Jump to content


Photo

Cheating or bending the rules?


  • Please log in to reply
302 replies to this topic

#151 Simon Hadfield

Simon Hadfield
  • Member

  • 213 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 01 January 2013 - 10:33

The point that has not been made here is that the topping up of fluids to make the weight was part of the laws and fabric of the sport for many years, so the concept of cars finishing the race under weight and then being able to adjust that weight with oil and water was intrinsic, however the idea was a pint of oil or a litre of water - the major change was the concept of "water cooled brakes" or what we call a windsceen washer pump pointed vaguely in the direction of the disc. Every DFV powered car had these at one point or another, Mclaren, Lotus, Williams -even ATS! All of these cars would finish the race under weight and "top up" the fluid to make the weight AFTER the finish. It was even a badge of honour as to which team had the largest reservoir.
I think that all Tyrrell had done was, after the ground effect cars had gone and the weight limit lowered was to find a way of carrying on the same concept, from memory most teams in the pitlane were fairly impressed at the time and rather wished that they could have done something similar - sadly the weight of the turbo cars at the time rather precluded this.

Advertisement

#152 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 01 January 2013 - 12:07

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.




Turbocharged engines using more fuel and not within the same leage as normally aspirated engines ......

F1 1988

Atmo engines requiring some 180 and more liters of fuel to finish a Grand Prix.
McLaren-Honda because of being turbo being restricted to 150 liters at the max and a maximum boost of 2.5 atm.
But in Monaco the McLarens didn't even need the 150 liters and started the race with less fuel than 150 liters.
And still had more hp that the atmo Cosworth and Judd 3.5 liters they were up against.....

Admitted: the fuel that McLaren used had nothing to do with gasoline and/or the fuels that the atmo cars used. But volume-wise the turbos used less fuel and still were capable of delivering more power.


Gp C 1989 and 1990

In a racing formula based on fuel allocation over the entire race distance, Jaguar didn't ditch the Gp C V12 vor a turbocharged V6 in 1990 for nothing. They did so because they were left for dead by a slightly smaller, but turbocharged opponent that humilated them....
Even more humiliating for the atmo engine: with the introduction of GpC in 1982 it was expected that the thrirsty turbocharged engine did not stand a chance against the atmo engines, more correct the Cosworth. Well: count the number of victories of Cosworth powered cars in Gp C in that year 1982 and later years.....




Henri



#153 yulzari

yulzari
  • New Member

  • 23 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 01 January 2013 - 13:05

I have read the Tyrrell issues with some care and I have to say that, on the basis of the posts made, the balance of evidence is that Tyrrell were working on the edge of rule compliance, even peering over that edge on occasion, but never actually went over the limit into cheating.

The wording of the rules was questionable enough for Tyrrell's interpretation to be possible, though playing fast and loose with the (non existant) spirit of the rules. The correct action would have been to clarify the rules more closely for the future. The conclusion is that Tyrrell were naughty but not illegal.

The governing body (I word myself carefully) appear to me to have been playing fast and loose far more with the law and, when found out, swapped to an an arbitration process that seems, to me, to be (I await any clarification) one that makes them, as one party, able to rule on the legality of the other party. On these bases my opinion is that the governing body were, at best, willfully naughty and, at worst, illegal.

The past and contemporary politics of the sport probably had a greater role to play than the legal evidence.

Incidentally, contemporary mechanics at other teams have told me that their cars also had minor holes in the floors of their chassis.

On the Jean-Marie Balestre issues I will only say that I would prefer to trust Max Mosely.



#154 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 2,214 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 01 January 2013 - 13:26

See what this nonsense leads to?

In answer to the last poster, no, Tyrrell didn't "play fast and loose", they were cheating. Yes, the governing body was able to rule on the legality of the other party - that's what governing bodies are there for, for crissake! And Tyrrell was submitting themselves to these same rules in order to participate - pretty simple, actually. Don't base your opinion on the "posts made", base them on facts. Heck, I didn't want to get that involved, but for the sake of clarity here's one actual rule that Tyrrell did not comply with:

F1 Technical Regulations, Art. 4.2: "Ballast may be used provided that it is secured in such a way that tools are necessary to remove it. It must be possible to affix seals to it."

Water can be released from a tank without tools, and if there is a way to affix a seal to water then please show me how to do it!

There is no questionable wording involved, period. It was cheating.

#155 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 01 January 2013 - 15:20

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!


Agreed. When the new F1 rules were created c. 1965 the turbocharger was a known concept. The idea had been tried forty years previously on the Halford Special. When Renault introduced the turbo to F1, almost everyone said this is interesting but it isn't going to work. How wrong they were, how utterly wrong...

#156 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 01 January 2013 - 15:49

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.


We all enjoy ingenuity. De-siamising inlet ports was a great idea by Chapman and it was about liberal interpretation of the rules. Similarly Gordon Murray's low ride height Brabham. What we (or most of us) dislike is out and out deception: a cheat that we are not intended to see. The Tyrrell team's weight adjustment was conducted in full view and other teams knew what was going on. Tyrrell operated on the fine line between interpreting the rules and cheating.

I confess that I am less concerned about stretching technical regulations than on track cheating. When a driver deliberately collides with another car or pushes it off the track, I can identify one culprit.

#157 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 01 January 2013 - 16:56

Agreed. When the new F1 rules were created c. 1965 the turbocharger was a known concept. The idea had been tried forty years previously on the Halford Special. When Renault introduced the turbo to F1, almost everyone said this is interesting but it isn't going to work. How wrong they were, how utterly wrong...



