FIA have some questions to answer.

[Just_a_fan]

There's nothing wrong with having 2 compounds available at a race in my opinion. What is silly though, is the requirement that teams use both compounds.

If I remember correctly this was brought in at the behest of the tyre supplier (Bridgestone I think) because they were shipping lots of tyres around the world only to see half of them not get used. It was another one of those pesky economic reasons...

[Andres125sx]

The FIA doesn't have to do too much about this, it is Pirelli who is to blame.

Pirelli changed structure from kevlar to steel, and have created tires that in the entire history of the sport has never
been seen so dangerous. They blame it as if their hands are tied due to testing restrictions, however, it looks more
like pirelli is trying to use the cheapest and weakest material [possibly the cheapest] to see how far they can stretch that,
essentially resulting in research material they can put to use on their tires for 'normal' road cars [to understand how to use the least and cheapest to get the biggest bucks].

No, FIA asked Pirelli to build tyres that degrade faster than 2012 ones. That´s what they did, and now eveybody blames Pirelli because they did what they were asked to do

How many problems did Lotus have with Pirelli this year? None. And Force India? None. So it´s not the tyres, it´s some teams that built their cars without considering the tyres they were going to use.

Maybe Pirelli went a bit too far tough, but they did what they were aked to do. I guess building a tyre that last X laps must not be easy, because the car where it´s mounted will change the duration drastically, so they must do a guess about the average F1 car, an average about how much F1 cars will demand to the tyre.

At the end of 2012 FIA said they wanted more pit-stops for 2013, so the tyres should be softer and the cars should handle the tyres more gently.... or that´s what should have happened. But if Pirelli build the tyres considering the teams will build their cars to handle the tyres more gently, some do it (Lotus, FI...) but some don´t (Red Bull, Mercedes...) then is´t just impossible for Pirelli to hit the nail

So IMHO Pirelli did what they were asked to do, while some teams didn´t. But even when you should blame those teams, they can´t change the car drastically mid-seasson, so it was Pirelli who had to change his product, even when the product that didn´t match 2013 specs were not the tyres, but some F1 cars

however, it is completely unacepptable and the lack of testing does in no way defend the extreme danger and lack of respect of human [driver] life that is the result of Pirelli's complete sham and redicilous product that supposedly is a 'tire'.
It's not that Pirelli could not make a good, safe, tire - clearly it isn't their number 1 priority - which is mind-blowingly mad.

IF pirelli's first priority would be, as it should, to guarantee driver safety, then these extreme amounts of tire failure would have never happened, and pirelli would have adequately responded.

OMG, are you serious??

Are you really saying a tyre manufacturer does not care about their product being safe??

You should think twice about posting something like this, safety is first concern of any tyre manufacturer. And maybe it´s not because they care about the drivers, but they only care about their company public image, because if a tyre is proved to be unsafe, first and probably only affected (tracks and F1 cars are really safe even with worst crashes) will the the tyre manufacturer, whose public image will fall down to hell and their sales will be massively affected. So the reason really doesn´t matter, safety IS tyre manufacturers first priority.

But if they have to suppose F1 teams will build their cars to handle the tyres gently and even so the tyres must last few laps, but some teams build their cars to demand the tyres too much, then Pirelli can do nothing but praise for their tyres to do not blow out

Instead, the drivers and teams themselves threatened to boycot because pirelli didn't do their part.

No, the teams did the only thing they could do, think about their drivers safety. If the reason is his own car design didn´t match the announced specs for 2013, that really doesn´t matter at that point. Safety first, even if the safety problem was caused by yourself

The only thing I cant 'blame' FIA is that they haven't banned or booted Pirelli, reprimanded them or warned them officially,
and have IMHO not put enough effort for other brands to replace Pirelli due to their facade.

That would have been the most hypocritical decision I would have ever seen, first ask them to build soft tyres, then banning him for building soft tyres

FIA should implement a mandatory test where officials independent of Pirelli conduct a safety test. I am sure there are enough smart minds that know how to test this, I think even Discovery's MythBusters could invent something without having the need to drive a fashionably 2013 F1 car in real life. Plenty of computer and real life simulation materials to properly test the tires.

No, nothing can substitude real life testing. Asphalt conditions vary too much and tyre wear depend mainly on this, how old it is, how much rubber does it have, what temperature, how much dirt.... you can´t predict real life conditions

See what happened to Philip Island GP, both MotoGP and Moto2 races were a lot shorter than usual because tyre wear was way way higher than expected and tyres didn´t last not even half a race distance in MotoGP. There you can blame the tyre manufacturer, because it was a problem any team had, so it was the tyres and the lack of testing on a track with new asphalt, but on F1 they were only some teams, so the tyres were not the part failing...

