Isn't everyones?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Isn't everyones?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Sorry Tamburello but the announcement was mad in Jan 03 I think over a year before the ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
The simplist explanation is sometimes the best. Benetton had LC (and probably TC as well but this will never be proved).
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Yes but having itunes would interfer with the registry of a computer - which is the commands a computer runs off, including Microsoft Word. We can go into this if you want, but I work in IT, I'm not making this up.
And all due respect, but unless your in that field I highly doubt your 100% familiar with the system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
You complained Hill was only in running for championship because he won when there was no competition.
Well Schumacher won when there was no competition in several seasons.
As stated by Knock On, regulations were announced before 1994 cars had started being designed.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
So my original question still stands.
We have a different opinion, but IMO a WDC reflects performance over the full season, not just a single race, so therefore I'd say in that year MS deserved the title more and should have clinched it already before Australian GP.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
And about British GP 1994, which also seems to create some heat. The pass on the warm-up lap was indeed completely unnecessary, but I personally don't think we should bash MS for ignoring black flag.
Let's recall. MS made his stop & go penalty just a lap (?) after the three-lap penalty implementation limit. During those 3 laps Benetton team members were having a heated debate with marshals (in hope of escaping penalty?) and they continued doing it after MS had served the penalty (in hope of keeping second place even if MS served the penalty a bit too late?). Therefore I think Michael was asked by the team to stay out and keep racing with the hope of escaping penalty (if you go into the garage, there won't be any hope to keep result with the help of protest). So I think it was harsh to punish MS for ignoring black flag with a 2-race-ban.
I'd agree with that, and on that basis MS's performances did deserve the WDC. It just that, given everything that had happened at Williams ("my" team) in 1994, and the way that they and Damon Hill responded, meant that he was equally deserving of a WDC IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
His response to Senna's death, and the way he picked the team up was reminiscent of his father's 1968 title win. This was someone who was thrust into a position, as a 2nd year F1 driver, that he probably wasn't ready for and yet he carried himself with enormous dignity and class under enormous pressure, and against one of the best drivers the sport has seen.
The ban on Driver aids were not announced in January 1993.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
"If the action on-track was disappointing, off-track the political recriminations were reaching fever pitch. FIA President Max Mosley made his objections to traction control and active suspension explicitly clear when, at the Canadian Grand Prix, he declared the team’s interpretation of the rules to be illegal and promised to ban the technology"
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/f1-inform...enna-the-hero/
No it wasn't, so my original answer still stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
what a stubit thread!!!
They had it for 1993.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
But I have a better one for you - David Coulthard admitted that Williams used TC during testing.
There is a difference in there being software that could be used for TC or TC actually being found to be useable. The latter never happened, so you are once again, so to say, talking from your arse.Quote:
2) Well, maybe you stand corrected, Knock On points out TC was indeed found on the car. Or software which could be used for TC..
Welcome to my world.Quote:
4) I honestly can't take what you say seriously. .
:rotflmao: Hilarious!!!Quote:
I'd respect your opinion more if you were open about it with a "yes they used it, but it wasn't proved, they exploited the loophole and pushing the boundaries is all part of F1".
So I have to admit to something that did not happen to earn respect from someone like you? Well that makes all the difference :rotflmao:
Funny guy.
They did not have TC, nor have I ever admitted they had TC in their system.Quote:
But for you to admit they had the system, and yet not use it. Well, I may be wrong and don't expect you to accept it, but it makes you come across totally biased..
How would you tackle the subject of noise. To be specific, TC is clearly audible and I am also sure it shows from telemetry.
FIA had all the data they needed, and I`m sure also the telemetry of the cars. But they saw nothing to indicate it had been used. Hell, every person watching the TV could have heard the TC working, but no, no one heard anything.
Also, if they had TC, surely by now someone involved would have said something. But no, nothing has been said about it.
I ask you again, PROVE that Benetton used TC.
