Jump to content


Photo

Cheating or bending the rules?


  • Please log in to reply
302 replies to this topic

#101 doc knutsen

doc knutsen
  • Member

  • 486 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 21 November 2012 - 19:52

That would be terrible. There'd be a stand full of miserable-looking people, tut-tutting a lot and saying things like "It's not as good as it used to be". Not what Bernie would want. :)


Right, "Bernie's not as good as he used to be"...! Actually, I felt not at all miserable writing that. But then again, maybe I should be, as it is very dark, wet and windy late November in Scandinavia.

Advertisement

#102 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,422 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 21 November 2012 - 20:24

Originally posted by Michael Ferner
.....I was under the illusion that all crankshafts HAD to be forged for durability. Where early crankshafts really cast?


While the 105E example has been mentioned, there are many others...

You have to remember that the bean counters are always at work, they know that casting is always less expensive than forging.

In the Chrysler stuff that I'm familiar with, forged cranks were universal until some time in the late sixties. The slant 6, small block V8 and big block V8 (even the 440) went to cast cranks at some point, while the Hemi 6 never had a forged crank. I think you'll find that the Ford small block also had cast cranks, but I don't know if there was ever a forging for them.

As for 'durability', this can obviously be built in with a casting. The Hemi 6 is quite a long motor and had one factory version rated at 302hp, so it didn't do too badly, while today there are people drag racing these with superchargers putting over 800hp through the casting.

Aftermarket cranks are very popular in the US for all makes of V8s. Look up some of the 'stroker kits' that are on the market there, kits that take a small block engine out to big block sizes, or take big blocks over 500 cubic inches, you will find there is usually an option for for cast or forged cranks.

I have the same misgivings about sintered rods...

#103 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 2,330 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 21 November 2012 - 20:55

Like I said, I never gave it much thought. One would expect that the engineers know what they're doing, and I don't doubt that a casting can be durable. On the other hand, there must be a reason why most (?) manufacturers still (?) prefer the costlier procedure.

Then again, this is like a discussion about menstruation - I love women, and I really try to understand them, but I never will...

#104 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 6,249 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:30

While the 105E example has been mentioned, there are many others...

You have to remember that the bean counters are always at work, they know that casting is always less expensive than forging.

In the Chrysler stuff that I'm familiar with, forged cranks were universal until some time in the late sixties. The slant 6, small block V8 and big block V8 (even the 440) went to cast cranks at some point, while the Hemi 6 never had a forged crank. I think you'll find that the Ford small block also had cast cranks, but I don't know if there was ever a forging for them.

As for 'durability', this can obviously be built in with a casting. The Hemi 6 is quite a long motor and had one factory version rated at 302hp, so it didn't do too badly, while today there are people drag racing these with superchargers putting over 800hp through the casting.

Aftermarket cranks are very popular in the US for all makes of V8s. Look up some of the 'stroker kits' that are on the market there, kits that take a small block engine out to big block sizes, or take big blocks over 500 cubic inches, you will find there is usually an option for for cast or forged cranks.

I have the same misgivings about sintered rods...

Most older cars used a twisted forged crank, from what I understand casting processes for cranks was a post war process. A cast crank will never be as stong as a forged one, but is more flexible and resists cracking. Most 60s and 70s performance engines had a forged crank option though the cooking versions were all cast. Some are supposedly better than others, a brinnel test will give an idea. 4V Ford Clevelands were all cast but some were better than others. Only performance SBC used forged,, and trucks, sometimes. Though these days far better aftermarket cranks are advailable for reasonable dollars, and cast ones are only about $300, again supposedly better than original. Though a billet non twist forging is still very expensive. Though most even big dollar classes seem to get by on the more normal style, though in chrome moly.
In the past I have seen cast cranks in Sprintcar engines and they seem to live with 550hp. Though even then not recomended.
Sintered rods are for the towcar, not any race engine!! I recently saw a Gen 3 that had broken below the pin. maybe save the heads. In a well flogged standard Commodore. The owner was trying for used car warranty, the burnt out feathered rear tyres precluded that!

#105 Graham Clayton

Graham Clayton
  • Member

  • 1,106 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 26 December 2012 - 12:25

:lol: I love the one about the Toyota Celica GT4 World Rally Championship. At the time power was being controlled by the regulators by limiting the amount of air getting at the turbo chrager with a restrictor plate. What Toyota Team Europe had done was that when the engine was turned on the restrictor was pulled away from the turbo charger allowing more air in. With the engine of the restrictor sat in place looking absolutely legal. I think it was either Charlie Whiting or Max Mosely who called it the most ingenoues bit of cheating they'd seen in 30 years. Heh. TTE's penalty was correspondingly huge :p


Falcadore,
Here is an excellent article about the ST-205 illegal restrictors:

http://homepage.virg...com/tte_ban.htm

Edited by Graham Clayton, 26 December 2012 - 12:26.


#106 RonPohl

RonPohl
  • Member

  • 129 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 27 December 2012 - 02:33

One of my favorite cheater stories: NASCAR is refueled during pitstops by hand held fuel tanks, gravity feed only. One team had some type of hidden pump in the refueling system to speed up the fuel flow. Alas, a malfunction.....and a 50 foot stream of fuel squirting down pit lane from the fuel vent.

#107 Graham Clayton

Graham Clayton
  • Member

  • 1,106 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 28 December 2012 - 02:10

An American late model speedway sedan driver cut the onboard fire extinguisher in half, and welded a plate in between, and then put it all back together. When the scrutineer asked for an onboard test, the top half would spray Co2, making it look legal. But the bottom half of the extinguisher held nitrous oxide, which was fed into the engine.

Another way to cheat was to have a blatantly obvious form of cheating. The scrutineers would easily find this, but would miss the subtle cheats in the car.

In regard to the stories about fitting heavy tyres to make a car meet the minimum weight, the pit crews would practice picking up and fitting the tyres, so that it looked identical to using normal tyres in a race situation. Having mechanics sweating and groaning when picking up a tyre was a giveaway!

#108 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,937 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 28 December 2012 - 13:27

Don;'t know if it was cheating but still.


Back in 1952 at Indianapolis the engines of the time gegan to loose less oil then previously, leaving the track less oil slick then before.
Front wheel drive cars like the Blue Crowns and the Novis thrived on more oil in the corners to allow a bit of wheel spin to conserve their front tires a bit. The FWD cars used no differentials (!)

That year in practice, the Novis had a new design front bumper (For whatever reason they had used a tiny bumper on the nose) that was wider than before and came closer to the fron wheels. Nobody found out diring the year what it really was. Driver Duke Nalond confessed many years later that the end of the bumpers had a little nozzle that allowed the drivers to spray som oil on ther front tires and on the track where they wanted to have a bit of oil!
Because the oil tanks on the cars were too small for use in the race, the trick was only used during practice but they quit after a wild spin of one of the cars.



On page one AJ Foyt has been mentioned.
I have heard from a friend the story that Foyt's last ever Coyote (the 1981 wing car) was sold off after an accident but that the new owner had an even wors crash with it and that the monocoque was damaged in that crash. From deep down in the monocoque came a bottle, capable to store high pressure gas supply, destined to have never been seen by anyone till the moment the monocoque got torn apart on whatever manner....
I don't know how credible this story is but given USAC manner of favoring AJ over the years ....



Henri


#109 RonPohl

RonPohl
  • Member

  • 129 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 29 December 2012 - 17:59

I enjoy a good cheater story as well as anyone, but it raises a question in my mind. Why do we consider cheating clever rather than unsportsman unethical conduct? The is no shame or stigma to getting caught.

#110 GMACKIE

GMACKIE
  • Member

  • 1,837 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 29 December 2012 - 21:18

I enjoy a good cheater story as well as anyone, but it raises a question in my mind. Why do we consider cheating clever rather than unsportsman unethical conduct? The is no shame or stigma to getting caught.

I feel the same way.......in my mind, it's akin to the car thief finding a way to steal a 'Thief-proof' car.

Why not put all that effort into 'legitimate' work? Could be surprisingly rewarding.


#111 Frank S

Frank S
  • Member

  • 2,157 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 30 December 2012 - 02:56

At some point the (sub)culture's values shift, and cheating is no longer outside the standards of behavior.


#112 uechtel

uechtel
  • Member

  • 1,563 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 30 December 2012 - 10:21

IMO there is a difference between cheating (like with the fire extinguisher example) and looking for creative interpretations which make use of gaps in the rules.

#113 nicanary

nicanary
  • Member

  • 463 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:35

IMO there is a difference between cheating (like with the fire extinguisher example) and looking for creative interpretations which make use of gaps in the rules.


Absolutely agree. Which makes me annoyed when the modern F1 bosses outlaw new ideas purely because no other team thought of them. It discourages creative thinking - so we see designers fretting over what could well be a brilliant innovation, and wondering if it's worth building-into the new car. Exhaust diffusers. The air-ducts built into the Mercedes' wings etc.. Not that I like modern F1, but I recognise clever engineering when I see it.

It's in danger of becoming a "spec" formula, especially when there are rumours of single-engine availability being bandied about. All just for the spectacle and entertainment - what ever happened to "sport"? Even the Brabham "fan car" wasn't cheating IMHO, although I have to say the Tyrrell business with the water ballast was a bit dodgy.


#114 seldo

seldo
  • Member

  • 1,633 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 30 December 2012 - 12:18

IMO there is a difference between cheating (like with the fire extinguisher example) and looking for creative interpretations which make use of gaps in the rules.

Absolutely right! I used to read "the book" for hours and hours trying to find ways to improve performance within the rules.
Cheats really only cheat themselves, and can hardly gain any kudos by beating others by cheating.
Having said all that though, I do get a certain amount of pleasure from reading of the ingenious rorts that have been perpetrated over the years. As someone else said, some of them make one wonder what the perps could have achieved had they applied the same effort and ingenuity to legit means of performance gains.

#115 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,139 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 30 December 2012 - 16:16

Absolutely agree. Which makes me annoyed when the modern F1 bosses outlaw new ideas purely because no other team thought of them. It discourages creative thinking - so we see designers fretting over what could well be a brilliant innovation, and wondering if it's worth building-into the new car. Exhaust diffusers. The air-ducts built into the Mercedes' wings etc.. Not that I like modern F1, but I recognise clever engineering when I see it.

It's in danger of becoming a "spec" formula, especially when there are rumours of single-engine availability being bandied about. All just for the spectacle and entertainment - what ever happened to "sport"? Even the Brabham "fan car" wasn't cheating IMHO, although I have to say the Tyrrell business with the water ballast was a bit dodgy.

There's several facets to the Tyrrell story, some are related here. The "water-cooled induction" is a classic example of "rule bending". The addition of hydrocarbons to the water in the proportion originally [erroneously] stated would have been cheating. The disqualification of Tyrrell and the true reason behind it is a classic example of "railroading"

#116 nicanary

nicanary
  • Member

  • 463 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 30 December 2012 - 16:52

There's several facets to the Tyrrell story, some are related here. The "water-cooled induction" is a classic example of "rule bending". The addition of hydrocarbons to the water in the proportion originally [erroneously] stated would have been cheating. The disqualification of Tyrrell and the true reason behind it is a classic example of "railroading"


Aha. Not quite in the same league as a nitrous-oxide bottle secreted in the chassis or whatever. Uncle Ken had become a nuisance....

Bernie has had his way, and the "big money" now available to F1 has turned it into entertainment, rather than a sport which happened to entertain. Which is why it's important not to let any team have an advantage. Generic cars.

(OT and BTW - I was thinking today of an analogy for Bernie's "big sell" to Far-East countries of the F1 concept, and realised it was akin to the good folk of Springfield and their monorail - the huckster selling a useless concept and then fleeing with the cash. At least Homer had his day in the sun).


#117 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,937 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 30 December 2012 - 19:57

There's several facets to the Tyrrell story, some are related here. The "water-cooled induction" is a classic example of "rule bending". The addition of hydrocarbons to the water in the proportion originally [erroneously] stated would have been cheating. The disqualification of Tyrrell and the true reason behind it is a classic example of "railroading"



Sorry but I don't agree on that.
Water injection on an atmospheric engine (as the Cosworths Tyrrell used were) is something of little to no value. If that really worked then every engine man nowadays should be praying for rain races all the time because that means free extra power.
As far as I remember, the rules stated that a car had to comply to the minimum weight all the time.
Refuelling was forbidden.
And when a car makes a stop to be topped up with a fluid not being oil or fuel then the only reasonable purpose this could have been for was to bring it up to weight again because of being underweight. Be it having started underweight already or having lost weight during the race itself. Using ballast water to be boiled off, being vented out of the car to lose weight during the race for example.
Sorry but Tyrrell was cheating with running underweigth cars and even he, despite being the only Cosworth runner left, or despite all his credits he may have built up in the years before, or despite being British, he had to be punished for that.
It surprised me that it took so long for justice being done at last.

Henri



#118 GMACKIE

GMACKIE
  • Member

  • 1,837 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 30 December 2012 - 19:58

I recently read a rather sad remark by a Tour de France competitor, who did not take drugs. He felt he 'wasted' years of his life, and believed he could have won......if all the other riders were drug-free.

Cheats often drive away 'honest' competitors, who leave the sport, rather than join the cheating game.

#119 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,139 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 30 December 2012 - 22:57

Sorry but I don't agree on that.
Water injection on an atmospheric engine (as the Cosworths Tyrrell used were) is something of little to no value. If that really worked then every engine man nowadays should be praying for rain races all the time because that means free extra power.
As far as I remember, the rules stated that a car had to comply to the minimum weight all the time.
Refuelling was forbidden.
And when a car makes a stop to be topped up with a fluid not being oil or fuel then the only reasonable purpose this could have been for was to bring it up to weight again because of being underweight. Be it having started underweight already or having lost weight during the race itself. Using ballast water to be boiled off, being vented out of the car to lose weight during the race for example.
Sorry but Tyrrell was cheating with running underweigth cars and even he, despite being the only Cosworth runner left, or despite all his credits he may have built up in the years before, or despite being British, he had to be punished for that.
It surprised me that it took so long for justice being done at last.

Henri

But that was not the quoted reason for disqualifying the Tyrrells. The story is convoluted and I will have to look up what details I have over and above what's in the thread that I linked to before responding more fully.

Edited by D-Type, 30 December 2012 - 23:18.


Advertisement

#120 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 6,249 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 30 December 2012 - 23:39

Absolutely agree. Which makes me annoyed when the modern F1 bosses outlaw new ideas purely because no other team thought of them. It discourages creative thinking - so we see designers fretting over what could well be a brilliant innovation, and wondering if it's worth building-into the new car. Exhaust diffusers. The air-ducts built into the Mercedes' wings etc.. Not that I like modern F1, but I recognise clever engineering when I see it.

It's in danger of becoming a "spec" formula, especially when there are rumours of single-engine availability being bandied about. All just for the spectacle and entertainment - what ever happened to "sport"? Even the Brabham "fan car" wasn't cheating IMHO, although I have to say the Tyrrell business with the water ballast was a bit dodgy.

Most proessional Motor'sport' is motorised entertainment. Not motorsport. The rules restrict technical, restrict drivers to absurd levels. While rules are important these days the team or driver is fined instead of rubbed out.
Its all about the show,, not the sport. Hence the 'Safety' cars to close up the field regularly, stupid pitstops for no real reason, stop go penaltys again often for no real reason [that destroys that competitors race often]. It may still be motor racing [sort of] but motorsport it is not. Far more motorsport in the lower levels these days, though all of the above still happens on occasion.

#121 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 6,249 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 30 December 2012 - 23:52

Sorry but I don't agree on that.
Water injection on an atmospheric engine (as the Cosworths Tyrrell used were) is something of little to no value. If that really worked then every engine man nowadays should be praying for rain races all the time because that means free extra power.
As far as I remember, the rules stated that a car had to comply to the minimum weight all the time.
Refuelling was forbidden.
And when a car makes a stop to be topped up with a fluid not being oil or fuel then the only reasonable purpose this could have been for was to bring it up to weight again because of being underweight. Be it having started underweight already or having lost weight during the race itself. Using ballast water to be boiled off, being vented out of the car to lose weight during the race for example.
Sorry but Tyrrell was cheating with running underweigth cars and even he, despite being the only Cosworth runner left, or despite all his credits he may have built up in the years before, or despite being British, he had to be punished for that.
It surprised me that it took so long for justice being done at last.

Henri

Water injection can be usefull on any engine, it can also be a negative. And anyone knows that engines will produce a LOT more power on a cold damp day. Which can be annoying sometimes as there is always less advailable grip advailable to use the extra power.
Most racecars are heavier at the end of a race [except for fuel use ofcourse] as the amount of rubber, gravel and debris in and on the car can be quite high.
I once swept, scraped my tintop after a 25 lap race in dry conditions and got 18lb of this debris from the car. How gravel and rubber gets inside is another story but it is there. I wear glasses and on one meeting ended up with a bit of rubber stuck to my glasses. And debris on my lap.This in a tintop. At times I actually pulled my visor down to keep the crap out. Yes the drivers window was open, but it was a 3/4 door piece of perspex leaving a hole about a foot square.

#122 Dipster

Dipster
  • Member

  • 258 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 31 December 2012 - 06:50

Water injection can be usefull on any engine, it can also be a negative. And anyone knows that engines will produce a LOT more power on a cold damp day. Which can be annoying sometimes as there is always less advailable grip advailable to use the extra power.
Most racecars are heavier at the end of a race [except for fuel use ofcourse] as the amount of rubber, gravel and debris in and on the car can be quite high.
I once swept, scraped my tintop after a 25 lap race in dry conditions and got 18lb of this debris from the car. How gravel and rubber gets inside is another story but it is there. I wear glasses and on one meeting ended up with a bit of rubber stuck to my glasses. And debris on my lap.This in a tintop. At times I actually pulled my visor down to keep the crap out. Yes the drivers window was open, but it was a 3/4 door piece of perspex leaving a hole about a foot square.



Absolutely right. As you say injection of water can help any engine produce more power. I experienced this just last night (sort of) in my 300 Tdi diesel Land Rover Defender. The evening was much chillier than the warm sunny day we had here and there was distinct humidity in the air. The Defender pulled like a train on the hills around my house. The difference in power (torque really) from the daytime temperature and humidity levels was remarkable. So not actually injection of water, more a case of aspiration of humidity. And certainly not an increase in power to the point of giving me traction problems! But, in my experience, the principle is sound.

Doug Nye, or another aviation enthusiast TNFer, may be able to confirm that, as I believe, some WW2 plane engines used water injection.

#123 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,937 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 December 2012 - 08:22

Absolutely right. As you say injection of water can help any engine produce more power. I experienced this just last night (sort of) in my 300 Tdi diesel Land Rover Defender. The evening was much chillier than the warm sunny day we had here and there was distinct humidity in the air. The Defender pulled like a train on the hills around my house. The difference in power (torque really) from the daytime temperature and humidity levels was remarkable. So not actually injection of water, more a case of aspiration of humidity. And certainly not an increase in power to the point of giving me traction problems! But, in my experience, the principle is sound.

Doug Nye, or another aviation enthusiast TNFer, may be able to confirm that, as I believe, some WW2 plane engines used water injection.




I know that several airplane engines in WW2 used water injection. But almost all of these engines were also supercharged......
The water being used to cool down and dense the air/fuel mixture to the cylinders. I am not certain on it but I wonder if intercoolers were used on WW2 Aircraft engines. I have a feeling of not so many..
Water injection on normally aspirated engines was and is, as far as I know quite a rarity. It might (indeed) be of help to some extend, but I wonder how how efficient it it compared with the potential it has on supercharged engines.


Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 31 December 2012 - 08:27.


#124 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,741 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 31 December 2012 - 08:36

As far as I remember, the rules stated that a car had to comply to the minimum weight all the time.
Refuelling was forbidden.
And when a car makes a stop to be topped up with a fluid not being oil or fuel then the only reasonable purpose this could have been for was to bring it up to weight again because of being underweight. Be it having started underweight already or having lost weight during the race itself.

Bellof did not stop for ballast at Monaco in 1984. Presumably the car was weighed at the finish of the race, given he was on the podium. Which would mean it was over the weight limit.

So, if the Tyrrell was over the weight limit mid-way through a race, and they stopped for ballast not long afterwards, was the Tyrrell ever underweight?

But that was not the quoted reason for disqualifying the Tyrrells. The story is convoluted and I will have to look up what details I have over and above what's in the thread that I linked to before responding more fully.

Which was the point, of course; the charges against Tyrrell continually varied. And nobody stood up for Tyrrell as they would have done in 1981 because (a) all the other teams now had their turbos and the proposed rule change would have worked in their favour and (b) Tyrrell was seen to have shafted the FOCA teams at San Marino 1982 - the race would have had too few cars to be title-worthy had Ken not turned up.

I don't recall being underweight ever being anything that was ever substantiated though.

#125 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,937 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:35

Bellof did not stop for ballast at Monaco in 1984. Presumably the car was weighed at the finish of the race, given he was on the podium. Which would mean it was over the weight limit.

So, if the Tyrrell was over the weight limit mid-way through a race, and they stopped for ballast not long afterwards, was the Tyrrell ever underweight?

Race stopped halfway, and I think that even uncle Ken did not anticpate that in advance so he had the car topped off with fuel of which plenty was left once the race was prematurely ended. So the car likely was still heavy enough. But I wonder how much lighter it was compared with the other cars that were weighted......

Henri





#126 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,741 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:47

This is the point - the car with fuel was above the weight limit, and the ballast stops would take place once the car was about to fall under the weight limit. Effectively replacing the fuel stop's weight-adding capabilities.

At no point could a Tyrrell ever be shown to be below the weight limit, and I am guessing that FISA couldn't demonstrate it mathematically, as the ballast was added at the right point. Otherwise running underweight would have been a FISA charge.

#127 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,937 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 December 2012 - 10:05

This is the point - the car with fuel was above the weight limit, and the ballast stops would take place once the car was about to fall under the weight limit. Effectively replacing the fuel stop's weight-adding capabilities.

At no point could a Tyrrell ever be shown to be below the weight limit, and I am guessing that FISA couldn't demonstrate it mathematically, as the ballast was added at the right point. Otherwise running underweight would have been a FISA charge.



In one of the early Grand Prix International editions of 1984 it was pointed out what the benefit was for Tyrrel to cheat and the thought behind it.
Maybe still above the minimum weight during the first part of the race but in the latter part too low. But the major gain was that during almost the entire race it was running much lighter then all its opponents that were 540 kilos without fuel. Up til the moment that the water was added.
That 6 cm rule of 1981 was also illegal but everybody did it so that pretty much equalled out.
But Tyrrell did something that no-one else did and not only because for the other cars it was more difficult to get below 540 kgs without fuel but also because the knew it was illegal.

Cheating.


Henri

#128 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,741 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 31 December 2012 - 10:37

Maybe still above the minimum weight during the first part of the race but in the latter part too low. But the major gain was that during almost the entire race it was running much lighter then all its opponents that were 540 kilos without fuel. Up til the moment that the water was added.

But it wasn't. Firstly, FISA never proved it. Secondly, FISA never even charged Tyrrell with it.

It would have been easy to prove. Weigh the car at the end of the race, calculate the lead ballast in it, take the second from the first, add in a few kilos for the fuel that was burnt off after the last pitstop and hey presto, the weight of the Tyrrell just before the pitstop. It would have been far easier to throw that at Tyrrell as a charge rather than the illegal refuelling issue. Why did they not do so? Because it was obvious the Tyrrell was not running underweight. Indeed there was one occasion on which Tyrrell was caught running underweight - after Water-gate...

Further, we know stewards looked at this issue after the first race. Jackie Oliver put in a protest as Brundle had robbed Arrows of points. The stewards investigated and rejected the protest. Presumably they did the maths.

And we can strongly infer that, after 31 of the scheduled 76 laps at Monaco 1984, the Tyrrell was not underweight. So if it were underweight it could not have been for a substantial portion of any race, and a fortiori it could not have been running "much" lighter at any point as a result.

The only cheating going on was from the party that introduced new evidence at an appeal hearing. One that changed the charges between conviction and appeal. One that had had its evidence rubbished embarrassingly. One that had already bent the rules to favour their mates and because the rules did not work the way he wanted had to break them. Step forward, M'sieu SS Officer.

#129 MonzaDriver

MonzaDriver
  • Member

  • 356 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 31 December 2012 - 10:55

If the rules are silly no one has to wonder about silly effects...



Dear Uechtel,
your assertion it seems spontaneous from a real passionate feeling, witch I admire but it's not true.
Today rules in motorsport are anything but silly.
Today rules in motorsport are the result of decades of compromise, cheating, favours to politician,
to international car brands, abetting journalists, favours to sponsors interested in anything but racing,
Blind spomsors also, because everyone remember Brawn GP winning a whole championship without anyone interested in sponsorize
a winning team......???
You name it.
Rules in motorsport has hade some other incredibly important functions.
They permitted to various racing team owners F3 Formula Ford, karting, whatever formula...... with the excuse of:
improving technology, to improve lap times, to improve competition,
to improve the amount of money to ask for driving. All around the world.
SO...........last but least, they kept away from racing people like us with normal salary, to leave it only for other class people.
And maybe this is the most important thing.
To people who run motor racing all along this decades, those rules were anything but silly or unimportant.
Were everything.
Today the situation is so rotten that is beyond repair???
Who cares now ?

I never liked Flavio Briatore,
but in a recent interview, explain me another important part of motor racing, that because of passion,
I've never understood. I've never understood despise reading everything.
He explain that for Engineers ( and maybe some are writing in this forum) what they really love,
what they really cares for, is Hidden technology. Because they think they are smart.
At least they also has been used by those running things this way.

Flavio Briatore is smart.

All the best
MonzaDriver.










#130 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,937 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 December 2012 - 11:51

But it wasn't. Firstly, FISA never proved it. Secondly, FISA never even charged Tyrrell with it.

It would have been easy to prove. Weigh the car at the end of the race, calculate the lead ballast in it, take the second from the first, add in a few kilos for the fuel that was burnt off after the last pitstop and hey presto, the weight of the Tyrrell just before the pitstop. It would have been far easier to throw that at Tyrrell as a charge rather than the illegal refuelling issue. Why did they not do so? Because it was obvious the Tyrrell was not running underweight. Indeed there was one occasion on which Tyrrell was caught running underweight - after Water-gate...

Further, we know stewards looked at this issue after the first race. Jackie Oliver put in a protest as Brundle had robbed Arrows of points. The stewards investigated and rejected the protest. Presumably they did the maths.

And we can strongly infer that, after 31 of the scheduled 76 laps at Monaco 1984, the Tyrrell was not underweight. So if it were underweight it could not have been for a substantial portion of any race, and a fortiori it could not have been running "much" lighter at any point as a result.

The only cheating going on was from the party that introduced new evidence at an appeal hearing. One that changed the charges between conviction and appeal. One that had had its evidence rubbished embarrassingly. One that had already bent the rules to favour their mates and because the rules did not work the way he wanted had to break them. Step forward, M'sieu SS Officer.





As for FISA not proving it, there was only wone way to prove it but that was impossible to do. And you know that as well as Tyrrell knew it in 1984
It is of course an impossible thing to do. But it would have been nice to see the resuclts of weighting the cars during the actual race. imagine the weird things ypu would see if at a certain moment in the race cars were called in for being ordered in to be weighted and this being done randomly. Not knowing when it is your turn but you know it's gonna happen at least twice.
Imagine the mess.....
But I am pretty sure that , had such ever been possible during 1984, Tyrrell would have been caught for running a car that without fuel but all other fluids on board did not weight 540 kgs. And perphaps a few more teams too.
No way that a car needed to be filled up with water and lead only a mere few laps before the race without good reason: to be made legal again for when checks of the car were possible again after being cheating first. Something had to be put in the car that should have been in there from the start already.

Your latest remark confirms to me as of why you defend Tyrrell to the bitter end, if your alias and some other opinions don't give that away already. I could make some reactions on that in return but I will not do so.

Henri



#131 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,937 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 December 2012 - 12:36

Another cheat that was too low withinmy book:

BMW's IMSA title of 2001.

BMW won the IMSA GTS title. A title destined vor second string GT cars, based on cars being produced in (fairly) large numbers already or otherwise were not the all-out supercars like the big GT cars like corvettes, 550maranello's etc.

To win that title they had created an M3 version, fitted with a 5 liter V8 engine that, according them was in development to go into production that year.
Try to win the title of a category for cars being in production and available already....
Normally the car would had a restrictor to reduce power but they somehow got away with that and ran in a series for cars derived from production cars that had to be for sale already. IMSA mandated that by the end of the year there should at least 25 street versions being built to qualify for haveing been a car in production that year and BMW promised that would be done.
They didn't.
Instead they wanted to defend the title one year later but IMSA, insisting on that by now cars had to be built to qualify as a genuine production car told BMW that the car could run, but with restrictors as long as there were no production cars offered for sale.
BMW refused to do so, didn't compete anymore and the 25 cars that should have been built to make the title winning car legal after all (be it belately) were never built.


I know, Mercedes did something similar with CLK-GTR-V8 and Porsche almost got it done in 1997.
But for me the BMW case is much more insulting since that was for a title considered for production based cars while the Mercedesses and Porsches were in the true supercar cotegory, if not actually Prototype cars.

henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 31 December 2012 - 12:37.


#132 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,741 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 31 December 2012 - 14:03

No way that a car needed to be filled up with water and lead only a mere few laps before the race without good reason: to be made legal again for when checks of the car were possible again after being cheating first. Something had to be put in the car that should have been in there from the start already.

I picked a race at random - Zolder 1984 - and checked the laptimes via forix. Stefan Bellof's lap times, both in isolation and when compared to the cars either side of him, were consistent throughout the race - including after taking on ballast. One would have expected a massive drop-off after that had the car been hugely underweight.

The pattern is consistent with the Tyrrell being close to the weight limit with a handful of laps to go and then taking on a handful of kilos to ensure that it remained above the weight limit to the end. Look when Bellof stopped in that race; lap 62 out of 70. His fastest lap was lap 27.

Throw that in with what we know. He was not underweight at Monaco at 40% distance. He set his fastest lap at Zolder half a race before the top-up stop. His post-stop pace was similar to pre-stop. It's not consistent with the Tyrrell running way, way underweight and needing loads of ballast at the end. The pattern with that would have an FL at the end and then a series of slow laps; it would also have shown up as underweight at Monaco. It's far more consistent with running marginally towards the end and adding a small amount.

And, as I said, FISA, desperate to throw Tyrrell out for its own fell purposes, could not land them with an underweight charge. They could easily have extrapolated from the post-race weight. It's not as if the ballast was a secret; everyone watched them doing it.

Your latest remark confirms to me as of why you defend Tyrrell to the bitter end, if your alias and some other opinions don't give that away already. I could make some reactions on that in return but I will not do so.

I think it's fair to say that I found Balestre a poisonous influence on the sport. My great-uncle's mind was frazzled by seeing some of JMB's mate's handiwork at Belsen. Repulsive that such a man was allowed to flourish.

As for defending Tyrrell to the bitter end, well, given the charges against them and the findings, I don't really have to do much. It was so obviously a put-up job. I would have thought defending Tyrrell in these circumstances was the least anyone who cares about sporting integrity and the rule of law should do.

#133 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,937 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 December 2012 - 14:30

I picked a race at random - Zolder 1984 - and checked the laptimes via forix. Stefan Bellof's lap times, both in isolation and when compared to the cars either side of him, were consistent throughout the race - including after taking on ballast. One would have expected a massive drop-off after that had the car been hugely underweight.

The pattern is consistent with the Tyrrell being close to the weight limit with a handful of laps to go and then taking on a handful of kilos to ensure that it remained above the weight limit to the end. Look when Bellof stopped in that race; lap 62 out of 70. His fastest lap was lap 27.

Throw that in with what we know. He was not underweight at Monaco at 40% distance. He set his fastest lap at Zolder half a race before the top-up stop. His post-stop pace was similar to pre-stop. It's not consistent with the Tyrrell running way, way underweight and needing loads of ballast at the end. The pattern with that would have an FL at the end and then a series of slow laps; it would also have shown up as underweight at Monaco. It's far more consistent with running marginally towards the end and adding a small amount.

And, as I said, FISA, desperate to throw Tyrrell out for its own fell purposes, could not land them with an underweight charge. They could easily have extrapolated from the post-race weight. It's not as if the ballast was a secret; everyone watched them doing it.


I think it's fair to say that I found Balestre a poisonous influence on the sport. My great-uncle's mind was frazzled by seeing some of JMB's mate's handiwork at Belsen. Repulsive that such a man was allowed to flourish.

As for defending Tyrrell to the bitter end, well, given the charges against them and the findings, I don't really have to do much. It was so obviously a put-up job. I would have thought defending Tyrrell in these circumstances was the least anyone who cares about sporting integrity and the rule of law should do.




OK, let's accept from another that we don't agree. But for me, I see something like a small horse, it smells like a horse, it makes the sound like a horse so I see a small horse.
Of course that still means it could be a pony....

'84 reminds me a bit about '94.
Benetton cheated with the fuel filter, probably with a lot more that was in the board computer electronics too that wasn't taken out though `no functional anymore`
But building a huge controversy by exposing a cheater? After Imola the season was dark enough already with a lot of bad publicity so who do needs a story on cheating as well, the more if that may have influenced the Senna fatality too?
So let them get away with it but hammer them on other grounds that are in the rule book.
Schueys black flag for running ahead of Hill during the warm up lap (Now how did that affect the race in a negative manner so bad that it has to be punished with a race penalty????) was totally out of proportion compared with the other things I mentioned. So punish him on something that cannot be doubted if true and what happens to be in the rule book......
A bit of stability and peace was welcome in 1984 too after the 1980-1983 period.....

Oh, by the way, I am not a fan of Balestre either. Definitely not. But Nazism and FIA presidents......


Henri



#134 nicanary

nicanary
  • Member

  • 463 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 31 December 2012 - 14:32

Oh err. Person responsible for mentioning the Tyrrell episode in the first place? Guilty m'lud.

Sorry I brought it up. The past should be a great healer.

#135 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,937 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 December 2012 - 17:35

Oh err. Person responsible for mentioning the Tyrrell episode in the first place? Guilty m'lud.

Sorry I brought it up. The past should be a great healer.




Hey? Why being sorry?

When you talk ablout cheating in racing or F1, the Tyrrell affair is difficult to avoid since it is a cheat that caused the most severe repercussions to a single team ever done.

No problem that you bring it up. Critizise the hotheads who are convinced that they know the truth and can't agree other then to disagree.
(And as far as I'm concerned, the Tyrrell matter is put to rest from here on)


Henri

#136 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 2,330 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 31 December 2012 - 17:51

For someone whose occupation (apparently) involves the interpretation of laws and the like, ensign14 has some very strange views... :drunk:

#137 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,741 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 31 December 2012 - 18:39

For someone whose occupation (apparently) involves the interpretation of laws and the like, ensign14 has some very strange views... :drunk:

If standard legal fairness is strange, then I do indeed have strange views.

Tyrrell was charged with five breaches of regulations.

1. Illegal refuelling (in breach of Article 6.14).
2. Having non-regulation fuel (Art 14.1.2).
3. Not having safety valves on fuel lines (Art 6.9).
4. Not having fuel lines that could withstand the appropriate safety pressures (Art 6.11).
5. Having ballast on the car that could be removed without tools and to which it was impossible to affix a seal (Art 4.2).

The fifth you can see is down to interpretation - can you take out ballast that's been forced into a tank without a tool? Doubtful. After all, they had been doing it all season, in clear view of everyone, and nobody had landed a protest, not least the scrutes. And of course it's a piece of cake to affix a seal to a tank, the first-ever Grand Prix refers.

The other four all arose from the same thing; the water tanks that Tyrrell used to top up the car had fuel in them, which could pass down the water injection fuel. They are dependent on proving 1. Which was based on an FIA sample of the "water" Tyrrell had used; FISA's experts found that the water was over a quarter fuel.

On that there would be no problem with the verdict. That would be clear cheating.

And Tyrrell was found guilty of all charges and banned.

Only thing is, FISA's experts had screwed up. They had not sampled the water that was added to the car, but only substances that were not water. It turned out that the percentage of fuel involved was minute - we're talking in the order of five thousandths of one percent, I'd drink it for a tenner - and was within a statistical error, and certainly could not have given an advantage.

So for the appeal FISA conceded grounds 2-4; they still insisted on ground 1, even though the evidence that FISA had come up with had been disproved, and 5, which, as a pretty evident disagreement on interpretation, would not involve a season-long banning. Especially as the results of the earlier races were now official. Past the protesting time.

But - and this is the thing that shows how much of a stitch-up it was - FISA introduced a new charge, namely the holes in the bottom of the car being in breach of the flat bottom regulations.

That is axiomatically a breach of the rule of law. New charges just cannot be thrown in at the appellate stage. Because they need to be evidenced properly. New legal arguments can be introduced, but not factual.

Basically, the best FISA could do was prove that Tyrrell had put a trace amount of fuel in Brundle's car at one race. We are talking literally a drop. That could found a DQ from that one race, but nothing more as nothing was found on the other races, indeed nothing could be found for Monaco, and there was no "bringing the sport into disrepute" penalty being slung at Tyrrell. FISA did not even bother to think about throwing in a charge of being underweight, they invented a new one on appeal without prior notice and basically invented the whole thing to get Tyrrell slung out.

Tyrrell played hard and fast with the rules on ballast, certainly; but there's an interpretation to show that what they were doing was not against the rules - no other team seemed to think it was, after all.

The question is, Henri and Michael, is you are insinuating Tyrrell was running underweight. I have provided a cogent argument to show that they were not. Nobody protested, the scrutes did not notice it, FISA did not charge them with it. Have you any scintilla of evidence to suggest Tyrrell was running underweight?

However, I have also shown that FISA did not follow the rules of natural justice in dealing with Tyrrell. Given that FISA was meant to be neutral and fair to all, that undermines its entire stewardship of the sport. And certainly it shows that FISA had to lie and cheat to nail Tyrrell.

I don't really consider that conclusion to be very strange. Seems to be the only logical one.

#138 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,741 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 31 December 2012 - 19:05

A couple of other points to note.

One, notification of charges. Ken Tyrrell was given one week's notice of the refuelling charges. He was given no notice at all of the ballast charges; they were raised at the FISA hearing for the first time.

Two, the crucial, erroneous FISA report into the quantity of fuel in the Tyrrell water tanks.

The original FISA hearing took place on 18 July 1984. Starting at 9.30am.

Do you know when Ken Tyrrell had his first sight of it?

4.30pm.

On the 18th.

After the hearing had been concluded.

And the report was in French only.

So, basically, Tyrrell were convicted on (a) a charge that was not mentioned in advance and (b) based on evidence that Tyrrell was not shown until after the hearing.

Even a kangaroo would have been ashamed of that court.

#139 flacoman

flacoman
  • New Member

  • 9 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 31 December 2012 - 19:15

I have heard from a friend the story that Foyt's last ever Coyote (the 1981 wing car) was sold off after an accident but that the new owner had an even wors crash with it and that the monocoque was damaged in that crash. From deep down in the monocoque came a bottle, capable to store high pressure gas supply, destined to have never been seen by anyone till the moment the monocoque got torn apart on whatever manner....
I don't know how credible this story is but given USAC manner of favoring AJ over the years ....

There's Foyt's Daytona 500 car with it's "air" filled seat cushion ...

Advertisement

#140 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 2,330 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 31 December 2012 - 20:17

Step forward, M'sieu SS Officer.


Defamation - the act of causing harm to somebody by saying or writing bad or false things about them.

Libel - the act of printing a statement about somebody that is not true and that gives people a bad opinion about them.

These are definitions from my dictionary, so I'm not really sure if they are the correct legal terms in your language, but they refer to something I accidentally read (in German) just today, namely that negative statements that are not demonstrably true are defamation, and negative statements that are demonstrably false are libel (or slander); and that these infractions of personal rights have increased enormously on the web these days because there's basically no way to defend oneselves against them.

You, sir, are a coward. You hide behind your silly nome de plume to insult people in a most defamatory way. You do not have the courage to step forward and declare your name, much less give evidence or even proof of your suggestions. If you call that "legal fairness", than your standards are way beyond comprehension. It's just silly drivel from a pubescent boy, not fit for public discussion.

As for your "defense" of the Tyrrell case, you'd be laughed out of court.

#141 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,741 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 31 December 2012 - 21:30

In English law, defamation falls into two camps. If it's spoken, slander; if it's permanent, libel. But you can't defame the dead. And truth (with one exception) in any event is an absolute defence.

Posted Image

Anyway why does my real name matter? I am not an historian. Who I am is not important. I'm not defending any research credentials. I cannot add fresh material, I merely comment on whatever's there. I'm also not hiding from anyone here. I am still e14 regardless of my real name. Which could also be changed at any time.

Plus it's a well-established principle in English law that it's not what you are, it's what you're doing. The important thing is whether anything I am saying is untrue, or inaccurate. Which of course nobody has demonstrated.

So we know Balestre was an SS officer, above pic demonstrates that. We also know that he claimed to be a double agent. However there is no proof of that. How could there be? But how convenient is that? The records detailing Balestre's release have never been found. And we know when Balestre sued over allegations of his SS involvement he was awarded damages only for breach of privacy.

And the defence of Tyrrell being laughed out of court? Actually, I was repeating what Tyrrell's defence was. Which, strangely enough, was not laughed out of court. Indeed it won in court. Which is why Tyrrell was allowed to race at the British GP in 1984. It was only an interim measure, as eventually the case was dismissed in favour of the arbitration entrants are forced to sign up to - which basically meant FISA could do what it wanted - but the court was pretty contemptuous of FISA's approach to justice.

Edited by ensign14, 31 December 2012 - 21:36.


#142 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,937 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 December 2012 - 21:39

The question is, Henri and Michael, is you are insinuating Tyrrell was running underweight. I have provided a cogent argument to show that they were not. Nobody protested, the scrutes did not notice it, FISA did not charge them with it. Have you any scintilla of evidence to suggest Tyrrell was running underweight?


I had no intention to react anymore on the Tyrrell matter since I felt it doesn''t make sence anymore since we won't see things the same.
But since you directly call on me, I think I must react after all.

First of all, where can I find all that info you gave on the Tyrrell Matter? Because I must give you this, it's impressive to read and makes things more confusing for me

Then: to answer your question.

No, I don't have any scintilla of evidence that Tyrrell was running underweight when I accept your creative manner of thinking that basicly says that als long as the car loaded up with fuel still is above the minimum weight is good enough.
It means that I accept to see that Ken Tyrrell abused the fact that cars were not weighted before going to the start and only measured thereafter to run with a car that weighs less that the other cars on the starting grid. And that he abused the fact that the weigth of the car could not be measuerd during the actual race.
Like I said before: We saw cars almost run an entire race but shortly before the race ended they came in to be filled up with a fluid that could not be fuel or oil, so could be only serve for one thing: Ballast. There is simply no other reason to come up with that within the last phase of the race a car suddenly needs some 40 liters or more water to make it through the last laps. Not even teams that ran marginal on the weight limits.
Only Tyrrell did it and with reasons. They used creative thinking ( I call it CHEATING ) to make up for power shortage because of being stuck with a Cosworth.
It was the only team that practiced this theory, no other team did it.

It was remeniscent to what happened in 1981, everyone kenw that once on the track and in the race the cars were illegal and not complying to the 6 cm rule. But after the race the suspensions were pumped up in order to be legal again at a moment it could be verivied.

Perhaps with the fuel topped off, the Tyrrells were above the minimum weight level, I must and will agree on that with you.
But I'm certain that compared with their rivals they were much lighter because of the car without fuel not reaching that mandatory weight limit. Thus ran with lower weight compared with their rivals and in the final stages of the race getting below the weight limit.
If the Tyrrells were 100% before, during and after the race, then they did not need a late stop in the race to top off with such an amount of water and lead. But obviously Tyrrell knew that once his cars finished the rrace they would not comply to the rules any longer so something had to be done.
But Tyrrell abused the fact that no weight control during the actual race was possible, otherwise it would have become a different matter.


Ensign14: I wonder: if you are in a supermarket standing behind a man who all of a sudden pulls out a gun out of his pocket, the man standing right behind him sees it and attacks the man in front of him, takes his gun off but breaks the arm of the man in the process...
Does the man who pulled the gun deserve a conviction?
Or does the man who overwhelmed the man with the gun have to go to jail to you because of applying violence on someone else?
That's what happened on on occasion I heard of because the attorney of the man who'se arm was broken convinced the judge that it wasn't sure that his client had plans to rob the store eventhough he had a gun in his had at the time.
Why he held the gun for however wasn't explained, just a mere coincidence.

With your kind of reasoning I think I know who you would send to jail.



OK, as far as I'm concerned I won't talk Tyrrell '84 with you anymore because it is pointless. We are and will remain opposed in opinion on that.
But don't challenge me to call upon me by using my name another time because that is the only excuse I will use to do it after all. As long as you don't call upon me and I'm off your back; I don't like rodeo rides that much.

Before I forget: the best wishes for the new year nonetheless.

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 31 December 2012 - 21:48.


#143 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,741 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 31 December 2012 - 21:54

I had no intention to react anymore on the Tyrrell matter since I felt it doesn''t make sence anymore since we won't see things the same.
But since you directly call on me, I think I must react after all.

First of all, where can I find all that info you gave on the Tyrrell Matter? Because I must give you this, it's impressive to read and makes things more confusing for me

The case report from Tyrrell's application for an injunction against the RAC and FISA, to allow them to race in the British GP. The evidence was backed up by affidavit (by Bob Tyrrell), so could be taken as true, as lying on affidavit would be contempt of court - and it would have been extremely easy for FISA to prove Bob was lying.

Interestingly FISA the RAC fought it on jurisdiction grounds rather than factual grounds...and in their defence FISA shifted their case (yet again) from the refuelling point being the big one to Tyrrell racing underweight (and even then it was put no higher than as an allegation rather than a proven fact). The court made the point that FISA had never alleged this against Tyrrell.

Like I said before: We saw cars almost run an entire race but shortly before the race ended they came in to be filled up with a fluid that could not be fuel or oil, so could be only one thing: Ballast. There is simply no other reason to come up with that within the last phase of the race a car suddenly needs some 40 liters or more water for the last laps. Not even teams that ran marginal on the weight limits.
Only Tyrrell did it and with reasons. They used creative thinking to make up for power shortage because of being stuck with a Cosworth.
It was the only team that practiced this theory, no other team did it.

Yes. Tyrrell conceded this. The question is whether putting ballast in the car in the way they did was illegal; given the drafting of the rules, it is at least debatable, and it had effectively been sanctioned throughout the season.

It was remeniscent to what happened in 1981, everyone knw that once on the track and in the race the cars were illegal and not complying to the 6 cm rule. But after the race the suspensions were pumped up in order to be legal again at a moment it could be verivied.

Yeah, you won't get me disagreeing about large-scale illegality in 1981. There was a great pic in Motor Sport of a Lotus grotesquely crabbing into the pits with enough clearance to put Colin himself between the wheels.

If the Tyrrells were 100% before, during and after the race, then they did not need a late stop in the race to top off with such an amount of water and lead. But obviously Tyrrell knew that once his cars finished the rrace they would not comply to the rules any longer so something had to be done.
But Tyrrell abused the fact that no weight control during the actual race was possible, otherwise it would have become a different matter.

It could be that - or it could be because Tyrrell knew at what point in the race they would be under the limit, so made the stop just before that happened.

Ensign14: I wonder: if you are in a supermarket standing behind a man who all of a sudden pulls out a gun out of his pocket, the man standing right behind him sees it and attacks the man in front of him, takes his gun off but breaks the arm of the man in the process...
Does the man who pulled the gun deserve a conviction?

Easy enough here as handguns are illegal. So the man who pulled the gun would be sent down for possession, if nothing else. Chap behind would probably be given a medal.

But don't challenge me to call upon me by using my name another time because that is the only excuse I will use to do it after all. As long as you don't call upon me and I'm off your back; I don't like rodeo rides that much.

Before I forget: the best wishes for the new year nonetheless.

OK. I just wanted to clarify whether you had anything more on Tyrrell's weight. Group hug.

Edited by ensign14, 31 December 2012 - 21:56.


#144 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 6,249 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 01 January 2013 - 00:00

Absolutely right. As you say injection of water can help any engine produce more power. I experienced this just last night (sort of) in my 300 Tdi diesel Land Rover Defender. The evening was much chillier than the warm sunny day we had here and there was distinct humidity in the air. The Defender pulled like a train on the hills around my house. The difference in power (torque really) from the daytime temperature and humidity levels was remarkable. So not actually injection of water, more a case of aspiration of humidity. And certainly not an increase in power to the point of giving me traction problems! But, in my experience, the principle is sound.

Doug Nye, or another aviation enthusiast TNFer, may be able to confirm that, as I believe, some WW2 plane engines used water injection.

Diesels and LPG engines love cold air. Though any petrol engine likes it too, and a very high compression F1 engine like a Cossy could benefit in both torque and horsepower. People I know have experimented and reputedly found a bit of power on normally aspirated engines. I was always too lazy to try. Though cold air boxes do make quite a difference, that I have played with.
The turbo engines of the day were actually suss, as outlined by others as the rules were written in regard to mechanical superchargers.
Though water injection makes power in turbo engines,, and even more importantly helps kep them from having a meltdown

#145 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,937 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 01 January 2013 - 09:31

The turbo engines of the day were actually suss, as outlined by others as the rules were written in regard to mechanical superchargers.
Though water injection makes power in turbo engines,, and even more importantly helps kep them from having a meltdown



I fear that I know what is meant with that line but in more school book english: what does

were actually suss

means? I have a feeling but I want to be sure.

Turbo engines could actually do without water injection very well. Using an intercooler could save you that worry.
In 1983 Ferrari actually considered adding some water to the fuel to improve atomisation because of the water heating up into steam fuel molecules surrounding the water molecules being separated better, thus enhancing fuel consumption. Ferrari eventually didn't apply this manner of since they were not sure that the water would be regarded as a fuel addtion and thus illegal. Fuel was mixed with water `after`taken out of the fuel tank instead.

Henri

#146 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 2,330 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 01 January 2013 - 09:37

So, being a spineless coward is acceptable under English law? Good for you, ensign14, whoever you are. Else, your waterfall of words doesn't impress me, although it does seem to be swaying Henri a bit. What you are posting here is either simply wrong, or deliberately skewed to support your notions. Tyrrell won in court??? That's certainly news to me!!! You're not suggesting that getting an injunction is equivalent to winning a case, are you? Deliberate obfuscation?

Where it gets really ridiculous is when you try to defend the Tyrrell case, like saying that the cars were not disqualified in the six or so races prior to Detroit, so they couldn't be disqualified now - say what?? Also, how is a tank ballast??? You are not, per chance, mistaking it for its contents? Hilarious! You'd be laughed out of even a kangaroo court.

This is a waste of time. Have a nice life. :wave:

#147 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 6,249 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 01 January 2013 - 09:38

And 30 years later turbo engines are still in a constant state of meltdown, more driveable, more useable power, more reliable. But still not in the same league as a normally aspirated engine.
Oh and still a packaging disaster, pipes, coolers, to find a home for, more electronics and still when screwed up tight use a whole lot more fuel.

#148 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 2,330 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 01 January 2013 - 09:46

The turbo engines of the day were actually suss, as outlined by others as the rules were written in regard to mechanical superchargers.


Nonsense. The rules mentioned simply "supercharging", and turbocharging is exactly that. Try to define "mechanical supercharger", and then tell me that a turbocharger is not one!

#149 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,741 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 01 January 2013 - 10:01

So, being a spineless coward is acceptable under English law? Good for you, ensign14, whoever you are. Else, your waterfall of words doesn't impress me, although it does seem to be swaying Henri a bit. What you are posting here is either simply wrong, or deliberately skewed to support your notions. Tyrrell won in court??? That's certainly news to me!!! You're not suggesting that getting an injunction is equivalent to winning a case, are you? Deliberate obfuscation?

Their argument won. They lost on jurisdictional grounds. By signing up to the Grand Prix season, they signed up to the dispute resolution clauses dealing with it, which meant they were subject to FISA procedures. No matter how bent.

As for being a spineless coward, I have very good reasons for keeping my online life separate from my real one. Three weeks ago the place where I work was evacuated because someone said they were sending a bomb. It's only been two months since our post stopped being re-directed to a separate address.

Where it gets really ridiculous is when you try to defend the Tyrrell case, like saying that the cars were not disqualified in the six or so races prior to Detroit, so they couldn't be disqualified now - say what?? Also, how is a tank ballast??? You are not, per chance, mistaking it for its contents? Hilarious! You'd be laughed out of even a kangaroo court.

Their car had passed scrutineering at all the previous events. There had been not even the scintilla of a hint of running underweight, and the refuelling bit was covered at the first race after a protest. They were excluded from the season for something that had been OK'd previously - and which had been found against them by a process that was demonstrably unfair.

And the tank was not ballast, but its contents. Which, per the regulations, could not be extracted without tools.

#150 Peter Morley

Peter Morley
  • Member

  • 1,927 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 01 January 2013 - 10:06

As a Tyrrell fan/owner I'm well aware of the water ballast issues and the court case so I'm interested in the above 'discussion' but given the nasty tone that it has taken I don't want to get involved but I will say a couple of things.

The disqualification was wrong on several counts - firstly they got all excited by the lab report on the contents of the water tank because they failed to interpret it correctly (or they had asked the lab the wrong question), so they then had to change the accusations against Tyrrell, but what was really wrong was taking them to 'court' and during the 'trial' deciding to 'try' Tyrrell on completely different charges which is un-acceptable in any real court.

As for the running underweight issue, it was reported that the nose cones Brabham fitted for weighing of their cars required two people to carry them, which suggests that other teams ran cars that were underweight.
The same team had previously introduced a device to lower the ride height of their car below the regulated limit and that team was ran by the guy who runs the whole show now.

In that period water injection was a popular activity - some Ford Sierra Cosworth road cars had water injection tanks fitted so that they were homologated for race use and Audi used it on Quattros etc, it had more advantage on turbo cars where it has a similar effect to an intercooler but it would still have had some benefit on what were the most advanced normally aspirated engines available at the time.