F1technical.net

WhiteBlue wrote:The second point is the steel band instead of the Kevlar reinforcement. I think the idea was good but the image it creates of Pirelli is detrimental. They will abandon this idea simply for marketing and image reasons.

This is what completely baffles me on this forum sometimes. On one hand we have 'crap' tyres that many on here have argued vehemently that they don't damage the Pirelli brand (because consumers can tell the difference between F1 tyres and road tyres) - but as soon as a few fail, everyone's finally on-board that 'crap tyres' are bad for a company's image.

Doesn't the same argument apply - consumers should know the difference between F1 and road tyres? Which is it?

Cam wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:The second point is the steel band instead of the Kevlar reinforcement. I think the idea was good but the image it creates of Pirelli is detrimental. They will abandon this idea simply for marketing and image reasons.

This is what completely baffles me on this forum sometimes. On one hand we have 'crap' tyres that many on here have argued vehemently that they don't damage the Pirelli brand (because consumers can tell the difference between F1 tyres and road tyres) - but as soon as a few fail, everyone's finally on-board that 'crap tyres' are bad for a company's image.

Doesn't the same argument apply - consumers should know the difference between F1 and road tyres? Which is it?

I agree with your argument here. The delamination is no worse than a tire dying in 20 miles.

Edit: Lotus ain't happyhttp://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... ostpopular

I totally agree with Boullier.

WhiteBlue wrote: The energy balance of the tyres got affected by making the shoulder softer and generating more heat much easier. That is the root cause of the fragile tyres.

Of course, you're right. The design is about how the heat is generated as much as it is about heat tolerance.

Cam wrote: This is what completely baffles me on this forum sometimes. On one hand we have 'crap' tyres that many on here have argued vehemently that they don't damage the Pirelli brand (because consumers can tell the difference between F1 tyres and road tyres) - but as soon as a few fail, everyone's finally on-board that 'crap tyres' are bad for a company's image.

Doesn't the same argument apply - consumers should know the difference between F1 and road tyres? Which is it?

People have different opinions. To a certain extend controversial talk about problematic tyres will be good for Pirelli. But they will want to avoid situations like Indianapolis 2005 where the general public will get images of spectacular failures and scandal due to incompetence. So tyre failures are bad however benign the actual failure mode is in the view of the company.

It is also bad for Pirelli if they miss their self set targets of one or two tyre stops by a wide margin and get influencial people like Bernie to publicly criticise them for it. So my view is that Pirelli was doing very well until the went a bit over the top and simultaneously developed the spectacular failures. That can't be good any more. They have to pull up their trousers and fix these issues very quickly.

They ran with 2013 tires in preseason testing in Barcelona. So they knew what to expect from Spanish GP more or less.
Changing tires mid seasons is really damaging the sport in my view. It only confirms F1 is 99% politics and 1% racing.

So RBR cant make them work properly. Mercs first row lockup went in flames with going only backwards in the race. And probably the last one is the one that troubles some guys the most. Seeing uber-team make pole only to destroy tires in the race.

As far as I'm concerned this is disgrace for the sport. On one hand sport wanted fragile tires and now they're to fragile... Changing it mid season because some teams couldnt make them work is ridiculous and unfair.

About Pirelli 2013 tires.
I said two days ago that i will wait the official position (and disagree if they agree) of Ferrari about tyre farce, well they gave it through the "Horse Whisperer"-->http://formula1.ferrari.com/news/horse- ... -emotional

Im glad to see that my team thinks in the exact same way. Not only this, but they have raised the same question as me...

Why for Barcelona 2013 there were too much pit-stops(4-pits).
And in Barcelona (and Turkey) 2011 it was just fine (4-pits).

As logical no answer is to this, it will remain a mystery in Formula 1, as the Big-Bang in astronomy.
Beside that, Ferrari have try to give their answer of why Barcelona 2013 was too much and Barcelona 2011 was fine. Here it is :

These are difficult times for people with poor memories. Maybe it’s because of the huge amount of information available today that people are too quick to talk, forgetting things that happened pretty much in the recent past. Or maybe the brain cells that control memory only operate selectively, depending on the results achieved on track by their owners.

By my personal opinion this is the most technical, valuable, explained and argumented answer to why Barcelona 2011 was ok and Barcelona 2013 was too much.

Argumented becuse -->People with poor memories, forgetting things that happened pretty much in the recent past
Explained becuase --> The huge amount of information available today that people are too quick to talk
Technically because -->The brain cells that control memory only operate selectively
Vaulable becuse -->Depends on the results achieved on track by their owners.

After searching for different response this is best possible in my opinion.

To make it clear this answer is for those people who tried to argument that between the 2 races the "nr of pit stops" were different, because i know that most of the fans agree that the "nr of pit stops" are equal.

Dont forget Red Bull arguments are that : barcelona 2013 had too much PIT STOPS.

Nomore wrote: Why for Barcelona 2013 there were too much pit-stops(4-pits).
And in Barcelona (and Turkey) 2011 it was just fine (4-pits).

What about people becoming more aware and more sensitive to tyres and their role in the course of the following years after 2011?

Paul Hembery wrote:We've decided to introduce a further evolution as it became clear at the Spanish Grand Prix that the number of pit stops was too high.

###

It's important to point out that these delaminations, which occur when the tread comes off, do not compromise the safety of the tires.

How is that even legal? Article 12.6.3 requires unanimous consent from the teams to change tire specs except in the case of safety (Article 12.5.2), which Pirelli admitted is not the case here.

bhallg2k wrote:

Paul Hembery wrote:We've decided to introduce a further evolution as it became clear at the Spanish Grand Prix that the number of pit stops was too high.

###

It's important to point out that these delaminations, which occur when the tread comes off, do not compromise the safety of the tires.

How is that even legal? Article 12.6.3 requires unanimous consent from the teams to change tire specs except in the case of safety (Article 12.5.2), which Pirelli admitted is not the case here.

Scarbs told in the The Racer's Edge that taking that rule in seclusion, it is indeed mandatory to get all teams behind it. However, he said the rule isn't black 'n white and can be circumvented. It all is a juristic and political case, but apperently it is possible and something we can't comprehend as outsiders. All we know is that there are mechanisms behind the scenes that makes this possible, legally.

bhallg2k wrote:

Paul Hembery wrote:We've decided to introduce a further evolution as it became clear at the Spanish Grand Prix that the number of pit stops was too high.

###

It's important to point out that these delaminations, which occur when the tread comes off, do not compromise the safety of the tires.

How is that even legal? Article 12.6.3 requires unanimous consent from the teams to change tire specs except in the case of safety (Article 12.5.2), which Pirelli admitted is not the case here.

For PR and legal liability reasons Pirelli will never admit to tracking an unsafe tire. But in fact they have and will rectify the situation while everyone does the polite thing and averts their eyes.

I'm surprised at how many F1 fans are taking these statements at face value.

There's nothing unsafe about these tires. The failures just look different.

It's clear the machinations behind these new "tweaks" are purely political. I just don't see how they can circumvent the rules so overtly to do it. But, there's obviously a way, because it's happening.

bhallg2k wrote:There's nothing unsafe about these tires. The failures just look different.

It's clear the machinations behind these new "tweaks" are purely political. I just don't see how they can circumvent the rules so overtly to do it. But, there's obviously a way, because it's happening.

Disagreed. Imagine a driver getting a huge chunk of rubber to his head from an exploded tyre right in front of him. Also it causes damage to the car itself (next to afterwards scraping of the floor).

We all know what happened with Massa when he got a small spring to his head. The same or worse can happen when such pieces of tyres are flung at you.

They'll simply bring the new tires to Canada. Which team will have the balls to not run and sue?

turbof1 wrote:

bhallg2k wrote:There's nothing unsafe about these tires. The failures just look different.

It's clear the machinations behind these new "tweaks" are purely political. I just don't see how they can circumvent the rules so overtly to do it. But, there's obviously a way, because it's happening.

Disagreed. Imagine a driver getting a huge chunk of rubber from an exploded tyre right in front of him. Also it causes damage to the car itself (next to afterwards scraping of the floor).

Of course there are real dangers from delaminating tires. There's just no way Pirelli will admit it publicly. Too many PR and legal issues.