Pirelli tyre, Spa-Francorchamps, 2015

Tyre blow-outs must stop, drivers urge

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Pirelli tyre, Spa-Francorchamps, 2015In the round-up: F1 drivers urge a stop to the sudden tyre failures seen again during the Belgian Grand Prix weekend.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Drivers demand end of blow-outs (BBC)

"As drivers, we strongly believe the end of a tyre's performance window can and should not be a tyre delamination in the form of an explosion."

Bernie Ecclestone: 'Mercedes current domination of F1 is wrong' (James Allen on F1)

"It’s not nice to see somebody like Vettel two seconds off the pace, because he is not two seconds off the pace."

Lotus cars allowed to leave Spa (Sky)

"Lotus are yet to officially comment on the matter, but it's understood that the team, who claimed their first podium finish in two years on Sunday when Romain Grosjean secured third place behind the runaway Mercedes, are confident that they will be able to compete at next week's Italian GP."

2017 rules will make drivers 'love' F1 cars again (Motorsport)

"(F1) drivers who come to race endurance events say, 'Wow. These cars are great. We can push them from the beginning to the end'."

Bottas: Williams must cut out mistakes (Autosport)

"It is another weekend which we need to learn from and we need to make sure we don't do this kind of mistake again."

Red Bull trying to force Renault’s hand (F1i)

"Team principal Christian Horner likened Red Bull’s rear wing level at Spa-Francorchamps to the low-downforce Monza-spec all teams will use in Italy, while saying Williams was running what would be close to Monaco levels of wing."

Red Bull RB11 - rear wing updates (F1)

"Daniil Kvyat, meanwhile, tested a more Spa-specific set-up, with higher downforce and two horizontal plus one vertical gill on the endplate. The team opted to qualify and race the Kvyat version on both cars in order to be able to better manage tyre life during the race."

Justin Wilson: A Tribute (Badger GP)

"We met up, and he told us to give up there and then, because we had ‘no chance’ with Justin’s weight in the kart we were using."

Women in F1: 'It's too late for me,' says Danica Patrick (CNN)

"A lot of people say really mean things and I can't say nothing fazes me whatsoever but, more than anything, I feel sorry for them, that they attack in such a negative way on someone that they don't know at all."


Comment of the day

Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Hungaroring, 2015During the summer break there was a lot of discussion about whether Lewis Hamilton’s antics away from the track should be any concern of ours and whether it reflected on him in a positive or negative light. Here’s an interesting view from Eoin:

I loved the Lewis Hamilton video. I love the fact that he is living life to the fullest and enjoying himself when he gets the chance.

It’s obvious that he is still keeping up with his work and his intelligence with the car is not affected. Look at the way he knew not to over work the clutch on the first formation lap at Spa in case there was an aborted start. He learned that lesson from the previous race in Hungary when his clutch got too hot and the Ferrari’s beat him off the line. That’s a lesson the supposedly more technically stronger Nico Rosberg missed.

Also, give the events of the last 48 hours, I think we can all appreciate how important it is to live life to the fullest because it could be taken away in a second.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Vettelfan, Pemsell, Monosodico and Konstantinos!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Michael Schumacher won the Belgian Grand Prix from 16th on the grid on this day 20 years ago. Behind him were Damon Hill – who started eighth and was unimpressed with Schumacher’s defensive driving during the race – and Martin Brundle, who had lined up 13th in his Ligier.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 79 comments on “Tyre blow-outs must stop, drivers urge”

    1. About the tyre situation, if someone of you can speak spanish, i recommend you to read what Enrique Scalabroni have to say about it (it’s a response of this tweet: https://twitter.com/NatxoVillar/status/635883722739449857 )

      1. Google Translate butchers that. Any chance of translating it into proper English for us?

        1. @travis He says basically nothing.

        2. he says: Spa is an atypical circuit, with low tyre consumption and but with high structural fatigue due to Eau Rouge, that’s why there isn’t a drop in performance, but could lead to violent sudden explosions, because such a failure doesn’t gives you a warning, it just happens. it’s because of the combined forces involved, between traction and heavy vertical loading, specially on the sidewalls of the tyre, generating static waves wich leads to a failure (excuse the poor translation, remember, i’m just a graphical designer, not an engineer, and english isn’t my language!) Joan Viladelprat also agree on that.

          1. Which means, they didn’t construct a tyre good enough to withstand for Spa. That means it’s Pirelli’s fault.

            1. You mean like Michelin in 2005 US GP?

              Just like you can’t make a car that will handle all adversities thrown at it (as we tragically just saw), maybe just maybe you can’t make a perfect tire as well.

              PS. some more light on the subject from Mark Hughes. This is from his comment on his own race report:

              Post script to tyre situation. This afternoon I took a trip up to the Eau Rouge exit. The red/yellow kerbing, while benign in its general contours and hardly more than a painted section of road, has – along its first half – a ridge where it joins the normal track, 5-8mm in height, at a point where the car is going left and the right-rear is under heavy lateral load at 190mph+. Could it account for the tyre damage of both Rosberg and Vettel? Beyond half-way along the length of the kerbing, the ridge drops away, giving a completely smooth transition to the track. If you go beyond the white line and onto the kerbing – as EVERY driver was doing – that latter section would be the advisable place to rejoin.

          2. If Spa makes such unique demands on the structural integrity of a tyre during what is a pretty standard strategy, Pirelli need to be saying to everybody “we can’t guarantee safety with our usual tyres, here are some that don’t degrade in the prescribed brief”.

          3. The issue with static waves was raised during various briefings between drivers and the teams and Pirelli. Despite this, assurances were given that the tyres were perfectly safe. High speed cameras picked up that there was more oscillation than normal and it was put to bed by Pirelli, who reckoned it was not an issue to be concerned about.

            So if the tyre manufacturer is too dumbfounded, who can the drivers TRUST, and that is the real annoyance here, as pointed out by VET, a serious injury could have occurred to ROS, VET but also GRO (flying debris).

            1. they may be talking about the tyres going go last if (and only IF) the drivers were driving inside the track limits. Here’s a pretty good analysis of that by Matt Somers: http://somersf1.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/the-blame-game.html

            2. Thanks for the linke @matiascasali
              My problem with Vettel’s problem is precisely that – he does go off track, he’s one of the drivers who most drifts off track to get (exploit) a bit of pace advantage. He does this repeatedly at numerous venues. Claiming you didn’t go off track when you visibly did hardly speaks well of your argument when that involves placing the blame on the tire rather than your own driving and decision to push the tires beyond what anyone else was trying.

            3. @matiascasali

              Other than pointing out that Vettel did go out of track multiple times, it was a pretty lackluster analysis.

            4. I don’t think the drivers regard running on the kerbs, running wide etc, as “going off” even if they do sometimes run all four wheels over the white lines as they were all doing that on a normal lap.

              I think he meant he didn’t have an incident were he went right off into the run off area like Kyvat on lap 9, or Verstappen when he tried to overtake up the hill near the end of the race.

            5. i’ve once heard a comedian saying: if you want to make cars safer, don’t put airbags or safety belts: put a device that whenever you’re going too fast or crash, then throw big pointy razor sharp spikes to you, and then, you’ll see everybody driving safer and slower. The same goes here, with such a forgiving runoff areas, then you will go off track more often than not

        1. @peartree He being Argentinian may have something to do with it. Just a very wild guess though.

          1. yeah. Most of us, Argentinians, prefer to talk in our native language, spanish :P

    2. To think that it has been 6 years since Henry & Felipe’s accidents, and we’ve yet to see any further protection from flying debris. DMW made a good comment back then:

      No one has pointed out that a current formula of high-powered cars have enclosed cockpits, and have addressed various logistical issues, e.g., rain clearance, condensation, fire retardation, escape time.

      LMP cars and their predecessors have had modern polycarbonate enclosures and roll structures for a long time. They work. And I’ll point out that checkpoint’s list did not include Michele Alboreto accident in testing, attributed, I believe, to his Audi’s failed roll hoop. The double hoop structure on an enclosed sports prototype is extremely effective.

