****The Official Belgian (Spa) Grand Prix thread 2015****
Discussion
NRS said:
How do you propose making a tyre fail safely? There's only so much you can do when you consider what it is.
Hamilton's tyres in China 2007, as said above, and Raikkonens tyres in 2012. Let the grip and performance run out first, before they are anywhere near the stage of blowing.NRS said:
Not to mention tyres are mentioned, but how many front wing failures have we had compare to tyre failures? And what is the percentage of front wing to tyre failures in percentage of those used? Tyres seem to be an easy thing to pick on, yet the drivers don't go off on one about car parts failing.
Tyres are supplied by Pirelli, wings etc. are their own design. If a wing fails, its their issue and they have to fix it. If a tyre fails its something they don't have control over, up to a point. At Silverstone 2014, a lot of tyre issues were due to odd camber, switching left to right tyres, and kerbs, the tyres still had life in them when they failed. Vettel at Spa was the only one to 1 stop, if he had the 2012 design of tyres that went 'off the cliff' in performance, he would have lost time and come in to make 2 stops, because he would have been losing time hand over fist, as Raikkonen did.The tyres shouldn't keep as much grip near the end of their life as they do now, slow them down until they are useless before they are near getting dangerous.
ajprice said:
Tyres are supplied by Pirelli, wings etc. are their own design. If a wing fails, its their issue and they have to fix it. If a tyre fails its something they don't have control over, up to a point. At Silverstone 2014, a lot of tyre issues were due to odd camber, switching left to right tyres, and kerbs, the tyres still had life in them when they failed. Vettel at Spa was the only one to 1 stop, if he had the 2012 design of tyres that went 'off the cliff' in performance, he would have lost time and come in to make 2 stops, because he would have been losing time hand over fist, as Raikkonen did.
The tyres shouldn't keep as much grip near the end of their life as they do now, slow them down until they are useless before they are near getting dangerous.
I thought that's exactly what these ones did, dropped off a cliff once they'd worn past a certain point.The tyres shouldn't keep as much grip near the end of their life as they do now, slow them down until they are useless before they are near getting dangerous.
Anyone know what Seb's lap times were like before the crash? Can't find any sites showing the data.
budgie smuggler said:
I thought that's exactly what these ones did, dropped off a cliff once they'd worn past a certain point.
Anyone know what Seb's lap times were like before the crash? Can't find any sites showing the data.
It's here, together with an article about how there was no drop off in lap times: http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2015/08/23/no-drop-off-...Anyone know what Seb's lap times were like before the crash? Can't find any sites showing the data.
And pressing some buttons gives you this:
I think too much analysis takes away from the fact that it popped. It might do again, it might not.
Vaud said:
KarlMac said:
Wont that be from locking up as he went off?
That's from the lock up.most tyres I have ever seen/used (racing slicks) if you lock them up and flat-spot them to the extreme, will simply wear a flat though the tread, and if you keep locked up, you end up on the tyres carcase.
if you look at this picture, it's actually showing something different.
the tread layer has simply started peeling away from the tyre carcase, like it's bonding is weaker than the tread backing material.
I have only ever seen this kind of failure before once, (ironically on a Pirelli 18" slick, where the outer tread started to peal off for no apparent reason).
Now, I have no idea how much money is involved in making these tyres, but one assumes it's more than the costs of your average GT racing slicks or the like, and the volumes made will be somewhat lower too, however, I would suggest they could do a better job.
You only have to look at Lemans, their tyres were doing multiple driver stints, at higher terminal speeds, with more downforce/weight/power, yet how many of them had catastrophic tyre failures?
The problem I think is due to the way the tyres have to be made to fulfill the regulations. The outside needs to be a softer material to be able to wear out pretty quickly. However when you combine this with a hard/strong carcass the layers will not bond together well due to the way the different materials interact. But if you make the inner carcass softer/ weaker like the outside it will create issues where it is not strong enough (same with the walls of the tyre). So it is in some ways wrong to compare to Hamilton's tyres for example. I would imagine Le Mans being about long tyre life means they can have similar hard material for both parts of the tyre, reducing the chance of this happening there.
ajprice said:
Tyres are supplied by Pirelli, wings etc. are their own design. If a wing fails, its their issue and they have to fix it. If a tyre fails its something they don't have control over, up to a point. At Silverstone 2014, a lot of tyre issues were due to odd camber, switching left to right tyres, and kerbs, the tyres still had life in them when they failed. Vettel at Spa was the only one to 1 stop, if he had the 2012 design of tyres that went 'off the cliff' in performance, he would have lost time and come in to make 2 stops, because he would have been losing time hand over fist, as Raikkonen did.
The tyres shouldn't keep as much grip near the end of their life as they do now, slow them down until they are useless before they are near getting dangerous.
Yes, but quite a few people are going on about tyres being super bad, when it's no worse than some other parts of the car, and no one is calling for team x to be punished because they did something that resulted in a driver being at risk. Why is it different for the tyre company?The tyres shouldn't keep as much grip near the end of their life as they do now, slow them down until they are useless before they are near getting dangerous.
NRS said:
Yes, but quite a few people are going on about tyres being super bad, when it's no worse than some other parts of the car, and no one is calling for team x to be punished because they did something that resulted in a driver being at risk. Why is it different for the tyre company?
well, one way to look at this is this.The teams are competing with each other, they have to come up with new and better designs of XYZ as much as they can, and with zero testing, sometimes stuff goes wrong.
Pirelli on the other hand are competing with nobody, the tyres are fixed for the whole year, they are not developing anything, hell, their tyres performance is some seconds of the pace tyres were 10-20+ years ago, yet they still don't seem to be able to make them work safely.
andy-xr said:
It's here, together with an article about how there was no drop off in lap times: http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2015/08/23/no-drop-off-...
