I think the #1 culprit in these tyre problems is the regulations restricting Pirelli from being able to do an adequate amount of testing and hence making their compounds raceworthy. Ironically, the same was the case with Michelin in 05 who, unlike Bridgestone, had not done any testing on the Indy oval section's new diamond-cut surface.

[Knock-on]

Well, this is a farce. I've defended Pirelli up till now as they were supplying tyres to a script but this is a joke. Worse than a joke!

Ok, they can bleat on about testing etc but this is Silverstone ffs! If they don't know the requirement for tyres here, then any other tracks a case of Russian Roulette!

These tyres are not fit for purpose, the race should be stopped and the season paused until Pirelli can provide safe rubber.

As for next year, get another tyre, shoot the dicks at the FIA that are trying to manipulate races with cheap gimmicks and allow proper testing on safety grounds.

[webberf1]

Hard to argue with that, knock.

[Daniel]

Well, this is a farce. I've defended Pirelli up till now as they were supplying tyres to a script but this is a joke. Worse than a joke!

Ok, they can bleat on about testing etc but this is Silverstone ffs! If they don't know the requirement for tyres here, then any other tracks a case of Russian Roulette!

These tyres are not fit for purpose, the race should be stopped and the season paused until Pirelli can provide safe rubber.

As for next year, get another tyre, shoot the dicks at the FIA that are trying to manipulate races with cheap gimmicks and allow proper testing on safety grounds.

and now you see why I was so against Pirelli being tyre supplier in F1. This is not unfamiliar territory for them, back in New Zealand in 2003 or 2004 IIRC, the temps were something like 3 or 4 degrees higher than expected and at that point the tyre companies had to specify their compounds a couple of weeks or a month prior to the rally and the Pirelli's just fell apart and delaminated, Michelin had the exact same info and brought tyres which were fast and which didn't fail.

Pirelli are an amateur tyre company when it comes to competition tyres. Bridgestone or Michelin should be brought in ASAP.

[donKey jote]

Bridgestone or Michelin should be brought in ASAP.

Only on their terms ;)
They should make Bernie beg on all fours for them :p

[Daniel]

Only on their terms ;)
They should make Bernie beg on all fours for them :p

You don't fancy a go? ;)

[donKey jote]

No.
Footie sponsorship is much more cost-effective publicity. Apparently :dozey:

[Daniel]

No.
Footie sponsorship is much more cost-effective publicity. Apparently :dozey:

Less risk as well ;) Perhaps go in as Uniroyal just in case ;)

[donKey jote]

Less risk as well ;) Perhaps go in as Uniroyal just in case ;)

Nope, that wouldn't work: the Uniroyal brand has a different owner in the Americas ;)

Hoosier? :p

[Daniel]

Of course, I forgot. One of your other brands? :p

[donKey jote]

Not sure to be perfectly honest :andrea: :p

[dj_bytedisaster]

Wow, Pirelli are really getting it on their facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/PirelliMotorsport

[odykas]

I wouldn't blame Pirelli because:
- Pirelli just follow FIA's orders
- FIA follow Red Bull's orders

[RedBullian1]

Michelin? So you want a repeat of the 2005 USGP?

[Daniel]

Michelin? So you want a repeat of the 2005 USGP?

Yeah, that would be shameful, a tyre company taking responsibility for making a mistake and not sending drivers out onto the track with tyres that could endanger them. I'd hate that! Much better to go with the Pirelli way of thinking and send them out on unsafe tyres :thumb:

[Daniel]

I wouldn't blame Pirelli because:
- Pirelli just follow FIA's orders
- FIA follow Red Bull's orders
Link me to where the FIA asked Pirelli to make tyres with weak sidewalls :)

[donKey jote]

Wow, Pirelli are really getting it on their facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/PirelliMotorsport

please don't make condoms :laugh:

[odykas]

Link me to where the FIA asked Pirelli to make tyres with weak sidewalls :)

Do you expect me to find an official document with FIA's logo on it?

BTW, is seems you have become an F1 addict :up: :p :

[dj_bytedisaster]

I wouldn't blame Pirelli because:
- Pirelli just follow FIA's orders
- FIA follow Red Bull's orders

ROFL. Dude, what are you smoking?

[Daniel]

Do you expect me to find an official document with FIA's logo on it?

BTW, is seems you have become an F1 addict :up: :p :

Yes.

No.

