4 degrees of camber

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

I hate to admit it but ioan in his blind hatred for Pirelli has actually stumbled onto a valid point.

---

If they would deliver F1 level quality product I wouldn't even say a word about them, instead they are even asking for rule changes mid season to cover their less then optimum product.

This precedent is rather dangerous because more can follow soon and before not too long we will be watching GP1 (well those who will decide to keep watchin' it).

Since all pirelli threads have been infested can we start a new one... the ioanfree pirelli thread? If I were a psychiatrist I would find the discussion interesting but now I really have to look for worth reading material... not only I have to skip what Ioan says but there´s plenty of naive people around trying to have a sensible discussion with him and they are failing miserably. Just imagine that half of my countryboys behave likes this... it´s just awesome :rolleyes:

If anyone can quote a rules change, please quote it. I don't know of any rules change.

Pirelli have simply asked the FIA to help them check car setups in the event they have tire problems, to find out if the problem is the tire or the setup. We've already had one episode of RB crying foul when in fact their setup caused the problem. Personally I think if the team claims the car was unsafe they should have been forced the change the tires and/or camber angle and started from pit lane.

Really RB only thought it was unsafe when they stood to gain an advantage. If forced to give up the advantage, it was safe enough to run the cars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

I hate to admit it but ioan in his blind hatred for Pirelli has actually stumbled onto a valid point.

I don't think the FIA should make a change to the regulations to limit camber. It's up to a team how they set their car up and if a team is stupid enough to exceed a Tyre manufacturers recommendation, then that's up to them. There is also the argument that after running at a recommended 4 degree (for example), a team looks at how their tyres perform and decide that they can run more.

However, it's not fair to Pirelli if a team exceeds the recommendation with insufficient data to back up the decision and then blames the Tyres as RBR did. In this circumstance it should be made abundantly clear that it's the teams fault and not the Tyres.


Oh, I jsut saw the flag.

I would suggest that the teams declare their Camber angle after Qualifying and this is made public knowledge. That way, the commentators and us the fans (remember us Jean Todt?) will be aware of what is going on and Pirelli won't get negative publicity in the event of a preventable tyre failure.

As for the safety aspect? It is the teams responsibility and always has been to protect their drivers and how they configure their cars.

---

I can't believe how long you been here with so many posts and this is the kind of nonsense you post?? I assume you have been watching F! all that time? What the hell are you talking about? Should the FIa regulate how many laps you can drive on any given tire, too? Cause that's way more risky then driving with a camber that tends to blister the tires.

Your entire nonsnse about pirelli and tire failure is so mindbogglingly retarded and so detached from reality I can only.... Oh wait I see the flag.


Suddenly "it" all makes so much sense.


What a joke.

This is nothing more than the inbred trash running the FIA trying to screw over vettel/red bull. The end. They don't care about the drivers. They don't care about "brand name". Last i checked, purposely making garbage tires doesn't exactly raise your stock as a "good" tire company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vhatever

Oh wait I see the flag.


Suddenly "it" all makes so much sense.


What a joke.

.

---

What is your problem with the English or any other nation then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aki13

What is your problem with the English or any other nation then?

---

Nothing. But it does explain such responses, as bigotry and jingoism tend to breed such "logic".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

As for the safety aspect? It is the teams responsibility and always has been to protect their drivers and how they configure their cars.

---

True, but but in the last 20yrs or so the FIA has increasingly stepped in when there is any hint of a safety issue (largely as a result of Imola 1994), and it seems clear there have been safety concerns with the tyres in Spa and again this weekend.

If the teams are going beyond the limits of the tyres, against all the advice of Pirelli, then the FIA see it as their job to step in.

There are some comparisons to be made with the Indy GP fiasco. I know the problem then was the tyres themselves, not the use of them by the teams, but Michelin made suggestions as to how the tyres could be made to last and so actually race. In this case the FIA rejected those suggestions and a race of sorts could go ahead because there was another tyre supplier in F1.

Now, there is no alternative. The FIA wanted a single tyre supplier (the motivation for the treatment of Michelin) so that it could use the tyres as a means to slow speeds and 'spice up the show'.

It's an example of the way the FIA regulates almost every aspect of the cars, to the extent that teams and designers have a very small window for development and innovation.

That's the way F1 is in 2011. I don't particularly like it but unless and until the regulations are freed up it's what we have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vhatever

Nothing. But it does explain such responses, as bigotry and jingoism tend to breed such "logic".

---

I'm sorry but since your second post on here and consistently since you have been making anti British statements, what is the problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aki13

What is your problem with the English or any other nation then?

---

Just ignore Tamburello. He's a funny little man that has personal issues. You have far more chance of ioan dressing us as a Pirelli girl than Tamburello posting a intelligent entry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Just ignore Tamburello. He's a funny little man that has personal issues. You have far more chance of ioan dressing us as a Pirelli girl than Tamburello posting a intelligent entry.

---

When I joined Tamb was in his dying days before being banned or whatever, but I obviously missed some fun before that then.

I agree Arrows. The FIA have a habit of trying to turn F1 into a nanny series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

True, but but in the last 20yrs or so the FIA has increasingly stepped in when there is any hint of a safety issue (largely as a result of Imola 1994), and it seems clear there have been safety concerns with the tyres in Spa and again this weekend.

If the teams are going beyond the limits of the tyres, against all the advice of Pirelli, then the FIA see it as their job to step in.

There are some comparisons to be made with the Indy GP fiasco. I know the problem then was the tyres themselves, not the use of them by the teams, but Michelin made suggestions as to how the tyres could be made to last and so actually race. In this case the FIA rejected those suggestions and a race of sorts could go ahead because there was another tyre supplier in F1.

Now, there is no alternative. The FIA wanted a single tyre supplier (the motivation for the treatment of Michelin) so that it could use the tyres as a means to slow speeds and 'spice up the show'.

It's an example of the way the FIA regulates almost every aspect of the cars, to the extent that teams and designers have a very small window for development and innovation.

That's the way F1 is in 2011. I don't particularly like it but unless and until the regulations are freed up it's what we have.

---

You mean safety is in mind when they constantly screw with the tires so the teams have no clue what they are getting race weekend? When they purposely make them drop off percipitously? When they want drivers struggling to keep grip after ~10 laps.

You mean safety was in mind when they tried to ban the diffusers, even though the cars were designed with the stability afforded by those diffusers?

You mean safety was in mind when they restarted a race that was almost entirely done in monsoon-like conditions this year, yet for the past 20+ years they would have just ended that race and called it a weekend?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vhatever

I can't believe how long you been here with so many posts and this is the kind of nonsense you post?? I assume you have been watching F! all that time? What the hell are you talking about? Should the FIa regulate how many laps you can drive on any given tire, too? Cause that's way more risky then driving with a camber that tends to blister the tires.

Your entire nonsnse about pirelli and tire failure is so mindbogglingly retarded and so detached from reality I can only.... Oh wait I see the flag.




Suddenly "it" all makes so much sense.


What a joke.

This is nothing more than the inbred trash running the FIA trying to screw over vettel/red bull. The end. They don't care about the drivers. They don't care about "brand name". Last i checked, purposely making garbage tires doesn't exactly raise your stock as a "good" tire company.

---

Listen I don't have time for this, so I am only going to ask you once: quit personal insults/comments right now...or you will be history in here !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pino

Listen I don't have time for this, so I am only going to ask you once: quit personal insults/comments right now...or you will be history in here !

---

Time for what? Is calling someone's argument illogical/nonsensical a "personal insult"? If so, I'd wonder how anyone could still be posting here cause I see 2309743074230974 times worse every day.


Or are you refering to me calling the FIA inbred?

Does the FIA have an account here? ROFL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

So are a few people more in favour of durable tyres that last two thirds of the race and keeps the pack in a steady order?

---

Artificially created overtaking opportunities =/= racing and it will never be.

There was great racing in F1 before and there will be also after this crap tires phase. The problem is with the viewers not with the sport itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

I'm enjoying the racing now like I did 23 years ago when I started watching.

---

That's you business, not everyone is you.

I'm with Henners. Not everyone is you ioan.

I bet if you took a poll, you would find more people prefer the action we are getting this year to the snorefest of a few years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

I'm with Henners. Not everyone is you ioan.

---

What a surprise! :laugh:

Nature and its laws...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Wait for it Knockie you'll get a PM telling you you are an uncivilized Brit with no class. lol

---

The normal ones from a certain banned member threaten to do me over :laugh: I may be an uncivilised Brit, but an uncivilised Brit that would have no problem throwing a bitch slap to a snivelling keyboard jockey that hides behind a screen :laugh:

Bring it on :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

The normal ones from a certain banned member threaten to do me over :laugh: I may be an uncivilised Brit, but an uncivilised Brit that would have no problem throwing a bitch slap to a snivelling keyboard jockey that hides behind a screen :laugh:

Bring it on :D

---

Thus spake the keyboard jokey from his screen! :rotflmao:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

True, but but in the last 20yrs or so the FIA has increasingly stepped in when there is any hint of a safety issue (largely as a result of Imola 1994), and it seems clear there have been safety concerns with the tyres in Spa and again this weekend.

If the teams are going beyond the limits of the tyres, against all the advice of Pirelli, then the FIA see it as their job to step in.

There are some comparisons to be made with the Indy GP fiasco. I know the problem then was the tyres themselves, not the use of them by the teams, but Michelin made suggestions as to how the tyres could be made to last and so actually race. In this case the FIA rejected those suggestions and a race of sorts could go ahead because there was another tyre supplier in F1.

Now, there is no alternative. The FIA wanted a single tyre supplier (the motivation for the treatment of Michelin) so that it could use the tyres as a means to slow speeds and 'spice up the show'.

It's an example of the way the FIA regulates almost every aspect of the cars, to the extent that teams and designers have a very small window for development and innovation.

That's the way F1 is in 2011. I don't particularly like it but unless and until the regulations are freed up it's what we have.

---

Well stated post.

I've often been curious about the Indy fiasco and never found a direct answer. Why didn't the FIA step in and keep the Michelin shod tires from competing? As far as I know it was a universal decision of the teams, but they were not prohibited from racing. When that much data is available to let the teams and FIA know that it would cause an unsafe condition beyond reasonable, there should have been no choice in the matter for the teams.

I remember them playing a radio transmission from Coulthard during the warm up lap with him stating for the record that he still wished to race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Well stated post.

I've often been curious about the Indy fiasco and never found a direct answer. Why didn't the FIA step in and keep the Michelin shod tires from competing? As far as I know it was a universal decision of the teams, but they were not prohibited from racing. When that much data is available to let the teams and FIA know that it would cause an unsafe condition beyond reasonable, there should have been no choice in the matter for the teams.

I remember them playing a radio transmission from Coulthard during the warm up lap with him stating for the record that he still wished to race.

---

The Indy race still stinks IMHO. Michelin wanted to fly other tyres in..... why not let them? I think the biggest losers there were the fans and the sport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

The Indy race still stinks IMHO. Michelin wanted to fly other tyres in..... why not let them? I think the biggest losers there were the fans and the sport.

---

Agreed. Considering all the options the FIA had, there was no excuse to not hold a proper race, even if only the Bridgestone teams scored points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Artificially created overtaking opportunities =/= racing and it will never be.

There was great racing in F1 before and there will be also after this crap tires phase. The problem is with the viewers not with the sport itself.

---

I think the problem is people not understanding the problems F1 had with overtaking issues and whether it be Bernie or FIA or whoever they jump into these constant quick fixes that maybe leave long term fans a little cold.

The other issue is for the die hard fans. Is although we may feel DRS is no fair or the tyres are a bit too variable, alot of people I know who might watch F1 a few races a year or every know and then love the new Nascar style passing as all they want is constant in your face action and crashes. (We might not like it but those I speak to do want crashes)

And unfortunatley their will always be way more casual fans saying yes for these things than us avid every race watchers saying no. I therefore suppose its inevitable these days that F1 will continue down this route.

My personal prefrence was always for a simple weekend and race structure like we had pre 2003.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aki13

I think the problem is people not understanding the problems F1 had with overtaking issues and whether it be Bernie or FIA or whoever they jump into these constant quick fixes that maybe leave long term fans a little cold.

The other issue is for the die hard fans. Is although we may feel DRS is no fair or the tyres are a bit too variable, alot of people I know who might watch F1 a few races a year or every know and then love the new Nascar style passing as all they want is constant in your face action and crashes. (We might not like it but those I speak to do want crashes)

And unfortunatley their will always be way more casual fans saying yes for these things than us avid every race watchers saying no. I therefore suppose its inevitable these days that F1 will continue down this route.

My personal prefrence was always for a simple weekend and race structure like we had pre 2003.

---

Agree.
I have a bit of a hard time digesting that F1 has become a direct competitor to Hollywood action movies with 110% action needed to convince the couch armies. What a shame.

No problems with the tyres yesterday :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

The Indy race still stinks IMHO. Michelin wanted to fly other tyres in..... why not let them? I think the biggest losers there were the fans and the sport.

---

The Michelin shod teams refused to compete if they had to pit every 4 laps or so. The FIA were happy for them to compete as long as they stayed within the recommendations Michelin gave them.