Saying "everyone knows they used it", won`t cut it as I don`t know that and apparently Tamburello doesn`t either. So give us the proof needed and show us the light.
Just a lap?Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr556.html
Maybe he "didn't see" the flag but failing to come in after 14 laps shows blatant disregard to the authority of the FIA. Failing to observe a black flag is one thing, but only coming in after the race director physically comes down and forces you to?Quote:
On lap 27 - 14 laps after the penalty was given - Schumacher finally stopped but only after Race Director Roland Bruynseraede had been to the Benetton pit. The team later received a severe reprimand and a fine of $25,000.
Harsh? Tish.Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
Is civil disobediance worth ignoring?
Canadian Grand Prix was in June. Thats when they start their developments of next years cars by todays standards!Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
They wouldn't have been that far into development in June 1993 for the 1994 car.
To get the system fully implemented and functioning for 1994, they'd have had to have continued working on the system much past June 1993.
So your original answer doesn't stand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
DC admitted Williams used it in testing. Yes thats bad as well, its wrong. I don't particularly see why your pointing that fact out?
Also, V10 engines were allowed in 2005, but banned for 2006, but if a team went into 2006 with a V10 saying, look we used it in 2005 - of course thats not acceptable. You follow the rules!
And well comments such as "talking out your arse" I find slightly saddening. I disagree with your opinion, and am suprised by some of your arguments, but I have not once said anything like that. Presumably you've resorted to this because of your fustration of me being morally and sportingly correct. While your defending a team which is in the wrong.
Can I ask if you were a Schumacher fan ?
No, because I am honestly slightly suprised to see you apparently geniuenly believe Bennetton had an illegal system on their car and yet did not use it. For me, your either lying to not lose the moral high ground, or your incredibly niave.
Bennetton made the FIA wait before handing over majority of the data, who knows what happened with the data and how it was changed? If Bennetton were innocent, why make the FIA wait for the data and evidence to be handed over?
I can't prove it, but they've admitted to Launch Control - and performance advantage to that was pretty good if you look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYca6E6c3IM
Taking into account that launch control and traction control are basically run from the same system, its a pretty sure bet they were.
Fair enough, you can't penalise them for it being a safe bet. But launch control was there in the open, and Bennetton escaped via a loophole, after the FIA requested evidence after the San Marino GP, and only got given a demonstation given by late July, thats 4 months after the original request!!
Oh, my bad. I must have misinterpreted a video I once saw. :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/moto...ne/2681835.stmQuote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Sorry Tamb but you are wrong.
This article from January quotes Max as saying it is banned from the British GP.
Knock On - hate to say this but that articule is from 2003.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
I'm only a decade out :laugh:
Just ignore me. I've a cold :D
lol, I wish you were right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
But I've done my research, move was introduced in 1993 June.
So our point still stands :)
Because unlike Benetton, who were never found to have TC on their system, Williams admitted that they had it. So what stopped them from using it in races? Why are you not hunting them with the same rigour?Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
These are not comparable at all and I`m pretty sure you know it.Quote:
Also, V10 engines were allowed in 2005, but banned for 2006, but if a team went into 2006 with a V10 saying, look we used it in 2005 - of course thats not acceptable. You follow the rules!
:rotflmao:Quote:
And well comments such as "talking out your arse" I find slightly saddening. I disagree with your opinion, and am suprised by some of your arguments, but I have not once said anything like that. Presumably you've resorted to this because of your fustration of me being morally and sportingly correct. While your defending a team which is in the wrong.
You have to still to show that Benetton had TC, I am still waiting buddy.
Of course you can.Quote:
Can I ask if you were a Schumacher fan ?
Can I ask if you were a Hill fan?
It is funny how you earlier complained about some of my comments and now you call me niave (sic).Quote:
No, because I am honestly slightly suprised to see you apparently geniuenly believe Bennetton had an illegal system on their car and yet did not use it. For me, your either lying to not lose the moral high ground, or your incredibly niave.