I must agree with this as well. In fact, there was an even more recent example of the turbo being tried on a race car: The Cummins Diesel Engineering Spcl of 1952 at Indianapolis that won the pole that year with Freddi Agabashian driving.

I also must agree with the fact that the `supercharge option`was not written with the turbo in mind. But I think the entire option was written as throwing a lifeline not supposed to be picked up.
At that time the technology to make supercharged engines work well enough required alcohol based fuels and that had becme forbidden since 1958. And on gasoline fuels an engine could not come even close to produce twice as much power then without the supercharger. And then whatever power output was obtained, the output to the flywheel being reduced even further because of the power going to the blower itself.
It was a rule that was included in order to "provide" a temporary option to overcome the shortage of 3 liter engines but the fact that stauch Climax users preferred 2 liter atmo versions of the Climax V8 says enough of how serious the option was and the potential it offered in that time.
In fact, even as late as 1973, when Porsche studied the option to built an turbocharged equivalent of a 3 liter atmo engine they concluded that it was possible but would take a lot of engineering to achieve it. And they had the benefit of being permitted to use 641 cc more then any F1 hopeful in 1966 who wanted to try his luck with a blown engine! In sportscar the blown equivalency was not 2 as in F1 but 1.4 . (3 liter vs 2.14 blown)

As for serious rule: No, the supercharged rule was a no-go in 1966 with the technology of that time. But the turbo was the one piece of equipment, together with the intercooler that made wat effectively was a useless rule a suitable option after all. And even then it took quite some time to show the potential of the turbo.

In general I liked the turbocharged era though it als has aspects and sides that I don't like that much. But the most enjoyable things of the turbocharged era that still make me smile are:
- how Keith Duckworth was blown out of his ivory saddle once the grapes became sour for him and exposed him as a bad looser once things didn't go his way any longer.
- Jean Marie Balestre falling flat on the face in 1988 when not a single GP that year was won by an atmo car while two years before he had proclaimed "Read my lips gentlemen" when he announced the extinction of the turbo and proclaimed the remaining turbocars to be also rans in 1988.


Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 01 January 2013 - 16:58.


#158 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 01 January 2013 - 17:00

On the Jean-Marie Balestre issues I will only say that I would prefer to trust Max Mosely.



You better should speak people who were dealing with the March cars companyy in the 70s to find out how trusty`Mosley was.


Henri


#159 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,363 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 01 January 2013 - 18:08

F1 Technical Regulations, Art. 4.2: "Ballast may be used provided that it is secured in such a way that tools are necessary to remove it. It must be possible to affix seals to it."

Water can be released from a tank without tools, and if there is a way to affix a seal to water then please show me how to do it!

According to the evidence accepted in court, the only way the lead shot (which was the actual ballast) could be removed was by removing the water tank. Which needed tools to do. And the tank could be sealed. No scrutineer had ever asked for it to be sealed. The question you then have is whether the ballast is the lead shot or the tank in which it is placed.

This allegation was only raised at the actual 18th July hearing, when Tyrrell was asked for an explanation, which it provided. And whatever one thinks of Tyrrell's interpretation, nobody else protested, no stewards ever questioned it, and as no such ballast was ever needed for Monaco there could be no logical explanation for a DQ there.

But of course Tyrrell was not disqualified, but excluded. Which meant that there was no opposition to the change in fuel tank capacity...

Advertisement

#160 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,883 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 01 January 2013 - 22:17

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!

Michael, grow up. They are two different things that achieve a similar outcome.
It has been clear that you are not very mechanically minded and this is evidence of that!

#161 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,883 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 01 January 2013 - 22:23

See what this nonsense leads to?

In answer to the last poster, no, Tyrrell didn't "play fast and loose", they were cheating. Yes, the governing body was able to rule on the legality of the other party - that's what governing bodies are there for, for crissake! And Tyrrell was submitting themselves to these same rules in order to participate - pretty simple, actually. Don't base your opinion on the "posts made", base them on facts. Heck, I didn't want to get that involved, but for the sake of clarity here's one actual rule that Tyrrell did not comply with:

F1 Technical Regulations, Art. 4.2: "Ballast may be used provided that it is secured in such a way that tools are necessary to remove it. It must be possible to affix seals to it."

Water can be released from a tank without tools, and if there is a way to affix a seal to water then please show me how to do it!

There is no questionable wording involved, period. It was cheating.

As has been pointed out water is in a tank/reservoir and the LID can be sealed. The same as the oil tank or fuel tank.
again you show your lack of aptitude to common mechanical matters'


#162 MonzaDriver

MonzaDriver
  • Member

  • 336 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 01 January 2013 - 22:33

First of all,
an happy and really racing 2013 to all the forum.

In my opinion the above discussion here, it's just like between two team about the interpretation of a rule.
Ensign 14 like always show us how law or regulations can be complicated if written by the wrong or uncompetent people.
Henry Greuter become really upset because of the rules are anything but clear.
So Imagine people who run the show have to decide from this two teams Ensign14 and Greuter racing preparation...............
The rules could have a double interpretation, they are right on one way and the other too.
So people who run the show could decide in favour of Ensign or Henry,
it all depends on witch side it's more convenient.
This is to me a clear example of what I was trying to say in my post here above.
And everything could be said and done with no words.
Or very few at least.
The very last example of few words was about Vettel and the green flag at San Paulo.
Have you ever noticed, in the history of motorsport, that everytime all around the world we were waitng for the FISA explation or right interpretation,
of a case, technical or about accident, they Always come -up with some totally insignificant lines ???
All the best for all 2013
MonzaDriver




#163 seldo

seldo
  • Member

  • 1,622 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 02 January 2013 - 00:51

As has been pointed out water is in a tank/reservoir and the LID can be sealed. The same as the oil tank or fuel tank.
again you show your lack of aptitude to common mechanical matters'

Ahh Lee - But the rule doesn't state that the container must be able to be sealed, it states that the ballast itself must be able to be have a seal attached. I don't like your chances of doing that with a water and lead shot mix....
As always with "the book" one must read what it actually says, not what may have been intended for it to say. :)

Edited by seldo, 02 January 2013 - 00:51.


