Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari, Spa-Francorchamps, 2015

Vettel furious over “unacceptable” tyre blow-out

2015 Belgian Grand PrixPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari, Spa-Francorchamps, 2015A furious Sebastian Vettel said his tyre blow-out at the end of the Belgian Grand Prix was “unacceptable” and that not enough has been done to prevent the problem.

Vettel, who had queried Ferrari’s decision to run a long stint at the end of the race, said he had been happy to stay out on his final set of tyres. “How many laps I was missing? Not many,” he said when speaking to reporters after the race.

“Things like that are not allowed to happen, full stop. If it happens 200 metres earlier I’m not standing here now I’m doing 300 stuck in Eau Rouge.”

“I don’t know what else needs to happen,” Vettel added.

“What’s upsetting is one thing the result: this is racing, for sure we deserved to finish on the podium. But the other thing as I said is if this happens earlier I don’t… I think it’s the sort of theme that keeps going around, nobody’s mentioning, but it’s unacceptable.”

Drivers had raised concerns following Nico Rosberg’s blow-out on Friday, but Vettel said the response had been the “same as every time”.

“‘Yeah well there was cut debris, there may be something wrong with the bodywork, the driver went wide’ – bullshit”,” he said. “If Nico tells us that he didn’t go off the track, he didn’t go off the track. Why should he lie to us?”

“Same with me I didn’t go off the track it’s just out of the blue, the tyre explodes.”

Vettel said the drivers will “need to speak to each other” again following the latest blow-out. “It’s probably not as bad as it was in Silverstone some years ago, but it’s not acceptable.”

A series of tyre failures disrupted the British Grand Prix in 2013, and similar incidents occurred in later races, including in South Korea.

2015 Belgian Grand Prix

Browse all 2015 Belgian Grand Prix articles

216 comments on “Vettel furious over “unacceptable” tyre blow-out”

  1. It is unacceptable. It’s not like he was doing an extraordinary long stint. But I think there isn’t much Pirelli can do as it happend on Rosberg too who hadn’t been driving that long on his tyres. So either way they will have to make the tyres rock hard or call it a day.

    1. Well, Rosberg tyre issue is most probably due to an external source that affected the integrity of the tyre and caused the blow out given that it was not a very old set.
      However, Vettel’s problem is very unacceptable; this is the best formula of racing in the world, and with such speed, no tyre should suddenly explode like what happened today even on a very old tyre set. What happened in Silverstone a couple of years ago is another story as relatively new tyres were simply failing and exploding all over the place.
      I agree that Pirelli did a fantastic job after Silverstone, and that they did what they were asked to do (as they always say), ie providing fast degrading tyres for the sake of the show, but where they failed is not delivering tyres that degrade fast lap by lap, but having tyres that fail when they are used long enough instead of simply losing most of the grip.
      These sorts of things are sometimes what make me think what it would be like if there is another tyre supplier in F1.

      1. I was very disappointed with Lewis today. Last time this happened to him, he and other drivers including Vettel wanted investigations into the matter. Now this happens to Vettel, and his teammate had another incident earlier on the weekend, and he’s very subdued. It didn’t even look like he had an opinion on the matter when he was specifically asked.

        1. I don’t think this was Pirelli’s fault. The drivers were all exceeding track limits all the time, hitting curbs very aggressively. I don’t think Pirelli could have predicted this. I don’t remember this being an issue last year. I think this would probably contribute to uneven wear on the tires which may have caused both failures. Remember the Silverstone failures? The teams were all mounting the tires incorrectly to gain pace. As always, it’s a combination of things but 2 failures over the entire weekend isn’t that bad.

          1. They were not mounting the tires incorrectly. They were rotating the tires which at the time was completely normal practise and is/was done in pretty much in all of motorsports series.

        2. http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/34021994

          @Hamman,
          Care to correct yourself about Hamilton not showing concern?
          Many thanks in advance.

    2. There are a lot things Pirelli can do. If they were told to create something special, they surely can bargain for more testing time before season start. If they calculated Medium tyres can last 40 laps here, they could easily warn all team that it can only be use no more than 25 laps. If they knew they cannot develop degrading tyres without sacrifice safety, they can said that publicly to gain team/drivers support on some rule changes.

      I think Anthony Davidson on Sky make a great point saying that if teams/engineer could not trust their supplier it will affect drivers confidence.

      Pirelli really just having a great luck this week that Vettel & Rosberg tyre explosion didn’t lead to serious accident.

    3. Open door for Michelin perhaps? :)

    4. Alain Permane (Lotus): “If Pirelli tells us the tyres last 40 laps, they can’t possibly blow up after 28 laps. For us a one-stop strategy was only a backup plan, but we considered it as well.”

      Andy Green (Force India): “If Vettel’s tyres had been worn out, he’d have come into the pits. As soon as the rubber is worn below 30% the lap times go up by two to three seconds and tyre temperatures drop from 140°C to 110°C. You’re driving on ice in that case, you won’t even get anywhere near critical wear. Your team would call you in long before that happens.”

      Maurizio Arrivabene (Ferrari): “A one-stop race was our plan A. We decided that at 11am, using the data the engineers had collected during the practice sessions. There was a Pirelli engineer standing in our garage and he wasn’t just chewing bubblegum. He would have intervened if the data had shown anything suspicious. Our strategy was aggressive, but not risky.”

    5. I think most are missing the point. It was a sudden, catastrophic failure. Investigations should focus on manufacture fault, foreign body corruption or “repetitive stress injury”. These tyres are engineered to wear out freakishly fast, and complaints abound when they weather too well. I would prefer to see them over-engineered and retain mandatory changes based on race strategy.

  2. I think it is unacceptable that your team (and Mercedes’s team) is using Pirelli tyres incorrectly in order to extract more performance in exchange for a worse safety level.
    They all have got a notification about how this tyres should be used to prevent this situation from happening. Teams do not care, and now we see Vettel criticising Pirelli.

    1. @slava Please post a link as to where there is proof they are using them wrong? You might be right I just would like to read it too.

    2. > I think it is unacceptable that your team (and Mercedes’s team) is using Pirelli tyres incorrectly’

      How are they using it incorrectly?

      1. Driving too fast ?

    3. The teams have been asked this and they have said they are sticking to the Pirelli guidelines.

    4. Uncorrectly???? Paul Hembrey said the tyre life was FOURTY (40) LAPS!!! He did 27.

    5. @slava

      using Pirelli tyres incorrectly

      How?

      1. probably too low or too high pressure.

      2. They (only the presenters) stated on the BBC that Ferrari went over the advised lap limit but didn’t ignore any official rule.

        1. Ferrari went over the advised lap limit

          Pirelli said Ferrari didn’t exceed the limit

          1. @anon Very interesting. Thank you for the link!

    6. Yes, they should use the tires the right way. Remove them from the rims, hang then from a tree, and use them for a swing.

      Just don’t go to high

      1. @slotopen: Quote of the season :D
        The best comment I have ever read :)

      2. LMAO!!! That is the best comment I’ve seen all week.

      3. And do not go over the maximum number of swings.

  3. Pirelli’s recomendation for max length was 40 laps. Go figure..

    1. 40 laps of Spa is like 60 laps of Red Bull Ring or Monza. Seems a very high upper limit

  4. In fairness, he was pushing the tyre beyond the range Pirelli were advising, so he has pretty much got himself to blame there. But I agree with him that a tyre should not explode when you push it 90% for 150km around Spa. Of course Pirelli has been given a brief on what type of tyre compound the FIA and FOM expect and they have simply delivered that type of tyre. Had another company, for instance Michelin, made tyre that fitted the same brief, their tyres would blow as well.

    But let’s take a step back here. Vettel is not unintelligent. He knows Pirelli is negotiating a contract for the next couple of years, and now he openly criticises them for essentially making a tyre that is fundamentally unsuited. It is very easy to say that Vettel could have prevented the puncture by not taking so many risks, but isn’t that what Formula 1 is all about?

    1. he was pushing the tyre beyond the range Pirelli were advising

      @andae23 This has been done almost any race, Pirelli is overly cautious. Few years ago Paul Di Resta did double the length Pirelli saw as the maximum…

    2. @andae23

      In fairness, he was pushing the tyre beyond the range Pirelli were advising,

      Which was how many laps? I’m asking because Jordan and Coulthard had no idea about it, and were asking themselves the same question during the BBC post race.

      1. I don’t know, but I’m just guessing Pirelli is clever enough to work out how many laps it would take for a medium tyre to wear out completely. Then they will advise something based on that and Ferrari went further than that. I’m just guessing here though, so let’s wait for Pirelli’s statement to validate what I’ve just said.

        1. @andae23 Is that something you do often? State something as a fact (“In fairness, he was pushing the tyre beyond the range Pirelli were advising”) without having any idea if it’s true or not?

          I’m not criticizing you, I just want to know how am I supposed to read your posts.

          1. Yes, after all I am a politician at heart.

        2. Pirelli said the life was 40 laps. And they also said teams don’t know this. I couldn’t believe that, I think I misheard that. I couldn’t believe they didn’t advise teams on max life.

    3. @andae23 Also I believe we are all to much focussing on the length of the stint. Because if that was the case would we not have seen a much bigger drop off in lap time before the actual blow out. I think maybe the length of the stint might prove irrelevant and Pirelli will say it was the kerbs.

      1. @xtwl In which case, Vettel’s “BS” is probably the right reply to that.

    4. “In fairness, he was pushing the tyre beyond the range Pirelli were advising”

      He wasn’t. Tyre life was supposed to be 40 laps Pirelli guy said.

      1. @paul Well in that case, shame on Pirelli.

      2. But does that take into account hitting kerbs, lock ups etc?

    5. They should be able to go on even after the end of tyre life. Down to canvas. Slow, but still safe.

      1. @ura

        slow but still safe

        exactly correct, stint length had nothing to do with it. As for cuts on the curbs, the tyres should be able to withstand all forces from all curbs, a fundamental characteristic of an F1 race tyre, it should be a given. The driver and team shouldn’t be blamed here if the pressures etc were within the guidelines, only the supplier can, I’m afraid.

        Whether they’ve been allowed enough testing to carry out their mandate, is very relevant. Would they ever say they’ve been allowed to test enough though?

    6. Pirelli keep asking for tyre tests but nothing forthcoming from the FIA.

      1. And we keep asking for tyres that don’t explode but nothing forthcoming from Pirelli.

  5. Wait, what.

    You push the tyre well beyond it’s limits, you go off track at almost every corner and continue pushing hard right to the end, but it’s Perelli’s fault for following the FIA’s directive to create tyre that rediuces the ability to one stop what it the longest and one of the fastest races on the calender.

    Sorry, no. Sebastian. You gambled and you lost.

    By that point in the race, that tyre was well beyond it’s limits and the way Vettel was maintaining a gap from Grosjon shows he was pushing it, clipping kerbs, running wide and putting stress on it.

    Nobody else had a blow out. Replays of Rosbergs blowout showed he’s suffered damage earlier in the lap. Face it, if he’d not tried to one stop, he may havemade it onto that podium, he’s certainly a good enough driver to have achieved it.

    Toys out of pram.

    1. Tyres aren’t supposed to explode during races. No excuse around that. It’s not like he was running over shards of metal or doing anything unusual for a F1 race.

      Not to mention he was going off-track in a way he wasn’t supposed to the race direction would have called him about it. Seems like you are out grasping at straws to create a fuss here.

    2. Pirelli were quoted on saying they were capable of lasting 40 laps. Pirelli themselves designed the tyres such that they would have a large drop-off in pace, to the extent they were so slow as to necessitate a stop, well before the integrity of the tyre became compromised by excessive loads. They have clearly made an error here, and are responding with nonsense and contradictory arguments.

      Vettel has every right to complain: they cost him a podium, and could have easily caused him injury had the tyre failed at another point on the track @nikkit.

  6. I can’t say I’m comfortable with how the tyre failed, I’d much rather see a driver lose a huge chunk of time when the tyres get to the end of their lives.

    1. Just to emphasise, no matter how a tyre reaches the end of it’s life, whether from a cut, internal failure or excessive wear, I feel maintaining a drivers control of the car should be number 1 priority when it comes to tyre design.

      1. I definitely agree with you!!!

    2. @williamjones, which is exactly what happened! He lost a huge chunk of time and they as a Team decided to gamble and press on. The friction material(the rubbery stuff that actually provides grip) failed first because it was over stressed and then the speed he was traveling at destroyed the tire completely.

      1. Yeah, I’m trying to remain neutral in the debate as to why it happened because I don’t personally have enough information to properly understand – I’m more trying to say that the failure was without doubt a significantly dangerous situation, which I don’t particularly enjoy seeing.

      2. “The friction material(the rubbery stuff that actually provides grip) failed first because it was over stressed and then the speed he was traveling at destroyed the tire completely.”
        That’s NOT what happened. If the rubber was totally gone he couldn’t keep Grosjean behind him. He was still defending brilliantly.

      3. @sudd

        > which is exactly what happened! He lost a huge chunk of time

        Losing 0.5s per lap with Grosjean and having more less the same times with other drivers with mediums is not losing a huge chunk of time

      4. @sudd

        The friction material(the rubbery stuff that actually provides grip) failed first

        Which shouldn’t happen no matter what the reason is!

      5. He wasn’t losing a “huge chunk of time”. Grosjean was faster at that stage but Vettel still had enough tyre life to hold him of, and the group further back Perez etc., who stopped for mediums under the VSC were running slower than Vettel, so he still had reasonable performance.

      6. He lost a huge chunk of time

        Except he didn’t @sudd.

        1. @vettel1, really? Even facts are up for debate bow??

          How much was the gap between him and Gros? I would say that’s a huge chunk of time lost. I don’t remember exact figures but Gros ate up the 5-7 sec cushion he had. Its not Gros was immediately behind him when they left the pits. Ferrari was banking on Gros running out of tire by the time he reached Vettel. Which did happen but by then Vets tires were well aged and instead of doing just enough to hold Gros off, he started pushing. Very evident on track and in his lap times. Not Pirellis fault.

        2. They are there for you to accept or ignore @sudd.

          1. @vettel1,

            “They are there for you to accept or ignore”

            What’s that suppose to mean???

            Translation: I have nothing substantive to add.

          2. There is nothing to translate. I presented you with the evidence to refute your claim, you chose to disregard it. I have nothing more to contribute @sudd.

