The Impact of Fate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vhatever

Oh my bad, I thought this was motorsport history, not motorsport fantasy. 1994 was just FIA trying to screw over schumacher, the end. Just like this year when they tried screwing over vettel with bogus mid season bans.

---

So this, in your mind, is what passes for 'history'?

The record also shows that Benetton were fined $500,000 for failing to obey the instructions of race officials; and that in addition to being disqualified for disobeying a black flag, Schumacher was banned for two races.

The record also shows that Benetton were fined $100,000 for failing to supply the source code for their electronic systems and that when they did supply it, it was found that their software included code that provided launch control. The team admitted the code was there but staed it had been disabled. The FIA then insisted that such code should be removed.

The record also shows that Benetton illegally removed a filter from the refuelling system to speed up refuelling.

"History" starts with the facts and extends into interpretation of the facts. It is not history to totally distort the facts and introduce conspiracy theories - that is fantasy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

and that in addition to being disqualified for disobeying a black flag, Schumacher was banned for two races.

---

Why did he get a black flag? He broke no written rule. they made the rule up on the spot, like some third world banana republic kangaroo court.

Read the reports.
Schumacher overtook Hill on the formation lap, which was against the written rules. Due to an incident there was a second formation lap - And he did it again!. According to the rules he should have been made to start at the back of the grid. As they had not done so, the organisers instructed Benetton he should have a 5 second stop-go penalty. Benetton ignored the instruction, hence the $500,000 fine. As the team were ignoring the instruction the organisers used the black flag. Schumacher ignored it for several laps. Hence his $25,000 fine, disqualification and 2-race ban. Incidentally the clerk of the course who failed to implement the "start at the back" rule had his F1 licence suspended for a year.
Source: Autosport Grand Prix Review 1994

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

Read the reports.
Schumacher overtook Hill on the formation lap, which was against the written rules. Due to an incident there was a second formation lap - And he did it again!. According to the rules he should have been made to start at the back of the grid. As they had not done so, the organisers instructed Benetton he should have a 5 second stop-go penalty. Benetton ignored the instruction, hence the $500,000 fine. As the team were ignoring the instruction the organisers used the black flag. Schumacher ignored it for several laps. Hence his $25,000 fine, disqualification and 2-race ban. Incidentally the clerk of the course who failed to implement the "start at the back" rule had his F1 licence suspended for a year.
Source: Autosport Grand Prix Review 1994

---

The contemporary rules had nothing mentioned about no overtaking, they specifically referred to being in the proper order when getting into the grid.

Schumacher didn't break the rules, further, they waited a half hour after the incident to issue to the stop and go, THAT what was "against the rules". So the stewards broke the rules, not schumacher. Benneton wasn't for sure if the stop/go was for the start of the race or not because of the massive time delay before the penalty, and then they black flagged schumacher, which he said he didn't see. Afterwards they straightened it all out and benneton agreed to do the stop/go penalty and be done with it. And that was supposed to be that. then, later, the FIA decided to turn it into an essential 3 race ban. The only people who broke any rules were the stewards. The only reason they did it is to slow down schumacher's utter domination of the season.

That's the REAL history.

you forgot "the end" in your arguement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vhatever

The contemporary rules had nothing mentioned about no overtaking, they specifically referred to being in the proper order when getting into the grid.

Schumacher didn't break the rules, further, they waited a half hour after the incident to issue to the stop and go, THAT what was "against the rules". So the stewards broke the rules, not schumacher. Benneton wasn't for sure if the stop/go was for the start of the race or not because of the massive time delay before the penalty, and then they black flagged schumacher, which he said he didn't see. Afterwards they straightened it all out and benneton agreed to do the stop/go penalty and be done with it. And that was supposed to be that. then, later, the FIA decided to turn it into an essential 3 race ban. The only people who broke any rules were the stewards. The only reason they did it is to slow down schumacher's utter domination of the season.

That's the REAL history.