[N4D13]

It's obvious that Pirelli have screwed up and this is mostly their fault. However, there are many buts in this matter and many different parties are to blame. Pirelli will take most of the debris and that's just about fair, but one should not forget that:

- The FIA has banned all testing during the season, meaning that Pirelli don't get to develop their tyres properly and will necessarily bring sub-standard tyres to races.
- Some teams have refused to test a safer tyre construction since it might cause the operational temperature window of the tyres to change, which would cause them to lose an advantage. This is understandable but, even so, these teams (Ferrari, Lotus and Force India come to mind) need to have fingers pointed at.
- Kerbing should be given a closer look. Everyone knows that edgy kerbs can cause punctures. If a kerb was the reason for today's failures -and considering that all the failures took place in the same turn or the straight after it, it looks extremely likely-, one should wonder why kerbs aren't inspected more thoroughly. While these Pirellis are way more sensitive with pretty much everything, it should be common sense to make sure that the kerbs are polished enough to drive on them, right?

I also feel obliged to point out that the drivers who had punctures in Bahrain -Hamilton and Massa- were the first two ones to have punctures today as well, and they do have a reputation for being hard on the kerbs. By no means am I trying to put the blame on them, but while we don't have an official explanation for the tyre failures, we should expect the kerbs to be the main cause. And I'm confident we won't have any punctures in the Nürburgring - not of this kind - because the FIA will have duly taken note of all this and will be checking the kerbs on the Nürburgring before anything else.

[Alfa Fan]

Ok, they can bleat on about testing etc but this is Silverstone ffs! If they don't know the requirement for tyres here, then any other tracks a case of Russian Roulette!

Why? They don't test at Silverstone so what difference does it make?

[Daniel]

Why? They don't test at Silverstone so what difference does it make?

That's kind of the point he's making.....

[baker]

Can't believe the amount of negative comments about the tyres. Pirelli should be applauded for introducing more unpredictability with their randomly exploding tyres. Best race I've seen for ages.

[Knock-on]

Because Silverstone is the oldest race in F1. Most drivers know it inside out and Pirelli should know the requirements here and exactly what stresses a tyre will be subject to.

It's not like its Russia or Austen

[SGWilko]

Did Pirelli make the tyres that punctured the fuel tank that overwhelmed the engines on the Concorde that killed all those people?

Or was it something that cut the tyre and caused it to deflate and fail at high speeds and loads.

[BDunnell]

Because Silverstone is the oldest race in F1. Most drivers know it inside out and Pirelli should know the requirements here and exactly what stresses a tyre will be subject to.

It's not like its Russia or Austen

Or Thruxton.

Must say, I'm utterly fed up by the extent to which tyres, in one way or another, dominate F1 nowadays.

[SGWilko]

BBC Sport - British GP: Pirelli tyre failures were dangerous, says Lewis Hamilton (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23118249)

If you get a puncture because brain dead fred the labourer drops nails on the road, do you blame your tyre band manufacturer or screwfix direct? ;)

[Knock-on]

Thruxton? Not Tom Chiltons failure? That was the teams fault 100%. They knew it would fail the way they set it up but needed to impress :) ballsy stuff ;)

Anyway, where you been

[RedBullian1]

Because Silverstone is the oldest race in F1. Most drivers know it inside out and Pirelli should know the requirements here and exactly what stresses a tyre will be subject to.

It's not like its Russia or Austen

And Pirelli tests there too which makes it even more confusing

[AndySpeed]

This is the first Formula One race that I've watched in some time. Are they all like this?

[RedBullian1]

This is the first Formula One race that I've watched in some time. Are they all like this?

They have become like this action wise. Tire wise, it's been like this all year but hasn't been like this in the past

[SuperCooperDuper]

Did you see that note on the picture of Vettel's tire that almost blew? "+2 psi". That is a huge adjustment. I wonder if teams were running tire pressures below Pirelli spec to gain advantage and it backfired. Maybe it was not a tire defect at all?

[zako85]

Did you see that note on the picture of Vettel's tire that almost blew? "+2 psi". That is a huge adjustment. I wonder if teams were running tire pressures below Pirelli spec to gain advantage and it backfired. Maybe it was not a tire defect at all?


There is 0 evidence for that so far. +2PSI could mean anything. In my opinion, something like Silverstone 2013 was bound to happen. Pirelli started pushing the envelope with tire degradation in 2012. Most teams figured out how to care for those tires by the mid-season. Not satisfied enough, Pirelli came up with newer more fragile tire spec for this season. All of this was aimed at slowing Red Bull, and it backfired IMO. They have virtually turned F1 into a circus.

