PDA

View Full Version : Was it McLaren or was it Bridgestone?!



ioan
13th May 2008, 13:54
http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_3559034,00.html


According to reports, it was McLaren rather than Bridgestone that decreed that Lewis Hamilton should use a three-stop strategy during the Turkish GP.


First the team says that they went for the 3 stopper because Bridgestone told them that the tires would not hold on Lewy's car.
Now it comes out that it was McLaren who went for it because in fact Lewy wasn't really able to cope with the softer tires.

Why is it that every time something strange happens at McLaren we get contradictory reports for a week?!

Robinho
13th May 2008, 14:01
i'm inclined to think it was a team decision based on Bridgestones information that Lewis's tyres may struggle to hold up, and rather than compromise a 2 stopper it made sense to run 3.

i don't think Bridgestone forced them to do anything, but did suggest the problems.

the initial statement from Ron hinted at this, and it was Lewis who said it was because Bridgestone "MADE" them use a 3 stopper - in this case i think Ron was right (i didn't think i'd say that again for a while ;) ), and that they made the call on Bridgestones advice.

Bridgestones statements seem to follow the same tack, that Lewis was putting increased load into the front right tyre compared with everyone else in turn 8 and was at risk of a failure if running like that for too long - rather than temper the pace and style they chose to work round the problem and adpat the startegy instead. the idea that Bridgestone enforced the strategy is rather misleading IMO.

ArrowsFA1
13th May 2008, 14:18
There's nothing contradictory. McLaren made a decision having taken into account the information Bridgetone gave them.

Bridgestone said:
"We had the issue with Lewis last year at this race, brought about by turn eight specifically being anti-clockwise triple-apex with very high G-forces. He had a specific problem last year, most noticeably, but several other drivers we noticed had internal tyre problems. Based on that, we changed the construction and strengthened it over the winter period and then brought those tyres to all the races this year. In actual fact, nobody else has had a repetition of any of those problems this year, with the exception of Lewis. He is the one driver who perhaps with his style of driving has put higher forces onto his front right tyre."

ioan
13th May 2008, 14:25
LH in the post race press conference:


LH: The reason we went with a three stopper was due to Bridgestone being concerned as they thought the tyre was going to fail like it did last year. Therefore,they made us do a three stop as it was the safest route to go.

Link: http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_3552095,00.html

Tazio
13th May 2008, 14:37
I know I tried to put a negative spin on this in another thread.
Bottom line, it worked. It does kind of remind me of the (not so) old days
in the tire wars where Bridgestone was always accused of making tires that worked for Ferrari, and weren't as concerned with their other customers.
As long as Bridgestone is as open to solving the problems of every single driver that has wear problems I dont see any problem with it! Hes still using the same tires as everyone else!
Cheers

ArrowsFA1
13th May 2008, 14:40
Hamilton heavier on right front tyre than other drivers. Concerns about a possible failure. Decision taken to race 3 stops.

Simple.

gloomyDAY
13th May 2008, 16:23
Back from a ban and the first thing you decide to do is a thread bashing McLaren. Surprise!

Knock-on
13th May 2008, 16:44
Lewis is hard on the front tyres and consequently, has issues with the side wall.

Now, I'm not casting any aspersions on Bridgestone but it really is their responsibility to provide a tyre that can be used by all teams without failing under normal conditions shouldn't they? Just because Lewis drives it harder shouldn't penalise him. It's not lighting the rears up or anything but the tyre walls failing which shouldn't happen.

Anyway, end of story. McLaren were compromised slightly so I can't see what your moaning at ioan.

PSfan
13th May 2008, 19:42
Lewis is hard on the front tyres and consequently, has issues with the side wall.

Now, I'm not casting any aspersions on Bridgestone but it really is their responsibility to provide a tyre that can be used by all teams without failing under normal conditions shouldn't they? Just because Lewis drives it harder shouldn't penalise him. It's not lighting the rears up or anything but the tyre walls failing which shouldn't happen.

Anyway, end of story. McLaren were compromised slightly so I can't see what your moaning at ioan..

your first statement contradicts your second, unless you are saying that Lewis Hamilton IS the team? Also, would it be fair to compromise the other drivers in order to make a tire for Hamilton?

Oh by the way, suprised Ioan or any of the other McLeran bashers didn't point out another BS comment by RD, but he said that Heikki had to wait till the race was green to change his tires because pit lane was closed... well here I thought you could pit while the pit lane was "closed" in order to make repairs without getting a penalty (penalty is for refueling while pit lane is closed)

Hamilton telling the world basically that Bridgestone ruined their race is a very serious matter. If I was them "Bridgestone" from here on out, I wouldn't be giving McLeran any technical support for the rest of the season "here are your tires... good luck."

janneppi
13th May 2008, 19:56
Oh by the way, suprised Ioan or any of the other McLeran bashers didn't point out another BS comment by RD, but he said that Heikki had to wait till the race was green to change his tires because pit lane was closed... well here I thought you could pit while the pit lane was "closed" in order to make repairs without getting a penalty (penalty is for refueling while pit lane is closed)
But could Kovalainen exit the pit when it's closed?
If not, he would have been lapped by cars going behind the safety car. That would have been even worse.

JSH
13th May 2008, 20:00
LH: The reason we went with a three stopper was due to Bridgestone being concerned as they thought the tyre was going to fail like it did last year. Therefore,they made us do a three stop as it was the safest route to go.


Of course Lewis(and any other F1 driver) is never going to admit that their driving style is harder on tyres than others' style...

elinagr
13th May 2008, 20:07
who is ioan?

Tazio
13th May 2008, 20:28
who is ioan?Hang aroung! you'll find out ;)
BTW welcome to our nightmare :rotflmao:

ioan
13th May 2008, 23:29
Oh by the way, suprised Ioan or any of the other McLeran bashers didn't point out another BS comment by RD, but he said that Heikki had to wait till the race was green to change his tires because pit lane was closed... well here I thought you could pit while the pit lane was "closed" in order to make repairs without getting a penalty (penalty is for refueling while pit lane is closed)

I missed that one! :( :laugh: :D
I was however amuzed by RD's and MWithmarsh's comments how their drivers could have won the race! Well, Ronnie boy, even Super Aguri could have won the race if they would have started it! :p :

Back to topic, you are right, repairing a damaged car is allowed when the pit lane is closed.


But could Kovalainen exit the pit when it's closed?
If not, he would have been lapped by cars going behind the safety car. That would have been even worse.

The red light at the exit is on only when the SC with the cars lined up behind it are going by the pit line exit, after that is green.

Hawkmoon
14th May 2008, 00:24
Hamilton's comments in the press conference that Bridgestone made McLaren switch to a 3 stopper were disingenuous at best and down right deceitful at worst.

Bridgestone recommended that Hamilton, and Hamilton alone of the 20 drivers, do no more than 18 laps on the option tyre. That still left McLaren with the option of a 2 stop race. McLaren correctly decided on a 3 stopper because it absolutely minimised Hamilton's disadvantage on the option tyre.

Well done McLaren for making the kind of decision that wins championships. Hamilton, however, needs to look up the definition of "truth" in the dictionary because he struggles with it from time to time.

Ranger
14th May 2008, 05:02
Nevermind the race, I think the most concerning part of this saga was that, on a 3-stop strategy, Hamilton couldn't make the front row and was outqualified by his 2-stopping team-mate.

Had Hamilton put the McMerc on pole he probably would have won the race assuming he lead into turn 1.

Knock-on
14th May 2008, 08:41
your first statement contradicts your second, unless you are saying that Lewis Hamilton IS the team? Also, would it be fair to compromise the other drivers in order to make a tire for Hamilton?

Oh by the way, suprised Ioan or any of the other McLeran bashers didn't point out another BS comment by RD, but he said that Heikki had to wait till the race was green to change his tires because pit lane was closed... well here I thought you could pit while the pit lane was "closed" in order to make repairs without getting a penalty (penalty is for refueling while pit lane is closed)

Hamilton telling the world basically that Bridgestone ruined their race is a very serious matter. If I was them "Bridgestone" from here on out, I wouldn't be giving McLeran any technical support for the rest of the season "here are your tires... good luck."

There is no contradiction at all in my eyes?

1st statement


Lewis is hard on the front tyres and consequently, has issues with the side wall.

This is admitted by McLaren, Bridgestone and anyone with half a brain.

2nd statement


Now, I'm not casting any aspersions on Bridgestone but it really is their responsibility to provide a tyre that can be used by all teams without failing under normal conditions shouldn't they?

Team McLaren has two cars serviced by a hoard of personnel including mechanics, drivers, engineers, tea ladies etc facilitating the performance of those 2 cars. Connecting that whole team (2 cars) to the track is the tyres so they are a pretty f*cking fundemental part of the equation.

The fact that the tyre manufacturer couldn't supply a tyre that could be used in normal opperating conditions by 50% of that team would suggest it compromised them slightly, doesn't it?

Your second question was would it be fair to produce a tyre that compromised all the other drivers. This is really below you PS and you know it.

BS should produce a suitable tyre to last a 2 stopper in normal conditions. LH is not going around lighting the rears up in huge slides but is just driving to the max. Shouldn't that be what all drivers do or do we want an endurance race with drivers at 90%.

This is not the tyre wearing out you know. It is damage being experienced on the side wall by driving it hard.

Knock-on
14th May 2008, 09:00
Hamilton telling the world basically that Bridgestone ruined their race is a very serious matter. If I was them "Bridgestone" from here on out, I wouldn't be giving McLeran any technical support for the rest of the season "here are your tires... good luck."


They were not having a pop at BS IMHO and NEVER claimed BS ruined their race but were just saying it as it is. Some people like company "yes" men but I like straight talking without F1 spin.

BS said that the tyre was unsuitable for a 2 stop strategy and this made McLaren change to a 3 stopper on Lewis's car. Did BS's advise make McLaren change to a 3 stopper. Well, I'll leave that to you.

However, your statement is totally false.

Knock-on
14th May 2008, 09:05
Hamilton's comments in the press conference that Bridgestone made McLaren switch to a 3 stopper were disingenuous at best and down right deceitful at worst.

Bridgestone recommended that Hamilton, and Hamilton alone of the 20 drivers, do no more than 18 laps on the option tyre. That still left McLaren with the option of a 2 stop race. McLaren correctly decided on a 3 stopper because it absolutely minimised Hamilton's disadvantage on the option tyre.

Well done McLaren for making the kind of decision that wins championships. Hamilton, however, needs to look up the definition of "truth" in the dictionary because he struggles with it from time to time.

Sorry Hawk but that is BS and you know it.

They would have had to put 18 laps of fuel on the soft tyre at the start and then have a massive pit after 18 laps and run a tyre for 50 laps. They wont last 50 laps and I'm pretty sure the fuel tank is not big enough in any case.

Tell me how the hell they could have done a 2 stopper unless they completely disregarded both their tyre supplier and their drivers safety?

Read my post above.

Knock-on
14th May 2008, 09:07
Of course Lewis(and any other F1 driver) is never going to admit that their driving style is harder on tyres than others' style...

I think they have already. More anti-Lewis BS :laugh:

If you watch his style, you will see that he drives the car in a similar vein to MS especially earlier in his career. Very hard and fast both chucking it in a braking into corners.

It's called racing.

Well, thats every post that needs answering done :)

aryan
14th May 2008, 09:08
Why is it that every time something strange happens at McLaren we get contradictory reports for a week?!

There is nothing contradictory if you don't read the tabloids.

Of course McLaren chose the strategy. The team always in the end has the final say in the strategy. They said that they chose this strategy, based on information presented to them by Bridgestone.

I fail to see the contradiction.

aryan
14th May 2008, 09:12
Nevermind the race, I think the most concerning part of this saga was that, on a 3-stop strategy, Hamilton couldn't make the front row and was outqualified by his 2-stopping team-mate.


On the prime tyre, yes.

He didn't have a good quali though, and even he admitted it himself.

F1boat
14th May 2008, 09:51
I don't think that Bridgestone should make special tyres for Hamilton. Many drivers, including Quck Nick, have problems with tyres. It's up to them to fix their driving, not to Bridgestone.

ioan
14th May 2008, 10:30
There is nothing contradictory if you don't read the tabloids.

I only read te Post Race conference and McLarens latest statement about their strategy. No tabloids involved.

ArrowsFA1
14th May 2008, 10:43
I only read te Post Race conference and McLarens latest statement about their strategy. No tabloids involved.
The thread began with a quote from PlanetF1 (a webloid ;) ), which itself began "according to reports". Now when a site begins with that you have to ask what reports?

I tend to stick to one source for F1 news, because it's consistent, unsensational, and pretty accurate, so here's their whole coverage on this non-story:

Hamilton rues wrong tyre choice (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67292)[/*:m:1f7j3ez8]
Hamilton plays down tyre choice frustration (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67329)[/*:m:1f7j3ez8]
McLaren chose three stops over tyre fears (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67338)[/*:m:1f7j3ez8]
Tyre problem specific to Hamilton (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67359)[/*:m:1f7j3ez8]
Bridgestone Q&A (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67366)[/*:m:1f7j3ez8]
Saturday press conference (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67315)[/*:m:1f7j3ez8]
Sunday press conference (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67368)[/*:m:1f7j3ez8]

ShiftingGears
14th May 2008, 12:18
I heard it was the Russians.

Hawkmoon
14th May 2008, 13:28
Sorry Hawk but that is BS and you know it.

They would have had to put 18 laps of fuel on the soft tyre at the start and then have a massive pit after 18 laps and run a tyre for 50 laps. They wont last 50 laps and I'm pretty sure the fuel tank is not big enough in any case.

Tell me how the hell they could have done a 2 stopper unless they completely disregarded both their tyre supplier and their drivers safety?

Read my post above.

50 laps? WTF? You want to check your math mate. ;)

McLaren could have run a two stop race. That's three stints. So that works out a one 18 lap stint on the options and two 25 lap stints on the primes. Besides, Bridgestone told McLaren that Hamilton shouldn't run more than 18 laps on the options because he risked a failure. That mean't that Hamilton could have used the softs for anywhere between 1 and 18 laps depending on the strategy they wanted. In the end they chose three stops, which turned out to be the right call.

So Hamilton's claim that Bridgestone made him do a three stopper was rubbish. Two stops was entirely feasible, though ultimately not as quick.

As to your other point, why the hell should Bridgestone make a tyre to suit 1 driver in 20? Who cares if that's 50% of the McLaren team when it's only 5% of the entire grid? Hamilton is the one who needs to change here, not Bridgestone.

Knock-on
14th May 2008, 14:14
50 laps? WTF? You want to check your math mate. ;)

McLaren could have run a two stop race. That's three stints. So that works out a one 18 lap stint on the options and two 25 lap stints on the primes. Besides, Bridgestone told McLaren that Hamilton shouldn't run more than 18 laps on the options because he risked a failure. That mean't that Hamilton could have used the softs for anywhere between 1 and 18 laps depending on the strategy they wanted. In the end they chose three stops, which turned out to be the right call.

So Hamilton's claim that Bridgestone made him do a three stopper was rubbish. Two stops was entirely feasible, though ultimately not as quick.

As to your other point, why the hell should Bridgestone make a tyre to suit 1 driver in 20? Who cares if that's 50% of the McLaren team when it's only 5% of the entire grid? Hamilton is the one who needs to change here, not Bridgestone.

Sorry Hawk. My appologies. I was in a rush this morning and did indeed read things wrong.

I don't believe though that Lewis intended people to interperet his words as meaning Bridgestone made them do a 3 stopper. That is obviously rubbish as all Bridgestone would have done is advise on what the options were.

From that information, McLaren would make their decisions and Lewis could quite rightly claim that "The data from Bridgestone made us do a 3 stopper" quite legitimatly. You can argue over the semantics but in effect, it's not a million miles away from what was said?

As for the tyre situation, I completely disagree with you.

If Lewis was locking up his brakes, flat spotting his tyres and then moaning that they weren't up to the job, then I could understand it. However, what we are talking about here is not the contact patch but the wall of the tyre. Similar to Michelin in USA when they were failing because of the degridation of the walls, so is this the same.

A driver, piloting one of these cars to the optimum, should not have to change his style to suit a tyre that isn't up to the job. We're not talking about wearing a tyre out but the wall wearing down.

It's a tyre fault in my opinion as it shouldn't do that.

Hawkmoon
14th May 2008, 15:33
Sorry Hawk. My appologies. I was in a rush this morning and did indeed read things wrong.

I don't believe though that Lewis intended people to interperet his words as meaning Bridgestone made them do a 3 stopper. That is obviously rubbish as all Bridgestone would have done is advise on what the options were.

From that information, McLaren would make their decisions and Lewis could quite rightly claim that "The data from Bridgestone made us do a 3 stopper" quite legitimatly. You can argue over the semantics but in effect, it's not a million miles away from what was said?

As for the tyre situation, I completely disagree with you.

If Lewis was locking up his brakes, flat spotting his tyres and then moaning that they weren't up to the job, then I could understand it. However, what we are talking about here is not the contact patch but the wall of the tyre. Similar to Michelin in USA when they were failing because of the degridation of the walls, so is this the same.

A driver, piloting one of these cars to the optimum, should not have to change his style to suit a tyre that isn't up to the job. We're not talking about wearing a tyre out but the wall wearing down.

It's a tyre fault in my opinion as it shouldn't do that.

Perhaps. The only problem is that Hamilton was the only driver to have that problem. No other driver had any restirctions placed upon him unlike the Michelin fiasco at Indy where 2/3rds of the grid was effected by an obvious deficiency of the tyre.

I believe that since the problem affected Hamilton, and only Hamilton, that he should adapt himself to the tyre rather than Bridgestone adapting the tyre to him as there was/is no inherrent deficiency with the tyre for 95% of the grid. In effect that's what McLaren did through strategy.

I don't see the fact that it's a sidewall issue as being relevant. Hamilton's driving style puts too much stress into the loaded tyre through Turn 8. How is that any different from a driver's style not suiting any other part of the car and thus forcing them to adapt to the problem?

ioan
14th May 2008, 17:19
50 laps? WTF? You want to check your math mate. ;)

McLaren could have run a two stop race. That's three stints. So that works out a one 18 lap stint on the options and two 25 lap stints on the primes.

You mean once 18 on softer and twice 20 laps on harder. As far as I know the race was only 58 laps long. ;)

And they could have went for 16/21/21 too if they were so worried. But to say that BS "made" them go for 3 stops was rubbish from Lewy's part when we all know that it was him having a problem and not the tires.

ioan
14th May 2008, 17:23
I don't see the fact that it's a sidewall issue as being relevant. Hamilton's driving style puts too much stress into the loaded tyre through Turn 8. How is that any different from a driver's style not suiting any other part of the car and thus forcing them to adapt to the problem?

The ones criticizing BS for making tires adapted for Ferrari, when Ferrari were the only top team using BS, are now wishing that BS would make tires adapted to Lewy! Funny! :D ;)

Knock-on
14th May 2008, 17:53
Perhaps. The only problem is that Hamilton was the only driver to have that problem. No other driver had any restirctions placed upon him unlike the Michelin fiasco at Indy where 2/3rds of the grid was effected by an obvious deficiency of the tyre.

I believe that since the problem affected Hamilton, and only Hamilton, that he should adapt himself to the tyre rather than Bridgestone adapting the tyre to him as there was/is no inherrent deficiency with the tyre for 95% of the grid. In effect that's what McLaren did through strategy.

I don't see the fact that it's a sidewall issue as being relevant. Hamilton's driving style puts too much stress into the loaded tyre through Turn 8. How is that any different from a driver's style not suiting any other part of the car and thus forcing them to adapt to the problem?

Well, F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of Motorsport yet the fastest drivers have to adapt their driving style to operate at a less optimum level because of a stock tyre that cannot be driven at it's optimum.

Is that what we're saying?

Knock-on
14th May 2008, 18:03
The ones criticizing BS for making tires adapted for Ferrari, when Ferrari were the only top team using BS, are now wishing that BS would make tires adapted to Lewy! Funny! :D ;)

I am trying not to reply to you because it's pointless but just in case you are willing to comprehend a simple statement, I will answer your post.

In the old days, BS developed tyres primarily for Ferrari with the other BS teams having to adapt their cars the best they could to use them.

That was their choice and there was nothing wrong with that in the rules.

What we have now is a very fast driver that is being hampered because the stock tyres are not fit for purpose in that a structural issue, not a performance issue, is present.

I don't care if it's just one driver (although I believe NH may have experienced a similar issue but that's from memory and I have no link so it's not concrete) or all of them.

Dogs running on a track might not affect 95% of the drivers so is that OK?

BS are tasked with producing a tyre that doesn't fail under normal paremeters. So many laps with no non-normal factors (ie going off track, debris, lock-ups etc). Can anyone argue that a driver that is within these parameters should suffer structural failure because his driving style is faster than others?

How single minded and un-objective would someone have to be to argue they should.

aryan
14th May 2008, 18:45
Guys, give it up the "F1 is the pinnacle..". It's a hopeless argument.

F1 is a motor sport race. Nothing special. It uses stock tyres, provided by a tyre company. All teams/drivers use the same tyres. They all have to adapt to it.

If someone can't adapt. They lose. And it's called evolution.

End of story.

ioan
14th May 2008, 18:48
Guys, give it up the "F1 is the pinnacle..". It's a hopeless argument.

F1 is a motor sport race. Nothing special. It uses stock tyres, provided by a tyre company. All teams/drivers use the same tyres. They all have to adapt to it.

If someone can't adapt. They lose. And it's called evolution.

End of story.

Exactly!

Bagwan
14th May 2008, 20:02
I am trying not to reply to you because it's pointless but just in case you are willing to comprehend a simple statement, I will answer your post.

In the old days, BS developed tyres primarily for Ferrari with the other BS teams having to adapt their cars the best they could to use them.

That was their choice and there was nothing wrong with that in the rules.

What we have now is a very fast driver that is being hampered because the stock tyres are not fit for purpose in that a structural issue, not a performance issue, is present.

I don't care if it's just one driver (although I believe NH may have experienced a similar issue but that's from memory and I have no link so it's not concrete) or all of them.

Dogs running on a track might not affect 95% of the drivers so is that OK?

BS are tasked with producing a tyre that doesn't fail under normal paremeters. So many laps with no non-normal factors (ie going off track, debris, lock-ups etc). Can anyone argue that a driver that is within these parameters should suffer structural failure because his driving style is faster than others?

How single minded and un-objective would someone have to be to argue they should.

Knocky , old man , both of you have good points , but I'm afraid Ioan's are better .
When one considers that they had some troubles at this track last year with a number of drivers , and consequently beefed up the construction , making it perfectly adequate for all the drivers but Lewis , one might think that BS has gone to a fair amount of trouble here to get it right .
Everyone was happy with the tires , including his team-mate in the same car .
Unless , of course , one suspects that they did that on purpose , knowing Lewis would be compromised .
That's hard to believe , as that would be some pretty fine edged engineering .
Perhaps more believable would be that Bridgestone was trying to dupe Lewis into believing that he would kill the skins early , forcing him to compromise a 2-stopper into 3 .
But , if that were true , why wouldn't they try to convince both drivers , not just Hamilton ?

Sometimes it just comes down to how hard you abuse the equipment , Knock .
Manage the tires better than your oponent , and you get the bonus of having a choice in strategy .
That is how it is , and how it always has been .

This is for Lewis to fix , not Bridgestone , as he will be beaten by his team-mate if he cannot solve this .

F1boat
14th May 2008, 21:19
This is for Lewis to fix , not Bridgestone , as he will be beaten by his team-mate if he cannot solve this .

He is good enough, he should not criticize bridgestone, but adapt. HE CAN. It can't be harder than changing from GP 2 to F-1.

Hawkmoon
14th May 2008, 23:46
You mean once 18 on softer and twice 20 laps on harder. As far as I know the race was only 58 laps long. ;)

See Knockie, he did the math. :)


Well, F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of Motorsport yet the fastest drivers have to adapt their driving style to operate at a less optimum level because of a stock tyre that cannot be driven at it's optimum.

Is that what we're saying?

Yes. The drivers do it all the time. Smaller, less powerful engines, grooved tyres, forced tyre choices all prevent the drivers from simply driving and make them adapt. This is no different.


What we have now is a very fast driver that is being hampered because the stock tyres are not fit for purpose in that a structural issue, not a performance issue, is present.

But there is no structural issue for the other 19 drivers, at least from the information that we have. Surely this means that there is no deficiency in the tyre aside from that of Hamilton's own making?


I don't care if it's just one driver (although I believe NH may have experienced a similar issue but that's from memory and I have no link so it's not concrete) or all of them.

But it is very relevant to the argument. If Massa was at risk of spinning off on every corner because his driving style wasn't suited to a lack of TC should TC be reinstated? I don't think so, escpecially if the rest of the grid was perfectly fine without TC.


Dogs running on a track might not affect 95% of the drivers so is that OK?

You didn't just compare stray dogs to race car engineering, did you? :confused:


BS are tasked with producing a tyre that doesn't fail under normal paremeters. So many laps with no non-normal factors (ie going off track, debris, lock-ups etc). Can anyone argue that a driver that is within these parameters should suffer structural failure because his driving style is faster than others?

And Bridgestone have done exactly that. The the other drivers could all turn laps of Istanbull Park all day without a problem. That means that the tyre is doing it's job.

It can't be ignored that Hamilton is the only driver that had/has a problem. Why is it unreasonable to ask him to drive around a problem unique to him but OK to ask Massa to drive around his preference for a TC-equipped car?

F1boat
15th May 2008, 13:31
It can't be ignored that Hamilton is the only driver that had/has a problem. Why is it unreasonable to ask him to drive around a problem unique to him but OK to ask Massa to drive around his preference for a TC-equipped car?

cause Massa is not the "super talented Brit rookie".

Garry Walker
15th May 2008, 14:24
Only Golden Boy had the issue, because of his driving style through Turn 8.

My my, so many cracks in the arsenal of the Golden Boy that we are beginning to see. Outqualified AGAIN by HK who had 16 kg more fuel, can`t cope with tyres.

Maybe time for Idiot Windsor to rethink about Goldie Locks being better than Senna and Prost.

ArrowsFA1
15th May 2008, 14:41
Let's save everyone any more trouble and write Hamilton off after just 22 GP's, 5 wins, 15 podiums, 7 pole positions and 137 points shall we :rolleyes:

Garry Walker
15th May 2008, 14:48
Let's save everyone any more trouble and write Hamilton off after just 22 GP's, 5 wins, 15 podiums, 7 pole positions and 137 points shall we :rolleyes:

Over reaction as usual.

Goldie Locks is a very good driver, but last year when he had the best car everyone was hailing as the next Senna or next Schumacher. peter "stupid" windsor wrote articles which showed such love to Hamilton that you usually wouldn`t even find in a teenage girls loveletters and hyped him as the best ever. Some lists already put him among greatest ever drivers.

Now the hype is beginning to seem stupid, suddenly goldie locks is struggling with his team mate in a way Schumacher or Senna for example never did.

Tazio
15th May 2008, 14:52
Mod's could we end this thread!
All necessary bashing has been acomplished
By both sides ;)

F1boat
15th May 2008, 15:00
Over reaction as usual.

Goldie Locks is a very good driver, but last year when he had the best car everyone was hailing as the next Senna or next Schumacher. peter "stupid" windsor wrote articles which showed such love to Hamilton that you usually wouldn`t even find in a teenage girls loveletters and hyped him as the best ever. Some lists already put him among greatest ever drivers.

Now the hype is beginning to seem stupid, suddenly goldie locks is struggling with his team mate in a way Schumacher or Senna for example never did.

I agree. Hamilton is very good, but he is not flawless and will he become world champion remains to be seen.

aryan
15th May 2008, 15:29
Mod's could we end this thread!
All necessary bashing has been acomplished
By both sides ;)


Indeed it is a shame that we can't have a discussion about anything McLaren/Hamilton without falling into the same flame wars.

I usually try to avoid such threads, but I thought this one was a bit technical and some people actually had insightful comments to make about the drivers' driving style and the construction of tyres... but at the end of the day, we fall into the same tried old driver bashing arguments.

Really guys, as a community, we should sometimes be ashamed of ourselves...

ArrowsFA1
15th May 2008, 18:34
Over reaction as usual.
Over reaction? Maybe. But needed to balance some of the stuff written here.

Hamilton's stats cannot be matched by (to pick your choices) Schumacher or Senna at the same point in their careers, but that means nothing because it is comparing full careers with 22 races, so it's pointless.

As is saying Hamilton "is struggling with his team mate in a way Schumacher or Senna for example never did". For one thing being outqualified twice in the first 5 races of the season happened to Senna in 1985 (also his second season).

As for the "hype", well referring to him as "Goldie Locks" just adds to it. You're right though...Hamilton is a very good driver. Time will tell if he's a great one. But don't blame him for those lists because he didn't write them. As for Windsor, well his is just another opinion, and we all have one :)

F1boat
15th May 2008, 19:01
Over reaction? Maybe. But needed to balance some of the stuff written here.

Hamilton's stats cannot be matched by (to pick your choices) Schumacher or Senna at the same point in their careers, but that means nothing because it is comparing full careers with 22 races, so it's pointless.



I think that JV had better stats, however, and even as a World Champion IMO he is not as good as M Shumacher or Senna.

But of course we are fans and have top be passionate ;)

Knock-on
15th May 2008, 22:01
Over reaction as usual.

Goldie Locks is a very good driver, but last year when he had the best car everyone was hailing as the next Senna or next Schumacher. peter "stupid" windsor wrote articles which showed such love to Hamilton that you usually wouldn`t even find in a teenage girls loveletters and hyped him as the best ever. Some lists already put him among greatest ever drivers.

Now the hype is beginning to seem stupid, suddenly goldie locks is struggling with his team mate in a way Schumacher or Senna for example never did.

Come on Gazza, I was starting to warm to you. Dont slip down the slippery slope of lesser forum members ;)

What does it matter what others write. Surely, we are a little above the tabloid hype and pomp?

Lets get away from the silly names and look at the facts which is a stock tyre in this arguement.

It's as pointless comparing Hamilton with retired drivers just as it's pointless using media hype and fairytale names.

The question remains in my opinion. Should a stock tyre, driven within usual parameters, fail from a structural issue? Lets pretend for example that it was Schumacher or Senna. Should the best of the best compromise their driving style because of structural failere within normal use?

The difference between the good and the great is small but if we don't allow the very best to excell, then we are guilty as the FIA in promoting mediocrity.

BDunnell
15th May 2008, 22:15
Do we have to apply the soubriquet 'stupid' to anyone whose opinions we disagree with now?

wedge
16th May 2008, 02:06
The question remains in my opinion. Should a stock tyre, driven within usual parameters, fail from a structural issue? Lets pretend for example that it was Schumacher or Senna. Should the best of the best compromise their driving style because of structural failere within normal use?

Depends on the WDC scenario and driving style. Some drivers attack and some are conservative.

Drivers like Alonso, Piquet and Prost would much prefer to consolidate and fight another day.

I don't think Schumi or Senna would've compromised.

Remember Hungary 2006 where Schumi stayed out on inters, which were down to slicks in the dry and he was doing the usual defending as if his life depended on it.

There was one Spanish GP where he had 2 tyre failures on the same wheel corner but that was bodywork issue IIRC.

In Nurburgring 2005 Kimi had a flat spot that grew bigger and bigger with massive vibrations with each lap. The McLaren line was that they were unsure on the one-tyre rule for that year but I'm more inclined to think it was Kimi's decision to stay out.

ioan
16th May 2008, 09:16
Should a stock tyre, driven within usual parameters, fail from a structural issue?

Who says it was driven within usual parameters!
Or even better, define what usual parameters are for that tire.

F1boat
16th May 2008, 09:19
The question remains in my opinion. Should a stock tyre, driven within usual parameters, fail from a structural issue? Lets pretend for example that it was Schumacher or Senna. Should the best of the best compromise their driving style because of structural failere within normal use?


If they can't finish with it, it means that they are not the best in this discipline. I am sorry - rules should apply to everybody no matter whether fans consider him to be "the best of the best" or not. Heidfeld also has tyre issues and is working on them. Hamilton should do the same, not push Brodgestone to recognize his God status among McLaren fans.
Sorry if I sound rude, but this is my opinion.

ArrowsFA1
16th May 2008, 09:22
I don't think Schumi or Senna would've compromised.
That brings to mind Gilles Villeneuve's habit of breaking driveshafts in his early days at Ferrari. Now, the team could have told him to change his driving style to protect the equipment, but instead they improved the driveshafts so they did not fail.

The best drivers have always pushed the limits of their team, their cars, their competitors, and sometimes even the rules.

F1boat
16th May 2008, 09:30
Yes, Arrows, but you should not break the limits in a way which makes the sport unfair. If something is changed for the sake of a single competitor, it is unfair. Be it a tyre ot a qualifying rule.
Your example about Ferrari and Gilles is unfair. If something is wrong with the car, it's up to the team to fix it or improve it.
If it is in the rules, sorry. The driver should adapt.

Knock-on
16th May 2008, 11:41
- no team being disadvantaged by the appointment of a single supplier (detailed regulations will be written to ensure this would not be the case) ;

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2005/June/160605-02.html

Well, that’s the official line.

Were McLaren disadvantaged by the tyres performance? Good thing it’s only McLaren ;)

As for ioans question, I have already answered that but am more than happy to repeat myself until someone can offer a satisfactory argument.

If a driver is not running off track, is not locking tyres, is not excessively wheel-spinning the rears and is not doing something that could otherwise cause a tyre failure other than driving the car, the tyre should not fail unless it WEARS OUT!!!

Were the tyres wearing out?

NO!!

Were there any external issues that caused the tyres to fail such as debris or incorrect operation?

NO!!

Were the tyres failing structurally in normal operation well within their operational lifespan.

YES!!

If something is being used under normal conditions and structurally fails, it is not fit for purpose. This handed the championship to Kimi last year and I find it inconceivable that it is still not resolved.

BDunnell
16th May 2008, 11:50
If something is being used under normal conditions and structurally fails, it is not fit for purpose. This handed the championship to Kimi last year and I find it inconceivable that it is still not resolved.

Overall, I am in agreement with this statement, and I'm sure most people would be. After all, no-one would like to fly in an airliner that had an intrinsic structural problem. However, the difficulty in this specific instance comes in defining 'normal conditions' for usage of an F1 tyre.

Knock-on
16th May 2008, 12:00
Overall, I am in agreement with this statement, and I'm sure most people would be. After all, no-one would like to fly in an airliner that had an intrinsic structural problem. However, the difficulty in this specific instance comes in defining 'normal conditions' for usage of an F1 tyre.

Normal conditions are pretty straight forward,

Racing on track as fast as you can until the performance of the tyre requires it to be changes as it's worn out.

If your driving style is smooth and slick, the tyre lasts a bit longer. If you're more agressive and harder on it, it wears out quicker.

However, no matter what your driving style, as long as your not lighting up the rears, doing a bit of rally cross, running over carbon shards or doing anything outside of what the tyre is constructed to handle, then it should not structually fail unless it wears out.

This is not tyre wear due to being driven hard, this is degredation of the tyre wall which should NEVER happen in normal operation.

Knock-on
16th May 2008, 12:22
http://uk.reuters.com/article/motorSportsNews/idUKL1121876420080511?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Paraphrasing but Bridgestone say that there was a tyre construction problem last year for a number of drivers which they tried to fix. However, they obviously hadn't fixed it well enough because before qualifying, Bridgestone recommended that McLaren go to a 3 stopper as they were concerned that a structural failure would occur on the INSIDE of the tyre.

This is a structural failure, not a compound or wear issue and unless he's doing something he shouldn't, they should not fail. Driving the car as fast as he can is something he should be doing and there is no excuse for a stock tyre not being able to handle that. Very poor.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67366

This is particularly interesting.

It says that all drivers last year showed signs of structural failure and that this is a historical issue with Bridgestone that has been seen in other formulas.

It also says that they suggested McLaren use a 2 stopper which rather contradicts what BS claimed earlier?

BDunnell
16th May 2008, 12:52
http://uk.reuters.com/article/motorSportsNews/idUKL1121876420080511?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Paraphrasing but Bridgestone say that there was a tyre construction problem last year for a number of drivers which they tried to fix. However, they obviously hadn't fixed it well enough because before qualifying, Bridgestone recommended that McLaren go to a 3 stopper as they were concerned that a structural failure would occur on the INSIDE of the tyre.

