Donkey of the Race

[MAX_THRUST]

they are all using the same tyres as they did last year and the year beofre.If your car or driver eats up his tyres because of a bad set up or chasis, is that a conspiracy??? No, Rearri and Lotus got it right, last year the Saubers were great on their tyres, but crap this year. Pirrelli have gone a little too far this year it seems, but every race has been good except yesterdays.

[dj_bytedisaster]

What I don't find plausible is that Pirelli intentionally designed their tyres to inhibit Red Bull. I'm sorry but that's just conspiracy theory nonsense. As an aside, you still haven't addressed my point of why Pirelli should alleviate Red Bull's problems at the expense of Lotus. Do you care to address this point?

If that's just conspiracy theory nonsense, why then has Paul hembery singled out RB twice - after Malaysia and after Barcelona. In both cases he said that RB would run away with the title if they made tires fit to withstand the forces generated by RB's levels of downforce. I think that is unacceptable, because Pirelli is the sole supplier by oder of FIA. So they have to supply tires that work for ALL teams. Supplying a tire that they know doesn't work for one team is simply unacceptable. Yes they would take away Lotus' suspicious tire advantage in the process, but having a tire advantage isn't a right. Getting a component from a supplier that is actually fit for the job is. Just look at the numbers. The cars lapped a mammoth 6 to 7 seconds slower than in qualifying. In F1 proportions that's a week. It was more than obvious that Pirelli had delivered a product that wasn't fit for its intended purpose.

[Malbec]

If that's just conspiracy theory nonsense, why then has Paul hembery singled out RB twice - after Malaysia and after Barcelona. In both cases he said that RB would run away with the title if they made tires fit to withstand the forces generated by RB's levels of downforce. I think that is unacceptable, because Pirelli is the sole supplier by oder of FIA. So they have to supply tires that work for ALL teams. Supplying a tire that they know doesn't work for one team is simply unacceptable. Yes they would take away Lotus' suspicious tire advantage in the process, but having a tire advantage isn't a right. Getting a component from a supplier that is actually fit for the job is. Just look at the numbers. The cars lapped a mammoth 6 to 7 seconds slower than in qualifying. In F1 proportions that's a week. It was more than obvious that Pirelli had delivered a product that wasn't fit for its intended purpose.

Your post is riddled with inconsistencies.

The tyre supplier doesn't have to supply tyres that work for all teams optimally, by definition that isn't possible given how different the cars are. This isn't a spec series.

Whether Pirelli have failed in their role as sole supplier to the FIA isn't for you to judge since you have no idea what the contract was between the two. Pirelli insist they were asked to 'spice up' the show, in this regard they have probably succeeded at the cost of upsetting 'purists'.

Nor are the tyres unfit for purpose due to the reasons you state, because again that depends on the definition of 'purpose'. Did it spice up the show? Yes. Did it mix things up a bit? Yes. Wasn't that half the purpose of the new tyre contract?

You said that having a tyre advantage isn't a right, that goes with RBR as much as it does for any other team. If they can't get the tyres to work then they need to redesign their car to suit. RBR's failure to use them isn't a result of higher levels of downforce, their car doesn't develop more downforce than other cars, it is simply more aerodynamically efficient.

I have to admit my enjoyment of the race was reduced by the fact that the racing was protective of the tyres but there hasn't been a single season where there hasn't been a need to protect some aspect of the car. For me the huge negative aspect which you haven't mentioned were the multiple tyre failures over the past two race weekends due to debris while the big positive was Hembrey's willingness to accept they had made an error for Barcelona which they would rectify over the remaining season. At least Pirelli takes an active interest in addressing shortfalls, whatever you say of Bridgestone they were never concerned with doing anything to change their tyre plan once they became sole supplier except for ensuring two tyre compounds had to be used per race in order to use up tyre stocks.

[dj_bytedisaster]

I have to admit my enjoyment of the race was reduced by the fact that the racing was protective of the tyres but there hasn't been a single season where there hasn't been a need to protect some aspect of the car. For me the huge negative aspect which you haven't mentioned were the multiple tyre failures over the past two race weekends due to debris while the big positive was Hembrey's willingness to accept they had made an error for Barcelona which they would rectify over the remaining season. At least Pirelli takes an active interest in addressing shortfalls, whatever you say of Bridgestone they were never concerned with doing anything to change their tyre plan once they became sole supplier except for ensuring two tyre compounds had to be used per race in order to use up tyre stocks.

There wasn't any debris that caused the tire failures. The tires decomposed because they aren't fit for the purpose. Fictional debris might work in NASCRAP, not in F1. No car left debris on the track when diResta's tire destroyed itself in practice. Neither was there any 'debris' when hamilton's tire disassembled itself at Bahrain. There also weren't any collisions to explain the tire deconstruction in the race or Alonso's deflating tire. Pirelli simply ****ed up.

And your claim that RB should redesign their car - didn't you mix up something? Pirelli is a SUPPLIER. It's their ****ing job to provide a component that works for their customers, not the other way round. I worked for Bosch in 2009. They were a supplier to Audi, developing the servo-steering systems. It was Bosch's job to manufacture a servo-steering that works in an Audi, not Audi's job to redesign their A6 to work with a crap servo. What kind of attitude is that??

[Malbec]

And your claim that RB should redesign their car - didn't you mix up something? Pirelli is a SUPPLIER. It's their ****ing job to provide a component that works for their customers, not the other way round. I worked for Bosch in 2009. They were a supplier to Audi, developing the servo-steering systems. It was Bosch's job to manufacture a servo-steering that works in an Audi, not Audi's job to redesign their A6 to work with a crap servo. What kind of attitude is that??

Wrong.

Pirellis DO work for RBRs. I haven't seen a single RBR tyre failure yet a la Michelin Indy 2005 which is where a tyre supplier provided a tyre that really wasn't fit for purpose nor worked for their customers.

What RBR has not been able to do is get the most out of the tyres, a distinction you seem unable to understand. That is not Pirelli's problem especially since other teams like Ferrari, Lotus and FI have managed it. RBR isn't alone, Mclaren, Williams and Sauber have most notably failed to optimise their use of the tyres too.

[dj_bytedisaster]

What RBR has not been able to do is get the most out of the tyres, a distinction you seem unable to understand. That is not Pirelli's problem especially since other teams like Ferrari, Lotus and FI have managed it. RBR isn't alone, Mclaren, Williams and Sauber have most notably failed to optimise their use of the tyres too.

Not a single team made the tires work at Barcelona. They were lapping 6 to 7 seconds slower than in qualifying. The "fastest" lap in the race was a massive 5.5 seconds slower than pole position time. Not a single car ran to its potential, they all cruised about like old men in a Volvo.
It was like watching Usain Bolt competing in Dutch wooden shoes.

[Malbec]

Not a single team made the tires work at Barcelona. They were lapping 6 to 7 seconds slower than in qualifying. The "fastest" lap in the race was a massive 5.5 seconds slower than pole position time. Not a single car ran to its potential, they all cruised about like old men in a Volvo.

So? The trick is to get them to work better than the opposition.

Pirelli have admitted they made a mistake and they are going to rectify it. As long as they do and are proactive in that regard I don't mind so much, and in that respect they are head and shoulders above Bridgestone.

[dj_bytedisaster]

So? The trick is to get them to work better than the opposition.

Pirelli have admitted they made a mistake and they are going to rectify it. As long as they do and are proactive in that regard I don't mind so much, and in that respect they are head and shoulders above Bridgestone.

They shouldn't have a need to 'rectify' anthing for they shouldn't have ****ed up in the first place and they've known that their 'product' disadvantages several teams since at least Malaysia yet they continued on and waited until they made a complete and utter mockery of a GP until finally reacting.

[Malbec]

they've known that their 'product' disadvantages several teams since at least Malaysia

Having read many of your posts I do think you're following the wrong sport.

F1 isn't a spec series. Therefore by definition any product that every car must use disadvantages those that haven't understood how to use them optimally.

If you don't want this kind of situation say goodbye to F1, there are plenty of spec series that you'd like out there.

[pino]

Guys can I ask you to use the Pirelli thread to discuss tyres issues. That will be less confusing for all members and will save me some work. Thanks