FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Hammer278]

That car's got a good acceleration...since it's light and very nimble. Perfect for city drive I assume! But please refrain from playing bumper cars with it...you might come of worse!

[Zekenwolf]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24213571

When I read that article I first thought that it was a bit of sour grapes on Alonso's part, but thinking about it, he may have a point. Ferrari and a few other teams (Force India among them) worked hard at achieving an optimal car design to suit the new tyre configuration as they were when introduced at the start of the 2013 F1 season. Mercedes and Red Bull, particularly the former, were among the teams that found it harder to adjust to the new tyres but with the mid-season change things became easier for them. Even though Mercedes have less to show after the change comparedwith Red Bull, the fact remains that their race performance improved after the change.

Perhaps the answer should have been to give the teams a choice - those who wanted to keep the 'older' new tyres could do so but the Kevlar belted versions would be offered to whoever that wanted it. In either case, teams would be bound to remain with their choice till the end of the season.

[What's Burning?]

They played games with the tires, the FiA, Bernie and Pirelli went right along with it until the fiasco caught up with them all. I think what they should have done is made a tire that cars could actually RACE on. Instead, what we're cheering Ferrari, Force India and Lotus is for being the cars that were most able to nurse the lasagna belts and fettuccine threads of the P-Zoroes Pirelli delivered to the pinnacle of racing. Not for being the best F1 machines.

[LRW]

Perhaps the answer should have been to give the teams a choice - those who wanted to keep the 'older' new tyres could do so but the Kevlar belted versions would be offered to whoever that wanted it. In either case, teams would be bound to remain with their choice till the end of the season.

But isnt the official line that they finally changed on "safety grounds". You couldn't of offered teams to partake in safety measures by choice.

[1Lemon]

I've been saying all along that it was punishing clever design based around the tyres that they were given months before the start of the season. I know it was for safety but it just seems cruel for the people who worked hard to make a car that worked well with the original spec.

[What's Burning?]

I've been saying all along that it was punishing clever design based around the tyres that they were given months before the start of the season. I know it was for safety but it just seems cruel for the people who worked hard to make a car that worked well with the original spec.

They should be blaming Pirelli then, not a let's blame the teams that benefited from the redesign sentiment that seems to be going on.

[1Lemon]

I've been saying all along that it was punishing clever design based around the tyres that they were given months before the start of the season. I know it was for safety but it just seems cruel for the people who worked hard to make a car that worked well with the original spec.

They should be blaming Pirelli then, not a let's blame the teams that benefited from the redesign sentiment that seems to be going on.

I'm not blaming the teams that came off well in the change at all, although they seemed to be the ones pushing for it, I'm looking at the other side of the coin, at the teams that haven't done so well. Ferrari and Lotus finally but too late seem to be getting to grips with the revised tyre, however FI with their smaller workforce and budget haven't I feel a bit sorry for them as they designed a fantastic car on the original tyres.

[What's Burning?]

I've been saying all along that it was punishing clever design based around the tyres that they were given months before the start of the season. I know it was for safety but it just seems cruel for the people who worked hard to make a car that worked well with the original spec.

They should be blaming Pirelli then, not a let's blame the teams that benefited from the redesign sentiment that seems to be going on.

I'm not blaming the teams that came off well in the change at all, although they seemed to be the ones pushing for it, I'm looking at the other side of the coin, at the teams that haven't done so well. Ferrari and Lotus finally but too late seem to be getting to grips with the revised tyre, however FI with their smaller workforce and budget haven't I feel a bit sorry for them as they designed a fantastic car on the original tyres.

I'm not disagreeing with you. It's just that the tires were really fundamentally unsafe. Which is why the change came about in the first place. So the irony is having designed a car to work with said tires. Just bad for the sport.

[sagi58]

Perhaps the answer should have been to give the teams a choice - those who wanted to keep the 'older' new tyres could do so but the Kevlar belted versions would be offered to whoever that wanted it. In either case, teams would be bound to remain with their choice till the end of the season.

But isnt the official line that they finally changed on "safety grounds". You couldn't of offered teams to partake in safety measures by choice.

I don't buy this excuse at all!! There is NO way that Pirelli didn't test their composition before mass producing it!!
NO company has that kind of money to burn. NO company would be so morally or fiscally irresponsible!! NO company
would risk their reputation by putting untested, unsafe tires on cars that travel at the speed an F1 car moves!!

Nope!! They purposefully made it seem to be a "safety" issue so that no one would morally insist on keeping the tires
that "some" teams (namely Red Bull) hadn't properly designed their car around... nor "some" teams (namely Mercedes)
who tested with them during the season.

So... NOPE, I don't buy this at all!!

[LRW]

Perhaps the answer should have been to give the teams a choice - those who wanted to keep the 'older' new tyres could do so but the Kevlar belted versions would be offered to whoever that wanted it. In either case, teams would be bound to remain with their choice till the end of the season.

But isnt the official line that they finally changed on "safety grounds". You couldn't of offered teams to partake in safety measures by choice.

I don't buy this excuse at all!! There is NO way that Pirelli didn't test their composition before mass producing it!!
NO company has that kind of money to burn. NO company would be so morally or fiscally irresponsible!! NO company
would risk their reputation by putting untested, unsafe tires on cars that travel at the speed an F1 car moves!!

Nope!! They purposefully made it seem to be a "safety" issue so that no one would morally insist on keeping the tires
that "some" teams (namely Red Bull) hadn't properly designed their car around... nor "some" teams (namely Mercedes)
who tested with them during the season.

So... NOPE, I don't buy this at all!!

a) I didnt say it was a justified reason, I just said that was the official line.
b) remove your tinfoil hat, its not a good look

[1Lemon]

I don't think Pirelli wanted to change as it probably cost them even more to do that, then you have the tyres exploding, no way in hell did a company sabotage that much PR so they could help Red Bull and Merc...

[What's Burning?]

Perhaps the answer should have been to give the teams a choice - those who wanted to keep the 'older' new tyres could do so but the Kevlar belted versions would be offered to whoever that wanted it. In either case, teams would be bound to remain with their choice till the end of the season.

But isnt the official line that they finally changed on "safety grounds". You couldn't of offered teams to partake in safety measures by choice.

I don't buy this excuse at all!! There is NO way that Pirelli didn't test their composition before mass producing it!!
NO company has that kind of money to burn. NO company would be so morally or fiscally irresponsible!! NO company
would risk their reputation by putting untested, unsafe tires on cars that travel at the speed an F1 car moves!!

Nope!! They purposefully made it seem to be a "safety" issue so that no one would morally insist on keeping the tires
that "some" teams (namely Red Bull) hadn't properly designed their car around... nor "some" teams (namely Mercedes)
who tested with them during the season.

So... NOPE, I don't buy this

That is a coockoo for cocoa puffs post right there. You really should go through and read this thread. A lot of very clear commentary on the situation that explains why you'd be so off base on each of your assertions. Maybe it's just internet sarcasm not coming across clearly though.

[Hammer278]

Perhaps the answer should have been to give the teams a choice - those who wanted to keep the 'older' new tyres could do so but the Kevlar belted versions would be offered to whoever that wanted it. In either case, teams would be bound to remain with their choice till the end of the season.

But isnt the official line that they finally changed on "safety grounds". You couldn't of offered teams to partake in safety measures by choice.

I don't buy this excuse at all!! There is NO way that Pirelli didn't test their composition before mass producing it!!
NO company has that kind of money to burn. NO company would be so morally or fiscally irresponsible!! NO company
would risk their reputation by putting untested, unsafe tires on cars that travel at the speed an F1 car moves!!

Nope!! They purposefully made it seem to be a "safety" issue so that no one would morally insist on keeping the tires
that "some" teams (namely Red Bull) hadn't properly designed their car around... nor "some" teams (namely Mercedes)
who tested with them during the season.

