Comments on: Did Bridgestone compromise McLaren?

By: Sri

Sri — Wed, 14 May 2008 09:00:32 +0000

Erm, i meant to say racing operations.

By: Sri

Sri — Wed, 14 May 2008 08:57:23 +0000

Well, but i really do feel that it is about time, that Ron and his posse’ are put in their place. How many times will Ron lie about something/ anything and bring the name McLaren to shame? About time he went out of F1. Perhaps investors would ease the pain of ours by simply booting him out of McLaren operations.

By: Keith Collantine

Keith Collantine — Wed, 14 May 2008 08:43:27 +0000

That’s more like it! And they have a similar problem at Fuji I see…

By: Sri

Sri — Wed, 14 May 2008 08:39:29 +0000

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67366

i quote Hirohide Hamashima:

“One solution was to make the inner pressure higher, or other solutions like that (in how to use the tyre). Then we suggested a strategy of 20 laps, 18 laps, 20 laps, but finally they decided on a three-stop strategy.”

So 2 stops were indeed possible and suggested by Bridgestone. It was purely with the aim of gaining some track positions, with which they changed their strategy. Since it was not as good as they anticipated, they blamed the bellboy, ahem, Bridgestone. If this does not prove beyond doubt that McLaren are their own worst enemies, god knows what will.

Also another quote from the same link
Autosport:”Did you find any problems with Heikki Kovalainen?”
HH:”Heikki had no problems at all, it was just Lewis. He is a bit severe on the front tyre.”

Quite a fair bit telling, isn’t it?

By: Sri

Sri — Wed, 14 May 2008 08:14:08 +0000

Well Keith, i also said something in brackets that it is somewhat circumspect.

By: Keith Collantine

Keith Collantine — Wed, 14 May 2008 07:44:33 +0000

Sri, I think that’s the second time you’ve posted a story I have reservations about from that particular site. Who is their source? They haven’t even hinted at it.

By: Sri

Sri — Wed, 14 May 2008 07:33:39 +0000

http://planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_3559034,00.html

This somewhat confirms(if you could call it that), that it was all BS from Ron and his folks in the PR team.

By: the limit

the limit — Wed, 14 May 2008 03:01:04 +0000

Its a problem that is well documented, and an advantage that Ferrari were always going to have when the majority of their rivals switched from Michelin to Bridgestone tyres.
However, as always, some teams fair better than others, as do drivers. There is no doubt in my mind, as others of you have written, that Hamilton’s driving style is hard on his tyres.
Also factor in, that he had to really dig deep in Turkey to keep pace with both the Ferrari’s. The Ferrari is the strongest car out there, and the team perfectly understand their tyres and get the best usage out of them.
Bearing in mind Raikkonen had a first lap mishap, Hamilton only just pipped him at a pitstop despite Lewis putting in a number of real hot laps before stopping.
Also, the tyre situation is the perfect foil for Ron Dennis and his team. It is easier to blame the tyres, than the failure of Hamilton’s race strategy and the overall car not being as competitive as the Ferrari.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:00:24 +0000

Most of you guys are missing the point, its not tyre wear thats the problem, but rather, internal wear within the tyre walls thats the problem. What happens is that the tyre begins to break up from inside, like happened with Michelin tyres at Indy after just a few laps.

By: sChUmAcHeRtHeGrEaTeStEvEr

sChUmAcHeRtHeGrEaTeStEvEr — Mon, 12 May 2008 12:19:49 +0000

@sri saying about jv doing better, i wouldnt go that far, he was 9 points behind hill going into the last race and he was only 3rd i think when his tyre flew off so he had no chance of winning anyway. also the 96′ williams was miles quicker than any other car that year giving him an advantage compared to other drivers. also note he made a few mistakes during his rookie year, hamilton made a handful all year. also id say jv’s contention for the tittle was more down to hill throwing away races he should have won rather than jv beating him outright unlike hamilton on alonso last year. coming on to your point that jv then won the tittle the next year, again the williams was the fastest car by a mile (2 seconds quicker in qualifying for the 97 oz gp) he should have walked that years tittle, yet mistakes by him led to schumacher nearly beating him! in my opinion jv was over rated he made too many mistakes. hamilton doesnt seem to make many and i thought he was great yesterday.

back to the original post about macca and bridgestone, im a hamilton fan but id agree that bridgestone cant change the compounds of tyre just because 1 driver isnt happy. hamilton has to find his own way around the problem, maybe running with more wing so he doesnt have to get so much of his grip out of the tyres. 2 be honest if he had done better in qualifying p2 or pole he would have probably won the race and none of us would have had this discussion.

also looking ahead to monaco, i for 1 expected, likke last year that mclaren would be the quickest there, but looking at the last sector yesterday (the tight, twisty complex of corners at the end of the lap) hamilton was losing time on massa, could that be a sign of things to come in monaco??

i think if hamilton is goign to challenge for the tittle this year hes going to have to try more adventurous strategies because ferrari has the adavantage.