          3. @vettel1, you’re a funny guy trying to portray yourself as the one presenting evidence. You never had anything to contribute to begin with.

            There was a gap between Vettel and Grossean. Grossean eliminates that gap and gets within DRS zone. Hence, Vettel lost time. It’s as simple as 1+1=2. I’m done as well if you refuse to accept black and white facts.

          4. Vettel lost no more than a second over the stint length. Why do you seemingly find that so difficult to grasp @sudd?

            I repeat, the data is on the hyperlink. Go figure.

  7. Regardless of how long the tyres were supposed to be used according to Pirelli, tyres are supposed to lose grip greatly (“over the cliff”), not randomly explode. Unless there’s some info we don’t know, I agree with Vettel.

    1. Agreed. Vettel makes a good point. The tyres should not blowout unless you have a puncture.

  8. You took a gamble and lost it.
    Could have worked, but it didn’t, but the easier thing is to point the finger to others, as always when he loses.

    1. @edmarques

      If the gamble is lost the tyre must not explode, it must lose grip and they didn’t degrade

      > but the easier thing is to point the finger to others, as always when he loses

      Then it will be easy to give example os this. because you’re not making it up, isn’t?

    2. Rubbish. A tyre shouldn’t catastrophically fail like that under any circumstance.

    3. Under no circumstances should the failure mode of a tyre at the end of its life be a catastrophic blow up. It cannot happened, end of story. As Vettel said, if that happened a few hundred meters earlier, who knows how bad it could have ended. Unacceptable.

      1. Vettel was reported as being sceptical about the explanation for Rosberg’s blow out after the drivers’ meeting. So why then go for such a high risk strategy with the tyres? Not only spending so long on the set, it was almost guaranteed that he’d be fighting intensely for position at the end of the race. Sure they need to investigate and maybe he’s right that the tyre indeed was at fault. Or maybe they pushed it to the limit through tyre pressures and his own driving during the race (speculation: no idea). But still, it baffled me why they would risk this strategy when even Vettel himself was questioning its wisdom – for whatever reason, maybe to do with pace, not tyre concerns – mid-race. Kind of perverse.

      2. If you remember a few years ago Hamilton had his inters worn down to the carcass in Shanghai. What happened afterwards? He slid off the track into a gravel trap. His tyres did not explode……….

        1. @Mike, I’m glad you brought that up. There’s something you are conveniently leaving out: Spa is not China. The loads and speeds are much greater at Spa.

          BTW, Vettels tire did not explode. Mileage, heat of 200MPH + straights, stress loads and curbs from eau rouge tore his tread off. His tire then burst as he continue to travel at pretty highspeeds on a treadless tire.

          The safe thing was to come to a gradual stop as he perfectly did. However, people insisting there should be some kind of slow gradual warning leading to the failure are ludicrous. At 200MPH its always going to be an instant catastrophic failure. At those speeds, just the smallest puncture is going to be catastrophic.

          1. I think it’s fair to say that in any case, a tyre blowout is not safe. And needs to be something we just don’t see. It won’t always be in a good spot.

  9. Completely agree. Pirelli spouted the usual ‘cut tyre’ nonsense and now another driver could have easily been killed here (actually no exaggeration).

    Love the no nonsense language from Vettel too. Maybe something will now happen.

    1. +1 Though I don’t think anything will happen unfortunately….

  10. Why Ferrari knew how far the tyre should go, they took them a lot further, to those saying they should lose grip they did the previous 2 laps he was over 0.7 slower than Grosjean and also if not for the VSC, Grosjean and Perez would’ve pitted a lot later and gone to softs meaning that Vettel wouldn’t have had a chance in defending and would have been forced to do a 2nd stop, they took a risk, knew the risk and it backfired, don’t blame pirelli on this one

    1. @bezza695 Grosjean was closing in on Vettel, yes, but he couldn’t make it past. Vettel’s tyres were good enough for him to have much better traction out of La Source than Grosjean. They were definitely not over the cliff, the failure was sudden. Unacceptable.

      1. @guilherme if Pirelli said a 1 stop wasn’t possible, why did Ferrari think okay let’s try a 1 stop if pirelli SAID 1 stop isn’t going to work, one more thing IF it was a 1 stop I guarantee almost everyone would be complaining about how boring it was that it was an easy 1 stop

        1. @bezza695 Pirelli probably meant in terms of doing a 1-stopper without hitting the cliff, not doing a 1-stopper without blowing a tyre.

          I guarantee almost everyone would be complaining about how boring it was that it was an easy 1 stop.

          Once upon a time f1 races featured no tyre change.

          1. And as a result, we had a 6 car US Grand Prix.

        2. @bezza695

          if Pirelli said a 1 stop wasn’t possible

          When did Pirelli said that?

          1. @oletros I don’t know I was watching Sky and just switched on BBC coverage and according to DC and EJ at some point pirelli said a 1 stop wasn’t possible

        3. @bezza695 Pirelli also said the tyres would last 40 laps. They were wrong. The teams have tons of data and Ferrari clearly felt that they could make it, and Vettel’s laptimes weren’t showing any indication of excessive degradation, nevermind a catastrophic failure.

          On the subject of one-stops, that’s subjective. Personally I loved 2010 – flat out races with much better and meaningful overtaking than the years previous or since. Some will agree, some won’t.

          1. @guilherme I heard that they said Mediums could do 25 laps max and they tried 30 I believe

          2. @guilherme which means there is another issue, there is so much conflicting data with someone saying one thing and someone else saying another, in reality we have no idea where they stand with anything, I feel the 25 laps is probably more true given previous races with the medium tyre at Spa

          3. @bezza695 If I’m not mistaken surely it’s 25 laps before hitting the cliff (which VET did a great job preventing), not 25 before exploding close to where Team Brackley 1998 would’ve happened?

    2. @bezza695

      if not for the VSC, Grosjean and Perez would’ve pitted a lot later and gone to softs meaning that Vettel wouldn’t have had a chance in defending and would have been forced to do a 2nd stop

      exactly, except for the fact that if they had done a regular stop later w/o the VSC, Vettel would have done his and still been in front.

      But as @guilherme said, Vettel was actually moving back out of DRS range and would most likely have stayed in 3rd.

      1. @uan Vettel was behind Grosjean before the VSC

  11. I agree with Vettel but I think he was crying a bit there. Glimpses of the Red Bull Vettel. I really want Bridgestone or Michelin back in F1.

    1. What difference would it make?
      Both manufacturers would still have to follow the FIA’s brief.

      Perelli didn’t just chose to arbitarilly make the tyres this way. They are floowing very specific guidelines laid down by the FIA.

    2. @ultimateuzair At best he lost a podium, at worst he was close to a very serious accident. Either of them is reason enough to be very, very angry. Please think a bit before posting.

    3. Really? That’s a nasty attitude. From you, not Vettel.

    4. lol, yeah right… Had it happened going uphill at Eau Rouge it could have ended in a huge crash, but that’s no reason to voice great concern.,. No, not at all…

    5. @ultimateuzair So in your universe, what would be worth getting upset about? (Or is the answer to that “nothing” as long as Vettel is the one involved?)

      1. That would have been a horrible incident if it happened at some other spot. That guy has a kid. How can a person say he was “crying”?

  12. Paul Hemberry was just interviewed. He said nothing about limits to the number of laps or unsafe use by Ferrari. He’s response was more or less “just tyre wear”. It was a kinda bizarre interview.

    1. He said 40 laps. Maybe different interview.

    2. At least he didn’t lie about how the tyre was cut with debris, like he usually does.

  13. From the interview I suspect Hembery knows it’s Pirelli’s fault.

  14. Do Pirelli advice the teams on the maximum amount of laps reommended for each compound? if yes, how many were deemed safe for Spa?

    Seb did half the race with the same set. Maybe it exceeded Pirelli’s recommendations and then you just cannot blame them, even if it’s really worring that the tyres explode. But it has not happened a lot, when was the last time such thing happened before Rosberg’s incident?

    Maybe it was debris on a track. Punctures happen, there are so many variables… the compund and construction of the tyre cannot always be the problem.

    1. 40 laps for mediums apparently. If that was the case then Pirelli may be (and should be) in big trouble.

    2. I think RIC had a race where he did 50+ laps on SOFTS.

  15. I fully agree with Vettel that this is unacceptable. If uses excessively tires should lose performance, then loose surface “rubber” and then starting to show the carcass before anything dangerous happens. Instead, this tire went from looking and performing decently to out-of-the-blue explosion.

    Ferrari didn’t gamble on making it or not, they gambled on pure performance and if they could keep Grosjean behind. They probably would have succeeded. Paul Hembery said on SKY the medium tires were estimated to be able to do 40 laps around SPA. That’s 13 more than what Vettel did before the explosion.

    Vettel is also right that the result could have been much worse. Realistically this failure could have been deadly if it’d happened at Eau Rouge.

    1. @me4me Its funny how some people are blaming Ferrari exclusively. I remember Hamilton wearing a set of Bridgestone inters down to the canvas and the tyre didn’t explode. The FIA asked them to design tyres that degrade quickly and drops off in performance. In reality they’ve failed to do that (after all Vettel’s times were consistent and he was even out-accelerating Grosjean) and provided an unpredictable, unsuited and unsafe tyre.

  16. How people can defend Pirelli after two high speed failures in one weekend is beyond me… Do we need a tyre exploding in the face of the driver behind before something changes?

    Also this whole ‘tyre degradation’ nonsense was made to spice things up and to open up more strategic opportunities. If every driver has to do the same amount of stops (I have a feeling there’s gonna be a new rule about the maximum number of laps on a single set…), where’s the advantage of having a high degradation tyre?

  17. Some people are saying that Hembery said to SKY UK that the medium tyre should have lasted 40 laps. This is ridiculous.

    1. That is indeed what Paul Hembery stated – 40 laps for the Medium tyre.

  18. I am no tyre expert, but what happens when a tyre is used beyond its range, only in terms of distance. Is it always expected to explode, or there could be some less dramatic effects?

    1. @egorov A tyre isn’t supposed to explode unless it gets a puncture. Overuse should lead to degradation and extreme lose of grip (a car going veeeeery slow).

  19. Simon (@weeniebeenie)
    23rd August 2015, 15:48

    Quite simply the result of a team pushing a tyre for too many laps should be a severe drop in performance and being forced to change them. That is how it worked in the past, even with Pirelli’s and “the cliff”. Here today we had a car still able to run at a very good pace and hold off a quick car behind him, then the tyre gives way catastrophically.

    That is not right, and I agree with Vettel on that point. Unless there is specific damage, like Kimi at Nurburgring and the flat spot, they shouldn’t be exploding at the limit.

    1. I’m guessing you are referring to 2005. Even back then the tire did not fail. It was the front suspension which failed due to the excessive vibrations.

  20. Tyre failure is bad, but Vettel complaining like a spoiled brat when something doesn’t go his way is just as bad. I wouldn’t listen to him and wait for Pirelli to give a final verdict on the causes. In Rosberg’s case, we know now that the tyre was cut by a piece of bodywork when the tyre was deformed under extreme load. The reason might turn out to be the same in Vettel’s case, maybe aided by a weakened tyre structure after a stint that exceeded Pirelli’s maximum recommendation for safe use.

    1. Simon (@weeniebeenie)
      23rd August 2015, 15:56

      Can you really call him a spoiled brat for that? I doubt he cared that much about losing third place. His main concern was clearly that the tyre failure could’ve caused him a catastrophic accident had it occurred a little earlier. Nobody wants to crash at Eau Rouge, even less with an uncontrollable tyre failure.

    2. @nase

      maybe aided by a weakened tyre structure after a stint that exceeded Pirelli’s maximum recommendation for safe use.

      Taking into account that the recomentadion is 40 laps, it says a lot about your comment.

      but Vettel complaining like a spoiled brat when something doesn’t go his way is just as bad

      I suppose this is a joke

      1. @oletros
        I stand corrected as to the maximum lap recommendation. My bad. I was under the impression that the commentators mentioned that Vettel’s stint was deep in the red zone, and that Vettel’s strategy was clearly a gamble.

        I am, however, not impressed with the tone in your reply. I wasn’t nice to Vettel, this I recognize. But seeing as you are not Vettel, I am not pleased with you going ad hominem against me.
        No, I was not joking about Vettel’s reaction.

    3. @nase

      after a stint that exceeded Pirelli’s maximum recommendation for safe use.

      No the stint didn’t.

      1. @davidnotcoulthard
        My mistake. I misheard or misinterpreted something, which lead me to believe that Ferrari were intentionally pushing the tyre despite Pirelli’s warning not to do so.

    4. @nase

      this is way beyond “something doesn’t go his way”. It’s a huge safety issue for one. Any driver on the grid would react the same way.

      1. @uan
        I don’t think they all would. The key information we’re missing here is whether Vettel and Ferrari knew they were venturing into dangerland with their strategy. I was under the impression that they were. In that case, complaining about a puncture when you know the tyre was marginal would be nothing but unsportsmanlike behaviour, of which we had more than enough during Vettel’s Red Bull years whenever anything didn’t work out the way he would’ve liked.

        1. @nase There is a difference with taking risks on whether or not his pace is going to hold to the end, or whether or not he would suddenly loose all control and risk being thrown face first into the tyres with over 200km/h. I think Ferrari thought that they gambled on the former, rather then the latter.

    5. We ‘know’ do we? As in you read it on a website somewhere?

      1. @john-h
        What are you referring to?

        1. It’s all speculation nobody ‘knows’ what happened to Rosbergs tyre, certainly not Pirelli

  21. Once again Pirelli are in a tough position because of a design they’ve been told to do. They never get credit for the good races but have to take the blame when it goes wrong. I agree with the design principle – tyres are like fuel, you can be careful or go flat out but once they’re gone you need to ‘re-fill’ or your race is over.

    However even if Ferrari pushed the tyres too far this is the second failure in a week and unless Ferrari had a lack of grip that they ignored the punishment for going too long should be sliding around not an explosion like today so hopefully it can be fixed without resorting to running harder tyres or enforced lap limits.

    1. They never get credit for the good races but have to take the blame when it goes wrong.

      Well eh… Are we not allowed to blame Pirelli when their tyres explode at 200 mph?

      The FIA asked for a tyre that degrades, the tyres we have now are just slow, don’t degrade significantly (Vettel only 0.5 seconds slower than Grosjean on the longest circuit of the calendar) and explode suddenly…

      1. @paeschli I’m defending them overall not for this incident. I said in my comment it shouldn’t have happened, I just think Pirelli take a lot of bad publicity for incidents like this where as after a good race no one (including me) mentions them. Obviously they got this wrong I just think we should give them credit as well when it’s deserved. Besides we don’t know why it blew up yet it could well be a puncture since the other 1000+ tyres from this weekend were fine.

        @lheela I was referring to the fact that the tyres don’t last the whole race because of the design not that they blow up as I’m sure you know. ;)

        1. Just read the other article and this incident was pure wear according to Pirrelli but way under the 40 laps so I think they have to take the blame on it despite Ferrari going longer than anyone else.

    2. Once again Pirelli are in a tough position because of a design they’ve been told to do.

      Build a tire that in theory should do 40 laps, that performs fine for 27 laps and then just randomly blows up – said no one ever.

  22. That’s the Vettel I know and love! All rosey when things are going well, but throw a spanner in the works and out comes the spoiled brat. Vettel, Horner and Marko really were a sour grapes dream team!

    Disclaimer: Driver safety is very important, but he wasn’t so outspoken after Rosberg’s blow out was he?

    1. @jarnooo Yes he was. He was vocal about it during the friday’s driver meeting with Charlie. Hamilton and Alonso were concerend too.

  23. Another good reason to drop Pirelli and bring back Michelin.
    Pirelli is unable (or they don’t want to, but same result) to build a proper tyre for F1. Don’t answer me that FIA told them to produce such crap. Nobody asked them tyres that prevent drivers from pushing, collapses after 4 laps, or blow up.
    Did we have the same problems with Bridgestone, Michelin, or Goodyear ?

    In fact, a Pirelli tyre on a F1 is like a bicycle tyre on my car: completely inadequate.

  24. From the BBC:

    “I saw Sebastian Vettel talk to Pirelli motorsport director Paul Hembery. It was pretty short but heated from Vettel’s point of view.

    “I heard Vettel say: ‘You told us we could do 40 laps.’ I think Paul felt that was not necessarily an instruction he had given to the teams in race conditions.”

    http://www.bbc.com/sport/live/formula1/32542940

    1. “I think Paul felt that was not necessarily an instruction he had given to the teams in race conditions.”

      As far as I’m concerned, Pirelli should only give them the potential tyre life in race conditions (and it has be conservative too). What do you want with tyre life predicition with slower driving in F1?

      A lot of confousing talk by Pirelli’s PR agency. That doesn’t particularly speak for them.

      1. @xenomorph91 I couldn’t agree more.

  25. People are quick to blame Pirelli because that’s the trend in F1. No one wants to analyze things fairly. They are the easy punching bag.

    But lets look at the details:

    Why do we race with the hardest compounds at Monza? Because of the rotational stress put on the tire! At Spa, the stretch between Turn 1, through Eau Rogue to Les Combes is basically Monza light. But Spa adds even more stress to the rotational stress. You have massive tire compression and downforce loads going through Eau Rogue and curbs.

    It is no coincidence that the failure occurred where the tire is under the most stress. To try and one stop with the medium compound, knowing full well you are stressing the tire to the limit, you can’t turn around and blame the tire or the manufacturer when it fails. Ferrari made the choice and they have to live with the consequences.

    Everyone needs to stop blaming Pirelli. Ferrari’s fault 100%. Brakes fail all the time because drivers over use them or the teams take risky strategies by running insufficient cooling for aerodynamic benefits. Yet, we don’t crucify the Brake manufacturers. From time to time, you have manufacturing defects. No matter how good quality control, you are bound to have some failures. If this was in fact a fundamental problem with the Pirelli tire, we would have seen more failures.

    But lets be honest, 9/10 the failures occur because of user error. Ferrari gambled and failed. Now they are looking for an escape goat and Pirelli is the easy punching bag because the media and fans just love to beat up on Pirelli.

    Without the Rosberg failure, Ferrari would look even more silly trying to blame Pirelli. Rosberg’s failure occurred during practice…where you’re testing and experimenting with tire pressures, camber, and toe settings. What’s more likely?: Human error, Mercedes experimented aggressively to gain performance during practice, or there is an inherent problem with Pirelli tires. Keep in mind Ferrari were the only team that tried to 1 stop, and Rosberg’s failure occurred where experimenting is done(practice).

    Finally, you can never rule out the human element. I think Williams clearly displayed that today with their mismatching compound blunder. Think about what happens to the tire before its mounted on the car. It’s shipped, mounted and balanced onto the rim(a crucial stage), than the teams dial in their desired pressures, tire blankets, then it finally gets bolted to the car and hits the track. We’ve had tire warmers cook the tires just a few races ago. All I’m saying is examine the trail instead of reaching for the low hanging fruit…which is the almost knee jerk reaction of blaming Pirelli.

    1. @sudd

      It is no coincidence that the failure occurred where the tire is under the most stress. To try and one stop with the medium compound, knowing full well you are stressing the tire to the limit, you can’t turn around and blame the tire or the manufacturer when it fails. Ferrari made the choice and they have to live with the consequences.

      Ferrari were not stressing the tyre to the limit pretty much pointed to be there by Pirell making this paragraph pointless making that part and the rest of your post post a not-good argument against critisising Pirelli for this one.

      1. @davidnotcoulthard, well that settles it…you’re absolutely right!

        I take it you’re basing it on that magical 40 lap figure? How foolish do you have to be to use that as a deciding metric of stress under racing conditions?

        What you’re saying is Pirelli is making dangerous tires. But if the tires are fundamentally dangerous and everyone else is running the same tire, Why is it only Vettels tire that failed? It would seem we have a statistical/logical problem here? Answer: well Ferrari must be providing dangerous to Ferrari only, specifically Vettel. They should be sued for negligence!!!

        See how weak your argument is? All you have to do is ask yourself the question; “what is more likely”?

        1. @sudd

          I take it you’re basing it on that magical 40 lap figure? How foolish do you have to be to use that as a deciding metric of stress under racing conditions?

          And what the heck do you think that figure means? 40 laps behind the SC?

          Of course it means 40 laps in a stressful race conditions. And it has to be a conservative figure

        2. Why is it only Vettels tire that failed?

          You surely didn’t watch free practice.
          40 laps figure doesn’t make sence. Being able to run at a decent pace and suddenly had your tyre blowing up – does.
          If your tyres able to keep race pace, they shouldn’t blow up. Point.

        3. @sudd

          What you’re saying is Pirelli is making dangerous tires. But if the tires are fundamentally dangerous and everyone else is running the same tire, Why is it only Vettels tire that failed? It would seem we have a statistical/logical problem here? Answer: well Ferrari must be providing dangerous to Ferrari only, specifically Vettel. They should be sued for negligence!!!

          That’s (whether or not you realise it) a strawman. The 40 laps thing is the only kind of indication Pirelli gave regarding tyre life (not to be confused with tyre life prior to the cliff being hit). And no, tyres going over the cliff aren’t at the end of their lives yet, never mind VET’s tyres which weren’t over the cliff yet.

          See how weak your argument is? All you have to do is ask yourself the question; “what is more likely”?

          Yes, I see that my weak is not the world’s weakest, far from it.

          What is more likely? Well, Pirelli thinking that the tyres could do 40 laps only for one to explode after less than 3-quarters of that (and worse, without previously hitting a cliff)

          Why is it only Vettels tire that failed?

