2015 Formula 1 Shell Belgian Grand Prix

[IforceV8]

The ability to last 40 laps but self destructing after 28 laps is a safety hazard that should/must be reversed. Durability MUST be the priority, not the wear rate. If Pirelli is incapable of building a tire that will last long to wear itself out they have no business building tires. Also the excuse the off track area is some unexplored waste land filled with unseen hazards is interesting when it was so well traveled it was practically a racing groupie.

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).

Proof required.

 

[Dennisch]

@Famine

It seems that your needle is stuck in the groove.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The ability to last 40 laps but self destructing after 28 laps is a safety hazard that should/must be reversed. Durability MUST be the priority, not the wear rate. If Pirelli is incapable of building a tire that will last long to wear itself out they have no business building tires. Also the excuse the off track area is some unexplored waste land filled with unseen hazards is interesting when it was so well traveled it was practically a racing groupie.

Another one who misunderstands Pirelli's "40 lap wear" statement entirely. @Famine's very patiently explained what that means although, in fairness, most English speakers should get it. How long the surface lasts is not always relevant to how long the entire tyre lasts. Famine also posted a great picture demonstrating why this is the case. All the teams seemed to agree with the exception of Ferrari, they were the only team to attempt the strategy. With one stop being clearly fastest why did no other team attempt it, do you think? Perhaps they understood "50% distance" better than Ferrari chose to?

Nobody is suggesting that there be dragons off-track, but under 5g load Vettel was consistently running across the kerb edges - far worse for the tyre overall, as we saw.

Proof required.

This is the Spa 2015 race thread, where do you think the proof might be? If you didn't watch the race go and find a re-run, it's plain to see.

 

[Famine]

The ability to last 40 laps but self destructing after 28 laps is a safety hazard that should/must be reversed. Durability MUST be the priority, not the wear rate. If Pirelli is incapable of building a tire that will last long to wear itself out they have no business building tires.

It built the tyres the FIA wants it to build. It recommends the FIA pass legislation to limit use of the prime tyre to 50% race distance. The teams rejected this. Its prime tyres lasted 50% of the race distance at Spa - even with the concurrent 5g vertical and lateral loading.

They didn't survive Ferrari's attempts to push it 70km further than anyone had ever pushed that particular tyre, at the hands of a driver who routinely exceeds track limits. I don't really see why anyone on Earth can possibly be surprised by this.

Also the excuse the off track area is some unexplored waste land filled with unseen hazards is interesting when it was so well traveled it was practically a racing groupie.

Try to limit yourself to countering what's actually been said by people you apparently don't agree with.

Off track areas are not as clean as the track. Rumble strip - or kerb - profiles are also kinder for tyres travelling across them from on-track than from off track. Both of these things are readily apparent to anyone who has ever been on a race track, but in case the latter is not clear:

​

That's the sausage kerb at the Ford Chicane at Le Mans, with the rumble strip between it and the track. Note the gradual incline from track to off track, but the sudden incline from off track to track? Do you think that putting your inside sidewall against that vertex and spinning it at 160mph is a good idea?

Proof required.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06850wq/formula-1-2015-the-belgian-grand-prix

 

[Tired Tyres]

The ability to last 40 laps but self destructing after 28 laps is a safety hazard that should/must be reversed. Durability MUST be the priority, not the wear rate. If Pirelli is incapable of building a tire that will last long to wear itself out they have no business building tires. Also the excuse the off track area is some unexplored waste land filled with unseen hazards is interesting when it was so well traveled it was practically a racing groupie.

Pirelli is not the problem here. They can and do make good tyres that last a long time. They do just that in GT racing. They can't in F1 because the FIA don't want that. The FIA is the one at fault in this.

 

[HKS racer]

aaa

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.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 position is consistent when the are clutching at straws with a 2 years old document. So I wonder what are those Pirelli engineers doing at pre race meetings then? Cheewing bubblegums? According to M.A. they are not supposed to do only that.

