2015 Formula 1 Shell Belgian Grand Prix

[prisonermonkeys]

I think the team would be not happy him attacking Pirelli, rather Vettel decided to speak out as not many are doing so publicly.

Attacking Pirelli is popular. It's easy to get the fans on-side by taking cheap shots at them. Meanwhile, Pirelli have been lobbying to the FIA for years to make their recommendations mandatory - remember a few years ago when Red Bull ignored Pirelli's advice on camber settings and got blistering on the tyres? Or when they deliberately swapped the tyres across the car in Silverstone against advice and we saw explosive punctures? It has even been suggested that Rosberg's Friday blow-out was a result of Mercedes running outside Pirelli's recommendations.

Pirelli have the budget of a small Formula 1 team. Nobody knows their product better than they do. The suggestion that they have a faulty build is ridiculous. If you want somebody to blame, blame the teams. Pirelli have been lobbying for their recommendations to be mandatory for years, but the teams resist and put pressure on the FIA not to enforce it, because if they have to observe the recommendations, they cannot get the best set-up and they are afraid that this will render them uncompetitive.

 

[Peasantslayer]

The cars may be "slow" now but they'll get faster next year and in 2017 there might be quite a step up in performance.

 

[mustafur]

Race average speed 2015: 134.19mph.
Race average speed 2007: 142.46mph.Race average speed 2002: 140.43mph
Eddie Irvine race average speed 2002: 138.24mphTyres, fuel and changes to circuit configurations will do that - in 2002 the circuit used the old 4.327 mile layout.

In qualifying trim there's much less to choose between the cars:
2015: 146.16mph
2007: 147.81mph
2002: 150.18mph

While Hamilton's time is only good enough for 16th on the 2002 grid (on an older configuration, shorter track), it's just 4mph and 3s slower. In 2007 it'd be good enough for 6th - just over a second down and, amusingly, one place ahead of Rosberg.

Is the extra Lap of warm up counted in this race average?

Edit: saw above

I think the big difference here is mainly refilling though, running low fuel loads can make up a pitstop in time compared to a full tank like we have now in a handful of laps.

 

[Famine]

Is the extra Lap of warm up counted in this race average?

The race goes from lights out to chequered flag. It's defined as such in every rule book.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The cars may be "slow" now but they'll get faster next year and in 2017 there might be quite a step up in performance.

Not to count the fact they're quicker than 2014 but also quicker than 2012 or 2013 at times or on par with them, the problem is people do this song and dance with times when engine regs change (hoping it was behind us due to last year) without realizing that many other things change. The aero rules and weight and certain things that are allowed or not allowed all end up effecting the times. What should be something amazing to people that doesn't come across is the teams still being able to engineer cars that in some respects over the span of these many years could still cross seasons and potentially compete despite what power unit is behind the driver. Now that is the amazing part of the F1 engineering.

However, comparing who was faster when, is a futile attempt to compare apples to oranges really.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Attacking Pirelli is popular. It's easy to get the fans on-side by taking cheap shots at them. Meanwhile, Pirelli have been lobbying to the FIA for years to make their recommendations mandatory - remember a few years ago when Red Bull ignored Pirelli's advice on camber settings and got blistering on the tyres? Or when they deliberately swapped the tyres across the car in Silverstone against advice and we saw explosive punctures? It has even been suggested that Rosberg's Friday blow-out was a result of Mercedes running outside Pirelli's recommendations.

Pirelli have the budget of a small Formula 1 team. Nobody knows their product better than they do. The suggestion that they have a faulty build is ridiculous. If you want somebody to blame, blame the teams. Pirelli have been lobbying for their recommendations to be mandatory for years, but the teams resist and put pressure on the FIA not to enforce it, because if they have to observe the recommendations, they cannot get the best set-up and they are afraid that this will render them uncompetitive.

They blamed it on debris for Mercedes and wear for Vettel so far. 28 out of 40 laps potential Vettel completed and they expect him to take it on the chin that blow-out can happen so many laps before their prediciton of just wear let alone get unsafe so early without warning. No one from Pirelli said it was unsafe to do what they are doing at the time.

 

[Famine]

They blamed it on debris for Mercedes and wear for Vettel so far. 28 out of 40 laps potential Vettel completed and they expect him to take it on the chin that blow-out can happen so many laps before their prediciton of just wear let alone get unsafe so early without warning. No one from Pirelli said it was unsafe to do what they are doing at the time.

Yeah... except they did. Vettel's "40 lap" claim is Vettel's alone and absolutely reeks of bollocks given that:

In November 2013, Pirelli requested that there should be rules to govern the maximum number of laps that can be driven on the same set of tyres, among other parameters to do with correct tyre usage.

'This request was not accepted. The proposal put forward a maximum distance equivalent to 50 per cent of the grand prix distance for the prime tyre and 30 per cent for the option. These conditions, if applied today at Spa, would have limited the maximum number of laps on the medium compound to 22.

And if that's not enough utter bollocks from Vettel, here's a genuinely delusional peach from him:

Same as every time: 'There was a cut, debris, there may be something wrong with the bodywork, the driver went wide'. If Nico tells us that he didn't go off the track, he didn't go off the track. Why should he lie to us? Same with me. I didn't go off the track and out of the blue the tyre explodes.

Teams are always pushing the limits - they ignored Pirelli's pressure advice, Pirelli's camber advice, Pirelli's fitment advice and now they're ignoring Pirelli's stint length advice... and blaming it on Pirelli.

Perhaps if the teams stopped ignoring them and the drivers stopped ignoring track limits (and Vettel is amongst the worst offenders on the grid for this), the tyres would stop failing.

Or they can all keep pretending they've done nothing wrong right up to the point we're burying one of them.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

In 2007 it'd be good enough for 6th - just over a second down and, amusingly, one place ahead of Rosberg.

Too slow to get out of Q1.

Yeah... except they did. Vettel's "40 lap" claim is Vettel's alone and absolutely reeks of bollocks given that:And if that's not enough utter bollocks from Vettel, here's a genuinely delusional peach from him:Teams are always pushing the limits - they ignored Pirelli's pressure advice, Pirelli's camber advice, Pirelli's fitment advice and now they're ignoring Pirelli's stint length advice... and blaming it on Pirelli.

Perhaps if the teams stopped ignoring them and the drivers stopped ignoring track limits (and Vettel is amongst the worst offenders on the grid for this), the tyres would stop failing.

Or they can all keep pretending they've done nothing wrong right up to the point we're burying one of them.

Paul Hembery backed up that 40 lap indication. Also Ferrari have a Pirelli engineer with them and they didn't once say it was unsafe.

 

[TenEightyOne]

They were in 2010 and were about 4+ seconds a lap faster. It was considered getting slower back then due to carrying full race fuel, now it is really slow and so visible how slow they have to drive the cars. Since that time we have worse tyres and a lot less downforce, efficiency in them department seemed to have gone down loads but at least the heavier power units use less fuel while taking a lot longer to see the chequered flag. A lot of extra money is being spent to go slower.

In 2009 when they didn't have to carry fuel race fuel, this year Q3 pole time would be last place in Q1 2009 behind Luca Badoer. Fastest race lap in 2009 would have been nearly good enough for pole this year.

This year's Q1 pole time was faster than 2009's pole time though, I think you're misunderstanding how the top teams approach Q3.

I think the team would be not happy him attacking Pirelli, rather Vettel decided to speak out as not many are doing so publicly.

The team made the choice. Pirelli said the tyres might last up to 40 laps but went on to say that conditions had changed. Ferrari took the risk and tried to do 28 on one of the most demanding circuits of the year. Clearly, on a perfect day, 1-stop was fastest yet they were the only team to go for it. They put themselves in the margin and the tyres were unsurprisingly marginal. I think Ferrari (despite their history with Pirelli) will be happy that Vettel is pissing out of the tent rather than into it.

Here's what Arrivabene is reported to have said, it seems that he wants the in-garage Pirelli engineer to be part of the team's strategists;

"We have an engineer from Pirelli -- what do you think he is for?" he said. "He's not there to chew gum but to follow all the runs. We had zero warning. I can show you the paper," added Arrivabene.

(Source)

EDIT: Here's what Hembry actually said about the tyre life;

He did 28 laps, but it was more we thought the strategy would be based on two or three stops which the majority did. But they thought they could make it work on a one-stop and the wear life as indicated at around 40 laps, but it is an indication and the race conditions can change that and some factors involved in racing mean that is not a precise data

EDIT EDIT: Just saw @Famine's post, with that and the Paul Hembry quote you should see that Ferrari's wish to believe that the 40-lap max-life would work in a race was simply wrong.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

This year's Q1 pole time was faster than 2009's pole time though, I think you're misunderstanding how the top teams approach Q3.

Not it wasn't, Q3 this year was slower than Q3 in 2009 with chosen race fuel onboard and a lot slower than Q1 were they would have been last. It is not me who is misunderstanding.

The team made the choice. Pirelli said the tyres might last up to 40 laps but went on to say that conditions had changed. Ferrari took the risk and tried to do 28 on one of the most demanding circuits of the year. Clearly, on a perfect day, 1-stop was fastest yet they were the only team to go for it. They put themselves in the margin and the tyres were unsurprisingly marginal. I think Ferrari (despite their history with Pirelli) will be happy that Vettel is pissing out of the tent rather than into it.

No one from Pirelli said it was unsafe at time, tough luck that the tyres lasted a lot less than the tyre manufacturer expected is best they can come up with after what could have been a serious accident. Too right the drivers aren't happy about tyre situation as these are the people they have to trust...

 

[Famine]

Too slow to get out of Q1.

Remember that the qualification process - particularly with regards to fuel use (in 2007 they could declare a starting fuel load before Q3, run the car dry, qualify and then top it back up again) and qualifying engine maps which were in use until 2011 - was different in 2007. One should only compare light load Q3 times to each other - if at all, given that cars now have a fuel flow limit...

Paul Hembery backed up that 40 lap indication.

Nope.

Also Ferrari have a Pirelli engineer with them and they didn't once say it was unsafe.

According to... Ferrari!

The tyre failure is simply down to running it too long and cutting the corners.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Not it wasn't, Q3 this year was slower than Q3 in 2009 with chosen race fuel onboard and a lot slower than Q1 were they would have been last. It is not me who is misunderstanding.

Apologies, I mis-remembered Saturday's pole time. See @Famine's post for why you're still not quite there.

No one from Pirelli said it was unsafe at time, tough luck that the tyres lasted a lot less than the tyre manufacturer expected is best they can come up with after what could have been a serious accident. Too right the drivers aren't happy about tyre situation as these are the people they have to trust...

It's not for them to say once a race is underway. They've advised the teams enough before the lights go out. Here's a GP.com story I edited into my earlier post that you may have missed;

"We have an engineer from Pirelli -- what do you think he is for?" he said. "He's not there to chew gum but to follow all the runs. We had zero warning. I can show you the paper," added Arrivabene.

Do you think that Pirelli's engineers should be part of each team's strategists or that they should simply advise on tyre life (as they did in Spa)? It's up to the teams to choose whether or not to follow those recommendations, after all.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Remember that the qualification process - particularly with regards to fuel use (in 2007 they could declare a starting fuel load before Q3, run the car dry, qualify and then top it back up again) and qualifying engine maps which were in use until 2011 - was different in 2007. One should only compare light load Q3 times to each other - if at all, given that cars now have a fuel flow limit...

Nope.

According to... Ferrari!

The tyre failure is simply down to running it too long and cutting the corners.

Why don't you compare to low fuel then?

So you think Pirelli and Ferrari are making stuff up then?

Apologies, I mis-remembered Saturday's pole time. See @Famine's post for why you're still not quite there.



It's not for them to say once a race is underway. They've advised the teams enough before the lights go out. Here's a GP.com story I edited into my earlier post that you may have missed;



Do you think that Pirelli's engineers should be part of each team's strategists or that they should simply advise on tyre life (as they did in Spa)? It's up to the teams to choose whether or not to follow those recommendations, after all.

It seems I'm the one there...

So you don't think Pirelli should warn teams if the tyre condition is at unsafe levels, rather twiddle their thumbs?

 

[TenEightyOne]

So you think Pirelli and Ferrari are making stuff up then?

I think you want to believe. Here's what your link says;

“It was at the end of wear life,” Hembery told reporters after the race, “so when you do that, any tyre in the world when it gets to the end of its wear life you’re going to have a problem”.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

I think you want to believe. Here's what your link says;

Vettel also wants to believe does he?

“The wear life is indicated at around 40 laps but it’s an indication,” said Hembery.

So you don't think this was said by Hembery?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Vettel also wants to believe does he?

Clearly. He lost a podium after a weekend of talking about staying in the game.

So you don't think this was said by Hembery?

Yes, I do. What I think though is that you're taking it to mean "the tyres will last 40 laps" when it clearly doesn't. Do you know what an indication is or what "conditions" are?

 

[Famine]

Why don't you compare to low fuel then?

Because we can't.

So you think Pirelli and Ferrari are making stuff up then?

Ferrari? Absolutely.

Pirelli? No. What Pirelli didn't say was that the tyres were safe to run for 40 laps. What Paul Hembrey said was that end of the tyre's wear life was indicated at 40 laps. These are two completely different concepts and to suggest that they are the same thing is making stuff up - or wildly misinterpreting at best.

Since Pirelli tried to get manufacturers to limit prime tyres to 50% of the Grand Prix distance in 2013, the only assumption would be that the safe distance is a minimum of 22 laps. Proving that the driver doesn't cut Radillon every lap and lie about doing so, for example.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Clearly. He lost a podium after a weekend of talking about staying in the game.



Yes, I do. What I think though is that you're taking it to mean "the tyres will last 40 laps" when it clearly doesn't. Do you know what an indication is or what "conditions" are?

Vettel said it was prediction, Pirelli confirmed the same so why is that claim Vettel's alone? Safety is more of a concern than losing a podium, to fail due to wear is alarming without any warning from the tyre manufacturer that they are running a risk. Tyres are monitored a lot, if anyone from Pirelli said it was unsafe to do what they are doing then they would pit Vettel straight away. It is no good after saying, well it happened to be unsafe many laps before we expected. They weren't even categorically saying it being unsafe after 40 laps so 28 laps seems surprising and same to the likes of Alan Permane.

Because we can't.Ferrari? Absolutely.

Pirelli? No. What Pirelli didn't say was that the tyres were safe to run for 40 laps. What Paul Hembrey said was that end of the tyre's wear life was indicated at 40 laps. These are two completely different concepts and to suggest that they are the same thing is making stuff up - or wildly misinterpreting at best.

Since Pirelli tried to get manufacturers to limit prime tyres to 50% of the Grand Prix distance in 2013, the only assumption would be that the safe distance is a minimum of 22 laps. Proving that the driver doesn't cut Radillon every lap and lie about doing so, for example.

You can, they used to run low fuel in Q1 and Q2 in a lot of the older sessions like in 2009, no need to compare instead to when they have race fuel onboard.

They have engineers with them, no one said it was unsafe and seems others also don't think it should have been unsafe with only 28 laps done.

 

[Jimlaad43]

Failing due to wear is what a tyre does when it is overused. Any tyre does that.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Failing due to wear is what a tyre does when it is overused. Any tyre does that.

Well before anyone from Pirelli or any other teams expected. They still had decent performance at the time, not close to the "cliff" at the time.

 

[Pezzarinho17]

My guess is that Ferrari believe a tyre failing due to wear must always fail only after the performance has reached the cliff. I feel for Pirelli on this one, as you simply cannot expect them to be able to ensure this happens every time. The onboard shows that the first failure is from the tread patch itself, and once that has delaminated at those speeds then you cannot expect the structure to remain intact. Vettel radioed the pits asking whether they were sure about the tyres, he had his doubts...

 

[Famine]

Vettel said it was prediction, Pirelli confirmed the same

No, it didn't.

You can, they used to run low fuel in Q1 and Q2 in a lot of the older sessions like in 2009, no need to compare instead to when they have race fuel onboard.

In 2009 they didn't have to start the race on the tyres they used in Q2 and they could use qualifying engine maps that they don't use now...

You're not comparing like with like. Best times in Q3 is just about as close as you'll get - but even so, today's cars have a fuel flow restrictor!

They have engineers with them, no one said it was unsafe

... according to Ferrari ...

and seems others also don't think it should have been unsafe with only 28 laps done.

... whereas Pirelli, who makes the tyres, say that it has been wanting a maximum distance limit imposed of 50% race length - or 22 laps in this case. 28 laps is 27% more than that limit.

And that's for a car that stays on the track. You start riding kerbs with the insides of the outside tyres and driving over dustier, more crap-strewn bits of off-track tarmac and you can throw all predictions out of the window.

Vettel is a corner-cutter - always has been. He was cutting Radillon - one of the two fastest corners on the track - every lap (and claims he wasn't).

 

[TenEightyOne]

Vettel said it was prediction, Pirelli confirmed the same...

No, they simply didn't. That's incorrect.

 

[ShiftingGears]

The cars may be "slow" now but they'll get faster next year and in 2017 there might be quite a step up in performance.

Some of the races have been dull this year but to me I don't think the cars look slow. Seeing them slide about on the track like they were at Spa made them look faster me than they did driving on rails with all the winglets in 2007.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

No, it didn't.

"It has to be said that the quality of the tyres is just appalling and we already have this issue now for years. I have no idea what we are waiting for. Pirelli's prediction was that the tyres would last for 40 laps and we only used them for about 30 laps. Things like this mustn't happen.

Link
Yes he did and it aligns up with what Pirelli have said.

In 2009 they didn't have to start the race on the tyres they used in Q2 and they could use qualifying engine maps that they don't use now...

You're not comparing like with like. Best times in Q3 is just about as close as you'll get - but even so, today's cars have a fuel flow restrictor!

... according to Ferrari ...... whereas Pirelli, who makes the tyres, say that it has been wanting a maximum distance limit imposed of 50% race length - or 22 laps in this case. 28 laps is 27% more than that limit.

And that's for a car that stays on the track. You start riding kerbs with the insides of the outside tyres and driving over dustier, more crap-strewn bits of off-track tarmac and you can throw all predictions out of the window.

Vettel is a corner-cutter - always has been. He was cutting Radillon - one of the two fastest corners on the track - every lap (and claims he wasn't).

You are comparing even less like for like. Mercedes seem to turn everything up for Q3. Comparing Q3 this year where they go maximum attack to Q2 in old qualifying format in 2009, the difference is quite large. Race lap speed comparison in 2010 on laps when not really wet to 2015 is a massive difference.

That was a few years ago Pirelli wanted to do that. Drivers already nurse the Pirelli tyres a lot over a stint to manage them and they still have issues driving on same part of track that would be fine with previous tyre manufacturers close to flat out lap after lap.

 

[Famine]

Yes he did and it aligns up with what Pirelli have said.

*sigh*

What Pirelli didn't say was that the tyres were safe to run for 40 laps. What Paul Hembrey said was that end of the tyre's wear life was indicated at 40 laps. These are two completely different concepts and to suggest that they are the same thing is making stuff up - or wildly misinterpreting at best.

The comment that the wear life is indicated at 40 laps is not the same thing as the tyres lasting for 40 laps - on three different levels, with Vettel's habit of ignoring track limits being only the third.

A request to impose a legal limit of 50% race distance on primes is unequivocal. Pirelli's safe limit was 22 laps, not 40, and 28 laps is 27% more than the safe limit.

You are comparing even less like for like. Mercedes seem to turn everything up for Q3.

Which they can't do. High performance qualifying engine maps were, as I've said twice now, banned for 2011 - but they were very much in use in 2009. So you're suggesting a comparison between a fuel-flow limited car on standard race map and a car with no such limits and the engine turned up so hot it's practically bleeding.

Oh and the 2015 car only has 5 power units available for 19 races, while the 2009 car had 8 engines available for 17 races.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

*sigh*
The comment that the wear life is indicated at 40 laps is not the same thing as the tyres lasting for 40 laps - on three different levels, with Vettel's habit of ignoring track limits being only the third.

A request to impose a legal limit of 50% race distance on primes is unequivocal. Pirelli's safe limit was 22 laps, not 40, and 28 laps is 27% more than the safe limit.
Which they can't do. High performance qualifying engine maps were, as I've said twice now, banned for 2011 - but they were very much in use in 2009. So you're suggesting a comparison between a fuel-flow limited car on standard race map and a car with no such limits and the engine turned up so hot it's practically bleeding.

Oh and the 2015 car only has 5 power units available for 19 races, while the 2009 car had 8 engines available for 17 races.

No one said it should last exactly 40 laps, it was an indication or prediction that was well off. Two year old unforced recommendation is not as relevant as having no one from Pirelli according to Ferrari saying it is unsafe and no one from Pirelli have said they said so during the race.

We are comparing speeds of different regulations so it is much slower now than it was 5-6 years ago.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Two year old unforced recommendation is not as relevant as having no one from Pirelli according to Ferrari saying it is unsafe and no one from Pirelli have said they said so during the race.

Adam Cooper makes it clear that they have been lobbying constantly since 2013. The teams have no excuse for not knowing that Pirelli consider their running outside the recommendations to be dangerous.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Adam Cooper makes it clear that they have been lobbying constantly since 2013. The teams have no excuse for not knowing that Pirelli consider their running outside the recommendations to be dangerous.

40 laps was indication, 28 laps happened to be dangerous in the end. Pirelli need to inform teams better as if they were thought it was unsafe that amount of laps, surely it would be wise to tell Ferrari at the time with the data they have? Other drivers and teams don't think it was unsafe, good job it only was Vettel who tried the one-stop in the end.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

40 laps was indication, 28 laps happened to be dangerous in the end.

A point Famine has repeatedly addressed and which you have repeatedly ignored. And in your haste to crucify Pirelli, you have completely ignored the fact that a) even if they never breathed a word to Ferrari about it, Ferrari should have picked up on the imminent failure from their own telemetry, and b) there is a documented history of tyres failing - particularly at Spa - when teams ignore the advice of Pirelli.

So what do you think is more likely: that Pirelli supplied faulty tyres and failed to inform Ferrari of it, or that Ferrari willingly ignored the advice of Pirelli for the sake of a better set-up and pit strategy by marginalising Pirelli's caution as optional advice?