[Daniel]

There is 0 evidence for that so far. +2PSI could mean anything. In my opinion, something like Silverstone 2013 was bound to happen. Pirelli started pushing the envelope with tire degradation in 2012. Most teams figured out how to care for those tires by the mid-season. Not satisfied enough, Pirelli came up with newer more fragile tire spec for this season. All of this was aimed at slowing Red Bull, and it backfired IMO. They have virtually turned F1 into a circus.

A great explanation on the surface, until you realise that this issue would appear to have precisely NOTHING to do with tyre degradation. This is the sidewalls being cut by the kerbs, it's not the actual tread of the tyre degrading......

[henners88]

Give Hamilton and Rosberg a few more days of track time and they'll get it sorted. Can't imagine the FIA allowing these tyres to be used at the next event so perhaps we'll see the extreme from Pirelli where they just bring back super durable tyres and we'll be yawning instead? I'd rather see that than a driver slamming into a wall, but would be nice to find a healthy balance for all involved.

[Daniel]

Give Hamilton and Rosberg a few more days of track time and they'll get it sorted. Can't imagine the FIA allowing these tyres to be used at the next event so perhaps we'll see the extreme from Pirelli where they just bring back super durable tyres and we'll be yawning instead? I'd rather see that than a driver slamming into a wall, but would be nice to find a healthy balance for all involved.

Like I said though, this is nothing to do with degradation, this is the sidewalls being weak. You could still have tyres which last a whole race but can't deal with hitting a few kerbs.

[SGWilko]

Like I said though, this is nothing to do with degradation, this is the sidewalls being weak. You could still have tyres which last a whole race but can't deal with hitting a few kerbs.

Weak sidewalls was the issue with a certain other tyre supplier back in 2005. This very same manufacturer is much mooted to be 'waiting in the wings'.

And as I understand it, the curbing at turn 4 is unchanged from 2012...

[joeyz_f1]

Well, this is a farce. I've defended Pirelli up till now as they were supplying tyres to a script but this is a joke. Worse than a joke!

Ok, they can bleat on about testing etc but this is Silverstone ffs! If they don't know the requirement for tyres here, then any other tracks a case of Russian Roulette!

These tyres are not fit for purpose, the race should be stopped and the season paused until Pirelli can provide safe rubber.

As for next year, get another tyre, shoot the dicks at the FIA that are trying to manipulate races with cheap gimmicks and allow proper testing on safety grounds.
Grow up. If you hate F1 so much, I'm sure you can find a more appropriate forum for yourself.

It's funny to see some of the same fans bickering about "boring" 1-stop races in 2010 are now crying over the side-effects of making the tyres intentionally soft. Not Pirelli's fault, it's the fault of the so-called "fans" who were bitching and moaning about how "boring" the Bridgestone era races were.

[Daniel]

Weak sidewalls was the issue with a certain other tyre supplier back in 2005. This very same manufacturer is much mooted to be 'waiting in the wings'.

And as I understand it, the curbing at turn 4 is unchanged from 2012...

Yes, but the reasons why the Michelin sidewalls failed are well documented. Michelin designed a tyre for the track as it was in 2004 and the track wasn't the same. Still their fault for not doing their homework.....

Yeah, and Pirelli managed to design a tyre for the track as it was last year (and it didn't change) and still managed to **** up :) Which is worse do you think? rofl

[Daniel]

Grow up. If you hate F1 so much, I'm sure you can find a more appropriate forum for yourself.

Seriously, if you like goats so much then why don't you marry one? It would appear that you've got so much pent up goat love that it's clouding your ability to read what people have posted on here.

[joeyz_f1]

Seriously, if you like goats so much then why don't you marry one? It would appear that you've got so much pent up goat love that it's clouding your ability to read what people have posted on here.
Goats? What are you on about now? Did you drink the bong water?

[Daniel]

Goats? What are you on about now? Did you drink the bong water?

No, did you? Joeyz, you're probably not familiar with my habit of replying to nonsensical crap with goat related nonsensical crap, but that's what you've just witnessed.

[henners88]

Grow up. If you hate F1 so much, I'm sure you can find a more appropriate forum for yourself.
Its not really your place to advise people on where to post is it? Knock-on expressed his concern over an aspect of a sport he loves and also has an association with in his job. I'd much rather hear opinions from knowledgeable posters than those who join forums simply to bring attitude and stir.

[joeyz_f1]

Its not really your place to advise people on where to post is it? Knock-on expressed his concern over an aspect of a sport he loves and also has an association with in his job. I'd much rather hear opinions from knowledgeable posters than those who join forums simply to bring attitude and stir.
LOL. That's all I have to say. Did you actually read his post, or did you just say to yourself "My boyfriend always makes lovely posts, therefore joeyz_f1 is automatically an idiot."

[SGWilko]

Did you actually read his post, or did you just say to yourself joeyz_f1 is automatically an idiot."

I hadn't considered that, but now you come to mention it...... ;)

[henners88]

LOL. That's all I have to say. Did you actually read his post, or did you just say to yourself "My boyfriend always makes lovely posts, therefore joeyz_f1 is automatically an idiot."
I read his post and I have also formed my own opinions from reading all of yours since you joined the other day. I'm not in the business of insulting people directly like that but something tells me I'd be better at it than you lol. You're making a great first impression Joey I have to say. Something tells me this latest profile of yours isn't going to last much longer. :s mokin:

[Daniel]

LOL. That's all I have to say. Did you actually read his post, or did you just say to yourself "My boyfriend always makes lovely posts, therefore joeyz_f1 is automatically an idiot."

Jagshemash?

[joeyz_f1]

I read his post and I have also formed my own opinions from reading all of yours since you joined the other day. I'm not in the business of insulting people directly like that but something tells me I'd be better at it than you lol. You're making a great first impression Joey I have to say. Something tells me this latest profile of yours isn't going to last much longer. :s mokin:
Whom did I insult? You're joking I hope.

[Daniel]

Whom did I insult? You're joking I hope.

Oh I dunno, perhaps when you insinuated that henners and knock on were taking each other up the hershey highway? *strokes chin*

[joeyz_f1]

Oh I dunno, perhaps when you insinuated that henners and knock on were taking each other up the hershey highway? *strokes chin*
I don't have anything against homosexuality. It seems to me like you do, however.

[Daniel]

I don't have anything against homosexuality. It seems to me like you do, however.

Let's try what I suggested on the other thread. Complete this sentence.

Daniel, I feel that you have something against people of a homosexual persuasion because of <insert example of thing which I said that would indicate that I have issues with homosexual people>.

[joeyz_f1]

Oh I dunno, perhaps when you insinuated that henners and knock on were taking each other up the hershey highway? *strokes chin*

For a start, I never insinuated it was a sexual relationship. It's clear that they're involved in a fairly intimate relationship that results in anything one of them says being immediately defended by the other. That, or a more shady method such as bribery is being used.

Daniel, I feel that you have something against people of a homosexual persuasion because according to you, stating that two men are likely in a relationship is "insulting".

[Daniel]

For a start, I never insinuated it was a sexual relationship. It's clear that they're involved in a fairly intimate relationship that results in anything one of them says being immediately defended by the other. That, or a more shady method such as bribery is being used.

Daniel, I feel that you have something against people of a homosexual persuasion because according to you, stating that two men are likely in a relationship is "insulting".


It was insulting because the two people mentioned are in fact to my knowledge, both heterosexual, it is a common tactic of people whose knuckles sometimes scrape on the floor to insinuate that their rivals in an internet argument are homosexual.

[henners88]

Whom did I insult? You're joking I hope.
You did refer to knock-on as my boyfriend to which you know nothing about me. I might already have a boyfriend, or I might be married. My guess is you thought it was some kind of put down, hence why you used it. It didn't work however but needed to be tackled.

[joeyz_f1]

You did refer to knock-on as my boyfriend to which you know nothing about me. I might already have a boyfriend, or I might be married. My guess is you thought it was some kind of put down, hence why you used it. It didn't work however but needed to be tackled.
Put down? LOL.

So what is the reason you agree with everything knock-on says?

There are people who I frequently share opinions with, but I admit even those people say things I don't agree with, and occasionally find plain silly to be honest.

I like the kind of people who defend their point of view without accusing their "opponent" of insulting them.

[Daniel]

I might already have a boyfriend

You've just broken Joeyz's heart.

P.S That's not an insult and anyone saying so is a homophobe!

[Daniel]

Put down? LOL.

So what is the reason you agree with everything knock-on says?

There are people who I frequently share opinions with, but I admit even those people say things I don't agree with, and occasionally find plain silly to be honest.

I like the kind of people who defend their point of view without accusing their "opponent" of insulting them.

But what about when their opponent is a knuckle dragger who tries to insult them? What then?

[joeyz_f1]

But what about when their opponent is a knuckle dragger who tries to insult them? What then?
Then by all means, report the post. Still defend your point of view, but don't insult back. However, I'm not quite sure what this has to do with the topic at hand.

[Daniel]

Then by all means, report the post. Still defend your point of view, but don't insult back. However, I'm not quite sure what this has to do with the topic at hand.

I guess you can't hear the voice of reason over the sound of your knuckles scraping the tarmac :)

[henners88]

Put down? LOL.

