Nothing surprising after all!

[ioan]

I was expecting this:



"Really the outcome of the first corner was that people could see Massa in the lead and who was in second place. But we switched into fuel strategy mode, to make sure that we stopped second to him in order that we could do a long second stint and overtake him at the final stop.

"The slightly flat spotted tyre and the puncture put paid to that strategy but I think that Lewis had the pace to win."


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69690

I bet after all the lost races and championships he thought that they could have easily won it! :rotflmao:

[Anderton]

If Lewis didn't have a flat, and Massa didn't have engine failure, i doubt Hamilton would have caught him.

[ioan]

If Lewis didn't have a flat, and Massa didn't have engine failure, i doubt Hamilton would have caught him.

I think that everyone bar RD and LH doubts that.

[Anderton]

RD seems to be saying these things to reasure himself and the team that they realy are faster.

[ioan]

RD seems to be saying these things to reasure himself and the team that they realy are faster.

Might be, but in that case you have to wonder if they rally are strong enough mentally.

"Confidence is a weakness"

No Ron, "over confidence" is a weakness.

If confidence was a weakness, then by Ron's reasoning these are a sign of weakness...

http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/f1-hamilton-confident-after-topping-times1/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7353099.stm

http://www.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/Story/A1Story20080704-74708.html

http://www.espnstar.com/motorsport/news/detail/item88745/Hamilton-confident-over-title-chances/

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20080619/SPORT/817565622/1004

http://uk.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idUKL1022365320080610

and that's on the first page of a Google search.

[PolePosition_1]

Lol love the little "McLaren haters" lovefest going on here!

Though to be fair you guys do have a point - I'd have been suprised if Lewis could have leapfrogged Massa in pits, though he would have definately come out closer.

That said, I don't think its too fair to lay into McLaren too much. You got to have faith to succeed, to believe in yourself. If you don't, success won't come. Thats my philosphy and its what is used by most companies, sportsmen, people - and obviously one McLaren adopt.

I'm sure Ferrari believed in 1997,1998,1999 that they would be able to win the title. They had faith, in same way they still do now despite losing 3 grand prixs in a row. And same way McLaren do. You can't knock them down too much.

Does anyone know how much longer Lewis was running than Massa?

Because you gain approx 1.2s a lap, and he was about 5-6s behind, so if he'd stayed out for 4 extra laps for example (plus shorter stop as less fuel needed to go in), it would have been a very tight call.

[ioan]

That said, I don't think its too fair to lay into McLaren too much. You got to have faith to succeed, to believe in yourself. If you don't, success won't come. Thats my philosphy and its what is used by most companies, sportsmen, people - and obviously one McLaren adopt.

I'm sure Ferrari believed in 1997,1998,1999 that they would be able to win the title. They had faith, in same way they still do now despite losing 3 grand prixs in a row. And same way McLaren do. You can't knock them down too much.

There is, IMO, a difference between having faith and believing in yourself and on the other hand ostentatiously making these feeling public every time things do not go your way. And you can trace this behavior back at least a good few years.

Ferrari, when things go wrong usually say that they will have to work harder and try to do better next time. Nowhere near the we would have won because (filll this space with Ronspeak).



Does anyone know how much longer Lewis was running than Massa?

Not really, what I saw is that when they changed the damaged tire the team also fueld LH's car with quite a substantial load of fuel, it was calculated by the broadcasters to be for about 28 laps, or there were 28 laps till the end of the race.



Because you gain approx 1.2s a lap, and he was about 5-6s behind, so if he'd stayed out for 4 extra laps for example (plus shorter stop as less fuel needed to go in), it would have been a very tight call.

And all this assuming that Massa wouldn't have increased the lead by doing some very fast times before his pit stop.

[ArrowsFA1]

And all this assuming that Massa wouldn't have increased the lead by doing some very fast times before his pit stop.
Still, it is reasonable to offer the opinion that "Lewis had the pace to win".

[Oli_M]

OK.......

Imagine the company you work for... your boss comes in and says "Yeah, we're just rubbish, no good, we can't achieve any of the targets we've got" Wouldn't that just be great for morale????

Of course Ron is going to say that they had the pace to win, its not going to help his employees and spur them on if he says "Yeah we thought this would be a good win for us, but it turned out despite us doing absolutely everything, we'd never have won in a million years". Just the same as some of the lower teams saying they are confident they will score a point or that without retiring they may have been challenging for a podium spot.

