Does Pirelli think we are all stupid?

Does Pirelli think we are all stupid?

Author
Discussion

BlimeyCharlie

Original Poster:

901 posts

141 months

Monday 24th August 2015
quotequote all
I posted this in the Spa F1 forum, but think it deserves a dedicated keyboard zone for people like me who feel like we are being taken for idiots.

Thus it was...

Pirelli are judge and jury with regard to their product failing or otherwise.
As Vettel grasped, and was vocal about, is that Pirelli are not going to say they made a bad/faulty tyre (again), are they?

Normally tyres wear out by the black rings you see of missing tread that is worn out in holes/patches.

Now a worn out tyre just explodes.

Pirelli are not making sense, are they?

With regard to Rosberg's failure, and listening to Pirelli's explanation is that the tyre was punctured/cut, but kind of inside-out, so it fell to bits on the inside first, then exploded. So Rosberg drove for half a lap at full speed, in an F1 car at Spa, with a tyre that had a cut in it?

I don't think so.
Last year as soon as Hamilton was tapped by Rosberg his tyre was punctured/cut it went flat, not half a lap later.

And presumably Vettel's 3 remaining tyres were about to explode as well?
On a clockwise circuit like Spa you would expect more wear on the outside tyre, not the inside as in Rosberg's and Vettel's.

Nothing makes sense. Not only are F1 drivers being treated like they are thick, but we all are. Again.

The guy in charge of Pirelli appears better suited to managing a supermarket store/bank with his 'blame everyone else' culture. He's always been a bit arrogant/smarmy I think. Rather than looking into the problem properly and going through the motions, he has upset the teams as well as making a fool of Pirelli, at a time when Michelin are looking into taking over things again.

Finally, Paul Hembery (Pirelli main man) reminds me of David Brent, but at least he was funny in 'The Office'.

Nigel_O

2,858 posts

218 months

Monday 24th August 2015
quotequote all
I'm 100% behind the fact that tyres should never fail catastrophically due to wear, unless several significant warning signs have already been ignored

However, its not like this is new - Ralf Schumacher (+ many others) at the '05 US Grand Prix, Nigel Mansell in Australia in '86, and many in the British GP a couple of years ago

However, in Pirelli's defence, they are being asked to provide a tyre that won't last, in order to spice up the racing, so they should not be made to stand alone in taking the blame for the failures

ewenm

28,506 posts

244 months

Monday 24th August 2015
quotequote all
Nigel_O said:
I'm 100% behind the fact that tyres should never fail catastrophically due to wear, unless several significant warning signs have already been ignored

However, its not like this is new - Ralf Schumacher (+ many others) at the '05 US Grand Prix, Nigel Mansell in Australia in '86, and many in the British GP a couple of years ago

However, in Pirelli's defence, they are being asked to provide a tyre that won't last, in order to spice up the racing, so they should not be made to stand alone in taking the blame for the failures
And it might help if the drivers stayed ON the circuit...

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Monday 24th August 2015
quotequote all
all the arguments about kerbs etc are bogus, kerbs have been around for decades, tyres have not been catastrophically failing like the Pirellis.

this picture from the other thread illisrtates the point, these are worn out tyres:



they did not explode, they wore out.

RGambo

847 posts

168 months

Monday 24th August 2015
quotequote all
ewenm said:
Nigel_O said:
I'm 100% behind the fact that tyres should never fail catastrophically due to wear, unless several significant warning signs have already been ignored

However, its not like this is new - Ralf Schumacher (+ many others) at the '05 US Grand Prix, Nigel Mansell in Australia in '86, and many in the British GP a couple of years ago

However, in Pirelli's defence, they are being asked to provide a tyre that won't last, in order to spice up the racing, so they should not be made to stand alone in taking the blame for the failures
And it might help if the drivers stayed ON the circuit...
Yes, I agree. It was laughable the way they were just driving where they felt like. Over the top of the hill at Radillion,the exit of corner with no name, middle and exit of Pouon, fange chicane, the exit of corner Paul frère, exit of Blanchemont. All just drifting the car over kerbs and onto what is supposed to be run off. I think in this case the drivers should take a look in the mirror, put their own houses in order (i.e, STAY ON THE CIRCUIT), then, IF the tyres fail, Pirelli can be held accountable and should improve the product.
I did have a chuckle a Verstappens pass of Nasr?(I think) around the outside of Blanchemont . Ballsey, great to see, but given that Nasr gave him roomon the outside, why did he still clatter over the kerbs, 4 wheels off and rejoined to pass under brakes. It was 1 or 2 years back that Roman grosjean was penalised for doing exactly the same in Hungary.

ewenm

28,506 posts

244 months

Monday 24th August 2015
quotequote all
Isn't manufactured excitement what F1 is trying to deliver? Exploding tyres, moveable areo, enforced pit stops.

moanthebairns

17,918 posts

197 months

Monday 24th August 2015
quotequote all
so Pirelli are asked to make two tyres that wear out quicker to make more interesting racing.

doing so will compromise some of the previous tyres durability and robustness but people have a pop.

is there more to this?

