Does Pirelli think we are all stupid?
Discussion
Vaud said:
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.
A problem next year with using the Caterham might be the lack of Renault engines.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.
F1 is flawed as as it is now in general as it's supposed to be the pinnacle of Motorsport yet a lot of things are controlled based on the cost argument. I think teams should be allowed to produce whatever they think is best to the best of their abilities and spend as much as the deem necessary.
Now under these current compromised regulations, tyres can still be produced to their best performance levels and abilities, but to create the artificial 'excitement ' levels, teams can be made to perform compulsory pitstops which vary by circuit. That way driver skill and team machinery will hopefully be performing at peak rather than running to managed compromises
Now under these current compromised regulations, tyres can still be produced to their best performance levels and abilities, but to create the artificial 'excitement ' levels, teams can be made to perform compulsory pitstops which vary by circuit. That way driver skill and team machinery will hopefully be performing at peak rather than running to managed compromises
andyps said:
A problem next year with using the Caterham might be the lack of Renault engines.
Why, do you think they are pulling out entirely?Anyhow, a 2013 Caterham with a 2013 engine should be representative enough. Renault would provide support for the car for enough $$ - it would only need to close to race pace?
Question - are any of the new generation cars in private hands yet?
Vaud said:
Why, do you think they are pulling out entirely?
Anyhow, a 2013 Caterham with a 2013 engine should be representative enough. Renault would provide support for the car for enough $$ - it would only need to close to race pace?
Question - are any of the new generation cars in private hands yet?
It seems possible, in which case Renault would have no interest in helping I guess.Anyhow, a 2013 Caterham with a 2013 engine should be representative enough. Renault would provide support for the car for enough $$ - it would only need to close to race pace?
Question - are any of the new generation cars in private hands yet?
This is the only reference I have seen for the 17 test days demand
http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/9979771/pir...
The test is related to the proposed 2017 regulation changes so pottering around in an old Caterham would have little benefit. They need a car heavily influenced by the proposed regs and who is going to provide that during 2016?
http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/9979771/pir...
The test is related to the proposed 2017 regulation changes so pottering around in an old Caterham would have little benefit. They need a car heavily influenced by the proposed regs and who is going to provide that during 2016?
rdjohn said:
According to Autosport, our hopes have been dashed and Pirelli have been appointed tyre supplier for another term.
??
That was reported on the BBC warm up prog. Bernie and the head of Pirelli; another three years. A shame in my opinion because, regardless of whether they're just doing what they're told or not, it means three more years of tyre limited 'racing'. ??
Sad.
REALIST123 said:
That was reported on the BBC warm up prog. Bernie and the head of Pirelli; another three years. A shame in my opinion because, regardless of whether they're just doing what they're told or not, it means three more years of tyre limited 'racing'.
Sad.
I really dont get these views. Pirelli are making the tyre do what the FIA wants! It doesnt matter which manufacturer comes in, they will be told to make sSad.
t tyres!mollytherocker said:
I really dont get these views. Pirelli are making the tyre do what the FIA wants! It doesnt matter which manufacturer comes in, they will be told to make st tyres!
I really don't get how you have failed miserably to understand the problem.t tyres!the FIA never asked for tyres that:
1) explode at the first signs of duress
2) need stupidly high running pressures not to delaminate
3) have variable consistency set to set
4) if pushed hard destroys any grip.
FIA asked for tyres that would degrade over their stint to encourage multiple tyre stops etc, period, they did not ask for the most fragile excuse for racing tyres ever seen.
Let's not forget Michelin couldn't make a tyre to survive Indianapolis not that long ago but out of the 2 I would of preferred Michelin over pirelli, I have no proof of this but from looking on as a outsider and f1 fan it looks as though pirelli have been winging it and haven't really got a clue on failures and how to make a tyre last or degrade, they either fall off at 8 laps when the team need them to last 22 or they go on to last the race, button said yesterday that his grip was as good at the end than at the start and these are tyres that were supposedly softer than last year......go figure!
As for looking after tyres and managing the stint this isn't new, I was watching a 'classic races' episode on the f1 channel the other day from the early 80's and Hunt was saying then so and so's looking after his tyres so they can last to the end, another driver was seemingly looking after fuel as well.
If drivers have to get 20+ laps out of a tyre that's going to start crying at 6 or 7 then he's going to drive a bit gingerly isn't he, don't blame the driver or the team, you maybe can't even blame the tyre manufacturer as if they made tyres that would last that 20+ laps before screaming then the teams would push them to 30 laps to save a pitstop.
My suggestion is to have 2 compulsory stops, this might have to be revised to a 3 depending on track and previous data so a 60 lap race would become a 2 stopper with 3 20 lap stints, make a tyre that lasts 30 laps, this then allows driver to push right to the end of the stint, set the pit window +/- 2 laps of the allowed stint that way you won't get a driver one stopping at lap 40 with a tyre that only designed for 30.
You can do the same for fuel, why have we got this fuel saving bks limit, oh look everyone f1 is so green that we can complete a whole race on a cup full, OK so how come when a team puts EVEN LESS fuel in that is needed to complete the race and within laps of the start has to go into fuel saving mode still wins the race but then gets no recognition of it from the FIA or anyone else that matters from the world of 'save our planet', if it doesn't matter then make it compulsory to put more fuel in than you need?
