124 replies to this topic

[CoolBreeze]

The B195 was very unstable at high speeds because I believe of a redesign for the Renault engine. Alesi and Berger had a very tough time handling it. And they were pretty surprised how Michael Schumacher was able to do it and win nine times...

 

Well, of course. They were comparing themselves to Schumacher. Neither were champions, just a handful of wins between them. 

[HP]

Welcome to the forum 7WDC.

 

 

The B194 was an easy car to set-up and drive, with very predictable handling characteristics.  My understanding is that it is one of Michael's favourite cars.  The B194 was equipped with traction control and the Benetton team took advantage of this.  Willem Toet has already confirmed as much.

 

The B195 was fast, but difficult to drive.

There are some interesting claims here

 

https://en.wikipedia...i/Benetton_B194. (Lacks quotes, until I find those quotes, let's take it with a big dose of salt)

 

It had LC, not TC.

 

All of the three other Benetton drivers that year found the B194 difficult to drive. (That I remember to have read somewhere else)

Edited by HP, 22 December 2015 - 23:26.

[ardbeg]

There are some interesting claims here

 

https://en.wikipedia...i/Benetton_B194. (Lacks quotes, until I find those quotes, let's take it with a big dose of salt)

 

It had LC, not TC.

 

All of the three other Benetton drivers that year found the B194 difficult to drive. (That I remember to have read somewhere else)

Yes, but only one car had T...
Well, so has also been claimed.

[OO7]

There are some interesting claims here

 

https://en.wikipedia...i/Benetton_B194. (Lacks quotes, until I find those quotes, let's take it with a big dose of salt)

 

It had LC, not TC.

 

All of the three other Benetton drivers that year found the B194 difficult to drive. (That I remember to have read somewhere else)

Here is another site, but like the Wiki entry it lacks quotes: http://everything.ex.../Benetton_B194/

 

The article in the following link is an interview with Ross Brawn: http://www.auto-moto...et-8981740.html

Brawn:  ....................."One of the development goals was to put the emphasis of the car as low as possible. The aerodynamic program was designed to deliver stable output. It was advised in the period of active Suspensions into oblivion, because the car was always held in a position. The engine was developed in cooperation with the chassis engineers to allow a perfect integration. The Benetton B194 has rewarded us for this application."

 

In this interview brawn remarks that the F2002 reminded him a little of the B194, although he doesn't specifically mention the cars handling characteristics: http://www.auto123.c...b194?artid=5005

"The F2002 is a super car,' Brawn said. 'It reminds me a little of the '94 Benetton - very easy to set-up, gets the lap time quickly. It was right there."

 

About the traction control and launch control allegations, in this link http://www.auto-moto...et-8981740.html Brawn denied the allegations:

 

Interviewer: "Benetton was attacked in 1994, they had an illegal traction control and a flexible underbody aboard. What was it?"

 

Brawn: "When I Ferrari went, Jean Todt wanted to know what was on the 1994 allegations at Benetton tuned. He was at that time our opponents. He told me that all his contacts had assured him that we have cheated by car. When he Rory Byrne and to know me better and was told our version of the story, he understood that it was the typical paranoia that afflicts this business as soon as a car is faster than the other. For example, the launch control and traction control. Our electronics Chef Tad Czapski had left some subroutines in the menu that would have these two systems are supported. But they were very hard to find in the menu tree. Therefore, they were also forgotten when deleting. There were, however, only the references to such programs."

 

"The actual software that would be called under the menu items to be, no longer existed. One would therefore can not access these programs, even if you wanted to. We were able to demonstrate the FIA ​​inspectors clear. The competition has not believed. They fueled the suspicion that something must have been, because they otherwise could not explain the success of the car. The whole happening in a highly political atmosphere. I can look in the mirror and assure you that there was nothing. Just think logically. Had we used a traction control, then a lot of people have been aware of them in the team communication. The people of Ford. The former engine boss Martin Walters is certainly except suspected of having anything taken with that remotely situated in a gray area of ​​the regulations. Any one of all accomplices had talked in the meantime."

 

Interviewer:  "Nevertheless, the suspicion remained hanging. Why has it never denies vigorously the FIA?"

 

Brawn:  "The electronic boxes were confiscated in Imola. They were returned without complaint. Then the FIA ​​inspectors have collected six weeks later, the control units for a second time. We have therefore in the meantime can delete everything had aroused the suspicion that illegal systems are programmed. The fact that we have not done it proves that we ourselves did not know which menu items were there still hidden in the software. We were simply the victims of the great Formula 1 policy. Since the small T-shirt manufacturer Benetton, Ferrari, McLaren and Williams was challenged. These people had to justify why we were able to beat them. The simplest explanation was that we have cheated."

