Should they have pitted Kimi... - Page 2

mp356a · 29 May 2005, 16:32 (Ref:1313753)

I'd also say that the risk needed to be taken. I mean, wow, one lap to go?
Excellent slow motion coverage of that wishbone failure too! Great race but I do feel bad for Kimi. He did a terrific job of driving around that wounded tire until, of things, the suspension puked.
Two weeks is too long to wait for the next round!
Mike

Rennen · 29 May 2005, 16:39 (Ref:1313759)

Bet the engineers on the factory test-rig car put their goggles on several laps before the end!

Logrence · 29 May 2005, 16:42 (Ref:1313761)

What are the specific rules for changing a tyre? I was under the impression the tyre had to fail before you could change it.

Kempi · 29 May 2005, 16:49 (Ref:1313771)

No. You can change before that. The tire will then be analysed and if it does not look like it would have failed any time soon, the time is penalized.

Louis B. · 29 May 2005, 16:58 (Ref:1313780)

The flat spot "scar" on the tyre was already visible at KR's last pit stop. My reaction at the time when the vibrations were first noted on TV was that they should change it. I thought that the reason they were keep going on with it was that they wre precluded to do so by the regulations. It was clear to me that something was about to let go with such an amount of vibrations. As a matter of fact, Raikonnen was lucky that it did not happen before.

**Adam43** · 29 May 2005, 17:00 (Ref:1313782)

If they had stopped hey would have had little chance of the win. I suspect the consideration was not what the rules allowed, more that they wanted the win.

Louis B. · 29 May 2005, 17:02 (Ref:1313784)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

I'm more with Brundle that James on this. No the risk needed to be taken.

It does not surprise me.

Logrence · 29 May 2005, 17:04 (Ref:1313785)

All or nothing, I can respect that.

Louis B. · 29 May 2005, 17:18 (Ref:1313797)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logrence

All or nothing, I can respect that.

Not when you still have hopes for the championship! The call would have made more sense 3 years ago when P1 gave 10 points against only 6 for P2 and 4 for P3. Raikonnen now needs to finish ahead of Alonso for up to 4 races just to get back where he was before this GP if you compare with what would have been the result had he stopped to change his tyre. This not a question of hindsight but of probabilities. The odds were clearly against Kimi. Bad race management by Mclaren if they were in fact entitled to change the tyre before!

Logrence · 29 May 2005, 17:26 (Ref:1313808)

It's not the last race of the year, we're not even halfway through yet. I wish people would stop talking about the championship like it's signed, sealed and delivered.

I think McLaren took entirely the right decision there.

Louis B. · 29 May 2005, 17:37 (Ref:1313824)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

I think the damage to the suspension was done before they could react. No point in changing a tyre then.

This kind of belief is incorrect and might explain why so many of you think the risk was worth running. The suspension was working perfectly as one would expect it with a tyre no longer circular.

What are those race engineers paid for?

JeremySmith · 29 May 2005, 17:38 (Ref:1313826)

Correct decision by McLaren to keep Kimi out, Thankfully no one was hurt. And this championship is not over by a long shot.

Kicking-back · 29 May 2005, 17:40 (Ref:1313830)

If the race was one lap shorter, and it had broken on the slow-down lap, everyone would have been saying they had been very clever to keep him out.

20/20 vision hindsight was not available to the team when they made the decision.

BootsOntheSide · 29 May 2005, 17:49 (Ref:1313838)

The tyre didn't fail - the vibrations from it caused the suspension to fail. Once it had been weakened by a few laps of that, there's no guarantee that it would have survived the rest of the race - and I suppose the team would have the telemetry confirming this. Ron has been quoting as saying they discussed it and Kimi now feels they made the rigth decision to go for it.

mike bt · 29 May 2005, 18:06 (Ref:1313855)

It's all well and good saying that Kimi was right to continue no matter what, but it could have been very nasty....he almost took out Jenson. What would everyone have thought about the decision then?

gfm · 29 May 2005, 18:12 (Ref:1313863)

... or Kimi's wheel into the crowd, doesn't bear thinking about.
But as a ex-racer, I have to say theres no way I'd have stopped. I bet one of the things Kimi said to Ron when he got back was, "You know - I was hardly using the brakes at all!"

Russ-Turner · 29 May 2005, 18:13 (Ref:1313865)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike bt

It's all well and good saying that Kimi was right to continue no matter what, but it could have been very nasty....he almost took out Jenson. What would everyone have thought about the decision then?

Jenson himself probably wouldn't be too bothered getting took out of tenth. Shocking pace! but that's another thread.

