F1technical.net

WhiteBlue wrote:Well under English law a director has certain responsibilities. I think it will be difficult for Mr. Hembery to escape from that responsibility. He is lucky that nobody got injured or died.

If Todt is determined to bring Michelin back into F1 next year he has jut been given the perfect opportunity. Pirelli screwed up worse than Michelin in Indianapolis 2005.

Yeah worst farse ever

Huntresa wrote:

Tim.Wright wrote:

Huntresa wrote:
Its not personal, he is a Pr/marketing guy for Pirelli. And i mean that its not point in Todt talking to him cause he cant do anything, thats what i meant.

He is not PR or Marketing, he is the motorsport director. I.e. Boss of Pirelli motorsports... Why don't you look these things up before opening your mouth?

And the title doesn't matter, he is still on the commercial side of Pirelli. And the title doesn't equate to boss of Pirelli motorsports.

Mate, have you ever worked in a real job? If you are a director, you are the boss. This means you get the big paychecks but you are also responsible for everything the division does. Companies don't hand out titles like "Director" for fun

http://www.pitpass.com/49384-Pirelli-se ... F1-in-2014
Over at Pitpass - which is Ecclestone's media outlet lately - legal girl Jo Soucek takes the view that Pirelli are almost unassailable. Hmmm, strange.

Another thing is that Hembery acts like (a weak) PR person, so some people might have just gotten the wrong impression.

I have been impressed with Soucek's legal competence so far, but now I think I have to disagree with her. The only way for Pirelli to save the day is claiming that they have been blocked by the sporting rules and the teams politicking to implement the safety measures they deemed necessary. It is a point that is a bit weak because until now they have always said that there is no safety issue. That position is now clearly untenable.
http://richlandf1.com/?p=10962

Jean Todt calls emergency meeting with teams and Pirelli on Wednesday.

I hope things finally get moving now. We got close to 2 drivers being hit by a full band of rubber. To be frank, this isn't solely the fault of Pirelli. Some teams also blocked the change from the steel belt to the kevlar one.

turbof1 wrote:I hope things finally get moving now. We got close to 2 drivers being hit by a full band of rubber. To be frank, this isn't solely the fault of Pirelli. Some teams also blocked the change from the steel belt to the kevlar one.

That's the important thing, Pirelli wanted to change the tyres and the internal politics of F1 prevented them from doing so. I'd be surprised if Pirelli will now continue to be blocked on changing the construction of the rear tyres. Oddly changing the rear construction only may well even the field a little more in making more circuits front limited in terms of wear. There's not a huge amount to choose between all the cars when it comes to front limited circuits, with a definitive pecking order but no one team standing out massively from the others in terms of tyre degradation.

I still find the FIAs position in this terribly conflicted, and they seem as legally confused as ever with the convoluted structures they operate. That Pitpass article is a good summary of Pirelli's legal position and its relative strength, in my opinion.

What I find equally weird is that the FIA were so critical of Mercedes before the tribunal but let Ferrari off scott free, where its now been claimed that whilst the chassis that they've tested with for Pirelli was from 2011 they have been using 2013 aerodynamic parts and potentially suspension components. Red Bull are seeking clarification with the FIA on this as Ferrari are due yet another test with this setup after Germany, and thus far the FIA has remained silent. I'll be interested to hear their take on this as surely a 2011 tub with the 2013 mechanicals and aero package is a car that conforms significantly with the current rules even if there are a couple of technical clauses where it would be less than 100% conformant. That shouldn't be allowed.

The FIA really are making an utter mess of this. I shouldn't be surprised but had hoped that Todt had improved things. I guess that faith was misplaced.

were those tyres really steel-belted tyres today?

FrukostScones wrote:were those tyres really steel-belted tyres today?

Apparently so, although looking at the debris it wasn't obvious to this layman who doesn't really know what he should be looking for. Utterly different failure mode to the previous races where the tread separated from the belt but left the belt in place. These were far more explosive and left no TV visible trace of the steel.

FrukostScones wrote:were those tyres really steel-belted tyres today?

I wondered if there was a belt in there at all (obviously there is, just hidden in the rubber). It's obvious the bonding process did change, but apperently that is for the worse instead of the better: now everything gets ripped wide open, including the belt.

I'm just happy that Alonso and Kimi came away without injuries today,they both had pretty close calls.

I can't recall from history where 5(!) tires exploded in one raceweekend, sure some tires were cut by another frontwing here and there, but nothing so severe.

Even in Indy 2005 I can't remember exploding tires in the training sessions.
Even so Michelin did the only right thing and stopped racing as they feared tire damage.
They admitted that their tires were not safe for this special circuit, I would expect a similar action from Pirelli.

turbof1 wrote:I wondered if there was a belt in there at all (obviously there is, just hidden in the rubber). It's obvious the bonding process did change, but apperently that is for the worse instead of the better: now everything gets ripped wide open, including the belt.

I am just speculating but it is possible that with worse bonding process the damaged tyre delaminated sooner and driver took foot off the throttle and limped back to the pits. With better bonding the tyre is already serioiusly damaged to the point at which the previous one delaminated but drivers keep driving fast until it bursts. Shame for Pirelli anyway.

piast9 wrote:

turbof1 wrote:I wondered if there was a belt in there at all (obviously there is, just hidden in the rubber). It's obvious the bonding process did change, but apperently that is for the worse instead of the better: now everything gets ripped wide open, including the belt.

I am just speculating but it is possible that with worse bonding process the damaged tyre delaminated sooner and driver took foot off the throttle and limped back to the pits. With better bonding the tyre is already serioiusly damaged to the point at which the previous one delaminated but drivers keep driving fast until it bursts. Shame for Pirelli anyway.

From the replays I think that's what happened with Hamilton at least. He struggled a bit on the entry to the previous corner (turn 4?) having a bit of a wobble which possibly indicated a slight loss of pressure or the beginnings of the delamination. Then on the straight as the G forces on the tyre increased the tyre pulled itself apart.

With the Torro Rosso you could see a white thread of something, followed by some rubber, coming off the tyre for a few revolutions before it too pulled itself apart.

Perhaps with the previous bonding process in both instances the rubber would have come away from the steel belt and left the tyre severely damaged but inflated. With the new bonding process it could be that the rubber coming away is taking the rest of the construction with it due to the loads at high speed. All the failures bar Massa were at points of high rotational speeds rather than high lateral load which suggests outward forces from the rotation of the tyre is now pulling the tyre apart.

Yeah so reports say they found cuts in all the dmged/broken tires, and no delaminations.

Wonder what kerb it was that cut them.

The stronger bonding between belt and protector simply moved the breaking point to the next weaker part and bond - the side walls (or shoulders, not sure about the exact English term).

But on this photo it looks like there are no steel cords beneath but a kind of textile threads (Kevlar perhaps).