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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

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?

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.

---

You win and you lose as a team.

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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

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.