F1technical.net

in the past if you overheated a tire you could back off a tad and it would cool down and start working again,,,they say this tire even when cooled back down, is shot.

raymondu999 wrote:I'd suspect car mechanical setup as well as downforce levels would have a much bigger say in tyre temp, no JT?

Going to be a pretty good correlation of heat to how fast or hard you drive the thing. More downforce... you'll be going faster (I would hope!!).

Mechanical setup and balance I'd say would more dictate how it's distributed. Have a car that understeers like hell and the fronts will be roasted. Run piles of camber and the inside shoulder will be roasted.

Jersey Tom wrote:Going to be a pretty good correlation of heat to how fast or hard you drive the thing.

Overall, or just in the corners? More downforce would probably slow your straight speed.

Mechanical setup and balance I'd say would more dictate how it's distributed. Have a car that understeers like hell and the fronts will be roasted. Run piles of camber and the inside shoulder will be roasted.

Why not aero balance?

raymondu999 wrote:

Jersey Tom wrote:Going to be a pretty good correlation of heat to how fast or hard you drive the thing.

Overall, or just in the corners? More downforce would probably slow your straight speed.

Mechanical setup and balance I'd say would more dictate how it's distributed. Have a car that understeers like hell and the fronts will be roasted. Run piles of camber and the inside shoulder will be roasted.

Why not aero balance?

Corners are where the majority of deflection and heat generation are going on in any case. More speed = more cycles per second = more power dissipation for a given strain and loss rate. More lateral loading and deflection (or drive torque, whatever) = more strain = more power dissipation for a given speed. One way or another as you're lapping... those who push the hardest are going to work the tires the most and get heat. Sometimes though a tire tread just isn't appropriate for the platform you're on and within all reality of how hard you push you can never quite get the thing to "come in." Alternatively, if you're quite hot... you have to stop pushing so hard and slow down. Which is obviously not ideal in a race!

In the former case - and in F1 anyway - you could always just set the tire blankets quite hot and start them at or above where you want them... but in the end they're going to still settle to some steady state value based on a balance of how much work your driver / car can generate and how much is lost to ambient. If you start with cold tires you can gradually work them up to some amount... if you start them super hot they'll still probably drop down to a steady state value.

And my apologies on not being more precise earlier. Mechanical setup... and balance... are two different thoughts there. As in handling balance in general - aero or otherwise - not "mechanical balance."

So, aparantly Pirelli actually have no idea how to make the tyres for 2012.

Asked if Pirelli had foreseen the characteristics of the 2012 tyre, Hembery revealed: "No, because we could not see it on a 2010 car."

http://www.onestopstrategy.com/dailyf1n ... ution.html

Paul Hembrey in June 2012:

"We were asked to provide fun and entertainment with our F1 tyres, although it was not our intention to become the discussion point for the weekend," he said.

In April, he said:

"You have to bear in mind what we were asked to do."

So, let's get this right, Pirelli was asked to supply a tyre that Pirelli had no idea how it would react to a 2012 F1 car. That's what he's just stated. Nice one Pirelli, not only do you make crap F1 tyres, you actually had no idea how crap they'd be. So much for your QA. "she'll be right, throw them on - all for the show".

That's selective quoting. The alternative reading of the interview is that the tyres tested well with the test car, but the teams wouldn't allow testing on a 2012 spec car.

I'm sure if their brief was to develop an everlasting tyre like Bridgestone they'd be fine, they could build in a huge margin of error. However they have been asked to provide sensitive tyres but only have a clumsy test car to verify the design.

The pieces make the whole. How can any F1 team try to figure out the tyres when the manufacturer cannot? The term 'lottery' is in fact correct. Not once before now did Pirreli come out and say they had no idea how the tyres would react. That would prove a random result based in tyres. Which is what we've seen.

I think Pirellis problem lies in accepting an impossible brief. They were asked to produce tyres that were more sensitive than Bridgetone with less sophisticated testing and data than was available to Bridgstone, plus the aero regs changed during development.

