Nando wrote:Degradation and grip are two different things. It is possible to create tires that contain both aspects.
I don't understand that statement. Obviously I understand it, but it's facile - It's easy
to generate good grip with high degradation. Hardly something to be proud of or excited about...
Nando wrote:This is Formula 1, big difference.
Unfortunately you'll need to do better than that. How does the fact that it's F1 change the laws of physics??? Any racing tyre generates grip by having low dynamic modulus and/or high internal damping. Unfortunately the mechanism of grip generation by definition cause energy to be dissipated into the tread. This energy can either chemically harden the rubber by increasing cross-link density, it can tear rubber away, or it can cause other types of degradation inside the structure of the rubber.
It is very easy to decrease dynamic stiffness and increase damping but doing it in a simple and cheap way causes the rubber to have a low shear strength. This causes rubber to be torn away easily when the tyre operates and leaves lots of marbles. I'm trying to think of a series that has a problem with excessive off line tyre debris, but I can't seem to place it right now....
The reality is that making grippy rubber that doesn't degrade is a complex task that involves high investment in different raw materials and chemicals that are used to make up the rubber. Whether that rubber's used on a GT, LMP or F1 tyre does not alter that reality one bit.
Nando wrote:The type of degradation we are seeing is what have been asked for.
No one is disputing that some degradation was asked for. What I and others are protesting about is Pirelli's PR BS that this is only because of that choice and not because of any limitation on their part. This board is about engineering, not PR. There's nothing wrong with PR, but if you are genuinely interested in the engineering aspects of the subject you should want to read between the lines and see where the line between the two really is.