This is a structural failure, not a compound or wear issue and unless he's doing something he shouldn't, they should not fail. Driving the car as fast as he can is something he should be doing and there is no excuse for a stock tyre not being able to handle that. Very poor.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67366

This is particularly interesting.

It says that all drivers last year showed signs of structural failure and that this is a historical issue with Bridgestone that has been seen in other formulas.

If all that is true, you've convinced me.



It also says that they suggested McLaren use a 2 stopper which rather contradicts what BS claimed earlier?

Could be a typo.

ioan
16th May 2008, 14:23
http://uk.reuters.com/article/motorSportsNews/idUKL1121876420080511?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Paraphrasing but Bridgestone say that there was a tyre construction problem last year for a number of drivers which they tried to fix. However, they obviously hadn't fixed it well enough because before qualifying, Bridgestone recommended that McLaren go to a 3 stopper as they were concerned that a structural failure would occur on the INSIDE of the tyre.

This is a structural failure, not a compound or wear issue and unless he's doing something he shouldn't, they should not fail. Driving the car as fast as he can is something he should be doing and there is no excuse for a stock tyre not being able to handle that. Very poor.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67366

This is particularly interesting.

It says that all drivers last year showed signs of structural failure and that this is a historical issue with Bridgestone that has been seen in other formulas.

It also says that they suggested McLaren use a 2 stopper which rather contradicts what BS claimed earlier?

Where did BS say they recommended a 3 stops strategy :?:

It was Lewis who wrongfully claimed (read that as lied) the BS required them to go for a 3 stopper strategy (and the team was fast to point out that this was wrong), thus the contradiction I was talking about in the first post.

Here's what Hamashima declared (from your second link):

It was not that they must do it. But we proposed a strategy of 20/18/20, if they took a two-stop strategy. That is what we would have preferred because the second stint is usually very severe, as you start at a very high level and also the fuel is very high.

That's a 2 stops strategy like everyone else did, and it means that the tire was working quite well in normal conditions, as you like to call them.
Bridgestone can't dream about the set up Lewis will use during a race. And the fact that Heiki had no problems whatsoever is clearly pointing out that it's a driver related problem and not a tire related one.

Don't try to put this on BS back, it's all on Lewy's back and he was the one lying about it in first place (see post race conference).

BDunnell
16th May 2008, 14:41
Where did BS say they recommended a 3 stops strategy :?:

It was Lewis who wrongfully claimed (read that as lied) the BS required them to go for a 3 stopper strategy (and the team was fast to point out that this was wrong), thus the contradiction I was talking about in the first post.

Here's what Hamashima declared (from your second link):


That's a 2 stops strategy like everyone else did, and it means that the tire was working quite well in normal conditions, as you like to call them.
Bridgestone can't dream about the set up Lewis will use during a race. And the fact that Heiki had no problems whatsoever is clearly pointing out that it's a driver related problem and not a tire related one.

Don't try to put this on BS back, it's all on Lewy's back and he was the one lying about it in first place (see post race conference).

No matter what the truth of this particular situation is, I don't like the way the words 'lied' and 'liar' get thrown around on these forums these days with no evidence to back them up. It creates a really unpleasant tone. Lying about something is very different to saying something that turns out not to be true.

F1boat
16th May 2008, 15:18
Knock-on, the problem was only with Lewis, not with McLaren, cause Heikki had no problem.

ioan
16th May 2008, 15:34
Lying about something is very different to saying something that turns out not to be true.

Than what do you call a statement that is not true, when the one telling it is aware that it isn't the truth?!


A lie is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement with the intention to deceive, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation

BDunnell
16th May 2008, 15:36
Than what do you call a statement that is not true, when the one telling it is aware that it isn't the truth?!

The situation you describe is a lie, but I don't see how it pertains to this particular matter.

I still maintain there's no need to get so wound up about these things, just because you happen to 'support' another team. As I always say, why not just sit back and enjoy the racing? Then we could all get on rather better here, with less in the way of unnecessarily inflammatory language.

Knock-on
16th May 2008, 19:41
Where did BS say they recommended a 3 stops strategy :?:

It was Lewis who wrongfully claimed (read that as lied) the BS required them to go for a 3 stopper strategy (and the team was fast to point out that this was wrong), thus the contradiction I was talking about in the first post.

Here's what Hamashima declared (from your second link):


That's a 2 stops strategy like everyone else did, and it means that the tire was working quite well in normal conditions, as you like to call them.
Bridgestone can't dream about the set up Lewis will use during a race. And the fact that Heiki had no problems whatsoever is clearly pointing out that it's a driver related problem and not a tire related one.

Don't try to put this on BS back, it's all on Lewy's back and he was the one lying about it in first place (see post race conference).

If I recall correctly, Lewis said that the information they received from BS made them go for a 3 stop strategy.

Correct?

Also from BS was this:


Commenting on the issue, Hirohide Hamashima, Bridgestone Motorsport’s tyre development director, said: “Bridgestone and the team had safety concerns which did influence his strategy, however he achieved a very good result. These concerns affected no other car on the grid, and we will be analysing the data to see what we can learn from this. We did see three cars finish the race after making only one stop, so durability was certainly strong for the tyres for these competitors.”

Apparently, the Tyre Development Director from Bridgestone, the same one you mentioned, confirmed that their advice affected McLarens strategy.

I would imagine that they said something like "It's possible to run 20 and 38" but McLaren decided, quite correctly, that it was not worth the risk.

Therefore, there was no lie unless you apply your rather interesting application of the definition in which case you hold yourself in contempt as a liar.

Is that so?

At the end of the day we still have the same problem. A historical issue with the construction of the tyres cause them to fail. This has been happening for years and in different formulas. This is not overdriving a tyre and prematurely wearing them out but a fundemental flaw in their construction.

Apparently, some people on here think it's fine to race on potentially lethal tyres as it's only lewis that has experienced it this year. Shame i say :(

Knock-on
16th May 2008, 19:50
The situation you describe is a lie, but I don't see how it pertains to this particular matter.

I still maintain there's no need to get so wound up about these things, just because you happen to 'support' another team. As I always say, why not just sit back and enjoy the racing? Then we could all get on rather better here, with less in the way of unnecessarily inflammatory language.

Benny boy, you may be a convoluted, politically correct, Daily Mail hating wind bag on occasions, but we love you :D

Spot on old chap :up:

ioan
17th May 2008, 00:13
Apparently, some people on here think it's fine to race on potentially lethal tyres as it's only lewis that has experienced it this year. Shame i say :(

That's rubbish!

Bagwan
17th May 2008, 01:01
Knock , is it not possible to overdrive and completely rip up any given set of tires with the power of these cars ?

All the drivers must look after the tires very carefully , especially with no TC .

This fact shows just how hard Lewis really is on his tires .
Of course Bridgestone doesn't like this kind of thing happening , but it seems that Lewis is pointing a finger where it shouldn't be pointed .
They clearly pointed to his style being hard on the tire , and this was not refuted .
They suggested a strategy that everyone used but him .
Then , he clearly pointed at them as the reason for going 3 stops .

He also has not retracted the statement , though his employers have contradicted it .

Looks like he was trying to make himself look better , and as so , was a lie .

ten-tenths
17th May 2008, 07:50
seems like hamilton should just adapt to the tire. last season there was bunch of dismissals of fernando and kimi when they said they had to adjust to the new tires and how their driving styles suffered a bit.

ArrowsFA1
17th May 2008, 09:50
Apparently, some people on here think it's fine to race on potentially lethal tyres as it's only lewis that has experienced it this year. Shame i say :(

That's rubbish!
Regardless of the driver, clearly a weakness has been found in the Bridgestone tyre. Bridgestone themselves acknowledged it last year, and again this year, and advised a team accordingly.

Now having identified that weakness, isn't it down to Bridgestone to find the cause and fix it? Or should they ignore it?

Surely one of the benefits of them being involved in F1 is that it tests their products to the maximum, which helps improve them. The company advertise themselves as "The Only F1 Tyre" not "The Only F1 Tyre That Fails".

Knock-on
17th May 2008, 15:59
Anyway, it's not worth worrying about any more.

The fault has been around for years, last year it was discovered in all the drivers tyres and the construction was modified, this year it is only 1 driver but that is too many in my opinion. Lets hope Bridgestone get their house in order and fix this issue.

At least Bridgestone has admitted it is a problem with their tyre.

ioan
17th May 2008, 18:59
Now having identified that weakness, isn't it down to Bridgestone to find the cause and fix it? Or should they ignore it?

It was fixed, 19 drivers out of 20 had no problem whatsoever. This means that it was fixed.
Only one driver has troubles, as his team mate didn't have the same troubles it means that it isn't the tire-car combo that has a specific problem, it's the driver that is destroying the tire because he uses a very specific set up for his specific driving style.

To produce a tire that is meant to suit a very specific set up and driving style of only one driver = give that driver an unfair advantage over the rest of the grid.

We aren't in the tire wars era anymore, so this shouldn't be the case. There's a spec tire and everyone should adapt to it, even Lewy.

I'm more than sure that if it was Heidfeld or Massa having this problem you and many fellow British fans would be criticizing them instead of calling BS to produce a tire adapted to their driving style.

Tough luck folks, this time is Golden Boy having problems and you should learn to live with it! :p :

ArrowsFA1
17th May 2008, 19:49
Anyway, it's not worth worrying about any more.

The fault has been around for years, last year it was discovered in all the drivers tyres and the construction was modified, this year it is only 1 driver but that is too many in my opinion. Lets hope Bridgestone get their house in order and fix this issue.

At least Bridgestone has admitted it is a problem with their tyre.
:up:

Bagwan
17th May 2008, 21:47
Anyway, it's not worth worrying about any more.

The fault has been around for years, last year it was discovered in all the drivers tyres and the construction was modified, this year it is only 1 driver but that is too many in my opinion. Lets hope Bridgestone get their house in order and fix this issue.

At least Bridgestone has admitted it is a problem with their tyre.

OK , so now "potentially lethal" is not worth worrying about ?

The issue came up last year in Turkey , where turn 8's unique configuration created more heat than was anticipated .
As a result , they re-configured the construction .

Nobody else complained .
Heidfeld's issue was totally un-related . He couldn't get enough heat in the tires .
Perhaps Bridgestone should be brought to task over that , too . What do you think , Knock ?
It is potentially dangerous to be driving a full on lap in qualifying when your tires are not up to optimum temperature . Isn't that a primary function of the compound , to be up to temperature after an out-lap ?
But , wait , his team-mate can get them up to temperature , so it must be HIS STYLE OF DRIVING .

I guess it's not totally un-related at all .
Both drivers have potentially life-threatening issues with style of driving .

Damn those red-lovin' Bridgestone engineers ! They are trying to kill Lewis and Nick .

SGWilko
18th May 2008, 23:09
Lewis is pointing a finger where it shouldn't be pointed .

Yeah! Really, he should be blaming Gordon Brown - it's all his fault (pretty much everything else is).

BDunnell
18th May 2008, 23:24
Tough luck folks, this time is Golden Boy having problems and you should learn to live with it! :p :

Does every subject in which British enthusiasts (note — NOT 'fans' — there is a difference) make comments that don't denigrate Lewis Hamilton, and therefore must automatically be ridiculously biased in the eyes of some, have to descend to this sort of thing?

BDunnell
18th May 2008, 23:25
Benny boy, you may be a convoluted, politically correct, Daily Mail hating wind bag on occasions, but we love you :D

Spot on old chap :up:

Danke!

Knock-on
19th May 2008, 10:53
We aren't in the tire wars era anymore, so this shouldn't be the case. There's a spec tire and everyone should adapt to it, even Lewy.

I'm more than sure that if it was Heidfeld or Massa having this problem you and many fellow British fans would be criticizing them instead of calling BS to produce a tire adapted to their driving style.

Tough luck folks, this time is Golden Boy having problems and you should learn to live with it! :p :

We are not in the tyre wars any more so the last thing that should be happening is a tyre failing during normal operation without any expernal explanation apart from faulty design.

With your selective grasp on logic and reason, you may have failed to read my posts over the years on safety.

I have always been constant in my stance that safety is paramount, whoever the driver is and challenge you to prove differently.

In this case, we have a tyre at a track that has failed in previous years, was supposed to be fixed and is still a safety concern for one of the drivers.

That in my view is unnaceptable whoever the driver is. A driver should have to manage the wear on a tyre, not play Russian Roulette as to which Lap it will fail because of a structural weakness.

Anyone that feels that a drivers, of any team, should be endangered like this is a Lowlife in my opinion. I watch F1 to see racing, not drivers crash and unnessarily endanger their lives more than they do because of faulty equipment.

ioan
19th May 2008, 12:16
With your selective grasp on logic and reason, you may have failed to read my posts over the years on safety.


I'll spare myself the effort to reply in the future in this thread, as it arrived to a point where it turned into personal fights, again.

Knock-on
19th May 2008, 12:30
I'll spare myself the effort to reply in the future in this thread, as it arrived to a point where it turned into personal fights, again.

It is not a personal attack. It is a statement that you are very selective.

If you want to just be selective on the points of a post you answer, you merely emphersise the point I made.

Try answering the rest of the post objectivly about my stance on safety and whether a stock tyre should or should not fail in normal operating conditions.

ioan
19th May 2008, 12:36
It is not a personal attack. It is a statement that you are very selective.

You are commenting about the forum members and not the subject of the forum, that is a personal attack.


Try answering the rest of the post objectivly about my stance on safety and whether a stock tyre should or should not fail in normal operating conditions.

This was discussed endless times in this thread, you should read what the others post too.

Discussion closed. I will not answer any of your posts in this thread, so do not try to provoke. Thanks.

F1boat
19th May 2008, 12:57
Yeah! Really, he should be blaming Gordon Brown - it's all his fault (pretty much everything else is).

ROFL!

BDunnell
19th May 2008, 14:11
You are commenting about the forum members and not the subject of the forum, that is a personal attack.



This was discussed endless times in this thread, you should read what the others post too.

Discussion closed. I will not answer any of your posts in this thread, so do not try to provoke. Thanks.

Will you answer mine?

I saw no provocation - just a perfectly reasonable rebuttal of your suggestion that anyone who thinks any differently to you must be doing so because of bias in favour of Lewis Hamilton, when the truth is that it is merely another point of view. Thankfully, not everyone forms their point of view on the basis that their support of one driver or team over all others demands it.

ioan
19th May 2008, 14:31
Does every subject in which British enthusiasts (note NOT 'fans' there is a difference) make comments that don't denigrate Lewis Hamilton, and therefore must automatically be ridiculously biased in the eyes of some, have to descend to this sort of thing?

