Does Pirelli think we are all stupid?
Discussion
mollytherocker said:
Do you know that for sure? As the tyre gets more worn its going to get hotter and weaker, until it explodes.
yes, I am sure the tread departed? yes, even Pirelli have accepted this (hard not to when it's on film).As for them getting hotter as they wear, wrong, it's the opposite, the less tread (depth) the less heat generated in the tyre, this is part of the reason why the performance drops off with wear.
As for tyres exploding, that's just crap, they simply should not do this.
BlimeyCharlie said:
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.
Mercedes seemed to be happy with Pirelli's explaination. Check out Lauda's comments about Vettel's failures. He blamed Ferrari for pushing the limits. If he really believed Pirelli was to blame you can expect him to have said that.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.
Also you're somewhat contradicting yourself here. If the Pirelli tyres were so bad then as you state Verstappen etc should have had failures for going over the kerbs. Which they didn't.
REALIST123 said:
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?
How many wings compared to percentage of tyres fail? This season I'm pretty sure more wings as a total percentage have failed than tyres. Perhaps we should go to the teams and get rid of them because they can't make wings that stay on?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?
rdjohn said:
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.
The problem is those two things are probably resulting in the opposite of what you want (from my limited experience). If you put something very soft that wears out quickly over something very hard and strong it will result in the delamination that we saw on Vettel's car. To have them both sticking together properly you'd need them to be relatively similar materials. Which is probably why you have the picture of Hamilton's tyres down to the canvas without a delamination of the tread when tyres were different.BlimeyCharlie said:
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.
Yeap, someone driving a car will known more about tyres that someone who makes tyres...I think that we also have to take into account that most, if not all, of the current drivers hate having comedy tyres that they have to manage so carefully. They'd rather have tyres (and fuel) that let them drive flat out. I know a degree of tyre and fuel management has always been there, but it appears to be extreme at the moment.
As a result, I can see that when there are tyre issues from now on, drivers are going to get more animated (like Seb at the weekend) not only to improve safety, but also to try and force the FiA to going back to decent tyres that allow proper flat out racing again. I'd suggest the drivers have more on their agenda than just safety.
As a result, I can see that when there are tyre issues from now on, drivers are going to get more animated (like Seb at the weekend) not only to improve safety, but also to try and force the FiA to going back to decent tyres that allow proper flat out racing again. I'd suggest the drivers have more on their agenda than just safety.
Edited by VladD on Tuesday 25th August 12:35
the tyre in the picture could quite easily be what a Pirelli looks like 70% worn, It may not have the grey carcass, in Pirellis case it could be black and be hard to differentiate between the carcass and rubber. A tyre is designed to wear out and eventually it will blow, I don't think it matters if it punctures or delaminates. As mentioned a tyre with less rubber has a higher chance of puncture, its just one of the risks. Maybe they do need a coloured indicator on the tyre so that it changes colour ones it gets to a critical stage.
Lets not forget that Pirelli are doing far far less tyre testing than bridgestone and Michelin ever got.
Lets not forget that Pirelli are doing far far less tyre testing than bridgestone and Michelin ever got.
NRS said:
BlimeyCharlie said:
REALIST123 said:
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?
How many wings compared to percentage of tyres fail? This season I'm pretty sure more wings as a total percentage have failed than tyres. Perhaps we should go to the teams and get rid of them because they can't make wings that stay on?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?
And I'm not aware of a wing failure that hasn't resulted in a redesign to prevent it happening again. Sadly, the same can't be said for Pirelli.
The point I made about Verstappen overtaking offline/over kerbs was if we take Pirelli's viewpoint of punctures caused by driving over kerbs (Rosberg) then surely Verstappen's tyres would have also exploded like he'd driven over a police stinger? But they didn't blow up did they? Nor did Ricciardo's after his moment at Eau Rouge.
Pirelli are contradicting themselves. I'm not.
Pirelli are contradicting themselves. I'm not.
REALIST123 said:
I should think the number of wings that fail unless damaged by treatment that they're not meant to undergo, is way less than catastrophic tyre failure doing what they should do. At least 4 Pirelli tyre failures this weekend alone.
