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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

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/...river-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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

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"....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

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'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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'.

And when was this modifiied ECU introduced?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

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.