Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I could but I won't. Why should I accept ungrounded claims?
Remember how you boast that "I'll always try to back up" everything you post?
Here's a few snippets about Pirelli for you, so that you no longer have to refer to these claims as "ungrounded":
Quote:
And pit-stops are likely to prove key again this season after Pirelli replaced Bridgestone as tyre suppliers, with the tyres specifically designed to be less durable in an effort to increase the number of pit-stops.
(BBC News, March 2011)
Quote:
Pirelli's motorsport boss Paul Hembery confirmed that Pirelli has responded to the desire that tyre strategy influences the entertainment-value of grands prix. "We have been asked to produce tyres to improve the show," he said. "But if we are very criticised by the teams or the drivers, yes, we will be able to bring to the next race very durable tyres."
(ESPN, November 2010)
Quote:
The teams also placed demands on the tyres characteristics on track whilst the FIA made requests regarding the tyre’s durability. [...] Hembery reveals “I’m guessing that we will have a number of races where two tyre changes will be required. The wear rate has been engineered to be higher than in 2010. The engineers are different they would like one set of tyres then concentrate on the car but the team principles think differently! It a different design input, we could make them last the whole season, but we also want entertaining races!”
(Racecar Engineering, January 2011)
Quote:
Asked about the request from Bernie Ecclestone to produce tyres that deliberately deteriorate - a move which caused much flak for the Italian manufacturer, not least from Pitpass, Tronchetti said: "We were asked to create more emotions and we did it, with safe tyres lasting enough but not too much, which is really very difficult."
(Pitpass, May 2011)
Will you now accept what everybody else seems to find simple: that Pirelli were asked to make less durable tyres for 2011?