67 replies to this topic

[skid solo]

Just out of interest, how many instances can we remember where a team deliberately fell foul of the regulations to gain a sporting advantage?

I will start

April 2014. Red Bull took issue with the accuracy of the FIA’s fuel flow sensors and proposed its own model for estimating the fuel flow at the season opener. Surprisingly the court of appeal found Red Bull’s own interpretation of its data concurred with the view that Ricciardo’s car had breached the rules. “The appellant’s own estimation of its car number three’s [fuel flow rate] in Melbourne also showed that that car exceeded the [fuel flow limit] during the Australian Grand Prix,” noted the verdict.I t further pointed out Red Bull was not at liberty to choose a system of measurement it preferred.

Nov 2012. Ferrari deliberately broke the gearbox seal on Massa's car at Austin, to put him five places back, and Alonso onto the clean side. The Brazilian was set to line up sixth on the grid, two places ahead of his team-mate Fernando Alonso. Their positions meant they would be starting on the dirty side of the grid - which looked like being a huge disadvantage because of the slippery nature of the track off line. Massa was put down to 11th, while Alonso moved up to seventh spot - crucially on the clean side of the track.

Crashgate. September 2008, on the fourteenth lap of the Singapore race, the Renault R28 driven by Piquet crashed into the circuit wall at turn seventeen, necessitating a safety car deployment. This allowed the other Renault driver, Fernando Alonso, to make an early pitstop and subsequently gain the advantage to win the race after starting 15th on the grid. Piquet described his crash at the time as a simple mistake.

2005. Bar 007. After a routine check of the car's weight, the team was disqualified in Imola and banned for a further 2 Grand Prix', including the GP of Monaco. The Honda engineers had designed the fuel tank so the car would pass scrutineering easily before the race but could run underweight during it. As such, the FIA deemed that the car was illegal as it was designed to use fuel as ballast.

[ensign14]

Er, Australia 1994?

[Ali_G]

Er, Australia 1994?

What reg was deliberately tampered with. Schumacher simply rammed Hill off the track and the stewards or the FIA didn't penalise him.

[skid solo]

Er, Australia 1994?

Some suggest Benetton ran traction control most of the 1994 season

[Victor_RO]

Spa 24h last night under red flag, #3 WRT Audi pitted when the red flag was called to change brake pads (something that all GT3 cars need to do during a race) and perform various repairs that would have lasted about 10-15 minutes under green flag. Penalty for pitting under red is a drive-through... which would lose them about a minute (because the Spa 24h pitlane has the pit entry at the Bus Stop and the exit after Raidillon).

 

10 minutes is 4 laps of Spa in a GT3 car.

[F1matt]

ensign14, on 27 Jul 2014 - 10:20, said:
Er, Australia 1994?

Some suggest Benetton ran traction control most of the 1994 season








And launch control.

Option 13 or something?

[Collombin]

Most of Rindt's wins in 1970 were in an illegal car. At Brands the mechanics deliberately leant on the rear wing on the victory parade lap to bring it down to regulation height!

[boldhakka]

Not many know this now, but before 2001 the FIA published the regs on Wikipedia and anyone could tamper with it as and when they wanted. 

[skid solo]

At the British Grand Prix Schumacher was leading on the last lap when he turned into the pit lane, crossed the start finish line and stopped for a ten-second stop go penalty. There was some doubt whether this counted as serving the penalty, but, because he had crossed the finish line when he came into the pit lane, the win was valid.

[Petroltorque]

If we're talking of 1994 it was the whole season. The electronics on the Benneton was examined by the FIA  and was found to have not only launch control but Traction Control embedded within the ECU. They could not prove that the team was using it but why have the technology on the car in the first place.

 IIRC there was some backroom deal between the FIA and Benetton that the affair would be hushed up provided certain engineers were made to leave the team.

[ensign14]

Most of Rindt's wins in 1970 were in an illegal car. At Brands the mechanics deliberately leant on the rear wing on the victory parade lap to bring it down to regulation height!

