|
|
Post by Wß on Sept 1, 2015 19:53:12 GMT
Well no wonder you're seeing it that way, you have some opinion there which is fine but you're way off base in the facts. Vettel was not the only one that went for a long stint. Mannor and Sauber both went long stints on their medium compound they both going just as deep I even stated that early on this this thread. My argument isn't based on opinion, I'm looking for something tangible and so far I'm not seeing it.
Yes Pirelli was wrong in their estimate. Perhaps they felt that a team trying to get 40 laps out of a tire would figure out that they'd need to nurse them, not abuse them.
|
|
|
|
Post by CookinFlat6 on Sept 1, 2015 20:16:21 GMT
Thing about the Pirelli estimate is that I am sure the tyres would easily do 40 or 50 laps no problem driven by Miss Daisys chauffeur, trying to start behind others and make up the distance on those tyres is a different matter and one that Pirelli cannot predict as they have no idea of the exact capability of each car, the track conditions and ofcourse what happens beyond track limits
For those arguing that the teams have a right to expect the tyres to last 40 Spa laps no matter what, then why would any team need to do more than one stop on any other circuit? Because the tyres should lose performance in a nice predictable manner with lots of warning? Are we all forgetting the famous Pirelli cliff? They were asked to bring tyres that forced 2 or more stops i.e. just stopped performing like Kimi found out last year
So are people expecting the cliff to appear on lap 39? and bashing kerbs and going off track to collect debris should be factored into the tyre design?
|
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Sept 1, 2015 20:19:12 GMT
Well I thought
Ericsonns longest stint was -19 laps on mediums
Nasr's longest stint was - 17 laps on the softs
mehri's longest stint was- 15 laps on the softs
Stevens longest stint was - 16 laps on the softs.
And they all pitted twice. I thought.
Are those facts wrong? knowing me they probably are but I'm pretty sure only Vettel one stopped not those other four.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Sept 1, 2015 20:37:31 GMT
Jesus Christ, I am wrong on the previous pit stop data. Disregard my previous post.  Ferrari's strategy does stick out like a sore thumb when you look at it listed this way though. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Sept 1, 2015 20:48:28 GMT
 so I wasn't way off base on the facts then  And since Vettel Was the only one doing a one stop , he's the one who fell foul of Pirelli's mistaken guidelines. .........wot I said last time, can't be bothered to write it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hammer on Sept 2, 2015 4:41:01 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. Exactly.  |
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Sept 2, 2015 10:42:44 GMT
What does good for 40 laps mean? That you can race all out for 40 laps abusing the tires? Why didn't everyone go for that strategy since it was clearly the fastest and Pirelli would have not made that recommendation only to Ferrari?
Pirelli made a mistake in their estimation of how long the tire would last, maybe. Probably so. If Pirelli has said 37 laps, 35 laps, would they still have tried it? It clearly was a gamble and when you gamble you can't have your cake and eat it too, to make the tires last you have to nurse them. Did Vettel seem like a man nursing his tires?
Not sure how you feel this way, Bernie doesn't make the rules, the FiA does. So I agree with you personally that I'd stand up to a crazy demand, but the fault with this one is not anything to do with Pirelli alone, clearly they made the same recommendation and it was denied. Is it still Pirelli's fault?
You make it sound as if every time a tire blows up it's because of bad manufacturing. Silverstone, was that Pirelli's fault or the teams using the tire outside the specification? Why haven't we seen it after Silverstone? Why now?
This is complete conjecture on your part, so not sure how you could make a demand like that.
There's nothing more that I can say about this, and the "cure" is not to have Pirelli invent a magic tire that never ever ever never explodes.
|
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Sept 2, 2015 15:19:40 GMT
I can't do those split up quotes so I'll just take point by point.
Point1
Before the race Pirelli said the fastest way to win the race was on a two stop unless a driver was stuck in traffic, then it would be a three stop.
Twitter
Point2
Yes Ferrari did make a mistake re tyre stint information, agreed there. If they'd made a more conservative estimate would Ferrari still have tried it? Who knows. Now that's conjecture.
Point 3
Bernie? FIA? Whoever. It's generally Bernie who gets what he wants, and he wanted exciting tyres that fall off a cliff . Pirelli COULD have said,thats not safe and will result in over nursing tyres instead of racing. But they didn't.
Point 4
Pirelli have made multiple excuses for why the tyres explode and I've listed them before so won't do again. One of them was indeed that they were fitted the wrong way round. But Pirelli knew about this and sanctioned it. They didn't ban the practise until after Silverstone 2013. Maybe banning that practise and making a new/ different tyre is what prevented further explosions.......until now.
Point 5
It's not conjecture in my part about the construction of the tyres I've been reading about it. I can't remember where now but I'll find the links if you want them.
Finally , I wouldn't want a magic tyre either. Just one that wears as expected and doesn't explode dangerously.
|
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Sept 2, 2015 15:30:02 GMT
Pirelli look set for embarrassing U turn over Spa TyresAfter saying consistently that Vettel's tyre explotion was due to wear and not like Rosberg's, it seems they may have to do an embarrassing U turn when they reveal their findings at Monza. They have found a cut and are now saying It was due to debris, same as they said for Rosberg which they labelled a freak accident. "Pirelli will backtrack on their first conclusion – that Vettel and Ferrari were solely responsible – when they reveal the details of the probe this weekend at the Italian Grand Prix. Pirelli is expected to say wear was simply a contributing factor. It is likely to damage further the little faith drivers already have in the Italian manufacturer. Vettel could be seen angrily remonstrating with Pirelli’s head of motorsport, Paul Hembery, after the race in Spa-Francorchamps, accusing the Englishman of risking his life. Nico Rosberg – who suffered his own blowout in Spa – immediately called for changes to the tyre’s construction but Pirelli will run in Monza this weekend without any alterations. Both drivers saw their one of their tyres disintegrate at 200mph and were lucky to escape without injury." Read the rest of the article here..... www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/11837499/Pirelli-risk-Formula-One-drivers-anger-with-embarrassing-U-turn-over-Sebastian-Vettel-blowout.html
|
|
|
|
Post by Hammer on Sept 2, 2015 15:34:13 GMT
Oh they're blaming circuit debris/kerbs again? LOL seems these two things are labelled as the same thing for Blow-relli.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Sept 2, 2015 16:42:27 GMT
You could blame the curbs or the debris or Vettel. Two of the three don't curse on television when interviewed.
|
|
|
|
Post by CookinFlat6 on Sept 2, 2015 18:33:45 GMT
Ok, I see where this is all going. So the culprit is debris Meaning; 1. the Italian team Ferrari are not guilty of a risky strategy as the tyres would have lasted the stint if not for a random bit of debris - check 2. the Italian firm Pirelli are not guilty of faulty tyres or wrong estimates as the tyres would have lasted the stint if not for a random bit of debris - check 3. the OM or Bernie are not guilty for requesting 'exciting' tyres So where does this leave us? 1. Seb is the culprit because there is more debris outside the track limit - so he alone had the power to avoid debris 2. The stewards are not at fault as they enforced the track limit rule (allowing everyone to go off track 'momentarily' providing they did not gain an advantage over others) Has anyone been devious or dishonest or WRONG? 1. Seb for accusing Pirelli of gross misconduct 2. Seb for accusing the Sport of gross misconduct 3. Seb for swearing live on TV watched by millions of young adults 4. Seb for being a twat As far as the 2 camps in the debate, in light of the fresh, erm 'evidence' produced, an honorable withdrawal without conclusion is available to all - however the official record of the debate must declare the winner (by default) as the camp that blamed Ferrari and Seb NOT the camp that blamed Pirelli (especially if Pirelli manage to slip a little statement past Ferrari that wear was a small contributing factor but not a tangible or critical one)  |
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Sept 2, 2015 18:54:50 GMT
So it's all Seb's fault for swearing.  Nice try Cookie and WB. But it ain't gonna be Seb that comes out of this one covered in poopoo. And Mr. Cumwell is sitting a lot prettier than Pirelli. So........ What an interesting state of affairs.  |
|
|
|
Post by RyRy on Sept 2, 2015 21:59:49 GMT
I'd say the fault lies with:
Sebastian:
- Exceeding track limits consistently.
- Swearing on live TV
- Accusing the sport and Pirelli when he doesn't have the facts.
FIA:
- Not enforcing the track limits.
- FIA for not listening to Pirelli 3 years ago when they asked for a mandatory rule for how long the tyres can be ran for as a safety precaution.
Ferrari:
- For an unusual, on their own 1 stop strategy. They did ultimately make a mistake and stay out too long just look at all the drivers who did a pit-stop late in the race they gained from doing it. They will have known that their tyres were coming to the end of their life and didn't pit because they would have lost places all because they left it too late.
- For not keeping Sebastian in the track limits.
Pirelli:
- Pirelli should be forced to test their tyres at Spa, running for 10 laps then checking the tyres, running for 10 more laps, checking the tyres and slow increments of 5 laps to see how much life the tyres have left in them. If they find out that the max laps should have been say 25, then the are partly to blame but so are Ferrari, FIA and Sebastian for the needless extra stress they put on the tyres.
- If it was a freak fault in the tyre, then their QC should be checked (from the video they did last year sometime their QC will be sufficient) then it was an unfortunate freak accident with the blame going more to Sebastian, FIA and Ferrari for the abuse of the track limits which will ultimately stress the tyres significantly.
