Pirelli 2013 F1 tyre range

The whole fiasco is a lottery......or spins of the roulette wheel....
Dumb it all down & give those with less talent...the tools to get by....whilst the faster more talented racer, has to sit still..to enable a slower driver past.....rubbish...
I think the FIA have grossly misunderstood 'joe public'...People soon understand & genuinely want to see fair competition ...with a fair result...weigh up the odds & bet accordingly.....
But hey...when has life ever been fair...or that simple..
 
Just watching the replay of the GP2 sprint race. Seems there were tyre issues there too although not as extreme as the F1 race.
Hamilton, Massa , JEV, Hulkenberg & Perez lost out due to tyre failures.
Rosberg, Vettel & Alonso had near misses and only just got the car to the pits before tyre failure.
Over a third of the field affected by failing rubber, it's good that something will be done but what? Will we be returning to the days of the single stop and processions to the end?
 
If the kerb pointed up by Anderson was guilty of causing the problem - coupled, of course with the 'tyre remit' - then I would say a 50/50 blame for tyre supplier and driver.

The rogue bit of kerbing was so off track that the drivers must have stretched the rules and the car's width to have any portion of it on the tarmac. That is against the 'rules' I believe.

Yes, it is an accident waiting to happen - not just for the driver who's tyre gives way but also for the drivers behind - but to my mind it is illogical to blame Pirelli solely.
 
It is against the rules to have all four wheels off the circuit (outside the white line).

Perhaps the rules should be changed to any part of any wheel outside the white line?

That would stop them using the kerbs.
 
Drivers always use the maximum amount of kerb possible. Always have, always will. If the kerbs have anything to do with these tyre blowouts then why haven't we seen any before? The unexpected track temperatures are clearly one of the large factors here.
 
I haven't been really negative about Pirelli so far, but today was a farce. It may have made the race more exciting (although we don't know what would have happened without the exploding tyres) but this is not what I watch F1 for.

I think the FIA have grossly misunderstood 'joe public'...People soon understand & genuinely want to see fair competition ...with a fair result...weigh up the odds & bet accordingly.....


Sorry but this doesn't make much sense. They tyres are the same for everyone so it's totally fair. You must be confusing DRS and the tyres.
 
Josh
Everyone is now complaining about the tyres...so sorry, if it doesn't make much sense to you, & you think it's totally fair...I don't.
What if a big chunk/length of rubber comes off a Merc, Ferrari, Torro Rosso & whacks another driver...in a Red Bull or Lotus etc.....like the spring off RB car smacking into Felipe Massa in 2009...
The tyres are crap....and I am not confusing tyres with DRS...the powers that be, thought the tyres would add to excitement.....:rolleyes:
 
Sorry I just don't see how an element which is identical for every team is unfair. The tyres are crap but that has nothing to do with fairness. Unless there is some definition of the word 'fair' which I am unaware of, which might be the case and so I will look it up right now (EDIT: this is not the case):goodday:

EDITEDIT: I would like to hear your reasoning behind the labeling of the tyres as unfair though.
 
Josh
If you think tyres exploding is fair....then that's up to you...
I don't...end of...:goodday:

The Pirelli Big Whigs are at Silverstone for discussions.....
 
Seems the plans are that the Young Driver Test could be replaced by a full test using the regular race drivers to attempt to improve the safety of the tyres. If this happens would Mercedes be allowed to run on safety grounds?
 
Josh
If you think tyres exploding is fair....then that's up to you...
I don't...end of...:goodday:

The Pirelli Big Whigs are at Silverstone for discussions.....


I don't think you really understand what I am saying. I have never said I think it's fair, I think it has nothing to do with fairness. Like I said, everyone's in the same situation regarding the tyres.
I'm pretty sure I know why you think it's unfair, but I probably shouldn't say that. I'll just give up on trying to get an explanation and leave it here. Have a wonderful evening :goodday:
 
Still not in the anti-Pirelli camp on this at all.
They have followed through with the mandate they were given by the FIA for the type of tyres wanted.

This mandate was given by the FIA based upon research into what we, the F1 fans, wanted to see on Sunday afternoons.

Now, it may be that the FIA asked the wrong fans, or the wrong questions ..... or, more likely, both.

Regardless, we have what we (or our representatives) asked for ....
..... which just proves the old rule - Sell the customer what you have, not what he thinks he wants to buy!

Well I dont think the FIA research said that viewers wanted to see tires randomly failing in a manner that creates serendipity for race victory. That what we saw today.

So you are completely wrong.

We cannot criticize Pirelli for high degradation, but we can fault them for a QC process that results in race tires having random catastrophic failures, and for their refusal to admit a safety issue which would have enabled them to change the tire construction prior to Montreal.

You may still think Pirelli is great - but I won't touch their products with a bargepole. You don't see these issues at Michelin because they have better processes and better manufacturing consistency. My alignment guy tells me he regularly has issues with radial pull on Pirellis. This is a strong indicator of manufacturing inconsistency and poor QC.
 
I have never seen the point of having those kerbs (and have said so before). All they seem to be for is making the circuit wider at corners. Well why not just make it wider then? Have the tarmac, then grass sufficiently slippery to make a driver lift but not enough to make him slide off. Or put proper kerbs on like there are on public roads. That way if the driver went too wide he would be punished by his tyres blowing out...oh, hold on....

Edit to fix my keys hitting the wrong fingers or somefink,
 
This is not the first time the subject of the too-soft sidewalls has surfaced. In the past, Hembery's dodge was that it was a property that most hinders the Red Bulls because their cars produce the most downforce (which serves to enhance tyre life, ...everywhere except in Bizarro world). He offered that they could stiffen the sidewalls, but it would fair guarantee Vettel walking away with another title. And we wouldn't want that, now would we?

So, no, it doesn't affect everyone equally just because Pirelli are putting everyone on the same (shit) tyres. And anyone who claims some teams were cleverer and so designed their cars around the new tyres is blowing smoke up your skirt because no one is running pre-season tests in an old car. Which means the cars already are designed, built and homologated before they've had their first glimpse of the current season's tyres.

The FOTA specifically asked for an increase in tyre wear resulting in 2-3 stops per race. Period. Full stop. Pirelli were never asked to create a tyre with this "performance cliff" or the ├╝ber-narrow and migratory performance window and the tonnes of clag or anything like them.


Steve Matchett showing off a single chunk of 'clag' weighing, he said, about 1/4 pound (~115 grams).
Imagine this bouncing off your visor at 300 kph.


Paul Hembery:
"...[W]e have to make sure we get it back in line with what we've been asked to do, which is two or three (stops)."

Hhhmmmmmm. Nothing about a "performance cliff," or "spicing up the racing" or ending the "boring" processional races there.

Bernie Ecclestone:
"I requested Pirelli to create tyres that will not complete 50 % of the race...."

Nope, not in there either. But if you find it elsewhere, do please let me know, and I'll cheerfully stand corrected. Until then, I say: bollocks!


Pirelli must have thought this a clever way to introduce an extra measure of variability into the racing, which could have been a real feather in their cap. But they failed due diligence, failed to confirm they could control this new property to prevent it adversely affecting the level of competition before they foisted it on F1. Phrases like "spicing up the racing" or "saving the sport from boring, processional races" only were introduced into the F1 lexicon when the motor racing press began backing Pirelli's Baghdad Bob into a corner and forcing him to defend his company's product.
i7r7.jpg


They make for an excellent sound bite, I'll grant you that, but those are vague and hyperbolic phrases that are unlikely ever to find their way into any product specification or contractual agreement. Classic disinformation and misdirection.

This all boils down to a clear case of Pirelli allowing their alligator mouth to write a cheque their budgie buttocks couldn't cash. If they'd stuck to supplying exactly what was asked for and no more, the sport might not be in this pickle.

But they didn't, and here we are.


Thanks, Bob!
 
Back
Top Bottom