How well did Pirelli do their job in 2011?

[MIKEY_!]

If that is so I think it's permissible in their first year. Bridgestone had plenty of experience.

[Pierce89]

They seem to be 10 times more likely to have a dud in the batch than the bridgestone.

How do you figure that? When have we heard about this?

[ringo]

my opinion. They are obviously of a lower quality and consistency, that's for sure.

[beelsebob]

my opinion. They are obviously of a lower quality and consistency, that's for sure.

It isn't really a matter of opinion. If you're going to say "they're 10 times more likely to have a dud" back that up with actual real stats.

[ringo]

I swear, you guys are a piece of work.
How many times have we seen a pirelli puncture for no reason at all this year?
Then compare it to how many times a bridgestone has punctured for no reason,while keeping in mind how many tyres were available per weekend.
It's a no brainer, no statistics are needed, the pirelli are not as well made as the bridgestone and have inconsistent quality.

[Pierce89]

I swear, you guys are a piece of work.
How many times have we seen a pirelli puncture for no reason at all this year?
Then compare it to how many times a bridgestone has punctured for no reason,while keeping in mind how many tyres were available per weekend.
It's a no brainer, no statistics are needed, the pirelli are not as well made as the bridgestone and have inconsistent quality.

I don't recall the Pirelli's puncturing for no reason. Almost every flat comes after contact between cars.

P.S. and most here would say you're the piece of work.

[timbo]

How many times have we seen a pirelli puncture for no reason at all this year?
Then compare it to how many times a bridgestone has punctured for no reason,while keeping in mind how many tyres were available per weekend.
It's a no brainer, no statistics are needed, the pirelli are not as well made as the bridgestone and have inconsistent quality.

It's a brainer and statistics IS needed. the tyres seem pretty robust so far.

[Pierce89]

How many times have we seen a pirelli puncture for no reason at all this year?
Then compare it to how many times a bridgestone has punctured for no reason,while keeping in mind how many tyres were available per weekend.
It's a no brainer, no statistics are needed, the pirelli are not as well made as the bridgestone and have inconsistent quality.

It's a brainer and statistics IS needed. the tyres seem pretty robust so far.

+1

[Ray]

I swear, you guys are a piece of work.
How many times have we seen a pirelli puncture for no reason at all this year?
Then compare it to how many times a bridgestone has punctured for no reason,while keeping in mind how many tyres were available per weekend.
It's a no brainer, no statistics are needed, the pirelli are not as well made as the bridgestone and have inconsistent quality.

You have no proof and we are a piece of work? There's nothing to indicate that the Pirelli tires are any worse than the Bridgestones of the past. Unless you have cold hard fact to back you up, which you obviously don't have. Also, Pirelli was asked to make a worse wearing tire for this year to "spice" up the racing. From what I've seen, they've done exactly what was asked of them. Your opinion doesn't equal fact.

[ringo]

There is a lot to indicate that they are less consistently made.

The facts can be found if you watch all the races and practice sessions. The tyre is worse than the bridgestone.
Vettel's tyre failure, then shumacher's at the end of the race. Those are only 2. There are more like those littered across the season. Hamilton's in singapore ect.
I'm not going to waste energy listing them becuase it's obvious the japanese tyre is light years better in consistency and durability. That doesn't have to do with a tyre degrading. The FIA never asked for a slow tyre or a tyre that randomly fails.

[The FOZ]

There is a lot to indicate that they are less consistently made.

The facts can be found if you watch all the races and practice sessions. The tyre is worse than the bridgestone.

<snip>

The FIA never asked for a slow tyre or a tyre that randomly fails.

I'd like to think data can be obtained from watching the races. As in, who had the puncture, what compound they were on, how many laps old the tires were, and any obvious circumstances that can explain the puncture.

So you'll get some lovely information about who gets more, who gets less, and you'll get some number of failures that clearly resulted from an incident of some sort.

And then you'll have a bunch that don't seem to have a clear cause, which you'll have to put into a grey area, being the responsible critical thinker that you are. These failures happened - no question there - but the cause is unknown.

So you dig through post-race interviews, and discover that there are instances of cars touching and NOT making it onto the broadcast, shockingly enough. Sometimes those negligent TV producers don't show when a car goes over a piece of debris, either. Now even more have causes.

So now you'll have a smaller group of "unexplained" failures. Which you'll then have to say, being the responsible logical thinker that you are, that just because we didn't see an external cause doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Or you'll realize the utter humiliation you'll be in for trying to prove a negative. Like finding a burned up tree in the forest, and proclaiming it to be a defective Pirelli tree because you didn't see any lightning strike it, and there's no lightning there now, so clearly it's Pirelli's fault!

Either way, you're trying to connect disparate points of data, from memory, into a picture that serves your argument. Bottom line - if you're going to make an argument from statistics, be prepared to produce those statistics. If you're going to make an argument based on absence of evidence...actually, you really don't want to do that. Trust me.

