2015 Formula 1 Shell Belgian Grand Prix

[Famine]

Thats YOUR interpretations.

No, that's what Pirelli actually said:

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

I don't know how many times it needs to be said before people start getting it into their heads that Pirelli said wear life was indicated at 40 laps, not tyre condition and not a prediction.

As you can see, Lotus and Ferrari's statements are interpretations.

 

[GTPorsche]

Right, right. Excuse us all.. the teams would obviously be better informed of how tires perform compared to the company that makes the tires and suggested wanted to mandate that the tires only be used for a specific distance.

 

[HKS racer]

No, that's what Pirelli actually said: I don't know how many times it needs to be said before people start getting it into their heads that Pirelli said wear life was indicated at 40 laps, not tyre condition and not a prediction.

As you can see, Lotus and Ferrari's statements are interpretations.

Well Famine, this is not a court and I'm not the Judge the will buy your advocate attempt that all this mess is caused by an unfortunate grammar misunderstanding. Booth Lotus and Ferrari have english mother tongue engineers working for them.

Hopefully Pirelli FIA FOM and the Teams will discuss the matter and find a solution.

 

[Famine]

Well Famine, this is not a court and I'm not the Judge the will buy your advocate attempt that all this mess is caused by an unfortunate grammar misunderstanding.

It's a specific technical term with specific meaning.

Booth Lotus and Ferrari have english mother tongue engineers working for them.

... and are invested in bending the rules as much as they can.

Hopefully Pirelli FIA FOM and the Teams will discuss the matter and find a solution.

The solution is what Pirelli proposed 2 years ago and the teams rejected.

And to stop allowing drivers to take the piss with track limits.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Well Famine, this is not a court and I'm not the Judge the will buy your advocate attempt that all this mess is caused by an unfortunate grammar misunderstanding. Booth Lotus and Ferrari have english mother tongue engineers working for them.

Hopefully Pirelli FIA FOM and the Teams will discuss the matter and find a solution.

One part of which is to instruct Vettel in no uncertain terms not to drive all over the kerbs instead of the race track and them blame someone else when he loses a tyre.

 

[HKS racer]

It's a specific technical term with specific meaning.... and are invested in bending the rules as much as they can.
The solution is what Pirelli proposed 2 years ago and the teams rejected.

And to stop allowing drivers to take the piss with track limits.

Another solution could also be two different tires manufactures.
Who wants to use Pirelli can keep them, who want something else will try to use politics to introduce a second company. It's not like it never happen'd before. Let's wait and see.

One part of which is to instruct Vettel in no uncertain terms not to drive all over the kerbs instead of the race track and them blame someone else when he loses a tyre.

Everyone cut the track at Eau Rouge Radillion and Stavelot, 4 tires out of the white line and yes, even Hamilton, and yes, for the whole race.

 

[Famine]

Everyone cut the track at Eau Rouge Radillion and Stavelot, 4 tires out of the white line and yes, even Hamilton, and yes, for the whole race.

No, that's just your interpretation. Sebastien Vettel says he didn't.


Half and half, satire and sarcasm

 

[HKS racer]

No, that's just your interpretation. Sebastien Vettel says he didn't.


Half and half, satire and sarcasm

No Famine you may want to watch the race again, everyone cut the track, Hamilton (since the very first lap) Rosberg Grosjean Perez, do I really need to name all the drivers in the grid?

 

[Saidur_Ali]

The race condition had been much easier with a Virtual Safety Car, for Pirelli to have such poor indication for this race is alarming and you can see it has taken some teams by surprise.

So we can conclude then Pirelli's indication for a specific race is pretty much pointless as it indicates nothing useful. Much better to go on recommendation for nearly 2 years ago about different tyres for different cars. Pirelli won't object teams running strategy that is considered dangerous and will give go ahead on such strategies.

Many F1 teams staff members don't know what they are talking about including technical directors.

 

[TenEightyOne]

...what Lotus and Ferrari actually say is still a more reliable source of informations...

Pirelli said those things themselves, in public. There's no interpretation required. Pirelli said it, they said it publicly.

 

[Famine]

No Famine you may want to watch the race again, everyone cut the track, Hamilton (since the very first lap) Rosberg Grosjean Perez, do I really need to name all the drivers in the grid?