#164 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 2,214 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 02 January 2013 - 07:05

Michael, grow up. They are two different things that achieve a similar outcome.
It has been clear that you are not very mechanically minded and this is evidence of that!


Now this is getting really silly! Next you're going to tell me that a gorilla is not an ape, and a horse not a mammal!??

I'm out of this, before my brain gets tied into a knot :stoned:

#165 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 2,214 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 02 January 2013 - 07:13

Ahh Lee - But the rule doesn't state that the container must be able to be sealed, it states that the ballast itself must be able to be have a seal attached. I don't like your chances of doing that with a water and lead shot mix....
As always with "the book" one must read what it actually says, not what may have been intended for it to say. :)


The intention is pretty clear: ballast has to be permanent, as in not easily disposable, and subject to scrutineering. No matter how you twist the evidence, Tyrrell fell foul of that objective; hence they were cheating. Whether the punishment dealt out to them was fair or even only reasonable is a totally different matter, and you won't hear me arguing that. But it doesn't change the basic fact that they were cheating, and that's what this thread is about.

#166 eldougo

eldougo
  • Member

  • 6,259 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 02 January 2013 - 08:17

CHEATING in F1 :rotfl: :rotfl: and here is me thinking what a clean sport ???. Next they be saying riders in Le Tour are all Clean a Lance.

#167 uechtel

uechtel
  • Member

  • 1,517 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 02 January 2013 - 08:59

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.


Hello Monza driver, how shall I say it. I did not say rules like this are unimportant or without effect. But would you regard that rule really as "intelligent"? :rolleyes:

Somehow it seems that rules like this come into effect, just because somebody is a maniac of inventing rules. "Oh I have another funny idea, let´s see what effect it will have", or maybe just to demonstrate, that he is the one who reigns the whole thing. But intelligelligent rules in my opinion would a) be only made for issues which are REALLY necessary, b) keep things as simple as possible c) must have means to enforce them. Otherwise they will inevitably turn ridiculous, which will always fall back on the reputation of the authority.

#168 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,042 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 02 January 2013 - 09:19

Somehow it seems that rules like this come into effect, just because somebody is a maniac of inventing rules.

I have often written here that there are rules which all would accept and endorse (e.g. those that have helped reduce the number of drivers killed) and those that seem to micro-manage the design of the cars which are part of the reason many of us have given up on modern Effone racing.
Like many in this thread, I do not condone cheating but working to the letter of the rules is not cheating. What depresses me is that when a clever engineer invents something different that gives his car an advantage but is nevertheless within the rules, it is promptly outlawed by a new rule.


#169 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 02 January 2013 - 09:22

Michael, grow up. They are two different things that achieve a similar outcome.
It has been clear that you are not very mechanically minded and this is evidence of that!





That's a rude comment you begin with.
I can to some agree with your statement that it are two different manners manners of obtaining the same purpose.
That is: as long as I assume that you rate mechanical blowers different because of their direct connection with the rpm speed of the crankshaft eiter because of the gear drive or belt drive from actual engine to supercharger.

But using the creative manner of thinking that is used to defend to what others (like me) call running underweight: A turbosupercharger also has a direct relation with boost level being dependent on engine speed: the volume of exhaust gasses produced at given rpm's.
OK, it is not direct connection between blower and crankshaft like with a Roots, a centrifugal supercharger and even a Comprex. But still a direct link between engine speed and boost level. The raise of one (cranksharft rpm's) leads to an increase of the other (boost level)


As far as I know, the rules introduced in 1966 did not forbid supercharging by means of a turbosupercharger by mentioning which types of blowere were permitted or not. The turbosupercharging technology and some of its potential and advantages were known so the bright minds of that time could have mentioned it specifically in the rules. But they didn't. because they underestimated the potential of a turbosupercharged engine for F1 duties.

Then, in the years from 1966 till 1975 there was more than enough development within the world of motor racing with regards to turbosupercharging. And in late '75 or at least 1976 Renaul began to experiment with a turbosupercharged F1 engine.
If the rule makers at that time had taken a good look on the latest developments with turbosupercharging in recent times and would have taken up your arguement that they are totally different manners of achieving the same, then they should have refined the rules then at that time: Either restrict turbosupercharging or forbid it in direct words. There was increased knowledge available to act. But the rulemakers didn't act since they, just like everyone else underestimated the potential of turbosupercharging when applied with ever increasing knowledge of engine- and electroics- technology as well as fuel technology.
And after some time the genie was too far out out the bottle to keep it under control and banning supercharging altoghehter the only option left to keep things within control again.
After a year in which the (so to speak) "upper rule maker" had promised that turbosupercharged cars would't win a single race in their final season anymore and instead of that they remained unbeaten, despite being forced to run with a higher maximum weight without fuel on board and restricted to a fixed amount of fuel, that was about 75 to 80 % of what was used by the atmosperic engines of that year.

