Jump to content


Photo

Differences in season disqualifications?


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 ybee02

ybee02
  • Member

  • 97 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 08 April 2008 - 17:09

How come when Martin Brundle and Stefan Bellof were DQ'ed in the 1984 F1 Season they lost their results such as, Brundles 2nd place and Bellofs 3rd place. And yet when Michael Schumacher was DQ'ed from the 1997 F1 Season, he didn't loose his race results, which would have give Giancarlo Fisichella his first race win and Jarno trulli his first podium.

Advertisement

#2 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,221 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 08 April 2008 - 18:01

Schumacher wasn't disqualified from the 1997 season. He kept all his results and points. The only penalty he suffered was being officially removed from 2nd position in the 1997 Drivers' Championship, that honour passing to Heinz-Harald Frentzen. Another travesty of justice, IMHO.

#3 ybee02

ybee02
  • Member

  • 97 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 08 April 2008 - 18:18

That's where I am confused, so where did MS come in 1997.

#4 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,023 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 09 April 2008 - 08:19

He didn't. He was simply removed from the list. In championship terms, it is as if he had never entered the championship.

This appears a meaningless punishment, but what it did was set a precedent: It established that the FIA have the legal right to disqualify the World Champion if they see fit.

#5 Hames Junt

Hames Junt
  • Member

  • 302 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 09 April 2008 - 09:03

Originally posted by D-Type
He didn't. He was simply removed from the list. In championship terms, it is as if he had never entered the championship.

This appears a meaningless punishment, but what it did was set a precedent: It established that the FIA have the legal right to disqualify the World Champion if they see fit.


The difference being that Tyrell were caught cheating as a team, and at every race. Schumacher, as the driver, cheated in a 1 second moment of madness in the 17th race of a 17 race season.

I believe that he knew that his car had a mechanical failure coming on, that's why he did it.

#6 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 09 April 2008 - 09:14

Originally posted by Hames Junt


The difference being that Tyrell were caught cheating as a team, and at every race.

That's simply not true: Tyrrell were caught cheating at the Detroit Grand Prix, and no other race. As an aside, they were also only disqualified from the Detroit Grand Prix, and no other race. It may be a moot point, but they were also "just removed from the championship", as a disqualification is only possible in a specified time frame after each race, and that had passed for all other races - without disqualification, or even official protest!

#7 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,885 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 09 April 2008 - 09:40

And Tyrrell were not caught cheating at Detroit, they were caught having refused to agree to a rule change so needed to be removed to get it through and the Great Collaborator Who Was Actually A Double Agent According To Some Mysterious Bloke Who Was Never Traced stitched them up by changing the charges every time they came up with a defence. That Tyrrell was more legal than every other car in the field.

#8 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 09 April 2008 - 09:43

Nonsense.

#9 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,885 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 09 April 2008 - 09:54

I maintain that the turbo constituted a second engine and was therefore illegal. Or meant the engine was too big. Or something.

#10 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 09 April 2008 - 11:34

Tyrrell were an inconvenience and were dealt with. Simple as that. Something more akin one of the Godfather movies than motor racing as we had known it. It was just wrapping up one of the last bits of business of the FIASCO War. When Ken Tyrrell did not take the first subtle hints and then the not so subtle subsequent hints, he was toast. He had to go and, so, out he went. In retrospect, it was blindingly obvious, but even at the time you sensed that Tyrrell was heading for a conversation with the fishes. It was simply a matter of time and how they would do it, not if they would do it. It was the final piece of the new regime's victory falling into place -- the Empire striking back, if you will, without a sequel where the rebels finally triumph. It was, for me, the final straw.

I have heard all the reasons, rationales, and excuses by the apologists for the Tyrrell exclusion time and time again. The passage of time still has not removed the stench.

#11 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,766 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 09 April 2008 - 11:34

Originally posted by fines

That's simply not true: Tyrrell were caught cheating at the Detroit Grand Prix, and no other race. As an aside, they were also only disqualified from the Detroit Grand Prix, and no other race. It may be a moot point, but they were also "just removed from the championship", as a disqualification is only possible in a specified time frame after each race, and that had passed for all other races - without disqualification, or even official protest!



Fines,

if you watched the races then you could see Tyrrell caught redhanded cheating every time.
They were the only team that came in a mere laps before the finish in a season when refuelling was forbidden and yet they were topping off fluids.
Or were they taking in air? For what?