I think you missed the small text. But on your basis of "but Ferrari said", Vettel didn't cut any corners because he said he didn't:

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.

Except he did. Every lap. We can see it.

The race condition had been much easier with a Virtual Safety Car, for Pirelli to have such poor indication for this race is alarming and you can see it has taken some teams by surprise.

What was poor about it? Try to restrict yourself to the use of the word wear - the thing that the telemetry showed absolutely no problem with - as that's exactly what a tyre wear indication is.

So we can conclude then Pirelli's indication for a specific race is pretty much pointless as it indicates nothing useful.

It indicates - as the word "indicates" actually means - behaviour in a specific set of circumstances.

Do you think that those circumstances are "the whole of a 44 lap Grand Prix in the Ardennes"? Only that doesn't seem very specific to me, given that you cannot reasonably expect the air temperature and pressure to remain the same throughout, much less the humidity, track temperature, track rubbering in, yadda yadda.

This is why indications are indications and predictions are predictions and the one is based on the other - but they are separate things.

Much better to go on recommendation for nearly 2 years ago about different tyres for different cars.

Actually it was for the same tyres and the same cars. As I've mentioned twice now, the recommendation to make it legislation was made in November 2013, for the 2014 season and cars.

They made that recommendation on safety grounds. The teams didn't want to be forced into not having 1 stop races any more, I guess figuring that it was worth putting the tyres outside the tyre manufacturer's recommendation for safety just for the sake of 23 seconds.

 

[niky]

Everyone cut the track at Eau Rouge Radillion and Stavelot, 4 tires out of the white line and yes, even Hamilton, and yes, for the whole race.

I don't see how this affects Famine's argument at all. Nobody else tried to go the entire race distance on one very early pitstop.

 

[Roo]

Another solution could also be two different tires manufactures.

The last time we had 2 tyre manufacturers 70% of the field were forced to retire from one race because their tyres weren't up to scratch.

Neither a monopoly nor competition is any guarantee of tyre safety - especially when teams abuse the tyres as much as they do with the Pirellis.

 

[chromatic9]

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.

Yes, I shouldn't have gone as far back as 2002. Lets stick to 2007 and the race.

Fastest lap in 2007 is 1:48
Fastest lap in 2015 is 1:52.4, that's 4.4 seconds slower. Lewis is 4.5 and rest are 5-6 seconds

Quali times are not what I'm on about, I already seen the quali times you posted, Famine.

Some are missing the point. I'm fully aware there's no refueling now. This isn't a quali to quali comparison.

To quote myself
"Have to note we had plenty of boring races before, its not about that. I get enjoyment from the team engineering aspect and drivers alone being tested to high levels and showing their lap skills.

We seem to be about 5-6 seconds off the pace per lap, which is huge. I'll always remember Lewis saying how slow it was when the big changes come in. Yesterday was like slow motion and even Coulthard said, yes this is not a slow motion replay the cars are actually racing."

So I'm on about the race, the main event.

They're around 5 seconds slower in the race. Not only are they 5 seconds slower at their fastest, we have to see them go even slower for the first half.


Since you brought up Quali

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.

Lewis 1.47.197

If you check Q2, we have a fastest lap of 1.45, so not one second down but two seconds down. I can't remember what happened in Q3 in 2007.

Lewis is 16th fastest in Q2 with his 1:47.197 lap

1 6 Kimi Räikkönen Ferrari 1:46.242 1:45.070
2 5 Felipe Massa Ferrari 1:46.060 1:45.173
3 1 Fernando Alonso McLaren-Mercedes 1:46.058 1:45.442
4 2 Lewis Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes 1:46.437 1:45.132
5 10 Robert Kubica BMW Sauber 1:46.707 1:45.885
6 16 Nico Rosberg Williams-Toyota 1:46.950 1:46.469
7 9 Nick Heidfeld BMW Sauber 1:46.923 1:45.994
8 15 Mark Webber Red Bull-Renault 1:47.084 1:46.426
9 12 Jarno Trulli Toyota 1:47.143 1:46.480
10 4 Heikki Kovalainen Renault 1:46.971 1:46.240
11 3 Giancarlo Fisichella Renault 1:47.143 1:46.603
12 11 Ralf Schumacher Toyota 1:47.300 1:46.618
13 14 David Coulthard Red Bull-Renault 1:47.340 1:46.800
14 7 Jenson Button Honda 1:47.474 1:46.955
15 18 Vitantonio Liuzzi Toro Rosso-Ferrari 1:47.576 1:47.115
16 Lewis 2015 Lewis 1:47.197

