Lewis Hamilton's tyre, Silverstone, 2020

Pirelli: 2020 tyres teams rejected would have coped better with high Silverstone loads

2020 British Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by and

Pirelli’s 2020-specification tyre compounds, the introduction of which was blocked by F1 teams, would have stood up better to the exceptionally high forces seen at last weekend’s British Grand Prix, says the manufacturer.

Teams tested the prototype compounds last year but unanimously rejected their introduction for 2020 in favour of continuing with the 2019 rubber.

Last weekend three drivers suffered tyre failures in the closing stages of the British Grand Prix. Pirelli said the tyres failed partly due to the extremely high forces exerted during the race, which were the greatest it had ever seen.

“The investigation says that the cause of the initial loss of pressure and then the deflation was caused by the level of stress on the tyre, on the construction of the tyre,” explained Pirelli’s head of motorsport Mario Isola.

Asked whether the 2020 compounds could have coped with the loads more successfully, Isola said: “That construction was more robust, stronger. I would say that was designed with these criteria in mind.

“If I have to compare the resistance of the 2020 tyre compared to the 2019, there is a step in this direction. And we can assess this step with our indoor test, with our methodologist. So, yes, is the answer.”

The failures suffered by Lewis Hamilton, Valtteri Bottas and Carlos Sainz occured without warning. Isola said Pirelli will consider changes for future tyre compounds which will help drivers judge when their rubber has become seriously worn.

“It looks like our tyres, also when they are worn, the level of grip is still quite good. This is something that we have in mind for the future, to generate a loss of performance when the tyre is worn.

“That is not for tomorrow, obviously, it’s something that we have to consider for the future.”

In the meantime Pirelli has decided not to go ahead with a planned test of new prototype rubber during second practice this weekend.

“For now, for this weekend, we have decided to cancel the test that was planned for Friday in order to give the possibility to the teams to use all of FP2 for their testing, their long runs and so on,” said Isola.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2020 F1 season

Browse all 2020 F1 season articles

Author information

Dieter Rencken
Dieter Rencken has held full FIA Formula 1 media accreditation since 2000, during which period he has reported from over 300 grands prix, plus...
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.

73 comments on “Pirelli: 2020 tyres teams rejected would have coped better with high Silverstone loads”

  1. Anyone know how the 18 inch wheels will impact tire durability in terms of both degradation and wear?

    1. @phillyspur I know that the lower side walls can improve tread wear because the walls are stiffer allowing less tread movement and possibly improving grip. But the ultra low side walls these cars will run will probably make the rims more vulnerable to damage due to less wall to cushion impacts.

      1. Yeah, those larger rims will probably mean they will have to reconsider running over some of the kerbing, I guess, since the flex will have to come from the suspension, and works a bit differently that what we are used to.

    2. 18 inchers are being used in F2 this season and the races have been influenced by tyre strategy a lot.
      They look quite good on the F2 cars though.

    3. no one knows that. judging by f2, tyres look like putty, solid but soft, awful deg but no sidewall failure to speak of. This picture says alot, forget the cuts narrative the sidewall is gone but the tread has little to no marks, cuts could help but load fatigued the tyres.

  2. A-ha-ha-ha, sure, Pirelli, sure!

  3. Don’t know or care who’s at fault but look at Kvyats crash, because of a blown right rear, in a high speed corner. Its has been uploaded in F1 YouTube.

    Thats scary stuff and unacceptable, are cars gonna run this weekend as if that didn’t happen?

    1. It happened so fast, that poor guy was blaming himself for that crash thinking that him getting distracted and getting on the red part of the kerb caused the accident.

      1. @rockgod what felt more unfair was that, initially, the team also claimed that there was no evidence of failure and that it was a driver error. You could understand Kvyat being confused about what happened, but it is more surprising that the team were initially also blaming him when they should have had a clearer indication of what was happening.

    2. kvyat behaviour is very telling. That must have shook him. he was picking up small carbon debris from the floor… typical shock behaviour. f1 needs another Sid Watkins.

