2014 Winter Testing - General

[Manoah2u]

...If pirelli has correctly tested the tires they provide for the testing...

yes because you know, there are simulations. like putting a tire on testbench. like pirelli shows in their promotional videos.
but then still, a tire blows off at 320kmph. so the mere fact that happens, brings up questions. it can be a prototype all you want, it happened, with freshly in mind 2013's turbulent tyre failures. you'd assume they'd put in all the effort in the world that whatever was the cause, would surely not happen ever again, especially during 320kmp. you'd think they'd have margined enough that it would never happen. but then, the very test made for this, the very prototype, actually blows.
i'd say you couldn't imagine anything worse from a team/driver's point.
like said.....that hardly comforts the prospects. instead, it worsens.

yes, pirelli is restricted by FIA regulations. but that's no excuse as to having tires constructed in such a manner that they can completely delaminate and cause total loss of grip and safety. a tire that loses rubber to the point it can't be driven anymore is not the issue here. the issue here, is that there is no tire left! nobody would accuse pirelli of anything would there still be tires hanging on the wheels.
if the cars would slide everywhere due to the extreme degredation, pirelli would get some heat, but that's clearly the problem with the FIA demands.
but that's not the issue.
the issue is simply that there is no tire left to discuss. and that's all pirelli.

[i70q7m7ghw]

A key difference between tyre failures in the Bridgestone era and now is Bridgestones would tend to deflate first, causing the driver to slow down, after which the tyre would start to delaminate. Pirellis just delaminate straight away, resulting in high speed failures.

Punctures are unavoidable, but high speed tyre failures can't be allowed.

If Pirelli really can't make the rears work for next season, would it be workable to switch to wider rears to try and reduce the load on the tyres?

[dren]

I'm wondering if this was a design issue or a quality issue. With only one failure over the entire test, I'm leaning more towards quality, but we don't know specifics of the test.

[theformula]

Still no one answers my question:

"I can't for the life of me understand why pirelli didn't have the balls to say to the FIA - If you want us to be suppliers in 2014, then we are going to have no more than a one stop race especially with the demands of the new cars. This way, they can minimise the risks of any embarrassments in the form of tyre failures (of course there may be some failures due to circumstances beyond their control such as debris on the track). I mean it's not as if there are any other competitors that were going to undercut pirelli had they said that. Michelin looked to be the only threat, and they specifically said to the FIA that they will not supply tyres like pirelli have in the past AND were going to have 18 inch rims...
I mean, am I completely missing the point here?!"

With regards to testing, yes there should be more testing for available for Pirelli to conduct their tests, but they need to start standing up to the FIA and say to them that this is needed, particularly on the grounds of safety. And they need to pile the pressure on, and threaten to quit if their demands are not met. FIA are unlikely to let them quit as they don't realistically have any substitutes. Only until Pirelli start to do this, will they achieve what they want from what they originally wanted by entering F1.

Right now they're being screwed over by the FIA, and I see 2014 as their chance to portray the image of their brand in a way that is beneficial for them. They need to start producing tyres that let drivers actually RACE, this is what fans want to see.

[Manoah2u]

pirelli wouldn't enter F1 if it wouldn't be to their [financial] benefit. I feel like they are making as few costs possible to gain as much advantage for the window of time they are granted in F1, and I think that's where the problem is, again, it seems like they're not taking matters serious enough - apart from the fact the FIA indeed puts a stress on them that is not healthy, and wouldn't be healthy for any supplier.

But agreed, pirelli should step up instead cry like a baby and play the innocense game. Safety should be number 1 priority,
and quite frankly, the way these tires give, it seems there is a huge lack of safety or a safetynet has been passed - which is essentially unacceptable because if you'd just browse through the F1 fatalaties thread, you can see just how easy it is to lose
a life. It's not like we can say 'hey the crash tubs are strong enough, so no problem if tires give'. Kubica's violent crash with that BMW could VERY VERY easily have been a death. And same goes for massa's spring to the head accident, and now we have
tires popping around nearly hitting drivers in the head [if alonso was a tad closer to perez, he'd have that steel belt going full throttle into his helmet. i don't want to think what that could have caused.]

something really needs to happen.

[tim|away]

Any judgement of the tyre failure can't be taken seriously without any actual facts about the underlying reasons. Correct me if I am wrong, but apart from speculations from some journalists, I have seen zilch. The fact that pirelli hasn't published the results of their investigation (at least I haven't read it) isn't exactly the smartest move in terms of PR, however you can't simply conclude from the lack of publications that they are outright negligent or incompetent.

[Manoah2u]

so we should just trust pirelli for what they say if the provide it? BS.

people will always be quiet especially when there's stuff to blame. rosberg having to remove that tweet suggest enough.
censorship taking place is never without a reason. if we should trust the source themselves, then i'm sure there's nothing bad going on in syria. media or newspapers used to be in place to test the truth. Instead, media is censored.
what's left to trust? what data did we have after the silverstone GP? we had zero. All we had was something we saw happening during a race. But the simple truth is; teams didn't announce to boycot the gp's for no reason. If they weren't genuinly concerned [which they had enough right to], they wouldn't have announced to boycott.
Pirelli had to revert to 2012 tires for a reason.
All we knew was assumptions and statements, not factual data, we never have factual data in our hands.
but still - tires never exploded like balloons like crazy in f1's history, yet pirelli singlehandedly managed to do so.

Atleast Michelin had the balls to say: hey, we can't guarantee driver safety, so we will not participate in the Indianapolis GP back then. and thats where pirelli fails. Michelin obviously cared more about safety then Pirelli did.
And that's where the entire issue revolves upon.

