FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Ferrari man 009]

Ferrari man it was heartbreaking watching that race. Lewis was only a Rookie and he was asking to come in but his team told him to stay out. He'd likely be more assertive now but as a rookie overruling your team is a big ask.

Was that the case? I always thought it was the other way round and Hamilton was trying to stretch the stop? If I am wrong I do apologise as it is possible I made a mistake. But either way it was that incident that cost him the title, rather than the issue in Brazil.

[Ferrari man 009]

I am referring to China 2007 - Hamilton lap after lap stayed out on destroyed inters trying to stretch it to his pit window so he could win the race.

You are wrong ferrariman, in China Lewis asked to pit at least twice only to be told to stay out. He wanted to pit at least 2 laps before he did. His reason for wanting to pit was that his tyres were 'shot'

So in light of this info that you can now research yourself to check the veracity after 7 years of not knowing this important fact, is there another example of Lewis focusing on politics and his teammate? I am sure you will agree that you would prefer your understanding to be based on facts

Cookinflat - Do you ever get anything wrong? As I have posted in reply to racechick I may have made a mistake but that was how I remembered it. If I am wrong I will accept it and apologise, but nobody is perfect.

[racechick]

Ferrari man it was heartbreaking watching that race. Lewis was only a Rookie and he was asking to come in but his team told him to stay out. He'd likely be more assertive now but as a rookie overruling your team is a big ask.

Was that the case? I always thought it was the other way round and Hamilton was trying to stretch the stop? If I am wrong I do apologise as it is possible I made a mistake. But either way it was that incident that cost him the title, rather than the issue in Brazil.

No worries. Most reports just say McLaren left him out too long. They stuck to a strategy despite the tyre wear , Lewis saying the tyres were shot and eventually him loosing huge chunks of time. They called him in then but the tyre was down to canvas. It was a damp track and the pit entrance, because it got less traffic than the actual track, was slippier and he was just a bit too fast to take the corner, and there was gravel there. And that was it.

[overboost]

Actually Ferrari man 009 is was Bridgestone who advised the team that Hamilton should have been brought in 2 laps before he did. After the race Hamilton himself confirmed that the lap he pitted was the planned lap.

So you were OK with your post! It is so easy for everyone to forget the details.

Hamilton simply made a mistake taking too much out of the tires and then a mistake putting the car off the track in the pit lane. Alonso on the same tires pitted the next lap without any tire problems.

Both Whitmarsh and Dennis put blame on Hamilton for being too hard on his tires and admitted that they might have called him in a lap earlier.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/o ... rts.sport2

[racechick]

Yes Bridgestone said they should pit Hamilton and Hamilton said his tyre were shot yet Mvlaren chose to leave him out and only called him in when he was losing 7 second a lap to Alonso. And Whitmarsh and Dennis did not put the blame on Hamilton they said he would blame himself.
They should have had him in at least two laps earlier as Bridgestone called it.Whitmarsh saying one lap is just trying to cover the blunder.

Alonso was held up behind Massa for a lot of the race , so wasn't pushing his tyres.

[Ferrari man 009]

Yes Bridgestone said they should pit Hamilton and Hamilton said his tyre were shot yet Mvlaren chose to leave him out and only called him in when he was losing 7 second a lap to Alonso. And Whitmarsh and Dennis did not put the blame on Hamilton they said he would blame himself.
They should have had him in at least two laps earlier as Bridgestone called it.Whitmarsh saying one lap is just trying to cover the blunder.

Alonso was held up behind Massa for a lot of the race , so wasn't pushing his tyres.

Seems maybe a mix of Hamilton not having the experience to make a decision and McLaren either reacting slowly to the situation or trying to apply their strategy too rigidly.

[racechick]

Yes Bridgestone said they should pit Hamilton and Hamilton said his tyre were shot yet Mvlaren chose to leave him out and only called him in when he was losing 7 second a lap to Alonso. And Whitmarsh and Dennis did not put the blame on Hamilton they said he would blame himself.
They should have had him in at least two laps earlier as Bridgestone called it.Whitmarsh saying one lap is just trying to cover the blunder.

Alonso was held up behind Massa for a lot of the race , so wasn't pushing his tyres.

Seems maybe a mix of Hamilton not having the experience to make a decision and McLaren either reacting slowly to the situation or trying to apply their strategy too rigidly.