No, not every subject, it depends on the way some of the enthusiasts handle the subject. If they discuss the subject it all works out fine, if however they find no arguments and start attacking the members who put up a subject and proper arguments than we get to what we have in this thread.

Knock-on
19th May 2008, 15:20
No, not every subject, it depends on the way some of the enthusiasts handle the subject. If they discuss the subject it all works out fine, if however they find no arguments and start attacking the members who put up a subject and proper arguments than we get to what we have in this thread.

Ioan. If I was to play silly buggers, I would insinuate that you are personally attacking me. However, that would be rather childish in my opinion (if I were to, I mean)

So, lets not have this state of paranoia and get on with it, shall we?

No personal slight against your good nature intended. ;)

19th May 2008, 15:27
If I couldn't lap Turkey as quickly as Massa, do you think Bridgestone would make me a tyre that would mean I could?

SGWilko
19th May 2008, 15:41
If I couldn't lap Turkey as quickly as Massa, do you think Bridgestone would make me a tyre that would mean I could?

If my driving style was compromised by admitted and proven flawed tyre construction............

And my previous race at the same venue had been scuppered by the same kind of failure that the Tyre company had been unable to properly rectify.

But, as this isn't Michelin, it's alright, isn't it?

19th May 2008, 16:22
If my driving style was compromised by admitted and proven flawed tyre construction............

And my previous race at the same venue had been scuppered by the same kind of failure that the Tyre company had been unable to properly rectify.



So if I proved I couldn't drive on the tyre the way everybody else could, you would make an exception for me?

Knock-on
19th May 2008, 17:30
So if I proved I couldn't drive on the tyre the way everybody else could, you would make an exception for me?

When they have admitted it is a historical flaw that they are trying to resolve, it seems a little silly to suggest it's a drivers fault.

It's like going into my local Indian takeaway and getting food poisoning and them turning round and saying they served 50 people and I'm the only one with a problem so it doesn't matter :laugh:

F1boat
19th May 2008, 17:49
McLaren said that there will be no tyre issues in Monaco. So the whole argument is pretty pointless - McLaren has probably fixed their car, so now probably Hamilton will be able to drive as he likes. If he can't, well, one driver's problem is his own, not of the whole sport.
Although I know that some people believe that cranes are acceptable when the Golden boy "must" win...

Knock-on
19th May 2008, 18:12
McLaren said that there will be no tyre issues in Monaco. So the whole argument is pretty pointless - McLaren has probably fixed their car, so now probably Hamilton will be able to drive as he likes. If he can't, well, one driver's problem is his own, not of the whole sport.
Although I know that some people believe that cranes are acceptable when the Golden boy "must" win...

Well, the whole arguement is pretty pointless now and let's hope that it never happens again and Bridgestone get their house in order. I really find it unpalatable that people consider something as fundemental as tyre failure and driver wellbeing so lightly but perhaps that's a reflection on them and their values :)

As for the crane example, it was later proven, after much wrangleing, that he shouldn't have been assisted but as he didn't score any points, it really is a moot point. Crying over spilt milk springs to mind but had he have scored a point, I'm sure he would not have been allowed to keep it.

Lets hope for a nice, controvacy free Monoco (some hope :laugh: )

Garry Walker
19th May 2008, 21:22
As is saying Hamilton "is struggling with his team mate in a way Schumacher or Senna for example never did". For one thing being outqualified twice in the first 5 races of the season happened to Senna in 1985 (also his second season).
LH has been outqualified 3 times fuel accounted for (which we have to count these days, anything else is irrelevant), one we have no data on, and the last one is suspicious (australia).
Senna was outqualified throughout the year 3 times in 1985, let`s see if LH manages to equal that.
Not to mention HK is outqualifying LH in LHs team, where he is the rookie.
Senna went to De Angelis`team, who managed to easily beat Mansell the year before.
Schumacher was much faster than Piquet from day 1 on.



As for the "hype", well referring to him as "Goldie Locks" just adds to it. It`s a funny name (to me) and I will keep using it when I see fit.


As for Windsor, well his is just another opinion, and we all have one :) Unfortunately my opinion or your opinion is not published for millions of people, even though we both have a much higher understanding of F1 than that idiot. Although, I have to admit, neither of us knows as much about 563th phase turn in as Petey does.




Now having identified that weakness, isn't it down to Bridgestone to find the cause and fix it? Or should they ignore it?

Only McLaren has that problem, so BS shouldn`t put other teams at a disadvantage to help McLaren when they aren`t capable of doing their job (designing and setting up the car) properly.


If my driving style was compromised by admitted and proven flawed tyre construction............


McLaren could have compromised on their setups to make the tyre last, and HK didn`t have problems anyway.
So the problem lies with Goldie Locks and his inability to take care of the tyres properly.
Even the most durable of things can get broken if used improperly. Which is what Hamilton did.

ShiftingGears
20th May 2008, 07:58
Hamilton was excellent but if he wants to retain that driving style through the increasingly rare fast sweeping corners in F1, then McLaren need to get a car that's lighter on its tyres. Or a setup more conservative on tyres.

ArrowsFA1
20th May 2008, 08:53
I have to admit, neither of us knows as much about 563th phase turn in as Petey does.
:laugh: I guess Hamilton's problem may be caused by the 391st phase :p

McLaren could have compromised on their setups to make the tyre last.
To be fair that's exactly what they did. According to Martin Whitmarsh (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67378), Hamilton "changed his style and driving line" through turn 8, and the team "took a number of measures with Bridgestone, we came here running the pressures and the camber that they specified and we then increased the pressures on Saturday morning hoping that would solve the problem and Bridgestone were very confident that would solve it. It didn't sufficiently to give us the comfort we needed so we made some other adjustments and limited the range in the race."

SGWilko
20th May 2008, 10:29
Even the most durable of things can get broken if used improperly. Which is what Hamilton did.

Is that your opinion, or are you stating fact? Could you provide us with your source for this please, as I am intrigued you have an insight into all matters black, round and sticky.....

SGWilko
20th May 2008, 10:35
Hamilton was excellent but if he wants to retain that driving style through the increasingly rare fast sweeping corners in F1, then McLaren need to get a car that's lighter on its tyres. Or a setup more conservative on tyres.

An interesting point. Consider however that in 2007, the McLaren had a habit of being harsh on its rears. One would assume thay have adressed this with changes to aero, CofG and weight distribution alterations.

Remember, Lewis's failure in Turkey 2007 was attributed to a construction issue, not caused by wear. No amount of setup changes can magically remedy a construction fault...

And Bridgestone have openly admitted that the same symptoms were displayed in Turkey 2008, only on Lewis's car. I still don't think this is the fault of Lewis or the team, certainly not if he was not wearing the tyres any more than the rest of the field.

ShiftingGears
20th May 2008, 10:42
An interesting point. Consider however that in 2007, the McLaren had a habit of being harsh on its rears.

I never noticed that problem with Alonso. I thought that was more to do with Hamilton liking an oversteering car which wears the rear tyres moreso than a smoother style.

Tallgeese
24th May 2008, 01:20
To be honest the 3-stoppers worked quite well, but could probably have been optimised & executed somewhat more aggressively than it was. I think that if Hamilton had pushed much sooner on Massa (& it was clear that he could have) that we'd be saying very different things about the Turkish GP result would have been different.