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

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

11th August 2008, 14:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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

But since there was no proof that anybody had pressed the secret button sequence, justice thankfully prevailed.

An accused man can be deceitful, dishonest & downright lying.......but if there is no evidence that he committed the act he is accused of, that is merely circumstantial.
11th August 2008, 14:52
Garry Walker

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

And you think Launch Control was legal?

It was not used, therefor there was nothing illegal.

Quote:

Also, calling my claims "false" is a bit far.

Really? I thought I was being too kind to you there. Your claims were as false as humanly possible, no TC was found on Benetton ever and you kept repeating it like it was a fact.

Quote:

Launch control and traction control work from the very same principles of physics.

But they are still very different, and as no TC was found, you should take back your earlier statements about Benetton being caught with TC.
Unless you in some very complicated process derived that as they had LC, they also surely had TC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

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.

Please prove your claim that Benetton was using TC and LC. That shouldn`t be too difficult, as "everyone" knows they used it, according to you.
If you can`t, I suggest you ask the doctor for a prescription of "shut the hell up".
11th August 2008, 14:53
PolePosition_1

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamburello

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.

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

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.

If you think having no competitions for wins means he doesn't deserve title,

What do you think of Schumachers Ferrari days where he didn't have any competition. Not even his team-mate?

Did he not deserve those titles?
11th August 2008, 14:55
PolePosition_1

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamburello

But since there was no proof that anybody had pressed the secret button sequence, justice thankfully prevailed.

An accused man can be deceitful, dishonest & downright lying.......but if there is no evidence that he committed the act he is accused of, that is merely circumstantial.

I tried tihnking of a real-life similar situation but couldn't think of one to be honest.

But I just don't see why Bennetton would invest resources into a system, actually implement it, get it fully functioning, and then not use it?

If you believe they didn't use it, what is your understanding as to why they had it and invested into it?
11th August 2008, 14:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

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.

No it wouldn't. Having itunes on your computer doesn't interfere with Microsoft Word.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

but I would have assumed it would have had its seperate little box somewhere.

If it was integrated, then it doesn't need a seperate box. You don't need a seperate box for the Excel program, or any other computer program.

All it would have needed are sensors, which can be used to monitor other things as well (driveshaft speed, hub speed....all vital telemetry for selecting the correct gear ratios), thereby having dual-purposes and not having additional weight added to them for the job of launch or traction control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

And I'm not 100% on the actual system

Really?

I'd never have guessed.
11th August 2008, 14:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

I tried tihnking of a real-life similar situation but couldn't think of one to be honest.

But I just don't see why Bennetton would invest resources into a system, actually implement it, get it fully functioning, and then not use it?

If you believe they didn't use it, what is your understanding as to why they had it and invested into it?

Because the 1994 car was designed in the summer of 1993, before the ban on driver aids. All the regulations requested were that such driver aids were not used.

That is the reason why the systems were found in the hardware of several teams.
11th August 2008, 15:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

If you think having no competitions for wins means he doesn't deserve title,

What do you think of Schumachers Ferrari days where he didn't have any competition. Not even his team-mate?

Did he not deserve those titles?

Remind me again, which of those five seasons when Michael won the WDC in a Ferrari was another driver leading the championship by 20-odd points before being banned for two races?

It was none, wasn't it?
11th August 2008, 15:12
PolePosition_1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

It was not used, therefor there was nothing illegal.

Really? I thought I was being too kind to you there. Your claims were as false as humanly possible, no TC was found on Benetton ever and you kept repeating it like it was a fact.

But they are still very different, and as no TC was found, you should take back your earlier statements about Benetton being caught with TC.
Unless you in some very complicated process derived that as they had LC, they also surely had TC.

Please prove your claim that Benetton was using TC and LC. That shouldn`t be too difficult, as "everyone" knows they used it, according to you.
If you can`t, I suggest you ask the doctor for a prescription of "shut the hell up".

1) And your turn, you explain why they would have invested time and money into a system, implemented it and got it fully functional only to not use it?

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.

3) Very different? I'm sorry mate, LC and TC are based on exactly the same principles. Hence when TC was unbanned, it meant LC was automatically allowed as well because they're virtually the same. Different functions, but work exactly the same way.

4) I honestly can't take what you say seriously. 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"

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.

Even for you to say "look, they had it, they probably did use it, but they shouldn't be punished for something which can't be proved" - I'd understand your side a bit better, and in many respects agree with you.
11th August 2008, 15:17
ArrowsFA1

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamburello

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.

It would appear that your argument is with the inconsistency of FIA officials.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamburello

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.

It may have been "evidently unjust" in your opinion, but since there is no proof that anybody made the decision solely to contrive a result, justice thankfully prevailed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamburello

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

:laugh:
11th August 2008, 15:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

1) And your turn, you explain why they would have invested time and money into a system, implemented it and got it fully functional only to not use it?

Because it was illegal? Seems a perfectly good reason not to use it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

3) Very different? I'm sorry mate, LC and TC are based on exactly the same principles. Hence when TC was unbanned, it meant LC was automatically allowed as well because they're virtually the same. Different functions, but work exactly the same way.

And neither were proven to have been used, thereby Benetton were conforming to the regulations that stated that they should not be used.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page