The problem was that the Michelin shod teams then wanted the course to be changed so that the banking was taken at a slower speed, but that would have invalidated the circuit insurance and the FIA rightly refused on behalf of the track owners.

It was a dark day for F1 but it was avoidable if the teams had really put their minds to it.

The fundamental problem with Indy was that it was resurfaced and Bridgestone were the only manufacturer that had knowledge of it's abrasive properties.

As soon as the problem became apparent, the FIA should have allowed Michelin to fly some hard tyres in.

It would have been ridiculous and dangerous to have all those teams pitting every 4 laps and unfair on the Brigstone shod teams to change the track, even if it wouldn't have invalidated the insurance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

The fundamental problem with Indy was that it was resurfaced and Bridgestone were the only manufacturer that had knowledge of it's abrasive properties.

As soon as the problem became apparent, the FIA should have allowed Michelin to fly some hard tyres in.

It would have been ridiculous and dangerous to have all those teams pitting every 4 laps and unfair on the Brigstone shod teams to change the track, even if it wouldn't have invalidated the insurance.

---

Exactamundo. That incident and the subsequent adoption of what turned out to be far less superior Pirelli tyres in the WRC make me smell a rat there's any deal done between the FIA and tyre companies.

I may remember wrong, but as Knockie said, Michelin offered to bring new tyres in and the FIA said no.

If that has coloured my opinion of the negotiations for the tyres for this year somewhat, then I apologise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

The fundamental problem with Indy was that it was resurfaced and Bridgestone were the only manufacturer that had knowledge of it's abrasive properties.

---

Bridgestone had never seen the newly recut surface either although their US subsiduary Firestone had raced there a few weeks before. Its unlikely that Bridgestone were able to knock together a new tyre structure and compound in the little time they had available, I think their tyres were just more conservatively designed.

Michelin weren't allowed to bring new tyres because the teams according to the regulations had to select tyre type by Saturday morning and were only allowed a choice of two compounds, not three. Also its debatable whether Michelin would have been able to bring across the huge quantity of tyres required in time, or even had the stock available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Bridgestone had never seen the newly recut surface either although their US subsiduary Firestone had raced there a few weeks before. Its unlikely that Bridgestone were able to knock together a new tyre structure and compound in the little time they had available, I think their tyres were just more conservatively designed.

Michelin weren't allowed to bring new tyres because the teams according to the regulations had to select tyre type by Saturday morning and were only allowed a choice of two compounds, not three. Also its debatable whether Michelin would have been able to bring across the huge quantity of tyres required in time, or even had the stock available.

---

It's not silly to assume because MIchelin offered, that they could have supplied enough tyres in time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

It's not silly to assume because MIchelin offered, that they could have supplied enough tyres in time.

---

They could have offered whatever they wanted knowing that it was too late to bring them over and that they wouldn't have been accepted anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

They could have offered whatever they wanted knowing that it was too late to bring them over and that they wouldn't have been accepted anyway.

---

Tis a possibility!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Bridgestone had never seen the newly recut surface either although their US subsidiary Firestone had raced there a few weeks before. Its unlikely that Bridgestone were able to knock together a new tyre structure and compound in the little time they had available, I think their tyres were just more conservatively designed.

Michelin weren't allowed to bring new tyres because the teams according to the regulations had to select tyre type by Saturday morning and were only allowed a choice of two compounds, not three. Also its debatable whether Michelin would have been able to bring across the huge quantity of tyres required in time, or even had the stock available.

---

Firestone had supplied a high speed single seater series which raced on the surface. It is undoubtable that they would have supplied information to their parent company which then made a decision on which tyres to supply.

As for whether Michelin would be able to supply replacement tyres, we only have their word on that but I see little reason to doubt them. We had a similar issue at Spa when RBR were complaining that the Pirelli's were failing and Pirelli offered to the FIA to fly overnight replacements for the whole field until it transpired that RBR were operating the tyres outside of recommended parameters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Firestone had supplied a high speed single seater series which raced on the surface. It is undoubtable that they would have supplied information to their parent company which then made a decision on which tyres to supply.

---

Probably but not necessarily. You're assuming that inter-departmental communications within Bridgestone were fine. That isn't/wasn't necessarily the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

As for whether Michelin would be able to supply replacement tyres, we only have their word on that but I see little reason to doubt them. We had a similar issue at Spa when RBR were complaining that the Pirelli's were failing and Pirelli offered to the FIA to fly overnight replacements for the whole field until it transpired that RBR were operating the tyres outside of recommended parameters.