I highly doubt Michelin's Bugatti Veyron Tires weren't tested upon safety and strenght before they put them on the car.
Imagine a delamination on a veyron at 400+kph. 'Yeah it's Volkswagon's fault, they didn't give us tonnes of veyrons to test with, so we are not to blame, let's see the results, maybe bugatti fitted the tire backwards or didn't put the pressure in that we said they should do". P.Hembery logic.

Actually, Michelin´s Bugatti Veyron tires don´t last for more than 60km at full speed, so if you go 100km full speed with it you will probably blow out some tyre and kill yourself.

Do we blame Michelin, or do we blame you because you didn´t follow their instructions?

Same with F1, everybody was told to build their products for more pit-stops this year, some did it (Pirelli, Lotus, Force India, etc.) and some didn´t, so let´s blame the part who didn´t, and it´s not Pirelli, or at least not only Pirelli, I can agree they maybe went too far, but if all the teams would have done their job, just using the harder compounds the seasson would have been problem free

Pirelli has zero right to be angry. The drivers dodging life-threatening tire debris due to pirelli's fault have the right to be angry. We seen what happened to massa just by a spring, imagine Perez' tire hitting alonso in the head.

That´s FIA´s fault, they are who were asking for softer tyres with more degradation. Pirelli only follow their instructions.

You´re missing the target I´m afraid, it´s all FIA decisions, if they ask Pirelli for tyres that don´t last more than 10 laps, Pirelli have to do so. It´s FIA who don´t want to limit the aerodynamics and need something to do the competition more exciting, so the only way to overcome the aerodynamical problems and seeing more overtaking is using rubbish tyres so we see huge differences in tyre perfomances that allow the drivers to overtake.... but it´s all fake and I don´t want fake overtakings, I want real competition, and that can´t be done with DRS or tyres that don´t last more than 2 laps when pushing hard

It´s all FIA, they don´t want to face the problem, and they´re using patches that don´t solve anything....

[Jersey Tom]

Can't really agree with any of the above (I know, not surprising). Too long to respond to point-by-point. Is what it is.

[Tim.Wright]

Agree...

Andres125sx, you are making the common mistake of confusing degradation with structural integrity. F1 asked for degrading tyres, not tyres which fail structurally under normal working conditions.

The degradation is a joke but its the structural failures which are absolutely unacceptable.

[Andres125sx]

No, first problem was degradation wich lead to delaminations. That´s caused by too much degradation. Then they changed tyre structure to kevlar again, and if my memory serves me well it was then when we saw some tyres blowing out

So it all was caused by the huge degradation some teams suffered. If every team would have designed his car like Lotus did (taking care of tyre degradation wich they knew was going to be higher), there would have been zero problems with the tyres. But some teams missed the point.

Even so I said IMO Pirelli went too far with tyre degradation, but some teams didn´t have any problem with the tyres, that´s a fact, so you can´t say Pirelli was the only or main responsible.

[Manoah2u]

yes we can say that, if teams are advised by pirelli themselves after tires were blowing around their ears to lower the pressure in the tires than that which they are actually originally supposed to run on, then the fault is not the team, it is pirelly. the teams threatened not to race if the pirelli tire explosions happened again. that is pirelli's fault, not the team.
There's doing what FIA wants you to do, and there's the point that drivers' lifes become under threat because of tires almost slamming in their faces.

and everybody is entitled to their opinion.

[Lycoming]

No, first problem was degradation wich lead to delaminations. That´s caused by too much degradation. Then they changed tyre structure to kevlar again, and if my memory serves me well it was then when we saw some tyres blowing out

You're confusing wear and degradation. Degradation is simply reduction in performance, and you can have that without losing much actual rubber from the surface of the tire.

[flmkane]

No, first problem was degradation wich lead to delaminations. That´s caused by too much degradation. Then they changed tyre structure to kevlar again, and if my memory serves me well it was then when we saw some tyres blowing out

Your memory does NOT serve correctly.

The problems with the 2013 Pirelli tyres reached the height during the Silverstone Grand Prix. They still had not switched back to Kevlar at that point.

[JimClarkFan]

OK, to beat this dead horse one more time.

Granted, Pirelli should not have compromised tyre structure in order to make a compound which degraded fast. However the structure of the tyre was such to allow greater scrub and therefore degradation.

Yes it was a risky move, however the FIA were negligent in that their testing procedures, or more specifically their lack of testing, prevented the issue from being brought to light in the development process. If the FIA had worked towards safety as a priority, and less towards cost cutting, the blow outs may not have happened.

I think that is a fairly even handed appraisal?

[Tim.Wright]

No, first problem was degradation wich lead to delaminations. That´s caused by too much degradation.

As has been pointed out, deg doesn't cause delaminations. This is the key point you need to understand. The deg and the blowouts are completely different arguments.

