Well... This is turning out to be one massive cluster. I personally don't care who's to blame so long as it's fixed. This isn't a hot potato to be passed around, It could cost somebody their life. It's time to just get this resolved, and fast.
I very much agree, Bhaji. It is time for everyone to rise above selfish or political interests. This whole thing was already beyond a joke before last weekend but has become an utter farce – whatever the reason. Do whatever it takes to get these tyres to hold together and change the rules accordingly, where necessary, with immediate effect. It is time for team principles to stop whinging (one in particular) and recognise that there is a bigger problem – even if it allows a current advantage to be reigned in! One thing more, and I say this as a plea to the FIA: stop pandering (so much) to the whims of a largely ignorant public. You've gone too far. There is no need for loads of pit stops; there is plenty of action without them; so make Pirelli's job a bit easier, and let them make tyres that last, eh?
Further to my last, Sky have come up with the following article on their site, quoting Pirelli: http://www1.skysports.com/formula-1/news/12433/8802795/Pirelli-to-make-immediate-changes-to-their-rear-tyres-for-this-week-s-German-GP It is a longish article, well worth a read; but I wish to draw particular attention to the following, as quoted by Sky (my bold): Excerpt from Pirelli statement: "A SERIES OF DIFFERENT CAUSES LED TO THE TYRE FAILURES AT SILVERSTONE: REAR TYRES MOUNTED THE WRONG WAY ROUND, LOW TYRE PRESSURES, EXTREME CAMBERS AND HIGH KERBS…" I repeat: the whole article is worth a read, but according to the statement, Pirelli did not provide 'ambidextrous' tyres at all; rather, they followed convention by providing tyres which are 'handed', due to the different demands made upon 'inner' and 'outer' surfaces and sidewalls (inner being closing to the chassis). This suggests that any swapping of tyres (as suggested by the 'R' barcode in Forza's picture earlier in this thread) was done by the teams, and exonerates Pirelli from any suggestion of deliberate disguise or deception.
But haven't some teams been reversing tyres all season? If so, and Pirelli were concerned about it, it should have been addressed and the FIA should have stepped in to stop the practice. It makes no sense for it to be allowed if it's potentially dangerous. Farcical. *off to read that article now*
Some (most?) teams have been in the habit of reversing tyres this season. Unfortunately, there was (and still is) no rule precluding it. I agree that Pirelli's (weakly voiced previously, but to no avail) concerns should have been given more attention. Once again, this hints at a lack of foresight (or management) within the FIA, who, according to reports, have a President⦠The reason teams may have chosen to reverse tyres is related to the heat-cycle and subsequent wear rate. To put it another way, teams have been trying to extend longevity and improve performance by swapping over a tyre so that it 'counter-rotates' after its initial heat-cycle has been run. When a tyre is used, particularly in its early life, it will develop weaknesses according to rotational stresses (this is especially true for super-grippy soft compounds and the very high loadings associated with F1). (I wish I could draw a diagram here). Reversing the rotation promotes greater longevity and performance because previous stresses are to some extent 'undone' by rotating the tyre in the opposite direction. This flies in the face of Pirelli's design philosophy. However, because the FIA have been slow to respond to the practice, it has become commonplace. Since this clearly does not conform to Pirelli's efforts to provide a safe tyre (which lives on a knife edge due to FIA demands) and thereby requires teams to abide by its recommendations, I believe one must look at the regulations and the FIA as the ultimate culprits, since they have allowed teams to go against the wisdom of their own tyre supplier! Projected conclusion: ultimately, fault lies not with the teams or Pirelli but with the weak governing body who appear unable to preside over such important matters, thus leaving loopholes to exploit, at the peril of any who may who attempt itâ¦
The FIA are about a much use as a fart in a snorkel... I don't want to return to the days of Max, where the FIA seemed to be forever interfering, but recently they seem to do very little. They helped create this bloody mess.
I think your fart in a snorkel, Bhaji, has a name. I had plenty of reason to criticise Max Mosley for heavy-handedness, but one must question the reticence of his replacement. How can anyone distilled in Ferrari wine be considered to be objective? My belief is that this particular vintage took a convenient route to healthy retirement…
Do you think recent events could be enough to bring about a change in leadership or will it all be just forgotten? The past few weeks have been ridiculous.
Any 'establishment' exists for two reasons: A] It was first popularly perceived as being the best long-term solution. B] Having first benefited from the above consensus, it redefined the rules for its own replacement and thereby promoted itself and its preferred (self-sustaining) future. Who do you think was supportive of Jean Toadt? Yeah, good old Max himself. Every strong man wants to be replaced by a weakling because it reflects with a flattering light…
I can't help but think the titles of some of the news articles relating to the tyres fiasco are misleading. For exanple the BBC title states "Pirelli blames F1 teams over tyre failures"; when in fact they stated it was a contributing factor, not the cause. I appreciate Pirelli have got things wrong (the tyre construction causing early season delaminations for example); but they are trying to follow the FIA's remit for fast wearing tyres to 'spice up' the racing. Which in fact has the opposite effect. That's a different matter though. If you or I were to put a handed tyre on the wrong side of our road car we would expect the tyre to not perform correctly, and/or be useless for its purpose. Why should F1 tyres be any different? Especially when there are such high loads etc involved. The teams and the FIA have to take some responsibility here. My opinion (for what it's worth) is that the 2010 season was one of the best for years (bar Bahrain) when teams had hard wearing tyres, and could push them to the limit (I appreciate that was with Bridgestone tyres, but Pirelli could easily do the same I'm sure). There has to be a happy medium somewhere and the clueless FIA can't seem to organise a p**s up in a brewery to sort it out. The concern I have now is that the FIA still don't have a confirmed supplier for 2014. And with all this bad publicity I can see Pirelli bosses wanting out. Where would F1 turn then?
I hear ya, but if the teams have been allowed to continue this practice and they haven't seen any detrimental effects from doing so, how are the teams supposed to anticipate any potential issue if the construction is changed without their knowledge? As for blaming the track... that just reeks of attempting to pass blame. What Pirelli should be doing is blaming the governing body who have given them such a ridiculous task.
Personally, I'd like to see fans at all the coming races chanting for Todt to go. It is his laissez-faire administration that has brought us to this and the so-called buck should stop with him.
Its precisely this type of attitude that's the problem, Pirelli have knowingly let the teams use tyres that are not fit for purpose, recently since the British GP they have announced that teams were using part worn tyres intended for use on the other side of the car. HOW CAN THIS BEHAVIOR BE SATISFACTORY.
Bloody well, too damned right, Toad is such a small individual in every way, he really to all intent and purpose does not even exist, what use is he. I used to believe Mosely was a complete and utter incompetent, 'with a high intellect allegedly' but at least he made some effort, Toad is a complete and utter non event.
