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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

In the design office, in July 1994.

---

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