[Tech Issue] Pirelli-The Tyre Story..

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by JHamilton

The only one I can think of is Indycar. I never remember Firestone having a problem.

The concept of control tyres and option tyres was introduced by Champcar in 2004. It was later adopted by IndyCar before the merger and continues to work well.

This whole business with Pirelli has been made overly complex, with all the various compounds and why have so many if testing is limited? Why not just have a hard and a soft compound and keep it simple?

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The concept of control tyres and option tyres was introduced by Champcar in 2004. It was later adopted by IndyCar before the merger and continues to work well.

This whole business with Pirelli has been made overly complex, with all the various compounds and why have so many if testing is limited? Why not just have a hard and a soft compound and keep it simple?

Because thats what they do in IndyCar.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I thought that it was unfair that the other Bridgestone teams got Ferrari's hand-me-downs, back in the day. McLaren and Williams also got the best of what Michelin had to offer. Thus, there were only ever going to be three teams in it. As it turned out, there was just one. Who would have thought?

The FIA did not mandate teams to use either Michelin or Bridgestone tyres and did not prevent other tyre manufactures to enter.

McLaren and Williams also got the best of what Michelin had to offer.

Although Williams and McLaren did have the biggest budgets and received a special treatment, they did not win a single championship. Renault won four championships instead.

Originally Posted by Marbot

Michelin and Bridgestone were pretty much testing tyres around the clock, all year long. Bridgestone were doing 50,000 kms of testing before the season had even started!

Imagine two tyre manufacturers going head to head with little or no tyre testing. Doesn't even stand thinking about.

It worth mentioning, that in 2005 Michelin did not have any knowledge about the new surface the Indianapolis Motor Speedway had.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Because thats what they do in IndyCar.

Because it works, which clearly it doesn't in F1.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Why not just have a hard and a soft compound and keep it simple?

During Bridgestones final year (2010) with F1, they used "a hard and a soft compound", but still managed to screw things up for Canada. But by screwing up in Canada, F1 (that's everyone, including the fans) had found a way to put an end to the processional races that had gone on before, and after Canada.

For a series with just a 2 hour race duration limit, rock hard tyres aren't really worth bothering with, unless you want to use the same set of tyres all season long, in which case it would most definitely become a 'tyre formula'.

F1 ain't endurance racing.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

During Bridgestones final year (2010) with F1, they used "a hard and a soft compound", but still managed to screw things up for Canada. But by screwing up in Canada, F1 (that's everyone, including the fans) had found a way to put an end to the processional races that had gone on before, and after Canada.

For a series with just a 2 hour race duration limit, rock hard tyres aren't really worth bothering with, unless you want to use the same set of tyres all season long, in which case it would most definitely become a 'tyre formula'.

F1 ain't endurance racing.

I don't remember Canada 2010 being much of a screw up.

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by Marbot

For a series with just a 2 hour race duration limit, rock hard tyres aren't really worth bothering with, unless you want to use the same set of tyres all season long, in which case it would most definitely become a 'tyre formula'.

F1 ain't endurance racing.

100% agreed. I don't understand where this sudden panic for road relevance has come from in the world of F1. Shouldn't it be the complete opposite?

FIA has control over four key cornerstones of motorsport. Single seaters, sports cars, touring cars and rally cars. Shouldn't each and every segment concentrate on something different for the benefit of everyone?

Road relevance belongs in other categories, and they can do a better job of it. F1 cars should be built to go fast, with the best drivers doing nothing but trying to be faster than everyone else. It's a simple formula, and the pinnacle of motor racing in many aspects.

Because F1 holds a much greater slice of the motorsport cake than it used to, it's trying to be all things to all people. As a result, it's starting to fail in almost every aspect you'd care to mention. Yes, the best drivers remain at the very top teams, but in the mid field there's a worrying overlap in talent with over categories. I won't go into names, but there are plenty of drivers in F1 who couldn't hold a candle to well over a dozen drivers doing something else...

The current tire situation epitomises the haphazard approach the series has taken. On one level, the sport wants to be green and environmentally friendly, but then it has tired which last but a fraction of what is possible with the technology out there in some sort of bid to spice up the action, which hasn't worked.

But only in F1 could a company like Pirelli spend millions on what seems to be a PR disaster, yet have them coming back for more. It's a power that is starting to be abused though.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I'm amazed in the safety obsessed world that F1 lives in that the FIA are seemingly "ok" with the massive amount of marbles produced off the racing line. In the past we have seen several big accidents directly attributed to the amount of debris off line.

I have often thought the same thing concerning marbles..This is why I believe that Pirelli should be producing a range of tyres that they are comfortable with and should be given the time required to test their compounds properly..

I will repeat what I believe to be the truth and that is that Pirelli can produce as good a product as any other tyre manufacturer..