          Because he spent more laps on them, but fewer than indicated by Pirelli the tyres could do (which is OK), though more than Pirelli reckoned it could without-going-over-the-cliff-y do (which is great!)

          See how weak your argument of my foolishness is? (seriously, at least be a tad more respectful in arguments, and strawmans and banter don’t cut it)

        4. Deriving fact based on what is more likely seems like a bad use of logic on your part to be honest. Still 100% Ferrari’s fault do you think?

    2. A long comment… But it still doesn’t make sense.

      Pirelli brought the softs and the mediums because they felt this was the right tyre. Then they tell the teams the mediums should last 40 laps.

      How is 100% Ferrari’s fault when the tyre explodes after 28 laps?

        1. @sudd Filled with strawmans and banter as explained a wee bit with my unfortunately long comment above?

    3. @sudd already the first sentence is wrong. Monza usually gets the softest compounds of the year.

      1. @tmf42, do your research. Actually the last few years have been Medium and Hard.

        This year the allocation is Soft and Medium. Which everyone thought was pretty aggressive.

        https://www.formula1.com/content/fom-website/en/latest/headlines/2015/6/pirelli-opt-for-aggressive-tyre-choice-for-monza.html

        1. @sudd true, I was wrong on that part and had this year’s allocation in mind. But your comment still makes limited sense. Rotational stress is absorbed by the construction, which is for the most part identical in all tires. The compound itself, is supposed to take the heat from the tyre construction (and surface friction) to produce the varying thermal degradation. VET’s lap times didn’t go off the cliff, so it’s safe to assume that the construction failed before the degradation set in. The tire is supposed to drop off on wear and not disintegrate.

          1. @tmf42, This is where as viewers we have to be humble and defer to people who actually test and create tires. They know what exactly is going on in the tire. I don’t now the exact details but the rotational speeds is the reason for hard compounds at Monza. The straightaway really heats up the tires as they travel well over 200 MPH.

            How can you speak like that as if you know for a fact what is happening to the rubber? Speaking so confidently about something like that is how one gets accused of being an arm chair expert.

            Vettel was running fairly consistent lap times from the start of his 27 lap stint. I would love to see what front runners and people a little further behind where doing in terms of lap times so we can compare.

            What we can see is that he never really let up. In fact he pressed the tires even harder towards the end when Gros got close. At the phase when the tires were at their worse, Vettel demanded more from them as he fended off Gros. If this was any other track, if it wasn’t for Eau Rouge and the high speeds up to Les Combes, he would have made it comfortably. This leads me to believe the tires are fine. The problem is how they are used.

            What race was it that someone did a ~40 lap stint. I believe it happened this year???

      2. @tmf42 If http://motorsportstalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/24/pirelli-confirms-tire-allocations-up-to-singapore/ is to be believed @sudd wasn’t wrong, at the very, very least in terms of last year’s allocation.

    4. And blaming Ferrari 100% isn’t a ‘knee jerk’ reaction on your part? I get the point, but at the end of the day there’s too much contradiction in your comment to take it seriously.

    5. @sudd after the race Paul Hembrey was specifically asked if they had made the wrong tyre choices for this race in comparison to Monza. He categorically said that the tyre choices were correct and any harder compounds in Spa would lead to lots of wheelspin.

  26. Trenthamfolk (@)
    23rd August 2015, 16:16

    Worn tyres are dangerous, everyone knows that. There are laws against them in the UK… Seb’s tyre went pop on a risky strategy… I was watching on SKY and the commentators were asking if the tyres could last… the answer, apparently not!

    1. @trenthamfolk

      Worn tyres are dangerous, everyone knows that

      Do they were worn?

      1. Trenthamfolk (@)
        23rd August 2015, 16:50

        Yes… which is why the commentators were questioning the strategy… he took a risk and it didn’t pay off. Of course Seb blames Pirelli because he’s not allowed to blame Ferrari. He’d get sacked if he did.

        1. Yes… which is why the commentators were questioning the strategy

          Commentators can say what they want. Do you have looked at the lap times?
          Look at them and then tell us shy they are worn

          1. Trenthamfolk (@)
            23rd August 2015, 17:14

            I have to point out… the commentators called right… they questioned f the tyres could last and look what happened…

        2. Were the commentators questioning the strategy, if the performance of the tyres would hold up or the tyre life, if the tyres would last long enough without failing? I would say it was the first, whether the stint length requires was a competitive strategy, not that there was a potential safety issue.

          1. Trenthamfolk (@)
            23rd August 2015, 17:12

            If the tyres would hold up… no mention of failure… but there we go.

        3. @trenthamfoulk they questioned if the strategy of the longer stint would amount to a podium position, not if the tyre would blow up!

    2. @threntamfolk

      Worn tyres are dangerous, everyone knows that. There are laws against them in the UK… Seb’s tyre went pop on a risky strategy… I was watching on SKY and the commentators were asking if the tyres could last… the answer, apparently not!

      No, VET’s tyres weren’t on such a strategy. Not with him pulling away from GRO and doing <3/4 of what was "indicated" by Pirelli to be what the Mediums could do at Spa.

      1. Trenthamfolk (@)
        23rd August 2015, 16:48

        “No, VET’s tyres weren’t on such a strategy”

        Oh, that why his tyre delaminated and blew up then… like everyone else’s…

        1. @trenthamfolk What has this got to do with everybody else’s tyres?

          It’s about VET’s tyres blowing up having neither passed the number of laps Pirelli indicated to be what the tyres are capable of doing (albeit not necessarily without going over the cliff, but isn’t that a good thing?) nor going over the cliff.

          1. Trenthamfolk (@)
            23rd August 2015, 18:01

            It’s called sarcasm! No-one else’s tyres blew up. That is the point. This is really simple.

            Ferrari pushed the limit and paid the consequence. It was a calculated risk, and VET can’t blame Ferrari else he’d be sacked. He has to blame Pirelli.

          2. Ferrari pushed the limit

            No, according to Pirelli recomendations and the lap times they didn’t

            and VET can’t blame Ferrari else he’d be sacked. He has to blame Pirelli.

            This is just nonsense

          3. Trenthamfolk (@)
            23rd August 2015, 19:05

            @Oletros

            According to Pirelli the failure was caused by high wear owing to his long stint on the rubber.

            During the 1991 season Prost was fired by Ferrari for his public criticism of the team.

            It’s very simple.

    3. F1 cars don’t have tread on slick tyres, which is what the wear laws in the UK particularly refer too. Other than the tread depth, you can’t have visibly damaged tyres or tyres with the canvas exposed, and neither did Vettel.

      1. Trenthamfolk (@)
        23rd August 2015, 17:16

        I know if I keep tyres on my car too long, I need to check them out… miles = wear = risk… it’s really simple…

        1. @trenthamfolk But it’s a risk of aquaplaning or otherwise losing grip, not of tyres exploding.

          1. Trenthamfolk (@)
            23rd August 2015, 17:50

            it’s still VERY simple…

          2. @trenthamfolk

            Yes, it is very simple. That’s why I’m baffled that you can’t seem to grasp what’s being talked about here.

            When your road tyres are worn out, they don’t explode randomly. You’ll just end up with far less grip. The Pirelli F1 tyres should be the same. They wear out and once worn out they produce much less grip and the driver will be several seconds slower. In no way shape or form does worn out tyre mean imminent blow up….

          3. Trenthamfolk (@)
            23rd August 2015, 18:15

            @davidnotcoulthard

            If you think blow-out’s don’t happen on road cars you are living in cloud cuckoo land… drive down any motorway and look for the tyre debris on the hard shoulder. They do happen, and mostly because of the driver’s stupidity. In this case it was Ferrari’s.

          4. @trenthamfolk

            I didn’t say blow out’s don’t happen. I say they don’t happen when your tyres are worn out. If you keep on driving AFTER they’re worn out then, yes, eventually the tyre will come apart.

            But, and try to follow me on this one now, I know it’s hard, Vettel’s tyres WEREN’T worn out. How do we know this I hear you ask yourself. Well, BECAUSE HIS LAP TIMES WERE FINE AND HE WAS HOLDING SOMEONE ELSE BEHIND.

            If his tyres had worn out he would have gone off the proverbial cliff and Grosjean would have passed him easily.

            I can’t explain it any simpler than this. If you still can’t grasp it than good luck to you.

  27. Vettel would do well to consider that driving on the racing line with a blown tyre is “unacceptable”. Silly boy. Aren’t these the margins we want F1 cars to contend with? (Answer: yes.)

    1. @f1bobby

      He wasn’t on the racing line. Notice how there were cars passing him on the right and left? Yeah…

      Nice try though.

      And what margins? That every tyre may randomly self destruct after about 70% of it’s predetermined life? Answer: no.

      1. Is that what we’ve been seeing? Random tyre blowouts, affecting every tyre Pirelli manufacture? “Nice try though”.

        If FIA introduce a rule that teams mustn’t extend a stint longer than the tyre manufacturer recommend it’s another nail in the coffin for interesting strategies and the drama that can come from that. I don’t want that.

  28. Vettel’s point only holds water if he can prove that the Pirellis have become structurally limited, rather than simply performance and design limited, in which case the fault would lie with a team that had failed to respect the design capacity (they are designed to degrade). Was the medium compound able to do 27 laps according to Pirelli? Yes, plus another 13 laps. That is Vettel’s point: a tyre that Pirelli said could do 40 laps delaminated after just 27.

    I think Vettel went too far when he questioned Pirelli’s whole culture, and that they had inadequately investigated Rosberg’s blow-out through some agenda of self preservation. For me, that verges on adrenaline-fueled defamation. Inasmuch as Nico had no motive to deny that he had gone off line, what motive does Pirelli have to be knowingly producing structurally inadequate tyres? Could a stone (or gravel – like that poured on the track by Vettel during his constant excursion on the exit of Malmedy) not have stayed onto the racing line? When he calms down, Vettel would be well advised to redress a number of the very serious inferences he made.

    1. Exactly! Vettel is foolishly demanding complete safety and assurance. Pretty wishful thinking in motorsports.

      Notice he completely excuses his teams strategy. A complete outlier from the rest of the grid in terms of strategy.

      1. Trenthamfolk (@)
        23rd August 2015, 17:19

        Vettel would be sacked if he criticized Ferrari… he has no one else to blame but himself, and that’s not going to happen… is it?

        1. bladibladibla.

          I hear a broken record.

          1. Trenthamfolk (@)
            23rd August 2015, 18:17

            You hear what you want to hear… empty rhetoric…

          2. All of your comments say the same.

            Come up with something new to diminish Vettel. Be creative. Go on, you can do it.

          3. Trenthamfolk (@)
            6th September 2015, 11:41

            I don’t want to diminish Vettel, just need to point out that neither party will accept blame. Even now, 2 weeks on, most commentators, aside from the Ferrari and their fans, say it was Ferrari’s fault. Go figure.

    2. what motive does Pirelli have to be knowingly producing structurally inadequate tyres?

      Pirelli is unable to make a tyre that doesn’t explode. They didn’t made an inadequate tyre on purpose, the problem lies in the fact they have no idea how to make a proper race tyre.

      1. Trenthamfolk (@)
        23rd August 2015, 19:13

        “Pirelli is unable to make a tyre that doesn’t explode. They didn’t made an inadequate tyre on purpose, the problem lies in the fact they have no idea how to make a proper race tyre.”

        hat is just a stupid thing to say… especially as they’re made to specification.

      2. @paeschli …whereas Michelin has a comparably enviable record a la Indy ’05. Q.E.D. F1 is a highly challenging category for tyre manufacturers and Pirelli especially has been working under a thoroughly difficult memorandum from the FIA: to produce tyres that degrade with a view to produce two to three stop races. Achieving this across eleven varieties of chassis and on nineteen highly varied racetracks is difficult enough without the teams being adept at mitigating the degradation effect. Therefore, the target is commonly missed. Therefore, Michelin is not even proposing to attempt to partake in the degradation doctrine that has unquestionably produced some truly excellent races since 2011. Q.E.D. unqualified criticism is not constructive.

      3. @trenthamfolk)

        that is just a stupid thing to say… especially as they’re made to specification.

        Did the FIA asked them to make exploding tyres?

        @countrygent

        …whereas Michelin has a comparably enviable record a la Indy ’05.

        I know Michelin isn’t perfect, but when they saw problems with the tyres at Indy ’05, they accepted blame and decided to not participate in the race.
        I much prefer their mentality than the current ‘it’s never our fault’ mentality from Pirelli. Even after Silverstone 2013, they told us the delaminations were due to extreme camber angles. Now that the camber angles are regulated, their tyres still aren’t safe.

        Therefore, Michelin is not even proposing to attempt to partake in the degradation doctrine that has unquestionably produced some truly excellent races since 2011.

        This shows Michelin knows what it is doing. They don’t want to risk making high-degradation tyres because they feel this can be unsafe. I’m tired of Pirelli making dangerous tyres and want a manufacturer back who puts the safety of the driver first.

    3. @countrygent Vettels point holds water. He doesn’t need to prove that the tyres are structurally limited or not because that’s Pirellis job!

      At the end of your first paragraph even after all the deliberations you simply can’t come up with a conclusion; and in your second paragraph you go on to say Vettel went too far questioning Pirellis investigation into Rosbergs accident yet forget to mention that nothing definitive had been found as the cause to Rosbergs accident.

  29. Adam (@rocketpanda)
    23rd August 2015, 16:30

    Ferrari were told the tyre could take 40 laps but it exploded after 28.

    Ferrari’s strategy was not risky because Pirelli warned the tyre would explode, but because the performance drop-off would be extreme – that should be obvious. The tyres surely should not explode under any condition, should they? Ferrari would expect a performance drop-off, not an explosion – not with some ten-odd laps remaining before the expected danger range.

    As other people have pointed out, we’ve seen cars give up before the tyre explodes in the past and seen them wear down to the canvas. Severe performance drop-off like Raikkonen a few years back dropping places like a slot machine – expected. Exploding? Not so much.

  30. I can understand Vettel’s fury. He was full of adrenaline, expecting to be able to keep Grosjean behind him until the end, and then, bang – game over.

    If a tyre is ending its life, surely lack of grip is what should show that, slip sliding away. You can usually see it when the tyres reach the cliff edge, but they shouldn’t suddenly fail in such a dangerous way. After what happened to pour Jules, the risk involved is obvious.

  31. Vettel is right! It is unnaceptable! He is the best formula 1 driver or this era and deserves respect for his words.

    1. Trenthamfolk (@)
      23rd August 2015, 16:53

      He’s not allowed to blame or even criticize Ferrari, so he has no one else to blame but Pirelli… a position he’s put himself in.

  32. This looks to me like Vettel is taking a page from Horner’s book. Do you critisise ferrari when a wheelstrut breaks? Do you critisise brembo when a breakdisk fails? Up to a certain point yes. But lets not forget that as stated above , Pirelli make tires according to a specific request list. These are all high oreformance parts that together make a car. Should they fail? No. Will the occasionally fail? Ofcourse. It isnpart of racing and in my oppinion Vettels response, instead of being costructive was just venting his frustration. Which is understandable but not I think appropriate in the dame way that Horner critisises Renault.

    It is just not the way a champion should respond i feel.

    1. Trenthamfolk (@)
      23rd August 2015, 18:06

      +1

    2. Actually I admire him for saying his mind for once instead of being this perfect PR-boy, alsways saying what the sponsors and team want him to say.

      In fact he’s gone up a rank in my book because like a great champion should be, he’s genuinly concerned about the safety of the drivers around him (a.k.a. refering to Nico Rosberg’s accident on Friday)

      I say good on him and shame on pirelli for providing confusing advise to teams.

    3. @melkurion

      Yup, he’s still hypnotised by Marko and Horner and of course Kimi is being sabotaged just like Webbo. Some things will neva change :)

  33. I like how Vettel speaks his mind when he feels something is wrong. I wish more of the drivers were as outspoken.

  34. The person most obviously to blame is Ben Edwards, rarely has a commentators curse come about just as the words leave his lips.

    [kidding! before anyone gets all bent out shape..]

  35. Wow, too many comments. I’m sure my point has already been raised, but…

    I think the main thing is that it’s the wild explosion without notice is what unacceptable. A simply puncture would be a different thing, that’s okay – you wanted to go long on a stint, you get greedy, you pay the price. Fair deal.

    But the explosion is just dangerous. It was for Rosberg during practice and it was for Vettel as well as he mentioned what if it happens in Eau Rouge…

    This is basically what is in Ferrari’s PR as Vettel’s post-race comment, but obviously, Vettel actually and specifically did not say that (or so I heard listening to his interview).

    Of ocurse, if it was due to the actual rim slowly cutting away the inside of the… not the shoulder of the tyre, but the ‘other’ main part… possibly due to extremely low pressures and extreme vertical load through Eau Rouge then that’s another thing (I saw photos of just how much the tyres suffer there), but I doubt that was the case. For Rosberg and for Vettel too.

  36. @sudd

    If there is a recommendation to go by, it would be that the race should be a “2 to 3 pit stop race.”

    That’s probably less of a recommendation than of a reckoning based on when the tyres go over the cliff, not explode.

    How do you explain that?

    Vettel ran for longer than everybody else. You probably know that too and maybe expected me to be trying to duck from that. By the way this is the 2nd time I answered the same question.

    But since it’s still not a length that breaches any of Pirelli’s recommendations what’s wrong with that answer? What does it imply that helps your argument for it being Ferrari’s fault?

    NO DUCKING!

    What ducking?

    1. Oh brilliant – that was supposed to be a reply to a thread. Oh well!

  37. I don’t see how you can give flak to Vettel or Ferrari, sure they lost P3 because they went above what the tire could do but stayed within the advised tyre life by at least 35%.

    Pirelli has once again showed what kind of company it is.

    It’s time for this new GPDA to act on this and get behind one of it’s members.

  38. What do you want pirelli? People’s death? If you’re going through with this, you sure are going to accomplish it…

  39. I’m sorry but Ferrari have relied on weaker tyres to keep up with mercedes, they have been kinder to their tyres and so have normally kept mercedes worried now that it has worked against them Vettel hates the tyres. You can’t have everything your way, you’ve got to accept and realise these things can happen especially when you rely on weak tyres to get strong results.

    1. @fifthlion I’d agree if it wasn’t for the fact that, going by the tyre manufacturer, 28 laps shouldn’t have been particularly risky.

  40. “Same with me I didn’t go off the track…”

    This raised an eyebrow when Vettel said it post race as it simply isn’t true. Vettel repeatedly left the track during the race. In fact just before his tyre went after his most recent excursion off track at the top of eau rouge I said if he keeps doing that he’s going to regret it, barely finished that sentence when his tyre went. I don’t think it’s beyond reason that he damaged his tyre on debris and caused the failure himself.

  41. RaceProUK (@)
    23rd August 2015, 22:22

    FIA approved Bridgestone tyre fails mid-race: “Eh, it happens.”
    FIA approved Goodyear tyre fails mid-race: “Eh, it happens.”
    FIA approved Michelin tyre fails mid-race: “Eh, it happens.”
    FIA approved Pirelli tyre fails mid-race: “OMG it’s the worst disaster ever!”

    Such is the way of the modern F1 fan, it seems.

    1. @raceprou The presence of F1 in social media and internet forums (like F1F) wasn’t big enough during the Bridgestone, Goodyear and Michelin years for you to draw any parallels. I don’t think you thought your post through.

  42. Advantage: Michelin.

  43. I think Pirelli do need to check what’s going on, a tyre giving up like that without warning definitely is dangerous.

    But, I read Vettel was saying ‘Rosberg didn’t go off track, I didn’t go off track’ – and that has to be questioned too.

    Sure, not off-track according to many drivers’ definition; but that’s only because the FIA is way too lax with enforcing those two white lines that are always on the track as being what they are supposed to be, namely track limits.

    Vettel is one of the drivers that has always been most aggressive in looking up the limits of where the FIA will call them on that (‘only when drivers gain an advantage’ – so why do it if not for advantage? yeah.), so in my opinion he’s part of creating the problem.

    Everyone went almost fully over the curbs at Radillon and several other spots at high speed. Maybe don’t do that and then tires will last better guys? In endurance racing, one way to be conserve tyres is to just stay off the curbs. But F1 drivers have gotten used to not doing that, and now demand tyres that can sustain that for the length of a Spa race. Perhaps that’s not quite realistic.

    I really wonder whether Michellin would be much better at enduring that.

  44. As most of you probably are aware, I’m a Vettel fan. When I read his comments, my thought is that it was a quote after he got out of the car after the race fuming with a lost 3rd position in the race. After a week or so, I think his comments will be very different.

    As for the incident itself, I don’t think we can’t point the finger at Pirelli, they aren’t producing fundamentally malfunctioning tyres, they are providing a tyre which meets the rigours of racing at 300+ km/h for all the cars. Think about all the tyres used over the course of the weekend and for us to see two major delaminations in one weekend is not outrageous, it is just a case of things happen. If Vettel’s tyre had exploded after 5 laps, then sure, I’d be really upset, but because it was after a significant stint of around 28 laps (thats 33 laps of silverstone or monza) I think it was always a risk to the Ferrari strategy.

    Also, Vettel may want to think about maybe not running wide on Malmedy on regular occasion if he attempts a long stint again at Spa, even though the gravel may not be doing anything to the tyre, you can’t tell me that the edge of the kerb wouldn’t have had some impact to the overall tyre condition.

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'.