2015 FORMULA 1 SHELL BELGIAN GRAND PRIX: RACE *** SPOILERS ***

I find it hard to imagine that proposed rule having anything to do with tire safety. 50% race distance on primes - that's totally arbitrary. Sounds more like a rule constructed to force pit stops. If it were really about safety, then the manufacturer would specify the limit on a race-by-race basis depending on tracks and current conditions.

And by the way, the tire supplier is already in exactly the position to do this; they don't need an arbitrary rule. They are with each of the teams at every race and are in a position to advise if they think the strategy is dangerous.

The fact they've thrown in a reference to this proposed rule is, to me, desperate and nearly juvenile.

 

I'd like to know what he saw as the risk. Ferrari took a risk that the tyre would loose grip and Grosjean would be able to overtake.

I don't see anything to support they took a risk regarding the tyre falling apart.

 

I don't know why this is such a big deal.

If you continue to drive your road car on worn out tyres it will eventually fail. Ferrari decided to try and run close to twice the distance that these tyres are designed or normally used for; of course there was a risk of failure.

Also everybody is talking about this like tyres never fail in racing conditions ... utter bollocks. Tyres have been failing since the very first race and will continue to do so.

Lets move on. Pirelli should not be sued, executed, etc. Ferrari took a risk and it did not pay off. So what, nobody was hurt and there was a low likelihood that Vettel would have been. They fncked up, end of story!
Pete

 

+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

 

GPDA: Tyre failures should not end in explosions

GPDA: Tyre failures should not end in explosions


Even with mandatory tyre changes to “spice” up the race, Pirelli should be made to deliver only tyres that can run the whole race, and not blow up short of that.

There are other ways to get to the end of a tyre working life without occasioning explosions; think about progressive loss of grip, etc...

 

As Bernie Ecclestone would say: bull****!!

Those tyres were not run twice the distance that they were designed for, according to the Pirelli guys. Or at least according to the Pirelli guys before the tyre had exploded, because they said another thing later. And that´s precisely the problem here: that Pirelli doesn´t know how long their tyres can last, so I´m afraid that from now on teams wil have to run only short stints "just in case", even if their tyres still look and behave nicely.

Another problem is that, for some unknown reason, FIA gave freedom to use the run off areas, while at other races they were very picky about this. Another case of inconsistency from Charlie Whiting and friends.

Of course, nobody is going to sue, execute, etc Paul Hembery or Charlie Whiting because after all these years everybody has grown used to their crap. But that doesn´t mean that there is not a problem.

 

Do not misconstrue the facts. Vettel's tires were not "worn-out", as you are implying. "Worn-out" would mean either they have lost all performance or the tread has been worn below a specific measurement. Neither was the case with Vettel's tires in this incident.

 

Desperate and juvenile. F1.

 

Is it a fact that he was off track numerous times and that Grosejean was closing in?
Is it a fact that he was the only driver on this strategy?
Is it a fact that he was the only one with a tire failure during the race?

I bet that didn't happen either.

 

Motors blow and brakes fail. Where is the outrage lol!

 

Nobody ever said none of that occurred. But, the fact is that the tire did not fail due to being "worn-out". Over-stressed? Maybe. I don't know. But, based strictly on performance and rate-of-wear, the strategy was sound. Bad luck took-over.

 

what is it, exactly, that you are trying to prove?

We already know one agenda is trying to prove Lewis' superiority, but this one? It's leading to something, that's for sure...but what, I don't know.

 

Repost - Blundle strikes a good balance on this tire issue and the race.

To me this statement explains alot of Vettels anger after the race --


Ferrari should not have tried a one-stop strategy on that track in those conditions. And that's not hindsight, it's common sense and even Vettel called in at one point suggesting a further change, albeit for performance reasons. He would have made his way back up to third on fresh soft 'option' tyres. It was an error.

Martin Brundle: F1 enjoys Spa treatment as Hamilton looks unbeatable | F1 News

 

Spot on !

Remove the tarmaced run off areas would bring back some consistency in racing.
As it is, drivers don't care to go off track since it's doesn't occur any penalty.

If they were in danger of getting stuck in the "kitty litter", they would be more attentive to it.

 

This is getting so confusing.

Why would Brundle say it was a wrong call if it looks like Vettel was going to get 3rd? So many potential issues with a pit stop...plus they had something 'up their sleeve' in case of rain.....the risk, in Ferrari's mind was NEVER that a tyre might fall apart.

Vettel's question about stopping was only for performance reasons.....never "should we stop to make sure we don't have an exploding tyre"

So.....why was it a mistake?

 

Seems he feels for the result that could be obtained in a real sense a one stop was not needed. As a former driver he must have some insight. Each day passing we will have Monza sooner. This will all be forgotten.

 

Why risk a pit stop if you get the same result without it?

As has been said over and over, tyre blow outs, suspension failures, engine blow ups....they've been happening forever.

There was nothing to indicate that Vettel was risking a tyre blow out....Nico's issue could easily assumed to be a one off, especially given Pirelli's explanation of it.

Anyway, you're right.....what do we know?

 

Don't bring any common sense or balanced views to this thread. These guys made up their minds already. It's time to crucify Pirelli because they gave a 40 lap estimate. Who cares that the track conditions change all the time, that they supply tires for 20 cars with different setups, different driving styles, and that drivers drive off track.
All of that should ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS produce 40 laps. NOT 39.5, but 40. DO YOU HEAR ME PIRELLI?

 

what are you going on about??

I think the game play is to dazzle us with irrelevant and irreverent posts while mixing in regular "I love Lewis" posts.

Speaking of Lewis, since you brought this up recently.....if you only consider the time in a TOP car, which is all Lewis has ever had.....what is the pole/race ratio between him and Senna?....since you and toil are going to use the number of poles as a statistic.

and Senna got those against people like Prost!!

 

Unless they state a different estimate, like, say, 20 or 30 or 60. Other than that, crucify-away! Or, Pirelli should STFU, and say "I don't know how many laps you can get out of 'em. Good luck! See you in 2 weeks."

 

Outlook just gave me a reminder "Tesla"...it gave me a fright initially, but then I remembered it has nothing to do with the tesla on here.

 

Hahaha

 

When you have to keep explaining that tire wear/failure is different and can be affected by a millions different things, to a supposedly knowledgeable F1 group of fans, but they still deny and deny then you know you're in trouble. Good luck with your 40 lap guarantee.
Since you guys think you have such a strong case, why don't you all join forces with Ferrari and sue the hell out of Pirelli? You can claim possible championship loss, emotional distress, attempted murder, etc.
I'm sure there are some good lawyers around here.

 

I just looked over all your posts but this is nothing I found...You still do not accept others opinions but you behave like we are all dump because we do not see the obvious.

Sorry but this is absolutely ridiculous...The tyre of Vettel was not nearly at 40 laps, 28 is not even close to that. So what do you want to say with this sarcastic comment? If 28 laps is already close to 40 why not reduce it to 20 to be certain or better 15...Lets pit every second lap to be on the safe side...Now that is ridiculous and FIA can give themselves a pat on the back if their own guideline for the tyres to make a race more interesting result in everybody doing exactly the same strategy to be on the safe side. Well done but unfortunately exactly contrary to what was intended...The only interesting thing on last weekends race was the question whether Vettel could keep the Lotus behind him at the closing stage of the race, all the rest was plain boring just as many races in the past without any unexpected circumstances. Most of the changes in the position are purely done by "undercuts" and then someone trying something different is not only punished with the result but even called idiots for doing so...F1 is getting more and more exciting...

 

Actually, I was wondering if YOU understood the difference. Do you?

Ferrari risked tyre wear....and the loss of grip...but that seemed under control.

Ferrari did NOT risk tyre failure, and neither did Nico....but it happened....unless you consider being out on the track is risking tyre failure.