Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


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

#6901 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 11:36

Its funny because one of Schuey's Benetton's came up for auction and it was specified as having 'traction control'. I remember seeing it in Autosport and it was all discussed in a jokey manner. They can't really prove whether it had this feature in 1994 or whether the millionnaire who bought it in the first place paid many thousands to have it installed after the season was through. :)

FIA has proof the car didnt have traction control the guy probably confuses launch control with traction control thanks to how the press reported it.

Advertisement

#6902 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,228 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 11:45

FIA has proof the car didnt have traction control the guy probably confuses launch control with traction control thanks to how the press reported it.

If the FIA have proof they've never made that public or at least gone into any detail. The launch control aspect was proven and Benetton agreed to take it off the car. Several teams were suspicious at the time due to the iregular sound the car made when cornering. It was investigated but to my knowledge nothing was ever proven or disclosed to the viewing public. Its in the past anyway and is irrelevant IMO. :)

#6903 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 12:00

FIA has proof the car didnt have traction control the guy probably confuses launch control with traction control thanks to how the press reported it.


No, they don't have proof of that at all. All the FIA found was that there was an access mode hidden that allowed a function titled 'launch control' to be accessed. The team described how this operated, and it was very similar to traction control in just about every way (I think the description is quoted a couple of pages back.)

the advert for the car was featured widely in a number of magazines, I have a copy of Motor Sport with it in and a C&SC somewhere carrying a later advert when it was resold; in both cases it is advertised as 'as raced in 1994 ... complete with traction control....'

I doubt, in any case, that Benetton were the only team who realised how easy it was to hoodwink the FIA with hidden codes back then, as none of them were particularly stupid.

#6904 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,289 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 18 October 2010 - 12:03

Wasn't that auction a fake?

#6905 slaveceru

slaveceru
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 12:09

I'm not, but your argument wouldn't stand up even if I was; launch control - let alone traction control - was expressly forbidden by the regulations at the beginning of 1994. There was no such rule forbidding the mass damper or the third brake pedal.

The same is true for mass dumper or a third break paddle because the FIA has interpreted it so, so what is then your point?

#6906 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 18 October 2010 - 12:37

Although I thought the penalty harsh and the rule absurd, I really do feel that, if you are going to give us 'points', you should get them right.

The penalty was conveyed to the team both verbally and electronically, a few minutes apart, coming up to half an hour into the race.

The fifteen miinute rule was discussed at the hearing (you can find the conclusion on the FIA site) and was, rather glibly, dismissed as 'a formality'.

Still, this doesn't quite get past the fact that Schumacher had, in fact, broken a rule, and that the team were informed and - as Michael admitted at the hearing - had informed him, and told him to carry on.

Rather as there was a fifteen minute 'rule' for applying penalties, so there was a three lap one for carryin them out; Benetton, for reasons I shall never understand, chose not to have their driver do so.

Around ten minutes after the team had been told of the penalty, the FIA applied the black flag; the team knew of this (it was not, as written above, given 'without notification' and neither was it, at any point, 'retracted') and at the hearing Michael said he hadn't seen it. He had seen, he admitted, the 'Car 5' board that hung out with it - right next to it - but not the flag itself. The board, quite rightly, rejected this claim as everyone could see the bloody thing.


I believe I have them right.

Correct, half an hour and the team were confused as to what the charge was for and if it applied or not. Also the penalty was incorrectly worded.

Oh so the rules that are written in the same rulebook, which they are, apply to teams and drivers at will but not to anybody else such as Stewards in this case and including Hill being handed and transporting a flag on the in lap which is about as severe if not worse than what Schumacher did.

No, Schumacher didn't break a rule, in the big picture which you yourself have just mentioned, the team told him to keep driving - the team was responsible for this action, not Schumacher. drivers do what the team tell them to.

So everyone "could see the bloody thing" could they? Does that include Alesi for example who one race ran out of fuel while for 10 laps his crew had an "IN" board hanging out? And that isn't the only case of non sighted messages. You have no proof of if the board was sighted or not.

Anyway, whats you beef - Schumacher served a 5 second stop/go that lost him any chance of a win.

If you wish to support the Stewards decision on this major fopar, I think thats sad for motor racing, I have often remarked that races should be run on the track and any penalties applied in time or money after but don't ruin the race for the fans especially with stop/go's that can't be given back if proven wrong.

It was, alll in all, far from an embarrasment to 'us brits' unless, of course, they happened to be Schumacher supporters (of whom it may surprise you to know there were quite a few back then) but rather a day for which bennetton should hang their heads in shame, for in their attempt to be clever and try and get one over the rule makers they lost their driver valuable points. Had they simply accepted the stop/go there would have been much less of a problem.


You seem to be confused, they did accept the stop/go, it was a black flag for the henious, shocking crime of being in front on the warm up lap and being told half hour into the race they were fighting against and not "clever', more like justly.

You still don't seem to get it - of how stupid the whole decision process by the Stewards was including themselves breaking the rules. The rule infringement was outside of the race and had no bearing on it, deserved maybe punishments such as money or grid positions next race to teach respect etc but black flag for being in front on the warm up lap?

Give it a break. Black flagged for passing on the warm up lap :rolleyes: :rolleyes: You should feel ashamed, what a highlight of British Racing Steward's decisions that day was..



#6907 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,228 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 12:45

Wasn't that auction a fake?

I hadn't heard that. I know the car sold for millions.

Edited by tifosiMac, 18 October 2010 - 12:47.


#6908 JPW

JPW
  • Member

  • 3,335 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 October 2010 - 12:53

Give it a break. Black flagged for passing on the warm up lap :rolleyes: :rolleyes: You should feel ashamed, what a highlight of British Racing Steward's decisions that day was..

Yep big Schumi was hard done by that year, 2 disqualifications and a two-race ban but it made it all the much sweeter when he took the championship against Damon in the end. :up:

#6909 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,228 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 12:55

it all the much sweeter when he took the championship against Damon in the end. :up:

He certainly took it. Smashed right into it in fact. :p

#6910 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 13:22

I believe I have them right.


No, you don't.

You seem to be confused, they did accept the stop/go, it was a black flag for the henious, shocking crime of being in front on the warm up lap and being told half hour into the race they were fighting against and not "clever', more like justly.


No, the black flag was for not taking the stop/go penalty in the three laps allowed. The stop/go was for the warm up lap infringement which I have already said I considered absurd - althoug it was in the rules (and still is).



#6911 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 13:24

Wasn't that auction a fake?

It wasn't an action but a private sale, and it was very real.

#6912 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 13:27

The same is true for mass dumper or a third break paddle because the FIA has interpreted it so, so what is then your point?


The rule for the banning of launch control was in the regulations prior to the start of the 1994 season; there were no rules about either third brake pedals or the mass damper until the FIA decided their needed to be one well into the season. You could include many other instances, such as the famous Ferrari flexi floor ruling, where teh regulations were changed to make something that was not illegal so despite the regulations allowing it.

#6913 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,289 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 18 October 2010 - 13:41

It wasn't an action but a private sale, and it was very real.


The car with the description that it had "traction control" was in an ebay listing. The listing was removed at some point but i'm not sure if the car sale, in the end, was fake or not.

So the whole craze about that car came from an ebay listing that was removed.

Edited by Diablobb81, 18 October 2010 - 13:42.


#6914 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 13:51

The car with the description that it had "traction control" was in an ebay listing. The listing was removed at some point but i'm not sure if the car sale, in the end, was fake or not.

So the whole craze about that car came from an ebay listing that was removed.


No it wasn't; it was a private advert at a well known dealer in the classifieds in Motor Sport, Classic and Sports Car and possibly Autosport, and it appeared twice. I remember it causing a bit of a stir on the forums at the time, and am sure I still have the magazines in question. I'll try and dig it out and scan it when I have a moment later on.

#6915 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 13:55

Recently I have watched a number of 1994 races and there is not a single start of Schumacher's that is abnormal.

For those who weren't around in 1994 this race, the British GP, is the key to all of the bullshit that happened to Schumacher - Adelaide 1994, has sweet stuff all to do with what some of the folks here carry on about - had this crap not happened to Schumacher at the British GP then Hill wouldn't even have had a look in at Adelaide. Interesting perspective and comments from the commentators 10 years later as they look back including David Hobbs, a very respected English driver.

Heres some of the points;

Stewards decision 30 minutes after the incident was illegal (15 minute rule)
Black flag without notification to the team.
Black flag for what ??? (related to the actual race)
Black flag retracted and 5 second stop/go given (again for what?? related to the race)
Penalty served yet ends up 3 race ban and 1/2 million dollar fine - WTF??

http://v.youku.com/v...MzMTg4MjM2.html

Seriously, Brits should be embarrassed by the 1994 British GP - lucky you got Adelaide to whine and bitch about and simply ignore the rest of the season.


1994 on track =

Schumacher 10 wins (won 6 of the first 7 races, number 8 was the Brit GP which he was leading)
Vs
Hill 3 wins - MS stuck in 5th gear at Spain, the British GP shamozzle and a tactical error at Japan in the second heat (MS won the first heat) but all these 3 Schumacher was leading and then Hill won by default.

And some of you are still adamant that Schumacher didn't deserve the 1994 WDC??? :rotfl: :rotfl: I fart in your general direction.


I tell you what's embarrassing.

Hill was schumacher's 2nd greatest rival( that he was able to beat) Employed as Prost's number 2, and Schumacher got himself in trouble using mind games and breaking rules even if you ignore the cheating benetton did.
Good on Hill that he abided by the rules at all times. When schumacher returned they recorded 1 win each taking the title down to the last race.

Whatever schumacher die hards think of Hill, he was never employed to be a title challenger in the first place, the bragging rights being used are almost cringe worthy.

Edited by Mr2s, 18 October 2010 - 13:57.


#6916 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,289 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 18 October 2010 - 13:55

it was a private advert at a well known dealer in the classifieds in Motor Sport, Classic and Sports Car and possibly Autosport, and it appeared twice. I remember it causing a bit of a stir on the forums at the time, and am sure I still have the magazines in question. I'll try and dig it out and scan it when I have a moment later on.


You could be right .

#6917 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 13:56

The car with the description that it had "traction control" was in an ebay listing. The listing was removed at some point but i'm not sure if the car sale, in the end, was fake or not.

So the whole craze about that car came from an ebay listing that was removed.


Sir, i malign you and apologise; there was, I now see, an ebay listing. This isn't the one I'm on about which was a good couple of years earlier and in a dealers advert.

#6918 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 14:02

No, you don't.



No, the black flag was for not taking the stop/go penalty in the three laps allowed. The stop/go was for the warm up lap infringement which I have already said I considered absurd - althoug it was in the rules (and still is).


I dont think it "absurd" that drivers are stopped from winding each other up on track before the race gets under way.
I cant see todays fan boys being happy if say Alonso was able to wind Hamilton up in the same way before every race.
Having raced I can see how it could be considered unsettling to some drivers.

Edited by Mr2s, 18 October 2010 - 14:02.


#6919 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 14:04

I dont think it "absurd" that drivers are stopped from winding each other up on track before the race gets under way.
I cant see todays fan boys being happy if say Alonso was able to wind Hamilton up in the same way before every race.
Having raced I can see how it could be considered unsettling to some drivers.


Fair comment, but I would have to side with those who say a fine and reprimand would be a more relevant penalty than one that ruins the race for the spectators (no matter who the pepetrator may be).

Advertisement

#6920 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 14:04

No it wasn't; it was a private advert at a well known dealer in the classifieds in Motor Sport, Classic and Sports Car and possibly Autosport, and it appeared twice. I remember it causing a bit of a stir on the forums at the time, and am sure I still have the magazines in question. I'll try and dig it out and scan it when I have a moment later on.

if it were the actual championship winning car it wouldnt have the ecu with launch control because fia made them remove it the code.

regardless of what the auction says the car did not have traction control , the source code for the ecu had launch control and that is all, you can claim what you like the company the FIA hired have already told the facts

#6921 Spa95

Spa95
  • Member

  • 860 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 18 October 2010 - 14:07

You would think any reasonable mind would question why TC was not removed before it's been sold. Or indeed if it has been simply a misunderstanding in the first place - you know "Yeah the cars comes with all the extras: Zetec V8, original tyre blankets, TC, active ride, rocket fuel...."

#6922 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 14:08

if it were the actual championship winning car it wouldnt have the ecu with launch control because fia made them remove it the code.

regardless of what the auction says the car did not have traction control , the source code for the ecu had launch control and that is all, you can claim what you like the company the FIA hired have already told the facts


I don't think the FIA did make them remove the code, as it happens. I'm not claiming that the car used traction control, or that the car in the sale had it, but that it was advertised as such. I'm certainly, however, not stupid enough to blithely accept that Benetton, and others, had not found a way of including a trigger in the system that the fIA could not detect. Nobody who was around in 1994 would, or could, be after all.

#6923 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 15,883 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 18 October 2010 - 16:42

Something posted previously in a similar argument on this forum;

At the French Grand Prix in late June, Schumacher beat Hill
off the line with a start so flawless that it hardened the
suspicions lurking in many minds. This was the kind of
get-away that had been seen many times in the previous
two seasons, when the top teamshad enjoyed the benefit of
the now proscribed traction control systems and fully auto-
matic gearboxes.

Announcing its ban on monst kinds of computer-controlled
devices, the FIA had been loud in its insistence that the new
regulations would be regularly and strictly policed. And in
July, shortly after the British Grand Prix, the FIA's technical
commision produced the findings from a software analysis
company, LDRA of Liverpool, which it had hired to conduct
its spot checks into computer programmes being used by
three teams: Ferrari, McLaren and Benetton.

To enable these checks to be made, the teams had first to
agree to surrender thei source codes: the means of access to
their computer programmes. Ferrari, spooked by the unpun-
ished discovery of their use of a variation on traction control at
Aida, readily complied; their cars were found to be clean.
McLaren and Benetton, however, refused to produce the
source codes, claiming that to do so would first compromise
the commercial confidentiality and second, infringe the 'in-
tellectual copyright' of their sofware supplier. When it was
pointed out to them that LDRA is often enlisted by the British
government to look into military software whose confidenti-
ality is covered by the Official Secrets Act, and carries weigh-
tier consequences than a sliver cup, a few bottles of
champagne and the further inflation of a few already oversized
egos, they gave in.

Both teams were fined $100 000 for attmpting to obstruct
the course of justice. And when the findings emerged, both
appeared to have had something to hide. In McLaren's case it
was a gearbox programme permitting automatic shifts. After
much deliberating, and to the surprise of many, the FIA
eventuallydecided that this was not illegal. But Benetton had
something far more exciting up their sleeves.

When LDRA's people finally got into the B194's computer
software, they discovered a hidden programme, and it was
dynamite: something which allowed Schumacher to make
perfect starts merely by flooring the throttle and holding it
there, the computer taking over to determine the correct
matching of gear-changes to engine speed, ensuring that the
car reached the first corner in the least possible time, with no
wheel spin or sideslip, all its energy concentrated into forward
motion. Before the winter, this combination of traction con-
trol and gearboxautomation would be legal. Now,
although explicitly outlawed by the regulations, it was still
there. If you knew how to find it. Because it was invisible.

It took even the LDRA;s people a while. What you had to do
was call up the software's menu of programmes, scroll down
beyond the bottom line, put the curasor on an apparently blank
line, press a particular key (no clue to that, either) - and, hey
presto, without anything showing on the screen, the special
programme was there.

The called it 'launch control', and LDRA's computer
detectives also discovered the means by which the driver
could activate it on his way to the starting grid. It involved a
sequence of commands using the throttle and clutch pedals
and the gear-shift 'paddles' under the streering wheel. Ben-
atton couldn't deny its existence, but they did claim that it
hadn't been used saince it had been banned. So why was it still
there, and why had its existence been so carefully disguised?

It remained in the software, they said, because to
remove it would be too difficult. The danger was that in
the purging of one programme, others might become cor-
rupted. Best to leave it be. But, so that the driver couldn't
accidently engage it and thereby unintentionally break the
new rules, 'launch control' had been hidden carefully away
behind a series of masking procedures.

'That's enough to make me believe tey were cheating,' an
experienced software programmer with another Formula
One team told me. 'Look, we purged our software of
all illegal systems during the winter. I did it myslef. OK, our
car isn't quite as sophisticated as the Benetton. But it only took
me two days. That's all. Perfectly straighforward. And the fact
that they disguised it was very suspicious.'

Then he told me the most interesting this I heard all year.

Here's what you can do, he said, if you want to get
away with something. You write an illegal programme - an
offspring of traction control, say, such a prescription for rev
limits in each gear for a particular circuit - and you build into
it a self-liquidating facility. This is how it works. The car
leaves the pits before the race without the programme in its
software. The driver stops the car on the grid, and gets out.
His race engineer comes up and, as they do in pre-race
period before the grid is cleared, he plugs his little laptop
computer into the car - and presses the key that downloads
the illegal programme. For the next hour and a half the driver
makes unrestricted use of it. Thanks to efficiency, he wins
the race. He takes his lap of honour, he drives back down the
pit lane, he steers through the cheering crowds into the parc
ferme where the scrutineers are waiting to establish the win-
ning car's legality, and he switches off the engine. And the
programme disappears, leaving not a trace of existence.

'It's easy,' the software man said. 'In fact, we use it all the time
in testing, when we just want to try something out without
having it hanging around to clutter up the system. And it's just
about impossible to police. The FIA came round the teams early
in the season, asking advice on what to do. But they're totally
out of their depth here, not surprisingly. It's like crime. There's
always more at stake for the criminals than for the police, so the
criminals are always a step ahead. It's a nightmare, really."

Richard Williams
pp:177-179
"The Death Of Ayrton Senna"

It's really well worth checking back through the racing comments archives for more of this stuff.

#6924 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 15,883 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 18 October 2010 - 16:47

Also, transcript of the full press release from FIA;

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

Note the use of the words 'traction control' as well as 'launch control' in the bolded paragraph.

I don't really trust the FIA's technical abilities, frankly, but it does strike me as odd that a car which has launch control wouldn't also be able to employ traction control seeing as they need to control many of the same aspects of driver input.

#6925 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 17:29

Also, transcript of the full press release from FIA;

Note the use of the words 'traction control' as well as 'launch control' in the bolded paragraph.

I don't really trust the FIA's technical abilities, frankly, but it does strike me as odd that a car which has launch control wouldn't also be able to employ traction control seeing as they need to control many of the same aspects of driver input.

it was pre determined though it would be useless on a corner if the wheels started sliding which was schumachers style.


i found this intresting http://www.f1fanatic...on-control-ban/ because its basicly what benneton did in the ECU ...

btw most advanced launch control system goes to renault who had a system that detected when the coils under the circuit that detect if a car jump starts were turned off, as soon as they were the car would bolt , i think it was around 2003

Edited by arknor, 18 October 2010 - 17:31.


#6926 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 17:30

if it were the actual championship winning car it wouldnt have the ecu with launch control because fia made them remove it the code.

regardless of what the auction says the car did not have traction control , the source code for the ecu had launch control and that is all, you can claim what you like the company the FIA hired have already told the facts


You sound like a stuck record.
The investigation was unsatisfactory throughout. The only people likely to ever know what was actually used in the race was the driver and team.
The fact that a laptop was plugged into the gearbox control unit to active and control the ECU and Benneton's conduct and delaying tactics desrved a ban or fine in itself.




#6927 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 18 October 2010 - 17:42

Also, transcript of the full press release from FIA;

Note the use of the words 'traction control' as well as 'launch control' in the bolded paragraph.

I don't really trust the FIA's technical abilities, frankly, but it does strike me as odd that a car which has launch control wouldn't also be able to employ traction control seeing as they need to control many of the same aspects of driver input.


LC and TC are not the same, simple.

At the French Grand Prix in late June, Schumacher beat Hill
off the line with a start so flawless that it hardened the
suspicions lurking in many minds.


So what, Hill beat Schumacher off the line many more times than not and some of them were perfect starts and yet no ones accusing Williams, who were not checked, of anything. As I mentioned before, Schumacher made effort all year to lay rubber in his grid box on the warm up lap (ala drag racing) to make better starts yet was beaten often. A V8 is also easier to get off the line than a V10 or V12 but both Williams and especially Ferrari made some surprisingly good starts but they weren't being driven by MS were they.

One or two good starts so they must be cheats :rolleyes: - the FIA ruled on the subject and that leaves only one reason why people are still raising it because Schumacher could not possibly have won the 1994 WDC over the favorite son Hill without cheating.

One key critical point is and always is overlooked, 200 or 300 mechanics and engineers standing on pit wall at every start yet none of them noticed the unique sounds that LC (and TC) make?

TC can be heard literally for miles and isn't totally dissimilar to the current McLaren's unique blown diffuser overrun noise that can also be heard for miles and clearly on TV.


Heres another example of Benneton and Schumacher cheating with LC ...

Heres MS just leaving the line, my GOD WHATS that coming from the tyres? It must be secret launch control traction liquid! It couldn't possibly be smoke because that could only come from wheelspin and we know that couldn't possibly happen with launch control...

Posted Image

And a little further, that secret launch control liquid seems to be hiding the Ferrari behind!! Remember, in no way could it be smoke from wheelspin ....

Posted Image

And now we see that in Benneton's secret "let Hill have confidence and we'll get him later" plan, the sneaky shits have given Hill a massive advantage into turn 1 .....

Posted Image


But hey Guys, seriously don't let factual stuff like smoke from hot wheelspinning tyres and losing distance to the guy in front deviate you from the great "Benneton had Launch Control" story that you keep spitting with no evidence.

Amusing thing is that you guys have pushed so hard on this bullshit that now I'm starting to suspect that Williams actually did have LC, Hill really did have one too many good starts.

Thats the unchecked by the FIA Williams by the way who didn't lead the complaints (in written form and signed by other teams) against the FIA in 1994 about the kneejerk "safety" changes making the cars dangerous for the drivers and calling them incompetent -

Oh wait - that was Briatore and Benetton .....

Edited by cheapracer, 18 October 2010 - 17:49.


#6928 Augurk

Augurk
  • Member

  • 1,932 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 18 October 2010 - 18:11

Isn't traction control something that can be heard and recognised quite easily from the outside? The low rumbling sound after a slow corner was incredibly obvious in the traction control era.

Launch control might be a different thing, but I think them having used traction control is a little farfetched.

#6929 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 18:13

LC and TC are not the same, simple.

Oh, they are, very, very similar indeed. Besides, both were illegal in 94.


#6930 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 7,384 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 18 October 2010 - 18:13

From what I remember, the allegations of LC on the Benetton only arose after France. That start looks to be GB? It was found by the FIA, but Benetton denied ever having actually used it in a race weekend.

#6931 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 18:17

I think them having used traction control is a little farfetched.


Were you around then? Rather than far fetched, it was pretty much accepted, and not just for them.

#6932 Augurk

Augurk
  • Member

  • 1,932 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 18 October 2010 - 18:21

Were you around then? Rather than far fetched, it was pretty much accepted, and not just for them.

This is how TC sounds:

This is one of many clips of the B194 onboard:

Doesn't sound in the least like TC to me.

#6933 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 18:26

Were you around then? Rather than far fetched, it was pretty much accepted, and not just for them.

no it wasnt senna was the only driver to suspect because he couldnt admit he was getting beat fairly...

oh yea i hear it in teh corners? lol wut ayrton? you hear it? we dont on any videos maybe microphones dont pick it up

#6934 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 15,883 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 18 October 2010 - 18:47

LC and TC are not the same, simple.

They are not that far apart, as I think you know. Also, you have wrongly attributed the second quote in your post to me. Your rolly eyed rantiness was intended for Richard Williams.

#6935 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 18 October 2010 - 18:48

Were you around then? Rather than far fetched, it was pretty much accepted, and not just for them.


Yes I was in fact.

Do you have an opinion on the pictures posted above?

Would you like pictures of almost every start of 1994 and settle this once and for all?

Would you like to put a small cash wager on the picture evidence and put your money where your mouth is?

Oh, they are, very, very similar indeed.


No, you are very, very wrong.





#6936 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 18 October 2010 - 18:56

They are not that far apart, as I think you know. Also, you have wrongly attributed the second quote in your post to me. Your rolly eyed rantiness was intended for Richard Williams.


I do know some and they are not the same systems and should not be used for the others purpose although you may have some advantage using TC for for a start over none on less grippy tarmac or in the wet but it would be so, so audible - it would literally sound like a machine gun.

Is "rantiness" a real word? :lol:

From what I remember, the allegations of LC on the Benetton only arose after France. That start looks to be GB?



The ones I posted a couple of days ago from both starts at the 3rd race clearly show both have no evidence other than bad starts from the Benetton with too much wheelspin - exactly what LC and TC is supposed to stop happening.

-Brazil start was crap, the 3rd Ferrari breezed by and so almost did the next car
-Pacific MS got a blinder while Senna lit his tyres
-San Marino both starts MS wheelspun and lost position
-Monaco Hakkinen got a slightly better jump from second than MS and Hill hit Hakkinen being much faster in his start
-Spain both MS and Hill were clean but both a bit slow and the entire field bunched behind them into turn 1
-Canada MS wheelspun and sideways from pole and just squeezed in front of the Ferrari into turn 1
-France MS made a blinder but this was greatly exagerated by both Williams making poor starts
- Britain as above...



Every single race start in F1 history some drivers make good starts and some make bad starts, Schumacher made 2 good starts in 9, wow, lets ignore the bad starts and investigate them .....

Heres what really happened in 1994; Briatore had the gumption to call the FIA and Max Mosley incompetent and put all the drivers at risk with their ill thought out kneejerk safety car mods ... go up against Max Meglomaniac Mosley and see where you end up, thats the real story of why things happened the way they did in 1994.

Edited by cheapracer, 18 October 2010 - 19:43.


#6937 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 18:57

no it wasnt senna was the only driver to suspect because he couldnt admit he was getting beat fairly...


Possible.
In which case Benetton would have happily handed over their data at the same time as Ferrari did and not months down the line with unsatisfactory answers and excuses.

As for Senna being beaten fairly, didnt Michael's illegal pitstop refuelling have something to do with that?
In any other sport Beneton would have been thrown out of the competition.



#6938 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 18:59

Is "rantiness" a real word? :lol:


:rolleyes:

The sooner we all end up in this guy's ignore list the better :p

Edited by Mr2s, 18 October 2010 - 19:01.


#6939 Villes Gilleneuve

Villes Gilleneuve
  • Member

  • 2,248 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 18 October 2010 - 19:02

No, you are very, very wrong.


No, he's very, very, very right. You cannot have launch control without traction control.

With the benefit of hindsite...

Is the suggestion here that Schumacher would not cheat?
That Briatore would not cheat?
That Ferrari would not cheat?

Gimme a break. Nigel Roebuck got it right in last month's Motorsport, Schumacher should have at least got a one -race ban after Hungary, and he's benefited from a weak FIA for his entire career.

Advertisement

#6940 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 19:05

Yes I was in fact.

Do you have an opinion on the pictures posted above?

Would you like pictures of almost every start of 1994 and settle this once and for all?

Would you like to put a small cash wager on the picture evidence and put your money where your mouth is?



No, you are very, very wrong.



What if the starts were just a red herring for TC in corners? What else were benetton hiding? what else were they shaving a couple of millimeters off?
I remember Max Mosley claiming that one slip up from Ferrari in one race was proof they wernt using TC the whole season. Bullshit.


#6941 nomeg1

nomeg1
  • Member

  • 4,942 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 19:06

no it wasnt senna was the only driver to suspect because he couldnt admit he was getting beat fairly...

oh yea i hear it in teh corners? lol wut ayrton? you hear it? we dont on any videos maybe microphones dont pick it up

Yeah !
Senna when in qualifying (as he was driving for Lotus), always wanted new breaking parts on the car, and as the team had not enough money, they only replaced three of the four brake pads on his car. Senna did one lap, and came back furious saying "the break pads on the front right aren't new"...everyone was blown away...
And yes, Senna suspected MSC and Benetton to use TC in 94, he even talked about it to Alain Prost on the phone a couple of days before Imola, he was unhappy and also told him that his Williams was very difficult to "guide". I truly think that it was not because he was beaten at the regular that he exploited this possibility, and why he also "maybe" pushed his Williams a little too far...Like Georgy Boy : "he pushed his luck at little too far that day"...

Edited by nomeg1, 18 October 2010 - 19:09.


#6942 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 19:06

No, he's very, very, very right. You cannot have launch control without traction control.

With the benefit of hindsite...

Is the suggestion here that Schumacher would not cheat?
That Briatore would not cheat?
That Ferrari would not cheat?

Gimme a break. Nigel Roebuck got it right in last month's Motorsport, Schumacher should have at least got a one -race ban after Hungary, and he's benefited from a weak FIA for his entire career.


But it made plenty of people rich, thats all what really matters in this world. THat and the next race  ;)



#6943 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,228 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 19:28

FIA has proof the car didnt have traction control the guy probably confuses launch control with traction control thanks to how the press reported it.

Do you have the transcript to support this?

#6944 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,037 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 18 October 2010 - 19:31

Isn't traction control something that can be heard and recognised quite easily from the outside? The low rumbling sound after a slow corner was incredibly obvious in the traction control era.

Launch control might be a different thing, but I think them having used traction control is a little farfetched.

Yes, and a crude (it would be very crude to be able to be hidden) TC system would be incredibly loud and obvious too. The FIA in fact went back and analysed audio of the car from the season and foudn the engine was very clearly not running any such thing.

But thats never stopped anyones warbling on this issue in 15 years so it isnt likely to now is it? Just let them get it out of their system.

#6945 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 26,853 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 18 October 2010 - 19:34

Isn't traction control something that can be heard and recognised quite easily from the outside? The low rumbling sound after a slow corner was incredibly obvious in the traction control era.

Launch control might be a different thing, but I think them having used traction control is a little farfetched.


Depends on the system used. In the TC era they were cutting power to the cylinders, bit like the pit lane limiter, but there are other ways of achieving it.

#6946 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 18 October 2010 - 19:51

No, he's very, very, very right. You cannot have launch control without traction control.

With the benefit of hindsite...

Is the suggestion here that Schumacher would not cheat?
That Briatore would not cheat?
That Ferrari would not cheat?

Gimme a break. Nigel Roebuck got it right in last month's Motorsport, Schumacher should have at least got a one -race ban after Hungary, and he's benefited from a weak FIA for his entire career.


No he's very, very wrong, but go right ahead please and explain the systems to all of us .....

Oh you mean the same FIA that took 4 races from him in 1994 or the same FIA who removed him completely from the 1997 standings?

Make up your mind.

It's not a question of cheating or not, it's a question of presenting evidence and in context. I've gone to the trouble of posting start pictures to prove no launch control used and all I ask for is evidence otherwise, seems pretty simple to me. I would accept sound recordings.

#6947 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 18 October 2010 - 20:03

The FIA in fact went back and analysed audio of the car from the season and found the engine was very clearly not running any such thing.


They have been able to analyse engines with oscilloscopes since before WW2 by the way.

By 1994 any nerd could use a radio shack oscilloscope track side and determine what an engine was doing, teams use oscilloscopes for this very exact reason.


#6948 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,037 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 18 October 2010 - 20:17

Depends on the system used. In the TC era they were cutting power to the cylinders, bit like the pit lane limiter, but there are other ways of achieving it.

Yes but for Benetton to have a silent TC system in 1994 is completely implausible and would require them to have an entire other system that there is no evidence for whatsoever. Their 1993 system was pretty obvious (everyones was) and that was the basis of the supposed 1994 one. Hell they didnt even get TC going at all till part way through 1993, by 1994 they were building super top secret silent ones?

Its not that they couldnt have, its just that there is no evidence whatsoever that they did.

I have no doubt they were trying it on all over the place in 1994.. but TC? no.

#6949 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 2,786 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 19 October 2010 - 00:07

Isn't having a third brake pedal or a mass damper system - technically in its execution - form of traction control anyway?

#6950 Zippel

Zippel
  • Member

  • 1,012 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 19 October 2010 - 01:58

Yes but for Benetton to have a silent TC system in 1994 is completely implausible and would require them to have an entire other system that there is no evidence for whatsoever. Their 1993 system was pretty obvious (everyones was) and that was the basis of the supposed 1994 one. Hell they didnt even get TC going at all till part way through 1993, by 1994 they were building super top secret silent ones?

Its not that they couldnt have, its just that there is no evidence whatsoever that they did.

I have no doubt they were trying it on all over the place in 1994.. but TC? no.


Paul Tracy confirmed Indycar were secretly using it from 1994 onwards and was undetectable so top Formula 1 teams secretly using it is very plausible.

http://www.ten-tenth...ead.php?t=37229

Tracy confirms traction control use


Associated Press



4/29/2003

WEST ALLIS, Wis. (AP) - CART leader Paul Tracy of Toronto admits he used traction control from 1994 until this year.

He said the illegal driver aid contributed to "terrible racing" at times in the series.

"People were saying there was no traction control," Tracy said at a fan forum Monday night at State Fair Park. "We actually had it, but you weren't allowed to say you had it or you'd get your arm cut off by your team owner and engine supplier."

Teams and manufacturers have accused their rivals for years of using electronic driver aids without admitting to their use themselves. Traction control was legalized last year because it was virtually impossible to detect.





It was eliminated this year when it was deemed unnecessary because Ford Cosworth is the series' sole engine supplier. Tracy said that has enhanced competition and helped the more talented and experienced drivers excel.



"This year you're going to see a lot of passing, you're going to see a lot of action on the track because what they did was take away a lot of the driver aids," Tracy said. "It brings it back more to the driver and car."



This year Tracy became the first driver in CART history to take the first three races of the season. He also is the first to accomplish the feat in American open-wheel racing since Al Unser won the first three races in 1971.



Tracy, who has 22 career victories, is still looking for his first series championship.



When it comes to unifying the two open-wheel series - CART and IRL - Tracy says he doesn't see it happening in his lifetime despite the amount of work done behind the scenes.



"I don't really see, at least from the end of my racing career," explained Tracy. "I don't mean to sound negative or anything, but I've been involved with CART a long time and I've been involved with teams that have been on the inside, both Barry (Green) and (Roger) Penske were very involved in trying to get the two to come back together."



"I think CART is trying to take every step to get back together, to try to work something out with Tony George. And every time things would get close, he would move the ball somewhere else."



"That league was supposed to be for young American drivers, all American-based series, keeping the cost low. Now you've got races overseas and majority of the field is European and Brazilian drivers. It's very frustrating. Maybe it will all come together in the end, but right now I don't see it happening."


Edited by Zippel, 19 October 2010 - 01:59.