Pirelli 2013

[autogyro]

It was quite remarkably how Whitmarsh stated he would have backed the drivers' boycott if it came to it. So it could be linked to that.

Being cynical, one wonders if he'd have been quite so happy if his cars were at the front of the field at every race. He has nothing to lose from a driver boycott or from pulling his drivers in early because of tyre failures.

This is probably why the McLarens spent so much time in the paddock during qualifying.
Safety issues, or just a way to avoid low performance?

[Tim.Wright]

Well I think its possible, and not even such a bad idea, to builld tyres with a bit of deg so things are a bit interesting.

But in my opinion, these structural failures are nothing to do with this idea at all. Its just bad construction design.

The deg and the structural failures are two completely different arguments and shouldn't be confused as the same thing or linked in any way.

[MOWOG]

American driver Tommy Kendall was interviewed 2 days ago about all this schlamozzle and he had some interesting things to say, one of which being that "In racing, it is not as big a sin to be unsafe as it is to be slow." He also likened race teams - ALL race teams - to whiny, reactive children who need a strong parental influence to keep them in line. Imho, Jean Todt knows this but has been mostly invisible during his administration. I think HE needs to step up and do his job.

Here's the video, for those who care to view it. It's pretty interesting and offers insights across a broad range of topics having to do with where to draw the line between racing as a sport and racing as a show.

Enjoy!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... doWroAPKnM[/youtube]

[Tim.Wright]

[SectorOne]

American driver Tommy Kendall was interviewed 2 days ago about all this schlamozzle and he had some interesting things to say, one of which being that "In racing, it is not as big a sin to be unsafe as it is to be slow." He also likened race teams - ALL race teams - to whiny, reactive children who need a strong parental influence to keep them in line. Imho, Jean Todt knows this but has been mostly invisible during his administration. I think HE needs to step up and do his job.

Here's the video, for those who care to view it. It's pretty interesting and offers insights across a broad range of topics having to do with where to draw the line between racing as a sport and racing as a show.

Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... doWroAPKnM

Saw it yesterday. Great video!

[WhiteBlue]

I thought that those guys were almost clueless when it comes to the Pirelli issues. The focus on tyre pressure clearly showed that and the fact that McLaren never ran the Pirellis out of spec. Also they had no clue about the tyre swapping issue. All they were discussing was the aspect of show versus sport and that was primarily discussed under the angle of balance of performance.

The most applicable thing I thought was the children comparison with teams. That it would be beneficial to have some dictate for their better. But then again isn't that what Bernie tries to do and fails miserably? And how often has Max Mosley been accused of running F1 as a dictatorship? I think that Todt has struck a much better balance and the indisputable Pirelli safety issues of this season will nudge him into a more pro active management style. The good thing is that all parties will agree in the future that it is necessary. So for me the interesting question is: Will Todt become more pro active in the future when it comes to limiting Bernie's ideas about improving the show when they impact on safety? From my point of view the answer is probably yes.

[MOWOG]

I thought that those guys were almost clueless when it comes to the Pirelli issues

Hmmmmmm......perhaps you watched a different video than the one Sector One and I viewed.....

But putting that aside, does anyone have any data from Silverstone that reveals how the sector and lap times changed when the teams added 2 psi to the tires? That is a HUGE change in a sport where pressure changes tend to be more in the 0.1 to 0.250 psi range. One would expect that the times went up significantly with the higher pressures. But if not, then the teams were risking their drivers safety for infinitesimal gains. I have not heard any of the commentators make any reference to this, so I don't know the answer.

If anyone know the answer to this question, it will be someone on this board.

[bhall]

[...]
One would expect that the times went up significantly with the higher pressures. But if not, then the teams were risking their drivers safety for infinitesimal gains.
[...]

Notwithstanding the first lap or the in-lap at the end of his first stint, Vettel set an average laptime of 1:38.628 to open the race. Again forsaking his out-lap and in-lap, and additionally ignoring the safety car period, his second stint produced an average 1:36.798 laptime. His (very short) third stint laptimes averaged 1:35.333. The typical time gained at Silverstone gained due to fuel-loss (2.7kg/lap) is 0.108.



By the same guidelines as above, ignoring in-laps, out-laps, and time spent behind the safety car, Webber's first stint laptimes averaged 1:40.034; his second stint averaged 1:38.124; his third stint averaged 1:36.080; his final stint averaged 1:34.410, and it included the race's fastest lap, 1:33.441, on lap 52.


(Sauce: f1fanatic.co.uk)

One can draw their own conclusions as to what those times mean.

