The strange saga of Lewis Hamilton and his front-right tyre in Turkey(episode 2)

That was a great race in Turkey which was most enjoyable to watch. A solid performance by Felipe, an even better drive by Lewis and an outcome which certainly helps bring the championship alive going into Monaco with Lewis and Felipe now tied in second place, seven points adrift of Kimi. Any one of those three could end up being world champion this year and, just now, I would not like to bet on which one it will be.

By far the most interesting detail of the weekend, to my mind at least, was the revelation that not only were McLaren the only team to have tyre safety concerns but, within McLaren, it was only Lewis who had a problem and not Heikki as well. It is so easy to miss this kind of detail in the feverish atmosphere of a Formula One paddock after a race when you are dashing around trying to get interviews and pick up the thread of the race before everyone heads off to the airport.

At Istanbul Park on Sunday afternoon, it was noticeable that neither Martin Whitmarsh nor Lewis himself, in the interviews I heard at least, alluded to the fact that Heikki was supposed to have been on a two-stopper(he only made three stops because of the bang against Kimi's car which forced him to pit just after the start). I understand it was Ron, talking to other journalists, who mentioned that it was only Lewis who was required to three-stop. So suddenly it became clear that this was not a problem for the McLaren "team" as a whole but just Lewis's side of the garage.

And this is where it gets fascinating. What better illustration of the importance of different driving styles, which are often hard to see with the naked eye, could you want than the fact that Lewis alone among 20 drivers has a technique which causes excessive stress on his front-right tyre at Turn 8, while even his team-mate in the same equipment did not encounter the same problem.

Lewis's harshest critics will say this is because he is a "bad" racing driver who murders his tyres. But this, of course, is to simplify a complex issue with many inter-related factors at work, not all of which are in Lewis's control. In any case, Bridgestone sources privately do not agree; they argue that every driver's style is different and the effects they exert on the tyres are subtly different, not better or worse. As one source at the Japanese manufacturer put it to this blog: "Somebody who finished second in the world championship is already an exceptional driver."

It seems the problem with Lewis's front-right tyre going through Turn 8 was a failure in the inside sidewall area of the tyre as it experienced extreme lateral load for a period of around 6 seconds on a cornering sequence with a sustained G-Force of around 4.5. Among the factors which caused the problem are these:

Lewis's overall car set-up and level of downforce/wing angle
His performance over the entire lap at Istanbul
His preferred angle of entry going into the sequence
His speed of entry
His mid-corner speed(Kimi set the fastest apex speed at 226.6km/h)
His throttle inputs
His steering inputs
The slip angle of the tyres(the difference between the trajectory of the wheel and the trajectory of the tyre itself)
The toe angles of the tyres(pointing in or out)

Somewhere in all of that and combining it all produced a safety issue for Lewis alone and only at Turn 8 at Istanbul. I got the impression from Lewis that the team were more or less told to adopt a three-stop strategy on safety grounds. It turns out this is not quite correct. Bridgestone in fact advised McLaren that they could run two stops but they would have to go for a short middle stint(20-18-20). Assessing this, the McLaren strategists decided to go for three stops and four sectors(hard, hard, hard and medium).

Equally remarkable in this story is the fact that Lewis had a similar problem last year when his tyre delaminated after Turn 8. It was only him again and, despite improvements in the tyre over the winter, a similar failure was on the cards again this year. We will have to wait for Istanbul Park in 2009 to see if this syndrome repeats itself for a third season in succession.

Pic of Lewis on track in Turkey courtesy of mclaren.com

Comments

[J. Perez]

Dear Ed,

There's been some articles on the Spanish press due to the fact that Hamilton and other pilots (Massa and Trulli if I remember well) do not want to be part of the Pilot's Union.

Hamilton's refusal seems to come from his boss' bad opinion of the union. Massa's and Trulli's seems to be rooted of their refusal to pay a fee for something that should be FIA's concern (i.e. security.) Hey, the already pay for a super-driver licence...

Can you shed some light on this, please?

[colin grayson]

well , I may be wrong and I know uncle ron does a number of interviews but in the one I saw [ possibly on a french channel , I set up 3 channels for the race ] I would have sworn he said the carS were on a 3 stop strategy because of tyre considerations ; now it is possible that I misheard or that this could be a slip of the tongue [ or even a deliberate one as happens as old hands know ] , but it caught my attention as I had presumed that heikki was on a different strategy

but if heikki already had enough for a 2 stopper , how come some fuel was added [ according to ITV this time , I didn't notice ]at the very time he needed to be as quick as possible to catch the back markers ?

unless of course he was low on fuel for Q3 ?

[Tim]

J.PEREZ - you're referring to the Grand Prix Drivers Association (GPDA), which is a body run by the drivers to lobby for improvements to safety. The GPDA isn't a union as such, as it doesn't lobby for improved pay or employment rights but it does aim to act as the collective voice of the drivers on safety. For example, ensuring that the same circuit facilities (recovery crews, a medical helicopter, etc) provided at races are also available at test sessions.

If I remember rightly, the GPDA was set up by the likes of Jackie Stewart in the 1960s. Stewart was a brave campaigner for driver safety at a time when death was a day to day part of motor racing and some considered it cowardly to demand safety improvements. The safety of modern F1 cars and tracks is arguably Jackie's legacy to the sport, possibly more important than his three world titles.

The GPDA in its modern form was convened following the death of Roland Ratzenberger at the 1994 San Marino GP. Currently, the leading light of the GPDA is Jarno Trulli.

Why the fuss about the likes of Lewis Hamilton and Kimi Raikkonen not being GPDA members? Any organisation of this sort (trade unions, professional bodies, trade associations, lobby groups, etc) has a more powerful voice when it speaks for as many people as possible. In F1, there are only 20 drivers it can speak for so if two drivers aren't members than it only speaks for 90% of the grid.

The arguments against being a member? Various, I suspect, and probably personal to each of the non-member drivers. Some may not want to pay the membership fees, preferring to leave safety matters to the FIA (who are generally fairly capable on this, but not always). Other drivers simply aren't interested in anything but racing and see the GPDA as a distraction. Or they may not feel they can spare the time taken up by GPDA meetings over the course of a GP weekend.

