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

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

13th August 2008, 13:39
Knock-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamburello

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 ;)
13th August 2008, 15:33
PolePosition_1

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamburello

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.
13th August 2008, 15:34
PolePosition_1

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamburello

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?
13th August 2008, 17:57
jens

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?
13th August 2008, 18:53
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by jens

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.
13th August 2008, 23:53
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamburello

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.
14th August 2008, 09:09
ArrowsFA1

Quote:

Originally Posted by jens

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.
14th August 2008, 09:19
Knock-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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, 15:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

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, 15:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

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.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page