planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Oct 16, 2018 7:20 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2905
Location: UK
It's everyone's favourite subject! Or at least second favourite after the McLaren civil war in 2007.


I stumbled upon this interesting article from a couple of years ago written by Willem Toet, who worked for Benetton as an aerodynamicist in 1994, where he explains how their much-rumoured traction control system worked. To be honest I am surprised this was not more widely reported, it is certainly news to me.

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

He basically explains that Benetton were running traction control in 1994, but it was entirely within the rules and was a highly imperfect implementation of it. It centred around using the electronic rev limiter which worked by periodically cutting the spark plugs to bring the revs back under control, and only required the engine's rotational speed sensor and inlet manifold pressure sensor (both allowed under the rules) as inputs.

A normal traction control system would measure the rate of change of engine rotation and compare it to what it should be based on the vehicle's speed (known from the non-driven wheels) and the gear it is in. However in the regulations, car speed and the gear that was selected were forbidden to be read by the engine ECU, presumably as a means to ban traction control. Benetton worked around this by measuring the inlet manifold air pressure and using it to infer the car's speed based on a known relationship between air pressure and speed; as Toet himself designed the airbox he would have been responsible for establishing this correlation. This estimated car speed was then used to infer what gear the car was in, and therefore they had estimates for the two missing pieces of information required for traction control. This then fed the spark plug cutting that was normally used to control the rev limit.

The system was highly imperfect as it had to be tuned for each session as the atmospheric conditions (and therefore the pressure/speed relationship) and track grip changed from day to day, and any rain would render the system completely useless. It could also be less effective in races as it was unable to adapt to the track gradually rubbering in which could result in it cutting power unnecessarily, as it would effectively under-estimate the threshold of engine acceleration that would indicate wheelspin. It required the driver to learn how to apply the throttle to make it work as intended. Interestingly it probably hampered Schumacher at Barcelona when he was stuck in 5th gear as the system wouldn't have known this and would have cut engine power as normal.


I'm sure some will call this out as lies and a cover up as Toet is hardly an impartial source. Personally I think it all sounds plausible and explains how the Benetton was passed as legal. It's an example of adhering to the letter but not the spirit of the regulations, and many championships have been won this way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:33 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5887
Location: Michigan, USA
That is indeed interesting, and one possible explanation for why Senna and others were convinced the car was running TC and yet it was never banned.

As for Schumi's race where he was stuck in 5th gear, I assume he would have had some way of turning the system off, just like they would have to be able to if it rained.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1364
Location: Far side of Koozebane
j man wrote:

He basically explains that Benetton were running traction control in 1994, but it was entirely within the rules and was a highly imperfect implementation of it. It centred around using the electronic rev limiter which worked by periodically cutting the spark plugs to bring the revs back under control, and only required the engine's rotational speed sensor and inlet manifold pressure sensor (both allowed under the rules) as inputs.


I find it a tad odd because Benettons defence, as far as I've always believed, was that a TC system was indeed fitted to the car but it was disabled and couldn't be used.

If their system was perfectly legal as Toet maintains, why lie to the FIA in the first place, why has it only surfaced a quarter of a century after the event and why did Brawn, Burn, Schumacher or Briatori never say anything about it ?

Doesn't add up to me.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2583
Location: England
Jezza13 wrote:
j man wrote:

He basically explains that Benetton were running traction control in 1994, but it was entirely within the rules and was a highly imperfect implementation of it. It centred around using the electronic rev limiter which worked by periodically cutting the spark plugs to bring the revs back under control, and only required the engine's rotational speed sensor and inlet manifold pressure sensor (both allowed under the rules) as inputs.


I find it a tad odd because Benettons defence, as far as I've always believed, was that a TC system was indeed fitted to the car but it was disabled and couldn't be used.

If their system was perfectly legal as Toet maintains, why lie to the FIA in the first place, why has it only surfaced a quarter of a century after the event and why did Brawn, Burn, Schumacher or Briatori never say anything about it ?

Doesn't add up to me.


That was the Launch Control, wasn't it? Needed 7 specific lever presses to get to a hidden menu to activate it IIRC.

1994 was a bad year for the sport.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Current positon: 1st | 3 Podiums | 1 Win


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Nice find :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:37 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5887
Location: Michigan, USA
Flash2k11 wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
I find it a tad odd because Benettons defence, as far as I've always believed, was that a TC system was indeed fitted to the car but it was disabled and couldn't be used.

