Turkish Grand Prix 2008

[Ciro Pabón]

I know well you can't be convinced, that's not my intention... On the other hand, I don't agree on disagreeing, that's the most unscientific approach. Look, someone has to be right: it might be you, me, or someone else could come with another explanation. I repeat what I humbly think: the burden of proof is on the people that blames Bridgestone.

Besides, you should say the same to ray, megz, etc. Knowing Ray and Megz, they won't take that argument. What I know is that they can wait for more data.

How good are you at setups, if I may ask without being impolite?

I'm thinking about setup abilities because my son said this morning: "C'mon, dad, even I know how to take care of my rubber! Hamilton doesn't know how to set up a car!". I laughed hard: he's nine years old, but he already knows we're not rich and I cannot afford new tyres.

Btw, the little midget is a genius for setting up a car and he knows that if he damages his tyres, he's screwed, like any racer. Thank heaven he inherited the intelligence of his mother and the beauty of his dad...

[WhiteBlue]

... the burden of proof is on the people that blames Bridgestone.

Besides, you should say the same to ray, megz, etc. Knowing Ray and Megz, they won't take that argument. What I know is that they can wait for more data.

How good are you at setups, if I may ask without being impolite?

I'm thinking about setup abilities because my son said this morning: "C'mon, dad, even I know how to take care of my rubber! Hamilton doesn't know how to set up a car!"....

ok, so lets adress those points:

it has been confirmed by Bridgestone that the underlying safety problem is a construction that was unfit for turn 8 at Istanbul. they improved it for this year but still not sufficiently for safe use. how much scientific proof do you need? Bridgerstone have agreed that they screwd up. It may not be their fault because the dynamics were of novel type and the level of downforce this year unknown. the fact remains they still don't have a safe enough tyre. so they have put a usage limit on one competitor to prevent a failure.

do you expect McLaren to come forward and say they don't know how to set up their cars? I reckon you can wait a very long time to get that kind of data. besides I have my doubt that setup had a lot to do with the problem. Bridgestone said it was the lateral forces applied repetitively at high turn in rates going anti clock wise. That is a function of the track, the downforce of the car and the driving style. Hamilton just has the bad luck that his car has the highest downforce and he has the highest turn in rate.

I'm not good at setup at all but I can read the manufacturers publication. They do not mention setup as a influencial factor to the failures and damages they found last year. I think that you should explain how in your view McLaren could have reduced the forces by a different setup.

[megz]

... the burden of proof is on the people that blames Bridgestone.

Besides, you should say the same to ray, megz, etc. Knowing Ray and Megz, they won't take that argument. What I know is that they can wait for more data.

How good are you at setups, if I may ask without being impolite?

I'm thinking about setup abilities because my son said this morning: "C'mon, dad, even I know how to take care of my rubber! Hamilton doesn't know how to set up a car!"....

ok, so lets adress those points: here in Blue I will post the corrections to your post.

it has been confirmed by Bridgestone that the underlying safety problem is a construction that was unfit for turn 8 at Istanbul for Lewis Hamilton, but fit for every other driver.. they improved it for this year but still not sufficiently for safe use by unsafe you mean he who cannot set-up the car or cannot drive it without destroying the tyres.. how much scientific proof do you need? Bridgestone have agreed that they screwed up. It may not be their fault because the dynamics were of novel type and the level of downforce this year unknown. the fact remains they still don't have a safe enough tyre Hmm so how many failures were there this year? One? A puncture due to contact? yeah, unsafe when them tyres pop when they're stabbed with something..... so they have put a usage limit on one competitor to prevent a failure. Because he didn't manage to set-up or drive the car well enough to keep the tyres within their limits (and wasn't even faster than other drivers, Heikki beat him in quali with 7 more laps of fuel....

do you expect McLaren to come forward and say they don't know how to set up their cars? I reckon you can wait a very long time to get that kind of data. besides I have my doubt that setup had a lot to do with the problem. Bridgestone said it was the lateral forces applied repetitively at high turn in rates going anti clock wise. That is a function of the track, the downforce of the car and the driving style. Hamilton just has the bad luck that his car has the highest downforce and he has the highest turn in rate.

I'm not good at setup at all but I can read the manufacturers publication. They do not mention setup as a influencial factor to the failures and damages they found last year. I think that you should explain how in your view McLaren could have reduced the forces by a different setup.