Tyrrell was blatantly cheating for everyone to see and for that reason the ban was more than deserved. In fact, it was a shame that they were punished so late after all these display of cheating.


henri

#12 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,766 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 09 April 2008 - 11:39

Originally posted by ensign14
I maintain that the turbo constituted a second engine and was therefore illegal. Or meant the engine was too big. Or something.



To my knowledge, an engine is supposed to provide power to the driven wheels. The turbo's didn't do anything like that and did not, in any direct manner, enhance the amount of power delivered to the driven axle. Therefore a turbo wasn't a second engine and not illegal.

Of course, the turbo did enhance the power output of the true engine that powered the driven wheels. But the turbo had not a direct connection to the driven wheels, thus wasn't a real engine in the true sense of the word, thus not illegal and thus: perfectly LEGAL.


Henri

#13 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,885 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 09 April 2008 - 11:45

Originally posted by Henri Greuter

Of course, the turbo did enhance the power output of the true engine that powered the driven wheels. But the turbo had not a direct connection to the driven wheels, thus wasn't a real engine in the true sense of the word, thus not illegal and thus: perfectly LEGAL.

That was the way around it, which reminded me of the "primary function" of the great big fan in the BT46B. I don't remember if the regs were drafted for turbos, anyway, just that FISA were convinced that turbocharger = supercharger.

Originally posted by Henri Greuter

They were the only team that came in a mere laps before the finish in a season when refuelling was forbidden and yet they were topping off fluids.
Or were they taking in air? For what?

They were taking on ballast, because their non-turbo car was lighter. Which would be banned - unless the ballast could not be removed without using special tools. As the ballast was basically lead shot suspended in water being forced into a tank, it was legal.

Let's face it, if it was illegal refuelling, somebody would have noticed that earlier in the season and protested, wouldn't they? One of the charges laid by FISA was that it WAS fuel, but the amounts that were supposedly found seemed to vary per charge from tens of gallons to 0.0000000000000000000000001 of a picolitre.

#14 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,766 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 09 April 2008 - 12:09

Originally posted by ensign14

That was the way around it, which reminded me of the "primary function" of the great big fan in the BT46B. I don't remember if the regs were drafted for turbos, anyway, just that FISA were convinced that turbocharger = supercharger.


They were taking on ballast, because their non-turbo car was lighter. Which would be banned - unless the ballast could not be removed without using special tools. As the ballast was basically lead shot suspended in water being forced into a tank, it was legal.

Let's face it, if it was illegal refuelling, somebody would have noticed that earlier in the season and protested, wouldn't they? One of the charges laid by FISA was that it WAS fuel, but the amounts that were supposedly found seemed to vary per charge from tens of gallons to 0.0000000000000000000000001 of a picolitre.




The regulations were drafted for supercharged engines without making difference ith the type of blower. But since turbos were not used yet when the rules were made (Indy saw the first turbo-Offy's in 1966) they were not given special attention or handicaps. No-one at the time could foresee what progress would be made by the turbo. But when the rules were mad (1964?) most people were thinking about Roots and centrifugal blowers in the first place. But with the mandatory use of pump fuel, any mechanically blown 1.5 liter engine was destined to be a failure against the 3 tliter atmos.

If you insist on the turbo being illegal, then don't call it an second engine because it wasn't a separate engine that provided power to the driven wheels. Were mechanical blowers illegal too in your point of view?

As for the ballast that was not in the car but added a few laps before the finish.
The rules stated that the car's minimum weight without fuel load had to be 580 kilos. Thus also during the race itself.
With fuel the Tyrrell was 580+ because of the fuel. Point is that the car, was it drained from all fuel didn't forflill that minimum weigth limitation and ran in that too light conversion for the best part of the race.
They started the race in an illegal setup that easily could have been avoided gy bringin up the car to the required 580 kilos before the start as the ruels stated it had to be. They didn't and deliberrately ran underweight.
If that isn't illegal and cheating, then I don't know what is cheating and illegal anymore.

As for the fancar, that's indeed a tricky one. Brilliant thinking but somehow stretching the rules too much.

Henri



PS: Did I shot a poisoned arrow to your heart?

#15 Darren Galpin

Darren Galpin
  • Member

  • 2,136 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 09 April 2008 - 12:29

Originally posted by Henri Greuter



To my knowledge, an engine is supposed to provide power to the driven wheels. The turbo's didn't do anything like that and did not, in any direct manner, enhance the amount of power delivered to the driven axle. Therefore a turbo wasn't a second engine and not illegal.

Of course, the turbo did enhance the power output of the true engine that powered the driven wheels. But the turbo had not a direct connection to the driven wheels, thus wasn't a real engine in the true sense of the word, thus not illegal and thus: perfectly LEGAL.


Henri


An engine in the true sense of the word is "a machine for converting thermal energy into mechanical energy or power to produce force and motion", as defined by the dictionary. So an engine is providing a force, which a car just happens to use for turning the driving wheels. So is a turbo an engine? In the sense that it is turning thermal energy (the exhaust gasses) into mechanical energy (it acts as a pump), yes it is. But it doesn't drive the back wheels directly.

#16 JacnGille

JacnGille
  • Member

  • 1,584 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 09 April 2008 - 13:33

To my mind, to be defined as a "second" engine it would have to be able to operate independently from the "first" engine. If the "second" engine cannot start and remain in operation without assistance of the "first" engine then it isn't an engine.

#17 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,766 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 09 April 2008 - 13:35

Originally posted by Darren Galpin


An engine in the true sense of the word is "a machine for converting thermal energy into mechanical energy or power to produce force and motion", as defined by the dictionary. So an engine is providing a force, which a car just happens to use for turning the driving wheels. So is a turbo an engine? In the sense that it is turning thermal energy (the exhaust gasses) into mechanical energy (it acts as a pump), yes it is. But it doesn't drive the back wheels directly.



OK, that's fair ands correct described. Agree on that.
A turbocharger is, striclty to the rule of the books, an engine.
Leaves one problem.

Does an engine have to create its own conversion from energy source into thermal engery. i.e. consume/burn off fuel.
I would say: Yes.

Do turbochargers require fuel? (and I ignore for the time being the priciple used by Ferrari in '81 to keep their turbo's spinning when the V6 engine decreased engine speed.)
No.

So, is a turbo still an engine?

????
?????


Henri

#18 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,885 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 09 April 2008 - 13:35

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
But when the rules were mad (1964?)

Freudian slip? :D

Originally posted by Henri Greuter

As for the ballast that was not in the car but added a few laps before the finish.
The rules stated that the car's minimum weight without fuel load had to be 580 kilos. Thus also during the race itself.
With fuel the Tyrrell was 580+ because of the fuel. Point is that the car, was it drained from all fuel didn't forflill that minimum weigth limitation and ran in that too light conversion for the best part of the race.

I don't remember Tyrrell ever being charged with that. Did the rules say it had to run at 580kg throughout the race or merely be measured at one point as being 580kg? And who's to say that the ballast wasn't added just when enough fuel had been used to make the car 580.1kg?

Originally posted by Henri Greuter


PS: Did I shot a poisoned arrow to your heart?

If I knew I would tell you ;)

BTW, to answer the original point, the punishments were different. All record of Tyrrell competing was essentially expunged root and branch, whereas Michael Schumacher's punishment was to have the word "2nd" tippexed out from next to his name in the FIA Guide To Championship Positions Of 1997.

#19 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,023 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 09 April 2008 - 13:56

Tyrrell's Disqualification
To put it simply, Tyrrell were shafted. Acceptance of rule changes required unanimous agreement from the teams and Tyrrell didn't agree. So certain interested parties made sure that Tyrrell were disqualified for the season and thus ineligible to vote.

The reason for the disqualification was changed as time went on. From memory:

(A) Water injection and fuel iurregularities. Tyrrell (and other cars) had a system where water was sprayed into the intakes to cool the charge and to provide a crude, but legal, form of water injection. This water was analysed and I found to have infintismal quantities of hydrocarbon in it. There was a possibly genuine error in the units reported (something like parts per litre and parts per cubic metre or a misplaced decimal point) which suggested concentrations 1000 or possibly 1 000 000 times higher than actually measured. At the higher level it could be considered a fuel at the (true) lower level it was no more than you could expect from accidental contamination such as wiping out the container with a dirty rag.

When the error was pointed out the charge changed to

(B) The presence of lead shot in some of the water tanks. In itself this was legal as it came under the definition of ballast that needed the use of tools to remove. But if, and this was never proved, it was added during the race then it clearly was illegal.

This wasn't sufficiently evidence to prove when it was added so they went to Plan C

© There were some small holes in the bottom of the car for a reason that escapes merelated to fabrication or something similar to most other cars in the field. They were interpreted as a breach of the aerodynamic regulations.

