RSS_Auto_Poster
Well-known member
Written by Joe Holding
I"ve been completely tuned out of F1 since November. What"s going on?Remember last year, when F1 bosses agreed to reduce lap times by at least five seconds by 2017? Well, it doesn"t look like that will happen after all.At least, not to the same degree. Pirelli made a presentation to teams before Christmas expressing concerns over the proposed regulations, which were set to bring in a huge increase in downforce as well as more mechanical grip from wider tyres.The problem was that they would have to increase the minimum inflation pressures to 27psi in order to cope with the increase in loads through the corners. That would have made the rubber slower, not faster, thus undermining the whole point of changing the rules in the first place.Oh. So Pirelli have ruined things once again?Not exactly. Mercedes warned teams that this would be the case in November, although they were (not entirely unfairly) dismissed as simply trying to protect their competitive advantage.However Pirelli had similar worries, hence their pleas for a rethink.That wasn"t the only issue though. Many engineers believed that increasing aerodynamic downforce would make it even more difficult for cars to follow each other than it already is, in turn making racing worse.And overtaking is rare enough already.Fair enough. So this has nothing to with Pirelli?It has something to do with Pirelli, but it"s not entirely their fault.The long-term worry is that they have essentially said they cannot meet their brief based on the planned tyre dimensions for 2017, which will be frustrating to those who think the sport would be better off with a provider like Michelin.It adds weight to the claim that Pirelli aren"t up to the job, although few envy the task they have been set by the FIA.Building compounds which combine high performance with a range of different lifespans is desperately tricky, and it"s hard to come across as an expert when by design your product is required to be less good than is physically possible.
Date written: 13 Jan 2016
More of this article on the Top gear website
ID: 1687
I"ve been completely tuned out of F1 since November. What"s going on?Remember last year, when F1 bosses agreed to reduce lap times by at least five seconds by 2017? Well, it doesn"t look like that will happen after all.At least, not to the same degree. Pirelli made a presentation to teams before Christmas expressing concerns over the proposed regulations, which were set to bring in a huge increase in downforce as well as more mechanical grip from wider tyres.The problem was that they would have to increase the minimum inflation pressures to 27psi in order to cope with the increase in loads through the corners. That would have made the rubber slower, not faster, thus undermining the whole point of changing the rules in the first place.Oh. So Pirelli have ruined things once again?Not exactly. Mercedes warned teams that this would be the case in November, although they were (not entirely unfairly) dismissed as simply trying to protect their competitive advantage.However Pirelli had similar worries, hence their pleas for a rethink.That wasn"t the only issue though. Many engineers believed that increasing aerodynamic downforce would make it even more difficult for cars to follow each other than it already is, in turn making racing worse.And overtaking is rare enough already.Fair enough. So this has nothing to with Pirelli?It has something to do with Pirelli, but it"s not entirely their fault.The long-term worry is that they have essentially said they cannot meet their brief based on the planned tyre dimensions for 2017, which will be frustrating to those who think the sport would be better off with a provider like Michelin.It adds weight to the claim that Pirelli aren"t up to the job, although few envy the task they have been set by the FIA.Building compounds which combine high performance with a range of different lifespans is desperately tricky, and it"s hard to come across as an expert when by design your product is required to be less good than is physically possible.
Date written: 13 Jan 2016
More of this article on the Top gear website
ID: 1687