Occasionally, you do have to think about the 'bigger picture' and sometimes EVEN the REAL WORLD. Or just open your eyes.

[ioan]

Still, it is reasonable to offer the opinion that "Lewis had the pace to win".

No it isn't, he was continuously losing ground compared to Massa. Otherwise we should suppose that any of the 20 drivers might have had the pace to win but weren't lucky enough to do so!

[ioan]

OK.......

Imagine the company you work for... your boss comes in and says "Yeah, we're just rubbish, no good, we can't achieve any of the targets we've got" Wouldn't that just be great for morale????

Nah he better goes and publicly say that they would have won it if..., although it was clear they weren't fastest! :rolleyes:

Nice try, but you are mixing public arrogance with what really happens ina serious company (where by the way if you don't do your job as you should than you are out, no questions).

[PolePosition_1]

No it isn't, he was continuously losing ground compared to Massa. Otherwise we should suppose that any of the 20 drivers might have had the pace to win but weren't lucky enough to do so!

Ioan, you've done some reasonable posts on this topic, don't start getting all immature and over the top again!

You make good arguments for your point of view. But it just seems once someone makes a statement which is more than reasonable, you start coming out with silly comments.

He was continously losing ground to Massa. Come on, you watched the race, he was 5 seconds behind massa after over 40 laps, thats 0.125s a lap average.

And they were pretty evenly matched, though Massa had the edge, but if you take into account before the first stop, he was 3 seconds behind, lost half of that pitting in 1 lap earlier. if as McLaren state he was longer fueled, that would more than explain the average 0.125s a lap, and he would have regained majority of that 5 second lead.

So sure, your entitled to your opinion, but at least be realistic.

You've just compared McLaren saying they could have won to a Force India saying they could have won and saying its no different....it doesn't give much credibility to your posts.

[PolePosition_1]

Nah he better goes and publicly say that they would have won it if..., although it was clear they weren't fastest! :rolleyes:

Nice try, but you are mixing public arrogance with what really happens ina serious company (where by the way if you don't do your job as you should than you are out, no questions).

Again, another of your classic posts.

Please back up where you got the information that Ferrari were clearly faster than McLaren.

I admit they may have had the slightest of edges, but to say they were clearly faster implies we're talking big time differences.

[Valve Bounce]

..............and I bet if pigs had wings, not only would they fly, but they would shyte down on your head from above. :p :

[PolePosition_1]

..............and I bet if pigs had wings, not only would they fly, but they would shyte down on your head from above. :p :


Who is that aimed to?

Very productive post.....

[Valve Bounce]

Who is that aimed to?

Very productive post.....
Everybody who believes in "if"
I was just thinking of the song we used to sing at Uni
"Oh! the Eagles they fly high in Mobile,
"
Oh! the Eagles they fly high and they shyte down in your eye,
Thank God! the cows can't fly in mobile"

Of course we can if and but all we like - if bunsen was racing the Ferrari, he would have won. :rolleyes:

[PolePosition_1]

Everybody who believes in "if"
I was just thinking of the song we used to sing at Uni
"Oh! the Eagles they fly high in Mobile,
"
Oh! the Eagles they fly high and they shyte down in your eye,
Thank God! the cows can't fly in mobile"

Of course we can if and but all we like - if bunsen was racing the Ferrari, he would have won. :rolleyes:

Lol thats a pretty synical view to take.

We're just looking at who would have won the race if it weren't for massa and hamilton having problems.

Its called a discussion.

If you don't believing in discussing options and possibilities, and only believe in facts, maybe just go read statistics rather than discussions...


.....that said statistics don't give a very good picture of what really happened.

[Valve Bounce]

Lol thats a pretty synical view to take.

We're just looking at who would have won the race if it weren't for massa and hamilton having problems.

Its called a discussion.

If you don't believing in discussing options and possibilities, and only believe in facts, maybe just go read statistics rather than discussions...


.....that said statistics don't give a very good picture of what really happened.

And IF Andrew Lovett had not been suspended for not turning up for practice, Essendon would not have lost to Richmond by 4 points, and they would be a real chance to make the Finals. :(

I'm just funning because the TV is lousy tonight and I have nothing else to do. :(

[Robinho]

its seems a fair assessment - the report i read claimed that Lewis would have stayed out for several laps longer than Massa did, and in that case he would have closed the gap considerabley - as the gap was fluctuating around 5 seconds there was a chance he may have done enough to catch Massa - its hardly far fetched, although eually possible he would have ended up just behind rather than just in front - all they are saying is that the race was still very much open.

if neither driver had their problems (flat and blown engine, i wouldn't have liked to have called it, Massa probably had the best chance due to track position, but it seems that Lewis would have had a very good opportunity to close that gap due to the heavier fuel load - i certainly would say that is was obvious either way

[ioan]

Again, another of your classic posts.

Please back up where you got the information that Ferrari were clearly faster than McLaren.

I admit they may have had the slightest of edges, but to say they were clearly faster implies we're talking big time differences.

Fastest Ferrari race lap was .3 seconds faster than the McLaren ones! That means clearly faster in F1. ;)

[seppefan]

I think that everyone bar RD and LH doubts that.


I think that nobody apart from RD and LH have any idea.

[ArrowsFA1]

Fastest Ferrari race lap was .3 seconds faster than the McLaren ones! That means clearly faster in F1. ;)
Which Ferrari was that? Was 0.3s the gap between Felipe & Lewis's f/laps?

[PolePosition_1]

Fastest Ferrari race lap was .3 seconds faster than the McLaren ones! That means clearly faster in F1. ;)

Come on Ioan, anyone can take a point blank statistic and make it back their argument.

Its like me saying Ferrari and Williams were equally matched in 1997 because it went down to the wire. We all know that wasn't the case.

The fastest lap between Massa and Lewis was just over 0.150s.

The fastest lap difference between Lewis and Heikki was 0.3s.

Piquest fastest lap was 0.4s quicker than Alonso's.

You've got to look at the bigger picture. And they were pretty evenly matched over the weekend, with McLaren having slight advantage on Friday and Saturday, and beginning of race, and Ferrari having slight advantage over McLaren later in the race when the track had rubbered in.

To say Ferrari had a clear advantage is simply not true. They were very closely matched.

[555-04Q2]

Come on Ioan, anyone can take a point blank statistic and make it back their argument.

Its like me saying Ferrari and Williams were equally matched in 1997 because it went down to the wire. We all know that wasn't the case.

The fastest lap between Massa and Lewis was just over 0.150s.

The fastest lap difference between Lewis and Heikki was 0.3s.

Piquest fastest lap was 0.4s quicker than Alonso's.

You've got to look at the bigger picture. And they were pretty evenly matched over the weekend, with McLaren having slight advantage on Friday and Saturday, and beginning of race, and Ferrari having slight advantage over McLaren later in the race when the track had rubbered in.

To say Ferrari had a clear advantage is simply not true. They were very closely matched.

Actually, Massa had the fastest overall lap time by a decent margin of all drivers over the Hungary weekend. Think it was achieved during free pratice 2 or 3. Not trying to prove anyone wrong, just point out a fact. The Ferrari was the quickest car at Hungary, even though third was the only finish they got.

[seppefan]

Fastest race times.
01 K. Raikkonen Ferrari 1:21.195
02 F. Massa Ferrari 1:21.355
03 L. Hamilton McLaren 1:21.493
04 N. Piquet Renault 1:21.537
05 J. Trulli Toyota 1:21.638
06 T. Glock Toyota 1:21.671
07 H. Kovalainen McLaren 1:21.753
08 F. Alonso Renault 1:21.793
09 R. Kubica BMW 1:21.941
10 M. Webber Red Bull 1:22.125
11 N. Heidfeld BMW 1:22.183
12 N. Rosberg Williams 1:22.397
13 J. Button Honda 1:22.397
14 R. Barrichello Honda 1:22.436
15 G. Fisichella Force India 1:22.641
16 D. Coulthard Red Bull 1:22.732
17 S. Bourdais Toro Rosso 1:23.220
18 K. Nakajima Williams 1:23.307
19 A. Sutil Force India 1:23.650
20 S. Vettel Toro Rosso 1:24.222

[yodasarmpit]

Puncture or not, I don't think LH has a chance of catching Massa.

[Breeze]

Ioan, you've done some reasonable posts on this topic, don't start getting all immature and over the top again!

You make good arguments for your point of view. But it just seems once someone makes a statement which is more than reasonable, you start coming out with silly comments.

He was continously losing ground to Massa. Come on, you watched the race, he was 5 seconds behind massa after over 40 laps, thats 0.125s a lap average.

And they were pretty evenly matched, though Massa had the edge, but if you take into account ..............