  4. Of course that’s easy to say now, isn’t it? But the teams rejected the 2020’s because being able to run a poor product for longer is, like Pirelli itself it seems, rather besides the point.

    1. The Pirelli tyres aren’t a poor product, they are the product the customer specifically asked for. F1 could have issued a more demanding specification (and therefore a more expensive tyre and overall better tyre … with the potential that another manufacturer might have won the contract), but didn’t. Pirelli won that tender because their tyres were the cheapest F1 could get that were built to their specifications. F1 is happy with these tyres. If they weren’t happy then why did they reject the 2020 tyres? No, these are the tyres the teams asked for and they are happy with them.

      1. @drycrust If it were upto the teams they would be racing on Michelin’s.

        Pirelli got the contract initially as they were the only tire supplier who would agree to create high degredation tires. Michelin, Dunlop & all of the other suppliers who applied for the 2011 tender refused to create the sort of tires Bernie was pushing them to make.

        When the tire tender came up in I think it was 2016 the teams & drivers were heavily in favor of Michelin winning it but Bernie stuck with Pirelli on purely commercial grounds. Although something that did come out of that deal was that Bernie & F1 actually stopped asking Pirelli to create high degredation tires & so since the start of 2017 Pirelli have actually been free to produce the tires to work the way they want rather than having to follow a Bernie led mandate.

        And if it wasn’t for the timing of the most recent tender it’s actually highly probable Michelin would have won the tender given the support there tires have in the F1 paddock with Liberty & especially Ross Brawn also favoring them. The only reason F1 ended up sticking with Pirelli until I think 2023 is because of the 2020 season using 13″ tires with the 2021 (Now 2022) switch to 18″. Michelin were unwilling to supply 13″ tires just for one season & Pirelli were unwilling to sign a 1 year extension just to cover 2020.

        As to the 2020 tires. Teams voted against using them as it was unanimously felt they were worse than the 2019 one’s when it came to the things teams/drivers were unhappy with (Working ranges, temperature sensitivity & inability for drivers to lean on them).

  5. Except that Pirelli are simply making excuses and talking rubbish here.

    The 2019 pole position time was 1:25:093, whilst the fastest lap of the race was 1:27:369.

    In 2020, pole position was 1:24:303, whilst the fastest race lap was 1:27:097.

    As is obvious, the 2020 increase in time was only for qualifying, rather than for race pace. In fact, the fastest race lap in 2019 done by Hamilton, is almost identical to the fastest race lap of 2020 done by Verstappen (1:27:369 vs 1:27:097).

    And despite Lewis doing that 2019 fastest race lap on tires that were 30 laps old, as opposed to Verstappen who did his in 2020 on tires 1 lap old, there were no deflations or delaminations in 2019.

    So what “biggest forces ever generated” is Pirelli talking about?

    Pirelli are simply incompetent. Their tires have been consistently inconsistent, and their tire wear predictions have been off more times than i can remember.

    1. @kbdavies

      I agree 100% & I have been saying the same thing for years.

      1. AJ (@asleepatthewheel)
        5th August 2020, 4:13

        @kbdavies agree with you. What’s even more surprising is these tyres were the hardest in the range, and it was the C1 which delaminated lmao. Speaks of sheer incompetence!

        PS- what’s the status of tyre choices this weekend?

    2. @kbdavies I dare say if Hamilton had pitted prior to the last lap for fresh rubber, as Verstappen did to get fastest lap, he would have achieved in the low 1:26s, a similar increase against last year as in qualifying trim. It’s hard for us mortal, non F1 drivers, to appreciate the extra forces in going a second quicker a lap, it’s not made up on the straight in top speed, it’s made in the corners, which creates greater G-forces. Notable that RB qualified slower this year than last year also, so comparing the fastest race pace laps is a bit like apples and oranges.

      It’s those G-forces that put further strain on the construction of the tyre. Also due to the heat and the known harsh tyre conditions at Silverstone, due to it’s high speed corners, it was an exceptional year. They were also running higher tyre pressure minimums than normal at the race due to this.

      I’m not defending Pirelli, just pointing out your time comparisons aren’t showing the full picture. I’m looking forward to the new 18″ rims, now delayed to 2022. They should be a lot more durable against this type of failure and also look really cool.

      1. if Hamilton had pitted prior to the last lap for fresh rubber, as Verstappen did to get fastest lap, he would have achieved in the low 1:26s, a similar increase against last year as in qualifying trim

        So, you are saying the potential increase in speed thatwwould have happened in one lap is what Pirelli are talking about? This is not about whatifs, the point is the fastest race laps for both years was almost the same.

        There was certainly no increase in race pace and no greater forces were generated on the tyre.

        As for the downforce issue, it leads to higher cornering speeds which leads to higher laps times. AGAIN, this didn’t happen. So where is the evidence of all this extra downforce you guys are talking about?

        Pirelli are simply making excuses for their inconsistent tyres here. Stop defending them.

        . It’s hard for us mortal, non F1 drivers, to appreciate the extra forces in going a second quicker a lap, it’s not made up on the straight in top speed, it’s made in the corners, which creates greater G-forces. Notable that RB qualified slower this year than last year also, so comparing the fastest race pace laps is a bit like apples and oranges.

        It’s those G-forces that put further strain on the construction of the tyre. Also due to the heat and the known harsh tyre conditions at Silverstone, due to it’s high speed corners, it was an exceptional year. They were also running higher tyre pressure minimums than no

    3. Max put on a used set of softs to set the fastest lap

    4. @kbdavies Good point. The faster pole time doesn’t really mean anything for the “highest forces during the race“. It’s clear that Mercedes have found something to turn up their engine even more for Q3, but in the race they are not that much faster than last year.

      If you look at the actual lap times, Hamilton was actually going a lot faster in 2019. He was 10 seconds faster from lap 24 to 47. From lap 47, Hamilton slowed down by about 2 seconds a lap in 2020. So he wasn’t even racing at speed anymore from 5 laps before the end.

      Sure they stopped earlier in 2020 (lap 13 versus lap 20 in 2019), but there was an extensive safety car situation and they didn’t start racing until lap 19.

      Basically Hamilton did a 29 lap stint at full speed from lap 19 to 47 in 2020 and also a 29 lap stint in 2019 but then from lap 24 to 52. In 2019 he was actually 17.6 seconds faster in total over that 29 lap stint!

      Hamilton also did a 1:27.369 at the end of that stint in 2019 versus a fastest lap of 1:29.238 in 2020. 2 seconds slower!

      So the “Highest forces ever” would have been recorded in 2019 really.

      1. Indeed! Pirelli are always talking out of their backsides in order to find more excuses for their incompetence.

        1. https://www.racefans.net/2020/02/23/new-mercedes-streaks-ahead-of-last-year-in-terms-of-downforce/

          https://www.racefans.net/2020/04/30/plan-to-cut-downforce-on-2021-f1-cars-proposed/

          @kbdavies @f1osaurus You guys are missing the real component to this issue which is the higher downforce levels this year’s cars have. Sure Pirelli mentions LH’s quali time, and you two have dispelled the race pace issue, but I think it is safe to say, by what the teams even knew earlier in the year, it is forces from downforce that are the concern and is something they need to address for 2021. So the speeds may not always be that much higher if at all, but the downforce obviously is.

          1. @robbie Silverstone is not a downforce track. So no.

            Besides you are missing the main point: the cars were going SLOWER last yeat. A lot slower.

            Your whole point makes no sense at all. Why would have they have a faster engine and more down force yet go slower and as a result still put more force through the tyre. it just make no sense at all. Seriously!

          2. @f1osaurus
            Silverstone not a downforce track?! Are you serious?
            How many medium-length mid/high-speed corners are there? Most of them are!
            Without a doubt, Silverstone is one of the toughest circuits F1 visits on the tyre structure. Especially so with a new tarmac surface!

            Qualifying pace was faster this year. Fastest race lap was faster this year. Average lap pace throughout the race was higher this year. Stint length was longer this year. Cars are producing more downforce this year.
            Are you sure you were watching F1 and not F2?

          3. @f1osaurus Wow, for someone who will insult a person at the drop of a hat for their alleged lack of racing knowledge, like you know it all, you sure are embarrassing yourself.

            Further to what S has said, and setting aside the debate on how fast the cars were this year vs last at Silverstone, since you both have opposing info, surely you grasp that downforce can and does create drag, and indeed the art to finding downforce is also to find efficient downforce that pushes the car down onto the track while creating as little drag as possible. But there’s always a lot of drag. The car is being pushed down onto the track.

            Let’s say your info is correct and the cars were going slower. They likely weren’t going much slower, but even if they were, the answer to your question is that the extra horsepower has not fully made up for the extra downforce that they have found. So…same tires as last year, car has more horsepower but even more downforce, and hence more force to the tires, in spite of the speed. Surely you don’t actually believe downforce has nothing to do with force on the tires, and only speed does. It’s like you don’t even grasp why they run as much wing as possible at Monaco, and as little as possible at Monza.

            And let’s talk about where the cars were slower, if indeed they were. Was it in the corners or on the straights? I suggest they were cornering much quicker due to the added downforce, which was straining the tires obviously, and the straights is not where they were faster as the drag from the downforce would have hurt them.

            So…same tires, slower speeds (a lot slower by your claim, except perhaps around corners), more horsepower, and higher downforce as claimed by F1 drivers and teams, and yet destroyed tires. Your explanation then? Answer, and there is only one…the higher forces from the added downforce this year to last.

          4. Silverstone is not a downforce track. So no.

            You seem to misunderstand downforce; it’s not just the wing settings, but also (cornering) speed.
            @f1osaurus

            Next time when you claim the “whole point makes no sense at all”, I suggest you write: ‘I don’t understand! Can you please explain?’

          5. @robbie YThe cars were going slower. Slower cars is less force. Thjis cannot be that difficult to grasp. Even for you.

          6. @coldfly You seem to misunderstand slower laptimes. Slower cars have less force on the tires.

            Next time when you feel the urge to lecture someone on your fantasies, just get back under your bridge.

          7. @f1osaurus Just wow. I guess for you ignorance is bliss.

          8. @f1osaurus, I took the time to educate* you on down force.
            I’m happy to answer your questions (see my previous comment) on slower lap times tomorrow.

            * that you call it ‘lecture’ just proves that you can’t open up to different views.

          9. @robbie Lol, well yeah right back at ya.

            Seriously Hamilton was going a lot slower 17.6 seconds slower when driving at speed (6 tenths a lap). Yet somehow you insist the forces were greater than ever. Did you ever have any science classes in school?

            And you still can’t figure out what ever else it could have been then? Well maybe you should read a bit more than … yeah what do you even read? There have been plenty of news articles out on what the real culprit of all those cuts in the tires might be. Verstappen’s tire had 50 cuts in it.

            There was a giant hole on the entry for Chapel (or exit of Beckets) and the German presenters kept reiterating that someone was going to break a tire there. Low and behold 4 drivers did.

            You can clearly see it on the pole lap for Hamilton as he drives through a cloud of kicked up dust there. Or read the article Keith wrote about fixing that and look at a picture of the kerb that isn’t the problem.

          10. @coldfly Lol you “educate”? What a pedantic troll.

          11. PS. I just read @robbie’s extensive answer on lap times. It’s pretty comprehensive.
            But based on your answer to him you seem to be a stubborn student, and I guess further explanations (e.g. increased weight in 2020) would also fall on deaf man’s ears.

          12. @f1osaurus First of all “I” am not the one insisting the forces were greater than ever, Pirelli is. And I don’t need to figure out what else it could be, it is you that is trying to skirt the discussion towards another article. This article has Pirelli speaking about the greater than ever loads on the tires as being their undoing…not cuts and kerbs.

            It seems you are unable to grasp that an F1 car can be built to create more downforce than the previous year and that would create more force on the tires than the previous year. Yes, even at marginally lower speeds, if the increase in downforce is significant. The only way your argument works is if we are talking about identical cars one year to the next, and then ya of course if that car is going slower the forces on the tires should be no greater. But as per the articles I cited, these current cars are producing much more downforce and that has obviously created a problem, at least at Silverstone, at least as Pirelli sees it.

            Surely you actually realize this and have just been caught out with an embarrassing argument that you don’t know how to back out of so you’d rather forge ahead and make it about cuts and kerbs even when Pirelli is not. Maybe you should ask Pirelli if they have ever been to a science class.

          13. @robbie You are. You prented it must be the reason.

            I understand that an F1 car CAN produce more downforce. That doesn’t mean it uses more downforce.

            The main point is though, that that lame claim is hinging on the fact that Hamilton was much faster in Q3. The fact is that he was on average 6 tenths slower during that stint in the race. Period. That;s really the end of the whole “greater forces” discussion. Slower cars have less force on them. Talk to Newton if you don’t like that fact.

            Surely you actually realize this and have just been caught out with an embarrassing argument

            Yes YOU have. Go back to middle school science class!

            I don;t have to ask if Pirelli went there. The problem is that their blame shifting outlet conveniently ignores the difference between Q3 and race.

            There have been plenty article that explain the real cause. Stop being a dumbass and read those.

          14. @f1osaurus @coldfly had it right. You’re a stubborn student and further explanations just fall on a deaf man’s ears.

          15. @robbie @coldfly What deaf ears? I “heard” your nonsense, but it’s nonsense. What am I supposed to do with snow flake nonsense?
            – Q3 times do not have any direct effect on race pace (100% clear mistake from Isola) FACT
            – Hamilton wasn’t 1.2 s faster, but 0.8 (Another 100% clear mistake from Isola) FACT
            – The cars were SLOWER during the race. By Newton’s laws that LESS force SCIENCE FACT
            – Isola mentions biggest forces caused by lap time reduction. He didn’t mention some mythical downforce component that destroys tyres even when the cars are going slower. You are just making nonsense up. IRRELEVANT
            – The weight limit went up by 1kg. Are you kidding me that I “failed to take this into consideration” !?!?!?!?! I JUST CAN’T

            You two snow flakes trying to stand up for dumb people being “wronged” is just tiring. Get a life! Or at least a brain and learn to think for yourself.

            Now if you have to actually come up with some FACTS then by all means do. Otherwise just get back under your bridge and cry about the injustice to numbnuts all over the world.

          16. @f1osaurus Wow, even capitalizing, in bold no less, your ignorance.

          17. @robbie Lol that’s funny. In your world clear facts are “ignorance”.

            Get. Back. Under.Your. Bridge. Troll!

          18. Dear @F1oSaurus, I think I owe you some apologies based on the facts you present here.
            I shouldn’t have compared you to a deaf man as you claim you “heard” us; you merely seem to miss the ability to comprehend.
            I thought I understood Newton’s laws. But I missed the one that compares tyre stresses to lap times. I ignorantly stuck to the belief that stresses would occur during acceleration/retardation (law #1) and in corners to compesate centrifugal forces (law #3); thus primarily weight, acceleration, and cornering speed to be important (and thus @Robbie‘s explanations do make a lot of sense).
            I thought that the weight went up from 740kg (in 2019) to 743kg (still during 2019) to 745kg and 746kg (both before 2020). But I erroneously based that on FIA documents rather than on your recollection.
            I finally have to apologise that I treated you as a grown-up, whereas your shouting ways (caps and bold print) clearly points at a minor stubbornly trying to prove him/herself.

            PS as you are quiet now on downforce (my original response to you), I assume you have accepted that you were mistaken on that point.

          19. @coldfly It’s actually hilarious that you present such futile nonsense as the weight limit increase and blame me of stubbornly defending a lost cause? How sad.

            Not sure what you want to cry about down force and I doubt it’s anything useful. However I did mention down force. As in that it’s irrelevant in this case.

            Isola didn’t claim they were an issue and, like me, he pointed at the laptimes as the driver for forces on the tyres. He just picked the wrong lap time. But then he’s blame shifting and I’m pointing out actual facts.

          20. @f1osaurus Think I’ll stick with the facts about the increased downforce in these cars as per the articles I cited from this very site, as well as the words of Pirelli, over an armchair blow hard that refuses to consider all the clear facts and just uses select ones and calls that the be all and end all answer.

          21. @robbie You stick with that man. If that makes you happy. Just be a good little ostrich then. Good for you!

        2. @f1osaurus Thank you for the blessing to stick with those who know what they are talking about.

          1. @robbie Ah yes and on that note, I have this beautiful bridge that I’m selling. It’s really cool, works great with lots of down force. I can give you a really good price. Only twice the asking price would be good right?

  6. I’m surprised Pirelli put up with F1. They are ask to make tires that wear out. Then they bring better , safer tires and are voted down. Then the teams run the tires down to rags during the race. Finally Pirelli have to investigate why the old spec, wore down tires failed.

    It’s like a bad relationship.

    1. @slotopen

      I’m surprised Pirelli put up with F1

      F1 is probably the most effective form of advertisement for a tyre manufacturer. They are advancing their tyre tech and as they’re the sole supplier are quite likely making a tidy profit while they’re at it.

    2. @slotopen

      They are ask to make tires that wear out. Then they bring better , safer tires and are voted down

      And for the wet weather tyres, who asked them to produce such rubbish tyres ?

    3. @slotopen First of all:

      They are ask to make tires that wear out

      They were not. That’s the gimmick they came up with to win the deal. Or rather the gimmick that Ecclestone told them to present so he could get Pirelli to win the deal rather than Michelin who were destined to win the deal before Ecclestone intervened. Michelin wanted LONGER lasting tyres actually.

      So yes Pirelli are now stuck with this, but it was their own proposition.

      Second, the tyres are supposed to lose performance and not to blow out. There is a huge difference.

      1. You call driving around with blisters and vibration and lapping slower than ever not a lose of performance.
        The teams have been playing a game of chicken with the tyres since Pirelli started making them, because they want to avoid making pitstops.
        Pitstops make you lose trackposition and since following and overtaking are extremely difficult, they refuse to make more pitstops.

        The teams always blame Pirelli, while they are actually outlining their own ineptitude.

        1. SadF1fan What point are you even trying to make? How is it in any way related to my post?

      2. @F1osaurus
        I’ve heard that story before and never seen any official evidence to back it up. Seems no-one has ever been able to provide any.
        However, I have read statements from F1 staff in the mainstream media stating that they made a mistake in asking Pirelli to make softer tyres that degrade… They’ve negatively affected the racing, and they should have been asking for harder and more consistent tyres all along.

        Well, sure, Michelin would want longer lasting tyres. Every manufacturer would, especially if they have exclusive rights to a racing series – there’s nothing to compare them to to show how slow they are.

        1. S
          Yes indeed we’ve never seen any evidence that FIA asked tire manufacturers to deliver fast degrading tires. It’s clearly nonsense anyway.

          Michelin was on it’s way to winning that deal and they wanted to use longer lasting tires so they could use less tires and save money. That was their proposal for the tender. Why would they even bother if faster degrading tires was part of the tender requirements.

          The fact is that this fast degrading tires only popped up after Canada 2010 when Ecclestone decided he wanted more races like that with multiple pit stops.

          Until Paul Hembery announced right after that Canada race that Pirelli wanted to use fast degrading tires, no one ever talked about it.

          There is a multitude of facts that support that there was nothing in the tender about degrading tires whatsoever. There is zero evideicne to support that there was.

          1. S Why would I make anything of that? The FIA never asked for it in their tender. How difficult is it to verify this?

            None of the other manufacturers who applied for this tender had fast degrading tires in their proposal.

            Ecclestone did not like Michelin asking a million dollars per team so he went out and found an alternative.

            He had Pirelli propose degrading tires and the FIA accepted. So now they are held by their contract. That’s the only context in which anyone can pretend that they were “asked”.

            Obviousy, Pirelli looked bad because their was an avalange of complaints about their tires. The drivers were being pummeled by bits of tire flying in their helmets during the first race. It was a disaster. Then suddenly the drivers were muzzled and the propaganda was pushed that Pirelli was “asked” for these tires.

