And couldn't be switched on again ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
And couldn't be switched on again ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Your argument would stand if Benetton raced the same car in 1994 as they did in 1993.
But for you to seriously think they'd put something on the car for 1994 without testing it first is slightly naive, especially considering you've worked for an F1 team in the past.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Also - just for my information - where did you find out Benetton carried over exactly the same ECU system to the 1993 car?
This is an interesting remark that Schumacher overtook on the parade lap at the 1994 Brazilian Grand Prix too. So now we have already two cases. Any more examples? Why did Schumacher do it at all if it's forbidden by the rules? I guess driving in 'free way' would enable to heat up tyres/brakes better than while following someone, but has MS ever had an explanation for his manoeuvres on the warm-up laps?
I don't know whether he's ever said anything about it, but one perfectly plausible explanation is that he (and the team) genuinely didn't know it was against the rules. Neither, seemingly, did most race stewards. I certainly didn't, and I'm sure most F1 followers didn't either. This is why it came as such a surprise when Schumacher was penalised for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
No need? I disagree with this viewpoint.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
There is always a need to develop systems and gain any possible advantage that you can in Formula One.
Every team will have a legal department pouring over the rules and regulations to find any loophole and skerrick which can be exploited. Unless something is expressly prohibited, you can almost bet that someone is working on it; to suggest otherwise is a) shortsighted and b) a nonsense.
A Formula One team with morals? Now there's a unique thought.
Only a vague memory, but was this rule introduced around this time? I don't remember it being an issue before then.Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
IIRC, it was brought in because cars were getting all over the shop during warm up and it was getting dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
During the Schumacher incident, it was speculated during the comentry that Schumacher was doing it to wind up Hill and play mind games.
He did it a couple of times, he was penalised, he refused to accept the penalty, he was black flagged, he resisted the Black flag and he was banned.
Anyone disagree with the sequense or the penalty?
For the Mclaren delay -Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
"PRESS RELEASE FROM THE FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE L'AUTOMOBILE (FIA)
Case C:
The FIA World Motor Sport Council found that the gearbox control device fitted to car No. 7 (Mika Hakkinen) Marlboro McLaren Peugeot at the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix was in breach of the Formula One Technical Regulations.
However the FIA World Motor Sport Council was satisfied that McLaren had fitted this system believing it to be legal according to their interpretation of the rules. They did not intend to infringe the regulations.
McLaren and any other team with such a device will be required to remove the up-change facility prior to the Italian Grand Prix and any similar down-change facility prior to the Portuguese Grand Prix.
The World Motor Sport Council upheld the fine of $100,000 imposed on the McLaren team on 26 July for delay in supplying the source codes. The World Motor Sport Council did not accept as a good enough reason the fact that the team itself had difficulties in acquiring the source codes from the company supplying them. The World Council recognized that the delay was not due to any intention by McLaren deliberately to conceal any feature in its software"
http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=919&FS=F1
The Ferrari ECU is from my memory.
In the design office, in July 1994.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
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.
I don't think he resisted the black flag. Benetton resisted it, certainly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
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.
I think you have misunderstood my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
It is claimed that Benetton tested the Traction control program in the ECU with the specific intention of racing with the program switched on.
It is claimed that the B194 was built from the outset with the intention of running it with Traction control.
I am pointing out that there was never any intention to do that, it was simply down to convenience that the same ECU was used as was used in the B193.
I fully appreciate that Flav was arguing the toss.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Fact is that MS did something that other drivers have been penalised for and for whatever reason, Schumy didn't come into the pit.
As for the black flag, it's not negotiable. When you are shown a black flag, you are instantly disqualified. End off story.
These are no gray areas or up to committees. It is a basic fundamental principal of Motoracing.
Black Flag is instant disqualification and is the responsibility of the driver to comply whatever his team subsequently do.
Peoples lives depend on this which is why it's written in stone. As soon as he saw it, his only responsibility was to retire from the race.
But you also do what the boss says.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
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.
But other drivers weren't penalised for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
I feel that there were good grounds for Benetton objecting, given that it was the first time the penalty had ever been given for this particular offence — one that team and driver seem to have known nothing about. I don't recall it having been announced that the rule had been 'brought in'. So, I think the whole thing was unfair given the apparent lack of knowledge of the rule, which, incidentally, is one I agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
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?
It's straight out disobedience of the officials. In your words 'Come into the pits at once because the Clerk of the Course wants a word with you' means precisely that, it does not mean stay out and ignore the orders of the officials for 14 laps.Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Type
What Benetton did was argue the penalty, what Schumacher himself did irrespective of who told him to stay out there was deliberately disobey a black flag.
Ok....so no proof, just your word...Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
"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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
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
You win and you lose as a team.
Sorry, you're right. It means come back to the pit immediatly and report to the Steward.Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Type
Saying that, I can't remember any occassion when a Black Flag hasn't ended in disqualification.
This is the fundemental issue here.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
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.
Well, I did work in F1 for periods of my aerodynamics career, and wasn't out of place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
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/
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
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?
It's more a case of us not agreeing because you don't understand how cars in F1 are produced.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
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.
If black flag means instant disqualification, then how is it possible that Schumacher was allowed to participate in the podium ceremony after the Grand Prix?
Talk about jumping the gun and not bothering to read posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
The B194 used an engine design that was used in the B193 at Suzuka in 1993, which is October, was then used in the B194 up until the Spanish GP, May 1994.
There were developments made to this engine spec throughout those 7 months, but none of these required a new ECU.
Because the 1994 regulations prohibited the use of traction control, Ford introduced the engine planned for 94 for the last two races of 1993. This ran with traction control for Suzuka & Adelaide, then ran without Traction Control throughout the winter in the 'muletta' B193, which carried on it several parts (suspension mainly but some aero stuff like front wings) never raced on a B193 but destined for the B194.
It is not unusual for a F1 team to do this still, since it is no good to wheel out a car in January and discover that something on it that could have been tested before the launch doesn't work.
To clarify - It did require changes to the engine management program, but not a wholly new system.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
I would imagine — again, no more than that — that the officials were confused as a result of the vehemency of Benetton's protest, and thought that further checks were necessary, thereby allowing him to stand on the podium. As I said before, the fact of this rule's existence and sudden emergence took me by surprise at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
I would have thought that the above was obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
Three little letters... DFV - Keke Rosberg won in 1982 with an engine which was originally devloped 15 years earlier :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
Mr Position is of course correct here, it's perfectly obvious that the 1982 DFV is going to be vastly different from the 1967 DFV, just like the B194 was different from the B193.
The most obvious difference was that the B193 (and there were A and B spec cars to boot) was powered by the Ford HB whereas the B194 had the Zetec Zetec-RV8. If Ford themselves reclassified the engine, I very much doubt it was the same.
Ford supplied Benetton with the 94 spec engine late in 93. At the time, it was publicly referred to as an HB and no announcement was ever made that the design had changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
This was mainly due to the ongoing Mclaren-customer spec row that Ron Dennis had been complaining about. Benetton were the works team, but Ford had been getting bad publicity due to the public bleating of a customer.
The Zetec moniker was given to it at the start of 94. The moniker was more for marketing reasons than anything else, if I recall correctly.
There was also a C-spec B193, the winter-testing muletta chassis. This moniker was never officially designated, but all who worked for Benetton in the winter of 1993/1994 knew that the car that was being tested was not a B193B nor a B194.
Alas, I can offer no proof other than my word. Benetton & Ford weren't in the habit of handing out technical data sheets for employees to post on the web and I had no desire to stuff my pockets with data sheets or discs just to settle an internet forum argument I might get into some 14 and a half years later.
By the look of it, given that no specific information has ever been forthcoming, neither have any of my former work colleagues.
As a footnote, just because an entry for a GP states an engine as being of a certain spec, doesn't mean it was.
Late 1993, i.e after July 1993 when all teams were aware of the ban on aids for the 1994 season?Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Yes, but the ECU was the same one. There was no need to change it, just modify it. There was no need to have a complete change.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
Please provide a link that says it wasn't the same ECU.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Erm, you said they modified it. That automatically means they changed it.