[Pierce89]

A few years ago a Bridgestone motogp tire blew up on a straight at 200mph, ON A STRAIGHT AT 200 MPH ON A MOTORCYCLE. They weren't even special degrading tires. So let's all crucify Pirelli as inferior to Bridgestone.

[flmkane]

A few years ago a Bridgestone motogp tire blew up on a straight at 200mph, ON A STRAIGHT AT 200 MPH ON A MOTORCYCLE. They weren't even special degrading tires. So let's all crucify Pirelli as inferior to Bridgestone.

I dont think they blew up multiple times in that season , thought admittedly I dont remember which season you speak of. Pirelli F1 tyres blew up multiple times just in Silverstone.

Thus I believe we can, indeed crucify the Pirelli's as being unsafe, because their frequency of life threatening failure is higher.

[FoxHound]

I dont think they blew up multiple times in that season , thought admittedly I dont remember which season you speak of

I have a number of issues with your post.
You think a tyre blowing out on a motorcycle to be the same as that of a car. Can you please help me fathom how you come to such a conclusion? One tyre goes on a Bike, and you are left with?? One wheel to steer, balance and brake, if you are lucky.

A car? 3.

Pirelli F1 tyres blew up multiple times just in Silverstone.

Why? It is pertinent to know the why.
1.New kerbs with sharp edges, and drivers cutting the corner.

2. Teams running lower than designed or tested for pressures.Running pressures low is good for durability, but it means the contact patch of the tyre moves towards the inside shoulder - the very area that was being punished by the kerbs.
3. Internal shockwaves as a result of the above 2 points.

Adrian Newey admitted as much:

"The tyre failures appeared to have been from the inside shoulder of the rear tyre. By raising the pressure then you move the contact pressure patch more to the centre of the tyre and less onto the edge."

All of the above is as a direct result of 2 things.
1. The FIA want less durable and more wearing tyres, to spice the show up you see.
2. Testing. Or more directly, the distinct lack of it.

Thus I believe we can, indeed crucify the Pirelli's as being unsafe, because their frequency of life threatening failure is higher.

I believe your angst to be misdirected. And I thoroughly believe that while Pirelli are not beyond reproach, neither are the FIA or the teams.

[NathanOlder]

So does anyone know how much coverage is going to be shown on Sky F1? Will he televise it all live? Or just go to the trackside reporter once every few hours on sky sports news.

[flmkane]

I dont think they blew up multiple times in that season , thought admittedly I dont remember which season you speak of

I have a number of issues with your post.
You think a tyre blowing out on a motorcycle to be the same as that of a car. Can you please help me fathom how you come to such a conclusion? One tyre goes on a Bike, and you are left with?? One wheel to steer, balance and brake, if you are lucky.

A car? 3.

Pirelli F1 tyres blew up multiple times just in Silverstone.

Why? It is pertinent to know the why.
1.New kerbs with sharp edges, and drivers cutting the corner.
http://cdn.images.autosport.com/editori ... 675538.jpg
2. Teams running lower than designed or tested for pressures.Running pressures low is good for durability, but it means the contact patch of the tyre moves towards the inside shoulder - the very area that was being punished by the kerbs.
3. Internal shockwaves as a result of the above 2 points.

Adrian Newey admitted as much:

"The tyre failures appeared to have been from the inside shoulder of the rear tyre. By raising the pressure then you move the contact pressure patch more to the centre of the tyre and less onto the edge."

All of the above is as a direct result of 2 things.
1. The FIA want less durable and more wearing tyres, to spice the show up you see.
2. Testing. Or more directly, the distinct lack of it.

Thus I believe we can, indeed crucify the Pirelli's as being unsafe, because their frequency of life threatening failure is higher.

I believe your angst to be misdirected. And I thoroughly believe that while Pirelli are not beyond reproach, neither are the FIA or the teams.

Okay I admit that I dont know much about motorbike tyres but I was not the person who made the initial comparison.

The Silverstone issue has been discussed to death. However, the teams and drivers decided that it was Pirelli's fault to the extent that they were willing to boycott races until the tires were changed. You can rail against me however much you want, citing the evidence of the curbs and the teams usage of the tyres, but that would be a waste of your time. The teams decided that Pirelli tyres were unsuitable for F1 and it's as simple as that.

As for my angst being misdirected, I dont know why you make that claim. How do you know whether I'm angry at Pirelli, FIA, Bernie or both ? The purpose of my post was regarding the comparision between Pirelli F1 and Bridgestone MotoGP tyres, made by a previous poster.

[Pierce89]

Said previous poster did not compare any tires to one another. He only showed that this happens to all manufacturers of race tires. I'd also portend that Bridgestone endangered Makoto Tamada( or was it Shinya Nakano?) to a greater extent than Pirelli ever endangered any F1 drivers. BTW ask JT how often Nascars blow front rights, but I don't hear Goodyear getting thrown under the bus.

[djos]

Said previous poster did not compare any tires to one another. He only showed that this happens to all manufacturers of race tires. I'd also portend that Bridgestone endangered Makoto Tamada( or was it Shinya Nakano?) to a greater extent than Pirelli ever endangered any F1 drivers. BTW ask JT how often Nascars blow front rights, but I don't hear Goodyear getting thrown under the bus.

Comparing F1 tires to NASCAR is silly, they are both in the category of being a "race tire" and that's where it ends!

NASCAR tires run an inner tire which is inflated to a regulation pressure (in case of blowouts) plus they run different right side and left side compounds - Goodyear also bring new compounds to almost every race. After many many tires issues (including large parts of various races running frequent "competition cautions"), which Goodyear DID get hammered over, Goodyear and NASCAR introduced maximum cambers and toe in specs etc.

[Chuckjr]

My god I hope it never gets to that point.