Does Pirelli think we are all stupid?
Discussion
BlimeyCharlie said:
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 st tyres.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
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.
You have to wonder for what possible reason Pirelli bother with the sport any more. They are made to produce tyres with limited life, so exactly the opposite of anything that would be useful in terms of road tyre research, their name is pretty much only ever mentioned in a negative light on race day.
I'm assuming it's costing them a hell of a lot of money to be in F1, but I'm not seeing the benefits. Sure they have significant brand awareness, but that's not a great deal of use if it's largely negative.
I'm assuming it's costing them a hell of a lot of money to be in F1, but I'm not seeing the benefits. Sure they have significant brand awareness, but that's not a great deal of use if it's largely negative.
ukaskew said:
You have to wonder for what possible reason Pirelli bother with the sport any more. They are made to produce tyres with limited life, so exactly the opposite of anything that would be useful in terms of road tyre research, their name is pretty much only ever mentioned in a negative light on race day.
I'm assuming it's costing them a hell of a lot of money to be in F1, but I'm not seeing the benefits. Sure they have significant brand awareness, but that's not a great deal of use if it's largely negative.
Totally agree, they must be wondering if it is really worth it. The message to the man in the street doesn't look good.I'm assuming it's costing them a hell of a lot of money to be in F1, but I'm not seeing the benefits. Sure they have significant brand awareness, but that's not a great deal of use if it's largely negative.
Scuffers said:
That was a puncture, not random type failure.
For bridgestone, it was a one off, for pirelli, its the norm.
That looked like a delamination to me on Hakkinen's car. In fact, Simon, having studied it more closely that tyre is still inflated during the car's first rotation, so it isn't a puncture at all - it's a very explosive tyre failure. What makes you think it's a puncture? For bridgestone, it was a one off, for pirelli, its the norm.
Edit: I found Bridgestone's press release about it. Seems they didn't know what happened:
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/bridgestone-pres...
Since Silverstone 2013 what tyre failures have Pirelli had? If it's 'the norm' they must be happening quite regularly.
Edited by Ahonen on Wednesday 26th August 11:26
It seems Pirelli have concluded their investigation into Vettel's blow-out, so they say today (Monday).
Nobody else has done any investigating, so as I said originally Pirelli appear to be 'judge and jury' into their own 'product' failing.
Not only that, but they will let the world know their 'findings' almost a week away at Monza GP.
I wonder what they'll conclude? Wear, a cut, kerbs and the beak of a Dodo caused the puncture...
Nobody else has done any investigating, so as I said originally Pirelli appear to be 'judge and jury' into their own 'product' failing.
Not only that, but they will let the world know their 'findings' almost a week away at Monza GP.
I wonder what they'll conclude? Wear, a cut, kerbs and the beak of a Dodo caused the puncture...
BlimeyCharlie said:
It seems Pirelli have concluded their investigation into Vettel's blow-out, so they say today (Monday).
Nobody else has done any investigating, so as I said originally Pirelli appear to be 'judge and jury' into their own 'product' failing.
Not only that, but they will let the world know their 'findings' almost a week away at Monza GP.
I wonder what they'll conclude? Wear, a cut, kerbs and the beak of a Dodo caused the puncture...
You forgot to add into the conclusions the "repeated abuse of the kerbs by the drivers, especially the modified one at the top of Eau Rouge just before the point where Vettel's tyre blew"Nobody else has done any investigating, so as I said originally Pirelli appear to be 'judge and jury' into their own 'product' failing.
Not only that, but they will let the world know their 'findings' almost a week away at Monza GP.
I wonder what they'll conclude? Wear, a cut, kerbs and the beak of a Dodo caused the puncture...
rubystone said:
You forgot to add into the conclusions the "repeated abuse of the kerbs by the drivers, especially the modified one at the top of Eau Rouge just before the point where Vettel's tyre blew"
The WEC cars would have given those kerbs some hammer back in May, yet they can double stint at willI suspect that the basic problem is the FIA requirement to produce non-durable tyres that is the fundamental issue here
rdjohn said:
rubystone said:
You forgot to add into the conclusions the "repeated abuse of the kerbs by the drivers, especially the modified one at the top of Eau Rouge just before the point where Vettel's tyre blew"
The WEC cars would have given those kerbs some hammer back in May, yet they can double stint at willI suspect that the basic problem is the FIA requirement to produce non-durable tyres that is the fundamental issue here
rdjohn said:
rubystone said:
You forgot to add into the conclusions the "repeated abuse of the kerbs by the drivers, especially the modified one at the top of Eau Rouge just before the point where Vettel's tyre blew"
The WEC cars would have given those kerbs some hammer back in May, yet they can double stint at willI suspect that the basic problem is the FIA requirement to produce non-durable tyres that is the fundamental issue here
Rude-boy said:
I am no tyre man but the spec of WEC rubber and F1 rubber I strongly expect to be of an order of magnatude of difference not disimilar to that between F1 and road rubber.