      I think enclosing the wheels is another related safety measure, to prevent cars flipping after contact and allowing structures to keep wheels in place.

      Of course, this would make F1 cars look more like the XJR-14 and similar, which would be OK with me.

      While I may not want to see F1 cars that look exactly the same as an enclosed LMP1 car, I think I’d settle for a single seater, open wheel interpretation of them if it meant we could improve safety.

    3. O do be quiet Bernie, its not “wrong” its just annoying, its not their fault they did a great job and everyone else didn’t.

      1. 5 years of Ferrari dominance (2000-2004)
        4 years of RedBull Racing dominance (2010-13)
        3 years of Mercedes dominance (2014-2016?)

        Does this mean…

        2 years of _______ dominance after the 2017 rule changes I wonder!? :P

        1. Renault and Grosjean ;) you heard it here first…..

          1. Oh, Alonso’d be sure to join Renault for the 3rd time before that happens.

          2. Grosjean won’t dominate anybody.

            1. Well he’s dominating Maldonado. But you can say Maldonado isn’t anybody :P

        2. It has been pointed many times (and with an article in this site) that the pace advantage that Mercedes have these years is much bigger than what Redbull had.

          1. And achieved without ‘pushing the regulation envelope.’

      2. @addimaf1

        the difference in the dominance comes down to the advantages being baked in to the regulations. The engine is the real difference, and manufacturers are severely limited to what they can do.

        1. @uan Then why isn’t every Mercedes engine customer wiping the floor with all the competition if the real difference in the engine? No it is, as it’s always been a package effort. Depending on the track one may give the car greater competitiveness but if you have a bad chassis then simply a great engine will not win you championships. 99.9% of the time great cars win championships.

          and manufacturers are severely limited to what they can do.

          And this simply isn’t the case, there are countless articles online of how open development on the V6’s engine with tokens actually are, Matt Somefield did a great one, Scarbs always spoke about this at length. This myth that they can change barely anything is just that a myth, The head engine guy at Mercedes (forgot his name, andy something or Andrew? Not sure) has said he could almost redesign the entire engine with the tokens he had, now even if you take some of that as marketing puffing, it’s still a long way of being severely limited. The ability to improve the engine has been shown by Ferrari and the gains they have made in the PU department.

          Having said that, why should Renault & Ferrari be punished for not putting the amount of development money and time in as their competitor? They started later than Mercedes, they spent less money than Mercedes and then are shocked when their PU doesn’t match the Mercedes. Last year was a season of rolling my eyes when anybody from Ferrari or Red Bull spoke about engines. It’s all so unfair, luckily that has died down from Ferrari, I wonder why? could it be they have found some performance?

          Not that this all matters though with 2017 changes on the board, I wonder if Mercedes are already working on that engine now or have been for a while? Are Ferrari, Renault & even Honda?

      3. @addimaf1 The reason why it is wrong is that Renault Ferrari and Honda cannot try to catch on until the end of the regulation because of freeze and other development rules. F1 is raced on an yearly basis not across seasons. Ferrari and RedBull dominated through expertise and economical overpowering.

        1. Ferrari and RedBull dominated through expertise and economical overpowering.

          Which is exactly what Merc are doing/have done.

          In the end, they are all working to the same regulations. Merc have done the best job, which gives their drivers an advantage.

          I hate all the whining. If it had been Ferrari or RBR who ended up with the advantage, they would not be complaining about the regs. Just shut up and get on with developing your car, whether this year’s or next.

          Also, stop blaming the engine for everything. There are a lot of teams who use the Merc engine, but Ferarri is in second place, and RBR in 4th. If it was all down to the engine, Merc-powered cars would be in the top few spots of the constructors championship.

          Merc have done an outstanding job with both car and engine, and have one top-flight driver and one very good driver. Stop complaining, do your job and try to catch them!

    4. It says a lot about the state of Renault that they won’t bring updates before Russia. Keep in mind, that before the loophole was found, all those upgrades were supposed to be introduced before the start of the season. It’s unfathomable how behind schedule they are, that after a generous change of rules (which was de facto the discovery of the loophole), they still haven’t been able to do something about it.

      Still better than Honda though. Ha, ha, ha.

      1. To be fair to Renault, they are not the only team that is running behind schedule with their upgrades. Ferrari have also been behind schedule with their upgrade packages after deciding to use an extra engine much earlier in the season than anticipated: some of the parts being introduced in Monza were originally meant to have been introduced during the Canadian GP.

    5. I’ll do a pre-emptive PR response on Pirelli’s behalf to “Drivers demand end of blow-outs”: Pirelli demand to drivers to keep within track limits.

      How can you seriously claim to have done nothing wrong when you consistently exceed the track limits, especially at Stavelot and Radillon?

      1. @kazinho

        How can you seriously claim to have done nothing wrong when you consistently exceed the track limits, especially at Stavelot and Radillon?

        Because that’s how it is? It’s not the first race nor will it be the last that drivers do that Spa.

        1. That is not the point @kazinho is making; read the quote again!

          If your fresh milk has a 40 day shelf live, then don’t go complaining if it goes off sooner when keeping it outside the fridge. Claiming that others do the same will not help you there!

          1. You missed my point spectacularly. Pirelli is not a milk seller, is an engineering partner. They estimates have to be based on actual usage, taking care of the most common scenarios, not some “ideal conditions”. That’s the whole point of having an engineering consultant.

      2. The tires need to match the stresses the tires are supposed to be able to take during race weekend. Some tracks have lots of kerbs the drivers drive over, some tracks have different requirements.

        1. I think it’s the official fault that they didn’t enforce their own rule about drivers need to drive within the track limit.

          1. The other question is whether some teams might have also been running tyres outside of the recommended range of parameters from Pirelli, and whether the officials were doing enough to enforce those recommendations.

            There are reports that some teams were already breaking some of those recommendations in Hungary, after Pirelli found that some of the tyres were being heated to much higher temperatures in the tyre blankets than they would recommend. Because Pirelli recommended a minimum “starting” pressure, it is being speculated that some teams were overheating the tyres so that the static pressure was above Pirelli’s recommended minimum starting pressure in the pit lane, but would then drop below that recommended pressure once they cooled off on the track.

            It was noted that, during the race weekend, Charlie Whiting made the unusual step of sending a technical directive to the teams that emphasised that they should stick to the recommended camber and tyre inflation pressures from Pirelli – it has been more than a year since he did so, suggesting that Whiting was receiving reports that teams were not sticking to the recommended limits.

            Even so, there has been some speculation that Ferrari might have used the above mentioned tactic and were therefore running under inflated tyres on track. There have been images of Vettel’s lines through the corners before the tyres blew that suggest his tyres were under inflated (certainly when compared to Grosjean), causing the tyre to deform to the point that he was running on the side wall of the tyre through Raidillion.

            Although questions could be raised of Pirelli, if it was the case that Ferrari was running outside of Pirelli’s recommended range of parameters, then it could be said that perhaps Ferrari are not quite as innocent as Vettel claimed (Vettel’s comments did have a vibe of “the lady doth protest too much” about it).

            1. There are pictures of other cars (not just Ferrar) going through the same corners that also show the tyres distorting, this is why some technical experts have been discussing if standing waves (see the comment by @matiascasali) were the reason for the tyre failing. There is no indication that any team were under inflating their tyres, the FIA check tyre pressures and Charlie Whiting when asked earlier in the weekend said that the technical directive was routine not because the FIA suspected any teams were doing anything wrong.

            2. It could be that Ferrari (and some other cars) have more downforce than Lotus, so would deform the tire more.

              This goes back to 2013 when the cars that suffered the most had more downforce than those that didn’t.

      3. Do you think that the penalty for exceeding the track limits should be a dangerous blowout?

        Drivers always have and always will use as much of the track, kerbs and more as they can, especially at a track that needs to be driven aggressively to set a competitive lap time. They all do it and Pirelli knows this, their first duty is to provide a tyre robust enough to be safe, performance is secondary to that.

      4. The track is never going to be a sterile environment even if everyone keeps within the lines. There will always be marbles and debris about.

    6. “It’s not nice to see somebody like Vettel two seconds off the pace, because he is not two seconds off the pace.”

      Vettel looked over a second faster than Alonso and Hamilton on many occasions between 2010-2013, but was it “wrong” then, Bernie? I didn’t hear you complain when Red Bull were dominating.

      In reality Bernie has his own favorites (Red Bull, Ferrari, Vettel) who he pulls for, just like anyone else.

      1. Not that I want to defend Bernie, on this one occasion he is right: “Ecclestone responded that Mercedes dominance was the cause of the unrest.” The 3 best races of the season have been ones in which Mercedes have been challenged for the win.

        The historical trend is if a car is so dominant that the race is won by the first corner, then F1 changes the rules to equalise the field. That is how F1 works:
        1992/93 – Williams active suspension. 1994 – Active suspension banned.
        2004 – Ferrari absolutely dominate. 2005 – Race distance tyres.
        2011 – Red Bull exhaust blows every one away. 2012 – EBD banned.
        2013 – Renault magic traction control. 2014 – Completely new engine formula.

        (I know the last one wasn’t in response to the Red Bull results… yet that list doesn’t include the in-season rule changes like mass-dampers or changing how the tyre groove depth was measured.)

        Ordinarily, there would be a rule change at the end of this year to equalise the field. The problem with Mercedes is that there isn’t one single gimmick that anyone can put their finger on to say “that’s why they are winning”, and the engines cost so much that they just cannot go back to the pre-2014 formula.

        I guess that’s why an idea such as refuelling was floated. It would force a concept redesign from the teams.

      2. @kingshark Yes, that is why Bernie said Vettel is not a good champion for F1 and Lewis is a much better one. Sure old Bernie has his favorites but he isn’t that daft to be lured into favouritism and sometimes he is even correct.

        Between 2010-2013 (where Vettel only really had the better car in 2011 and 2013) the teams had plenty of opportunity to catch up to Red Bull. That is simply not the case as Mercedes their advantage is protected by the rules. Some are even saying the RB chassis would be better already than the Mercedes one and that would be the reason Mercedes does not want to supply them.

        Besides all his crazy remarks Bernie also knows we need closer racing in F1 so yes he will talk about downgrading Mercedes as they are just ruining the show that is F1, aka TV money.

    7. A massive part of Hamilton going to Mercedes was the roll of the dice that massive investments at Mercedes plus full chassis and engine integration as a works team, to really be primed and readied for the 2014 rule changes, with the bonus of a nice juicy salary to boot!

      But don’t underestimate that freedom he was also promised as part of their deal to get him signed for 2013. It’s often mentioned Mclaren is quite sterile, drivers have to be clean cut, formal and presentable. But at Mercedes, Hamilton has been allowed to grow out his facial hair much more than at Mclaren, he is now covered in tattoos and with less commercial commitments he can afford to spend more time jet-setting and living it up at non-race weekends.

      Small changes perhaps but mentality and the well-being of the mind is huge for elite athletes. A happy Lewis tends to get great results. Mercedes will be fine for him to keep living his life as long so the commitment to training and sim-work continues and the work/life balance is maintained. They certainly don’t need to force or change anything right now, all is good at that team.

      1. Yep, could you imagine Hamilton putting up with McLaren as it is right now? I sure as hell can’t.

        1. We all thought Alonso wouldn’t put up with McLaren, but…

          1. Well.. He won’t for long

      2. I’ve had the privilege of watching this race via the on board cameras fitted to the cars, and it includes a speedometer and RPM counter. I took some screen shots and of the different drivers doing their top speeds, or tried to. There was a bit lag between pressing the button and the screenshot, so often I missed the absolute top speed of a car. In terms of instantaneous top speed on one part of the track, Lewis Hamilton is not the winner. There other drivers who drove much faster than him, e.g. Romain Grosjean doing 341 km/hr and Danill Kvyat doing 340 km/hr (both DRS enabled). The top speed I recorded for Hamilton was 323 km/hr (he probably did go faster, but my recollection is he seldom went even this fast in this race, that is the speed I recorded with my screenshot), and that is a speed most other drivers seemed to be capable of exceeding, e.g. Romain Grosjean at 330 km/hr (no DRS), Raikkonen at 332 km/hr (no DRS), Kvyat at 330 km/hr (no DRS).
        The important point is Hamilton has the fastest average speed, meaning he won this race not on the long straights, but on the corners and short straights.
        Another point is Mercedes may have the most powerful engine, but it doesn’t seem to be significantly more powerful than say a Ferrari (Raikkonen at 332 km/hr no DRS) or a Renault (Kvyat at 341 km/hr with DRS).
        One thing that I have noticed with Hamilton, and some of the other Mercedes engined drivers as well, is they keep their “revs” low. Hamilton almost always never goes above 11500 rpm (he was using 11439 rpm to get the 323 km/hr).

    8. Thank you so much Keith for the COTD. The last few days have been really hard for me and that means a lot to me.
      Thank you again

      1. Thats a great comment, @eoin16. After motorsport taken away the lives of Wilson and Bianchi its good to see someone with other perspective.

        It give us another side of the cliches we use to heard about F1 and mainly about how Hamilton is less smarter than Nico — Thanks fot that!

        And I hope you´re ok and fine regard the hard times you´re getting through at the moment!


        1. @becken-lima Thank you sir. Going to watch the Indy race with a very heavy heart today. Still haven’t decided if I will watch the super speedways again though.

    9. Vettel 2 secs off the pace? What about the likes of Alonso and Button, Daniil, Ric? Hamilton is obviously a very good driver but when the competition for the WC is exclusively a 2 horse race it is all a little boring. Give everyone Mercs and tires that last then we can have the need for extra grid slots after the first 2. No matter how you look at it, surely the car is a major factor.

      1. Ron Brooks (@)
        27th August 2015, 6:57

        Agreed. It’s a lot easier to make the case that a slow car will make a great driver look bad. Take Schumacher’s return from retirement to drive for Mercedes their first year.
        A friend and I have been jokingly talking about “cockpit bingo”. Where for a supporting race or charity, the drivers draw car numbers and drive those cars for the race. After a little practice, of course.

      2. @mim5 For you there is GP2.

        I agree it would be fun to see but same spec cars is not F1. Sure they can change the tyres so everyone can go flat out the entire race which would make the better drivers stand out but just giving everyone the same car is not in the DNA of F1.

        1. Ron Brooks (@)
          29th August 2015, 23:17

          I took mim5’s comment about giving everyone a Mercedes as sarcasm, not advocating same spec cars. I was talking about switching F1 drivers around in current F1 cars. Hamilton in a Marussia for an extreme example. I agree same spec cars are not in the DNA of F1.

    10. Merc would be so much smarter to turn things down. It’s so short-term to smash everyone for a season. Bernie won’t put up with it. They’ll end up racing Red Bull Mercedes and either losing or being accused of supplying crap engines.

    11. When was the last time the dominant team also supplied engines for half the grid?

    12. Mercedes’ domination is strongly supported by F1’s distorted financial model and Ecclestone is directly responsible for that.

      Firstly, there are not enough teams. We need three more teams to have a full grid (and there is room for even more) but F1 is not attractive enough for manufacturers and not affordable for private teams. The more cars / engines on the grid, the more competition.

      Secondly, there are not enough competitive teams. Only a few teams have enough resources to even try to produce a winning car. There is no reason why Force India or Sauber could not challenge Mercedes if they had enough funding. But the costs are too high and the distribution of prize money is unfair so it cannot happen.

      Thirdly, the rules are too tight and development is too restricted. Rivals should be able to develop and test their engines and cars to catch the current leaders but it would be far too expensive and unsustainable, particularly for the smaller teams, so F1 cannot allow it.

