planetf1.com

Thought it would be easy to find out. Just punch 'Pirelli, F1, tyres and 2012' into Google. Turns out there's some sort of controversy producing thousands of web articles.

I defer, I really can't remember what I read, there's a good chance I'm wrong.

_________________
Klaus Kinski: making me question my heroes since January 2013

Thanks, great link. Johnston's quite right, the construction hasn't changed. At some point my coughing, wheezing memory turned the altered profile into altered construction!

_________________
Klaus Kinski: making me question my heroes since January 2013

I’m starting to wonder if what is happening is an inconsistency in manufacturing. Are all the sets of same compound tires close to one another in terms of pace and longevity? If you had the same car, same driver, same conditions, etc., would the pace and degradation of one set of tires always be the same as another set? They should be reasonably consistent but we sometimes see a driver go from a dog to pretty good (and vice-versa) doing back to back stints on the same compound, while his teammate doesn’t. The teams explain it as being due to minor changes in conditions but it all feels too random to me.

Good link indeed, thanks Johnston.

I wonder if they actually achieved this:

Then why would they bring the hards and the softs to Catalunya?

_________________
Supporter of:

Fernando Alonso
Pastor Maldonado
Sergio Perez
Michael Schumacher
Lewis Hamilton

They are not. Sam Michael addressed this specific concern during an interview during Pre race (or was it pre qualifying) coverage> He specifically said that during their own testing they found them tyres to be extremely consistent. There was no difference between any two tyres of same compound. And thats the good thing about these tyres which means they can focus on development of their cars and not worry about the inconsistency.

Because both compounds have to be used by each car during a race. Do you know about the tyres rules or was your question in jest?

Pirelli announced the tyres for 3 races.

Canada : Supersoft & Soft
Valencia : Soft & Medium
Silverstone : Soft & Hard

I have to say, after watching the 2007 Monaco GP on SKY the other night I can't help but lament the decision to have tyres that degrade so much.

I know the Mclarens were in a class of their own that day, plus clearly I am a Mclaren fan, but that isn't my reason for wishing we still had tyres that could last. It was just so exciting to see drivers going hell for leather for lap after lap!

It was exciting... there was no "oh his tyres are going off everyone will overtake him now" kind of feeling at all.

I think perhaps the best solution would have been to introduce two tyre manufacturers instead to spice things up whilst still maintaining that peak performance, which is lets face it, the reason we watch the sport?

This is the pursuit of ultimate engineering, and the skill of a man to perform with that machinery in the best and fastest way possible.

I take nothing away from Pator Maldonado winning the last GP, but do we honestly put him on the same skill level as Alonso/Hamilton?

Just my two cents guys

_________________
I try to make jokes... it's a defense mechanism - no offense is ever intended!

But that would have needed two tyre companies genuinely interested in supplying tyres.

People keep forgetting that Pirelli really was the only genuine tender . No one else wanted to join in the party.

with the amount of slagging Pirelli have gotten I would say it will be a while before any of the major companies will want too.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

I thought Michelin wanted in, but only if there was a tyre war? I am probably wrong however

_________________
I try to make jokes... it's a defense mechanism - no offense is ever intended!

Not from what I read. the next serious Tender was Avon. The other companies put in the equivalent of a low ball offer.

Sort of half hearted attempts .

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

I don't blame Pirelli in anyway. In fact you have to applaud Pirelli for going out on such a limb and providing a tyre that they must have thought was not in their best interests.. I just want everyone involved to admit that they have got it slightly wrong and will do something to address the balance. Unfortunately it is making F1 look a lot more exciting, especially to the casual viewer and that means $$$ to Bernie so I doubt very much if we will see much of a change if any.

_________________
If...

That's the problem. Casual viewers, newer fans and people who don't get the technical side seem to be universally in favour of the current tyres, and they're the ones Bernie needs to keep happy. Most people who are so involved in the sport that they understand and resent the problem will buy F1 regardless. That's why it costs 500 quid to sit at Copse these days. Besides, many of those hardcore fans are also in favour of these tyres, believing them to be a worthwhile trade-off if it means more overtaking.

_________________
Klaus Kinski: making me question my heroes since January 2013

But real fans who do have a modicum of tech understanding surely realise that it isn't really more overtaking?

Overtaking someone who is helpless to defend is no more exciting to watch in my eyes than a procession of cars

I would much rather watch a handful of skillful overtakes in a race than so many "overtakes" even the mighty Brundle can't keep up lol !

I understand that Pirelli are doing as asked... I just wish it wasn't so

_________________
I try to make jokes... it's a defense mechanism - no offense is ever intended!

I totally agree with you. Yes there is lots of overtaking now but do we actually see more hard won overtakes than we did a few years ago. I think we see less. The way these tyres are, if you have to fight for an overtake it wont happen because you will have taken so much out of your tyres that they are ruined. Alonso was a perfect example of that in his short attack of Maldonado towards the end of the race. So we are left with DRS overtakes or overtakes as a result of different tyre ages. I don't find that exciting at all. Like you I would rather see a handful of hard won overtakes per race where you know the overtaker has, ultimately, used a lot of skill to make the pass.

_________________
If...

I was always happy with the amount of overtaking in F1, never saw the need for the overtaking working group. It's very simple: the more overtaking there is, the easier it is and therefore the less exciting and impressive it is. KERS I don't mind, but a DRS assisted overtake on someone who's just fallen off the tyre cliff is pointless, there's nothing exciting about it when you understand what's going on.

_________________
Klaus Kinski: making me question my heroes since January 2013

I'd like to make raise three objections your honor.

First, it's a petty excuse to dismiss the Pirelli critics as sore losers. First it was Schumacher, now it's Horner and I'm sure there are and will be more critics. Saying it's only because they haven't won as much as they'd like, that's they're blaming external factors instead of themselves is very superficial and inconsequential.

Second, deal with the accusation not with the accuser. You don't dismiss a charge of rape because it's brought up from a prostitute.

Third, these "tires are the same for everyone" and "it's up to the teams to understand the tires" arguments are getting boring and they are completely unsubstantial. Listen, we've had five different winners so far. Isn't it obvious that none of them has managed to figure out the tires and make this knowledge work for them?

It's a very simple argument, really. If one of the five winners didn't win by lucking into the winning solution but by figuring out how to operate the tires, they should be able to repeat their performance and most probably win since it's becoming clear now that instead of being A determining factor the tires have become THE determining factor. Fact is no team has repeated. Fact is the last three winners haven't even been able to come close to a repeat. I might give the benefit of the doubt to Williams as the last winner but there's no excuse for Mercedes and Red Bull. Even the first two winners, McLaren and Ferrari that have managed one second place finish each after their wins haven't been exactly competitive like a team that has figured tires ahead of the competition should be. Even Lotus that you seem to tout as the forefront of figuring out the tires hasn't really done better than losing spectacularly a podium finish because of tires, challenge once for a win and even that for a tiny second and then appear to threaten for a second place but not even attempt to do so or come close to it for that matter.

So to conclude your honor, if none of the five winners so far hasn't won because of figuring out the tires, doesn't it prove that their wins have been nothing but a lottery? And if we include Lotus in here we get the full picture of the podium finishers and we still don't see a team that has been able to figure out the tires between the top half of the entire grid.

I think it would be best for the tires to degrade quickly but still allow the drivers to push for 15-20 qualifying laps on. At least make the tires durable enough that drivers can overtake outside the DRS zone without worrying about their tires.

_________________
Supporter of:

Fernando Alonso
Pastor Maldonado
Sergio Perez
Michael Schumacher
Lewis Hamilton

Are these tyres the same for everyone ?.
or is it possible that a better set is being issued to different drivers each race in an attempt to spice up the show .

No of course not that would be unethical

No, however I remember a few times drivers struggling with sets that don't perform as they should be, like a bad batch if you like.

Most recent interview with Paul Hembery from Pirelli:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/99856

From the Article



Since the operating window didn't get narrower, and it was in fact the blown diffuser ban that created the "tyre degradation problem" this season, why aren't we seeing the hordes of "purists" asking for the blown diffuser to be brought back?

Come on guys, be fair. Stop bashing Pirelli, start petitioning to FIA to bring back the blown diffusers!

I'm sorry but why should the "purists" ask for the blown diffuser to be brought back?

It's not that. It's if the blown diffuser was brought back then Red Bull and Vettel would be winning everywhere again. No one wants that. Except Vettel fans obviously.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Bashing suggests an unwarranted attack, and as Pirelli have produced a substandard product it would be justifiable to 'bash' them for it. But it's not that simple. I think everyone understands they're doing a difficult job. They have little comparative experience and far less resources, money and testing than previous suppliers. On top of that they have a contradictory brief from the FIA. I don't think anyone is saying Pirelli is rubbish for coming up with these tyres, just that the tyres are rubbish, there's a big difference. Unfortunately for Pirelli it's natural that the details will get lost in conversation, which I guess is why everyone in F1 is under so much pressure not to say anything negative.

_________________
Klaus Kinski: making me question my heroes since January 2013

_________________
Klaus Kinski: making me question my heroes since January 2013

And may I ask what's it got to do with the posts you quoted?

How have they brought a sub standard product?

They were given a set of criteria. They designed to that. They were asked to make changes, they did. They asked the teams for feedback and that feed back took them to the tyres they made.

If someone asks you to build something to a criteria and you do. If that same person okays the prototypes. And then you build a production version the same as the prototype and it's not right.

Whose fault is it?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

Yes, the attacks are indeed unwarranted.

The product (which was generally regarded as up-to-standard in 2011) has not changed much in 2012. Most importantly, the characteristic of the product that's being bashed the most (i.e. the size of the operating window) has not changed at all!

What has changed is the cars using the product (i.e. the EBD ban).

So why is the product and the company making it being blamed?

Unwarranted? For sure!

It's the fault of the standards.

As Balibari said, it's not Pirelli Co. or the Pirelli TM being accused here it's the product itself that is considered a failure. It's exactly like the Tilke tracks, he designs them according to FIA's specifications and criteria but that doesn't stop people from "bashing" Tilke instead of FIA because in the end, the obvious fault is identifiable with the product not the manufacturer or the buyer. Or in a more common experience it's like yelling at the poor clerk at the lost baggage office for losing your luggage despite the poor fella's sound alibi that he's been there all the time.

You were saying?

New compounds based on last years. The super soft compound is the sae last year. the "new" soft is the same as the one ran in Brazil last year.

the only other difference is making the thread wider which is more in the moulding than the construction.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

I was saying the tyres have not changed much, which is correct, and also the width of the operating window did not change at all, as quoted from the article I mentioned earlier. Nothing you posted contradicts what I said. Now that I've bothered to reply to you, please at least bother to read and attempt to understand what I actually wrote.

How's new compounds and profile not much? I'm curious because apparently we have differing concepts of change, what would you consider changing them much then?

As for your Hembery quote it seems superficial and contradictory to me, unless I'm not understanding it right. To my best understanding of that quote, the operating window is not any narrower compared to last year so it's as wide or wider than it was. Either way is fine though it doesn't explain why teams are having trouble finding it if it hasn't changed from last year.

However, the problem for me is that second part of the sentence, the fact that 2012 tires are operating at higher temperatures and here's I've got two quick questions:

1. Is the entire operating window of the tires within the range of the higher temperatures of 2012? To explain it, let's say the tires are built to operate optimally between 23C and 29C. Last year the operating temperatures of the tires ranged between 19C and 34C so they did encompass the operating window. However, this year there are two scenarios, in the first scenario the operating temperatures so far have been between 26C and 39C while in the second scenario the operating temperatures of the tracks so far have been between 30C and 39C. As you see, even though the operating window is the same, it's practically half of last year in the first scenario and nonexistent in the second one.

2. Why weren't these factors taken into account when designing the new tires? Did Pirelli realize there would be higher temperatures this year and less energy?

Anyway, let's not forget that nothing is certain. After all, this COULD explain the struggles which means it could also be wrong.

The info is in the public domain. Paul Hembry has done videos. http://lmgtfy.com/

The wider tread is simply extra rubber on the shoulder that was supposed to help the degradation by spreading the load onto a wider contact area.

The change in compounds is common sense. They change something between the four compounds. those changes are still within the range that last years ran at. They just aren't making the tyres as hard as last year. So as the Softs and mediums ran okay last year and the new tyres still run within that range. Why should the characteristic suddenly change. If you think about it there should be a certain amount of cross over. The new Hard being comparable to the old medium is what I read. So if the old medium could run without fault so should the new hard. For all intents and purposes they are the same tyre.

Basically they haven't re-wrote the cook book in the off season. The main ingredients remain the same and across all the tyres it has to or else you have 4 totally different tyres with totally different characteristics. If those main bits remain the same and they have as the Super Soft rubber is the same last years super soft was made from. Then the characteristics for this year should remain the same as last year bar the differences in the compounds which would have existed last year only with the difference being smaller between compounds the individual characteristics changing less than last year.

The Soft compound IS the same as what was run in Brazil last year. The compounds were all tested in Bahrain last year and the decision was made to run a 2012 compound in the last race of 2011. Now take your mind back. Was there a problem with the soft compound in Brazil last year?

Now here's the common sense bit. Compound ran in a race with no complaints, tyres were tested and teams were happy. Come 4 months later the SAME tyres seemingly have problems. NOW if all else remained the same then yes you could say the tyres are at fault.

But. There are critical differences between last years and this years cars.

Ergo people under estimated the influence in the banning of the EBD would make to the cars.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

Apparently not. It would appear that distribution of the tyres is in the FIA's hands, not Pirelli's.

http://www.pitpass.com/46343-Pirelli-Cr ... he-barcode

Sorry, what I meant was why would they make it their goal to bring the tires closer together, but then skip a step of tires in Spain?

_________________
Supporter of:

Fernando Alonso
Pastor Maldonado
Sergio Perez
Michael Schumacher
Lewis Hamilton

Yet of all the two compounds were two compounds used last year .

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

Complete nonsense. All but one compound has changed and the shape of all the tyre has changed fundamentally. In F1 terms the slightest difference can have huge effects, and these changes aren't slight. But crucially the regs have changed, Pirelli knew there would be significantly less rear downforce as a result and didn't factor that into the new spec, even Paul Hemrey has admited that. Since when has it not been up to the tyre supplier to tailor their compunds to the requirements?

Autosport, Motor Sport etc. etc. were full of articles criticising the tyres last year. They were not regarded as up-to-spec by a huge number of people who know what they're talking about.

_________________
Klaus Kinski: making me question my heroes since January 2013

but not the same as bridgestone which was when kubica was around.