This is obviously fag packet stuff and someone will come along and pick faults with the lot of it without coming up with a solution themselves!
Let's hear some others.
As for looking after tyres and managing the stint this isn't new, I was watching a 'classic races' episode on the f1 channel the other day from the early 80's and Hunt was saying then so and so's looking after his tyres so they can last to the end, another driver was seemingly looking after fuel as well.
If drivers have to get 20+ laps out of a tyre that's going to start crying at 6 or 7 then he's going to drive a bit gingerly isn't he, don't blame the driver or the team, you maybe can't even blame the tyre manufacturer as if they made tyres that would last that 20+ laps before screaming then the teams would push them to 30 laps to save a pitstop.
My suggestion is to have 2 compulsory stops, this might have to be revised to a 3 depending on track and previous data so a 60 lap race would become a 2 stopper with 3 20 lap stints, make a tyre that lasts 30 laps, this then allows driver to push right to the end of the stint, set the pit window +/- 2 laps of the allowed stint that way you won't get a driver one stopping at lap 40 with a tyre that only designed for 30.
You can do the same for fuel, why have we got this fuel saving b
ks limit, oh look everyone f1 is so green that we can complete a whole race on a cup full, OK so how come when a team puts EVEN LESS fuel in that is needed to complete the race and within laps of the start has to go into fuel saving mode still wins the race but then gets no recognition of it from the FIA or anyone else that matters from the world of 'save our planet', if it doesn't matter then make it compulsory to put more fuel in than you need?This is obviously fag packet stuff and someone will come along and pick faults with the lot of it without coming up with a solution themselves!
Let's hear some others.
Scuffers said:
mollytherocker said:
I really dont get these views. Pirelli are making the tyre do what the FIA wants! It doesnt matter which manufacturer comes in, they will be told to make st tyres!
I really don't get how you have failed miserably to understand the problem.t tyres!the FIA never asked for tyres that:
1) explode at the first signs of duress
2) need stupidly high running pressures not to delaminate
3) have variable consistency set to set
4) if pushed hard destroys any grip.
FIA asked for tyres that would degrade over their stint to encourage multiple tyre stops etc, period, they did not ask for the most fragile excuse for racing tyres ever seen.
Pirelli has delivered exactly that. The blow out thing is nonsense.
No wonder they go their contract renewed.
Gaz. said:
mollytherocker said:
On what basis can you predict this?
They are very rarely the tyre of choice in open competition, those that do run them tend to switch at the first opportunity and their results improve.They make great road tyres (P6000 aside) but their competition tyres have historically been out performed by Bridgestone, Michelin & Goodyear in nearly every series where there has been a choice.
Doink said:
Let's not forget Michelin couldn't make a tyre to survive Indianapolis not that long ago
total red-herring.the Indianapolis debacle was down to the new surface being used that Michelin were unaware of, (Bridgestone had encountered this already with the Indy cars running Firestone tyres).
good overview of that weekend here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_United_States_G...
Even ignoring that, you're using one race with a specific track problem vs. how many Pirellis have failed/exploded?
Scuffers said:
Doink said:
Let's not forget Michelin couldn't make a tyre to survive Indianapolis not that long ago
total red-herring.the Indianapolis debacle was down to the new surface being used that Michelin were unaware of, (Bridgestone had encountered this already with the Indy cars running Firestone tyres).
good overview of that weekend here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_United_States_G...
Even ignoring that, you're using one race with a specific track problem vs. how many Pirellis have failed/exploded?
MiniMan64 said:
Not as many as you seem to think I'd predict.
10 seconds on google:http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/formula-1/nico-rosbe...
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/03/sport/motorsport...
http://www.f1-fansite.com/f1-news/pirelli-consider...
Scuffers said:
Doink said:
Let's not forget Michelin couldn't make a tyre to survive Indianapolis not that long ago
total red-herring.the Indianapolis debacle was down to the new surface being used that Michelin were unaware of, (Bridgestone had encountered this already with the Indy cars running Firestone tyres).
good overview of that weekend here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_United_States_G...
Even ignoring that, you're using one race with a specific track problem vs. how many Pirellis have failed/exploded?
I swear pirelli are winging it
Doink said:
Not a good enough excuse in my book, to build a tyre that only works a certain surfaces, Jesus its grippy tarmac not some specialized coating never seen before anywhere BUT that said I would still prefer Michelin in f1 now over pirelli, I'm certain they've learnt a lot since the Indy debacle which I hoped I made clear before
I swear pirelli are winging it
so, you think you could come up with a competitive tyre that's 100% for a cct you have almost zero data for an no testing?I swear pirelli are winging it
No tyre company in the world could manage that, hence the problem.
At the time, they were at odds trying to work out what the problem was (it was less than obvious).
IMHO that was 100% down to Spankie, and did F1/Michelin/etc terminal damage in the US.
Didn't Ralf have a tyre failure under the exact same circumstances ie sidewall failure a year before so to say the 2005 failures were something new is wrong, you'd still think a multi billion global organisation such as Michelin could research, design and build a tyre that cope, I would like to think so!
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff