[Tech Issue] Pirelli-The Tyre Story..

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

You have to race on the tyres first don't you..The teams had very little testing..

Many of the teams did at least one race distance on the tyres and it was determined during the pre-season testing that the tyres were going to degrade faster than last seasons tyres degraded (see various articles). So no, it wasn't necessary to race on the tyres to realise that they were going to be a problem with regard to higher levels of degradation.

With regard to delamination, yes, Pirelli absolutely have to fix that, which is why they are going back to last seasons construction methods.

I realise that many fans (but not the majority of fans) would like to see a return to tyres that can last a race distance, but we've already been there to determine that the fans, and the teams, apparently do not like that. Having race results determined after the first three corners was a real 'put off' as I seem to remember. Nor, apparently, was the 'sprint - stop - sprint - stop - sprint - stop - sprint' type of racing finding much favour among the fans, either. Altogether, this is why we (the fans) find ourselves in this predicament. Perhaps if F1 (FOTA) would stop trying to give the fans what they wanted and come up with some good ideas that the fans didn't ask for, then we might not be in this predicament at all.

Having tyres that can be "raced" on is not as easy a fix as you imagine it to be.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

Hey Jememy, how do you get to determine when a Pirelli randomly delaminates?

Who knows? Michelin and Bridgestone did many thousands of kilometres during pre-season and in-season testing and still they had failures, and failures that were far more 'newsworthy' than Pirelli's are. Can you see any reason there why the FIA might be reluctant to have two tyre manufacturers going head - to - head with one another in F1 again?

We had race distance tyres in 2005 and all I seem to remember is people on this forum going on about how dangerous they were. Particularly after Kimi Raikkonen had a bit of a problem with one of his. Not only could we see what was likely to happen, before it happened, we also got to see what could have happened if the circuit he was racing on was not quite so forgiving. Then we had Indy.................

Not boring for one driver, and he makes some good points.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107545

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by Marbot

What utter rubbish. How could Pirelli know about the dynamic characteristics of the Red Bull car before testing started in February? The tyres are the same now as they were then.

Pirelli have stated that their tyres 'coincidentally' rein in the performance of a particular car. It is very dishonest of you to say that the tyres were designed specifically to hinder the Red Bull team.

Find any article that specifically states that Pirelli deliberately designed tyres to hinder the performance of the Red Bull car.

I have delved into the archives (last week) and rediscovered this quote from our beloved Mr Pirelli, from this article: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107415

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.

What is that if not an admission that Pirelli are artificially keeping the field close to Red Bull? This is an attack on Red Bull, the advantages that Red Bull has built up under its own steam. How can Pirelli be taken seriously, when this is the case?

Originally Posted by Marbot

Ferrari's tyre deal with Bridgestone 'specifically' hampered the performance of other cars using Bridgestone tyres at that time. If you happened to have a car as good as the Ferrari was, your particular Bridgestone tyres would see you well down on the time sheets.

Well then change tyre manufacturer. Michelin were fairly even handed with their tyres after all. And like I said, whilst Ferrari could achieve dominance with their Bridgestone partnership, it carried the added risk of it all flipping round if Michelin got their act together.

Originally Posted by Marbot

Only the chosen one or two teams could afford to work with their chosen tyre company. If you want F1 to be a spending competition again, fine.

It is sport, a technical sport at that. Budgets will always be important. This has always been so.

Originally Posted by Marbot

If it ever gets as low as it was when Ferrari were winning all of the championships, then something ought to be done about it.

As it is now, it's possible that the cars and drivers currently leading the championships are not the ones that some people were hoping would be leading the championships. Including the ones that Pirelli specifically set out to nobble.

I disliked the Ferrari years because of the cynicism of the people involved at times, but you couldn't deny what a fantastic job they were all doing. They deserved every bit of their success.

I dislike Red Bull even more, but I don't want them hobbled by a third party. I want my teams and drivers to beat them, fair and square, and if that takes years and the loss of a few stupid 'fans' then so be it.

As it is, they are turning off many of the proper fans. That is sad.

