Pirelli knocks back camber limit for Monza

[John S]

Must be reaction to zealots at Spa; good they don't want rule change though.

With this controversy over camber angles causing an uproar at Spa, we spectators have now become aware of another technical area that influences performance on F1 cars. I don't recall this subject being discussed or explained by commentators in the many years I have been following F1. My point is how many other technical secrets are there still to be revealed????  

Formula 1 teams have been issued with a more conservative camber recommendation by Pirelli for this weekend's Italian Grand Prix, AUTOSPORT can reveal, to prevent a repeat of the tyre controversy that erupted in Belgium.

With the build-up to the Spa event being overshadowed by a tyre blistering issue suffered chiefly by Red Bull Racing, as a result of it going beyond the camber limit laid down before the event, Pirelli has reacted swiftly for the high-speed Monza venue.

AUTOSPORT understands that teams have been told by Pirelli that the maximum limit it wants to see used at Monza is 3.75 degrees - which is a level that it feels will ensure no overheating problems on the straights but will also not hinder teams through the high-speed corners or chicanes.

At Spa, teams were asked not go beyond a 4-degree limit – but Red Bull Racing was understood to have pushed the limit to as far as 4.3 degrees. It was this that contributed to the tyres overheating on the straights – producing the blisters that proved so worrying ahead of the race.

Pirelli's director of motorsport Paul Hembery said that lessons had been learned on both sides from the Spa affair. He was confident there would not be any repeat of the situation at Monza – which is a venue where blistering has been a problem for teams in the past.

Hembery said that Pirelli's policy of offering advice on the camber limits had not changed in the aftermath of Spa, as he recognised that the circumstances in Belgium – with almost no dry running prior to qualifying – had contributed a great deal to what happened.

"We send out a pre-race recommendation and it hasn't changed," he said. "Being pragmatic, if we had had some dry running in practice then things would have turned out different. I think we all live and learn from that.

"Teams pushing the limits probably occurs at a lot of races, it is part of normal procedures, but what you end up doing when you find problems [like blisters] is you end up modifying the set-up and sorting it. Nobody could see it in Belgium because it rained throughout practice, so a lot of circumstances were involved there.

Hembery also made it clear that although much of the focus post-Spa had been on what Red Bull Racing did, the issue of following guidelines was a matter for every competitor.

"It is an all-team issue in reality," he said. "We ask all the teams to follow our guidelines, and because Red Bull Racing was at the front and won the race maybe the focus was more directed to them. But there were a couple of other issues we wanted to solve with other teams. We've tidied those matters up now and spoken to those involved."

There were some suggestions that in the aftermath of the Spa event, Pirelli and the FIA could react by making the camber limit mandatory on safety grounds – which would prevent any team going beyond its limits.

Hembery said that such a course of action was not needed now, but did not rule out the possibility if he felt it was required.

By Jonathan Noble, Autosport.com, Today.

[Scott]

Um.."recommendation" I think it said.  Welcome free-for-all...which I actually prefer. 

Teams can make their own determination on tire wear vs camber in my opinion.  If they get it right, great, if they blow it...well, into the pits they will come.

[Alianora La Canta]

Pirelli's advice has only ever been "recommendations". On the evidence of Spa, its advice appears to be wise.

[Jericoke]

Pirelli's advice has only ever been "recommendations". On the evidence of Spa, its advice appears to be wise.

The cars that finished 1-2 didn't follow the recommendations...

It is great that Pirelli is doing their best to ensure safe racing, and I rather enjoy that teams are free to ignore. (Of course I do hope that doesn't lead to a disaster that requires camber rules.)

[Alianora La Canta]

They didn't follow the advice given and would have been faster if they had. Not much comfort to Red Bull's rivals but something Red Bull itself will surely take into account when it goes racing in future.

[lkjohnson1950]

If one of the damaged tires had blown at Eau Rouge and taken out half the field, The FIA and Pirelli would have looked foolish, and been liable for a lot. NASCAR would have issued a rule after qualifying. I'm not sure which system is better. NASCAR often jumps the gun, but the FIA seems to take unnecessary risks. 

[Jericoke]

If one of the damaged tires had blown at Eau Rouge and taken out half the field, The FIA and Pirelli would have looked foolish, and been liable for a lot. NASCAR would have issued a rule after qualifying. I'm not sure which system is better. NASCAR often jumps the gun, but the FIA seems to take unnecessary risks. 

Over regulation would be a risk too.

Part of the 'charm' of NASCAR is that all the cars are supposed to be identical:  it's the driver who decides the outcome.

Part of what makes F1 special is that there are 12 very unique cars bending every possible rule, backed by a team of hundreds trying to ride the fine edge between victory and disaster.

I don't watch the sport for the danger... but I wouldn't watch the sport if the danger was removed.

[Alianora La Canta]

If one of the damaged tires had blown at Eau Rouge and taken out half the field, The FIA and Pirelli would have looked foolish, and been liable for a lot. NASCAR would have issued a rule after qualifying. I'm not sure which system is better. NASCAR often jumps the gun, but the FIA seems to take unnecessary risks. 

Red Bull were advised by Pirelli not to run their tyre that way well in advance of qualifying. They ignored that advice. Therefore they are liable, not Pirelli or the FIA. Only if the advice were faulty would Pirelli be liable - and the FIA escape responsibility because the catch-all Article 3.2 of the Sporting Regulations requires cars to be safe at all points of the weekend and did not compel or advise a dangerous course of action. (Note this is separate from the preamble of the Sporting Regulations, which requires cars to comply with the regulations at all points of the weekend). Remember they allowed Red Bull to change the camber after qualifying - they simply required that the due penalty be paid if the late camber change option was taken. Red Bull chose not to make that change, thus taking responsibility for its car's safety completely into its own hands. This should have been easy to explain to the audience.

If anything, the FIA would be in more danger if it laid down the law - if the law is set too leniently it would become liable for formalising faulty advice. As it stands now, Pirelli would take the flak for bad advice and that is far less dangerous to the health of the sport.

[lkjohnson1950]

Alia, do you think any of that would have mattered to a courtroom full of lawyers? Maybe in Europe the laws are different, but in the US they all would have been angling for out of court settlements in the mega millions.

[Alianora La Canta]

Alia, do you think any of that would have mattered to a courtroom full of lawyers? Maybe in Europe the laws are different, but in the US they all would have been angling for out of court settlements in the mega millions.

The settlements wouldn't have been against the FIA or Pirelli though (unless the cause was bad advice, which the FIA have exposed themselves to further by making camber limits mandatory). They'd have been suing Red Bull and only Red Bull, since it would have been solely liable.

All of that would have mattered to a court of lawyers because it affects to whom they send the invoices. Mandating camber limits certainly won't stop any of them.

[lkjohnson1950]

You're too young to remember, but when Mark Donahue was killed his family sued Goodyear, Penske, the organizers, pretty much anyone they could. Many people feared it could be the end of racing, but they all settled out of court. You can believe an American lawyer would have sued Pirelli for under designing the shoulder of the tire. Then the FIA for allowing Pirelli to under design the tire. As I said, in Europe the liability laws might be different, but in the US everyone would have been liable.

[cosworth151]

It was a prime example of American tort law: Sue everyone in sight, especially if they have "deep pockets."

In this case, I think that the blistered tires should have been declared unsafe to start the race. Red Bull would have been forced to change the tires and start from the pits.

[Alianora La Canta]

You're too young to remember, but when Mark Donahue was killed his family sued Goodyear, Penske, the organizers, pretty much anyone they could. Many people feared it could be the end of racing, but they all settled out of court. You can believe an American lawyer would have sued Pirelli for under designing the shoulder of the tire. Then the FIA for allowing Pirelli to under design the tire. As I said, in Europe the liability laws might be different, but in the US everyone would have been liable.

That suggests American lawyers don't know the law. Why should F1 bow to people who should know the law but don't?

[cosworth151]

No, it suggests that American lawyers are, in large numbers, greedy, money hungry b*****ds, and they've written American tort laws. That's why fat people can get away with suing fast food chains, claiming that the restaurants are responsible for their overeating and lack of exercise. And win! Or the guy the sat a ladder up on a frozen manure pile, fell off when the ladder slipped and sued the ladder manufacturer. After all, the ladder didn't have a written warning not to set it up on a frozen manure pile. And won!

[Alianora La Canta]

McDonald's provided the product and failed to provide adequete nutritional information - a similar suit in the UK would have worked until recently, but fortunately for McDonald's nobody could be bothered to launch one. The only reason it wouldn't work now is because McDonald's includes nutritional information in the restaurants, in a form that doesn't require you to buy the meal first.

Inadequete instructions on ladders (even on trivial safety points), when combined with inadequete training, already have resulted in UK companies being sued successfully - one example in a meat processing plant resulted in a £20,000 fine. Put simply, putting a ladder in manure is considered the same as using a non-securable ladder or not securing the ladder prior to use.

However, Pirelli already issued advice. Failure to comply with said advice makes the team breaking it liable. Compliance that did not prevent failure makes Pirelli liable (for faulty advice and possibly product).

Now, the FIA mandates the advice. Failure to comply with said advice still makes the team breaking it liable. Compliance that does not prevent failure... ...now makes the FIA and Pirelli jointly liable (for passing on faulty advice and creating faulty advice and possibly product respectively).

Congratulations, FIA - you've just opened yourselves up to lawyers without protecting anyone.