 

I have looked at the 1994, 1997 and 1998 technical regulations and they simply state 'traction control is forbidden', but what is traction control?  It is not defined in the regs.  In an attempt to curb the use of traction control in F1, from 1999 until early 2001 the regulations described a series of ever more convoluted methods of engine, transmission and throttle pedal control that were outlawed.  Finally the governing body realised that they were unable to prevent the use of TC in one form or another and from the Spanish GP that same year, until the end of the 2007 season the ban on TC was relinquished.  The advent of the SECU in 2008 equipped the F.I.A with all the necessary tools to monitor TC related technical infringments, so from then onwards TC was banned.

 

When reading Toet's article and Brawn's interview, I can't help think of the whole Red Bull 'hole vs slot' debate.

Edited by OO7, 23 December 2015 - 04:19.

[Afterburner]

OO7, your post corroborates my understanding of the issue, which was that the code for traction control was left in the programming for the car, but all methods of accessing it had been removed. It's kinda like deleting a program from a PC without using the program's uninstaller; there will potentially be traces of the program left in the registry and cues of it which still exist elsewhere in system folders, but you can't use it anymore.

Of course, Toet's side of the story is new, but it's also in direct contradiction to the several other perspectives I've heard from different parties, which all incidentally happen to match Brawn's. So either everyone from and associated with Benetton is involved in a cover-up, or Toet is being liberal with the truth.

To be continued.

[Nemo1965]

OO7, your post corroborates my understanding of the issue, which was that the code for traction control was left in the programming for the car, but all methods of accessing it had been removed. It's kinda like deleting a program from a PC without using the program's uninstaller; there will potentially be traces of the program left in the registry and cues of it which still exist elsewhere in system folders, but you can't use it anymore.

Of course, Toet's side of the story is new, but it's also in direct contradiction to the several other perspectives I've heard from different parties, which all incidentally happen to match Brawn's. So either everyone from and associated with Benetton is involved in a cover-up, or Toet is being liberal with the truth.

To be continued.

 

I don't think that is quite the case. As far as I can tell (the translation is very meagre) Brawn is talking about using software to create traction (and launch) control, while Toet is talking about using rotational inertia as throttle control. I can't say that I understand the finer point of it, but as far as I can understand the first is 'active' traction control and the other is a 'passive' traction control. The first is in conflict with the letter of the rule, the second with the spirit of the rule. But of course engineering is racing is usually about the second one...

[Afterburner]

I don't think that is quite the case. As far as I can tell (the translation is very meagre) Brawn is talking about using software to create traction (and launch) control, while Toet is talking about using rotational inertia as throttle control. I can't say that I understand the finer point of it, but as far as I can understand the first is 'active' traction control and the other is a 'passive' traction control. The first is in conflict with the letter of the rule, the second with the spirit of the rule. But of course engineering is racing is usually about the second one...

But if they used the latter approach, it would have to be independent of the coding for TC found within the ECU, as it's my understanding that they denied using that code--which I suppose is totally possible assuming the FIA found the latter and let it slide.

[Nemo1965]

But if they used the latter approach, it would have to be independent of the coding for TC found within the ECU, as it's my understanding that they denied using that code--which I suppose is totally possible assuming the FIA found the latter and let it slide.

 

Yeah, that is why I think the story of Brawn is not contradicting the story of Toet. Ofcourse, if Brawn was completely frank he would have said: 'But we had another little trick...' But I think the accusation of Senna (and others) was about 'classic' traction-control... not some neat-trick based on stuff even Niki Lauda and Alain Prost would not understand...

Edited by Nemo1965, 23 December 2015 - 20:38.

[OO7]

I don't think that is quite the case. As far as I can tell (the translation is very meagre) Brawn is talking about using software to create traction (and launch) control, while Toet is talking about using rotational inertia as throttle control. I can't say that I understand the finer point of it, but as far as I can understand the first is 'active' traction control and the other is a 'passive' traction control. The first is in conflict with the letter of the rule, the second with the spirit of the rule. But of course engineering is racing is usually about the second one...

This is basically it.

I was writing my own summary as you posted that Nemo.

[Nemo1965]

This is basically it.

I was writing my own summary as you posted that Nemo.

[sennafan24]

Get a room you pair.

[OO7]

OO7, your post corroborates my understanding of the issue, which was that the code for traction control was left in the programming for the car, but all methods of accessing it had been removed. It's kinda like deleting a program from a PC without using the program's uninstaller; there will potentially be traces of the program left in the registry and cues of it which still exist elsewhere in system folders, but you can't use it anymore.

Of course, Toet's side of the story is new, but it's also in direct contradiction to the several other perspectives I've heard from different parties, which all incidentally happen to match Brawn's. So either everyone from and associated with Benetton is involved in a cover-up, or Toet is being liberal with the truth.

To be continued.

Ab, the great thing about Toet's article is that first of all, for someone like me who has never really looked into traction control systems and only having a very rudimentary understanding of them (I'll detail later), he described various methods in which traction control can be achieved to some degree.  Second of all he has given us what appears to be a very credible account of the technique/s implemented by Benetton.

 

As I mentioned earlier, the tech regs from 1994 to 1998 simply stated 'traction control is forbidden'.  If for instance a team was using wheel speed as a reference parameter in the logic of the control system, this would contravene the letter of the law as the system is via feedback is controlling wheel speed/slip/traction, hence traction control.  The methods Toet mentioned do not include wheel speed as control parameters, so traction control is achieved indirectly, what was actually being controlled was the 'rate of acceleration of the engine'.

 

It should be noted that a form of open loop traction control was available to the V8s as late as 2013 and the V6s are likely capable of the same thing.  The following is from a technical interview with Renault Sport F1 engine engineer David Lamb from late 2012 or 2013:

 

“With driver torque pedal maps, you can have different philosophies. You can have a constant torque map, where regardless of the engine speed you receive the same torque demand for a given throttle pedal position. However, this offers no wheel spin assistance, which can be incorporated with a constant power style pedal map.

 

“For example, say you’re at 50% pedal on the throttle and at 15,000 RPM, you might get around 200Nm of torque. If you get a bit of wheelspin and the engine speed increases to 16,000 RPM, the torque at the wheels will be reduced as this is a constant power pedal map – power being the product of torque and engine speed. It’s not traction control as it isn’t controlling to a wheel slip target, but instead an open-loop method to try and help wheelspin control. It can be of real benefit when the tires are worn out.”

 

“You can have an area of constant torque on a pedal map followed by a region of ‘constant power’ decay afterwards. Your torque pedal map could therefore be a mix of this and a constant torque map, depending on the preference of your driver and your car.”

Edited by OO7, 23 December 2015 - 21:27.

[OO7]

Yeah, that is why I think the story of Brawn is not contradicting the story of Toet. Ofcourse, if Brawn was completely frank he would have said: 'But we had another little trick...' But I think the accusation of Senna (and others) was about 'classic' traction-control... not some neat-trick based on stuff even Niki Lauda and Alain Prost would not understand...

I'm not sure if Senna and others were accusing Benetton of classic traction control, I think they were just accusing them in general as they couldn't understand how Benetton were able to do what they were doing.  As far as they were concerned, there was no distinction between the different forms of TC.  Later on others cottoned on to the control strategies Benetton were using and followed suit.  This is why the F.I.A became far more specific and overarching from 1999 in the tech regs, but even that wasn't enough.

[OO7]

Get a room you pair.

She lives!!!!

[Nemo1965]

Get a room you pair.

 

Shush. I give you some TLC again in the Hamilton-Rosberg 2016 thread, when it is born...

[Ross Stonefeld]

Ab, the great thing about Toet's article is that first of all, for someone like me who has never really looked into traction control systems and only having a very rudimentary understanding of them (I'll detail later), he described various methods in which traction control can be achieved to some degree.  Second of all he has given us what appears to be a very credible account of the technique/s implemented by Benetton.
 
As I mentioned earlier, the tech regs from 1994 to 1998 simply stated 'traction control is forbidden'.  If for instance a team was using wheel speed as a reference parameter in the logic of the control system, this would contravene the letter of the law as the system is via feedback is controlling wheel speed/slip/traction, hence traction control.  The methods Toet mentioned do not include wheel speed as control parameters, so traction control is achieved indirectly, what was actually being controlled was the 'rate of acceleration of the engine'.
 
It should be noted that a form of open loop traction control was available to the V8s as late as 2013 and the V6s are likely capable of the same thing.  The following is from a technical interview with Renault Sport F1 engine engineer David Lamb from late 2012 or 2013:
 
“With driver torque pedal maps, you can have different philosophies. You can have a constant torque map, where regardless of the engine speed you receive the same torque demand for a given throttle pedal position. However, this offers no wheel spin assistance, which can be incorporated with a constant power style pedal map.
 
“For example, say you’re at 50% pedal on the throttle and at 15,000 RPM, you might get around 200Nm of torque. If you get a bit of wheelspin and the engine speed increases to 16,000 RPM, the torque at the wheels will be reduced as this is a constant power pedal map – power being the product of torque and engine speed. It’s not traction control as it isn’t controlling to a wheel slip target, but instead an open-loop method to try and help wheelspin control. It can be of real benefit when the tires are worn out.”
 
“You can have an area of constant torque on a pedal map followed by a region of ‘constant power’ decay afterwards. Your torque pedal map could therefore be a mix of this and a constant torque map, depending on the preference of your driver and your car.”

Why can't they just simplify the rules about throttle/pedal/etc maps....

[OO7]

Why can't they just simplify the rules about throttle/pedal/etc maps....

I think doing so would allow various forms of more advanced, driver intrusive systems to be introduced.  'Traction control' in this context is quite a vague description so the F.I.A need to cover as many bases as possible.  Also I think they believe there should be some freedom in methods used to control the engine/PU.  The system Lamb mentions will offer some protection in specific circumstances and I guess the F.I.A are are happy with the balance between driver aid and driver control.

Edited by OO7, 23 December 2015 - 22:30.

[Nemo1965]

I'm not sure if Senna and others were accusing Benetton of classic traction control, I think they were just accusing them in general as they couldn't understand how Benetton were able to do what they were doing.  As far as they were concerned, there was no distinction between the different forms of TC.  Later on others cottoned on to the control strategies Benetton were using and followed suit.  This is why the F.I.A became far more specific and overarching from 1999 in the tech regs, but even that wasn't enough.

 

Weeeeelll... I am not sure about that. What I remember is that most of the dedicated followers saw traction-control only in the sense that the almighty Williamses had in 1992, 1993. So in my memory, an accusation of having traction control was a reference to THAT kind of traction-control... But, admittedly, I never have been able to mind-read, so I can't possible tell what Senna thought.

 

Anyway: I think the 'passive traction-control' of the Benettons is only a fraction of the explanation of the speed of the car. It is plausible (though not likely) that they used this stuff only on Schumachers car and not on that of Herbert, Lehto, Verstappen. But to also let Berger and Alesi (the Benetton-drivers of 1996) in the dark and in the midfield to protect that secret... naaah. The Benetton had some funky stuff, but it were the specific talents of Schumacher who could take advantage of it. I always compared Bergers and Alesi woe's with the Benetton-cars of 1996 with that of the followers of Stewart and Cevert, in 1974. The Tyrrel's driven by the Scot and the Frenchmen had a very short wheelbase and a very nervous character. Scheckter and Depailler had a hard time to get used to it, if ever. I believe both only started to feel comfortable with the Tyrrel's when Maurice Philipe (if I am correct) made the wheelbase a little bit more 'normal'.

 

(Disclaimer for the quickly aggrieved: I typed above alinea without googling anything. So don't get anal about small mistakes, please!)

Edited by Nemo1965, 23 December 2015 - 23:07.

[OO7]

Weeeeelll... I am not sure about that. What I remember is that most of the dedicated followers saw traction-control only in the sense that the almighty Williamses had in 1992, 1993. So in my memory, an accusation of having traction control was a reference to THAT kind of traction-control... But, admittedly, I never have been able to mind-read, so I can't possible tell what Senna thought.

That's a fair point considering traction control had just been banned.  I think there is also an element of 'How can they be doing that, TC is banned!!!  Lets go to Charlie because what ever it is we can't do it just yet and it is an advantage'.

 

 

Anyway: I think the 'passive traction-control' of the Benettons is only a fraction of the explanation of the speed of the car. It is plausible (though not likely) that they used this stuff only on Schumachers car and not on that of Herbert, Lehto, Verstappen. But to also let Berger and Alesi (the Benetton-drivers of 1996) in the dark and in the midfield to protect that secret... naaah. The Benetton had some funky stuff, but it were the specific talents of Schumacher who could take advantage of it. I always compared Bergers and Alesi woe's with the Benetton-cars of 1996 with that of the followers of Stewart and Cevert, in 1974. The Tyrrel's driven by the Scot and the Frenchmen had a very short wheelbase and a very nervous character. Scheckter and Depailler had a hard time to get used to it, if ever. I believe both only started to feel comfortable with the Tyrrel's when Maurice Philipe (if I am correct) made the wheelbase a little bit more 'normal'.

