2015 Formula 1 Shell Belgian Grand Prix

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.

Proof required.

 

@Famine

It seems that your needle is stuck in the groove.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

aaa

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.

 

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.”

 

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..

 

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.

 

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.

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

That's funny.

This.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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!

 

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

 

^^ 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...

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.