17 years on, it starts up again...

The place for speaking your mind on current goings-on in F1
User avatar
TomWazzleshaw
Posts: 14370
Joined: 01 Apr 2009, 04:42
Location: Curva do lel
Contact:

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

Post by TomWazzleshaw »

mario wrote:
Enforcer wrote:Well, I got the Senna movie for Christmas which had me thinking about the B194 again. In a little over three monts time, it'll have been 18 years since the car had its first race. Surely not every employee at Benetton in 1994, who would've known whether the car had TC or not, is still in a position where they're still working in motorsport and have to keep it secret. Shouldn't someone have come forward by now and admitted it in as many words if the car was using traction control? Or has someone and I haven't heard about it?

And also, why would they put it on Schumacher's car and not Verstappen's & Letho's? Which is more odd, one driver constantly 1st or 2nd (Schumacher didn't finish a race outside the top 2 in 1994) and the other nowhere, or both drivers doing really well simply suggesting a good car?

On the fuel thing, I have this recollection that some team apart from Benetton claimed intertechnique told them it was okay to remove the filler.

I believe that the other team you would be thinking of is Ligier, who provided Benetton with supporting documentation from their conversations with Inertechnique. However, it has to be noted that Ligier were a customer team of Benetton at the time, so there is inevitably a question of bias with the evidence that Ligier chose to provide.


I was under the impression it was either McLaren or Ferrari that claimed it was fine.
Biscione wrote:"Some Turkemenistani gulag repurposed for residential use" is the best way yet I've heard to describe North / East Glasgow.
User avatar
stupot94
Posts: 474
Joined: 27 Feb 2011, 21:12
Location: Redditch

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

Post by stupot94 »

These revelations are actually quite serious. As many of the people on here know.
However the 94 history book had been written and put into its shelf hopefully without any thought of being tampered with. (The 97 hypothetical book had to be taken down and Schumacher crossed out) I wonder what the FIA might do. Or how Schumacher and Briatore will react.
Say your prayers, here comes the Pastor
User avatar
mario
Posts: 8091
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 17:13

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

Post by mario »

Wizzie wrote:
mario wrote:
Enforcer wrote:Well, I got the Senna movie for Christmas which had me thinking about the B194 again. In a little over three monts time, it'll have been 18 years since the car had its first race. Surely not every employee at Benetton in 1994, who would've known whether the car had TC or not, is still in a position where they're still working in motorsport and have to keep it secret. Shouldn't someone have come forward by now and admitted it in as many words if the car was using traction control? Or has someone and I haven't heard about it?

And also, why would they put it on Schumacher's car and not Verstappen's & Letho's? Which is more odd, one driver constantly 1st or 2nd (Schumacher didn't finish a race outside the top 2 in 1994) and the other nowhere, or both drivers doing really well simply suggesting a good car?

On the fuel thing, I have this recollection that some team apart from Benetton claimed intertechnique told them it was okay to remove the filler.

I believe that the other team you would be thinking of is Ligier, who provided Benetton with supporting documentation from their conversations with Inertechnique. However, it has to be noted that Ligier were a customer team of Benetton at the time, so there is inevitably a question of bias with the evidence that Ligier chose to provide.


I was under the impression it was either McLaren or Ferrari that claimed it was fine.

Slight correction - it seems that it was not Ligier but Larrousse who supported Benetton's defence back in 1994 (though the same question of bias due to their reliance on Benetton for components remains).
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

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

Post by ibsey »

mario wrote:Slight correction - it seems that it was not Ligier but Larrousse who supported Benetton's defence back in 1994 (though the same question of bias due to their reliance on Benetton for components remains).


Further to this (apologies for the delay in getting back to you on this, believe it or not this is the 1st chance I've had to post on this thread again...better late than never), I've now looked further into what Steve Machett views RE; the 1994 Benetton fuel fire & here's the background surrounding the situation...

Following the 1994 Hockenheim fuel fire there was an inspection by Intertechique & an acident investigation company (which was commissioned by Benetton). When they dismattled & measured the fuel rig, both companies concluded that the problem layed with the manufacting torrelances between the various compenents within the rig (lets call this report A). However when Intertechinque reported back to the FIA they decided to ignored report A & instead concluded that the most likely cause for the Hockenhiem fire was a foreign body (i.e. a bit of dirt/grit) entering into the rig which jammed on the fuel value (lets call this report B). Therefore implying that it was a direct result of Benetton removing an internal filter & not an intertechinque problem. Benetton only learnt that they were being blamed for the fuel fire on the Tuesday/Wednesday before the 1994 Hungarian GP.

Interestingly shortly before the 1994 Hungarian GP, Intertechique did change the suspect components which had been idenitfied in report A as the cause of the Hockenhiem fire. They did this for all fuel rigs in use up & down the Hungaroring pitlane (so not just Benetton's rigs). Read into that what you will.

In the wake of the Hockenhiem fire & the subsquent FIA press release on the matter which concluded that the cause was the removal of the internal filter by Benetton. Benetton management had made no attempt to conceal the fact that they did removed the filter, they stated 'yes a filter had been removed, but only after the approval of an FIA offical'. Indeed it later came to light that the Larousse team had asked for and recieved the go-ahead to remove that exact same filter from their fuel rig equipment. In fact they were given drawings on how to remove it. Steve Matchett also says that he is convinced that the removal of that filter from the fuel rig had absolutuely nothing to do with the Hockenhiem fuel fire & points out that once in Budapest factors like...

The displayed of concern still shown for all the mechanics welfare working in the pitlane

The fitting of replacement parts by the rig manufacture (after the Hockenhiem fire)

& The extra satefy equipment introduced by every other team as a result (irrespective of whether or not that particular team had removed the filter from their fuel rig)

...convinced him that he wasn't alone in that view. It is also worth noting that Mclaren apparently experienced simliar fuel rig problems in 1994 pre-season testing & Mclaren hadn't touched the fuel rig filter. In that particular incident Mclaren were using water instead of Fuel so thankfully no injuries result. However when Bob Vasha (US commentator) interviewed Ron Dennis about the incident Bob noted that Ron's body languange suggested Mclaren were extermely worried over the safety of the fuel rigs system in Brazil 1994.

Whislt on the subject of Benetton's disqualifications in 1994, other people may not be aware of this, but Steve Matchett states that the Sliverstone stop & go penalty was also unjustified here's why... It was given as a result of M Schumi overtaking poleman Hill on the formation lap. However on the Formation lap in Brazil 1994 M Schumi overtook Senna in an identical way, yet recieved no penalty or even any warning to my knowledge not to do it again??? (& I've seen numeruous examples since Sliverstone 1994 of cars passing on the formation lap) One can only conclude that the M Schumi's points lead coming into Sliverstone 1994 influnced the inital penalty.

