[Tech Issue] Pirelli-The Tyre Story..

[chillibowl]

yes yes the old mandate chestnut!

arguably everyone in F1 is doing what they have agreed to do because they have written contracts. even BE does what he does because he has a mandate (and i presume an employment contract) from CVC to squeeze and squeeze.

so claiming that Pirelli are just doing what they have been told should not, imo, shield them from criticism in the same way it doesnt shield BE.

they supply a product for money to a customer base that generally has nothing good to say about the product that they are required to buy. say what you will but this is clearly not an ideal situation nor is it one that can be so easily dismissed by the mandate chestnut.

but we have had this debate before.

[Mike Harte]

chillibowl, the complaints shouldn't be directed at Pirelli, it should be at the FOIA/FOM. I know I have endlessly repeated the mantra that Pirelli have been mandated to provide tyres of a certain type, but you must surely acknowledge that they had to submit a tender in competition with Michelin which laid out the specifications of the tyres, and the contract that they have been given is based solely on that. Obviously they must have met, or were nearer meeting, the brief given to them and Michelin.

It is no different to any form of contract. If a restaurant placed an order/contract with a cutlery manufacturer specifying that the knifes should be blunt so that the customers couldn't cut themselves, but then found out that they also couldn't dissect food either, would you blame the manufacturer for producing what they were contracted to supply, or the owners of the restaurant for their stupidity?

This is why manufacturers, no matter what industry, have to be careful about accepting orders/contracts; they have to be assured that the client knows what they will be getting from them, which the FIA/FOM certainly do in this case. The problems arise when the client/customer doesn't know what the pitfalls may be, and the manufacturer doesn't warn them in advance.

[chillibowl]

in fairness i dont know what the difference in tenders were. from what i gather Michelin were giving some of the teams free tires in the past (good for the teams) but had more of their own demands like changing the rim size (possibly bad for the teams).

Pirelli on the other hand seemed completely willing to do whatever the FIA/FOM wanted.

but what I dont know is if the best company was selected in terms of either ability, price, or a combination of the two nor do we know who the teams (the actual customers) would have picked if they were given the choice.

as for your analogy...yes i would blame the cutlery manufacture. and i would never (or at least i try not too) buy a product from a company that places the desire for profit over making a quality product.

no one forced the cutlery manu to accept a contract to make an inferior product. their knowledge and experience as a cutlery manu should have told them that they were being asked to make an inferior product. if they had any integrity or concern for their quality and reputation of their brand they would not have entered into such a contract in the first place.

so lets dispel with the myth that they are doing what they are told. they are doing it for money and self promotion. that is their reward for intentionally making inferior products. are they allowed to do that...of course but its hardly a noble pursuit and imo not a worthy attitude for a company trying to prove its mettle through sport.

and while i blame the FIA/FOM as well, i am just not as willing to absolve Pirelli in their role in all this.

[JeremySmith]

They asked for blunt knives and that is what they got ...

[Mike Harte]

chillibowl, sorry to keep dragging this on, but you really aren't being fair to Pirelli.

From memory, the tyre problems in F1 started sometime after the Indianapolis fiasco, at which point none of the competition tyre manufacturers wanted to supply F1. In the end, I think that the FIA or FOM persuaded Pirelli to come in by stating that all the teams would have to pay for their tyre supply, and some other new stipulations. In return, Pirelli had to produce tyres to meet the requirements of the FIA and FOM.

That arrangement worked fairly well, until tyregate at Silverstone followed by Spa, and suddenly the whole world turned on Pirelli even though it would now appear that it was not the tyres that were at fault, but some of the driving was suspect and some of the teams were not abiding by instructions passed to them by Pirelli. Isn't it remarkable that the problem didn't raise it's head again once the new monitoring system was introduced.

As I said earlier, I don't really understand why Pirelli remains in F1 and takes all the stick that it does. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say that their reasons are altruistic, but I do believe that there is an element of that in their remaining. And the reason that Michelin didn't win the tendering process is because they wanted to dictate the terms to the FIA/FOM and wanted to impose their own specifications including increasing the size of the wheels, whilst Pirelli was prepared to be told what to do by the FIA/FOM.

IN my mind, the FIA/FOM are guilty of ordering blunt knives, and that is where the blame should lie.

[Alfaholic]

And don't forget that we have tyres that degrade quickly thanks to the Canadian GP(?) of a few years ago where the new surface caused the tyres (which up 'till then would have almost lasted a whole GP) to quickly lose performance creating an unpredictable race which got people quite excited.