Anyway, point wasn't about quali but would like to know if it was starting to rain, some tyre rule or fuel I forgot. Did they have to add a bit more fuel in Q3? Anyway, seems Q2 of 2007 shows the pace but I'm on about the race and how slow it is each lap for a variety of reasons.

 

[GTPorsche]

They had to be on their race fuel in 2007 for Q3.

 

[ScottPuss20]

No, that's what Pirelli actually said: I don't know how many times it needs to be said before people start getting it into their heads that Pirelli said wear life was indicated at 40 laps, not tyre condition and not a prediction.

As you can see, Lotus and Ferrari's statements are interpretations.

Where did Pirelli pull that data from anyway? What circumstances was the tyre placed under by Pirelli themselves to say that "tyre wear is indicated at 40 laps"?

 

[GTPorsche]

The tires are probably limited to 210km, and that would be 40 laps of Spa.

 

[Famine]

If you check Q2, we have a fastest lap of 1.45, so not one second down but two seconds down.

Q2 sessions were run on the softest rubber and with qualifying engine maps. They were banned in 2011, and the cars now have maximum fuel flow rates of 100 litres/hour anyway.

Anyway, point wasn't about quali but would like to know if it was starting to rain, some tyre rule or fuel I forgot. Did they have to add a bit more fuel in Q3? Anyway, seems Q2 of 2007 shows the pace but I'm on about the race and how slow it is each lap for a variety of reasons.

Q2 in 2007 showed artificial pace, with performance-over-longevity engine maps - back then they had 8 engines to last a 17 race season, but now it's 5 power units for a 19 race season.

For Q3 then, the drivers put in a race start fuel load and then drove round the track to burn it off - with a compensatory fuel load added back to the tank at the end for every racing lap within 110% of their fastest.

Where did Pirelli pull that data from anyway? What circumstances was the tyre placed under by Pirelli themselves to say that "tyre wear is indicated at 40 laps"?

No idea. If I had to guess, it'd be a computer simulation at some predetermined air temperature, pressure and humidity - and probably of a car that stayed on the track

They used to have test drivers - Nick Heidfeld, Luca di Grassi and Jaime Alguersuari were all Pirelli test drivers - but I don't think they run a modern V6 test car. It could be that the teams themselves provide testing data, which brings a whole load of follow-up questions like "If the teams say the tyres wear 'X' much, who exactly is to blame when they surprisingly wear quicker?".

 

[Pupik]

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.

I've also believed that teams have never had a vested interest in anything in Formula One, their results are merely used for reporting to scientific journals, with all profits and going directly to charity...But then I woke up.

Teams will deflect anything just as drivers deflect criticism and blame. Welcome to the sport you thought you knew.

 

[ScottPuss20]

No idea. If I had to guess, it'd be a computer simulation at some predetermined air temperature, pressure and humidity - and probably of a car that stayed on the track

They used to have test drivers - Nick Heidfeld, Luca di Grassi and Jaime Alguersuari were all Pirelli test drivers - but I don't think they run a modern V6 test car. It could be that the teams themselves provide testing data, which brings a whole load of follow-up questions like "If the teams say the tyres wear 'X' much, who exactly is to blame when they surprisingly wear quicker?".

You bring up a good point there @Famine. Since there is all kind of data that suggests many different things, you can't always catch the culprit, can you?

 

[Touring Mars]

McLaren say they will 'work shoulder to shoulder' with Honda - are they planning to invade Iraq or something?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

McLaren say they will 'work shoulder to shoulder' with Honda - are they planning to invade Iraq or something?

I assume that it will be something like this:

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Pastor Maldonado has gotten so good at crashing that he can crash without actually crashing:

http://m.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/120475/maldonado-car-failure-selfinflicted

I wonder if his telemetry display showed the bluee screen of death ...

