PDA

View Full Version : petty bickering about a racing incident that happened 10 years ago thread



ShiftingGears
8th August 2008, 09:32
There! I started one. Resume arguments here.

PolePosition_1
8th August 2008, 09:42
There! I started one. Resume arguments here.

Schumacher shouldn't have won the 1994 title in an illegal car, and deliberately pushing Damon Hill off the track to take the title after he messed up.

ArrowsFA1
8th August 2008, 09:52
There! I started one. Resume arguments here.
:laugh: :bounce: :beer:

ArrowsFA1
8th August 2008, 10:17
Ferrari's Lorenzo Bandini deliberately took BRM's Graham Hill out of the race to ensure that Ferrari team leader John Surtees would win the 1964 Drivers' Championship ;)

Valve Bounce
8th August 2008, 10:19
SchM running Mika into a concrete wall in Macau? Anyone remember that?

Valve Bounce
8th August 2008, 10:20
Sorry, double post. :(

Valve Bounce
8th August 2008, 10:23
What the heck is happening in this forum, I post and nothing happens, then I post again and I get multiple posts? I have been getting extreme Vertigo attacks for the last three weeks, but this is crazy!! :(

BDunnell
8th August 2008, 10:46
I still think it's disgraceful the way Rene Arnoux deliberately tried to run the glorious Ferrari of Gilles Villeneuve off the road time after time in the closing laps of the 1979 French GP. Absolutely appalling and not entertaining in the slightest.

Knock-on
8th August 2008, 10:52
Well, Lewis Hamilton only won the WDC because he was in the best car.

Woops, sorry. Ment to post this next year. :D

Vitesse
8th August 2008, 11:04
And what about the way Fangio bullied Peter Collins into handing over his car in 1956?

Or Stirling Moss winning the 1958 World Championship after getting Hawthorn disqualified in Portugal ..... oh, hang on .....

jens
8th August 2008, 11:30
All the WDC's are worthless, because the champions had a top car in their use.

ioan
8th August 2008, 12:18
All the WDC's are worthless, because the champions had a top car in their use.

End of story! Someone send all the trophies over to Yuji Ide!

wedge
8th August 2008, 13:02
Schumacher shouldn't have won the 1994 title in an illegal car, and deliberately pushing Damon Hill off the track to take the title after he messed up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfby7GaMXmo

Racing incident, two drivers fighting for the same piece of asphalt.

All very easy to point the finger at Schumi but not at Hill.

Hill came from nowhere and wasn't even ahead of Schumi.

You can easily argue it was dumb move from Hill because he bounces off the kerbs and into Schumi, not to mention Hill did a similar move at Silverstone '95.

And at the end, Hill was gracious in defeat and still is today.

Knock-on
8th August 2008, 13:58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfby7GaMXmo

Racing incident, two drivers fighting for the same piece of asphalt.

All very easy to point the finger at Schumi but not at Hill.

Hill came from nowhere and wasn't even ahead of Schumi.

You can easily argue it was dumb move from Hill because he bounces off the kerbs and into Schumi, not to mention Hill did a similar move at Silverstone '95.

And at the end, Hill was gracious in defeat and still is today.

Schumachers car was damaged was it not yet he turned in.

IIRC, Schumy said he had no steering at the time. Hmmmmm!!

As for impartiality, I was a fan of Schumacher until that point in time.

But... This is supposed to be a fun thread :D

PolePosition_1
8th August 2008, 14:52
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfby7GaMXmo

Racing incident, two drivers fighting for the same piece of asphalt.

All very easy to point the finger at Schumi but not at Hill.

Hill came from nowhere and wasn't even ahead of Schumi.

You can easily argue it was dumb move from Hill because he bounces off the kerbs and into Schumi, not to mention Hill did a similar move at Silverstone '95.

And at the end, Hill was gracious in defeat and still is today.


That may pass if Schumacher didn't shunt the wall the previous corner and damage his car.

But to defend your position so aggressively after you shunt your car into the wall isn't very sporting.

And Patrick Head has admitted they'd have made an official complaint if it weren't for Senna's death that season - they didn't want more upset in F1.

PolePosition_1
8th August 2008, 14:56
Schumachers car was damaged was it not yet he turned in.

IIRC, Schumy said he had no steering at the time. Hmmmmm!!

As for impartiality, I was a fan of Schumacher until that point in time.

But... This is supposed to be a fun thread :D


Your posts over last few days do show that great minds do indeed think alike :) lol.

This incident also impacted me big time. I always supported Damon, but that incident reinforced it, and became a huge Damon fan - he acted like a true gentleman with regards to this incident.

And I became a so called "anti-schumacher" from that day onwards - though like to think I can be unbiased.

I then went on to support Montoya because of that move he made on Schumacher in Brazil 2001.

And an Alonso fan from when he beat Schumacher in an inferior car.

wedge
8th August 2008, 14:56
Schumachers car was damaged was it not yet he turned in.

IIRC, Schumy said he had no steering at the time. Hmmmmm!!

As for impartiality, I was a fan of Schumacher until that point in time.

But... This is supposed to be a fun thread :D

What do expect a driver fighting for WDC to do? Retire on the spot?

If any of you had been in Schumi's position you would've done exactly the same thing. You wouldn't give away the WDC that easily.

Part of the art of defensive driving is you have to prepared to go wheel to wheel and not give an inch. Certainly you have to draw the line but sometimes that line has a grey area ie. racing incident.

If it was any other set of drivers they would definitely say racing incident eg. Button/DC clash was similar to Adelaide and most people here said it was a racing incident.

Very easy to point fingers at Schumi but it's of the few occasions where I'm prepared to give the benefit of doubt.

That incident was through the sequence of left-right 90degree corners, doubly hard to predict where your opponent is compared to the back straight of Jerez where Schumi was definitely was in the wrong.

PolePosition_1
8th August 2008, 15:06
What do expect a driver fighting for WDC to do? Retire on the spot?

If any of you had been in Schumi's position you would've done exactly the same thing. You wouldn't give away the WDC that easily.

Part of the art of defensive driving is you have to prepared to go wheel to wheel and not give an inch. Certainly you have to draw the line but sometimes that line has a grey area ie. racing incident.

If it was any other set of drivers they would definitely say racing incident eg. Button/DC clash was similar to Adelaide and most people here said it was a racing incident.

Very easy to point fingers at Schumi but it's of the few occasions where I'm prepared to give the benefit of doubt.

That incident was through the sequence of left-right 90degree corners, doubly hard to predict where your opponent is compared to the back straight of Jerez where Schumi was definitely was in the wrong.


Q: What do expect a driver fighting for WDC to do? Retire on the spot?

A: Yes. If you damage your car, you don't keep on defending so aggreesively.

If his engine had blown, you wouldn't have expected him to defend so aggressively, if he'd had puncture, same again - so why is it ok for him to defend when he's damaged his car?

And I can garantuee you I WOULD NOT have done exactly what he did.

I don't see defending like that as a grey area, he overstepped the line...full stop (in my opinion).

Which DC/Button clash are you refering to? They've had a few, but I don't remember any where one had damaged his car and still defended.

And finally, you say "That incident was through the sequence of left-right 90degree corners, doubly hard to predict where your opponent is compared to the back straight of Jerez where Schumi was definitely was in the wrong."

Are you claiming Schumacher didn't know Damon was on the inside of him?

555-04Q2
8th August 2008, 15:07
Schumacher shouldn't have won the 1994 title in an illegal car, and deliberately pushing Damon Hill off the track to take the title after he messed up.

1. The car was not illegal.
2. Hill drove into Michael. Watch the replay.

wedge
8th August 2008, 15:11
Your posts over last few days do show that great minds do indeed think alike :) lol.

This incident also impacted me big time. I always supported Damon, but that incident reinforced it, and became a huge Damon fan - he acted like a true gentleman with regards to this incident.

And I became a so called "anti-schumacher" from that day onwards - though like to think I can be unbiased.

I then went on to support Montoya because of that move he made on Schumacher in Brazil 2001.

And an Alonso fan from when he beat Schumacher in an inferior car.

I remember being disgusted at Schumi after that race but that was largely reinforced by the British media.

Murray Walker gave Schumi the benefit of doubt and initially I thought he was an old fool.

Schumi was absolute genius in 1995 and changed my view.

Schumi is a racer, you don't give an inch to your opponent. That's why you have those fantastic battles with JPM, Ralf and Alonso.

There's a thread on defensive driving. Some drivers could learn a thing or two from Schumi and some things that definitely aren't recommended!

jens
8th August 2008, 15:14
Another can of worms has been opened and I've decided to give my contribution too.

We actually don't know, how damaged the car was after hitting the wall, but after rejoining the track it looked at least drivable and it was a logical decision to defend position.

I'd say the incident was 50-50. If MS's car was really damaged, then why on earth did Hill need to be impatient and rush? Wait for a few more corners and see, how MS's car behaves, then decide, how to attack during the rest of the race. There were a lot of laps still to go.

I'd say it was lack of quick thinking and situation evaluation from Hill's part, while Schumacher adapted to the sudden situation quicker and took the maximum of it.

Knock-on
8th August 2008, 15:17
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfby7GaMXmo

And at the end, Hill was gracious in defeat and still is today.

Damon did indeed take it very well publicly which is to his eternal credit.

Even in private, he just shrugged it off as if to say "we all know what happened and it won't change anything".


Your posts over last few days do show that great minds do indeed think alike :) lol.

This incident also impacted me big time. I always supported Damon, but that incident reinforced it, and became a huge Damon fan - he acted like a true gentleman with regards to this incident.

And I became a so called "anti-schumacher" from that day onwards - though like to think I can be unbiased.

I then went on to support Montoya because of that move he made on Schumacher in Brazil 2001.

And an Alonso fan from when he beat Schumacher in an inferior car.

I have always admired Schumachers ability and that's what made it all the harder.

He had the ability to be the greatest ever but because of things like this, will always be tainted in my opinion.

Monty was great to watch. A real Bar Room slugger who didn't give a sh*t about who's toes he stood on. Could you imagine him and Alonso as team mates :laugh:

Knock-on
8th August 2008, 15:23
Another can of worms has been opened and I've decided to give my contribution too.

We actually don't know, how damaged the car was after hitting the wall, but after rejoining the track it looked at least drivable and it was a logical decision to defend position.

I'd say the incident was 50-50. If MS's car was really damaged, then why on earth did Hill need to be impatient and rush? Wait for a few more corners and see, how MS's car behaves, then decide, how to attack during the rest of the race. There were a lot of laps still to go.

I'd say it was lack of quick thinking and situation evaluation from Hill's part, while Schumacher adapted to the sudden situation quicker and took the maximum of it.

That's a very valid point. With hindsight, knowing as we do now that Schumys car was damaged, it would have been better to wait.

However, when a driver goes off and you see a chance to get past, what driver wouldn't have a go at him?

I'm also pretty sure that Schumacher claimed he had no steering. In that case, how did he push Hill over to the left first of all and when Hill changed to the inside line, steer to the right to crash into him?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQC_LQI1Aiw

But, it's ancient history now and probably better to take Damons lead and let it go.

wedge
8th August 2008, 15:26
And I can garantuee you I WOULD NOT have done exactly what he did.

That makes you a quitter in my book. Pretty sure there's team managers out there who would say the same thing.


Which DC/Button clash are you refering to? They've had a few, but I don't remember any where one had damaged his car and still defended.

Bahrain this year. OK neither car was damaged previously but both fighting for same piece of tarmac.


And finally, you say "That incident was through the sequence of left-right 90degree corners, doubly hard to predict where your opponent is compared to the back straight of Jerez where Schumi was definitely was in the wrong."

Are you claiming Schumacher didn't know Damon was on the inside of him?

What Murray Walker referred to is that there's a single racing line through those corners ie. outside, cut into apex, plus the concrete walls on the inside of corners are like blind spots and Damon came from nowhere.

PolePosition_1
8th August 2008, 15:42
1. The car was not illegal.
2. Hill drove into Michael. Watch the replay.

1: Ok, my bad, car was fully legal when racing, it had illegal parts on it such as traction control, which was fully functional, but they never used it.....

2: Hill was in the inside, Schumacher kept on racing line despite knowing Hill was on inside and had a damaged car.

Make that what you want, but to me thats pretty unsporting attitude to take. I've messed up, damaged my car, may as well take out my opponent.

PolePosition_1
8th August 2008, 15:46
If MS's car was really damaged, then why on earth did Hill need to be impatient and rush? Wait for a few more corners and see, how MS's car behaves, then decide, how to attack during the rest of the race. There were a lot of laps still to go.

I'd say it was lack of quick thinking and situation evaluation from Hill's part, while Schumacher adapted to the sudden situation quicker and took the maximum of it.

Because Damon Hill isn't a mind reader and doesn't know. He sees a slow moving Bennetton and makes the most of an opportunity.

How people can actually compliment Schumacher on his fast thinking on this matter.....well I dunno, we obviously have different values.

PolePosition_1
8th August 2008, 15:50
That makes you a quitter in my book. Pretty sure there's team managers out there who would say the same thing.



Bahrain this year. OK neither car was damaged previously but both fighting for same piece of tarmac.



What Murray Walker referred to is that there's a single racing line through those corners ie. outside, cut into apex, plus the concrete walls on the inside of corners are like blind spots and Damon came from nowhere.

In my books, it makes me sporting and honest. What can I say, I wouldn't want to win a title by taking out my opponent unfairly.

Yeah, niether car was damaged....so whats point in even comparing them?

And yeah, Hill was previously 4 odd seconds behind. Yet comes from nowhere because of the speed difference. What Hill meant to do? Come to a standstill and drive behind MS, or go for the inside? Common sense would suggest go for inside.

I honestly cannot understand how people can honestly say MS was in the right on this subject.

ArrowsFA1
8th August 2008, 16:05
And yeah, Hill was previously 4 odd seconds behind. Yet comes from nowhere because of the speed difference. What Hill meant to do? Come to a standstill and drive behind MS, or go for the inside? Common sense would suggest go for inside.
IIRC Hill did not see MS go off track and hit the wall. He came around the corner, saw a slow moving Benetton, felt there was an opportunity and went for a gap. Rather like Jerez MS realised (IMHO) that all was lost (due to the damaged Benetton) and turned in on Hill.

In hindsight, had Hill known, he would have waited and would easily have passed the stricken Benetton, but he didn't know, and as far as he was concerned this was his chance to win the race and the title.

8th August 2008, 16:05
In my books, it makes me sporting and honest. What can I say, I wouldn't want to win a title by taking out my opponent unfairly.

Then you don't understand how an ultra competitive, driven-to-win, mind works.

Motor racing is a ruthless, cut-throat business and nice guys don't win. That news shouldn't be shocking to anyone.

Knock-on
8th August 2008, 16:07
What Murray Walker referred to is that there's a single racing line through those corners ie. outside, cut into apex, plus the concrete walls on the inside of corners are like blind spots and Damon came from nowhere.

I'm sorry Wedge but you can't get away with that one :laugh:

Hill was a few seconds behind him, he knew that.

MS drove left across the track and changed to the righ when Hill did mirroring his move.

;)

PolePosition_1
8th August 2008, 16:17
Then you don't understand how an ultra competitive, driven-to-win, mind works.

Motor racing is a ruthless, cut-throat business and nice guys don't win. That news shouldn't be shocking to anyone.


Theres a difference between being ultra competitive and unsporting.

The basic principles of being competitive lie in competition. To win you have to beat your competition.

Being unsporting, you unfairingly ridding or gaining advantage over your competition in order to win.

So criticise me as much as you like for standing by my values, but I'll never agree and accept unsporting behaviour in F1.

In same way I'm sure most of you would agree an athlete in olympics should be disqualified if taking drugs or tripping over a competitor. Its unsporting. But it seems for some this should be accepted in F1.

Knock-on
8th August 2008, 16:17
Then you don't understand how an ultra competitive, driven-to-win, mind works.

Motor racing is a ruthless, cut-throat business and nice guys don't win. That news shouldn't be shocking to anyone.

That's fine but it's wrong for people to claim there was no intention.

If someone says to me "yeah, OK, he knew that he would lose the place as his car was damaged so he made sure they both didn't finish" then I would at least have respect for the person being honest about it. I may have strong opinions about the incident in question but that's different.

wedge
8th August 2008, 16:20
And yeah, Hill was previously 4 odd seconds behind. Yet comes from nowhere because of the speed difference. What Hill meant to do? Come to a standstill and drive behind MS, or go for the inside? Common sense would suggest go for inside.

I honestly cannot understand how people can honestly say MS was in the right on this subject.

I'm not saying Schumi was completely in the right. It was a racing incident because there's different arguments for and against Hill/Schumi.

It does appear Hill was in the wrong. At first glance its as if he punted Schumi off!

Senna went for the inside at Suzuka 1990. But that doesn't necessarily mean he was in the right (pun not intended) because there was known malicious intent. If Senna kept his mouth shut would he still gotten away with it?

8th August 2008, 16:27
That's fine but it's wrong for people to claim there was no intention.

If someone says to me "yeah, OK, he knew that he would lose the place as his car was damaged so he made sure they both didn't finish" then I would at least have respect for the person being honest about it. I may have strong opinions about the incident in question but that's different.

