|
Post by LRW on Sept 22, 2015 8:03:13 GMT
And Engineers and drivers don't think Pirelli could make such a tyre. . Really? Ive never heard or read an engineer / driver say that.
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Sept 22, 2015 8:07:17 GMT
It says it in that BBC artice link about Michelin couple of posts up.
"Pirelli, which is in competition for the tender with Michelin, says it is only producing the tyres it has been asked for and can build any tyres F1 wants. But drivers and senior engineers in teams privately express their doubts about whether Pirelli could produce more durable tyres even if asked to do so."
|
|
|
Post by LRW on Sept 22, 2015 8:13:30 GMT
Right. So an "unnamed source". I call bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Sept 22, 2015 8:16:21 GMT
LOL. Do you think the BBC man just made it up?
|
|
|
Post by LRW on Sept 22, 2015 8:37:23 GMT
A journalist just make up a source? Yeah, thats never happened before.
And even if someone did say that, all it takes is a bit of an offhand comment from a single engineer and driver, and the reporter can say "But drivers and senior engineers in teams privately express their doubts".
Pirelli are a massive international tyre company, turning over €3billion a year, who have been involved in F1 on and off since 1950. I think they can make tyres that behave. And Im amazed you really think that.
The engineers are angry about the crap they are given - and are misdirecting it at Pirelli -because thats MUCH safer than slagging off the midget and FiA.
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Sept 22, 2015 10:53:16 GMT
Ok. I realise I am digging myself a very deap hole if I go down the route of unsubstantiated sources. But which engineer or driver would stand up in the middle of a season and tell the sole tyre supplier..... openly..... that they're tyres are shit? Well, apart from Vettel. and Alonso, and Lewis and Massa and Grosjean and Rosberg. Okay, quite a few. So let's assume the drivers and engineers haven't said anything and there is smoke without fire. I still think Pirelli have acted spinelessly and without integrity by agreeing to produce fragile tyres that get cut and explode and shred and you can't race on them. They're a tyre manufacturer and they should have said no. On the other hand, if it really is beyond their abilities to produce a tyre that can be raced on, then they should move over and let someone else have a go. ( scooting out the way fast smilie) edit: ( scooting back in again ) forgot to say. Yes. The main culprit is the dwarf.
|
|
|
Post by LRW on Sept 22, 2015 11:42:53 GMT
I hear where you are coming from, and whether they should of agreed to it all in the first place, is another argument, that I havent really formed an opinion on yet - but the sooner the evil one goes, the better.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Sept 22, 2015 12:30:43 GMT
RC, Pirelli make tires for endurance races they make tires for WRC, it's not about what they can make, it's about what they've agreed to make. I don't think anyone at Pirelli thought it through as to how damaging it would be from a PR standpoint to artificially construct purposeful degradation into the tires they'd supply F1 all based on merely the whim of a senile money grubbing troll.
Don't conflate what they delivered with what they could deliver. If the FiA said to get rid of pit stops and have one tire that you could beat the shit out of for the entire race, they would.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Sept 22, 2015 12:42:35 GMT
BTW, I put Continental DWS tires on my daily driver, will switch to winter Bridgestone Blizzak tires in a couple of months and my Porsche has Dunlop Direzza Z2 Star Speck tires that feel like ice skates when the temperature is less than 40f and feel like they'll rip your head off of your neck when the temperature higher than 75f.
So the point is, that we know how to make tires, we make tires for battle environments, we make tires that airplanes land on, we make tires that can last 75,000 miles. I don't think there's incompetence in anything that Pirelli has done, just a bad situation that they willingly and perhaps unknowingly signed on the dotted line.
|
|
|
Post by CookinFlat6 on Sept 22, 2015 12:47:27 GMT
It does point to a certain ingrained corruption and immorality within a firms management when they are willing to compromise on safety just for a pay check. Its like going up to a company that makes a cure for cancer and saying 'please make your cure a little close to the edge of working properly, make it exciting for the patients, make the success rate more borderline, hell even throw in some jokers once in a while to keep the patients guessing'
Would a pharm do this? If they did agree, what else would they do for brown envelopes? Its very telling that only they agreed to this, they are the tyre maker, they know whats skirting the limits on danger, so even tho the client bernie is senile and bent, the onus transfers onto Pirelli to take his brief and say 'yeah yeah whatever' and then make the tyres they feel they could live with
Instead of making true Bernie tyres and then moaning about being forced to be dangerous and then only after big problems taking things in their own hands and making them safe and away from Bernies uneducated brief
Pirelli were corrupt to take the cheque and do what the client wanted without question, and as for bernie, the sooner he goes the btter
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Sept 22, 2015 13:27:55 GMT
I don't see malice, but then again I'm not the kind of guy that would think of purposely crashing one driver in order to give the other driver a win. F1 is a cutthroat business.
|
|
|
Post by CookinFlat6 on Sept 22, 2015 13:40:56 GMT
Say you approached a parachute maker and requested, not their safest product but a bespoke one that 'fell off a cliff' in performance, was marginal on providing enough lift, was fragile enough to rip more, didnt have a back up, only worked well in certain temperature ranges, was unpredictable when it came to acceptable heights to work in etc etc And they asked you 'why?' and you said because I want to be excited, I want to live on the edge If this parachute maker made this product and it led to several people digging their own graves from 3,000 ft up, and bad publicity, surely we would say 'the parachutist was proving Darwin' but surely we would also say the firm were immoral and greedy? especially if the firm then started moaning that they were producing what was required I wouldnt trust this firm not to swap parachutes on other customers if paid enough cash in a brown envelope, especially if the payer was literally a sister company from a place where errmm, underhand business dealings were not unusual or of a certain global standard
|
|