Post by racechick on Aug 24, 2015 10:14:11 GMT
Exploding Tyres
In 2013, when there were six tyre blow outs at Silverstone and Hamilton lost the race because of one, I was angry with Pirelli. Pirelli were quick to defend themselves saying it was the kerbs, it was debris, the teams had fitted the tyres the wrong way round; but six exploding tyres suggests to me that the tyres weren't fit for purpose. And the fact that Pirelli hastily redesigned them bares this out. Perhaps the drivers did go over the kerbs. Drivers always go over the kerbs because it's the quickest way to get round the track. Unless there is a regulation saying drivers can't go over kerbs then, they are perfectly entitled to do so, and the tyres should be robust enough to handle this. Drivers have always gone over kerbs, tyres have not always exploded because of it.
And what of teams fitting tyres on the wrong wheels? Were they ever specifically told not to do this before the explosions of Silverstone 2013? According to Jenson Button Pirelli knew about, and had sanctioned the practise.....
‘Yes we used the tyres the other way round but we were told we could by Pirelli.’
Pirelli accepted Button’s claim but are calling for the practice to stop this weekend. Button questioned why Pirelli are wheeling out a new range of rubber, front and rear, for the following race in Hungary in a fortnight’s time. ( if they weren't unsafe)
And why were the teams fitting tyres on the wrong wheels? Perhaps in an attempt to get more life out of tyres that were not fit for purpose? Tyres that had been designed, at the behest of Bernie, to suddenly fail, to 'fall off the cliff' rather than to slowly wear/ degrade and so lose grip. Why did Bernie want tyres like this? Another gimmick to liven up the show? I don't particularly want the show livening up falsely, I'd rather see drivers pushing to the limits, not having to drive slowly and weigh up an exploding tyre, or a tyre that is suddenly four or five seconds off the pace, against a gained place or a push for the podium.
Drivers have always had to manage their tyres, I understand that. They've had to manage the point at which it becomes faster to take a pitstop and get new rubber, rather than stay out on tyres losing grip and becoming slower. The difference is that these tyres would slowly degrade and not suddenly fail, or suddenly without warning become several seconds slower, 'fall off the cliff'. A driver managing a tyre such as the current type, is to a certain extent playing a guessing game as to when his tyre might fail/ become too slow; he isn't managing the tyre by what he's feeling happening. He isn't weighing up if he can still drive the car with increasingly less grip, fast enough to win or to get points.
That's how the tyres affect the racing, the spectacle. What of the safety? F1 was very lucky not to have serious injuries or fatalities at Silverstone 2013. I'm thinking particularly of Kimi driving through the shredding tyre from John Eric Vergne's car. And Alonso who was lining up a move on Sergio Perez when Perez's tyre let go ( see pictures at end of article).
As Button said , why are Pirelli redesigned the tyres if they're safe? Would the attitude to the tyre situation be different had a piece of debris hit Kimi or Alonso? Or a marshal? Or a spectator? One suspects it would.
And so we come to Spa 2015. Talk about tyres, since Silverstone 2013 has receded somewhat. We still have to suffer drivers not able to push, weighing up gaining places with a possible tyre taking a dive off a cliff. But explosions, until this weekend have been absent. This weekend they were back. And once again F1 escaped lightly. An explosion for Rosberg in a practise session, where amazingly the car hit nothing, and one for Vettel in the race.
Vettel was angry after the race,as evidenced by the frequent beeping over his expletives during an interview. He was rightly angry in my view. Just as the drivers had been angry back in 2013 at Silverstone. And it wasn't just because he lost a podium place that Vettel was angry, he was angry because he'd been put in danger, as had the other drivers.
Top drivers voiced concerns in the drivers briefing before the race; Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso, Rosberg, Massa, Kvyat. With Hamilton actually asking Charlie whiting if the FIA would be changing tyre supplier. In the meeting Whiting defended Pirelli pointing to no tyre failures since the changed construction after Silverstone 2013.
So one can understand the anger of Vettel when he had a tyre failure in the race. The drivers concerns had not been taken seriously. It was suggested that Vettel's failure was due to him riding the kerbs. Well drivers do that, they were all doing it. But Hembery has come out to say it wasn't likely to be riding the kerbs, more likely to be excessive wear. To which Vettel angrily retorted, "Forty laps you told us!"
Forty laps. And one would expect there would be a little safety margin in that such that all tyres would not fail at exactly forty laps, maybe they would be good for forty three or forty four laps? Forty laps they were told. Vettel's Ferrari had done 28 laps. Well within the expected tyre life given by Pirelli. Vettel himself had suggested a tyre stop to his team, but on checking tyre data the team felt the better option was to continue. The tyres showed no signs of wear and would be well within Pirelli's guideline. When the tyre let go there was no warning and no sign of wear.
Grosjean has joined the drivers expressing concern at this situation.
There are going to be high level talks before Monza, another high speed track, to consider this issue.
Interestingly Pirelli and Michelin are both in talks with Bernie about being a future tyre supplier. So one suspects Pirelli will not want to upset Bernie. One suspects they didn't want to upset Bernie back in 2013 when they produced tyres unfit for purpose as designated by Bernie. I wonder if either tyre supplier will stand up and show some integrity on this issue..........and listen to the drivers who risk their lives in F1 cars.
In 2013, when there were six tyre blow outs at Silverstone and Hamilton lost the race because of one, I was angry with Pirelli. Pirelli were quick to defend themselves saying it was the kerbs, it was debris, the teams had fitted the tyres the wrong way round; but six exploding tyres suggests to me that the tyres weren't fit for purpose. And the fact that Pirelli hastily redesigned them bares this out. Perhaps the drivers did go over the kerbs. Drivers always go over the kerbs because it's the quickest way to get round the track. Unless there is a regulation saying drivers can't go over kerbs then, they are perfectly entitled to do so, and the tyres should be robust enough to handle this. Drivers have always gone over kerbs, tyres have not always exploded because of it.
And what of teams fitting tyres on the wrong wheels? Were they ever specifically told not to do this before the explosions of Silverstone 2013? According to Jenson Button Pirelli knew about, and had sanctioned the practise.....
‘Yes we used the tyres the other way round but we were told we could by Pirelli.’
Pirelli accepted Button’s claim but are calling for the practice to stop this weekend. Button questioned why Pirelli are wheeling out a new range of rubber, front and rear, for the following race in Hungary in a fortnight’s time. ( if they weren't unsafe)
And why were the teams fitting tyres on the wrong wheels? Perhaps in an attempt to get more life out of tyres that were not fit for purpose? Tyres that had been designed, at the behest of Bernie, to suddenly fail, to 'fall off the cliff' rather than to slowly wear/ degrade and so lose grip. Why did Bernie want tyres like this? Another gimmick to liven up the show? I don't particularly want the show livening up falsely, I'd rather see drivers pushing to the limits, not having to drive slowly and weigh up an exploding tyre, or a tyre that is suddenly four or five seconds off the pace, against a gained place or a push for the podium.
Drivers have always had to manage their tyres, I understand that. They've had to manage the point at which it becomes faster to take a pitstop and get new rubber, rather than stay out on tyres losing grip and becoming slower. The difference is that these tyres would slowly degrade and not suddenly fail, or suddenly without warning become several seconds slower, 'fall off the cliff'. A driver managing a tyre such as the current type, is to a certain extent playing a guessing game as to when his tyre might fail/ become too slow; he isn't managing the tyre by what he's feeling happening. He isn't weighing up if he can still drive the car with increasingly less grip, fast enough to win or to get points.
That's how the tyres affect the racing, the spectacle. What of the safety? F1 was very lucky not to have serious injuries or fatalities at Silverstone 2013. I'm thinking particularly of Kimi driving through the shredding tyre from John Eric Vergne's car. And Alonso who was lining up a move on Sergio Perez when Perez's tyre let go ( see pictures at end of article).
As Button said , why are Pirelli redesigned the tyres if they're safe? Would the attitude to the tyre situation be different had a piece of debris hit Kimi or Alonso? Or a marshal? Or a spectator? One suspects it would.
And so we come to Spa 2015. Talk about tyres, since Silverstone 2013 has receded somewhat. We still have to suffer drivers not able to push, weighing up gaining places with a possible tyre taking a dive off a cliff. But explosions, until this weekend have been absent. This weekend they were back. And once again F1 escaped lightly. An explosion for Rosberg in a practise session, where amazingly the car hit nothing, and one for Vettel in the race.
Vettel was angry after the race,as evidenced by the frequent beeping over his expletives during an interview. He was rightly angry in my view. Just as the drivers had been angry back in 2013 at Silverstone. And it wasn't just because he lost a podium place that Vettel was angry, he was angry because he'd been put in danger, as had the other drivers.
Top drivers voiced concerns in the drivers briefing before the race; Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso, Rosberg, Massa, Kvyat. With Hamilton actually asking Charlie whiting if the FIA would be changing tyre supplier. In the meeting Whiting defended Pirelli pointing to no tyre failures since the changed construction after Silverstone 2013.
So one can understand the anger of Vettel when he had a tyre failure in the race. The drivers concerns had not been taken seriously. It was suggested that Vettel's failure was due to him riding the kerbs. Well drivers do that, they were all doing it. But Hembery has come out to say it wasn't likely to be riding the kerbs, more likely to be excessive wear. To which Vettel angrily retorted, "Forty laps you told us!"
Forty laps. And one would expect there would be a little safety margin in that such that all tyres would not fail at exactly forty laps, maybe they would be good for forty three or forty four laps? Forty laps they were told. Vettel's Ferrari had done 28 laps. Well within the expected tyre life given by Pirelli. Vettel himself had suggested a tyre stop to his team, but on checking tyre data the team felt the better option was to continue. The tyres showed no signs of wear and would be well within Pirelli's guideline. When the tyre let go there was no warning and no sign of wear.
Grosjean has joined the drivers expressing concern at this situation.
There are going to be high level talks before Monza, another high speed track, to consider this issue.
Interestingly Pirelli and Michelin are both in talks with Bernie about being a future tyre supplier. So one suspects Pirelli will not want to upset Bernie. One suspects they didn't want to upset Bernie back in 2013 when they produced tyres unfit for purpose as designated by Bernie. I wonder if either tyre supplier will stand up and show some integrity on this issue..........and listen to the drivers who risk their lives in F1 cars.