That's a marketing twist for you.knabbel wrote:What I really can't match is that before the race Pirelli says that the tires should last 40 laps and then after the race gives a statement that this would never happend if the hard tires were only alowwd to use for maximum 50% of the laps.
The carcass is part of the tire and it exploded. Or didn't explode?!PlatinumZealot wrote: The tyre didnt explode though. The thread peeled away.... Then the carcas was still intact. That carcass then ballooned out and disintegrated. There was no explosion.
I can agree that if the tyres are made much thicker and had steel fibres in them that sort of failure would not happen but FOM is the one that asked pirelli to construct the tyre to be that fragile. These tyres are riduclously light weight. And little material or lack of beefiness if you want to call it that, is what you get with light weight tyres. Ferrari are not blameless either. They are not fools they know how thin these tyres are. They should not have run the tyre more than the recommended 25 laps they were told was the limit.
Spot on.giantfan10 wrote: when was Ferrari told 25 laps was the limit?
I could have sworn that i read Pirelli stated that the medium tire could last 40 laps at Spa
You may be confusing Pirreli's "optimum race strategy" with some sort of limit, where they tell what they think optimum strategy is before each GP
Here is Ferrari's take from Arrivebene:
“A one-stop race was our plan A. We decided that at 11am, using the data the engineers had collected during the practice sessions. There was a Pirelli engineer standing in our garage and he wasn’t just chewing bubblegum. He would have intervened if the data had shown anything suspicious. Our strategy was aggressive, but not risky.”
So the Pirelli engineer in the Ferrari garage didnt intervene or even question their strategy and i guess he forgot how thin the tires were...cmon Platinum you should know better than that.
Lets not forget Rosberg earlier this weekend who had the same tire let go too here is the top 3 drivers' (IMHO)take from BBC :
BBC reports that no less than three world champions – Lewis Hamilton, Fernando Alonso and Sebastian Vettel – had voiced their concerns about the safety of Pirelli’s tyres in the driver briefing on Friday after Rosberg’s tyre blow-up. The worries were dismissed with the usual excuses of ‘external influence’, which the drivers had to accept, but obviously didn’t believe, as Vettel explained unmistakably.
The race was like watching paint dry.Kiril Varbanov wrote:One day later, in a hindsight and looking at the big picture, it is absolutely sad that we talk about a tire blow and not the race itself.
My rating for Spa this year is 5. I expected more of the race, but it was average show.
Certainly, a safety issue such as this one should not happen. Moreover, drivers must be allowed to race and push hard. With Pirelli tires, that's not happening. That's what they have been asked to produce? Maybe. But with so many issues historically, one has to wonder - is it always team|driver fault? Isn't it time for a change?
Max and Carlos have now both 5 DNF's, and I'm guessing there are a few more coming unfortunatly.Andres125sx wrote:About STR... Max did a great race, as aggresive as usual... while Sainz suffered the fourth retirement in a row because of his car, fifth in the season if my memory serve me, what means his car only allow him to score points in half of the races he start. This is becoming disturbing
On the evidence of this race, at least some things are clear.SectorOne wrote:You should definitely watch WWE instead if this race was like watching paint dry.
Awesome overtakes, possible rain increased tension, massive tire blowout on the last lap from a guy who was getting chased down lap by lap and quite a lot of fights up and down the grid.
you dont watch Monaco then i presume because that was nothing in comparison to this race.
People seem to have a very deranged view on F1 races over the years.
