Does Pirelli think we are all stupid?
Discussion
S0 What said:
The way some on here refuse to see pirelli side of things make me think they may have purchased some P6s back in the 90's are now holding a grudge, actually i can see thier point i had some P6s and they were turely fooking awfull in the wet or after a year of use 
you're not wrong! they were simply terrible!not doing much better with PZero's these days IMHO, hateful tyres...
as for their racing rubber...... (let's just say never again!)
Some folks have said I've waffled on in previous posts. Maybe I have.
However, the facts of the race today is that Mercedes both ran their cars below the minimum tyre pressure limit that Pirelli/FIA stipulated.
But not a single tyre exploded.
Does that mean none of the drivers used the kerbs then?
Or am I missing something?
However, the facts of the race today is that Mercedes both ran their cars below the minimum tyre pressure limit that Pirelli/FIA stipulated.
But not a single tyre exploded.
Does that mean none of the drivers used the kerbs then?
Or am I missing something?
BlimeyCharlie said:
However, the facts of the race today is that Mercedes both ran their cars below the minimum tyre pressure limit that Pirelli/FIA stipulated.
no, your 'FACTS' are wrong.at no point did they run the tyres below the minimums as specified by Pirelli.
what happened is the FIA did a random pressure test without meeting the correct test criteria, and got an erroneous result.
all the bulls
t about measurements being absolute etc is just showing their ignorance of the subject.http://www.brightstorm.com/science/chemistry/kinet...
According to this article - http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia-gives-teams-... - the FIA have new procedures for checking tyre pressures but they seem as clear as mud to me. For the tyres fitted to start the race the pressures can be checked anytime after the five minute signal and adjustments can be made if necessary - two things here, the temperature can surely change in those 5 minutes affecting the pressure so there could be a lack of consistency. Secondly, if they are checked just as the mechanics have to leave the grid how can they be adjusted?
Other tyres will be tested when fitted to the car, in qualifying this may lead to changes in procedures as they are often replaced quite quickly, particularly in Q3.
But it doesn't mention the tyres fitted during the race - how will they be measured? Will the FIA stop the cars at the end of the pitlane and check them? Otherwise how will they check the tyres once fitted to the car?
Still far from clear to me.
Other tyres will be tested when fitted to the car, in qualifying this may lead to changes in procedures as they are often replaced quite quickly, particularly in Q3.
But it doesn't mention the tyres fitted during the race - how will they be measured? Will the FIA stop the cars at the end of the pitlane and check them? Otherwise how will they check the tyres once fitted to the car?
Still far from clear to me.
andyps said:
But it doesn't mention the tyres fitted during the race - how will they be measured? Will the FIA stop the cars at the end of the pitlane and check them? Otherwise how will they check the tyres once fitted to the car?
Still far from clear to me.
stupidity rules again!Still far from clear to me.
Pressures (and temps) are all part of the teams datalogging, they know exactly what they are at all times, if the FIA really want to police this, they need that data adding to their mandatory data-stream (along with the fuel flow data etc).
However, along with this they also need to specify what (min) pressure at what temps etc...
You sometimes dispair at the shear stupidity of the FIA.
The only sensible time to externally measure the minimum pressure is when the tyre is in a blanket, at "x" degrees. The Pirrelli minimum pressure needs to allow for potential cooling on an outlap etc. the fact that they are being internally monitored, should make external monitoring unnecessary.
This looks like a stitch-up to award race penalties to liven up otherwise boring races.
Just regulate against one-stoppers.
The only sensible time to externally measure the minimum pressure is when the tyre is in a blanket, at "x" degrees. The Pirrelli minimum pressure needs to allow for potential cooling on an outlap etc. the fact that they are being internally monitored, should make external monitoring unnecessary.
This looks like a stitch-up to award race penalties to liven up otherwise boring races.
Just regulate against one-stoppers.
Michelin are trying to press their case
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/34313145
But it will probably only happen if they pay Bernie $90million for the privilege.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/34313145
But it will probably only happen if they pay Bernie $90million for the privilege.
rdjohn said:
Michelin are trying to press their case
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/34313145
But it will probably only happen if they pay Bernie $90million for the privilege.
Pirelli could provide exactly the same thing and am sure are pushing for it too!http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/34313145
But it will probably only happen if they pay Bernie $90million for the privilege.
Scuffers said:
Somehow, I doubt it.
My presumption is that all tyre manufacturers will all have access to the same chemical compounds and can blend them to produce a similar and competitive race compound.Are you saying there is something fundamentally wrong in the carcass construction that makes them unfit? I know it is a view you have held from their arrival, after Bridgestone quit.
For the life of me I fail to understand why Pirelli want to be seen as supplying contentious rubber. No such thing as bad publicity, I suppose?
rdjohn said:
My presumption is that all tyre manufacturers will all have access to the same chemical compounds and can blend them to produce a similar and competitive race compound.
Are you saying there is something fundamentally wrong in the carcass construction that makes them unfit? I know it is a view you have held from their arrival, after Bridgestone quit.