 

(Disclaimer for the quickly aggrieved: I typed above alinea without googling anything. So don't get anal about small mistakes, please!)

I agree, Brawn himself said the F2002 reminded him of the B194.  I think the B194 was a very good and stable car.  The early (Brazil and Aida spec) Williams FW16 attempted to continue with the trend set by the FW15 of have a front wing with a great percentage of its span extremely low to track surface, deep in ground effect.  This endowed the car with high peak downforce, but without active suspension to tame the beast it became very pitch sensitive.

 

Reading Verstappen's comments here: http://www.crash.net...n-cheating.html I can only conclude that (a) Verstappen thought Michael's car had a better traction control system than his, or (b) only Michael's car had the system.  The reasoning behind the latter is that there would be less chance of it being detected on a single car.  If the F.I.A randomly decided to check the ECU on Jos' car, then they would find nothing.  TC or no TC I don't see any of those guys coming close to Michael, however some of the gaps he routinely put on his team mates (from memory) during that time were far too big.

 

I'm not sure Benetton protected the secret from Berger and Alesi.  As Toet mentioned it wasn't long before other teams cottoned on and started to do similar things themselves, so by 1996 there may have been whole host of teams with similar systems.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I think doing so would allow various forms of more advanced, driver intrusive systems to be introduced.  'Traction control' in this context is quite a vague description so the F.I.A need to cover as many bases as possible.  Also I think they believe there should be some freedom in methods used to control the engine/PU.  The system Lamb mentions will offer some protection in specific circumstances and I guess the F.I.A are are happy with the balance between driver aid and driver control.

Well don't allow "constant power" maps for a start. I thought the spec ECU was supposed to make this stuff better. These kind of electronics fiddles are momentarily interesting as a problem-solving exercise, but they do nothing to improve what we're watching. The last thing we want is more control on worn tires...

[Treads]

It seemed like they were used frequently throughout the 90s. Was there a reason(rules I assume?) people abandoned them and then randomly discovered them again in 2010s? For most of the 00s it was periscope-exhausts.

I was told there was a gentleman's agreement to stop the exhaust blowing, which Newey broke in response to the double diffuser saga.

[4Wheeldrift]

I think there is probably an element of all things in the B194:-

• It was a car specifically built around MSC - that there were other drivers in another B194 was an inconvenience that Benetton had to put up with as a consequence of their entry requirements - they continued that into the B195 - ask Johnny Herbert.
• It probably had innovation in the engine mapping / torque control / "traction control" area.
• That innovation would be focussed on maximising MSC's speed, any consideration for one of the other drivers - even if it actually provided him with a more difficult experience would be very much a secondary consideration.

 

How much cheating that constitutes is difficult to measure.  But it is interesting how the regulations changed to limit sensor usage on the rear wheels and with regards to speed limiters, fuel flaps, rear lights all being controlled so that pit lane speeds limiter software couldn't covertly be used to hide traction control.  Of course then there was talk of using airbox pressure as a speed measure to compare to engine revs and thus detect wheelspin etc.  Engineers eh?  What are they like!

 

 

I remember seeing footage of a wet practice session at Silverstone I think.  MSC went off in his Ferrari and sat impotently spinning his wheels on the wet grass.  After a few seconds his fuel flap opened and he pulled off the wet grass with no wheel spin - i think that sparked a lot of debate.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Would he have possibly turned on the pit limiter as a kind of false TC? If the limiter was based on rear wheel speed rather than front, keeping it to a lower speed would help you get out of the grass.

[4Wheeldrift]

Would he have possibly turned on the pit limiter as a kind of false TC? If the limiter was based on rear wheel speed rather than front, keeping it to a lower speed would help you get out of the grass.

 

I think something like that.  But i guess the point was that it was such a perfect getaway - with a speed limiter you would still expect wheelspin but limited to the speed limit - the car could sit there spinning its wheels at 80kmh or whatever the limit was then.  In fact the car appeared to be responding to the track conditions.  Hence the debate.

 

Of course, if you were going to have TC illegally you wouldn't tie it to the fuel-flap which might be a bit of a give-away and obviously Ferrari were not saying what actually happened.    But regulation changes were made to limit sensors on the rear-wheels.

[noikeee]

Well don't allow "constant power" maps for a start. I thought the spec ECU was supposed to make this stuff better. These kind of electronics fiddles are momentarily interesting as a problem-solving exercise, but they do nothing to improve what we're watching. The last thing we want is more control on worn tires...

Given the type of tyres we have at the moment, perhaps it's for the best these things exist and we don't have them running out of rubber in 2 laps.