DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**BqTyG9eS** · 05-14-2008, 09:14 PM

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.

05-14-2008, 09:14 PM	#25
BqTyG9eS Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 547 Senior Member	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