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Monday 24th August 2015
quotequote all
moanthebairns said:
so Pirelli are asked to make two tyres that wear out quicker to make more interesting racing.

doing so will compromise some of the previous tyres durability and robustness but people have a pop.

is there more to this?
making a tyre wear out is one thing, having it catastrophically fail is something else.

rdjohn

6,135 posts

194 months

Monday 24th August 2015
quotequote all
After Jules's accident last year everyone was saying that addressing safety issues was paramount. This issue keeps coming back. When HAM, ALO and VET are complaining to Charlie that something needs to be done, there is a problem.

To meet the required specification the carcass needs to be bulletproof, but coated with a race compound that that degrades in a predictable way. Any failure needs to be progressive and flagged by partial deflation. What we do not know is if Michelin or Bridgestone could meet these requirements.

Pirrelli offered a sensible solution back in 2013, but this was rejected by the teams. When it suits them, safety is never paramount. No doubt after Justin Wilson's death calls for closed canopies will be raised again; and then quietly forgotten.

Edited by rdjohn on Tuesday 25th August 12:40

MartG

20,620 posts

203 months

Monday 24th August 2015
quotequote all
Thanks to the specifications and requirements laid down in the tyre supply contract by the FIA, and any other manufacturer would be in exactly the same position as Pirelli now are - forced to supply a tyre which degrades quickly in order to artificially 'spice up' the racing. I suspect there is also a maximum weight specified in the contract too, which would limit how much reinforcing structure can be built into the tyre.

No-one seems to be having a pop at the FIA for specifying crap tyres, just at the supplier who is making the specified product.

Over a GP weekend Pirelli supply 1040 dry-compound tyres ( plus inter and wets ), so having two fail is a miniscule percentage.

The fact that two years ago Pirelli requested a ruling to limit the mileage of a set of tyres but were turned down is also a telling factor. The teams are well known for ignoring advice in their quest for speed, an example being them running outside the recommended geometry settings which resulted in a number of failures.

Vettel is on record as saying he didn't leave the track, yet video evidence clearly shows him bouncing and drifting over kerbs on every lap - given the mileage on the tyres I'm not surprised that one of them eventually let go.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Monday 24th August 2015
quotequote all
MartG said:
No-one seems to be having a pop at the FIA for specifying crap tyres, just at the supplier who is making the specified product.
making a tyre wear out is one thing, having it catastrophically fail is something else.

the fIA did not mandate tyres that explode.

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 24th August 2015
quotequote all
MartG said:
Thanks to the specifications and requirements laid down in the tyre supply contract by the FIA, and any other manufacturer would be in exactly the same position as Pirelli now are - forced to supply a tyre which degrades quickly in order to artificially 'spice up' the racing. I suspect there is also a maximum weight specified in the contract too, which would limit how much reinforcing structure can be built into the tyre.

No-one seems to be having a pop at the FIA for specifying crap tyres, just at the supplier who is making the specified product.

Over a GP weekend Pirelli supply 1040 dry-compound tyres ( plus inter and wets ), so having two fail is a miniscule percentage.

The facts that two years ago Pirelli requested a ruling to limit the mileage of a set of tyres but were turned down is also a telling factor. The teams are well known for ignoring advice in their quest for speed, an example being them running outside the recommended geometry settings which resulted in a number of failures.

Vettel is on record as saying he didn't leave the track, yet video evidence clearly shows him bouncing and drifting over kerbs on every lap - given the mileage on the tyres I'm not surprised that one of them eventually let go.
No reason whatsoever to not make a tyre that can survive, even when worn out and run over kerbs, as they always have been.

But, as you say, it's a miniscule percentage. Would you apply the same reasoning if a driver died because Pirelli can't make safe tyres?

Puddenchucker

4,036 posts

217 months

Monday 24th August 2015
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
tyres have not been catastrophically failing like the Pirellis.
Mika Hakkinen may have reason to disagree:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkPdXMHBNC4

I'm not necessarily defending Pirelli here, but to single-out and criticize them, as we don't know all the facts as yet, is a little unfair.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Monday 24th August 2015
quotequote all
That was a puncture, not random type failure.

For bridgestone, it was a one off, for pirelli, its the norm.

Derek Smith

45,512 posts

247 months

Monday 24th August 2015
quotequote all
BlimeyCharlie said:
Pirelli are judge and jury with regard to their product failing or otherwise.

