They did not change the rules also for mass dumper or third pedal break they only changed the interpretation of the existing rule and after that they put separately in the rule that this solutions are forbidden. So once again what is your point?
No, they changed the rules. It's like this - I do 40mph in a 30mph zone, I get pulled, I know I'm breaking the law. I do 40mph in a 40mph zone, I get pulled, the authorities say 'well, we've decided that as from just before we pulled you it is now a 30mph zone.'
All the teams in the F1 racing are working on the edge of rules to get the necessary edge. So how then is Schumacher different from Hamilton or Alonso or other great drivers? For you to accuse someone without prove is enough in one case and not in the other? You act as if Benneton was the most unsportsmanlike team in the F1 racing in that year? There is one major rule in all areas you are innocent until you are proven guilty does this rule not count in the case of Benneton or Schumacher in 1994?
You miss my point, and my tone, completely. It gets like this on forums sometimes, when someone actually bothers to be truthful, and it's against the views of others, they are somehow a 'hater', or conversely a 'fanboy', and they have to have an 'agenda'. You brought up the third brake pedal, the mass damper, I simply pointed out the difference that in the case of launch control, in 1994, the rule was in place before the season began; in the case of the other two, there was no rule banning them (and how anyone can conclude that a mass damper is a 'moveable aerodynamic device' should be equally beyond the imagination of the fans of any team or driver.) Of course all teams are working towards a ncessary edge, that's part and parcel of what I love about this sport, but there are necessary edges that are fundamentally legal (the mass damper, the brake steer system, the double diffuser, the blown diffuser, the brabham fan car, the Lotus 88, and many, many more) that are, in some cases, deemed illegal by way of the governing body deciding so when there are, in fact, no regulations preculding them. There are others, like the inclusion of launch control in the 94 Benetton, the similar automated gearshift in the McLaren at the time, the hidden BAR fuel tank a few years back, and many more thata re blatant attempts to circumnavigate the rules. These are the differences, and yet in pointing them out you assume that I have some gripe against Benetton, and Schumacher. This happens a lot - some other equally uninventive soul on here, when I pointed out his chain of events at the 94 British GP was completely wrong and largely invented, responded with 'what's your beef anyway? Hill won the race!' as if my problem, again, was with Schumacher, and Benetton, It wasn't, it was with someone posting a list of events that largely didn't happen as fact (I was at Silverstone that day in 94, and having seen the ludicrous penalty applied was rootin for Michael. Until, that is, the team made a farce of it by insisting he didn't serve the penalty - a stupid decision in all manners.)
You see, you assume that I - and I would guess everyone - has some leaning towards drivers of a)their nationality or b)particular teams. Sadly, Osella no longer enter and I could never stand Mansell or Hill, so really I don't count. You have to get off this train of though that I'm posting because I want to put Schumacher down - in fact, I'm trying to correct you. You try and compare two legal devices that were banned by the FIA for no conceivable reason with one illegal device that was found on a car in 94 (and I am dubious as to whether it was used after the first few races) and that's not really a decent discussion.
As for your question about innocent until proven guilty - Benetton were found guilty of having an illegal launch control system on their car. That should answer that one.