[BigMovies]

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.

[bactrimtab]

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
• Hamilton plays down tyre choice frustration
• McLaren chose three stops over tyre fears
• Tyre problem specific to Hamilton
• Bridgestone Q&A
• Saturday press conference
• Sunday press conference

[loolitoertego]

I heard it was the Russians.

[opdirorg]

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.

[BqTyG9eS]

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.

[opdirorg]

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?

[BigMovies]

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.

[BigMovies]

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!

[BqTyG9eS]

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?

[BqTyG9eS]

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!

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.

[petrarkaponye]

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.

[BigMovies]

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!

[Tarrccrys]

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 .

[Immampdah]

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.

[opdirorg]

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?

[Immampdah]

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".

[MidwestMadman]

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.

[bactrimtab]

Let's save everyone any more trouble and write Hamilton off after just 22 GP's, 5 wins, 15 podiums, 7 pole positions and 137 points shall we

[MidwestMadman]

Let's save everyone any more trouble and write Hamilton off after just 22 GP's, 5 wins, 15 podiums, 7 pole positions and 137 points shall we

Over reaction as usual.

Goldie Locks is a very good driver, but last year when he had the best car everyone was hailing as the next Senna or next Schumacher. peter "stupid" windsor wrote articles which showed such love to Hamilton that you usually wouldn`t even find in a teenage girls loveletters and hyped him as the best ever. Some lists already put him among greatest ever drivers.

Now the hype is beginning to seem stupid, suddenly goldie locks is struggling with his team mate in a way Schumacher or Senna for example never did.

[itaspCatCriny]

Mod's could we end this thread!
All necessary bashing has been acomplished
By both sides