Pirelli 2013

[Juzh]

You know what? On the public road you will be doing silly speeds before 40s make a difference over, say, 55s. On the public road with less than perfect tarmac the deeper sidewall gives a better ride as well as protecting the tyre and rim when hitting potholes. Deeper sidewalls will generally give you a more progressive transition at the limit of grip too - good on the road where other road users do stupid things around you.

I dissagre. If i'm going 90-100 kph on a normal twisty road where I could go 130kph on the limit, I feel much safer and secured with 40s than with 50s or higher. It's not about driving it flat out on public roads, but rather having an enjoyable drive at normal speeds when you know you've got loads to spare. I noticed a heck of a difference even between 45s and 40s. I also do not belive 60s or more will give you more progressinal slip, as slip is harder to predict when tyres are wobbling left and right.
They are better for protecting rims and comfy ride, but that's irrelevant in this conversation.

[agip]

Hembery added: “The new power train (2014) will have more torque than the current V8 and that will create potential for more wheel-spin and traction issues coming out of the corners. That, from our point of view, can lead to overheating issues.

“Also there is some comment that the balance of the new cars will be hard to find a suitable set up for with the current tyre size dimensions. You might want a narrower front tyre or preferably a wider rear tyre.

“There is a lot of discussion going on but if we’re talking size changes, it’s a bit late in day unfortunately to do it. So overall, it’s not going to be too straightforward for the teams or ourselves next year.”

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2013/05/g ... re-change/

[Cam]

Hembery added: “The new power train (2014) will have more torque than the current V8 and that will create potential for more wheel-spin and traction issues coming out of the corners. That, from our point of view, can lead to overheating issues.

“Also there is some comment that the balance of the new cars will be hard to find a suitable set up for with the current tyre size dimensions. You might want a narrower front tyre or preferably a wider rear tyre.

“There is a lot of discussion going on but if we’re talking size changes, it’s a bit late in day unfortunately to do it. So overall, it’s not going to be too straightforward for the teams or ourselves next year.”

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2013/05/g ... re-change/

The article basically is excusing Pirelli - before a 2014 FIA contract is signed and a lap is even put down...... Easily solved, don't make tyres that fail. Pirelli has already hinted this will be the case anyway for 2014, so I'm bemused as to why they keep saying it's a tough job. Ever-last tyres, see how it rolls for 2014, go from there. Surely they can make ever-last tyres? If Pirelli do accept a tyre contract from the FIA that again puts it in the same position as now - I want to hear no whinging and complaining from them, not one peep, zip, zero, zilch - if you're not happy with the terms, don't sign them!

[WhiteBlue]

It depends what you ask the tyre supplier to do. If they continue to ask for very small operating windows and very specific properties that will support a certain entertainment concept it may be asking too much. F1 needs to accept a robust tyre with a wide operating window and maybe one stop only. That is not a fundamental problem when you expect a lot of excitement from the shake up. But typically F1 manages to shoot itself in the foot and why should that change next year.

Pirellli will not offer such tyres because it is not in their interest. A narrow operating window creates tyre talk and they Need that for their PR.

[xpensive]

...
Pirellli will not offer such tyres because it is not in their interest. A narrow operating window creates tyre talk and they Need that for their PR.

I'd say Pirelli is probably the only supplier willing to go along with these bizarre entertainment-properties asked by MrE?

[autogyro]

Hembery added: “The new power train (2014) will have more torque than the current V8 and that will create potential for more wheel-spin and traction issues coming out of the corners. That, from our point of view, can lead to overheating issues.

Unless Pirelli can sort this problem using the current tyre concept with clever ideas that prevent de-lamination and excess rear tyre wear, then next year will be a tyre disaster.
It is way to late to change tyre sizes or to present a totaly new tyre type.

[iotar__]

It depends what you ask the tyre supplier to do. If they continue to ask for very small operating windows and very specific properties that will support a certain entertainment concept it may be asking too much. F1 needs to accept a robust tyre with a wide operating window and maybe one stop only. That is not a fundamental problem when you expect a lot of excitement from the shake up. But typically F1 manages to shoot itself in the foot and why should that change next year.

Pirellli will not offer such tyres because it is not in their interest. A narrow operating window creates tyre talk and they Need that for their PR.

I would say you are wrong on all accounts if you weren't contradicting yourself. I mean: are Pirelli "offering" the tyres or are they "asked" to provide certain tyres? Let's leave that and start with the last clear sentence.

One: tyre manufacturer has little to do with creating policies and type of tyres they're supplying. They are a supplier and would provide any type of tyres FIA/Ecclestone/teams (including Red Bull and they should take some responsibility for it) would require of them. To be fair and thorough company's involvement may depend on tyre role in racing but it's marginally important in this discussion.

Two: current direction of tyre role in F1 was created before Pirelli entered based on state of F1 and not PR reasons. When it comes to bigger differences between the compounds remember 2009 Australia for example? After the race there were calls that difference was too big and "dangerous" but the trend was set. Not by Pirelli of course. Other examples: Canada 2010 or even Spa 2009, fastest car in the race - RB - starting eighth, although this one had more to do with a weather or first year of aero changes. The part about knowing everything about tyres and processional racing related to the aero doesn't need to be explained.

Thirdly: after seeing blanket statement like "F1 needs to accept a robust tyre with a wide operating window and maybe one stop only" some basics need to repeated:
1. No refuelling - every time you talk about degrading tyres remember no refuelling, tyres NEED to be a factor, no doubt about it, you can't separate the two at the moment. To what extend and how is a different story.
2. Related to the above: obvious technical sophistication that can't be compared to any era of F1 and leads to equalisation, under current rules, no matter what tyres are over time the trend is for less pitstops. And F1 doesn't need to accept anything, with your "robust" tyres the trend could go towards "half" a pitstop not one.

Also comparing Bridgestones and Pirellis makes no sense because the latter is "new" every season. Wait 3 seasons of set regulations and draw the comparisons, outside of nursing tyres techniques results pitstop-wise and with managing degradation might be similar. The problem with tyres is F1 changes and adjusts, you can't get the tyres right to some ideal place. Not having appropriate testing car is only part of the problem, that's why we have adjustments third season in a row.

Second part: PR noise about the tyres is created solely by the teams (usually Red Bull) to excuse results, hide incompetence and force changes that suit their design. It's not about care for the sport but competitive advantage. To suggest that such publicity like in the beginning of the last two seasons or the one related to Mercedes test is sought after by any company in the world is insane. To use an analogy, it's like saying that if Red Bull is in F1 for marketing reasons than Silverstone 2010 that resulted in slogans like "Red Bull gives you someone else's wings" was good for their brand image. Or Turkey crash, or Malaysia 2013 win stealing. Following your logic they would continue to repeat it, in the end it did create a lot of PR attention. Only the wrong kind of attention.

That's why Red Bull's lobbying works and have resulted in a shift of approach in compound choices. To some extend only I hope, some changes had to be made on technical grounds (like I don't know, Bahrain?).

[turbof1]

One: tyre manufacturer has little to do with creating policies and type of tyres they're supplying. They are a supplier and would provide any type of tyres FIA/Ecclestone/teams (including Red Bull and they should take some responsibility for it) would require of them. To be fair and thorough company's involvement may depend on tyre role in racing but it's marginally important in this discussion.

Except that the supplier needs to keep up its company image. If, for a weird reason, F1 asked tyres that blew up at random, would that be advantageous for the supplier? No. Furthermore, Pirelli isn't just a supplier. They deliver the tyres at a very low cost. They are making losses, not profits, in the series. So what are they then, next to supplier? Right, sponsor! Why do people sponsor? Right, for marketing.

Next to all of that, a good supply chain consists of collaborating closely with the partners. It's all about input and feedback to get the product correct and optimised for the customer. F1 is clearly ignoring that, and is actually the reason we ended up having a 50+ pages discussion about the secret mercedes-pirelli test.

Two: current direction of tyre role in F1 was created before Pirelli entered based on state of F1 and not PR reasons. When it comes to bigger differences between the compounds remember 2009 Australia for example? After the race there were calls that difference was too big and "dangerous" but the trend was set. Not by Pirelli of course. Other examples: Canada 2010 or even Spa 2009, fastest car in the race - RB - starting eighth, although this one had more to do with a weather or first year of aero changes. The part about knowing everything about tyres and processional racing related to the aero doesn't need to be explained.

Bridgestone was much conservative. Anyway, you can't compare the way Pirelli and Bridgestone threated things. Both were given a completely different mission, and both have a completely different culture. F1 should understand that and adapt.

[iotar__]

...
Pirellli will not offer such tyres because it is not in their interest. A narrow operating window creates tyre talk and they Need that for their PR.

I'd say Pirelli is probably the only supplier willing to go along with these bizarre entertainment-properties asked by MrE?

Would you? Based on what exactly? It is more a question of one supplier against many suppliers than any kind of tyre properties. Last time it was a choice between Michelin and Pirelli and money was a major issue, I think. Later Michelin claimed AFAIR that they would be interested only if tyre competition was introduced. Now? No one knows. It's not like tyre manufacturers are tripping over each other to be part of this F1 circus.

Secondly: this is another misconception, just because Ecclestone says afterwards that he likes tyre role in racing it doesn't mean it was his idea or he was solely responsible for it. He wanted many things medals included. As always start with TEAMS (including Mercedes and Red Bull!), FIA and Ecclestone when it comes to responsibility and money and demand from them ALL as the reason for tyre supplier and choice.

[iotar__]

One: tyre manufacturer has little to do with creating policies and type of tyres they're supplying. They are a supplier and would provide any type of tyres FIA/Ecclestone/teams (including Red Bull and they should take some responsibility for it) would require of them. To be fair and thorough company's involvement may depend on tyre role in racing but it's marginally important in this discussion.

Except that the supplier needs to keep up its company image. If, for a weird reason, F1 asked tyres that blew up at random, would that be advantageous for the supplier? No. Furthermore, Pirelli isn't just a supplier. They deliver the tyres at a very low cost. They are making losses, not profits, in the series. So what are they then, next to supplier? Right, sponsor! Why do people sponsor? Right, for marketing.

Next to all of that, a good supply chain consists of collaborating closely with the partners. It's all about input and feedback to get the product correct and optimised for the customer. F1 is clearly ignoring that, and is actually the reason we ended up having a 50+ pages discussion about the secret mercedes-pirelli test.

Two: current direction of tyre role in F1 was created before Pirelli entered based on state of F1 and not PR reasons. When it comes to bigger differences between the compounds remember 2009 Australia for example? After the race there were calls that difference was too big and "dangerous" but the trend was set. Not by Pirelli of course. Other examples: Canada 2010 or even Spa 2009, fastest car in the race - RB - starting eighth, although this one had more to do with a weather or first year of aero changes. The part about knowing everything about tyres and processional racing related to the aero doesn't need to be explained.

Bridgestone was much conservative. Anyway, you can't compare the way Pirelli and Bridgestone threated things. Both were given a completely different mission, and both have a completely different culture. F1 should understand that and adapt.

To make it short and not turn it into endless repeating points exercise:
It was a response to claim that Pirelli marketing image reasons are responsible for current tyre role in F1 and also responsible for stopping any kind of changes towards "one stop, wide operating window, robust tyres" eldorado. On the basic level completely untrue as is this trend set by Red Bull marketing that Pirelli is some kind of big side in this discussion and not a supplier to the demand of F1.

I'm afraid it's also the reason for mixing everything into one mess like you did by connecting degrading tyres trend with manufacturing delamination issues. Issues correctable with some relevant testing probably. The trend is to mix everything: safety, sporting side which they don't care about of course, primitive comparisons like the wrestling one, Mercedes test and everything else. Just spitting statements without real discussion is a standard in F1, everything important happens behind the scenes.