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 02 January 2013 - 09:38.


#170 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,363 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 02 January 2013 - 10:11

The intention is pretty clear: ballast has to be permanent, as in not easily disposable, and subject to scrutineering.

So why didn't the rule say that? And why didn't any of the scrutineers in the first half of the season pick up on it? Or indeed any of the rival teams? It's not as if they were backward in coming forward; Arrows, as I've said, protested at the first race over illegal refuelling, had they thought the ballast was illegal doubtless they would have protested that.

No matter how you twist the evidence, Tyrrell fell foul of that objective; hence they were cheating. Whether the punishment dealt out to them was fair or even only reasonable is a totally different matter, and you won't hear me arguing that. But it doesn't change the basic fact that they were cheating, and that's what this thread is about.

Had there been a proper hearing into what "ballast" meant, and what amounted to "ballast" in these circumstances, then we might have had a sensible answer. (From FISA/Tyrrell/journalists/whomever.)

But my hypothesis as to what happened is this.

1. FISA and the top teams wanted to avoid the reduction of fuel capacity for 1985. Because they were struggling with 220 litres in 1984 (see e.g. Italian GP).

2. Tyrrell opposed it cos they didn't have a turbo.

3. 1985 would have been really embarrassing to FISA and the top teams. The might of Honda and BMW struggling to finish a race, with Tyrrell winning using the Cossie on a minuscule budget and sprog drivers.

4. They needed rid of Tyrrell for the rule change to be avoided.

5. They thought they had Tyrrell post-Detroit - they sent off the water for sampling and got a phone call or something saying "there's loads of petrol in there".

6. So they charged Tyrrell with the fuel allegations and waited for the proper report.

7. They got the proper, full, scientific report, according to Cadringer, the day before the Tyrrell hearing.

8. They looked at it and realized it did not say what they wanted it to say - the most casual scrutiny showing that the amount of petrol was minute. They had all misunderstood the volumes and what was being analysed.

9. So they threw in the ballast allegations at the very last minute and raised them at the hearing. Because they knew they would lose - or only win on a technicality.

10. As Tyrrell was appealing the sanction, they then added the hole allegation because they realized they were on a sticky wicket on all grounds. Trace additional petrol and ballast of questionable illegality would not be enough to found an expulsion, but three strikes and you're out.

The advantage of the above is it fits all the known facts.

And if that's what happened, then the cheating was not from Tyrrell, but FISA.

Which also fits the thread. :p

Edited by ensign14, 02 January 2013 - 10:12.


#171 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,713 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 02 January 2013 - 11:16

Another topic could be cheating by organisers or national bodies.

#172 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 02 January 2013 - 11:51

So why didn't the rule say that? And why didn't any of the scrutineers in the first half of the season pick up on it? Or indeed any of the rival teams? It's not as if they were backward in coming forward; Arrows, as I've said, protested at the first race over illegal refuelling, had they thought the ballast was illegal doubtless they would have protested that.


Had there been a proper hearing into what "ballast" meant, and what amounted to "ballast" in these circumstances, then we might have had a sensible answer. (From FISA/Tyrrell/journalists/whomever.)

But my hypothesis as to what happened is this.

1. FISA and the top teams wanted to avoid the reduction of fuel capacity for 1985. Because they were struggling with 220 litres in 1984 (see e.g. Italian GP).

2. Tyrrell opposed it cos they didn't have a turbo.

3. 1985 would have been really embarrassing to FISA and the top teams. The might of Honda and BMW struggling to finish a race, with Tyrrell winning using the Cossie on a minuscule budget and sprog drivers.

4. They needed rid of Tyrrell for the rule change to be avoided.

5. They thought they had Tyrrell post-Detroit - they sent off the water for sampling and got a phone call or something saying "there's loads of petrol in there".

6. So they charged Tyrrell with the fuel allegations and waited for the proper report.

7. They got the proper, full, scientific report, according to Cadringer, the day before the Tyrrell hearing.

8. They looked at it and realized it did not say what they wanted it to say - the most casual scrutiny showing that the amount of petrol was minute. They had all misunderstood the volumes and what was being analysed.

9. So they threw in the ballast allegations at the very last minute and raised them at the hearing. Because they knew they would lose - or only win on a technicality.

10. As Tyrrell was appealing the sanction, they then added the hole allegation because they realized they were on a sticky wicket on all grounds. Trace additional petrol and ballast of questionable illegality would not be enough to found an expulsion, but three strikes and you're out.

The advantage of the above is it fits all the known facts.

And if that's what happened, then the cheating was not from Tyrrell, but FISA.

Which also fits the thread. :p





Ensign14,

to prove to you that I am not sytematically 100% against you and/or your opinions and can be reasonable in a discussion.

Your theory as of what what was going on as for why Tyrrell needed to be either persuaded to make a decision unanimous or eliminate him from the voting:
This could indeed be a reasonable plot. And if carried out because of that, then I must admit that it isn't a clean deal.
I hope it satisfies you to see that I dare to admit that you can be right in that, and likely are right.

Having said that, I still remain convinced that Tyrrell was cheating with the weight of his cars during the race and broke the rules and that there was more than enough reasons to punish him for doing all kind of things that could serve only one aim: masking/hiding that someting illegal was carried out and could be proven.
Pretty much the same as that cylist Pedro Delgado did in 1988 when he won the Tour. No dope to be found in his blood and urine but all kinds of contaminations within his blood and urine in such large quantities that any drug substances were no longer detectable within that mess anymore. And these contents known to have not a single good purpose within the human body at all and thus no need for them to be used save one reason: to cover up something illegal. What Tyrrell did in 1984 is nearly similar.

