oh noooooo!
Vettel!
gamble failed
shame
Printable View
oh noooooo!
Vettel!
gamble failed
shame
Lucky Seb did not have that failure in Eau Rouge..... that would have hurt.
Great for Lotus and Grosjean
yeah!
and finally...finally! some decent points for my FGP from lotus
And a slight tear in my eye for Grosjean and Lotus.
I am really happy for them
As for Ferrari, I can't really blame them for keeping Vettel out.
It was a tough decision and if he pitted earlier he would probably have finished 4th or 5th
But considering how fast Kvyatt was with a set of new softs, he might have challenged grosjean for 3rd
It reminded me of Kimi at Nürburgring a few years back. even though that one was worse since he was leading the race, but same limbo situation
Perez was flying earlier on in the Force india but their middle sector speed did them in.
Little correction ;) It's a common mistake. The track is called Nürburgring. Nuremberg is a town in Bavaria, at least 200 miles from the Nürburgring. It has its own street track called Norisring.Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
Pretty good race overall! Was always going to be a Mercedes 1-2 barring mechanical issues. I was once again very impressed with Verstappen and his overtaking. Some of it was mind blowing stuff! Let's not forget Sainz though as I figure he has had the upper hand on Verstappen but been
Pretty good race overall! Was always going to be a Mercedes 1-2 barring mechanical issues. I was once again very impressed with Verstappen and his overtaking. Some of it was mind blowing stuff! Let's not forget Sainz though as I figure he has had the upper hand on Verstappen overall but been rather unlucky again today!
Misery for McLaren - the upgrade seems pretty worthless and to not have done anything! Worse if anything!
Hamilton was mighty - That second stint he just obliterated and you get the impression he could have pulled away at any point had it been required!
Vettel - very unlucky and I am with him when saying that tyres should not delaminate like that after 27 laps. This is on pirelli's doorstep this failure.
Delighted for Grosjean - tremendous race and am very happy to see him on the podium again - great race from him!
Those Pirellis are crap. How hard is it to make some tires that either degrade rapidly or last for 3 races according to the whims of everyone involved. Vettel's hissy fit is totally justified. Gambling and losing.... That's unheard of.
Donkey of the race goes to the Williams pit crew.
Vettel angry with Pirelli tyres. The general consensus is that Ferrari eeked it out to far and paid the price. That Tyre disintegrated after 27 laps, roughly 189 miles. When you look at it from this perspective, then you gotta ask, would it not be safer for the tire to drop performance dastically but keep its structure in tact rather than disintegrate at speed. While Ferrari and Vettel may have gambled and lost, Vettel does have a point. Tyres blowing up at speed should not be acceptable. While the FIA mandate is for marginal tyres with short race life, Vettel is saying there should be a window of warning to the driver that disintegration is eminent before the onset of failure.
While l agree Ferrari took a gamble that was not going to work out, the tyre ought to have a number of stages of performance level drops to indicate to the driver the phase in the lifecycle of the tyre they are at. The basis of Vettel's argument was that the tyre had good performance up to the point that it disintegrated. It would seem the famous cliff is no longer there as it use to be.
Whichever way you look at this, it is safe to say that the drivers are showing signs that they are fed up with marginal tyres, not Pirelli per se.
I have to add that Pirelli's Hembury put up a supreme demonstration of a PR response to the criticism. It was cool unflustered, uncritical and unwavering confidence in the absence of fault by pirelli. Simply exemplary. If you missed it, l highly recommend you go watch it again. The response is one that l shall be watching repeatedly for a very long time as there is much to learnt from it.
You should drink less. Here is what the teams had to say about Hembery's 'exemplary' PR response:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitrodaze
Alain Permane (Lotus);
"If Pirelli tells us the tyres last 40 laps, they can’t possibly blow up after 28 laps. For us a one-stop strategy was only a backup plan, but we considered it as well."
Andy Green (Force India):
“If Vettel’s tyres had been worn out, he’d have come into the pits. As soon as the rubber is worn below 30% the lap times go up by two to three seconds and tyre temperatures drop from 140°C to 110°C. You’re driving on ice in that case, you won’t even get anywhere near critical wear. Your team would call you in long before that happens.”
Mauricio Arrivabene (Ferrari):
“A one-stop race was our plan A. We decided that at 11am, using the data the engineers had collected during the practice sessions. There was a Pirelli engineer standing in our garage and he wasn’t just chewing bubblegum. He would have intervened if the data had shown anything suspicious. Our strategy was aggressive, but not risky.”
It was the deliverance of the response that was of interest, it didn't mean that everyone would agree with him. For a chap under pressure this weekend, he handled himself with dignity and confidence. Not alot of people can handle such a situation with such finesse. But read my post again you would see that l am in agreement with Ferrari.Quote:
Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster
Any idea what was up with the virtual safety car? Hamilton was complaining that Rosberg seemed to have magically caught up during the VSC period, but there was no follow-up. Shortly after that radio transmission was played, there was an on-screen graphic showing gap deltas for those two for lap 22, showing that Rosberg made up something like 1.25 seconds during sector 2 of that lap.
What was that about? Was lap 22 under VSC, or the lap immediately after?
Pirelli have come out and said that they advised two years ago that the tires should be limited on mileage - approximately 50% grand prix distance on the prime tire and 30% for the options. To me this is a cop out from Pirelli given that they said the end of tire life in Spa was 40 laps. If the teams rejected their decision it is then up to Pirelli to continue to apply these metrics to each race moving forward and then blame the teams for it, not give a 40 lap figure for the end of tire life and say "Well, we told you so two years ago". Either that or they could have produced a better tire. Plus, given that the cars have far more performance now than they had at the start of 2014 then I suspect that these metrics would have to have been adjusted further downwards, so why Pirelli gave a 40 lap figure for EOL is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitrodaze
I'm completely with Vettel and Ferrari on this one. I do think Rosbergs tire blowout on Friday was a cut from an external source. It certainly looked like it. I don't believe that the incidents are related because Rosberg's tires were so much younger, just that both happened to occur on the same weekend. This is racing and tire blowouts will always happen but it should not happen as it did in the case of Vettel.
Moving forward, if Pirelli are unable to address this issue with the teams, I wonder if this will affect their tenure in the sport vs Michelin's. If the teams are really getting fed up of marginal tires, then maybe it's time to change it. I don't like the Pirelli tires, and never have done, but they have done what the sport asked of them and taken an awful lot of slack in the process because of it with very little testing under their belts. I give them kudos for that.
Something has to be done though as we don't want another incident like Japan last year where a magnificent young man and an amazing talent lost his life.
I agree that Paul Hembrey acted with class and he has always done so as well. He's a fine representative for Pirelli.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitrodaze
What needs to happen here is for Pirelli and the teams to meet and have an open honest discussion. Pirelli can present their argument and the teams theirs. Lets not have any rash decisions made. Whatever the next step that needs to be made, it needs to be calculated and made in the interest of driver safety.
I was away from the Internet for quite a few days and I actually forgot Belgian GP was on this weekend. I thought it may well have been on the next weekend, the end of August as per usual.:D Oh well, never mind. Sometimes good to live completely outside the "F1 box".:)
It is quite obvious actually, Pirelli need to bring the cliff back. And the cliff window need to be wide enough for the drivers to get back to the pits without tyre structure failure. The cliff window should reduce the effective grip of the tyres to a level that would force the driver to lower their speed to a level safe enough for the tyres to withstand the drive back to the pits. This characteristics need to be consistent across the tyres in the set fitted to the car. for instance, one rear tyre should not be cliffing while the other three are in the racing zone, this would be dangerous.
I think if marginal tyres is the way, then do it properly and safely. That said, l am a fan of Pirelli. I think they have done a difficult job admirably. It can't be easy making marginal tyres consistently as they have done. But it is clear that the marginal tyre days are approaching their end. Safety should not be operated as a Russian roullette.
That's pretty unrealistic given the different nature of various tracks. The tires would have to be tailored for each circuit and with no guarantee of this consistency still across all 4 tires.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitrodaze
I don't agree with the cliff - never have. To be honest, I like Michelin's idea more than Pirelli and I found F1 far more interesting to watch when we had 24 cars flat out, balls to the wall the entire race, instead of gingerly making their way around for fear to hurt the tires most. There's is visually a speed difference in the cars now between these cars and the ones ten years ago which before usen't be the case.
The idea of making bad tyres on purpose is a preposterous one to begin with. To actually pretend they should fail in a certain way is even dumber. Just let them make the best tyres they can and that's that. As for Vettel, he is probably suing them right now.
The idea of marginal tyre is not as daft as some may think. It has really brought about some really interesting racing. Up until the fiasco at Silverstone in 2013, a controlled degradation of the tyre was evident. The onset of the cliff saw drivers slide about and drifted back the order as they nurse their car back to the pits. Since Silverstone 2013, it has been obvious that the characteristics of the tyre degradation has changed noticeably. Most noticeable is the so called cliff was not as punishing as it was post silverstone 2013.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Ben
Hence, it is not dumb, that is the way it was up to silverstone 2013. Silverstone marks an important demarcation because that was the last time there was a spate of tyre failures that resulted in open criticism of Pirelli.
Marginal tyres was a great experiment that did produce some great racing moments. Like most things in F1, its novelty is wearing thin and is clearly time to look beyond it. With Vettel, Hamilton and Alonso openly challenging its continued viability, one has to say a change is about to happen. The collective 8 championship titles of these individuals carrys alot of clout and it would be a mistake for the FIA and Pirelli to not take these voices seriously.
Negative tyre pubilicity such as this cannot be good for Pirelli's brand. If l was the CEO of Pirelli, l would definitely be cursing the day l signed up to the FIA's idea of marginal tyres.
If it is deemed Ferrari ignored advice from Pirelli on the suggested number of laps, then it could be Ferrari in hot water. No other teams were attempting a one stop strategy and nobody else had tyre de-laminations from pushing the tyres to 28 laps. Even the commentators were questioning if Ferrari were tempting disaster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Ben
The tyres are what they are and they encourage pit stops to try and split up what is often processional racing. If teams try and stretch the advice they are given, they shouldn't let their drivers sulk in front of the cameras and blame the component. Spa is a long lap and known to be hard on tyres due to the amount of high speed corners. Ferrari shouldn't have taken the gamble, especially with the amount of info they already have on these tyres.
Pirelli clearly stated 40 laps was tyre life, so how could they have ignored Pirelli's advice?Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
The BBC has quoted Pirelli previously stated that 40 laps was the recommended maximum tyre life some time ago. But 40 laps does not translate to the same mileage distance at all tracks. A single full Silverstone lap is 5.9km and Spa is 7km, hence 40 lap of Silverstone is 236km which is roughly 33.7 laps of Spa. Vettels tyres failed on lap 28, a 196km distance which is clearly 5.7 laps short of the Pirelli published 236km max distance for the tyre before failure. So there are some grounds for Ferrari and Vettel to complain.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
After the Bianchi passing, it is safe to say that tyres blowing up at 200 mph is not acceptable. Either the rules are wrong or Pirelli did not meet the specifications for the tyres satisfactorily. Whatever the case, F1 teams must have clear reliable data on which to base their strategy. Not a shifting goal post on a race by race basis. If Pirelli is saying the max distance for the tyre is say 236km for all tracks, then it must be reliably so and the teams must be able to rely on this information.
Vettel has a point and it is a safety one.
If Vettel was so concerned about the integrity of the tyres it certainly wasn't obvious in his driving. He was consistently dropping the left wheels into the gravel/concrete behind the kerb at the top of the hill, and even on the lap it blew, through eau rouge, he had all 4 wheels off the track over the top of the kerbs and then the right side over the back of the kerb of the other side of the curve. I would have expected someone trying to eke out a tyre to be a little more circumspect.
Sent from my 0PJA10 using Tapatalk
It's really down to the forces exerted through corners that the vast majority of rubber is scrubbed off. The top of Eau Rouge is pretty flat out and the turning angle isn't very sharp there. They turn into it before the corner and gently lean left as they come out of it. I would imagine it's the infield section that is the hardest on tyres. I might be wrong but I can't see it being anywhere near the hardest part of the circuit on tyres.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinho
[EDIT] actually I am wrong about this- the vertical load through Eau Rouge is over 1 tonnes on the tyres. I'd like to see where this vertical load is at it's most throughout Eau Rouge though.
I wouldn't go as far as that. Vettel (and others) should say whatever they want and show their true colors so I can spot a spoilt brat like this one and not like him. No PR talk, thank you very much.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
|:-o-: |:-o-: |:-o-:
- - - - |:-o-:
Game on :-)