 

[ShiftingGears]

Honda's woes further highlight to me that they're naive and foolish for insisting on developing their engine without poaching staff from other teams.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Honda's woes further highlight to me that they're naive and foolish for insisting on developing their engine without poaching staff from other teams.

I actually think that they have taken a huge step forward. There were all sorts of issues with the engine, but they had to sort out the problem with the ICE before they could address anything else. Now that they can run the engine with the performance turned up, they can get valuable data on the problems affecting the MGU.

 

[Dennisch]

The tires are probably limited to 210km, and that would be 40 laps of Spa.

Your math(s). It isn't correct.

40 laps is 280km.

 

[HKS racer]

I think you missed the small text. But on your basis of "but Ferrari said", Vettel didn't cut any corners because he said he didn't:Except he did. Every lap. We can see it.

We can also see every other driver did the same. If FIA thought there could have been a safety issue Charlie Whithing wouldn't allow everyone to go 4 wheels beyond the white line. No one at Pirelli informed FIA nor the Teams of the potential threat. Pirelli was aware of Ferrari 1 stop strategy at 11.00 am. Sounds like enough time to me double check all the datas and inform the team if they think tires couldn't do it.
And during the race Paul Hembery stated the tyre can manage until the end.

I've also believed that teams have never had a vested interest in anything in Formula One, their results are merely used for reporting to scientific journals, with all profits and going directly to charity...But then I woke up.

Teams will deflect anything just as drivers deflect criticism and blame. Welcome to the sport you thought you knew.

Ok so everyone can say everything and everyone is right but the F1 teams because they have their own interests. And of course Pirelli is right because someone say so.

Look, if you tell me the the Manor looks yellow because with sun reflex it seems yellow to you (accidentaly forgetting you are wearing those fancy yellow lens SPY+ sunglasses ) but someone at Manor tells ok we are slow but our color is not yellow it's red and white, you eventually still pretend people to believe you because F1 teams have their own interests.

 

[Famine]

We can also see every other driver did the same.

But Vettel lied about it. He claims he didn't go off the track - which is patently false. So why is he pretending?

Could it be part of an attempt to deflect blame from his own habitual corner-cutting behaviour and Ferrari's foolish gamble against advice so they can get their own way again?

If FIA thought there could have been a safety issue Charlie Whithing wouldn't allow everyone to go 4 wheels beyond the white line.

Which I've already said needs to happen. F1's rules about track limits are already incredibly generous compared to other levels of motorsport, but drivers take the piss even with that - and they're allowed to.

Off track areas are dirty because they're unused - anyone who's walked on a track knows this - increasing the risk of getting foreign objects in tyres.

No one at Pirelli informed FIA nor the Teams of the potential threat.

They did. Two years ago. The teams didn't want to listen.

Pirelli was aware of Ferrari 1 stop strategy at 11.00 am. Sounds like enough time to me double check all the datas and inform the team if they think tires couldn't do it.
And during the race Paul Hembery stated the tyre can manage until the end.

The wear indication was 40 laps. This is not the same thing as "the tyre can manage to the end" because tyres are not just things that wear down. I've explained this. I've posted a pretty dramatic illustrative image. Why is it still a point of confusion?

 

[HKS racer]

They did. Two years ago. The teams didn't want to listen.

At the time in 2013, they also informed FIA of the illegal 1000km secret test they did, with... uhm Mercedes?

I've also believed that teams have never had a vested interest in anything in Formula One, their results are merely used for reporting to scientific journals, with all profits and going directly to charity...But then I woke up.

Teams will deflect anything just as drivers deflect criticism and blame. Welcome to the sport you thought you knew.

Ok so everyone can say everything and everyone is right but the F1 teams. Because they are obviously laying since they have their own interests. And of course Pirelli is right because someone say so.

Look, if you tell me the Manor looks yellow because with sun reflex it seems yellow to you (accidentaly forgetting you are wearing those fancy yellow lens SPY+ sunglasses ) but someone at Manor tells ok we are slow but our color is not yellow it's red and white, you eventually still pretend people have to believe you because F1 teams have their own interests.

