Bottom post of the previous page:
Comment from a tire guy: https://www.grandprix.com/news/f1-tyre- ... story.htmlSummation: "a problem with the carcass." He does not buy the debris excuse.
Bottom post of the previous page:
Comment from a tire guy: https://www.grandprix.com/news/f1-tyre- ... story.htmlI'm not qualified to comment on this matter, however a problem with the carcass of the rear left tyre seems consistent with Stroll's accident, has nothing to do with Hamilton's problem, and is a possibility with Verstappen (his rear left tyre didn't implode like Stroll's).Ruslan wrote: ↑2 years ago Comment from a tire guy: https://www.grandprix.com/news/f1-tyre- ... story.html
Summation: "a problem with the carcass." He does not buy the debris excuse.
Well, I am always been supportive of multiple tire manufacturers in F1, because I think it in the spirit of F1 and adds another interesting dimension to the show. Remember the competition between Goodyear and Michelin in the early 1980s? On some seasons, there were four different tire manufacturers in F1. It actually helped to add variability and competition to the series, for some tracks favored the Michelin-shod teams and some favored the Goodyear-shod teams. So on any give race, half of the teams gained an advantage but it changed from track to track.P. Cornelius Scipio wrote: ↑2 years ago Having said that there's one thing that I disagree with in this article: competition and a second supplier are irrelevant.....
Agreed.To sum this up IMHO the problem is not Pirelli but the logic behind crap tyres that are deemed necessary to spice things up
Agree without reservation.P. Cornelius Scipio wrote: ↑2 years agoI'm not qualified to comment on this matter, however a problem with the carcass of the rear left tyre seems consistent with Stroll's accident, has nothing to do with Hamilton's problem, and is a possibility with Verstappen (his rear left tyre didn't implode like Stroll's).Ruslan wrote: ↑2 years ago Comment from a tire guy: https://www.grandprix.com/news/f1-tyre- ... story.html
Summation: "a problem with the carcass." He does not buy the debris excuse.
Having said that there's one thing that I disagree with in this article: competition and a second supplier are irrelevant, Pirelli produces tyres in accordance to the technical specification that they receive from F1, that's the real problem, if you want to spice races up by having tyres that have a given track life then you are bound to have this kind of problem. Pirelli have been manufacturing very good racing tyres for decades, it's not as if they forgot how to do it. IMHO Pirelli have been silly in accepting this situation but that's another problem. Pirelli, or any other supplier, could easily build tyres that are 5 seconds quicker per laps but that is not what they have been tasked to do, they have been asked to come up with a product that doesn't last very long so we get more pit stops and maybe during a pit stop someone manages to pass another car (on the assumption that due to the aero effect of these cars on track overtakings are almost impossible without some sort of external help).
To sum this up IMHO the problem is not Pirelli but the logic behind crap tyres that are deemed necessary to spice things up
Well, Italian constructors used Italian tires in the 1950s after all. Maserati was the last Pirelli customer until the end of 1958.
And I think the first 4 World Championships.
'xcept when they used Belgian.
I see the only other win in that period was Berger in 86. It wasn't particularly successful. The brabham of 85 probably wasn't a bad car, but Bernie had no doubt struck one of his dodgy deals and tyres were undoubtedly a disadvantage compared to the GoodyearsEverso Biggyballies wrote: ↑2 years agoAnd I think the first 4 World Championships.
Even 1954 WDC Fangio used Pirelli tyres in the first two races that year. (17/42 of his points that year were won on Pirelli tyres)
FYI As well as the first win of their return, Piquet also won the last GP Pirelli won in the last of their pre 2011 stints. (Canada 1991 with Benetton)
In order to introduce multiple tyre manufacturers (and therefore ditching the policy that very poor tyres are useful to slow down cars and spice things up, without 2 tyres blowing up the race would have been rather boring and we wouldn't be talking about it) they would have to go back to 100% thermal engines, limit engine capacity to something like 1500cc or thereabout and ditch most of the aero devices that they are using. I'd love it!!!!Ruslan wrote: ↑2 years agoWell, I am always been supportive of multiple tire manufacturers in F1, because I think it in the spirit of F1 and adds another interesting dimension to the show. Remember the competition between Goodyear and Michelin in the early 1980s? On some seasons, there were four different tire manufacturers in F1. It actually helped to add variability and competition to the series, for some tracks favored the Michelin-shod teams and some favored the Goodyear-shod teams. So on any give race, half of the teams gained an advantage but it changed from track to track.P. Cornelius Scipio wrote: ↑2 years ago Having said that there's one thing that I disagree with in this article: competition and a second supplier are irrelevant.....
Now, I am not sure they could go back to that for as you correctly note "Pirelli produces tyres in accordance to the technical specification that they receive from F1..."
The tires are designed to slow the car down and wear out quickly. I am not sure what we would get if we went with multiple competing tire manufacturers, but.... I suspect the cars would gain at least 2 seconds a lap (you said 5). Of course, they could always put grooves on them (an idea that truly sucked).
Anyhow, I have never been sold on the idea of spicing up the game through rigged tires.
Agreed.To sum this up IMHO the problem is not Pirelli but the logic behind crap tyres that are deemed necessary to spice things up
Yea, they have gotten themselves on a path that is hard to get off of. On the other hand, I have been a lone voice on these forums for a while that maybe F1 should just ban all wings.P. Cornelius Scipio wrote: ↑2 years agoIn order to introduce multiple tyre manufacturers (and therefore ditching the policy that very poor tyres are useful to slow down cars and spice things up, without 2 tyres blowing up the race would have been rather boring and we wouldn't be talking about it) they would have to go back to 100% thermal engines, limit engine capacity to something like 1500cc or thereabout and ditch most of the aero devices that they are using. I'd love it!!!!Ruslan wrote: ↑2 years agoWell, I am always been supportive of multiple tire manufacturers in F1, because I think it in the spirit of F1 and adds another interesting dimension to the show. Remember the competition between Goodyear and Michelin in the early 1980s? On some seasons, there were four different tire manufacturers in F1. It actually helped to add variability and competition to the series, for some tracks favored the Michelin-shod teams and some favored the Goodyear-shod teams. So on any give race, half of the teams gained an advantage but it changed from track to track.P. Cornelius Scipio wrote: ↑2 years ago Having said that there's one thing that I disagree with in this article: competition and a second supplier are irrelevant.....
Now, I am not sure they could go back to that for as you correctly note "Pirelli produces tyres in accordance to the technical specification that they receive from F1..."
The tires are designed to slow the car down and wear out quickly. I am not sure what we would get if we went with multiple competing tire manufacturers, but.... I suspect the cars would gain at least 2 seconds a lap (you said 5). Of course, they could always put grooves on them (an idea that truly sucked).
Anyhow, I have never been sold on the idea of spicing up the game through rigged tires.
Agreed.To sum this up IMHO the problem is not Pirelli but the logic behind crap tyres that are deemed necessary to spice things up