Agreed. However its been Pirellis responses which has perturbed me the most. At each stage PIrelli have deflected any and all criticism. Turns out, regardless of job they were asked to do, they have underestimated the 2012 tyre and don't fully know how to work it. If they had said from the start 'hang on, we haven't tested these on a 2012 F1 car so we have no idea how they'll react", then there would be no problem (well, there would be but for an entirely other reason) - but that didn't occur.

Pirelli have indeed created a lottery. These tyres may be consistent on a 2010 car, but this is 2012 and to serve up tyres, which they admit they don't run as they expect, isn't really the 'pinnacle of motorsport' is it?

To know teams are throwing millions of dollars to understand a component that the manufacturer doesn't understand - typifies the utter wastage of cash and resources for no good reason in F1 and continuing to allow it to occur flies in the face of reducing costs.

from the Caption Comp Thread posted Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:34 pm: Spot on and never knew I actually was right.

Cam wrote:

stefan_ wrote:

"I've got no idea how to make them work either!"

Cam wrote: Nice one Pirelli, not only do you make crap F1 tyres, you actually had no idea how crap they'd be. So much for your QA..

the quality in Quality Assurance is the level of quality stated or implied (by the manufacturer)

QA is the system that makes credible that level of quality

ie QA only justifies an expectation of high quality if the manufacturer claims or implies high quality

manufacturers of potato crisps/chips have QA

So we must understand - "What does Quality mean at Pirelli Tyres?"

http://www.pirelli.com

The excellence of our products, the popularity of the Pirelli Calendar, our prestigious involvement in Formula 1™ and the company’s involvement in the fashion industry all contribute to the success of our brand throughout the world, such that Interbrand has estimated its value at €2.27 billion.

The Pirelli Group focuses on growing its business and creating value by developing high quality and high technology products and services with low environmental impact.

After successfully completing in 2010 the path towards a "pure tyre company" with the divestiture of nonstrategic assets, Pirelli aims to: a greater focus on the Premium Tyre segment (growing faster than the average market rate) and in which Pirelli is leader;

It looks as though Pirelli have a high regard for themselves and their products.

Manufacturing QA assures that the tyres are made within the tolerances of the design. Design QA checks the design process and analysis isn't flawed, and a good design QA should include a review that the original brief is valid.

We don't know if the tyres are variable due to poor brief, poor design to that brief or inconstant manufacturing. A good QA culture should have addressed each of those. For all we know the QA might have worked and identified the risk of what has happened, but it might have been overruled by commercial pressures - QA only works if acted on by those with authority.

A really good example of this is the problem with the O rings on the Challenger disaster. The problems were highlighted by the QA processes, but key decision makers failed to act on the warnings. That's the difference between a quality process and a quality culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shut ... r_disaster

J. Button on 2012 tires today:

"I find [the tyres] very difficult to understand, that's why we tried a few new things this year in Canada and Monaco and places like that, because I felt I needed to find a bit more direction with the tyres, and what we tried definitely didn't work,"

"Most of the problem this year has been in and out of the range where they work, and that's a difficulty," he said. "You try and drive gentle with them to look after them, and they drop out of the range and you end up damaging the tyre more than if you keep them in the range and are aggressive with the tyre.

"It's been very difficult, especially for me, because my style of driving initially didn't suit the tyres - I've had to adapt a little bit."

He added: "The car, if you get the temperature in the tyres and the tyres working, is good in whatever condition – the problem is if we don't get the temperature we're nowhere, which is understandable."

Cam wrote:So, let's get this right, Pirelli was asked to supply a tyre that Pirelli had no idea how it would react to a 2012 F1 car. That's what he's just stated. Nice one Pirelli, not only do you make crap F1 tyres, you actually had no idea how crap they'd be. So much for your QA. "she'll be right, throw them on - all for the show".

