Pirelli 2013 F1 tyre range

the tyre change may make Ferrari, Lotus and Force India less competitive as these are the three teams who seem to have less issue with the tyres than the others and built their cars around these tyres
Silly sods deserve what they get if they don't drive on the track. Didn't John Watson once rip off the engine and gearbox of his McLaren at Monza driving too far over the kerb? Don't recall there being a huge clamor to improve the DFV engine mounts.
I do remember another tyre issue at Monza in 1996 when the powers that be thought it would be a good idea to put stacks of them at the apex's of the chicanes to stop the drivers cutting across the curbs, this ended the race for several drivers including Damon Hill.
Not relevant maybe but factual....:)
I've heard a rumour nothing more, but from someone inside F1, that bridgestone are being lined up for a return. Apparently the reason for the change of mind is the stronger voice that the tyre manufacturer will have in 2014, plus a better financial situation. Like I say, just a rumour but thought I'd mention it.
I posted this on the German GP thread but it's relevant here.
For the first time, the FIA have issued a directive on how the tyres can and can't be used, at Pirelli's request.

The big question there is will the race officials enforce what is said or is it "advisory"?
It looks like it was the side swapping which was the cause of the blowouts.

Paul Hembery said:
The steel belt was angled in one direction which is why, when you invert it, it actually goes into a point rather than being pushed along the top of the belt. That is why it creates a weakness.
:shocked: unbelievable! I mean, actually, it is perfectly believable but incredible that such a chain of events happened. I guess that's what happens in the middle of a race if you don't do enough testing to find out if it will happen at all.
Davidson was saying the new tire pressure stipulations may be the biggest problem for the teams that have traditionally struggled with tire wear.

Stay tuned...
Hembery stated in a SkyF1 interview today that the problems experienced at Silverstone were partly a consequence of Pirelli getting caught out by the faster lap times this year compared to 2012. Last year's practice and qualifying sessions were severely compromised by wet weather and that the race day was not exactly a heatwave. Perhaps they should have had the nous to try and get some data from teams relating to the fastest of recent seasons which was in fact 2010 (incidentally the first year of the current circuit layout). If Pirelli used Silverstone as the gold standard for the hottest and most demanding (on the tyres) circuit on the calendar, then 2012 was not the year to go by.Not sure which was the hottest race last year but it sure wasn't Blighty.

Maybe I'm just a misguided couch potato. I thought I had common sense and a memory, thinking that racing drivers have always cut the kerbs and race teams messed with cambers and tyre pressures, etc. Also had the misguided idea that it was under the full gaze of Pirelli technicians, FIA scrutineers and technical delegates. Oh, well there you go, maybe it's "seeing the wood for the trees" problem.
Testing regulations have changed but very little since 2009 so Pirelli should have known exactly what they were letting themselves in for before accepting the contract.

In their 15 seasons supplying tyres to F1, there were NO similar incidents with the Bridgestones. Had overrunning the kerbs not yet been invented?

There were NO similar failures among the GP2 cars that raced on Silverstone on the selfsame weekend.

There were NO similar failures during the World Endurance Championship's Six Hours of Silverstone contested this past April, despite running heavier and torquier cars than F1.

Why should the F1 Pirellis be susceptible to a kerb damage that the GP2s and WEC cars (and the F1 Bridgestones) evidently were immune to?

According to Auto Motor und Sport, neither Massa nor Vernge had their tyres mounted backwards when they exploded.

The teams provide Pirelli their wheels of choice and Pirelli's own personnel mount the tyres on them. Pirelli personnel mount the tyres on them. The fact of the tyres being mounted backwards WAS NOT the cause of the explosions. The fact of Pirelli's tacit approval (or ignorance) of the backwards mounting might have been.

Pirelli's excuses, by and large, have amounted to a long list of "We didn't knows".

We didn't know = Failure to Anticipate/Failure to Research

Failure to Anticipate/Failure to Research = Professional Negligence
According to Martin Whitmarsh (as reported in Auto Motor und Sport), Pirelli's approval of the tyre-switching was far more than tacit. MW wrote to them to confirm it would be safe for McLaren to do the same as he'd seen others doing, and he took the precaution of keeping Pirelli's written affirmation on file.

MW also says that on the eve of the British GP, after examining the remnants of Sergio Perez's disintegrated disinte-Pirelli, he expressed his misgivings about the safety of the tyres to Pirelli and but they pooh-poohed his concerns.
Top Bottom