In a sport which is considered the *pinnacle* of motor racing it never ceases to amaze me how amateurish it can appear at times..

Only now that there seems to have been a major problem with tyres exploding at Silverstone do the FIA step in to monitor the situation..

[bella]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

In a sport which is considered the *pinnacle* of motor racing it never ceases to amaze me how amateurish it can appear at times..

exactly.

i think part of the problem with the pirelli deal in f1 (also gp2 and gp3) is that it's been more than just a tyre supply deal. first and foremost it seems to be a commercial arrangement. perhaps i looked at the sport differently back then, but i never got the impression about any of the other tyre manufacturers.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by bella

exactly.

i think part of the problem with the pirelli deal in f1 (also gp2 and gp3) is that it's been more than just a tyre supply deal. first and foremost it seems to be a commercial arrangement. perhaps i looked at the sport differently back then, but i never got the impression about any of the other tyre manufacturers.

Yes bella I think you hit the nail on the head, It appears far more about *brand* recognition than anything else, or maybe it was just a lot more subtle back in the day ?

[bjohnsonsmith]

The threat of a boycott hasn't vanished, both Autosport and the BBC are carrying similar stories.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/108538

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23190671

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I have often thought the same thing concerning marbles..This is why I believe that Pirelli should be producing a range of tyres that they are comfortable with and should be given the time required to test their compounds properly..

You get marbles in any form of motorsport - I remember having some interesting moments at both Cadwell and Snet where going offline meant braking distances suddenly increased due to marbles, much to my detriment.

Even with the ROAD tyres we used to use in Locost (I've been out for 5 years - no idea what they use now) when you came in from a 15minute race the rubber was ripping off the edges of the tread to form marbles. They also got pretty damn hot!

[jsTrecu]

Nice pictures showing some teams swapping left/right tyres. I thought they were doing it only with the rears but apparently the fronts are swapped too.

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-photos...tyre-swapping/

[wolfhound]

McLaren claim that they were running within the specified limits set by Pirelli for pressure & camber??????

There was no mention of swapping tyre left to right though.

Hmmm......

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/193158/...li_limits.html

[Beetle]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The threat of a boycott hasn't vanished, both Autosport and the BBC are carrying similar stories.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/108538

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23190671

This is turning into a 2005-like drama...

If Pirelli doesn't get the problem solved by Nurburgring, then things may fall into shambles. Does Formula 1 have any idea of a new tire manufacturer in case Pirelli can't get the issue sorted?

[JeremySmith]

We love drama.....

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

We love drama.....

Lots of drama queens around here...

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The FIA did not mandate teams to use either Michelin or Bridgestone tyres and did not prevent other tyre manufactures to enter.

The FIA also didn't mandate how much money any team, or any tyre manufacturer, could spend on tyre testing, thus creating an uneven playing field from the very beginning.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Although Williams and McLaren did have the biggest budgets and received a special treatment, they did not win a single championship. Renault won four championships instead.

My point still stands. Renault were, and still are (Lotus), a 'top team'.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

It worth mentioning, that in 2005 Michelin did not have any knowledge about the new surface the Indianapolis Motor Speedway had.

Therefore suggesting that some homework wasn't done.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't remember Canada 2010 being much of a screw up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Canadian_Grand_Prix

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

100% agreed. I don't understand where this sudden panic for road relevance has come from in the world of F1. Shouldn't it be the complete opposite?

FIA has control over four key cornerstones of motorsport. Single seaters, sports cars, touring cars and rally cars. Shouldn't each and every segment concentrate on something different for the benefit of everyone?

Road relevance belongs in other categories, and they can do a better job of it. F1 cars should be built to go fast, with the best drivers doing nothing but trying to be faster than everyone else. It's a simple formula, and the pinnacle of motor racing in many aspects.

Because F1 holds a much greater slice of the motorsport cake than it used to, it's trying to be all things to all people. As a result, it's starting to fail in almost every aspect you'd care to mention. Yes, the best drivers remain at the very top teams, but in the mid field there's a worrying overlap in talent with over categories. I won't go into names, but there are plenty of drivers in F1 who couldn't hold a candle to well over a dozen drivers doing something else...

The current tire situation epitomises the haphazard approach the series has taken. On one level, the sport wants to be green and environmentally friendly, but then it has tired which last but a fraction of what is possible with the technology out there in some sort of bid to spice up the action, which hasn't worked.

But only in F1 could a company like Pirelli spend millions on what seems to be a PR disaster, yet have them coming back for more. It's a power that is starting to be abused though.

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Only now that there seems to have been a major problem with tyres exploding at Silverstone do the FIA step in to monitor the situation..

They have stepped in because there is now a safety issue. They cannot step in because there are marbles (which is different to "debris") on the track, or that the tyres only last for 10 laps.

