2012 Canadian GP - Gilles Villeneuve

[raymondu999]

That was also the case here in Canada, with very low deg/wear ...

Canada is low deg, HIGH wear.

That`s why I`m puzzled ones more `coz in Bahrein, in the same temps and ruff tarmac, we saw 18 laps on the soft ones at max ...

Don't forget that the asphalt used in Canada is very unique. It's a very very smooth surface. It's not abrasive and doesn't hurt the tyres, but the smoothness translates into a lack of friction. That's why the 2010 Bridgestones had such a hard time here - the rears were wheelspinning all over the place

[bhall]

But does it not strike you as peculiar that the very track cited as the model for Pirelli's tire strategy produced a race this year that looked nothing like 2010?

I sincerely believe Pirelli has changed their tires, and that's just fine by me.

[raymondu999]

The problem in Canada 2010 was NOT high degradation - it was high graining.

The Bridgestones were never very degradation-limited. You could slam the tyres hard on a high deg circuit and they wouldn't flinch a muscle. Put them on an extra slippy surface though - and you get massive graining and wear, which just killed the tyres in Canada 2010. Which was why people were piling on downforce to keep the rear from sliding and to preserve the rears better in that race weekend.

Pirelli however, are not graining-limited. When have we heard any car complaining of graining on Pirellis? Never. (Complaints by Mercedes in 2011 don't count - as that car was generally bad on its tyres anyway). So with the lack of graining, it never really hurt the Pirellis.

Yes, Pirelli were asked to produce 2010 Canada at all races. However they didn't. They produced a similar thing, but moved in another direction instead.

In 2011 they were also predicting two stops at most (the forecast for Sunday was dry). Look here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10119&start=30

I know you don't like the Pirellis and the current F1 formula. I don't like how it is this year either, but I don't think you're being entirely fair to the Pirellis with that comment.

[myurr]

But does it not strike you as peculiar that the very track cited as the model for Pirelli's tire strategy produced a race this year that looked nothing like 2010?

I sincerely believe Pirelli has changed their tires, and that's just fine by me.

But it's not true. You're just seeing the effects of low abrasion track surfaces and the teams getting on top of the tyres, just as they did last year.

If last year is any kind of guide then you'll see a three stop race in Valencia with higher tyre wear back on the table.

[sAx]

Canada is low deg, HIGH wear.

How are you able to disassociate degradation from wear? Surely a tyre degrades in performance through wear such that Canada was both low in degradation and wear re Grojean's 50+ laps on the prime. No?

[raymondu999]

How are you able to disassociate degradation from wear? Surely a tyre degrades in performance through wear such that Canada was both low in degradation and wear re Grojean's 50+ laps on the prime. No?

Wear and degradation are different terms. Careful not to mix the two.

Deg is more to do with the thermal energy going through the tyre - as Jersey Tom puts it, the "heat history." It's more about the rubber of the compound. Wear is more about how much rubber is left on the tyre. (eg if you started with a tyre tread depth of 10mm, tyre wear of 2mm would mean you're left with 8mm).

Degradation is a measure of the decline in lap time performance, whereas wear is the consumption of the tyre.

Degradation is a thermal performance loss - that’s from the tyres overheating essentially, taken to extremes in terms of lap time. Wear is the physical wear of the tyre which is probably easier for people to understand. The two are linked, though not necessarily in a parallel manner, but they are linked

[i70q7m7ghw]

Agreed. Bad pitstop or no - the time loss is the same as if Hamilton had a bad lap. There's nothing "special" in terms of time lost in the pits - time lost is time lost. I don't understand why Vettel in 3rd (with 4th some distance back) didn't dive after Hamilton though.

But the greatest mystery to me is - Hamilton's last pitstop came on lap 50, 20 laps form the end. He brought his first set of tyres 18 laps into the race, and now the fuel loads were much lighter. Why not have supersofts on for a splash and dash?

Most likely, he didn't have any new sets of Super Softs left.

[raymondu999]

Yes that is indeed possible. Given the small delta between the two tyres I guess they felt new primes would serve quicker than used options.

[beelsebob]

Canada is low deg, HIGH wear.

How are you able to disassociate degradation from wear? Surely a tyre degrades in performance through wear such that Canada was both low in degradation and wear re Grojean's 50+ laps on the prime. No?

Because contrary to popular belief, the pirelli tyres are extremely wear resistant... If you use them for hundreds of miles, they barely wear down... What they do do though is change their composition if they get hot – i.e. degrade. People were able to go long in canada because the high wear surface had little to no impact on the pirelli wear resistant tyres; and because there was little degradation changing the compound of the tyre.

[pisco]

Well or bad ???
Alonso said for Montecarlo "bet on red" and it was right !!! not for Monaco but fo Montreal. Ferrari crew dont believe in him and they dont stop Fernando if they call for a pit and paly with red tyres surely they win

[raymondu999]

I'm not sure about you folk, but every race I always read the strategy reports done up by a guy who calls himself intelligentF1. He's written a tyre and pace model for the Pirellis and his analysis usually brings some interesting insights. The guy used to post on these forums, but I don't know where he went after that. Here's the link to his Canada analysis:

http://intelligentf1.wordpress.com/2012 ... s-victory/

[sAx]

How are you able to disassociate degradation from wear? Surely a tyre degrades in performance through wear such that Canada was both low in degradation and wear re Grojean's 50+ laps on the prime. No?

Wear and degradation are different terms. Careful not to mix the two.

Deg is more to do with the thermal energy going through the tyre - as Jersey Tom puts it, the "heat history." It's more about the rubber of the compound. Wear is more about how much rubber is left on the tyre. (eg if you started with a tyre tread depth of 10mm, tyre wear of 2mm would mean you're left with 8mm).

Degradation is a measure of the decline in lap time performance, whereas wear is the consumption of the tyre.

Degradation is a thermal performance loss - that’s from the tyres overheating essentially, taken to extremes in terms of lap time. Wear is the physical wear of the tyre which is probably easier for people to understand. The two are linked, though not necessarily in a parallel manner, but they are linked

As Mr Hembery says the two are linked (deg and wear). Which makes it easier to understand than lets say suggestions above which might conclude perpetual motion, where a tyres degradation is not due to its wear.

[sAx]

Canada is low deg, HIGH wear.

How are you able to disassociate degradation from wear? Surely a tyre degrades in performance through wear such that Canada was both low in degradation and wear re Grojean's 50+ laps on the prime. No?

Because contrary to popular belief, the pirelli tyres are extremely wear resistant... If you use them for hundreds of miles, they barely wear down... What they do do though is change their composition if they get hot – i.e. degrade. People were able to go long in canada because the high wear surface had little to no impact on the pirelli wear resistant tyres; and because there was little degradation changing the compound of the tyre.

What about Alonso, was this wear, degradation or both?

[Gridlock]

As Mr Hembery says the two are linked (deg and wear). Which makes it easier to understand than lets say suggestions above which might conclude perpetual motion, where a tyres degradation is not due to its wear.

It isn't, it's due to being in the operating window for temps and then falling or rising out of it - you can't get it back after this, the compound changes ("degrades") and it's done as a race tyre.

You can have a tyre with almost zero wear that's degraded beyond use. They're linked, but not exclusively.

[myurr]

One is a chemical deterioration of the compound, the other is the mechanical deterioration of the tyre structure and volume of material. The two are only loosely linked in that problems with one tending to cause a knock on effect on the other - for example if you get the tyre temperatures wrong then the compound itself becomes less effective, in turn leading to more sliding which will both cause heat problems for the tyres as well as mechanical deterioration.