Blah, blah, blah. The self contradictions here are borderline absurd PolePosition. I'll give this shouting match to Ioan, hands down.

[ioan]

Come on Ioan, anyone can take a point blank statistic and make it back their argument.

Its like me saying Ferrari and Williams were equally matched in 1997 because it went down to the wire. We all know that wasn't the case.

The fastest lap between Massa and Lewis was just over 0.150s.

The fastest lap difference between Lewis and Heikki was 0.3s.

Piquest fastest lap was 0.4s quicker than Alonso's.

You've got to look at the bigger picture. And they were pretty evenly matched over the weekend, with McLaren having slight advantage on Friday and Saturday, and beginning of race, and Ferrari having slight advantage over McLaren later in the race when the track had rubbered in.

To say Ferrari had a clear advantage is simply not true. They were very closely matched.

Well, subjectivity aside, the numbers say that the Ferrari+ Felipe/Kimi was clearly faster than the McLaren package.

There is no bigger picture that doesn't include subjective reasons.

[Valve Bounce]

. I'll give this shouting match to Ioan, hands down.

Me too!! the figures provided by Seppefan support ioan.

[Knock-on]

Well, I don't agree.

I get the feeling they brought Lewis in early on the first stop to ensure they didn't get caught out by any safety cars.

They also put a lot more fuel into Lewis's car and yet he was only a few seconds behind.

If he had another 4 or 5 laps, he could have easily leap frogged Massa.

However, it's all just conjecture and opinion as the puncture put paid to the result.

[Valve Bounce]

Well, I don't agree.

I get the feeling they brought Lewis in early on the first stop to ensure they didn't get caught out by any safety cars.

They also put a lot more fuel into Lewis's car and yet he was only a few seconds behind.

If he had another 4 or 5 laps, he could have easily leap frogged Massa.

However, it's all just conjecture and opinion as the puncture put paid to the result.

Well, I guess you're right also.

So I can only conclude that you are both right.

[PolePosition_1]

Blah, blah, blah. The self contradictions here are borderline absurd PolePosition. I'll give this shouting match to Ioan, hands down.

What contradictions?

Guys, all I'm saying is that fastest laps don't give the full picture. Fastest laps look at one lap over different parts of the races in differing conditions.

the race was 70 laps. If you want to base your opinion on one lap, thats fair enough, your more than entitled to.

But I'm going to base my opinion on 70 laps and take into account the variables.

[Knock-on]

What contradictions?

Guys, all I'm saying is that fastest laps don't give the full picture. Fastest laps look at one lap over different parts of the races in differing conditions.

the race was 70 laps. If you want to base your opinion on one lap, thats fair enough, your more than entitled to.

But I'm going to base my opinion on 70 laps and take into account the variables.

Actually, this is a very good point.

Fastest laps tend to identify the fastest car out there whereas they don't necessarily identify the fastest drivers, the drivers who drive fast lap in, lap out.

All the drivers are capable of driving perfect laps once or twice a race but the best drivers are ones that can sustain that.

[ShiftingGears]

I was expecting this:



http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69690

I bet after all the lost races and championships he thought that they could have easily won it! :rotflmao:

Easily?

I see nothing unreasonable about their opinions. The same way that people thinking Felipe could have won if they both didn't have their own dilemmas also have reasonable opinions.

[ioan]

Well, I don't agree.

I get the feeling they brought Lewis in early on the first stop to ensure they didn't get caught out by any safety cars.

They also put a lot more fuel into Lewis's car and yet he was only a few seconds behind.

If he had another 4 or 5 laps, he could have easily leap frogged Massa.

However, it's all just conjecture and opinion as the puncture put paid to the result.

And if he would have been overtaken at the start than he could have won too.
And if he wasn't hard on his tires he wouldn't have had a puncture.

And so on.

But it wasn't the case, and he never showed to have the pace to reduce the gap and to put pressure on the Ferrari.

And after hearing how they could have won every time they didn't, one has to ask himself if Ron doesn't have some psychological problems, like living in denial or not being able to accept that other were faster.

[ioan]

I see nothing unreasonable about their opinions. The same way that people thinking Felipe could have won if they both didn't have their own dilemmas also have reasonable opinions.

I suppose there is a difference between thinking that the on that lead the race and was 5 seconds up the road was going to win, and claiming after the race that the one who was second would have won if he didn't get a puncture.

The difference being the 5 seconds advantage and the better race pace shown, but I suppose that facts are worth nothing when one is up against strong bias.

[Valve Bounce]

I do have to ask the obvious, if that may have escaped others here: Did Hamilton, at any stage, give an inkling that he was/could have been faster than Massa? That is the burning question.

[Knock-on]

And if he would have been overtaken at the start than he could have won too.
And if he wasn't hard on his tires he wouldn't have had a puncture.

And so on.

But it wasn't the case, and he never showed to have the pace to reduce the gap and to put pressure on the Ferrari.

And after hearing how they could have won every time they didn't, one has to ask himself if Ron doesn't have some psychological problems, like living in denial or not being able to accept that other were faster.

IF he wasn't overtaken at the start then there was an excellent chance of him winning.

IF he hadn't had a puncture, then he would have probably won.

And so on.

Those are opinions backed up by facts and logic.

Any further conjecture makes no sense.

[Valve Bounce]

IF he wasn't overtaken at the start then there was an excellent chance of him winning.

IF he hadn't had a puncture, then he would have probably won.

And so on.

Those are opinions backed up by facts and logic.

Any further conjecture makes no sense.

.........and I must say you do have a compelling argument.

[ArrowsFA1]

I suppose there is a difference between thinking that the on that lead the race and was 5 seconds up the road was going to win, and claiming after the race that the one who was second would have won if he didn't get a puncture.
True. Dealing with unknowns makes certainty impossible. We don't know whether Hamilton would have been able to challenge Massa but for that puncture. Some think it might have been possible.

Then again, with a few laps to go I was certain that Massa was going to win the race :p

[ShiftingGears]

The difference being the 5 seconds advantage and the better race pace shown,

5 seconds up the road plus the extra time needed to refuel Massa for longer is a small gap, where any small mistake or increase/decrease in laptimes could have sent it either way. Did they say they would have "easily taken the lead"? I didn't think Hamilton pitpassing Massa, considering possible traffic, other variables, was at all out of the question. I'm positive the Ferrari guys weren't counting their chickens before they hatched at that same point.


but I suppose that facts are worth nothing when one is up against strong bias.

Yes.

[Valve Bounce]

5 seconds up the road plus the extra time needed to refuel Massa for longer is a small gap, where any small mistake or increase/decrease in laptimes could have sent it either way. Did they say they would have "easily taken the lead"? I didn't think Hamilton pitpassing Massa, considering possible traffic, other variables, was at all out of the question. I'm positive the Ferrari guys weren't counting their chickens before they hatched at that same point.



Yes.

I guess they were just counting their bridges before they crossed their chickens.

[MAX_THRUST]

The thing you all seem to be missing here is MAsa's car blew up, WHY?

Was it because Ferrari were that desperate to win they ran the car harder than they should have and with Lewis behind Masa pushing hard it is not improbable the team cooked Masa's engine, by trying to stay ahead. Who knows? None of us, so its all conjecture.

[MAX_THRUST]

It was also stated by the tyre supplier/engineer that Lewis' tyre failure was more to do with debris than tyre fatigue, and for once not through his driving style or the set up of the car?

[PolePosition_1]

It was also stated by the tyre supplier/engineer that Lewis' tyre failure was more to do with debris than tyre fatigue, and for once not through his driving style or the set up of the car?

I read he flat spotted it making it more open to a puncture when driving over debris.

[Valve Bounce]

I read he flat spotted it making it more open to a puncture when driving over debris.

Yes he did! so we can argue that, through several mistakes in braking, Lewis flat spotted his tyre in several places making the wall of the tyre susceptible to lateral damage by debris.

Of course, I am only guessing here, and IF Lewis had not flat spotted his tyre, then it is possible he may not have punctured his tyre, and under such circumstances, been able to pass Massa through some miraculous pit stop strategy. But then, McLaren may have bungled the pit stop, allowing Massa to keep his lead. OR, even if Lewis had not had the puncture, Massa may have speeded up at the critical laps before his pit stop, and he may have then come out ahead of Lewis.

Or ..................

[Knock-on]

I read he flat spotted it making it more open to a puncture when driving over debris.


Hang on, I've lost you on this one?

Why doe flat spotting a tyre make it more susceptible to debris puncture?

Anyway, wasn't it a lateral puncture? How does someone flatspot a tyre wall :D

Hang on, I've lost you on this one?