[Shrieker]

While this discussion doesn't belong here, I think the Pirelli tyres are to some extent inferior to bridgestones, and that's got nothing to do with the stuff FIA asked of them (degrading tyres to spice up racing). Bridgestone had a decade+ experience under their belt, while 2011 is pirelli's only first year. There you go, tangible fact. They had prior experience from some 20 years back, but data from back then is surely not very relevant. Bizarre wear patterns, sets which performed completely out of their performance window, unexpected and inconsistent grip and wear were somewhat frequent compared to previous years. Hard tyres that didn't even last as long as the softs did, or supersofts which didn't have any more grip than the softs from some races are good examples(though it seems they've gone some way in fixing that). I also think the bridgestones held up better vs. debris and contacts. Pirelli still have some way to go.

[ringo]

There is a lot to indicate that they are less consistently made.

The facts can be found if you watch all the races and practice sessions. The tyre is worse than the bridgestone.

<snip>

The FIA never asked for a slow tyre or a tyre that randomly fails.

I'd like to think data can be obtained from watching the races. As in, who had the puncture, what compound they were on, how many laps old the tires were, and any obvious circumstances that can explain the puncture.

So you'll get some lovely information about who gets more, who gets less, and you'll get some number of failures that clearly resulted from an incident of some sort.

And then you'll have a bunch that don't seem to have a clear cause, which you'll have to put into a grey area, being the responsible critical thinker that you are. These failures happened - no question there - but the cause is unknown.

So you dig through post-race interviews, and discover that there are instances of cars touching and NOT making it onto the broadcast, shockingly enough. Sometimes those negligent TV producers don't show when a car goes over a piece of debris, either. Now even more have causes.

So now you'll have a smaller group of "unexplained" failures. Which you'll then have to say, being the responsible logical thinker that you are, that just because we didn't see an external cause doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Or you'll realize the utter humiliation you'll be in for trying to prove a negative. Like finding a burned up tree in the forest, and proclaiming it to be a defective Pirelli tree because you didn't see any lightning strike it, and there's no lightning there now, so clearly it's Pirelli's fault!

Either way, you're trying to connect disparate points of data, from memory, into a picture that serves your argument. Bottom line - if you're going to make an argument from statistics, be prepared to produce those statistics. If you're going to make an argument based on absence of evidence...actually, you really don't want to do that. Trust me.

You do the honours. I don't have BBC, becuase i didn't pay for it, for i don't live in the UK.
The tyre failure on Vettel's car may have simply been down to a dud tyre.

As for bottom lines and statistics. If you live in a glass house don't throw stones. When was the last time you saw any facts posted?
It's a site for discussion and observation. Any facts you get is a gift. Facts in F1 don't come easy nowadays.
If you don't think the pirellis are as bad as i say, then i suggest you do the research. Otherwise i am free to call them inconsistent relative to bridgestone.

[ringo]

While this discussion doesn't belong here, I think the Pirelli tyres are to some extent inferior to bridgestones, and that's got nothing to do with the stuff FIA asked of them (degrading tyres to spice up racing). Bridgestone had a decade+ experience under their belt, while 2011 is pirelli's only first year. There you go, tangible fact. They had prior experience from some 20 years back, but data from back then is surely not very relevant. Bizarre wear patterns, sets which performed completely out of their performance window, unexpected and inconsistent grip and wear were somewhat frequent compared to previous years. Hard tyres that didn't even last as long as the softs did, or supersofts which didn't have any more grip than the softs from some races are good examples(though it seems they've gone some way in fixing that). I also think the bridgestones held up better vs. debris and contacts. Pirelli still have some way to go.

Thank you. I wish i had the gift to be more expressive in my thoughts. You hit the nail on the head. I can't believe there are viewers out there who think pirelli can hold a candle to the almost alien bridgestone F1 tyre. The 2010 bridgestone was refined to the point the tyre was perfect in every way.
No shame in the pirelli being worse.

[Pierce89]

While this discussion doesn't belong here, I think the Pirelli tyres are to some extent inferior to bridgestones, and that's got nothing to do with the stuff FIA asked of them (degrading tyres to spice up racing). Bridgestone had a decade+ experience under their belt, while 2011 is pirelli's only first year. There you go, tangible fact. They had prior experience from some 20 years back, but data from back then is surely not very relevant. Bizarre wear patterns, sets which performed completely out of their performance window, unexpected and inconsistent grip and wear were somewhat frequent compared to previous years. Hard tyres that didn't even last as long as the softs did, or supersofts which didn't have any more grip than the softs from some races are good examples(though it seems they've gone some way in fixing that). I also think the bridgestones held up better vs. debris and contacts. Pirelli still have some way to go.

Thank you. I wish i had the gift to be more expressive in my thoughts. You hit the nail on the head. I can't believe there are viewers out there who think pirelli can hold a candle to the almost alien bridgestone F1 tyre. The 2010 bridgestone was refined to the point the tyre was perfect in every way.
No shame in the pirelli being worse.

MaybE worse in degradation but that's a design goal. Equal in ultimate perfromance. I haven't noticed more flats. I haven't noticed any problem other than greater wear. And the pace inconsistencies between compounds you mentioned were not in ultimate pace but over a stint. The softer tire has set pole at every dry quali.