Pirelli's motorsport director Paul Hembery has repeated at Korea that F1's sole tyre suppliers need to have more relevant tyre testing if it is to develop solid and reliable tyres for the 2014 season.
And who is gonna be able to make tyres for next year just like that ? You think anyone would wanna be in the situation Pirelli has ended up in right now?Sombrero wrote:This is the right time to stop the absolute non-sense that the single tyre supplier is. Pirelli wants to leave ? Okay let's do it !
Tyers must be very conservative, "Bridgestone like" at least for first season under new regulations. Teams will already have full hands of understanding new cars, new rules, new loop-holes as new engines, something completly new, if you throw them today's unpredictable, small window and short lasting Pirelli tyers, teams wont understand either cars or tires... Season could become like 2009 with Brawn and Button winning...turbof1 wrote:It's for a single year. It will be already quite unpredictable with so many new rules.
We bashing 2009 now aswell ? How far we have come...Neno wrote:Tyers must be very conservative, "Bridgestone like" at least for first season under new regulations. Teams will already have full hands of understanding new cars, new rules, new loop-holes as new engines, something completly new, if you throw them today's unpredictable, small window and short lasting Pirelli tyers, teams wont understand either cars or tires... Season could become like 2009 with Brawn and Button winning...turbof1 wrote:It's for a single year. It will be already quite unpredictable with so many new rules.
I am waiting for the bashing to begin about the year before when the title was won in the very last turn.Huntresa wrote:We bashing 2009 now aswell ? How far we have come...Neno wrote:Tyers must be very conservative, "Bridgestone like" at least for first season under new regulations. Teams will already have full hands of understanding new cars, new rules, new loop-holes as new engines, something completly new, if you throw them today's unpredictable, small window and short lasting Pirelli tyers, teams wont understand either cars or tires... Season could become like 2009 with Brawn and Button winning...turbof1 wrote:It's for a single year. It will be already quite unpredictable with so many new rules.
Yes because that season was biggest show of f1 ever, even more then this pirelli tires, DRS, etc... If you that called racing, good for you. For me that season was dissaster both from FIA and teams, as i hope nothing similar wont happend with 2014!Huntresa wrote:We bashing 2009 now aswell ? How far we have come...Neno wrote:Tyers must be very conservative, "Bridgestone like" at least for first season under new regulations. Teams will already have full hands of understanding new cars, new rules, new loop-holes as new engines, something completly new, if you throw them today's unpredictable, small window and short lasting Pirelli tyers, teams wont understand either cars or tires... Season could become like 2009 with Brawn and Button winning...turbof1 wrote:It's for a single year. It will be already quite unpredictable with so many new rules.
You pluck numbers out of thin air and hope they prove a point. From the press conference today;Jersey Tom wrote: 1. Tires do not bend to your whim. To put in very crude terms, think of it as 90% of what the tires are going to do and how the car is going to handle is out of the teams' control. It is intrinsic to the build of the tire from the factory. The teams and engineers can maybe try to tweak on the last 10% - though even then you're severely boxed in by limitations on durability, fitting in with aero and the rest of the suspension, etc. Or put another way, a good race engineer can tune on a suspension all day long... and a change in tire construction can completely blow away any of those changes as far as magnitude of effect.
Q: Finally to you Bob. From a deputy team principal's perspective: safety, racing, what's your opinion:
Bob Fearnley: I think Pirelli have done a good job. Fundamentally we're looking to try to average out at two to three stops per race and I think if you take the extremes in any 20-race series you're going to have some that might do four and some that might do one. But overall were going to achieve the objective. I agree with Paul, it's the same for everybody. I think some of the teams will have put in resource perhaps this time year to start looking at how they're going to develop their car, what suspension programme they're going to put in to optimise the tyres, other teams will continued to work on aero. That's the choice of the teams at the end of the day and you've got to deliver what you think is the most competitive package. But there are four points of contact on a track, it doesn't matter how much else you do, you've got to make the tyres work.
And teams do get data. They actually get all the lab data in real time as well as Pacejka models of the physical properties which they feed into simulations. Of course this data doesn't deliver information on degradation but everything else is there from the beginning in order for teams to make decisions on their cars.2. The teams have all the data? What data?? Who is to say Pirelli gives the teams any significant amount of lab data on the tires? Maybe they do, maybe they don't - we're not privy to that, though from what I've heard, they've fallen short significantly in some aspects of delivering appropriate information. The bit about the 60% wind tunnel tires not having an appropriate profile is part of that which has become public knowledge. In that situation, the more "homework" you do the more you get screwed over because you are lead further and further astray by BS data. That's really quite poor form. Then there's track data which is maybe available, but that's crap compared to good lab data even under ideal conditions - much less when you're doing winter testing in non representative weather.
7.10 The MANUFACTURER will supply the FIA and each COMPETITOR with technical information on all available tyres, including at least:
Aerodynamic Data
• Tyre shape information at various loading conditions for CFD studies.
Design Department Data
• Static profile and dimensions when fitted and inflated at nominal pressure with no load;
• Static profile and dimensions when fitted and inflated at nominal pressure at static nominal load;
• Tyre shape information at various loading conditions for design of floors, rear wing endplates etc;
• Tyre bead details and preferred rim widths to confirm wheel rim design;
• Tyre valve details;
• Loaded radius as function of load, speed, inner pressure and camber;
• Camber range;
• Tyre weight and inertia (front and rear for dry / intermediate / wet).
