Was it McLaren or was it Bridgestone?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

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 ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aryan

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

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".

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.