F1technical.net

Jersey Tom wrote:

TzeiTzei wrote:Have we had any delamination on tyres which have not been cut?

All of them?

It's just that atleast in a interview Hembery said that all the delaminations had been caused by a cut in the tyre. If i heard him right.

If there were a small patch of tread ripped off the face of the tire, I could maybe see making the argument for a cut. But even then, I've seen cuts in treads and I don't recall it ever ripping treads off. For that matter I'm not sure I've seen that failure mode on open wheel tires.

That the whole tread comes off, and especially that it's cleanly peeled off rather than ripped and torn looking points to a complete lack of adhesion between tread and whatever fabric is directly underneath it (overlay for example). Problem with their design or manufacturing.. not enough strength between layers.

But that's just my take on it.

I get your point now. There is clearly an issue with bonding and it is something that should not happen. A cut in the tyre might be a catalyst for delamination but it really shouldnt be such an issue.

TzeiTzei wrote:

Jersey Tom wrote:

TzeiTzei wrote:Have we had any delamination on tyres which have not been cut?

All of them?

It's just that atleast in a interview Hembery said that all the delaminations had been caused by a cut in the tyre. If i heard him right.

If there were a small patch of tread ripped off the face of the tire, I could maybe see making the argument for a cut. But even then, I've seen cuts in treads and I don't recall it ever ripping treads off. For that matter I'm not sure I've seen that failure mode on open wheel tires.

That the whole tread comes off, and especially that it's cleanly peeled off rather than ripped and torn looking points to a complete lack of adhesion between tread and whatever fabric is directly underneath it (overlay for example). Problem with their design or manufacturing.. not enough strength between layers.

But that's just my take on it.

I get your point now. There is clearly an issue with bonding and it is something that should not happen. A cut in the tyre might be a catalyst for delamination but it really shouldnt be such an issue.

I suspect that its the lamination issues that are driving the redesign not competitive considerations.
No matter what they say to the press.

I agree, they are making a smoke screen to cover a serious structural fault IMO.

Caught the eye of the legal dept.

bhallg2k wrote:

Cam wrote:Maybe. Doesn't mean it cannot be correct though too. Do you aspire to be the best, or pray they level the field for you? Beating a competitor who's hobbled, in any scenario, is hollow. I want to beat the best on merit. I'll be teaching my kids the same. You might beat me by handicapping me, but at night, when you're alone with your thoughts, you'll know. I know. And so does everyone else. That's the point.

But, why do you have in your head that being "the best" is somehow possible while forsaking a fundamental element of the sport?

It's not the FIA Aerodynamic World Championship, nor is the the FIA Powerplant World Championship. It's not even the the FIA Tire World Championship; it's the FIA Formula One World Championship. That means there's a whole host of things teams have to get right in order to be "the best."

If a team fails to develop a car that does not excel in ALL areas of performance, the car that team churns out is, by definition, not "the best" car. And because every team uses the same tires, tires the whole world knows degrade faster than innocence in a cathouse, teams that for whatever reason choose to ignore that significant performance variable in favor of fruitless aerodynamic gains have no one to blame but themselves for their failure. It's no different than the previous failure of other teams to exploit the rules with double-diffusers, exhaust-blown diffusers, and F-ducts.

You have the make the best of what's around; that's what sports are all about.

(Whether or not the overall result of those efforts is befitting of the so-called "pinnacle of motorsport," or is even entertaining to watch, is an entirely different subject altogether.)

This issue is not about "make the best of what's around; that's what sports are all about" - if only it was only that simple. From all sides, including Pirelli and Bernie - everyone wants to end RedBulls domination - that much we can all agree has been publicly stated. Now this isn't for the 'good of the sport' because a few consider continual winning boring. Winning isn't boring - continual loosing is, especially when it's your team. If they truly wanted to do the best for the sport, they would adjust the regulations to allow all other teams to rise - not specify changes to hamper one team. That is the clear distinction. My argument would be the same if it was Ferrari or McLaren or whoever else was singled out - in any sport for that matter. Don't change rules to single out and disable one winning team - change rules to encourage all teams.

The 2013 tyres were specifically designed to effect aero. One team was specifically targeted by that rule. RedBull. Yes - the rules are the same for all - but that tyre change was designed and implemented with just one team in mind. That's the problem. They could have relaxed some other regulations to encourage performance and better racing. This type of narrow minded approach in F1 is what is killing the sport and making a farce of what was a great sporting event.

So now we have more tyre changes - but keep in mind the new changes are also being made with just one team in mind - guess who -

When asked if there was a danger that making the tyres more durable would allow a team like Red Bull to dominate, Hembery said: "We would hope not. But of course we always face that risk."

"It is a bit bizarre - unless you all want us to give tyres to Red Bull to help them win the championship, which appears to be the case. "I think it is pretty clear. There is one team who will benefit from a change and that is them."

Bernie Ecclestone told La Gazzetta dello Sport this week that he hopes Red Bull’s “dominance” of Formula One doesn’t continue in 2013: "After three years of dominance by Red Bull it wouldn’t be too bad a thing if we were to have a change at the top of the sport, perhaps with Ferrari leading the way again."

I have no problems with Ferrari winning, McLaren winning, RedBull winning - whoever - just so long as they're all given a fair chance to compete year to year - even mid year - and that decisions are made for all - not one.

Or that anyone knows aero enough to do such a thing.

Cam wrote:
The 2013 tyres were specifically designed to effect aero. One team was specifically targeted by that rule. RedBull. Yes - the rules are the same for all - but that tyre change was designed and implemented with just one team in mind. That's the problem..

SatchelCharge wrote:

Cam wrote:The 2013 tyres were specifically designed to effect aero. One team was specifically targeted by that rule. RedBull. Yes - the rules are the same for all - but that tyre change was designed and implemented with just one team in mind. That's the problem...

Call me naïve but I don't think Pirelli knew enough about the RB8 to be able to design specific 'RB9 killer' tires as you suggest. It's not like they hang out with them in the wind tunnel.

Pierce89 wrote:

Cam wrote:
The 2013 tyres were specifically designed to effect aero. One team was specifically targeted by that rule. RedBull. Yes - the rules are the same for all - but that tyre change was designed and implemented with just one team in mind. That's the problem..

Paul Hembery has revealed that the 2013 Pirelli tyres will change the aerodynamics for the teams next season. "Well the cars at least this year are not going to change too much between this year and next year," Hembery told ESPN exclusively. "From that point of view we're hopeful of not having any big surprises and that I think for the teams is also a positive. Although we know that the changes we've made will have an influence on things like aerodynamics for the teams; it will deflect more, the rear tyre in particular."Source

I think having a valid discussion on the 2013 tyres and why they were introduced - is a good thing. I brought up a point that Hembrey has admitted publicly. A little less eye rolling and a little more fact checking....... and we can discuss it.

Sometimes i don't know if people comprehend the difference between speaking in general or making a specific target. he says:

Although we know that the changes we've made will have an influence on things like aerodynamics for the teams

he didn't say

lthough we know that the changes we've made will have an influence on things like aerodynamics for Red Bull

I mean seriously?? or people thinks that only RB had aerodynamics...but even if Pirelli would have had that target, do you really thing he is so troll to admitted in front of the cameras ??

Cam wrote:I think having a valid discussion on the 2013 tyres and why they were introduced - is a good thing. I brought up a point that Hembrey has admitted publicly. A little less eye rolling and a little more fact checking....... and we can discuss it.

That article is dated November 19, 2012. It also states:

Pirelli is supplying two sets of prototype tyres for Friday practice at the Brazilian Grand Prix in order to give the teams an opportunity to gather some data around which to develop their 2013 cars.

Again, the teams had equal opportunity prior to the offseason to collect data and use it accordingly in the design their cars.

If the argument is that it was unfair for Pirelli to produce a tire that doesn't specifically cater to a team's strengths, then I just don't know what to tell you on that one. Nor do I really know what to say about the idea that these tires were introduced to shake up the competition. For one thing, that's been Pirelli's stated goal from Day One, and for another, F1 has a rich history of rule changes seemingly formulated for that very reason: 2011 Silverstone EBD ban, 2006 ban of tuned mass dampers, 2005 ban on tire changes, 2004 introduction of Friday drivers... The list goes on.

But, nothing will ever change the fact that these terrible tires are the same for all teams; they've been the same for all teams; and all teams have had the same opportunities to use them.

Cam wrote:

SatchelCharge wrote:

Cam wrote:The 2013 tyres were specifically designed to effect aero. One team was specifically targeted by that rule. RedBull. Yes - the rules are the same for all - but that tyre change was designed and implemented with just one team in mind. That's the problem...

Call me naïve but I don't think Pirelli knew enough about the RB8 to be able to design specific 'RB9 killer' tires as you suggest. It's not like they hang out with them in the wind tunnel.

Pierce89 wrote:

Cam wrote:
The 2013 tyres were specifically designed to effect aero. One team was specifically targeted by that rule. RedBull. Yes - the rules are the same for all - but that tyre change was designed and implemented with just one team in mind. That's the problem..

Paul Hembery has revealed that the 2013 Pirelli tyres will change the aerodynamics for the teams next season. "Well the cars at least this year are not going to change too much between this year and next year," Hembery told ESPN exclusively. "From that point of view we're hopeful of not having any big surprises and that I think for the teams is also a positive. Although we know that the changes we've made will have an influence on things like aerodynamics for the teams; it will deflect more, the rear tyre in particular."Source

I think having a valid discussion on the 2013 tyres and why they were introduced - is a good thing. I brought up a point that Hembrey has admitted publicly. A little less eye rolling and a little more fact checking....... and we can discuss it.

This is the insidious effect of manipulating competition. Once you start even the most extreme conspirisy theories have credibility.

Dietrich Mateschitz :

Everyone knows what happens here. This has nothing to do with racing anymore. This is a competition in tyre management, 4 stops are too much

I'm not a journalist but sometimes i would like to be, i don't know how well informed was the journalist that made this question but if i was in his place i would have responded:

Mr.Mateschitz two years ago S.Vettel won here (Barcelona) a race with 4 pit stops but didn't hear a single word from you ? How is that possible...!?!
Mr.Mateschitz are you just whine and crying for some favoritisme ?

Well he would probably not giving me a single response, and i probably will lose my job, but at least i would have done my job with honor and respecting what a true journalist should do these days...REPORT THE TRUTH

Eric Boullier about tires:

The question is not the tyres, it is because we did something that allowed our car to look after them. Everyone has the same tyres

Could someone not have respect for this person ? He have all my respect and if my favorite team doesn't win hope he wins.