Of note: Red Bull infamously ignored Pirelli warnings about camber settings at the 2011 Belgian Grand Prix, a race Adrian Newey called "one of the scariest races I’ve been involved in," because, even with an 85-point lead in the Drivers' Championship and a 103-point lead in the Constructors' Championship, Red Bull were unwilling to break parc fermé to make the necessary changes, as it would have required Vettel and Webber to start the race from pitlane. I think the vanity of teams and drivers alike cannot be underestimated.

[WhiteBlue]

The discussion of pressures is irrelevant in terms of finding the root cause to the problem because McLaren had blowouts and kept all parameters strictly in the Pirelli specified range. It may be true that tyre pressures can have a huge influence but in this case we can practically exclude that they played a decisive role.

Everybody who has followed the stories and understands the facts knows that for a variety of reasons the safety margin of the carcass design was insufficient and the tyres had mechanical failure due to that. Indirectly even Pirelli have admitted it by taking responsibility for not banning tyre swapping. All other factors that they cited were either not causal or were predictable with adequate diligence. Naturally you would have to add the caveat that standing waves are very difficult to predict and have almost certainly played a role although never mentioned by Pirelli. So we can say with certainty that it was either neglect or plainly untruth in the report of the failure analysis.

We even have a second smoking gun. They found it necessary to go back to the design that they know to have a wider operating window and better safety by not experiencing blowouts with it in 2012. If this interest in tyre pressures is purely academic and unrelated to the current tyre debate please disregard my remarks.

[Just_a_fan]

The discussion of pressures is irrelevant in terms of finding the root cause to the problem because McLaren had blowouts and kept all parameters strictly in the Pirelli specified range. It may be true that tyre pressures can have a huge influence but in this case we can practically exclude that they played a decisive role.

I disagree. If you have five failures, four of which have a noteworthy common factor, then the fifth one is the outlier and needs to be considered spurious.

If the four others all had lower pressures and then failed, the more likely cause of the fifth failure is accidental damage that led to slight pressure loss which resulted in failure. For example, a cut (which all tyres were showing) that was sufficient to allow a "slow" puncture.

All other factors that they cited were either not causal or were predictable with adequate diligence.

That's a very strong statement and can not be confirmed by the information that casual observers, such as this forum, can garner. We simply do not know enough about the tyres to say "X is to blame".

This is not to disagree with you that the whole process has been handled badly by all concerned, especially Pirelli and the FIA. The teams also are not blameless.

[xpensive]

...
We simply do not know enough about the tyres to say "X is to blame".
...

Obviously so.

[MOWOG]

Many thanks to bhallg2k for that analysis. I understand that figures lie and liars figure, but it appears that increasing tire pressures did not slow the RB cars appreciably. The higher pressures only applied to the third stint, iirc.

So, unless I misunderstand the data, running the tires at very low pressures produced negligible gains in lap times. Would you agree, bhallg2k, or am I missing something? If that is the case, then the ultra-low pressures MAY have put the drivers at risk for little to no potential gain. And not just a team's own drivers, but also those following them. We all saw what a horrific injury can occur from a blow to the head at racing speeds from a small spring in the case of Felipe Massa. I should think getting clouted with an entire tire tread could be much more serious.

Everybody who has followed the stories and understands the facts knows that for a variety of reasons the safety margin of the carcass design was insufficient and the tyres had mechanical failure due to that

I may be wrong, but the import of that statement appears to be that anyone who disagrees with you is a dolt.

[kaller]

Has it happened before that the FIA is actually enforcing the paramaters in which the teams can operate the tires?

[WhiteBlue]

I may be wrong, but the import of that statement appears to be that anyone who disagrees with you is a dolt.

Primarily I wanted to say that the American motor sport people discussing it in the video were less informed than some of the people who are reading and writing in this forum.

[bhall]

[...]

I may be wrong, but the import of that statement appears to be that anyone who disagrees with you is a dolt.

Nah, he just doesn't understand that tire pressure plays a role in the formation of a standing wave in the sidewall of a tire, because that information evidently wasn't included in the publication where he picked up the idea that standing waves are to blame for the recent spate of tire troubles. For that reason, he also thinks that, "...standing waves are very difficult to predict..." despite research into the phenomenon as far back as 1977 and the fact that every tire has a maximum speed beyond which standing waves form. Thankfully, the Internet is full of information, including this very helpful paper on the subject, and folks can educate themselves on this fascinating topic.

Fun fact: Standing waves in tires can be seen with thermal imaging. (Perhaps that explains the presence of thermal imaging cameras on the front wing of the W04 during the last race?)

As for whether or not we can use laptimes to determine if teams recklessly underinflated their tires at Silverstone, I don't think so. There are simply too many factors that contribute to a car's pace, not to mention the fact that we don't know the initial pressures used before teams raised them in reaction to the failures. Then again, I'm admittedly not a vehicle dynamics expert; I just play one on F1T.