 

I've never been convinced by this.  If the wing was not bent from 90 minutes' worth of the entire atmosphere pushing down on it at high speed, could even the beefiest mechanics have created a kink?

 

As for the regulation that Schumacher tampered with in 1994...the F1 equivalent of 'ungentlemanly conduct' - actions detrimental to the sport.

[ensign14]

If we're talking of 1994 it was the whole season. The electronics on the Benneton was examined by the FIA  and was found to have not only launch control but Traction Control embedded within the ECU. They could not prove that the team was using it but why have the technology on the car in the first place.

 IIRC there was some backroom deal between the FIA and Benetton that the affair would be hushed up provided certain engineers were made to leave the team.

 

And a certain manager who washed up at Benetton-lite, er, Ligier.

 

Handily avoided a lawsuit from the estate of Senna at least.

[Collombin]

I've never been convinced by this. If the wing was not bent from 90 minutes' worth of the entire atmosphere pushing down on it at high speed, could even the beefiest mechanics have created a kink?

It would seem so. And that wasn't the only illegal thing about the car anyway - wasn't the original complaint about the width of the car rather than its height?

Not that it mattered much, as once the car had been made legal it was actually faster than it had been when illegal!

[ensign14]

The width thing also applied to the McLaren M23 but that was down to Goodyear rather than McLaren.

[Collombin]

With the Lotus it was an issue with the radiators being too wide I think. Side mounted radiators were a new concept and they had trouble with cooling, so they widened them. Too far.

[Ross Stonefeld]

And a certain manager who washed up at Benetton-lite, er, Ligier.

 

Handily avoided a lawsuit from the estate of Senna at least.

 

If there were grounds for a lawsuit from the Senna estate, how would someone not at Williams moving from Team A to Team B make any difference?

[KWSN - DSM]

Every single team tamper with the regulations, that is part of the F1 DNA. Those who are caught and punished have transgressed, those who are investigated and not punished have not. I am aware that a lot of posters have an issue with Australia 1994, and 1994 in general none of which are transgressions or tampering with regulations. I presume this thread to be about the technical parts to F1 and not about a driver punished for not obeying a black flag.

 

[GrumpyYoungMan]

I've never been convinced by this.  If the wing was not bent from 90 minutes' worth of the entire atmosphere pushing down on it at high speed, could even the beefiest mechanics have created a kink?

Yes if applied in the correct place...

[ensign14]

If there were grounds for a lawsuit from the Senna estate, how would someone not at Williams moving from Team A to Team B make any difference?

 

Because the Senna estate could not prove Senna died trying to beat an illegal car.

[Ross Stonefeld]

And I thought the Italians were the wackiest legal aspect.

[ensign14]

It's not that wacky.  Malicious falsehood/obtaining an advantage by fraud.  Although if a Brazilian estate sued an English team with a German driver and a Franco/Monegasque governing body for an accident in Italy, there would be some fun jurisdictional issues.

 

Sometimes teams use regs for an advantage, e.g. in Crashgate, Williams gambled on a Rosberg penalty being less serious than the on-track advantage following an unlawful pitstop.

[alfa1]

April 2014. Red Bull took issue with the accuracy of the FIA’s fuel flow sensors

2005. Bar 007. After a routine check of the car's weight

 

In both of those two examples, the teams had specifically stated that their point of view was they had indeed complied with the regulations.  That their interpretation was that they were perfectly legal.

Their arguments may have turned out to not stand up to scrutiny in the appeals process, but its not the same as Ferrari cutting the gearbox seal. 

 

Missing from the list is the uncountable number of cases where team orders interfered with race results, during those years when such team orders were illegal.

[surbjits]

Most of Rindt's wins in 1970 were in an illegal car. At Brands the mechanics deliberately leant on the rear wing on the victory parade lap to bring it down to regulation height!

[Gyno]

Mclaren 1998 extra brake pedal.

Ferrari 2007 Kimi won first race with an illegal car flexy floor.

Mclaren 2000 used a secret LC.

They all of a sudden took amazing starts at every race until the FIA had to make LC legal.

Moving up 5+ places in some race starts before coming into T1.