Yes, that's pretty much it. I'm sure Hamilton's inexperience contributed, he knew the tyres were gone but tried to do what Mclaren were asking, and he almost made it, but misjudged the pitlane being damper. And McLaren ignored advice from the tyre people. McLaren were too fixated with beating Alonso and Raikonnen, neither of which was necessary for the championship.

[Jabberwocky]

I heard a little kid once call it a fachina. How cute.

http://www.facchina.com

[CookinFlat6]

Actually Ferrari man 009 is was Bridgestone who advised the team that Hamilton should have been brought in 2 laps before he did. After the race Hamilton himself confirmed that the lap he pitted was the planned lap.

So you were OK with your post! It is so easy for everyone to forget the details.

Hamilton simply made a mistake taking too much out of the tires and then a mistake putting the car off the track in the pit lane. Alonso on the same tires pitted the next lap without any tire problems.

Both Whitmarsh and Dennis put blame on Hamilton for being too hard on his tires and admitted that they might have called him in a lap earlier.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/o ... rts.sport2

This is what happened in detail, Lewis was asked about his tyres and reported that they were 'shot' Lewis has since confirmed that he wanted to come in and was kept out by the team. Afterwards he didnt blame the team, although the team took full responsibility. Therefore they over rode the drivers request to replace 'shot' tyres. Nowhere did they put blame on Hamilton, nowhere, all they said was that he may have been harder on the tyres than they expected, however he communicated the state of his tyres and the team made the decision to stretch the stint
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2007/10/07/team-and-driver-errors-caused-hamiltons-retirement/

While McLaren accepted their mistake in not bringing Hamilton in, the Briton apologised for losing control of his car on the way into the pits.

But when they analyse the mistakes that led up to his retirement from the Chinese Grand Prix they will recognise a series of missed opportunities to avoid the DNF.

Hamilton built up a lead very quickly in the opening stages with a series of quick laps:

Lap 2: Hamilton 1’47.6 – Raikkonen 1’48.5 (+0.9)
Lap 3: Hamilton 1’47.6 – Raikkonen 1’48.1 (+0.5)
Lap 4: Hamilton 1’46.3 – Raikkonen 1’47.1 (+0.

This continued up until the final laps before Hamilton’s first stop on lap 14 – Hamilton taking up to 1.2s per lap off Raikkonen (on lap six). But when Hamilton made his pit stop it was clear his front-left tyre was in very poor condition.

Raikkonen waited until his fuel load was lightest before he set his quickest laps – which were all fastest laps of the race up to that point:

Lap 15: Raikkonen 1’45.0
Lap 16: Raikkonen 1’44.3
Lap 17: Raikkonen 1’43.8

When Raikkonen pitted on lap 18 his tyres were in visibly better conditions than Hamilton’s had been – despite starting with more fuel, covering more laps and setting faster laps. Not only that, but he came out of the pits having cut Hamilton’s lead to 4.1s from 9.0.

It’s easy to be wise after the fact, but at this stage McLaren must surely have been alert to the fact that Hamilton was getting marginal on tyres. Nonetheless, Hamilton kept pushing:

Lap 20: Hamilton 1’43.8 – Raikkonen 1’44.3 (+0.5)

By this time several laps had passed since the last of the rain and some drivers further down the order had switched to dry weather tyres. Wurz set a new fastest lap on the 23rd tour on standard grooved tyres.

Up front the leaders were all on worn wet tyres and Hamilton’s plight was becoming clear – he was 1.6s slower than Raikkonen on lap 26 as the rain began again. Twenty seconds further back was Alonso, whose tyres were in even better condition having spent most of the race thus far stuck behind Felipe Massa.

Hamilton’s plight would have been familiar to Alonso – because exactly the same thing happened to him at Shanghai last year. Alonso wore his wet weather tyres out too quickly, had to pit for fresh rubber, and fell behind those who were able to continue on the same worn but hot tyres.

But as the track became slippery once more Hamilton’s situation was looking dire. Raikkonen caught Hamilton and, after a lap and a half of frantic defending by the Briton, passed him. Now Alonso was zeroing in on his team mate:

Lap 28 Hamilton 1’55.6 – Alonso 1’53.6 (-2.0)
Lap 29 Hamilton 1’55.3 – Alonso 1’51.6 (-3.7)

Lap 29 was the critical moment for Hamilton. He was unable to put Jarno Trulli’s Toyota a lap down, his right rear tyre was showing visible signs of damage, he’d been carrying a heavier fuel load for longer than anyone else, and his team mate was 3.7s faster than him. Yet McLaren kept him out:

Lap 30 Hamilton 1’56.8 – Alonso 1’49.1 (-7.7)

Finally the sight of Hamilton losing 7.7s in one lap pushed McLaren into action and the Briton was called in.

He got within one corner of dragging his car into the pit box where fresh dry weather tyres were waiting. But he took a fraction too much speed into the corner, the destroyed rear tyres refused to follow the front wheels around the bend, and the McLaren ground pathetically to a halt in a gravel trap scarcely much wider than the car.

Afterwards Hamilton avoided blaming the team for the bad call and apologised for losing control of the car on the way into the pits:

The tyres were finished, and these things happen. I’m sorry for the team, but I can still do it.

The team accepted responsibility for their mistake. Martin Whitmarsh said:

Quite simply we didn’t call him in. I think with hindsight we left him out a lap too long and I think his tyres were pretty worn.

The weather was pretty changeable at that time and we wanted to make sure that we weren’t taking any risks and that we had to cover Kimi. In the end it was decided we had to come in, but at that stage it was frankly a lap too late.

It was our decision. We were getting the weather information and it was coming and going. We didn’t want to come in and get on the wrong tyre. We took it one lap too long and we regret that now.

It’s the second time Hamilton has found himself on the wrong tyres this year – he switched onto dry weather tyres too early in the European Grand Prix. Was this a risk too far on a day when second or even third place could have made him world champion?

As we can see, Lewis did not just have to run behind Alonso, Alonso was stuck behind Massa and that was why he was able to stick to the pit schedule. When I have the time I will produce the quote that confirms Lewis requested an earlier stop

Lets try and calm down with the history revisionism

[overboost]

Yes Bridgestone said they should pit Hamilton and Hamilton said his tyre were shot yet Mvlaren chose to leave him out and only called him in when he was losing 7 second a lap to Alonso. And Whitmarsh and Dennis did not put the blame on Hamilton they said he would blame himself.
They should have had him in at least two laps earlier as Bridgestone called it.Whitmarsh saying one lap is just trying to cover the blunder.

Alonso was held up behind Massa for a lot of the race , so wasn't pushing his tyres.

Seems maybe a mix of Hamilton not having the experience to make a decision and McLaren either reacting slowly to the situation or trying to apply their strategy too rigidly.

Yes, that's pretty much it. I'm sure Hamilton's inexperience contributed, he knew the tyres were gone but tried to do what Mclaren were asking, and he almost made it, but misjudged the pitlane being damper. And McLaren ignored advice from the tyre people. McLaren were too fixated with beating Alonso and Raikonnen, neither of which was necessary for the championship.

They, Hamilton and McLaren were fixated on beating Alonso as per Dennis's comment, Raikkonen didn't factor in at all as Hamilton needed to beat Alonso to take the championship that day.

"We were unconcerned with Kimi and happy to just let him past. The problem was rain, and Lewis's tyres were in the worst condition. We weren't at all fazed about Kimi; we didn't care about Kimi; we weren't racing Kimi; he was racing Fernando. Kimi winning and Lewis coming second was adequate - but it just didn't work out that way."

[CookinFlat6]

Actually Ferrari man 009 is was Bridgestone who advised the team that Hamilton should have been brought in 2 laps before he did. After the race Hamilton himself confirmed that the lap he pitted was the planned lap.

So you were OK with your post! It is so easy for everyone to forget the details.

Its easy for ferrariman to make a mistake and suggest it was Hamiltons focus on his teammate etc when he could have just followed him, we now see that it was the team that gambled.
Its not so easy to twist the facts and get away with it when Lewis supporters are around though, is it OB? Bridestone was it who advised the team? Lewis didn not tell them his tyres were 'shot'?

This is the actual Guardian report of the race

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/oct/08/motorsports.sport3

Doesnt seem to say much about bridgstone making the call during the race, I have never heard of the tyre maker walking over to the team during the race to make suggestions, it was after the race that Briidgestone said they WOULD have brought him in earlier

In dry conditions races usually unfold in a routine and orderly fashion. But in Shanghai the challenge was more complicated, calling on the competitors to strike the optimum balance between the weight of the fuel load, the grip of the tyres and the wet or drying Tarmac track surface. The real risk in these conditions is being greedy and trying to squeeze too much performance out of your car for too long, as McLaren did with Hamilton, who skidded into a gravel trap and out of the race on his entrance to the pit lane after 31 laps.

"It was tempting to bring him in earlier," said McLaren's chief executive, Martin Whitmarsh, "but there were spits of rain at that point and the threat of another shower. We could have brought him in. Our assessment at the time was wrong, but we thought there'd be a greater risk if we put him on to dry tyres. The circuit was about ready for it but there is always a risk of a driver sliding off on coldish tyres in difficult conditions like that."

In the opening stages Hamilton, having started from pole position, had built up a 6sec lead over Raikkonen after only 10 laps, with the Finn's Ferrari team-mate, Felipe Massa, third ahead of Hamilton's McLaren team-mate, Fernando Alonso. Hamilton made his first refuelling stop at the end of lap 15, briefly dropping to fourth, then climbed back to second before going back into the lead again on lap 19 after Raikkonen made his first scheduled pit stop.

As the race settled back into its rhythm after the first spate of refuelling stops, so Raikkonen stepped up the pressure, trimming Hamilton's advantage to less than 0.1sec on lap 28, the two surviving a brief wheel-banging moment before Raikkonen took the lead, and after Hamilton's untimely exit the Finn was left comfortably in front of Alonso and Massa, with the impressive Jenson Button running strongly in his Honda, relishing treacherous conditions that put a premium on driving skill.

Raikkonen managed to keep using wet-weather tyres until his second refuelling stop and maintained very quick lap times right through to the end of the second stint. Yet whereas the Ferrari driver won with a two-stop strategy, Toro Rosso's rising star Sebastian Vettel made very good use of a one-stop strategy to finish fourth, a performance described as "a fantastic effort" by the team's tyre engineers.

Raikkonen said he had to battle serious understeer at the start of the race which slowed the pace of his Ferrari. "I was one of the last to switch to dry tyres but this was a help as after a little while it began to rain again," he said. "Even after the second stop the understeer came back again but, as before, the situation improved in the final stages."

Bridgestone agreed that this had been a difficult race. "Tyre management and pit-stop timing was very important in the changeable conditions," said Hirohide Hamashima, the director of the company's motorsport tyre development.

Hamilton had driven superbly to take his sixth pole position of the season, handling his McLaren with a deft economy of effort that was as immaculate as it was effective. At the post-qualifying media conference the mood of the weekend was thrown into sharp relief as the Ferrari drivers Raikkonen and Massa - respectively second and third in the final grid order - sat scowling morosely on either side of the elated young Briton. Raikkonen had set the pace throughout the three practice sessions but lost time on Saturday morning with power steering problems.

Alonso was equally furious that he had been unable to match Hamilton's pace in qualifying. The Spaniard climbed from his car and hurled his helmet at the pit garage wall before storming back to the team office in the paddock where he punched a door off its hinges. But some 24 hours later he was smiling at Hamilton's expense. "Today was a very good result for me," he said after finishing second. "I had a battle with Felipe Massa at the start but was not able to get ahead of him by the end of the opening lap. I lost a lot of time due to understeer in his slipstream and just managed to jump him at the final round of refuelling stops which assured me of second place."

[CookinFlat6]

Yes Bridgestone said they should pit Hamilton and Hamilton said his tyre were shot yet Mvlaren chose to leave him out and only called him in when he was losing 7 second a lap to Alonso. And Whitmarsh and Dennis did not put the blame on Hamilton they said he would blame himself.
They should have had him in at least two laps earlier as Bridgestone called it.Whitmarsh saying one lap is just trying to cover the blunder.

Alonso was held up behind Massa for a lot of the race , so wasn't pushing his tyres.

Seems maybe a mix of Hamilton not having the experience to make a decision and McLaren either reacting slowly to the situation or trying to apply their strategy too rigidly.

Yes, that's pretty much it. I'm sure Hamilton's inexperience contributed, he knew the tyres were gone but tried to do what Mclaren were asking, and he almost made it, but misjudged the pitlane being damper. And McLaren ignored advice from the tyre people. McLaren were too fixated with beating Alonso and Raikonnen, neither of which was necessary for the championship.

