C29 wrote:flmkane wrote:
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.
Huh? The teams decided, therefore it's fact? I decide that the sky is green, so now it's a fact, and you would just be wasting your time arguing with me. The teams may not have liked the tires, but to say the the teams decided it was Pirelli's
fault is bogus.
FIA (moreso FOM?) wants a tire that degrades. When tires degrade, they lose stability. Whether there's no more tread and the cars spin around like on ice, or tires delaminate, or cars lose 10 seconds a lap, etc, there comes a point at which the tires are no longer driveable. That poses a safety risk no matter which way one looks at it, and that is a fundamental aspect of a component that is designed and regulated to FAIL. Yes, the FIA/FOM want tires that will degrade, meaning FAIL. How does one design a tire that will lose grip/degrade, yet still be safe and driveable at 300+ kmh? If it's always safe at 300kmh, then it hasn't degraded enough which means we're back to the bulletproof Bridgestones.
Pirelli has been given a task that virtually guarantees failure. They have been given a task by the FIA/FOM that is fundamentally false: To design a product that will safely fail while being pushed to the extreme limits by competition. Teams and drivers will always push the limits. People talk about driving to the limit but not past, and that is the trick about racing. But in that pursuit, you sometimes go over the limit and that's when sh*t happens. Is it the car's or driver's fault when a car spins off? The car's limit was too low but the driver pushed past the car's limit.
There's plenty of safe spec racing out there for those who can't handle a few tire blowouts. But then, those races aren't usually on global tv being watched by tens of millions...
None of the above makes any sense.
In my opinion, because Pirelli keeps giving highly irresponsible excuses, some of us are actually beginning to believe the disinformation and even help in its propagation.
Concerning if the teams decided that the tyres were unsuitable for F1 - the drivers actually hinted at going on strike because they feared one of them would soon die due to the tyres. Practically all teams took official positions against the tyres in public after Silverstone where there were a whopping 7 tyre failures (with Perez affected twice).
The FIA took the unprecedented step of changing the tyres mid season as a matter of urgency, with safety given as the only reason. The reason for the failures was officially put down to faulty design and Pirelli was asked to go back to the labs and come back with a new design.
The most glaring thing that's wrong with your claim is the assumption that fast wearing tyres must be dangerous, nothing could be more wrong.
The only part of the tyre that should wear fast is the contact patch, the tyre ply should still maintain integrity no matter what. Where the ply explodes, it only points out Pirelli's extremely horrible incompetence.
Silverstone circuit's boss, Derek Warwick actually told the press that Pirelli, Bernie and the FIA were bringing F1 to disrepute because of the dangerous tyres. I am sure there can't be many people who know more about out F1's health and safety requirements than a track boss. Any talk about F1 being "safe spec" or unsafe spec is really nonsense.
