17 years on, it starts up again...

The place for speaking your mind on current goings-on in F1
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15428
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by dr-baker »

ibsey wrote:
I can confirm your lot at GPrejects are alot more logical and reasoned in your arguements. And also you seem to read and understand posts much better.

Yay, we are rejectful at trolling! :D
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

Been doing a bit more digging and found some mindblowing stuff. Interestingly it appears to me Hakkinen might have also overtaken on the formation lap at Silverstone 1994

http://youtube.com/embed/bEHmcImALsg?html5=1&fs=1

see: 4:30. Whilst Hakkinen and Alesi then go out of shot, you do see a gilimpse of what appears to me to be the darker Ferrari car at 4:30, rather than the white Mclaren. I had also heard someone say in a another forum about Hakkinen overtaking on the formation lap - hence what prompted me to check this, on the above video. As we know Hakkinen received no penalty during the Silverstone race, and was actually at the FIA hearing on 26th July and recieved a 1 race suspended ban, because he (along with Barrichello) failed to see the stewards for the end of race crash.

Of course in that same hearing the FIA retrospectively penalised M Schumi / Benetton by given them effectively a 3 race ban & 2000% fine increase. Yet no retrospective action was taken by the FIA on Hakkinen for appearing to commit the same inital crime as M Schumi. :o

Maybe this also contributed to Benetton's confusion on the day, in that they also saw Hakkinen overtake on the formation lap, therefore backing up their idea the S&G was for a misdeamour on the "Parade" lap and not the "Formation" lap. I will just leave this video here:

http://youtube.com/embed/efZUyhATNTo?html5=1&fs=1

Listen to Brundle commentary from 0:30 onwards and bear in mind, no penalty for that incident to the same driver. Also bear in mind the M Schumi had a massive points lead in 1994 and a was trailing Hakkinen in the points tally in 1998. Fascinating stuff indeed.
Last edited by ibsey on 27 May 2016, 10:53, edited 1 time in total.
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

I know the Hill fans here might not like this too much - but I am not trying to antagonise anyone with the following. Merely trying to spark a bit of a debate.

Regarding the HIll driving slowly during the two formation laps story I posted earlier. The were 6 engine failures in the opening laps of the race. Worth remembering that the FIA had just ordered to the teams to cut holes in the airboxes above the drivers heads, two races prior. Therefore the engines would have also being getting less cooling because of that, and presumably the teams would have pushed the limits on minimising airbox sizes prior to the holes being cut for aero benefit. Furthermore this was the first time Hill was on pole, since those airbox holes were forced upon the teams.

This is what Hill says in his book on 1994;

Silverstone 1994 - Hills on his thoughts before the race:

Quote
Our primary concern was race tactics and we gave very serious thought to a suitable tactical plan. Naturally, we could remember all too clearly how Schumacher had beaten us off the line in France.



Worth noting Hill wasn't fastest in morning warmup which is usually a good indicator of race pace. If you aren't convinced Hill wouldn't do this sort of thing, just consider the below comments from the man himself;


Spain 1994 - When M Schumi encounter gearbox problems & Hill lucked into a win;

Quote
You can imagine my excitement when Micheal ran into difficulties and I suddenly caught and passed him; there wasn't a great deal of sympathy coming from my directiion. My main thought was that it was about time he had a bit of bad luck. So much for sportsmanship!




Jerez 1994 - When Bernie got the two together for a photo opportunity to promote the WDC battle.


So, we sat on the pit wall and did our bit. I said to Micheal 'come on, let's forget all this b*llshit and attempts at psychological warfare.' He said: 'Yes after the championship.' So I said 'Fine' - and squeezed a little harder when i shook his hand.



FYI - the psychological warfare Hill is referring was when M Schumi said to the press that 'he didn't appreciate the way Hill hadn't supported M Schumi throughout his & the teams polictial troubles, and he thought Hill was a 2 rate driver'. Hill said to the press 'lets forget what happened before Jerez' as eluded to at the start of this video;

http://youtube.com/embed/fONnsUslQMA?html5=1&fs=1

Suzuka 1994 - opening laps of the race

Quote
It seemed to me Micheal was being pretty cautious on the first lap but even so, he nearly went off. Someone had dropped oil during the parade lap and the effect of the oil mixing with water created a rainbow effect on the track surface. He hit it first and missed the apex of the corner. The next thing, he was sideways, heading towards the gravel travel. I was saying 'Go on Micheal! Go on! Don't hang on to it! I was definitely wishing him to go off. I couldn't help it.



Source for the above quotes; Damon Hill inside story of a F1 season book.


If you think Head wouldn't do this sort of thing watch this video;

http://youtube.com/embed/asE7AA5_JdM?html5=1&fs=1

At 2.21 - He elludes to teams (particularly Ferrari) taking the fight off the track as well as on it. Please note I am not suggesting 100% Hill/Head/Williams did do this Silverstone 1994 formation lap tactic, merely exploring the possibility? Go to go to work now, but I would be interested to know what the average engine failure rate during the 1st 12 laps of GP's were in 1994. Particularly at engine breaking tracks like Monza or Hockenhiem (1st lap crash allowed for).


Finally though...

4 engines failed by lap 5 of Silverstone 1994. The equivalent season average was 0.6 engine failures. So Silverstone was 6.4 times higher than the season average. Also interesting to note that during the Silverstone race more engines failed, than at Hockenhiem & Monza combined (i.e. the two circuits suppose to be hardest on engines).


Those are the facts - read into them what you want. I would be interested to know your thoughts however.
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

Having just rewatched Speed channel's retrospective look at the 1994 British GP I can indeed confirm Hakkinen did overtake Alesi during the formation lap, and stayed in front of Alesi throughout the Becketts section. This is what Machett says about the M Schumi / Benetton penalty;

Quote
About 30 minutes into the race - so well after the deadline the notice should have been given - the team were handed a notice by the stewards which said ' a 5 seconds time penalty would be applied to car number 5 for a infringement on the parade lap'. That was all the notice said. He also says he can remember consternation by the team saying how there was nothing in the regulations about the parade lap. Machett's also confirms the term 'parade lap' does not exist in the 1994 regulations and the notice should have said 'formation lap'. Given this the team thought it might have something to do with the laps the drivers wave to the crowd a on a open top truck a couple of hours before the race hence the confusion. Also Machett wasn't personally wasn't aware of M Schumi's antics on the formation lap.

He conceeds some other teams members may have been aware of the formation lap antics, but at that time it happened on a regular basis and particularly given Hakkinen did exactly the same thing, it is possible they didn't give this a second thought. Furthermore David Hobb's says during his time it was very common for cars to overtake on the formation lap, and that was the first time he ever realized it there was a rule not to do it. The team discussed the notice and concluded a time penalty would be added on at the end of their race. So they were extremely surprised and amazed when they were shown the black flag.

Whislt the black flag was shown the team went to find the race officials and clarify matters and they reached an agreement to withdraw the black flag and serve the S&G. Note during this time they moved from the pitlane (where the worlds press could hear the discussions) to discuss the matter somewhere more private – which cost them more time. During this time M Schumi was told to stay out until they sorted things out which took around 3 laps. He also says that as soon as the team were made aware of what the penalty was for, they instructed M Schumi to serve the S&G penalty, which is what he did. He says after the S&G was eventually served both the race officials and the team thought that was the end of the matter.


To show you Machett is being fair on this issue he also says even though the Black Flag was WITHDRAWN M Schumi/Benetton was wrong to listen to the race officials and not adhere to it immediately. But considering...

1. The team were talking with the race officals at the time the black flag was shown,
2. All the mitigating circumstances explained above
3. The Mansell Portugal 1989 case
4. IIRC in 1956 Bruce Halford ignored a black flag at Nurburgring 1956 and only received a DSQ from that race.
5. Reading in another forum in America you're allowed to see the black flag 3 times.

...The penalty imposed on Benetton & M Schumi at the subsquent FIA hearing was very harsh.
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

Regarding the Bruce Halford ignoring a black flag at Nurburgring 1956 story. Though you guys would appreciate reading about it, since it funny story involving an F1 reject. Here goes;

As a result of this unfortunate incident the Maserati was despatched to the factory for repair but Bruce took in a couple of non-championship Fl races at Oulton Park and Aintree, where he finished first and third respectively, before setting off for the Nurburgring where he had secured an entry in the German Grand Prix. "This proved to be a fiasco, for I spun the car out in the country when I hit a patch of oil, knocking off the exhaust pipe in the process." But Halford was running in seventh place at the time, and there was no way in which he was about to give up. After all, this was his first Continental Grand Prix with the Maserati.

But the exhaust tailpipe had become detached a short way back from the exhaust manifold allowing the gases to blow up into the cockpit, making Halford feel. a little on the groggy side. In fact Bruce wasn't feeling well at all, the Maserati starting to weave about the track as its driver became drowsy under the effect of the fumes. Meanwhile the race officials, who'd by now been informed that he had been push-started after his spin, were frantically trying to black flag the apparently ailing car off the track. Equally determined, Halford was ignoring their pleas for three laps as he was now in fourth place.

Bruce pulled into the pits finally to be met by a trade colleague who immediately inquired "How are you ?" Halford replied that he would be all right although he was feeling a bit under the weather. "Well", said his friend, "for heaven's sake play it up a bit, you're in big trouble with the organisers so try and look as though you're really ill." Bruce obliged with an impressive virtuoso performance which clearly caught the sympathy of the ferocious officials. He survived to race again, a few Deutschmarks the poorer after he had paid a small fine imposed by the organising club, but disqualified from his hard-earned fourth place.


Source: Motorsport Magazine
:lol:
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15428
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by dr-baker »

ibsey wrote:I know the Hill fans here might not like this too much - but I am not trying to antagonise anyone with the following. Merely trying to spark a bit of a debate.

To be honest, I probably had exactly the same unsportsmanlike thoughts and feelings that Damon had during that season! And I probably would have approved of his tactics at the time if I thought they were going to work!
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

mario wrote: It has to be noted that Verstappen openly stated that he had absolutely no evidence for his claims - it was based purely on his experience of driving Schumacher's car, which he borrowed after a fault on his own car, on one occasion during one practise session.


Just being doing a bit more digging and it was indeed Friday practice at Hockenhiem 1994 when Jos drove M Schumi car & Jos didn't even do a single lap in that car.

Outside of the Netherlands, probably the most widely remembered moment in Grands Prix involving Jos Verstappen is the infamous refuelling fire at Hockenheim, in 1994. Happily, the incident was an atypical occurrence, but in many ways his changing fortunes in that German Grand Prix weekend sum up the Dutchman's F1 career. Whilst having the potential and ability to do really well, he has somehow failed to actually net the expected results, and a good competitive opening has been consistently hard to find.

For the event in question, the difficulties seemed to outweigh the positive aspects. Having encountered trouble with discharged fire extinguisher fluid, Verstappen's biggest problems started in the Friday practice session. Coming across some oil dropped on the track, he spun off and badly damaged his Benetton-Ford. In first qualifying he was allowed to go out in the vehicle of team-mate Michael Schumacher, following the German's initial run. Unfortunately, Jos failed to complete a single lap in this car, as he went off into the gravel for no explicable reason, leaving the team with no usable cars for the remainder of the hour. Although he made the grid on the following day, his car behaved unpredictably and the nineteenth position achieved was his worst slot of the season.


http://8w.forix.com/verstappen.html

So the issues I mentioned in a previous post about running minimal down force (at least on M Schumi's car) and being the first race with no plank still stand. Hence why Jos might have found that car particular hard to drive. Also from the brief glance I had at it that article suggests Jos was was too inexperienced in 1994 (i.e. crashing out of Aida GP due to cold tyres). as the below quote elludes to;

In hindsight it can be seen that, although he showed great promise at times, it was surely much too soon in his career to be racing with such a prominent F1 team. The fact that his team-mate won the World Championship highlighted this, although Jos, in common with other drivers, struggled with a car designed to suit the German. He had been a lot happier in the interim B193B, carried over from 1993.


http://8w.forix.com/verstappen.html

dr-baker wrote:To be honest, I probably had exactly the same unsportsmanlike thoughts and feelings that Damon had during that season! And I probably would have approved of his tactics at the time if I thought they were going to work!


I don't mind drivers having a bitch about their rival, as it makes for quite entertaining viewing and in some cases appartently it does work;

Schumacher was still intent on undermining his rivals – and in 1994 he insisted haughtily that: "Hill is not world-class." Hill winces. "That one still hurts," he (Hill) says with a rueful smile. "Part of me thinks he was probably right."

A fierce competitor like Schumacher, surely, would not have made such a scathing comment had he not considered Hill a serious threat. "That's what Georgie [Hill's wife] always said. But it does undermine you because it plants the seed in the minds of those who employ you."


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/ ... ula-one-f1

Although if I was an F1 driver I would like to think I would do all my talking on the track, like Mika Hakkinen / Gilles. But when they start wishing for their rival driver to crash out. Or implementing tactics like driving slowly on the formation lap in order to blow another drivers engines (if that is what Hill/Williams did do?) then personally I don't like that.

EDIT; Regarding the Fuel Rig allegations just after the 7/9/1994 hearing Benetton released a press statement which stated;

"Before the hearing the FIA conceded that it was not alleging that the removal of the filter had caused the fire."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Form ... erCrisis-4
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

Being doing my usual digging around and found more evidence which suggests M Schumi's 1994 Silverstone penalty was way too harsh, and motivated by the need to keep the WDC alive. Senna apparently ignore several black flags at Spain 1989 without any DQ's or bans as the below story details;

During the first qualifying session on Friday morning Rial driver Gregor Foitek suffered a massive accident. Practice had to be red-flagged to allow an ambulance to come to Foitek's aid.

Everyone else but Senna failed to slow down and as was written on page 218 of the Autocourse annual's race report, the Brazilian was seen “running through eight black flags on the circuit, waved yellow flags at the scene of an accident and – most crucially – a red flag at the start-finish line”. On page 218 of his annual Grand Prix Story, Austrian writer Heinz Prüller wrote that Senna was penalized for crossing the finish line at full speed despite a red flag.

According to Autocourse “Senna could count himself exceedingly fortunate to get away with a $20,000 fine and having his times disallowed only up to the point of his transgression, The Brazilian rightfully accepted responsibility for the breach of the rules, but offered no justification…”

There is a question hiding in this Autocourse sentence.

Here was a driver who failed to respond to waved yellow flags at the scene of the accident and also ran through eight black flags shown in a single lap. Of course we don't know where, within the sequence of the black flags, he passed the yellow flags. Were all eight black flags visible after passing the yellows or was the scene of the accident somewhere in the middle of this sequence of black flags? On top of that, Senna ran through a red flag at the finish line.

Now, Senna wasn't in hot pursuit or trying to defend his position. There is every reason to believe that it must have been far easier for him to notice at least one if not more of the waved flags compared to seeing the lone black flag held stationary at the finish line the week before while looking into the sun and defending his position. It can be argued that Mansell committed his offense during the race while Senna made his in a practice session. Does that make a difference? It of any importance when it happens?

Nigel Mansell was fined $50,000 and banned for a race. Senna got away with his times up to that point being erased and a fine of $20,000. This seems to bear out that Mansell's ignoring a black flag during a race was seen as much more offensive. If anything, failing to notice so many flags in the space of a single lap wasn't regarded more offensive as failing to notice the same, single flag on three successive laps. So it seems that the two incidents, despite having similarities, weren't seen similar enough to be punished identically.

Then again, if they are indeed similar enough to warrant identical punishment, why didn't this happen?

Mansell's ban was advised by the stewards at the track before being enforced by Balestre. One big difference may be that the Portuguese stewards for whatever reason didn't advice such a ban for Senna. Balestre didn't have the instrument he used in Mansell's case.

A Senna ban, no matter if it was for the rest of the Spanish weekend or for the next race, would have had a direct effect on the outcome of the world championship. Senna could gain a maximum of 27 points in the three remaining races to overcome his 24-point deficit. Being banned for one event would have meant he could only score points in two more events, thus a maximum of 18, in which case the title had been Prost's. No doubt that banning Senna would have caused an outrage at McLaren and the Senna camp in particular, and among his fans worldwide. His title chances had been hurt enough already by his elimination in Portugal, by a driver who shouldn't have been in the race at that time.

There is much more to say and add to all of this, but let's wait a little and move further ahead in time. Not before making a final observation for the moment, however. Had Senna indeed been banned from the event it would have had another winner, since Ayrton kept his title hopes alive by winning the race. Even more interestingly, had a ban been enforced at the next race, Senna would not have been competing at Suzuka…

This means that the 1989 season could have been decided in Prost's favour right after the 14th race, without any of these 14 races needing to have run a different course than they in fact had. All that was needed was Senna's flag-ignoring offense being rated as equally serious to Mansell's the weekend before and punished accordingly.


http://8w.forix.com/wc1989.html
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
DanielPT
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6126
Joined: 30 Dec 2010, 18:44
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by DanielPT »

ibsey wrote:Being doing my usual digging around and found more evidence which suggests M Schumi's 1994 Silverstone penalty was way too harsh, and motivated by the need to keep the WDC alive. Senna apparently ignore several black flags at Spain 1989 without any DQ's or bans as the below story details;


You could always think that Senna, being Senna, was given a reprieve typical for those very popular. Then again Balestre would've probably jumped on that.