In fact had the stewards been aware of the correct procedure they would have sent him to the back of the grid before the start. Also Steve Matchett claims that the Benetton team were wrongly advised by the stewards about how the penalty was to be served on them, hence the reason why M Schumi didn't come into the pits when initally requested by the stewards which then caused the black flag. Basically Benetton didn't know anything about the stop & go served on them as Benetton were advised by the stewards that 5 seconds was going to be added to the final race time instead.

Having said that, I do agree with the subsquent two race ban for ignoring the black flag afterwards all of this. Its just had the correct procedures been followed by the stewards in the 1st place, then there wouldn't have been any black flag for M Schumi & Benetton to ignore.

Please note the source for all of this info is Speed channel's retrospective look on the 1994 Hungarian GP & 1994 British Gp's which Speed Channel did 45 mins highlights of each 1994 GP, back in 2004 where Steve Matchett & Bob Varsha used to commentate on...well worth watching as Steve in particular gives great insight into that season, like the above info, that I certainly wasn't aware of before...& changed my opinion about whether the Benetton 'cheating' acusations were correct, the FIA & the whole behind the scenes politics of the 1994 season (i.e. Flavio & Benetton fell out with Max Mosley & the FIA around the 1994 Spainish GP, where the FIA introduced a raft of safety changes at extermely short notice) & not his book as I orginally thought, although that is an excellent read as people have already stated.

In regards to whether or not the Benetton used TC or Launch control in 1994, I've already made a couple of very detail posts previously on this (in the unpopular opinions thread on pages... last post on page 3 & a post in the middle of page 17). So I won't repeat what I said there, but basically I am of the opinion that they didn't. Also if one considers little things like Schumi's poor getaway in Brazil 1994 (where he lost a place to Alesi at the start), or the B194 getting beaten in wet conditions (i.e. Spa wet qualifying sessions...Schumi got beat by both Barrichello on Friday or Alesi on Saturday, or Suzuka...where Hill beat Schumi in the race). In light of this & all of the other points I have raised on this subject & what with Verstappen's creditably surely being called into question after his arrest, one wonders whether Jos' claims should be taking seriously?
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 to bring up an old thread again. However just stumbled across the following interesting article which shows how corrupt the FIA were when dealing with Benetton's fuel rig case in 1994...

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=34932

This article further supports both Steve Matchett's & my own view, which I previously stated above about how the Benetton fuel rig accusations from the FIA & everyone else were just utter nonesense. Which must make a reasonable person wonder about the validity of Benetton other disqualifications in 1994. Particularly given the political fallout between, Benetton & Max Mosely around the 1994 Spainish Gp, as I eluded to above.

Also for anyone who still thinks that Benetton, did cheat in 1994 by using TC or Launch Control during actual race weekends. Even though, I have put already put forward a number of valid points which support the view that they didn't use TC or Launch Control during races. To which Benetton accuser's have yet to respond to. I will also add a few further considerations into the mix.

Firstly Goodyear tyre compounds. If M Schumi & Benetton were using TC & Launch Control, then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that their tyre wear would be significantly less other drivers in 1994? Particularly rear tyre wear?

According to John Watson in the Eurosport coverage of the 1993 Suzuka GP. Goodyear said that they expected the non TC cars of 1994 to be much harder on their tyres than in comparison to the TC cars of 1993. So that being the case then wouldn't Goodyear have been amongst the first to know about Benetton's allegdely illegal TC / launch control device?

We can ask simliar questions about Benetton's fuel supplier (IIRC I think was Elf in 1994). As wouldn't Benetton have used more fuel in comparison to other V8 engines?

Second consideration is just watch M Schumi off the formation lap in San Marino & Canada (& probably other races in 1994, I just haven't got around to watching any others recently yet). M Schumi, clearly wheelspins his rear wheels in an effort to leave rubber on his starting grid slot. Something other drivers at this point have failed to either pick up on or bother doing.

I believe it is race intelligence examples like this which is why M Schumi & Benetton were WDC in 1994 not because they were using illegal TC or launch control devices. Before you ask, I'm not a M Schumi fanboy, hated the guy in 1994 actually! I just admire great race intelligence regardless of whoever it comes from. Also some may think, that sure he might have done that but turned on his TC system before the start proper. To which I would respond by saying wouldn't that then show up in the telemetery?

Finally on the evening of Imola 1994 the 'black box' from each of the first three cars was taken by the FIA to be anaylsed. Three months later when their findings were announced. Even the FIA (Benetton's public enemy No. 1) said the 'best evidence' was that Benetton had not used TC or Launch Control illegally during Imola.
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
Londoner
Posts: 6423
Joined: 17 Jun 2010, 18:21
Location: Norwich, UK
Contact:

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

Post by Londoner »

I'd be careful with that article, as it is Pitpass, and you don't want Captain Hammer dropping 500 words of rant on top of you...

One day, the 1994 season will make an interesting and informative book...
Fetzie on Ferrari wrote:How does a driver hurtling around a race track while they're sous-viding in their overalls have a better understanding of the race than a team of strategy engineers in an air-conditioned room?l
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15426
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

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

Post by dr-baker »

East Londoner wrote:I'd be careful with that article, as it is Pitpass, and you don't want Captain Hammer dropping 500 words of rant on top of you...

One day, the 1994 season will make an interesting and informative book...

2014 may actually be a good time for it. It would have been 20 years (!), long enough for adequate comtemplation yeat with a sufficient number of people still around to give a fair account of what happened. Although obviously things like this still seems to be a hot potato, and guys like Michael Scumacher are still in the sport...
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 »

East Londoner wrote:I'd be careful with that article, as it is Pitpass, and you don't want Captain Hammer dropping 500 words of rant on top of you...

One day, the 1994 season will make an interesting and informative book...



Thanks for the head's up. :)

Dare I even ask, what his problem is with that website? (I've never used it before, so I honestly don't know).

IIRC Isn't Captain Hammer the guy with a problem with Joe Saward? If so, as far as I can see, I don't think Joe Saward had any input into that particular article.
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
AndreaModa
Posts: 5806
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 17:51
Location: Bristol, UK

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

Post by AndreaModa »

ibsey wrote:Dare I even ask, what his problem is with that website? (I've never used it before, so I honestly don't know).


I think it' basically because Pitpass aren't that great for reliable stories, and often report on the more tenuous rumours that places such as the BBC or Autosport don't run until they have some definite substance.
I want my MTV...Simtek Ford

My Motorsport Photos

@DNPQ_
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

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

Post by ibsey »

AndreaModa wrote:
ibsey wrote:Dare I even ask, what his problem is with that website? (I've never used it before, so I honestly don't know).


I think it' basically because Pitpass aren't that great for reliable stories, and often report on the more tenuous rumours that places such as the BBC or Autosport don't run until they have some definite substance.


Cool, thanks for the advice, AndreaModa.
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 »

AndreaModa wrote:
ibsey wrote:Dare I even ask, what his problem is with that website? (I've never used it before, so I honestly don't know).


I think it' basically because Pitpass aren't that great for reliable stories, and often report on the more tenuous rumours that places such as the BBC or Autosport don't run until they have some definite substance.