Why doe flat spotting a tyre make it more susceptible to debris puncture?

Anyway, wasn't it a lateral puncture? How does someone flatspot a tyre wall :D

Well, the people from Bridgestone, who I presume might know a tad bit more about tyres than yourself (unless you are Mr Bibendum?) have stated...

"He made many flat spots, that is true," said Hamashima. "When there is a flat spot, it means there is a very thin shoulder area close to the ground. So maybe a sharp stone touched the sidewall, meaning there was a possibility to cause a puncture."

Source - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69672

[Knock-on]

Well, the people from Bridgestone, who I presume might know a tad bit more about tyres than yourself (unless you are Mr Bibendum?) have stated...

"He made many flat spots, that is true," said Hamashima. "When there is a flat spot, it means there is a very thin shoulder area close to the ground. So maybe a sharp stone touched the sidewall, meaning there was a possibility to cause a puncture."

Source - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69672

No need to be so aggressive. I was asking a question :p

Good article actually but unless there was a significant flat spot, I think that explanation is a bit far fetched. You would need a hell of a flat spot to wear the tyre down to such an extent that it brings the side walls into play and bear in mind the tyres had a lot of rubber still.

Lots of little flat spots are quite normal as you'd get one with any sort of lock.

I'll go with his first statement. They don't know what caused the puncture :D

[Valve Bounce]

No need to be so aggressive. I was asking a question :p

Good article actually but unless there was a significant flat spot, I think that explanation is a bit far fetched. You would need a hell of a flat spot to wear the tyre down to such an extent that it brings the side walls into play and bear in mind the tyres had a lot of rubber still.

Lots of little flat spots are quite normal as you'd get one with any sort of lock.

I'll go with his first statement. They don't know what caused the puncture :D

I think I'll run with Hamashima on this one - sorry Knockie.

[ioan]

IF he wasn't overtaken at the start then there was an excellent chance of him winning.

IF he hadn't had a puncture, then he would have probably won.

And so on.

Those are opinions backed up by facts and logic.

Any further conjecture makes no sense.

Fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

have a good read.

[ioan]

No need to be so aggressive. I was asking a question :p

Good article actually but unless there was a significant flat spot, I think that explanation is a bit far fetched. You would need a hell of a flat spot to wear the tyre down to such an extent that it brings the side walls into play and bear in mind the tyres had a lot of rubber still.

Lots of little flat spots are quite normal as you'd get one with any sort of lock.

I'll go with his first statement. They don't know what caused the puncture :D

Typical "reasoning", based on "facts"! :rotflmao:

[PolePosition_1]

No need to be so aggressive. I was asking a question :p

Good article actually but unless there was a significant flat spot, I think that explanation is a bit far fetched. You would need a hell of a flat spot to wear the tyre down to such an extent that it brings the side walls into play and bear in mind the tyres had a lot of rubber still.

Lots of little flat spots are quite normal as you'd get one with any sort of lock.

I'll go with his first statement. They don't know what caused the puncture :D


Knock On, come on mate, your a reasonable member, Lewis might not have caused puncture, but experts say his mistake made him more prone to a puncture. So he could have avoided it.

I'm going to follow the experts on this particular issue. They know more than me.

[Knock-on]

I think I'll run with Hamashima on this one - sorry Knockie.


So will I.


"We have not found the actual cause but there is a high possibility of a puncture.

"We could not see any debris on the tread surface, although we could not analyse the shoulder area because he ran half of a lap with a depressed front tyre and the sidewalls were badly damaged. So the possibility is of a side cut, and then after that it depressed suddenly

Not disagreeing with him as he doesn't know the cause. Just a possibility ;)

[Knock-on]

Knock On, come on mate, your a reasonable member, Lewis might not have caused puncture, but experts say his mistake made him more prone to a puncture. So he could have avoided it.

I'm going to follow the experts on this particular issue. They know more than me.


I'm not disagreeing with them.

I honestly didn't understand how a flat spot can increase the possibility of a tyre wall puncture but do now :)

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_czOtEYDU24g/RpQBTeS2QCI/AAAAAAAAAHk/clKuIlfBEz8/2007+British+F1+GP+(195).jpg

This is the close up of a worn out tyre.

Looking at the edge before you get to the wall, you will see it's immaculate. I would have thought that a flat spot that wore through that would have gone through the canvas of the tyre first.

However, I was just using my logic and fully accept that Bridgestone know rather more than my best guess :laugh: