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:
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
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.
Mod's could we end this thread!
All necessary bashing has been acomplished
By both sides ;)
I agree. Hamilton is very good, but he is not flawless and will he become world champion remains to be seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazio
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...
Over reaction? Maybe. But needed to balance some of the stuff written here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
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 :)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
But of course we are fans and have top be passionate ;)
Come on Gazza, I was starting to warm to you. Dont slip down the slippery slope of lesser forum members ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
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.
Do we have to apply the soubriquet 'stupid' to anyone whose opinions we disagree with now?
Depends on the WDC scenario and driving style. Some drivers attack and some are conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
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.
Who says it was driven within usual parameters!Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Or even better, define what usual parameters are for that tire.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Sorry if I sound rude, but this is my opinion.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
The best drivers have always pushed the limits of their team, their cars, their competitors, and sometimes even the rules.
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.
- 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...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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Normal conditions are pretty straight forward,Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
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.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/motorS...BrandChannel=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?
If all that is true, you've convinced me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Could be a typo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Where did BS say they recommended a 3 stops strategy :?:Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Knock-on, the problem was only with Lewis, not with McLaren, cause Heikki had no problem.
Than what do you call a statement that is not true, when the one telling it is aware that it isn't the truth?!Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The situation you describe is a lie, but I don't see how it pertains to this particular matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
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.
If I recall correctly, Lewis said that the information they received from BS made them go for a 3 stop strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Correct?
Also from BS was this:
Apparently, the Tyre Development Director from Bridgestone, the same one you mentioned, confirmed that their advice affected McLarens strategy.Quote:
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.”
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 :(
Benny boy, you may be a convoluted, politically correct, Daily Mail hating wind bag on occasions, but we love you :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Spot on old chap :up:
That's rubbish!Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
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 .
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
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".
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.
It was fixed, 19 drivers out of 20 had no problem whatsoever. This means that it was fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
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 :
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
OK , so now "potentially lethal" is not worth worrying about ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
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 .
Yeah! Really, he should be blaming Gordon Brown - it's all his fault (pretty much everything else is).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Danke!Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
It is not a personal attack. It is a statement that you are very selective.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
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.