Back to boredom when Pirelli leaves then.

Back to boredom when Pirelli leaves? So you didn't watch the Canadian GP then?

Despite dominating the Canadian GP thanks to Pirelli's low tyre degradation, Vettel still believes the safety of the tyres in questionable.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/108031

Why do you hate "the little shit?"

"The criticism we had or I expressed was not based on performance. I think it was based on safety," he said.

Vettel is not criticising the wear. I've now seen 3 interviews with him and EVERY time he expresses concern for tyre delamination, NOT the high wear rate. Red Bull might be complaining, but so are Mercedes. Vettel is purely on safety grounds...is that a bad thing!?

Why do you hate "the little shit?"

"The criticism we had or I expressed was not based on performance. I think it was based on safety," he said.

Vettel is not criticising the wear. I've now seen 3 interviews with him and EVERY time he expresses concern for tyre delamination, NOT the high wear rate. Red Bull might be complaining, but so are Mercedes. Vettel is purely on safety grounds...is that a bad thing!?

The only thing I question about the concerns with tyre delamination, is why do the drivers feel they need to complain about it? In actuality we've only seen this issue occur on a couple of occasions and those have been have resulted in non-serious consequences. Considering the actual risks involved in motorsport this is a real non-issue.

Why do you hate "the little shit?"

"The criticism we had or I expressed was not based on performance. I think it was based on safety," he said.

Vettel is not criticising the wear. I've now seen 3 interviews with him and EVERY time he expresses concern for tyre delamination, NOT the high wear rate. Red Bull might be complaining, but so are Mercedes. Vettel is purely on safety grounds...is that a bad thing!?

Well, of course he's not going to cite performance anymore now that RB and Merc's bitchfest has resulted in a harder tyre. Now it's better to pull the safety card to try and get even harder tyres.

Because we've got kinda lucky that they happened in positions where the result was nothing. Imagine that in Eau Rouge for example. Suddenly it isn't quite as much of a non-issue.

What do you mean "now that it has resulted in a harder tyre"? The tyre is not harder at all - these are the same tyres as before.

And Pirelli already said the delamination issue is NOT related to wear, but rather the glue and construction method...

You see ellis, that is entirely the issue at hand. In theory, any part of a F1 car can fail in a place like Eau Rouge. Just because a couple of tyres have delaminated, doesn't mean it is a huge risk all of a sudden which deserves more attention than any other part of an F1 car which has the potential to fail. So it is a non-issue. Motorsport is dangerous and is supposed to be.

You see ellis, that is entirely the issue at hand. In theory, any part of a F1 car can fail in a place like Eau Rouge. Just because a couple of tyres have delaminated, doesn't mean it is a huge risk all of a sudden which deserves more attention than any other part of an F1 car which has the potential to fail. So it is a non-issue. Motorsport is dangerous and is supposed to be.

Isn't Silverstone expected to see a new, harder tyre compound, due to RB and Merc's whining?

Construction method affects how a tyre wears, does it not? Not doubting you but would like to see where Pirelli said this. Is it just a coincidence that these delamination issues started to occur at the same time as we saw the highest falloff levels ever (Spain)?

It was to be considered, but Pirelli were told it wasn't allowed to happen by the FIA due to the regulations. Which I agree with 100%, but the same regulation also stated that the tyres must be finalised in NOVEMBER the season before, and that was ignored. So the FIA picking and choosing when to enforce tyre regulations is an issue which has not yet been discussed.



Pirelli originally claimed that the tyre failures were due to debris cutting the tyre. However one of the drivers (I forget who) asked why debris is suddenly an issue if it hasn't been before. Why are the new tyres failing when contact is made if the old ones didn't. Then after the 3rd failure (I think that was di Resta, I can't remember), Vettel said he didn't believe it was related to debris from the information he'd been told, and pushed Pirelli for a fix. When quizzed about wear rates, he dodged the question every time (unlike Lewis, Mercedes and Red Bull who have demanded changes). Pirelli talked about a different glue solution being used in the future which would stop it happening.

If Vettel is considered to be a "little shit" for wanting safer tyres, then Lewis has to be considered the c*nt of all c*nts for wanting the tyres changed to suit him and his car. But that doesn't seem to be the case for whatever reason.

However, I'd just like to see some proof that tyre wear is absolutely unrelated to failures

Another thing that's got me riled up is last year, Pirelli ran SS/S tyres at Montreal but this year, it was SS/M. Why was that change made if not to give in to RB and Merc's complaining?

Pirelli: "So we have been working on some process changes - in basic terms, the glue, to increase the adhesion between the components in the tyre.

The issue is the new belts, rather than compound. A different glue may be required to suit these belts.

Just because Hembrey suggested a different glue solution as one of the possible fixes, does it completely rule out less wear as being another possible fix that they will try only if the glue solution doesn't fix it completely?

The tyres are split in compound now. So there is a gap between them. So SS/M is the softest possible choice. I believe this was an FIA and Pirelli choice last season, NOT this season, and the Canadian GP compound choices would've been announced months ago, before complaints.