2013 Formula One British Grand Prix

[Samuel Fuller]

From what I see is that many of the teams where running high camber on the rear left to help in the fast corners thus overheating the inside shoulder making it vulnerable to cuts from high curbs. The teams should stop moaning about the tyres and set the car up and drive within the capabilities of the tyres.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Absolute brilliant logic.

 

[Jordi Casademunt]

Oh, by the way.

Kimi is faster than you

 

[Metalfreaky]

No one cares, if it's not Massa/Alonso

 

[Jordi Casademunt]

Well, to be fair team orders are legal now.

I just found the wording to be quite funny. Perhaps Éric Boullier is a fan of Rob Smedley

 

[Metalfreaky]

Pirelli will bring the rear tires tested in Canada to Germany: That means 2012 kevlar belt construction with 2013 compund.

 

[Markus Neumann]

Pirelli's finding for why the tyre blowouts occured:

'1) Rear tyres that were mounted the wrong way round: in other words, the right hand tyre being placed where the left hand one should be and vice versa, on the cars that suffered failures. The tyres supplied this year have an asymmetric structure, which means that they are not designed to be interchangeable. The sidewalls are designed in such a way to deal with specific loads on the internal and external sides of the tyre. So swapping the tyres round has an effect on how they work in certain conditions. In particular, the external part is designed to cope with the very high loads that are generated while cornering at a circuit as demanding as Silverstone, with its rapid left-hand bends and some kerbs that are particularly aggressive.
'2) The use of tyre pressures that were excessively low or in any case lower than those indicated by Pirelli. Under-inflating the tyres means that the tyre is subjected to more stressful working conditions.
'3) The use of extreme camber angles.
'4) Kerbing that was particularly aggressive on fast corners, such as that on turn four at Silverstone, which was the scene of most of the failures. Consequently it was the left-rear tyres that were affected.
'The only problems that had come to light before Silverstone were to do with delamination, which was a completely different phenomenon. To stop these delaminations Pirelli found a solution by suggesting that the teams use the tyres that were tried out in Canada from Silverstone onwards. When this proposal was not accepted, Pirelli found another solution through laboratory testing, with a different bonding process to attach the tread to the carcass. So the problem of delamination has nothing at all to do with what was seen in Great Britain.

To be honest, I don't find points 1-3 hard to believe at all. The teams love to stretch the limits beyond what Pirelli recommends (remember RB at Spa 2011?) and then point the finger at them for their own irresponsible risk-taking.

 

[Jordi Casademunt]

I'm guessing point 1 might be the main culprit here. 2 and 3 would happen always regardless of the tyre (the teams will push everything to the limit to go faster) and 4 would only be relevant if the kerbs were changed recently.

With asymmetric tyres, I guess the right side tyres weren't designed to take such high loads as the left side ones, so if you swap them (and there were reports about this happening before Monaco) there's a risk the tyre can't take the load (that it wasn't designed to take in the first place).

The question is, are asymmetric tyres an advantage for Formula 1?

 

[Bradley Vanian]

Number 4 is complete BS.

Only 1 puncture was after Turn 4, that being Hamilton's. "which was the scene of most of the failures."

 

[ufunacaoenn]

Number 4 is complete BS.

Only 1 puncture was after Turn 4, that being Hamilton's. "which was the scene of most of the failures."

and Massa?

 

[Bradley Vanian]

and Massa?

'Kerbing that was particularly aggressive on fast corners, such as that on turn four at Silverstone'

They are referring the fast left kink as Turn 4. As the slow hairpin beforehand is well... not a fast corner.

 

[Metalfreaky]

In my opinion all points are utter bs. Maybe all points didn't actually help the tire, but none of those points were done in Silverstone the first time.
There has to be a structural weak point in the tires that those factors have amplified and that is imo the main reason. Pirelli knew long time ago that some teams were switching the sides of the rear tyre and they didn't bother at all.
Again Pirelli has not the balls to take responsibility for their failures.

 

[Markus Neumann]

As far as I know it was the first time they did point 1) on a track with high-speed corners. Apparently Mercedes found out about the trick at or after their test, RB then copied it at Montreal and now everyone is doing it.

Also, just because those techniques aren't new doesn't change the fact that the teams are doing it against Pirelli's recommendations (which Pirelli has no right to enforce), and therefore on their own risk. All those things bring the tyre closer to its breaking point, so they shouldn't act surprised when it fails.

This whole thing is just being exploited by the people who don't like 4 stops per race. Which is ironic, because apparently people have already forgotten that they loved them two years ago (2011 had much more pitstops and no one complained).

 

[Metalfreaky]

As far as I know some teams already did this at least since Spain. I haven't checked, if all cars having had pictures in Silverstone switched the rear tires.
Teams also tend to stretch the limits a bit in terms of camber and pressure, but they do this every race. I think in Spa 2011 RB ran more front camber than Pirelli allowed but that didn't result in uncontrollable punctures just some more blistering that the team noticed.
I also don't believe that curbs in Silverstone are different from other tracks.

I understand what you are suggesting but honestly after their illegal test with Merc I don't believe Pirelli anything they say. They said they tired 2014 tires and a modified 2013 tyre to improve safety, then they bring a modified tyre to Montreal and say to the teams "test it, but there are not saftey concerns with the current tire". Therefore some teams don't agree to use it, why would they if the tyre is deemed to be ok. Then they add some glue to the tires in Silverstone to prevent delaminations and suddenly tires blow up randomly.
Now they are saying the reason for punctures are curbs and the teams using them wrong and still think the tyre is ok.
They never admitted a safety problem, so why all the changes.
Their story makes no sense at all to me.

There is clearly some publicity work colliding with the truth.

 

[Samuel Fuller]

In testing for this race it was cold and wet and the teams were expecting cooler conditions they pushed the limits forgetting that the British summer is in full force.

 

[Ho3n3r]

I agree with Pirelli's request that all tire data need to be given to them in realtime, so they can see whether they are to blame or not. I now feel sorry for them, as they have had many requests of what these tires should and should not do, so they have a very strict operating window.

I am not sure what they mean with tires being swopped around - is it a tire being pointed the other way round - which is how I think they mean - or is it left swopped to the right side of the cars, and vice versa?

If it's the first scenario, make the inside of the tire bright pink, so that we can all see when a team is guilty of working outside Pirelli's recommendations.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

As far as I know it was the first time they did point 1) on a track with high-speed corners. Apparently Mercedes found out about the trick at or after their test, RB then copied it at Montreal and now everyone is doing it.

Also, just because those techniques aren't new doesn't change the fact that the teams are doing it against Pirelli's recommendations (which Pirelli has no right to enforce), and therefore on their own risk. All those things bring the tyre closer to its breaking point, so they shouldn't act surprised when it fails.

This whole thing is just being exploited by the people who don't like 4 stops per race. Which is ironic, because apparently people have already forgotten that they loved them two years ago (2011 had much more pitstops and no one complained).

Mercedes had switched tires as early as Australia, maybe even preseason test.

 

[Markus Neumann]

Mercedes had switched tires as early as Australia, maybe even preseason test.

You're right. They did it early in the season, then stopped doing it; and after the Barcelona test, started doing it again. Then RB started doing it too.

Source: http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/...d-bull-forderte-162-punkte-abzug-7336233.html

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Not sure if they stopped doing it but i think Ferrari also have done this. Same with Lotus.
Here´s a pic from Australia, nico´s car when he DNF´d.

 

[Markus Neumann]

The Google Translate of the article is a bit weird, so rough translation of the relevant part:

For Red Bull, there is one more issue which irks them. It's about the trick of switching used tyres from left to right, and vice versa. Mercedes has been shown to have done this at the GP of Australia. This is how it is also written in Red Bull's dossier. But after that, according to Red Bull, Mercedes must have abandoned the method again, supposedly because they were not convinced of its effectiveness.

Strangely, the Silver Arrows returned to the method at the Grand Prix of Monte Carlo and Montreal. The only possible explanation: the ominous test must have provided them with new insights. And Hamilton and Rosberg would have had a chance to adapt their driving styles to the trick. Ross Brawn disagrees: "The tyre switch is nothing new. It was already being practiced long ago, even in the Bridgestone era. Bridgestone just didn't like it. Pirelli doesn't mind." The the Englishman points his finger at Red Bull: "They are in no position to complain, because in Canada, for the first time, they did the same thing, evidently with success. So that means they also benefited from our test".

Still sounds a little bit weird, but that's what happens when you translate too closely. Also, AMS just has a weird writing style sometimes