521 replies to this topic

[juandiego]

It could some nutjob in the stands of Barcelona that was trying to shoot the left front tire out and they were just a crappy shot and hit the wheel rim...hey, at least my version is possible ...unless you've ever found a leprechaun to prove their existence?

It's also possible, right. One thing is sure, though, and I know it for my work, alloys when cracking by internal stressing don't produce sparks.

Hello McFly?

What does it mean? McFly? who's that?
Did you read the rest of the sentence?

Edited by juandiego, 11 May 2010 - 20:56.

[F1Johnny]

No I didn't say the levels are the same, you are taking things out of context to the post I was replying to.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I quoted your whole post which was a reply to:

QUOTE (Twin @ May 11 2010, 20:16)
Webber did well, Vettel lucky/unlucky depeding, Alonso was good, Hamilton very unlucky

And then there's Massa and Button

And you said:

QUOTE (Clatter @ May 11 2010, 12:21)
Button was just as unlucky. Lost position due to a poor pit-stop and stuck behind the most experienced driver on the grid on a track that everyone knows provides no overtaking unless a mistake is made.

It seemed to be saying that "Button was just as unlucky" as the person referred to as being unlucky in Twin's post. I didn't think I took your post out of context.

[Clatter]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I quoted your whole post which was a reply to:

QUOTE (Twin @ May 11 2010, 20:16)
Webber did well, Vettel lucky/unlucky depeding, Alonso was good, Hamilton very unlucky

And then there's Massa and Button

And you said:

QUOTE (Clatter @ May 11 2010, 12:21)
Button was just as unlucky. Lost position due to a poor pit-stop and stuck behind the most experienced driver on the grid on a track that everyone knows provides no overtaking unless a mistake is made.

It seemed to be saying that "Button was just as unlucky" as the person referred to as being unlucky in Twin's post. I didn't think I took your post out of context.

You missed the , which was to indicate a poor performance. I don't agree with that, he was simply unlucky with the pitstop.

[F1Johnny]

You missed the , which was to indicate a poor performance. I don't agree with that, he was simply unlucky with the pitstop.

I see. I misunderstood.

[V8 Fireworks]

What does it mean? McFly? who's that?
Did you read the rest of the sentence?

Mr. Michael J Fox in extremely famous iconic motion picture - a true cinema classic

[loki]

McFly was a friend of Doc Brown.

[halifaxf1fan]

Have you seen the quotes from Whitmarsh today? Still think the failure was from Hamilton excessively wearing his tyres?

well, after almost 50 laps wear cannot just be ignored as a contributing factor, but is it the main cause? MW and BS say no.

the loose lug nut theory seems to not be viable to me as there would have been alot of vibration which hasn't been reported as far as i know. the gravel theory may be a possibility, a piece of gravel could somehow get stuck in the hub? brakes? and then eventually wear a groove in the rim until it failed. a manufacturing defect in the rim is another option and probably the most likely in the case of a catastrophic rim failure. However MW and BS are not the ones to confirm this, that would be up to the manufacturer Enkei and they have so far been silent.

ps. did Hamilton have an off or go offline and drive through gravel at some point during the race?

ps2. sturdy looking rim:

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 12 May 2010 - 02:59.

[Lazarus II]

well, after almost 50 laps wear cannot just be ignored as a contributing factor, but is it the main cause? MW and BS say no.

the loose lug nut theory seems to not be viable to me as there would have been alot of vibration which hasn't been reported as far as i know. the gravel theory may be a possibility, a piece of gravel could somehow get stuck in the hub? brakes? and then eventually wear a groove in the rim until it failed. a manufacturing defect in the rim is another option and probably the most likely in the case of a catastrophic rim failure. However MW and BS are not the ones to confirm this, that would be up to the manufacturer Enkei and they have so far been silent.

ps. did Hamilton have an off or go offline and drive through gravel at some point during the race?

ps2. sturdy looking rim:

You need to take a break Mcfly.

Maybe you can regroup

Edited by Lazarus II, 12 May 2010 - 03:15.

[OO7]

well, after almost 50 laps wear cannot just be ignored as a contributing factor, but is it the main cause? MW and BS say no.

ps. did Hamilton have an off or go offline and drive through gravel at some point during the race?

ps2. sturdy looking rim:

50 laps wear on what? I can only assume you are refering to the tyre and if so I don't see any way in which tyre wear can cause a rim to fail.

Hamilton did not have an off. Going offline but remaining on track or on the paved run-off wouldn't cause a rim failure.

Some of the rear wing supports look very sturdy, but that hasn't prevented them from failing.

[redevil]

So when a rim brakes sparks come out of it? It may well be a leprechaun lightning a cigarette.

In a more serious tone, it can be because of some other reasons related to two appropriate materials clashing at high speed. So in my opinion the spark is a consequence, not the origin.

I still am convinced that the reason why it happened to LH is because of his driving style, tough on his tires. Now, IMO the reason why HIS rim broke could be due to the fact he was the only one hitting the curbs and gravel particularly hard, hence breaking it. You may disagree with it of course.There was a comparison of Button and LH driving styles published on the timesonline.uk.co. In this article the journalist noted that becasue of Button's ability to nurse his tires, that would definetly work in his advantage in a championship where you cannot refuel. And I happen to agree wityh it. I went back on this site and tried to dig it out but since it was published before the beginning of the championship I could not find it. At least I tried.

PS I don't hate LH. The only thing that bothers me is the hype surrounding him and the unique protection he seems lately to be enjoing of. Besides that, I really don't hate him and never bashed him.

[halifaxf1fan]

50 laps wear on what? I can only assume you are refering to the tyre and if so I don't see any way in which tyre wear can cause a rim to fail.

Hamilton did not have an off. Going offline but remaining on track or on the paved run-off wouldn't cause a rim failure.

Some of the rear wing supports look very sturdy, but that hasn't prevented them from failing.

do you need reading lessons? my post is about the cause of the failure if wear is not the main cause.

and my question about Hamilton going off or offline was to see if he had driven through gravel at some point which would help support the gravel theory.

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 12 May 2010 - 20:01.

[OO7]

do you need reading lessons? my post is about the cause of the failure if wear is not the main cause.

and my question about Hamilton going off or offfline was to see if he had driven through gravel at some point which would help support the gravel theory.

You wrote: 'well, after almost 50 laps wear cannot just be ignored as a contributing factor'
Allow me to modify my response:
50 laps wear on what? I can only assume you are refering to the tyre and if so I don't see any way in which tyre wear can contribute to a rim failing.

I know why you asked about him going off or offline. He definately didn't go off, he may have gone offine. There is no evidence of Lewis going offline however and him going offline is pretty immaterial considering we don't know what caused the rim to fail.

[OO7]

I still am convinced that the reason why it happened to LH is because of his driving style, tough on his tires.

You do realise there was nothing wrong with the tyre? It was the rim that failed.

[GreenMachine]

If I was going to put my money on anything, it would be that the wheel was loose on its hub, and when the brakes were applied for that corner, it moved in such a way as to touch either a suspension pickup point, or a tie rod end (or something similar). At that point, what ever it was touching would slice through the rim like a hot knife through butter. Alternatively, there could have been a problem in the upright which caused something to touch the rim in similar fashion.

If it was the former, we probably won't hear it confirmed. If it was the latter, we certainly will not hear anything more.

Nevertheless, I would love to have my curiosity satisfied.

[juandiego]

Mr. Michael J Fox in extremely famous iconic motion picture - a true cinema classic

McFly was a friend of Doc Brown.

Thank you both for the tip.

[...] By the way, I don't think if it was the wire bead, LH's driving style is sure to blame because I guess it would affect just the tread and shoulder of the tyres, not the bead zone.

Hello McFly?

Ah!, Ok. "Back to the future", now I see. As if I were incapable to understand, right?
Did you notice that the text you highlighted actually states just the opposite to what is said in the whole sentence, genious?

Edited by juandiego, 12 May 2010 - 11:54.

[OfficeLinebacker]

So when a rim brakes sparks come out of it? It may well be a leprechaun lightning a cigarette.

In a more serious tone, it can be because of some other reasons related to two appropriate materials clashing at high speed. So in my opinion the spark is a consequence, not the origin.

Right, the point being, it's not the consequence of a deflating tyre, it's the consequence of some failure of one of the hard parts.

[Lazarus II]

I still am convinced that the reason why it happened to LH is because of his driving style, tough on his tires. Now, IMO the reason why HIS rim broke could be due to the fact he was the only one hitting the curbs and gravel particularly hard, hence breaking it. You may disagree with it of course.There was a comparison of Button and LH driving styles published on the timesonline.uk.co. In this article the journalist noted that becasue of Button's ability to nurse his tires, that would definetly work in his advantage in a championship where you cannot refuel. And I happen to agree wityh it. I went back on this site and tried to dig it out but since it was published before the beginning of the championship I could not find it. At least I tried.

PS I don't hate LH. The only thing that bothers me is the hype surrounding him and the unique protection he seems lately to be enjoing of. Besides that, I really don't hate him and never bashed him.

Son of Sam, Jeffery Dahmer, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy they were all convinced they were right too.

Sorry to tell you, but you're not right either. You may very well be convinced, but you're not right.

[Hairpin]

I fail to understand why it is an issue. Maybe his style is harder on the tires than for instance Button, maybe not. But let's assume for a moment that he is. Is it reasonable to assume that a tire will explode all of a sudden without giving the driver any indication that it is in bad shape? Anyone remember the famous Senna-Mansell battle in Monaco 100 years ago? I was working as a waiter at a go go bar in Monaco at that time and we saw it first hand, although Mathilda's pleasures caught most of my attention, that Mansell got a puncture. Nigel limped to the pits will i served Mathilda another Bloody Mary and Senna sailed off into the distance. Nigel stormed out of the pitlane just behind his mustache and started to chase the good Ayrton. Hopeless task, we thought Mathilda and me. She started to dance on the table and I served her Gin & Tonic. But Mansell activated all his 4 turbos and lapped I think more than 5 seconds quicker than Senna and before Mathilda could say "pour me a cab I can't drink no more" his mustache was right at Sennas gearbox. Half a lap later Nigel arrived with his car. I kid you not, the difference in speed was more than 5 seconds per lap.

How much faster was Nico with his new tires? 1.5 seconds? And that against cars that had done 40 laps or more on their set.

If a tire does not degrade in performance before it suddenly goes BOOM, Bridgestone much alter it's formula because because then the only way to know what state they are is to stop. You have to get out of the car, kick the tires and have a cigarette. Imagine the rage on this board had Lewis done exactly that.

I do not think it is supposed to be like that. It is much more likely that something damaged something and therefore the tire blew. I mean, you can get punctures at second lap or even the first as Kimi learned at Interlagos last year when Sutil put his nose were it did not belong.

Bottom line is: The tire was not supposed to explode like that, regardless of the driving style. So why try to blame Lewis?

Edited by Hairpin, 12 May 2010 - 23:27.

[baddog]

It is ludicrous to suggest a wheel rim failed because of general driving style. An actual impact or very severe constant bouncing yes, but that would be evident to all.

Lewis does chew up his fronts, whatever he says about it, but this was not his fault.

[KateLM]

Has anyone else watched the race edit on the official F1 website? Definitely one of their better ones, including a lot of the incidents that were missed in the race, such as Button and Vettel's pitstop troubles, and some decent radio transmissions.

[Biggles Flies Undone]

I seem to remember the wheel man changed the gun during the pit stop in an attempt to avoid a rerun of Button's botched stop.
Perhaps the wheel was torqued incorrectly allowing excess lateral movement and hence rim stress ?
Maybe a Spanish member can advise as they appear to be the self proclaimed tyre experts.

Sounds like I was on the right path. Martin Whitmarsh from the Monaco press conference:

"The wheel failure was the consequence of backing off of the clamping load with the wheel nut. You try and investigate and it is always difficult to know exactly why that is, I think it is a range of things. Being on bottom end of tolerance. I think the air regulator that drives the air wrenches was perhaps erratic. The gun was within tolerance but at the lower end and maybe the gun stayed on a little shorter than it could have done, so all those things meant that the wheel was able to flex. When it does that it rubs on the brake drum, gets hot, leaves the properties of the magnesium and leads to a failure."

[Hairpin]

Warning! Fake quote below

My theory is as follows:

The wheel failure was the consequence of backing off of the clamping load with the wheel nut. You try and investigate and it is always difficult to know exactly why that is, I think it is a range of things. Being on bottom end of tolerance. I think the air regulator that drives the air wrenches was perhaps erratic. The gun was within tolerance but at the lower end and maybe the gun stayed on a little shorter than it could have done, so all those things meant that the wheel was able to flex. When it does that it rubs on the brake drum, gets hot, leaves the properties of the magnesium and leads to a failure.

Imagine the abuse you would have got if you said that