Pirelli 2013

[Jersey Tom]

Also, what tire manufacturer in their right mind would sign up for this garbage when there are many other forms of motorsport that are actually relevant to the product lines the companies sell to stay in business?

I don't think I can agree with that statement...

I can agree with you that there are many forms of motorsport that will not have a direct relationship to production vehicles but I think you are dismissing touring cars out of turn.

I'd dismiss touring cars pretty easily. Not much if any crossover between TC slicks and high performance wide & short sidewall production car tires, IMO. Substantially different design and pass/fail criteria. Not to mention even if there were cross pollination, those are such small volume.. they're a drop in the bucket. That's not what's keeping companies in business from a direct cash flow standpoint. Just good to have around for brand identity (i.e. you won't see a Corvette or Mustang line be totally scrapped)

[dave34m]

Is Ferrari still going to do their own test with a 2011 car with new wings and bits on it. I havent heard anymore about it myself.

[WhiteBlue]

I don't think that's fair. They did devise a new construction, and presented it for use. It was F1 politicking that put the kybosh on that. Whether that new construction would have prevented this weekend's catastrophic failures, I guess will come out eventually.

I don't think that devalues what I have said about Pirelli fudging their communication. If they had told the truth about the problem the FiA would have addressed the safety problem much earlier. Pirelli's communication is all about PR and not about the truth. That makes them unfit as a single tyre supplier.

[FoxHound]

I don't think that's fair. They did devise a new construction, and presented it for use. It was F1 politicking that put the kybosh on that. Whether that new construction would have prevented this weekend's catastrophic failures, I guess will come out eventually.

I don't think that devalues what I have said about Pirelli fudging their communication. If they had told the truth about the problem the FiA would have addressed the safety problem much earlier. Pirelli's communication is all about PR and not about the truth. That makes them unfit as a single tyre supplier.

Monsi has made a very fair and valid point that I don't think you have addressed.
Pirelli knew about the problem and rectified it, only to have an FIA ruling(unanimous agreement from teams), prevent them from going ahead with the solution.
How is this Pirelli's communication failure? It isn't.

This has everything to do with the governing body not making a unilateral decision for the best interest of safety.
If you disagree, then please bear in mind Pirelli had the solution, but where prevented from using it.

[myurr]

I don't think that's fair. They did devise a new construction, and presented it for use. It was F1 politicking that put the kybosh on that. Whether that new construction would have prevented this weekend's catastrophic failures, I guess will come out eventually.

I don't think that devalues what I have said about Pirelli fudging their communication. If they had told the truth about the problem the FiA would have addressed the safety problem much earlier. Pirelli's communication is all about PR and not about the truth. That makes them unfit as a single tyre supplier.

Why are they in F1? Why would any supplier want to be in F1? It's all about PR for them. If you want to stop the tyre supplier from being PR led then you've just ruled out all companies who would be interested in supplying the tyres. If you want tyres that are just fitted to the cars and no one has any problems with tyre life so that the tyres are no longer a contributing factor to the races, then you've just ruled out every supplier who may want to be a single supplier.

The only alternative is for F1 to pay for their tyre supply and all the support that goes with it. When F1 is willing to accept all that additional cost then it can afford to be picky over who the supplier is.

[turbof1]

Talking with hindsight, pirelli would have been better off admitting from the beginning there was a safety issue. The company image has taken by now a serious blow, because everybody knows now that these tyre are indeed unsafe, but more importantly pirelli has given the perception they are irresponsible, not willing to solve the problem. That view is of course wrong, but that is what you get when not admitting you have a problem.

The PR blow would be very minimal if they just admitted it. That way they could have used the rules to force the changes on the teams. Nobody would have talked about it the race after. But their inability to look further then one weekend will make sure they'll have to stay years to come in f1 to repair the damage.

[elFranZ]

Marca is claming some insights from Sauber and McLaren: according to them, some kevlar pieces have been found where the esplosions took place.
There's nothing official, so take this with a lot of care...

http://www.marca.com/2013/07/01/motor/f ... 72736.html

[scarlet]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23141389

I assume the revised construction of the tyre will change their shape under deformation and affect overall aerodynamics? If so which teams will this help or hinder? Will this help teams like McLaren and Williams who suggested that the different shape of the the 2013 tyres was a factor in their pace deficit?

[WhiteBlue]

I'm not against legitimate PR for the tyre supplier. I'm against Pirelli being economical with the truth. They have a tyre construction problem this year which leads to tyre failures. That is a fact. They have modified the bonding process according to their own statement. And now the failure mode has changed although they still have the construction failing. They say in the new failure mode they have a safety problem which they previously have denied. It makes no sense and the drivers do not agree with them. A construction that fails repeatedly is a safety problem IMO and it has existed at least since Bahrein. Pirelli have not told the truth in order to look better.

Second they have said that their construction uses steel vs Kevlar used in 2012. In Silverstone the teams and the public discovered that they also had Kevlar in the construction and now they claim that the construction is unchanged since Barcelona. We do not really know what they want to say by that comment. Was the race tyre used in the Spanish GP already featuring Kevlar or did they use Kevlar first in their private test in Barcelona with Mercedes. It is another fudged statement. Whatever they want to say it does not address the accusation that they have modified the construction since the begin of the season without the consent of the teams. Why are they again not telling the whole truth and keep the public in the dark with silly stuff that is worthless? This information policy is what destroys the trust people have in Pirelli to be honest and do the right thing.

And third you have the fact that Pirelli have designed an unsafe tyre without any need or pressure by competition. They are the single tyre supplier and their first responsibility before any commercial consideration has to be the safety of the drivers, marshals and the spectators. The 2012 Pirelli construction perfectly fitted the task they were given. It did the job that they were asked to do and it was safe. They decided for commercial PR gain to further weaken the safety margin in order to make the operating window narrower to create more tyre talk and they got this wrong. I say they failed their first responsibility as a tyre suplier by that decision.

Those are the points that I criticise Pirelli for. In my opinion Michelin is doing a far better job by what I can see from their work in LMP. I have listened to their tyre man during the Le Mans Eurosport commentary. They provide excellent information on the design philosophy and the properties of their tyres and they give good advice to the LMP teams they supply as a single supplier. If you ask the LMP teams about their opinion on their tyre supplier you will probably get a much higher satisfaction than F1 teams would express. That in a nutshell is the reason for my vote pro Michelin and against Pirelli as the next F1 tyre contractor.

[turbof1]

Although I feel like we should give Pirelli a second chance, Michelin does handle things better. They took a mighty difficult decision in 2005 at Indianapolis. That was hard, and did damage their image, but it was atleast a responsible decision. Anybody can mistakes, the difference between a company and a fantastic company lies within taking responsibility. Responsible enterprises also survive much longer then the ones who aren't.

[raymondu999]

I don't think it will "hurt" any teams (in terms of laptime) - any loss in tyre squirt like that will help. But it probably would "help" some teams who haven't adapted to the squishier tyre. I'd add the Sauber to that list of winners too.

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23141389

It appears we have a solution announced.

• Rear tyres to change to full Kevlar for Germany and remain with the 2013 geometries.
• From Hungary all tyres to revert back to 2012 construction specification in terms of construction materials and geometries I understand.

Point two, is the decision that should have been made in Bahrain. Good to see that finally some common sense is applied. The 2012 tyres were ok. What is needed now is an evaluation if the 2013 compounds make sense with the 2012 construction safety and performance wise.

And after Spa they probably have to make a decision on the supply contract.

[WhiteBlue]

I have reported this thread and expect it to be closed. Please post in the Pirelli thread. Folks, why do we have to post the tyre issues in three different threads now? It only helps to spread confusion.

[Huntresa]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23141389

It appears we have a solution announced.

• Rear tyres to change to full Kevlar for Germany and remain with the 2013 geometries.
• From Hungary all tyres to revert back to 2012 construction specification in terms of construction materials and geometries I understand.

Point two, is the decision that should have been made in Bahrain. Good to see that finally some common sense is applied. The 2012 tyres were ok. What is needed now is an evaluation if the 2013 compounds make sense with the 2012 construction safety and performance wise.

And after Spa they probably have to make a decision on the supply contract.

Yeah i understand the last part aswell as its 100% 2012 tyres, and not 2012 construction and 2013 compounds from Hungary and onwards.

[k.ko100v]

IMO they have to fix one more thing... the marbles. I don`t like to see a track full of them and one clean line. Its... i will safe the words for me.