Bridgestone was different, neither conservative nor aggressive, because of demand, different rules and times. Using it as some golden standard comparison makes little sense in 2013. For me I don't care which direction they take, F1 is boring politics driven pseudo sport anyway , as long as they (Ecclestone/FIA/Teams) are consistent, take some responsibility and don't change the rules during the season to help some teams and disadvantage others.

[turbof1]

Yeah I was a third into replying on your post when I realised this will go nowhere. So I just stopped there without continueing. It ends up being a labyrint of micro discussions which don't really get anywhere. It's not even clear anymore who is supporting which side or which statement. Your last paragraph does steps off the mess.

It wouldn't be bad though if we had that 2010-bridgestone conservatism back for alteast next year. With so many changes the field will widen again. We don't need tyre livety to increase the show; the big performance gaps between cars will make sure we will get enough on track action.

[MOWOG]

not turn it into endless repeating points exercise

Too late!

[lebesset]

Yeah I was a third into replying on your post when I realised this will go nowhere. So I just stopped there without continueing. It ends up being a labyrint of micro discussions which don't really get anywhere. It's not even clear anymore who is supporting which side or which statement. Your last paragraph does steps off the mess.

It wouldn't be bad though if we had that 2010-bridgestone conservatism back for alteast next year. With so many changes the field will widen again. We don't need tyre livety to increase the show; the big performance gaps between cars will make sure we will get enough on track action.

+1
clearly with new rules there are going to be plenty of variables in 2014
therefore the tyre supplier , whoever it is , should be told to make some bridgecrete tyres for the first season only , time to roll the dice when they and the teams have a seasons experience

[WhiteBlue]

It depends what you ask the tyre supplier to do. If they continue to ask for very small operating windows and very specific properties that will support a certain entertainment concept it may be asking too much. F1 needs to accept a robust tyre with a wide operating window and maybe one stop only. That is not a fundamental problem when you expect a lot of excitement from the shake up. But typically F1 manages to shoot itself in the foot and why should that change next year.

Pirellli will not offer such tyres because it is not in their interest. A narrow operating window creates tyre talk and they Need that for their PR.

I would say you are wrong on all accounts if you weren't contradicting yourself. ...

I'm not contradicting myself. You are not thinking it through or you are unaware what has happened. When Pirelli came into F1 in 2010 for 2011 we had no passing and processional races. Pirelli were asked to supply fragile tyres that would lead to multiple pit stops and force teams to qualify on a fragile higher performance tyre. They liked the idea because the necessary suspension adaptation development would lead to a lot of tyre talk. Michelin kind of missed that opportunity or they did not think about it. By accepting the fragile tyre concept Pirelli got themselves into the situation that they need very accurate data in order to successfully design the small operating windows. So much for the history.

Now we have a different situation. Michelin have found some interest because they realized that Pirelli's concept of fragile tyres worked for them. Pirelli generated huge attention over three years, which is the objective in the first place. The difference between 2010 and 2014 is the availability of DRS and the new engine formula. In 2010 nobody knew how DRS would work and so a fragile tyre with different race/quali strategy options and pit stops to shake up positions made sense. Today we do not need the fragile tyres for entertainment because DRS is doing a good job to prevent processional races anywhere except Monaco. Next year there is also no need to present teams with a new development challenge because they have plenty of that on their plate with the new engines. So from a team or from a fan perspective the fragile tyre are not needed for next year. But that is not true for Pirelli. They continue to depend on tyres to be talked much about which they will not get if they design a conservative tyre with huge operating window. So it is primarily the commercial and PR interest of the tyre supplier that forces him into a concept that otherwise has over lived it's usefulness.

[turbof1]

I think that is a bit too far fetched. For one I do not think Pirelli had anticipated the teams to adapt their suspension that well; pirelli is now in a difficult situation because of that. Marketing wise it is about exposure; the extra talk about the tyres is a nice addition as long as that remains positive. Lately that hasn't been always the case.

I think michelin would most of all profile themselves as doing the things which pirelli did wrong, correct.