As Vettel grasped, and was vocal about, is that Pirelli are not going to say they made a bad/faulty tyre (again), are they?
I would suggest that Vettel tried to be judge and jury by blaming Pirelli before any investigation.

I feel certain that Pirelli will check the other covers after the race and, taking into consideration the mileage, the cornering forces, the variable loadings, the acceleration and the speeds the various covers were subjected to, will then submit their findings to the FIA. I think they will be asked to justify any conclusion with evidence.

I can't see Pirelli being allowed to come to their own conclusions.

Whether or not the failure was down to Pirelli is something that must be worked out with evidence and not criticisms from irritated drivers. I like Vettel, and I can understand his frustration at losing a possible (probable I think) podium spot and a component failing just after Eau Rouge. However, it was wrong to broadcast it. Pirelli is as entitled to the facts being presented as any other contributor to F1.

BlimeyCharlie

Original Poster:

901 posts

141 months

Monday 24th August 2015
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
BlimeyCharlie said:
Pirelli are judge and jury with regard to their product failing or otherwise.

As Vettel grasped, and was vocal about, is that Pirelli are not going to say they made a bad/faulty tyre (again), are they?
I would suggest that Vettel tried to be judge and jury by blaming Pirelli before any investigation.

I feel certain that Pirelli will check the other covers after the race and, taking into consideration the mileage, the cornering forces, the variable loadings, the acceleration and the speeds the various covers were subjected to, will then submit their findings to the FIA. I think they will be asked to justify any conclusion with evidence.

I can't see Pirelli being allowed to come to their own conclusions.

Whether or not the failure was down to Pirelli is something that must be worked out with evidence and not criticisms from irritated drivers. I like Vettel, and I can understand his frustration at losing a possible (probable I think) podium spot and a component failing just after Eau Rouge. However, it was wrong to broadcast it. Pirelli is as entitled to the facts being presented as any other contributor to F1.
Pirelli said they'd looked at Rosberg's tyre and concluded it was a puncture not caused by their manufacturing etc, yet explained the delamination from inside was caused by a puncture/foreign body entering the tyre.
How does that work?
Are we expected to believe that it was an inside out puncture? To me the tyre fell to bits and then exploded. That was not a puncture.

At no stage has the FIA said they'd looked at Pirelli's evidence. Unless the FIA or otherwise state they have looked at the evidence Pirelli have found to reach their own conclusion then the process is flawed, hence why I said Pirelli are judge and jury. Did Mercedes see the evidence Pirelli had 'found'?

Also, Vettel did not leave the track, as in overshoot or visit a gravel trap. Running over a kerb is what everyone did all weekend. Verstappen did it in style and his tyres didn't explode.

So it appears most of us have accepted Pirelli's public stance over people like Vettel, Rosberg, Hamilton and Alonso, who you'd think know what they are talking about.





PhillipM

6,515 posts

188 months

Monday 24th August 2015
quotequote all
BlimeyCharlie said:
Are we expected to believe that it was an inside out puncture? To me the tyre fell to bits and then exploded. That was not a puncture.
I'd like to know what caused the tyre on the other side to go down as well - look at the pictures of the car during the spin. Could be a coincidence, but Pirelli long ago lost the benefit of doubt tbfh.

mollytherocker

14,365 posts

208 months

Tuesday 25th August 2015
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
making a tyre wear out is one thing, having it catastrophically fail is something else.
You can't seperate the two. Once the tyre becomes worn below a certain level it is going to eventually explode.

I don't see how you could design a tyre that wouldn't.

Perhaps, they could have coloured wear indicators, like a big wide rubber red stripe that appears once it is worn below its safe operating level.

FW18

243 posts

140 months

Tuesday 25th August 2015
quotequote all
Sorry but Vettel made a bit of a fool out of himself on Sunday. Yes by all means try a one stop strategy, but you should realise the risks this involves and is a bit of a gamble that will either make you look like a hero or idiot, particularly when pushing hard over the kerbs.

Pirelli can make tyres like the Bridgestones back in the 00's that were made of granite and could do 100's of laps without any issues, but they have been asked to make this type of tyre. Want to point the finger at someone, point it at the FIA not Pirelli.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Tuesday 25th August 2015
quotequote all
mollytherocker said:
You can't seperate the two. Once the tyre becomes worn below a certain level it is going to eventually explode.

I don't see how you could design a tyre that wouldn't.

Perhaps, they could have coloured wear indicators, like a big wide rubber red stripe that appears once it is worn below its safe operating level.
explain this then:



plenty of tyres have gone down to the 'canvas' in the past, yes if you then keep going, they will let go, but vettel was no where near this level of wear, his lap times were still very much up there, what happened was the entire tread departed, not wore out.