Russ-Turner · 29 May 2005, 18:15 (Ref:1313871)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gfm

... or Kimi's wheel into the crowd,

F1 wheel tethers can withstand 50kN's. Used to be 30 but they got beefed up last season.

Louis B. · 29 May 2005, 18:56 (Ref:1313901)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

The tyre didn't fail - the vibrations from it caused the suspension to fail. Once it had been weakened by a few laps of that, there's no guarantee that it would have survived the rest of the race - and I suppose the team would have the telemetry confirming this. Ron has been quoting as saying they discussed it and Kimi now feels they made the rigth decision to go for it.

There is no telemetry on wishbone suspensions and they are made of materials whose very purpose is not to break by fatigue. F1 suspensions are almost invariably broken because one of its elements is bent beyond its maximum braking stress such as as result of a collision or by jumping kerbs too hard, etc. The most probable physical cause of the sudden break here was "resonance" (i.e. the combined effect of the frequency of the vibrations and elasticity of the wishbones which made an element of the suspension bend beyond its capacity).

But for British biais toward a British team, how can anyone of you justifies (i.e. by giving reasons) that the risk of catching up Alonso by 2 points was worth the risks of getting injured or killed in a serious crash (or doing likewise to someone else) and of losing a whole 10 points in the championship race?

**Adam43** · 29 May 2005, 19:00 (Ref:1313903)

Drop the British bias. I dare say it has nothing to do with it for any of the Brits here - or even the non-Brits.

A cheap shot with no relevance. This is a racing bias from most, even if you want to class it not worth the risk.

Kimi and McLaren chose to stay out there. I'd have done the same. Many would.

**Adam43** · 29 May 2005, 19:08 (Ref:1313907)

Poll added. Would you have pitted Kimi? (or pitted if you were Kimi?). Yes or No.

Try to ignore hindsight!

Louis B. · 29 May 2005, 19:28 (Ref:1313917)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Drop the British bias. I dare say it has nothing to do with it for any of the Brits here - or even the non-Brits.

A cheap shot with no relevance. This is a racing bias from most, even if you want to class it not worth the risk.

Kimi and McLaren chose to stay out there. I'd have done the same. Many would.

I don't blame Kimi and I would not blame you for having stayed out there as it is the race driver's job (and the adrenaline is there) to go as fast as he can irrespective of the conditions. I have yet to see a valid reason for not having ordered Kimi in. If Kimi had won, I would have said the same thing adding that he was extremely lucky. Too many of you argue points without giving any reasons at all in support thereof or without reconsidering their position or debatting the others' points to the contrary. In this regard, I note with much regrets that you still haven't given any reason in support of your position that to let Kimi in was a good decision.

**Peter Mallett** · 29 May 2005, 19:33 (Ref:1313920)

It doesn't matter whether its good or bad. The point is that to kepp him out there was the only decision a race team can make. You don't pull out of the lead unless you can be absolutlley certain your car will fail. I alluded to Adelaide 1986, when the Wiliams team new the tyres were on the edge. They didn't call Mansell in because he was in third place and on course for the championship. As we all know the tyre blew and Prost took the WDC.

What would Mansell have done if he'd been brought in?

Inigo Montoya · 29 May 2005, 19:36 (Ref:1313922)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louis B.

This kind of belief is incorrect and might explain why so many of you think the risk was worth running. The suspension was working perfectly as one would expect it with a tyre no longer circular.

What are those race engineers paid for?

Ahhh you know this for a fact then... Carry on

Louis B. · 29 May 2005, 19:38 (Ref:1313923)

Peter Mallett,

What about Damon Hill stopping out at his pit even though he was still in the lead after he was hit by Shumacher in 1994 or so???

What about Trulli stopping after he jumped the curbs in Monaco???

What about JV letting Damon Hill by in Australia 1996?

And many more examples of drivers who lost position as a result of playing it safe.

View Poll Results: Trying to ignore hindsight, Would you have pitted Kimi?
Yes.	28	22.40%
No.	97	77.60%
Voters: 125. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Another Kimi-Ferrari rumour: TGF's seat is Kimi, or Ferrari pays $5million (merged)	Dixie Flatline	Formula One	88	3 May 2006 21:17
Would Kimi have won?	Wrex	Formula One	39	28 Jul 2004 10:25
Kimi ?!?!?	Speed	Formula One	13	7 Mar 2004 17:45
Can Kimi win from 8th?	Ralf	Formula One	33	12 Oct 2003 05:00
Well done Kimi and JPM	Damon	Formula One	20	29 Jul 2002 09:08