[WhiteBlue]

On the substance of your last post I just cannot see where you are contributing a novel aspect. It was confirmed by Bridgestone that their carcasse design (construction design) wasn't up to requirements in 2007. They also admitted that they did not totally solve this re-ocurring problem this year. So please address the question how setup could have solved Hamilton's predicament this year. My position on this issue is that Hamilton and McLaren deserve a tyre that gives them the same strategic options as other teams. they should not be penalized for having more downforce or a driver with more abrupt turn in style. Bridgestone are contractually obliged to supply a tyre that will satisfy all cars and all driving styles on all tracks. that is the issue here!

[Chaparral]

On the substance of your last post I just cannot see where you are contributing a novel aspect. It was confirmed by Bridgestone that their carcasse design (construction design) wasn't up to requirements in 2007. They also admitted that they did not totally solve this re-ocurring problem this year. So please address the question how setup could have solved Hamilton's predicament this year. My position on this issue is that Hamilton and McLaren deserve a tyre that gives them the same strategic options as other teams. they should not be penalized for having more downforce or a driver with more abrupt turn in style. Bridgestone are contractually obliged to supply a tyre that will satisfy all cars and all driving styles on all tracks. that is the issue here!

Whitmarsh said it himself - the problem basically lay with the set up and Hamiltons agressive driving style - Bridgestone supplied a tyre that was fine for the rest of the grid however Hamiltons set up and driving style amplified a potential problem which they worked with Bridgestone to irradicate - this isnt the Spanish Inquisiton.

MW - 'The simple answer is Turn 8. We're very strong in high-speed corners and generate a lot of front-end and in fact last year was a chunking problem with the tyre, this was a delamination in a sidewall so it was a different problem this weekend. We're generating high vertical loads through those corners and that's the problem. Bridgestone acknowledged that but generally they're good strong partners and we'll continue to work with them to make sure we don't have a recurrence of what happened this weekend'

MW 'They've got a slightly different set-up which puts a little bit more load on the front tyres on Lewis' car. Lewis was reasonably aggressive through Turn 8 and very quick but he changed his style and driving line on Saturday. But on a circuit like this, once you see there's a concern with tyres you've got to put safety first, we took a decision which we don't regret – we regret the fact that we had to make a decisions – but the decision was how do we run this race safely for Lewis. I think it was the right decision with the information we had available to us at the time'

Thats probably all you can say on the subject really - if there really is anything deep dark and sinister we will never know about it - mind you that wont stop you will it WhiteBlue you love a good conspiracy

[Ciro Pabón]

WhiteBlue you already said Bridgestone confirmed that their tyre is not suitable for turn 8. Where?

Please, people, let's have this thread in peace. No comments on the quality of posts or people, just on the quality of arguments, will ya? There is no need for posting things that have to be edited. If you want to go into that, use a PM.

[Ray]

I still have yet to see your point of view WhiteBlue. I can understand that you feel the tires aren't safe, but why? Where has there been any indication, a tire failure, this season that has been a fault of the tires construction, fatal flaw, or design flaw? All I've seen so far are punctures from contact or debris.

Bridgestone said that in Hamilton's case he was putting too much force into his tires. That to me means a set up or driving style issue. He alone was warned by Bridgestone to match his strategy to what their data was telling them. His teammate Heikki had no such problems with his rubber despite having more fuel on board.

And if we are going to talk about equality in tire availability, then why do McLaren have issues using the option tire unlike Ferrari? It seems to me that Ferrari have figured out a better way to use the tires to greater affect without damaging them. How do you make that scenario equal? Do you penalize Ferrari by limiting the settings on the suspension of their cars so they can't use it better?

I still can't understand how one driver alone was warned about his tires being abused isn't fair to McLaren, or is even a safety issue. The tires were just fine last year, save for Hamilton who blew one. This is a repeat of last year, he's having tire issues again. Just like in China. He abused his rear tires to the point you could see the cords. Alonso had no such problems. Alonso has an infamous turn in stlye, yet he didn't blow one last year or this year. No one is penalizing McLaren for having more downforce (how do you know this?) on this years car but themselves. Should the FIA have made Monaco less twisty and longer to suit Ferraris' longer wheelbase last year? No. And Hamiltons tire issue this year is not anyones fault but his own and his engineers. All my life I've know racing to be who can be the fastest with the equipment that is provided to them, or what they can come up with themselves. When did this change, and why didn't anyone call me?

[WhiteBlue]

Ciro, I have posted the official Bridgestone press communication further above complete with the source. so here is the repeat:

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. .....

She said the problem was one of tyre construction, not the compound used

http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/200 ... -TYRES.php

The issue is turn 8 and Bridgestone clearly say that their 2007 tyre wasn't ok. Tyres used by other drivers were also affected. They strengthened the design. but they still had an issue with Hamilton this year. They recognise that it was a reoccurance of the same problem that they addressed by changing the tyre design!