For the life of me I fail to understand why Pirelli want to be seen as supplying contentious rubber. No such thing as bad publicity, I suppose?
IHMO they simply are nothing like as good as making race rubber as Michelin/Bridgestone/Dunlop/etc. Are you saying there is something fundamentally wrong in the carcass construction that makes them unfit? I know it is a view you have held from their arrival, after Bridgestone quit.
For the life of me I fail to understand why Pirelli want to be seen as supplying contentious rubber. No such thing as bad publicity, I suppose?
Yes, they can all buy the same raw materials, but how they put them together is the skill, like saying both Ferrari and Fiat engines are made from Aluminium, that does not however, make them comparable.
Scuffers said:
BlimeyCharlie said:
However, the facts of the race today is that Mercedes both ran their cars below the minimum tyre pressure limit that Pirelli/FIA stipulated.
no, your 'FACTS' are wrong.at no point did they run the tyres below the minimums as specified by Pirelli.
what happened is the FIA did a random pressure test without meeting the correct test criteria, and got an erroneous result.
all the bulls
t about measurements being absolute etc is just showing their ignorance of the subject.http://www.brightstorm.com/science/chemistry/kinet...
The FIA are the ones that police the sport, not Pirelli. The tyres were below pressure, but then it was concluded that the test was flawed, although when measured the pressures were too low.
It took 3 hours for this to be 'investigated' and basically work out how to backtrack and avoid even more negative publicity for the sport.
Interesting that there were no mysterious punctures, or abnormal cuts, despite Singapore being a street circuit, as well as lots of debris on the track.
Pirelli also stated last week they demand 17 (I think) test days next year. Sounds to me like an exit strategy between the FIA and Pirelli, as I imagine the FIA won't grant them 17 days (of course so Pirelli and the FIA can save face by parting on good terms) and Michelin will of course be happy to take over. The FIA will blame costs and helping the sport to survive etc why it won't permit 17 days.
Scuffers said:
IHMO they simply are nothing like as good as making race rubber as Michelin/Bridgestone/Dunlop/etc.
Yes, they can all buy the same raw materials, but how they put them together is the skill, like saying both Ferrari and Fiat engines are made from Aluminium, that does not however, make them comparable.
I see where you are coming from. If you asked Ferrari to build a €2,000 engine, they would probably fall short, just as FIAT would with a €50,000 engine.Yes, they can all buy the same raw materials, but how they put them together is the skill, like saying both Ferrari and Fiat engines are made from Aluminium, that does not however, make them comparable.
Historically, if you bought a performance car - Porsche, BMW, they came equipped with Pirellis. When Porsche wanted a tyre for the 930, they asked Pirelli to come up with the P7. I have always held their road tyres in very high regard.
I think from what you are saying, it would be more appropriate to compare Renault and Mercedes hybrid PUs. When winning a tender to supply an F1 tyres to achieve a specific outcome, then they have fallen well-short of requirements.
The other brands you mention may well not have.
Edited by rdjohn on Monday 21st September 19:48
BlimeyCharlie said:
Pirelli also stated last week they demand 17 (I think) test days next year. Sounds to me like an exit strategy between the FIA and Pirelli, as I imagine the FIA won't grant them 17 days (of course so Pirelli and the FIA can save face by parting on good terms) and Michelin will of course be happy to take over. The FIA will blame costs and helping the sport to survive etc why it won't permit 17 days.
But to be fair those aren't 17 team test days, they are 17 Pirelli test days on a mule testbed car that is representative. I don't see an issue with that.mollytherocker said:
Comparing 2015 F1 Pirelli tyres with any road tyre is laughable at best!
You may have read my last post out-of-context.I agree that there F1 tyres have little to do with road tyres. Just as F1 power units will have little in common with any engine likely to be found in a road car in the future.
Bridgestone, Pirelli and potentially Michelin are there for marketing reasons. Pirelli used to be synonymous with high performance road tyres and undoubtedly lost market share to Bridgestone during their successful period as F1 tyre supplier. The impression given was that they are fast and durable.
I struggle to see the marketing benefit to Pirelli when the overwhelming impression from currently being in F1 is that their tyres are fragile and not durable. The opposite of what most drivers want for their road cars.
The piece on the BBC website quotes Michelin stating they can manufacture the tyres that F1 drivers want. 3 seconds faster over the designed tyre life. I am surprised that Pirelli cannot. Scuffers is not.
rdjohn said:
The piece on the BBC website quotes Michelin stating they can manufacture the tyres that F1 drivers want. 3 seconds faster over the designed tyre life. I am surprised that Pirelli cannot. Scuffers is not.
not quite,3 seconds is an arbitrary figure, and almost meaningless without qualification.
My view is that in an open tyre war, Pirelli simply could not compete.
Scuffers said:
Problem is who's car they use as the mule?
Good point. Would need to be representative. Only modern gen car that isn't racing is a Caterham? Then with 17 tests you could simplify it and reduce the number of tests to be equal to the number of constructors, and have them provide 1 car each, in reverse order of 2015 finishing table - e.g Mercedes would probably be first (and so gain the least) and Manor would get the final test and so the most data.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff