|
Post by racechick on Aug 31, 2015 18:16:42 GMT
Well I dont see how it can end badly for Vetel really. Vettel drove the car he was given , with the tyres he was given. He actually questioned whether he should come in, asked to come in, and the team, sanctioned by Pirelli, said he was ok to stay out. So if blame is issued here I think the lion's share goes to Pirelli, then Ferrari.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Aug 31, 2015 18:20:33 GMT
Noooooo!
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Aug 31, 2015 18:31:55 GMT
What do you mean?. Noooooooo! Nooooooo what?
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Aug 31, 2015 18:42:14 GMT
I mean Noooo... you can't drop your iPhone and complain to Apple that the screen broke, no matter how strong, impact and scratch resistant Steve Jobs touted the display as being.
I'm going 70/30 with Pirelli sharing 30% of the blame for not actively calling Ferrari idiots for trying a startergy no one else tried.
I'm calling it 70% Ferrari for not being able to understand in all their wisdon that repeated off track excursions and repeated compression impacts lap after laps wouldn't degrade the life expectancy of a product. I'm Calling it 70% Vettel's fault for being a dufus in saying he didn't go off track and that there were no indications that they had tires issue when for four laps all you see is Vettel's ass going wide from a lack of grip and when there's hundreds of pictures online clearly showing that tire taking abuse that no one else gave it.
Not that this isn't an opportunity to make things better/clearer from Pirelli, hopefully some good will come of it, but retooling the tires is not what is the prime need here.
|
|
|
Post by CookinFlat6 on Aug 31, 2015 18:52:24 GMT
Well I dont see how it can end badly for Vetel really. Vettel drove the car he was given , with the tyres he was given. He actually questioned whether he should come in, asked to come in, and the team, sanctioned by Pirelli, said he was ok to stay out. So if blame is issued here I think the lion's share goes to Pirelli, then Ferrari. Vettel has already been proven to be a liar. He has had time to calm down and retract his statement that he didnt go off track or abuse the tyres or drive in any way to decrease the 40 lap estimate Pirelli claimed based on staying within track limits and driving with maximum conservation of the tyre life in mind. E.g if the tyre lasts 40 laps at its extreme limit then its possible that those who chose to drive half the distance could push more than those who set out to test the limit of endurance. So Seb needs the results to say the tyre failure was in no way at all affected by his and others abuse of the tyres AND his own extra stint length on top of the abuse Pirelli didnt write in the spcecifications This is unlikely, so the next question would be, if it was the team at fault for the stint length (Seb thought he was 2 stopping so pushed hard) If Seb throws the team under the bus at best he will be like Lewis in liegate - labeled a naive cheat singing the teams tune or both Seb and Ferrari will go down as having risked a serious accident by stupidity or by ruthlessness and then unsportingly lying and implicating Pirelli in a bid to divert attention If the driver and team were Maldo and Lotus we would be looking at bans and disrepute, slander, libel, cheating, - basically what Ferrari have done for years and got off with the same way - find a scapegoat then start with the passion edit: Ofcourse Seb could argue that he was not lying when he said he didnt go off track limits by pointing to the regulations wording - to go off track limits in a publishable manner is to have all 4 wheels off track AND gain an advantage - so he could say he meant he did not leave the track in a regulatory sense but as he did leave it in a literal sense and the literal and physical sense is the context for reducing the 40 lap estimate and riskily inviting failure So I think we can safely say that after the report comes out, some blame will be on the stint length and the track limit abuse - at which case any court in the orld would deem Seb and Ferrari unreliable witnesses and perjurers and bang to rights guilty of making Pirellis claims null and void by using the tyres in a dangerous way
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Aug 31, 2015 20:45:04 GMT
Well Pirelli SHOULD have factored in driver abuse. If drivers can get away with it they will try it and a tyre manufacturer should ensure all eventualities within the rules are possible on their tyres. I don't think Seb will throw his team under a bus. He had the opportunity to do that had he wished. He asked to pit and was told to stay out. A bit like Lewis at Singapore 2007....but less urgent. Did Seb say he hadn't gone off track limits? He may have done but I didn't hear him say that, I only heard him say he believed Rosberg when he stated that he hadn't gone off track limits. If Vetteal had gone off track limits why wasn't he punished? That other thorny issue raises its ugly head.
Racing is dangerous. It says that as you enter most race tracks. But you do expect suppliers to ensure their equipmenypt is fit for use, and as safe as can be expected. I think you expect that more than you expect racing drivers to go slowly just in case a supplier lied and didn't produce products as safe as expected.
|
|
|
Post by RyRy on Aug 31, 2015 21:59:48 GMT
I am still confident it was either just a rare fault in the tyre (no ones fault) or something to do with the track either him taking too many kerbs or a kerb/part of track having a sharp section on it or because he had taken a lot of life out of his tyres, mixed in with the abuse of the kerbs he took a kerb too aggressively and made some damage. I don't think it was just running on them too long and I don't think it was anything setup based like too much toe or camber. Wouldn't this make it Pirelli's fault, for sh!t quality control? Rare faults shouldn't occur at this level, especially after all the crap they pulled last year. Not at all, shit happens. You can do as much QC on a product as you like but eventually one will pass and it'll have a tiny fault somewhere that when used will break. In this instance it might have been a tiny bit of rubber extra at 1 point in the tyre, when driving along this will be only noticed under load and it would stretch the rubber around it thus weakening it then mixing this in with the overly aggressive kerb riding and the fact he had done a lot of laps on them then it is an unfortunate mix of circumstances. The only way to avoid it in the future would be: - Force a mandatory pit after x laps - Pirelli to change the tyres so there is a very very slow but hard 2 laps worth of rubber under the main rubber to make them pit and then under that layer of rubber have a bright yellow rubber that if it's visible the team is required to pit straight away! - Give out penalties (5 seconds, after 1 or 2 warnings) each time someone cuts/goes out of track limits (obviously not the times when it's obvious they lost a lot of time) this will make drivers behave with the kerbs. If they get 2 x 5 second penalties, the next cut will receive a drive through, do it once more and you get disqualified. Vettel was one of the worst at Spa for over agressive kerb riding especially at turn 5 (both sides of car, usually running completely of the track), turn 9 (both sides of car, he even continuously ran wide on the exit and ran over a little bit of gravel), turn 11, 14, 15 (both sides of car) and turn 16 (a huge amount of the left hand side of the car, usually running completely of the track).
|
|
|
Post by CookinFlat6 on Aug 31, 2015 22:04:12 GMT
Well Pirelli SHOULD have factored in driver abuse. If drivers can get away with it they will try it and a tyre manufacturer should ensure all eventualities within the rules are possible on their tyres. I don't think Seb will throw his team under a bus. He had the opportunity to do that had he wished. He asked to pit and was told to stay out. A bit like Lewis at Singapore 2007....but less urgent. Did Seb say he hadn't gone off track limits? He may have done but I didn't hear him say that, I only heard him say he believed Rosberg when he stated that he hadn't gone off track limits. If Vetteal had gone off track limits why wasn't he punished? That other thorny issue raises its ugly head. Racing is dangerous. It says that as you enter most race tracks. But you do expect suppliers to ensure their equipmenypt is fit for use, and as safe as can be expected. I think you expect that more than you expect racing drivers to go slowly just in case a supplier lied and didn't produce products as safe as expected. 1 question RC, if you agreed to race a friend 40 miles from A to B on electric power, you bought an electric car and the manufacturer said it would go UPTO 40 miles on a full battery, would you expect it to do 40 miles even if you drove as fast as your friend who had a spare battery and had already decided to change battery after 20 miles?
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Aug 31, 2015 22:20:19 GMT
Well Pirelli SHOULD have factored in driver abuse. If drivers can get away with it they will try it and a tyre manufacturer should ensure all eventualities within the rules are possible on their tyres. I don't think Seb will throw his team under a bus. He had the opportunity to do that had he wished. He asked to pit and was told to stay out. A bit like Lewis at Singapore 2007....but less urgent. Did Seb say he hadn't gone off track limits? He may have done but I didn't hear him say that, I only heard him say he believed Rosberg when he stated that he hadn't gone off track limits. If Vetteal had gone off track limits why wasn't he punished? That other thorny issue raises its ugly head. Racing is dangerous. It says that as you enter most race tracks. But you do expect suppliers to ensure their equipmenypt is fit for use, and as safe as can be expected. I think you expect that more than you expect racing drivers to go slowly just in case a supplier lied and didn't produce products as safe as expected. 1 question RC, if you agreed to race a friend 40 miles from A to B on electric power, you bought an electric car and the manufacturer said it would go UPTO 40 miles on a full battery, would you expect it to do 40 miles even if you drove as fast as your friend who had a spare battery and had already decided to change battery after 20 miles? Well the trouble with me is I tend to believe what people tell me...trust them. So if they said if would go forty miles Id be foot to the floor expecting it to do just that......... and beat my friend. Anyway my friends are woosies at driving, I'd beat them anyways!
|
|
|
Post by CookinFlat6 on Aug 31, 2015 22:39:30 GMT
But you would wonder why your competitor had gone into the bother of having a spare battery despite the manufacturers claim that 40 miles was the status quo benchmark
Say you had 10 friends and they ALL went for the extra battery after 20 miles, and you actually qualified half the grid down.
Would you still pursue your strategy of using the one battery 40 miles as it said in the promo video, and would you still drive as hard as they did, and abuse the batteries ability to store energy as they did?
So you start behind the leaders, use only the one battery vs their 2, abuse the battery as much as they do, they all stop to swap to a new battery, but you continue on the single battery
then you run out of energy
do you blame the battery maker for his battery not lasting 40 miles?
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Aug 31, 2015 23:27:49 GMT
You make a good arguement and I can see what you mean. But if I thought my car wasn't quite as fast as some of my friends cars, I may try to push that battery to its limits. I would realise I was pushing the limits and I might phone my car or battery supplier for reassurance, and perhaps suggest To them that I switch battery. If my battery supplier reassured me Id carry on. I might realise despite the reassurance that my battery might loose power/ performance but I wouldn't expect it to explode.
|
|
|
Post by CookinFlat6 on Sept 1, 2015 0:59:11 GMT
But, if a friends battery had exploded the day before mysteriously at a circuit hard on battery use after a long period of zero issues with battery explosions on batteries with a history of unpredictable behaviour, would you still think 'the battery maker said 40 miles, this is the time to push it and and do double the laps of everyone else, I will put all my faith into the battery suppliers estimates and ignore the previous days blowouts, after all I am so much more clever than the others that I can start a pit stop in time behind them and still conjure up the advantage to beat them just by believing in the battery makers blue sky estimates when my friends (all of them) dont even bother to test the laboratory fresh claims.
Risks come with the chance of failure - Ferrari were the only ones stupid enough to take the risk, and the passion they generate was enough to opiate the driver with his life on the line into finding someone else to blame
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Sept 1, 2015 5:41:54 GMT
Well I would be concerned if my friends battery exploded the day before. I think I'd voice concerns and ask questions if there was some sort of meeting before the race where I could do that. If race organisers and Battery supplier assured me that my friends battery issue was just a freak accident and my battery and all my friends batteries would be fine, Id probably believe them, I'm like that. I may still check in over the radio for assurance my battery is holding up fine during the race, and if the answer was yes, well id go for it. I'm in a race!