I think (and it is a theory that some prominent talking-heads have also suggested) that if Michael had a weakness, it was in his split-second moments of judgement.

I do not believe it was premeditated, as I don't believe Jerez 97 was the result of a masterplan, and I don't believe that Schumacher had a moral issue with turning in at that moment purely because he was in racing mode.

To crucify somebody for something premediated, as a believe Senna at Suzuka 90 was (don't have to believe it, he admitted as much) is one thing, but I never thought Michael deliberately carried out any of his controversial moments behind the wheel with the mindset that "this is wrong, but feck it"...I think it was more "Feck! What Can I Do?" panic than evidence of a dark, calculating soul.

It was not pretty, but I really don't believe that in that moment Michael had the ability to remove himself from the instant and think "oh no, best not".

Somebody with that fierce competitive instinct cannot just take time-out until after the event.

If you recall, he was genuinely surprised by the feelings of resentment against him after Jerez 97....which, while in no way endorsing them, does for me make it clear that it wasn't the act of a totally unscrupulous bxxxxxd that many have claimed it was. Same applies to Adelaide 94.

PolePosition_1
8th August 2008, 16:36
I think (and it is a theory that some prominent talking-heads have also suggested) that if Michael had a weakness, it was in his split-second moments of judgement.

I do not believe it was premeditated, as I don't believe Jerez 97 was the result of a masterplan, and I don't believe that Schumacher had a moral issue with turning in at that moment purely because he was in racing mode.

To crucify somebody for something premediated, as a believe Senna at Suzuka 90 was (don't have to believe it, he admitted as much) is one thing, but I never thought Michael deliberately carried out any of his controversial moments behind the wheel with the mindset that "this is wrong, but feck it"...I think it was more "Feck! What Can I Do?" panic than evidence of a dark, calculating soul.

It was not pretty, but I really don't believe that in that moment Michael had the ability to remove himself from the instant and think "oh no, best not".

Somebody with that fierce competitive instinct cannot just take time-out until after the event.

If you recall, he was genuinely surprised by the feelings of resentment against him after Jerez 97....which, while in no way endorsing them, does for me make it clear that it wasn't the act of a totally unscrupulous bxxxxxd that many have claimed it was. Same applies to Adelaide 94.


Me neither, in no way am I suggesting he pre-planned all of this. Adelaide clip, that corner when they hit, in full speed we are talking 1 second max!

Can I take it you believe that Schumacher drove into Hill (or defended) knowhing he was about to lose the title?

wedge
8th August 2008, 16:38
Then you don't understand how an ultra competitive, driven-to-win, mind works.

Motor racing is a ruthless, cut-throat business and nice guys don't win. That news shouldn't be shocking to anyone.

Despite his criticisms on Schumi, DC said he slightly regrets not being more selfish, ignoring team orders. Apparantly after the chequered flag at Adelaide 1998 he said "I'm effing finished doing charity work" over the radio.

555-04Q2
8th August 2008, 16:44
1: Ok, my bad, car was fully legal when racing, it had illegal parts on it such as traction control, which was fully functional, but they never used it.....

2: Hill was in the inside, Schumacher kept on racing line despite knowing Hill was on inside and had a damaged car.

Make that what you want, but to me thats pretty unsporting attitude to take. I've messed up, damaged my car, may as well take out my opponent.

1. Fact. The car was legal.

2. Watch the replay. Hill drove into the side of Michael. How does Michael drive into Hill when he is in front of Hill :crazy: Now Michael into Jacques 1997, that was Michael driving into someone !!!

PolePosition_1
8th August 2008, 16:44
I'm not saying Schumi was completely in the right. It was a racing incident because there's different arguments for and against Hill/Schumi.

It does appear Hill was in the wrong. At first glance its as if he punted Schumi off!

Senna went for the inside at Suzuka 1990. But that doesn't necessarily mean he was in the right (pun not intended) because there was known malicious intent. If Senna kept his mouth shut would he still gotten away with it?

Who do you support?

8th August 2008, 16:47
Can I take it you believe that Schumacher drove into Hill (or defended) knowhing he was about to lose the title?

No, because that's not what I'm saying.

I don't think that, in that split-second, Michael had any other thought than "turn in".

I do not believe he was doing it with the knowledge that he was about to lose the title if he didn't.

I don't think he was capable of making judgements in moments like that. That is the 'weakness' oh his that I'm referring to.

I know from my own (much, much lesser level) racing that I'm more inclined, having made a mistake (and do I make them!) for my first and only reaction to be to get back on line and hold the position than think "I know this will feck him up too".

PolePosition_1
8th August 2008, 16:48
1. Fact. The car was legal.

2. Watch the replay. Hill drove into the side of Michael. How does Michael drive into Hill when he is in front of Hill :crazy: Now Michael into Jacques 1997, that was Michael driving into someone !!!

I've already said.

1: the car was legal. It had illegal components in it which were fully functioning, but they never used it ...make of that what you want. Personally I don't see point in having a system in the car if you not going to use it. But each to their own.

2: Hill was in the inside. Michael kept on racing line knowing he had a damaged car, and driving at a much slower speed than Hill. Hill was on the inside, so of course technically he went into Michael, but Hill had the right of way. MS was driving much slower in a damaged car, you don't defend until collision when your in that position.

Knock-on
8th August 2008, 16:50
I think (and it is a theory that some prominent talking-heads have also suggested) that if Michael had a weakness, it was in his split-second moments of judgement.

I do not believe it was premeditated, as I don't believe Jerez 97 was the result of a masterplan, and I don't believe that Schumacher had a moral issue with turning in at that moment purely because he was in racing mode.

To crucify somebody for something premediated, as a believe Senna at Suzuka 90 was (don't have to believe it, he admitted as much) is one thing, but I never thought Michael deliberately carried out any of his controversial moments behind the wheel with the mindset that "this is wrong, but feck it"...I think it was more "Feck! What Can I Do?" panic than evidence of a dark, calculating soul.

It was not pretty, but I really don't believe that in that moment Michael had the ability to remove himself from the instant and think "oh no, best not".

Somebody with that fierce competitive instinct cannot just take time-out until after the event.

If you recall, he was genuinely surprised by the feelings of resentment against him after Jerez 97....which, while in no way endorsing them, does for me make it clear that it wasn't the act of a totally unscrupulous bxxxxxd that many have claimed it was. Same applies to Adelaide 94.

Very good arguement that I have some sympathy with.

For the record, I don't beleive for one second he is a heartless b***ard and never have. Ruthless B***ard on the track but off it, he seems a genuine and genorous purson.

If I put myself in his position on the grid in '94, I would say to myself:

"If he wants to get by me, he's going to have to come through me and I'm not going to make it easy if he sticks a nose up the inside. He needs to pass me, not the other way around so lets see how far he's prepared to go."

That is being hard and knowing that if he forces it up the inside where there's no room, you will shut the door quite legally.

This is where I have some sympathy because Schumy still had that mindset but was out of it really. He just followed through on his game plan and I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he meant to do it but more through instinct than any rational decision.

However, he did do it and the only thing that weakens his position is the fact he did exactly the same against JV.

Still, it was a long time ago and that's life. Peoples views on MS will not change now but perhaps mellow and accept ;)

555-04Q2
8th August 2008, 16:56
1. The sarcastic response in your previous post made me post point one again. You're assuming something that never was, the case was closed almost 14 years ago ;)

2. How does a car behind have right of way over a car in front of it :?: We should apply that rule to races so we can promote overtaking :laugh: (my sarcastic prompt for the day)

Enjoy your weekend :)

wedge
8th August 2008, 16:59
Who do you support?

I'd like to say that I don't support particular driver because I like to try to come across as impartial but to give it a push it would be the best of the best currently IMO, Lewis, Alonso, Kimi, Kubica and possibly Massa (if I were to be biased I'd say I can't ever see Massa become WDC but there's another side that says he can do it.)

Mansell is my hero and I used to hate Senna. I guess I now have a love/hate relationship with him. Same with Schumi.

wedge
8th August 2008, 17:05
Very good arguement that I have some sympathy with.

For the record, I don't beleive for one second he is a heartless b***ard and never have. Ruthless B***ard on the track but off it, he seems a genuine and genorous purson.

If I put myself in his position on the grid in '94, I would say to myself:

"If he wants to get by me, he's going to have to come through me and I'm not going to make it easy if he sticks a nose up the inside. He needs to pass me, not the other way around so lets see how far he's prepared to go."

That is being hard and knowing that if he forces it up the inside where there's no room, you will shut the door quite legally.

This is where I have some sympathy because Schumy still had that mindset but was out of it really. He just followed through on his game plan and I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he meant to do it but more through instinct than any rational decision.

However, he did do it and the only thing that weakens his position is the fact he did exactly the same against JV.

Still, it was a long time ago and that's life. Peoples views on MS will not change now but perhaps mellow and accept ;)

Very much agree with your assessment there.

Schumi is above all an out and out racer.

Hungary 2006 is good example of this. His inters were worn, going backwards and still defending his position as if his life depended on it. You can question more on his methods but not his motivation/ambition.

speeddurango
9th August 2008, 02:49
Schumachers car was damaged was it not yet he turned in.

IIRC, Schumy said he had no steering at the time. Hmmmmm!!

As for impartiality, I was a fan of Schumacher until that point in time.

But... This is supposed to be a fun thread :D

Oh, Schumy was able to turn in hard into Hill's car with no steering, what an amazing driver, I instantly became a fan of Schumacher from that point in time. :D

D-Type
9th August 2008, 09:05
The fundamental question is whether the collision resulted from a conscious action. To give the issue some perspective, suppose the collision had led to a fatality, which they could have even with the construction of modern cars. In that situation there would be three verdicts you could give:

(1) Murder: A premeditated or planned action
(2) Manslaughter: A deliberate but not preplanned action
(3) Accidental death: There was no deliberate attempt to drive into the other car

Taking the main incidents referred to, my take is:

(1) Suzuka 1980
(2) Adelaide 1998, Jerez 1994, Suzuka 1989 (marginal)
(3) Countless other incidents: Hamilton/Koivalanen this year, Schumacher/Coulthard at Spa, Senna/Mansell (the occasion when Mansell 'had words' with him afterwards), Ascari/Marimon/Fangio/Farina Monza 1953, etc

It is notable how often Senna's name appears in this type of list.

PolePosition_1
11th August 2008, 13:17
1. The sarcastic response in your previous post made me post point one again. You're assuming something that never was, the case was closed almost 14 years ago ;)

2. How does a car behind have right of way over a car in front of it :?: We should apply that rule to races so we can promote overtaking :laugh: (my sarcastic prompt for the day)

Enjoy your weekend :)


1: are you denying the bennetton had traction control on the car?

2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfby7GaMXmo

Go to this clip, pause it on 29 seconds and tell me Hill was behind Schumacher.

He was right up in the inside.

PolePosition_1
11th August 2008, 13:20
Very much agree with your assessment there.

Schumi is above all an out and out racer.

Hungary 2006 is good example of this. His inters were worn, going backwards and still defending his position as if his life depended on it. You can question more on his methods but not his motivation/ambition.

Yeah Hungary 2006 was interesting.

He cut a chicane therefore keeping his position because he cut the chicane.

Was justified by officials that they only penalise becaause he didn't gain a position.

2 years later Hamilton does the same and gets penalised for it.....

.....but thats more of a criticism towards authorities than Schumacher.

ArrowsFA1
11th August 2008, 13:44
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfby7GaMXmo

Go to this clip, pause it on 29 seconds and tell me Hill was behind Schumacher.

He was right up in the inside.
Watching this clip (http://www.youtube.com/v/f7w5dGgLWQo&hl=en&fs=1) just reminds me how painful events were to watch at the time :dozey:

The incident itself was bad enough, but the few minutes afterwards were worse. Hill limping back to the pits. The Williams mechanics examining the car while Hills shakes his head in disbelief as it becomes obvious he can't continue. Meanwhile, MS is out of his car and waiting for news. Hill sits in his car for seemingly an age before getting out and walking away. Immediately afterwards we see the Benetton mechanics celebrating, the tv screen confirms MS is WDC, then a marshall lets him know.

It just seemed such an injustice, and that the wrong man won.

11th August 2008, 14:56
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfby7GaMXmo

Go to this clip, pause it on 29 seconds and tell me Hill was behind Schumacher.

He was right up in the inside.

Look at it on 15 seconds....he was behind with no chance of making the corner without contact.

11th August 2008, 14:58
It just seemed such an injustice, and that the wrong man won.

Whereas if Hill had been gifted a contrived title due to the unjust banning of Schumacher for two races over the Silverstone farce (British marshals at their sporting best....I think not), it would have been perfectly fair?

Garry Walker
11th August 2008, 15:04
(1) Murder: A premeditated or planned action
(2) Manslaughter: A deliberate but not preplanned action
(3) Accidental death: There was no deliberate attempt to drive into the other car

LOL



(2) Adelaide 1998, Jerez 1994, Suzuka 1989 (marginal)
What happened at jerez 1994?
There was no race at adelaide in 1998.



(3) Countless other incidents: Hamilton/Koivalanen this year,
HUH?



Senna/Mansell (the occasion when Mansell 'had words' with him afterwards),
The one where Mansell drove like an idiot?



1: are you denying the bennetton had traction control on the car?


Prove that TRACTION CONTROL was found on the Benetton :)

PolePosition_1
11th August 2008, 15:07
Look at it on 15 seconds....he was behind with no chance of making the corner without contact.

All due respect, but your judging that from a very poor angle, if you use a good angle such as can be seen on 29s.

You can see Hill is clearly up the inside, he is only going into Schumacher because Schumacher continues going for the apex.

So yes I agree, he had no chance of making the corner without contact.....because MS continued turning in, with Hill easily up the inside.

Even if MS hasn't damaged the car, I'd lay the blame primarily with MS, but if you take into account:

a) the speed difference because Schumacher just been off road
b) MS had damaged his car

I just see MS as 100% to blame.

I'm not saying MS pre-planned it, I believe it was purely instincts, it was HIS mistake. He should have been punished accordingly.

PolePosition_1
11th August 2008, 15:09
LOL


What happened at jerez 1994?
There was no race at adelaide in 1998.


HUH?

The one where Mansell drove like an idiot?




Prove that TRACTION CONTROL was found on the Benetton :)

Erm - its common knowledge. Inspections proved traction control (or a similar system resulting in same benefits) was found on the car.

Bennetton denied this, once it was found, they admitted it however said they didn't use it. And thats when they couldn't punish them, because they couldn''t proved they had actually used it.

I'll try find a good link for you to read when I get time so you can catch up on your F1 history :)

PolePosition_1
11th August 2008, 15:11
Whereas if Hill had been gifted a contrived title due to the unjust banning of Schumacher for two races over the Silverstone farce (British marshals at their sporting best....I think not), it would have been perfectly fair?


Well, you break the rules, you get punished.

Though I'll admit that punishment did seem very harsh.

But that said, you could counter that with Bennetton had traction control and weren't punished for it.

11th August 2008, 15:13
All due respect, but your judging that from a very poor angle

I'm judging it from that angle because that is the very same angle that Schumi had.

Hill stuck his nose into a space that was always going to close.

Well, it was always going to be closed by a racing driver. Maybe a Sunday afternoon muppet would have let Hill through, but this was a Formula One race.

Garry Walker
11th August 2008, 15:16
Erm - its common knowledge. Inspections proved traction control (or a similar system resulting in same benefits) was found on the car.

Bennetton denied this, once it was found, they admitted it however said they didn't use it. And thats when they couldn't punish them, because they couldn''t proved they had actually used it.

I'll try find a good link for you to read when I get time so you can catch up on your F1 history :)
I know my F1 history, that is why I am exposing your false claims.

TC was NEVER found on the Benetton, they found Launch Control software. These are different things. In addition, other teams were caught "cheating" too, including the ever-honest McLaren.

11th August 2008, 15:19
But that said, you could counter that with Bennetton had traction control and weren't punished for it.

Which could not be proven (legal note - failure to provide proof of wrongdoing means acquittal), so why punish Benetton doubly harshly for something else?

On both counts, that is not justice.

PolePosition_1
11th August 2008, 15:24
I'm judging it from that angle because that is the very same angle that Schumi had.

Hill stuck his nose into a space that was always going to close.

Well, it was always going to be closed by a racing driver. Maybe a Sunday afternoon muppet would have let Hill through, but this was a Formula One race.

All due respect, but thats not the view Schumi had. MS knew Hill was up there, he's got mirrors, he's a good driver, one of the best to have raced in F1, I don't think anyone will deny MS knew he was there.

Hill went into the inside, when he saw MS had just come back onto the track, was at a much slower speed, and didn't expect MS to turn in on him when he had a broken car travellling at a much slower speed.

Hill had more than enough of a reason to go into the inside. Just look at the footage, his front wheel is just behind MS front wheel BEFORE the apex!

MS knew his car was damaged and he was going to lose the title. Instincts took over and he defended the line knowing Hill had earned the right of way.

PolePosition_1
11th August 2008, 15:26
I know my F1 history, that is why I am exposing your false claims.

TC was NEVER found on the Benetton, they found Launch Control software. These are different things. In addition, other teams were caught "cheating" too, including the ever-honest McLaren.


And you think Launch Control was legal?

Also, calling my claims "false" is a bit far.

Launch control and traction control work from the very same principles of physics.

11th August 2008, 15:27
Well, you break the rules, you get punished.

Though I'll admit that punishment did seem very harsh.

But that said, you could counter that with Bennetton had traction control and weren't punished for it.

"The FIA World Motor Sport Council also considered the report of the FIA Formula One Technical Delegate in respect of the electronic systems used on car #5 (Michael Schumacher) at the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix.

After hearing the representatives of Benetton Formula Ltd., the World Motor Sport Council reached the conclusion that, in common with the other two teams, Benetton's computer system contained a facility capable of breaching the regulations. In the absence of any evidence that the device was used and certain evidence that it was not, the World Council imposed no penalty involving the results of the event.

The World Council imposed a fine of 100,000 US$ on Benetton Formula Ltd for failing to make their computer source codes available immediately. An identical fine was imposed on McLaren for the same reason subject to McLaren's right to demand a hearing in October.

Paris, 26 July 1994"

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=627&FS=F1

On what basis would justice have been served by punishing teams for not using an illegal system?

PolePosition_1
11th August 2008, 15:27
Which could not be proven (legal note - failure to provide proof of wrongdoing means acquittal), so why punish Benetton doubly harshly for something else?

On both counts, that is not justice.

Yeah I agree, if you can't prove something they shouldn't be punished.

But everyone knew they were using it. Its just Bennetton found a loophole and exploited it. The fact that the loophole has since been closed highlights the FIA knew Bennetton were cheating.

If you think thats good fair enough, personally I don't really approve of cheating through a loophole but your entitled to your opinion.

PolePosition_1
11th August 2008, 15:31
"The FIA World Motor Sport Council also considered the report of the FIA Formula One Technical Delegate in respect of the electronic systems used on car #5 (Michael Schumacher) at the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix.

After hearing the representatives of Benetton Formula Ltd., the World Motor Sport Council reached the conclusion that, in common with the other two teams, Benetton's computer system contained a facility capable of breaching the regulations. In the absence of any evidence that the device was used and certain evidence that it was not, the World Council imposed no penalty involving the results of the event.

The World Council imposed a fine of 100,000 US$ on Benetton Formula Ltd for failing to make their computer source codes available immediately. An identical fine was imposed on McLaren for the same reason subject to McLaren's right to demand a hearing in October.

Paris, 26 July 1994"

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=627&FS=F1

On what basis would justice have been served by punishing teams for not using an illegal system?

In a competitive sport like F1.

What is the point in having a system which just complicates things as well as adds weight to your car if you are not going to use it?

11th August 2008, 15:34
All due respect, but thats not the view Schumi had. MS knew Hill was up there, he's got mirrors, he's a good driver, one of the best to have raced in F1, I don't think anyone will deny MS knew he was there.

Hill went into the inside, when he saw MS had just come back onto the track, was at a much slower speed, and didn't expect MS to turn in on him when he had a broken car travellling at a much slower speed.

Hill had more than enough of a reason to go into the inside. Just look at the footage, his front wheel is just behind MS front wheel BEFORE the apex!

MS knew his car was damaged and he was going to lose the title. Instincts took over and he defended the line knowing Hill had earned the right of way.

So the view from Schumacher's car isn't the view Schumacher had????? Don't quite see how you can logically claim it isn't.

Schumachers car had mirrors, yes, but when you are aiming at an apex you certainly don't use them.

The very fact that Hill's front tyre is behind Michael's front tyre before the apex proves the opposite of your claim that it was Hill's right of way.

Michael began his turn-in when the nose of Hill's car wasn't even level with Michael's rear wing.

Pause this video at 1 second. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2n2oeZG43g

ArrowsFA1
11th August 2008, 15:37
Whereas if Hill had been gifted a contrived title due to the unjust banning of Schumacher for two races over the Silverstone farce (British marshals at their sporting best....I think not), it would have been perfectly fair?
"Contrived"? If Schumacher had not overtaken during both warm-up laps then there would have been no issue. Had he pitted to serve his penalty there would have been no black flag.

"Unjust"? Sure, it was initially a minor offence, but it was still an offence and MS and his team made the outcome far worse than it needed to be.

"Gifted"? I don't think so. IMHO Hill would have deserved the 1994 title for many reasons other than the British and Australian GP's.

11th August 2008, 15:38
In a competitive sport like F1.

What is the point in having a system which just complicates things as well as adds weight to your car if you are not going to use it?

Adds weight?

Since when has a computer program weighed anything? An ECU has weight, but a program within that ECU doesn't.

Your computer doesn't weigh more once you've downloaded itunes.

Since the program wasn't used, it didn't complicate anything.

Knock-on
11th August 2008, 15:43
Prove that TRACTION CONTROL was found on the Benetton :)

Launch control was found.

There was a suggestion that TC was also in use because it was part and parcel of the same software although once LC was identified, there was enough evidence to prove they were lying.

Then, after initially claiming it was not on the car, they backtracked and claimed it was but could not be turned on from inside the car.

Then it was proven that by pressing a secret button sequence, it could be turned on and off at will.

11th August 2008, 15:44
"Contrived"? If Schumacher had not overtaken during both warm-up laps then there would have been no issue. Had he pitted to serve his penalty there would have been no black flag.

He, and several others, all did the same throughout the season prior to Silverstone, with no punishment (Michael did in in Interlagos) and with no warnings of future conduct.

So, yes, "contrived" certainly fits the bill.




"Unjust"? Sure, it was initially a minor offence, but it was still an offence and MS and his team made the outcome far worse than it needed to be.


Yes, it was unjust (see above). It was only "just" if you believe that somebody shouldn't appeal a decision that was evidently (see above) unjust and made solely to contrive a result



"Gifted"? I don't think so. IMHO Hill would have deserved the 1994 title for many reasons other than the British and Australian GP's.

Such as not winning as many races as Schumacher? Having no competition for wins in two races? Only being within striking distance (pun intended) because of contrived and unjust marshalling decisions?

Yep, Hill really deserved the title. Just like Yuji Ide deserved the 2006 WDC.

PolePosition_1
11th August 2008, 15:47
So the view from Schumacher's car isn't the view Schumacher had????? Don't quite see how you can logically claim it isn't.

Schumachers car had mirrors, yes, but when you are aiming at an apex you certainly don't use them.

The very fact that Hill's front tyre is behind Michael's front tyre before the apex proves the opposite of your claim that it was Hill's right of way.

Michael began his turn-in when the nose of Hill's car wasn't even level with Michael's rear wing.

Pause this video at 1 second. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2n2oeZG43g


Well, last time I checked, drivers view came from the cockpit, not from the engine cover.

It proves Hill was more than rightly on the inside of the appex.

You (or someone on this thread) was claiming Hill was BEHIND Schumacher earlier!

On a tight corner like that , just after another corner, you wouldn't get a dead heat wheel-to-wheel, Hill being on inside is about as far in on inside you'll get.

Yes, Schumacher turned in once he could see Hill was going on inside. Hill kept it in knowing he had more speed going into the corner. And even when Hill was well into the inside, MS kept turning in, despite having a damaged car and travelling at a much lower speed.

PolePosition_1
11th August 2008, 15:50
Adds weight?

Since when has a computer program weighed anything? An ECU has weight, but a program within that ECU doesn't.

Your computer doesn't weigh more once you've downloaded itunes.

Since the program wasn't used, it didn't complicate anything.

Well the system would have had to have been intigrated with other systems within the car, so it would have complicated things. As the system did actually function.

And I'm not 100% on the actual system, but I would have assumed it would have had its seperate little box somewhere. But I'll let you have that one as I can't be sure on way or another.

11th August 2008, 15:50
Then it was proven that by pressing a secret button sequence, it could be turned on and off at will.

But since there was no proof that anybody had pressed the secret button sequence, justice thankfully prevailed.

An accused man can be deceitful, dishonest & downright lying.......but if there is no evidence that he committed the act he is accused of, that is merely circumstantial.

Garry Walker
11th August 2008, 15:52
And you think Launch Control was legal?
It was not used, therefor there was nothing illegal.



Also, calling my claims "false" is a bit far.
Really? I thought I was being too kind to you there. Your claims were as false as humanly possible, no TC was found on Benetton ever and you kept repeating it like it was a fact.


Launch control and traction control work from the very same principles of physics.But they are still very different, and as no TC was found, you should take back your earlier statements about Benetton being caught with TC.
Unless you in some very complicated process derived that as they had LC, they also surely had TC.




But everyone knew they were using it. Its just Bennetton found a loophole and exploited it. The fact that the loophole has since been closed highlights the FIA knew Bennetton were cheating.

Please prove your claim that Benetton was using TC and LC. That shouldn`t be too difficult, as "everyone" knows they used it, according to you.
If you can`t, I suggest you ask the doctor for a prescription of "shut the hell up".

PolePosition_1
11th August 2008, 15:53
He, and several others, all did the same throughout the season prior to Silverstone, with no punishment (Michael did in in Interlagos) and with no warnings of future conduct.

So, yes, "contrived" certainly fits the bill.



Yes, it was unjust (see above). It was only "just" if you believe that somebody shouldn't appeal a decision that was evidently (see above) unjust and made solely to contrive a result



Such as not winning as many races as Schumacher? Having no competition for wins in two races? Only being within striking distance (pun intended) because of contrived and unjust marshalling decisions?

Yep, Hill really deserved the title. Just like Yuji Ide deserved the 2006 WDC.

If you think having no competitions for wins means he doesn't deserve title,

What do you think of Schumachers Ferrari days where he didn't have any competition. Not even his team-mate?

Did he not deserve those titles?

PolePosition_1
11th August 2008, 15:55
But since there was no proof that anybody had pressed the secret button sequence, justice thankfully prevailed.

An accused man can be deceitful, dishonest & downright lying.......but if there is no evidence that he committed the act he is accused of, that is merely circumstantial.

I tried tihnking of a real-life similar situation but couldn't think of one to be honest.

But I just don't see why Bennetton would invest resources into a system, actually implement it, get it fully functioning, and then not use it?

If you believe they didn't use it, what is your understanding as to why they had it and invested into it?

11th August 2008, 15:56
Well the system would have had to have been intigrated with other systems within the car, so it would have complicated things. As the system did actually function.

No it wouldn't. Having itunes on your computer doesn't interfere with Microsoft Word.



but I would have assumed it would have had its seperate little box somewhere.

If it was integrated, then it doesn't need a seperate box. You don't need a seperate box for the Excel program, or any other computer program.

All it would have needed are sensors, which can be used to monitor other things as well (driveshaft speed, hub speed....all vital telemetry for selecting the correct gear ratios), thereby having dual-purposes and not having additional weight added to them for the job of launch or traction control.



And I'm not 100% on the actual system

Really?

I'd never have guessed.

11th August 2008, 15:59
I tried tihnking of a real-life similar situation but couldn't think of one to be honest.

But I just don't see why Bennetton would invest resources into a system, actually implement it, get it fully functioning, and then not use it?

If you believe they didn't use it, what is your understanding as to why they had it and invested into it?

Because the 1994 car was designed in the summer of 1993, before the ban on driver aids. All the regulations requested were that such driver aids were not used.

That is the reason why the systems were found in the hardware of several teams.

11th August 2008, 16:02
If you think having no competitions for wins means he doesn't deserve title,

What do you think of Schumachers Ferrari days where he didn't have any competition. Not even his team-mate?

Did he not deserve those titles?

Remind me again, which of those five seasons when Michael won the WDC in a Ferrari was another driver leading the championship by 20-odd points before being banned for two races?

It was none, wasn't it?

PolePosition_1
11th August 2008, 16:12
It was not used, therefor there was nothing illegal.


Really? I thought I was being too kind to you there. Your claims were as false as humanly possible, no TC was found on Benetton ever and you kept repeating it like it was a fact.

But they are still very different, and as no TC was found, you should take back your earlier statements about Benetton being caught with TC.
Unless you in some very complicated process derived that as they had LC, they also surely had TC.


Please prove your claim that Benetton was using TC and LC. That shouldn`t be too difficult, as "everyone" knows they used it, according to you.
If you can`t, I suggest you ask the doctor for a prescription of "shut the hell up".


1) And your turn, you explain why they would have invested time and money into a system, implemented it and got it fully functional only to not use it?

2) Well, maybe you stand corrected, Knock On points out TC was indeed found on the car. Or software which could be used for TC.

3) Very different? I'm sorry mate, LC and TC are based on exactly the same principles. Hence when TC was unbanned, it meant LC was automatically allowed as well because they're virtually the same. Different functions, but work exactly the same way.

4) I honestly can't take what you say seriously. I'd respect your opinion more if you were open about it with a "yes they used it, but it wasn't proved, they exploited the loophole and pushing the boundaries is all part of F1"

But for you to admit they had the system, and yet not use it. Well, I may be wrong and don't expect you to accept it, but it makes you come across totally biased.

Even for you to say "look, they had it, they probably did use it, but they shouldn't be punished for something which can't be proved" - I'd understand your side a bit better, and in many respects agree with you.

ArrowsFA1
11th August 2008, 16:17
He, and several others, all did the same throughout the season prior to Silverstone, with no punishment (Michael did in in Interlagos) and with no warnings of future conduct.
It would appear that your argument is with the inconsistency of FIA officials.

It was only "just" if you believe that somebody shouldn't appeal a decision that was evidently (see above) unjust and made solely to contrive a result.
It may have been "evidently unjust" in your opinion, but since there is no proof that anybody made the decision solely to contrive a result, justice thankfully prevailed.

Yep, Hill really deserved the title. Just like Yuji Ide deserved the 2006 WDC.
:laugh:

11th August 2008, 16:19
1) And your turn, you explain why they would have invested time and money into a system, implemented it and got it fully functional only to not use it?

Because it was illegal? Seems a perfectly good reason not to use it.



3) Very different? I'm sorry mate, LC and TC are based on exactly the same principles. Hence when TC was unbanned, it meant LC was automatically allowed as well because they're virtually the same. Different functions, but work exactly the same way.

And neither were proven to have been used, thereby Benetton were conforming to the regulations that stated that they should not be used.

11th August 2008, 16:20
It would appear that your argument is with the inconsistency of FIA officials.

Isn't everyones?

Knock-on
11th August 2008, 16:34
Because the 1994 car was designed in the summer of 1993, before the ban on driver aids. All the regulations requested were that such driver aids were not used.

That is the reason why the systems were found in the hardware of several teams.

Sorry Tamburello but the announcement was mad in Jan 03 I think over a year before the ban.

The simplist explanation is sometimes the best. Benetton had LC (and probably TC as well but this will never be proved).

PolePosition_1
11th August 2008, 16:37
No it wouldn't. Having itunes on your computer doesn't interfere with Microsoft Word.



If it was integrated, then it doesn't need a seperate box. You don't need a seperate box for the Excel program, or any other computer program.

All it would have needed are sensors, which can be used to monitor other things as well (driveshaft speed, hub speed....all vital telemetry for selecting the correct gear ratios), thereby having dual-purposes and not having additional weight added to them for the job of launch or traction control.



Really?

I'd never have guessed.


Yes but having itunes would interfer with the registry of a computer - which is the commands a computer runs off, including Microsoft Word. We can go into this if you want, but I work in IT, I'm not making this up.

And all due respect, but unless your in that field I highly doubt your 100% familiar with the system.

PolePosition_1
11th August 2008, 16:50
Remind me again, which of those five seasons when Michael won the WDC in a Ferrari was another driver leading the championship by 20-odd points before being banned for two races?

It was none, wasn't it?


You complained Hill was only in running for championship because he won when there was no competition.

Well Schumacher won when there was no competition in several seasons.

PolePosition_1
11th August 2008, 16:51
Because it was illegal? Seems a perfectly good reason not to use it.



And neither were proven to have been used, thereby Benetton were conforming to the regulations that stated that they should not be used.

As stated by Knock On, regulations were announced before 1994 cars had started being designed.

So my original question still stands.

jens
11th August 2008, 17:19
It just seemed such an injustice, and that the wrong man won.

We have a different opinion, but IMO a WDC reflects performance over the full season, not just a single race, so therefore I'd say in that year MS deserved the title more and should have clinched it already before Australian GP.

And about British GP 1994, which also seems to create some heat. The pass on the warm-up lap was indeed completely unnecessary, but I personally don't think we should bash MS for ignoring black flag.

Let's recall. MS made his stop & go penalty just a lap (?) after the three-lap penalty implementation limit. During those 3 laps Benetton team members were having a heated debate with marshals (in hope of escaping penalty?) and they continued doing it after MS had served the penalty (in hope of keeping second place even if MS served the penalty a bit too late?). Therefore I think Michael was asked by the team to stay out and keep racing with the hope of escaping penalty (if you go into the garage, there won't be any hope to keep result with the help of protest). So I think it was harsh to punish MS for ignoring black flag with a 2-race-ban.

ArrowsFA1
11th August 2008, 17:35
IMO a WDC reflects performance over the full season, not just a single race.
I'd agree with that, and on that basis MS's performances did deserve the WDC. It just that, given everything that had happened at Williams ("my" team) in 1994, and the way that they and Damon Hill responded, meant that he was equally deserving of a WDC IMHO.

His response to Senna's death, and the way he picked the team up was reminiscent of his father's 1968 title win. This was someone who was thrust into a position, as a 2nd year F1 driver, that he probably wasn't ready for and yet he carried himself with enormous dignity and class under enormous pressure, and against one of the best drivers the sport has seen.

11th August 2008, 17:53
Sorry Tamburello but the announcement was mad in Jan 03 I think over a year before the ban.

The simplist explanation is sometimes the best. Benetton had LC (and probably TC as well but this will never be proved).

The ban on Driver aids were not announced in January 1993.

"If the action on-track was disappointing, off-track the political recriminations were reaching fever pitch. FIA President Max Mosley made his objections to traction control and active suspension explicitly clear when, at the Canadian Grand Prix, he declared the team’s interpretation of the rules to be illegal and promised to ban the technology"

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/f1-information/history/1993-formula-one-season-history-prost-the-champion-senna-the-hero/

11th August 2008, 17:55
As stated by Knock On, regulations were announced before 1994 cars had started being designed.

So my original question still stands.

No it wasn't, so my original answer still stands.

elinagr
11th August 2008, 18:19
what a stubit thread!!!

Garry Walker
11th August 2008, 19:03
1) And your turn, you explain why they would have invested time and money into a system, implemented it and got it fully functional only to not use it?. They had it for 1993.
But I have a better one for you - David Coulthard admitted that Williams used TC during testing.



2) Well, maybe you stand corrected, Knock On points out TC was indeed found on the car. Or software which could be used for TC..
There is a difference in there being software that could be used for TC or TC actually being found to be useable. The latter never happened, so you are once again, so to say, talking from your arse.



4) I honestly can't take what you say seriously. . Welcome to my world.


I'd respect your opinion more if you were open about it with a "yes they used it, but it wasn't proved, they exploited the loophole and pushing the boundaries is all part of F1".
:rotflmao: Hilarious!!!
So I have to admit to something that did not happen to earn respect from someone like you? Well that makes all the difference :rotflmao:
Funny guy.



But for you to admit they had the system, and yet not use it. Well, I may be wrong and don't expect you to accept it, but it makes you come across totally biased..
They did not have TC, nor have I ever admitted they had TC in their system.

How would you tackle the subject of noise. To be specific, TC is clearly audible and I am also sure it shows from telemetry.
FIA had all the data they needed, and I`m sure also the telemetry of the cars. But they saw nothing to indicate it had been used. Hell, every person watching the TV could have heard the TC working, but no, no one heard anything.
Also, if they had TC, surely by now someone involved would have said something. But no, nothing has been said about it.

I ask you again, PROVE that Benetton used TC.
Saying "everyone knows they used it", won`t cut it as I don`t know that and apparently Tamburello doesn`t either. So give us the proof needed and show us the light.

Rollo
12th August 2008, 01:06
Let's recall. MS made his stop & go penalty just a lap (?) after the three-lap penalty implementation limit. During those 3 laps Benetton team members were having a heated debate with marshals (in hope of escaping penalty?) and they continued doing it after MS had served the penalty (in hope of keeping second place even if MS served the penalty a bit too late?).

Just a lap?
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr556.html

On lap 27 - 14 laps after the penalty was given - Schumacher finally stopped but only after Race Director Roland Bruynseraede had been to the Benetton pit. The team later received a severe reprimand and a fine of $25,000.

Maybe he "didn't see" the flag but failing to come in after 14 laps shows blatant disregard to the authority of the FIA. Failing to observe a black flag is one thing, but only coming in after the race director physically comes down and forces you to?


Therefore I think Michael was asked by the team to stay out and keep racing with the hope of escaping penalty (if you go into the garage, there won't be any hope to keep result with the help of protest). So I think it was harsh to punish MS for ignoring black flag with a 2-race-ban.

Harsh? Tish.

Is civil disobediance worth ignoring?

PolePosition_1
12th August 2008, 09:25
No it wasn't, so my original answer still stands.

Canadian Grand Prix was in June. Thats when they start their developments of next years cars by todays standards!

They wouldn't have been that far into development in June 1993 for the 1994 car.

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.

So your original answer doesn't stand.

PolePosition_1
12th August 2008, 09:48
They had it for 1993.
But I have a better one for you - David Coulthard admitted that Williams used TC during testing.


There is a difference in there being software that could be used for TC or TC actually being found to be useable. The latter never happened, so you are once again, so to say, talking from your arse.

Welcome to my world.


:rotflmao: Hilarious!!!
So I have to admit to something that did not happen to earn respect from someone like you? Well that makes all the difference :rotflmao:
Funny guy.


They did not have TC, nor have I ever admitted they had TC in their system.

How would you tackle the subject of noise. To be specific, TC is clearly audible and I am also sure it shows from telemetry.
FIA had all the data they needed, and I`m sure also the telemetry of the cars. But they saw nothing to indicate it had been used. Hell, every person watching the TV could have heard the TC working, but no, no one heard anything.
Also, if they had TC, surely by now someone involved would have said something. But no, nothing has been said about it.

I ask you again, PROVE that Benetton used TC.
Saying "everyone knows they used it", won`t cut it as I don`t know that and apparently Tamburello doesn`t either. So give us the proof needed and show us the light.


DC admitted Williams used it in testing. Yes thats bad as well, its wrong. I don't particularly see why your pointing that fact out?

Also, V10 engines were allowed in 2005, but banned for 2006, but if a team went into 2006 with a V10 saying, look we used it in 2005 - of course thats not acceptable. You follow the rules!

And well comments such as "talking out your arse" I find slightly saddening. I disagree with your opinion, and am suprised by some of your arguments, but I have not once said anything like that. Presumably you've resorted to this because of your fustration of me being morally and sportingly correct. While your defending a team which is in the wrong.

Can I ask if you were a Schumacher fan ?

No, because I am honestly slightly suprised to see you apparently geniuenly believe Bennetton had an illegal system on their car and yet did not use it. For me, your either lying to not lose the moral high ground, or your incredibly niave.

Bennetton made the FIA wait before handing over majority of the data, who knows what happened with the data and how it was changed? If Bennetton were innocent, why make the FIA wait for the data and evidence to be handed over?

I can't prove it, but they've admitted to Launch Control - and performance advantage to that was pretty good if you look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYca6E6c3IM

Taking into account that launch control and traction control are basically run from the same system, its a pretty sure bet they were.

Fair enough, you can't penalise them for it being a safe bet. But launch control was there in the open, and Bennetton escaped via a loophole, after the FIA requested evidence after the San Marino GP, and only got given a demonstation given by late July, thats 4 months after the original request!!

jens
12th August 2008, 10:03
Just a lap?
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr556.html


Oh, my bad. I must have misinterpreted a video I once saw. :p :

Knock-on
12th August 2008, 10:56
The ban on Driver aids were not announced in January 1993.

"If the action on-track was disappointing, off-track the political recriminations were reaching fever pitch. FIA President Max Mosley made his objections to traction control and active suspension explicitly clear when, at the Canadian Grand Prix, he declared the team’s interpretation of the rules to be illegal and promised to ban the technology"

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/f1-information/history/1993-formula-one-season-history-prost-the-champion-senna-the-hero/


No it wasn't, so my original answer still stands.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/2681835.stm

Sorry Tamb but you are wrong.

This article from January quotes Max as saying it is banned from the British GP.

PolePosition_1
12th August 2008, 11:24
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/2681835.stm

Sorry Tamb but you are wrong.

This article from January quotes Max as saying it is banned from the British GP.

Knock On - hate to say this but that articule is from 2003.

Knock-on
12th August 2008, 11:35
Knock On - hate to say this but that articule is from 2003.

:laugh:

I'm only a decade out :laugh:

Just ignore me. I've a cold :D

PolePosition_1
12th August 2008, 12:17
:laugh:

I'm only a decade out :laugh:

Just ignore me. I've a cold :D

lol, I wish you were right.

But I've done my research, move was introduced in 1993 June.

So our point still stands :)

Garry Walker
12th August 2008, 12:37
DC admitted Williams used it in testing. Yes thats bad as well, its wrong. I don't particularly see why your pointing that fact out?
Because unlike Benetton, who were never found to have TC on their system, Williams admitted that they had it. So what stopped them from using it in races? Why are you not hunting them with the same rigour?



Also, V10 engines were allowed in 2005, but banned for 2006, but if a team went into 2006 with a V10 saying, look we used it in 2005 - of course thats not acceptable. You follow the rules! These are not comparable at all and I`m pretty sure you know it.



And well comments such as "talking out your arse" I find slightly saddening. I disagree with your opinion, and am suprised by some of your arguments, but I have not once said anything like that. Presumably you've resorted to this because of your fustration of me being morally and sportingly correct. While your defending a team which is in the wrong.
:rotflmao:
You have to still to show that Benetton had TC, I am still waiting buddy.



Can I ask if you were a Schumacher fan ?
Of course you can.
Can I ask if you were a Hill fan?



No, because I am honestly slightly suprised to see you apparently geniuenly believe Bennetton had an illegal system on their car and yet did not use it. For me, your either lying to not lose the moral high ground, or your incredibly niave.
It is funny how you earlier complained about some of my comments and now you call me niave (sic).
Look, Benetton had LC. Never proved they used it, but it is not even in the topic really. Topic is TC. Now show me how they had TC. That`s all I am asking, you have not done that.



Bennetton made the FIA wait before handing over majority of the data, who knows what happened with the data and how it was changed? If Bennetton were innocent, why make the FIA wait for the data and evidence to be handed over? So why did they not delete the LC out of their system?



I can't prove it, but they've admitted to Launch Control - and performance advantage to that was pretty good if you look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYca6E6c3IM

A lucky start, but look at how obviously they used LC here. Just look at the "magnificent" start Schumacher had there.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G61AWO5mkYc

I remember when Häkkinen twice came from 3rd position in 2000 to lead in the first corner. LC maybe?

But at least you finally admitted that you cannot prove they used LC.



Taking into account that launch control and traction control are basically run from the same system, its a pretty sure bet they were.
None was found despite extensive searching. You have nothing besides "you being sure." That counts for nothing unfortunately for you. Give me just some proof as to them having it, for example audio proof would be good.

Answer these questions I asked already earlier.
Why was TC not detected in Benetton Telemetry?
Was was is that no one heard TC, when we have seen in recent years that TC makes an obvious noise?
Why is it that in 14 years no one from the team has said anything, despite surley quite a few people having to know about it, if they really had had TC?

ShiftingGears
12th August 2008, 12:43
A lucky start, but look at how obviously they used LC here. Just look at the "magnificent" start Schumacher had there.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G61AWO5mkYc


Ha.

I just noticed that Schumacher overtook Senna on the warmup lap :p :

Knock-on
12th August 2008, 13:50
Ha.

I just noticed that Schumacher overtook Senna on the warmup lap :p :

Ha!!

That's more like it.

Let's get back to the petty bickering. People are taking it all too seriously :D

PolePosition_1
12th August 2008, 14:19
Because unlike Benetton, who were never found to have TC on their system, Williams admitted that they had it. So what stopped them from using it in races? Why are you not hunting them with the same rigour?

These are not comparable at all and I`m pretty sure you know it.


:rotflmao:
You have to still to show that Benetton had TC, I am still waiting buddy.


Of course you can.
Can I ask if you were a Hill fan?


It is funny how you earlier complained about some of my comments and now you call me niave (sic).
Look, Benetton had LC. Never proved they used it, but it is not even in the topic really. Topic is TC. Now show me how they had TC. That`s all I am asking, you have not done that.

So why did they not delete the LC out of their system?



A lucky start, but look at how obviously they used LC here. Just look at the "magnificent" start Schumacher had there.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G61AWO5mkYc

I remember when Häkkinen twice came from 3rd position in 2000 to lead in the first corner. LC maybe?

But at least you finally admitted that you cannot prove they used LC.


None was found despite extensive searching. You have nothing besides "you being sure." That counts for nothing unfortunately for you. Give me just some proof as to them having it, for example audio proof would be good.

Answer these questions I asked already earlier.
Why was TC not detected in Benetton Telemetry?
Was was is that no one heard TC, when we have seen in recent years that TC makes an obvious noise?
Why is it that in 14 years no one from the team has said anything, despite surley quite a few people having to know about it, if they really had had TC?


Because Williams didn't win the title. Did Williams actually have this system installed during the races? Post the link of the DC interview. Its different testing it in testing and having it fully functioning during course of the season.

The not the same situation, but your saying its ok for them to have a totally illegal system on the car because it was legal the previous season. Its not, if its made illegal, you remove it totally.

I've said Garry that I cannot prove Bennetton had TC. So I don't understand why your mocking me that I still can't prove it when I've said I can't prove it.

But they had LC, which works from the same system, so its highly likely. But as I said in my previous post, if you can't prove they had it, you shouldn't punish them. But we can prove they had LC.

Yes I am a Damon Hill fan, you say of course I can ask, but you didn't answer my question. Are you a Schumacher fan?

Erm, niave is a description, saying someone is talking out of their arse is an insult. Theres a difference. If I call a 12 year old child niave, I'm not insulting them, I'm just describing their nature.

And I think its particularly niave position to take, to assume Benetton didn't use LC when they had it fully functioning within the car. This added up with their splended starts they had, and fact it took them 4 months to hand over any evidence, and fact they denied having it, it was found, they admitted having it saying it can't be switched on, found it could be switched on by both a laptop and within the cockpit itself, and they claimed they didn't realise it. When the FIA asked them if they didn't know it existed, why was the turn on function so secretly hidden, they said so it wasn't turned on accidently. It was just lie after lie.

If you honestly believe they didn't use it thats fair enough, I can't prove they did use it, but to think they didn't use it, with all the facts I've mentioned above, I honestly believe its a naive position to take. Sorry if you disagree.

Well, fact that the system was so well hidden, maybe suggested they tried the best to hide it. But I don't think main question would be why didn't they rid it totally, main question I got is if they were innocent why take 4 month to show evidence?

I can prove they had LC, Benetton admitted to having it. Don't know what more proof you want?

Telementery, I don't know how sophisticated it was or if even used in 1994 to be honest.

And I don't know whether or not the FIA looked into it or not. There is no mention of it in the statement released by them.

The noise, well at San Marino when the FIA first asked to see demonstrations of their system, so presumably they must have suspected it from somewhere, presumably the noise would have been one area to raise the issue up.

But fact is the FIA wouldn't have been able to penalise a team for LC or TC on grounds of noise engine makes - so thats presumably why no mention of it.

Why is it 8 years ago a man was arrested for Jill Dando's murder and he has only now been released? Surely someone must know.

Why do crimes go unsolved for 20 years? Surely someone must know something.

Your asking me to answer the impossible questions! I don't know answer in same way presumably you don't.

If you think Benetton MUST be innocent if no one has come out in 14 years, its just another example of having a very naive view on life.

Rollo
12th August 2008, 14:26
Look, Benetton had LC. Never proved they used it, but it is not even in the topic really. Topic is TC. Now show me how they had TC. That`s all I am asking, you have not done that.

Answer these questions I asked already earlier.
Why was TC not detected in Benetton Telemetry?
Was was is that no one heard TC, when we have seen in recent years that TC makes an obvious noise?

Why is it that in 14 years no one from the team has said anything, despite surley quite a few people having to know about it, if they really had had TC?

http://grandprix.com/gpe/rr549.html

These included fully-automatic gearboxes, traction control and launch control - a system which allowed a driver to simply push the accelerator fully on when the start was given without needing to pay attention to wheel-spin or gear changes.

http://grandprix.com/gpe/rr550.html

There was increasing discontent that the rules were not being properly policed with allegations that some teams were using traction control and automatic starting systems.

http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/cref-czatad.html

the FIA announced that it had analyzed the software of Michael Schumacher's Benetton at the San Marino Grand Prix and discovered that the system included a "launch control" feature which could be activated with a laptop computer using a mysterious "option 13" on a list of 10 options. The FIA investigation concluded that there was "no direct evidence" of traction control having been used - although Benetton was fined $100,000 for failing to supply the governing body with access to its systems within the time limits dictated.



FIA Rulings Document - 94/216. Nov 7, 1994

A formal investigation has been concluded with regards the named "option 13" in the transmission software for the Benetton B194.

The FIA has not found sufficient evidence to determine the nature of the characteristics of this option, but due to the nature of the penalty already imposed on car no.5 at the Italian and Portugese Grands Prix, and the position that Williams F1 already holds a numerical advantage in the FIA Constructors Championship, a meeting of team principals has decided that in the interests of competition, no formal investigation will be entered into.
reprinted: A-Z of Grand Prix Cars, David Hodges, 2000.

Why has no-one said anything? Because they've all moved on. Williams won the Constructors Championship, and an agreement sealed the fate on the B194.
It still doesn't change the fact that Benetton may or may not have had it, it's just impossible to prove and with 14 years passing even more so.

As for "that" incident? Schumacher knew exactly what he was doing. I agree with James Allen's verdict in the biog.

12th August 2008, 18:36
Canadian Grand Prix was in June. Thats when they start their developments of next years cars by todays standards!

They wouldn't have been that far into development in June 1993 for the 1994 car.

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.

So your original answer doesn't stand.

Yes it does....

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2007/03/22/banned-four-wheel-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.

12th August 2008, 18:40
I can't prove it, but they've admitted to Launch Control - and performance advantage to that was pretty good if you look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYca6E6c3IM



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.

12th August 2008, 18:43
YWe can go into this if you want, but I work in IT, I'm not making this up.

And all due respect, but unless your in that field I highly doubt your 100% familiar with the system.

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.

ArrowsFA1
12th August 2008, 19:31
One great start doesn't prove anything other than it was a great start.
It certainly doesn't prove that Benetton did, or didn't have TC/LC. Just as Senna's suspicions about the Benetton didn't prove anything.

I think it's reasonable to raise a question mark as to whether the systems were used or not, but equally as it cannot be proved either way.

12th August 2008, 20:01
But I've done my research, move was introduced in 1993 June.

So our point still stands :)

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.

Rollo
13th August 2008, 00:39
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.

As far as four wheel steer goes, the Nissan GTR Group A car did not have it in race trim but the road going cars did. Honda had already done its testing on the system and found that there wasn't a significant difference in lap times.

In these cases, the added weight seems to negate any advantage you may have derived from it. It's also largely the reason why four wheel drive was used and then subsequently abandoned on the BRM P67, the Lotus 63 and why the only GP point ever scored by a 4WD car was the Matra MS84 at the '69 US GP.

Sometimes whilst a technology is good and prudent, it just doesn't justify itself.

fredman
13th August 2008, 01:18
Well, Lewis Hamilton only won the WDC because he was in the best car.

Woops, sorry. Ment to post this next year. :D

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
13th August 2008, 10:01
Yes it does....

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2007/03/22/banned-four-wheel-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
13th August 2008, 10:03
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
13th August 2008, 10:08
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!! :D

Knock-on
13th August 2008, 10:11
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 ... post :D

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
13th August 2008, 10:44
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
13th August 2008, 11:32
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!! :D

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 :D )

PolePosition_1
13th August 2008, 12:22
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.

13th August 2008, 14:31
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.

13th August 2008, 14:33
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.

Knock-on
13th August 2008, 14:39
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.

And couldn't be switched on again ;)

PolePosition_1
13th August 2008, 16:33
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.


Your argument would stand if Benetton raced the same car in 1994 as they did in 1993.

But for you to seriously think they'd put something on the car for 1994 without testing it first is slightly naive, especially considering you've worked for an F1 team in the past.

Also - give me a source for Ferrari carrying over their ECU, and for McLaren also delaying the handing over of information please.

I know one team had a slight delay but not sure which.

PolePosition_1
13th August 2008, 16:34
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.


Also - just for my information - where did you find out Benetton carried over exactly the same ECU system to the 1993 car?

jens
13th August 2008, 18:57
This is an interesting remark that Schumacher overtook on the parade lap at the 1994 Brazilian Grand Prix too. So now we have already two cases. Any more examples? Why did Schumacher do it at all if it's forbidden by the rules? I guess driving in 'free way' would enable to heat up tyres/brakes better than while following someone, but has MS ever had an explanation for his manoeuvres on the warm-up laps?

BDunnell
13th August 2008, 19:53
This is an interesting remark that Schumacher overtook on the parade lap at the 1994 Brazilian Grand Prix too. So now we have already two cases. Any more examples? Why did Schumacher do it at all if it's forbidden by the rules? I guess driving in 'free way' would enable to heat up tyres/brakes better than while following someone, but has MS ever had an explanation for his manoeuvres on the warm-up laps?

I don't know whether he's ever said anything about it, but one perfectly plausible explanation is that he (and the team) genuinely didn't know it was against the rules. Neither, seemingly, did most race stewards. I certainly didn't, and I'm sure most F1 followers didn't either. This is why it came as such a surprise when Schumacher was penalised for it.

Rollo
14th August 2008, 00:53
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.

No need? I disagree with this viewpoint.

There is always a need to develop systems and gain any possible advantage that you can in Formula One.

Every team will have a legal department pouring over the rules and regulations to find any loophole and skerrick which can be exploited. Unless something is expressly prohibited, you can almost bet that someone is working on it; to suggest otherwise is a) shortsighted and b) a nonsense.

A Formula One team with morals? Now there's a unique thought.

ArrowsFA1
14th August 2008, 10:09
This is an interesting remark that Schumacher overtook on the parade lap at the 1994 Brazilian Grand Prix too. So now we have already two cases. Any more examples? Why did Schumacher do it at all if it's forbidden by the rules?
Only a vague memory, but was this rule introduced around this time? I don't remember it being an issue before then.

Knock-on
14th August 2008, 10:19
I don't know whether he's ever said anything about it, but one perfectly plausible explanation is that he (and the team) genuinely didn't know it was against the rules. Neither, seemingly, did most race stewards. I certainly didn't, and I'm sure most F1 followers didn't either. This is why it came as such a surprise when Schumacher was penalised for it.

IIRC, it was brought in because cars were getting all over the shop during warm up and it was getting dangerous.

During the Schumacher incident, it was speculated during the comentry that Schumacher was doing it to wind up Hill and play mind games.

He did it a couple of times, he was penalised, he refused to accept the penalty, he was black flagged, he resisted the Black flag and he was banned.

Anyone disagree with the sequense or the penalty?

14th August 2008, 16:05
Also - give me a source for Ferrari carrying over their ECU, and for McLaren also delaying the handing over of information please.

I know one team had a slight delay but not sure which.

For the Mclaren delay -

"PRESS RELEASE FROM THE FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE L'AUTOMOBILE (FIA)

Case C:

The FIA World Motor Sport Council found that the gearbox control device fitted to car No. 7 (Mika Hakkinen) Marlboro McLaren Peugeot at the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix was in breach of the Formula One Technical Regulations.

However the FIA World Motor Sport Council was satisfied that McLaren had fitted this system believing it to be legal according to their interpretation of the rules. They did not intend to infringe the regulations.

McLaren and any other team with such a device will be required to remove the up-change facility prior to the Italian Grand Prix and any similar down-change facility prior to the Portuguese Grand Prix.

The World Motor Sport Council upheld the fine of $100,000 imposed on the McLaren team on 26 July for delay in supplying the source codes. The World Motor Sport Council did not accept as a good enough reason the fact that the team itself had difficulties in acquiring the source codes from the company supplying them. The World Council recognized that the delay was not due to any intention by McLaren deliberately to conceal any feature in its software"

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=919&FS=F1

The Ferrari ECU is from my memory.

14th August 2008, 16:06
Also - just for my information - where did you find out Benetton carried over exactly the same ECU system to the 1993 car?

In the design office, in July 1994.

14th August 2008, 16:15
But for you to seriously think they'd put something on the car for 1994 without testing it first is slightly naive, especially considering you've worked for an F1 team in the past.

They did test it (the ECU) with the Traction Control program switched on and without the Traction control program being activated. The only time the ECU was run with the Traction control program on was to set a baseline of the ECU's performance so as to determine that all the parameters and programs were unaffected by the program then being deactivated.

There were no problems, no effect on any other programs and so it was carried over into the 1994 season.

It is very naive of you to believe that everything on a car is new every season. The engine & gearbox of the B194 were the same design as the ones used in the B193 in Suzuka the previous year.

Development in F1 does not start in January, as you seem to believe, but is a continous process with no start date. Chassis's change, but most are organic changes and not a completely clean break with the past nor the result of 'blue sky thinking'. This is especially true when a design concept is bearing fruit, as is patently obvious that the early 90's Rory byrne designed Benetton concept was.

Things that are working well, and the mechanicals of the B193 had really started to be effective towards the later part of 1993, were carried over into the B194.

Rule One of racing car design - Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

14th August 2008, 16:18
He did it a couple of times, he was penalised, he refused to accept the penalty, he was black flagged, he resisted the Black flag and he was banned.

Anyone disagree with the sequense or the penalty?

I don't think he resisted the black flag. Benetton resisted it, certainly.

If you watch the clip (I posted a link to one earlier) then you can clearly see that it is the Benetton management (namely Flavio) who were resisting it, as the argument was on the pit wall.

Michael was told to stay out by the team.

14th August 2008, 16:23
No need? I disagree with this viewpoint.

There is always a need to develop systems and gain any possible advantage that you can in Formula One.

Every team will have a legal department pouring over the rules and regulations to find any loophole and skerrick which can be exploited. Unless something is expressly prohibited, you can almost bet that someone is working on it; to suggest otherwise is a) shortsighted and b) a nonsense.

A Formula One team with morals? Now there's a unique thought.

I think you have misunderstood my point.

It is claimed that Benetton tested the Traction control program in the ECU with the specific intention of racing with the program switched on.

It is claimed that the B194 was built from the outset with the intention of running it with Traction control.

I am pointing out that there was never any intention to do that, it was simply down to convenience that the same ECU was used as was used in the B193.

Knock-on
14th August 2008, 16:51
I don't think he resisted the black flag. Benetton resisted it, certainly.

If you watch the clip (I posted a link to one earlier) then you can clearly see that it is the Benetton management (namely Flavio) who were resisting it, as the argument was on the pit wall.

Michael was told to stay out by the team.

I fully appreciate that Flav was arguing the toss.

Fact is that MS did something that other drivers have been penalised for and for whatever reason, Schumy didn't come into the pit.

As for the black flag, it's not negotiable. When you are shown a black flag, you are instantly disqualified. End off story.

These are no gray areas or up to committees. It is a basic fundamental principal of Motoracing.

Black Flag is instant disqualification and is the responsibility of the driver to comply whatever his team subsequently do.

Peoples lives depend on this which is why it's written in stone. As soon as he saw it, his only responsibility was to retire from the race.

14th August 2008, 16:57
I fully appreciate that Flav was arguing the toss.

Fact is that MS did something that other drivers have been penalised for and for whatever reason, Schumy didn't come into the pit.

As for the black flag, it's not negotiable. When you are shown a black flag, you are instantly disqualified. End off story.

These are no gray areas or up to committees. It is a basic fundamental principal of Motoracing.

Black Flag is instant disqualification and is the responsibility of the driver to comply whatever his team subsequently do.

Peoples lives depend on this which is why it's written in stone. As soon as he saw it, his only responsibility was to retire from the race.

But you also do what the boss says.

Plus the FIA hearing into the incident heavily criticised the stewards for not having followed procedure.

But of course none of that matters when you decide a man is guilty no matter what.

14th August 2008, 16:58
I fully appreciate that Flav was arguing the toss.

Fact is that MS did something that other drivers have been penalised for and for whatever reason, Schumy didn't come into the pit.

But other drivers weren't penalised for it.

BDunnell
14th August 2008, 19:56
I fully appreciate that Flav was arguing the toss.

Fact is that MS did something that other drivers have been penalised for and for whatever reason, Schumy didn't come into the pit.

As for the black flag, it's not negotiable. When you are shown a black flag, you are instantly disqualified. End off story.

These are no gray areas or up to committees. It is a basic fundamental principal of Motoracing.

Black Flag is instant disqualification and is the responsibility of the driver to comply whatever his team subsequently do.

Peoples lives depend on this which is why it's written in stone. As soon as he saw it, his only responsibility was to retire from the race.

I feel that there were good grounds for Benetton objecting, given that it was the first time the penalty had ever been given for this particular offence — one that team and driver seem to have known nothing about. I don't recall it having been announced that the rule had been 'brought in'. So, I think the whole thing was unfair given the apparent lack of knowledge of the rule, which, incidentally, is one I agree with.

D-Type
14th August 2008, 22:40
The black flag does not mean instant disqualification. It means 'Come into the pits at once because the Clerk of the Course wants a word with you'.

At Silverstone, basically what Benneton did was keep arguing about the 'stop/go' penalty until it could only be taken on the last lap. Is that gamesmanship or cheating?

Rollo
15th August 2008, 04:13
The black flag does not mean instant disqualification. It means 'Come into the pits at once because the Clerk of the Course wants a word with you'.

At Silverstone, basically what Benneton did was keep arguing about the 'stop/go' penalty until it could only be taken on the last lap. Is that gamesmanship or cheating?

It's straight out disobedience of the officials. In your words 'Come into the pits at once because the Clerk of the Course wants a word with you' means precisely that, it does not mean stay out and ignore the orders of the officials for 14 laps.

What Benetton did was argue the penalty, what Schumacher himself did irrespective of who told him to stay out there was deliberately disobey a black flag.

PolePosition_1
15th August 2008, 09:42
In the design office, in July 1994.

Ok....so no proof, just your word...

PolePosition_1
15th August 2008, 09:46
They did test it (the ECU) with the Traction Control program switched on and without the Traction control program being activated. The only time the ECU was run with the Traction control program on was to set a baseline of the ECU's performance so as to determine that all the parameters and programs were unaffected by the program then being deactivated.

There were no problems, no effect on any other programs and so it was carried over into the 1994 season.

It is very naive of you to believe that everything on a car is new every season. The engine & gearbox of the B194 were the same design as the ones used in the B193 in Suzuka the previous year.

Development in F1 does not start in January, as you seem to believe, but is a continous process with no start date. Chassis's change, but most are organic changes and not a completely clean break with the past nor the result of 'blue sky thinking'. This is especially true when a design concept is bearing fruit, as is patently obvious that the early 90's Rory byrne designed Benetton concept was.

Things that are working well, and the mechanicals of the B193 had really started to be effective towards the later part of 1993, were carried over into the B194.

Rule One of racing car design - Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.


"Development in F1 does not start in January" - despite me going on and on about cars having to be developed mid season the year before. No wonder we can't agree if you can't be bothered to read my posts properly.


"engine & gearbox of the B194 were the same design as the ones used in the B193 in Suzuka the previous year" - exactly the same? No difference at all? If so, source it mate, I not too keen on accepting something just because you claim to kniow.

"It is very naive of you to believe that everything on a car is new every season" - I've never said or implied that. But I know if you change someone on one area, you got to make sure its going to work well with other parts of the car. So you can't stick something brand new and untested in the software assuming it'll work fine. Working for Benetton I would assume you'd know that.

ArrowsFA1
15th August 2008, 09:48
But other drivers weren't penalised for it.
If your referring to the British GP, as we've talked about before, perhaps the other drivers offence was not considered as serious/obvious as MS's. As I understand it there were two warm-up laps and MS overtook Hill during both. Perhaps that was another reason his offence was deemed worthy of a penalty?

Which bring me back to my question - when was the rule forbidding overtaking during the warm-up lap introduced? As we know it had happened previously with no penalty. Was the rule introduced as a result of this?

PolePosition_1
15th August 2008, 09:48
I don't think he resisted the black flag. Benetton resisted it, certainly.

If you watch the clip (I posted a link to one earlier) then you can clearly see that it is the Benetton management (namely Flavio) who were resisting it, as the argument was on the pit wall.

Michael was told to stay out by the team.


You win and you lose as a team.

Knock-on
15th August 2008, 10:03
The black flag does not mean instant disqualification. It means 'Come into the pits at once because the Clerk of the Course wants a word with you'.

At Silverstone, basically what Benneton did was keep arguing about the 'stop/go' penalty until it could only be taken on the last lap. Is that gamesmanship or cheating?

Sorry, you're right. It means come back to the pit immediatly and report to the Steward.

Saying that, I can't remember any occassion when a Black Flag hasn't ended in disqualification.

Knock-on
15th August 2008, 11:13
But you also do what the boss says.

Plus the FIA hearing into the incident heavily criticised the stewards for not having followed procedure.

But of course none of that matters when you decide a man is guilty no matter what.

This is the fundemental issue here.

I get the impression that you think it's OK to do anything to get a result whether it's punting off a competitor, using illegal SW or ignoring Syewards decisions.

It doesn't matter what's fair or not when it comes to things like ignoring flags. It's not about whether he got away with it or she did it too.

It doesn't really matter who was in the right or wrong at the time, whether the Stewards were criticised for not following procedure (didn't see anything aout that) or whatever your feeling of injustice might be.

Yellow flag: Danger, reduce speed, do not overtake.

Double yellow: Obstruction on track. As above but be prepared to change direction or stop.

Red Yellow: Loss of adheasion on track.

Red: Race stopped immediatly.

Black Orange: Stop next lap as your car represents a risk. Rejoin after Stewards deem it safe.

Black: Stop immediatly and report to stewards.

There are a few others but DRIVERS have to follow these basic flags for everyones safety. It is their responsibility and not the teams to ensure theirs and the other drivers safety.

There is no negiotiation.

15th August 2008, 15:05
This is the fundemental issue here.

I get the impression that you think it's OK to do anything to get a result whether it's punting off a competitor, using illegal SW or ignoring Syewards decisions.

Well, I did work in F1 for periods of my aerodynamics career, and wasn't out of place.

They don't give out trophies for being nice. If that's what you want, then perhaps this is more your cup of tea....

http://www.prideofbritain.com/

15th August 2008, 15:11
I not too keen on accepting something just because you claim to kniow.

Fair enough.

Although if you also expect a former employee to hand you a dossier of designs and internal memo's, you better give that Stepney bloke a call because I'm still tied to the confidentiality agreements I signed.

Moreover, please inform me where you expect to find the precise details of a Formula One cars design on the internet?

15th August 2008, 15:17
"Development in F1 does not start in January" - despite me going on and on about cars having to be developed mid season the year before. No wonder we can't agree if you can't be bothered to read my posts properly.

It's more a case of us not agreeing because you don't understand how cars in F1 are produced.

If, as you claim, a car has to be developed mid-season the year before then you really shouldn't be arguing that the ECU used in 1993 was not used in 1994. Since the B194 was designed in 1993, and you now say that this was the case because cars have to be 'developed mid season the year before' your statement undermines your previous claim.

PolePosition_1
15th August 2008, 15:40
Fair enough.

Although if you also expect a former employee to hand you a dossier of designs and internal memo's, you better give that Stepney bloke a call because I'm still tied to the confidentiality agreements I signed.

Moreover, please inform me where you expect to find the precise details of a Formula One cars design on the internet?

I see a pattern of you not bothering to read my posts and just jumping the gun slightly, I'm not asking for exact design details, just a source saying the gearbox and engine were EXACTLY the same from 1993 to 1994. That wouldn't be a top secret issue I doubt, and if true should be available to find on the internet considering its of pretty big technical importance.

A world championship car winning with an engine over 1 year old!

I'm sure if true it'd be there somewhere.

Also, do you expect me to take what you say for truth? I could quite easily say I worked for Benetton to and they were using both TC and LC in races. See its not that hard?

PolePosition_1
15th August 2008, 15:44
It's more a case of us not agreeing because you don't understand how cars in F1 are produced.

If, as you claim, a car has to be developed mid-season the year before then you really shouldn't be arguing that the ECU used in 1993 was not used in 1994. Since the B194 was designed in 1993, and you now say that this was the case because cars have to be 'developed mid season the year before' your statement undermines your previous claim.

Yeah my terminology wasn't excellent there, development would imply the product is ready and your improving it, I should have said designing and maybe even the beginning of manufactoring.

And I don't really see why it undermines my previous claim. they were designing the 1994 car throughout second half of 1993, and they were designing the 1993 car throughout later stages of 1992.

I don't particularly understand why you need to put down peoples thought as to "lack of understanding" because they disagree with you.

jens
15th August 2008, 20:03
If black flag means instant disqualification, then how is it possible that Schumacher was allowed to participate in the podium ceremony after the Grand Prix?

15th August 2008, 20:38
A world championship car winning with an engine over 1 year old!


Talk about jumping the gun and not bothering to read posts.

The B194 used an engine design that was used in the B193 at Suzuka in 1993, which is October, was then used in the B194 up until the Spanish GP, May 1994.

There were developments made to this engine spec throughout those 7 months, but none of these required a new ECU.

Because the 1994 regulations prohibited the use of traction control, Ford introduced the engine planned for 94 for the last two races of 1993. This ran with traction control for Suzuka & Adelaide, then ran without Traction Control throughout the winter in the 'muletta' B193, which carried on it several parts (suspension mainly but some aero stuff like front wings) never raced on a B193 but destined for the B194.

It is not unusual for a F1 team to do this still, since it is no good to wheel out a car in January and discover that something on it that could have been tested before the launch doesn't work.

15th August 2008, 20:57
There were developments made to this engine spec throughout those 7 months, but none of these required a new ECU.

To clarify - It did require changes to the engine management program, but not a wholly new system.

BDunnell
15th August 2008, 22:47
If black flag means instant disqualification, then how is it possible that Schumacher was allowed to participate in the podium ceremony after the Grand Prix?

I would imagine — again, no more than that — that the officials were confused as a result of the vehemency of Benetton's protest, and thought that further checks were necessary, thereby allowing him to stand on the podium. As I said before, the fact of this rule's existence and sudden emergence took me by surprise at the time.

Rollo
16th August 2008, 04:05
"Development in F1 does not start in January" - despite me going on and on about cars having to be developed mid season the year before. No wonder we can't agree if you can't be bothered to read my posts properly.


I would have thought that the above was obvious.


A world championship car winning with an engine over 1 year old!
I'm sure if true it'd be there somewhere.

Three little letters... DFV - Keke Rosberg won in 1982 with an engine which was originally devloped 15 years earlier :eek:

Mr Position is of course correct here, it's perfectly obvious that the 1982 DFV is going to be vastly different from the 1967 DFV, just like the B194 was different from the B193.

The most obvious difference was that the B193 (and there were A and B spec cars to boot) was powered by the Ford HB whereas the B194 had the Zetec Zetec-RV8. If Ford themselves reclassified the engine, I very much doubt it was the same.

16th August 2008, 10:22
The most obvious difference was that the B193 (and there were A and B spec cars to boot) was powered by the Ford HB whereas the B194 had the Zetec Zetec-RV8. If Ford themselves reclassified the engine, I very much doubt it was the same.

Ford supplied Benetton with the 94 spec engine late in 93. At the time, it was publicly referred to as an HB and no announcement was ever made that the design had changed.

This was mainly due to the ongoing Mclaren-customer spec row that Ron Dennis had been complaining about. Benetton were the works team, but Ford had been getting bad publicity due to the public bleating of a customer.

The Zetec moniker was given to it at the start of 94. The moniker was more for marketing reasons than anything else, if I recall correctly.

There was also a C-spec B193, the winter-testing muletta chassis. This moniker was never officially designated, but all who worked for Benetton in the winter of 1993/1994 knew that the car that was being tested was not a B193B nor a B194.

Alas, I can offer no proof other than my word. Benetton & Ford weren't in the habit of handing out technical data sheets for employees to post on the web and I had no desire to stuff my pockets with data sheets or discs just to settle an internet forum argument I might get into some 14 and a half years later.

By the look of it, given that no specific information has ever been forthcoming, neither have any of my former work colleagues.

As a footnote, just because an entry for a GP states an engine as being of a certain spec, doesn't mean it was.

PolePosition_1
16th August 2008, 18:52
Ford supplied Benetton with the 94 spec engine late in 93. At the time, it was publicly referred to as an HB and no announcement was ever made that the design had changed.



Late 1993, i.e after July 1993 when all teams were aware of the ban on aids for the 1994 season?

17th August 2008, 10:39
Late 1993, i.e after July 1993 when all teams were aware of the ban on aids for the 1994 season?

Yes, but the ECU was the same one. There was no need to change it, just modify it. There was no need to have a complete change.

Please provide a link that says it wasn't the same ECU.

17th August 2008, 11:00
Just to add...

"Although the Benetton team did not deny that the software was on board, it claimed that the winning driver, Michael Schumacher, had not used it during the race. The program could only be activated by performing a complicated sequence of actions with the throttle, clutch and gear lever, said the company, a procedure designed to prevent the driver using it inadvertently. Benetton also claimed that the program was only for testing the car and had been left on the computer due to the pressure of work.

To investigate the incident, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, motor racing's governing body which is based in Paris, hired Liverpool Data Research Associates, a British company with experience in software for controlling aircraft. LDRA concluded that the software had probably not been used during the Italian Grand Prix and so the FIA took no action against Benetton or Schumacher.....

.........Traction control, on the other hand, relies on computer software alone to prevent wheels spinning out of control and cannot be spotted from a visual inspection of the car. This year, teams must submit their engine management software to the FIA before racing. Experts from LDRA will examine the programs before giving their approval. Trackside checks will be carried out at random using portable computers that can plug into the cars to ensure that the software has not been changed."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14519704.200-may-the-best-driver-win.html

So the official Benetton line is that it was left on the car due to pressures of work, and there was no evidence that the system was used as confirmed by an independant investigation.

The New Scientist article also confirms that TC is just a program, as I have said, and has no physical features.

So where is your proof to prove this false?

A meaningless link to a YouTube video won't cut it, so either put up or shut up.

PolePosition_1
17th August 2008, 12:19
Yes, but the ECU was the same one. There was no need to change it, just modify it. There was no need to have a complete change.

Please provide a link that says it wasn't the same ECU.


Erm, you said they modified it. That automatically means they changed it.

PolePosition_1
17th August 2008, 12:21
Just to add...

"Although the Benetton team did not deny that the software was on board, it claimed that the winning driver, Michael Schumacher, had not used it during the race. The program could only be activated by performing a complicated sequence of actions with the throttle, clutch and gear lever, said the company, a procedure designed to prevent the driver using it inadvertently. Benetton also claimed that the program was only for testing the car and had been left on the computer due to the pressure of work.

To investigate the incident, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, motor racing's governing body which is based in Paris, hired Liverpool Data Research Associates, a British company with experience in software for controlling aircraft. LDRA concluded that the software had probably not been used during the Italian Grand Prix and so the FIA took no action against Benetton or Schumacher.....

.........Traction control, on the other hand, relies on computer software alone to prevent wheels spinning out of control and cannot be spotted from a visual inspection of the car. This year, teams must submit their engine management software to the FIA before racing. Experts from LDRA will examine the programs before giving their approval. Trackside checks will be carried out at random using portable computers that can plug into the cars to ensure that the software has not been changed."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14519704.200-may-the-best-driver-win.html

So the official Benetton line is that it was left on the car due to pressures of work, and there was no evidence that the system was used as confirmed by an independant investigation.

The New Scientist article also confirms that TC is just a program, as I have said, and has no physical features.

So where is your proof to prove this false?

A meaningless link to a YouTube video won't cut it, so either put up or shut up.

And for about the 4th time in this topic. I'll repeat myself because you obviously not reading my posts.

I cannot prove Benetton used TC in the races. And it would be unfair to penalise them when you can't prove they used TC.

17th August 2008, 13:21
Erm, you said they modified it. That automatically means they changed it.

Modified is not a complete change.

Concise English Dictionary - Modify. Verb (modifies, modified) - make partial changes to.

A complete change is what you have been claiming would have to have been the case.

It was not.

PolePosition_1
17th August 2008, 15:52
Modified is not a complete change.

Concise English Dictionary - Modify. Verb (modifies, modified) - make partial changes to.

A complete change is what you have been claiming would have to have been the case.

It was not.

So they made partial changes, and no need to test it because it wasn't a "complete change"....

Knock-on
18th August 2008, 10:18
Modified is not a complete change.

Concise English Dictionary - Modify. Verb (modifies, modified) - make partial changes to.

A complete change is what you have been claiming would have to have been the case.

It was not.

As you know, development is a series of modifications as you stated earlier in the thread that a new car is mostly an enhancement of the previous years and almost never a root and branch design change.

Therefore, in the context of a modified ECU, it is new as it is different even though 90% remains the same.

PolePosition_1
18th August 2008, 10:38
As you know, development is a series of modifications as you stated earlier in the thread that a new car is mostly an enhancement of the previous years and almost never a root and branch design change.

Therefore, in the context of a modified ECU, it is new as it is different even though 90% remains the same.

Agreed, F1 is top level of motor-racing, even if only 10% is changed. I'm sure they'd have to test it, they wouldn't assume its fine just because its only a small modification.

18th August 2008, 13:39
Agreed, F1 is top level of motor-racing, even if only 10% is changed. I'm sure they'd have to test it, they wouldn't assume its fine just because its only a small modification.

The ECU was tested, as Benetton stated at the time of the appeal. I've never said it wasn't.

Once it had been tested, both with and without the TC program operating, the Traction Control program wasn't removed because it was switched off, officially because of 'pressures of work'.......which to those of us in the design office meant 'no need to remove it, it doesn't affect the performance of other programs so lets concentrate on other stuff'.

18th August 2008, 13:42
Therefore, in the context of a modified ECU, it is new as it is different even though 90% remains the same.

Not if you are part of the design team responsible for it. Not once was it considered anything other than a modification.

I think you're confusing F1 designers with Dog food manufacturers. They always claim something is 'new & improved'.

PolePosition_1
18th August 2008, 13:45
And when was this modifiied ECU introduced?

18th August 2008, 14:07
And when was this modifiied ECU introduced?

On the track, when the B193B ran with the 94 spec engine. Effectively it was a B193C, but as stated before this was not an officially acknowledged moniker.

In the factory, around about late July 1993 if my memory serves me, but only within the R&D department.

The electronics department had been involved in the development of the 94 engine for several months before that, though. The design office hierarchy, namely Misters Brawn & Byrne, had been involved in discussions of design parameters for the 94 engine long before that.

18th August 2008, 14:22
I cannot prove Benetton used TC in the races. And it would be unfair to penalise them when you can't prove they used TC.

So what's your point?

I've tried to tell you how the situation was that led to the program still being within the ECU.

It appears that you aren't happy with the explanation, so I'm at a loss to know what would please you.

If you thought the decision of the FIA was the wrong one, then I could understand why you doubt what I'm saying. But since by your own admission you don't think that, I don't know what else to tell you.

Certainly, I think all concerned at the time now wish, with hindsight, that the TC program had been removed. It's quite annoying when the highlight of your career, with all the long hours and dedication it takes, is doubted because of some unsubstantiated belief.

Thankfully it appears that the FIA, by opting for the standard ECU, have learnt that a better regulation than the hasty, knee-jerk one announced in mid-93 with very little thought to it, was needed for 2008.

Had the regulations announced in 1993 demanded the removal of all TC programs, then Benetton would have done so.

At the time, however, there was no such regulation.

We certainly thought, at the time, that we were operating within the letter of the law.

Apparently, though, that's just not good enough for some people.

Knock-on
18th August 2008, 14:33
Not if you are part of the design team responsible for it. Not once was it considered anything other than a modification.

I think you're confusing F1 designers with Dog food manufacturers. They always claim something is 'new & improved'.

Tamburello

Don't try and talk down to me when it comes to IT and SW development in particular.

You do not modify SW, you develop it.

Part of that development will involve a audit-able Change Management strategy that comprises of revisions in a logical format for test, release and roll back if necessary.

Every time a revision of software is released into production, it is a different product.

Modify is what you do to the mixture on an engine. If this was extrapolated into SW development, it would be the same as rebuilding the engine with new parts and conducting DT and NDT until ready to use in live racing.

The car would look the same from the outside in both cases as would the control unit in this case.

18th August 2008, 14:44
Tamburello

Don't try and talk down to me when it comes to IT and SW development in particular.

You do not modify SW, you develop it.

The TC program was not itself modified. Various other programs pertaining to different aspects of the engine within the ECU were modified (or developed, if you will). Traction control was actually a very simple program, basically limiting wheelspin by a reduction in power (rev limiting, in effect) which was unaffected by the other, more complex, programs within the ECU.

But, please forgive me, I didn't realise you were involved in the design of the B194 as well, since you seem to know so much more than a mere design office employee.

Knock-on
18th August 2008, 15:03
The TC program was not itself modified. Various other programs pertaining to different aspects of the engine within the ECU were modified (or developed, if you will). Traction control was actually a very simple program, basically limiting wheelspin by a reduction in power (rev limiting, in effect) which was unaffected by the other, more complex, programs within the ECU.

But, please forgive me, I didn't realise you were involved in the design of the B194 as well, since you seem to know so much more than a mere design office employee.

Can I ask you a direct question then please.

What exactly was your role in the design of the B194.

You can hide behind a NDA if you wish but you can at least confirm that you were not involved in the SW development side.

To me, it doesn't matter as you have no idea what is involved in SW development whatsoever so are obviously naive as to what happens when a registry or DLL is altered as part of a different subroutine change.

If it was so easy as chucking a bit of new code in and everything being hunky dory, why do you think developers spend so much time debugging and testing?

With what you're talking about i.e. a bespoke management unit, I can see no conceivable reason why you would leave unwanted code in. The whole basis of this sort of development is to have it as clean and slick as possible. Any development to the code needs testing and that testing increases the more code you have.

In SW development terms, it's the equivalent of not cutting the sharp edges off a new moulding and rubbing it smooth. You just don't have rough code floating about for the sake of it unless it has a use.

18th August 2008, 15:33
Also - give me a source for Ferrari carrying over their ECU, and for McLaren also delaying the handing over of information please.

I know one team had a slight delay but not sure which.

"PRESS RELEASE FROM THE FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE L'AUTOMOBILE (FIA)

According to LDRA Ltd., the company appointed by the FIA to investigate Formula One electronic systems, the best evidence is that Benetton Formula Ltd. was not using "launch control" (an automatic start system) at the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix. Had the evidence proved they were, the World Motor Sport Council would have been invited to exclude them from the World Championship. Given the evidence available, such a course of action would obviously have been wrong.

To avoid speculation, the report of the FIA Formula One Technical Delegate submitted to the World Motor Sport Council on 26 July is attached

Hockenheim, 29 July 1994

Report by the FIA Formula One Technical Delegate on the investigations carried out on the electrical systems on Car Number 5 in the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix.

An investigation into the software used in the computer systems of the cars finishing in the first three places at the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix was undertaken by Liverpool Data Research Associates Ltd. (LDRA).

LDRA is a company which specializes in the analysis, validation and verification of highly complex computer software such as that used in modern civilian and military aircraft and a wide range of safety critical applications.

On race day (1st May 1994), each of the teams was requested to supply the source code* for the software on board the car and schematic circuit diagrams of the electrical system. (Appendix 1 )

One team complied in full with this request and a demonstration of the complete electrical system was set up with entirely satisfactory results.

Having received nothing from the other two teams, a fax was sent on 9th May (Appendix 2) asking for urgent action"

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=655&FS=F1

Well, it's not evidence that the ECU in the 412T was carried over from the F93A, but it does show that Ferrari were the other team investigated.

Given that we know that Benetton & Mclaren were fined for delaying the hand over of Source Codes, it's pretty obvious that Ferrari were the team whose "complete electrical system was set up with entirely satisfactory results"

However, this is also quite enlightening....

"From the Motoring News (20/4/94),

There was controversy at TI when there was suspicion that
Ferrari was using a traction control system. They described
it as a "engine modulation system", but gave no further
explanation. It is assumed to be act as a variable rev limiter
for each gear. The first mention of it was by Nicola Larini
in an interview with the Italian media on Saturday evening.

A FIA spokesman said, "I can categorically state that the system
was explained to the Technical Delegate [Charlie Whiting], and that
he told Ferrari not to run with it."

Apparently Renault and Charlie Whiting were both taking tape
recordings around the circuit to check for traction control
systems.

Flavio Briatore of Benetton dismissed suggestions that there
would be protests. "I no protest nobody", he said. "It is too
fantastic to believe that Ferrari would run with traction control,
and in any case, I never protest anybody in F1. The problem
is that the FIA introduced this rule which cannot be policed,
and it is up to the FIA to deal with these matters, not the
teams. How can you prove it one way or the other ?"

One team owner who did not want to be identified said: "I am
100% certain that Ferrari is using some sort of restrictive
system. With an 800bhp V12 that really lights up thanks to
a steep torque curve, I believe they'd run it all the time
if they could. They say its an engine modulation system, but
what is that if it doesn't perform traction control ?"

On the Sunday, the FIA released a statement to the press, to the
annoyance of Giancarlo Bacchini of Ferrari:

'It came to the notice of the FIA Technical Delegate that during
the Free Practice Sessions on Saturday, cars numbered 27 and
28 were fitted with a device which, in certain circumstances,
limited the power of the engine. As the FIA Technical Delegate
was not satisfied that the device complied in all respects with
the Sporting and Technical Regulations, Ferrari were advised
not to use it. This advice was not complied with.

In order to give a definitive view on the conformity or otherwise
of such a device, the FIA Technical Department would have first
to be in possession of full details of the device, including, where
appropriate, the relevant software"

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=111&FS=F1

18th August 2008, 15:39
Oh, and I found this...

"14.10.93 - F1

The South African and European Grands Prix at Kyalami and Donington have been axed from next year's Formula One calendar. The new season is scheduled to start in Argentina on March 20, the first time the country has featured since 1981. The second new venue has been confirmed as Aida in Japan. FIA chiefs have also approved several technical changes including the banning of traction control"

http://www.teamdan.com/archive/1993/octobe93.html

October 14th 1993 was when the FIA announced that traction control would be banned.

That is after the B193C was run.

"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"

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2007/03/22/banned-four-wheel-steering/

So well after the design & development of the B194 had begun!!!!!

18th August 2008, 15:45
Can I ask you a direct question then please.

What exactly was your role in the design of the B194.

You can hide behind a NDA if you wish but you can at least confirm that you were not involved in the SW development side.

To me, it doesn't matter as you have no idea what is involved in SW development whatsoever so are obviously naive as to what happens when a registry or DLL is altered as part of a different subroutine change.

If it was so easy as chucking a bit of new code in and everything being hunky dory, why do you think developers spend so much time debugging and testing?

With what you're talking about i.e. a bespoke management unit, I can see no conceivable reason why you would leave unwanted code in. The whole basis of this sort of development is to have it as clean and slick as possible. Any development to the code needs testing and that testing increases the more code you have.

In SW development terms, it's the equivalent of not cutting the sharp edges off a new moulding and rubbing it smooth. You just don't have rough code floating about for the sake of it unless it has a use.

I was an aerodynamicist, but sat in on all the technical design meetings.

I have said before, but I'll say it again..........the Traction Control program was used in testing.

It was needed so that the design team could compare the cars performance with TC on and TC off.

There was no way on earth that the program would be removed after a test, the ECU taken to the race without it, then it have to be reprogrammed for another test session.

18th August 2008, 16:04
Since you claim that

"If it was so easy as chucking a bit of new code in and everything being hunky dory, why do you think developers spend so much time debugging and testing"

could you please enlighten this poor, uneducated former F1 design team member why this happened....

"After the practice session FIA's technical delegate Charlie Whiting asked Ferrari not to use an "engine modulation system". The cars with this system were for the first time taken to the GP and it wasn't some secret. As it was suspected the system was some sort of banned traction control, because it was limiting the engine power on low gears, allowing to avoid the spinning.

Ferrari team decided, after a talk with Whiting, to remove that system"

So Ferrari removed the system, yet somehow their cars still ran.

But, according to your knowledge, this would have been virtually impossible without some major testing, research & programming.

Explanation?

18th August 2008, 16:19
The link for the above quote -

http://tbfoc.narod.ru/Eng/1994/Grand_Prix/Pac_GP/gp_report.htm

18th August 2008, 16:26
To me, it doesn't matter as you have no idea what is involved in SW development whatsoever so are obviously naive as to what happens when a registry or DLL is altered as part of a different subroutine change.

It looks as if the Magneti Marelli boys did at Aida in 1994.

But, hey, I only worked for the team that won that years WDC, so maybe a team that hadn't won a Grand Prix since September 1990 knew a lot more than us do you think?

18th August 2008, 18:38
To me, it doesn't matter as you have no idea what is involved in SW development whatsoever so are obviously naive as to what happens when a registry or DLL is altered as part of a different subroutine change.

"The following transcript is from an interview with FIA President Max Mosley conducted by members of the racing media and held Friday September 9 at Monza, site of the 1994 Grand Prix of Italy.

Q. Jochen Mass: There are still suggestions that Ferrari's car at Aida was illegal, and they got off too lightly. Can you comment?

Mosley: We think that the Ferrari device was illegal (but) you could produce an extremely good argument that it was entirely legitimate. We heard about it, and they did actually get to Charlie Whiting before he went to them. But everybody knew that there was something funny with (the Ferrari) in the untimed practice. We said to Ferrari not to run it (in qualifying) and they did not run it"

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=949&FS=F1

So between untimed practice and qualifying, on the other side of the world from Maranello and within a very short time period (24 hours at most) Ferrari changed from running with an "engine modulation system" to running without it.

Yet, according to you, that couldn't be the case.

Well, the facts say it was the case.

So, who, pray tell, is the "naive" one now?

Knock-on
18th August 2008, 18:45
Since you claim that

"If it was so easy as chucking a bit of new code in and everything being hunky dory, why do you think developers spend so much time debugging and testing"

could you please enlighten this poor, uneducated former F1 design team member why this happened....

"After the practice session FIA's technical delegate Charlie Whiting asked Ferrari not to use an "engine modulation system". The cars with this system were for the first time taken to the GP and it wasn't some secret. As it was suspected the system was some sort of banned traction control, because it was limiting the engine power on low gears, allowing to avoid the spinning.

Ferrari team decided, after a talk with Whiting, to remove that system"

So Ferrari removed the system, yet somehow their cars still ran.

But, according to your knowledge, this would have been virtually impossible without some major testing, research & programming.

Explanation?

Stop grabbing at straws mate. You're getting as bad as ioan.

You do not completely reprogram a cars ECU between practice and a race.

You can turn functions on and off and this is what they would have done.

Did they reprogram the ECU to remove any trace of the TC routines. No.

Did Bennetton. Probably not ;)

Was there any logical reason that they would not remove the functionality when altering the Source Code during development if they never wanted to use it? No ;)

That raises a question doesn't it ;)

18th August 2008, 18:51
You can turn functions on and off and this is what they would have done.



Which is what I have been saying for the past 5-odd pages of this thread.

So thank you for confirming that you were the one grabbing at straws.

18th August 2008, 19:15
Was there any logical reason that they would not remove the functionality when altering the Source Code during development if they never wanted to use it? No ;)

And, who, pray tell, ever said that Benetton did not want to use it?

Nobody at Benetton.

Traction Control was used in testing to record a baseline of performance. Benetton were not alone in doing that.

Please provide a link for proof of your statement that "they never wanted to use it"

Otherwise, it's just a trashy statement with no evidence to back it up and is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to throw mud.

ioan
18th August 2008, 19:55
Stop grabbing at straws mate. You're getting as bad as ioan.

Look who's talking! :rolleyes:

Tam is only showing you the FACTS that prove that you are dead wrong. Still your go on with your petty personal attacks.

I can only pity you.

ioan
18th August 2008, 20:06
Please provide a link for proof of your statement that "they never wanted to use it"

Otherwise, it's just a trashy statement with no evidence to back it up and is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to throw mud.

He almost never provides proof for his claims outrageous claims, and that's normal as there is no such proof. Still he will not stop yelling and asking for proof even after you give him a few well documented links. It's really tiresome to try to have a "discussion" with some people around here.

PS: Tam, you did a wonderful job explaining what happened back in 1993 and 1994! :up:

PolePosition_1
19th August 2008, 09:31
Tamb – thanks for all those links you’ve dug up, its much appreciated :) .

Though I found Flav’s quote of The problem
is that the FIA introduced this rule which cannot be policed,
and it is up to the FIA to deal with these matters, not the
teams. How can you prove it one way or the other ?" highly interesting, do you not think that gives us an insight into the mindframe of Benetton, or at least top management anyway.

That and on top of their disregard for the black flag etc.

Also, with regards to traction control being banned, whats an exact date? I found one saying June, you insisted it was July, and now say October. Why did you previously say it was July?

You also say “But, hey, I only worked for the team that won that years WDC, so maybe a team that hadn't won a Grand Prix since September 1990 knew a lot more than us do you think?” – maybe that’s why your slightly biased in your view on this?

ArrowsFA1
19th August 2008, 09:32
I have two questions:
1) Was there a TC/LC system on the Benetton?
2) Was there was a means of activating it?

From what I've read here and elsewhere the answers to both of those questions is yes. If that's the case then given the ultra compititive world that is F1 where every advantage is sought, it is understandable that there is a question mark over the legality of the car.

Having said that, I've read comments (no link I'm afraid) from Pat Symonds that the system was not used in race conditions, which is much the same as tamburello has said. The one thing that counts against them is they both worked for Benetton so would hardly want it confirmed should the team have been running an illegal car. Certain people here disbelieve every utterance of a certain other team on a similar basis!

Still, it's a long time ago and the championships are in the history books. Nothing said now changes that.

PolePosition_1
19th August 2008, 09:39
Which is what I have been saying for the past 5-odd pages of this thread.

So thank you for confirming that you were the one grabbing at straws.

If thats what you been arguing for past 5 pages I suggest you read posts better. Neither me or Knock On have said the system couldn't be turned on or off.

We all agree it can be turned on and off.

Though Benetton didn't realise this could be turned on and off until the FIA found it could be.....

.....Benetton didn't even realise they had LC until the FIA found it for them!! And then they remembered they did, but it was switched off and couldn't be turned on....until FIA found out it could be.

Thats my point, it was lies after lies.

At end of day, we can't prove they used it in the race, so would be wrong to punish them for it.

But all the facts imply they used it, everything was in place for them to use it, the paddock complained that they thought Benetton were using it.

And Flavs quote above opening stating "The problem
is that the FIA introduced this rule which cannot be policed,
and it is up to the FIA to deal with these matters, not the
teams. How can you prove it one way or the other ?"".

To me, it says they used it and raced an illegal car.

But to be fairr Tamb, you've done your research, and finally found a practical explanation, albeit very stretched at times.

I'll put following sentence in bold just for you, incase you ask me to prove it when I've said 4 times I cannot.

I cannot prove Benetton used LC and TC in the races therefore it would be unfair to punish them for that.

However, as I've said, all the evidence and circumstances imply they did. Which is unfortunate, as for me, an illegal car won the championship by forcing an accident at last race.

PolePosition_1
19th August 2008, 09:44
He almost never provides proof for his claims outrageous claims, and that's normal as there is no such proof. Still he will not stop yelling and asking for proof even after you give him a few well documented links. It's really tiresome to try to have a "discussion" with some people around here.

PS: Tam, you did a wonderful job explaining what happened back in 1993 and 1994! :up:

Welcome back Ioan aint seen you in a while :)

Knock-on
19th August 2008, 10:17
Which is what I have been saying for the past 5-odd pages of this thread.

So thank you for confirming that you were the one grabbing at straws.


If you selectivly quote a post then I can assume you accept that post in in entirety.

There was no logical reason to have LC or TC on a car unless you plan to use it.

It's bull to say they need to baseline. Why? They should know what is happening when the wheels are losing grip unless they are using electronics to minimise the effect.

Basically, if it looks like Chicken, smells like chicken and tastes like chicken, the chances are it's chicken.

Still, it's really nice to hear from someone on the team what was actually going on in the SW department. Fousto will be pleased that all his claims over the years have been bourne out.

Thanks Tamb :)

Knock-on
19th August 2008, 10:20
Look who's talking! :rolleyes:

Tam is only showing you the FACTS that prove that you are dead wrong. Still your go on with your petty personal attacks.

I can only pity you.

Sorry Tamb

I never seriously meant you were getting like ioan. It was supposed to be in jest and I would never accuse you of that.

At least you add value to a thread instead of the same inane rubbish that has no bearing to the thread.

I unreservedly apologise Tamburello and am sorry to have suggested otherwise.

Knock-on
19th August 2008, 10:39
He almost never provides proof for his claims outrageous claims, and that's normal as there is no such proof. Still he will not stop yelling and asking for proof even after you give him a few well documented links. It's really tiresome to try to have a "discussion" with some people around here.

PS: Tam, you did a wonderful job explaining what happened back in 1993 and 1994! :up:

Sorry ioan, another blatent LIE!!!

If you come on here and LIE, then you have to expect people to call you a LIAR.

Here is another perfect opportunity for you to prove me wrong.

If it's an opinion, I will make it clear but if I am quoting facts such as the use of Blue Flags during a GP weekend, (you remember that little arguement where you swore blind that what was written in black and white of the FIA regulations was wrong and you were right), I back those facts up with a referencable, reliable link.

Please don't take this as any sort of personal attack ioan but I'm merely pointing out that posts such as the one I quoted are nothing more than Lies.

If you don't want people to keep pointing out that you are a Liar, you just have to stop doing it.

ioan
19th August 2008, 13:38
Sorry ioan, another blatent LIE!!!

If you come on here and LIE, then you have to expect people to call you a LIAR.

Here is another perfect opportunity for you to prove me wrong.

If it's an opinion, I will make it clear but if I am quoting facts such as the use of Blue Flags during a GP weekend, (you remember that little arguement where you swore blind that what was written in black and white of the FIA regulations was wrong and you were right), I back those facts up with a referencable, reliable link.

Please don't take this as any sort of personal attack ioan but I'm merely pointing out that posts such as the one I quoted are nothing more than Lies.

If you don't want people to keep pointing out that you are a Liar, you just have to stop doing it.


Bla bla bla!

I said almost never! If you need me to translate you what almost means than don't be shy, just ask.

As for your petty attacks, as I said, I pity you.

ioan
19th August 2008, 13:41
Welcome back Ioan aint seen you in a while :)

Took a little holiday, to enjoy the life far from the mad house! ;)

Knock-on
19th August 2008, 14:34
Bla bla bla!

I said almost never! If you need me to translate you what almost means than don't be shy, just ask.

As for your petty attacks, as I said, I pity you.

Actually, could you demonstrate it for me by quoting all these posts I have made where I have made an untrue claim that I have failed to substantiate.

It's OK, I wont hold my breath otherwise I would have suffocated over the untrue Massa claim you levelled me. Remember that one :laugh:

Or are you talking about having a different opinion to you ;)

As for petty attack, it's just quoting the facts but I'm happy for you to prove me wrong.

<Holds breath>

ioan
19th August 2008, 15:00
Actually, could you demonstrate it for me by quoting all these posts I have made where I have made an untrue claim that I have failed to substantiate.

It's OK, I wont hold my breath otherwise I would have suffocated over the untrue Massa claim you levelled me. Remember that one :laugh:

Or are you talking about having a different opinion to you ;)

As for petty attack, it's just quoting the facts but I'm happy for you to prove me wrong.

<Holds breath>

You should have realized it already, but given that you didn't I'll help you out and tell you that I do not wish to lose time trying to have a discussion with you.
There is no way for such, as it always ends with your personal attacks, and I had enough of it already.
I'll limit my posts to answer your petty hilarious personal attacks in a similar fashion. That's it. Case closed.

janneppi
19th August 2008, 15:47
I'll limit my posts to answer your petty hilarious personal attacks in a similar fashion. That's it. Case closed.

Here's an idea for you, if you can't be bothered to discuss with someone in a reasonable manner, as you said you can't with Knock on, don't say anything at all to him. Less time wasted for everyone, you two, me and pino, and to other members who have to read through your rubbish.

And the same goes for Knock on.

19th August 2008, 16:27
It's bull to say they need to baseline. Why? They should know what is happening when the wheels are losing grip unless they are using electronics to minimise the effect.

Not quite.

The idea was to get a recording of the best settings for torque, in the hope that the Engine Management could replicate these. This was not Traction Control, as TC was a 'reactive' system. This concept was more 'predictive'.

Obviously, the better set up the car was in testing, the less TC was needed, so it was necessary to know at what point TC cut-out. This would...well, should, not only give a better base-line for power delivery (torque settings) but also have a, and I apologise for the pun, knock-on into other areas, such as tyre wear & fuel consumption.

I'm pretty certain that is what Ferrari were trying to do eventually with their 'Engine Modulation System' they ran in practice at Aida, based on the notion that they were following a similar line of thinking.

Their mistake was, it seems, to have turned up at a GP and run with the system operating.

19th August 2008, 16:34
At end of day, we can't prove they used it in the race, so would be wrong to punish them for it.

But all the facts imply they used it, everything was in place for them to use it, the paddock complained that they thought Benetton were using it. ....

.....However, as I've said, all the evidence and circumstances imply they did. Which is unfortunate, as for me, an illegal car won the championship by forcing an accident at last race.

All the evidence does not imply that TC was used.

If your statement was fact, then Liverpool Data Research Associates Ltd. (LDRA) would not have stated that they could not show it was used.

In this vital piece of evidence, it says the exact opposite.

I prefer to stick with proven evidence rather than paddock gossip, but if you wish to take the statements of people who did not have the analysis of the system to study above those who did, I can see why you aren't willing to accept my version of events.

But that doesn't actually improve your argument. Proven Facts have a legal basis, hearsay doesn't.

19th August 2008, 16:48
Also, with regards to traction control being banned, whats an exact date? I found one saying June, you insisted it was July, and now say October. Why did you previously say it was July?


The ban on driver aids became official in October. It was first suggested in June, and by July it was pretty certain that it would be. Certainly there was an expectation by then, which gave those in charge of designing the 1994 cars a problem as to what to do because the only thing you could ever be sure of was that being pretty certain of something happening in F1 meant that it wasn't certain.

If, and nothing was certain until October, a team had begun design & development on the 94 car without development of the TC system and then at the last minute TC had been given a reprieve, that team would have been behind the opposition.

The decision to proceed with development of the B194 on the basis that TC would be fitted was made whilst it was not definitive that driver aids were out for 94.

A lot of teams, Benetton & Ferrari amongst them, had only just started to use TC (Benetton first ran with it at Monaco, May 1993) and the top management were very resistant to the idea that all the cost, expenditure, development and investment would be thrown out after only 9 or so races.

The view that the ban on driver aids would be a good thing was not a unanimous one within the paddock. Williams, the masters of driver aids, were pretty pissed that their laudable efforts in gaining a fantastic advantage would be wiped out. At least, those engineers I knew on a professional level who worked for Williams were not thrilled by it.

PolePosition_1
19th August 2008, 16:50
All the evidence does not imply that TC was used.

If your statement was fact, then Liverpool Data Research Associates Ltd. (LDRA) would not have stated that they could not show it was used.

In this vital piece of evidence, it says the exact opposite.

I prefer to stick with proven evidence rather than paddock gossip, but if you wish to take the statements of people who did not have the analysis of the system to study above those who did, I can see why you aren't willing to accept my version of events.

But that doesn't actually improve your argument. Proven Facts have a legal basis, hearsay doesn't.

Tamb - this is what you just said to me, "if you wish to take the statements of people who did not have the analysis of the system to study above those who did, I can see why you aren't willing to accept my version of events."

I'm shocked. I posted in bold and in seperate paragraph saying I cannot prove they used it in the races, and therefore it would be wrong to punish them.

I honestly don't understand, I've repeated myself several times in asking you to read my posts before reply to me with something I didn't even say.

The Liverpool Data Research Associates Ltd could not prove if it was used in races or not. In same way they could not prove it was used in private tests where they openly admitted to using it.

Because they didn't prove it doesn't mean they can't have used it. Its just what they said, we can't prove it either way.

My opinion is that they did use it in races. I've come to that conclusion from all the facts that we've discussed over the past 7 pages. I cannot prove they did use it. You cannot prove they didn't use it.

We both agree on innocent until proven guilty, we both agree that they shouldn't be punished.

Only thing we disagree on is you believe they never used it in races. While I think they did.

But once again, I'll put it in bold, maybe second time lucky you'll read it,

I cannot prove they used it in the races, and therefore it would be wrong to punish them.

19th August 2008, 17:18
You cannot prove they didn't use it.

Does the accused ever have to prove he didn't do something?

Knock-on
19th August 2008, 18:12
Not quite.

The idea was to get a recording of the best settings for torque, in the hope that the Engine Management could replicate these. This was not Traction Control, as TC was a 'reactive' system. This concept was more 'predictive'.

Obviously, the better set up the car was in testing, the less TC was needed, so it was necessary to know at what point TC cut-out. This would...well, should, not only give a better base-line for power delivery (torque settings) but also have a, and I apologise for the pun, knock-on into other areas, such as Tyre wear & fuel consumption.

I'm pretty certain that is what Ferrari were trying to do eventually with their 'Engine Modulation System' they ran in practice at Aida, based on the notion that they were following a similar line of thinking.

Their mistake was, it seems, to have turned up at a GP and run with the system operating.

It's a good argument but doesn't hold water I'm afraid.

What you would want to know is how much power to apply to the rear wheels to give optimum drive.

Power = (Torque x 2PI x RPM) / 60k

The amount of power to be applied depends on velocity, Tyre grip, temp, temp, track temp, wind direction, down force etc and is not a static factor as a torque curve would be.

That is why you have TC. To regulate power at the limit where acceleration / deceleration is optimized against grip.

Now, LC is a bit more static. Putting a setting for LC is much more straightforward as you have a couple of hundred meters of track which you can have a pretty good guess what the characteristics will be (i.e. temp, wind direction, increase in down force etc).

However, it is counter productive to have a static TC that can benefit a driver as the parameters are not constant from one lap to the next.

Therefore, baselining against an electronic TC system has no engineering benefit as you cannot transfer that data to a driver’s right foot.

It may have limited use as a driver training aid but seeing as you drive completely differently with TC on and off, I would suggest would do more harm than good at a race weekend (which of course they wouldn’t use it at ;) )

As an aero expert, you don't need me to point out something so basic?

Knock-on
19th August 2008, 18:15
Does the accused ever have to prove he didn't do something?

Only if you're McLaren ;)

19th August 2008, 18:59
It's a good argument but doesn't hold water I'm afraid.

What you would want to know is how much power to apply to the rear wheels to give optimum drive.

Power = (Torque x 2PI x RPM) / 60k

The amount of power to be applied depends on velocity, Tyre grip, temp, temp, track temp, wind direction, down force etc and is not a static factor as a torque curve would be.

That is why you have TC. To regulate power at the limit where acceleration / deceleration is optimized against grip.

Now, LC is a bit more static. Putting a setting for LC is much more straightforward as you have a couple of hundred meters of track which you can have a pretty good guess what the characteristics will be (i.e. temp, wind direction, increase in down force etc).

However, it is counter productive to have a static TC that can benefit a driver as the parameters are not constant from one lap to the next.

Therefore, baselining against an electronic TC system has no engineering benefit as you cannot transfer that data to a driver’s right foot.

It may have limited use as a driver training aid but seeing as you drive completely differently with TC on and off, I would suggest would do more harm than good at a race weekend (which of course they wouldn’t use it at ;) )

As an aero expert, you don't need me to point out something so basic?

You're missing the point of the concept. Static predictive systems wouldn't work, as you say, but this wasn't meant to be static.

The aim of the concept was to have engine management controlled by remote computers. It was in the days when pit-to-car telemetry was allowed, and by precisely locating the car on the track (which wasn't the hard part) the engine management could receive pre-programmed alterations to best fit the expected needs of the engine for optimum traction at any point.

Example -

"Telemetry hasn’t remained immune to this debate. If it were up to the technologists, they would already have developed the necessary systems to recalibrate engine or chassis settings of an F1 car while it was out racing – wirelessly, from the pits and without the intervention of the driver. But pit-to-car telemetry has been prohibited by the FIA since 2003, precisely to prevent this type of ‘telecommand’ operation"

http://kn.theiet.org/magazine/issues/0801/data-driven.cfm

For what it's worth, it was considered (but crucially never alleged nor proven) that several teams had mastered this system by the 2000 season.

This was the reason why the FIA banned pit-to-car engine management communication.

19th August 2008, 19:08
Therefore, baselining against an electronic TC system has no engineering benefit as you cannot transfer that data to a driver’s right foot.

Who needs the drivers foot?

"The Future of Mobility : A Selection of Novel Commercial Applications
Loke Kar Seng
Monash University Malaysia
No. 2, Jalan Kolej, Bandar Sunway, 46150 Petaling Jaya,
Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

Bi-directional telemetry, from car-to-pit and pit-to-car, was allowed back for a short while a few years ago. Bi-directional telemetry enables teams to alter settings on the governing electronic control unit by
radio signal, and this can mean between victory and defeat"

http://www.infotech.monash.edu.my/~ksloke/futureofmobile.pdf

Ultimately, the concept meant that there would be no need for good old-fashioned neanderthal Traction Control.

This was another reason why TC was allowed again in 2001. The costs of running a simple TC program were nothing compared to the expenditure needed to perfect state-of-the-art pit-to-car bi-directional telemetry.

But, as an IT specialist, I'm surprised that you needed something so well known and basic to be pointed out.

19th August 2008, 19:21
http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA6479489&industryid=47041

"By its nature, real-time telemetry data is also controversial in auto racing. With the proper setup, pit crews or even factory specialists can monitor vehicle sensors during the race to prepare for pit stops, devise alternative strategies for fuel conservation, or even identify and troubleshoot engine or mechanical malfunctions. Typical telemetry measurements include multiaxis acceleration, temperature, rotational speeds, and mechanical displacement. With two-way telemetry, experts can tune the engine performance or adjust aerodynamic characteristic in real time throughout a race"

Rollo
20th August 2008, 01:00
This is the situation we currently have:

There was no logical reason to have LC or TC on a car unless you plan to use it.
Basically, if it looks like Chicken, smells like chicken and tastes like chicken, the chances are it's chicken.


I'm shocked. I posted in bold and in seperate paragraph saying I cannot prove they used it in the races, and therefore it would be wrong to punish them.
Only thing we disagree on is you believe they never used it in races. While I think they did.
Because they didn't prove it doesn't mean they can't have used it. Its just what they said, we can't prove it either way.

Uncle Knock and Mr Position have both stated what is quite a reasonable position to take; quite frankly, I also very much think that if Benetton had the system then they used it, because the whole concept of a "noble" Formula One team is/was/always will be impossible (find me one ;) )

However Mr Position brings up a very very valid point:

We both agree on innocent until proven guilty, we both agree that they shouldn't be punished.
I cannot prove they used it in the races, and therefore it would be wrong to punish them.

This is the basis of why the FIA reached their decision:
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/cref-czatad.html

The FIA investigation concluded that there was "no direct evidence" of traction control having been used - although Benetton was fined $100,000 for failing to supply the governing body with access to its systems within the time limits dictated.

My standard dictionary from the UK Ministry of Justice has this to say:
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

The FIA's decision therefore was entirely proper. Despite this, aren't we entitled to an opinion on the matter?

PolePosition_1
20th August 2008, 09:48
Does the accused ever have to prove he didn't do something?


You must be kidding me.

I stated 5 or 6 times we cannot prove they're guilty, so we can't punish them!What more do you want?

I get impression that you think because we can't prove they used it, it must mean 100% they didn't use it. I'm just pointing out thats not the case. Its just case we can't prove it. End of.

But I agree, we shouldn't punish them if we can't prove it 100%. Hence why I said, we treat them as innocent until proven guilty, which they have been. So for about, not sure I lost count, please read my posts before quoting me.

PolePosition_1
20th August 2008, 09:56
This is the situation we currently have:




Uncle Knock and Mr Position have both stated what is quite a reasonable position to take; quite frankly, I also very much think that if Benetton had the system then they used it, because the whole concept of a "noble" Formula One team is/was/always will be impossible (find me one ;) )

However Mr Position brings up a very very valid point:


This is the basis of why the FIA reached their decision:
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/cref-czatad.html


My standard dictionary from the UK Ministry of Justice has this to say:
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

The FIA's decision therefore was entirely proper. Despite this, aren't we entitled to an opinion on the matter?


Excellent post Rollo.

My feelings exactly. And to be fair to Tamb, he has shifted my point of view from they should have been punished, to 'at end of day, the FIA couldn't prove they used it, so you cannot punish them'.

But my opinion, I've taken all the facts together, and I've come to a subjective opinion. Its open to interpretation as can be seen by other posts in this topic. But thats my opinion, and we've gone into pretty much full detail regarding this topic, so I feel confident in saying I've looked at both sides of the story (which have been well backed up btw with sources which is nice to see), and have come to an educated personal decision.

And I'm quite proud in saying I started this petty bickering with my post bringing this subject up, 200 posts later, we're coming to an end :)

Knock-on
20th August 2008, 11:24
You're missing the point of the concept. Static predictive systems wouldn't work, as you say, but this wasn't meant to be static.

The aim of the concept was to have engine management controlled by remote computers. It was in the days when pit-to-car telemetry was allowed, and by precisely locating the car on the track (which wasn't the hard part) the engine management could receive pre-programmed alterations to best fit the expected needs of the engine for optimum traction at any point.

Example -

"Telemetry hasn’t remained immune to this debate. If it were up to the technologists, they would already have developed the necessary systems to recalibrate engine or chassis settings of an F1 car while it was out racing – wirelessly, from the pits and without the intervention of the driver. But pit-to-car telemetry has been prohibited by the FIA since 2003, precisely to prevent this type of ‘telecommand’ operation"

http://kn.theiet.org/magazine/issues/0801/data-driven.cfm

For what it's worth, it was considered (but crucially never alleged nor proven) that several teams had mastered this system by the 2000 season.

This was the reason why the FIA banned pit-to-car engine management communication.


Who needs the drivers foot?

"The Future of Mobility : A Selection of Novel Commercial Applications
Loke Kar Seng
Monash University Malaysia
No. 2, Jalan Kolej, Bandar Sunway, 46150 Petaling Jaya,
Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

Bi-directional telemetry, from car-to-pit and pit-to-car, was allowed back for a short while a few years ago. Bi-directional telemetry enables teams to alter settings on the governing electronic control unit by
radio signal, and this can mean between victory and defeat"

http://www.infotech.monash.edu.my/~ksloke/futureofmobile.pdf

Ultimately, the concept meant that there would be no need for good old-fashioned neanderthal Traction Control.

This was another reason why TC was allowed again in 2001. The costs of running a simple TC program were nothing compared to the expenditure needed to perfect state-of-the-art pit-to-car bi-directional telemetry.

But, as an IT specialist, I'm surprised that you needed something so well known and basic to be pointed out.


http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA6479489&industryid=47041

"By its nature, real-time telemetry data is also controversial in auto racing. With the proper setup, pit crews or even factory specialists can monitor vehicle sensors during the race to prepare for pit stops, devise alternative strategies for fuel conservation, or even identify and troubleshoot engine or mechanical malfunctions. Typical telemetry measurements include multiaxis acceleration, temperature, rotational speeds, and mechanical displacement. With two-way telemetry, experts can tune the engine performance or adjust aerodynamic characteristic in real time throughout a race"

Tamburello

You post a lot of words with a lot of technical links which all make perfect sense.

However, they have nothing at all to do with the subject we are discussing.

All of what you posted is completely valid and I agree with it but it still IN NO WAY HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE DISPUTED LC OR TC FUNCTION EMBEDDED IN THE BENNETTON ECU!!!

Sorry for having to do a PolePosition and emphasise this so much but you seem to have a habit of arguing to the nth degree something that is not related to the subject being discussed.

Your posts are knowledgeable and factual but irrelevant to the purpose of the SW we were discussing and why it would still be used.

21st August 2008, 13:48
Tamburello

You post a lot of words with a lot of technical links which all make perfect sense.

However, they have nothing at all to do with the subject we are discussing.

All of what you posted is completely valid and I agree with it but it still IN NO WAY HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE DISPUTED LC OR TC FUNCTION EMBEDDED IN THE BENNETTON ECU!!!

Sorry for having to do a PolePosition and emphasise this so much but you seem to have a habit of arguing to the nth degree something that is not related to the subject being discussed.

Your posts are knowledgeable and factual but irrelevant to the purpose of the SW we were discussing and why it would still be used.

It has everything to do with the disputed LC/TC.

1994 marked the start of the development of pit-to-car traction telemetry, but, as I keep saying, the 'old fashioned' TC system had to be run in testing to compare the results.

The results, although I can offer no proof of this (because for a start I didn't stuff my pockets with discs at the end of every working day and I signed an NDA), were that the pit-to-car telemetry was going to work....eventually. In 1994, at the start of its development, it wasn't producing reliable workable results.

However, in addition to that, as stated before, running with TC in testing and data-logging the amount of TC used was a very good way of defining the merits of set-up.

This is where I had a personal interest in the results of tests run with TC on.

The effectiveness on car performance (eg -tyre wear / engine performance, etc) of Aero updates was all the more clear when comparing the TC 'on' results.

With TC off, there was plenty of data to study, but with additional TC 'on' results to look at, it gave even more.

Any F1 engineer, and at Benetton in 1994 there were some of the very best, will tell you that the more data they have got, the better.

Again I have no proof (for the afore-mentioned reasons), but I never saw TC 'on' data from a GP.