petty bickering about a racing incident that happened 10 years ago thread

[fredman]

Well, Lewis Hamilton only won the WDC because he was in the best car.

Woops, sorry. Ment to post this next year.

Sorry, but just because you are in the best car does not automatically mean you will win the championship.
Assuming both Mc's are equal, why is Heikki NOT a championship contender ?

[PolePosition_1]

Yes it does....

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2007/03/2...heel-steering/

"Of all the exotic technologies to be banned from Formula 1 through the years, four wheel steering could perhaps be the only innovation to have been developed after it was outlawed.

The FIA made clear early in 1993 that ‘driver aids’ would be banned for 1994. A range of technologies were included in that all-encompassing phrase including one not yet in use - four-wheel steering.

Although front-and-rear-wheel steering appeared on road cars such as the Honda Legend and Mitsubishi 3000 GTO, it would never be raced in Formula 1. But late in 1993, despite knowing it would be illegal in a matter of weeks, Benetton gave the system a go anyway - and came damn close to racing it.

Following his second Grand Prix win in Estoril, Portugal in 1993, Michael Schumacher stayed on at the circuit with the Benetton team to test a new ‘C’ version of the Cosworth-powered B193.

The major addition to this car was a hydraulically operated rear steering rack, which Moog electro-valves able to alter the steering angle of the rear wheels by two degree in either direction.

In an attempt to minimise any safety implications the hydraulics were designed to go into a preset ‘fail safe’ position in the event of failure, pointing the wheels straight.

The system was also designed to be turned off and on at will, allowing the driver to run the car with a conventional front wheel steer set up if he preferred.

And in the event that was exactly what drivers Schumacher and Riccardo Patrese did prefer, finding the four wheel steer set up added nothing to the car in terms of laptime. But it did, as far as Patrese was concerned, produce an unusual handling sensation.

The lap times testified that if the system added any to the car’s performance, it wasn’t very much. Schumacher said:

'It feels very good, but actually it doesn’t change things a lot. I am using the same lines and there isn’t a lot of movement at the rear. It makes it a little easier, but right now the system doesn’t work very well in the slow corners, so we might not use it in Adelaide'

They didn’t use it in Adelaide or Suzuka. Schumacher ran it in testing on Friday morning at Suzuka, and then turned the system off.

But Benetton’s failure to find any advantage with the system didn’t change the FIA’s decision to ban it"

So there you have it, in black & white, evidence that Benetton were working on systems late in 1993 that you claim they wouldn't have been.

Totally missed my point. I said "To get the system fully implemented and functioning for 1994, they'd have had to have continued working on the system much past June 1993."

If they continued working past this date KNOWING it was illegal, then why invest resources unless they weren't planning to use it in races?

So I never claimed they didn't work on it past June 1993, I was saying to get LC fully working they'd have had to work on it much past June 1993, when it was legal, even if as you claim it was July 1993, my point still stands, they'd have had to work on it after that point.

Surely if they worked on it knowing it would be illegal implies they planned using it in races. Why invest time and resources to something your never going to use.

[PolePosition_1]

Hold on....Massa went from third to first at the start in Hungary this year....Hamilton went from 4th to 2nd at Silverstone this year...

...I remember Prost going from 4th to 1st into Copse in 1987, long before traction control first existed on an F1 car....

...I remember Senna going from 4th to 1st into Copse in 1985....

One great start doesn't prove anything other than it was a great start.

It certainly isn't the basis for a sound argument, nor does the video link you provided prove anything untoward whatsoever.

No, but great starts such as that as well as suspicion from all over the paddock that LC was being used does imply it they had it.

Plus fact that Benetton were one of the teams being investigated for LC, and at time of video clip I showed you the only team to still have withheld evidence about their systems to the FIA.

It does imply they were using LC.

[SGWilko]

If you work in IT, then you would have some understanding that TC & LC are just computer programs, which don't add weight to a car, and have no physical form, so forgive my sceptism at your alleged knowledge but from what you have posted I have my doubts that you know the first thing about it.

I work in IT, and I have absolutely cock all idea of how to implement a TC or LC system on an F1 car.

If you want your BES server upgraded from 3.6 to 4.1, using the knife edge cutover method however, I'm your man!!

[Knock-on]

Sorry, but just because you are in the best car does not automatically mean you will win the championship.
Assuming both Mc's are equal, why is Heikki NOT a championship contender ?

Sorry Fredman, you're a little new round these here parts.

I should have wrapped it in a [scarcasm]...[/scarcasm] post

Personally, I believe that the McLaren and Ferrari are very similar this year with the Ferrari being the slightly better car.

As for which driver in the Mac comes out on top, I think Heikki is a good driver but not in Lewis's league.

[PolePosition_1]

If you work in IT, then you would have some understanding that TC & LC are just computer programs, which don't add weight to a car, and have no physical form, so forgive my sceptism at your alleged knowledge but from what you have posted I have my doubts that you know the first thing about it.

Thats a very typical view point of people in general. I work in IT so I know EVERY field of IT technology.

But IT is a large area, I'm familiar with computers and how they work, and that LC and TC would be controlled by software which can be set accordingly, however I'm not at all familiar with the engineering or mechanical aspects - its not my field.

I suppose being from a non-IT background your slightly naive to the depth of IT and how specialised it is.

You claim to have worked for an F1 team, I would have thought it'd be common knowledge for you to realise that LC software would have to be integrated into the full dynamics of the computer on board for it to work, even if directly totally seperate programmes! On that basis I could say I feel sceptism towards your claim you worked for an F1 team.

[Knock-on]

I work in IT, and I have absolutely cock all idea of how to implement a TC or LC system on an F1 car.

If you want your BES server upgraded from 3.6 to 4.1, using the knife edge cutover method however, I'm your man!!

There are a few ways to do TC and LC.

I suppose the traditional way is by using sensors controlling wheel spin and adjusting the level of acceleration accordingly.

However, even with a sealed, standard ECU, it wouldn’t take a lot of imagination to use the diagnostic software to control throttle and brake input. All you need is a set of rules for maximum increase of RPM for example and if this falls outside these parameters, you could limit fuel without affecting the sealed ECU.

Diagnostics can run thousands of times a second and will probably be encompassed in a solid state sealed box that would be almost impossible to dissect as the FIA found out last time they tried.

Bear in mind that Ferrari (for example) has a huge WinTel infrastructure with an inordinate processing capability but would not use the windows OS which would be relatively simple to disseminate and identify additional code inserted as a ghost subroutine to control TC / LC. However, if you were using a cut down version then you could get away with whatever you wanted. The footprint of MS OS are well known and the alteration of one byte, or even bit, could be identified relatively easily but only on standard versions.

The big problem is that even if a standard MS OS were used, the code on top would have to be picked apart and each routine examined to understand its role. Even then, you would have what looks and operates like legitimate functions combining with other functions to produce something completely different.

We are talking about millions of lines of code being individually examined.

Personally, I would not use such a Mickey Mouse system but would compile a bespoke OS and have the applications written in a more specialized machine code specifically designed to be used for dedicated processes as then it would be more predictable. A standard OS is designed to be used for many different functions but a compiled code written in something like FORTRAN on top of a basic OS is much more efficient and dedicated. The only problem with this is that it’s a bit more difficult to hide processes in something like this as they tend to stick out a mile.

So, to hide a subroutine that controls TC and LC is pretty easy.

Getting away with it is slightly more difficult though as telemetry can be examined and suddenly a driver changed throttle positions a thousand times a second might look a little dodgy so you would have to make it a little more subtle.

However, if we apply the forum (read FIA) rules to this, we cannot actually PROVE a team is cheating as we cannot see the physical code. However we can see that a driver has turned into a computer and is suddenly making adjustments at a rate that would make Steve Austin’s eyes water.

Has anyone been using this so far this year and have the FIA noticed and had a little word after Monaco.

THERE IS ABSOLUTLY NO PROOF OF THIS AT ALL!!

But… which drivers struggle without TC.

The way I see it, a team tends to be pretty standard throughout a season. Barring breakdowns, drivers generally perform to a level and if anything is being played with that shouldn’t be, I would look at drivers that are up and down like a Yo-Yo for no obvious reason.

Are TC and LC possible today?

Yes, it’s very simple and very illegal.

(PS. Backup, Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity, I'm your man )

[PolePosition_1]

The move was not introduced in June, Mosley initially announced that he wanted to see 'driver aids' banned for 1994 in June 1993, but the actually announcement was not made until the end of the following month.

Just out of interest, which F1 team were you part of the design team for in 1993?

The one I worked for started work on its 1994 car in May that year.

So your point does not stand.

Again.

Even if as you say it was introduced in July 1993, it doesn't make a difference. Its one month. If you said January 1994 fair enough, you'd have a point but you don't.

For the system to work, they'd have had to design, research, build it and finally test it on the final version of the car.

Unless their 1994 car was ready by July 1993, your point doesn't stand.

Again.

Even if as you say it was introduced in July 1993, it doesn't make a difference. Its one month. If you said January 1994 fair enough, you'd have a point but you don't.

For the system to work, they'd have had to design, research, build it and finally test it on the final version of the car.

Unless their 1994 car was ready by July 1993, your point doesn't stand.

Again.

You don't get it do you?

There was no compulsion within the regulations to get rid of the existing ecu programs, they were just not to be used. The progams were already fully integrated, so there was no benefit to removing them totally as it would have had no implication for the performance of the electronics which were still legal....it had had no performance disadvantage on those electronics in 1993.

Therefore, some 1994 cars carried over the already proven ECU's from 1993. Benetton were not alone in this....Ferrari did the same.

Mclaren had to change their engine management ECU as they had a new engine supplier, but they kept the gearbox ECU, which was also investigated and for which they also delayed the hand-over of the source codes to the FIA.

This is why the FIA insisted on the standard ECU for 2008. They learnt the lessons of 1993/1994.

For the system to work, they'd have had to design, research, build it and finally test it on the final version of the car.

Unless their 1994 car was ready by July 1993, your point doesn't stand.

Again.

See above post.

There was no need to design anything, no need to research anything, no need to build anything and no need to test it.

It was just switched off.