tyre failings at Spa

[lebesset]

just been following the BBC coverage of practise at Sochi
the subject of tyres came up [ what a surprise ] and one of the commentators [ tony dodgins ? ] said that after the Spa race we walked the track and on one of the corners the kerb was jagged , and that was the corner where the drivers were allowed to drive right off the circuit [ I remember watching that but don't remember which corner it was ]

not surprising then that there was a lot of tyre damage and even a couple of failures which of course the teams blamed on pirelli

[Manoah2u]

just been following the BBC coverage of practise at Sochi
the subject of tyres came up [ what a surprise ] and one of the commentators [ tony dodgins ? ] said that after the Spa race we walked the track and on one of the corners the kerb was jagged , and that was the corner where the drivers were allowed to drive right off the circuit [ I remember watching that but don't remember which corner it was ]

not surprising then that there was a lot of tyre damage and even a couple of failures which of course the teams blamed on pirelli

i would have given pirelli a get-outta-jail-free-card if there wasn't a tyre disaster going on before (on multiple races tyres just blowing around your ears). instead, because that happened, i look at events like spa with rather a different eye.
and there have been many tracks with not-too pretty track features. matter of fact, i've seen a few F1 tracks in the past, and quite frankly, tracks have been a whole lot worse than the things you have seen on telly.

Somehow, people like to think that F1 tracks always have been perfectly smooth surfaces well-taken care of. Better believe that it's rather different.

These tire 'problems' in all of F1's history have only occurred with Pirelli and they blame it on the leadership and rules. BS. yeah, they're partially right. but the things happening with the tires in the pirelli era is absolutely unacceptable.

Remember the tire wars, and the US grand prix? they didn't take the risk/gamble because it was too high of a calculated risk. Pirelli did not do that. and that's the difference.

apart from that, doesn't this belong in the SPA thread?

[BanMeToo]

Yea check out the Spa thread, I believe there is a pic in there of the sharp curb at eau rouge. Or maybe I'm thinking of this one (which is also more interesting/readable than the Spa thread) http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... =6&t=23196

[mertol]

So pirelli expected that their tires won't ever be in contact with kurbs? Good excuse.

[lebesset]

So pirelli expected that their tires won't ever be in contact with kurbs? Good excuse.

maybe pirelli thought that the kerbs woudn't be jagged ?

[ChrisF1]

So pirelli expected that their tires won't ever be in contact with kurbs? Good excuse.

maybe pirelli thought that the kerbs woudn't be jagged ?

Surely as part of their due diligence they would examine the circuits? Duty of care and all that..

[Phil]

So pirelli expected that their tires won't ever be in contact with kurbs? Good excuse.

Maybe they assumed to a certain degree that it's basic common sense that something from rubber with a limited life expectancy that degrades the more load is applied to it, would be sensitive to hard, possibly sharp obstacles or debris on and off the track? And that sometimes, also influenced by camber and tire pressures, all of this can come together to form a basic equation where the load on the tire is greater than it can handle? You know, basic laws of physics.

It's only enhanced by the fact that Pirelli were specifically asked to create tires that degrade in a certain way vs. a virtually indestructible tire. But this shouldn't be the fault of the tire manufacturer that provided the product it was asked to, perhaps it's an issue with the sport who asked them to without thinking of possible safety concerns. Or more likely; it's still a relatively new approach/concept to building tires in conjunction with motorsport at such high speeds and there is a certain learning curve involved, much like we've seen in the progress they've made from 2011 onward, also in deciding which tires they bring to which GPs.

I think the biggest issue in the whole Spa incident is not that the tire blew. It's the question how it blew or disintegrated. To simply lose pressure in a safe manner and downright exploding into shreds of rubber within seconds is not very assuring. The question is if this can be improved up on or if it's contradictory to have this while also having wear sensitive tires.

[Moxie]

It's only enhanced by the fact that Pirelli were specifically asked to create tires that degrade in a certain way vs. a virtually indestructible tire. But this shouldn't be the fault of the tire manufacturer that provided the product it was asked to, perhaps it's an issue with the sport who asked them to without thinking of possible safety concerns. Or more likely; it's still a relatively new approach/concept to building tires in conjunction with motorsport at such high speeds and there is a certain learning curve involved, much like we've seen in the progress they've made from 2011 onward, also in deciding which tires they bring to which GPs.

Absolutely! For 100 years tire manufactures have been designing tires with the intent of achieving maximum grip with maximum durability. FOM comes along and turns that 100 years of tire design on its head by specifically requesting tires that degrade quickly. High speeds, high temperatures, high lateral loads, and they are SUPPOSED to degrade quickly! What could go wrong?!? From inception this has been a disaster waiting to happen. I will say that Pirelli does deserve 50% of the blame simply because they accepted such a ridiculous and unsafe challenge.

I always thought it was stupid from a marketing point of view for Pirelli to take this challenge. Essentially they have invited the world to watch their tires degrade in five laps. They really should have taken more care to consider how degradation and potential catastrophic failures would affect their corporate image.

[mertol]

They were asked to create degrading tires, not exploding tires. There is a big difference and they certainly didn't deliver what they were asked for.

[Moxie]

They were asked to create degrading tires, not exploding tires. There is a big difference and they certainly didn't deliver what they were asked for.

Tires that are designed to be fragile, are likely to be...fragile. It was am asinine proposition from the start, that any manufacturer should build a tire that withstands those extreme forces, degrades quickly, yet does not suffer catastrophic failures, and to develop that tire with precious little testing. Even now, the tires have seen fewer than 100 races and damn few tests. Maybe someday, with a lot more testing, and real world experience the manufacturers will have a better grip on building tires that degrade quickly but don't suffer catastrophic failures, bit I think your expectations from Pirelli are unreasonable.

I still believe that Pirelli does deserve 50% blame because they should have known this was an asinine proposition.

[Moose]

They were asked to create degrading tires, not exploding tires. There is a big difference and they certainly didn't deliver what they were asked for.

Tires that are designed to be fragile, are likely to be...fragile. It was am asinine proposition from the start, that any manufacturer should build a tire that withstands those extreme forces, degrades quickly, yet does not suffer catastrophic failures, and to develop that tire with precious little testing. Even now, the tires have seen fewer than 100 races and damn few tests. Maybe someday, with a lot more testing, and real world experience the manufacturers will have a better grip on building tires that degrade quickly but don't suffer catastrophic failures, bit I think your expectations from Pirelli are unreasonable.

I still believe that Pirelli does deserve 50% blame because they should have known this was an asinine proposition.

I disagree. It would be entirely possible to design a tire that's fully functional, and lasts basically forever, but very lacking in grip, and then layer successively more grippy compounds that degrade quickly over the top of that.

That way, you retain the safety of the base tire (though no one would want to run it, as it has so little grip), while providing the fast, highly-degrading racing layer over the top.

[mertol]

Fragile is not the same as degrading either.

[ChrisF1]

Somebody post the picture of Hamilton in the gravel at Shanghai in 2007, with the canvas showing to prove you can make a tyre that loses all grip without being prone to exploding.

[Moose]

Somebody post the picture of Hamilton in the gravel at Shanghai in 2007, with the canvas showing to prove you can make a tyre that loses all grip without being prone to exploding.

That's rather a poor example. It demonstrates that you can design a tire that in some circumstances does not explode. Not that those tires never explode. Certainly, I remember plenty of tires that completely disintegrated back in the old days.

[ChrisF1]

But the point people are arguing is that a tyre that degrades is a tyre that explodes.

These things are not bound together, they're exclusive events. A tyre that explodes doesn't have to be a tyre that degrades, and a tyre that degrades doesn't have to explode.

It shouldn't be too hard to have a softer outer that degrades and a stronger core that actually stays in one piece rather than shattering across the circuit and other drivers.

The degredation is a false symptom of the current Pirelli disease.