And pressing some buttons gives you this:
I think too much analysis takes away from the fact that it popped. It might do again, it might not.
Thanks Andy.And pressing some buttons gives you this:
I think too much analysis takes away from the fact that it popped. It might do again, it might not.
Scuffers said:
NRS said:
Yes, but quite a few people are going on about tyres being super bad, when it's no worse than some other parts of the car, and no one is calling for team x to be punished because they did something that resulted in a driver being at risk. Why is it different for the tyre company?
well, one way to look at this is this.The teams are competing with each other, they have to come up with new and better designs of XYZ as much as they can, and with zero testing, sometimes stuff goes wrong.
Pirelli on the other hand are competing with nobody, the tyres are fixed for the whole year, they are not developing anything, hell, their tyres performance is some seconds of the pace tyres were 10-20+ years ago, yet they still don't seem to be able to make them work safely.
http://media.crash.net/original/PA1771250.0036.jpg
That tyre looks like a dodgy re-mould. As did Vettel's when the race tread fell off prior to the tyre disintegrating.
We will never know the truth. Both Michelin and Pirelli have been approved by the FIA to supply tyres to F1, but the final decision will be the made by the man who only counts big bucks as his friends. And he has already stated that his preference is for Pirelli to continue. So no questions asked - no explanation necessary.
That tyre looks like a dodgy re-mould. As did Vettel's when the race tread fell off prior to the tyre disintegrating.
We will never know the truth. Both Michelin and Pirelli have been approved by the FIA to supply tyres to F1, but the final decision will be the made by the man who only counts big bucks as his friends. And he has already stated that his preference is for Pirelli to continue. So no questions asked - no explanation necessary.
NRS said:
Pirelli also have limited testing time, and I think their problems are made worse BECAUSE of having to make the tyres worse. Getting materials with very different properties to stay together is harder than doing it if they are both very similar (e.g. soft fastwearing compounds as tread on the carcass rather than hard long lasting ones like they used to make/ that tyre manufacturers make for Le Mans for example).
sorry, that's just garbage, on several levels.if Pirelli needed to do more testing, they could easily do it with another car, or just go to the FIA and ask for some help.
the issues they are having are systemic from their inability to make decent race tyres, period.
Look at the issues GP2/GP3 have had too.
Scuffers said:
sorry, that's just garbage, on several levels.
if Pirelli needed to do more testing, they could easily do it with another car, or just go to the FIA and ask for some help.
the issues they are having are systemic from their inability to make decent race tyres, period.
Look at the issues GP2/GP3 have had too.
Not garbage at all. With no in season testing of the cars they have to use older cars. Just look at the problems caused by the "Pirelli/Mercedes secret" tests from 2013. By using older cars there is a big different in performance, with them being a few seconds slower. Interestingly enough Vettel's tyres before the failure was the second longest the mediums have been run this season. The car to run the longest was a Marussia. Big difference in performance and thus the stresses the tyre will be exposed too.if Pirelli needed to do more testing, they could easily do it with another car, or just go to the FIA and ask for some help.
the issues they are having are systemic from their inability to make decent race tyres, period.
Look at the issues GP2/GP3 have had too.
NRS said:
Not garbage at all. With no in season testing of the cars they have to use older cars. Just look at the problems caused by the "Pirelli/Mercedes secret" tests from 2013. By using older cars there is a big different in performance, with them being a few seconds slower. Interestingly enough Vettel's tyres before the failure was the second longest the mediums have been run this season. The car to run the longest was a Marussia. Big difference in performance and thus the stresses the tyre will be exposed too.
so why did they suggest they were good for 40 laps then?(also not sure your correct on the highest milage figures)
carinaman said:
It was worth it see Eddie Jordan going on about Renault in relation to the team now known as Lotus getting on the podium with Grosjean despite them having a Mercedes engine
Im glad I wasn't the only one to spot this. I had to do a double take at the time and thought Oh Ive had it wrong all this time, but know it was Eddie who got it wrong!spats said:
Im glad I wasn't the only one to spot this. I had to do a double take at the time and thought Oh Ive had it wrong all this time, but know it was Eddie who got it wrong!
He repeated it on the Forum and I was unimpressed that neither Perry nor Coulthard corrected him after he said it the first time.Scuffers said:
yes, it is, however, it also illustrates the issue with these tyres.
most tyres I have ever seen/used (racing slicks) if you lock them up and flat-spot them to the extreme, will simply wear a flat though the tread, and if you keep locked up, you end up on the tyres carcase.
if you look at this picture, it's actually showing something different.
That's the inner tube!most tyres I have ever seen/used (racing slicks) if you lock them up and flat-spot them to the extreme, will simply wear a flat though the tread, and if you keep locked up, you end up on the tyres carcase.
if you look at this picture, it's actually showing something different.
Scuffers said:
NRS said:
Not garbage at all. With no in season testing of the cars they have to use older cars. Just look at the problems caused by the "Pirelli/Mercedes secret" tests from 2013. By using older cars there is a big different in performance, with them being a few seconds slower. Interestingly enough Vettel's tyres before the failure was the second longest the mediums have been run this season. The car to run the longest was a Marussia. Big difference in performance and thus the stresses the tyre will be exposed too.
so why did they suggest they were good for 40 laps then?(also not sure your correct on the highest milage figures)
In regards to the distances I got the numbers from here. However I obviously misread and it seems to be recent races, so not sure on the total number on a tyre for the season now.
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2015/08/sebastian-ve...
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff