[Tech Issue] 2011 Pirelli tyres

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Hmm, low grip? Meaning lots of moaning drivers when its wet "don't start the race, its too wet, I have no grip etc"?

The smart drivers will think about actually putting the full wet tyre on at this point.

Drivers will always moan about not having enough grip.

[Marbot]

Interesting comments from todays testing, by Rosberg.

"The driver really is the key because you have to nurse the tyres in the beginning, and you've got to judge it perfectly to be able to get that long run exactly the amount of laps you have to do, and save the tyres until the last lap, so it's very interesting," he said.

"I'm learning a lot because, especially the tyres, it's whole new situation - first of all in terms of driving style to get the best out of them for one lap, because it's difficult.

"For example the front tyres, as soon as you steer too much, they lose a lot of grip and just wash out, so you have to be very careful what you're doing with the steering wheel, how much angle you put in."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/89569

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Interesting comments from todays testing, by Rosberg.

"The driver really is the key because you have to nurse the tyres in the beginning, and you've got to judge it perfectly to be able to get that long run exactly the amount of laps you have to do, and save the tyres until the last lap, so it's very interesting," he said.

"I'm learning a lot because, especially the tyres, it's whole new situation - first of all in terms of driving style to get the best out of them for one lap, because it's difficult.

"For example the front tyres, as soon as you steer too much, they lose a lot of grip and just wash out, so you have to be very careful what you're doing with the steering wheel, how much angle you put in."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/89569

Sounds like this could make for some really interesting racing.

[Sodemo]

Hmm, sounds like exactly the kind of tyres Michael didn't want. He wanted strong front tyres, pointy-handling. These sound like the opposite of that.

[cmotd]

If we had to race at the Catalunya Circuit tomorrow, we would need three or even four stops to finish the race

that's Alonso from yesterday. according to what he's been saying all the Pirelli tyres wear out faster than the old ones and every race will have 1-3 more pitstops than last year.

I can't imagine what it will be like in montreal - drivers will have to test on their bare rims to have enough rubber for the race

[wnut]

Pirelli racing tyres seem to have an exact wear correllation of wear characteristics with their road going tyres.

Love to see how they spin 4 and 5 sets of tyres per race as green racing.

[Marbot]

For the record, The best 'road' tyres I ever had on a car were a set of Pirelli's. Sets of Bridgestone's, Kuhmo's, Michelin's, and Goodyear's were all vastly inferior on the same car. But that has nothing to do with racing tyres.

Are Pirelli trying to pass their 'racing' tyres off a "green"? Do they even need to?

They could make them last all weekend (as they have said, and can definitely do), but that would provide a pretty shocking spectacle. It wouldn't be too long before we all started complaining that the cars aren't out on track enough during the practice and qualifying sessions.

I suppose that they could revert to Bridgestone's tyre characteristics, but that would be more than just a tad 'artificial'.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

For the record, The best 'road' tyres I ever had on a car were a set of Pirelli's. Sets of Bridgestone's, Kuhmo's, Michelin's, and Goodyear's were all vastly inferior on the same car. But that has nothing to do with racing tyres.

Are Pirelli trying to pass their 'racing' tyres off a "green"? Do they even need to?

They could make them last all weekend (as they have said, and can definitely do), but that would provide a pretty shocking spectacle. It wouldn't be too long before we all started complaining that the cars aren't out on track enough during the practice and qualifying sessions.

I suppose that they could revert to Bridgestone's tyre characteristics, but that would be more than just a tad 'artificial'.

What was all the fuss about KERS about then?
Small capacity global racing engines?
Cost cutting?

Clearly Pirelli are not on the same page with 4 sets of tyres a race.

Passing people because of equipment unreliability / failure - deliberate or otherwise does not constitute a motor race. It is not interesting, exciting or skillful, just equipment failure. Motor racing improves the breed, I think not!

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

For the record, The best 'road' tyres I ever had on a car were a set of Pirelli's. Sets of Bridgestone's, Kuhmo's, Michelin's, and Goodyear's were all vastly inferior on the same car. But that has nothing to do with racing tyres.

Are Pirelli trying to pass their 'racing' tyres off a "green"? Do they even need to?

They could make them last all weekend (as they have said, and can definitely do), but that would provide a pretty shocking spectacle. It wouldn't be too long before we all started complaining that the cars aren't out on track enough during the practice and qualifying sessions.

I suppose that they could revert to Bridgestone's tyre characteristics, but that would be more than just a tad 'artificial'.

There's a difference between tyres being able to last the entire race weekend and having to last the entire race weekend.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

What was all the fuss about KERS about then?
Small capacity global racing engines?
Cost cutting?

KERS sells cars, and it reduces fuel consumption (when used correctly). Small capacity global engines reduce costs, and fuel consumption. Cost cutting reduces costs. Sponsors and car manufacturers alike, want to be associated with efficiency.

Originally Posted by wnut

Clearly Pirelli are not on the same page with 4 sets of tyres a race.

Pirelli produce a consumable item. Most in the tyre trade know full well that Pirelli or whoever can make their road tyres last a damn sight longer than they do. But that's not going to sell many tyres is it? There may be an initial rush to buy the first ever 100,000 mile road tyre from a particular tyre manufacturer, but after that, it's all pretty much down hill for anyone currently producing tyres. It's a fine balance of wear, grip and cost that all of the tyre manufacturers are willing to go along with.

Originally Posted by wnut

Passing people because of equipment unreliability / failure - deliberate or otherwise does not constitute a motor race. It is not interesting, exciting or skillful, just equipment failure. Motor racing improves the breed, I think not!

F1 cars still need 8 engines (or more) to travel a relatively short distance over one season. Surely one engine should be all that is required, given that your average road car engine can easily manage around 100,000 miles ? How fast will the cars be with one engine that has to last the entire season ? What would be the penalty for engines or tyres that couldn't do that?

What sort of engine configuration/usage/power do you suggest in order that F1 "improves the breed" ?

Originally Posted by Pingguest

There's a difference between tyres being able to last the entire race weekend and having to last the entire race weekend.

Pirelli 'can' make tyres that 'will' last an entire race weekend. It's actually fairly old technology they use to make them capable of doing that. If you think back to 2005, and then think about how technology gets transferred from one company to another....

Also remember that back in 05, Michelin and Bridgestone were competing against each other to make the longest lasting and 'grippiest' tyre. Pirelli would only have to make a long lasting tyre.

[wnut]

I do not believe that the "green" agenda has any place in F1.
F1 is about racing and sport.

If F1 wishes to pursue such an agenda however, then it should be done on an efficiency basis. Regulate the quantity of fuel allowed for a race and allow the engineers to find solutions.

Do not specify stone age KERS systems and limit their efficiencies, set the car's minimum weight, exclude the KERS system and do not limit the power it is allowed to store and put out, and lets see if KERS can be made to have any relevance. That is using racing to improve the breed, not giving inefficient and outdated KERS a free ride. KERS has batteries that cause massive pollution from the mining of the heavy metal elements that are needed in them through their manufacture and to their disposal. It is not in any way a green technology. Most of us have seen the top gear running of a BMW M3 against a Toyota Prius. How much more efficient would a light biofuel diesel, or a hydrogen fueled vehicle be than the great hybrid hoax!

Fuel is not the only thing that is wasted in F1. To be fair limiting the number of engines used is a step in the right direction. Allowing Pirelli to produce sub-standard tyres on the excuse that it will improve the show is just plain dishonest in a series that is supposed to be improving its green agenda, if they can make a tyre that lasts a whole weekend I suggest that is what should be happening. Maybe the global warming tax on the relatively benign CO2 should be supplemented with a tyre wear tax related to the number of miles a set can travel. Tyres in land fill are a massive problem throughout the world and if the manufacturers could be encouraged to make them last longer it would massively reduce the pollution caused by their manufacture and disposal.

[cmotd]

Originally Posted by wnut

I do not believe that the "green" agenda has any place in F1.
F1 is about racing and sport.

That betrays a very naive level of understanding about the politics of sport. F1 isn't a local footballl game where the mums bring cut oranges for the kids at half time!

Motorsport's 'green agenda' is not about being evironmentally responsible, it's entirely politicaly motivated. In countries where elected representatives (who front up the cash for bernie) have to be mindful of voters whims, and with corporate sponsors (who front up the cash for teams) who have to consider the impact of green issues on their public image and sales, motorsport can no longer ignore green issues.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by cmotd

That betrays a very naive level of understanding about the politics of sport. F1 isn't a local footballl game where the mums bring cut oranges for the kids at half time!

Motorsport's 'green agenda' is not about being evironmentally responsible, it's entirely politicaly motivated. In countries where elected representatives (who front up the cash for bernie) have to be mindful of voters whims, and with corporate sponsors (who front up the cash for teams) who have to consider the impact of green issues on their public image and sales, motorsport can no longer ignore green issues.

Sadly you are right, "the irony of F1", and F1 is not about racing either, much to the frustration of many of us!
Still - good luck with Pirelli's tyres in the green facade.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

If F1 wishes to pursue such an agenda however, then it should be done on an efficiency basis. Regulate the quantity of fuel allowed for a race and allow the engineers to find solutions.

Which is what will be happening in 2013.

Originally Posted by wnut

Most of us have seen the top gear running of a BMW M3 against a Toyota Prius.

A test carried out in a completely unrealistic environment. Cars don't generally average around 80 to 90mph in normal driving. BMW drivers try to, but that's another story. At those speeds the Prius is unable to use its hybrid motor, and is using its petrol engine uneconomically.

In normal 'everyday' driving the M3 would average less than 20mpg, and the Prius would average around 50mpg.

The BMW would be much better on an autobahn, however.

Originally Posted by wnut

Allowing Pirelli to produce sub-standard tyres on the excuse that it will improve the show is just plain dishonest in a series that is supposed to be improving its green agenda, if they can make a tyre that lasts a whole weekend I suggest that is what should be happening. Maybe the global warming tax on the relatively benign CO2 should be supplemented with a tyre wear tax related to the number of miles a set can travel. Tyres in land fill are a massive problem throughout the world and if the manufacturers could be encouraged to make them last longer it would massively reduce the pollution caused by their manufacture and disposal.

No one would want to watch an F1 series where the main focus of attention is what state so-and-so's tyres are in after each and every lap of practice 1,2, and 3. Qualifying 1,2, and 3, Plus the race. It may become obvious, even during the early practice sessions, that some drivers are not going to have a particularly good race, leading to many fans 'switching off' even before it's begun.

Pirelli and other tyre manufacturers can make their road tyres last far longer than they do. But most tyre companies don't want to get themselves involved in a tyre war where they start selling tyres that last forever, because that would be counter productive to their profit making abilities, which may then stop any involvement in motorsport, at all. Instead, the tyre companies look at ways of recycling worn tyres or putting them to other uses.

I also have a feeling that Pirelli may have a very good ad campaign coming up along the lines of uneconomical driving styles leading to high tyre wear.

[Bononi]

Someone's got fired at Pirelli last week...

[Marbot]

!?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by wnut

Passing people because of equipment unreliability / failure - deliberate or otherwise does not constitute a motor race. It is not interesting, exciting or skillful, just equipment failure. Motor racing improves the breed, I think not!

managing a finite amount of resources is exactly what motor racing should be about imo and the skill is in taking something that is not perfect and extracting the maximum out of it while not destroying it in the process.

i miss the unreliability of an F1 race and actually think bullet proof reliability is the main reason why races are so processional now.

some of the threads suggest overtaking is an aero vs mechanical debate or an engine configuration issue but it seems to me that regardless of what you do, rather what formula you use, if you allow teams to pursue perfect equipment and the greater reliable which follows then the more likely it becomes that that the fastest car will never be passed and always win.

obviously i want the best driver to win but i dont want the outcome to be a forgone conclusion either. if it is then why not just award the driver who sets the fastest qualifying time the race victory?

i know that this is just an artificial way to spice up the racing but i can live with that far easier then with having a high level of refinement and the reliability that comes with it.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

managing a finite amount of resources is exactly what motor racing should be about imo and the skill is in taking something that is not perfect and extracting the maximum out of it while not destroying it in the process.

i miss the unreliability of an F1 race and actually think bullet proof reliability is the main reason why races are so processional now.

some of the threads suggest overtaking is an aero vs mechanical debate or an engine configuration issue but it seems to me that regardless of what you do, rather what formula you use, if you allow teams to pursue perfect equipment and the greater reliable which follows then the more likely it becomes that that the fastest car will never be passed and always win.

obviously i want the best driver to win but i dont want the outcome to be a forgone conclusion either. if it is then why not just award the driver who sets the fastest qualifying time the race victory?

i know that this is just an artificial way to spice up the racing but i can live with that far easier then with having a high level of refinement and the reliability that comes with it.

For what it's worth I'd say these are very wise words.

Or maybe I just think that because I agree with most of what chillibowl says

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

I miss the unreliability of an F1 race and actually think bullet proof reliability is the main reason why races are so processional now.

I always liked the attritional aspect of an F1 race, with F1 cars being the temprimental machines that they are, it was interesting to see who was just going to finish the race, nevermind win it. With today's homogenized cars there is less of that.

[RF_Racer]

Lewis Hamilton is in for a tough season.. he will destroy those tyres. Button on the other hand will have an advantage!

The Pirelli tyres are a joke, we will definately see blow ups!

[awrb]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I always liked the attritional aspect of an F1 race, with F1 cars being the temprimental machines that they are, it was interesting to see who was just going to finish the race, nevermind win it. With today's homogenized cars there is less of that.

It at least added some kind of unpredictability to a race. When someone is in the lead you thought 'but will he make it to the end'. Now you just know they will.

The problem is that the regulations are so closed teams can concentrate on reliability rather than spending all their resources looking for more speed to keep up.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by awrb

The problem is that the regulations are so closed teams can concentrate on reliability rather than spending all their resources looking for more speed to keep up.

Currently the teams can still afford to spend the vast majority of their budgets on aerodynamics. In comparison, very little is spent on making engines more reliable. Particularly by those teams that don't manufacture their own engines.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by awrb

It at least added some kind of unpredictability to a race. When someone is in the lead you thought 'but will he make it to the end'. Now you just know they will.

The problem is that the regulations are so closed teams can concentrate on reliability rather than spending all their resources looking for more speed to keep up.

There is however a huge difference between a component that is at the cutting edge of technology failing and pure incompetence, sorry forgive me deliberately engineered fragility.

If the engines were pushing over 25000 rpm to be competitive, failure is pushing the boundaries of engineering. Deliberately dodgy tyres - not so much!

[chillibowl]

what makes the tires dodgy? is it just that they dont last for very long or is it because they degrade in unpredictable and inconsistent ways?

[Marbot]

There seems to be some confusion with regards to wear and degradation.