Look, Benetton had LC. Never proved they used it, but it is not even in the topic really. Topic is TC. Now show me how they had TC. That`s all I am asking, you have not done that.
So why did they not delete the LC out of their system?Quote:
Bennetton made the FIA wait before handing over majority of the data, who knows what happened with the data and how it was changed? If Bennetton were innocent, why make the FIA wait for the data and evidence to be handed over?
A lucky start, but look at how obviously they used LC here. Just look at the "magnificent" start Schumacher had there.Quote:
I can't prove it, but they've admitted to Launch Control - and performance advantage to that was pretty good if you look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYca6E6c3IM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G61AWO5mkYc
I remember when Häkkinen twice came from 3rd position in 2000 to lead in the first corner. LC maybe?
But at least you finally admitted that you cannot prove they used LC.
None was found despite extensive searching. You have nothing besides "you being sure." That counts for nothing unfortunately for you. Give me just some proof as to them having it, for example audio proof would be good.Quote:
Taking into account that launch control and traction control are basically run from the same system, its a pretty sure bet they were.
Answer these questions I asked already earlier.
Why was TC not detected in Benetton Telemetry?
Was was is that no one heard TC, when we have seen in recent years that TC makes an obvious noise?
Why is it that in 14 years no one from the team has said anything, despite surley quite a few people having to know about it, if they really had had TC?
Ha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
I just noticed that Schumacher overtook Senna on the warmup lap :p :
Ha!!Quote:
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
That's more like it.
Let's get back to the petty bickering. People are taking it all too seriously :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Because Williams didn't win the title. Did Williams actually have this system installed during the races? Post the link of the DC interview. Its different testing it in testing and having it fully functioning during course of the season.
The not the same situation, but your saying its ok for them to have a totally illegal system on the car because it was legal the previous season. Its not, if its made illegal, you remove it totally.
I've said Garry that I cannot prove Bennetton had TC. So I don't understand why your mocking me that I still can't prove it when I've said I can't prove it.
But they had LC, which works from the same system, so its highly likely. But as I said in my previous post, if you can't prove they had it, you shouldn't punish them. But we can prove they had LC.
Yes I am a Damon Hill fan, you say of course I can ask, but you didn't answer my question. Are you a Schumacher fan?
Erm, niave is a description, saying someone is talking out of their arse is an insult. Theres a difference. If I call a 12 year old child niave, I'm not insulting them, I'm just describing their nature.
And I think its particularly niave position to take, to assume Benetton didn't use LC when they had it fully functioning within the car. This added up with their splended starts they had, and fact it took them 4 months to hand over any evidence, and fact they denied having it, it was found, they admitted having it saying it can't be switched on, found it could be switched on by both a laptop and within the cockpit itself, and they claimed they didn't realise it. When the FIA asked them if they didn't know it existed, why was the turn on function so secretly hidden, they said so it wasn't turned on accidently. It was just lie after lie.
If you honestly believe they didn't use it thats fair enough, I can't prove they did use it, but to think they didn't use it, with all the facts I've mentioned above, I honestly believe its a naive position to take. Sorry if you disagree.
Well, fact that the system was so well hidden, maybe suggested they tried the best to hide it. But I don't think main question would be why didn't they rid it totally, main question I got is if they were innocent why take 4 month to show evidence?
I can prove they had LC, Benetton admitted to having it. Don't know what more proof you want?
Telementery, I don't know how sophisticated it was or if even used in 1994 to be honest.
And I don't know whether or not the FIA looked into it or not. There is no mention of it in the statement released by them.
The noise, well at San Marino when the FIA first asked to see demonstrations of their system, so presumably they must have suspected it from somewhere, presumably the noise would have been one area to raise the issue up.
But fact is the FIA wouldn't have been able to penalise a team for LC or TC on grounds of noise engine makes - so thats presumably why no mention of it.
Why is it 8 years ago a man was arrested for Jill Dando's murder and he has only now been released? Surely someone must know.
Why do crimes go unsolved for 20 years? Surely someone must know something.
Your asking me to answer the impossible questions! I don't know answer in same way presumably you don't.
If you think Benetton MUST be innocent if no one has come out in 14 years, its just another example of having a very naive view on life.
http://grandprix.com/gpe/rr549.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
http://grandprix.com/gpe/rr550.htmlQuote:
These included fully-automatic gearboxes, traction control and launch control - a system which allowed a driver to simply push the accelerator fully on when the start was given without needing to pay attention to wheel-spin or gear changes.
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/cref-czatad.htmlQuote:
There was increasing discontent that the rules were not being properly policed with allegations that some teams were using traction control and automatic starting systems.
Quote:
the FIA announced that it had analyzed the software of Michael Schumacher's Benetton at the San Marino Grand Prix and discovered that the system included a "launch control" feature which could be activated with a laptop computer using a mysterious "option 13" on a list of 10 options. The FIA investigation concluded that there was "no direct evidence" of traction control having been used - although Benetton was fined $100,000 for failing to supply the governing body with access to its systems within the time limits dictated.
reprinted: A-Z of Grand Prix Cars, David Hodges, 2000.Quote:
FIA Rulings Document - 94/216. Nov 7, 1994
A formal investigation has been concluded with regards the named "option 13" in the transmission software for the Benetton B194.
The FIA has not found sufficient evidence to determine the nature of the characteristics of this option, but due to the nature of the penalty already imposed on car no.5 at the Italian and Portugese Grands Prix, and the position that Williams F1 already holds a numerical advantage in the FIA Constructors Championship, a meeting of team principals has decided that in the interests of competition, no formal investigation will be entered into.
Why has no-one said anything? Because they've all moved on. Williams won the Constructors Championship, and an agreement sealed the fate on the B194.
It still doesn't change the fact that Benetton may or may not have had it, it's just impossible to prove and with 14 years passing even more so.
As for "that" incident? Schumacher knew exactly what he was doing. I agree with James Allen's verdict in the biog.
Yes it does....Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2007/03/2...heel-steering/
"Of all the exotic technologies to be banned from Formula 1 through the years, four wheel steering could perhaps be the only innovation to have been developed after it was outlawed.
The FIA made clear early in 1993 that ‘driver aids’ would be banned for 1994. A range of technologies were included in that all-encompassing phrase including one not yet in use - four-wheel steering.
Although front-and-rear-wheel steering appeared on road cars such as the Honda Legend and Mitsubishi 3000 GTO, it would never be raced in Formula 1. But late in 1993, despite knowing it would be illegal in a matter of weeks, Benetton gave the system a go anyway - and came damn close to racing it.
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.
The major addition to this car was a hydraulically operated rear steering rack, which Moog electro-valves able to alter the steering angle of the rear wheels by two degree in either direction.
In an attempt to minimise any safety implications the hydraulics were designed to go into a preset ‘fail safe’ position in the event of failure, pointing the wheels straight.
The system was also designed to be turned off and on at will, allowing the driver to run the car with a conventional front wheel steer set up if he preferred.
And in the event that was exactly what drivers Schumacher and Riccardo Patrese did prefer, finding the four wheel steer set up added nothing to the car in terms of laptime. But it did, as far as Patrese was concerned, produce an unusual handling sensation.
The lap times testified that if the system added any to the car’s performance, it wasn’t very much. Schumacher said:
'It feels very good, but actually it doesn’t change things a lot. I am using the same lines and there isn’t a lot of movement at the rear. It makes it a little easier, but right now the system doesn’t work very well in the slow corners, so we might not use it in Adelaide'
They didn’t use it in Adelaide or Suzuka. Schumacher ran it in testing on Friday morning at Suzuka, and then turned the system off.
But Benetton’s failure to find any advantage with the system didn’t change the FIA’s decision to ban it"
So there you have it, in black & white, evidence that Benetton were working on systems late in 1993 that you claim they wouldn't have been.
Hold on....Massa went from third to first at the start in Hungary this year....Hamilton went from 4th to 2nd at Silverstone this year...Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
...I remember Prost going from 4th to 1st into Copse in 1987, long before traction control first existed on an F1 car....
...I remember Senna going from 4th to 1st into Copse in 1985....
One great start doesn't prove anything other than it was a great start.
It certainly isn't the basis for a sound argument, nor does the video link you provided prove anything untoward whatsoever.
If you work in IT, then you would have some understanding that TC & LC are just computer programs, which don't add weight to a car, and have no physical form, so forgive my sceptism at your alleged knowledge but from what you have posted I have my doubts that you know the first thing about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
It certainly doesn't prove that Benetton did, or didn't have TC/LC. Just as Senna's suspicions about the Benetton didn't prove anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
I think it's reasonable to raise a question mark as to whether the systems were used or not, but equally as it cannot be proved either way.
The move was not introduced in June, Mosley initially announced that he wanted to see 'driver aids' banned for 1994 in June 1993, but the actually announcement was not made until the end of the following month.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
Just out of interest, which F1 team were you part of the design team for in 1993?
The one I worked for started work on its 1994 car in May that year.
So your point does not stand.
Again.
As far as four wheel steer goes, the Nissan GTR Group A car did not have it in race trim but the road going cars did. Honda had already done its testing on the system and found that there wasn't a significant difference in lap times.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
In these cases, the added weight seems to negate any advantage you may have derived from it. It's also largely the reason why four wheel drive was used and then subsequently abandoned on the BRM P67, the Lotus 63 and why the only GP point ever scored by a 4WD car was the Matra MS84 at the '69 US GP.
Sometimes whilst a technology is good and prudent, it just doesn't justify itself.
Sorry, but just because you are in the best car does not automatically mean you will win the championship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Assuming both Mc's are equal, why is Heikki NOT a championship contender ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Totally missed my point. I said "To get the system fully implemented and functioning for 1994, they'd have had to have continued working on the system much past June 1993."
If they continued working past this date KNOWING it was illegal, then why invest resources unless they weren't planning to use it in races?
So I never claimed they didn't work on it past June 1993, I was saying to get LC fully working they'd have had to work on it much past June 1993, when it was legal, even if as you claim it was July 1993, my point still stands, they'd have had to work on it after that point.
Surely if they worked on it knowing it would be illegal implies they planned using it in races. Why invest time and resources to something your never going to use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
No, but great starts such as that as well as suspicion from all over the paddock that LC was being used does imply it they had it.
Plus fact that Benetton were one of the teams being investigated for LC, and at time of video clip I showed you the only team to still have withheld evidence about their systems to the FIA.
It does imply they were using LC.
I work in IT, and I have absolutely cock all idea of how to implement a TC or LC system on an F1 car.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
If you want your BES server upgraded from 3.6 to 4.1, using the knife edge cutover method however, I'm your man!! :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredman
Sorry Fredman, you're a little new round these here parts.
I should have wrapped it in a [scarcasm]...[/scarcasm] post :D
Personally, I believe that the McLaren and Ferrari are very similar this year with the Ferrari being the slightly better car.
As for which driver in the Mac comes out on top, I think Heikki is a good driver but not in Lewis's league.
Thats a very typical view point of people in general. I work in IT so I know EVERY field of IT technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
But IT is a large area, I'm familiar with computers and how they work, and that LC and TC would be controlled by software which can be set accordingly, however I'm not at all familiar with the engineering or mechanical aspects - its not my field.
I suppose being from a non-IT background your slightly naive to the depth of IT and how specialised it is.
You claim to have worked for an F1 team, I would have thought it'd be common knowledge for you to realise that LC software would have to be integrated into the full dynamics of the computer on board for it to work, even if directly totally seperate programmes! On that basis I could say I feel sceptism towards your claim you worked for an F1 team.
There are a few ways to do TC and LC.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
I suppose the traditional way is by using sensors controlling wheel spin and adjusting the level of acceleration accordingly.
However, even with a sealed, standard ECU, it wouldn’t take a lot of imagination to use the diagnostic software to control throttle and brake input. All you need is a set of rules for maximum increase of RPM for example and if this falls outside these parameters, you could limit fuel without affecting the sealed ECU.
Diagnostics can run thousands of times a second and will probably be encompassed in a solid state sealed box that would be almost impossible to dissect as the FIA found out last time they tried.
Bear in mind that Ferrari (for example) has a huge WinTel infrastructure with an inordinate processing capability but would not use the windows OS which would be relatively simple to disseminate and identify additional code inserted as a ghost subroutine to control TC / LC. However, if you were using a cut down version then you could get away with whatever you wanted. The footprint of MS OS are well known and the alteration of one byte, or even bit, could be identified relatively easily but only on standard versions.
The big problem is that even if a standard MS OS were used, the code on top would have to be picked apart and each routine examined to understand its role. Even then, you would have what looks and operates like legitimate functions combining with other functions to produce something completely different.
We are talking about millions of lines of code being individually examined.
Personally, I would not use such a Mickey Mouse system but would compile a bespoke OS and have the applications written in a more specialized machine code specifically designed to be used for dedicated processes as then it would be more predictable. A standard OS is designed to be used for many different functions but a compiled code written in something like FORTRAN on top of a basic OS is much more efficient and dedicated. The only problem with this is that it’s a bit more difficult to hide processes in something like this as they tend to stick out a mile.
So, to hide a subroutine that controls TC and LC is pretty easy.
Getting away with it is slightly more difficult though as telemetry can be examined and suddenly a driver changed throttle positions a thousand times a second might look a little dodgy so you would have to make it a little more subtle.
However, if we apply the forum (read FIA) rules to this, we cannot actually PROVE a team is cheating as we cannot see the physical code. However we can see that a driver has turned into a computer and is suddenly making adjustments at a rate that would make Steve Austin’s eyes water.
Has anyone been using this so far this year and have the FIA noticed and had a little word after Monaco.
THERE IS ABSOLUTLY NO PROOF OF THIS AT ALL!!
But… which drivers struggle without TC.
The way I see it, a team tends to be pretty standard throughout a season. Barring breakdowns, drivers generally perform to a level and if anything is being played with that shouldn’t be, I would look at drivers that are up and down like a Yo-Yo for no obvious reason.
Are TC and LC possible today?
Yes, it’s very simple and very illegal.
(PS. Backup, Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity, I'm your man :D )
Even if as you say it was introduced in July 1993, it doesn't make a difference. Its one month. If you said January 1994 fair enough, you'd have a point but you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
For the system to work, they'd have had to design, research, build it and finally test it on the final version of the car.
Unless their 1994 car was ready by July 1993, your point doesn't stand.
Again.
You don't get it do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
There was no compulsion within the regulations to get rid of the existing ecu programs, they were just not to be used. The progams were already fully integrated, so there was no benefit to removing them totally as it would have had no implication for the performance of the electronics which were still legal....it had had no performance disadvantage on those electronics in 1993.
Therefore, some 1994 cars carried over the already proven ECU's from 1993. Benetton were not alone in this....Ferrari did the same.
Mclaren had to change their engine management ECU as they had a new engine supplier, but they kept the gearbox ECU, which was also investigated and for which they also delayed the hand-over of the source codes to the FIA.
This is why the FIA insisted on the standard ECU for 2008. They learnt the lessons of 1993/1994.
See above post.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
There was no need to design anything, no need to research anything, no need to build anything and no need to test it.
It was just switched off.