Does Pirelli think we are all stupid?

[Scuffers]

Doink said:

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!

no, that was the same event.

and no, without hard data for the cct, surface etc it's always going to be a gamble, that's why you do testing.

you could level the same arguments about the tyres on Concorde, took them 2-3 go'es to get them fixed too.

[Doink]

Scuffers said:

Doink said:

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!

no, that was the same event.

and no, without hard data for the cct, surface etc it's always going to be a gamble, that's why you do testing.

you could level the same arguments about the tyres on Concorde, took them 2-3 go'es to get them fixed too.

Incorrect, Ralf had the failure in 04 in the williams, in 05 he was in a toyota and had the same failure so Michelin goes they had a full season plus winter testing between failures

But listen, Michelin wiped the floor with bridgestone despite that hiccup and i still have more faith in Michelin than pirelli

[Mr_Thyroid]

He crashed both years. 2004 in the race - knocked unconscious and missed several events. 2005 during practice walked away. I'm not 100% sure but I think 2004 was tyre failure. According to wikipedia 2005 was also tyre failure. I remember one of the major factors in the Michelin runners being unable to race was images that showed the side wall rippling as they went round the banking.

[NuisanceFactor]

Doink said:

<snip> its grippy tarmac not some specialized coating never seen before anywhere </snip>

Doink said:

so Michelin goes they had a full season plus winter testing between failures

This is what I wrote to another PHer a couple of years ago, not sure if it's entirely correct, but it's how I remember it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

NuisanceFactor said:

This, as I understand it, is how the events of 2005 came to pass.

In 2004 Ralf's crash was caused by the tyre being punctured after picking up debris from an earlier crash/blowout (Alonso had a blowout on the previous lap?). Whilst not related to the above, later that year, turn 13 was resurfaced and a diamond cut (grooved?) finish applied.

During this time, in season testing was limited and allowed only on specific tracks. Indianapolis was not one of the allowed tracks, so neither company (Bridgestone or Michelin) were able to do any tyre testing there.

Following the resurfacing, there was a test session for some Indycar teams on 5th April, and the Indy 500 was run on May 29th, all runners used Firestone (a Bridgestone subsidiary) tyres.

Consequently, Bridgestone had access to all kinds of data that they could use to help them prepare their F1 tyres to take account of the additional abrasiveness. The US GP was held at Indianapolis on June 19th.

[NRS]

Scuffers said:

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.

1) When Pirilli have very little testing time (and even less time testing different tracks) then it's not too surprising. However it's a lot less than you make out. The main incident was when teams were running the tyres completely contrary to how they were supposed to. If someone stuck their tyres on with the wrong rotation direction etc would you assume it was their fault or the manufacturer if there was issues? Also how are you supposed to make a very soft tyre on the outside but one that is strong in the middle without a bonding issue? If it's soft all the way through tyres will explode. If they're very soft on the outside but hard on the middle it will create very different consistencies/ compounds which will be hard to get to hold together.
2) They can run lower pressures, but since anything that happens they get blamed for they want to avoid this. And just how much impact does it have on you watching the race? Are the cars visibly slower because of the few bars of extra pressure to what they ran before?
3) Where does that evidence come from?
4) They seem to be a lot better this season - we have had a lot of people chasing each other for the race (including the person behind being in dirty air the entire time) and it's not been an issue. If anything it tends to be brakes that are mentioned (you need to back off for a few laps because brakes are critical).

Scuffers said:

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...

First example is a Pirelli test - why they are testing tyres. Second is the most famous, and when the teams were all running the tyres in completely random settings as to how they were designed (backwards, wrong pressures etc).

Scuffers said:

no, that was the same event.

and no, without hard data for the cct, surface etc it's always going to be a gamble, that's why you do testing.

you could level the same arguments about the tyres on Concorde, took them 2-3 go'es to get them fixed too.

Somewhat ironic seeing as Pirelli are allowed very little testing with current cars because it would be giving a team an unfair advantage. Exactly the same reason you are "letting" Michelin off for.