If their system was perfectly legal as Toet maintains, why lie to the FIA in the first place, why has it only surfaced a quarter of a century after the event and why did Brawn, Burn, Schumacher or Briatori never say anything about it ?

Doesn't add up to me.

That was the Launch Control, wasn't it? Needed 7 specific lever presses to get to a hidden menu to activate it IIRC.

Indeed, I know they've admitted launch control was on the car (although they maintain it was never used), but I don't believe anyone ranking from Benetton has said TC was on the car even if it wasn't used.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6438
Yeah, this came up a couple of years ago. A few other teams did the same, so I guess the FIA had the options to either ban everyone or let them run with it until then end of the championship.

I can believe that the system was legal though, as in 1994 it seems that the FIA was after Benetton. In one of Schumie's last interviews that he told his view of the whole plank story in Spa;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtKb43M ... WL&index=1

He mentions how the previous race the plank of the winning car was worn to about 3-4mm out of the 10 that the rules described, but they were unpunished. The Benetton's plank was found at 8mm... It was obvious that the FIA did not do Benetton any favours that year, so if they allowed that system in the car, they the legality was of no contest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7355
Location: Belgium
Siao7 wrote:
Yeah, this came up a couple of years ago. A few other teams did the same, so I guess the FIA had the options to either ban everyone or let them run with it until then end of the championship.

I can believe that the system was legal though, as in 1994 it seems that the FIA was after Benetton. In one of Schumie's last interviews that he told his view of the whole plank story in Spa;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtKb43M ... WL&index=1

He mentions how the previous race the plank of the winning car was worn to about 3-4mm out of the 10 that the rules described, but they were unpunished. The Benetton's plank was found at 8mm... It was obvious that the FIA did not do Benetton any favours that year, so if they allowed that system in the car, they the legality was of no contest.
So much for information... "This video contains content from Sky Sports, who has blocked it on copyright grounds." I'm interested in what he had to say, though it surprises me he would come out with information that effectively means he "won" the Hungarian GP with an illegal car. If the team then did it again for the Belgian Grand Prix, where they were caught and correctly disqualified, why did they come out with an obvious lie in defence of their transgression, when simple reference to video footage showed they were not telling the truth?
But, as I said, I would still like to hear what Schumacher had to say about their cheating years later. I have already come across an explanation by Pat Symonds which was ludicrous. It makes me wonder how stupid some of these people think race fans are.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6438
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Yeah, this came up a couple of years ago. A few other teams did the same, so I guess the FIA had the options to either ban everyone or let them run with it until then end of the championship.

I can believe that the system was legal though, as in 1994 it seems that the FIA was after Benetton. In one of Schumie's last interviews that he told his view of the whole plank story in Spa;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtKb43M ... WL&index=1

He mentions how the previous race the plank of the winning car was worn to about 3-4mm out of the 10 that the rules described, but they were unpunished. The Benetton's plank was found at 8mm... It was obvious that the FIA did not do Benetton any favours that year, so if they allowed that system in the car, they the legality was of no contest.
So much for information... "This video contains content from Sky Sports, who has blocked it on copyright grounds." I'm interested in what he had to say, though it surprises me he would come out with information that effectively means he "won" the Hungarian GP with an illegal car. If the team then did it again for the Belgian Grand Prix, where they were caught and correctly disqualified, why did they come out with an obvious lie in defence of their transgression, when simple reference to video footage showed they were not telling the truth?
But, as I said, I would still like to hear what Schumacher had to say about their cheating years later. I have already come across an explanation by Pat Symonds which was ludicrous. It makes me wonder how stupid some of these people think race fans are.


Oh no, they took it down, dammit Sky. It was a video from the "legends of F1" series and it was an interview from his later years at Mercedes. He wasn't talking about his car so maybe it wasn't the race before as I remember but two races before. He was talking about how the FIA was after them and gave this example.

What cheating are you talking about?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:39 am
Posts: 769
According to Ross Brawn and Adam Parr book the FIA looked at the black boxes and data from the Benetton three times found nothing. According to Jos Verstappen however says his car compared to Schumacher's was totally different. So something went on, we will never what though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27881
Siao7 wrote:
Yeah, this came up a couple of years ago. A few other teams did the same, so I guess the FIA had the options to either ban everyone or let them run with it until then end of the championship.