Originally Posted by bella

exactly.

i think part of the problem with the pirelli deal in f1 (also gp2 and gp3) is that it's been more than just a tyre supply deal. first and foremost it seems to be a commercial arrangement. perhaps i looked at the sport differently back then, but i never got the impression about any of the other tyre manufacturers.

I think that it is a commercial arrangement. The FIA are telling Pirelli exactly what they should be doing with regard to the 'sporting' nature of the tyres in each series.

Originally Posted by Beetle

This is turning into a 2005-like drama...

If Pirelli doesn't get the problem solved by Nurburgring, then things may fall into shambles. Does Formula 1 have any idea of a new tire manufacturer in case Pirelli can't get the issue sorted?

Whatever happens, Pirelli do have tyres with which to go racing. The chances of another tyre manufacturer stepping in to make tyres for this weekends GP, or for the rest of the season, are slim to nil.

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

We love drama.....

We do.

[wnut]

http://www.pitpass.com/49432-Drivers-threaten-to-boycott-race

"We trust that the changes made to the tyres will have the desired results and that similar problems will not occur during the German GP weekend.


"However, the drivers have decided that, if similar problems should manifest themselves during the German GP, we shall immediately withdraw from the event, as this avoidable problem with the tyres endangers again the lives of drivers, marshals and fans."

[jsTrecu]

Good approach by the drivers. No matter who is right or wrong in this or how political the matter is, ultimately it is them who are driving and risking being involved in an accident.

Anyway it seems Pirelli is not going anywhere next year. After all this controversy maybe they've learnt some lessons and it's a good thing that they stay.
They won't be tricked twice.

[steve nielsen]

there is evidence that teams are "swapping" tires



http://www.gpupdate.net/nl/f1-fotos/...25886/#/225887

[bella]

Originally Posted by Beetle

This is turning into a 2005-like drama...

If Pirelli doesn't get the problem solved by Nurburgring, then things may fall into shambles. Does Formula 1 have any idea of a new tire manufacturer in case Pirelli can't get the issue sorted?

you've got this the wrong way around.

if the TEAMS don't stop doing things that are outside of the operating parameters of the tyres then things will turn shambolic. in pirelli's defence, i think this is exactly why they need more testing time with current cars. unfortunately, in testing the maximum operating ranges for things like camber and pressure they will be handing intelligence to the team that they're testing with.

with regards to the silverstone failures, hamilton's one looked like the product of uber-camber and catching an inside kerb. it was quite an unusual failure. the rest, being on the outside were perhaps more likely to be the result of running beyond another tolerance. i'm no engineer, so i can't figure out which side would have been under the most load, but i bet if you do the maths it's the side that failed. and that side is meant to be on the inside of the tyre, not the outside.

of course teams need to experiment to find what works best with their car. but if they design such a poor handling chassis that they need to run the tyres to extremes to get any grip whatsoever they really owe their drivers and their tyre supplier an honest public answer about what caused them.

i'd take mclaren declaring their innocence with a pinch of salt. a big one. as wolfhound says, there's no mention of swapping tyres, and imo if they're asymmetrical enough to make it beneficial then it will undoubtably be taking a reasonably big risk on the faster circuits like silverstone.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Canadian_Grand_Prix

If you read the section on qualifying, the screw up wasn't just down to the tyres but to the weather, washing away what rubber had been laid down on the Friday session and the rules, which dictated, drivers must start the race on the tyres they set their best qualifying time on. It's never down to just one thing.

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by bella

if the TEAMS don't stop doing things that are outside of the operating parameters of the tyres then things will turn shambolic.

This is the bit I'm struggling with - Pirelli give the teams the tyres and tell them the recommended pressures range to run them at. The teams then run the tyres mounted the opposite way to intended and with pressures different to the advice from Pirelli. The tyres then fail and somehow it's Pirellis fault? Oh dear.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If you read the section on qualifying, the screw up wasn't just down to the tyres but to the weather, washing away what rubber had been laid down on the Friday session and the rules, which dictated, drivers must start the race on the tyres they set their best qualifying time on. It's never down to just one thing.

No, it isn't down to just one thing. My point being, is it ever going to be the case that any tyres you take to a GP are always going to do what you think they are supposed to do?

Bridegestone turned up to a GP with ultra conservative tyres that they thought would be good in any conditions except, of course, for rain.

Originally Posted by BertMk2

This is the bit I'm struggling with - Pirelli give the teams the tyres and tell them the recommended pressures range to run them at. The teams then run the tyres mounted the opposite way to intended and with pressures different to the advice from Pirelli. The tyres then fail and somehow it's Pirellis fault? Oh dear.

They need to mark the tyres with things like: 'THIS DIRECTION ONLY >' 'MINIMUM TYRE PRESSURE #' 'MAXIMUM CAMBER ANGLE #' etc.