FORUMula1.com

[Hammer278]

Hmmmmmm. Good points, good points! Am rethinking name of application!

Name: RaceHunk
Objective: To be disturbingly good looking on track
Target: To finish races in the points and have the prettiest Pirellis of all race completed cars

And attach this clip to your CV

[vaptin]

Surely there's a lot of skill in knowing, how slow to drive to preserve the tyres, but not to fall behind someone who is not preserving their tyres so good, but ends up having good track position anyway.

At anyrate, I agree with Spanky, the Lotus is the big loser I think, I suspect their performance is coming mainly from a car good on its tyres, really good, that allows them to not worry about tyre management so much, Ferrari from the looks of things, have a genuine fast car, that is still capable of however, managing the tyres, make the tyres more durable and I think Ferrari have the ability to flex, to speed the car up now they aren't worrying so much about tyre durability, I don't think Lotus can do that.

[andrew]

Surely there's a lot of skill in knowing, how slow to drive to preserve the tyres, but not to fall behind someone who is not preserving their tyres so good, but ends up having good track position anyway.

I once got told that any idiot can drive fast. The real skill is driving slow.

[vaptin]

Surely there's a lot of skill in knowing, how slow to drive to preserve the tyres, but not to fall behind someone who is not preserving their tyres so good, but ends up having good track position anyway.

I once got told that any idiot can drive fast. The real skill is driving slow.

I don't think that was sarcasm?

Anyway, now the driveres are watching their every braking point, and cornering, and line, to not pick up dirt/dust, to not flat spot the tyres, to not hit the kerb too hard, its a challenge.

[andrew]

No sarcasim was involved.

[vaptin]

No sarcasim was involved.

What about sarcasm?

(sorry).

[spankyham]

But the tires are changing for everyone... Lotus would still be better than everyone else on whatever new compounds are introduced.

IMO that's not true. In fact, I think Lotus stand to be big losers here.

It was a tongue in cheek comment from me parroting the reverse of what was being said about the lasagna tires for the teams that were chewing them up. I'm 80% in agreement on your stance. My reservation comes from the fact that there is a large unknown factor with changing the tires but there is also a safety factor to all this that I believe Pirelli want to avoid all all costs, and having a horrific accident is not worth the risk simply to allow Lotus et al. to keep their advantage.

Completely agree with you on the safety issue..... and it seems the FiA has now stepped in and said/ruled the same as us (does that mean we are/should be on their payroll? )

Thing is, as much as I detest the current tire situation, you just can't change it until the end of the year - only safety changes can be made.

FIA declares Formula 1 tyre tweaks can only be for safety

Pirelli's planned mid-season Formula 1 tyre tweaks are set to be much smaller than originally anticipated after the FIA ruled that changes will only be allowed on safety grounds.

Sources have revealed that the governing body has told Pirelli that it is happy to accept - and is indeed keen for - alterations necessary to prevent a repeat of the rear tyre delaminations that have struck at the last few events.



But, in a blow to outfits like Red Bull hoping further tweaks would help them overcome tyre difficulties they have faced, the FIA has made it clear it will not tolerate further changes aimed at reducing the number of pitstops or decreasing degradation.

Sorting out the issue must also not lead to a change of specification back to the 2012 tyres, as some had suggested could happen.

Instead, Pirelli has been instructed to solve the matter by modifying the current specification of tyres. It is now close to finalising tweaks in this direction.

The FIA is basing its stance on Article 12.6.3 of the technical regulations, which has also been cited by teams to Pirelli amid questions about the legality of a bid to change the specification.

The rule states: "Tyre specifications will be determined by the FIA no later than 1 September of the previous season. Once determined in this way, the specification of the tyres will not be changed during the championship season without the agreement of all competing teams."

Although another clause in the regulations says that changes can be introduced if the tyres are deemed by the tyre supplier and technical delegate as 'technically unsuitable', the FIA does not believe that the current high degrading nature of the tyres that sometimes requires four stop races falls under that banner.

An FIA source told AUTOSPORT: "Discussions between the FIA and Pirelli are ongoing regarding the tyre failures and making changes to prevent them happening again. These talks do not involve the subject of degradation or the number of pitstops."

CHANGES NOW SET TO BE MINOR
Pirelli has not yet settled on what changes it is making to the tyres, but its motorsport director Paul Hembery suggested on Friday that revisions were likely to be small.

"Let's wait and see exactly what changes we will be making, but we are doing everything we can to minimise what will be different," he told AUTOSPORT.



The stance from the FIA, allied to Hembery's suggestion, looks likely to be good news for outfits like Lotus, Ferrari and Force India that had been concerned a wholesale change of tyres could hurt the advantage they currently have.

Lotus boss Eric Boullier aired his frustration earlier this week at Pirelli planning mid-season changes, but expressed his hope that any tweaks would be minor.

"That there are changes to come can be seen as somewhat frustrating, and I hope they are not too extreme," he said. "It's clear that Pirelli have found themselves in a difficult situation and under pressure from different quarters."

[LewEngBridewell]

So, blame the FIA, not Pirelli.

[andrew]

So, blame the FIA, not Pirelli.

So that's me, you and 1Lemon that gets it.

[racechick]

Pirelli weren't asked to make them dangerous!

[andrew]

Pirelli have not made them dangerous! They have made exactly what they were told to make by their customer.

[What's Burning?]

Pirelli weren't asked to make them dangerous!

No I'm sure that was Bernie's idea.

[spankyham]

One good thing to come from this is we are unlikely to have to endure another year of this rubbish.

Want to say a little more but I have to go take a Pirelli, better make sure I've got plenty of Sorbent to wipe my DRS

[What's Burning?]

Pirelli have not made them dangerous! They have made exactly what they were told to make by their customer.

I question myself for even responding, but here goes. The FIA are customers see. Pirelli is a manufacturer of tires. As such they have the expertise the engineers and the production capability, therefore they are fully responsible for that product. If I ask an architect to built me a home with an outlandish feature that is potentially unsafe and cannot realistically be achieved, it is the architect's responsibility to advise me against it and if I insist, the architect would say he cannot design it safely and reject me as a customer. If he goes ahead and builds it, he's liable under the law... See that's how the law works. It's not based on your opinion.

Pirelli have agreed to build an unsafe tire, that's fact. You're free to your own fallacy but it doesn't make it real.

[andrew]

Oh deary me.