          2. Or you could claim that Pirelli were “asked” because Eclestone dragged them in on this premise. Either way it was NOT in the original tender and Paul Hemberey proposed it, no one had ever heard of it.

            They proposed it themselves.

          3. @f1osaurus
            You’ve firmly got your eyed closed and your fingers in your ears regarding this matter, haven’t you.
            You know way more than anyone else here does. You even know more than F1 and Pirelli do.
            You’ve also just implied that the Racefans article I linked is flat out wrong.

            Well, there you go.
            Maybe F1 should be asking you to make tyres for them from now on.

          4. S I could say exactly the same about you!

            That after the fact everything was put into place to claim that Pirelli were “asked” is clear yes.

            I explained how people can pretend that Pirelli were “asked” withotu blushing too much. it’s misleading, but you could pretend they were asked by Ecclestone, or after their contract with FIA they were held to that. People were in fact instructed to say this by the FIA. There were clear guidelines put on the F! personnel after people were complaining about the tyres.

            Either, way the fact of the matter remains that the FIA, FOM or teams NEVER asked for degrading tyres at any point before Pirelli proposed it. Pirelli proposed this idea, not the FIA.

            Instead of wasting our time, how about you read the proposals from Michelin and Avon? Anything about fast degrading tyres in there? Or how about the texts of the original tender? Just show me anything about the FIA asking for degrading tyres from before Pirelli proposed the idea of degrading tyres to “improve the show”.

          5. Come on man. Are you serious?

            I linked an article written by Dieter and Keith published here on RaceFans above, of Pat Symonds explicitly saying that F1 had asked Pirelli to make tyres that degraded faster!
            If you are suggesting that article is factually incorrect, or that the authors or Symonds himself are lying, then just say so.

            I don’t know why you keep making this about the tender process. It’s not even relevant when Pirelli were asked to make tyres that degrade – only that they were asked at all.
            Several other users here have commented that this was the case.
            You are arguing that they weren’t asked, or if they were it was because Bernie instigated it as some kind of secret deal.

            Look, with all due respect, I disagree with your version of events based on all the information I’ve seen.
            I don’t want this to turn nasty so I think that’ll do for me.

          6. Yes I’m serious. A 2019 article means nothing.

            Again, I’m talking about who came up with the idea. Not whether Pirelli is now stuck with these degrading tyres now for many years.

            Seriously just read some actual 2010 articles. That’s when it happened. I was there and I saw the lie come into existance.

            See the Michelin proposal. See the Avon proposal. Read the actual tender articles. Not once is there a mention of degrading tyres. So why would only Pirelli be asked to create degrading tyres by the FIA?

            Well they were asked by Ecclestone to come up with a unique proposal, but not by the FIA. Not in 2010 at least.

            And yes the fact that Ecclestone wanted Pirelli even though the Michelin deal was almost done is quite well documented too.

            Michelin wanted one million per team. Pirelli offered to pay Ecclestone money in a massive sponsor deal at the tracks. Which do you think he picked?

    4. @slotopen

      they are ask to make tires that wear out.

      In the past that was true but since the start of 2017 they have actually been free to do what they want & have had no high degredation/wear mandate from F1.

      And even in the 2011-2016 period where they did have a request (And that is all it ever was) from Bernie to create tires aimed at creating 2-3 stop races they were not actually ever been told how to go about achieving that.

      They could have done with Firestone have done in Indycar & go with softer compounds & a thinner tread, But they instead went with the thermal degredation model by adding additional chemicals to the compounds that cause the compound to break down when outside of a certain temperature range. Even when they started to move away from that solution by no longer adding the chemicals to create the thermal degredation the compounds retained the very narrow operating ranges that were initially designed into them which is what all of the teams/drivers strongly dislike as been above/below that operating range creates a cascade effect that not only leads to increased tire wear but also laps of having little/no grip on top of the tires in general not offering an especially good amount of feel with regards to what they are doing. This is why tire sensors/data have become much more important than used to be the case, Drivers don’t have the feel for the tires they did with past suppliers.

      1. @gt-racer
        Firstly, it’s of little concern what the teams and drivers want. They need to adapt to what they get.
        Secondly, sensors/measurement/data are increasingly driving F1 into the ground, in a sporting sense. They would be relied on exactly as heavily even with different tyres, partly because F1 allows the teams to capture and use so much data, and partly because that’s the direction racing development is taking in all series globally anyway.
        Part of the reason that drivers may not be getting the same feel from the tyres is that the loads on the tyres are increasing, requiring heavier use of hydraulic power steering assistance. The cars now are very different to previous eras when different tyres were used, and place vastly different demands on the tyres. The tyres have necessarily had to change in both structure and material to accept and compensate for these changes.
        The move to 18″ wheels will help to bring some more of this information back through the steering, as less of the detail will be lost in the tyre sidewalls.
        It’s not just about Pirelli Vs previous manufacturers, or even previous Pirelli tyres. It’s also about all the changes that the cars and circuits have gone through in that time. The state of F1 (and F1 tyres) now, is a result of all the changes that have occurred – not just one particular factor or part.

  7. “It looks like our tyres, also when they are worn, the level of grip is still quite good. This is something that we have in mind for the future, to generate a loss of performance when the tyre is worn.”

    Now they’ll over adjust and bring back the degradation cliff 😄

    It is weird though, many drivers have had performance degradation before any kind of failure with these tyres last year. Not sure I believe their reasoning.

    1. @skipgamer

      Now they’ll over adjust and bring back the degradation cliff

      It’s my understanding that is something they were already planning to do with the 2021 tires.

      I think the target is for the tires to offer a broadly consistent level of performance for 60-70% of a stint before seeing gradual drop off over the remainder of a stint & then hitting a cliff at the very end.

      Another goal been that they want to try & work it so that drivers have a better feel for the tires which is something that has been a complaint since 2011 & why the sensors & tire data have become so much more important than used to be the case. One of the biggest compliments you used to hear of the Michelin & Bridgestone’s was how much feel they gave drivers so drivers always knew how hard they could push them, When they were reaching the limit & what wear rates were. Pirelli’s have always been the total opposite offering very little of that sort of feedback.

  8. @kbdavies
    I agree 100% & I have been saying the same thing for years.

  9. I’m sorry, but is the title of this article even coherent? I may be missing something, but damn if I’m not

    1. Pirelli produced a 2020 spec tyre.
      The teams rejected it, and so are still using the 2019 spec tyre.
      Had they accepted the 2020 tyres, the assertion is that the failures would have been less likely.
      (2020 cars can put more load and stress through the tyres than the 2019 tyres were designed for.)

      1. (Pirelli’s) 2020 (specification) tyres (that the) teams rejected would have coped better with (the) high Silverstone (stresses and) loads.

      2. The 2019 tyres were designed in 2018. The 2020 tyres were designed in 2019. Maybe it looks like only a year, but now F1 is using tyres designed two years ago, while most of the rest of the cars has been rebuilt in that same time frame.

        1. Exactly.
          I said the same thing in another thread.
          The current tyres weren’t designed to be run with 2020 cars and the performance gains they have achieved since then.

    2. @johnnyrye Pirelli designed a 2020 spec tire that was aimed at addressing many of the complaints teams/drivers had about the 2018/19 tires. That been temperature sensitivity, The need to run what teams felt were extremely high tire pressures & to allow drivers to lean on them a bit more.

      When the tires were tested last year drivers complained they were just as bad (If not worse) in those areas as well as offering very little overall grip & not offering the clear step forward that Pirelli had promised. Teams felt the same as well as having concerns about the slightly different shape of the sidewall’s requiring them to have to redesign the floor around the rear tires.

      Pirelli initially said the tires feeling the same/worse as the 2019 one’s was due to low track temperature at the time of the initial tests, However after additional testing in Abu Dhabi post season drivers/teams held the same views & a subsequent vote saw them stick with the 2019 tire construction although I believe they are using different compounds to what they had last year.

  10. Get back the Michelins AND Alonso, an unbeatable como

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'.