|
|
Post by CookinFlat6 on Aug 24, 2015 14:39:40 GMT
So we have one of those F1 stories that has polarised observers. We have 2 main camps but as always there is a lot of grey involved. At one end the old Pirelli are evil camp and at the other end Ferrari are silly
And in between we have the FOM once again culpable as they were in 2013 for requesting non predictable tyres to excite the viewers at the cost of safety. Just as in 2013 we have the teams who will push things to the limit overiding the danger aspect. We have a precedent for all this - 2013, and we know how that turned out - Pirelli taking things in their own hands and inviting teams to test, eventually resulting in a complete retreat from fragile 'xciting' cliff tyres.
And recently Ferrari have requested a more 'daring' approach from Pirelli, especially at the start of the season when it was obvious they had an advantage in the use of tyres in extreme conditions.
So bearing in mind the history here are the facts - Only one other team this year has chosen a strategy involving a 212 km run on one set of mediums. That team was Manor right at the back trundling around. Yet Ferrari chose to do it at a circuit heavy on wear not least after a weekend of seeing drivers abuse th kerbs without penalty.
The main argument against Pirelli is that tyres should not explode and should lose efficiency when used for to long. The countering argument ofcourse is that anything can cause a puncture, and anything can cause a blowout at anytime, things like debris, objects, kerbs, sudden pressure loss. And all these things are more likely to have that ffct the more wear on the tyre
So for me its clear cut, FOM are at fault - but we knew that in 2013, Pirelli are at fault for agreeing - but we also knew that, this leaves Ferrari, no matter what they say about it - they took the risk others wouldnt and paid the price
So for this current context who is most at fault considering the past context? 6 options, lets have an open vote on all these factors and see where the grey is by picking 4 each
|
|
|
|
Post by Hammer on Aug 24, 2015 15:23:03 GMT
I voted for option 1 and 3. Pirelli for their bullshit 40-lap hypothesis in pre-race(and then blaming a team for going 28 laps), and Ferrari for having to take a gamble due to poor grid slots. Which I believe was a calculated gamble which just didn't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Aug 24, 2015 16:31:27 GMT
I voted1 and 2. FOM/ Bernie whoever for asking for a tyre that is 'exciting' but dangerous and not really fit to race on. And Pirelli for agreeing to it. And there it ends for me.
If you're given a tyre you expect it do what tyres do. Exploding isn't what you expect. And a risky strategy is beside the point when the manufacturer has said the tyres will stand up to 40 laps of racing, so that's what it should do.
Shit does happen. But shit can be minimised.
I think Seb's petulant reaction was justified but it was after the event and certainly not contributory to the accident.
If riding the kerbs invites trouble either the tyres should be strong enough to withstand it or the practise should be outlawed.
|
|
ang44
Full Member
Posts: 355 
Likes: 175
|
Post by ang44 on Aug 24, 2015 18:51:05 GMT
I looked to see if there was anything under F1 general...no. Looked at Vettel...no I fffin forgot about F! Articles...  So I've deleted, cos it's all been covered.  |
|
|
|
Post by Frontrunner on Aug 25, 2015 0:12:13 GMT
Don't blame Seb for losing his shit after the race, I probably would too. The tyres weren't even at the "off the cliff" stage and no way was the 1 stop by Ferrari risky or stupid. its Pirelli's problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Aug 25, 2015 0:16:39 GMT
Wanted to talk a little bit about the actual mechanics here outside of the race thread. I think my opinion on the matter is clear based on comments there but having some time now to fiddle around with my DVR and get some close up shots, I went over the final few laps about a ten times. I'm attaching some pictures for more analysis, but the last two pictures are very striking and it's got to be a very important aspect of why Vettel's tire blew. Here is it at lap 41  Can't see it there but when you get up close it's far more obvious. Maybe it has something to do with it maybe it doesn't, but when you view in in moving, it's clear that whatever it was is going around with the tire.  There it it, close up, a couple of turns later. Now on the top of Eau Rouge, just at thy get on the Kemmel straight. First Vettel, look at the compression of that tire, the angle and then look how much the rim overhangs.  Now, the very same spot, Grosjean following immediately behind. Stark contrast in the way the Vettel example is being supremely punished.  Regardless of what we think of the "safety" aspects, that tire was not going to survive lap after lap of that. |
|
|
|
Post by Hammer on Aug 25, 2015 3:58:14 GMT
You're assuming two things now, Vettel was harder on the tyres than any other driver in the race through Eau Rouge, and the kerb at Eau Rouge was too hard for the Pirelli tyres.
Let's assume Vettel was harder on his tyres than anyone else out there, he was still driving within track limits. Don't Pirelli do groundwork and teams/drivers do a circuit walk when they first arrive? I'd say they'd be well informed if the kerbs at Eau Rouge posed a threat, and its the corner everyone takes most seriously. No one saw the danger of going wide, Lewis did so multiple times and so did many others. If we assume the tyre couldn't take the beating at Eau Rouge, it wasn't built up to spec. Just like it couldn't take a "sharp" kerb at Silverstone in 2013, another "sharp" kerb at Spa the same year in practice, and how the tyre got busted by Rosberg due to him going "off track" (which never happened), they even made Mercedes think the chassis was the problem! In reality they're just having trouble building quality tyres but can't admit it.
|
|
|
|
Post by CookinFlat6 on Aug 25, 2015 8:11:33 GMT
If we assume Seb was harder on his tyres than everyone else yet within track limits then its the same as saying a car that choses to run a one stop instead of a 2 stop and starts behind the 2 stopper should be entitled to the same speed as the 2 stopper. i.e. he doesnt have to nurse his tyres or drive in any way slower. If you plan to run twiice as far as someone else then you cant be as hard or harder on the tyres because older tyres are always more susceptible to puncture or failure wether its from debris or objects or kerbs.
If P{irelli say this tyre can last 40 laps, most people would assume th 40 laps would have to be at a pace and level of abuse must less than if running it 20 laps. And maybe Sebs tyre did fall off a cliff - constant performance then boom, in just one lap became vulnerable to the sharp knock of a particular kerb
For me thats the crux - Seb started behind had one stop less yet expected to nurse his tyres AND make up the time AND abuse his tyres the most
This is the kind of non cerebralism Lewis was expected to show - I remember commentators saying Lewis would just drive as fast as he could till the tyre or fuel ran out without having the discipline to nurse or finnesse his equipment
|
|
|
|
Post by Hammer on Aug 25, 2015 8:43:13 GMT
If we assume Seb was harder on his tyres than everyone else yet within track limits then its the same as saying a car that choses to run a one stop instead of a 2 stop and starts behind the 2 stopper should be entitled to the same speed as the 2 stopper. i.e. he doesnt have to nurse his tyres or drive in any way slower. If you plan to run twiice as far as someone else then you cant be as hard or harder on the tyres because older tyres are always more susceptible to puncture or failure wether its from debris or objects or kerbs. If P{irelli say this tyre can last 40 laps, most people would assume th 40 laps would have to be at a pace and level of abuse must less than if running it 20 laps. And maybe Sebs tyre did fall off a cliff - constant performance then boom, in just one lap became vulnerable to the sharp knock of a particular kerb For me thats the crux - Seb started behind had one stop less yet expected to nurse his tyres AND make up the time AND abuse his tyres the most This is the kind of non cerebralism Lewis was expected to show - I remember commentators saying Lewis would just drive as fast as he could till the tyre or fuel ran out without having the discipline to nurse or finnesse his equipment Based on this theory, you're talking about quite a fine margin between staying in the race and racing OR suffering a near death experience/spectacular DNF risking oneself/other drivers out there. Are we really happy to play with such fine margins based on driver talent, or is the product the cars are running on simply not up to spec?? This is great, we finally disagree on something and having a quality debate!! And I'm siding Ferrari.... Fuck me. |
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Aug 25, 2015 8:44:03 GMT
Vettel didn't make the decision, he wanted to pit. The team advised him to stay out....... Because the tyre data was showing no sign of wear. EDIT: you have now hijacked my article about tyres after I spent all morning writing it!!  |
|
|
|
Post by CookinFlat6 on Aug 25, 2015 8:54:40 GMT
I completely missed the article, maybe we can merge the comments and poll
|
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Aug 25, 2015 9:00:49 GMT
You missed my article!!!!! Go read it!! Yes merging would be a good idea......( tech people! Can it be done?) but you do highlight the point that maybe we need to make the articles more prominent somehow..( tech people!) Ang missed it too.