So what is the reason you agree with everything knock-on says?

There are people who I frequently share opinions with, but I admit even those people say things I don't agree with, and occasionally find plain silly to be honest.

I like the kind of people who defend their point of view without accusing their "opponent" of insulting them.
Perhaps because I agreed with that he was saying. Not every exchange on a forum has to include trolling or arguing. If I don't agree with someone, I challenge them. In Knock-on's case I agreed with what he had to say. If you can't deal with that, then that is your problem not mine. Suggesting he is my boyfriend or that we have an intimate relationship is pathetic in the extreme. I shall report this exchange to the mods and see what they feel is the correct course of action as this thread is way off topic now.

[joeyz_f1]

I guess you can't hear the voice of reason over the sound of your knuckles scraping the tarmac :)
Is that really your only fallback? You're not even defending your opinion any more, you're only using insults (well, one ​insult). It's a bit boring to argue with a troll who only has one insult to use.

[Daniel]

Is that really your only fallback? You're not even defending your opinion any more, you're only using insults (well, one ​insult). It's a bit boring to argue with a troll who only has one insult to use.

It's not my only fallback, but I would hate to go in with a tactical nuke against someone who's trying to fight me with little more than a ping pong paddle.

[joeyz_f1]

Perhaps because I agreed with that he was saying. Not every exchange on a forum has to include trolling or arguing. If I don't agree with someone, I challenge them. In Knock-on's case I agreed with what he had to say. If you can't deal with that, then that is your problem not mine. Suggesting he is my boyfriend or that we have an intimate relationship is pathetic in the extreme. I shall report this exchange to the mods and see what they feel is the correct course of action as this thread is way off topic now.
You're only dragging it off-topic further. Knock-on was trolling, plain and simple. Why else would he come to an F1 section in a forum and insult the sport in as many ways as possible?

Forget it, I don't see why I'm even posting to you guys. You're not even defending your opinion, only insulting me. It's getting boring.

[Daniel]

You're only dragging it off-topic further. Knock-on was trolling, plain and simple. Why else would he come to an F1 section in a forum and insult the sport in as many ways as possible?

Forget it, I don't see why I'm even posting to you guys. You're not even defending your opinion, only insulting me. It's getting boring.

You insinuated that people were homosexual and pretty much never justified your opinions, pot, kettle, black?

[joeyz_f1]

You insinuated that people were homosexual and pretty much never justified your opinions, pot, kettle, black?
I think you don't understand the difference between "justifying an opinion" and "agreeing with you". You may not agree with my reasons for supporting Pirelli, but I did give ​you reasons.

[Daniel]

I think you don't understand the difference between "justifying an opinion" and "agreeing with you". You may not agree with my reasons for supporting Pirelli, but I did give ​you reasons.

No, I understand the difference perfectly well thanks :)

[henners88]

You're only dragging it off-topic further. Knock-on was trolling, plain and simple. Why else would he come to an F1 section in a forum and insult the sport in as many ways as possible?

Forget it, I don't see why I'm even posting to you guys. You're not even defending your opinion, only insulting me. It's getting boring.
All the best.

[Daniel]

https://www.facebook.com/PirelliMotorsport

I must say as a pirelli "disliker" I find some comments on this facebook page to be rather silly. There are people saying "How do you know it's not the bonding if you've not investigated?" well perhaps they're a tyre company and know what could cause the failures we saw? Plonkers.....

[SGWilko]

https://www.facebook.com/PirelliMotorsport

I must say as a pirelli "disliker" I find some comments on this facebook page to be rather silly. There are people saying "How do you know it's not the bonding if you've not investigated?" well perhaps they're a tyre company and know what could cause the failures we saw? Plonkers.....

I do like the references to condoms some of the tyre experts on there have posted - how would you even mount the condom on the wheel rim, let alone inflate it.... :confused:

[Daniel]

I do like the references to condoms some of the tyre experts on there have posted - how would you even mount the condom on the wheel rim, let alone inflate it.... :confused:

There's one guy on there who is part of a group suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job, he doesn't agree with Pirelli that it's not an issue with the adhesive, I think Pirelli have just found their saviour :rotflmao:

[SGWilko]

There's one guy on there who is part of a group suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job, he doesn't agree with Pirelli that it's not an issue with the adhesive, I think Pirelli have just found their saviour :rotflmao:

Inside Job? That was Don Henley!

And what does 9/11 have to do with F1 exactly?

[Daniel]

It's got nothing directly to do with it, it just marks this guy out as being a bit of a plonker that's all.