In all of my cases FIA, Ferrari and Sebastian are always partly to blame because of the track limits, with the FIA taking the brunt of that because if they enforce the rules then the team and Sebastian will have to follow them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hammer on Sept 3, 2015 4:24:37 GMT
Nobody really cares about the swearing, that's pretty much forgotten (since it aint Lewis) And Seb swearing doesn't endanger anyone's lives or risk making a mockery of the sport. The issue is a tyre blowing out with no explanation on Friday with a Mercedes, and another failing much earlier than expected on a Ferrari....and its the same old excuses of 2013 manifesting again with this incompetent tyremaker. |
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Sept 3, 2015 7:22:32 GMT
Whatever your view is about swearing on TV, it was in no way the cause of the tyre blowouts, it was a result of them. And as Hammer says, unless its Lewis swearing it's not a deal.
Track limits? I think all the drivers exceeded them during the race and they always will unless the rule is enforced.
Ferrari DIDNT know the tyres were coming to the end of their life. The tyre readouts were fine and the remaining three tyres showed no wear. Why? Because they weren't coming to the end of their life. They've now found it was debris. Hence the U turn. The initial blame casting by Pirelli on to Ferrari and Seb claiming tyre wear was incorrect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Sept 3, 2015 10:37:39 GMT
Whatever your view is about swearing on TV, it was in no way the cause of the tyre blowouts, it was a result of them. And as Hammer says, unless its Lewis swearing it's not a deal. Track limits? I think all the drivers exceeded them during the race and they always will unless the rule is enforced. Ferrari DIDNT know the tyres were coming to the end of their life. The tyre readouts were fine and the remaining three tyres showed no wear. Why? Because they weren't coming to the end of their life. They've now found it was debris. Hence the U turn. The initial blame casting by Pirelli on to Ferrari and Seb claiming tyre wear was incorrect. I saw Vettel's ass sliding out every time they showed Grosjean attacking him, did you not see that? There's driving with two wheels over the line and then there's driving with four wheels waaay over the line. If you take a little poison you can survive, if you take lots of poison your chances of survival decrease. It's how antibiotics work. Hell, I can take a couple of Tylenol and feel better, but if I take too many my liver stops working and I die. Not sure why you're willingly conflating use and abuse. |
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Sept 3, 2015 11:28:41 GMT
I saw lots of cars arses hanging out waaaay over the line. Only Kvyat was reprimanded for it. There's a whole track limit issue which is in essence another debate. It's an arbitrary line which the FIA chose to mark the track. Over the Spa weekend the FIA couldn't make up their mind how to mark it, changed their mind in fact about how it was marked, and then let cars run over anyway. Heres two of them, right over the line and neither one of them a Ferrari driver. Are these two using or abusing??   |
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Sept 3, 2015 11:54:40 GMT
Watch the last few laps where Grosjean is tailing Vettel and then tell me who's going over the line by how much and then tell me who's car was completely out of grip. You're claiming that the tire blew up suddenly and it didn't it just didn't, that's completely wrong and this is what you see before the tire blows, that's not a sudden explosion, you see prolonged abuse. Tell me if Grosjean's or Lewis' rear tire look anything like this?  Look at the different in the compression from the rim to the tire top and bottom. I don't see that on the images you shared. Why? Look at the bubble inside the large white box. I don't see that in the images of Lewis and Grosjean you shared. Why? I see the rim pulling away from the sidewall in the small while box, I don't see that in the images of Lewis and Grosjean you shared. Why? You can say that tires shouldn't explode ever, that's a safety argument, but you can't say that a driver should be able to abuse a tire and not see any penalty for doing so, it defies the laws of physics and the laws of rubber. |
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Sept 3, 2015 12:26:46 GMT
I don't know why Vettel's tyre looks squashier. That's why Pirelli have done an investigation, to try to get some answers. Thy didn't know either. But it looks like they've changed their stance anyway from tyre wear to debris.
My point was that other cars were abusing track limits not only Vettel.
So are you still saying it s tyre wear due to too long a stint? Or are you saying debris or something sharp like a kerb due to abusing track limits?
I'm saying a tyre should come to a grandprix able to cope with the situations encountered at that GP., Be that riding kerbs or leaving the track. It should also perform within the manufactors guidelines and be able to withstand being raced on any chosen strategy within the guidelines. Should the tyre become worn I would expect it to increasingly lose performance but not suddenly explode.
|
|
Ferrari's strategy does stick out like a sore thumb when you look at it listed this way though. 
so I wasn't way off base on the facts then 
you think lots of tyres should blow out before Pirelli have to take blame? You mean like lots of Silverstone 2013's? 
Nice try Cookie and WB. But it ain't gonna be Seb that comes out of this one covered in poopoo. And Mr. Cumwell is sitting a lot prettier than Pirelli. 