One or all of these gave the FIA grounds to disqualify the team.

But Tyrrell's real 'crime' was to oppose the rule change the others wanted. I believe it related to fuel capacity not being reduced as much as originally envisaged. If the reduction had gone ahead it would have made the normally aspirated cars more competitive.

Tyrrell's case against turbocharging
As to Tyrrell's argument about the legality of the turbocharger, this is highly theoretical and hinges on the definition of the 'system boundary' in thermodynamics. As a theoretical argument it has some validity. A simplification is to say:

(1) Any car with an automatic transmission is driven through a fluid coupler so you don't need any physical connection between engine and wheels to drive a car.

(2) Now we have to move into the realms of theory. Disconnect the ignition. Somehow burn fuel upstream of the turbo and use the combustion products to turn the turbo. This is the theoretical bit as in reality the exhaust gases come from the engine. These gases would turn the turbo. The turbo would drive air into the piston engine. The compressed air would turn the piston engine and the wheels would turn. So the turbo can theoretically drive the car. Thus can be considered an additional engine.

(3) The power at the wheels comes partially from the piston engine and partly from the turbo.

So, if the turbocharger is part of 'the engine' then it is legal; if it is separate then it is an additional engine and not legal.

Please accept this as a simplified explanation of the case not as a statement of it.

Advertisement

#20 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,766 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 09 April 2008 - 14:07

Originally posted by ensign14

Freudian slip? :D


I don't remember Tyrrell ever being charged with that. Did the rules say it had to run at 580kg throughout the race or merely be measured at one point as being 580kg? And who's to say that the ballast wasn't added just when enough fuel had been used to make the car 580.1kg?


If I knew I would tell you ;)

BTW, to answer the original point, the punishments were different. All record of Tyrrell competing was essentially expunged root and branch, whereas Michael Schumacher's punishment was to have the word "2nd" tippexed out from next to his name in the FIA Guide To Championship Positions Of 1997.




Type error: I meant "made".
BTW: the option was included within the rules in order to allow supercharging the Climax and BRM and whatever other 1500 cc engine was still usable from the 1961-1965 era. because the (in particular for the British teams) availiability of 3 liter engines was doubted. But I assume you knew that already.

As for that 580 kg: to my knowledge it was. Because otherwise that entire "watercooled brake affair" of 1982 would have been legal after all. And the water tanks etc. were banned in order to prevent the Cosworth teams to run the race with underweight cars. So why should that rule not still be valid in 1984 as well in order to avoid a team once again to cheat like in 1982?
As I understand the rules correctly, it was never done but had the inspectors taken out a car from the race during the race to check its weight, then, without fuel, it had to weight at least 580 kg at any time during the race.
And the Tyrrell's certainly didn't comply to that rule. To catch them on a futility of a droplet of hydrocarbons in the ballast water and regard that as fuel is indeed rediculous and unnessecary. They could be nailed instandly because of adding whatever fluid in the car so short before the finish to hide at the finish they ran so far underweight for the best part of the race. But in fairness to Tyrrell: they should have given him a warning early on that they knew what he was doing and had to stop it or face the consequences.

And wasn't Prost disqualified at Imola '85 because his car, without fuel was underweight and thus assumed to have been underweight during the race as well?


Henri

#21 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,885 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 09 April 2008 - 14:21

You were allowed until 1982 to top up "essential fluids" for weighing purposes, hence the Cosworth teams suddenly discovering they needed to cool their brakes with swimming-pool-amounts of water that year. Manfred Winkelhock lost a point at Imola when his brake fluid drained away and ATS could not top up that last missing kilo following the "clarification". But I don't remember Tyrrell ever being charged with running an underweight car, presumably following Brundle's 5th in Brazil the Tyrrell was weighed and found to be compliant?

And of course Bellof never needed to take on ballast at Monaco, so presumably after that race the Tyrrell was well above 580kg with that bit of fuel on board. So at least at around half-distance the Tyrrell was not underweight. Hence me doubting that the Tyrrell EVER ran underweight.

Had Prost not gone on his lap of honour at Imola in 1985, he would have been the winner - the last gout of fuel would have taken him back above the weight limit...

#22 Darren Galpin

Darren Galpin
  • Member

  • 2,136 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 09 April 2008 - 14:25

Originally posted by Henri Greuter



OK, that's fair ands correct described. Agree on that.
A turbocharger is, striclty to the rule of the books, an engine.
Leaves one problem.

