[Tech Issue] Pirelli-The Tyre Story..

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by wnut

How in the name of heck does this work?

The teams are meant to nominate their tyres for Melbourne by this Friday.

On cars they have not built nor run yet!

http://www.pitpass.com/55358/Teams-m...yres-this-week

Normally Pirelli does it, but the teams wanted the choice so now they have only themselves to blame if they get it wrong. Although it looks to me like a complete lottery for the first few races.
The reason for choosing this early is the tyres have to be manufactured and probably have to be shipped by sea and that takes a few months. Later in the season it might mean that the tyres for Brazil might have to be chosen before those for Italy.

[Mike Harte]

The above part of the new tyre rules is fairly easy to understand; but the way that the teams then nominate which type of tyre for each of their cars went mostly over my head, and I sort of know what they meant.

How the TV/radio teams are going to explain that part to the great unwashed will be interesting. However, along with other rules that may seem arbitory, I fear that it will turn off even more of those who just want to see the spectacle of drivers racing each other.

[chillibowl]

i like it. teams should have more choices and the difficulty that comes from making bad ones.

like the idea of one set of their softest compounds being reserved for Q3...although would it be more fair if the teams could use that special set at any point in qualifying? might shake up the grid and would make Q2 more interesting.

also are teams now free to choose a new/fresh set for the start of the race?...or is that rule even around still?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

like the idea of one set of their softest compounds being reserved for Q3...although would it be more fair if the teams could use that special set at any point in qualifying? might shake up the grid and would make Q2 more interesting.

That system has been around for the last year or so; those teams who make it into Q3 must hand them back to Pirelli after the end of qualifying, whilst those knocked out in the earlier part have to hand them back, unused, at the end of Q2.

It was introduced to ensure that all cars eligble to run during Q3, did so. Prior to that, the teams sometimes elected not to run so as to save a set of softer compound tyres for the race. If you allowed them to use them at any time during qualifying, then you would likely see teams sitting out either Q2 or Q3 again.

[chillibowl]

yeah thats right. Q3 was a boring prior to the extra set being given to the Q3 runners. good point! thanks

[bjohnsonsmith]

Interesting comments from Button on the new rules.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122331

[bjohnsonsmith]

Apparently Pirelli are still waiting to sign the F1, FIA tyre contract for 2017-19.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122482

[wnut]

Pirelli to provide tyre info during races.


http://www.pitpass.com/55437/Pirelli...o-during-races


I just can't begin to tell you how excited I am about this! NOT!

How about they make an actual racing tyre?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Pirelli to provide tyre info during races.


http://www.pitpass.com/55437/Pirelli...o-during-races


I just can't begin to tell you how excited I am about this! NOT!

How about they make an actual racing tyre?

This article, http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122622, is worth a read, regarding the issue with tyres and what drivers and promoters expect Pirelli to deliver.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

This article, http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122622, is worth a read, regarding the issue with tyres and what drivers and promoters expect Pirelli to deliver.

BJ, this is really only re-hashing what Pirelli have been saying for the last few years. The problem is that they face competing interests for how the tyres should behave, and in the end, the final word has always come from FOM and/or the FIA because it's their regulations that Pirelli have to adhere to.

Be careful, though, of the word promoter. You and I would like to think that the various motoring organisations such as the RAC MSA in the UK are the promotors of their own GPs, but the sad reality is that in this context it is/are BCE and FOM who is/are the promoter. And the problem there is that, in recent years, BCE has allowed his "opinions" to be swayed by negative media reporting, etc. And up till now, Pirelli has been mandated by it's contract with the FIA/FOM to produce rubber that degrades over a relatively short distance so as to add spice to otherwise booring races. Pirelli cannot be blamed for that.

They have also been ham-strung by not being allowed to properly test the constructions and compounds by the ridiculous ban imposed on them from using fairly contempory cars. They are not even allowed to use a 2012 V8 powered machine. It's so bl**dy stupid, and it defies all logic.

[chillibowl]

for me it comes down to what those competing interests actually are. the teams and drivers want tires that they can race on while Pirelli is trying to maximize its marketing opportunity.

while i understand Pirelli's point of view i cant say i very much appreciate it, nor do i feel their call for more information is genuine particularity when they lambaste anyone who disagrees with their approach to the point where the teams and drivers have received a de facto ban on being allowed to publicly talk about what they dislike about the product being supplied to them.

anyways even the 'promoter' is now starting to come around so i guess thats something.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/35423688

[Richard C]

Quote from the above BBC article...

Pirelli's tyres for the 2016 season, which starts in Australia on 20 March, have already been designed and will have the same characteristics as in recent years.

I can't help but to wonder about the timing of various grumblings (including those from BCE). I expect it's easy for him to agree with those complaining given things are effectively set in stone for 2016.

I expect at the end of the day Pirelli are in a now win situation. The contract is with who... FOM? They likely take the majority of their direction from them, but at the same time have various other conflicting requirements. For example I like how Pirelli would like to increase tire pressures, but the teams are adamant that can't happen. Pirelli is "mostly" just the convenient whipping boy for this problem.