Sorry but no, it´s 4 for Max and 5 for CarlosThumbsUp wrote:Max and Carlos have now both 5 DNF's, and I'm guessing there are a few more coming unfortunatly.Andres125sx wrote:About STR... Max did a great race, as aggresive as usual... while Sainz suffered the fourth retirement in a row because of his car, fifth in the season if my memory serve me, what means his car only allow him to score points in half of the races he start. This is becoming disturbing
Well that is also a way to look at it, I'm not here to argue with you. But a DNF still means Did Not Finish. So both have 5 DNF's. And to correct your "Comparing car problems" should be 3 for Max and 5 for Carlos then. You are right about the misstakes but that was not my point anyway.Andres125sx wrote:Sorry but no, it´s 4 for Max and 5 for CarlosThumbsUp wrote:Max and Carlos have now both 5 DNF's, and I'm guessing there are a few more coming unfortunatly.Andres125sx wrote:About STR... Max did a great race, as aggresive as usual... while Sainz suffered the fourth retirement in a row because of his car, fifth in the season if my memory serve me, what means his car only allow him to score points in half of the races he start. This is becoming disturbing
Carlos DNFs have all of them been due to the car failing, while half of Max DNFs have been because of his own mistakes
Comparing car problems, it´s 2 for Max and 5 for Carlos
Comparing DNFs due to driver mistakes, it´s 2 for Max and 0 for Carlos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKKkR42vYqQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7goXvwbvwlg
From interviews, I believe with Arrivabene, the Pirelli engineer has access to realtime data. I'm sorry but if you are pressed with your nose into the data, the engineer should have told if it was going to work out or not.GPR-A wrote:It would have been possible that, the tyres would have gone much before that, had it not for Virtual Safety Car allowing cooling of the tyres. Merhi and Stevens changed their tyres at at lap 15 and they went on for another 28 without any problems. Ericsson and Nasr changed the tyres at lap 9 and 10 respectively and went on for another 34/33 laps!!!turbof1 wrote:Pirelli should have given a conservative estimation from the first place anyway to ensure safety!Is he supposed to? Does he get to see all the details of car's setup and how it affects the tires and then OBJECT? OR Is he just available for consultation only? I believe, because the PIRELLI engineer is an external entity, no team would risk providing all these details and then seek his advice. They probably ask him to provide certain information on tyres that they want and then accommodate in their setups. If anyone had much stronger knowledge of those tyres, it was the team itself based on their practice runs. Unless PIRELLI finds a FOREIGN object affecting the tyre blow out, the responsibility would be on Ferrari for going with an aggressive strategy and setup + the driver for constantly running over kerbs to gain time.turbof1 wrote:For the record again: A pirelli engineer was right there at Ferrari to atleast object against the strategy. I don't think that has happened.
Eh? It says nothing about the chassis and everything about the Merc PU. Merc could bolt on a tonne of downforce and still outpace the others down the straights...GPR-A wrote:On the evidence of this race, at least some things are clear.SectorOne wrote:You should definitely watch WWE instead if this race was like watching paint dry.
Awesome overtakes, possible rain increased tension, massive tire blowout on the last lap from a guy who was getting chased down lap by lap and quite a lot of fights up and down the grid.
you dont watch Monaco then i presume because that was nothing in comparison to this race.
People seem to have a very deranged view on F1 races over the years.
Mercedes PU is miles ahead of the next best PU. Even an under performing Lotus managed to chase down a Ferrari. And Merc haven't used their in season development tokens yet.
Mercedes was more than a second faster in Sector 2 alone compared to a non-mercedes car, without losing a lot of top speed on straights as Nico managed to do good overtakes. Speaks volumes about the chassis.
In which super market do you get that tonne of downforce? If it is available so cheep, why not other teams with tonnes of cash buying and bolting it on? Yes, the PU allows them to bolt downforce, but you only have look at last year's McLaren to understand the difficulty of managing it with tonnes of peak downforce but thoroughly inconsistent. W06 is finely crafted chassis with great craftsmen adding things that really works and the net result is a dominant car. Great tire life, superior on fuel consumption despite managing to get through all the drag borne out of that downforce and still be fast on straights. Even in the past, Mercedes engines had more power than Renault, but the chassis was not upto scratch and that is where RB were beating.Jonnycraig wrote:Eh? It says nothing about the chassis and everything about the Merc PU. Merc could bolt on a tonne of downforce and still outpace the others down the straights...
You only need to look at the ease with which Perez & Grosjean overtook, to see the PU advantage.