There was also a fuss a few years ago over Michael Schumacher being a member (following, I think, the German intentionally blocking the track during qualifying for the 2006 Monaco GP) and some drivers threatened to resign if Schumacher didn't.

Safety remains an important issue in F1, as demonstrated by Heikki Kovalainen's crash at the Spanish GP two weeks ago. However, the sport isn't anywhere near as fatal as it was forty years ago and recent tragedies - Imola 1994, for example - could seem like a long time ago to some drivers.

This isn't a phenomenon restricted to the GPDA, of course. Many movements experience this kind of clash when they've achieved most of their main aims - some participants want to fight on, gaining ever smaller steps forward, wheras others (rightly or wrongly) take such advances for granted.

[Demian]

He lost two point (if it wasn't for this problem, he could have won the race,) same as last year at this track.
And remember that it cost him the championship, as the reason he DNF in China 2007 was because he lost the rear tyre due to tyre wear. So, will he improve this year? Or will reliable Kimi take advantage again of his rival weakness?
And of course, Felipe looks stronger this year, Heikki could give us a surprise and the BMW guys are waiting for an opportunity be part of the winning club.

[JaviG]

a little bit off-topic, but shouldn´t this be forbidden. I thought that cars weren´t allowed to have mobile aero appendix:
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg_5Q3OreIo&feature=related

Look how the Mclaren bridge moves down in the straights and moves up in the curves.

[IDR]

Not pretending to be an expert on this, after reading your thread, I think there is not so much space to go for further analysis.

In my opinion, the question is that Lewis driving style punishes the tyres much harder than others, and not only in turn 8. That could be more critical in this turn because is so exigent with the tyres, but the real problem is not just in this specific turn.

In any case, I was thinking that McLaren had waken up and started to set better strategies for being able to fight against Ferrari.

At the end, it’s not quite clear for me if the strategy they set up in this race, was product of Bridgestone advises or because their own way of thinking, but if this last one was not the case, they should seriously think to change it, because it worked quite well.

Ferrari has better car than McLaren, but not so much better.

McLaren has to be more aggressive, as they have been in this race, and hope not making much mistakes, if they want to be there fighting for the title.

[javiervivaespania]

"Anon, Javier viva whatever's comments are always idiotic; it's just the first time that everyone agrees about it and have commented on it."
A Parker | 12 May 2008 10:16:55

I think Ed is just commenting now on the same issue of the three stops. It has been only my idiotic person who brought up this topic in last thread. Oh, Parker, I hope your wisdom sheds enough light in the coming posts, I need your deep knowledge and fairness to become a better F1 fan. Please, forgive my sins and present me with some of your wise words.

[javiervivaespania]

By the way, another idiotic comment for A Parker: I am quite sure McLaren came to this conclusion, the one that Ed is illustrating in his post, by comparing Magic's telemetry data from last year with Hamilton's.

Well, just another hint from this idiot, called Javier.

[michael gooding]

Finally a great race to watch McL fighting for something. It seemed as if the folks at McL HQ said: okay guys, there's no way we'll survive this one so we might as well go down with a BANG! et voila coming in second was pretty much a surprise to them as for us going into the weekend. I just wish McL would always go in a fight with so much visual POW!

[Nik]

Javig: its fine because its not mechanically assisted, The bridge is flexing and being shaped according to the speed of air flow, it isn't being modified mechanically or based on a manual input.

there are many parts of the car that do this, in some places it is more obvious than others (just like wishbones move with suspension and the tarmac surface)

[Dean Rodrigues]

Javier - I think I've figured out the root of all the problems!

Basically, Fernando Alonso is in fact part-deity, and as such is able to do "magical" things such as beating his teammate (because there is absolutely no way this could happen for any other reason...).

Unfortunately, "Lord God Alonso"'s powers are only effective for those who believe in his divinity, and that's where it all went wrong at McLaren. Being British heathens, they couldn't comprehend, leave alone understand, the supernatural abilities of Lord God Alonso, leading to confusion and division.

Furthermore, McLaren's secular policy of equality was in blatent infringement of the first of Lord God Alonso's 10 Commandments - "I am Fernando Alonso, your God, who brought Renault from the land of midfield, out of the house of mediocrity; and you shall have no other gods before me." Not only did the McLarenites refuse to worship the Lord Alonso, but those who did equally worshipped the Lord's ever-avengeful nemesis - Lewis "The Dark One" Hamilton.

"The Dark One"'s emergence caught the Lord Alonso by surprise, as his normally omniscient brain was clouded by the satanic rituals he was forced to perform at the McLaren Technology Centre. However, this was all part of The Lord's Plan. Because he knew that he had already been to Renault, and created a team from nothing, and he had looked at his work, and it was good.

It is now clear that the Lord Alonso's Plan was - obviously - perfectly thought out. After a year destabilising the heathens by making them dependent on his omniscience and omnipotence, he left them to return to where he belonged. It is believed that he had left Formula One, but on the third day signed for Renault.

Now, the wonder of his plan becomes apparent, as the heathens have been left impotent without the knowledge and power provided to them by the Lord Alonso, and "The Dark One" is left as a shell of a human being, wistfully wandering the circuits of Formula One in search of a new vessel to which to attach himself to and steal their thoughts. It will surely be a matter of time before he simply disappears.

Meanwhile, the Lord Alonso - like the Prodigal Son - has returned to the team he built after a leave of absence.

Unfortunately, the analogy has jumped 1000 years and Renault today is like Palestine. A smouldering wreck.

DISCLAIMER: the stories and events described in this comment are copyright of the Congregation of Alonso, who reserve the right to sue anyone who re-uses its intellectual property without explicit consent.

Good day to you all.

[Jordi]

A. Parker: Stop insulting people, if you like adult conversation, start acting like one.

“Some of the comments on here are plain stupid. Jaime, Kovaleinen got 2nd on the grid - how was McLaren impeding him?”

I’m not expert, but when Kovaleinen stopped in lap 2, it was clear that it wasn’t a planned stop, and I remember ITV commentators saying that he did not put more fuel in. So Kovaleinen refuelled 7 laps after Hamilton. Clearly Kovaleinen had too much fuel. He stopped 7 laps after Hamilton!! (Same fuel load as DC, 10th on the grid) Which means, in my book, that he did a brilliant Q3, and that if he had a bit less fuel he would take pole and at the race he wouldn’t had a puncture, because he wouldn’t be fighting with kimi for 4th position. With such amount of fuel, his job was to block Miki and let Hamilton go.
I’m not suggesting that Mclaren did it on purpose to benefit Hamilton, that’s up to you to judge, I’m only showing some facts.

Kovaleinen Q3 was out of this world.

Regards

[Pinaster]

Well, Mr Gorman, your point is "he wrecks that tire because of his speciall driving qualities, not because he doesnt take care of his care, or is a bad driver". For Gods sake, what kind of rubish is that? Did you spent a minut to re-read what you wrote, or to meditate about what someone told you?
OK, I understand, you were tired. Now, after a nice rest... will you please, stop this idiotic reasoning?
Thanks a lot, cheers.

[J. Perez]

Thanks a lot Tim. A superb, well-informed, well-written piece!!!

[Gary M]

@ Javier "Broken Record" VivaEspania

You are now suspended from mentioning Alonso's telemetry data for 3 races. Failure to comply will result in Mulder and Scully taking you away for further testing.

[Gary M]

It is strange that there always seemed to be an issue with Lewis and tires and yet it was not deemed worthy of fixing during pre-season testing. With all the resources at McLaren you would have thought they could have put a lot of work into a set-up on the car that helped to save the tires.

One can only assume that McLaren do not really see this as such a big issue and are happy enough to allow Lewis to continue to drive in his own style. So Turkey is probably a one-off in this respect and I cannot really see this playing a major part in the outcome of the Championship. Otherwise they would have fixed it no? Or at least Lewis would have been forced to change his driving style somewhat to accommodate.

On Heikki, I think it is very possible that he could have been on a 3 stop strategy all along. When he went in for new tryes after the Kimi incident he did get a few seconds worth of fuel too. This could mean he was not fueled as heavily as some people seem to suggest. I am not sure though and guess we will never know on that.

And yes, I fully agree that Lewis may well have made an error that cost him the race by not qualifying and thus racing the first stint on the softer tires. Try as I might I do not really understand that thinking.

I would happily want to see more 3 stops from McLaren anyway, it certainly mixes up things somewhat and make the race far more interesting. Reminds me of the good old days where different teams used different tactics all the time and half the fun was watching a car leave the pits to see where he would end up.

Anyway great race from Lewis regardless and I look forward to Monaco and the most fun race of the year. I think Lewis will win it and also think it may be a bad race for the Ferrari's. In fact without wanting to give Javier and friends a shock I think we will see Alonso on the podium. We will see.

In case anybody is going to Monaco I will be on Eddie Irvine's boat in the harbour surrounded by swedish models. If you wave I may wave back!

[Johnny P-)]

Two good tries in a row.

1.No one behind Heifeld has deserved a comment from Ed but Heikki, the unfortunate finn at Istanbul. Plesa tell us why!

2. Lewis is of course a perfect, smooth champion with his crown won by some another non-merited finn.

Proven that he has been wrong in his analysis wice, I would like to say I really hope LH does not follow HK's trajectory because of his tough driving.

He has escaped at least twice from fatality, and so he should learn to get advantage from improved driving techniques, instead of being so hard on suspensions and tires. I am convinced he gets his advantage from driving this way, but that doesn't make a difference big enough in return to lead the championsip. Opposed to it, it may be too dangerous for him and, eventually, other drivers.

I don't expect neither McL nor Bridgestone or other factors involved will either want or success in developing apppropriate materials for his driving style, as it desn't seem to be the regular driver's style.

What I do expect is LH will learn what every other top driver learned in the past about adapting his manners to a more realistic style: less agressive but equally effective. Nobody currently at McL will teach him how to do it. He spoilt a big opportunity he got to learn from FA and his fine but aggresive driving. This year he won't learn nothing from HK. There are not many experienced top drivers in F1 today. When is he going to get to a winning point? Will it be as short as Ed wants to? Well, who knows?

For the moment, Ed, he stands third on the WDC table. Two wins hands a real advantage to Felipe, this time against LH, you see Ed.

Only on more thing: who said something stupid about a feminine colleague this weekend?

Bye

[D]

^
Whichever way you cut it, Heikki Kovalainen, in a more heavily fuelled car, out-qualified Lewis Hamilton and was, furthermore, regarded by Mclaren as the potential victor of the race. And, had it not been for Heikki suffering a puncture on Lap 1, he would have needed only two sets of tyres to Lewis's three.

That's the bottom line.

However much people try to ignore it, Heikki consistently outpaces Lewis - even in a heavier car - and is less demanding on tyres.

Moreover, despite a lot of rubbish being spouted by a great many uninformed people about Heikki being "inexperienced in setting-up a car", Heikki spent the whole of 2006 doing precisely that for Renault in testing sessions (setting lap times that Fernando found hard to beat when he was able to attend them as well). This is a matter of record; check Renault's 2006 testing time-sheets if you dispute it.

[bbarrero]

Hi Edward,

I recently discovered your blog this week and much liked your polite style of writing.

I'll be a regular reader of yours. That's for sure!

Please try to have a look at my new blog:

http://thisisformulaone.blogspot.com/

Feedback is welcome.

Cheers from Madrid!

[IDR]

For all those asking for Heikki fuel load, this is what Martin Whitmarsh answered

Q. How would the race have run if Heikki didn't have a puncture?

MW: If Heikki had not made that stop, he would have run longer than Felipe at the first stop and if he could have been close to Massa, which I think he could have been, he would have been able to take him at the first stop. And thereafter, the race would have played out differently.

Kova is the fastet driver of the grid. The moment in wich he has no more no less luck than the rest, he will shine like 100 suns.

A simple question come to my mind, ¿What Ferrari should do for the following years?

@DEAN RODRIGUES

Nice Try!

I enjoyed reading your comment, but I must say that you need to work a little bit more your irony to equal JavierVivaEspaña histrionic comments.

Keep on doing it!

In any case, this way to answer Javier's comments is much better than others just insulting him.

[Gary M]

@ D

"However much people try to ignore it, Heikki consistently outpaces Lewis - even in a heavier car"

I am sure nobody is going to argue with you, although maybe the consistently is going a little too far. I am sure that the stats are there somewhere for people to see* but I would imagine things are a little more even on that front. But I don't take any issue with what you are saying and understand how you have come to that conclusion.