You don't need to be a tyre man to be correct. But there is also some truth in the other statements. Pirelli's error was to be too optimistic with their assessment of the wear rate. That kerb was changed during the race weekend though, no doubt after they set the 'safe' wear rate.By contrast, I was at the MotoGP this weekend. I was stationed at the entrance to Maggots all weekend and watched bikes climb all over the kerbs all weekend, wet and dry. But the Moto2 race demonstrated just how good the wets are. They ran those tyres down to the canvas, yet not one failed.
rubystone said:
You don't need to be a tyre man to be correct. But there is also some truth in the other statements. Pirelli's error was to be too optimistic with their assessment of the wear rate. That kerb was changed during the race weekend though, no doubt after they set the 'safe' wear rate.
By contrast, I was at the MotoGP this weekend. I was stationed at the entrance to Maggots all weekend and watched bikes climb all over the kerbs all weekend, wet and dry. But the Moto2 race demonstrated just how good the wets are. They ran those tyres down to the canvas, yet not one failed.
exactly,By contrast, I was at the MotoGP this weekend. I was stationed at the entrance to Maggots all weekend and watched bikes climb all over the kerbs all weekend, wet and dry. But the Moto2 race demonstrated just how good the wets are. They ran those tyres down to the canvas, yet not one failed.
people need to understand the difference between a carcase failure and a tyre simply wearing out.
the FIA specified a tyre that wears out, not one that has catastrophic carcase failure.
rdjohn said:
rubystone said:
You forgot to add into the conclusions the "repeated abuse of the kerbs by the drivers, especially the modified one at the top of Eau Rouge just before the point where Vettel's tyre blew"
The WEC cars would have given those kerbs some hammer back in May, yet they can double stint at willI suspect that the basic problem is the FIA requirement to produce non-durable tyres that is the fundamental issue here
According to the Torygraph it was a cut tyre but "Pirelli is expected to say wear was simply a contributing factor."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formul...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formul...
I find it hard to criticize Pirelli when the navel-starers involved in F1 can't even agree to come together and let them test tyres on a physical track with a current car.
They are either told that it would give an advantage to one team (witness Mercedes in 2013) or it's vetoed on the grounds of cost if everyone wants to participate.
They're told to produce tyres that will wear out. Somewhere after that, there's a line at which the tyre will fail. If you don't let them test, how can they find that line definitively?
They are either told that it would give an advantage to one team (witness Mercedes in 2013) or it's vetoed on the grounds of cost if everyone wants to participate.
They're told to produce tyres that will wear out. Somewhere after that, there's a line at which the tyre will fail. If you don't let them test, how can they find that line definitively?
Muzzer79 said:
I find it hard to criticize Pirelli when the navel-starers involved in F1 can't even agree to come together and let them test tyres on a physical track with a current car.
They are either told that it would give an advantage to one team (witness Mercedes in 2013) or it's vetoed on the grounds of cost if everyone wants to participate.
They're told to produce tyres that will wear out. Somewhere after that, there's a line at which the tyre will fail. If you don't let them test, how can they find that line definitively?
that's all massively missing the point.They are either told that it would give an advantage to one team (witness Mercedes in 2013) or it's vetoed on the grounds of cost if everyone wants to participate.
They're told to produce tyres that will wear out. Somewhere after that, there's a line at which the tyre will fail. If you don't let them test, how can they find that line definitively?
Vettel's tyre had not worn out, period.
it suffered a catastrophic failure, the pertinent question is why?
Scuffers said:
Muzzer79 said:
I find it hard to criticize Pirelli when the navel-starers involved in F1 can't even agree to come together and let them test tyres on a physical track with a current car.
They are either told that it would give an advantage to one team (witness Mercedes in 2013) or it's vetoed on the grounds of cost if everyone wants to participate.
They're told to produce tyres that will wear out. Somewhere after that, there's a line at which the tyre will fail. If you don't let them test, how can they find that line definitively?
that's all massively missing the point.They are either told that it would give an advantage to one team (witness Mercedes in 2013) or it's vetoed on the grounds of cost if everyone wants to participate.
They're told to produce tyres that will wear out. Somewhere after that, there's a line at which the tyre will fail. If you don't let them test, how can they find that line definitively?
Vettel's tyre had not worn out, period.
it suffered a catastrophic failure, the pertinent question is why?
Rude-boy said:
rdjohn said:
rubystone said:
You forgot to add into the conclusions the "repeated abuse of the kerbs by the drivers, especially the modified one at the top of Eau Rouge just before the point where Vettel's tyre blew"
The WEC cars would have given those kerbs some hammer back in May, yet they can double stint at willI suspect that the basic problem is the FIA requirement to produce non-durable tyres that is the fundamental issue here
rscott said:
rdjohn said:
rubystone said:
You forgot to add into the conclusions the "repeated abuse of the kerbs by the drivers, especially the modified one at the top of Eau Rouge just before the point where Vettel's tyre blew"
The WEC cars would have given those kerbs some hammer back in May, yet they can double stint at willI suspect that the basic problem is the FIA requirement to produce non-durable tyres that is the fundamental issue here
Ahonen said:
rscott said:
rdjohn said:
rubystone said:
You forgot to add into the conclusions the "repeated abuse of the kerbs by the drivers, especially the modified one at the top of Eau Rouge just before the point where Vettel's tyre blew"
The WEC cars would have given those kerbs some hammer back in May, yet they can double stint at willI suspect that the basic problem is the FIA requirement to produce non-durable tyres that is the fundamental issue here
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff