Was it McLaren or was it Bridgestone?!

http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,1895...559034,00.html

Quote:

---

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?!

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.

There's nothing contradictory. McLaren made a decision having taken into account the information Bridgetone gave them.

Bridgestone said:

Quote:

---

"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."

---

LH in the post race press conference:

Quote:

---

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/0,1895...552095,00.html

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 don’t see any problem with it! He’s still using the same tires as everyone else!
Cheers

Hamilton heavier on right front tyre than other drivers. Concerns about a possible failure. Decision taken to race 3 stops.

Simple.

Back from a ban and the first thing you decide to do is a thread bashing McLaren. Surprise!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSfan

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.

Quote:

---

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...

who is ioan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elinagr

who is ioan?

---

Hang aroung! you'll find out ;)
BTW welcome to our nightmare :rotflmao:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSfan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janneppi

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSfan

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSfan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JSH

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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malllen

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aryan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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[/*:m:1f7j3ez8]
• Hamilton plays down tyre choice frustration[/*:m:1f7j3ez8]
• McLaren chose three stops over tyre fears[/*:m:1f7j3ez8]
• Tyre problem specific to Hamilton[/*:m:1f7j3ez8]
• Bridgestone Q&A[/*:m:1f7j3ez8]
• Saturday press conference[/*:m:1f7j3ez8]
• Sunday press conference[/*:m:1f7j3ez8]

I heard it was the Russians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

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.

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.