Does an engine have to create its own conversion from energy source into thermal engery. i.e. consume/burn off fuel.
I would say: Yes.

Do turbochargers require fuel? (and I ignore for the time being the priciple used by Ferrari in '81 to keep their turbo's spinning when the V6 engine decreased engine speed.)
No.

So, is a turbo still an engine?

????
?????


Henri


:) So, consider a geothermal energy pump as used in places such as Iceland. It doesn't burn fuel, as it is using heated water from the ground to generate steam and thus to turn the blades to generate power, so is not an engine according to your definition. Yet it is an engine as it is taking thermal energy and creating a force, in this case electric. This could run and run..... :p

#23 Mallory Dan

Mallory Dan
  • Member

  • 2,673 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 09 April 2008 - 14:29

And to answer the very first post on here, I don't recall Bellof or Brundle deliberately driving into other cars like someone else we know did. And they hadn't done it in years before either, unlike at least 2 so called 'greats' had form for.

#24 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,885 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 09 April 2008 - 14:32

Originally posted by Darren Galpin

This could run and run..... :p

Internet Threads Breach Laws Of Thermodynamics Shock

#25 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 09 April 2008 - 14:51

Guys, you can argue this techno-babble all you want, but that had little to do with the true, underlying issue: control of the Empire. The point is that Tyrrell was going to be hammered for not toeing the party line, therefore severely irritating those trying to wrap things up. Because of the stipulations of the Concorde Agreement, Ken Tyrrell was a threat since his dissent was screwing things up. I am sure that someone said, "It was nothing personal, Ken, strictly business."

#26 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 09 April 2008 - 18:59

Wohohohoh, what an argument! :D May I join in, please? :cat:

First things first: not the FIA disqualified Brundle at Detroit, because that's not the business of the sanctioning body, but of the race organizer(s) - yes, in this case good ole' SCCA, the Sports Car Club of America! Surprised?;)

And yes, Don and ensign are right when they say that an example was made of Tyrrell, later by the FIA World Council (or whatever its name was back then). Ken and his team (and Keith Duckworth, btw!) were an incommodity, and had to be silenced until some important decision was made - I don't even recall the very issue at hand, but it was one where Tyrrell alone was opposing, hence all the trouble. I always thought that Duckworth's retort with the "second engine" business was just a clever decoy, but I'm not an engineer, so I can't really argue here.

All this apart, Tyrrell were cheating, period. Water (or whatever it was...) is not regular ballast, because the rules say you have to be able to affix a seal to ballast, and how do you affix a seal to water??? :stoned: As for the allegations that it wasn't "tap water" that was sprayed into the inlet trumpets, I always thought it was a convenient excuse for not challenging that allegation by Tyrrell to say that they hadn't bothered keeping the sample - now hands up, who believes they were really that stupid? :rolleyes:

#27 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,885 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 09 April 2008 - 19:28

Originally posted by fines

All this apart, Tyrrell were cheating, period. Water (or whatever it was...) is not regular ballast, because the rules say you have to be able to affix a seal to ballast, and how do you affix a seal to water???

No problem at all. After all, they can swim.

More to the point, the ballast could have been sealed by having a seal placed at the entry to the water tank.

Tyrrell was against a change in the fuel tank regs. For 1985 the capacity was to be reduced to 195 litres - when you think how often teams ran out with 220 litres, you can see why Ken thought this was a Good Thing.

#28 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 09 April 2008 - 22:25

Michael, Once again we agree to disagree.

#29 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 10 April 2008 - 14:21

Do we? :confused:

And here's me, thinking that for once we're in agreement! :lol:

#30 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,766 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 10 April 2008 - 14:38

Originally posted by ensign14

No problem at all. After all, they can swim.

More to the point, the ballast could have been sealed by having a seal placed at the entry to the water tank.

Tyrrell was against a change in the fuel tank regs. For 1985 the capacity was to be reduced to 195 litres - when you think how often teams ran out with 220 litres, you can see why Ken thought this was a Good Thing.



At the time it was for sure.
But 4 years later......

Turbos using 150 liter at the max when 3.5 liter cosworths (thus 1/6 larger than the Tyrrell ones of 1984) used about 180 to 190 during a race...
Granted, the fuel mixtures of '88 were different than the ones used in '84.
But still...
Quite an approval of how impressive the development on trbo engines has been if it came to use all energy crammed within their fuel as efficient as possible.


And I still haven't figured out how water injection could be of any help on an atmo engine....


Henri