They also share a definite love for Bernie and don't hide it. This tends to overshadow their reports. This and the annoying habit of writing their own biased opinions at the end of a story. Besides, their main guy for financial analysis and whatever, Chris Sylt, is not a popular man with other hacks including Joe Saward and he tends to get things wrong most of the time.
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
User avatar
Enforcer
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 1497
Joined: 31 Mar 2009, 20:09
Location: Ireland

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

Post by Enforcer »

Mulling on this again, I decided to check the results from 1993, when all the top cars had TC, so Benetton couldn't cheat by having it. Although obviously, some systems were better than others. In every race, Schumacher either:

1) Didn't finish.
2) Finished on the podium.

He never crossed the finish line outside the top 3. And when he finished only Senna, Prost & Hill ever finished ahead him. Now, if you take into account Prost retiring, Senna's death, and the fact that Williams were hurt the most by the banning of driver aids and freely admit their car was difficult at the start of the season, is Schumacher's domination of 1994 really that hard to accept that he could've only done it by cheating?

And for Frank Williams protestations that Senna was "blown away" by Schumacher that appear in the Senna movie, Senna outqualified him 3-0. And we only got one comparison of race pace, and that was at Brazil, where Schumacher had an easier time running at the limit (Senna was catching him late in the race, but spun in the process). Senna could well have beaten him over the whole season had he not been killed.
User avatar
Minardi Man
Posts: 291
Joined: 25 Sep 2011, 11:52

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

Post by Minardi Man »

Well yeah, considering even Hill was so close to winning the championship that year, I think it's safe to say Senna would have, then probably retired.
Unless Schumacher smacked into Senna to win the championship like with Hill. Then stuff would have been going down.
User avatar
Wallio
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 2624
Joined: 22 Feb 2012, 22:54
Location: The Wyoming Valley, PA

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

Post by Wallio »

Enforcer wrote:Mulling on this again, I decided to check the results from 1993, when all the top cars had TC, so Benetton couldn't cheat by having it. Although obviously, some systems were better than others. In every race, Schumacher either:

1) Didn't finish.
2) Finished on the podium.

He never crossed the finish line outside the top 3. And when he finished only Senna, Prost & Hill ever finished ahead him. Now, if you take into account Prost retiring, Senna's death, and the fact that Williams were hurt the most by the banning of driver aids and freely admit their car was difficult at the start of the season, is Schumacher's domination of 1994 really that hard to accept that he could've only done it by cheating?

And for Frank Williams protestations that Senna was "blown away" by Schumacher that appear in the Senna movie, Senna outqualified him 3-0. And we only got one comparison of race pace, and that was at Brazil, where Schumacher had an easier time running at the limit (Senna was catching him late in the race, but spun in the process). Senna could well have beaten him over the whole season had he not been killed.



This is always my argument too. Gotta remember Benetton had a ton of cash in the early 90s and were designing some fairly wild stuff (much like Red Bull today) they were the first, and possibly only car with four wheel steering, and they tested an auto-downshift system like macca had. With all those resources to burn and the second best driver in 1994, why is it so hard to believe?
Professional Historian/Retired Drag Racer/Whiskey Enthusiast

"He makes the move on the outside, and knowing George as we do, he's probably on the radio right now telling the team how great he is." - James Hinchcliffe on George Russell
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

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

Post by ibsey »

Wallio wrote:
Enforcer wrote:Mulling on this again, I decided to check the results from 1993, when all the top cars had TC, so Benetton couldn't cheat by having it. Although obviously, some systems were better than others. In every race, Schumacher either:

1) Didn't finish.
2) Finished on the podium.

He never crossed the finish line outside the top 3. And when he finished only Senna, Prost & Hill ever finished ahead him. Now, if you take into account Prost retiring, Senna's death, and the fact that Williams were hurt the most by the banning of driver aids and freely admit their car was difficult at the start of the season, is Schumacher's domination of 1994 really that hard to accept that he could've only done it by cheating?

And for Frank Williams protestations that Senna was "blown away" by Schumacher that appear in the Senna movie, Senna outqualified him 3-0. And we only got one comparison of race pace, and that was at Brazil, where Schumacher had an easier time running at the limit (Senna was catching him late in the race, but spun in the process). Senna could well have beaten him over the whole season had he not been killed.



This is always my argument too. Gotta remember Benetton had a ton of cash in the early 90s and were designing some fairly wild stuff (much like Red Bull today) they were the first, and possibly only car with four wheel steering, and they tested an auto-downshift system like macca had. With all those resources to burn and the second best driver in 1994, why is it so hard to believe?


In addition to the above strong arguements. Monaco 1993 was the 1st race that Benetton actually started using their TC system on their car. IIRC Ford wouldn't allow it earlier since they were struggling to get it to comply with their own engine electronics system.

Steve Matchett explained that they had to develop a 'fly by wire' throttle system (whatever that is?). Which might also explain why in 1994 Benetton found it especially complicated to remove their TC system completely from their car. Therefore Benetton had to disable it for GP weekends instead.

However at Monaco 1993 when they compared running with TC turned on & off they found it to give them a 1.2 to 1.3 second per lap improvement.

Source; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K7oXEvb36o ...about 7.20 minutes into the video

Which of course, not only makes the above two arguements even more stronger. But also explains why M Schumi wasn't able to complete more strongly in the earlier races. Especially Brazil & Donnington 1993. Since he was running without TC against top cars & drivers who were running with TC.
Last edited by ibsey on 04 Mar 2012, 07:25, 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
TomWazzleshaw
Posts: 14370
Joined: 01 Apr 2009, 04:42
Location: Curva do lel
Contact:

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

Post by TomWazzleshaw »

ibsey wrote:
Wallio wrote:
Enforcer wrote:Mulling on this again, I decided to check the results from 1993, when all the top cars had TC, so Benetton couldn't cheat by having it. Although obviously, some systems were better than others. In every race, Schumacher either:

1) Didn't finish.
2) Finished on the podium.

He never crossed the finish line outside the top 3. And when he finished only Senna, Prost & Hill ever finished ahead him. Now, if you take into account Prost retiring, Senna's death, and the fact that Williams were hurt the most by the banning of driver aids and freely admit their car was difficult at the start of the season, is Schumacher's domination of 1994 really that hard to accept that he could've only done it by cheating?

And for Frank Williams protestations that Senna was "blown away" by Schumacher that appear in the Senna movie, Senna outqualified him 3-0. And we only got one comparison of race pace, and that was at Brazil, where Schumacher had an easier time running at the limit (Senna was catching him late in the race, but spun in the process). Senna could well have beaten him over the whole season had he not been killed.



This is always my argument too. Gotta remember Benetton had a ton of cash in the early 90s and were designing some fairly wild stuff (much like Red Bull today) they were the first, and possibly only car with four wheel steering, and they tested an auto-downshift system like macca had. With all those resources to burn and the second best driver in 1994, why is it so hard to believe?