The fact that Hamilton in another case abused tyres in China isn't material to this. It doesn't concern the suppliers duty to provide safe tyres for all competitors. He stayed out too long and if an accident had occurred from that the team and he himself would have been blamed.

The problem only appears in Turkey and turn 8. That is material! The place is unique and this should be recognised by the participants of this debate. So please do not argue that the problem did not happen elsewhere.

Ciro, I can only repeat myself. If you want to discuss this further please explain why you think that Hamilton made wrong setup decisions. Martin Whitmarsh confirmed what we already knew. Hamilton uses higher front end downforce than other drivers and he has a quick turn in. That is legitimate and the tyres should be designed to allow him a safe race with as many laps as the wear permits.

I don't see what this has to do with Ferrari and the use of the prime, Ray. This issue is about the carcasse design and not about the compound. Bridgestone have confirmed that the problem had nothing to do with the compound. We need to distinguish between wear problems and a design problem where the tyre isn't capable to to take the loads that drivers legitimately apply.

[Chaparral]

They recognise that it was a reoccurance of the same problem that they addressed by changing the tyre design!

Well MW disagrees with you WB - in his words 'in fact last year was a chunking problem with the tyre, this was a delamination in a sidewall so it was a different problem this weekend' - so are you disagreeing with MWs assessment of the weekend

Hamilton has a unique driving and turn in style - along with the set up he had for the weekend there appeared a possible problem in the Bridgestone tyre nothing more nothing less - theyve obviously analysed all the data etc by now and have moved on. As someone else said FA is probably even more agressive in his turn in but the car set up balance is better or do you disagree with that also

[mcdenife]

Ray wrote:

Bridgestone said that in Hamilton's case he was putting too much force into his tires. That to me means a set up or driving style issue. He alone was warned by Bridgestone to match his strategy to what their data was telling them. His teammate Heikki had no such problems with his rubber despite having more fuel on board.

Infact Heikki's tyres did show signs of the same problem but to a lesser extent due to his smoother style (yes it is about style rather than set-up as those with a personal Hamilton complex would like to show). This was the reason why his strategy could not be switched to go longer following his first lap incidence with Kimi.
Instead they could only give him enough fuel for another couple laps. It was reported it was possible to alleviate the problem with setup for Heikki due to his style but not for Lewis as a result of his more aggressive style.

[Ray]

It has been confirmed by Bridgestone that the underlying safety problem is a construction that was unfit for turn 8 at Istanbul. They improved it for this year but still not sufficiently for safe use. How much scientific proof do you need? Bridgestone have agreed that they screwed up. It may not be their fault because the dynamics were of novel type and the level of downforce this year unknown. the fact remains they still don't have a safe enough tyre. So they have put a usage limit on one competitor to prevent a failure.

Do you expect McLaren to come forward and say they don't know how to set up their cars? I reckon you can wait a very long time to get that kind of data. Besides I have my doubt that setup had a lot to do with the problem. Bridgestone said it was the lateral forces applied repetitively at high turn in rates going anti clock wise. That is a function of the track, the downforce of the car and the driving style. Hamilton just has the bad luck that his car has the highest downforce and he has the highest turn in rate.

I'm not good at setup at all but I can read the manufacturers publication. They do not mention setup as a influential factor to the failures and damages they found last year. I think that you should explain how in your view McLaren could have reduced the forces by a different setup.

How much proof do I need? How about more than one driver, that's had tire problems two years running at the same track in the same turn, being advised that their car is abusing the tires to the point of failure.

Running high amounts of downforce, or higher amounts than others, means to me that the mechanical setup/car design of the car is lacking in some way. Again, look at Ferrari. They either have a much better aero configuration, or better mechanical design/ setup to be the fastest in a straight line and yet not have any tire woes attributed to turn 8.

What do I think McLaren could do to combat this? Take a good hard look at their high speed aero department. Find ways to make it more efficient so that they don't have to crank on the downforce. Improve the mechanical grip or whatever it is that allows Ferrari to use softer tires much longer than they can. Find out how to avoid using so much camber on Lewis' car so that he isn't putting so much force into the right front and abusing it. Work with Lewis to be less violent on his turn in, help him adapt to the car better. ALL drivers can be better and learn new skills or improve their skills daily. If they don't believe that, then their name is Ralf Schumacher. Fernando had to do this with the McLaren, remember that his Renault was setup for his infamous turn in and aggressiveness. They worked with him to iron out the kinks so he didn't destroy his tires, and it got them 2 WDC and 2 WCC to show for it.

Personally, I think that he didn't take the outstanding opportunity to learn from Fernando. Instead he took the info he was given from Fernandos side of the garage and just used it instead of studying it for his own good. The improvements at Renault speak volumes about the talents of Alonso and what kind of info he can give to the team so they together can improve the overall performance of the car. All last season he spent valuable time dodging questions about all the bullshit directed at Alonso and acting the innocent victim of his ire instead of studying what makes Alonso such a great driver. And that is showing in the smallest of details of his driving. I don't think he should copy him, and I think that seeing his adaptation to the new car and tires could help. But I find it hard to believe it's solely a tire issue when Fernando went only two races before winning after his switch from Michelin to Bridgestone. Not to mention switching to a totally alien team to him and miss winning a 3rd straight championship by a single solitary point.

That was a little off topic. Sorry. But I think it's valid because if Lewis would have paid a little more mind to the skill Alonso has, he may not have even had these problems. Not to say he couldn't figure them out on his own. He is truly a great talent and I don't deny it. There was just waaayyy too much info to be learned from him to spend all season acting the good guy.

The problem only appears in Turkey and turn 8. That is material! The place is unique and this should be recognised by the participants of this debate. So please do not argue that the problem did not happen elsewhere.

I mentioned China because it was another example of Lewis being harder on his tires than his teammate. That is completely relevant to this discussion because Heikki was not advised to changed his strategy, from the very beginning, like Lewis was. Yes there is a limit to how long you can use any given set of tires, and they were trying to make a competitive strategy after his 1st lap stop. I also mentioned China because his teammate Alonso had no such isses, leading me to believe that Lewis is much harder on his tires overall leading to the failure.

And if they changed last years spec to be more resistant to chunking, and had no other serious issues with another driver but Lewis this year and had no repeats of what happened last year, then what does that mean? Should we design tires so hard in the sidewall they don't flex at all? Most of the suspension is in the tires on an F1 car. How far do they need to go? How hard do they make it? How many teams do they have to saddle with the burden of changing specs/side wall strength/ carcass changes to cope with one teams or ones drivers problems?

When do they draw the line and say, "Look. If everyone else can race on them just fine and win races, why can't you? Figure it out and quit pointing the finger for your lack of (insert whatever cause here)." He had a problem that didn't affect anyone else. End of story. It's his and McLarens job to figure out what changes need to be made so they can use them effectively like all the other teams.

I don't see what this has to do with Ferrari and the use of the prime, Ray. This issue is about the carcasse design and not about the compound. Bridgestone have confirmed that the problem had nothing to do with the compound. We need to distinguish between wear problems and a design problem where the tyre isn't capable to to take the loads that drivers legitimately apply.

I mentioned this not because of the compound, but because Ferrari has gotten their car to be able to handle a softer tire for longer. Softer tires will wear out more quickly than harder ones, so you have to take care of them more. That is a setup issue/car design issue that they have been able to solve, which McLaren have yet to do.

I still cannot correlate one teams problems with using the tires competitively with a safety issue. There has to be a point where the team has to figure out an effective way to use the rubber they are given like every other team has. There is no tire issue. All the other teams coping and having a very fast car without a failure proves that. Handicapping the others is not the solution. If Ferrari, I compare the two only because they are at the top of the pile, can use them to great affect without issues then McLaren needs to do more work. To say it's unfair or dangerous is foolish. The only blowout because of turn 8 has fallen squarely on Lewis. And I may be wrong, but I haven't seen another tire problem because of it.

[WhiteBlue]

The facts are clear. In turn 8 at Istanbul Hamiltons right front tyre experienced forces that were in excess of what the tyre was designed to take. My view is that he was not abusing the tyre by an incorrect setup like too low pressure. I will stick to this opinion until someone can show us here that a professional mistake was made which violates the manufacturers instruction. He was just trying to go as quick as he can with his style.

A tyre supplier cannot supply a tyre that is 99% safe and ignore legitimate use cases. The contract specifically says that the tyre must be fit for all tracks. Hence the tyres must be designed to take all the loads that occure on all tracks and still have a safety margin. From the information given by Bridgestone we do know that this requirement was not met. so the tyre isn't safe.

we do not know details what part of the tyre construction failed. so it makes no sense to speculate what properties an improved tyre will have. Bridgestone are the experts. they need to come up with a safe design for next years race in Istanbul.

[Ray]

The facts are clear. In turn 8 at Istanbul Hamiltons right front tyre experienced forces that were in excess of what the tyre was designed to take. My view is that he was not abusing the tyre by an incorrect setup like too low pressure. I will stick to this opinion until someone can show us here that a professional mistake was made which violates the manufacturers instruction. He was just trying to go as quick as he can with his style.

