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.
Printable View
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).