Vehicle Dynamics Data
• Rolling resistance as function of load and speed;
• Loaded radius equations =fn(speed, Fx, Fy, Fz, inflation pressure, camber);
• Rolling radius equations =fn(speed, Fx, Fy, Fz, inflation pressure, camber);
• Non-rolling tyre spring rate and damping over a range of vertical load and drive frequencies;
• Force and moment tyre model – Pacejka format;
• Relaxation length;
• Aligning torque;
• Overturning moment;
• Minimum and maximum inner pressure.
That Pirelli provided faulty wind tunnel tyres is unfortunate but you forget to put in your post that they've corrected that.In this type of situation sometimes those who do the most work get shafted the most (as I mentioned earlier). Sometimes those with good insight do get rewarded with nuggets of knowledge which help them out on a race weekend. And sometimes honestly, you just stumble into something that works. You may not even know why it works exactly, but if it gives you a performance edge.. so be it.
Another person that can't remember more than a decade back.except make them harder, which would lead to static racing
You had me up to item two. The idea is to remove the gimmicks not to replace them.THX723 wrote:The single tire manufacturer (spec tires) is flawed from the beginning. Is it so shocking when one took the competition out of the equation? Duh. The direct manipulation of (negative) tire performance for the sake of artificial "show" makes a mockery of the real fans and a brewing ground for off-track melodramatic antics.
F1 was suppose to be the show case of pinnacle automotive technology. As such, this engineered tire wear has absolutely no relevance to the trickling down for consumer use either. Imagine this, "Yes, I'll take a set of tires for my road car that wears out the quickest (not the stickiest)".
How's this for the proposed new tire rule:
1. Two tire constructors.
2. Teams required to run tires from both tire constructors at least once per race.
3. Teams must run each tires for a minimum number of laps, before relinquishing for another, unless due to puncture or what not.
This ought to spark a frantic competition between the tire constructors. The lesser of the two shall become quite apparent and seen as the joker that no teams want to, but has to use. It's in real competition like this, that the next revolution in tire technology are born -- ultimate traction AND ultimate durability. No more crying rivers of tires constructors not being the center of the attention either.
Finally, by sharing accountability across all teams, it would discourage any one-off chummy-chummy relationship a la the Ferrari/Bridgestone days.
The overdeveloped aero just doesn't allow for this right now. Hopefully next year though.strad wrote:Another person that can't remember more than a decade back.except make them harder, which would lead to static racing
We had hard tires AND good racing for years...It's just this greedy desire to slash lap times every year that has led to gumball tires and a tracks awash in clag.
Clearly you missed my last point ...VIZSLA wrote:You had me up to item two. The idea is to remove the gimmicks not to replace them.THX723 wrote:The single tire manufacturer (spec tires) is flawed from the beginning. Is it so shocking when one took the competition out of the equation? Duh. The direct manipulation of (negative) tire performance for the sake of artificial "show" makes a mockery of the real fans and a brewing ground for off-track melodramatic antics.
F1 was suppose to be the show case of pinnacle automotive technology. As such, this engineered tire wear has absolutely no relevance to the trickling down for consumer use either. Imagine this, "Yes, I'll take a set of tires for my road car that wears out the quickest (not the stickiest)".
How's this for the proposed new tire rule:
1. Two tire constructors.
2. Teams required to run tires from both tire constructors at least once per race.
3. Teams must run each tires for a minimum number of laps, before relinquishing for another, unless due to puncture or what not.
This ought to spark a frantic competition between the tire constructors. The lesser of the two shall become quite apparent and seen as the joker that no teams want to, but has to use. It's in real competition like this, that the next revolution in tire technology are born -- ultimate traction AND ultimate durability. No more crying rivers of tires constructors not being the center of the attention either.
Finally, by sharing accountability across all teams, it would discourage any one-off chummy-chummy relationship a la the Ferrari/Bridgestone days.
No need to work around that in my opinion.THX723 wrote:Clearly you missed my last point ...VIZSLA wrote:You had me up to item two. The idea is to remove the gimmicks not to replace them.THX723 wrote:The single tire manufacturer (spec tires) is flawed from the beginning. Is it so shocking when one took the competition out of the equation? Duh. The direct manipulation of (negative) tire performance for the sake of artificial "show" makes a mockery of the real fans and a brewing ground for off-track melodramatic antics.
F1 was suppose to be the show case of pinnacle automotive technology. As such, this engineered tire wear has absolutely no relevance to the trickling down for consumer use either. Imagine this, "Yes, I'll take a set of tires for my road car that wears out the quickest (not the stickiest)".
How's this for the proposed new tire rule:
1. Two tire constructors.
2. Teams required to run tires from both tire constructors at least once per race.
3. Teams must run each tires for a minimum number of laps, before relinquishing for another, unless due to puncture or what not.
This ought to spark a frantic competition between the tire constructors. The lesser of the two shall become quite apparent and seen as the joker that no teams want to, but has to use. It's in real competition like this, that the next revolution in tire technology are born -- ultimate traction AND ultimate durability. No more crying rivers of tires constructors not being the center of the attention either.
Finally, by sharing accountability across all teams, it would discourage any one-off chummy-chummy relationship a la the Ferrari/Bridgestone days.
"Finally, by sharing accountability across all teams, it would discourage any one-off chummy-chummy relationship a la the Ferrari/Bridgestone days"
No way around that otherwise.