So... NOPE, I don't buy this at all!!

BELIEVE IT sister!!!

With all their "QC" they still had tyres exploding during practice sessions, exploding left and right in Silverstone thanks to some KERB issue....laughable to say the least, a tyre which can't take a kerb which is sharper than normal.

Even Michelin f**ked up big time once in USA, remember that one? Just because of some resurfacing issue. But during these times Pirelli doesn't have the liberty to test their products, and an F1 car's demands are no joke. Why do you think they were so desperate with Mercedes? Why would they want to risk looking like they're in bed with Mercedes just for a little test? And now they're screaming for more testing again, simply because they are not capable of understanding what their products should conform to....so yes, they f**ked up royally but massively contributed by the FIA's stupid tight spot with all those no-test regulations to save costs and what not. We have a bunch of w**kers in the FIA office who can't write a proper rulebook without changing their minds and iterations every month! Which is why we had a freak 2009 year, McLaren took that ridiculous penalty in 2007, Renault got away with their mass damper crap, Redbull's flexi wings are still a doggone mystery, and now Pirelli!

Can't wait for the next debacle.

[sagi58]

Perhaps the answer should have been to give the teams a choice - those who wanted to keep the 'older' new tyres could do so but the Kevlar belted versions would be offered to whoever that wanted it. In either case, teams would be bound to remain with their choice till the end of the season.

But isnt the official line that they finally changed on "safety grounds". You couldn't of offered teams to partake in safety measures by choice.

I don't buy this excuse at all!! There is NO way that Pirelli didn't test their composition before mass producing it!!
NO company has that kind of money to burn. NO company would be so morally or fiscally irresponsible!! NO company
would risk their reputation by putting untested, unsafe tires on cars that travel at the speed an F1 car moves!!

Nope!! They purposefully made it seem to be a "safety" issue so that no one would morally insist on keeping the tires
that "some" teams (namely Red Bull) hadn't properly designed their car around... nor "some" teams (namely Mercedes)
who tested with them during the season.

So... NOPE, I don't buy this

That is a coockoo for cocoa puffs post right there. You really should go through and read this thread. A lot of very clear commentary on the situation that explains why you'd be so off base on each of your assertions. Maybe it's just internet sarcasm not coming across clearly though.

As we've already established, an """opinion""" can be based on the sentiments of the person who holds it!!

p.s. Need a sugar fix??

[What's Burning?]

Perhaps the answer should have been to give the teams a choice - those who wanted to keep the 'older' new tyres could do so but the Kevlar belted versions would be offered to whoever that wanted it. In either case, teams would be bound to remain with their choice till the end of the season.

But isnt the official line that they finally changed on "safety grounds". You couldn't of offered teams to partake in safety measures by choice.

I don't buy this excuse at all!! There is NO way that Pirelli didn't test their composition before mass producing it!!
NO company has that kind of money to burn. NO company would be so morally or fiscally irresponsible!! NO company
would risk their reputation by putting untested, unsafe tires on cars that travel at the speed an F1 car moves!!

Nope!! They purposefully made it seem to be a "safety" issue so that no one would morally insist on keeping the tires
that "some" teams (namely Red Bull) hadn't properly designed their car around... nor "some" teams (namely Mercedes)
who tested with them during the season.

So... NOPE, I don't buy this

That is a coockoo for cocoa puffs post right there. You really should go through and read this thread. A lot of very clear commentary on the situation that explains why you'd be so off base on each of your assertions. Maybe it's just internet sarcasm not coming across clearly though.

As we've already established, an """opinion""" can be based on the sentiments of the person who holds it!!

p.s. Need a sugar fix??

I am truly sorry, it's just that there wasn't a this is an "opinion" disclaimer in your post, so it seems like you knew something we didn't know, or that you had your sources or had done some research to lead to you that conclusion. If it's your opinion then you're perfectly within your own right to hold to it, whether it's right or cuckoo for cocoa puffs. Please accept m apologies.