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

**opdirorg** · 05-15-2008, 06:46 AM

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

05-15-2008, 06:46 AM	#35
opdirorg Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 445 Senior Member	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. 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. 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? 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. 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? 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