I can believe that the system was legal though, as in 1994 it seems that the FIA was after Benetton. In one of Schumie's last interviews that he told his view of the whole plank story in Spa;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtKb43M ... WL&index=1

He mentions how the previous race the plank of the winning car was worn to about 3-4mm out of the 10 that the rules described, but they were unpunished. The Benetton's plank was found at 8mm... It was obvious that the FIA did not do Benetton any favours that year, so if they allowed that system in the car, they the legality was of no contest.

It was said the FIA suspected Benetton were cheating but couldn't prove it hence all the draconian penalties they meted out to Schumacher.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7355
Location: Belgium
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Yeah, this came up a couple of years ago. A few other teams did the same, so I guess the FIA had the options to either ban everyone or let them run with it until then end of the championship.

I can believe that the system was legal though, as in 1994 it seems that the FIA was after Benetton. In one of Schumie's last interviews that he told his view of the whole plank story in Spa;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtKb43M ... WL&index=1

He mentions how the previous race the plank of the winning car was worn to about 3-4mm out of the 10 that the rules described, but they were unpunished. The Benetton's plank was found at 8mm... It was obvious that the FIA did not do Benetton any favours that year, so if they allowed that system in the car, they the legality was of no contest.
So much for information... "This video contains content from Sky Sports, who has blocked it on copyright grounds." I'm interested in what he had to say, though it surprises me he would come out with information that effectively means he "won" the Hungarian GP with an illegal car. If the team then did it again for the Belgian Grand Prix, where they were caught and correctly disqualified, why did they come out with an obvious lie in defence of their transgression, when simple reference to video footage showed they were not telling the truth?
But, as I said, I would still like to hear what Schumacher had to say about their cheating years later. I have already come across an explanation by Pat Symonds which was ludicrous. It makes me wonder how stupid some of these people think race fans are.


Oh no, they took it down, dammit Sky. It was a video from the "legends of F1" series and it was an interview from his later years at Mercedes. He wasn't talking about his car so maybe it wasn't the race before as I remember but two races before. He was talking about how the FIA was after them and gave this example.

What cheating are you talking about?
I can understand Sky exercising their rights, so I can't grumble, but it is interesting so I would like to see it. Meanwhile, can you still acces it in any way? If he was talking about Hungary, then he did in fact admit to "winning" with an illegal car set-up. And I wouldn't mind asking Johnny Herbert whether his car was indeed set-up the same way as Schumacher's, one excuse the team made after "winning" the Belgian Grand Prix.

The cheating I spoke of, and continue to speak of, is winning with an illegal car set-up, in these two cases. I'm still re-reading what Willem Toet wrote about their TC. Knowing how long they stalled the FIA for that little affair, I'm not exactly in the mood to start believing Benetton did anything according the rules.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6438
paulsf1fix wrote:
According to Ross Brawn and Adam Parr book the FIA looked at the black boxes and data from the Benetton three times found nothing. According to Jos Verstappen however says his car compared to Schumacher's was totally different. So something went on, we will never what though.

Jos "I beat him in karts so now he can't be faster than me so he is defo cheating" Verstappen?

Hmmmm, let's not start with that again


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:51 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5887
Location: Michigan, USA
Siao7 wrote:
paulsf1fix wrote:
According to Ross Brawn and Adam Parr book the FIA looked at the black boxes and data from the Benetton three times found nothing. According to Jos Verstappen however says his car compared to Schumacher's was totally different. So something went on, we will never what though.

Jos "I beat him in karts so now he can't be faster than me so he is defo cheating" Verstappen?

Hmmmm, let's not start with that again

:thumbup:

I give Jos about the same credit I'm currently giving Ticktum with his accusations. Which is to say, not much.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7355
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Yeah, this came up a couple of years ago. A few other teams did the same, so I guess the FIA had the options to either ban everyone or let them run with it until then end of the championship.

I can believe that the system was legal though, as in 1994 it seems that the FIA was after Benetton. In one of Schumie's last interviews that he told his view of the whole plank story in Spa;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtKb43M ... WL&index=1

He mentions how the previous race the plank of the winning car was worn to about 3-4mm out of the 10 that the rules described, but they were unpunished. The Benetton's plank was found at 8mm... It was obvious that the FIA did not do Benetton any favours that year, so if they allowed that system in the car, they the legality was of no contest.

It was said the FIA suspected Benetton were cheating but couldn't prove it hence all the draconian penalties they meted out to Schumacher.
They stated they couldn't prove it was used at the San Marino Grand Prix, as I recall. I don't recall ever reading about lack of proof for other races, most importantly the race at Aida, where Senna was observing the cars. Am I right in believing he said he saw two different Benettons in that race? I believe that's how I saw it described. If he did, that would support what Jos said some time ago.

