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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

Well, you break the rules, you get punished.

Though I'll admit that punishment did seem very harsh.

But that said, you could counter that with Bennetton had traction control and weren't punished for it.

---

"The FIA World Motor Sport Council also considered the report of the FIA Formula One Technical Delegate in respect of the electronic systems used on car #5 (Michael Schumacher) at the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix.

After hearing the representatives of Benetton Formula Ltd., the World Motor Sport Council reached the conclusion that, in common with the other two teams, Benetton's computer system contained a facility capable of breaching the regulations. In the absence of any evidence that the device was used and certain evidence that it was not, the World Council imposed no penalty involving the results of the event.

The World Council imposed a fine of 100,000 US$ on Benetton Formula Ltd for failing to make their computer source codes available immediately. An identical fine was imposed on McLaren for the same reason subject to McLaren's right to demand a hearing in October.

Paris, 26 July 1994"

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=627&FS=F1

On what basis would justice have been served by punishing teams for not using an illegal system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Which could not be proven (legal note - failure to provide proof of wrongdoing means acquittal), so why punish Benetton doubly harshly for something else?

On both counts, that is not justice.

---

Yeah I agree, if you can't prove something they shouldn't be punished.

But everyone knew they were using it. Its just Bennetton found a loophole and exploited it. The fact that the loophole has since been closed highlights the FIA knew Bennetton were cheating.

If you think thats good fair enough, personally I don't really approve of cheating through a loophole but your entitled to your opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

"The FIA World Motor Sport Council also considered the report of the FIA Formula One Technical Delegate in respect of the electronic systems used on car #5 (Michael Schumacher) at the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix.

After hearing the representatives of Benetton Formula Ltd., the World Motor Sport Council reached the conclusion that, in common with the other two teams, Benetton's computer system contained a facility capable of breaching the regulations. In the absence of any evidence that the device was used and certain evidence that it was not, the World Council imposed no penalty involving the results of the event.

The World Council imposed a fine of 100,000 US$ on Benetton Formula Ltd for failing to make their computer source codes available immediately. An identical fine was imposed on McLaren for the same reason subject to McLaren's right to demand a hearing in October.

Paris, 26 July 1994"

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=627&FS=F1

On what basis would justice have been served by punishing teams for not using an illegal system?

---

In a competitive sport like F1.

What is the point in having a system which just complicates things as well as adds weight to your car if you are not going to use it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

All due respect, but thats not the view Schumi had. MS knew Hill was up there, he's got mirrors, he's a good driver, one of the best to have raced in F1, I don't think anyone will deny MS knew he was there.

Hill went into the inside, when he saw MS had just come back onto the track, was at a much slower speed, and didn't expect MS to turn in on him when he had a broken car travellling at a much slower speed.

Hill had more than enough of a reason to go into the inside. Just look at the footage, his front wheel is just behind MS front wheel BEFORE the apex!

MS knew his car was damaged and he was going to lose the title. Instincts took over and he defended the line knowing Hill had earned the right of way.

---

So the view from Schumacher's car isn't the view Schumacher had????? Don't quite see how you can logically claim it isn't.

Schumachers car had mirrors, yes, but when you are aiming at an apex you certainly don't use them.

The very fact that Hill's front tyre is behind Michael's front tyre before the apex proves the opposite of your claim that it was Hill's right of way.

Michael began his turn-in when the nose of Hill's car wasn't even level with Michael's rear wing.

Pause this video at 1 second. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2n2oeZG43g

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Whereas if Hill had been gifted a contrived title due to the unjust banning of Schumacher for two races over the Silverstone farce (British marshals at their sporting best....I think not), it would have been perfectly fair?

---

"Contrived"? If Schumacher had not overtaken during both warm-up laps then there would have been no issue. Had he pitted to serve his penalty there would have been no black flag.

"Unjust"? Sure, it was initially a minor offence, but it was still an offence and MS and his team made the outcome far worse than it needed to be.

"Gifted"? I don't think so. IMHO Hill would have deserved the 1994 title for many reasons other than the British and Australian GP's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

In a competitive sport like F1.

What is the point in having a system which just complicates things as well as adds weight to your car if you are not going to use it?

---

Adds weight?

Since when has a computer program weighed anything? An ECU has weight, but a program within that ECU doesn't.

Your computer doesn't weigh more once you've downloaded itunes.

Since the program wasn't used, it didn't complicate anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Prove that TRACTION CONTROL was found on the Benetton :)

---

Launch control was found.

There was a suggestion that TC was also in use because it was part and parcel of the same software although once LC was identified, there was enough evidence to prove they were lying.

Then, after initially claiming it was not on the car, they backtracked and claimed it was but could not be turned on from inside the car.

Then it was proven that by pressing a secret button sequence, it could be turned on and off at will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

"Contrived"? If Schumacher had not overtaken during both warm-up laps then there would have been no issue. Had he pitted to serve his penalty there would have been no black flag.

---

He, and several others, all did the same throughout the season prior to Silverstone, with no punishment (Michael did in in Interlagos) and with no warnings of future conduct.

So, yes, "contrived" certainly fits the bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

"Unjust"? Sure, it was initially a minor offence, but it was still an offence and MS and his team made the outcome far worse than it needed to be.

---

Yes, it was unjust (see above). It was only "just" if you believe that somebody shouldn't appeal a decision that was evidently (see above) unjust and made solely to contrive a result

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

"Gifted"? I don't think so. IMHO Hill would have deserved the 1994 title for many reasons other than the British and Australian GP's.

---

Such as not winning as many races as Schumacher? Having no competition for wins in two races? Only being within striking distance (pun intended) because of contrived and unjust marshalling decisions?

Yep, Hill really deserved the title. Just like Yuji Ide deserved the 2006 WDC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

So the view from Schumacher's car isn't the view Schumacher had????? Don't quite see how you can logically claim it isn't.

Schumachers car had mirrors, yes, but when you are aiming at an apex you certainly don't use them.

The very fact that Hill's front tyre is behind Michael's front tyre before the apex proves the opposite of your claim that it was Hill's right of way.

Michael began his turn-in when the nose of Hill's car wasn't even level with Michael's rear wing.

Pause this video at 1 second. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2n2oeZG43g

---

Well, last time I checked, drivers view came from the cockpit, not from the engine cover.

It proves Hill was more than rightly on the inside of the appex.

You (or someone on this thread) was claiming Hill was BEHIND Schumacher earlier!

On a tight corner like that , just after another corner, you wouldn't get a dead heat wheel-to-wheel, Hill being on inside is about as far in on inside you'll get.

Yes, Schumacher turned in once he could see Hill was going on inside. Hill kept it in knowing he had more speed going into the corner. And even when Hill was well into the inside, MS kept turning in, despite having a damaged car and travelling at a much lower speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Adds weight?

Since when has a computer program weighed anything? An ECU has weight, but a program within that ECU doesn't.

Your computer doesn't weigh more once you've downloaded itunes.

Since the program wasn't used, it didn't complicate anything.

---

Well the system would have had to have been intigrated with other systems within the car, so it would have complicated things. As the system did actually function.

And I'm not 100% on the actual system, but I would have assumed it would have had its seperate little box somewhere. But I'll let you have that one as I can't be sure on way or another.