[S3baman]

Spa 24h last night under red flag, #3 WRT Audi pitted when the red flag was called to change brake pads (something that all GT3 cars need to do during a race) and perform various repairs that would have lasted about 10-15 minutes under green flag. Penalty for pitting under red is a drive-through... which would lose them about a minute (because the Spa 24h pitlane has the pit entry at the Bus Stop and the exit after Raidillon).

 

10 minutes is 4 laps of Spa in a GT3 car.

 

I think that Audi didn't break any rules. You are allowed to work on the car under a Red Flag, however since the Spa 24H uses two SC, not every team had that advantage. I would classify it more as unsporting rather than tampering with the rules.

[Mila]

In 1999, two teams ran cars equiped with traction control . . . allegedly.

[skid solo]

In both of those two examples, the teams had specifically stated that their point of view was they had indeed complied with the regulations.  That their interpretation was that they were perfectly legal.
Their arguments may have turned out to not stand up to scrutiny in the appeals process, but its not the same as Ferrari cutting the gearbox seal. 
 
Missing from the list is the uncountable number of cases where team orders interfered with race results, during those years when such team orders were illegal.

There is quite a lot missing I imagine and I would like to know what they were. I just listed a few to get things rolling.

[Collombin]

Obviously a lot of teams were falling foul of ground clearance rules in 1981 and minimum weight limits in 1982.

[ThomFi]

If we're talking of 1994 it was the whole season. The electronics on the Benneton was examined by the FIA  and was found to have not only launch control but Traction Control embedded within the ECU. They could not prove that the team was using it but why have the technology on the car in the first place.

 IIRC there was some backroom deal between the FIA and Benetton that the affair would be hushed up provided certain engineers were made to leave the team.

 

Well, you are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe. But a whole season would be something, if we take into account that investigations were carried out on the electrical systems after the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix, the third race of the season, where Senna died.

 

And the whole affaire ended in July 1994, that’s midseason, when a fine of 100,000 US$ was imposed on Benetton for failing to make their computer source codes available immediately and an identical fine was imposed on McLaren for the same reason.

[George Costanza]

Benetton 1994 again?

would people be talking about it if Schumacher didn't win it? I think not....

 

If it was so good, why didn't JJ Letho, Jos Verstappen compete with Michael?

Edited by George Costanza, 27 July 2014 - 23:01.

[Otaku]

Tyrrell 84.

[tifosi]

90-95% of the responses here have nothing at all to do with the OP.

[warp]

If you are not cheating, you are not trying hard enough in F1

[Schumacher7]

Because the Senna estate could not prove Senna died trying to beat an illegal car.

Lets say its true that the car was illegal.

They're still no where near liable. Facepalm If I was allowed to call you a moron I would.

If I'm playing football and the other team is fielding 13 players instead of 11 but no one notices, so I have to work a lot harder to keep up and because of this lose my footing, go headfirst into the goalpost and die, the other team aren't liable, it's still an accident...

[George Costanza]

Mclaren 1998 extra brake pedal.

Ferrari 2007 Kimi won first race with an illegal car flexy floor.

Mclaren 2000 used a secret LC.

They all of a sudden took amazing starts at every race until the FIA had to make LC legal.

Moving up 5+ places in some race starts before coming into T1.

Really? Share more about this....

[George Costanza]

In 1999, two teams ran cars equiped with traction control . . . allegedly.

 

Jordan and.....What was the other?

[TurboF1]

Red Bull, Rb6 and 7 flexible wings. 

[HP]

Jordan and.....What was the other?

Stewart, if I remember correctly

[HP]

Really? Share more about this....

Dunno how to take your response. If its a genuine enquiry, then here it goes:

 

At the start, the McLarens rear wheel revolved exactly 360° with wheel spin, and then it would stop slipping and they went off with what it seemed full traction. Without some sort of LC that seemed to be impossible to do. Nothing ever had been proven though, but it raised a lot of suspicions.

[HP]

Mclaren 1998 extra brake pedal.

Ferrari 2007 Kimi won first race with an illegal car flexy floor.

Mclaren 2000 used a secret LC.

They all of a sudden took amazing starts at every race until the FIA had to make LC legal.

Moving up 5+ places in some race starts before coming into T1.

The extra brake pedal wasn't illegal, as the regulations never covered that, nor were regulations tampered with in that case. It was innovative thinking, but was outlawed quickly by the FIA.

[George Costanza]

Dunno how to take your response. If its a genuine enquiry, then here it goes:

 

At the start, the McLarens rear wheel revolved exactly 360° with wheel spin, and then it would stop slipping and they went off with what it seemed full traction. Without some sort of LC that seemed to be impossible to do. Nothing ever had been proven though, but it raised a lot of suspicions.

Yes, i should have cleared myself up.

 

And thanks for the information. That Mac did have some good starts that season. Did any of the other teams in the late 90s or early 2000s have done this?

Edited by George Costanza, 28 July 2014 - 01:00.

[TecnoRacing]

Most of Rindt's wins in 1970 were in an illegal car. At Brands the mechanics deliberately leant on the rear wing on the victory parade lap to bring it down to regulation height!

 

You sure you your not confusing this with the telescoping wing struts on the later (~Emerson era) 72s, which allowed the wing to bend at high speed?

[john_smith]

Both Williams and Toyota were disqualified from the 2004 Canadian GP due to illegal brake ducts.

[30ft penguin]

I think many of the examples given here miss the point somewhat, because their examples are about grey areas in the rules. As I understand the OP, it's more about a team deliberately, fully going against a rule because they figured they could actually get an advantage by doing so even if they got caught (i.e. because the penalty is less than what is gained). The Massa example in the opening post is a good example - deliberately causing a penalty for one driver in order to get an advantage (better position on the starting grid) for the other driver. Or the Toyota tank, which was 100% illegal and there must have been a team meeting at some point in which they decided "yes, let's build a 100% illegal car".

 

Actually, I'd like to see more examples of these "give us a penalty please, we'd like that" examples like the Massa one. For example, there surely must be some case of a driver deliberately doing something which gave him a drivethrough penalty because he figured that whatever he gained by doing so would be worth it in the end (e.g. passing someone illegally and opening up a huge gap and still staying ahead after the drivethrough?)

[crbassassin]

 

Benetton removing the fuel flow limiter from the refueling rig.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

 

Benetton removing the fuel flow limiter from the refueling rig.

Was that directly attributed to that?

[Collombin]

You sure you your not confusing this with the telescoping wing struts on the later (~Emerson era) 72s, which allowed the wing to bend at high speed?

Absolutely sure, they are completely separate examples. Which makes yours a perfect addition to the thread.

[OS X]

Just out of interest, how many instances can we remember where a team deliberately fell foul of the regulations to gain a sporting advantage?

 

Just to clarify, I think the OP is asking for strategical examples rather than mechanical ones.

 

90-95% of the responses here have nothing at all to do with the OP.

 

This.

 

--------------------------------

 

My contribution would be Ferrari's team order's when they were illegal. Schumacher benefitted a few times from Barrichello's subservience as did Alonso (from Massa) in Germany 2010.

 

I also found Nico Rosberg's left-right-left-right-left-right-hard left-reverse action in Q3 at Monaco a bit dubious, but apparently, according to the FIA, this is a normal technique for a car to take into a right hander on a dry track  . It's the second time this season that Nico has caused a yellow flag in the last minute of qualifying (China 2014, Monaco 2014); maybe other drivers should learn how to freeze sessions!

 

I can't think of a particular example of the top of the head, but under a safety car, when you have two team mate's next to each other, the second one will drive super slow to build a gap so that they don't have to wait in the pit stop. This disadvantages everyone behind him but keeps him from losing places. This happens every once in a while.

Edited by OS X, 28 July 2014 - 08:20.

[CSquared]

How about Wales Rally GB 2005 as an example of deliberately manipulating regs for a sporting disadvantage? That was an interesting situation, I thought. I can't find right now what they did exactly to incur the penalty.

[sharo]

And this is only the first day of one month break in F1 calendar