But what matters is world championship points and no amount of ifs and buts can change it. Lewis has twice as many points and therefore has performed twice as well.

Nobody has ever won a world championship by simply being the fastest driver.

*Expecting something from IDR soon.

[Phil H]

Hamilton has out qualified Kovy 3-2 this year, and is 3-2 up on fastest laps too. Not to mention he has twice as many championship points as well.

So to say Kovy consistently outpaces Lewis is rubbish, basically.

[JaviG]

NIK, I can´t agree.

Ferrari´s front wing in 2006 was not mechanically assisted, but they had to change it because it was flexible.

I do not understand, but I guess that it passeed FIA scrutinery

[Rafa]

"But what matters is championship points" indeed, and last year McLaren had almost twice as many as this year...
An last year the ferraris were running behind the McLarens, and nobody was planning strategies to beat them...
Simply put, last year McLarens were better that this year McLarens, and the only difference (apparent!) is they have a new number 2 driver. What a big difference it makes when your number 2 driver is a twice world champion... Although Ed would not recognice it...

[Jamie]

Its interesting that quite a few people are talking about fuel load strategy between LH and HK in qualifying and how HK is (always?) fueled heavier than LH.

As I understand there are many many calculations that are made to pinpoint the best fuel load to give a driver to achieve a compromise on all of the following :-
Grid position at race start.
Optimum pit stop windows for clear track.
Tyre wear versus fuel load.
etc etc

Well on this basis it strikes me it would be a good idea to make each team fuel its cars exactly the same for qualifying and thus not hide the individual skills of the drivers within team strategy.(Ron loves his parity its bound to suit him !!)

I think this idea would then remove a lot of "team order" type strategy(I know its banned but it still goes on discretly). You would then not see cars being fueled more for the purpose of blocking other teams to enable to help team mates through the race so at least one of them gets an advantage over the other teams.

And it would also show what a lot of us would love to see, and that is HK getting a real chance to shine.

Cheers.

[Tim]

Nik/JaviG - flexible wings are banned under a more general rule banning "moveable aerodynamic devices", which was introduced in the 1960s.

This is a provision that applies to many other branches of motorsport, which have also experimented with trick aerodynamics. For example, I believe that one variant of the Porsche 917 had a weight at the rear of the car connected to the rear wing. When the car accelerated, the weight was pushed backwards and it caused the wing to flatten out. When the car started braking, the weight swung forward and the wing provided more downforce. Cunning, but you can probably imagine how unpredictable it was to drive.

The rules in F1 have recently been updated to ban devices that are purposefully designed to flex at a certain speed, reducing drag. All wings flex to an extent - they have to to avoid breaking under the stress of all of that downforce. But some teams had designed their wings to significantly deflect in a way that gave them an advantage.

This raised a safety issue, so the FIA introduced a static test to ensure that wings were not too flexible, i.e. did not deflect by more than a certain distance when a standard weight was applied. The weights used in the tests was increased about a year ago after Ferrari managed to find a way of constructing the floor of their car so it passed the test but deflected on the track.

The McLaren bridge wing flexes, as do all wings of that type, but it's doubtful that it's being used to gain an advantage.

[neil]

Sums up current formula 1. The truth is that as a spectacle or sport it ranks somewhere between carpet bowls and synchronised swimming. If the 'fascinating' bit is a minute difference in the wear rate of one front tyre, then you have to ask if it is time to move on. Try MotoGP, now that is a sport!

[jlk]

Nigel Mansell used to murder cars, not just tyres.

Frank Williams once said, in effect, that it was up to him (Williams) to give Mansell a car that could win, regardless of Mansell's driving style.

I'm sure Ron would say the same.

[El Ponso]

Well Rodrigues,

Like I said before in a previous comment, most of us are simple aficionados who enjoy reading the analysis that the more knowledgeable bloggers sent here. Also it’s fun to read some of the ‘jokers’ like JavierViva and others.
Some people have that gift, it’s a genuine quality given to them. They seem to have the ability to laugh at themselves which is the true mark of a real clown. (Chaplin, Allen, Cantinflas, etc.)
Others might try to be funny, but they lack the inner peace, the harmony whithin temselves to project the sort of kindness that it is needed to be ‘simpatico’. So all they achieve really is to sound pathetic and boring in their conceit. They resort to make fun of others rather than themselves. You follow? And so they make comments about other people’s habits, culture, even religion. That reference about Palestine…
Well, at least you try to be funny, something that’s positive, which is more, a lot more, than it could be said about others here. We all know who they are.
And what the heck this has to do with F1? Some might ask. Well nothing and… everything. After all the real comments about F1 are becoming more and more scarce and the blog it’s been used more and more as a platform to launch all the ranting that there’s.

Take care Dean.

El Ponso.

[Jeff Bellamy]

Isn't it strange how a pefectly innocent piece that mentions LH can trigger the usual moronic rants about McLaren and St Fernando from the Spanish contingent?
A few points to consider:
1/ This years Ferrari is an excellent car and, so far, better than the McLaren, but only slightly. This has nothing to do with St Fernando not being at McLaren, and plenty to do with the design teams at Ferrari.
2/ LH is not the cause of all the world's troubles.
3/ St Fernando didn't leave McLaren - he was sacked. For reasons that most of our Spanish friends quite grasp Ron Dennis decided he could do without someone who a) tried to blackmail him, b) did his best to destabalise the team, and c) contributed by his involvement in the Spygate saga to the $100m fine handed down to the team.
4/ It was a miracle they let him stay until the end of the season.
5/ St Fernando should learn to study the terms of a contract and understand that when it stipulates there will be no favouritism between the drivers, that's what it means.
6/ FA's initials are most apt because that's what he's going to win this year!
7/ St Fernando had nowhere to go after being sacked by McLaren and the only available seat was at Renault.
And finaly:
8/ Heidfeld has trouble adapting his driving style to suit the current crop of tyres. Hamilton's current tyre issues are nothing to do with St Fernando's absence from the team, anything that happened last year, global warming or the disappearing rain forest.
Have a good day.