|
|
|
|
Post by CookinFlat6 on Aug 25, 2015 9:16:04 GMT
Based on this theory, you're talking about quite a fine margin between staying in the race and racing OR suffering a near death experience/spectacular DNF risking oneself/other drivers out there. Are we really happy to play with such fine margins based on driver talent, or is the product the cars are running on simply not up to spec?? This is great, we finally disagree on something and having a quality debate!! And I'm siding Ferrari.... Fuck me. One way to look at it this is; say we are having the same race again next weekend, what could be done between now and then to avoid the same dangerous outcome? FOM cant change anything, neither can Pirelli, Ferrari wouldnt run that risky startegy though, and if they did they would nurse the tyres more, Seb would probably not be as hard on the kerbs even if everyone else still was. Would Pirelli need to tell each team louder this time round to do 2 stops So if we agree with these changes - Ferrari are the ones who would adjust their behaviour most ergo they are mostly to blame for the previous outcome |
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Aug 25, 2015 9:17:42 GMT
They're having high level meetings about it prior to Monza
im with Ferrari on this one too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hammer on Aug 25, 2015 9:41:51 GMT
Based on this theory, you're talking about quite a fine margin between staying in the race and racing OR suffering a near death experience/spectacular DNF risking oneself/other drivers out there. Are we really happy to play with such fine margins based on driver talent, or is the product the cars are running on simply not up to spec?? This is great, we finally disagree on something and having a quality debate!! And I'm siding Ferrari.... Fuck me. One way to look at it this is; say we are having the same race again next weekend, what could be done between now and then to avoid the same dangerous outcome? FOM cant change anything, neither can Pirelli, Ferrari wouldnt run that risky startegy though, and if they did they would nurse the tyres more, Seb would probably not be as hard on the kerbs even if everyone else still was. Would Pirelli need to tell each team louder this time round to do 2 stopsSo if we agree with these changes - Ferrari are the ones who would adjust their behaviour most ergo they are mostly to blame for the previous outcome Ahead of the race Pirelli predicted that the medium tyre would last 40 laps and Arrivabene said Ferrari had based its decision on that. "It was our Plan A strategy - the main plan before the race," he said. "We decided that at 11 o'clock this morning precisely. Normally, when you do the strategy meeting it is based on data that you have in your hands. "The strategy was absolutely right - the one-stop. I want to clear up immediately that when we do the strategy we have the data and the data is based on the strategy. Just to clear up that point. "Seb, of course, was disappointed. When you are one and a half laps from third position on the podium and you are going to lose it suddenly, of course you are disappointed. I tell you, the strategy normally, even if aggressive is based on clear data that you have, so you are not so stupid or so crazy to take a risk for the driver if you are not reading the data quite right. Our job was right."
Arrivabene said Pirelli did not warn against the strategy either before the race or during it."We have an engineer and all the teams have an engineer from Pirelli, so what do you think that engineer is doing? He's not there to eat chewing gum, he's there to check the tyres, to follow all the runs that you are doing and to give the data to the team. "We had zero warning, I can show you the paper. We have our engineer that checks the tyres to be sure and as soon as the car comes back from the parc ferme we will check and get a more clear idea." |
|
|
|
Post by CookinFlat6 on Aug 25, 2015 10:46:14 GMT
They based their strategy on data that they did not analyse properly. Pirelli say the tyres will last 40 laps but at this track we recommend a 2 stop minimum. They were right an Ferrri were wrong because it was a 2 stop for everyone in the end including Seb. The tyre maker makes the tyre and describes its expected performance, the team then make strategic choices based on that data and their own knowledge of racing Ferrari calculated thy could do 1 stop and were wrong. Its like the engine maker telling the customer that the engine can make the whole race on 100 litres of fuel in conservation mode, and the team going flat out the whole race and running out of petrol and then blaming the engine maker for not been able to do the race flat out The clue here is that it was ferraris race anniversary and they started on the back foot and they never ran the tyre that length in practice  |
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Aug 25, 2015 11:43:25 GMT
But the thing is that it's just a prediction. So you can do 40 laps. It's not god speaking. They are not allowed to do the amount of testing they want. They are not allowed to place the amount of limitations they want given the exchange back in 2013 that Pirelli have just published. I'm not debating that the tire should not have simply exploded, but what I'm saying it that you can't blame Pirelli for the explosion and delivering a product that didn't hold to what they predicted without placing even bigger blame on the FiA. Here's an additional thing I hadn't pointed out, there's a bubble that's formed. Either from standing waves or construction defect. i.imgur.com/j63TBth.jpg Here's what a "standing wave effect looks like. Coincidentally, look at who's driving in that example. This is not Spa and I don't know where the image comes from but it does illustrate that Ferrari is leaning toward under-inflation of the tire. Even if within specs, clearly the low end of the spec. i.imgur.com/urATzlx.jpg |
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Aug 25, 2015 12:45:29 GMT
One way to look at it this is; say we are having the same race again next weekend, what could be done between now and then to avoid the same dangerous outcome? FOM cant change anything, neither can Pirelli, Ferrari wouldnt run that risky startegy though, and if they did they would nurse the tyres more, Seb would probably not be as hard on the kerbs even if everyone else still was. Would Pirelli need to tell each team louder this time round to do 2 stopsSo if we agree with these changes - Ferrari are the ones who would adjust their behaviour most ergo they are mostly to blame for the previous outcome Ahead of the race Pirelli predicted that the medium tyre would last 40 laps and Arrivabene said Ferrari had based its decision on that. "It was our Plan A strategy - the main plan before the race," he said. "We decided that at 11 o'clock this morning precisely. Normally, when you do the strategy meeting it is based on data that you have in your hands. "The strategy was absolutely right - the one-stop. I want to clear up immediately that when we do the strategy we have the data and the data is based on the strategy. Just to clear up that point. "Seb, of course, was disappointed. When you are one and a half laps from third position on the podium and you are going to lose it suddenly, of course you are disappointed. I tell you, the strategy normally, even if aggressive is based on clear data that you have, so you are not so stupid or so crazy to take a risk for the driver if you are not reading the data quite right. Our job was right."
Arrivabene said Pirelli did not warn against the strategy either before the race or during it."We have an engineer and all the teams have an engineer from Pirelli, so what do you think that engineer is doing? He's not there to eat chewing gum, he's there to check the tyres, to follow all the runs that you are doing and to give the data to the team. "We had zero warning, I can show you the paper. We have our engineer that checks the tyres to be sure and as soon as the car comes back from the parc ferme we will check and get a more clear idea." Of the contenders, only Ferrari went that way. Mercedes said they understand why they did. But again, there were two other team, Sauber and Mannor that went longer runs on the medium than Ferrari but neither of them saw the issue. Nasr even acknowledges that they do not by practice use nearly as much curb as Vettel does with his Ferrari. Their cars simply aren't "good" over curbs. A little bit of the Deadalus effect? |
|
|
|
Post by CookinFlat6 on Aug 25, 2015 14:21:17 GMT
Some interesting facts here, but I'm not sure the guy has any kind of conclusion beyond what weve been saying
|
|
|
|
Post by RyRy on Aug 25, 2015 17:51:26 GMT
It will undoubtedly be something to do with part of the track/kerbing because Spa recently installed about 10 extra/new kerbs. One was removed but they kept all of the others. It happened to two drivers on the same tyre just different position on the tyre so that alone points more towards the track being at fault.
The tyres had a max estimated life of 40 laps for Spa, so it was not anything to do with tyre life. They will hit a cliff and drop-off 4-5 seconds a lap within a few laps 5-10 laps before they explode, this is done by putting a hard but shitty compound below the main body of the tyre.
FIA/FOM and Pirelli need to go over the previous 2 laps of Raikkonen and Rosberg and overlap the cars offsetting for the distance between the two points of initial tyre breakup is located and then find the corners they are taking similar and go investigate the kerbing by trying to lift it, find sharp parts and various other things.
|
|