      The current financial model allows Ecclestone’s employers to earn billions but it also increases the likelihood of one team’s dominance and relatively boring races and championships. Ecclestone should change that model if he indeed feels that “Mercedes’ domination is wrong.”

      1. @girts Spot on but as we all know, Bernie doesn’t care about F1. He only cares about his wallet.

        We also know that 100% of what Bernie says is for a reason. You always have to read between the lines. If he’s saying Mercedes’ domination is wrong, it’ll be because he’s involved in negotiations with someone who isn’t happy with Mercedes’ domination.

        It’s similar to him saying Monza might be off the calendar in the future. It won’t be but it puts him in a stronger position to publicly say it might happen. It also puts pressure on Monza to ensure it happens. How do they ensure that? Pay Bernie more money.

    13. If F1 wanted to be a sprint race for LMP-lookalike-cars-but-lighter (closed cockpits and closed wheels) it would have been long ago, but the charme of open wheel and cockpit racing is one of the things that makes Formule One stand out.

    14. I’d go one step further, if F1 and its tyres want to be road relevant, why don’t they develop runflat tyres for race cars, with the filling foam filling the tyre up when there is a minor deflation. While this may not stop incidents like Vettel’s blow out on the weekend from happening, it may reduce the amount of tyres shredding themselves when they go flat while the driver attempts to make their way back to the pit.

      1. @dragoll. I would argue that F1 is already using runflats since Pirelli increased the strength of the sidewall in 2013.
        But runflats have a max speed you can use after a puncture, and (as you said) do help when you have a blow-out.

    15. Apparently up until Spa there had been 80 tyres that had suffered cuts so far this year. Over the Spa weekend they found cuts in 65 of there tyres.

      They did a track walk & looked at kurbs, runoff as well as the track to see if there was a sharp edge on a kurb or some debris which could be causing them & apparently found nothing.

      Since 2011 it seems that tyres suffering from cuts hasn’t been that uncommon & that as i’ve said in the past these tyres are a lot more prone to it than previous suppliers tyres have been.

      1. Also now hearing that Vettel’s tyres had 50% of the compound remaining, The performance cliff doesn’t start until the compound goes down to 30%.

        In terms of compound wear Pirelli’s 40 lap estimate was correct.

        Seems the blame is going to be laid on a structural failure caused by riding kurbs with 50% of the compound gone.

        1. Hey @gt-racer, I’ve been reading all your comments about this issue, very interesting!
          Question, didn’t Pirelli say the failure was due to normal wear? How does that fit with a kerb-induced cuts? How could have this been prevented?

          1. They also said it wasn’t because of the curbs actually. So, they were just talking total nonsense apparently.

    16. Legendary performance by Schumi in 95, who always exelled at Spa. 1997 is another great example.

    17. I support the Drivers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No more blowouts! Too many deaths in racing recently, no one wants to see another driver die or be horribly injured.

      Also can we please stop talking about Manica Patrick and F1 now???

      1. Manica Patrick

        Accidental or Deliberate?

    18. I can’t agree Hembrey’s statements.

    19. Great footage from the 1995 Belgian Grand Prix Keith! WHich site is it from? We miss part 2!!!

      1. yes whesre is part two. Awesome race!

    20. Matthew Abbott
      28th August 2015, 18:51

      Forgive me if I am just being naïve, but it each driver is allocated 13 sets of dry tires for the weekend, so that’s 52 tires per driver. We are 11 races in, so that’s 572 tires. Give that only two have failed through non wear, that represents a failure rate of what, 0.3%? To say that ‘tire blowouts have to stop’, surely they have hardly started? I appreciate I’m not a driver and its the last thing you want, but I can’t help feel its all blown out of proportion?

      1. Matthew Abbott
        28th August 2015, 18:58

        Actually I’ll revise that. They have 20 sets including intermediates and wets. So that is 80 x 22 x 11 = 19360. That is actually a failure rate of 0.01% unless there is a mass of other.blown out tires not mentioned that skew that even more??

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.