F1technical.net

waynes wrote:Michelin coming in alongside Pirelli or replacing them?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23824122

That's not what the story you linked to says.

Ecclestone has already signed a new commercial contract with Pirelli, who also have deals with a number of teams.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was actually something involving Formula One to talk about that concerned what happens on the track instead of off of it?

Imo, I find this event speaking in the advantage of Pirelli. They clearly improved safety in the event of a tyre failure. In this case there is no reason to critisize them.

it's all down to them using pink string in the tyre construction.

It astonishes me that Pirelli is still using that pink string. Everyone knows that orange string is far stronger and more pliable than pink string. It's a scientific fact!

It astonishes me that people are still blaming Pirelli for doing exatcly what Bernie wanted them to do - design a bad tyre. Tyre companies have spent decades designing tyres that have improved hugely over the years. Now they're asked to make a poor tyre. No wonder they've struggled to make a good "bad" tyre.

If I was Pirelli I'd just change the tyre and make it bomb proof and let Bernie go whistle...

Just_a_fan wrote:It astonishes me that people are still blaming Pirelli for doing exatcly what Bernie wanted them to do - design a bad tyre. Tyre companies have spent decades designing tyres that have improved hugely over the years. Now they're asked to make a poor tyre. No wonder they've struggled to make a good "bad" tyre.

If I was Pirelli I'd just change the tyre and make it bomb proof and let Bernie go whistle...

This old chestnut. No-one asked them to make tyres which fail structurally. No-one asked for a "bad" tyre. They asked for degrading compounds.

You can't link degreading rubber to the structural failures we have seen. Degradation is largely linked to the compound. Structural failures are more linked to the construction.

I repeat, F1 asked for degrading compounds, not structural failures.

The tyre failures are 100% Pirelli's fault. End of story.

Tim.Wright wrote:

Just_a_fan wrote:It astonishes me that people are still blaming Pirelli for doing exatcly what Bernie wanted them to do - design a bad tyre. Tyre companies have spent decades designing tyres that have improved hugely over the years. Now they're asked to make a poor tyre. No wonder they've struggled to make a good "bad" tyre.

If I was Pirelli I'd just change the tyre and make it bomb proof and let Bernie go whistle...

This old chestnut. No-one asked them to make tyres which fail structurally. No-one asked for a "bad" tyre. They asked for degrading compounds.

You can't link degreading rubber to the structural failures we have seen. Degradation is largely linked to the compound. Structural failures are more linked to the construction.

I repeat, F1 asked for degrading compounds, not structural failures.

The tyre failures are 100% Pirelli's fault. End of story.

Yeah the tyre failures are 100% pirellis fault, but before we had them ppl complained bout the degradation, which was orderd.

Several things let to Pirelli's failing:
-no one commanded them to design failing tyres, but they were instructed to create tyres that wear out quickly. When that work is being eradicated year after year because teams keep finding longitivity in the tyres, then you are pushed to the edge.
-ban on testing with relevant cars.
-failing to see the ramafications of replacing the kevlar belt with a steel one.

Huntresa wrote:Yeah the tyre failures are 100% pirellis fault, but before we had them ppl complained bout the degradation, which was orderd.

The problem is that a lot of people can't distinguish between the two.

Every time this claim pops up that "Pirelli were told to make crap tyres" I try to squash it...

Well how about Pirelli were told to make rubbish rubber, and were not given correct parameters to test them?

You can't be using 2/3 year old cars to test current tyres.
Even Michelin or Bridgestone would have a job working out the potential theoretical loads a future car would require.

Pirelli aren't above questioning, but I feel the situation is not entirely of their own making.

Tim.Wright wrote:

Huntresa wrote:Yeah the tyre failures are 100% pirellis fault, but before we had them ppl complained bout the degradation, which was orderd.

The problem is that a lot of people can't distinguish between the two.

Every time this claim pops up that "Pirelli were told to make crap tyres" I try to squash it...

That's a bit of a black/white perspective isn't it? I totally agree with you they weren't told to create delaminating tyres. They were told to create tyres that could replicate the 2010 canadian GP (they never truly did that, but whatever). Pirelli designed tyres that forced the teams to make more pitstops. That worked for a time, but teams started to learn those tyres. By the end of 2011, teams were back at the level of a year before, forcing pirelli to make the tyres softer and even less durable. That too worked in 2012, but this year it went wrong.

What I am getting at is that the circumstances pushed Pirelli to go from show tyres to crap tyres. They have a part in it too, but it is quite understandable that they ended up like that.

Anyway, it is getting old. Pirelli made sure the current tyres are save. Maybe we should stop beating the dead horse.

Well for me, from an engineering point of view, it is absolutely black and white. Repeated structural failures = bad design = 100% Pirelli's fault.

I don't think it is 100% their fault; I think it is 100% their responsibility, but the bad design got there also by the ban on testing and the need to make the tyres softer and quicker to wear down, so IMO not completely their fault.

turbof1 wrote:I don't think it is 100% their fault; I think it is 100% their responsibility, but the bad design got there also by the ban on testing and the need to make the tyres softer and quicker to wear down, so IMO not completely their fault.

The testing ban was already in place before they started designing the tires. So there was more than enough time for parilli to take that into design considerations.

crbassassin wrote:

turbof1 wrote:I don't think it is 100% their fault; I think it is 100% their responsibility, but the bad design got there also by the ban on testing and the need to make the tyres softer and quicker to wear down, so IMO not completely their fault.

The testing ban was already in place before they started designing the tires. So there was more than enough time for parilli to take that into design considerations.

How do you take ban on testing in to consideration when designing something ? Unless you can test it you will NEVER know if it does what its suppose to.

Tim.Wright wrote:No, Pirelli said that. Charlie belived it.

Look at BBC´s broadcast. Gary and Paul had pictures of everything and it all makes perfect sense.
The holes matches exactly the width of the piece they allegedly hit.