Ferrari team boss Maurizio Arrivabene says the outfit does not want to get involved in a "fight" with Formula 1 tyre supplier Pirelli after Sebastian Vettel's failure at the Belgian Grand Prix.

Vettel, on a one-stop strategy, was running third when his right-rear tyre exploded through Raidillon on the penultimate lap, adding to the failure suffered by Nico Rosberg in Friday practice.

Vettel reacted angrily in the immediate aftermath of the race, describing the incident as "unacceptable" during television interviews, before cancelling his additional media session.

When asked for his view on the situation, Arrivabene explained: "I don't want to start with this back and forth, 'Maurizio said about Pirelli, Pirelli said about Ferrari' et cetera.

"I understand the reason, as you understand, why Sebastian was disappointed, but that's it. I don't want to open any kind of fight, because it's not the case."

Arrivabene said Ferrari decided to attempt a one-stop on the morning of the race.

"It was our strategy, Plan A, main plan, before the race," Arrivabene said.

"Normally when you do the strategy during the strategy meeting, it's based on data that you have."

Arrivabene also made clear that Ferrari was given no warning by Pirelli over its plans.

"We have an engineer; all the teams have an engineer from Pirelli," he added.

"What do you think that engineer is doing? He's not there to eat chewing gum. He's there to check the tyres, to follow all the runs that you're doing and give the data to the team."

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/329441/ferrari-doesn-t-want-fight-with-pirelli/


So if these engineers don't warn the teams what are they doing there?

Oh and in the same year if that marvelous document supposed to save Pirelli's ass they managed an illegal 1000 km test with Mercedes GP but this is just a small detail because Pirelli position is consistent, yes.

 

[niky]

Oh and in the same year if that marvelous document supposed to save Pirelli's ass they managed an illegal 1000 km test with Mercedes GP but this is just a small detail because Pirelli position is consistent, yes.

Which has nothing to do with this issue, either, and has no bearing on whether or not one set of tires can last forty laps.

 

[Famine]

Pirelli position is consistent when the are clutching at straws with a 2 years old document.

What document? What are you talking about?

They requested that legislation be introduced to the F1 regulations for the 2014 season that tyre stint lengths should be limited to 50% of the race distance for the prime tyre and 30% of the race distance for the option tyre. The teams rejected this - I suppose because it meant they could no longer do a one stop strategy.

So I wonder what are those Pirelli engineers doing at pre race meetings then?

No idea.

What relevance is it?

Ferrari team boss Maurizio Arrivabene says the outfit does not want to get involved in a "fight" with Formula 1 tyre supplier Pirelli after Sebastian Vettel's failure at the Belgian Grand Prix.

Vettel, on a one-stop strategy, was running third when his right-rear tyre exploded through Raidillon on the penultimate lap, adding to the failure suffered by Nico Rosberg in Friday practice.

Vettel reacted angrily in the immediate aftermath of the race, describing the incident as "unacceptable" during television interviews, before cancelling his additional media session.

When asked for his view on the situation, Arrivabene explained: "I don't want to start with this back and forth, 'Maurizio said about Pirelli, Pirelli said about Ferrari' et cetera.

"I understand the reason, as you understand, why Sebastian was disappointed, but that's it. I don't want to open any kind of fight, because it's not the case."

Arrivabene said Ferrari decided to attempt a one-stop on the morning of the race.

"It was our strategy, Plan A, main plan, before the race," Arrivabene said.

"Normally when you do the strategy during the strategy meeting, it's based on data that you have."

Arrivabene also made clear that Ferrari was given no warning by Pirelli over its plans.

"We have an engineer; all the teams have an engineer from Pirelli," he added.

"What do you think that engineer is doing? He's not there to eat chewing gum. He's there to check the tyres, to follow all the runs that you're doing and give the data to the team."

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/329441/ferrari-doesn-t-want-fight-with-pirelli/

Yes, we've already seen that posted in the thread.

The fact is that this is a position reported by Ferrari and we can't trust it to be accurate. They are one of the teams that ignored Pirelli's safety recommendation in 2013 for the 2014 season - who then tried to push 25% more distance out of a tyre than anyone had ever achieved on a front running car and 30% more than was recommended 2 years ago, on one of the most demanding tracks on tyres (see the photo again) in the hands of one of the most... liberal drivers when it comes to the definition of the circuit.

After Vettel's crash he went back to Ferrari and then came out and lied to the cameras. I wonder why.

So if these engineers don't warn the teams what are they doing there?

No idea. Are they there to warn the teams? Did they not do that?

Oh and in the same year if that marvelous document supposed to save Pirelli's ass they managed an illegal 1000 km test with Mercedes GP but this is just a small detail because Pirelli position is consistent, yes.

Again, what document? And again, what relevance does the in-season test with the V8 Mercedes in June 2013 have to do with the November 2013 recommendation for legislation for the 2014 tyres on the V6H cars?


Pirelli's position is consistent and makes no claims that cannot be supported or rely on other people's comments or lack thereof. It recommended 50% race distance limits for prime tyres for the 2014-2015 V6H cars in November 2013 (you can find this out for yourself with no effort) and, other than Manor who managed 210km on the less stressful Silverstone (with a less stressful car), no-one has exceeded that.

Ferrari's position requires you to believe that they have been told something they are unlikely to have been told - on their word alone. They have changed an indication of wear to a prediction of life, they want you to believe that they were not advised against trying to get 210km out of a tyre no-one in an equivalent car had bested 170km with on a circuit where the recommendation that they rejected in 2013 was 154km and to believe their driver when he's shipped out in front of the cameras to say he didn't go off the track despite the evidence being there for the world to see.


As I said earlier, Pirelli has built the tyres the FIA wants it to build. It recommends the FIA pass legislation to limit use of the prime tyre to 50% race distance. The teams rejected this. Its prime tyres lasted 50% of the race distance at Spa - even with the concurrent 5g vertical and lateral loading.

They didn't survive Ferrari's attempts to push it 70km further than anyone had ever pushed that particular tyre, at the hands of a driver who routinely exceeds track limits. I don't really see why anyone on Earth can possibly be surprised by this.

Least of all Ferrari.

 

[Barra333]

Pirelli's position is consistent and makes no claims that cannot be supported or rely on other people's comments or lack thereof. It recommended 50% race distance limits for prime tyres for the 2014-2015 V6H cars in November 2013 (you can find this out for yourself with no effort)

For those who are too lazy to look - here is a link to what is currently one of the 7 featured articles on the front page of the official F1 website.

For the even lazier, here is a relevant excerpt, which I think Famine may have mentioned once or twice over the last few pages:

Pirelli have reiterated their belief that the number of laps a driver can run on one set of tyres should be set out in the rules, rather than being left to individual teams to decide.
It follows Sebastian Vettel’s criticism of the tyre manufacturer after Ferrari’s decision to one-stop him in Sunday’s Belgian race ended in a right-rear tyre failure less than two laps from a potential third place.

“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,” read a Pirelli statement. “This request was not accepted.”

While most drivers opted for a two-stop strategy at Spa, Vettel’s one stopper meant he needed to complete close to 30 laps in his final stint on Pirelli’s medium-compound tyre - something he and Ferrari believed the tyre to be capable of.

Referring to their 2013 suggestions, Pirelli stated: “The proposal put forward a maximum distance equivalent to 50 percent of the Grand Prix distance for the prime tyre and 30 percent for the option. These conditions, if applied at Spa, would have limited the maximum number of laps on the medium compound to 22.”

 

[Swagger897]

Sorry, but I've read that before and it was the dumbest idea I can think of to date for F1... How much forced competition racing can be induced into the sport after that? Any more of that and I think I'll bin the sport for good..