And I'm not aware of a wing failure that hasn't resulted in a redesign to prevent it happening again. Sadly, the same can't be said for Pirelli.
Well, they did redesign the tyres after Silverstone, so that last point is not true. However they also have very limited testing time just like the teams, and so they are playing catch up with how the tyres need to perform/ last with the new performance teams add on over the year.And I'm not aware of a wing failure that hasn't resulted in a redesign to prevent it happening again. Sadly, the same can't be said for Pirelli.
And I was meaning a percentage of those used - Pirelli use around 1000 tyres a race, how many wings are used? We've seen Hulkenberg and Kimi in the last few races lose a front wing each this season for "no" reason from just a couple of seconds thinking off the top of my head this season. And Force India actually blamed kerbs too, interestingly enough.
BlimeyCharlie said:
The point I made about Verstappen overtaking offline/over kerbs was if we take Pirelli's viewpoint of punctures caused by driving over kerbs (Rosberg) then surely Verstappen's tyres would have also exploded like he'd driven over a police stinger? But they didn't blow up did they? Nor did Ricciardo's after his moment at Eau Rouge.
Pirelli are contradicting themselves. I'm not.
That is assuming every piece of kerb is the same (which it won't be) and also ignoring that Verstappen had much younger tyres and so would be less susceptible to damage from the kerb. Pirelli are contradicting themselves. I'm not.
VladD said:
I think that we also have to take into account that most, if not all, of the current drivers hate having comedy tyres that they have to manage so carefully. They'd rather have tyres (and fuel) that let them drive flat out. I know a degree of tyre and fuel management has always been there, but it appears to be extreme at the moment.
As a result, I can see that when there are tyre issues from now on, drivers are going to get more animated (like Seb at the weekend) not only to improve safety, but also to try and force the FiA to going back to decent tyres that allow proper flat out racing again. I'd suggest the drivers have more on their agenda than just safety.
Do we have comedy tyres this year? Pirelli insist their tyres are too hard and contributed to the poor show this year. The drivers were moaning at Monaco that the tyres there were too hard. http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/9906840/pir...As a result, I can see that when there are tyre issues from now on, drivers are going to get more animated (like Seb at the weekend) not only to improve safety, but also to try and force the FiA to going back to decent tyres that allow proper flat out racing again. I'd suggest the drivers have more on their agenda than just safety.
Edited by VladD on Tuesday 25th August 12:35
Can't see what the hullaballoo is over TBH, seems a bit premature. Of course pirelli should investigate what happened as a tyre shouldn't fail the way of either the slightly differing incidents, and if there's a manufacturing reason for either of them then rectify it, but tyres have always been a bit of a wildcard in F1 due to the forces etc involved.
It's hardly the comedy clown car tyres debarcle of a couple years ago, or the sorry michelin indianapolis saga.
It's hardly the comedy clown car tyres debarcle of a couple years ago, or the sorry michelin indianapolis saga.
Catatafish said:
I'd like to see some of the posters try to recreate these failures based on armchair evidence reckoned from crappy videos. Get your lab-spec armchairs over to eau rouge!
Oh do get a grip!F1 is not the hardest category on their tyres, they are not the fastest, heaviest, highest downforce etc etc. Yet none of the others have tyres disintegrate on them, do they?
This is 2015, not the 1950s
BlimeyCharlie said:
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'.
Glad I'm not on my own on these points. 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'.
Pistom said:
BlimeyCharlie said:
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'.
Glad I'm not on my own on these points. 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'.
Someone mentioned earlier about Niki Lauda not being vocal about Vettel's failure. Of course not, he's employed by Mercedes, not Ferrari.
If a tyre explodes, which is different to 'wearing out' why is it so difficult for people to understand the difference between the 2?
'Wearing out' means holes appearing in the tread, or chunks missing, due to, guess what, 'wearing out'.
Next we'll be saying that Senna died as a result of forgetting how to go 'round a corner on tyres that are up to racing speeds and therefore correct pressures. But because 'The Sport' found it must have been Senna's fault (including not being able to access telemetry and on-board film because it was 'lost') then we all believe it, with a few exceptions.