[colin grayson]

well , jordi heard ITV say heikki didn't put any fuel in when when he punctured

any else hear that ? I heard ITV say that he did ; seems possible one of us was wrong ? anyone got a recording ? unfortunately I channel hop so can't keep a comprehensive recording

and rafa , where is your logic in saying that the ML is not as good as last year , pretty unintelligent statement ; if they had improved 100 % and ferrari 110% surely that would put ferrari ahead wouldn't it ? that leaves aside that the regulations have changed , doesn't it ? all cars should be slower this year , shouldn't they?

[Peter Cole]

I've just read the following on the ITV/F1 website, under the section dealing with the stray dogs at the Turkish GP last weekend:
"Istanbul Park was taken under the management of a Bernie Ecclestone-owned company in April last year, with the commercial rights supremo also guaranteeing the venue would remain on the F1 calendar until 2021"
Is it me, or is there a conflict of interests here? Shouldn't the FIA be monitoring things like this, to ensure fair play between the circuits?

[IO]

Yes...what ever you want Ed...you can do 3983798 analysis of the way that Hamilton drives towards the 3rd place in the championship at the end of this season...but the fact is Hamilton was second this weekend. That´s all.

This year we can see right now that McLaren has 34 points less than the past year... so...where is the problem?? Or...who is the problem??? Maybe the best driver in history isn´t the best driver in history...but a mediocre driver...

We´ll see...

[Nik]

Heikki is a very very impressive one-lap driver, and has been racing very well this year also.

He was unlucky not to finish 2nd in Melbourne, since he had to pit under the safety car. Unlucky again in Spain with a freakish accident and then again last weekend in Turkey

I think we will see a very solid season from Heikki. If he continues to be able to put a heavy car on the front row, then a win isn't far away

[David Watkins]

I shouldn't think McLaren mind being a few points back at this stage given that the atmosphere within the team seems to have improved greatly since Alonso's departure. They are playing the long game with two young, fast drivers.

[IDR]

@GARY M

Touché!

On the other hand I agree with you the fastest driver not always is the best one, but I think that Heikki deserves some credit.

Anyhow, smart comment mate!

[Víctor Domínguez]

Is this a post of F-1 or a blogged hagiography of Mr Hamilton...

[Massive_Messon]

The qualifying talent doesn't always point at better race-craft, otherwise Jarno Trulli would be by far the most successful F1 driver.
Heikki is fast and will find his feet but for now, he is the less successful of both McLaren drivers. Until that time, Lewis will continue to beat him on track.

[Johnny P-)]

Okay Dean, Jeff, David:

The only real thing is that Alonso's atmosphere has improved this year. McLaren's is exactly the same but with a different driver instead... the rest is almost the same except for the pit position, earned from a not-so-clean fact, not to blame Alonso for it.

Dean, yor comment is not even a sympathetic one. Go get your brain fixed, man.

Jeff, the only feasible point is "2/ LH is not the cause of all the world's troubles". The rest is just an outcome of having too much of your own initials.

Another win from Massa, he deserves our admiration, not being "number one" for nobody.

[Jordi]

Colin/Gary
I'm quite sure I heard ITV saying that Heikki did not put any fuel in his first pit stop. I may be wrong, anyone else know's if he did refuel?

Just a question, is it true that last year Hamilton and Fernando had very similar strategies and always pit stopped between 1 or 2 laps of each other, and this year it seems that Mclaren drivers are always driving quite different strategies?

[Anon]

I do believe that McLaren wee forced to make a pit stop at the beginning to fix a puncture on a tire. Although we didn't see it, they saw a felationn the elemetry.

During this period, Fisichella's car, under Mosley's influence, tried to mate Kazuki Nakajima's. The sfaety car was out, which means that teams cannot refuel (which McLaren didn't) but can only do repairs. Now, I gues they cnsidered switching the tires as repairing them, because there was a deflation an gtherefore damage to be fixed?

[Marco]

Are you sure about "..even better drive by Lewis"? better than who, than massa?

Three wins in a row...please, don´t be so biased.

[IDR]

As there are some people asking for Heikki’s 1rst pit stop and if McLaren refuelled the car or not, please see below what Martin Whitmarsh said:

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."

You can read full interview in Pitpass.

Then if Heikki initially had few more laps than Massa, as Martin declared in an Interview I read in Autosport (I posted in my previous comment), and Massa's pit stop was in lap 19, then Heikki was initially fuelled for 20-21 Laps.

McLaren, refuelled Heikki car during his first pit stop but just for the two laps he did before.

That’s all. No ITV needed, just reading Martin.

[CHIUNDA]

It is hard to believe anything from these PR interviews - Whitmarsh claims Hekki could have won the race ... please, we are not idiots!!!

And why did Lewis say he had made a wrong tire choice for qualifying rather than the supposed truth that Bridgestone had issues with his driving style - i know he could have given away his strategy - but hell, u'd think the PR guys at McLaren are paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to come up with better stories!!

[Dean Rodrigues]

massive credit (as always) to IDR (see his post on 13 May 2008, 08:32:41) for clocking onto the exact purpose of my last post. 'El Ponso' - I want to congratulate you on what was a most comic post yourself. Although I can assure you that it was not intended to be 'simpatico', you are absolutely right in saying I have no inner peace. I often cry while watching Formula 1 because of this fact, and am thinking of jumping off Magdalen Bridge right now because of it.

In all seriousness, I was not trying to be funny. But I've come to the conclusion that glorified claptrap from only one point of view is not a healthy balance, so to speak. Thus, I might as well take the opportunity to practice my literary skills.

There may well be several similar posts in the pipeline... take this as advanced warning!

[Carlos]

Hi Ed, you wrote "Lewis's harshest critics will say this is because he is a "bad" racing driver who murders his tyres. But this, of course, is to simplify a complex issue with many inter-related factors at work, not all of which are in Lewis's control"

I agree with you but two things I would like to point out about this. First whenever Hamilton is involved in an issue you make your best to analize the whole issue deeply while in other cases you simplify the matter. Secondly your report is so ambiguous as you don't come to a conclusion if Hamilton is a bad racing driver because he murders his tyres or he is an amazing driver who uses a unique technique of dealing the turn 8.

[Gary M]

Nice spot IDR.

I was pretty sure that I saw fuel going into Heikki's car during that first pit stop. Even though it was certainly a quick refueling it happened.

So all the talk about what a brilliant Qualifying session it was for Heikki with so much extra fuel is not quite correct. Unless somebody can determine how much fuel he took on board then we cannot say how much fuel he had from the start of the race.

But one thing it surely does make clear is that Heikki must of been on a 3 stop strategy all along for tire reasons the same as Lewis. So the tire issue is seemingly an issue for both cars and not as has been suggested here just for Lewis.

"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"

That comment makes no sense at all. I can understand them not changing to a one stop strategy but that does not explain at all why they never put more fuel in and stuck with a 2 stop strategy.

The only explanation is that Heikki was on a 3 stop all along due to the advice from Bridgestone and therefore not as heavily fueled as people have suggested.

I remember him getting fuel but thought I was mistaken with nobody else seeing it, I seemed to think it was a good couple of seconds worth. So one has to assume that Heikki was due to come into the pits a lap or two after Lewis.

Forget that McLaren say that Heikki could have won the race, It is probably in their interest to say such things. The equivalent of bluffing in poker and not showing your hand. But looking at the facts I just cannot see how they can really believe it.

[Gary M]

Actually I probably never thought my last comment through - had a couple of glasses of wine this evening and the wine certainly slows my thinking! ;-)

I guess if the worry was the bridgestones lasting more than 21 laps then a 2 stop would have still been possible for Heikki before the puncture. But then if 20/21 laps was the advice from Bridgestone than why not put Lewis on a 2 stopper as well?

All a bit odd, I hope it is not a problem in future races. Though I had better post a quick amendment to the above because somebody would no doubt point it out!

Anyway, it still does not change the fact that Heikki did take on fuel during the stop.

[IDR]

@GARY M

In fact I'm not making any point about Heikki could win the race. After all who knows what should happened...

But how many fuel load Heikki had, It is quite clear (at least for me after have read many of the reports available on the web), that Heikki was initially loaded for 20-21 Laps, and running with a strategy of two pit stops.

When he had to do an unexpected pit stop because the puncture, they just refuelled him to the maximum recommended by Bridgestone (20-21) then, added fuel just for the laps he consumed (2 Laps) and for this reason he has to go with 3 pit stops instead of the 2 initially planed for him.

I am posting this, just because I saw some people here asking if Heikki was refuelled during his first pit stop and, what was the race strategy of Heikki, (in number of pit stops initially planed for him)

The only point I make is, that in my point of view, Heikki is quite fast and I enjoy that, basically because, as I posted in one thread at the beginning of the season, I bet USD 300 on Heikki just to have some emotion during the season knowing that my favourite driver (F Alonso, as all you know) will not have any chance to fight for the title this year.

And I must say that is working for me, despite I had no specific reason to support Heikki, except he was the only one of McLaren/Ferrari drivers with a big price for the money I bet (1/18).

Now that I’m following him, my interest is growing and Heikki has become my second favourite driver.

And I now guess that this guy will give me some good moments during this year for sure. A little bit more luck is what he needs.

That’s all, so simple. As the Americans say: “KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)”

[jordi]

OK, Thanks IDR

So, if they refueled Heikki for 2 laps only, means that he had 5 laps worth of fuel more than Hamilton, and still manage to qualify ahead of him and only 0.191sec. behind Felipe.

That's out of this world!

[MYK]

Just think. If Massa hadn't have binned it in Malaysia, he would be leading the championship!

[Jeff Bellamy]

To: Johnny P- Sorry to contradict you, but the working atmosphere in McLaren has changed for the better since St Fernando was fired. The team may not be winning everything in sight, but that is more down to the superiority of the Ferrari design than anything else. After all, Ferrari have an almost unlimited budget and McLaren are down $100m thanks, in part, to the activities of your man, St Fernando.
I'm not sure that I, or anyone else for that matter, really understood the insult you were trying to lob in my direction. My initials are JB.
As for your comment about Massa's win, yes it was well deserved.
Have a nice day.

[Jon T]

Interesting topic; one aspect I'd be interested in is how Michelin would have fared against Hamilton's style; given the problems they had at Indy a few years back I suspect they'd have their work cut out to handle it!

I agree with Ed that it's not Hamilton's fault entirely; his technique got results last year and part of this year so it's certainly not wrong compared to anyone else's, just different! Equally it's partly the team's responsibility to build a car to suit the driver, every driver's setup preference for wings, suspension etc is wildly different after all.

I seem to recall comments from ITV before Raikonnen joined Ferrari that he was notoriously hard on cars and partially (partially!) to blame for making McLaren's cars look flaky by thrashing the nuts off them. Ferrari seem to handle his demands very well though it must be said.

It would be very dull if everybody ran the same race with the same strategies. That's half of what makes F1 such a procession at the moment, there's not enough of a difference between strategies to allow the kind of manoeuvres LH and HK made at Turkey because the teams blindly follow what their computers tell them is mathematically best. Either way the return to slicks next year should make that more unpredictable.

It was great to see LH zip away up the road, desperately trying to beat what the maths model said could be done and finished 2nd, not 5th as predicted, so good on him for making it work!

It will be interesting to see how Ferrari compare to McLaren over the season. They've both come up with very different designs again, especially in how they use tires, but it's a relief to see this weekend that they're both competitive with each other.

Ferrari really love the soft tires on long stints this year, I'd be interested to see if their hard tire performance suffers because it's just too mild on them, in particular in cooler climates later in the year. If so, McLaren could reap the rewards in the latter half of the season.

I look forward to HK coming good when his run of bad luck ends too, he'll be a real contender for victory when he gets going and might give LH a bit of a hurry up!

[colin grayson]

well , are we all happy now ? heikki took on fuel !
and heikki could have 2 stopped ; question is , was he going to as the tyres were marginal for him as well

and if you read the statements bridgestone advised how hamilton could also run 2 stops , but ML calculated that the 3 stop was going to be quicker and safer for him

be clear on one point however ; bridgestone will have to do something to improve their tyres to meet the ML requirements ; MB is an important prestige customer .....anyone who thinks that they can afford to allow this situation is living in fantasy land

like many things in this world , tyre design is a compromise ,eg we all know from our own vehicles that you can have a stickier tyre if you accept a shorter life ; we know of the long term relationship between ferrari and bridgestone so it is perhaps not surprising that current tyres are biased towards the unique chassis design in the same way as michelin did for the unique renault chassis

but to have a bias which stops one of the teams running with sufficent safety margin is not acceptable to anyone ..we could end up with another Indy debacle

nobody here seems to realise just how important tyres are here ; they all have the same tyres , don't they ?
but at any moment bridgestone could change their product to give ML a big advantage over ferrari ; that is why , imho , single tyre supplier only works in single chassis formulae

[CHIUNDA]

Gary M

I just had another look at the Heikki incident at the beginning of the race. Both McLarens started on hard tires. Heikki's McLaren was refueled with maybe 4 seconds worth of fuel when it came into the pits for a tire change following the puncture after the incident with Kimi.