Pokerman, which draconian penalties do you mean? As far as I recall, Benetton appealed, knowing their penalty for the British Grand Prix could go up if found guilty.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6438
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Yeah, this came up a couple of years ago. A few other teams did the same, so I guess the FIA had the options to either ban everyone or let them run with it until then end of the championship.

I can believe that the system was legal though, as in 1994 it seems that the FIA was after Benetton. In one of Schumie's last interviews that he told his view of the whole plank story in Spa;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtKb43M ... WL&index=1

He mentions how the previous race the plank of the winning car was worn to about 3-4mm out of the 10 that the rules described, but they were unpunished. The Benetton's plank was found at 8mm... It was obvious that the FIA did not do Benetton any favours that year, so if they allowed that system in the car, they the legality was of no contest.

It was said the FIA suspected Benetton were cheating but couldn't prove it hence all the draconian penalties they meted out to Schumacher.


Toet said that technically it was not cheating. And that others did the same that year so you are right


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6438
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Yeah, this came up a couple of years ago. A few other teams did the same, so I guess the FIA had the options to either ban everyone or let them run with it until then end of the championship.

I can believe that the system was legal though, as in 1994 it seems that the FIA was after Benetton. In one of Schumie's last interviews that he told his view of the whole plank story in Spa;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtKb43M ... WL&index=1

He mentions how the previous race the plank of the winning car was worn to about 3-4mm out of the 10 that the rules described, but they were unpunished. The Benetton's plank was found at 8mm... It was obvious that the FIA did not do Benetton any favours that year, so if they allowed that system in the car, they the legality was of no contest.
So much for information... "This video contains content from Sky Sports, who has blocked it on copyright grounds." I'm interested in what he had to say, though it surprises me he would come out with information that effectively means he "won" the Hungarian GP with an illegal car. If the team then did it again for the Belgian Grand Prix, where they were caught and correctly disqualified, why did they come out with an obvious lie in defence of their transgression, when simple reference to video footage showed they were not telling the truth?
But, as I said, I would still like to hear what Schumacher had to say about their cheating years later. I have already come across an explanation by Pat Symonds which was ludicrous. It makes me wonder how stupid some of these people think race fans are.


Oh no, they took it down, dammit Sky. It was a video from the "legends of F1" series and it was an interview from his later years at Mercedes. He wasn't talking about his car so maybe it wasn't the race before as I remember but two races before. He was talking about how the FIA was after them and gave this example.

What cheating are you talking about?
I can understand Sky exercising their rights, so I can't grumble, but it is interesting so I would like to see it. Meanwhile, can you still acces it in any way? If he was talking about Hungary, then he did in fact admit to "winning" with an illegal car set-up. And I wouldn't mind asking Johnny Herbert whether his car was indeed set-up the same way as Schumacher's, one excuse the team made after "winning" the Belgian Grand Prix.

The cheating I spoke of, and continue to speak of, is winning with an illegal car set-up, in these two cases. I'm still re-reading what Willem Toet wrote about their TC. Knowing how long they stalled the FIA for that little affair, I'm not exactly in the mood to start believing Benetton did anything according the rules.

No I can't access it and I do feel a bit like an idiot for putting this link that it does not seem to work. I saw it about three months ago and saved the link, it seems that they got it banned in the meantime.

No, he wasn't admitting to winning with an illegal car, it was another team that won with a 3 mm plank and nothing was done to them. While Benetton got the book thrown at them for a lesser degree of the same offence. He wasn't even contesting or arguing against their plank being 2mm from the limit, just pointing out the different treatment Benetton had that year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7355
Location: Belgium
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Yeah, this came up a couple of years ago. A few other teams did the same, so I guess the FIA had the options to either ban everyone or let them run with it until then end of the championship.

I can believe that the system was legal though, as in 1994 it seems that the FIA was after Benetton. In one of Schumie's last interviews that he told his view of the whole plank story in Spa;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtKb43M ... WL&index=1

He mentions how the previous race the plank of the winning car was worn to about 3-4mm out of the 10 that the rules described, but they were unpunished. The Benetton's plank was found at 8mm... It was obvious that the FIA did not do Benetton any favours that year, so if they allowed that system in the car, they the legality was of no contest.
So much for information... "This video contains content from Sky Sports, who has blocked it on copyright grounds." I'm interested in what he had to say, though it surprises me he would come out with information that effectively means he "won" the Hungarian GP with an illegal car. If the team then did it again for the Belgian Grand Prix, where they were caught and correctly disqualified, why did they come out with an obvious lie in defence of their transgression, when simple reference to video footage showed they were not telling the truth?
But, as I said, I would still like to hear what Schumacher had to say about their cheating years later. I have already come across an explanation by Pat Symonds which was ludicrous. It makes me wonder how stupid some of these people think race fans are.


Oh no, they took it down, dammit Sky. It was a video from the "legends of F1" series and it was an interview from his later years at Mercedes. He wasn't talking about his car so maybe it wasn't the race before as I remember but two races before. He was talking about how the FIA was after them and gave this example.

What cheating are you talking about?
I can understand Sky exercising their rights, so I can't grumble, but it is interesting so I would like to see it. Meanwhile, can you still acces it in any way? If he was talking about Hungary, then he did in fact admit to "winning" with an illegal car set-up. And I wouldn't mind asking Johnny Herbert whether his car was indeed set-up the same way as Schumacher's, one excuse the team made after "winning" the Belgian Grand Prix.

The cheating I spoke of, and continue to speak of, is winning with an illegal car set-up, in these two cases. I'm still re-reading what Willem Toet wrote about their TC. Knowing how long they stalled the FIA for that little affair, I'm not exactly in the mood to start believing Benetton did anything according the rules.

No I can't access it and I do feel a bit like an idiot for putting this link that it does not seem to work. I saw it about three months ago and saved the link, it seems that they got it banned in the meantime.

No, he wasn't admitting to winning with an illegal car, it was another team that won with a 3 mm plank and nothing was done to them. While Benetton got the book thrown at them for a lesser degree of the same offence. He wasn't even contesting or arguing against their plank being 2mm from the limit, just pointing out the different treatment Benetton had that year.
You put up a link to an interesting interview, so that is anything but idiotic! :thumbup:

If he was talking of another team, then it can't indeed have been Hungary. But that brings up the question of how Benetton/Schumacher would have known about it. Unless the winning car of that GP with even more wear did have a solid explanation for it, and that this was made public. I don't recall that, but it may have happened. I would expect that to be public though, after the "shock" of Benetton's disqualification at Francorchamps. Benetton did not have a valid excuse in the defence they put up: the spin at Fagnes. That was clear as soon as Eurosport showed the replay.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6438
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
So much for information... "This video contains content from Sky Sports, who has blocked it on copyright grounds." I'm interested in what he had to say, though it surprises me he would come out with information that effectively means he "won" the Hungarian GP with an illegal car. If the team then did it again for the Belgian Grand Prix, where they were caught and correctly disqualified, why did they come out with an obvious lie in defence of their transgression, when simple reference to video footage showed they were not telling the truth?
But, as I said, I would still like to hear what Schumacher had to say about their cheating years later. I have already come across an explanation by Pat Symonds which was ludicrous. It makes me wonder how stupid some of these people think race fans are.


Oh no, they took it down, dammit Sky. It was a video from the "legends of F1" series and it was an interview from his later years at Mercedes. He wasn't talking about his car so maybe it wasn't the race before as I remember but two races before. He was talking about how the FIA was after them and gave this example.

What cheating are you talking about?
I can understand Sky exercising their rights, so I can't grumble, but it is interesting so I would like to see it. Meanwhile, can you still acces it in any way? If he was talking about Hungary, then he did in fact admit to "winning" with an illegal car set-up. And I wouldn't mind asking Johnny Herbert whether his car was indeed set-up the same way as Schumacher's, one excuse the team made after "winning" the Belgian Grand Prix.

The cheating I spoke of, and continue to speak of, is winning with an illegal car set-up, in these two cases. I'm still re-reading what Willem Toet wrote about their TC. Knowing how long they stalled the FIA for that little affair, I'm not exactly in the mood to start believing Benetton did anything according the rules.

No I can't access it and I do feel a bit like an idiot for putting this link that it does not seem to work. I saw it about three months ago and saved the link, it seems that they got it banned in the meantime.

No, he wasn't admitting to winning with an illegal car, it was another team that won with a 3 mm plank and nothing was done to them. While Benetton got the book thrown at them for a lesser degree of the same offence. He wasn't even contesting or arguing against their plank being 2mm from the limit, just pointing out the different treatment Benetton had that year.
You put up a link to an interesting interview, so that is anything but idiotic! :thumbup:

If he was talking of another team, then it can't indeed have been Hungary. But that brings up the question of how Benetton/Schumacher would have known about it. Unless the winning car of that GP with even more wear did have a solid explanation for it, and that this was made public. I don't recall that, but it may have happened. I would expect that to be public though, after the "shock" of Benetton's disqualification at Francorchamps. Benetton did not have a valid excuse in the defence they put up: the spin at Fagnes. That was clear as soon as Eurosport showed the replay.

I felt idiotic as I was just telling Pokerman in the other thread about the importance of quoting proper sources! Do I feel silly or what now? Anyway, I will have a look when I get back from work to see if I can find this interview from any other link. I think it was the German GP, but I am not 100% sure so take this with a pinch of salt if you want.

Regarding the explanation I agree, maybe that car had a valid explanation, but Schumacher offered no such detail in the interview. The fact that he used it as an example points towards the opposite though, otherwise why using it as an example?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7355
Location: Belgium
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
You put up a link to an interesting interview, so that is anything but idiotic! :thumbup:

If he was talking of another team, then it can't indeed have been Hungary. But that brings up the question of how Benetton/Schumacher would have known about it. Unless the winning car of that GP with even more wear did have a solid explanation for it, and that this was made public. I don't recall that, but it may have happened. I would expect that to be public though, after the "shock" of Benetton's disqualification at Francorchamps. Benetton did not have a valid excuse in the defence they put up: the spin at Fagnes. That was clear as soon as Eurosport showed the replay.

I felt idiotic as I was just telling Pokerman in the other thread about the importance of quoting proper sources! Do I feel silly or what now? Anyway, I will have a look when I get back from work to see if I can find this interview from any other link. I think it was the German GP, but I am not 100% sure so take this with a pinch of salt if you want.

Regarding the explanation I agree, maybe that car had a valid explanation, but Schumacher offered no such detail in the interview. The fact that he used it as an example points towards the opposite though, otherwise why using it as an example?
Who knows? But he can only have been speaking of Damon Hill's Williams, or Gerhard Berger's Ferrari. Those were the only other cars to have won a race in 1994, prior to the Belgian GP. Mansell's Williams win came at the last race.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1874
Location: Miami, Florida
The system that the FIA scrutinized Benetton for was an electronically controlled one. That code was indeed found within Benetton's CPU but it was in a deactivated area of the code
which is why they weren't found in breach of the regulations. What REALLY got under my skin with Senna and others was WHEN they were the ones running systems that were superior
to everyone else and they were winning as a result, all was A-OK and they were perfectly content. However, when their system was outgunned and outmatched they were quick to
whine and complain. The Benetton B194 was sometimes marginally better than other cars and it was the driver piloting lead car who at times made the car look as superior as it did.
Nothing more, nothing less, and that driver ended up being the all-time winner and pole setter. (until Hamilton became the all-time pole leader this season)

In 1992 when the Williams was dominant and Senna found it extremely difficult to keep up with them and win races, he was extremely dejected and took every opportunity to
pout and express his discontent with the situation, crying foul because the traction control and active suspension systems in his car simply didn't match up to those of Williams.
Had the systems on his McLaren been superior, he would've never made mention of it. The entire traction control & active suspension saga from 1992 was erroneously misreported
to the point the vast majority of people to this day believe the Williams was the only car running them, when in fact, most other teams including McLaren featured said systems.
Senna and others made it seem as though Williams were the only ones running them, and that has never been true. Williams and their drivers simply did it better.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27881
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
The system that the FIA scrutinized Benetton for was an electronically controlled one. That code was indeed found within Benetton's CPU but it was in a deactivated area of the code
which is why they weren't found in breach of the regulations. What REALLY got under my skin with Senna and others was WHEN they were the ones running systems that were superior
to everyone else and they were winning as a result, all was A-OK and they were perfectly content. However, when their system was outgunned and outmatched they were quick to
whine and complain. The Benetton B194 was sometimes marginally better than other cars and it was the driver piloting lead car who at times made the car look as superior as it did.
Nothing more, nothing less, and that driver ended up being the all-time winner and pole setter. (until Hamilton became the all-time pole leader this season)

In 1992 when the Williams was dominant and Senna found it extremely difficult to keep up with them and win races, he was extremely dejected and took every opportunity to
pout and express his discontent with the situation, crying foul because the traction control and active suspension systems in his car simply didn't match up to those of Williams.
Had the systems on his McLaren been superior, he would've never made mention of it. The entire traction control & active suspension saga from 1992 was erroneously misreported
to the point the vast majority of people to this day believe the Williams was the only car running them, when in fact, most other teams including McLaren featured said systems.
Senna and others made it seem as though Williams were the only ones running them, and that has never been true. Williams and their drivers simply did it better.

Senna wanted to drive the Williams because it was a faster car as simple as that, in 1994 such systems were illegal and that's the only time I remember Senna questioning a car and that was for legality and not performance as such, nothing to do with who had the best system.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6381
Location: Nebraska, USA
pokerman wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
The system that the FIA scrutinized Benetton for was an electronically controlled one. That code was indeed found within Benetton's CPU but it was in a deactivated area of the code
which is why they weren't found in breach of the regulations. What REALLY got under my skin with Senna and others was WHEN they were the ones running systems that were superior
to everyone else and they were winning as a result, all was A-OK and they were perfectly content. However, when their system was outgunned and outmatched they were quick to
whine and complain. The Benetton B194 was sometimes marginally better than other cars and it was the driver piloting lead car who at times made the car look as superior as it did.
Nothing more, nothing less, and that driver ended up being the all-time winner and pole setter. (until Hamilton became the all-time pole leader this season)

In 1992 when the Williams was dominant and Senna found it extremely difficult to keep up with them and win races, he was extremely dejected and took every opportunity to
pout and express his discontent with the situation, crying foul because the traction control and active suspension systems in his car simply didn't match up to those of Williams.
Had the systems on his McLaren been superior, he would've never made mention of it. The entire traction control & active suspension saga from 1992 was erroneously misreported
to the point the vast majority of people to this day believe the Williams was the only car running them, when in fact, most other teams including McLaren featured said systems.
Senna and others made it seem as though Williams were the only ones running them, and that has never been true. Williams and their drivers simply did it better.

Senna wanted to drive the Williams because it was a faster car as simple as that, in 1994 such systems were illegal and that's the only time I remember Senna questioning a car and that was for legality and not performance as such, nothing to do with who had the best system.


Are you sure? How is it that you knew Senna's thoughts. It would not be the first time a top driver envied another car due to a perceived advantage. Senna surely was not above it. Please don't try to portray Senna as some kind of high morals character when it came to racing.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27881
Blake wrote:
pokerman wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
The system that the FIA scrutinized Benetton for was an electronically controlled one. That code was indeed found within Benetton's CPU but it was in a deactivated area of the code
which is why they weren't found in breach of the regulations. What REALLY got under my skin with Senna and others was WHEN they were the ones running systems that were superior
to everyone else and they were winning as a result, all was A-OK and they were perfectly content. However, when their system was outgunned and outmatched they were quick to
whine and complain. The Benetton B194 was sometimes marginally better than other cars and it was the driver piloting lead car who at times made the car look as superior as it did.
Nothing more, nothing less, and that driver ended up being the all-time winner and pole setter. (until Hamilton became the all-time pole leader this season)

In 1992 when the Williams was dominant and Senna found it extremely difficult to keep up with them and win races, he was extremely dejected and took every opportunity to
pout and express his discontent with the situation, crying foul because the traction control and active suspension systems in his car simply didn't match up to those of Williams.
Had the systems on his McLaren been superior, he would've never made mention of it. The entire traction control & active suspension saga from 1992 was erroneously misreported
to the point the vast majority of people to this day believe the Williams was the only car running them, when in fact, most other teams including McLaren featured said systems.
Senna and others made it seem as though Williams were the only ones running them, and that has never been true. Williams and their drivers simply did it better.

Senna wanted to drive the Williams because it was a faster car as simple as that, in 1994 such systems were illegal and that's the only time I remember Senna questioning a car and that was for legality and not performance as such, nothing to do with who had the best system.


Are you sure? How is it that you knew Senna's thoughts. It would not be the first time a top driver envied another car due to a perceived advantage. Senna surely was not above it. Please don't try to portray Senna as some kind of high morals character when it came to racing.

A faster car doesn't have a perceived advantage, seriously?