A tyre supplier cannot supply a tyre that is 99% safe and ignore legitimate use cases. The contract specifically says that the tyre must be fit for all tracks. Hence the tyres must be designed to take all the loads that occure on all tracks and still have a safety margin. From the information given by Bridgestone we do know that this requirement was not met. so the tyre isn't safe.

we do not know details what part of the tyre construction failed. so it makes no sense to speculate what properties an improved tyre will have. Bridgestone are the experts. they need to come up with a safe design for next years race in Istanbul.

You're impossible. What exactly is safe enough WhiteBlue? How much abuse should they take? What are the max loads they should withstand? Should they be able to withstand flatspotting, as this is normal, without so much as a scuff? What about if they run over shards of someones front wing? Are they deficient/unsafe/breaching the contract if they puncture after that? Because that's what you are implying. That no tire should suffer a failure or performance decrease if you give it all the hell you can. It's ridiculous to think that way. If you put 15g on an airframe on an airframe designed to take 5, is that a deficiency of the airframe or the operator that overstressed the aircraft?

You're wrong. There is no safety issue if it only affect one driver two years straight without a single failure on anyone elses car. You're hellbent on convincing others you are right while ignoring common sense.

[Chaparral]

Ray your completely correct - there is no safety issue involved here and WB will argue the toss until he is blue in the face - thats just his style He isnt prepared to accept Martin Whitmarsh' summation which I think is pretty fair - its one drivers problem and they (Mclaren) have to deal with it working in tandem with Bridgestone which Im sure theyve already analysed and moved on with.

[WhiteBlue]

You're impossible. What exactly is safe enough WhiteBlue? How much abuse should they take? What are the max loads they should withstand? Should they be able to withstand flatspotting, as this is normal, without so much as a scuff? What about if they run over shards of someones front wing? Are they deficient/unsafe/breaching the contract if they puncture after that? Because that's what you are implying. That no tire should suffer a failure or performance decrease if you give it all the hell you can. It's ridiculous to think that way. If you put 15g on an airframe on an airframe designed to take 5, is that a deficiency of the airframe or the operator that overstressed the aircraft?

You're wrong. There is no safety issue if it only affect one driver two years straight without a single failure on anyone elses car. You're hellbent on convincing others you are right while ignoring common sense.

Ray, you have just managed to write a whole post with meaningless questions. I have demanded nothing of the things you mentioned. All I say is that according to published information Hamilton was restricted in his race strategy by a tyre that was unsafe for him to drive with his perfectly legal car 30 times around turn 8. The same is true for Heikki. He wasn't allowed on a 1 stopper that could have salvaged some points for him. this is fact and no banging your head against a wall will change that.

perhaps you better explain why in your view a 30 lap stint with Hamiltons setup can be seen as abuse? There is no single published word by McLaren, Hamilton or Bridgestone that implies he was doing something wrong. Quite contrary McLaren say the setup was optimized and the problem was the car producing too much front end grip for the tyre. that is just another way of saying what I say. the tyre wasn't good enough.

Please consider the McLaren debrief with Martin Whitmarsh. You can read it all at Pittpass. http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=34817

Q: What particular aspects of Istanbul Park prompted Lewis's tyre problems?
MW: "The simple answer is Turn Eight. We're very strong in high-speed corners and our chassis generates a lot of front-end grip. .... We're generating high vertical loads through those corners and that's the problem..."

Q: Heikki was theoretically able to run a two-stop strategy. Are there marked differences between his driving style and Lewis's?
MW: "They run a slightly different set-up that puts a little bit more load on Lewis's front tyres. He was reasonably aggressive through Turn Eight and very quick, but he changed his style and racing line on Saturday. But on a circuit like this, once you see there's a tyre concern you have to put safety first. We took a
decision and it was the right thing to do with the information we had available at the time."

....

Q: Did you alter Heikki's strategy at all when he made his unscheduled stop?
MW: "We put a very small splash of fuel in, but we couldn't run long stints with either car because of our tyre concerns. We were three-stopping with Lewis and didn't have enough margin with Heikki. In that situation, we'd ordinarily have switched to a one-stop with Heikki but we couldn't do that. Our safe range going into the race was circa 20-21 laps."

I just happen to dislike safety components that are only marginally safe. I will be happy when Bridgestone brings a tyre that is safe for all cars and all drivers can drive with their style and the race strategy of their choice. This is my opinion and you are perfectly entitled to your own deviating opinion. just don't tell me I'm wrong when you have no facts to back that up.