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Sept 1, 2015 15:38:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Hammer on Sept 1, 2015 17:35:34 GMT
Well Pirelli SHOULD have factored in driver abuse. If drivers can get away with it they will try it and a tyre manufacturer should ensure all eventualities within the rules are possible on their tyres. I don't think Seb will throw his team under a bus. He had the opportunity to do that had he wished. He asked to pit and was told to stay out. A bit like Lewis at Singapore 2007....but less urgent. Did Seb say he hadn't gone off track limits? He may have done but I didn't hear him say that, I only heard him say he believed Rosberg when he stated that he hadn't gone off track limits. If Vetteal had gone off track limits why wasn't he punished? That other thorny issue raises its ugly head. Racing is dangerous. It says that as you enter most race tracks. But you do expect suppliers to ensure their equipmenypt is fit for use, and as safe as can be expected. I think you expect that more than you expect racing drivers to go slowly just in case a supplier lied and didn't produce products as safe as expected. 1 question RC, if you agreed to race a friend 40 miles from A to B on electric power, you bought an electric car and the manufacturer said it would go UPTO 40 miles on a full battery, would you expect it to do 40 miles even if you drove as fast as your friend who had a spare battery and had already decided to change battery after 20 miles? If I may chip in, No, but I'd expect it to do at least 30....if the manufacturer said UPTO 40 miles, and said manufacturer has had about 20 cars to test this hypothesis over 3 practice sessions. And if their representative (engineer) was with me while I'm making my plans to win this race, simply smiles nodding his head, I'll be confident enough to do 30. For sure. I'd definitely not go for 40 miles, but as a team pushing looking to exploit any advantage, in a sport which pushes limits constantly...I'd expect at least 30. At least. If I went up to 35, I'd say I'm pushing limits. My friend having a spare battery is her call, and I'd view it as being conservative. No fault in that, but I'm looking to win and pushing while staying within limits set by my suppliers is what I'd aim to do.
|
|
|
Post by CookinFlat6 on Sept 1, 2015 18:17:27 GMT
Sounds like a typical F1 face saving fudge is on the cards for Italian firms Ferrari and Pirelli In this case the blame would be shifted neatly to Seb because everyone knows there is more debris beyond track limits than within and so he was inviting disaster for a non risky 1 stop team strategy using well constructed tyres.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Sept 1, 2015 18:45:16 GMT
The ol' why won't my iPhone work after I dropped it in the toilet inquiry?
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Sept 1, 2015 19:15:47 GMT
Nah! EVERYONE knows phones won't work down the toilet or in the washing machine! But one does expect a race tyre to survive a race within the specified rules.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Sept 1, 2015 19:23:57 GMT
So which should we punish Pirelli on?
Being wrong with their 40 lap estimate or Making a tire that blows up? No one would argue that a tire that doesn't delaminate would be a good thing for the safety of the drivers but a tire hadn't delamitated since the changes were made back in Silverstone 2013. That's a lot of race tires without an issue. So I don't think Pirelli are making a fundamentally poor tire as this point.
I'm still waiting for Pirelli's official analisys but you have failed to make ANY argument whatsoever as to why only Vettel saw a blowout on Sunday.
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Sept 1, 2015 19:37:30 GMT
you think lots of tyres should blow out before Pirelli have to take blame? You mean like lots of Silverstone 2013's? Okay. Here's the arguement as to why only Vettel had a blow out. Pirelli said the tyres were good for forty laps. They got it wrong. The tyres were not good for forty laps. They were not good for thirty laps. Pirelli got that recommendation a lot wrong. Vettel was the only driver who went for a ones stop, so he was the only one who was compromised from the misinformation issued by Pirelli. And what do I think we should punish Pirelli on? Well lots. -Not having the integrity to stand up to Bernie and produce a safe tyre that can be raced on - misinforming Ferrari re safe stints for tyres to be raced on - making multiple excuses when their tyres fail -making tyres that explode instead of slowly lose grip. There's perhaps more but I can't think of them right now.
|
|