As far as I'm concerned, Tyrrell deserved a big punishment for doing something dirty. Maybe the manner in which it was carried out and the main reasons behind it were equally dirty but then so be it. Lie down with dogs, you'll get up with fleas.
Had he remained legal, thus not ballasting cars shortly before the finish then no-one could have made him anything: by doing something suspicious he made himself vulnerable.
For me; though in a complicated manner Tyrrell still got what he deserved. But in the big picture, it would of course have been better if it had gone the manner it should have been gone.

best regards,

henri

#173 MonzaDriver

MonzaDriver
  • Member

  • 336 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 02 January 2013 - 14:25

Hello Monza driver, how shall I say it. I did not say rules like this are unimportant or without effect. But would you regard that rule really as "intelligent"? :rolleyes:

Somehow it seems that rules like this come into effect, just because somebody is a maniac of inventing rules. "Oh I have another funny idea, let´s see what effect it will have", or maybe just to demonstrate, that he is the one who reigns the whole thing. But intelligelligent rules in my opinion would a) be only made for issues which are REALLY necessary, b) keep things as simple as possible c) must have means to enforce them. Otherwise they will inevitably turn ridiculous, which will always fall back on the reputation of the authority.


They could not be defined intelligent, they could be defined smart because they have a double interpretation,
so the One who reign could blame whose ever he want.
In the manner he prefer and politically or monetary convenient at the moment.
I mean Against the Sport but pro the Wallet.
The One was intelligent / smart, the others......... not so much.

Ciao, MonzaDriver.


#174 MonzaDriver

MonzaDriver
  • Member

  • 336 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 02 January 2013 - 14:37

I have often written here that there are rules which all would accept and endorse (e.g. those that have helped reduce the number of drivers killed) and those that seem to micro-manage the design of the cars which are part of the reason many of us have given up on modern Effone racing.
Like many in this thread, I do not condone cheating but working to the letter of the rules is not cheating. What depresses me is that when a clever engineer invents something different that gives his car an advantage but is nevertheless within the rules, it is promptly outlawed by a new rule.


That's another key point Allan.
working the letter of the rules, mean to dont respect the spirit of the rules, it means to search the manner to legalize the cheating.
The worst thing you can do in sport, and in my opinion people who do that doesn't deserve any respect.
This lead motorsport into the sad state it is now.
This stole us our passion and amusement.
Engeneers think they are clever in doing this, but they are not.
They were just another pawn of the One who reign.

Ciao, MonzaDriver.


#175 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,042 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 02 January 2013 - 14:58

working the letter of the rules, mean to dont respect the spirit of the rules, it means to search the manner to legalize the cheating.

I think there is a linguistic difficulty here.

Rules are what is written (and written in the official language).
Spirit of the rules is an ephemeral concept and can have no legal significance.

e.g. on our roads we have a speed limit in towns of 30 m.p.h. but the "spirit of the rule" is that one drives safely. Should you be recorded as travelling at 31 m.p.h. at midnight when there is no other person or vehicle about, the written rule has been broken but you were probably driving safely.

#176 MonzaDriver

MonzaDriver
  • Member

  • 336 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 02 January 2013 - 15:22

I think there is a linguistic difficulty here.

Rules are what is written (and written in the official language).
Spirit of the rules is an ephemeral concept and can have no legal significance.

e.g. on our roads we have a speed limit in towns of 30 m.p.h. but the "spirit of the rule" is that one drives safely. Should you be recorded as travelling at 31 m.p.h. at midnight when there is no other person or vehicle about, the written rule has been broken but you were probably driving safely.


Well your example it seems perfect but it's not the same topic.
Following your line of reasoning, me for example I've always driven " safely" not reading the road sign about speed.
And, you have to believe me. I've never caused any accident, until now.
So a lot of times I did note respected the rules, but no shunt at all.

Rules in motorsport are first to give an equal chance ( as close as possible) to each driver and team, and racing safety.
Or at least to avoid huge differences.

And Allan the concept of legal significance doesn't apply if you are speaking about sport.
At least in my opinion
Ciao, MonzaDriver




#177 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,363 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 02 January 2013 - 15:50

I think there is a linguistic difficulty here.

Rules are what is written (and written in the official language).
Spirit of the rules is an ephemeral concept and can have no legal significance.

There is also a legal difficulty. English law for example goes on the strict wording of statute. French law is more purposive in its outlook. Also English law relies on precedent; if a decision is reached once on facts, it will always be the decision on those facts. French law is nothing like as precedential.

#178 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,042 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 02 January 2013 - 16:57

Rules in motorsport are first to give an equal chance ( as close as possible) to each driver and team, and racing safety.
Or at least to avoid huge differences.

That is an interesting opinion, and if that be the case, no wonder I and folk like me can't be doing with today's micromanaging rules.

The most boring races have always been the one-make and similar equal-car events and Effone is in that state now

When I started watching Grand Prix racing there was little but maximum engine displacement, supercharged and unsupercharged, that defined the cars. There were a few rules about the races that would qualify for the World Drivers' Championship (and Constructors' when that was introduced) the main one being a minimum distance. Different manufacturers could and did choose unsupercharged engines and good fuel consumption or supercharged with performance sufficiently better to permit the necessary extra refuelling. Racing was quite interesting then.

Edited by Allan Lupton, 02 January 2013 - 17:07.


#179 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,883 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 02 January 2013 - 22:20

Another topic could be cheating by organisers or national bodies.

That always has been a real problem, or one competitor is favored over another. And that is world wide at all levels and categorys.


Advertisement

#180 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,363 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 02 January 2013 - 22:45

There are certainly numerous cases of race promoters welching with the gate money before settling up with the competitors for their appearance, start and prize money. Neither is this confined to American local fair type speedway races. By repute, quite a number of European road races ended with organisers' offices shut and barred, cheated racers plotting retribution on the pavement outside...

DCN

#181 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,199 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 02 January 2013 - 23:02

By repute, quite a number of European road races ended with organisers' offices shut and barred, cheated racers plotting retribution on the pavement outside...

DCN


I recall that a writer, I think Nigel Roebuck reported that there was so much ill-feeling towards the organisers at a race at (I think) Magny Cours, presumably about underpayment or overcharging, that some motorhome owners deposited what Nigel delicately referred to as "used food" outside their closed offices.


#182 uechtel

uechtel
  • Member

  • 1,517 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 03 January 2013 - 08:10

That's another key point Allan.
working the letter of the rules, mean to dont respect the spirit of the rules, it means to search the manner to legalize the cheating.
The worst thing you can do in sport, and in my opinion people who do that doesn't deserve any respect.
This lead motorsport into the sad state it is now.
This stole us our passion and amusement.
Engeneers think they are clever in doing this, but they are not.
They were just another pawn of the One who reign.

Ciao, MonzaDriver.


No, to me it is expression, that in such cases the ruling has reached a degree of degeneration ("overruling", "unnecessary complexity") that it is perverting itself. If everybody would follow the "spirit" anyhow then there would not be the need for any ruling at all.

#183 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,713 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 03 January 2013 - 09:39

There are certainly numerous cases of race promoters welching with the gate money before settling up with the competitors for their appearance, start and prize money. Neither is this confined to American local fair type speedway races. By repute, quite a number of European road races ended with organisers' offices shut and barred, cheated racers plotting retribution on the pavement outside...

DCN

That reminds me, Winton still owes me $50. :drunk:

One that annoyed me was when our national body (not mentioning any names) stuck a $500 "Super Licence" fee on all drivers wanting to race at a Bathurst 12 hour in the 1990s. They came up with this idea two weeks before the meeting.
Lets see, 50 cars, three drivers per car = $75,000 for nothing. Damn cheats.


#184 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,363 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 03 January 2013 - 12:18

Aah yes - the Confederation Against Motor Sports so much loved by Sir Jack...?

DCN

#185 slucas

slucas
  • Member

  • 74 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 03 January 2013 - 13:12

Rules are very difficult to write and cover all bases. They often end up like the Maginot Line. NASCAR has the best solution, their rule book is written in pencil but they have the advantage of being a privatly run business not some psuedo-government body like the FIA.

#186 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,993 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 03 January 2013 - 13:28

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Aah yes - the Confederation Against Motor Sports so much loved by Sir Jack...?


You got it, Doug...

As so aptly described by the late and much lamented Kevin Carrad, "A bunch of eccentrics running around in circles knocking b*ggery out of their followers."

#187 MonzaDriver

MonzaDriver
  • Member

  • 336 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 03 January 2013 - 15:00

There are certainly numerous cases of race promoters welching with the gate money before settling up with the competitors for their appearance, start and prize money. Neither is this confined to American local fair type speedway races. By repute, quite a number of European road races ended with organisers' offices shut and barred, cheated racers plotting retribution on the pavement outside...

DCN


Thank you Doug for this insight knowledge.
If you think about it's just another form of cheating.
MonzaDriver.


#188 MonzaDriver

MonzaDriver
  • Member

  • 336 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 03 January 2013 - 15:11

No, to me it is expression, that in such cases the ruling has reached a degree of degeneration ("overruling", "unnecessary complexity") that it is perverting itself. If everybody would follow the "spirit" anyhow then there would not be the need for any ruling at all.


To me things are in another way.
What do you called perverted, is caused by a unclear rule followed by another unclear rule, followed a stupid one,
and so on and on, just like it was on all this decades. Until now that things are rotten.
The spirit the soul, it's the reason, the meaning, why we are passionate about this sport.
Maybe just respecting this feeling, would be okay. Plus the rules for the " outsmart " ones.
MonzaDriver







#189 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,883 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 03 January 2013 - 21:20

You got it, Doug...

As so aptly described by the late and much lamented Kevin Carrad, "A bunch of eccentrics running around in circles knocking b*ggery out of their followers."

And still at it today, blinkered decisions, over zealous petty officials, a rule book than contradicts itself etc etc. Same as when I started in the 70s, but at a far greater cost.
Which in turn causesa lot of the so called cheating, sometimes also the impracticality of the rules do that.
Seemingly like F1!!

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 03 January 2013 - 21:22.


#190 yulzari

yulzari
  • New Member

  • 23 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 05 January 2013 - 16:39

You better should speak people who were dealing with the March cars companyy in the 70s to find out how trusty`Mosley was.


Henri

If you think carefully about what I said you may find that I was making a point by an ironic comparative, not an absolute statement. Though you have to admire Mosley as the (IIRC) last person to race a front engined Formula 2 car.

#191 yulzari

yulzari
  • New Member

  • 23 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 05 January 2013 - 16:54

See what this nonsense leads to?

In answer to the last poster, no, Tyrrell didn't "play fast and loose", they were cheating. Yes, the governing body was able to rule on the legality of the other party - that's what governing bodies are there for, for crissake! And Tyrrell was submitting themselves to these same rules in order to participate - pretty simple, actually. Don't base your opinion on the "posts made", base them on facts. Heck, I didn't want to get that involved, but for the sake of clarity here's one actual rule that Tyrrell did not comply with:

F1 Technical Regulations, Art. 4.2: "Ballast may be used provided that it is secured in such a way that tools are necessary to remove it. It must be possible to affix seals to it."

Water can be released from a tank without tools, and if there is a way to affix a seal to water then please show me how to do it!

There is no questionable wording involved, period. It was cheating.

I carefully worded my post as being an opinion and gave the bases I used to form that opinion. You clearly have a different opinion. You are entitled to hold it just as I am mine. Gentlemen will agree to differ if they cannot convince the other. Your remarks do point to the central legal issue which is interpretation of the rules, especially ones written in 2 languages and for 2 different legal cultures. My interpretations allow me to be convinced that Tyrrell were strictly legal. Yours convinces you that they were not. There is no evidence of which interpretation is definitively correct so we will have to agree to differ.

#192 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 January 2013 - 21:32

If you think carefully about what I said you may find that I was making a point by an ironic comparative, not an absolute statement. Though you have to admire Mosley as the (IIRC) last person to race a front engined Formula 2 car.


Sorry but I'm foreign (English not my first language) so sometimes I might miss the gest of a message. My apologies if I offended you, was not intentional.

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 05 January 2013 - 21:34.


#193 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,439 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 05 January 2013 - 21:57

Though you have to admire Mosley as the (IIRC) last person to race a front engined Formula 2 car.

I believe this distinction is held by Major Arthur Mallock himself, in the Grote Prijs van Zandvoort on 30th July 1967, the race in which poor Ian Raby died. Mosley had raced his U2 in the earlier Crystal Palace event.

#194 sterling49

sterling49
  • Member

  • 10,817 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 05 January 2013 - 22:27

I agree Tim, pictured in MN at the time too........Mosley was in a BT23 IIRC, but did also race Clubmans Formula in a U2 I believe.

Edited by sterling49, 05 January 2013 - 22:29.


#195 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 January 2013 - 22:46



Just finished reading a piece in the book Grand Prix Story 84 by Austrian writer Heinz Pruller, in the German speaking coutries quite an authority and within the f1 world also well known.

I had the Dutch translation of the book, for fellow Dutchmen who might have the book and want to check if I translate something existing or that I am `babbling out of my neck` Look on page 140 and page 141 of the book "Grand Prix Story 1984" it is a translation taken from the chapter entitled "Detroit: Tyrrells vuile handen" (Detroit: Tyrrells dirty hands")
Maybe owners of the original German version of the book can use this lead to verify from which part I take and translate.

Teh part starts with an explanation that it appears as if FISA officials play the game of the three little monkeys, (hear no eveil, see no evil, talk no evel). The familiar stops short before the finish when 40 to 60 liters of water is added to the cars to reach the minimum weight. Maurice Philippe explans that it takes 13 liters of water to gain 20 hp. But just about everyone knows that the real trick with the water injection is to shift the focus away from the fact that the cars are too light. 480 kgs instead of 540 kgs.
Fyrrell is under suspision for some time already because the team doesn't use drinkabel water. FiSA official Gabrielle Cadringher obtains 5 to 6 liter of a mysterious, black fluid as well as 60 kilos of lead bullets.
The lead bullets are clear, that's to raise the weight of the car and Tyrrell tells that it was in the car from the start, FISA however assumes that "it was added to the car during the pitstop, together with the fuel" (Sic, fuel must be an error Henri) But no-one can approve that.

The following port appears on page 141 and I translate this as literally as I can because this was the comment that really shocked me and is the main reason why I make this post.
Pruller wrote:

If I may tell a story that had been kept secret for a long time: already in 1983 the Tyrrell (maybe also the Williams) ran at a weight of only 490 kilo, thus 50 kg below the limit! During the pit stop besides the fuel, the car was also filled with a heavy liquid. If it were the famous lead bullets, nobody but Ken Tyrrell knows. But: that "heavy liquid" was no gasoline. 50 kilo equals 80 liters. For sure that Tyrrell didn't refill that much addional fuel on Alboreto's and Sullivan's cars, on top of the fuel they consumed during the race.


It then continues with telling that FISA `slept` during 1984, yet is more alert in 1984. FISA thinks about methanol or other, forbidden additives being pumped from the water tank to the air trumpets and achieve all kind of illegal doings, like increasing the octan number. Because on one occasion the Tyrrells make the error of being faster on the straight than the Ferraris.
Bellof has proclaimed that the Tyrrell was not illegal and that he was happy to drive in a team that fully exploited the rules.
In the car that crashed at Monaco (Brundle's practice crash Henri) the bottom plate shows two holes, intended to drain illegal fluids from the car?

Pruller also decribes his talk with Jean Marie Balestre about retaining the 220 liter fuel capacity despite any protests of Tyrrell and tells Pruller that Tyrrell soon won't be a problem anymore.
Thus confirming that Ensign14's theory posted earlier on in this thread that FISA was on Tyrrell's tail because of retaining the 220 liter fuel allocation.





Just wanted to share this, the 1983 part was new to me and frankly, it shocked me, with hindsight one could have expected this but sitll, it shocks me.
I know, it only one journalist who wrote it, but given his reputation, I don't dare to call it bloody nonsense and false accusation. If a man like Pruller writes this, then it isn't pure fantasy anymore.