Therefore someone in charge thought of finding an artificial way of replicating this and tyres with a short performance window was the result.

[S griffin]

I agree it's artificial to deliberately make tyres bad. I feel it's better to sell the product when you are competing a la WEC

[wnut]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

They asked for blunt knives and that is what they got ...

Plastic knives ..... literally!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

and while i blame the FIA/FOM as well, i am just not as willing to absolve Pirelli in their role in all this.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by wnut

Pingy, the "convergence theory" as to why we need weird tyres to spice up competition is believable until you look at Indycar, Nascar, GP2, FF and spec series where the cars have much closer performance, yet manage to have really close racing without artificial randomness.

One word, aero, is the problem?

I hope you agree that performance differences are necessary for overtaking. Without a performance difference, hence drivers racing with equal pace, their is simply no place for overtaking.
As Formula One cars generate a huge amount of downforce, slipstreaming will cause lap times to deteriorate. As a consequence, an even bigger performance difference is necessary for overtaking. This is why the convergence is most problematic in Formula One.

Having said that, artificial gimmicks such as 'push-to-pass' and the mandatory tire compound change originated from Indycars.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I do believe that some, if not most of the teams, did receive free tyres, but I don't think that they all did. However, the problem was the amount that the tyre manufacturers were spending, and some of the teams as well, on testing. Ferrari were constantly pounding around Fiorano with, was it?, Bridgestone which gave them the huge advantage that they enjoyed at that time. So, it wasn't the tyre costs per se, but the amount the teams were spending on the testing.

Ferrari indeed had a strong partnership with Bridgestone in those days. But the Japanese tire supplier focused too much on the Scuderia, a number of teams - even Sauber - switched to Michelin. As a consequence, Bridgestone could not get enough mileage in terms of testing and Michelin got the overhand in 2005 and 2006.

After the standardization of the tires, teams still tested an awful lot until the banning of in-season testing. And nowadays, the regulations allow for very little testing. From that point of view, the tires could easily become de-standardized now.

[fredd1]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

And the reason that Michelin didn't win the tendering process is because they wanted to dictate the terms to the FIA/FOM and wanted to impose their own specifications including increasing the size of the wheels, whilst Pirelli was prepared to be told what to do by the FIA/FOM.

.

Lets not overlook the not small matter of the amount of advertising revenue Pirelli donate to FOM. That was the difference.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by fredd1

Lets not overlook the not small matter of the amount of advertising revenue Pirelli donate to FOM. That was the difference.

Yes, I do believe that Pirelli have to pay FOM to advertise their product at the GPs; one must assume that if Michelin, or any other tyre supplier, were providing the F1 tyres that they would have to do likewise.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I hope you agree that performance differences are necessary for overtaking. Without a performance difference, hence drivers racing with equal pace, their is simply no place for overtaking.
As Formula One cars generate a huge amount of downforce, slipstreaming will cause lap times to deteriorate. As a consequence, an even bigger performance difference is necessary for overtaking. This is why the convergence is most problematic in Formula One.

Having said that, artificial gimmicks such as 'push-to-pass' and the mandatory tire compound change originated from Indycars.

In Formulae with no aerodynamic downforce and equal cars there is plenty of passing, it is entirely the aero that prevents the cars racing.

If the cars are constantly being driven on a knife edge, driver mistakes cause the performance differences. F1 however has done its best to eliminate the possibility of even gross mistakes being eliminated with artifices such paved run offs in addition to the problems caused by aero.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

chillibowl, sorry to keep dragging this on, but you really aren't being fair to Pirelli.

in fairness i dont think i am. they have a responsibility for any product they put their name on so i think its perfectly natural that they are included in discussions about their products.

i think this is a normal thing when talking about any product. there are several products on the market which i choose not to buy because those companies have poor environmental and labour records. they are not doing anything illegal and properly operate under the laws of the countries in which they have their factories but i still choose not to support those companies.

because as a consumer i hold them to a higher standard then what they are contractually or legally obliged to do.

of course im not saying my dislike for Pirelli is because they are a polluter or employ wage slave labour...that would be an unfair criticism.

all i am saying is they have a larger responsibility to the fans of F1. rather their tacit contract is with us and not the FIA/FOM.

anyways i dont mind that you are dragging it on. im dragging it out as well. like Pirelli's relationship with the FIA/FOM it takes two to tango hence we both share the blame.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

all i am saying is they have a larger responsibility to the fans of F1. rather their tacit contract is with us and not the FIA/FOM.

This is not so; you might like to think along those lines, but it a cannot be so. You and I, nor any other observer of F1, have any contract with Pirelli unless we buy tyres for our own vehicles. However, they do have a cast-iron contract with FOM/FIA to supply tyres to a type of specification that they, that is FOM/FIA, dictate. If they don't do so, they would be in breach of contract.

And, although this has not been made public, I firmly believe that the main reason that Michelin didn't win the tender process was because they were not prepared to follow instructions from FOM. They insisted on larger diameter wheels, which the teams were against, but more importantly, they wanted to produce tyres that could last for a whole race. That was not what FOM wanted!

[chillibowl]

i am afraid you are a company man my friend.

as the consumers of f1 we are not bound to respect the contracts suppliers sign with the FIA/FOM.

if we were then most posts on this forum would be dismissed as 'well they are doing what they are contractually obligated to do so as a fan/forum member you have no grounds to question what they are doing.'

anyways im now off to buy some shares in Pirelli in order to give my complaits more weight!

[fredd1]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Yes, I do believe that Pirelli have to pay FOM to advertise their product at the GPs; one must assume that if Michelin, or any other tyre supplier, were providing the F1 tyres that they would have to do likewise.

I don't think I'd assume that.
After all, if I were supplying my tyres and everybody knows they're my tyres, why would I want to purchase advertising to show the world what they already know
That was one of the sticky bits, Michelin didn't want the depth Pirelli committed to.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by fredd1

I don't think I'd assume that.
After all, if I were supplying my tyres and everybody knows they're my tyres, why would I want to purchase advertising to show the world what they already know
That was one of the sticky bits, Michelin didn't want the depth Pirelli committed to.

So the track gets nothing from Pirelli, despite all the trackside banners?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

So the track gets nothing from Pirelli, despite all the trackside banners?

All the revenue from trackside advertising during a GP weekend goes to FOM; the tracks do not see a penny of it. Their income is basically derived from spectator ticket sales and charges they levy from food and souvenir vendors. They also might raise some revenue from aircraft/helicopter landing charges.

Pirelli has to pay FOM for all their trackside hoardings, as would have Michelin if they had won the contract. I am certain that they would have also had their name plastered all over the place, but at least, now that Pirelli have been given the contract, we have been spared having to watch the Michelin man getting over-excited on the podium!

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by wnut

In Formulae with no aerodynamic downforce and equal cars there is plenty of passing, it is entirely the aero that prevents the cars racing.

If the cars are constantly being driven on a knife edge, driver mistakes cause the performance differences. F1 however has done its best to eliminate the possibility of even gross mistakes being eliminated with artifices such paved run offs in addition to the problems caused by aero.

The GP2 Series provide an excellent entertainment, although the entirely standardized cars generate a huge amount of downforce and they run on the same tracks as Formula One does. However, it is a feeders series, hence with less experienced and/or talented drivers. Of course, it should be mentioned that the GP2 Series use the same tires as Formula One as well.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The GP2 Series provide an excellent entertainment, although the entirely standardized cars generate a huge amount of downforce and they run on the same tracks as Formula One does. However, it is a feeders series, hence with less experienced and/or talented drivers. Of course, it should be mentioned that the GP2 Series use the same tires as Formula One as well.

GP2 aero is however much simpler than F1 aero and the GP 2 cars have a greater percentage downforce contribution from the undertray than the F1, and the undertray is less affected by wake turbulence.










Additionally the GP2 cars run much shorter races and are less capable of loading the tyres than the F1 cars so the tyres are not quite as fragile as they are in F1.

[chillibowl]

drivers tire selection for OZ. putting my positive hat on, im actually curious to see how allowing drivers to select the number of each compound they have turns out.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

drivers tire selection for OZ. putting my positive hat on, im actually curious to see how allowing drivers to select the number of each compound they have turns out.

Which one is the option tyre?

[chillibowl]

not sure exactly how it works so i could be wrong.

one set of the softest available compound must be used in Q3. so if the 'option' tire still refers to the softest of the available compounds then the only requirement to use the option tire is in Q3

of the remaining 12 sets, Pirelli will then nominate two compounds, one of which must be used in the race.

so using LH as an example. 1 medium, 6 soft, 6 supersoft with one set of super softs reserved for Q3.

If Pirelli select the medium and softs as the race tires, then LH has to use at least one of those two compounds and is then free to select from the other three at his choosing. theoretically he could run the whole race using the soft compounds as that was one of the two nominated compounds and provided he has enough of them left.