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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

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.

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.

---

"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

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/2007/03/2...heel-steering/

So well after the design & development of the B194 had begun!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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.

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?

The link for the above quote -

http://tbfoc.narod.ru/Eng/1994/Grand.../gp_report.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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?