Pirelli ****spoilers****
Discussion
Ok, after Baku I think this merits its own topic. How can a company of Pirelli's experience, with years worth of data to call on get it so wrong. Tyres that were meant to do 40 laps failing after 31/32.
Thinking back to Bridgestone, Goodyear, Michelin (US 2005 aside) I don't ever remember as many failures as we have seen in the Pirelli era. Yes these tyres are designed to have a 'cliff', but does that explain failures without warning at 200mph? It's lucky nobody got badly hurt yesterday, is it a lack of testing, the loads being higher than ever or are the teams being silly with pressures etc..
Pirelli aren't even in a tyre war, they 'only' have to build tyres that don't fail completely as they did yesterday, is this too big an ask given the monster downforce and very high speeds at Baku, could the tyres be designed to fail more safely?
Maybe F1 has painted Pirelli into a corner with its demands and lack of on circuit testing either way I think it's time to start asking the hard questions before a tyre failure has more serious consequences.
Thinking back to Bridgestone, Goodyear, Michelin (US 2005 aside) I don't ever remember as many failures as we have seen in the Pirelli era. Yes these tyres are designed to have a 'cliff', but does that explain failures without warning at 200mph? It's lucky nobody got badly hurt yesterday, is it a lack of testing, the loads being higher than ever or are the teams being silly with pressures etc..
Pirelli aren't even in a tyre war, they 'only' have to build tyres that don't fail completely as they did yesterday, is this too big an ask given the monster downforce and very high speeds at Baku, could the tyres be designed to fail more safely?
Maybe F1 has painted Pirelli into a corner with its demands and lack of on circuit testing either way I think it's time to start asking the hard questions before a tyre failure has more serious consequences.
I've never understood why Pirelli carry on with the contract. It's a lose-lose as far as I can see. The only time they get any publicity is when things go wrong.
They're pulled in every direction from what the FIA want, what the teams want, what they're told downforce levels will be and what they end up being plus very little testing.
It will be interesting to see what the results of the post mortems are.
They're pulled in every direction from what the FIA want, what the teams want, what they're told downforce levels will be and what they end up being plus very little testing.
It will be interesting to see what the results of the post mortems are.
Um, maybe we need to see the result of the investigation first, before questioning the structural integrity?
At the moment all we seem to know is that 2 tyre deflations occurred at roughly the same part of the circuit and a further one had a cut in it, which would appear to be from debris.
I didn't watch too much of the Free Practice sessions so not aware of how long teams ran the harder compound around Baku.
At the moment all we seem to know is that 2 tyre deflations occurred at roughly the same part of the circuit and a further one had a cut in it, which would appear to be from debris.
I didn't watch too much of the Free Practice sessions so not aware of how long teams ran the harder compound around Baku.
Pirelli are working to a brief and for the most part, are fulfilling the terms of reference of that brief.
The majority of high profile failures (and I'm excluding Baku because it's not yet known what caused the failures there) are as a result of teams ignoring the advisory pressures or taking a chance on set up or running longer that the designed-in life of the tyre.
F1 gets through something like 5k - 6k tyres in the course of a season. If you were seeing failures in the hundreds then you'd say there's a problem we're not.
If there's an issue, it's with the brief not the supplier.
The majority of high profile failures (and I'm excluding Baku because it's not yet known what caused the failures there) are as a result of teams ignoring the advisory pressures or taking a chance on set up or running longer that the designed-in life of the tyre.
F1 gets through something like 5k - 6k tyres in the course of a season. If you were seeing failures in the hundreds then you'd say there's a problem we're not.
If there's an issue, it's with the brief not the supplier.
Occam's Razor.
What incentive to Pirelli have to make tyres that fail catastrophically and without warning? Do people honestly think actually could be a strategy? How does it help them from a PR point of view to be associated with premature failures?
Designing tyres with a finite window of operation, per their contract, is one thing. Designing tyres to fail when drivers lives are at stake is something else.
What incentive to Pirelli have to make tyres that fail catastrophically and without warning? Do people honestly think actually could be a strategy? How does it help them from a PR point of view to be associated with premature failures?
Designing tyres with a finite window of operation, per their contract, is one thing. Designing tyres to fail when drivers lives are at stake is something else.
They're not only getting it wrong in F1; in the WRC, Mads Ostberg launched into a foul mouthed rant at the end of a stage yesterday in Sardinia after his Pirelli tyres cost him a class win.
Pirelli have historically preferred to be a sole tyre supplier, as they can't be beaten - but still end up getting it wrong.
Pirelli have historically preferred to be a sole tyre supplier, as they can't be beaten - but still end up getting it wrong.
Exige77 said:
Maybe the OP is jumping the gun a bit and frothing unnecessarily ?
In depth analysis not complete but initial investigation is showing debris damage has caused the deflations.
Better wait until the experts have something to say.
Max will always be looking to blame someone.
this.In depth analysis not complete but initial investigation is showing debris damage has caused the deflations.
Better wait until the experts have something to say.
Max will always be looking to blame someone.
odd that 3 cars (inc Hamiltons) all had the same issue/ cut to the left rear ...would not be surprised if the issue is with the track somewhere
angrymoby said:
this.
odd that 3 cars (inc Hamiltons) all had the same issue/ cut to the left rear ...would not be surprised if the issue is with the track somewhere
Yeah, it could be part of a kerb rubbing away at the tyre every lap, and it fails at the point of maximum centripetal force. odd that 3 cars (inc Hamiltons) all had the same issue/ cut to the left rear ...would not be surprised if the issue is with the track somewhere
As others have said, it’s difficult to see why Pirelli do it, the only plausible reason is to stop another tyre company doing it.
Eric Mc said:
We've known for many years that the F1 regulations actually stipulate rubbish tyres. It has to be this way in order to ensure there are the compuslory tyre changes in each race.
It's a farcical situation and makes the tyre supplier look like a bunch of dopes.
I think making a tyre lose performance after XXX Laps is one thing but a tyre failing due to hitting debris or the same curve over and over again is a completely different issue.It's a farcical situation and makes the tyre supplier look like a bunch of dopes.
Road cars get punctures all the time. If they were doing 200mph, they would disintegrate catastrophically also.
ArnageWRC said:
They're not only getting it wrong in F1; in the WRC, Mads Ostberg launched into a foul mouthed rant at the end of a stage yesterday in Sardinia after his Pirelli tyres cost him a class win.
Pirelli have historically preferred to be a sole tyre supplier, as they can't be beaten - but still end up getting it wrong.
From what I have read he had all sorts of issues - he broke a brake pipe and a wheel came off on a road section but didn't have enough spare parts to fix everything properly then got a 1 minute penalty for being late at service.Pirelli have historically preferred to be a sole tyre supplier, as they can't be beaten - but still end up getting it wrong.
His tenacity and comeback was stunning each time, but his brakes were not working properly on the last stage, so to blame the puncture after all that seems a bit selective, especially on such a rough course as Sardegna.
Adrian W said:
looks like Pirelli are saying debris most probable cause
Stroll was playing with fire with his tires so I reckon that was the strategy who costed him to crash (Completely worn tires) . Verstapen is most likely to be debris from Stroll's car and very hight wear on his tires. Perez tires were shot to pieces when the red flag arrived and he is a lot more gentle than Verstapen.I think that the teams are to blame as well for letting drivers on f@cked tires driving full speed.
Exige77 said:
I think making a tyre lose performance after XXX Laps is one thing but a tyre failing due to hitting debris or the same curve over and over again is a completely different issue.
Road cars get punctures all the time. If they were doing 200mph, they would disintegrate catastrophically also.
Funny how in the 1960s we didn't have such tyre failures - when races were longer and there were no tyre stops - and tyre technology was more primitive.Road cars get punctures all the time. If they were doing 200mph, they would disintegrate catastrophically also.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff