Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
20789 replies to this topic

#6801 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:10

Mika was a fantastic driver, really complete package.

probably MS's best rival


Does it really take much thought? The only other rival he beat was Hill.

I still feel nearly 100 races before his first win doesn't really = complete package for Mika.

Edited by Mr2s, 13 October 2010 - 12:12.


Advertisement

#6802 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,892 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:11

I think Michael just knows he is invincible, coming out of plenty of wrecked Benetton's and Ferrari's where other drivers havn't been so lucky.


I don't think "he knows it", he believes it, and that belief can be dangerous, as we have seen with Senna.


#6803 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:13

Mercedes admit mistake over Schumacher strategy
13 October 2010

James Vowles, Chief Strategist for Mercedes GP, has admitted – with the benefit of hindsight – Michael Schumacher should have pitted one lap later in Sunday’s Japanese Grand Prix, therefore allowing him to stay ahead of team-mate Nico Rosberg and perhaps attack an ailing Lewis Hamilton late in the race.

Schumacher found himself stuck behind Rosberg for some 25 laps before the latter crashed in Japan, with the team unable to deploy instructions for the quicker German to overtake his younger team partner (who had pitted in the opening stages and was running greater worn tyres) due to sporting regulations.

http://www.gpupdate....acher-strategy/

Bad Michael ,coming fast from the pit, making team look bad. Bad, bad,bad boy. I think they need new Chief Strategist. Excuses, you are doing it wrong. In Germany I stop counting their strategy "mistakes".

Edited by Buttoneer, 13 October 2010 - 16:04.
Do not quote full articles


#6804 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:27

With that is Mr. Vowles explaining to the world how you execute support of a designated driver no. 1 (Rosberg) at MGP?

Edited by Sakae, 13 October 2010 - 12:28.


#6805 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:28

Mercedes admit mistake over Schumacher strategy
13 October 2010

James Vowles, Chief Strategist for Mercedes GP, has admitted – with the benefit of hindsight – Michael Schumacher should have pitted one lap later in Sunday’s Japanese Grand Prix, therefore allowing him to stay ahead of team-mate Nico Rosberg and perhaps attack an ailing Lewis Hamilton late in the race.

Schumacher found himself stuck behind Rosberg for some 25 laps before the latter crashed in Japan, with the team unable to deploy instructions for the quicker German to overtake his younger team partner (who had pitted in the opening stages and was running greater worn tyres) due to sporting regulations.

http://www.gpupdate....acher-strategy/

Bad Michael ,coming fast from the pit, making team look bad. Bad, bad,bad boy. I think they need new Chief Strategist. Excuses, you are doing it wrong. In Germany I stop counting their strategy "mistakes".

yea as f1fanatic posted they could have kept michael out for 2 more lap and he wouldnt have had any problems with heidfeld

#6806 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:29

The FIA's investigation found that the source did contain hidden TC code that could be accessed by the driver. The only thing they couldn't prove was that it actually been used. Personally i think the fact it was there should have been enough to have been expelled from the competition.

source? because all they found what launch control

Benetton were fined $100,000 for refusing to hand over their source code. (Ferrari were also being investigate but handed theirs over) Benetton's source code contained data that used traction control in conjunction with gear change management for perfect starts.
Nobody can prove how or if it was used in the race.
Senna (the last driver to win with TC) claimed something weird was happening in corners and the Benetton had much better traction. Benetton were blatantly lying for the reasons why the code was left on the car. We can only draw our own Conclusions from Senna's statements, Benetton's lies and further cheating.

IMO the code that Benetton refused to hand over, that was later found to have invisible options, was used being used illegally during races by Michael Schumacher.

but it was later handed over as was mclarens and in it they only found launch control, there was no evidence of traction control only launch control.

sennas claims were unfounded he just didnt like beeing a loser

Edited by arknor, 13 October 2010 - 12:32.


#6807 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,474 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:31

At least the one whom Michael himself acknowledged. Probably because he beat Mika in the end, so he had reason to be magnaminous. He had trouble acknowledging Alonso, though, probably because he was well and truly beaten by Fernando....


You can sing praises of your beloved idol as many times as you want,it's not going to change the fact that MS considered MH to be his greatest rival - in more ways than one. They were also good friends off track,something that's not really a given with a person like Alonso. As an MS fan I respect MH way more than I do Alonso.

#6808 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,129 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:32

With that is Mr. Vowles explaining to the world how you execute support of a designated driver no. 1 (Rosberg) at MGP?


I'm really torn about this. Just can't decide what's more fun:

a) seeing Schumacher toroughly beaten, fair and square, by Rosberg

b) seeing Schumacher get "Barrichello" treatment from his team

Damn...

:p

#6809 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,474 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:33

Mercedes admit mistake over Schumacher strategy

“However, with the benefit of hindsight, we should have kept Michael out for one further lap, putting him in a position to maintain his place over Nico and not still be at risk from Nick Heidfeld.”
http://www.gpupdate....acher-strategy/


Amen. :up:

#6810 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:34

I'm really torn about this. Just can't decide what's more fun:

a) seeing Schumacher toroughly beaten, fair and square, by Rosberg

b) seeing Schumacher get "Barrichello" treatment from his team

Damn...

:p

And you don't get feeling that a) is because of b)? :rotfl:


#6811 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,211 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:35

source? because all they found what launch control


but it was later handed over as was mclarens and in it they only found launch control, there was no evidence of traction control only launch control.

sennas claims were unfounded he just didnt like beeing a loser


Your right, my mistake.


#6812 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,129 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:39

And you don't get feeling that a) is because of b)? :rotfl:


If you read slowly again, a) and b) can't be both true at the same time (hint: the "fair and square" part!).

:wave:

#6813 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,465 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:45

If you read slowly again, a) and b) can't be both true at the same time (hint: the "fair and square" part!).

:wave:


So Barrichello wasn't beaten fair and square? Rofl.

Edited by Diablobb81, 13 October 2010 - 12:46.


#6814 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:46

source? because all they found what launch control


but it was later handed over as was mclarens and in it they only found launch control, there was no evidence of traction control only launch control.

sennas claims were unfounded he just didnt like beeing a loser


Launch control is what they called it, and that was achieved by using traction control with gear change managment at the start. Which is more than just 'launch' if gear change is involved afaic.

The fact that it was handed over eventually, doesnt change the fact Benetton had something to hide.





#6815 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:47

If you read slowly again, a) and b) can't be both true at the same time (hint: the "fair and square" part!).

:wave:

I just see that something is wrong in the team. :)
For me Ross and Chief Strategist James Vowles are making decisions on the pit wall. And two race engineers are only connections with the drivers. In this case Ross Brawn is responsible for everything that is happening. Didn't expected that. Especially if they don't fight for wins and Championships.

Edited by ivand911, 13 October 2010 - 12:51.


#6816 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,129 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:54

I just see that something is wrong in the team. :)
For me Ross and Chief Strategist James Vowles are making decisions on the pit wall. And two race engineers are only connections with the drivers. In this case Ross Brawn is responsible for everything that is happening.


Just as he was through all of Schumachers career (bar one year, 1996 I think).

So what does it tell about Schumachers first career, if RB can now secretly screw MS, taking even the man himself almost a whole season to notice?

Mindboggling, isn't it? :)

#6817 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:54

Launch control is what they called it, and that was achieved by using traction control with gear change managment at the start. Which is more than just 'launch' if gear change is involved afaic.

The fact that it was handed over eventually, doesnt change the fact Benetton had something to hide.

still not traction control it was only used to launch the car as found as fact by FIA when they discovered the 13th option and later when they recieved the source code the EU.

benneton werent the only ones hiding stuff in the ecu code and ofcourse they were found guilty of using launch control anyone trying to claim it had anything to do with traction in the corners is lieing unless they can provide a source which is impossible

#6818 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:55

Schumacher confident for the future
http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/87434
"Honestly I have been on the pace from lap one in Singapore, in a way after just getting on the track," he said. "But that was a race where, for whatever reason from a certain point, the performance dropped away significantly.
"We made some analysis and we saw some reasons, but it was very awkward."

Schumi: Merc team need to stay united
http://www.planetf1....-To-Stay-United

#6819 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,129 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:58

So Barrichello wasn't beaten fair and square? Rofl.


The implication is obviously, pretending for a second the RB=anti-MS conspiracy theorie would be true, that Barrichello was beaten just as unfair and nonsquare as MS is this year.

Anyone who now starts to blame secondary treatment for MS' struggles surely must agree on that, or not? :smoking:

Advertisement

#6820 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:58

still not traction control it was only used to launch the car as found as fact by FIA when they discovered the 13th option and later when they recieved the source code the EU.

benneton werent the only ones hiding stuff in the ecu code and ofcourse they were found guilty of using launch control anyone trying to claim it had anything to do with traction in the corners is lieing unless they can provide a source which is impossible



Ive hinted numorous times you also need to prove that it wasnt being used in races if you are to continue with your argument.
The ECU was capable of controlling traction, that is in no doubt.
In most other sporting competitions, Golf, Cycling just quick examples, Michael Schumahcer would have been thrown out.
McLaren IIRC were the only other team fined.





#6821 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,211 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 13 October 2010 - 13:00

Ive hinted numorous times you also need to prove that it wasnt being used in races if you are to continue with your argument.
The ECU was capable of controlling traction, that is in no doubt.
In most other sporting competitions, Golf, Cycling just quick examples, Michael Schumahcer would have been thrown out.
McLaren IIRC were the only other team fined.


It should have been Benneton that were thrown out, not just MS.

#6822 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,465 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 13 October 2010 - 13:02

The implication is obviously, pretending for a second the RB=anti-MS conspiracy theorie would be true, that Barrichello was beaten just as unfair and nonsquare as MS is this year.

Anyone who now starts to blame secondary treatment for MS' struggles surely must agree on that, or not? :smoking:


What? Michael was beaten fair and square at the start of the season. As a result he gets a second driver treatment (which of course has an impact on his results) : parts, strategies etc.

#6823 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,129 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 13 October 2010 - 13:05

Schumacher confident for the future
http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/87434
"Honestly I have been on the pace from lap one in Singapore, in a way after just getting on the track," he said. "But that was a race where, for whatever reason from a certain point, the performance dropped away significantly.
"We made some analysis and we saw some reasons, but it was very awkward."

Schumi: Merc team need to stay united
http://www.planetf1....-To-Stay-United


That's as good an admission that something serious is brewing inside the team as we'll ever get.

But what? Frankly I've no idea. Could be anything, from Brawn being thrown out, Haug leaving, MS leaving.... or Mercedes lining up next year with Schumacher and Yamamoto, so that MS has maximum freedom to "built something" :drunk: .

Intriguing stuff, in any case.

#6824 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 13:07

Ive hinted numorous times you also need to prove that it wasnt being used in races if you are to continue with your argument.
The ECU was capable of controlling traction, that is in no doubt.
In most other sporting competitions, Golf, Cycling just quick examples, Michael Schumahcer would have been thrown out.
McLaren IIRC were the only other team fined.

i suggest you look at how it controlled traction on the launch of the car before you claim it was capable of beeing full on traction control

#6825 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 13:10

Just as he was through all of Schumachers career (bar one year, 1996 I think).

So what does it tell about Schumachers first career, if RB can now secretly screw MS, taking even the man himself almost a whole season to notice?

Mindboggling, isn't it? :)

It is for the fans. I am sure Michael is well in the course of the things and accepted it. As they all are. It is becoming obvious that what we see is not what it is real exactly. But, for me is important to see that Michael still have what he need to be in F1. Just it is becoming very hard to compare Nico and Michael performance because they don't have equal status in the moment. Maybe status changed around Canada, since there Nico was driver 1. Now we look at one big fat Team order all the way. And maybe this is what Haug don't like.

Edited by ivand911, 13 October 2010 - 13:36.


#6826 King Six

King Six
  • Member

  • 3,230 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 13 October 2010 - 13:10

The team doesn't need to be united, they should get out of Brackley, abandon that whole thing and move to Germany and become a proper Mercedes Factory team, maybe then they'll be able to challenge the top.

#6827 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 13:30

i suggest you look at how it controlled traction on the launch of the car before you claim it was capable of beeing full on traction control


Where did I claim that?

Once again, try to prove to me what they were and wern't using in the race.



#6828 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,465 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 13 October 2010 - 13:35

Where did I claim that?

Once again, try to prove to me what they were and wern't using in the race.


Actually if you say that it was used in races you have to prove your opinion. That's how things work. :rolleyes:




#6829 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 13:36

The team doesn't need to be united, they should get out of Brackley, abandon that whole thing and move to Germany and become a proper Mercedes Factory team, maybe then they'll be able to challenge the top.



Are you seriously under the impression that being based in England using English and Multi-national staff restricts their success?
:rotfl:

Ross Brawn sold the chance for the German national anthem to be played in F1. Not a german factory team.



#6830 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 13:39

Actually if you say that it was used in races you have to prove your opinion. That's how things work. :rolleyes:


My opinion was based on it being hidden, poor excuses, benetton and their staff being proven cheats several times over.
I made that clear. I then finished with admitting there is no proof. If that's not good enough for you then what is?

#6831 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 13 October 2010 - 13:41

i suggest you look at how it controlled traction on the launch of the car before you claim it was capable of beeing full on traction control


According to the official information at the time it, and I quote, '...will control the clutch, gear shift and engine speed fully automatically to a predetermined pattern...'

I can see how that isn't far off being a traction control system without too much trouble.

#6832 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 13:52

According to the official information at the time it, and I quote, '...will control the clutch, gear shift and engine speed fully automatically to a predetermined pattern...'

I can see how that isn't far off being a traction control system without too much trouble.



I wouldnt waste your time mate.
The replies are bordering on trolling, its done several circles already.
The above posters seem to be demanding actual telemetry to prove traction was controlled during any given race (as per Senna claimed)
I seem to remember half the paddock knowing benetton and schumamcher were cheating and not being surprised the times it was proven.
In any other sport they would have been thrown out and let the teams playing fairly take the title. Instead Tom Walkinshaw was made a scapegoat to enable Flavio and Co to continue. They had a good run at it too, finally found out in 2008.

#6833 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,472 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 14:00

The team doesn't need to be united, they should get out of Brackley, abandon that whole thing and move to Germany and become a proper Mercedes Factory team, maybe then they'll be able to challenge the top.

What about the fact that the 'Mercedes Engine' which is designed and manufactured just down the road from Brackley? They supply all the Merc powered F1 teams plus Le mans activities and there was a reason why this was based in England.

'Get out of Brackley'??? You'd be very popular with a couple of my friends if you said that in their presence as they'd stand to lose their jobs. :rolleyes:

What difference would it make to performance to lay off all their staff and relocate to Germany?

Did this team win the WDC and WCC last year or did I imagine it?

Edited by tifosiMac, 13 October 2010 - 14:04.


#6834 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,892 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 13 October 2010 - 14:09

It is for the fans. I am sure Michael is well in the course of the things and accepted it. As they all are. It is becoming obvious that what we see is not what it is real exactly. But, for me is important to see that Michael still have what he need to be in F1. Just it is becoming very hard to compare Nico and Michael performance because they don't have equal status in the moment. Maybe status changed around Canada, since there Nico was driver 1. Now we look at one big fat Team order all the way. And maybe this is what Haug don't like.



I wouldnt waste your time mate.
The replies are bordering on trolling, its done several circles already.
The above posters seem to be demanding actual telemetry to prove traction was controlled during any given race (as per Senna claimed)
I seem to remember half the paddock knowing benetton and schumamcher were cheating and not being surprised the times it was proven.
In any other sport they would have been thrown out and let the teams playing fairly take the title. Instead Tom Walkinshaw was made a scapegoat to enable Flavio and Co to continue. They had a good run at it too, finally found out in 2008.


So Schumacher finally getting a taste of his own medicine? Ross Brawn turning against him and Norbert Haug not liking it? Briatore continuing until 2008, when he was finally caught? Fans here complaining that it is very hard to compare Nico and Michael because they don't have equal status at the moment? That surely was never a hindrance to compare Barrichello and Schumi?

It was not just half the paddock knowing that Benetton and Schumacher were cheating but the full paddock plus many fans. In Germany Schumacher had the by-name "Schummel-Schumi" for many years.... Now the "schummeling" turns against Schumi?

#6835 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 13 October 2010 - 14:14

The team doesn't need to be united, they should get out of Brackley, abandon that whole thing and move to Germany and become a proper Mercedes Factory team, maybe then they'll be able to challenge the top.



I do not know who you are, but I like you.

#6836 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,892 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 13 October 2010 - 14:15

Did this team win the WDC and WCC last year or did I imagine it?


Questions over questions. Ross Brawn has turned against Schumacher and done his best to make the performance of last year be forgotten. A clean slate on the driver's side, Button and Barrichello gone so no one can make the comparison, the two German drivers in and THE German manufacturer, and everything turns so bad that Norbert Haug is not liking it a bit and has gone on public record that things are going on against Schumacher.

I am simply amazed, makes me forget the Max Mosley plot over the last years....

#6837 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 October 2010 - 14:24

Ive hinted numorous times you also need to prove that it wasnt being used in races if you are to continue with your argument.
The ECU was capable of controlling traction, that is in no doubt.
In most other sporting competitions, Golf, Cycling just quick examples, Michael Schumahcer would have been thrown out.
McLaren IIRC were the only other team fined.


Is that a joke? You hinted, oh great one..... (Mods, need bowing at feet smiley)

Law and justice doesn't work like that anywhere - you have an accusation then YOU PROVE IT.

I can post pictures of every start of the 1994 season here to prove no LC or TC as I have already posted 2 a couple of pages ago proving Schumacher's wheelspin problems losing him places both starts but I would be wasting my breathe.

Wheres YOUR EVIDENCE?

And it has nothing to do with Schumacher and everything to do with the Team.

for those who are interested in facts Mac, Ferrari and Benetton as well as others were using the basic ECU from the year before, why waste money on a whole new ECU when you can just modify the existing one and simply not use the old TC and LC. MCLaren and Benneton didn't want their source codes public information and hesitated to hand them over, gee theres a shock.

The teams were fined for delaying giving the ECU's to the FIA, again GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT. The FIA seals put on the car's ECU's were not broken by the way.


#6838 grunge

grunge
  • Member

  • 4,266 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 13 October 2010 - 14:34

dunno if this has been posted already.

Schu:Cars havent always been the same

. There have often been problems - especially on my car, in terms of the consistency - that were not always noticed from the outside. You only saw that I was slower, [but] both cars have not always been the same."

#6839 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 October 2010 - 14:37

In any other sport they would have been thrown out and let the teams playing fairly take the title. Instead Tom Walkinshaw was made a scapegoat to enable Flavio and Co to continue. They had a good run at it too, finally found out in 2008.


More jokes, you're quite the comedian!

The only teams that play fair are the ones you can find at the back of the grid, there has seldom been a legal "to the spirit and letter of the law" F1 car at the front of the field in F1's history, RBR and Ferari right now are examples as was Brawn last year. You just really don't know motor racing and what they get up to which leads to ....

Tom Walkinshaw a scapegoat :rotfl: He is one of Motor Racings biggest known cheats ever both on and off track written in stone or maybe it was Damon Hill alone who massively turned around the Arrow's performance for example? :lol:

Mate while it's not the best source of info ever, how hard is it for you to read up Wikipedia for 5 minutes on the subjects before you press the "submit post" button?


Advertisement

#6840 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 14:46

Is that a joke? You hinted, oh great one..... (Mods, need bowing at feet smiley)

Law and justice doesn't work like that anywhere - you have an accusation then YOU PROVE IT.


Wheres YOUR EVIDENCE?



for those who are interested in facts Mac, Ferrari and Benetton as well as others were using the basic ECU from the year before, why waste money on a whole new ECU when you can just modify the existing one and simply not use the old TC and LC. MCLaren and Benneton didn't want their source codes public information and hesitated to hand them over, gee theres a shock.

The teams were fined for delaying giving the ECU's to the FIA, again GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT. The FIA seals put on the car's ECU's were not broken by the way.



If youre going to be rude get your facts right first. The ECU was found to be activated through the GCU. Ferrari handed over their code on race day, so why have you brought them up? That only shows Benetton up even more.


Below is the full FIA press release. Benetton's actions were unsatisfactory throughout. They had several months to mess about after refusing to hand over the code.
Your claim that it was the same as the year before is rubbish, Most teams completely delated anything that would be illegal under the new rules but Benetteon made efforts to hide it. and was found out could be activated through the gearbox.

I dont need to prove that Benetton and their staff like Flavio and Pat Symmonds are cheats. Thats been proved since. And I dont need to prove that Senna was astounded at the traction of the benetton, thats a well known fact from good sources.
Benneton were liars and unsporting and so was their number 1 driver. They also continued to cheat, ignore rules and break safety regulations putting drivers lives at risk.


PRESS RELEASE FROM THE FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE L'AUTOMOBILE (FIA)

According to LDRA Ltd., the company appointed by the FIA to investigate Formula One electronic systems, the best evidence is that Benetton Formula Ltd. was not using "launch control" (an automatic start system) at the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix. Had the evidence proved they were, the World Motor Sport Council would have been invited to exclude them from the World Championship. Given the evidence available, such a course of action would obviously have been wrong.

To avoid speculation, the report of the FIA Formula One Technical Delegate submitted to the World Motor Sport Council on 26 July is attached

Hockenheim, 29 July 1994

Report by the FIA Formula One Technical Delegate on the investigations carried out on the electrical systems on Car Number 5 in the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix.

An investigation into the software used in the computer systems of the cars finishing in the first three places at the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix was undertaken by Liverpool Data Research Associates Ltd. (LDRA).

LDRA is a company which specializes in the analysis, validation and verification of highly complex computer software such as that used in modern civilian and military aircraft and a wide range of safety critical applications.

On race day (1st May 1994), each of the teams was requested to supply the source code* for the software on board the car and schematic circuit diagrams of the electrical system. (Appendix 1 )

One team complied in full with this request and a demonstration of the complete electrical system was set up with entirely satisfactory results.

Having received nothing from the other two teams, a fax was sent on 9th May (Appendix 2) asking for urgent action.

An alternative suggestion was received from Benetton Formula Ltd. In this letter dated 10th May (Appendix 3), they stated the source codes could not be made available for commercial reasons.

In a fax to Benetton Formula dated 15th May (Appendix 4), we accepted this proposal, on the condition that Article 2.6 of the Technical Regulations was satisfied.

On 27th May we received a detailed program for the demonstration at Cosworth Engineering. (Appendix 5)

The tests which were scheduled to take place on 28th June were canceled, by Benetton, after some discussion between Ford and themselves concerning non-disclosure agreements

By a fax dated 28th June, we again requested the tests take place as a matter of urgency. (Appendix 6)

The demonstration and tests took place on 6th July. We received a report from LDRA on 11th July (Appendix 7) which left a number of unanswered questions which we were advised could only be addressed by close examination of the source code.

In a letter to Benetton dated 13th July (Appendix 8) we made it clear the demonstration had been unsatisfactory and we required the source code for the software.

Following another exchange of letters on the 13th and 14th July (Appendices 9 and 10) a meeting was set up at the Benetton factory on 19th July, an agenda for which was received on 18th July (Appendix 11) which gave our advisors full access to all the source code, but only on Benetton's premises and subject to the instructions set out in Appendix 11.

Analysis of this software, which had been used at the San Marino Grand Prix, revealed that it included a facility called "launch control". This is a system which, when armed, allows the driver to initiate a start with a single action. The system will control the clutch, gear shift and engine speed fully automatically to a predetermined pattern.

Benetton stated that this system is used only during testing. Benetton further stated that "it (the system) can only be switched on by recompilation of the code". This means recompilation of the source code. Detailed analysis by the LDRA experts of this complex code revealed that this statement was untrue. "Launch control" could in fact be switched on using a lap-top personal computer (PC) connected to the gearbox control unit (GCU).

When confronted with this information, the Benetton representatives conceded that it was possible to switch on the "launch control" using a lap-top PC but indicated that the availability of this feature of the software came as a surprise to them.

In order to enable "launch control", a particular menu with ten options, has to be selected on the PC screen. "Launch control" is not visibly listed as an option. The menu was so arranged that, after ten items, nothing further appeared. If however, the operator scrolled down the menu beyond the tenth listed option, to option 13, launch control can be enabled, even though this is not visible on the screen. No satisfactory explanation was offered for this apparent attempt to conceal the feature.

Two conditions had to be satisfied before the computer would apply "launch control": First, the software had to be enabled either by recompiling the code, which would take some minutes, or by connecting the lap-top PC as outlined above, which could be done in a matter of seconds.

Secondly, the driver had to work through a particular sequence of up-down gear shift paddle positions, a specific gear position had to be selected and the clutch and throttle pedals had also to be in certain positions. Only if all these actions were carried out would the "launch control" become available.

Having thus initiated "launch control", the driver would be able to make a fully automatic start. Such a start is clearly a driver aid as it operates the clutch, changes gear and uses traction control by modulating engine power (by changing ignition or fuel settings), in response to wheel speed.

When asked why, if this system was only used in testing, such an elaborate procedure was necessary in order to switch it on, we were told it was to prevent it being switched on accidentally.

A full copy of the LDRA report of the 9 July meeting can be seen in Appendix 12.

In the circumstances, I am not satisfied in accordance with Article 2.6 of the Formula One Technical Regulations that car number 5 (M.Schumacher) complied with the Regulations at all times during the San Marino Grand Prix and I therefore submit this matter to the World Council for their consideration.

Charlie Whiting FIA Formula One Technical Delegate


*Source code

Computer instructions are usually called machine code and are represented internally as a series of noughts and ones known as binary numbers. This form of instruction is very difficult for humans to understand, so computer languages have been devised that enable us to express instructions in a form that is more natural to us. Programs written in these languages are known as "source code". A computer can not use them directly but they can be translated to machine code that it can understand by using another program called a compiler. When the machine code is loaded into the computer's memory the processor can then execute the instructions that are described in the source code.

Edited by Mr2s, 13 October 2010 - 15:05.


#6841 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 15:12

More jokes, you're quite the comedian!

The only teams that play fair are the ones you can find at the back of the grid, there has seldom been a legal "to the spirit and letter of the law" F1 car at the front of the field in F1's history, RBR and Ferari right now are examples as was Brawn last year. You just really don't know motor racing and what they get up to which leads to ....


Youll love this joke then:

On race day (1st May 1994), each of the teams was requested to supply the source code* for the software on board the car and schematic circuit diagrams of the electrical system.
One team (Ferrari) complied in full with this request and a demonstration of the complete electrical system was set up with entirely satisfactory results.

What was you saying about the only teams to play fair?


I do happen to know what goes on in motorsport, but we are discussing a particular event and a particular bunch of cheats.
I have a few stories to tell from my karting days, but will save them for another time.
In the meantime less of being rude as to my knowledge, Im no expert, but that doesnt mean I will sit here and take insults.

Edited by Mr2s, 13 October 2010 - 15:15.


#6842 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,892 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 13 October 2010 - 17:55

dunno if this has been posted already.

Schu:Cars havent always been the same

. There have often been problems - especially on my car, in terms of the consistency - that were not always noticed from the outside. You only saw that I was slower, [but] both cars have not always been the same."


How could this be? Who would have ever thought that they would do this to the great Schumi? Why? Why can Schumacher not assert himself anymore? Why is Rosberg the flavour of the moment? Why is Haug helpless?

#6843 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,288 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 13 October 2010 - 21:48

How could this be? Who would have ever thought that they would do this to the great Schumi? Why? Why can Schumacher not assert himself anymore? Why is Rosberg the flavour of the moment? Why is Haug helpless?


It has previously been explained to you, and has always been obvious, that Michael may be many things but one thing he certainly is is intellectually consistent.

He believes in the principle that if you are slower than your teammate and you are number two for the year. Im other years he has been faster and has been number one. This year he started out slower and therefore he is number two, right till the team tell him there is no need any more. As you saw in Suzuka the team still want Nico as number one because they want him to beat Kubica.. so Michael will do his job.

A few comments in recent days imply that he might not sit wholly happily in that role if it means he is going to get a great deal of unreasonable abuse about it.. that he feels the need to have at least a realisation out there that he is not getting a pounding.. but thats another issue.

#6844 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,892 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 13 October 2010 - 22:04

It has previously been explained to you, and has always been obvious, that Michael may be many things but one thing he certainly is is intellectually consistent.

He believes in the principle that if you are slower than your teammate and you are number two for the year. Im other years he has been faster and has been number one. This year he started out slower and therefore he is number two, right till the team tell him there is no need any more. As you saw in Suzuka the team still want Nico as number one because they want him to beat Kubica.. so Michael will do his job.

A few comments in recent days imply that he might not sit wholly happily in that role if it means he is going to get a great deal of unreasonable abuse about it.. that he feels the need to have at least a realisation out there that he is not getting a pounding.. but thats another issue.


Thanks, baddog, that is a proper and reasonable answer.

It still puzzles me then if it is true that he gets "a great deal of unreasonable abuse" about it. Naturally it concerns him and he cannot sit wholly happy - when Rubens tried in the same way to reassert himself he was termed a "whiner".

Now is he getting a pounding from Rosberg or not, that´s a good question.

Because if he isn´t, then it is all down to race luck who of the two was the driver to become the number one for the year (following your line of reasoning) as determined by the first races of the year - meaning, that because the team suits their strategies now to accommodate Rosberg, the car is being developed for Rosberg ("the car was not always the same") and other factors that seem to generally not go in the favour of MS, then he sees now the reverse side of something that many of his teammates have experienced throughout the years.

You have me puzzled here, baddog. I never believed that this could ever happen to Michael.


#6845 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,288 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 13 October 2010 - 22:17

True about Rubens, and it is a little ironic.. but then Rubens never got quite the kind of crap that we see about Michael did he? Not that he should probably care but if he currently knows that he is matching his teammate he is going to at least want the business to know it.

Is he getting a pounding? No not really, I think he DID for a while, but no not any more. It wasnt luck that got rosberg the no1 position for the year it was that he was better in the first few races, and in fact better over the year, and he deserves that status.

The 'car not always the same' comments are murky. Its not a matter of development direction I think, perhaps more a matter of the usual 'best parts to the first guy' happening (which happens at ALL teams every year whatever they may say, there will always be times when only one car can get something) but without public fanfare.

His remarks however do seem on the face of it to hint at some other messy factors, at the very least some bad car prep and mechanical issues the team kept secret (and let him look bad for it), but who knows, Id sooner not go there. I fully accept he has been the slower guy at least earlier in the year, and he seems to do so too. I and a lot of other people were wrong thinking he would be able to assert himself right away.

As for never believing this could happen.. well maybe you had a few things wrong? Maybe you assumed that he got number 1 status because of who he was rather than earning it every year by being quicker out of the gate? Maybe, and you might want to consider it, you and a lot of other people were wrong, and even at Ferrari if he had been slower he would have fitted into the number 2 role as required. Live by the sword as it were.

#6846 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 22:52

perhaps more a matter of the usual 'best parts to the first guy' happening

rosberg got a new chasis a few races back when michael was suposed to be waiting for one i think?

#6847 Dan333SP

Dan333SP
  • Member

  • 562 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 13 October 2010 - 23:38

Something positive to contribute to the thread, from a Mercedes press release-
“Had Michael had an average pit-stop, he would have come out just over two seconds ahead. One lap further on, Michael would have come out 1.3 seconds ahead. A poor stop would have put Michael at risk of losing a position to Nick.

“In the event, Michael had a competitive pit lane entry and exit, indeed the fastest of the weekend from all drivers, the result being his pit-stop was significantly faster than average, putting him closer to Nico than expected.

It's nice to see the bit about his fastest of the weekend pitlane entry and exit. Something he always maximized more than his competition during his dominant years was his time in pit lane. He was always visibly on the brakes later than anyone else before the speed limiter line and up to speed quicker than the other drivers once the stop was complete. This race offered a glimpse of that past prowess, to the surprise of the Mercedes brain trust.

#6848 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,892 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 13 October 2010 - 23:51

Is he getting a pounding? No not really, I think he DID for a while, but no not any more. It wasnt luck that got rosberg the no1 position for the year it was that he was better in the first few races, and in fact better over the year, and he deserves that status.


Some races Michael was up there, like Monaco, and in Suzuka he was indeed superior to Rosberg (and it was a joy to watch him at Suzuka, indeed some flashes of the old brilliance were there). As you say, over the balance of the year Rosberg was better.



The 'car not always the same' comments are murky. Its not a matter of development direction I think, perhaps more a matter of the usual 'best parts to the first guy' happening (which happens at ALL teams every year whatever they may say, there will always be times when only one car can get something) but without public fanfare.


This is indeed the only way I could think of it as well, as I don´t think the car was developed in direction of Rosberg (who, anyway, is not so different in driving style from Michael).


His remarks however do seem on the face of it to hint at some other messy factors, at the very least some bad car prep and mechanical issues the team kept secret (and let him look bad for it), but who knows, Id sooner not go there.


This is exactly the core of the secret to me, has there been something that the team knowingly kept secret from Michael, did they (not deliberately, of course) make him look bad as compared to Rosberg, or was it just "race luck" or however you would like to call it.


As for never believing this could happen.. well maybe you had a few things wrong? Maybe you assumed that he got number 1 status because of who he was rather than earning it every year by being quicker out of the gate? Maybe, and you might want to consider it, you and a lot of other people were wrong, and even at Ferrari if he had been slower he would have fitted into the number 2 role as required. Live by the sword as it were.


You are spot on here, I assumed Michael´s status in the team would be a foregone conclusion, after all, him being Michael....you know the rest. If it is indeed so then Ross plays the game by the rules and that leads to the conclusion that also at Ferrari there was more fair play in this sense than I have so far ever considered possible. Had he really lived by the sword at Ferrari? Who knows, maybe you are right.
And consequently we see the same principle being displayed at Ferrari now with Alonso-Massa, fair point, if true. I remember Michael in the BBC interview right after Hockenheim 2010 taking very clearly the side of the logic of team strategy (for one driver to become WDC, however early in the season that would seem feasible).

Which leads to the final question, at what point does Ferrari (or indeed Brawn at Mercedes) consider to put his chips behind, one driver for the championship? After the fifth race, the seventh race? After a certain gap in points has been reached?

Benetton, to end the analysis, is another chapter, I am sure that in the case of Flavio there was indeed a very clear policy towards favouring Michael and against any of his team mates and not such a clear cut team strategy which could possibly go Michael´s way, but, as we have seen in 2010, which also could go against Michael.


#6849 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,892 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 13 October 2010 - 23:55

It's nice to see the bit about his fastest of the weekend pitlane entry and exit. Something he always maximized more than his competition during his dominant years was his time in pit lane. He was always visibly on the brakes later than anyone else before the speed limiter line and up to speed quicker than the other drivers once the stop was complete. This race offered a glimpse of that past prowess, to the surprise of the Mercedes brain trust.


Indeed, the old flame was clearly there in Suzuka, we have witnessed one more time what has made Michael great in the past. Possibly a promise for 2011?
To the surprise of the Mercedes brain trust? Have they not hoped that Michael would fulfil exactly that promise already in 2010?

#6850 Dan333SP

Dan333SP
  • Member

  • 562 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 14 October 2010 - 01:07

They obviously hoped he'd be exactly as brilliant as before, that comment was meant to specifically address their surprise at the speed of his pit stop which in hindsight proved that his strategy was incorrect as he was fighting for track position with Nico and not Heidfeld.