The wear indication was 40 laps. This is not the same thing as "the tyre can manage to the end" because tyres are not just things that wear down. I've explained this. I've posted a pretty dramatic illustrative image. Why is it still a point of confusion?

I'm curious to know what James Allison thinks about your grammar and phylosophical lessons, eventually he might think you are an useful resource to better understand what Pirelli really meant in that meeting they had before the race. Since you don't even need to be there and hear what they actaully said wich is really cost effective.

 

[Famine]

At the time in 2013, they also informed FIA of the illegal 1000km secret test they did, with... uhm Mercedes?

That was much earlier in 2013, though I'm not sure what the relevance is. They did another one in 2015 - with the same 2013 Mercedes. Again, not sure what the relevance would be.

Ok so everyone can say everything and everyone is right but the F1 teams. Because they are obviously laying since they have their own interests. And of course Pirelli is right because someone say so.

Of course Pirelli has an interest too - its tyres go on everyone's cars and if they explode it looks bad for them.

But Pirelli's position is consistent and Ferrari's is not and Vettel is lying to support it.

Pirelli said that the tyre WEAR indication was 40 laps. Vettel's lap times and Ferrari's data suggests that there was no tyre wear cliff by the 28th lap of the run and he was not experiencing wear issues - even though that was just an indication and not a prediction.

Ferrari say that Pirelli told them the tyre LIFE prediction is 40 laps. This is patently false, particularly given Pirelli's on-record recommendation in 2013 that legislation should be passed for the 2014 season that no car can run more than 50% race distance on prime tyres, but apparently there's more than one of you who keeps making exactly the same mistake in confusing a wear indication with a life prediction.

One of the things the indication - remember, "indication" means "a specific set of conditions or circumstances to generate a result" - is unlikely to account for is drivers repeatedly running the wrong side of kerbs (have you ever stood on a race track kerb? They are ridiculous) and into dirty bits of track. On purpose. At racing speeds. Guess what all the drivers at Spa did... but for whatever reason, Vettel is saying that he didn't - which we know to be a complete lie.


You need to realise just how far Vettel was pushing these tyres too. The wear indication may have been 40 laps, but no-one had ever done that distance on these tyres before. In fact no-one had ever done the equivalent of 30 laps on the Mediums before - except Manor last month at Silverstone, and I'd hope I wouldn't need to explain that Silverstone is a far less stressful circuit (do I have to post the picture of simultaneous 5g vertical and lateral again?) and the Manor is not a front end car.

40 laps of Spa is 280km. The 30 laps that Vettel was attempting is 210km. Manor managed 212km at Silverstone, Massa's Williams managed 172km at Bahrain and Rosberg's Mercedes did just 138km at Barcelona. A front-running car has never managed the equivalent of 30 laps of Spa on Mediums - the best is 24.5, until Vettel managed 28. Pirelli's 2013 recommendation for 2014 of the equivalent of 22 laps is starting to seem more and more wise and Ferrari's protestations about being able to run 280km of Spa more and more ludicrous.

That notwithstanding, he was not only pushing the very limits of their life at a track with three 160mph+ corners and a 5g vertical loading every lap, he was driving the wrong side of kerbs and onto dirty circuit aprons - though he said he didn't, which is a lie. It seems pretty obvious at this point that Ferrari was trying to push the tyres to a place they'd never been and this doesn't mix well with the nature of the corners on this circuit and Vettel's propensity to "explore track limits" (as the BBC puts it).


I don't really care about either company - though I've had a couple of cars with Pirelli road tyres that I've swapped off within 2 months for Toyos, because they were awful - I only care about the consistency of the positions. Pirelli's is consistent, whereas Ferrari's is at best a misinterpretation of specific technical terms backed up by a massive lie.

If you want to solve the problem, you start enforcing track limits properly - whether this is the F1 interpretation of "any part of the car within the white lines" or the actual racing definition of "no part of the tyres beyond the white lines or kerbs" - and start listening to the tyre manufacturer when they tell us what the maximum tyre life should be and say we need to prevent teams from pushing beyond that. If you don't, just listen to Ferrari dissembling and Vettel lying through his teeth and blame Pirelli. I'm sure that when there's a massive high speed tyre failure in the future, we can all go "Well at least it wasn't a Pirelli".