---

Pirelli offered to supply 10 extra pairs of front tyres, thats 20 tyres so the top 10 could replace theirs. They had to ship 17 tyres from Britain to Belgium.

Michelin would have had to ship 7 teams' worth of tyres, enough to last them through the whole raceday and bring them from France to Indianapolis overnight, and even then they didn't know how long the harder compound tyres would last for so wouldn't have known how many would have been enough. Thats over ten times more tyres over a much greater distance than Pirelli had to deal with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

There are some comparisons to be made with the Indy GP fiasco. I know the problem then was the tyres themselves, not the use of them by the teams, but Michelin made suggestions as to how the tyres could be made to last and so actually race. In this case the FIA rejected those suggestions and a race of sorts could go ahead because there was another tyre supplier in F1.

---

Not really.

Michelin could not give assurance to all their teams, whereas at RBR were desperate to find the limit and seemed like they found it.

The 1997 Spanish GP is up on YT. All the Goodyear shod cars suffered blistering but the tyres held up.

A better example would have been 2008 Brickyard 400 where the NASCAR was regarded as a massive fail in that Goodyear's tyres struggled to go over 10 laps. Thankfully this scenario wasn't replicated at Spa this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Now, there is no alternative. The FIA wanted a single tyre supplier (the motivation for the treatment of Michelin) so that it could use the tyres as a means to slow speeds and 'spice up the show'.

It's an example of the way the FIA regulates almost every aspect of the cars, to the extent that teams and designers have a very small window for development and innovation.

---

Don't agree with this at all. In fact I find it rather daft. Regardless of the rules racecar engineering is about maximising what's available.

If it isn't complex diffusers then then its trick exhaust diffusers and following years the geeks will claw back more DF in some way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

If the teams are going beyond the limits of the tyres, against all the advice of Pirelli, then the FIA see it as their job to step in.

---

This I do agree with. The nannying and try to pre-empt incidents. Aggressive racing is fine their books and yet for wet races it seems we have to wait for an indication of a dry/racing line before the SC is released.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Probably but not necessarily. You're assuming that inter-departmental communications within Bridgestone were fine. That isn't/wasn't necessarily the case.



Pirelli offered to supply 10 extra pairs of front tyres, thats 20 tyres so the top 10 could replace theirs. They had to ship 17 tyres from Britain to Belgium.

Michelin would have had to ship 7 teams' worth of tyres, enough to last them through the whole raceday and bring them from France to Indianapolis overnight, and even then they didn't know how long the harder compound tyres would last for so wouldn't have known how many would have been enough. Thats over ten times more tyres over a much greater distance than Pirelli had to deal with.

---

We're getting way past what information is available or even logical.

There is no evidence that I know of that there was a communications breakdown between Firestone and their parent company and logistically, getting the tyres across the Atlantic would be a piece of cake. They could be flown in a Michelin Corporate Jet over to Indy and the airport is a few miles from the circuit.

Anyway, it's history and can't be proved :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Thus spake the keyboard jokey from his screen! :rotflmao:

---

LOL I missed this one ioan.

I've met dozens of people off this forum over the years and I think they will confirm I'm hardly a shrinking violet that would hide behind a screen :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

We're getting way past what information is available or even logical.

There is no evidence that I know of that there was a communications breakdown between Firestone and their parent company and logistically, getting the tyres across the Atlantic would be a piece of cake. They could be flown in a Michelin Corporate Jet over to Indy and the airport is a few miles from the circuit.

Anyway, it's history and can't be proved :)

---

Michelin only had the Barcelona-spec tire available , and could not guarantee they would work any better .
They had at least eight tires that failed or were close to failing , across a number of teams .

And , Jarno took pole on fumes , as Toyota clearly saw they would never be allowed to start the race at all .

The weather that weekend wasn't hot , either , with the temps in the 70F range .

Michael won , for the first time that year .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Michelin weren't allowed to bring new tyres because the teams according to the regulations had to select tyre type by Saturday morning and were only allowed a choice of two compounds, not three. Also its debatable whether Michelin would have been able to bring across the huge quantity of tyres required in time, or even had the stock available.

---

Exactly.
It takes some time to produce a minimum of 14 x 3 sets of F1 tires (168 tires) and have them delivered from France to the US. The tires available were not adapted either to the track. Not to mention that they would have had to race with a tire that was not tested on that track.

Michelin claimed they could bring in other tires knowing full well that the FIA wouldn't allow for those to be used. It was a good move for them to be seen in a somewhat positive light in that mess and throw the responsibility on the FIA's shoulders.