[FordCosworthPanoz]

If Benson and BAR were dominating the sport 2001-2004 it would have been called one of the best eras in F1 history by the British Media and Martin Brundle.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

I have delved into the archives (last week) and rediscovered this quote from our beloved Mr Pirelli, from this article: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107415

Mr Pirelli:

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

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.

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

What is that if not an admission that Pirelli are artificially keeping the field close to Red Bull? This is an attack on Red Bull, the advantages that Red Bull has built up under its own steam. How can Pirelli be taken seriously, when this is the case?

Nowhere in that article does it say that Pirelli made tyres to specifically hamper Red Bull. Nowhere in that article does it say that Pirelli knew in advance exactly how the Red Bull car would turn out. It certainly didn't turn out like the Ferrari or Lotus, both of whom may have figured out that increased downforce was not the key ingredient that the 2013 F1 regulations required. Build a car to the required regulations and knowledge given to you by the manufacturer supplying the tyres.

Your quote only gives an indication of what some other teams would like Pirelli to do. What he says there is something that was found out to be the case a long time after the tyres had been made for pre-season testing, so it's dishonest of you to say that the tyres were specifically made to nobble Red Bull.

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

Well then change tyre manufacturer.

Not always possible. It's like engine supply. If you are already providing four or five teams with your tyres, you are not obliged to take on any other teams. It may even be the case that you couldn't afford to pay what the better tyre manufacturer wanted with regard to completing a move from one tyre company to another. There may even be a heavy fee to be paid for leaving your current tyre manufacturer for another.

I didn't find that period to be a particularly 'fair' period. Especially since it was Bridgestone that was providing Ferrari with the necessary budget to do the required amount of testing. Michelin also provided funds for 'some' of its customers to go testing.

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

It is sport, a technical sport at that. Budgets will always be important. This has always been so.

Agreed. But should the ones with the largest budgets conspire to make budgets the most important aspect of F1?

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

I want my teams and drivers to beat them, fair and square, and if that takes years and the loss of a few stupid 'fans' then so be it.

Agreed. But my point about budgets is still something that needs to be taken into account with regard to the series being "fair and square".

[jedrinck]

Last year in Abu Dhabi when Vettel started from the pits the RB was doing great with a low downforce setup. I wonder what keeps them from going that route again.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by jedrinck

Last year in Abu Dhabi when Vettel started from the pits the RB was doing great with a low downforce setup. I wonder what keeps them from going that route again.

It's no good for qualifying, and you can't change the cars setup after qualifying if you are not going to be starting from the pit lane.

[jedrinck]

I'm aware of the qualifying disadvantage, but it seemed to me then that RB were able to make their car perform much like the Ferrari when they chose to. Being a little slower in the corners and faster on the straights sounds to me like it would be kinder on the tires, especially when passing can be accomplished on the straights with DRS. Qualifying is not as important as it used to be so the low downforce setup sounds like an option for RB. They don't go that route so far, maybe because of the lack of testing opportunities?

[jsTrecu]

Originally Posted by jedrinck

I'm aware of the qualifying disadvantage, but it seemed to me then that RB were able to make their car perform much like the Ferrari when they chose to. Being a little slower in the corners and faster on the straights sounds to me like it would be kinder on the tires, especially when passing can be accomplished on the straights with DRS. Qualifying is not as important as it used to be so the low downforce setup sounds like an option for RB. They don't go that route so far, maybe because of the lack of testing opportunities?

That's the point IMO, that car is not designed to run in the configuration we saw in that particular race. You can use those settings to come back from the back of the grid, but it won't work on a normal race if you are aiming for a win. If it was that easy to adapt it by removing a bit of rear and front wings and use longer gears they would've already done it. They need a whole new package (maybe new suspensions too).

Ironically, doing a better job than anybody else to create and develop a car for the past 3 years relying on high downforce levels that old tyres were able to resist, means that with these new tyres you will hit more trouble than those other top teams that were failing to match you.
We know that Merc always had tyre degradation problems in all their cars, but McLaren could probably be in front of RBR too with last year's car.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Hey Jememy, how do you get to determine when a Pirelli randomly delaminates?

Less drinking...

[Marbot]

This is so weird, because for what seems like an age now, fans have been saying that the cars have too much downforce and when something comes along that makes having too much downforce a negative thing to have, they complain about it. But not only that, they then go on to say that a particular team is being punished because it's made a car that requires another part of the regulations to be different to that which some other teams were able to judge correctly, having been given the data for that requirement well in advance of the start of pre-season testing.

In other words: Some of the teams factored into their car design the fact that the tyres were going to get punished more than the tyres they were currently using.

What are you gonna do?

[NaBUru38]

This article by Racer's Mark Hughes is beautiful.

Formula 1 has always been about all-out performance whereas this is more the type of driving that used to be associated with long-distance endurance racing.

In endurance racing now, the cars and tires of the top teams are so good that their drivers have to go flat-out the whole way to stand any chance of winning – just like it used to be in F1. Which is kind of ironic…

[jsTrecu]

I'm all in for a F1 with less downforce, I suppose everybody is. But if you're going to do it, IMO it would be fairer to limit it through regulations, than throwing in some useless tyres with little time to test them.

It should not be Pirelli's job to decide how a car must be built. A tyre supplier have to provide a product that allows teams to extract most of the performance aviable within the regulations. Bending the limits of the regs in a development race is part of the F1 and what makes it so different from other championships. Wasting 3 months trying to figure out how a tyre works because the FIA wants to artificially recreate what happened in a race three years ago is a bit stupid to say the least. But then again it is just my opinion and I may be wrong.


What I realize everytime something like this happen, is how hard it is to please everybody, trying at the same time to make the sport appealing and keeping in check those hundreds of engineers that work restlessly to find some loopholes in the regs hoping to run away with it.

[Sodemo]

Once again, nobody has really explained how the notion that having more downforce now is bad for tyre preservation. In the past, having more downforce kept tyres alive for longer, this is fact. So perhaps someone can explain why this is no longer the case?

[Catingaround]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Once again, nobody has really explained how the notion that having more downforce now is bad for tyre preservation. In the past, having more downforce kept tyres alive for longer, this is fact. So perhaps someone can explain why this is no longer the case?

I don't know why that would be the case. If more df kept tires alive longer in the past it probably had something to do with their construction and the way they degraded. I would imagine that with some tire construction it would be beneficial to prevent scrubbing, or, sliding the tires would pull more material off of them. Maybe Pirrelli's intentional degradation is designed to peel apart based on their usage, or pressure applied to them. (?)

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by jsTrecu

I'm all in for a F1 with less downforce, I suppose everybody is. But if you're going to do it, IMO it would be fairer to limit it through regulations, than throwing in some useless tyres with little time to test them.

Agreed. And the 2014 regulations go some way to providing a reasonable cut in downforce because they are limiting the amount of fuel that can be used during a race. Downforce creates drag. Drag is bad for fuel consumption.

I can already see the objections being made towards that now.

How can that amount of fuel be expected to push the limits of Pirelli's 'even more aggressive' tyres?

The teams were told by Pirelli that the 2013 tyres were going to be even more aggressive than they were for the 2012 season, and they were told this well before the 2012 season finished. Even then it was clear that those tyres were close to the edge with regard to downforce levels.

Originally Posted by jsTrecu

It should not be Pirelli's job to decide how a car must be built.

And it's obvious that has not been the case.

Originally Posted by jsTrecu

A tyre supplier have to provide a product that allows teams to extract most of the performance aviable within the regulations.

The tyres are part of the regulations and if you have been given data for that part of the regulations, then it's up to you to do with it what you think is right.

If one set of tyres had to last for an entire weekend, then cars would be built to ensure that is exactly what would happen with one set of tyres. Some would get it right and some would get it wrong.

Originally Posted by jsTrecu

Bending the limits of the regs in a development race is part of the F1 and what makes it so different from other championships. Wasting 3 months trying to figure out how a tyre works because the FIA wants to artificially recreate what happened in a race three years ago is a bit stupid to say the least. But then again it is just my opinion and I may be wrong.

The tyres provide the engineers with a challenge. F1 is not always about outright speed.

Originally Posted by jsTrecu

What I realize everytime something like this happen, is how hard it is to please everybody, trying at the same time to make the sport appealing and keeping in check those hundreds of engineers that work restlessly to find some loopholes in the regs hoping to run away with it.

Indeed. And supplying Red Bull with exactly what they want probably isn't going to increase viewing figures, either.

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Once again, nobody has really explained how the notion that having more downforce now is bad for tyre preservation. In the past, having more downforce kept tyres alive for longer, this is fact. So perhaps someone can explain why this is no longer the case?

hmmm......it's all about a lot of things that add up to making tyres look like chewing gum if too much energy is put into them.

It's a bit like when you think that nut could stand just a little bit more tightening.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Nowhere in that article does it say that Pirelli made tyres to specifically hamper Red Bull. Nowhere in that article does it say that Pirelli knew in advance exactly how the Red Bull car would turn out.

obviously it doesnt say that explicitly (its implied with 'we can give you processions if you want' comments) but im curious how they wouldn't know given the teams got a taste of the 2013 rubber at Brazil last year. surely they got feedback at that time or was it already too late by that point?

by Brazil development of the 2013 is already well under way and tens of millions have already been spent by each team. for me their not knowing after the Brazil test underlines another problem, one which has been alluded to earlier, that if it is true Pirelli dont know then maybe the teams should be getting a taste of future compounds well before P1 at Brazil. they should be given a real chance at developing their cars around the tires.

at the very least a better process is needed and if that means testing future compounds earlier then so be it but Pirelli shouldnt be making tires without knowing what effects they will have otherwise you get problems like the ones we are seeing now.

i'll be honest though, of all the claims 'they didnt know' is a particularly hard one for me to get my head around. mind you im not saying they did it on purpose (which i do sort of think but can in no way prove) but it does add to growing list of questions.

if they really didnt know then why did they not know?

[Scooter185]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Once again, nobody has really explained how the notion that having more downforce now is bad for tyre preservation. In the past, having more downforce kept tyres alive for longer, this is fact. So perhaps someone can explain why this is no longer the case?

Higher downforce means quicker cornering speeds, which increase the load on the tires. The load experienced is perpendicular to the tires, and because for every force there is an equal and opposite force, the tire is literally being torn in half; the outside rear especially so. It seems like the construction of the tires don't deal with that force trying to tear them in half all that well, leading to rapid degradation and possibly delamination.

Then there's the thermodynamics of it, the higher cornering speeds of a high df car are going to generate more heat and thus more pressure. With the tires designed to have a specific temperature operating window a high df car will get there and past it much quicker.

This is just a quick reasoning based on my limited knowledge of physics so take it for what you will.

[Sodemo]

Thanks for the explanations, I understand a lot of it. By basis of the understanding was that the more downforce you ran, the less sliding you got, and it was the sliding that caused the wear.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

obviously it doesnt say that explicitly (its implied with 'we can give you processions if you want' comments) but im curious how they wouldn't know given the teams got a taste of the 2013 rubber at Brazil last year. surely they got feedback at that time or was it already too late by that point?

by Brazil development of the 2013 is already well under way and tens of millions have already been spent by each team. for me their not knowing after the Brazil test underlines another problem, one which has been alluded to earlier, that if it is true Pirelli dont know then maybe the teams should be getting a taste of future compounds well before P1 at Brazil. they should be given a real chance at developing their cars around the tires.

at the very least a better process is needed and if that means testing future compounds earlier then so be it but Pirelli shouldnt be making tires without knowing what effects they will have otherwise you get problems like the ones we are seeing now.

i'll be honest though, of all the claims 'they didnt know' is a particularly hard one for me to get my head around. mind you im not saying they did it on purpose (which i do sort of think but can in no way prove) but it does add to growing list of questions.

if they really didnt know then why did they not know?

If, by the Brazilian GP, you have finished your new car, then you haven't finished it very well.

Pirelli specifically stated that the 2013 tyres were going to have more degradation. They 'knew' that.

Pirelli also don't have a contemporary car with which to test the new tyres. And it's not like it's their fault that they can't do enough pre-season or in-season testing. They also can't lap Fiorano day and night like Ferrari used to.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Thanks for the explanations, I understand a lot of it. By basis of the understanding was that the more downforce you ran, the less sliding you got, and it was the sliding that caused the wear.

Red Bull, more than anyone else, have simply gone much further past the point at which the tyres stopped sliding. This causes different kinds of "wear".

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Red Bull, more than anyone else, have simply gone much further past the point at which the tyres stopped sliding. This causes different kinds of "wear".

Yes it does, it's called brain wear...

[jsTrecu]

I don't know if they've gone past that point, possible but hard to believe. I remember in 2011 when blown diffusers were all that mattered and helped to add probably more DF into the rear than they have right now, some spanish fans quoted in another forum De La Rosa describing how Vettel was deliberately sliding the rear tyres through the corners trying to pivot the car and how that explained why on the onboard videos he was always turning the steering wheel much less than any other driver, Webber included.
But that was thow years ago...

Originally Posted by Marbot

Agreed. And the 2014 regulations go some way to providing a reasonable cut in downforce because they are limiting the amount of fuel that can be used during a race. Downforce creates drag. Drag is bad for fuel consumption.

I can already see the objections being made towards that now.

How can that amount of fuel be expected to push the limits of Pirelli's 'even more aggressive' tyres?

The teams were told by Pirelli that the 2013 tyres were going to be even more aggressive than they were for the 2012 season, and they were told this well before the 2012 season finished. Even then it was clear that those tyres were close to the edge with regard to downforce levels.

And it's obvious that has not been the case.

The tyres are part of the regulations and if you have been given data for that part of the regulations, then it's up to you to do with it what you think is right.

If one set of tyres had to last for an entire weekend, then cars would be built to ensure that is exactly what would happen with one set of tyres. Some would get it right and some would get it wrong.

The tyres provide the engineers with a challenge. F1 is not always about outright speed.


Indeed. And supplying Red Bull with exactly what they want probably isn't going to increase viewing figures, either.

You make some good points as always.

What I meant with "Pirelli should not decide how the car is built" had more to do with how much the tyres should play a role in the design of the car, than how much power Pirelli have to make tyres the way they want.
But yes, tyres are part of the regulations, of course. And they should be taken into account, I agree with that too. But, how much of a factor should they be ? I think that's where most people disagree.

[fredd1]

Originally Posted by Marbot

If, by the Brazilian GP, you have finished your new car, then you haven't finished it very well.

Pirelli specifically stated that the 2013 tyres were going to have more degradation. They 'knew' that.

Pirelli also don't have a contemporary car with which to test the new tyres. And it's not like it's their fault that they can't do enough pre-season or in-season testing. They also can't lap Fiorano day and night like Ferrari used to.

So what are you saying here?
I understand and concur with your opening sentence.
Who is the 'they' in the second sentence - teams or Pirelli? (Doesn't really matter in a way although having a tyre designed for next season tossed at you during qualifying for the last race of the preceding season hardly seems the way to go when your first sentence is applied.)
As to the third? Well, the brains that cooked this up seem to have something to answer for, although Pirelli are in what, their third season? Find it difficult to believe the tyre testing regime couldn't have been resolved.

[neiltb]

tires have been a physical limit to the cars from day 1.

show me an f1 car that can get around any and all tracks without once having to slow for a corner and I will admit that statement is wrong.

if pirelli could and did produce a tire that allowed cars to corner at 15G (ridiculous I realize) and the drivers passed out because of the physical strain, who would be to blame?

I don't care if the tortoise wins the race because the hare wore out it's shoes. F1 has been like this for more years than those that it was 3 or 4 sprints in a race.