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

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.

No he wasn't you just don't seem to really have an idea of what is comparable, as I said a few pages back from (page 11) the times comparison is so cheap and meaningless that it's a wonder why people still do it when it is just an apple to oranges analysis. As Toto Wolff said post-race at the past GP, they only have so much times they allow the cars to run at max (within the limit of the regs) map settings as to help prolong engine life. When they get close to that max they stick to the basic average setting on the cars and run that and then if they happen to need it during the race they'll allow it for a time. This is why we've seen Hamilton in the couple of races he wasn't leading to the win ask to be given another lap to pass for a podium or whatever because he was running at a peak set up but only could do so for a limited time to protect the engine.

But this supposed massive difference on like situations that aren't like is just that, supposed and not real.

 

[HKS racer]

Auto motor und sport article. Google translated.
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/...ie-wahrheit-9910029.html#sthash.gs9iSaC4.dpuf

Pirelli says the truth?
The blowouts of Sebastian Vettel dominated after the race at Spa, the discussion in the paddock. But there were also other important issues that we clarify in our race analysis.


Pirelli vs. Ferrari - who is right?
After blowouts of Sebastian Vettel on the penultimate lap medial heavy guns were ascended. The German criticized the quality of the Italian rubber with sharp words. The tire supplier countered with criticism of the risky strategy that included a long stint on medium 29 laps. Ferrari team boss Maurizio Arrivabene replied that it was before the race from the Pirelli bearing no sign that the gums do not survive such maturities.

The reactions of the competition were divided into two parts. At Mercedes could see the tactical decision Ferraris not understand and spoke of an unnecessary risk. Force India and Lotus contrast provided support for the strategy. "The tires must endure this distance," said Lotus chief engineer Alan Permane. "For us a one-stop tactic was Plan B. We have not waived because it was dangerous, but because it was slow."

Force India technical director Andy Green remarked that the good lap times Vettel speak before blowouts against excessive wear. There is no rubber is more on the tread, the tires would cool sharply, which is reflected in a lack of grip and a massive waste of time. But this was obviously not the case.

Whether the Pirelli tires have a structural problem, can not be proved true.The wear-theory of the tire manufacturer with which they tried to explain the defect shortly after crossing the finish line, but also stands on shaky ground.Instead of hasty condemnation Ferraris Pirelli could at least have to wait for an investigation of shredded tires.

Which has nothing to do with this issue, either, and has no bearing on whether or not one set of tires can last forty laps.

It has a lot to do with the claim Pirelli is "consistent" and "telling the truth".

What document? What are you talking about?

No idea.

What relevance is it?.

That's funny.

Sorry, but I've read that before and it was the dumbest idea I can think of to date for F1... How much forced competition racing can be induced into the sport after that? Any more of that and I think I'll bin the sport for good..

This.

 

[IforceV8]

Try to limit yourself to countering what's actually been said by people you apparently don't agree with.

Off track areas are not as clean as the track. Rumble strip - or kerb - profiles are also kinder for tyres travelling across them from on-track than from off track. Both of these things are readily apparent to anyone who has ever been on a race track, but in case the latter is not clear:

​

That's the sausage kerb at the Ford Chicane at Le Mans, with the rumble strip between it and the track. Note the gradual incline from track to off track, but the sudden incline from off track to track? Do you think that putting your inside sidewall against that vertex and spinning it at 160mph is a good idea?

Looks pretty clean to me since Vettel and his playmates were using this as the racing line for the entire race.

No sharp edges either.

I would not want to drop my wheels behind that curb at the Ford chicane. It is fortunate that F1 doesnt race at Le Mans.

That is much nicer.

BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only.

That's 1 cut out of 42, all you need now to back up your claim that Mr.Finger exceeded track limits every lap is the other 41.

 

[Dennisch]

That's 1 cut out of 42, all you need now to back up your claim that Mr.Finger exceeded track limits every lap is the other 41.

Pretty much everyone was ignoring track limits. Go watch the race again. All of them should have been warned several times or penalised.

 

[daan]

That's 1 cut out of 42, all you need now to back up your claim that Mr.Finger exceeded track limits every lap is the other 41.

One of the main points from my point of view is that no other driver stated that he never went off the track. Vettel clearly stated that he never went off the track, which we all know is clearly a lie. We all know that no driver stayed within the track limits on every corner on every lap.

The other point is that going over kerbs, even if they have been swept "clean" by most drivers every other lap (to give benefit of the doubt) they are still more abusive and more abrasive to a tyre, than staying within the track limits would be.

Try to find the slow motion video of Vettel taking the line that he took in the first picture you posted, look at the rear tyre, the one that eventually blew, and tell me that tyre is not being abused.

 

[Pezzarinho17]

And it isn't only Radillon's kerbs being abused, the exit to Paul Frere was more of a guideline as well. The point is that going over the kerbs puts stresses through the tyre that ensure "wear" is not just used to describe how much rubber is left on the tread patch.

 

[daan]

After Vettel's crash he went back to Ferrari and then came out and lied to the cameras.

It probably won't stay up long...

Vettel staying on track and not abusing his tyres.

 

[Pezzarinho17]

I'm pretty sure that the kerb marked in the blue circle is not particularly kind to Pirelli's... You can see the tyre impacted by both this and again rejoining the circuit!

 

[HKS racer]

Everyone was cutting the track.

David Coulthard column: Vettel right to tackle Pirelli on tyres

Sebastian Vettel's outburst following his 200mph tyre failure during Sunday's Belgian Grand Prix was the result of an underlying dissatisfaction among the drivers and teams with the product Pirelli has produced for Formula 1.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/34043197

 

[Famine]

It has a lot to do with the claim Pirelli is "consistent" and "telling the truth".

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with it. How does an in-season test with a 2013 Mercedes (and the second one in 2015 with the same 2013 Mercedes) relate to the consistency of Pirell's position that it recommends against running a 2014-2015 tyre to 65% race distance?

It doesn't.

Everyone was cutting the track.

Not Vettel - he told us he didn't.

Incidentally, was everyone also trying to get 70km more out of a set of tyres than had ever been achieved before?

 

[Pezzarinho17]

^^ Lewis Hamilton ran wide on lap 1, it wasn't his normal racing line. Can't speak for everyone else though, and as Famine points out, Vettel was only 1 denying it...

 

[tomhart9]

I certainly don't agree the amount of laps doable on particular tyre should be set out before the race and limited in the rules. Surely we want the teams to push and take risks.

I think the solution is a tyre that is constructed in a way that it is effectively unusable way before it explodes.

Maybe a super hard compound under the racing compound which lasts for ages but gives the driver hardly any grip, at least that way there would be a gradual change in the tyre that the drivers could easily react to and would be forced to pit before any failures happen.

I'm not sure if this is doable in terms of the physical construction, but if Moto GP can have different compounds on each side of the tyre, surely the might of Formula 1 and Pirelli could do something in the other direction?

 

[TenEightyOne]

^^ Lewis Hamilton ran wide on lap 1, it wasn't his normal racing line. Can't speak for everyone else though, and as Famine points out, Vettel was only 1 denying it...

Exactly, and Vettel was the only one who greatly exceeded the recommended max-tyre-distance while consistently departing.

I agree with the comments here that it would be far more ideal if the tyre performance had noticeably decreased before the integrity so rapidly failed... but that doesn't exonerate Vettel/Ferrari from blame in this instance despite them saying that it does.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Everyone was cutting the track.

David Coulthard column: Vettel right to tackle Pirelli on tyres

Sebastian Vettel's outburst following his 200mph tyre failure during Sunday's Belgian Grand Prix was the result of an underlying dissatisfaction among the drivers and teams with the product Pirelli has produced for Formula 1.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/34043197

Are you really moving that slowly with the conversation or are you just going to be a brick wall and keep ignoring what has been said that counteracts your argument? Once again Vettel isn't everyone else and no one else tried what Ferrari did not even the other side of the Garage and there were reasons, some as highlighted by many in this thread and the others that you highlighted like it being too slow for other teams to want to try.

 

[Diabolik_za]

The 2013 proposal/request by Pirelli isn't relevant.

Pirelli requests a rule that caps tyre usage to certain parameters.
Rule is denied.
Therefore Pirelli, as the manufacturer, needs to ensure that tyre usage can exceed those parameters as the users of the product have explicitly indicated they want the option to exceed them.

To what extent tyre usage can exceed those parameters isn't defined (or I can't seem to find it), but given that Pirelli issued a statement that refers to an outdated proposal as opposed to saying that they warned Ferrari that their strategy was too risky, speaks volumes.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The 2013 proposal/request by Pirelli isn't relevant.

It absolutely is. They were asked to create very short-life tyres after the Canadian GP, that's what they did. They later recommended that they don't run more than 50% race distance. They also asked for that to be regulated, a request which was refused.

In the eyes of the fans and teams they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

[Diabolik_za]

It absolutely is. They were asked to create very short-life tyres after the Canadian GP, that's what they did. They later recommended that they don't run more than 50% race distance. They also asked for that to be regulated, a request which was refused.

In the eyes of the fans and teams they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

You're not addressing my argument. It was made clear that those tyre parameters would be exceeded by the tyre users. Given that feedback, they're obligated to provide a tyre that operates safely after those parameters are exceeded.

Pirelli does not have it easy given their mandate, however I'm sure that "short-life" would relate to tyre wear as opposed to tyre integrity. Tyre reaches a cliff and performance drops off, user has to pit. Not a case of the tyre reaches a cliff and explodes. The tyre integrity should always last longer than the tyre wear, which in Vettel's case didn't.

 

[Nessy]

The tyre integrity should always last longer than the tyre wear, which in Vettel's case didn't.

It would be interesting to know the lap times of Vettel's latter part of the race. I wonder if there was any drop in lap time prior to the blow-out. A driver could say "the car feels good" but it doesn't mean it's performing at it's peak capabilities.

Anybody know the lap times?

 

[Diabolik_za]

It would be interesting to know the lap times of Vettel's latter part of the race. I wonder if there was any drop in lap time prior to the blow-out. A driver could say "the car feels good" but it doesn't mean it's performing at it's peak capabilities.

Anybody know the lap times?

This site has a nice graphic. Doesn't seem like a noticeable drop off (lap 39 is slower, however lap 40 improves)
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2015/08/23/no-drop-off-in-vettels-times-before-tyre-blow-out/

Comparing to the other medium tyre users (Perez, Bottas, Massa, Grosjean, Raikonnen) shows more of a trend upwards at the end of their stint. Vettel is amazingly consistent in his laptimes given the stint duration.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You're not addressing my argument. It was made clear that those tyre parameters would be exceeded by the tyre users. Given that feedback, they're obligated to provide a tyre that operates safely after those parameters are exceeded.

Pirelli does not have it easy given their mandate, however I'm sure that "short-life" would relate to tyre wear as opposed to tyre integrity. Tyre reaches a cliff and performance drops off, user has to pit. Not a case of the tyre reaches a cliff and explodes. The tyre integrity should always last longer than the tyre wear, which in Vettel's case didn't.

I addressed it exactly.

Pirelli were asked to make short life tyres, which they did, they asked that the max life be regulated. That regulation was refused.

Your argument is that they should then have made long-life tyres again despite having been asked to make short-life ones. If Ferrari want to risk a $100million sportscar by guessing against Pirelli on the tyre life then that's their fault, not Pirelli's.