Scuffers said:
Oh do get a grip!
F1 is not the hardest category on their tyres, they are not the fastest, heaviest, highest downforce etc etc. Yet none of the others have tyres disintegrate on them, do they?
This is 2015, not the 1950s
It doesnt help if teams are pushing the limits - in which they are entitled to out of choice - such as too low pressures, aggressive camber (latter now mandated), tyre swapping when advised not to which exacerbated the problem with sF1 is not the hardest category on their tyres, they are not the fastest, heaviest, highest downforce etc etc. Yet none of the others have tyres disintegrate on them, do they?
This is 2015, not the 1950s
t tyres.Another example is that V8 Supercars recently had a problem with teams setting tyre pressures too low.
entropy said:
Scuffers said:
Oh do get a grip!
F1 is not the hardest category on their tyres, they are not the fastest, heaviest, highest downforce etc etc. Yet none of the others have tyres disintegrate on them, do they?
This is 2015, not the 1950s
It doesnt help if teams are pushing the limits - in which they are entitled to out of choice - such as too low pressures, aggressive camber (latter now mandated), tyre swapping when advised not to which exacerbated the problem with sF1 is not the hardest category on their tyres, they are not the fastest, heaviest, highest downforce etc etc. Yet none of the others have tyres disintegrate on them, do they?
This is 2015, not the 1950s
t tyres.Another example is that V8 Supercars recently had a problem with teams setting tyre pressures too low.
It would appear that we (the armchair fans) generally lack the ability to question what goes on before us. Pirelli say all ok with their tyre and we take it as gospel.
I'm not anti Pirelli at all, but feel my intellect has been insulted by being led to accept that Rosberg and Vettel's tyres exploded to being worn out or punctured.
If I were to sit on the fence in an armchair, I'd like to see the evidence that Pirelli have* that Rosberg and Vettel's failures were down to their driving.
- As in they can demonstrate they have evidence, as oppose to claim they have evidence.
BlimeyCharlie said:
With all due respect, I have no idea about this, I'm just sticking with F1.
It would appear that we (the armchair fans) generally lack the ability to question what goes on before us. Pirelli say all ok with their tyre and we take it as gospel.
Not really, some agree some don't. Equally it could be claimed that you and others are doing the same as conspiracy theorists and claiming others can't see what's in front of them and of course the government is trying to take over/ hide aliens etc and we should all have guns and so on. It would appear that we (the armchair fans) generally lack the ability to question what goes on before us. Pirelli say all ok with their tyre and we take it as gospel.
It's just some disagree with you because one weekend two tyres go (in different ways) and then suddenly they're a massive safety hazard and completely unsafe. The drivers in question who made the claim said they were on track all the time, when video shows they clearly were not on the track. And in regards to the 40 laps thing - it's not a they WILL last 40 laps, but COULD last 40 laps depending on other variables.
Either argument could be right, just neither sides have the evidence to prove it and thus it's down to saying what you believe and why.
NRS said:
BlimeyCharlie said:
With all due respect, I have no idea about this, I'm just sticking with F1.
It would appear that we (the armchair fans) generally lack the ability to question what goes on before us. Pirelli say all ok with their tyre and we take it as gospel.
Not really, some agree some don't. Equally it could be claimed that you and others are doing the same as conspiracy theorists and claiming others can't see what's in front of them and of course the government is trying to take over/ hide aliens etc and we should all have guns and so on. It would appear that we (the armchair fans) generally lack the ability to question what goes on before us. Pirelli say all ok with their tyre and we take it as gospel.
It's just some disagree with you because one weekend two tyres go (in different ways) and then suddenly they're a massive safety hazard and completely unsafe. The drivers in question who made the claim said they were on track all the time, when video shows they clearly were not on the track. And in regards to the 40 laps thing - it's not a they WILL last 40 laps, but COULD last 40 laps depending on other variables.
Either argument could be right, just neither sides have the evidence to prove it and thus it's down to saying what you believe and why.
Pirelli state that Rosberg must have driven somehow to cut tyre or puncture it.
Where is the evidence?
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff