2015 Formula 1 Shell Belgian Grand Prix

[Famine]

No one said it should last exactly 40 laps

Vettel claims that Pirelli said exactly that.

I have no idea what we are waiting for. Pirelli's prediction was that the tyres would last for 40 laps.

it was an indication or prediction that was well off.

No, it was neither of those things.

Look... "wear life" is not the same thing as "tyre condition". When Paul Hembrey of Pirelli says that the "wear life" of a tyre is indicated at 40 laps, it doesn't mean that the tyre will be in a safe condition after 40 laps. It means that there's enough tread to last 40 laps of wear.

"Indication" also doesn't mean "prediction". It means "indication". An indication is a specific set of conditions or circumstances to generate a result. A prediction is what you do with that result.

You - and apparently Sebastien Vettel and Ferrari - are confusing "wear life" and "tyre condition" and "indication" and "prediction" as if they're ways of saying the same thing. They aren't.

An indication that the wear life is 40 laps is not a prediction that the tyre condition will last 40 laps. It's not even a prediction that the wear life is 40 laps. For some reason Vettel has decided (after consultation with Ferrari) that an indication of a 40 lap wear life is a prediction of a 40 lap safe tyre condition - and you're doing the same. It's not.

Two year old unforced recommendation is not as relevant

Yes, except for establishing that Pirelli wanted a limit nearly 30% less than Ferrari and Vettel tried to get out of the tyre and Ferrari - along with the other teams - rejected this.

So really rather relevant indeed as it's yet another tyre use recommendation from the tyre manufacturers that the teams think that they should ignore and then have a temper tantrum when the tyres break after being used against recommendations.

as having no one from Pirelli according to Ferrari saying it is unsafe

Keywords bolded. They're already lying about the 40 lap thing and Vettel's lying about exceeding track limits, while Pirelli's position was established in November 2013.

Ferrari needs to man up. They gambled against recommendations and failed. Vettel needs to man up. He's lying through his teeth about exceeding track limits and his tyre failure is a mix of the fact he can't keep it on the track and his team want him to run tyres against recommendations in a gamble that will only kill him if it goes wrong.

I get that he's angry that a tyre failure at 160mph through Eau Rouge and Radillon would probably be very painful indeed, but it's as a result of his driving and his team's completely cavalier attitude to his life by pushing at the boundaries of safety when it isn't legislated that they can't.

 

[RX-7_FD3S]

I dont agree with you at all Famine. It's unacceptable that a tyre goes up like that when it doesnt show significant wear sign for the drivers. It's just not possible for drivers saftety. They are in the car and they should feel that the tyre is about to be done before it actually blow up like that. And Vettel's time where regular and werent dropping like it should when a tyre is completely finished.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

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?

I've not ignored anything, it is more that Famine did. No one from Ferrari or Pirelli thought there was imminent failure, they followed their advice according to Ferrari and they have paper to show they had zero warning.

Vettel claims that Pirelli said exactly that.No, it was neither of those things.

Look... "wear life" is not the same thing as "tyre condition". When Paul Hembrey of Pirelli says that the "wear life" of a tyre is indicated at 40 laps, it doesn't mean that the tyre will be in a safe condition after 40 laps. It means that there's enough tread to last 40 laps of wear.

"Indication" also doesn't mean "prediction". It means "indication". An indication is a specific set of conditions or circumstances to generate a result. A prediction is what you do with that result.

You - and apparently Sebastien Vettel and Ferrari - are confusing "wear life" and "tyre condition" and "indication" and "prediction" as if they're ways of saying the same thing. They aren't.

An indication that the wear life is 40 laps is not a prediction that the tyre condition will last 40 laps. It's not even a prediction that the wear life is 40 laps. For some reason Vettel has decided (after consultation with Ferrari) that an indication of a 40 lap wear life is a prediction of a 40 lap safe tyre condition - and you're doing the same. It's not.Yes, except for establishing that Pirelli wanted a limit nearly 30% less than Ferrari and Vettel tried to get out of the tyre and Ferrari - along with the other teams - rejected this.

So really rather relevant indeed as it's yet another tyre use recommendation from the tyre manufacturers that the teams think that they should ignore and then have a temper tantrum when the tyres break after being used against recommendations.Keywords bolded. They're already lying about the 40 lap thing and Vettel's lying about exceeding track limits, while Pirelli's position was established in November 2013.

Ferrari needs to man up. They gambled against recommendations and failed. Vettel needs to man up. He's lying through his teeth about exceeding track limits and his tyre failure is a mix of the fact he can't keep it on the track and his team want him to run tyres against recommendations in a gamble that will only kill him if it goes wrong.

I get that he's angry that a tyre failure at 160mph through Eau Rouge and Radillon would probably be very painful indeed, but it's as a result of his driving and his team's completely cavalier attitude to his life by pushing at the boundaries of safety when it isn't legislated that they can't.

Indication for that race is close to prediction for that race as it is done before the race, they consult with Pirelli too during the race and at no point did they mention it was unsafe so that is even a better indication. Last lap he was even faster than Grosjean so wear going by speed seemed really good at the time and no signs from data that he was about to suffer a blow-out. For Pirelli to have such poor indication at how their own tyres would last given how much experience they have is alarming to me. They thought it would last over 20 minutes more at racing speed than it did. What do you expect them to tiptoe around even more when they are already doing to extreme levels already that drivers have been vocal about it? They used to attack the track much more and drive for many more laps, know they have to take things slow and run less laps and still get more issues.

 

[Famine]

I dont agree with you at all Famine. It's unacceptable that a tyre goes up like that when it doesnt show significant wear sign for the drivers. It's just not possible for drivers saftety.

I think it's unacceptable that teams go against tyre manufacturer recommendations by 30% and drivers carve chunks off corners to put themselves at higher risk of tyre failure.

We saw it at Silverstone too - the teams refused to accept that running extreme camber, low pressures and tyres on the wrong hubs while the drivers hacked yards off turn 4 could possibly be the problem.

And again "wear" is not the same thing as "condition". There may be loads of rubber left, but if it's tearing itself off the sidewall because you're on a track with three 160mph corners and a 5g vertical loading every lap, that's not much use. This is what happens to a tyre in Eau Rouge.

Look at those sidewall stresses under 5g down (that's a corner weight of nearly a tonne) and 5g sideways simultaneously! Don't just think about tyres as a strip of rubber on the road that wears down with use.

I've not ignored anything, it is more that Famine did. No one from Ferrari or Pirelli thought there was imminent failure, they followed their advice according to Ferrari and they have paper to show they had zero warning.

Keywords bolded.

Indication for that race is close to prediction for that race

*sigh* No, it isn't. Predictions are what you do with indications.

Ferrari used the indication of wear to predict their one-stop strategy. They were wrong, but not for reasons of wear - because tyre condition is not the same thing as tyre wear.

Last lap he was even faster than Grosjean so wear going by speed seemed really good at the time and no signs from data that he was about to suffer a blow-out.

Wear != condition. Still.

For Pirelli to have such poor indication at how their own tyres would last given how much experience they have is alarming to me.

Pirelli's experience led it to say 2 years ago that it wanted a limit imposed of 50% of the race distance. The teams rejected it.

Ferrari went 30% over that limit, with a driver who doesn't give a damn about track limits (and lies about it). Vettel's famous finger should be pointing at himself, his team and FOTA for ignoring the recommendations of the people who make the tyres, rather than bleating about the safety he and his colleagues are deliberately endangering.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

I think it's unacceptable that teams go against tyre manufacturer recommendations by 30% and drivers carve chunks off corners to put themselves at higher risk of tyre failure.

We saw it at Silverstone too - the teams refused to accept that running extreme camber, low pressures and tyres on the wrong hubs while the drivers hacked yards off turn 4 could possibly be the problem.

And again "wear" is not the same thing as "condition". There may be loads of rubber left, but if it's tearing itself off the sidewall because you're on a track with three 160mph corners and a 5g vertical loading every lap, that's not much use.

They were at 70% indication for the race when it failed. Do you think it is acceptable that tyre manufacturer doesn't even know the condition is unsafe? They say sometimes it is not precise data, to be that far out even on a race with a virtual safety car is really poor going IMO.

Going back to Silverstone, Pirelli also underestimated tyre mounting the wrong way around:

Mounting the tyres the wrong way round is a practice that was nonetheless underestimated by everybody: above all Pirelli, which did not forbid this.

They also thought of what happened as unexpected. So probably be wise to be extra cautious from now on of what Pirelli indicate and be even more cautious than they already are.

 

[HKS racer]

Vettel claims that Pirelli said exactly that.No, it was neither of those things.

Look... "wear life" is not the same thing as "tyre condition". When Paul Hembrey of Pirelli says that the "wear life" of a tyre is indicated at 40 laps, it doesn't mean that the tyre will be in a safe condition after 40 laps. It means that there's enough tread to last 40 laps of wear.

"Indication" also doesn't mean "prediction". It means "indication". An indication is a specific set of conditions or circumstances to generate a result. A prediction is what you do with that result.

You - and apparently Sebastien Vettel and Ferrari - are confusing "wear life" and "tyre condition" and "indication" and "prediction" as if they're ways of saying the same thing. They aren't.

An indication that the wear life is 40 laps is not a prediction that the tyre condition will last 40 laps. It's not even a prediction that the wear life is 40 laps. For some reason Vettel has decided (after consultation with Ferrari) that an indication of a 40 lap wear life is a prediction of a 40 lap safe tyre condition - and you're doing the same. It's not.Yes, except for establishing that Pirelli wanted a limit nearly 30% less than Ferrari and Vettel tried to get out of the tyre and Ferrari - along with the other teams - rejected this.

Your attempt to explain the differences between indication and prediction was more or less ok but dropping the misinterpretation argument we still have a difference of 12 laps (40 - 28) wich is too much to pretend to save Pirelli from their responsabilities.

Famine, in Canada 2012 Alonso tried to use a similar strategy, in the end he lost the podium and several places running 3 seconds slower but still managed to finish the race.

Vettel and Ferrari are also arguing the fact the tire suddenly exploded when they were still competitive enough to keep Grosjean behind. It's a huge safety problem, F1 tyres can't explode like that without signs of excessive wear. If they wear out faster than predicted / indicated they must drop performances but they can't explode like that. It's unacceptable. Vettel should have finished 4th or 5th but should have finished the race.

If the tire exploded 200mt before, right over Eau Rouge Radillion, the crash could have been drammatic, that's my biggest complain. We can't risk drivers life bacause Pirelli low quality tires. Rosberg was another lucky driver this weekend.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Ferrari used the indication of wear to predict their one-stop strategy. They were wrong, but not for reasons of wear - because tyre condition is not the same thing as tyre wear.Wear != condition. Still.Pirelli's experience led it to say 2 years ago that it wanted a limit imposed of 50% of the race distance. The teams rejected it.

Ferrari went 30% over that limit, with a driver who doesn't give a damn about track limits (and lies about it). Vettel's famous finger should be pointing at himself, his team and FOTA for ignoring the recommendations of the people who make the tyres, rather than bleating about the safety he and his colleagues are deliberately endangering.

They also have a Pirelli engineer to guide them, Pirelli sort of suggest it is sometimes precise data so that indication for race of Spa is way off whichever way you want to look at it.

Let's see what others have said about this:

Alain Permane (Lotus): “If Pirelli tells us the tyres last 40 laps, they can’t possibly blow up after 28 laps. For us a one-stop strategy was only a backup plan, but we considered it as well.”

Andy Green (Force India): “If Vettel’s tyres had been worn out, he’d have come into the pits. As soon as the rubber is worn below 30% the lap times go up by two to three seconds and tyre temperatures drop from 140°C to 110°C. You’re driving on ice in that case, you won’t even get anywhere near critical wear. Your team would call you in long before that happens.”

Maurizio Arrivabene (Ferrari): “A one-stop race was our plan A. We decided that at 11am, using the data the engineers had collected during the practice sessions. There was a Pirelli engineer standing in our garage and he wasn’t just chewing bubblegum. He would have intervened if the data had shown anything suspicious. Our strategy was aggressive, but not risky.”


Talking about Vettel again, not so long ago he was thought to be really good on his tyres (Maybe best in the business by even likes of Pirelli) and also at no point during this race FIA wanted to black flag him due to the way he drove or give him penalties so don't see how he and his colleagues are deliberately endangering the safety.

 

[HKS racer]

"wear" is not the same thing as "condition". There may be loads of rubber left, but if it's tearing itself off the sidewall because you're on a track with three 160mph corners and a 5g vertical loading every lap, that's not much use. This is what happens to a tyre in Eau Rouge.

Look at those sidewall stresses under 5g down (that's a corner weight of nearly a tonne) and 5g sideways simultaneously! Don't just think about tyres as a strip of rubber on the road that wears down with use.

This is Formula 1, Pirelli MUST deliver tires able to manage this kind of stress and g force. If they are uncapable they better leave.

I firmly think that single tire manufacter can be bad for safety. Without a competitor they see any request by the teams only as a "cost".

 

[marco89IT]

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).

I'm not so sure that cutting Raidillon is the main factor in this case. The inside is completely flat, the kerb is painted on the tarmac and the only irregular thing is a tiny metal grille which is well hidden.
In both Rosberg's and Vettel's cases, it was the right rear which exploded, so I think it has more to do with Pouhon and Blanchimont massive loads on right tyres, especially if you run wide.


There are huge companies involved and since there isn't a precise rule about this, one company (Ferrari) and their "employees" (Vettel, Arrivabene) blame the other company (Pirelli). An F1 tyre isn't a wall clock which has a warranty and if it breaks before that expires, it's always the manufacturer's fault. There are too many factors involved, it's impossible to predict these things even after collecting huge loads of data.
Pirelli can give recommendations but a recommendation implies there's no certainty. Other than that, when you're in the middle of the race weekend, I guess teams have even more info than Pirelli themselves about how that compound reacts at that certain track, at that temperature, with that driving style and setup. For sure Pirelli monitors all of that, but there are some things that teams don't want to share, even with the tyre manufacturer. Most of the times Pirelli can only do simulations, not on track testing like teams do on Friday.
In my opinion Ferrari took a gamble which can be labeled as part of the game, in a sport like F1. But if F1 wants to get rid of all the "it's your fault, not mine" statements (which can be annoying for the fans in first place) they probably should introduce a precise rule. For example, softer compound can be used for not more than 25% of the race. Pirelli will guarantee (not recommend) that set of tyres will not blow up (performance/wear level excluded, of course). If it does without a clear external factor, it's 100% Pirelli's fault.

I firmly think that single tire manufacter can be bad for safety.

I think it's the opposite. Tyres are always a compromise between performance and safety. A single tyre manufacturer doesn't have to beat anyone and has all to lose if something goes wrong in terms of safety. While with two or more competitors, companies are somehow encouraged to focus more on performance, because beating your opponent gives you more visibility than keeping all the cars with your tyres on the track, but slowly. That's what Michelin did at Indianapolis in 2005; it has been a disaster for them, but they were clearly ready to took that gamble.

 

[Liquid]

Pirelli are told by the FIA to make tyres made from cheese in order to make things dramatic and exciting. They could easily make tyres which last a whole race but they're not allowed to because the racing would be 'boring'. Remember when tyre changes were banned? Yeah, that was a genius idea and I'm sure Bridgestone loved it too.

Give Pirelli a break, they're always the first to get the blame on these sorts of things and it isn't fair. They are building to the specs given to them. If that's your problem, blame the people who tell them to make crap tyres which have such a sudden loss of grip.

Never mind that teams ignore the advice of their tyre supplier. That's stupefyingly dangerous. Like Famine said, teams could ignore this advice right up until we have to bury someone.

 

[catamount39]

The Rosberg incident was something cutting the tire and Vettel was because Ferrari pushed the tires too far.

 

[twitcher]

I firmly think that single tire manufacter can be bad for safety. Without a competitor they see any request by the teams only as a "cost".

I think Super GT in Japan is the only top level series left with a true open tire war, and when I watch those races, there seems to be a lot of flat tires.

It could partially be due to the nature of the racing where there tends to be a lot of carbon shrapnel on the track, and the marshals don't like to stop the race to clear debris, but I think it's also partially due to the tire manufacturers sacrificing durability for performance.

 

[Famine]

They were at 70% indication for the race when it failed.

No, they weren't.

Please learn the difference between "indication" and "prediction". I've explained it a few times now and even Paul Hembrey's quote contains the information on why they're different and why it's important.

Do you think it is acceptable that tyre manufacturer doesn't even know the condition is unsafe?

They do. That's why they recommended a legislated 50% race distance limits on the primes. The teams rejected that recommendation. Who's at fault when the tyre manufacturer makes a recommendation and the teams ignore it?

Canada 2012

Which was before the rules about underinflating tyres, running extreme camber and the recommendation of 50% race distance limits on the primes...

If the tire exploded 200mt before, right over Eau Rouge Radillion, the crash could have been drammatic, that's my biggest complain. We can't risk drivers life bacause Pirelli low quality tires.

But we can risk drivers' lives by allowing them to run off the circuit and ignore tyre manufacturer recommendations?

They also have a Pirelli engineer to guide them, Pirelli sort of suggest it is sometimes precise data so that indication for race of Spa is way off whichever way you want to look at it.

Indication != prediction. Again.

Alain Permane (Lotus): “If Pirelli tells us the tyres last 40 laps, they can’t possibly blow up after 28 laps. For us a one-stop strategy was only a backup plan, but we considered it as well.”

Did Pirelli tell them the tyres last 40 laps? Or did they say that the tyre wear indication was 40 laps? They are different things. Still.

Andy Green (Force India): “If Vettel’s tyres had been worn out, he’d have come into the pits. As soon as the rubber is worn below 30% the lap times go up by two to three seconds and tyre temperatures drop from 140°C to 110°C. You’re driving on ice in that case, you won’t even get anywhere near critical wear. Your team would call you in long before that happens.”

Tyre condition is not wear. Again. See the picture I posted. Again.

Maurizio Arrivabene (Ferrari): “A one-stop race was our plan A. We decided that at 11am, using the data the engineers had collected during the practice sessions. There was a Pirelli engineer standing in our garage and he wasn’t just chewing bubblegum. He would have intervened if the data had shown anything suspicious. Our strategy was aggressive, but not risky.”

I think we've already established that Ferrari is talking bollocks - because Ferrari team members also refer to tyre life and predictions, not tyre wear and indications.

Talking about Vettel again, not so long ago he was thought to be really good on his tyres (Maybe best in the business by even likes of Pirelli) and also at no point during this race FIA wanted to black flag him due to the way he drove or give him penalties so don't see how he and his colleagues are deliberately endangering the safety.

I just want to check...

You don't see how shortcutting the corners, running the inside sidewalls of the outside (loaded) tyres up against the inside edges of kerb while the rest of the wheels go over bits of circuit that are not the track and do not get swept clean like the rest of the track, accumulating dirt and debris, on tyres that have already gone 25% further than the recommendation of the people who make them is deliberately endangering their safety?

Really?

This is Formula 1, Pirelli MUST deliver tires able to manage this kind of stress and g force.

They do. For, as they recommend, 50% of the race distance.

If they are uncapable they better leave.

Perhaps if the teams are incapable of following tyre manufacturer recommendations at the expense of their drivers' safety, they should leave.

I firmly think that single tire manufacter can be bad for safety. Without a competitor they see any request by the teams only as a "cost".

Pirelli make the tyres that FOM want them to make, not FOTA.

I'm not so sure that cutting Raidillon is the main factor in this case. The inside is completely flat, the kerb is painted on the tarmac and the only irregular thing is a tiny metal grille which is well hidden.
In both Rosberg's and Vettel's cases, it was the right rear which exploded, so I think it has more to do with Pouhon and Blanchimont massive loads on right tyres, especially if you run wide.

Indeed - though the point was that Vettel cut Radillon every lap, but in his expletive-laden BBC interview he claimed he never left the track - which is as bald-faced a lie as you get.

His treatment of track limits is legendary. This time he got bitten by it. By deflecting and making it all about how the tyres are made when his team told him to run on tyres older than the manufacturer recommends and still cut the corners, he doesn't have to take responsibility.

To be fair to him, not taking responsibility is pretty much a racing driver trait - more so the higher up you get.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Your attempt to explain the differences between indication and prediction was more or less ok but dropping the misinterpretation argument we still have a difference of 12 laps (40 - 28) wich is too much to pretend to save Pirelli from their responsabilities.

Wrong sum. 28-21 is 7, that's how many laps-too-far were driven by Vettel. 50% of race distance seems a pretty clear guideline to me. Goodness knows why Ferrari couldn't do de maffs. Pirelli have been clearly halted in their attempts to make that limitation a rule rather than a guideline. They want more responsabilities.

Famine, in Canada 2012 Alonso tried to use a similar strategy, in the end he lost the podium and several places running 3 seconds slower but still managed to finish the race.

That's because he didn't have a puncture, and that was probably because he stayed on track for more time than Vettel did. And he wasn't at Spa.

Vettel and Ferrari are also arguing the fact the tire suddenly exploded when they were still competitive enough to keep Grosjean behind. It's a huge safety problem...

So is crashing, spinning, being on fire, driving in the rain and eating shellfish. You need to join the GPDA and put your foot down.

F1 tyres can't explode like that without signs of excessive wear. If they wear out faster than predicted / indicated they must drop performances but they can't explode like that. It's unacceptable. Vettel should have finished 4th or 5th but should have finished the race.

They can explode like that, we've just seen it. Which part of "50% race distance" do you think is the most difficult for all those motorsport-degree engineers to understand?

If the tire exploded 200mt before, right over Eau Rouge Radillion, the crash could have been drammatic, that's my biggest complain.

If my Aunty had balls she'd be my Uncle.

Rosberg was another lucky driver this weekend.

Caused by an external cut, the construction did what it was supposed to. Mercedes missed it for the first couple of miles. The only thing that could be improved about that is that each team receives, as per Rosberg's suggestion, a constant live feed from all the cams on their car.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

No, they weren't.

Please learn the difference between "indication" and "prediction". I've explained it a few times now and even Paul Hembrey's quote contains the information on why they're different and why it's important.They do. That's why they recommended a legislated 50% race distance limits on the primes. The teams rejected that recommendation. Who's at fault when the tyre manufacturer makes a recommendation and the teams ignore it?
Which was before the rules about underinflating tyres, running extreme camber and the recommendation of 50% race distance limits on the primes...But we can risk drivers' lives by allowing them to run off the circuit and ignore tyre manufacturer recommendations?Indication != prediction. Again.Did Pirelli tell them the tyres last 40 laps? Or did they say that the tyre wear indication was 40 laps? They are different things. Still.Tyre condition is not wear. Again. See the picture I posted. Again.I think we've already established that Ferrari is talking bollocks - because Ferrari team members also refer to tyre life and predictions, not tyre wear and indications.I just want to check...

You don't see how shortcutting the corners, running the inside sidewalls of the outside (loaded) tyres up against the inside edges of kerb while the rest of the wheels go over bits of circuit that are not the track and do not get swept clean like the rest of the track, accumulating dirt and debris, on tyres that have already gone 25% further than the recommendation of the people who make them is deliberately endangering their safety?

Really?They do. For, as they recommend, 50% of the race distance.Perhaps if the teams are incapable of following tyre manufacturer recommendations at the expense of their drivers' safety, they should leave.
Pirelli make the tyres that FOM want them to make, not FOTA.Indeed - though the point was that Vettel cut Radillon every lap, but in his expletive-laden BBC interview he claimed he never left the track - which is as bald-faced a lie as you get.

His treatment of track limits is legendary. This time he got bitten by it. By deflecting and making it all about how the tyres are made when his team told him to run on tyres older than the manufacturer recommends and still cut the corners, he doesn't have to take responsibility.

To be fair to him, not taking responsibility is pretty much a racing driver trait - more so the higher up you get.

That was regarding indication. Why not make an indication this race 50% of what they think then? This indication is for Spa 2015 at F1 speeds and they have data from last year too and years before. As long as they stay on track limits that do no warrant any penalty, then I don't see anything wrong. You seem to be suggesting the tyres shouldn't be able to handle loads an F1 car puts on these tyres using racing lines allowed. They put these kind of loads in practice and years before which is how they get indication of what to expect that can be really precise data. To be that far off that tyre gets unsafe well before anyone expected, think culpability is with Pirelli as no one from them has said it would be unsafe at the time. 2013 recommendation for 2013 tyres vs 2015 Spa indication for this years tyres is different thing.

Also FOTA no longer exist.

 

[Famine]

That was regarding indication.

What was? You literally quoted an entire post of responses to several people.

Why not make an indication this race 50% of what they think then?

The indication for wear isn't the indication for how long the tyres will last. Look at the picture with the massive sidewall deflection again. A tyre isn't just the rubber bit that touches the road. It's the whole thing. The whole thing has a lifetime, not just the bit that wears down.

How many more times do I have to spell this out?

As long as they stay on track limits that do no warrant any penalty, then I don't see anything wrong.

What's wrong is that they aren't getting any penalties for exceeding track limits.

Well, that and the fact that some of the drivers seem to think it's just fine and in no way connected to tyre damage, which is imbecilic to anyone who's ever walked on any part of a race track.

You seem to be suggesting the tyres shouldn't be able to handle loads an F1 car puts on these tyres using racing lines allowed.

I neither suggest nor seem to suggest that.

I'll point it out again. When you start putting the insides of loaded tyres up against the insides of kerbs while the other tyres are running over dirty bits of circuit that are not race track, any expectations you have of the tyre's life are out of the window because you are risking damaging the tyres by doing so.

They put these kind of loads in practice and years before which is how they get indication of what to expect that can be really precise data. To be that far off that tyre gets unsafe well before anyone expected, think culpability is with Pirelli as no one from them has said it would be unsafe at the time. 2013 recommendation for 2013 tyres vs 2015 Spa indication for this years tyres is different thing.

The recommendation came in November 2013, after the 2013 season had finished and after the tyre construction had been changed because the drivers and teams all bitched about it because they were running them outside the recommended inflation, camber and fitment and cutting corners.

As for your bolded part, I'll again state that Pirelli asked for legislation on grounds of safety to limit prime tyres to 50% race distance. The teams rejected it.

 

[GTPorsche]

Maldonado'h.

Pastor Maldonado's second-lap retirement with a loss of power in the Belgian Grand Prix was "self-inflicted", according to his Lotus Formula 1 team.

The Venezuelan went off track at Eau Rouge, damaging his clutch control system, and forcing him into retirement for the seventh time in 11 races this season.

The incident came after a crash that Maldonado described as "very unlucky" during Friday practice at Spa and three separate penalties that he incurred at the previous race in Hungary.

"Maldonado's retirement was self-inflicted," said Lotus trackside operations director Alan Permane.

"He had a huge off at Eau Rouge. That damaged the clutch-control system.

"The valves were damaged and that locked his clutch out. That's why he couldn't get back."

While Maldonado struggled, his team-mate Romain Grosjean excelled, qualifying fourth and recovering from starting ninth on the grid because of a gearbox penalty to score Lotus's first podium of the season.

"He was faultless," added Permane. "We had a trying year last year, but if you look back at his performances in 2013, he did this race in race out.

"The car likes being on a lower downforce level so Spa and Canada have been good, Austria was pretty good to us, too.

"He drove exceptionally well and didn't really put a foot wrong all weekend. It was a brilliant qualifying and a brilliant race."

Lotus's first podium since the 2013 United States GP comes at a time when it faces legal battles and an uncertain future and Permane is hopeful of another strong result at the next race at Monza.

"It was one of those weekends where everything came together," said Permane.

"It's a very good car, it does seem to work well in low downforce levels, which is why hopefully Monza will be kind to us.

"If we could develop it like we would develop any other car, we'd have a good chance of being higher up than we are now."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120475

 

[catamount39]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pirelli-found-more-tyre-cuts-over-belgian-gp-weekend

 

[Saidur_Ali]

What was? You literally quoted an entire post of responses to several people.The indication for wear isn't the indication for how long the tyres will last. Look at the picture with the massive sidewall deflection again. A tyre isn't just the rubber bit that touches the road. It's the whole thing. The whole thing has a lifetime, not just the bit that wears down.

How many more times do I have to spell this out?What's wrong is that they aren't getting any penalties for exceeding track limits.

Well, that and the fact that some of the drivers seem to think it's just fine and in no way connected to tyre damage, which is imbecilic to anyone who's ever walked on any part of a race track.I neither suggest nor seem to suggest that.

I'll point it out again. When you start putting the insides of loaded tyres up against the insides of kerbs while the other tyres are running over dirty bits of circuit that are not race track, any expectations you have of the tyre's life are out of the window because you are risking damaging the tyres by doing so.The recommendation came in November 2013, after the 2013 season had finished and after the tyre construction had been changed because the drivers and teams all bitched about it because they were running them outside the recommended inflation, camber and fitment and cutting corners.

As for your bolded part, I'll again state that Pirelli asked for legislation on grounds of safety to limit prime tyres to 50% race distance. The teams rejected it.

The first part of quote.

They blame it on wear that caused it.

Are they exceeding track limits though and you seem to be blaming the drivers, not FIA? Only part of one wheel needs to be on track and if it isn't then it is limits exceeded. If they are then FIA are not doing a good enough job as you make it sound like it is so clear cut that they are but no warning is being given let alone a penalty.

They are indications from data doing the exact same stress you talk about. Do you think they were avoiding kerbs all these years? 2015 indication should be what matters, Pirelli can say 50% of that if they wish.

 

[twitcher]

The first part of quote.

They blame it on wear that caused it.

Are they exceeding track limits though and you seem to be blaming the drivers, not FIA? Only part of one wheel needs to be on track and if it isn't then it is limits exceeded. If they are then FIA are not doing a good enough job as you make it sound like it is so clear cut that they are but no warning is being given let alone a penalty.

They are indications from data doing the exact same stress you talk about. Do you think they were avoiding kerbs all these years? 2015 indication should be what matters, Pirelli can say 50% of that if they wish.

I don't mean to cut into someone else's debate...but did you watch either the British or Belgian Grand Prix? Drivers exceeding track limits is plainly visible for everyone to see, lap after lap, on the televised broadcast.

This past weekend at Spa, drivers were cutting both Eau Rouge and The Radion lap after lap, with all four wheels beyond the white line defining track limits. There's vidoes and pictures all over the Internet. It's not some hidden conspiracy that someone has dreamed up. Go watch the race again and count how many times you see someone cut either turns 4 or 5, or both.

I can't remember who, but near the end of the race, one driver was given an official warning about cutting turn 4. When the warning was issued, the announcers laughed and said "really, a warning now? For something nearly everyone has been doing all race long?" (that's paraphrased of course).


I'm not getting into the tire debate, just saying that there is no debate over whether or not drivers were exceeding track limits. Facts indicate that they were. Vettel claiming he wasn't is laughable at best.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

I don't mean to cut into someone else's debate...but did you watch either the British or Belgian Grand Prix? Drivers exceeding track limits is plainly visible for everyone to see, lap after lap, on the televised broadcast.

This past weekend at Spa, drivers were cutting both Eau Rouge and The Radion lap after lap, with all four wheels beyond the white line defining track limits. There's vidoes and pictures all over the Internet. It's not some hidden conspiracy that someone has dreamed up. Go watch the race again and count how many times you see someone cut either turns 4 or 5, or both.

I can't remember who, but near the end of the race, one driver was given an official warning about cutting turn 4. When the warning was issued, the announcers laughed and said "really, a warning now? For something nearly everyone has been doing all race long?" (that's paraphrased of course).


I'm not getting into the tire debate, just saying that there is no debate over whether or not drivers were exceeding track limits. Facts indicate that they were. Vettel claiming he wasn't is laughable at best.

Just had a quick look on iPlayer, saw Vettel on lap 35 staying well on track through that section. It was however deemed due to pure wear regarding blow-out and also Rosberg one didn't happen before that part of track. Saw now just lap 42 and both him and Grosjean did exceed it then but wasn't reason for failure according to Pirelli.

 

[MUSC4EVER]

pretty good race, terrible weekend for McLaren, Ted Kravitz said in his notebook that they were only 30 seconds ahead of Manor at the end of the race, now thirty seconds might seem like a lot but when you compare to budgets of the two teams then it really isn't a lot at all, Ted said that Manor are practically living off of McLaren's catering budget...

 

[Saidur_Ali]

pretty good race, terrible weekend for McLaren, Ted Kravitz said in his notebook that they were only 30 seconds ahead of Manor at the end of the race, now thirty seconds might seem like a lot but when you compare to budgets of the two teams then it really isn't a lot at all, Ted said that Manor are practically living off of McLaren's catering budget...

Shame they are still so slow, really hope they do have the potential they think they have and can realise it.

 

[HKS racer]

Wrong sum. 28-21 is 7, that's how many laps-too-far were driven by Vettel. 50% of race distance seems a pretty clear guideline to me. Goodness knows why Ferrari couldn't do de maffs. Pirelli have been clearly halted in their attempts to make that limitation a rule rather than a guideline. They want more responsabilities.

I didn't know you are the new Ferrari strategy engineer, congratulations.

That's because he didn't have a puncture, and that was probably because he stayed on track for more time than Vettel did. And he wasn't at Spa

Vettel didn't have a puncture as well. Did you hear what he said? Everyone talking about a puncture is talking BS.

So is crashing, spinning, being on fire, driving in the rain and eating shellfish. You need to join the GPDA and put your foot down.

I guess you were looking forward to post a silly comment like this.

They can explode like that, we've just seen it. Which part of "50% race distance" do you think is the most difficult for all those motorsport-degree engineers to understand?

It's you that are keep failing to understand what team engineers said. Read again what Lotus engineers said if you are biased against Ferrari and don't believe anything they say.

 

[GTPorsche]

Yeah, Vettel didn't have a puncture. The tire was beyond the point of it's life and came apart. Which is exactly what everyone has said.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I didn't know you are the new Ferrari strategy engineer, congratulations.

Thank you, but you misunderstood. I was repeating Pirelli's advice about how long the tyre should run for. You said 40 laps, they said 21. I didn't know you are the new Ferrari strategy engineer etc. etc.
for

 

[HKS racer]

Thank you, but you misunderstood. I was repeating Pirelli's advice about how long the tyre should run for. You said 40 laps, they said 21. I didn't know you are the new Ferrari strategy engineer etc. etc.
for

According to Lotus and Ferrari they said 40.

 

[TenEightyOne]

According to Lotus and Ferrari they said 40.

Whereas publicly, loooong before the race, Pirelli said half-race-distance. They even tried to get it put into the rules for safety reasons.

Lotus and Ferrari are twisting that fact, it seems.

 

[Famine]

According to Lotus and Ferrari they said 40.

According to Pirelli, they said that tyre wear was indicated at 40 laps, not tyre life and not a prediction.

 

[HKS racer]

Whereas publicly, loooong before the race, Pirelli said half-race-distance. They even tried to get it put into the rules for safety reasons.

Lotus and Ferrari are twisting that fact, it seems.

According to Pirelli, they said that tyre wear was indicated at 40 laps, not tyre life and not a prediction.

Thats YOUR interpretations. With all the due respect, what Lotus and Ferrari actually say is still a more reliable source of informations compared to what you think they should understand from all the meeting they had with Pirelli's engineers before the race.