---

That's better:
No intemperate language
No unsubstantiated wild allegations that the FIA conspired to "screw over" a driver
No accusing the motor racing press of writing fantasy

Can we move onto questions of fact. Are you sure about the regulations? The closest I can find is the 1997 FIA Sporting Regulations. Regulation No. 142 includes the text:

"~
When the green lights are illuminated, the cars will begin the formation lap with the pole po0sition driver leading. During this lappractice starts are forbidden and the formation must be kept as tight as possible.
Overtaking during the formation lap is only permitted if a car is delayed when leaving its grid position and cars behind cannot avoid passing it without unduly delaying the rest of the field. In this case drivers may only overtake to re-establish the original starting order.
Any driver who is delayed leaving the grid may not overtake another moving car if he was stationary after the remainder of the cars had crossed the line, and must start the race from the back of the grid. If more than one driver is affected, they must line up at the back of the grid in the order they left to complete the formation lap.
A time penalty will be imposed on any driver who, in the opinion of the Stewards, unnecessarily overtook another car during the formation lap."

How did the rules differ in 1994? Did the British GP have any race-specific regulations?

I don't think there is any dispute about the issue of a time penalty or the use and meaning of the black flag so I am not going to go to the trouble of typing them out.

Can I remind you that this thread is about questions of opinion - "What if some factual event had not occurred or occurred differently?" . There should be no need to question the basic facts.

How many times have you actually watched an f1 race? How many formation laps? How many times have you seen cars pull ahead of other cars? I've seen it dozens if not hundreds of time, and never once did anyone get a penalty -- except for schumacher.

The reason for what was essentially a 3 race ban was ignoring the black flag. Why was it when mansell did much worse for the initial black flag(driving in reverse down the pit lane) and was only excluded from 1 race. And after he continue to ignore the black flag, he crashed Senna out of the race! And he got ONE race ban?

They both ignored a black flag. Mansell goes on to crash Senna out of the race knowing his own race is already black flagged/dead. Net result? 1 race ban.

Schumacher ignores a black flag, stewards AGREE that there had been some miscomminucation and decided only give the original stop and go penalty, which schumacher takes during the race. 3 race ban.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vhatever

How many times have you actually watched an f1 race? How many formation laps? How many times have you seen cars pull ahead of other cars? I've seen it dozens if not hundreds of time, and never once did anyone get a penalty -- except for schumacher.

The reason for what was essentially a 3 race ban was ignoring the black flag. Why was it when mansell did much worse for the initial black flag(driving in reverse down the pit lane) and was only excluded from 1 race. And after he continue to ignore the black flag, he crashed Senna out of the race! And he got ONE race ban?

They both ignored a black flag. Mansell goes on to crash Senna out of the race knowing his own race is already black flagged/dead. Net result? 1 race ban.

Schumacher ignores a black flag, stewards AGREE that there had been some miscomminucation and decided only give the original stop and go penalty, which schumacher takes during the race. 3 race ban.

---

This has no relevance to the subject matter of this thread. Would you care to start a fresh thread to discuss these issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

This has no relevance to the subject matter of this thread. Would you care to start a fresh thread to discuss these issues.

---

Sure it does, as fate would have it the FIA is primarily run by greedy scammers, bigots, and morons. So save me the whole "but damon hill was sooo close to schumacher in 1994" nonsense as "fate/luck" was the only reason he was anywhere near him in the points to begin with.

Language such as "greedy scammers, bigots and morons" is not acceptable on this forum.

Had things panned out differently by the end of the season we could have seen either
(a) Schumacher win the Championship by a large margin, or
(b) Benetton or Schumacher disqualified from the championship and Hill becoming champion. Admittedly unlikely but relevant to the "What if?" scenarios

The rights and wrongs of how we might have reached either of these points is what I am saying could be the subject a separate thread. This thread is concerned only with what might have happened following either of the alternatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

Language such as "greedy scammers, bigots and morons" is not acceptable on this forum.

---

Oh really?
http://www.motorsportforums.com/sear...?searchid=1171
http://www.motorsportforums.com/sear...?searchid=1172

Don't bother threatening me with any notifications or anything. If the admin here lets moderators abuse their powers and make threats because they simply are losing a debate horribly, then I wouldn't want to be here anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

The rights and wrongs of how we might have reached either of these points is what I am saying could be the subject a separate thread. This thread is concerned only with what might have happened following either of the alternatives.

---

And a much more likely alternative is Schumacher dominated the entire season in 1994. When I said as much I was set upon by others who disagreed for whatever reason, so I defended my point.

Links don't work.

Stop complaining. It's ruining the thread.

I'm reading through a December 2004 issue of Motorsport News. There is an article at the beginning titled British rookies star in Formula One trials and it talks about tests run by McLaren and B.A.R. at Silverstone and Jerez respectively. McLaren tested Jamie Green, Alex Lloyd (both Autosport BRDC award winners) and a certain Lewis Hamilton. It was his first drive in an F1 car. B.A.R. was doing a driver assessment programme which included Adam Carroll, James Rossiter and Alan van der Merwe. Interesting how Hamilton was the only one to make it to F1.

The article above this one talked about a future test for Andy Priaulx at BMW. He was current WTCC champion and 30 years old at the time so his failure to reach F1 is, perhaps, less surprising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vhatever

The contemporary rules had nothing mentioned about no overtaking, they specifically referred to being in the proper order when getting into the grid.

Schumacher didn't break the rules, further, they waited a half hour after the incident to issue to the stop and go, THAT what was "against the rules". So the stewards broke the rules, not schumacher. Benneton wasn't for sure if the stop/go was for the start of the race or not because of the massive time delay before the penalty, and then they black flagged schumacher, which he said he didn't see. Afterwards they straightened it all out and benneton agreed to do the stop/go penalty and be done with it. And that was supposed to be that. then, later, the FIA decided to turn it into an essential 3 race ban. The only people who broke any rules were the stewards. The only reason they did it is to slow down schumacher's utter domination of the season.

That's the REAL history.

---

Produce some documentary proof for all of this, please. Otherwise those of us who are aware of the true definition of 'history' — of which, up to know, you have shown little understanding — will continue to believe only that what you're posting here is biased opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 52Paddy

Stop complaining. It's ruining the thread.

---

I agree. Shame.

Still, it's easy to come back on topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vhatever

1994? Are you kidding me, schumacher was cheated out of racing/getting points in 4 races because of how dominant he was.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

Can we please avoid emotional unsubstantiated allegations such as this.

The record for 1994 shows
British GP - Disqualified for ignoring a black flag
German GP - Retired with engine failure
Belgian GP - Disqualified for excessive skid block wear
Australian GP - Collision with Hill.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

Incidentally the clerk of the course who failed to implement the "start at the back" rule had his F1 licence suspended for a year.
Source: Autosport Grand Prix Review 1994

---

And with good reason because there is more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Produce some documentary proof for all of this, please. Otherwise those of us who are aware of the true definition of 'history' — of which, up to know, you have shown little understanding — will continue to believe only that what you're posting here is biased opinion.

---

Coming from some people who regards history highly....

vhatever does have a point and the controversy in 1994 is complex as commented in James Allen's Michael Schumacher/The Edge of Greatness

Regards to British GP. The rules say that you should hold formation or start at back of the grid but the resumed normally. The stewards took a long time deliberating and showed a black flag for penalty however the nature of the penalty was never explicit.

It was a '5 second penalty' but was this a stop-go penalty was never made explicit to the team. However the team knew the officials had made a grave error and argued that the time penalty should be added to the final result.

The Clerk of the Course failed to notify Benetton within 15mins but instead was expecting Shumi to serve the penalty within 3 laps of notice to the team.

However this didn't happen and the black flag was issued. Schumi claimed he didn't see (also Mansell's excuse at the 1989 Portugese GP). The black flag was shown for 3 laps then withdrawn at which point Schumi came in a served his 5 second stop-go.

Before the Spanish GP Flavio Briatore wrote a letter to the FIA questioning Max Mosley's leadership and arguably MM was looking for a vendetta.

The final paragraph:

Quote:

---

You (Max Mosley) continue to insist on all these ill conceived measures. It is our opinion that the ability of yourself and your advisers to judge technical and safety issues in Formula 1 should be questioned

---

After the British GP Schumi was fined £15k and the £500,000 to Benetton arguably added insult to injury considering that claims of TC was never proven.

Schumi in hindsight:

Quote:

---

My impression was that it was a set up and I was a scapegoat. We had a big lead in the championship and a lot of people were happy about us getting this penalty. The way Flavio Briatore dealt with it didn't really help either.

---

I will repeat what I said before.

This thread relates to "What if?" certain events had not happened and their consequences, ie alternative history scenarios. It is not the place to discuss the ins and outs of any particular event or season.

If people want to discuss the detail of, for example, the 1994 season can they please open another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

I will repeat what I said before.

This thread relates to "What if?" certain events had not happened and their consequences, ie alternative history scenarios. It is not the place to discuss the ins and outs of any particular event or season.

If people want to discuss the detail of, for example, the 1994 season can they please open another thread.

---

Let me put this another way:

Had Flavio not written that letter to Max Mosely would there still have been a witch hunt against Benetton or even MM's safety leagacy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

In terms of "fate" I like to think about drivers, how would their careers have panned out and how would they be viewed now in an alternative scenario. Either with the choice of a different team or the teams themselves would have performed differently. Looking at Button, it certainly creates some thoughts, as he has had two different kind of careers. Until 2008 in midfield, being written off as a consequence. But since 2009 three years in a top team on the trot, creating a completely different view about him. But as we remember, his career was close to coming to an end with 2008, had Brawn not saved the team. Without this "new" career he would never had the chance to create a new impression.

---

I think the most important question is what if Bruno Junqueira had won the Williams shoot out and not JB? They were very, very close and IIRC Junqueira was quicker over a single lap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Lets play with that one a little.

What if Honda had not cancelled their F1 project in '99? Harvey Postlethwaite may not have died and the core of his design team who then were mostly snapped up at Renault would have stayed at Honda.

Renault probably wouldn't have done as well without the engineering talent they got from the cancelled Honda project and might not have been in a position to win championships.

How much better would Honda have done than BAR? I know that BAR got their hands on the Dallara Honda prototype and that it did a lot better than their '99 car on the test rig.

So, what would the implications have been? BAR wouldn't have had a works engine deal, Renault would have lost out and Honda would have been the 12th team so Toyota would have found it difficult to enter F1 (if there was a 12 team limit back then)....

---

I don't think Renault benefited greatly from the acquisition of Honda's guys. They were a midfield team, there or thereabouts within reach of the front runners and I think Alonso elevated them in 2003.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

You know I meant to mention Nannini originally but it slipped my mind. The internet seems lack much info on Nannini, considering he was coming to the end of 1990 when he had his helicopter crash, did he have a contract for 1991? I am presuming yes - because Roberto Moreno, a driver not as good as Nannini, took over the last couple of races and then raced in 1991 too until Schumacher appeared on the scene.

Therefore, I am positioning that Nannini's hand injury was a key component of Michael Schumacher's early success. Nannini was quick and in 1991 may have beaten Piquet, who was at the end of his career.

Schumacher almost certainly, after his Belgium debut with Jordan, would not have gone to Benetton in 1991. He could have turned up there in 1992 after finishing the 1991 season with Jordan, taking over from Piquet or Nannini. Nannini could have stayed and Brundle would have had no 1992 drive. However, he could instead have tested for Williams instead of Damon Hill and ended up there in 1993 in his place!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

Nannini was improving steadily with each season in F1 and by 1990 he was very impressive. He made some mistakes, but from my recollection on average he was faster than Piquet that year.

---

It's very, very hard to say how good Nanni was or ever become but he perhaps deserved a win at the very least.

Piquet was getting a lot criticism for his Benetton days, certainly from James Hunt. Its often said that Piquet stayed in F1 for the money and drove within himself.

Moreno doesn't quite get the credit he deserves. James Hunt criticised Piquet because Moreno was giving him the hurry up - funnily enough it was rumoured Moreno was driving within himself because of his friendship with Piquet!

I think Schumi would still have ended up at Benetton. A team that could achieve race wins and therefore more potential and a driver 'past it' needing a hurry up and what we now know of Flavio, Flavio would most probably have got his man one way or other.

To put it yet another way: would Benetton have received as much "attention" from the FIA if Walkinshaw had never become involved there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FAL

To put it yet another way: would Benetton have received as much "attention" from the FIA if Walkinshaw had never become involved there?

---

Walkinshaw certainly has previous with pushing the limits with the regs and perhaps it was he who instilled that ethos into Team Schumacher - Ross Brawn and the notorious Ferrari barge boards and arguing that Michelin created illegal tyres.

But I think Flavio's letter was the catalyst since we now know that Max does not hold grudges well and the whole affair snowballed after the British GP at the hearing. Earlier that year at the Pacific GP Nicola Larini admitted Ferrari was using TC and all they got was a slapped wrist whereas Benetton had fines on top of another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

I think the most important question is what if Bruno Junqueira had won the Williams shoot out and not JB? They were very, very close and IIRC Junqueira was quicker over a single lap.

---

Given Bruno's lack of success and consistency in Champcars after this test, even in top machinery like Newman / Haas and Ganassi he never really shone, it's unlikely that he would have been much to write home about in F1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce D

Given Bruno's lack of success and consistency in Champcars after this test, even in top machinery like Newman / Haas and Ganassi he never really shone, it's unlikely that he would have been much to write home about in F1.

---

True but the point was if/how JB would've ended up in F1 given his savvy management as he had already tested for Prost GP in '99.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

Piquet was getting a lot criticism for his Benetton days, certainly from James Hunt. Its often said that Piquet stayed in F1 for the money and drove within himself.

---

IIRC that picture of Piquet began when he joined Lotus in 1988. Camel stumped up a lot of cash but the Lotus performance, when compared with the dominant McLaren-Honda, was abysmal. It got worse in 1989 and Piquet was accused of being in 'cruise and collect mode'.

He signed for Benetton on a payment by results basis and won three races in two years. Not bad for an emerging team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

True but the point was if/how JB would've ended up in F1 given his savvy management as he had already tested for Prost GP in '99.

---

Ah yes, ok well in that case it would have been interesting to see when JB got into F1, if he would have at all. Given that Williams already had Montoya signed and were waiting for 2001 it's unlikely that Button would have gone to Williams, as Ralf had a good reputation at that stage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

IIRC that picture of Piquet began when he joined Lotus in 1988. Camel stumped up a lot of cash but the Lotus performance, when compared with the dominant McLaren-Honda, was abysmal. It got worse in 1989 and Piquet was accused of being in 'cruise and collect mode'.

---

As I recall, in Simon Taylor's excellent 'Lunch with Peter Warr' in Motor Sport a couple of years ago, Warr stated that he was aware that Piquet was not quite the competitor he had been when he signed him; that he had already been affected by the ways described here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

As I recall, in Simon Taylor's excellent 'Lunch with Peter Warr' in Motor Sport a couple of years ago, Warr stated that he was aware that Piquet was not quite the competitor he had been when he signed him; that he had already been affected by the ways described here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

IIRC that picture of Piquet began when he joined Lotus in 1988. Camel stumped up a lot of cash but the Lotus performance, when compared with the dominant McLaren-Honda, was abysmal.

---

Was '88 abysmal? Lotus were race winners at best. The domination of McLaren meant realistically the best result was the podium.

When Walkinshaw took over at Arrows F1, he had kept it at its original location? I have often wondered as the team in Bletchley there had done a remarkable job with very little resources. Arrows F1 wasn't a failed team, it was under financed, so moving to Leafield wasn't such a good idea, as Tom Walkinshaw had envisaged...

What if? The impact of fate. Now sadly, the Arrows F1 team is history.