Clearly Heikki was also on a three stopper.

[Jaime,California,USA]

@Jeff Bellamy,
Let's make sure we get your name right there, ol' Jeffy. The fact that in your post you insulted everybody (moronic comes from moron)proves how desperate you are in supporting your own worshipping of Lewis Hamilton. You are as fanatic as the Spaniards who post here their own biased views of Fernando Alonso. Please don't let your emotions overtake logical reasoning. You say that Ferrari wins races thanks to better designs, boy! they sure were making incredible designs all these years because I can't remember when was the last time that McLaren won a constructor or driver's championship. However, Renault must have made a pretty good design to beat Ferrari two straight years with Fernando Alonso and Giancarlo Fisichella. Strange coincidence that McLaren with Hamilton and Alonso were beating the Ferraris last year. In all fairness it could have been LH's input last year into the car that made it into a serious candidate for the WDC title. So far this season that doesn't seem to be the case. Oh! wait, it is just the design of the car nothing else.
I gotta tell you,JB, for Ferrari fans this blog is a real kick. Better than posting in La Gazetta.
It is not as simple as design or pilot is a combination of both. Ferrari understands this combination like no other F1 team. Mclaren is a basket case of egos and bizarre loyalty to the British press. The fact that McLaren mistreated somebody as valuable as FA is more validation for Ferrari fans that Mclaren is not a winning team. Why is Ferrari not signing Alonso yet? Alonso didn't understand Ferrari's philosophy before signing for McLaren and I have to admit I still have my doubts he gets it. Ferrari is loyal to you once you prove you are loyal to Ferrari. Schumacher didn't win anything for 4 years but understood that Ferrari is not about instant gratification. And, by the way, there is no hypocrisy at Ferrari. It is clear who is number one in la squadra and has nothing to do with equality but respect. Let's not forget the design!
Forza Ferrari!

[Jordi]

Chiunda

Heikki was refueled in his first stop with 2 laps worth of fuel, and yes he started on hard tires, but still can't see where do you get that he was "clearly" on a 3 stopper.

Heikki did his amazing fast q3 with hard tires too.

[Gary M]

I am inclined to believe you Chiunda, cheers.

I just want to point out that I am a fan of McLaren, I would love nothing more that to have Heikki winning races, although not to the detriment of Lewis winning the WC (The opposite would be true too, If it were Heikki leading the WC).

I just know that once the idea that Heikki out-qualified Lewis with half an oil field strapped to his car it will be written down in notebooks and repeated on this blog for years to come. It like so many other half baked rumours and theories become fact in the heads of certain commentators and will be trotted out at any convenient moment to demonstrate what a terrible driver Lewis Hamilton really is!

[Verbal]

@MYK ...Just think if Lewis hadn't bined it in Bharain he would be ahead of Massa (get my drift ?)

JaviG - Very interesting video dispite protests to the contrary that looks to me like a flexing wing which was banned from a certain red car.

[INSIDER WHO CANNOT BE NAMED]

To Jeff Bellamy:
You obviously think that last year’s main culprit was Alonso! No comments! And by the way, Alonso was not sacked – Let’s say there was a “mutual” agreement – a pact of silence – a gentlemen pact
Alonso wanted out (as many others in the past) – everybody in the paddock knows that (of course, you are not in the paddock – you would not know)
Your comments show your blindness!!! (or shall I respectfully call it your ignorance or misinformation?)
Dennis knew very well what was going on, and from the very first second.
I am moving now to another post – if anything interesting comes along.
Long Live Ferrari (the red Ferrari, not the silver one) – if you know what I mean

[Jordi]

Martin Whitmarsh: "If Heikki had not made that stop, he would have run longer than Felipe at the first stop and if he could have been close to Massa". www.autosport.com

It is clear that Mclaren did not plan qualify for Heikki to be on Pole but for Hamilton.

-Martin Whitmarsh:"But the job we did in qualifying wasn't good enough; we should have been on pole so we really were on the back foot from the start of this race – and it makes Lewis' race drive all the more extraordinary". www.autosport.com

If Heikki had only one lap less worth of fuel, he would start from pole. If he had started from pole, he wouldn't had the accident with Kimi.

I think that all of you will agree that starting from pole gives you a much bigger chance to win.

For those who say that Heikki was on a 3 stopper, why then he had 5 laps worth of fuel more than Hamilton?

It was a big mistake from McLaren to qualify Heikki with so much fuel.

[Nik]

Tim: thanks for clearing that up, I was going to go and search through the rules after seeing that both the Ferrari and the BMW have the center of the wing attached to the nose of the car, to prevent it from flexing.

And as for Kovalainen, I am really excited about his form and his pace. He has been very unlucky so far this season, but I can imagine that he might notch up a win this year and has his eye on third place in the WDC. He is also a future world champion

[Jeff Bellamy]

To: Jamie
Well Jimmie my old fruit, let's get a few facts straight.
1/ No I do not worship Hamilton as you seem to imply. I don't think there's much difference in terms of natural ability between him and Alonso. The point is that this post originally had nothing to do with anything that happened last year and was about a tyre issue that is probably influenced by Hamilton's driving style. What probably mystifies every sensible person reading this blog is why that should prompt the usual torrent of garbage about Alonso / Hamilton/ 2007 etc, etc.
2/ If you can't remember the last time McLaren won a championship I suggest you look it up before expressing opinions.
3/ The fact that Renault and Ferrari have shared the honours recently proves what? The last team to win before Ferrari started their run with Schumacher was McLaren. Renault are nowhere this year, but they will be. All the top teams go through peaks and troughs in their performance. It just depends on who gets there sums right and has the most money to spend at the right time.
5/ I didn't suggest there was any hypocrisy at Ferrari. You must have dreamt that one!
6/ The rest of your post isn't worth commenting on.

To: Insider who can't be named (because he isn't!)
No - Alonso was sacked. Get over it. There was also a gagging clause that he had to submit to.
Alonso may have wanted out, but he would have stayed if they had let him because the McLaren would be a better bet than the Renault.

[INSIDER WHO CANNOT BE NAMED]

Dear Bellamy:

Can you show me that gagging clause?

Did you know that just before Renault made Alonso's signing official, there were contacts made by McLaren to bring Alonso back to the Team? Of course you didn't!

This is no bullshit! But hey, I am not an insider so I must be dreaming...

And I already know what you are going to say/write: that I have a very active imagination!

The thing is that, believe it or not (I don't really care) I am a real insider...and probably you even know my name...

Long Live Ferrari

PS: "What probably mystifies every sensible person reading this blog is why that should prompt the usual torrent of garbage about Alonso / Hamilton/ 2007 etc, etc" - I couldn't agree more with you in this one - So let's move on

[Johnny P-)]

Some so thick minded posters may still defending an unsustainable position as FA being someone who has fined or provoked the FIA to fine McL just because of nothing.

I know those "thoughts" are a side effect from being full of J&B scotch or Anti-Spanish hate. You have for long, looking back in this post, being replied for supporting an irrational position. I'd say someone spat upwards.

Neither FA is Saint for nobody, but nonetheless McL is a winning team, but a running-up clockwork short of soul, full of fiction-absolute rivalry and extremely obsessed with neatness and hypocrisy which in fact make them appear as losing phonies.

How many lost crowns must McL watch passing by to find the right way to victory?
When did McL win it's last WCC? 1998 (9 seasons ago, two in the last 17 years)
What about a WDC driving a McL? 1999 (8 seasons ago, three in 17 years)
How is McL planning to recover the general public's trust? For that they need to demonstrate truthfulness, then regeain dignity to reenter the paddock as a generally admired team.

I don't think this applies while still managed by RD. Needs a deep tidy-up.

Bye.

[Verbal]

Tim - The reason flexing wings are not aloud is for pricisly this reason - it curves out on the courners providing more ero grip and therefor alowing you to carry more speed into the corners on the straights the converse is true, the wing induces less drag and allows the car to accelerate more.
No you judge for your self. This wing is probably linked to the damper because the flexing coincides with the coners

[AndyG]

Three points:

1. Fuel Load: two drivers, one a three-stopper, the other a two-stopper. Which one is going to run longer? (DOH!) Wake up...

2. The drivers job is to put lateral load into his tyres. That's a good thing. And you can see from the way LH has got the car moving around a bit more than most in the slower stuff that he has the car looser and runs bigger and more variable slip angles putting more heat into the side wall, more repeated flexing.

3. Bernie? Circuits? F1 and Money? Conflicts of interest? Surely not..... :)

Next you'll be implying that the FIA is an utterly corrupt stitch-up of vested interests, enabled by buying votes from smaller countries' ASNs in return for allowing them to(Moderator's edit)

[Gary M]

@ Johnny P

A quite amazing post. Am I to assume that when Lewis Hamilton wins the WC this year that you will take back everything you say and realise that Ron Dennis is right that the poison in the team last year was indeed Alonso?

It is quite simple what happened last year and obvious to most people within the sport and the world. Fernando Alonso upon realising that we was often being out raced by the young kid he had assumed would be his number 2 asked Ron Dennis to confirm his status as number 1 driver and therefore championship contender.

Upon hearing that he was not in fact number 1 Mr Alonso quite literally threw his toys out of the pram and more worried about his reputation than trying to win a championship ended up flushing his own season down the toilet. The fact it appears he tried to blackmail Ron Dennis was just one of the actions that got him the sack last season.

Anything else is just pure fantasy.

Can you not just let it lie and move on like most others have seemed to do?

[Tim]

Verbal - as I said previously, the rules require wings to pass a test to ensure they do not deflect excessively under a static load. However, the rules allow wings to retain a small degree of flexibility - otherwise they'd break under the enormous aerodynamic loads put through them.

I'm still not sure why you think the footage of McLaren's bridge wing flexing is significant. As far as I'm aware, bridge wings are not included in the static load test applied to the main front wing and McLaren do not appear to have had any difficulties getting their car through scrutineering, where such tests are performed. Even if McLaren were to gain an advantage through the bridge wing flexing, as you appear to be suggesting, it's one that is within the rules as they currently stand.

However, I strongly doubt that there is much, if any, gain to be had from having a flexible bridge wing. Most of the aerodynamic devices on modern F1 cars are not fitted to directly produce downforce, but rather to increase the efficiency of the front and rear wings. They either clean up the airflow or help direct it to the right place. My understanding is that the bridge wing is one such device.

You also seem to be arguing that the angle of the bridge wing is controlled by a damper or some sort of actuator. If it was then it would clearly be illegal, but easily picked up in scrutineering - and it hasn't been.

[Jordi]

GARY M

Dear Gary, something that “it appears”, can’t ever be described as a FACT, unless you want to make a malicius rumour “appear” to be true.

Until you can prove that FA blackmailed RD and that he was sacked, I will describe your comments as pure fantasy.

And people will continue to talk about it for as long as you people keep making up stories to cover RD failure to manage a team and his cheating ways.

[Jeff Bellamy]

Dear Insider Who Cannot Be Named, for whatever reason.
Hope you enjoyed your little rant. This is supposed to be a sensible blog with sensible topics to discuss, not a sounding board for anyone's prejudices and personal hang ups.
Can I suggest that you just try to get over yourself?
Regards

[INSIDER WHO CANNOT BE NAMED]

Dear Jeff:

Whatever!

[Verbal]

Tim - I've got to dashn to work...yes I actually do have a day job :) contrary to what one might gather from this blog.
Neither F1 debate/comentry :)) or Aero is not my day job but even I know the front and rear wings is where most of the down force is generated.

And a flexing wind does give advantage.
"...easily picked up in scrutineering " you mean like the flexing floor, last year, the illigal fuel discovered every couple of years and all the other things that are discoverd mid to late season ?