You seemed to have read the opposite of what I just said, Senna joined McLaren because they had the fastest car then joined Williams because they had the fastest car, exactly what moral stand am I making here for Senna?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1874
Location: Miami, Florida
pokerman wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
The system that the FIA scrutinized Benetton for was an electronically controlled one. That code was indeed found within Benetton's CPU but it was in a deactivated area of the code
which is why they weren't found in breach of the regulations. What REALLY got under my skin with Senna and others was WHEN they were the ones running systems that were superior
to everyone else and they were winning as a result, all was A-OK and they were perfectly content. However, when their system was outgunned and outmatched they were quick to
whine and complain. The Benetton B194 was sometimes marginally better than other cars and it was the driver piloting lead car who at times made the car look as superior as it did.
Nothing more, nothing less, and that driver ended up being the all-time winner and pole setter. (until Hamilton became the all-time pole leader this season)

In 1992 when the Williams was dominant and Senna found it extremely difficult to keep up with them and win races, he was extremely dejected and took every opportunity to
pout and express his discontent with the situation, crying foul because the traction control and active suspension systems in his car simply didn't match up to those of Williams.
Had the systems on his McLaren been superior, he would've never made mention of it. The entire traction control & active suspension saga from 1992 was erroneously misreported
to the point the vast majority of people to this day believe the Williams was the only car running them, when in fact, most other teams including McLaren featured said systems.
Senna and others made it seem as though Williams were the only ones running them, and that has never been true. Williams and their drivers simply did it better.

Senna wanted to drive the Williams because it was a faster car as simple as that, in 1994 such systems were illegal and that's the only time I remember Senna questioning a car and that was for legality and not performance as such, nothing to do with who had the best system.

Sorry... No.

Senna whined and complained throughout the 1992 season, always looking dejected and disconnected when being interviewed which was out of the norm for him. There should be a video clip or two of him being interviewed after races away from winners circle, next to a trailer. If you can find those you’ll see him complaining because his rivals cars are simply better, saying this isn’t racing, which is a load of crock. When he was in the dominant car, he was having the time of his life mopping the floor with everyone outside of Prost who was in the same car initially.

Less you forget that in his own mind Senna felt he was ordained to win everything which was the biggest flaw that took away from his brilliance.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 634
You suggested Senna questioned the legality of the 1992 Wiliams in your original post? So when did Senna question the legality of the 1992 Williams? You say "sorry no" to Pokers post, but nothing you put contradicts what he said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27881
Johnson wrote:
You suggested Senna questioned the legality of the 1992 Wiliams in your original post? So when did Senna question the legality of the 1992 Williams? You say "sorry no" to Pokers post, but nothing you put contradicts what he said.

Indeed and when did I say otherwise that Senna wasn't unhappy in being in an uncompetitive car?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1874
Location: Miami, Florida
Johnson wrote:
You suggested Senna questioned the legality of the 1992 Wiliams in your original post? So when did Senna question the legality of the 1992 Williams? You say "sorry no" to Pokers post, but nothing you put contradicts what he said.

Ive been watching the sport since around 1975-ish when I was a little tyke. I remember seeing the interviews with my dad right after races, and I ran into them again a few years back. It's fine if you guys don't want to believe me, but sifting through the depths of the internet can turn into hours I simply don't have at the moment but if I run across the videos I promise I will post the links here so you all can see for yourselves. He also whined a few times during the 1993 season.

I just don't understand why it's so difficult to understand that although Senna was one of the greatest drivers to ever live, he wasn't perfect and he was as big a sore loser as you'll ever see.
I've become a huge Hamilton fan and although he is supremely talented he can be as big a sore loser as was Senna and I don't like that. The best attitude I've ever seen in my entire time following the sport is Kimi. He expresses disappointment and discontent without being angry and whining and moaning. He states what happened and then moves on.

Here's one I found but the ones I was referring to he was getting out of the car and removing his equipment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaTGd-YiFb0

He's quite contradictory, but basically he says if he can't be in the best car what's the point if his team can't compete.
And this mind you after enjoying a 5+ year in McLaren in one of the best cars every year. Just one year removed from being able to fight at the front in arguable the best car, it was ALL sour grapes from him and I really disliked that.

FWIW… Senna was among the first drivers to trial active suspension as it was originally an innovation devised by Colin Chapman and Lotus for several months before his death, finally making it's way to F1 in 1983 but the system was not quite right so they refit their cars with springs and dampers until 1987, but several Lotus cars were at least trialed and tested by Senna with the system. It wasn't until 1987 that an active suspension system was finally run full-time and Senna was one of their drivers that season.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exediron, mikeyg123, P-F1 Mod and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group