Henri


#196 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,439 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 05 January 2013 - 23:12

I agree Tim, pictured in MN at the time too........Mosley was in a BT23 IIRC, but did also race Clubmans Formula in a U2 I believe.

He definitely raced his U2 in the Crystal Palace F2 event, Sterling, I think it was the only F2 race he entered in 1967. He did a full season in the BT23 in 1968.

#197 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,059 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 05 January 2013 - 23:17

In respect of the Tyrrell business we need to make a distinction between what they were officially accused of having done and what has been alleged by various writers and other people.
In terms of the official charges, let's just say it was very convenient for a lot of parties if Tyrrell's vote on the fuel capacity question could be nullified.

#198 sterling49

sterling49
  • Member

  • 10,817 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 05 January 2013 - 23:22

He definitely raced his U2 in the Crystal Palace F2 event, Sterling, I think it was the only F2 race he entered in 1967. He did a full season in the BT23 in 1968.

Of course you are right Tim, I was almost sure he was at the August Guards Trophy meeting, won by Mr F2 as usual.



#199 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,363 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 05 January 2013 - 23:56

Because on one occasion the Tyrrells make the error of being faster on the straight than the Ferraris.

FIArrari. :p

There are two dogs that refuse to bark though. One is FISA never charged Tyrrell with running underweight; at the infamous Detroit 1984 they could have weighed Bellof's car which retired at half distance, before a ballast stop.

The second is the same race a year later. If we take it as read that Tyrrell ran underweight throughout the first half of 1984, and that they dare not make the same mistake again, how come, with an extra 50 kilos on the car, Tyrrell was just as competitive as in 1984 with a car that was now two years older than its opposition? I would tentatively suggest that Prueller was being fed a line by FISA - perhaps backed up from his inside knowledge about Balestre's plotting...

It goes back to the basic point - whatever the actual rights and wrongs, about which we can debate until Doomsday, FISA stitched Tyrrell up using an unfair and biased procedure, and the other teams happily permitted it to happen.

Advertisement

#200 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,802 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 06 January 2013 - 09:47

FIArrari. :p

There are two dogs that refuse to bark though. One is FISA never charged Tyrrell with running underweight; at the infamous Detroit 1984 they could have weighed Bellof's car which retired at half distance, before a ballast stop.

The second is the same race a year later. If we take it as read that Tyrrell ran underweight throughout the first half of 1984, and that they dare not make the same mistake again, how come, with an extra 50 kilos on the car, Tyrrell was just as competitive as in 1984 with a car that was now two years older than its opposition? I would tentatively suggest that Prueller was being fed a line by FISA - perhaps backed up from his inside knowledge about Balestre's plotting...

It goes back to the basic point - whatever the actual rights and wrongs, about which we can debate until Doomsday, FISA stitched Tyrrell up using an unfair and biased procedure, and the other teams happily permitted it to happen.



First: Was FIA so much on Ferrari's side at that time as in later years?
By the way, I only copied what Pruller wrote but he did not list on which track it happened. If it was on a track with a fairly small straight, good chance that the Ferraris ran with so much downforce and drag from those big rearwing they used (unlike Tyrrell) that it might have hurt their top speed.
I made my post last night feeling disgusted about reading what may have happened in 1983 already (you conveniently ignore that.....) but should I make the post now, some hours later I would have left out that line since it is not supported well enough with evidence how suspect it could be that a Tyrrell was faster on the straight then a Ferrari.

Second: Weighting Bellofs car was indeed possible in theory. But I wonder if the then current rules permitted FISA to confiscate a retired car and have it weighted? Doing something like that may have been justified because of suspicions but I think that it was against their own rules.
I have never heard of such ever been done before or since and that is most certainly a pity. Because if the teams knew they had such a "sword of Damocles" above their heads then the cheating with weight would have been way less.
To me this is one of the matters the weight cheating brigade abused: making sure that the cars were legal at the time that their weights could be checked, but when this was impossible (the actual race) cheat with the weight. It depends on your morals how you think about that.

As for your defence for 1984, backing that up with data from 1985: Surprising (or more correct, not surprising) to see that you don't mention the fact that the speeds of the turbocharged opposition wasn't that much faster compared with 1984 as well !!
Which is not that surprising at all given the nature of the Detroit track. Street-track, many corners, stop&go nature is not the kind of track where the turbocharged cars could show off the progress they had made over the past year in the best possible manner. Drivabitity on a street track may have improved with a year ago but any gains in lap times were not so large as on outight speed track.
Same for any progress in chassis developments that improves drivability on street tracks.
If an atmo car had a chance to do well at all that year, Detroit was one of few locations and Bellof surely did an impressive job.

You may be right with your accusation about Pruller being fed by FISA. I don't know Pruller and thus don't know how sensible he might have been. But way before 1984 he had a reputation to loose already. In his books he was biased to Austrian drivers and German speaking drivers too (not that strange given his origins) but other then that he always made an objective impression. So I don't think that to be very likely. He has always ben well informed and trusted by a number of drivers of the 70's and 80's.

As for your last comment I have said that before and I repeat it here another time: I do acknowledge that Tyrrell was taken on for something entirely different and to get something done, they used another method. I share your feeling in that.
But it sickens me to know that, had Tyrrell agreed with retaining the 220 liter fuel allocation his cheating with weigth most likely had remained unpunished. It was because of other reasons but eventually he got what he deserved.
Not in the neatest of manners but justice served after all.

Henri