Another way of looking into it is to evaluate the historical context between those two years. From 1989 to 1994 many things happened, like that Senna-Prost clash right at the end of the year. I judge 1989 being less professional than 1994, so perhaps stewards more capable of turning a blind eye to practice shenanigans involving star drivers. In 1994, the media presence in the sport had grow, just like the sport did. Senna had died recently and the focus on safety was increasing a lot. Such infractions could no longer be discarded with a fine and all, specially in front of the British public against a British driver. The sport needed to look and be safer and more professional, so the council decided to set the standard right there. It is my two cents for why the penalty couldn't any different at that point in time.
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15428
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by dr-baker »

Within the context of this thread, I found the following interesting and significant:
ibsey wrote:Being doing my usual digging around and found more evidence which suggests M Schumi's 1994 Silverstone penalty was way too harsh, and motivated by the need to keep the WDC alive. Senna apparently ignore several black flags at Spain 1989 without any DQ's or bans as the below story details;

According to Autocourse “Senna could count himself exceedingly fortunate to get away with a $20,000 fine and having his times disallowed only up to the point of his transgression, The Brazilian rightfully accepted responsibility for the breach of the rules, but offered no justification…”


Particularly in light of Max Mosley wanting to be more draconian in applying penalties in 1994.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

DanielPT wrote:The sport needed to look and be safer and more professional, so the council decided to set the standard right there.


dr-baker wrote:Particularly in light of Max Mosley wanting to be more draconian in applying penalties in 1994.


These are very valid arguments and maybe there is some truth in both. However worth remembering that Hakkinen also overtook on the formation lap at Silverstone 1994 - without any penalty. Furthermore M Schumi also did it in Brazil 1994 again without any penalty. Which was only a few days after Mosley made that statement about being more draconian in applying penalties. So that shows Mosley & the FIA were very 'selective' in when they applied draconian penalties depending on when it suited them.

Furthermore in 1994 Mosley also didn't apply 'draconian penalties' to the following;

    Ferrari & Mclaren's illegal systems at the start of the year
    Ferrari apparently having their plank worn beyond the legal limit at Hockenhiem
    Ferrari not correctly adhering to the cut holes in your airbox rule

Whereas whenever M Schumi & Benetton even slightly stepped out of line Max/the FIA came down on them like a ton of bricks. Classic example is the Silverstone 1994 penalty which was greater than;

    The Mansell ignoring black flags in Portugal 1989 case
    The Senna ignoring black flags in Spain 1989 case
    The Bruce Halford ignoring black flags in Nurburgring 1956 case

None of these cases had any like the mitigating circumstances M Schumi & Benetton had, yet the 1994 penalty was greater than these all added together. That cannot be right even to the most ardent M Schumi / Benetton hater.

Watched the 2001 Japanese GP recently and it took the stewards 36 laps (circa 45 minutes) to award Verstappen his stop go penalty for overtaking on the formation lap. Brundle mentions in the commentary he thought the stewards had to give the penalty within 20 minutes of the crime otherwise it is no longer valid. Once again, no black flags or subsequent hearings for Verstappen in 2001 increasing the punishment or fine by 2000%. And you would imagine F1 to have been a lot more profession - and therefore stricter / harsher on rules in 2001 than 1994.

To end on a lighter note & I know you will appreciate this, reckon Enge gets the award for the best racing driver excuse from that race...

Tomas Enge continued his learning process with confusion over starting positions and then a unplanned pitstop when he read the wrong pitboard.



www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr680.html


:lol:
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

For those of you still interested in the events of 1994 found these quotes from an Autosport article;

Joan Villadeprat on Silverstone 1994;

"We could almost win the title in the middle of the year, and obviously for television and everything else, that's not very good," says Villadelprat. "Also Max had decided to change the diffuser after Barcelona and it was a big thing. And Tom and Flavio were the two leaders of the revolution to try and screw up Max..."

At Silverstone Schumacher qualified second to Hill. On the formation lap he jumped ahead of the Williams, before falling back in line. Later the stewards decided to give him a stop-and-go penalty, but the team contested the decision. Schumacher was then black-flagged, and the team initially told him to ignore it, before finally telling him to come in and take the stop-and-go.

"We had the communication of that penalty late," says Villadelprat. "The rules specified that you had a time when the communication had to come from the FIA - it was a piece of paper in those days - so I argued and said this is already out of the time.

"Then there was a lot of shite, in the end we called him in, did everything that we were supposed to be doing, and we carried on and finished second."


Pat Symmonds on TC/LC rumors

"If someone wanted to be really devious, they could have hidden it from me, but they couldn't have hidden it from him," says Symonds. "Michael would have had to be involved, and I don't think he would have been.
"He did some things that were unsporting, let's say, but he always did them on the spur of the moment. His instantaneous decision-making was sometimes not very good.

"But I don't think he ever had any preconceived ideas of doing anything wrong. That's why I don't think he would have gone along with anything like launch control, and absolutely he would have had to have known about it."


Hockenhiem;

Schumacher retired at Hockenheim, but the big story was a huge pit fire suffered by team-mate Jos Verstappen. Yet more controversy was stirred when an FIA investigation revealed that a filter was missing from the refuelling rig. Villadelprat says it was his decision, but insists he was given verbal permission by the FIA.



Symmonds on Spa

"That incident at Spa was just so bizarre," says Symonds. "The rules were very clear. If the plank was found to be below the minimum thickness, then it had to be taken off and weighed, and the weight of it had to be no less than 90 per cent of its weight new.

"So when they checked the plank it was under in one area, which was not a problem; they should have taken it off and weighed it, and they wouldn't do it. They totally ignored that and said it was illegal. So we thought that the process was wrong.

"It had been wet from P1 all the way through to the race, so we weren't 100 per cent certain that we'd got our rideheights correct. But also he'd had quite a big off during the race, where the car had clattered across the kerbs.

"Because the wear was quite localised we thought that's probably what did it. We didn't know, we couldn't tell, even these days we probably wouldn't be able to tell. So we appealed the decision. It just seemed that we could do nothing right that year."



Adelaide 1994;

"He was pretty damn motivated to win the world championship, and now he had the chance to do it," continues Symonds. "I don't know how all that affected him, but it was probably the same as me. It was probably this mix of absolute determination to prove them wrong and the absolute horror of being accused of things that were not correct."

The championship was decided on lap 36 when Schumacher and Hill made contact after Michael had gone off and clipped the wall. Both men were out, but the German still had that one point advantage.

"There wasn't a moment of enjoyment in it, there really wasn't," says Symonds. "I remember after the accident I just went ballistic, I'm the calmest person in the pitlane, and that was too much for me. I honestly didn't believe that we'd won the championship. I thought, 'Here we go again, another bloody enquiry'.

"I didn't believe that he did it on purpose. I know the steering was broken, I could see the data, and I didn't think that he had control of the car. I guess after '97 with [Jacques] Villeneuve, and then Monaco 2006, I wondered about '94. As I said earlier, there were times when Michael's judgement was not very good."



On the B194


"We produced an absolutely wonderful car," says Symonds. "The changes that were made to the technical regulations after Imola, things like cutting the diffuser down, putting vents in the airboxes, putting the plank on, each one of them made our absolutely wonderful car average, or even below average, because I think by the end of the season the Williams was a better car.

"We did four races less than anyone else, two of which were podiums. Honestly at the end of '94 I got within hours of just resigning and leaving motorsport. I was so fed up with the accusations. I knew that I had personally done nothing wrong.

"I felt that there were forces at work, and I really didn't want to be part of this any more. It was my first exposure to some of the Machiavellian politics that occur in F1 from time to time, and it was a bit much for me.
"Equally, it made the 1995 victory just so much better. It's still the most important thing I've done in my life, winning the two championships in '95. To my mind it justified that we were a good team, we were competitive, and the accusations levelled at us in '94 were just not justified."



On 1994

"We'll never know what was behind it all," says Symonds. "But there is no doubt that proper practices were ignored, because people felt that the ends justified the means. I'm absolutely certain of that. What the end was, to this day I'm not quite sure."

Villadelprat adds: "It was really hard year, because there was a lot of things that happened to us. But I can guarantee you that as far as I know, the car was absolutely perfectly legal. "I think we caught everybody by surprise. We broke the establishment a little bit. And when you do that, you always have a price to pay, and I think we paid that price through the year."

For anyone interested the article in full is here; http://www.autosport.com/premium/featur ... 1462953516
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

Tony Dodgins on the press "grilling" Ross Brawn regarding the 1994 TC/LC accusations

The first time I encountered the thoroughness was 1994 when the FIA released technical delegate Charlie Whiting's report to the World Council on investigations into the electrical systems on Schumacher's car at that year's tragic Imola race. Since the beginning of the season there had been rumours that Benetton had something that was getting around the FIA's newly introduced ban on driver aids. The FIA had threatened exclusion from the championship for such a thing and its Hockenheim statement said that on the evidence available in the Schumacher case, such an action would be wrong. But attached to the statement was evidence that appeared damning.

In the Hockenheim paddock nobody talked of anything else. Then came news of a Benetton press conference. There was considerable anticipation going in, with people feeling that basically the FIA was saying, we've got you but we can't quite nail you. This was not long after France, when Schumacher had shot between both Damon Hill and Nigel Mansell on the front row, in their V10 powered Williamses, with his V8 powered Ford, and left them for dead. It prompted much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

It was Brawn who was served up by Benetton and the press did its worst, grilling Ross for 45 minutes on all aspects of the season to date. Certainly, to trip him up you needed to be a much better barrister than anyone wearing an FIA press pass... That's assuming he was there to be tripped up of course. Everyone went in thinking it was an open and shut case. Everyone came out wondering. If Benetton were legit, Ross did an awfully good job of persuading everyone. If they weren't, he was even better.

I know you'll be sat there thinking that anyone with half a brain is going to outwit a bunch of motor racing hacks and, broadly speaking, you're probably right. But, and it's a big 'But', you'd be amazed at how ineffective people can be when put under the spotlight. A case in point was the News of the World journalists trying to defend their Mosley actions last May. They were dreadful and would probably have taken a pasting even if the opposition hadn't been Max. Then there was EJ and the Vodafone case...

Brawn was the exact opposite. He was serious, composed, entirely plausible and had an answer for everything. He was even humorous. At one point he was asked to confirm that Schumacher's start at Magny-Cours was affected solely by Michael, with no electronic or intelligent use of the differential?

"I can make that statement willingly," he replied. "By his own admission Michael was useless at starts last year. He has developed a technique of using the clutch and throttle in a way that for a large percentage of the time can eliminate wheelspin. Michael's view of Magny-Cours is that Damon was slow away from the lights and the TV coverage confirms that."

There was even the hint of a smile when he added: "Michael made an excellent start, Damon backed out and lost his bottle going into the first corner..."

Back at the Benetton motorhome later, discussion among the hacks carried on. What was confusing a few was that Brawn had explained that the '93 Benetton launch control system was based around ignition cut, which had an extremely audible effect. The inference was, if we were using it, you'd have heard it.

"Perhaps Mansell was whingeing so loudly about Schuey's start that it got drowned out?" someone joked.


http://www.autosport.com/premium/featur ... 1462953516
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

Hill’s thoughts on M Schumi’s 1994 Silverstone formation lap antics

"I don't think it was an out-psyching thing, so the question is whether it had anything to do with the car's technical parameters. He certainly drew a lot of attention to himself.

(regarding the underlined bit, this supports my earlier comments on the B194's smaller radiators)

Hill’s thoughts on the legality of the B194

"There was a lot of smoke, so maybe there was a fire there," he said. "But I do not know. Some things were proved, other things weren't proved but as time goes by stuff leaks out that points to them having used something which might have made their car qualify for disqualification."



Hill’s thoughts on M Schumi’s 1994 Adelaide antics

"I'd like to think I wouldn't have done the same thing," says Hill. "But you never know, you know what racing drivers are like..."

http://www.autosport.com/premium/featur ... 1462953516



Mansell’s thoughts on 1994 Adelaide GP

"I was told all sorts of things by the powers-that-be. 'You will not be part of this race, don't get a good start, watch the race, do not interfere...' So I deliberately didn't get a very good start and I just sat there and watched.

"It was interesting and frustrating to see it unfolding right in front of me. I was actually shouting to Damon in my helmet, saying, 'Don't be suckered, don't do it!' He had a really good car, and I knew how much quicker my car was, just sitting there behind. Then of course the inevitable happened. The best thing to say is, 'No comment'."



Why Mansell returned to F1 in 1994

After Imola there was no world champion on the F1 grid, and Michael Schumacher was absolutely dominating for Benetton. Understandably concerned about the potential impact on viewing figures, Ecclestone tried to find a way to bring Mansell back to Williams.

http://www.autosport.com/premium/featur ... 1462953516

So if Bernie brought Mansell back to help TV viewing figures and told Mansell not to get involved in the Adelaide showdown between Hill & M Schumi. Is it unreasonable to assume Bernie also unfairly manipulated the M Schumi/Benetton penalties as well?

Interesting stuff indeed.
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

Sorry if I'm boring everyone to death on this subject but being finding some mindblowing stuff on the 1994 cheating allegations over the last month or so and I have been bursting to post them up here.

Firstly one of the major things people say is that M Schumi's car had all the supposed gimzo's and his teamates didn't. Thats what Jos eluded to in his 2011 interview. Yet found out from Motorsport magazine race report that during Thursday practice in Monaco 1994. M Schumi had to borrow Letho's car and immediately destroyed Lehto's time. That knocked Lehto's confidence for the rest of the weekend as well as the team's confidence in JJ's ability and a few races latter in Canada JJ was replaced by Jos. It also suggests to me the two B194's were of the same spec.

Also prior to the 1994 season, all the top teams were telling the Fia that their rule that "TC is banned" was too vague and that it would be very difficult to police and would lead to confusion. As a result Benetton weren't the only team with redundant software left on their system. In the 1994 4th July Autosport magazine:

...Ron Dennis confirms their software contains active ride, TC, power braking and whole host of other features The reason is taht is easier to disarm the features than to reprogramme the software at the risk of introducing errors .....


So exactly what Ross Brawn had been saying all along. THen I found this;

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/engin ... s-release/

2. If your computer systems do contain such features but they have been disabled, we shall require precise details of each such system and the steps which have been taken to disable it. If you are in any doubt as to whether any of your systems might breach the regulations, you must declare them and provide details so that we can give a ruling. Following the Belgian Grand Prix, all such features must be eliminated from the computer systems on your cars. If, at the Italian or subsequent grands prix, we find such a system in one of your cars, we shall assume it is there to be used and the Stewards or the FIA will act accordingly.


So it is clear. Banned systems could be in the car until Belgian GP, but couldnt be used. In other words - you can have banned systems in cars until Belgian GP but you cant use them. Also what I was really suprised about what the amount of LC/TC accusations thrown around between teams BEFORE Brazil 1994. Especially between Williams, Ferrari & Mclaren. That suggests to me, that these accusations were used as a way to throw mud at your opponent in the hope some of it would stick.

Finally, I have been toying with the idea of writting a book on EVERYTHING that when on in the 1994 season. And allowing the readers to decide from themselves whether they feel Benetton were innocent or guilty. A bit like "making a murder". Any feedback on this idea would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to email me if you would prefer. My main concern is some of the aspects to this case are too techincal for the layman / non F1 fan to understand. So I would really appreciate any thoughts on that in particular.
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15428
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by dr-baker »

ibsey wrote:Finally, I have been toying with the idea of writting a book on EVERYTHING that when on in the 1994 season. And allowing the readers to decide from themselves whether they feel Benetton were innocent or guilty. A bit like "making a murder". Any feedback on this idea would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to email me if you would prefer. My main concern is some of the aspects to this case are too techincal for the layman / non F1 fan to understand. So I would really appreciate any thoughts on that in particular.

I think it could be an interesting idea, but on a topic like this, I feel that you will without a doubt need to name all sources of information religiously. Just so nobody can say you made it up. You've done well do so in this thread, so there's no reason why you wouldn't when committing to paper.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

dr-baker wrote:
ibsey wrote:Finally, I have been toying with the idea of writting a book on EVERYTHING that when on in the 1994 season. And allowing the readers to decide from themselves whether they feel Benetton were innocent or guilty. A bit like "making a murder". Any feedback on this idea would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to email me if you would prefer. My main concern is some of the aspects to this case are too techincal for the layman / non F1 fan to understand. So I would really appreciate any thoughts on that in particular.

I think it could be an interesting idea, but on a topic like this, I feel that you will without a doubt need to name all sources of information religiously. Just so nobody can say you made it up. You've done well do so in this thread, so there's no reason why you wouldn't when committing to paper.


Thanks dr-baker and your comments are much appreciated :)

100% agree. I've read numerous forums & material on this subject and I can't take people who don't provide evidence or named sources to back up their claims too seriously. It is a key teaching in journalism to name your sources and not simply say things like "a team insider said" or "unnamed source said". Because in theory a journo could have paid a Benetton cleaner £50 to get the quote they were looking for from "a team insider". And its disappointing that some journalists who have reported on this subject have relied on "unnamed sources". Not least because it has added to all the confusion/misinformation out there.

So if I did decide to grow a pair, quit my job and write up this book I would 100% ensure any claims made are fully backed up. Otherwise the book would have no chance of being respected or successful. The main things hold me back from writing it, is

1. whether there is enough of an audience outside of F1 fans who would consider this an interesting story?

2. whether one can write about this subject in 'plain english' i.e. so that non-f1 fan can understand everything?

3. whether people care about this subject anymore and those that do care will they actually buy a book on it? It does seem to me that F1 fans who post on forums (particularly Autosport) have made up their minds on this subject and are usually unlikely to change that opinion no matter how much evidence or holes in their theories you show them. I hope I'm wrong and there is a silent majority out their who are willing to be open minded and learn everything they can about this subject?
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

Just been reading Steve Machett book on the 1994 season (Life in the Fast Lane). He confirms;

• M Schumi stepping into Lehto’s car during Thursday FP1 session (so only a seat and pedal change done on the car) and immediately going 4 seconds quicker than JJ. Machett also says that JJ’s neck & fitness was undoubtedly affecting his performance throughout 1994. And in Canada JJ used the spare car at short notice for the race. Again suggesting both B194’s were of equal spec. There are several other clues within the book which also suggest the two cars were equal.

• At Aida 1994, Ferrari only had to disarmed their illegal TC software and not removed it completely from their ECU. So just like Benetton & Mclaren did with their own redundant 1993 software. Ferrari were allowed to carry on racing that weekend with their illegal systems only "disarmed".

• That prior to Brazil 1994 media reports suggested it was inevitable teams would protest one another about what was legal and what wasn’t. Accordingly to each teams particular interpretation of the 1994 FIA regulations. I remember reading one such article in page 10 of the February 1994 edition of Motorsport Magazine. This shows the FIA failed to clear up loopholes in the 1994 regulations even though they had been identified well before the start of the season. So I don’t believe you can blame teams for only "disarming" their 1993 redundant software prior to the 1994 Belgian GP (when the FIA finally clear things up).

• Steve spends several pages dismantling every single accusation thrown at Benetton in an extremely articulate and methodical way. It really is an interesting read and I would truly urge people to read this and then make a decision about where you stand on these issues.

As an aside been watching Eurosport’s live coverage of the Silverstone race and John Watson (an experienced F1 racer himself) acknowledges M Schumi’s antics on the formation laps but wasn’t aware that it might infringe any rules. Also when the black flag comes out at later both commentators are confused why it has been given. I think that proves it’s easy to see things one way in hindsight, but at the time it’s clear everyone was confused on the matter.
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

Hi been doing more research into this subject, and wondered if anyone can help me? It seems in 1994 preseason testing various F1 teams had problems with their Intertechique fuel rigs.

Even before the 1994 season began, McLaren had a fuel spillage while testing the refueling system at its factory in Woking.


http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns00559.html

FYI this story is supported by Bob Vasha commentaries in Speed channel's retrospective look on the 1994 Brazil GP back in 2004.

According to the FIA removal of the filter, mandated after problems for Lotus and Jordan in testing prior to the first race of the season...


Motorsport Magazine September 1994, page 932;
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archi ... er-1994/22


Benetton planned to argue that defective refuelling equipment was responsible for the fire and had prepared a list of similar incidents involving problems with the rigs which they and other teams, including Ferrari and Arrows had experienced

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/08/14/1 ... flashback/

Steve Matchett's book 'Live in the Fast Lane' has lots to say on the problems with the fuel rigs.


Therefore does anyone know any more in these problems, either from press/magazine articles at the time, or websites / forums where they may be discussed?

Any help would be greatly appreciated :-)
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
andrew
Posts: 1648
Joined: 18 Mar 2012, 19:34

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by andrew »

Regarding the 1994 Silverstone incident, it should be noted the stewards were incredibly harsh that year, in Brazil Irvine caused the emourmas accident and was given a one race ban, when Jordan protested this it was increased to 3 races with immediate effect whereas when Schumacher and Benneton protested they were able to choose when the ban took place. Also at the end of the race Hakkinen and Barrichello had what we would argue was a racing incident yet they both recieved 1 race bans (suspended that is, with Hakkinen serving his after causing the start line shunt at Hockenhiem) regarding theHakkinen Alesi incident, it may not have Been investigated as it was out of shot, whereas schuamchers was in clear view.
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

Hi andrew & thanks for your response & really nice to know I'm not just posting to myself :)

True the stewards were incredibly harsh on occasion, like the ones you mentioned. But its worth noting the Irvine 3 race ban wasn't just for Brazil. Watch this from 14:50: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3pUsOb2aRs . Irvine states he got it because of other reasons being;

Japan 1993 - THe newboy not just uplapping himself against king Senna & then the fight - which Senna also got a 6 month suspended penalty for, but Irvine held up Senna in a quali lap, and I believe got into a dispute with Warwick over something.

Oz 1993 - Irvine crashes out

Brazil 1994 - this being the first race and Mosley saying just days before the FIA are going be harsh if anyone wrongly appeals against their decisions. I believe the FIA wanted to make Irvine an example of what they meant.

FYI in Damon Hill's book he states Hakkinen & Barrichello were given a suspended sentence at Silverstone for not reporting to the stewards after that incident, not for the incident itself. A rule that even Hill admits that he wasn't aware of. Unlike a certain driver overtaking on the formation lap and not being aware of that rule, I would say the stewards were actually pretty lenient to Hakkinen & Barrichello on that occassion.

Partcularly considering Hakkinen also overtook on the formation lap. And it actually isn't out of shot if you watch a better quality video than the link I posted in an earlier post. Which is clearly someone recording a TV screen hence why it doesn't show the Hakkinen illegal overtake. IT is however shown very clearly in Speed's coverage in their retrospective look on the 1994 silverstone race - and I'm sure the orginal race coverage. IN any case whether it was out of shot or not is not relevant their would have been marshals posted around the circuit who could have reported it.

It is incorrect to say Benetton could choose which races their were banned from. What actually happened was M Schumi & Benetton were due to miss the following race at Germany & Hungary. Then this happened...

Bonfires and death threats

Michael Schumacher, Benetton, Hockenheimring, 1994Germany was in love with its new sporting hero. Tickets for its round of the world championship had sold out in mid-march and a capacity crowd in excess of 140,000 was expected for race day.

But three days before practice was due to start at the Hockenheimring came a shock verdict from the FIA’s World Motor Sport Council. For ignoring black flags during the British Grand Prix, Schumacher was to be banned from the next two races – beginning with his home race.

Some of those attending the race took the news very badly. Wood piles began to appear near the circuit, and fire departments were deployed to dismantle them out of fear that outraged fans were planning to set bonfires in the thick woodland the circuit passed through. Fearing a threat to public safety, the mayor of Hockenheim even made a direct appeal to those in charge to let Schumacher race.

The crisis could be averted if Benetton chose to appeal the decision. But they had incentives not to do so. Missing a race at the Hockenheimring, where their Ford V8-powered car would likely be out-gunned by the V12 Ferraris and V10 Williams-Renaults, would be preferable to missing a race later in the season at a track which suited them better if the outcome of their appeal was the postponement of Schumacher’s ban.

And there was the chance that appealing the ban could invite an even stronger sanction. Eddie Irvine’s one-race ban following the Brazilian Grand Prix was tripled on appeal.

Nonetheless, on the day before practice began Benetton announced they would appeal the decision. As a hearing could not be scheduled for several weeks, it therefore confirmed he would race at home, and the frenzy among the crowd subsided somewhat.


http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/07/31/1 ... flashback/

The ONLY reason Benetton appealed the decision hence averting the above crisis, was because senior people in F1 (no doubt Bernie was one of them) told Benetton their appeal would be looked favorably upon if they were to let M Schumi race, via an appeal. As stated above Hockenhiem is probably one of the least competitive tracks for their Ford V8.

So the team weren't initially going to appeal for fear of an increased penalty. IN fact Steve Matchett explains how JJ Lehto was all set to go that weekend instead of M Schumi. After the event the senior people in F1 suddenly forgot what they said to Benetton, about looking 'favourably on their appeal' even though Benetton played ball with them.

FYI the stewards were also extremely lenient on other occasions like the Ferrari driver aids at Aida & or the Ferrari airboxes at Canada read this:

Row over Ferrari airboxes

Then as now, the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve was a circuit which rewarded engine power and straight-line speed. So it was widely anticipated to be a strong venue for Ferrari, the only team in the field to use a V12 engine, who had regularly topped the speed trap tables at earlier races that year.

And while the latest changes to the technical regulations on safety grounds were focused on reducing the top speed of the cars, they could be expected to have just as great an effect on Ferrari’s rivals. The FIA required teams to replace their exotic fuel concoctions with pump petrol (though defining exactly what that constituted was fraught with difficulty) and cut holes in their car’s airboxes to reduce the ‘ram effect’ of air being forced into the engine. Both measures would reduce power output.

Teams interpreted the rules on airboxes in different ways. Most placed holes either directly behind the airbox, through which the rear wing was visible, or on the top. But Ferrari instead cut two modest slits in the sides of their engine covers.

This became a focus of dispute when it became clear the 412T1s enjoyed an even greater straight-line speed advantage than usual during Friday’s running. Having never headed a qualifying session nor got within 1.4 seconds of pole all season, Jean Alesi headed the Friday times by over half a second.

Team principal Jean Todt fumed at suggestions Ferrari had not satisfactorily complied with the new requirements on airbox dimensions. But overnight the team were forced to yield ground and enlarge the slots in their engine cover.

“As a gesture of goodwill, and under no obligation, we put another hole in the airbox of the 412T1,” said Todt. “And, as all could see, it made no difference.” In fact, all could see Alesi was unable to replicate his Friday time on Saturday, while almost every other driver bettered theirs. The speed trap figures also undermined Todt’s claim the larger holes had made “no difference”.

Schumacher therefore took pole position off Alesi, but his lap time was over seven seconds slower than Alain Prost’s from the year before. This was largely due to the installation of a new chicane to slow the drivers before the flat-out series of bends on the approach to the chicane right-left before the pits.


http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/06/12/1 ... rand-prix/

Or even the jump start by Panis at Hungary 1994: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf0qKt90ZMQ
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15428
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by dr-baker »

ibsey, it may interest you to listen to the current Motorsport magazine podcast with Pat Symonds. From 44 minutes in, for around 6 minutes, they discuss Schumacher overtake Hill on the parade lap at Silverstone in 1994, plus his perceptions of the pros and cons of that year's Benetton versus the Williams. An interesting conversation as always with that guy.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

dr-baker wrote:ibsey, it may interest you to listen to the current Motorsport magazine podcast with Pat Symonds. From 44 minutes in, for around 6 minutes, they discuss Schumacher overtake Hill on the parade lap at Silverstone in 1994, plus his perceptions of the pros and cons of that year's Benetton versus the Williams. An interesting conversation as always with that guy.


Hi dr baker & many thanks for reference :)

Along with Karun Chandhok it was actually me who asked the question about Silverstone 1994 (Do you feel Damon Hill drove 'those' formation laps slower than usual perhaps believing it would interrupt Micheal's start procedure. Or was it purely just Micheal's gamesmanship?).

I asked that because I am investigating whether there any shred of truth in the Hill driving slowly during the two formation laps story I posted earlier here. I really regret not mentioning to Pat that there were 6 engine failures in the opening laps of the race and that Damon himself said in Autosport;

"I don't think it was an out-psyching thing, so the question is whether it had anything to do with the car's technical parameters.”


But I am absolutely stoked he answered the question, and its because of people like Pat, Brawn, Steve Matchett & Willem Toet that spur me to challenge the common perception that the whole Benetton team in 1994 were just a bunch of lying cheaters. Everything I’ve read from these guys is incredibly honest, insightful and all makes perfect sense if you take the time to understand the WHOLE story.

FYI - I also asked Damon Hill the very same question when he did his Motorsport podcast a few months ago, but Damon didn’t answer that. I’ve also briefly read Hill’s new book which didn’t seem to shed any new light on 1994. I’ve also been correspondence with Willem Toet (Head of Aero for Benetton in 1994) and am equally stoked on the advice Willem gave to me. He’s a really nice bloke honestly!

Regarding 1994, I’ve found some more mind blowing stuff most of which I haven’t posted here. And I am 100% sure there is more hidden stuff which won’t be fully told in public until certain people pass away.
For example:

Benetton’s refuelling rig had been inspected two days after the German Grand Prix.


http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/08/14/1 ... flashback/

FYI the fuel rigs were under Benetton’s complete control between the Hockenhiem fire and the FIA/Intertechique and Benetton inspection on the Tuesday after the race. Yet Benetton felt no inclination to reinstall the fuel filter to cover their track during those two days. In other words after the fire they were happy to let Intertechique and the FIA see they were operating the fuel rig without the filter. That tells me Benetton never thought they did anything illegal in removing the filter.

The reason for that becomes clear when you read the below transcript which is from when Max Mosley was grilled by the press about this and the other Benetton allegations prior to Monza 1994;

Q. Treuthardt: The members of the World Council must have known that the effect of removing the filter was to gain a performance advantage. And the rules clearly imply that all the refuelling rigs should be identical, so as not to provide a performance advantage. They did it, they got a performance advantage, and yet even then no action was taken. If I may follow my first question, I would like to ask if you did this in the interests of the sport.

Mosley: The point about getting an advantage is absolutely valid. But you see, what they were saying was that they thought they were allowed to do it. In other words, if you analyse what they were really saying, what they were saying was, 'we believe that the equipment was now without the filter.' You can argue about that, but that's what they were actually saying. Now the moment you accept that, then they didn't have an advantage, because what they were doing was using THE equipment. And the people who were using the wrong equipment would have a disadvantage. Now as soon as someone pleads guilty, you get into that area. But we never had to consider the guilt or otherwise, because they pleaded guilty.

Q. Treuthardt: Second point?

Mosley: As far as being in the interests of the sport, we thought it was definitely in the interests of the sport to resolve the Benetton filter issue, one way or the other, on September 7. We thought that public opinion, and the interests of the sport, and certainly the teams, would have found it very difficult to accept that we had adjourned the whole thing for six weeks, to have another look at it. Perhaps the result would have been different if we had adjourned: we don't know. But it would certainly not have been the right thing to do. The suggestion that we were lenient in the interests of the sport is incorrect, though. We were lenient because the facts in front of us drove us to be lenient. It may well have been that we would have been less lenient after an adjourned hearing, but we shall never know.

Q. Wagner Gonzales: Benetton claimed that the FIA's Technical Delegate (Charlie Whiting) had given permission for the filter to be removed. What is your feeling about this, and the decision of the "junior employee" to remove it?

Mosley: Well, the thing is that as far as the 'junior employee' is concerned, and his removing the part, once you accept that HE thought, at whatever level, that he could do that, then, immediately, the level of guilt changes. Now it was said by the team that Charlie said they could. What Charlie said he said was, "it's OK by me if it's OK by Intertechnique." In other words, (Whiting was saying) "go and ask Intertechnique, because it is not within my competence."

I think the junior employee thought, because of the Larrousse business, that Intertechnique had said it was alright. Or that was what was presented to us in Paris. And the whole confusion at that level -- (that it was) unknown to Briatore and to Benetton Formula -- was taking place. Now what was said at the beginning of the season was that if we caught somebody with ...it's always the same example: traction control ...I distinctly remember saying that if they deliberately used it, then this means that it is a fraud, like painting a race horse a different color to disguise it. It is analogous to that: if you deliberately change something on the car, with the intention of getting an advantage, you will be out of the championship. That's what we said, and it still remains the case. The problem we were faced with here is that it became apparent on the facts placed before us that this knowledge which is the essential element in deliberate cheating was missing. And from what we were told on September 7, it undoubtedly WAS missing. And as I have already said, we could have had a huge enquiry, who knows? But that's what was there, that's what we decided on.

Q. Gonzales: Do you think mistakes were made by the FIA?

Mosley: Yes. Perhaps I did not say this clearly enough earlier on.



FYI that is only part of the transcript...

What many of the public don’t appreciate is that the filter in question was actually retrofitted because of problems with the refuelling equipment prior to the start of the 1994 F1 season. Hence my question a couple of weeks ago asking for examples of this. I’ve found 4/5 sources confirming the problems such as;

Even before the 1994 season began, McLaren had a fuel spillage while testing the refueling system at its factory in Woking.


http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns00559.html

The reason why Benetton removed the filter in the first place is because they used already filtered their fuel twice before it even goes into the rig. Through a much finer filter than the intertechique one. They also cleaned the fuel rigs through before and after each use. Benetton do this to avoid contamination in the fuel system on the car, causing reliability problems. So the intertechique filter was completely redundant. Also worth remembering that apparently they were NOT the only team to have removed the filter.

I know all of the above is a lot of detailed technical information. But it really only scratches at the surface of the whole affair and the other (really interesting) stuff I have found.
Last edited by ibsey on 10 Nov 2016, 20:13, edited 1 time in total.
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

Just thought I would post a couple of videos here which might be of interest to you lot particularly because they and the subsequent episodes contain lots of interviews from reject teams/drivers.

Hungary 1994:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avWgG2N8-OU

If anyone speaks Dutch would they be able to kindly explain what is being said about the Intertechique equipment between 1.40 and 2.29?


San Marino 1994:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gRYQmmB6tM

See 6.14 onwards for Niki Lauda & Max Mosley talking about the Ferrari TC allegations from Aida etc. Also does anyone have a copy of the Autosport and the 3 articles referred to between 6.23 & 6.34. If so I would be eternity grateful if you could provide a transcript of these articles?
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15428
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by dr-baker »

I have the 1994 Autosports from doing my Lola research, but they're currently in storage. I will watch the videos next week when I have more time.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
User avatar
Waris
Posts: 1781
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 01:07
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by Waris »

ibsey wrote:Hungary 1994:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avWgG2N8-OU

If anyone speaks Dutch would they be able to kindly explain what is being said about the Intertechique equipment between 1.40 and 2.29?


I will translate. There isn't anything really extraordinary being said though:

Olav Mol wrote:Here we are at Tyrrell and they've got a spare barrel.
And on that barrell there's this filler cap [points at filler cap], which is where, in Hockenheim, things went wrong for Jos Verstappen.
This [points at ring] is the ring that the nozzle is supposed to fall into, then that valve is pressed [presses valve], and through there, through that small hole, that's where all that fuel has to come through.
It's just a very simple thing with a spring, this is what it looks like from the inside, and that's where 120 litres have to pass through when they're refuelling.
[cut to next shot with a different fuel rig] And that filter [points at filter], that was in this hose, and that's what over at the Benetton team, they removed.
[lifts pump head] That head, by the way, weighs almost 45 kilos, it's very massive. That black ring comes out, and that [points at lamp attached to the fuel rig] is a little lamp, so the mechanics can see when the tank is full. So that will have to help them not to pour in too much fuel.
MOTOR RACING IS DANGEROUS
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

Massive thanks Waris - I really do appreciate the time you took to translate that. :) :) :) :)

Since you took the time to look into that here’s a bit more insight into the aftermath of the Hockenhiem fire. As previously mentioned, Benetton contracted an independent company (AFTA) who specialise in accident investigation to carry out a study of the Hockenhiem refuelling accident and to give an opinion on the method of refuelling. This is what AFTA found;

"Consideration was given to the effect of the absence of the filter previously positioned at the point where the inner hose joins the nozzle unit. (It is understood that this was removed for the Hockenheim race after a lengthy period during which no debris was collected in any of the Benetton Team's filters.)

"Any debris would, under normal circumstances, travel through the connection into the car tank. No evidence was seen, during the examination, of scouring or of other effects which could have resulted from debris fouling any of the moving parts. A study of the layout of the fuel path and of the evidence surrounding the incident did not suggest any way in which any feasible debris contamination from the fuel flow could have caused the failure of the nozzle to engage correctly."


Source: Benetton Press release on the Wednesday before the 1994 Hungarian GP which was in response to the FIA blaming the Hockenhiem fire on Benetton removing of the filter.


In Steve Machett’s book ‘Life in the Fast Lane’ Steve states Intertechique weren’t fully cooperating with AFTA in the post Hockenhiem affair claiming ‘concerns over confidentially of design’. Also Intertechique claimed previously it was impossible for fuel to flow before the nozzle had been fully engaged (with or without the filter).
The report complied by AFTA inditicated that it is possible for the nozzle to be slightly misaligned when attempting to locate it onto the car’s onboard value, and that there is seemly no ‘lock on device’. Which IMO is exactly what happened if you watch a replay of the Hockenhiem pitstop in question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6pNb5kAoXw

Steve Machett believes this is the reason why only a relatively small amount of fuel was sprayed (circa 3 litres?). Had the value been jammed opened, I personally would have expected more fuel to have sprayed out than just 3 litres. Finally whats really interesting to me is all the mechanics who were involved in that pitstop were also involved in the Hungary pitstops as well (that is expect Simon Morley who was the refueller and was too injured). Even though the team gave them the option not to take part. They say actions speak louder than words...

This is from a recent article from one of the Benetton pitstop mechanics that day (Kenny Handkammer);

One of the most frightening and memorable incidents of something going wrong was Jos Verstappen's pit stop fire during the German Grand Prix in 1994.
Refuelling during a race was still permitted and on this occasion a sudden spurt of fuel being added to Verstappen's Benetton resulted in a dramatic fireball that engulfed the whole car, including the Dutchman and his crew. Amazingly, everyone escaped serious injury.
"Jos was good about it," remembers Handkammer. "He had a bit of a burnt face but he was great. He was laughing in the end.
"What was tough, though, was the fact Michael Schumacher [Verstappen's team-mate] was due a stop soon after.
"Some of the guys had gone off to hospital already and I needed to find people, but some were saying they didn't know if they could do it.
"It was not needed in the end because Michael's car stopped with a fuel problem but in a way that was worse. It meant we had two weeks of downtime going through what happened, you were just asking: 'Do I really want to be stood in front of a car? Do I really want to be putting fuel in it?'
"If we had done that second pit stop straight away, it would have got it out of the system a bit."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/37403039
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15428
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by dr-baker »

ibsey, while going through some old F1 Racing magazines, I came across the following letter in the May 1996 issue that I thought you may find interesting for this debate:

Image
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

Hi dr baker and many thanks for that. Anything you have on the matter, no matter how small, I am more than interested in.

I’m sure there are other examples of overtaking on the formation lap, even after Sliverstone 1994 which wasn’t punished as severely. Like the one you kindly mentioned along with Verstappen in Japan 2001 (it took the stewards 36 laps (circa 45 minutes) to award Verstappen his stop go penalty for overtaking on the formation lap). Then if you watch this video from 4.20 onwards;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q88HW2o1MfU

It appears to me that M Schumi is racing off into the distance on the formation lap, whilst Hill is holding the pack up for half a lap?

I also believe that in the past drivers have played various tricks to gain an edge over their rivals, even before they step into the car. For example check out post 14 on in the below forum;

http://forums.autosport.com/topic/12399 ... -of-humor/.

So I don't see any reason why drivers also wouldn't play tricks on the formation lap with their rivals. Whether Hill did anything questionable on the formation lap at Sliverstone 1994, i'd say its unlikely, but I can't completely dismiss it until either Hill or a member of the Williams team like Patrick Head say its complete rubbish.

As a side note one of the reasons why M Schumi made a great getaway at France 1994 (which is what people use as evidence that M Schumi had LC/TC) was because he laid two black lines off his grid slot during the formation lap. Something both Williams drivers failed to do. Also worth noting the ford V8 would have needed less fuel in comparison to the Renualt V10, so M Schumi's car would have been lighter and his engine had excellent torque characteristics. If and when I find more mind blowing stuff on this, I’ll be sure to post it here to my favorite forum.
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15428
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by dr-baker »

ibsey wrote: If and when I find more mind blowing stuff on this, I’ll be sure to post it here to my favourite forum.

Ahh, geez. :oops: To be honest, it's my favourite too.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

Frank Dernie who was Chief Engineer at Benetton in 1994 says this about his time there:

“But I never had any trouble with Tom (Walkinshaw). He was totally straight and honest with me, and he never asked me to cheat. Actually no team bosses ever asked me to cheat. If there were some dodgy things going on they wouldn’t involve me in it, because I talk too much. And I was known to object to that sort of thing. I reckon you can never feel you’ve won if you’ve done it by cheating.


http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archi ... ank-dernie
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

Hi All. Just came across the following which perhaps is another reason why Max held a grudge against Flavio & Benetton in mid 1994. Hence the subsequent smear campaign when other teams were allegedly just as guilty as Benetton was on some issues. Hope you find it as interesting as I did:

He (Flavio) displayed the same innocence when amid, the most acrimonious F1 season I can recall in 1994, Benetton was found to have removed the fuel filters that were part of the Intertechnique refuelling apparatus.

In fact, there are some uncanny parallels between that season and this. For background, Max Mosley and the FIA had introduced a number of regulation changes for safety reasons after the deaths of Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna at Imola. Some were of the opinion that they had not been properly thought through and could actually prove to increase danger.

This was relatively early on in Max's reign, just three years in, and he hadn't yet fully demonstrated his 'determination,' let's call it. But even so, at a time when there were all sorts of rumours about Schumacher and Benetton still using the recently banned traction control, Flavio could have picked a better time to write a letter to the FIA president containing the following paragraph: "Despite these concerns you continue to insist on these ill-conceived measures. It is our opinion that the ability of yourself and your advisors to judge technical and safety issues in Formula One must be questioned."

The Barcelona race followed two days later and, with the track silent when cars should have been practicing and the teams and Max locked in Frank Williams' motorhome, it looked as if F1 was on the brink of anarchy. The race went ahead but there was trouble at mill.

There then followed one of those leaked games of tennis between Max and Bernie. The following Tuesday a letter from Max to Bernie read: "Last Friday, you invited me to a meeting with nine F1 teams... We had what I thought was a friendly and constructive meeting. The fact that the cars of those present were not running was not mentioned. No threats were made and no concessions were sought.

"You can imagine my astonishment when I read next day in the press that 'concessions' had been "wrung" from me, that I had agreed to have no further say in F1 matters, that henceforth all decisions would be taken by the teams, not by the FIA, and so on.


"Allegedly, these stories come from one of the team managers present. I cannot imagine why any of them should wish to fabricate these rather tiresome falsehoods but I should be grateful if, in your capacity as the official representative of the Formula One Constructors on the World Council, you would let me have written confirmation of what really took place. This would help me explain the true situation to the FIA..."

Classic Max. Bernie wrote back, same day: "I am sorry these reports appeared in the press. They are entirely untrue and if they came from one of the teams, this is most regrettable... I am unable to offer any explanation to the statements which appeared in the press, particularly in Italy... It may be that, with the large number of journalists outside Frank's motorhome, one of the team principals was unable to resist the temptation to seek publicity..."

And so when, at the same time as the FIA was investigating the allegations of launch/traction control usage, Benetton was found to have removed its fuel filter, thereby speeding up the fuel flow rate and shortening its pit stop times, the team and Briatore were facing expulsion from the championship. Worse, the revelation came as a result of an investigation into a Benetton pit fire during a stop by Jos Verstappen in the German Grand Prix, so the charge of compromising safety was levelled at the team then, too.

It's very often difficult to decipher what precisely Briatore is saying, but when he hosted the media in his motorhome at the next race, he came out with one of his more memorable lines. "Hey guys," he shrugged, "You know me. I no know the difference - fuel filter, coffee filter, whatever! Speak to the tech guys..."


http://www.autosport.com/features/article.php/id/2391

In Eurosport’s end of 1994 season review you can clearly see Flavio speaking Italian to some journo’s following the Spainish meeting. So bearing in mind the bold bits above I have little doubt it was Flavio who tried to play Max as suggested above.

I’ve heard a few other interesting suggestions about the ‘behind the scences’ poltics surrounding this situation. I.e that Bernie E. had a considerable interest in the maker of the rigs, Intertechique, hence all their coverups. Also worth noting the filter in question was only introduced at Monaco which no one disputes. So if the fuel rigs are that sensative to a little dirt, then it is very negligent on the makers part to have allowed these rigs to have been used in the prior races without filters, as the filters were not part of the rigs in the earlier races.

Also heard suggestion that the Flavio ‘open’ letter critising Max regarding the Barcelona changes was intended as part of a wider powerplay by Flavio to gain more power in the sport. Remember Flavio was just in the process of running 2nd team at the time (Ligier). So apparently Flavio was trying to do what Bernie did to Balestre in the 1980’s. The subsequent penalties were intended as a way to permenatly shut Flavio’s power gaining ambitions down, i.e. by tarnishing his name.

Finally Max wanted to ban Benetton for one race after Imola and the Benetton blackbox findings but Flavio wouldn’t give in as Brawn and Bryne would have walked out from Benetton had they done that deal. So that annoyed Max even more. Plenty of incentive there for Max to want to subsquently 'smear' Flavio / Benetton names afterwards I'd say.
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15428
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by dr-baker »

Unraced F1 posted a link to this on Twitter, and I thought it seemed apt to this conversation.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns00028.html , February 1995.
The FIA president Max Mosley visited Ligier last week to help the team celebrate the start of its 20th season in Formula 1 racing. Ligier's long - and occasionally-distinguished - history, however, is still shorter than the 25-year-old feud between Mosley and the man now in charge of Ligier, Tom Walkinshaw.

It is common knowledge in F1 circles that Mosley and Walkinshaw do not get on and that the rancor dates back to when Walkinshaw drove for Mosley when the FIA president was the boss of March Engineering. This personality clash is understood to have been the root cause of many of the problems last year between Benetton (for which Walkinshaw was working) and the FIA, and there is no question that Walkinshaw was the target for the "management changes" which Benetton agreed to make after the Hockenheim pitlane fire.

....

It is curious that Mosley should feel the need to be involved in this sort of PR exercise, unless he used the trip to have a chat with Walkinshaw to ensure that the Scotsman understands that pushing into the "grey areas" of the regulations will not be tolerated by the FIA.



It is interesting that 1994 was the first year I was a serious fan and not a casual viewer, so I thought all the DSQs from 1994 was normal, rather than the peak of DSQs as punishments.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

dr-baker wrote:Unraced F1 posted a link to this on Twitter, and I thought it seemed apt to this conversation.


Thanks dr-baker that is some really interesting background which I did not know before. :)

When I get some time I am going to research that a bit more and if I come across anything similarly interesting I will be sure to post it here. Especially since I read somewhere (can't remember where now?) that Walkinshaw was annoyed at being moved to Ligier in 1994/95. Also Walkingshaw was apparently annoyed that his input into the teams growth from 1991-1994 was not fully recognized by Joe Public. Instead Flavio apparently stole Tom's credit. In recent months I've been really busy with other things, but I am planning to take a sabbatical from work for 6 months in Nov. So I might use that opportunity to research this whole subject even more.

What I was also interested in previously was why wasn't the the highlighted bits below from Willem Toet account investigated by the FIA?

Back at the ranch. In the meantime, inside the Benetton team, a reason was being created for the team not to discuss their close relationship with Ligier. In order to help Ligier out, track performance wise, without spending a fortune, an agreement was reached to provide “technical assistance”. We were asked to provide certain pieces of design related information. I was not happy to give the info but, as an employee, you don’t always have many choices. One can leave the team of course and that’s what I did a little while later when there was a “last straw” moment - this was one of my reasons for being unhappy with how things were going.

Anyway the resulting help that was given led to Ligier people coming and working at Benetton to make parts – from our moulds! Strictly not correct and really upset a “few” people (inside the company). They arrived in full team clothing which is what created a stir inside the company. So to hide where they came from internally (totally unsuccessful) they were given some Benetton clothing. That pissed the workforce off even more as this was not a privilege given to the guys in the composite workshop they worked beside. That may be one reason why the team didn’t want to immediately disclose that Ligier had a letter from Intertechnique as the team really didn’t want the closeness of the working relationship to come out in full! That would have been another day in Paris to see the headmaster – and would not have ended well for either team!

What justification was there? I recall being told at the time that Ligier were in trouble and that our help would only bring them towards competitiveness, not more. This was certainly perceived as a lower cost way for whoever had put money into buying the team to provide an improvement than funding independent research, but regrettably it was almost certainly outside the law. Intellectually I understood the motives but emotionally I was (very) upset by what the team did. When I got a phone call offering me a dream job elsewhere I said yes where normally I would not have been interested. Having finished the rollout car design for the following year I resigned (with other reasons as well of course).


https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/f1-broke ... eader-card


There was also the suggestion that the 1995 Ligier was basically a Benetton, hence why I suspect Mosley visited the Ligier factory in Feb 1995. Basically to check its validity.
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15428
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by dr-baker »



I hadn't seen this before, and wanted to share it/repost it somewhere to remember it, and this seemed a fair place for it. Notable for the crowd reaction if nothing else.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

Nice video & thanks for sharing that. :)

Similarly you may be interested in this; https://michaelschumacher.files.wordpre ... netton.jpg

I've spent hours googling everyone one of those mechanics (and other Benetton team members at the time) to find out if they ever claimed the fire was as a result of Benetton cheating. And I couldn't find a single one who believe that was the case. Which I found telling particularly when you consider all the mechanics involved in the fire had their lives very much put at risk. If I was a mechanic in that situation and believed the fire was as a result of Benetton management cheating, irrespective of the risk to my own life. No amount of money would have kept me quiet over that.

Steve Machett also mentioned in his book after the fire that same group of mechanics all volunteered to do the pitstops at the next race (Hungary). This was despite all of them still overcoming the psychology effect of the fire, and being in no doubt it could happen again as by that stage the true cause of the fire was not known. Again this shows me that the mechanics believed the cause of the fire wasn't down to Benetton cheating otherwise I don't think they would have volunteered. The only execption was Simon Morley who had been too badly injured in the Hockenhiem fire. Machett also talked about how the Mclaren mechanics help him during the fire, and afterwards he wrote a letter to Ron Dennis personally thanking Mclaren for the assistance. In your video you can see the mclaren mechaincs appearing to check everyone at Benetton was ok in the aftermath.

I'm currently reading "I just made the tea" by Di Spires who was working with Benetton in 1994. in the interests of balance I thought I'd mention what she states;

On the saturday night before the race, as usual, I went into the garage to check that all the team had been for dinner. I was suprised to find that one person was still there and he was messing about with the fuel rig.
In my naivete I said 'well what are you doing there then? Its a bit late to be messing about with that thing.' From the look I got I decided to go back to the motorhome.


About 1994 Di also states that she "personally would find it hard to believe he (M Schumi) knew anything about any possible cheating". Finally had heard the rumor from various sources that 10 out of the 14 teams in 1994 had all removed the fuel filter (like Benetton) does anyone know more on this?
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15428
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by dr-baker »

There is an article in the current (February 2018) issue of F1 Racing magazine, which is an interview with Adrian Newey about his new autobiography. No, not a biography of his autos, but of himself... Naturally a few paragraphs are dedicated to the 1994 season. Won't post the scans of the article to here just yet (at least not while the magazine is still on sale!), but maybe in due course. Don't know how much is in the biography mind, might make interesting additional reading.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by ibsey »

Yay my favorite thread pops into action. :dance:

Obviously I address all of Newey's accusations against Benetton in my upcoming book, and there are some very interesting findings indeed.
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
TomPryce
Posts: 150
Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 21:34
Location: Wrexham, Wales

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by TomPryce »

I read the autobiography just this week.

All was mentioned was the "startling discrepancy" between Verstappen and Schumacher, especially in comparison to Schumacher and Lehto previously.

So... meh.
Remembering a Welsh sporting hero. Pleidiol wyf i'm gwlad.
User avatar
WeirdKerr
Posts: 1864
Joined: 05 Apr 2009, 15:57
Location: on the edge of nowhere with a ludicrous grid penalty.....

Re: 17 years on, it starts up again...

Post by WeirdKerr »

TomPryce wrote:I read the autobiography just this week.

All was mentioned was the "startling discrepancy" between Verstappen and Schumacher, especially in comparison to Schumacher and Lehto previously.

So... meh.


IMHO the true pace of the car without TC was revealed during the 2 races that Schumacher was banned for....
Post Reply