In addition to the above strong arguements. Monaco 1993 was the 1st race that Benetton actually started using their TC system on their car. IIRC Ford wouldn't allow it earlier since they were struggling to get it to comply with their own engine electronics system.

Steve Matchett explained that they had to develop a 'fly by wire' throttle system (whatever that is?). When they compared running with TC turned on & off they found it to give them a 1.2 to 1.3 second improvement at Monaco.

Source; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K7oXEvb36o ...about 7.20 minutes into the video

Which of course, not only makes the above two arguements even more stronger. But also explains why M Schumi wasn't able to complete more strongly in the earlier races. Especially Brazil & Donnington 1993. Since he was running without TC against top cars & drivers who were running with TC.


To put "fly-by-wire" into layman terms, it's basically where, when the driver presses the throttle, the command is sent through electronic systems rather than traditional mechanical systems such as cables.
Biscione wrote:"Some Turkemenistani gulag repurposed for residential use" is the best way yet I've heard to describe North / East Glasgow.
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

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

Post by ibsey »

Wizzie wrote:To put "fly-by-wire" into layman terms, it's basically where, when the driver presses the throttle, the command is sent through electronic systems rather than traditional mechanical systems such as cables.


Cool. Thanks for that Wizzie. :)

By the way I've just edited my previous post when you were posting that last comment.
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 »

Former Benetton Engineer admits they used TC in 1994...

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-rota ... illem-toet

but if you read the update on 12/12/16 it was legal (letter of law not intent of law) traction control. And before anyone says it was not the intent of the law, I can point to various examples where teams went against the 'spirit of the regulations'. A comparable example would be around 2000 when various teams were using very clever methods to simulate TC leading the FIA legalizing it in the 2001 Spainish GP because it became impossible to police.

In fact just reading Damon Hill's book on the 1994 season and after the British GP in 1994 Max Mosley said to Damon "you did not actually break the rules, so there is nothing we can do. But we think that you went against the spirit of the regulations". That was after the heinous crime of slowing down to pick up a Union Jack just after he won a race. So bear that in mind before you critise Benetton for coming up with the system mentioned in the above article.

EDIT; Interestingly McLaren were found to have that trick semi auto gearbox for some races in 1994 which pre selected gears in braking areas and IIRC the FIA stated this was against the rules at the time. Yet in all the years I've been researching the whole 1994 politics & TC accusations I have never come across anyone slating Mclaren for cheating in 1994. Yet plenty of people have of course suggested Benetton & M Schumi cheated in 1994 at any opportunity. I find this very interesting...

Also worth bearing in mind, Benetton were using a Ford V8 which would have helped them off the starts due to the better torque characteristics and lighter fuel load they would have needed (due to the lower fuel consumption of the V8). Also M Schumi used to wheelspin from his grid slot on the formation lap, in order to leave two rubber lines, when it came to the start proper.


Former Benetton Engineer sheds more light on the Fuel Fire Affair...

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/f1-broke ... =prof-post

In that Hill book I reading this is what Hill basically states that the fire had merely confirmed what he had feared all along that when refuelling was introduced to F1 a fire was enevitable and you only need to look at the other forms of motorsport, Le Mans, Indycars where they refuel during races. Also he said he didn't believe for a second when the powers that be in F1 said refuelling would be completely safe, and the Hockenhiem fire was proof of it.

Hill also goes onto state in the days before the Hungary GP, Benetton did not deny that they had removed the filter and in fact they had been given permission to do so. But they also produced a report which said the refueling equipment was not safe and all told the team defended themselves quite vigorously. Yet when the matter when to court, the situtation changed completely and Benetton didn't defend themselves nor appeal the decision and received no DQ or race bans. I repeat no DQ or race bans!

Yet "Plank gate" at Spa 1994 earnt M Schumi a DQ and the whole saga surrounding Sliverstone 1994 arguably cost M Schumi 30 points! There is something fishy about the FIA's allegation that the removal of the fuel filter cause the Hockenhiem fire. Also Hill's comments along with Toet's all seem to correlate with what Steve Machett's has said on the matter, all of which is expressed in my earlier posts.



The Sliverstone 1994 affair

I know the thoughts of many people is Benetton & M Schumi deserved the harsh treament after Sliverstone 1994 because they ignore the black flags.

Just to correct a factual mistake (and is commonly made): Michael Schumacher was indeed black flagged by the race stewards in Silverstone. However, the race steward WITHDREW the black flag and eventually 'settled' the mess (they ****ed up) with a stop-go penalty, a fine and a severe warning. However, in an unprecedented move (back then), the FIA independently (i.e., without any side appealing) launched a hearing where Schumacher was subsequently DQ'ed, banned from two races and Benetton received the biggest fine to date - half a million US dollars.

Here's an account of the Silverstone events from Chris Hilton's book on 1994:

Quote

On the warm-up lap before the race Schumacher set off in a cloud of smoke from the tyres, leading Hill - a breach of the rules which state that cars must remain in grid order. Coulthard couldn't get his engine to fire on the grid so the starting procedure had to be aborted. When they tried a second time, Schumacher took the lead again on the warm-up lap and would subsequently claim that Hill was 'going a bit slow'. The rules are clear: Schumacher ought to have been ordered to start from the back of the grid. That did not happen (and ultimately would be the first in many errors the Stewards had made).

Hill took the lead from Schumacher while the Stewards deliberated, decided on a five second penalty and informed Benetton. Crucially the penalty did not include the words 'stop-go'. (Note: back then, it was more common to penalise by adding time to a driver's race than to call him in for a stop-go; Rain) Briatore said 'we were told of the penalty but the stop-go wasn't mentioned. Therefore we didn't ask Michael to come into the pits'. Benetton, and Schumacher when they told him over the radio, assumed the five seconds would be added to his total race time and Schumacher faced the problem of overtaking Hill and getting five seconds clear of him.

After the early pit-stops Schumacher was given the black flag on lap 21. The black flag has always been the ultimate sanction in motor racing and is non-negotiable. The driver's number is displayed at the start-finish line and the black-flag. The indicated driver must come in. This time negotiations - heated - did take place between Benetton and the Stewards and for the next two laps Schumacher continued under the black flag. Then, the black flag was gone, and the Stewards told Benetton that it was withdrawn.

Instead, following the Stewards' orders, Schumacher came in on lap 27 for the stop-go, which essentially cost him the race. The Stewards issued a statement culminating in a decision 'to formally reprimand the competitor Mild Seven Benetton Ford for a lack of a complete understanding of F1 rules and of the need for this to be corrected and for their meticulous application in the future. Michael Schumacher and competitor Mild Seven Benetton Ford were fined US$25,000 for breach of the applicable regulations'. Benetton team manager Joan Villadelprat said 'we messed up but so did the Stewards. The rule says we have to be notified within 15 minutes of the incident'. By now a timetable had been re-created minute by minute, and it showed clearly that Schumacher's original offence - overtaking Hill on the warm-up laps - took place at 2.00, but the Stewards' decision was not announced until 2.27.