The deg is a matter of opinion as to whether its a good thing to have.

The wear/structural problems are absolutely undesired, undesigned and nobody asked for them.

What is not helping in this argument is Pirelli trying to blur the line between these 2 problems. Seems a lot of people are buying it...

[Manoah2u]

FIA asked Pirelli to build tyres that degrade faster than 2012 ones. That´s what they did

Maybe Pirelli went a bit too far tough

maybe would be an understatement.

OMG, are you serious??

Are you really saying a tyre manufacturer does not care about their product being safe??

You should think twice about posting something like this, safety is first concern of any tyre manufacturer. And maybe it´s not because they care about the drivers, but they only care about their company public image, because if a tyre is proved to be unsafe, first and probably only affected (tracks and F1 cars are really safe even with worst crashes) will the the tyre manufacturer, whose public image will fall down to hell and their sales will be massively affected. So the reason really doesn´t matter, safety IS tyre manufacturers first priority.

the facts and evidence provided by the races you might not even have seen show enough that YOU are the one needing to
think posting something like this twice because if safety was their first concern, they would not have given tires that would explode or build steel belted tires. did you even see silverstone?
i think perez, alonso, hamilton, etc. would disagree with you whether the tires pirelli provided at silverstone and in korea nearly headbanging another driver are concidered evidence for 'safety first priority'.

But if they have to suppose F1 teams will build their cars to handle the tyres gently and even so the tyres must last few laps, but some teams build their cars to demand the tyres too much, then Pirelli can do nothing but praise for their tyres to do not blow out

the teams did the only thing they could do, think about their drivers safety.
Safety first, even if the safety problem was caused by yourself

themselves? the problem was not caused by themselves. they were fully egible to change setup to
be able to keep it 'safe', but it wouldn't be racing anymore and it should not be pirelli governing the teams
because of their failure.

teams having to act to guarantee their drivers safety is enough evidence there's something wrong.
being willing and able to miss out millions of prize money and getting possibile fines from the FIA because
Pirelli built tires that are potentially lethal is the teams own fault? =D> =D>

That would have been the most hypocritical decision I would have ever seen, first ask them to build soft tyres, then banning him for building soft tyres

The FIA themselves were wondering whether they wanted to continue with Pirelli.
It's not about soft tires. it's about giving teams seriously unsafe material whilst getting paid millions for it.

See what happened to Philip Island GP, both MotoGP and Moto2 races were a lot shorter than usual because tyre wear was way way higher than expected and tyres didn´t last not even half a race distance in MotoGP. There you can blame the tyre manufacturer, because it was a problem any team had, so it was the tyres and the lack of testing on a track with new asphalt, but on F1 they were only some teams, so the tyres were not the part failing...

you seriously use this comparison?

Actually, Michelin´s Bugatti Veyron tires don´t last for more than 60km at full speed, so if you go 100km full speed with it you will probably blow out some tyre and kill yourself.

Do we blame Michelin, or do we blame you because you didn´t follow their instructions?

You make zero sense here. First of all, the Veyron can't run topspeed long enough for the tires to wear out enough because the fuel tank won't allow that. so that can't happen.
The point made was Michelin did effort to make a tire safe enough to be driven at such a high speed, and Michelin did research to make a tire that could reach that speed. But they sure as hell will make sure that if the tires do wear out, it will not cause delamination and kill the driver. they did not just give them a subpar tire and say; drive and let's see when the tires will go, and then: it's not our fault, it's your fault, you put too much pressure in the tires, and the tires aren't built to go that fast. if Michelin would have said that, Bugatti would certainly flipped the finger and went for Bridgestone f.e.

Same with F1, everybody was told to build their products for more pit-stops this year, some did it (Pirelli, Lotus, Force India, etc.) and some didn´t, so let´s blame the part who didn´t, and it´s not Pirelli, or at least not only Pirelli, I can agree they maybe went too far, but if all the teams would have done their job, just using the harder compounds the seasson would have been problem free

the teams anticipated having to pit more. the teams did not anticipate having tires exploding just by driving them.
And again; it was not a single team incident. Tires went everywhere during practice, qualification, race, etc.

You´re missing the target I´m afraid, it´s all FIA decisions, if they ask Pirelli for tyres that don´t last more than 10 laps, Pirelli have to do so.

I think you are the one missing the point. It's not about Pirelli complying to the FIA demands to have a tire lasting 10 laps,
it's about Pirelli providing tires that completely delaminate and provide seriously dangerous situations, especially with tires exploding and nearly hitting other drivers, and not just 1, but many tires, so much that the FIA almost decided to stop the silverstone GP > because of the tires.
Making 10-lap tires and making tires that go boom are 2 different stories.