The cars are designed around the current tires. When are the next dramatic changes to take place? 2017? Maybe we will see something then, but that has issues as Pirelli says to adjust to the higher aero loads the tires have to go in a directly the teams don't like.

Has anyone done a good analysis of the different between WEC prototype and F1 tires? It seems like the loads in WEC would be larger (?)

Richard

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

for me it comes down to what those competing interests actually are. the teams and drivers want tires that they can race on while Pirelli is trying to maximize its marketing opportunity.

while i understand Pirelli's point of view i cant say i very much appreciate it, nor do i feel their call for more information is genuine particularity when they lambaste anyone who disagrees with their approach to the point where the teams and drivers have received a de facto ban on being allowed to publicly talk about what they dislike about the product being supplied to them.

anyways even the 'promoter' is now starting to come around so i guess thats something.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/35423688

People need to understand that BCE sways with the wind of opinion; when the "fans" say they want something, he will always agree with that. Likewise, now that the drivers and teams want tyres that they can race with, he says that the supports that view 'one million percent'. However, the words are cheap, and although the drivers and teams have been saying the same for quite a while, BCE entered into the contract with Pirelli for the seasons that end this year, and it was his mandate that the tyres should degrade as they do. Actually, he really wanted them to degrade even quicker, but some of the teams with specific drivers appear to be to get around this obstacle.

To be honest, I can't believe that Pirelli can be truly happy with the situation, especially as a tyre that degrades swiftly is not exactly a good marketing ploy: 'Buy our tyres because they won't last two minutes, and then we can sell you another batch, which will help us all retire early!' It may be honest, but somehow I can't see it cornering the market.

The business about drivers and/or teams publically complaining about the tyres, and a lid being put on it, is all tied up together in the contract. It is totally unfair to criticise Pirelli for complying with their contract with FOM and the FIA. I believe, and I know others disagree, that certain teams/drivers were ignoring instructions from Pirelli when it came to certain matters that the teams controlled, such as tyre pressures and heating prior to being put on the cars, and also the maximum camber angles. Pirelli should not be therefore be blamed when problems arise because of issues caused by the teams. The fact that suddenly at least one team found themselves in difficulty setting up a once dominant car as soon as the FIA started monitoring the tyres and camber angles, speaks volumes to me.

And if the FIA and BCE/FOM had just listened to Pirelli and allowed them to conduct proper testing with a 3 year old car that has no relevance to today's cars and with a Pirelli contracted driver, then we may be having a different conversation.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

BJ, this is really only re-hashing what Pirelli have been saying for the last few years. The problem is that they face competing interests for how the tyres should behave, and in the end, the final word has always come from FOM and/or the FIA because it's their regulations that Pirelli have to adhere to.

Be careful, though, of the word promoter. You and I would like to think that the various motoring organisations such as the RAC MSA in the UK are the promotors of their own GPs, but the sad reality is that in this context it is/are BCE and FOM who is/are the promoter. And the problem there is that, in recent years, BCE has allowed his "opinions" to be swayed by negative media reporting, etc. And up till now, Pirelli has been mandated by it's contract with the FIA/FOM to produce rubber that degrades over a relatively short distance so as to add spice to otherwise booring races. Pirelli cannot be blamed for that.

They have also been ham-strung by not being allowed to properly test the constructions and compounds by the ridiculous ban imposed on them from using fairly contempory cars. They are not even allowed to use a 2012 V8 powered machine. It's so bl**dy stupid, and it defies all logic.

It's not surprising it's being rehashed because the problem isn't going away. The drivers want one thing and the promoters and I read promoters as Bernie, want another thing.

I don't see why tyres have to be such an issue in the first place. The way I see it, it's F1 making something that's fairly straight forward overly complicated and it's affecting the racing.

[old man]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

It's not surprising it's being rehashed because the problem isn't going away. The drivers want one thing and the promoters and I read promoters as Bernie, want another thing.

I don't see why tyres have to be such an issue in the first place. The way I see it, it's F1 making something that's fairly straight forward overly complicated and it's affecting the racing.

But that surely is the idea, that is what BE wants, to influence the racing by creating problems for the teams to solve, to see who handles those problems best

[chillibowl]

Mike, i do agree with your point of view as the teams did go too far with the pressure and messing with how they were fitting the tires stuff so that was unfair to Pirelli.

the lack of testing is an issue but at the same time if there was more testing would Pirelli be doing things any differently?

if logic of these tires is too degrade in order to improve the spectacle wouldnt more testing run counter to that logic? rather if you give the teams more time to figure out how to use the tires the more life and performance they will be able to extract from them?

regardless though, it is unfair to criticize Pirelli when its the 'mandate' they received that is at the heart of this issue.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't see why tyres have to be such an issue in the first place. The way I see it, it's F1 making something that's fairly straight forward overly complicated and it's affecting the racing.

the illusion of a 'tyre war' without the improvements in compound construction we used to get when BS and Michelin were duking it out.

for many reasons that wasnt really ideal either but the concept of making a better faster product is more in keeping with what i want to get out of F1....or maybe i just like complaining about Pirelli

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

if logic of these tires is too degrade in order to improve the spectacle wouldnt more testing run counter to that logic? rather if you give the teams more time to figure out how to use the tires the more life and performance they will be able to extract from them?

This is why I believe that the most equitable solution would be to allow a team to lease one of their, let's say 2012 V8, cars to Pirelli, and then let Pirelli put their own driver, preferably one that will not be returning to the F1 grid (certainly not for at least one year after the testing) in the car. The driver would only be appointed on the strict understanding that he can only provide tyre related feedback to Pirelli; any non-tyre related feedback can be discussed with the car's engineers only with Pirelli's permission. Pirelli can then control all the performance data and tyre related telemetry, so that, in theory at least (and it should be workable in practice, too) the team that supplied the car and the engineers needed for the car wouldn't have any advantage.

For the life of me, I really, really can't understand why the FIA/FOM have not allowed this to happen.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by old man

But that surely is the idea, that is what BE wants, to influence the racing by creating problems for the teams to solve, to see who handles those problems best

Seriously? I think that's the furthest thing from Bernie's mind. He's primarily interested in selling F1 as a show and if he can make the tyres part of that show so much the better.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

if logic of these tires is too degrade in order to improve the spectacle wouldnt more testing run counter to that logic? rather if you give the teams more time to figure out how to use the tires the more life and performance they will be able to extract from them?

Sorry, chillibowl, I didn't fully answer your question in my previous reply.

Pirelli's brief is, if we are to believe what we have been told in the past by them and by BCE, that after a certain number of laps, the tyres performance would "fall off a cliff". This was introduced by the FIA/FOM to spice up the entertainment, because they no longer believe that is battle between men/women with their machines against each other, i.e. a motor race, but it is a show.

By allowing Pirelli to conduct testing completely away from the rest of the circus with their own leased car and contracted driver, the teams would wouldn't gain any knowledge of the tyres before the February/March team testing commenced. And in theory, the tyres would behave in different ways on different cars by virtue of miriad differences between the teams. So, it could be that car A could charge along before a tyre change for say 12 laps, whilst car B, because the car was set up to be gentle on it's rubber, might be able to achieve 15 laps. What, according to the rules makers, shouldn't happen is that a team finds itself in the position that it can actually do about half the race on one set, and only have to change because the rules say so.

Having said all the above, I actually don't agree with any of it. I think that Pirelli, or whoever, should be mandated to make a range of tyres of differing compounds, and that each team should be totally free to choose which ones they want use at a particular race, that choice to be made prior to the start of free practice. So, one team may choose to take the "hare" option and use softer rubber in the hope that they can make sufficient time to complete extra changes, whilst others might take the "tortoise" route, be able to manage the rubber better and so have less pit-stops. I think that it would be less artificial than the current system, even the one that's being introduced for this year which I don't actually fully understand.

[old man]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Seriously? I think that's the furthest thing from Bernie's mind. He's primarily interested in selling F1 as a show and if he can make the tyres part of that show so much the better.

Is that not the same thing?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I think that Pirelli, or whoever, should be mandated to make a range of tyres of differing compounds, and that each team should be totally free to choose which ones they want use at a particular race, that choice to be made prior to the start of free practice. So, one team may choose to take the "hare" option and use softer rubber in the hope that they can make sufficient time to complete extra changes, whilst others might take the "tortoise" route, be able to manage the rubber better and so have less pit-stops. I think that it would be less artificial than the current system, even the one that's being introduced for this year which I don't actually fully understand.

haha, i am also finding myself bewildered at the unnecessary complexity of this years tire formula. not only do i not get it i really have no interest in figuring it out and less interest in hearing the broadcasters explain it to me.

but yeah, what you outline here is essentially the approach i would like to see as well.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

haha, i am also finding myself bewildered at the unnecessary complexity of this years tire formula. not only do i not get it i really have no interest in figuring it out and less interest in hearing the broadcasters explain it to me.

Exactly how I feel Chilli!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by old man

Is that not the same thing?

The result's the same but I don't think Bernie deliberately thought by giving the teams a load of problems to solve that would spice up the racing.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

haha, i am also finding myself bewildered at the unnecessary complexity of this years tire formula. not only do i not get it i really have no interest in figuring it out and less interest in hearing the broadcasters explain it to me.

but yeah, what you outline here is essentially the approach i would like to see as well.

I don't understand why it has to be so complicated either. I sometimes think F1 feels it has to approach things like tyres differently, just because it is F1.

[wnut]

Bernie now backing the drivers and wants tyres you can "push"?! Apparently.

http://www.pitpass.com/55439/Ecclest...ivers-on-tyres