[one week later]

The FIA launched an inquiry into the events of Silverstone, and Schumacher was summoned to a meeting of the World Motor Sports Council in Paris on July 26. [...] After the hearing, he lost his six points from Silverstone and was given a two-race ban. Furthermore, Benetton were fined $500,000 for their failure to obey the Stewards' orders at Silverstone.

To this I would add the following:

[*] Prior to the World Council hearing, the WC points tally was: Schumacher 72, Hill 39. With TV rating sinking after Senna's death, I think those numbers speak volume of the FIA's state of mind at that point in time.
[*] That the Stewards really messed up in Silverstone '94 is obvious. The Race Director was in fact fined and reprimanded in that same World Council meeting. Interestingly enough, a similar shambles occured four years later at the same track - remember Schumacher's penalty, that was handed well over the time allowed by the rules, in a hand writing that was not clear of whether it's a stop-go or not? In that case, Ferrari got away with it. Same driver, different team but more importantly - different situation: this time, it was Hakkinen that had a huge lead in a WC that seemed to be about to get cakewalked.


How anyone could point at Silverstone '94 and blame Schumacher, I don't understand. It's more a case of moronic Stewards, manipulative team principals and an agenda-driven FIA. Schumacher, between those three, was nothing more than a pawn. For once, he WAS the innocent victim and not the culprit.

And by the way, it also reminds me of this year's Canadian Grand Prix, where David Coulthard had stalled on the grid and his team breached the 15-seconds clear rule, to fire up his engine. In that case, he ought to have been sent to the back of the grid. He got away with a stop-go penalty. The similarities to Schumacher's offense in Silverstone '94 are striking: in both cases, the drivers breached what is essentially a safety rule, and the penalty to both is to start from the start of the grid (a driver stalling his engine on the grid is supposed to raise his hand, like Schumacher in Suzuka 98). In both cases, the Stewards did not react on time and eventually settled for a stop-go penalty. However, in Coulthard's case the FIA did not launch an inquiry etc. -- again, put in perspective it tells a story about the FIA's agenda: with a 24-point lead in the WC, and the season is not half done yet, Schumacher's only real rival at that point was Coulthard....

Food for thought...


Source; http://forums.autosport.com/topic/30931 ... ill/page-4

IIRC it is stated later on in that thread that the rules at the time allowed for the black flag to be shown for 4 laps, and M Schumi passed it 3 times before it was withdrawn.

Also worth remembering that Mansell ignore the Black flag at Portgual in 1989 (for two laps) and then was involved in a race ending accident with Senna (who was of course fighting for the WDC). So surely the Punishment that Mansell recieved should have been much greater that what M Schumi recieved at Sliverstone in 1994? Yet as we know Mansell 'only' got a one race ban. Where as M Schumi lost arguably 30 points (he was leading at Sliverstone when the black flag was shown, and when he came in for his stop & go). Can't help but feel M Schumi's points lead going into Sliverstone in 1994 had influenced the harsh penalty he/Benetton recieved.

Apologies for the long post, but I hope you find all of the above as interesting as I have. Also if you do a bit of research behind the characters involved (i.e. Max Mosley's father, mother & auntie) and how imcompentant he seemed to be in 1994 on various matters like safety and applying consistent penalties etc. You start to begin understand the whole politics behind 1994. For me this put into context what M Schumi did at Adelaide in 1994, even thought I don't agree with the manner he chose to settle the title. I merely understand why he did what he did a bit better.
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: 15426
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

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

Post by dr-baker »

So, basically, 1994 was just a very messy season. In hindsight, Schumacher would have done better to hold behind Hill on that warm-up lap at Silverstone to give his detractors less ammunition to fire towards him. But a lot of mistakes were made by a lot of people with the subsequent penalty. And as for the consistency of penalties awarded over the years has been debated for a long time in F1, as well as other forms of motorsport like IndyCar (so I gather). The 1994 season would make a fascinating Hollywood movie one day, in the same vein as Rush. I don't believe Schumacer and Benetton were entirely innocent (no smoke without fire), but I don't think that the situation will ever be adequately explained.
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:In hindsight, Schumacher would have done better to hold behind Hill on that warm-up lap at Silverstone to give his detractors less ammunition to fire towards him.


I agree however it is suggested in that autosport thread (which I posted the link to in my earlier post), that M Schumi had to drive at a reasonable pace on the formation lap due to the B194 small radiators. So apparently he had no choice either that or the Ford V8 would have overheated & blown up.

Furthermore Patrick Head noticed M Schumi driving quickly on all the formation laps at the previous races where he got pole, and therefore instructed Damon Hill to drive slowly on the two formation laps. Hill states in the book I refered to earlier that the Williams team were accutely aware of the excellent start M Schumi made at the previous race at France, and wanted to do whatever it took to avoid a repeat. Interestingly M Schumi didn't make as good a getaway at Silverstone. If the above story is true, and it does go to show that even Hill & Williams weren't above questionable tactics in 1994. In fact Hill even states himself again in that book at certain times in 1994 he wasn't very sportman like towards M Schumi.

In fact Brundle's Mclaren Peugeot did blow up spectacularly at the start of the 1994 British GP. Could that have something to do with Damon Hill's slow pace on both formation laps? Remember it was a really hot that day and the 1st start was aborted due to Coulthard stalling which put added strain on the machinery.

What really annoys me is M Schumi did exactly the same thing on the formation lap to Senna at Brzail, with no penalty or warning from the FIA (as far as I am aware). Call me a cynic but it seems M Schumi wasn't penalized in Brazil because he was supposed to be the main challenger to Senna for the title. Of course penalizing the main challenger would have hurt the show.

Whereas at Silverstone if I recall correctly M Schumi was circa 37 points ahead of Hill so stripping him of a potential 30 points (as they effectively did) certainly benefited the show. Especially when you bear in mind the TV viewing figures which were falling following Senna's death. And we all know what Bernie can be like...
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
AndreaModa
Posts: 5806
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 17:51
Location: Bristol, UK

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

Post by AndreaModa »

I read all this, and all I see is lots of speculation, lots of ifs and buts and nothing really clear cut. No definite proof.

I don't know what you're trying to get at ibsey, is it the inconsistencies? Do you feel Schumacher was 'robbed' of a more straightforward title?

Either way, you can speculate all you want till your blue in the face, it doesn't really matter until definite proof is out there. And until that day, I just take the events of 1994 at face value.
I want my MTV...Simtek Ford

My Motorsport Photos

@DNPQ_
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

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

Post by ibsey »

AndreaModa wrote:I read all this, and all I see is lots of speculation, lots of ifs and buts and nothing really clear cut. No definite proof.
.


You don't think Toet or Machett comments (stated in my 2012 posts) can be consider proof?

Remember both of whom were Benetton engineers in 1994 and both of whom haven't worked for Benetton since 1997 so no reason to hide/distort the truth anymore. This along with the account of the Silverstone events from Chris Hilton's book on 1994 or comments by Hill make up the vast majority of my orginal post.

In addition I had include facts like Mansell being DQ for only 1 race for ignoring the black flag and taking out Senna, where as M Schumi was DQ for 3 races for just ignoring the black flag. Or M Schumi doing exactly the same crime at Brazil with no penalty or Benetton not being DQ from any races for removing the fuel filter, simply to highlight the absurdity of all of it.

There is a only a small amount of speculation in my orginal post made yesterday at 17.07. Yes I am speculating in my response to Dr Baker, but I have not try to hide it either (stating "If the above story is true.." etc). You or anyone else of course are more than welcome to correct me on this speculation if you feel it sounds wildly inaccurate?

AndreaModa wrote:I don't know what you're trying to get at ibsey,


I'm trying to uncover the real truth about 1994. I agree with Dr Baker that 1994 was a complete mess, and I am simpy trying to get to the bottom of it. Nothing more nothing less. Any opinions I have expressed thus far have only I repeat only come from what I have uncovered thus far. And not out of a misguided loyalty or support to a particular driver / or team. Heck... I am even reading a Hill book to see what I can find out on the matter and both you & Dr Baker know how much I hate Damon ;)

P.s. at least I spelt Silverstone correctly this time and I did think of not trying to annoy you when spelling it. :)
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
CoopsII
Posts: 4673
Joined: 15 Dec 2011, 09:33
Location: Starkiller Base Debris

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

Post by CoopsII »

ibsey wrote:I'm trying to uncover the real truth about 1994

Image

And be careful ibsey, think about the parties involved and what could happen to you if the truth came out....
Just For One Day...
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

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

Post by ibsey »

CoopsII wrote:
ibsey wrote:I'm trying to uncover the real truth about 1994

Image

And be careful ibsey, think about the parties involved and what could happen to you if the truth came out....


:lol:

So that explains why there are two guys constantly parked outside my house who look like they should be in Men in Black. ;)

I need to get to the Russian embassy quickly before Max forces me to take part in his next Nazi themed party...
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
CoopsII
Posts: 4673
Joined: 15 Dec 2011, 09:33
Location: Starkiller Base Debris

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

Post by CoopsII »

ibsey wrote:So that explains why there are two guys constantly parked outside my house who look like they should be in Men in Black. ;)

Yeah, you better watch out!
Image
Just For One Day...
User avatar
AndreaModa
Posts: 5806
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 17:51
Location: Bristol, UK

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

Post by AndreaModa »

ibsey wrote:
AndreaModa wrote:I read all this, and all I see is lots of speculation, lots of ifs and buts and nothing really clear cut. No definite proof.
.


You don't think Toet or Machett comments (stated in my 2012 posts) can be consider proof?


No not really. Certainly not Matchett. He was a man in F1 who didn't even want to be there and was glad when he got out and could start making money selling his stories in book form. When I say proof I mean stuff that isn't subjective - cold hard facts. I doubt we'll ever see the actual facts in the light of day considering the whole affair was over 20 years ago now, and I dare say if we had similar facts for other pieces of F1 history that things might look a lot different and our opinions of drivers and teams may differ too. So I'm content to remember it how it was called at the time and leave it at that. :)
I want my MTV...Simtek Ford

My Motorsport Photos

@DNPQ_
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

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

Post by ibsey »

AndreaModa wrote:No not really. Certainly not Matchett. He was a man in F1 who didn't even want to be there and was glad when he got out and could start making money selling his stories in book form.


Surely Matchett would have made an awful lot more money from his books had he "blown the whistle" on the Benetton cheating allegations? But to date he hasn't which says an awful lot to me.

I am not going to argue Toet's & Machett's comments alone are conclusive proof, but to me it outweighs the evidence currently against Benetton (which also must be considered 'subjective'). Although having watched 'Making a Murderer' I understand people can & do have a wide range of opinions when the evidence isn't clear cut. I genuinely hope one day we will learn the truth about 1994, even if it does prove me wrong.

AndreaModa wrote:When I say proof I mean stuff that isn't subjective - cold hard facts.


The only 'conclusive proof' I can think that would prove the Benetton cheating allegations were incorrect would be if someone like Max / the FIA came clean on everything that when on in 1994. Frankly I can't see that ever happening because as far as I am aware FISA/FIA have never come clean on the below case that Mario mentioned in an earlier post;

mario wrote:Take the Brabham BT52 and the controversy over the fuel samples tested by the FIA after the Italian and European GP's, where there was much clearer cut evidence that Brabham were using fuel over the allowable RON limits. However, FISA ruled that the fuel samples were legal by citing evidence from the Institut Français du Pétrole that the margin by which Brabham had exceeded the RON limits by were acceptable, and in the end neither Ferrari or Renault - both of whom had raised queries relating to the BT52 - decided to make a formal protest.


The Brabham case was from 1983 so 11 years older than the Benetton case.

The FIA couldn't prove Benetton used illegal TC/LC in GP's in 1994 despite employing various companies (including military standard experts) to analyse the B194 software. Furthermore Hill did say that both himself and M Schumi both got a lot of wheelspin off the start at Suzuka 1994. So for me that is as good evidence as we are going to get to show the illegal TC/LC claims are incorrect. Just for the simple reason that I cannot see Max / the FIA wanting to come clean on everything that happened in 1994. Because if they did that they would not look too clever, irrespective of what they actually prove. Its a lose lose situation for the FIA & Max.
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
AndreaModa
Posts: 5806
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 17:51
Location: Bristol, UK

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

Post by AndreaModa »

Yeah, I'm not saying that Benetton are guilty of any of the allegations levelled at them over the course of 1994. There was a lot of bullsh*t flying around that year and people making silly decisions. As you say, it's unlikely we'll ever have the proof either way and in my mind that's what makes that season much more interesting. Not knowing all the facts makes it mysterious, intriguing, in the same way old races were when you didn't have every split time from every car on the track for example.
I want my MTV...Simtek Ford

My Motorsport Photos

@DNPQ_
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

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

Post by ibsey »

ibsey wrote:
dr-baker wrote:In hindsight, Schumacher would have done better to hold behind Hill on that warm-up lap at Silverstone to give his detractors less ammunition to fire towards him.


I agree however it is suggested in that autosport thread (which I posted the link to in my earlier post), that M Schumi had to drive at a reasonable pace on the formation lap due to the B194 small radiators. So apparently he had no choice either that or the Ford V8 would have overheated & blown up.


The bold bit in the below quote seems to back up the idea that the B194 was designed with smaller radiators that the FW16 & was therefore more at risk of overheating when being driven slowly on formation laps.

"There were two main reasons for sticking with a V8. The first was that time was against us. The second was that we were confident we could design an eight that revved higher than any V10: Zetec-R was into the 15s: I think the 10s then were only in the mid-13s. So we had an air consumption advantage over them, as well as a fuel consumption advantage and a magnificent torque curve. The latter was proved when Schumacher finished the Spanish GP in second place with just fifth gear left.


http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archi ... e-reaction
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
CoopsII
Posts: 4673
Joined: 15 Dec 2011, 09:33
Location: Starkiller Base Debris

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

Post by CoopsII »

I haven't been following this page much other than posting some silly photos so I apologise if my point has already been made but being as Briatore was involved in The Piquet Incident the balance of probability retrospectively would suggest he was more than capable of instigating any old scam in order to win.
Just For One Day...
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15426
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

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

Post by dr-baker »

The one thing I'm sure of is that during "The Adelaide Incident", Schumacher's judgment could be impaired under pressure, as subsequent incidents would prove. And I was/am a Hill fan, so I'm likely biased, and I hope that Michael is continuing to recover from his brain injury, but I find it hard to be as gracious as Murray Walker about that incident.
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
Londoner
Posts: 6423
Joined: 17 Jun 2010, 18:21
Location: Norwich, UK
Contact:

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

Post by Londoner »

*looks at the first post of this thread*

Oh gawd, 16 year old me was awful. :facepalm: :lol:
Fetzie on Ferrari wrote:How does a driver hurtling around a race track while they're sous-viding in their overalls have a better understanding of the race than a team of strategy engineers in an air-conditioned room?l
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

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

Post by ibsey »

CoopsII wrote:I haven't been following this page much other than posting some silly photos so I apologise if my point has already been made but being as Briatore was involved in The Piquet Incident the balance of probability retrospectively would suggest he was more than capable of instigating any old scam in order to win.


I know you like short posts, so I'll try & keep this short for you CoopsII. :)

Briatore was more a marketing man for Benetton i.e. bringing glamour to the team thus ensuring his sponsors got good value for money. Whereas Walkinshaw, Brawn etc were running the technical side of the team. I would argue the 1994 allegations of illegal TC/LC, Fuel filter, underfloor plank, and the Silverstone affair, were all technical matters. So in short Briatore would have had minimal (if any) influence on these matters, and would certainly not have been the 'brains' behind them.

I don't know enough about the 2008 Crashgate affair to speculate what extend Briatore's involvement in that was. However for what its is worth Briatore does state that he wasn't involved in it. And although he initially received a lifetime ban from F1 in 2009. Briatore claims to have later taken the FIA & Max Mosley to court in Paris and won everything, so his lifetime ban was dropped. Briatore, also claims that every steward's report from that race concluded that Briatore wasn't involved in the crash.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3srff ... tore_sport
(see 38.25 onwards)

Interesting to note Max Mosley's reign as FIA president ended around 2010 (IIRC) so around the time Briatore apparently made his successful appeal against his lifetime ban. What is clear from that video is that Briatore felt Max Mosley was always unfairly punishing him (not only 1994, but the mass damper in 2006 & Monza 2006 quali etc).

About the traction control and launch control allegations, in this link http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 81740.html

Brawn also denied the allegations:

Interviewer: "Benetton was attacked in 1994, they had an illegal traction control and a flexible underbody aboard. What was it?"

Brawn: "When I Ferrari went, Jean Todt wanted to know what was on the 1994 allegations at Benetton tuned. He was at that time our opponents. He told me that all his contacts had assured him that we have cheated by car. When he Rory Byrne and to know me better and was told our version of the story, he understood that it was the typical paranoia that afflicts this business as soon as a car is faster than the other. For example, the launch control and traction control. Our electronics Chef Tad Czapski had left some subroutines in the menu that would have these two systems are supported. But they were very hard to find in the menu tree. Therefore, they were also forgotten when deleting. There were, however, only the references to such programs."

"The actual software that would be called under the menu items to be, no longer existed. One would therefore can not access these programs, even if you wanted to. We were able to demonstrate the FIA inspectors clear. The competition has not believed. They fueled the suspicion that something must have been, because they otherwise could not explain the success of the car. The whole happening in a highly political atmosphere. I can look in the mirror and assure you that there was nothing. Just think logically. Had we used a traction control, then a lot of people have been aware of them in the team communication. The people of Ford. The former engine boss Martin Walters is certainly except suspected of having anything taken with that remotely situated in a gray area of the regulations. Any one of all accomplices had talked in the meantime."

Interviewer: "Nevertheless, the suspicion remained hanging. Why has it never denies vigorously the FIA?"

Brawn: "The electronic boxes were confiscated in Imola. They were returned without complaint. Then the FIA inspectors have collected six weeks later, the control units for a second time. We have therefore in the meantime can delete everything had aroused the suspicion that illegal systems are programmed. The fact that we have not done it proves that we ourselves did not know which menu items were there still hidden in the software. We were simply the victims of the great Formula 1 policy. Since the small T-shirt manufacturer Benetton, Ferrari, McLaren and Williams was challenged. These people had to justify why we were able to beat them. The simplest explanation was that we have cheated."
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 »

dr-baker wrote:The one thing I'm sure of is that during "The Adelaide Incident", Schumacher's judgment could be impaired under pressure, as subsequent incidents would prove. And I was/am a Hill fan, so I'm likely biased, and I hope that Michael is continuing to recover from his brain injury, but I find it hard to be as gracious as Murray Walker about that incident.


Everyone agrees M Schumi was dirty in Adelaide 1994. Even Briatore states in that video I just posted "M Schumi was very young and if Damon braked instead he would have been 1994 WDC". I've also heard Brawn state something along the same lines. I also think Jerez 1997 happened because M Schumi got away with Adelaide, and had the FIA punished him (& him only i,e. not the Benetton team) in 1994, then Jerez may have been different. In another forum I have also criticized the FIA for not imposing harder penalties on M Schumi after Jerez 1997.

So like you Dr Baker, I can never truly like M Schumi because of Adelaide 1994 & Jerez 1997. In the same way I can never truly like Senna for Suzuka 1990. Given you and a few others here are Hill fans, I will try & be careful with my next comments so as not to offend anyone. But one of the many reasons I don't like Hill is because he trades off this 'I'm a gentleman racer' image. Whereas I'm yet to be convinced of that.

Whilst some of Hill's antics might not be in the same league as Adelaide 1994 etc, that doesn't change the fact they are still incorrect. I just feel that people tend to forget about them because his name doesn't end in "Schumacher" which to me is not fair. To give you just a couple of examples of what I mean;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oxu8LIzeNHY


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XBFQFmr5js

(see 7.30 onwards - I particularly dislike Hill's weaving at 200 mph as it could have possibly have been fatal had M Schumi not reacted in time. I know people will think well M Schumi cut the chicane to overtake Hill, but Hill did also weave in the breaking area aswell and IIRC M Schumi successfully argued to the stewards after the race that is the reason why)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGgjvQG ... 44204949A0

See 1.17 onwards when Hill takes out Nakano at Imola 1997 simply because he was "cheesed off".

There are other examples of Hill's unsportsmanlike behaviour I can provide if you are interested (including threatening to "slap" DC). FYI I have highlighted less well know instances of Senna's incorrect driving in other forums (so you see I don't just pick on Hill :) ). My point to all of this waffle is if we are going to criticize M Schumi for dirty driving, then just remember Hill wasn't above that kind of behaviour either.
Last edited by ibsey on 11 May 2016, 18:32, edited 5 times 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 when you thought you knew it all, more evidence emerges into what really when on in 1994:

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archi ... er-2004/44

For those who don’t have the time to read the whole article there is a story about the powers that be in F1 at the time persuaded Benetton to appeal the Silverstone decision when Benetton initially did not want to (Ford V8 at Hockenhiem = uncompetitive). Only for those same people to stuff Benetton over when it came to the actual appeal.

It states on August 12 without publicity Intertechnique the designated supplier of F1’s refuelling rigs, issues all teams with revised couplings. This backs up Matchett’s comments from my 2012 post. The article goes on to state Benetton staff still maintain that was the real reason for the fuel fire. Also the “junior” member who was blamed for removing the fuel filter got frustrated at being singled out and left F1 to work in the US.

Brawn confirms when he joined Ferrari Jean Todt was convinced that Benetton cheated in 1994. Todt has since changed his mind after getting to know Brawn/Bryne etc. As a side note according to his book on 1994 when Hill when to the FIA in Paris over that heinous crime of slowing down to collect the Union Jack at Silverstone Hill said the following;

Opposite sat Max Mosley, Bernie Ecclestone, and beside him Jean Todt Ferrari’s sporting director. I never did get to the bottom of why Todt was there. To Todt’s left sat Jean Marie Balestre.


Hill then goes onto to say immediately after his case was heard M Schumi & Benetton faced the Silverstone charges. It’s all starting to make a bit more sense now and the words Ferrari International Assistance (FIA) are popping into my head :D

Especially when you consider no-one wanted refuelling at the start of 1994, accept Ferrari because it would help their thirsty V12 engines. Also at the time of the hearing Ferrari hadn’t won a race in over 4 years. So banning M Schumi at Monza would have undoubtedly have improved their chances of that long awaited win at home ground. Also I wonder if Todt was amongst the “the senior people” who persuaded Benetton to appeal Silverstone?

Of course had Benetton not appealed Silverstone (as they initially planned), then M Schumi would have raced at Monza. Am I being too cynical here? I am saying all of this as a massive Alesi / Gilles / Vettel / Ferrari fan.

CoopsII wrote:I haven't been following this page much other than posting some silly photos so I apologise if my point has already been made but being as Briatore was involved in The Piquet Incident the balance of probability retrospectively would suggest he was more than capable of instigating any old scam in order to win.


The article confirms that Walkinshaw, rather than Briatore pulled all the strings at Benetton at the time i.e. getting M Schumi & Brawn after realizing how good they both were in Group C sports cars. I also remember EJ said in his book that Briatore had no clue / influence over the way Benetton snatched M Schumi from Jordan in 1991.

If you mind isn't blown by all of the above...then it jolly well ought to be.
Last edited by ibsey on 11 May 2016, 18:42, 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
dr-baker
Posts: 15426
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

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

Post by dr-baker »

ibsey wrote:So like you Dr Baker, I can never truly like M Schumi because of Adelaide 1994 & Jerez 1997. In the same way I can never truly like Senna for Suzuka 1990. Given you and a few others here are Hill fans, I will try & be careful with my next comments so as not to offend anyone. But one of the many reasons I don't like Hill is because he trades off this 'I'm a gentleman racer' image. Whereas I'm yet to be convinced of that.

just remember Hill wasn't above that kind of behaviour either.

To be honest, to use a biblical quotation, "There is nobody who is righteous, not even one." Fans often tend to see the best in their heroes and the worst in their competitors. Doesn't change a fan's loyalties though.
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 »

M Schumi claims Berger's win at 1994 German GP was illegal because his plank had been worn by 60%. Yet nothing was done about it. However when M Schumi plank was worn by less than 20% at Spa (two races later) he & Benetton were disqualified from a race he had won.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtqH00FtpKs
(see from around 8 mins onwards & also interesting to see M schumi's insights into 1994 from 4 mins onwards)


I know that video alone is not exactly conclusive proof. However given it was Ferrari's 1st win in circa 4 years - i'll just say it would have been a braver man than me to take that particular victory away from Ferrari because of a new rule which had just been introduced at that very race!

Also couple of other thoughts to consider. This thread was started from Verstappen's claims back in 2011. And Walkinshaw was one of the main guys pulling the technical strings at Benetton in 1994. So you have to ask yourself if Verstappen genuinely felt cheated by Benetton in 1994 (and therefore by Walkinshaw). Seems a bit odd to me that Verstappen when on to work with Walkinshaw at Arrows in 1996 and again in 2000 / 2001?

Also after the 2008 Crashgate affair Renault loss loads of sponsors including their title sponsor ING. However to my knowledge Benetton didn't lose any sponsors after all the 1994 allegations. Perhaps the sponsors were sufficiently satisfied in Benetton's innocence?
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 being reading Motorsport's report on the 1994 German GP from their Sept 1994 issue. Under the 'Benetton in the dock' article, it states that the FIA & Charlie Whitley took the unprecedented step of releasing the full text of their report on the TC/LC investigation following the full analysis of the black boxs from Imola. This was apparently done by the FIA to avoid further speculation that Benetton had illegally used TC/LC however this had quite the opposite effect.

Intentional by the FIA or not you decide?

The article states the effect of the publication of the report was predictable as the Hockenhiem F1 paddock was thrown into a turmoil of speculation about whether Benetton did use TC/LC illegally. It also states;

Some believed that the FIA felt Benetton had been cheating but couldn't prove it, and had therefore released the report in order to sully a likely victory in the WDC/WCC. Other's saw the report as part of a closing trap, as groundwork laid for possible future action against the team if more evidence were to be compiled.

Some people also pointed out that Mclaren, Ferrari and even Williams have redunant electronic systems in their current (i.e. 1994) software and that this need not necessarily imply that the intention was to use them, simply that purging them was a time-consuming business.


http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archi ... one-seeing

Remember this all came only days after the FIA took the unprecedented step of overturning the British GP stewards decision and upping Benetton's fine from $25,000 to $500,000 (which was a record at that time) and DQ M Schumi from his Silverstone result and a further two races.
Last edited by ibsey on 20 May 2016, 08:34, 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
CoopsII
Posts: 4673
Joined: 15 Dec 2011, 09:33
Location: Starkiller Base Debris

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

Post by CoopsII »

OK Ibsey, you've done it now. They're out of the car and they're on the way...

Image
Just For One Day...
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

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

Post by ibsey »

CoopsII wrote:OK Ibsey, you've done it now. They're out of the car and they're on the way...

Image


:lol:

I'll start to really worry when Flavio puts on his Maniki...

http://forums.f1weekly.com/printthread.php?tid=3231
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/
Post Reply