Cam wrote:Agreed. However its been Pirellis responses which has perturbed me the most. At each stage PIrelli have deflected any and all criticism. Turns out, regardless of job they were asked to do, they have underestimated the 2012 tyre and don't fully know how to work it. If they had said from the start 'hang on, we haven't tested these on a 2012 F1 car so we have no idea how they'll react", then there would be no problem (well, there would be but for an entirely other reason) - but that didn't occur.

Pirelli have indeed created a lottery. These tyres may be consistent on a 2010 car, but this is 2012 and to serve up tyres, which they admit they don't run as they expect, isn't really the 'pinnacle of motorsport' is it?

To know teams are throwing millions of dollars to understand a component that the manufacturer doesn't understand - typifies the utter wastage of cash and resources for no good reason in F1 and continuing to allow it to occur flies in the face of reducing costs.

But aren't Pirelli basically saying the same thing, that the best they could do was use a 2010 car and that they could not accurately predict how they would work on a 2012 car because the 2010 and 2012 cars were very different? As far as "crap" and quality control, I believe they are doing a magnificent job. Granted, the tires are unforgiving and work within a very tiny window unique to each compound, but each compound is consistent for the entire batch.

I would be miffed if, for instance, one set of softs worked differently than another set of softs, but they are consistent. That's actually a high level of quality control.

I strongly disagree on the submission of the concept that this is a "lottery". What is really going on is that the tires have an incredibly narrow operating window, and running outside of that results in massive performance drop-offs. It is an exceptionally difficult and complex task to understand all the variables and get it right for the entire race. When you combine it with having to run two different compounds for each race, that the weather can change, that each track has it's own unique grip and wear characteristics, the cars lose weight during the race, just to mention some variables and issues the engineers must deal with, it results in an incredibly complex puzzle.

The consequence of this complex and dynamic puzzle is that teams struggle to decide on which pit stop strategy is optimal, whether two, three or four stops is better, resulting in the "show" we fans are experiencing. It's not "lottery" or "luck", teams do know what happened and why (sometimes after the race, unfortunately). It's just incredibly, incredibly difficult to integrate all the variables into one equation that makes decisions simple and easy.

Personally, I like it . The level of strategy has made a quantum leap, far far beyond past levels of strategy. The result is that no one knows what is going to happen, not because it's a lottery, but because there are so many variables, and that the tires are so unforgiving.

Now we get down to brass tacks, that fans have different philosophies and concepts of what a Formula One race is supposed to be in essence. Many voice the opinion that it should be drivers and cars going 100% of their potential for the entire race. This is the root cause for all the unhappiness and discontent about the tires and certain regulations.

Although I respect opinions and do not think they are trash or "wrong", I disagree on this point. From day one, Formula One cars have been arguably the quickest cars in circuit racing. They were, and are, extremely exciting, sexy, loud, and fast. So the common perception is that they go flat out. But that isn't true, from day one it has also been about conservation of resources. A Formula One race is approximately 300 kilometers in distance, and in the past even longer.

One of the greatest drivers, Fangio, in his greatest drive in the 1957 German Grand Prix at Nürburgring, was a grand epic of 500 kilometers of cunning, courage, and conservation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_German_Grand_Prix

Jimmy Clark, also on the list of greats, was famous for his conservation of tires. You're a "great" for reasons other than sheer pace.

Alain Prost won may races and titles because of his cunning and conservation of resources. He often went easy at the beginning of the race to conserve his tires and brakes for the latter stages of the race. He also only drove as fast as he had to. Until Schumacher's run of records, Prost was the most successful driver in Formula One.

Thanks Dave. I agree that strategy is an important part of F1, it's all about being first to the finish.

The problem with the Pirelli tyre is that sometimes the operating window seems too sensitive, although the teams seem to have got things figured out so they can now better predict the behaviour. I'd say the difficulties lie in the brief and adopting a narrow operating window. That then appears to result in variability due to changes you noted.

However F1 is not meant to be easy. So while the operating window is difficult, I welcome it as an challenge to the engineers.