They, Hamilton and McLaren were fixated on beating Alonso as per Dennis's comment, Raikkonen didn't factor in at all as Hamilton needed to beat Alonso to take the championship that day.

"We were unconcerned with Kimi and happy to just let him past. The problem was rain, and Lewis's tyres were in the worst condition. We weren't at all fazed about Kimi; we didn't care about Kimi; we weren't racing Kimi; he was racing Fernando. Kimi winning and Lewis coming second was adequate - but it just didn't work out that way."

This has nothing at all to do with ferrarimans mistake of placing the failure to win the WDC on Hamiltons decisions. Hamilton wwas fixated on beating Alonso? what did you think drivers are most motivated by? McLaren ignored advice from the tyre people, can you provide proof that this was during the race??

[overboost]

As we can see, Lewis did not just have to run behind Alonso, Alonso was stuck behind Massa and that was why he was able to stick to the pit schedule. When I have the time I will produce the quote that confirms Lewis requested an earlier stop

Lets try and calm down with the history revisionism

The bolded above is rather irrelevant as Lewis in clean air had complete control over his tire wear, he just was to exuberant and took too much out of them to make his pit target. And yes Dennis did say that Hamilton was too hard on the tires and had acknowledged his part in the disaster. No revisionism. Perhaps you just remember it in your own way!

Ron Dennis, McLaren's team principal, said that Hamilton accepted some share of the blame for his failure to finish a race for the first time this season. "I think Lewis drove an excellent race," he said. "This was about how wet the pit lane was, tyre condition - it's just one of those things. He was very keen to maintain the lead and was so comfortable pulling out a gap on Kimi, although I suppose he gave the tyres just a little bit more of a hard time.

"I don't think we did anything dramatically wrong and I don't think Lewis did. But the circuit was much drier than the pit lane entrance and that made the difference. Lewis has been very controlled, obviously disappointed, and he acknowledges his part in the whole thing.

[CookinFlat6]

I am referring to China 2007 - Hamilton lap after lap stayed out on destroyed inters trying to stretch it to his pit window so he could win the race.

You are wrong ferrariman, in China Lewis asked to pit at least twice only to be told to stay out. He wanted to pit at least 2 laps before he did. His reason for wanting to pit was that his tyres were 'shot'

So in light of this info that you can now research yourself to check the veracity after 7 years of not knowing this important fact, is there another example of Lewis focusing on politics and his teammate? I am sure you will agree that you would prefer your understanding to be based on facts

Cookinflat - Do you ever get anything wrong? As I have posted in reply to racechick I may have made a mistake but that was how I remembered it. If I am wrong I will accept it and apologise, but nobody is perfect.

No problem Ferrariman, Lewis wanted to pit and his team made the gamble, a rookie cannot therefore be said to have been fixated and stretching his pitstop to win. The good thing is that you are man enough to admit your mistake and not to resort to twisting and shouting over the next 8 pages despite the presented evidence

[CookinFlat6]

As we can see, Lewis did not just have to run behind Alonso, Alonso was stuck behind Massa and that was why he was able to stick to the pit schedule. When I have the time I will produce the quote that confirms Lewis requested an earlier stop

Lets try and calm down with the history revisionism

The bolded above is rather irrelevant as Lewis in clean air had complete control over his tire wear, he just was to exuberant and took too much out of them to make his pit target. And yes Dennis did say that Hamilton was too hard on the tires and had acknowledges his part in the disaster. No revisionism. Perhaps you just remember it in your own way!

Ron Dennis, McLaren's team principal, said that Hamilton accepted some share of the blame for his failure to finish a race for the first time this season. "I think Lewis drove an excellent race," he said. "This was about how wet the pit lane was, tyre condition - it's just one of those things. He was very keen to maintain the lead and was so comfortable pulling out a gap on Kimi, although I suppose he gave the tyres just a little bit more of a hard time.

"I don't think we did anything dramatically wrong and I don't think Lewis did. But the circuit was much drier than the pit lane entrance and that made the difference. Lewis has been very controlled, obviously disappointed, and he acknowledges his part in the whole thing.

You have already started to twist your original position. You have above a version by Ron Dennis that trys to avoid the team taking the blame, and since then we have a completely different version of events printed in the same paper after things settled down.

Anyway, with respect, and with your credibility and previous form, I have absolutely no interest in debating a 7 year historical event or indeed anything at all with you beyond this point