It is natural for some to be sceptical upon first reading that theory but note what Senna may have heard as he studied Schumacher's car at Aida 1994 is not clear and remains a topic of debate to this day. Senna obviously thought it might be an illegal traction control device at work, but it is worth noting at the time Senna was walking past the braking zone to turn 1. I would also like to add this alternative theory is explained in much more detail within my recently released book on the 1994 F1 season, this link contains some images of the relevant pages; https://www.alexmied...Y9r6bxdbfXVDzZw
Essentially the theory is connected with the semi-automatic gearbox which in 1994 was still new technology. Ferrari introduced it in 1989, and by 1992 both Williams & McLaren were using a semi-automatic gearbox whereas Benetton’s system was operational a year later. Because semi-automatic gearboxes didn’t require a clutch pedal/lever after the start, drivers could now modify their technique in ways that were previously not possible because F1 cars could now adopt 2 pedal layouts (not 3 pedals as before).
My research from all the period magazines like Autosport etc indicates that by Aida 1994 out of all the F1 teams, only McLaren & Benetton had a 2 pedal layout in reality. I’ve also had it confirmed from a Williams mechanic (Paul West) the FW16 had a 3 pedal layout, and Mark Blundell has confirmed to me Left Foot Braking under heavily braking (like turn 1 in Aida) is impossible with a 3 pedal layout F1 car. We also know Schumacher was at the forefront of LFB (Left Foot Braking) at the time. Also worth noting that LFB wouldn't have been necessary during the active suspension & electronic gizmo era. Of course all of that was banned for 1994
Interestingly in 1994 Hakkinen (the only other “confirmed” left foot braker I know in 1994) annihilated Brundle when they were teammates in the two pedal McLaren that year. Over the course of their 15 races together Hakkinen out qualified Brundle by an average of 4.73 places per race. Whereas in 1992, Schumacher out qualified Martin by an average of 2.69 places per race. Brundle recently admitted somewhere here:
“Then when I had to compete with Michael and Mika, it (right foot braking) was a hindrance because they could rotate the car into the slow corners and use their left foot on the brake and pick up the throttle and transfer between the two pedals. In a way that I just couldn’t do. So unfortunately that crash in Dallas (1984) was probably the key reason I underperformed (in F1).”
So what is everyone’s thoughts on this theory based on the above?
We were through this already in the first one. Your very source, Willem Toet, explains the way Benetton used traction control on this site
"In early 1994 the great Ayrton Senna had to park his Williams car after some problem and chose to stay out on track for a while and watch / listen to the other cars. He noticed the Benetton appear to stutter coming out of the slower corners which he though must be traction control (it was). But the way Benetton had achieved it was quite legal. So the controversy starts."
So the true question would be, was the way Benetton achieved TC legal or not? That they did use TC is pretty much confirmed by Toet.
Nice to speak with you again as65p and Modorator Tim Murray has granted me full permission to post what I have above. I have previously posted just that article link and asking for people’s thoughts amonously & without explicitly mentioning my book…because I am interested in peoples opinions and didn’t want to dilute them with my research. You can see that no-one understood the theory without me explaining the research I have come across in these two threads previously:
Hence why I asked Tim Murray yesterday if I could post those pages of the book to help people understand the theory more & move this debate on the LFB theory along. Because Autosport is one of my favorite forums (and my fav magazine) I am giving you lot a few some additional free samples of the book as a result. FYI I always ask permission before mention the book in the Autosport forums.
We were through this already in the first one. Your very source, Willem Toet, explains the way Benetton used traction control on this site
"In early 1994 the great Ayrton Senna had to park his Williams car after some problem and chose to stay out on track for a while and watch / listen to the other cars. He noticed the Benetton appear to stutter coming out of the slower corners which he though must be traction control (it was). But the way Benetton had achieved it was quite legal. So the controversy starts."
So the true question would be, was the way Benetton achieved TC legal or not? That they did use TC is pretty much confirmed by Toet.
That Linkedin article is dated November 2015. Willem Toet changed his opinion from that to my Left Foot Braking theory in December 2017 and he was happy to be quoted within the book as saying: "I think it (what Senna heard at Aida 1994) was the use of left foot braking combined with the throttle which would have made the strange noise. There won't have been any engine cutting at all in those circumstances because the engine will not have been accelerating fast (with brakes applied as well) but it would have been strange to hear the engine working in those places on the track. That's what I believe is the most likely scenario."
Mark Blundell, a Tyrrell F1 Driver that season and like Senna was also taken out at that first corner in Aida. Whilst Blundell didn’t recall any strange sounds on Schumacher’s Benetton himself when walking back to the pits that day, he believes it was common knowledge their engine note was different. When asked whether the sound could have been left foot braking, Blundell responded “in terms of your description on what the input, outputs and benefits that would all make a lot of sense. Left foot braking was something that became a trend at that stage again, I was probably in the minority because I didn’t left foot brake, I was a conventional right foot braker and I think Rubens (Barrichello) was like me for quite a long time...It (left foot braking) would have made a different sound in that it would have had RPM carried into a corner, but I don’t think that would have made a sound like traction control.”
“When I was at Williams (as a test driver in 1991) I can remember driving around Imola where I had raced for Brabham the previous weekend. The Brabham didn’t have a blown diffuser, whereas the Williams did and it was just an unbelievable difference! When you got on the throttle (in the Williams) the thing would just suck down at the rear and just drive you off the corner. As such you would be able to crank a lot more front wing in and get a lot more aero on the car and the grip level was sensational…Left Foot Braking became an art and a trend was something you could only do if you had confidence.”
Frank Dernie, Benetton’s Chief Engineer in 1994, gives his view on Aida. “I am not sure what he (Senna) might have heard. Certainly, Schumacher left foot braked and certainly, Cosworth never permitted an engine map with any sort of torque manipulation in it, even when it was legal. My view is that Senna was searching for a reason why the Benetton had so much better traction than Williams, which I am sure was aero, and wrongly plumped for traction control. Once the great Senna had given his opinion it was taken as gospel by many, even though it was just speculation."
Similarly Christian Silk, who was race engineer to the second Benetton drivers throughout 1994 adds “Possibly Jos was too new and just learning the ropes of the B194, to be worrying about the intricacies of the Left Foot Braking and the Exhaust Blown Diffuser (at Aida 1994). Also at the start of 1994 no-one knew how good Schumacher was, hence the reason Benetton kept changing their second driver that season.” Silk also believes Schumacher’s driving style helped with pitch sensitivity, stability of the car, and tyre pressures, whereas his various teammates’ lack of confidence within the car induced more nervousness.
Since the book is now published those guys can & should sue me if I have made up any of those quotes. That's how you can be assured the above statements are true. I also had someone who drove the B194 during the 1994 F1 season confirm to me they believed that was what Senna also heard, but that person didn't want to be quoted...a really shame how respected that individual was.
Let me explain why Willem Toet has changed his mind on this issue (which is a quality I hugely respect…indeed the book’s motto is: “there is no point having a mind unless you are willing to change it”). Because in that Linkedin article you referred to he said:
“…A good driver would use the system to learn how to apply the throttle. Driving flat out everywhere would be fine except that it wasted fuel and made a more detectable sound.
So based on the bolded text Verstappen’s car should have been making the funny noises at Aida, given the Dutchman was a lesser driver than Schumacher? Nevertheless, I am open to the possibility it could have been this combined with the previous theory which Senna mistook for an illegal device
So the true question would be, was the way Benetton achieved TC legal or not? That they did use TC is pretty much confirmed by Toet.
Toet explains in the book how many times that code was checked by the FIA, and the book also explains why that TC code was declared legal, where as for instance Ferrari’s TC they tried during Aida 1994 practice wasn’t. Its clear, you’ve not read the book, so I would strongly suggest you do as I’m sure it will answer a lot of your questions like this. The reviews prove it has answered many other questions for others about 1994 & it will save this forum being diverted from the question posed in the opening post.
So really, this 'new theory' is that Schumacher was left foot braking? Yet we still have Toet on record as saying Benetton were using traction control? And Verstappen too? It's hardly ground breaking, is it?
So really, this 'new theory' is that Schumacher was left foot braking?
No it was well known even in 1994 (at least among those F1 insiders that I spoke to) that Schumacher was one of the very few people (possibly only him & Hakkinen) to be able to left foot brake in 1994.
Watson mentions it a few times during his Eurosport commentaries in 1994, and during the only day Schumacher tested a Ligier in Decemeber 1994 & immediately went 1 second quicker than Panis. Frank Dernie (formely of Benetton and by then Ligier's Technical Director) confirmed to me that Ligier saw LFB in Schumacher's telemetry that day. Hence why he could immediately go 1 sec quicker than Panis (as explained here; http://www.1994f1.co...igier-in-1994/)
The "ground breaking" theory is...is this what Senna may have heard at Aida 1994?
Katayama stood track side at Montreal 1994 to listen out for Schumacher's B194 & explains his observations at 32:55 into this video;
Senna must have heard something at Suzuka. Carrying on with the implications of left foot braking, could it be that Schumacher was keeping his foot on the brake lightly while accelerating through the corner to prevent the unloaded inside rear wheel from spinning, supplementing the limited slip differential? Would this have produced an audible difference in the engine note?
Toet explains in the book how many times that code was checked by the FIA, and the book also explains why that TC code was declared legal, where as for instance Ferrari’s TC they tried during Aida 1994 practice wasn’t. Its clear, you’ve not read the book, so I would strongly suggest you do as I’m sure it will answer a lot of your questions like this. The reviews prove it has answered many other questions for others about 1994 & it will save this forum being diverted from the question posed in the opening post.
As I said back in the other thread, I could sense from your first post what you would try to propagate in your book, and pretty much everything you've written here since, as well as the excerpts from the book confirmed that first impression.
Despite your numerous declarations of objectivity, all I can see is a convoluted effort to exonerate Benetton and especially Schumacher from any wrongdoing or cheating during the 1994 season. You certainly did put a lot of work, time and effort into the book, but as you stated many times, you will let everyone decide for themselve what to make of it.
As I said in the other thread, I did learn some new things through our conversation, like the very enlightning, technically and factually, article of Willem Toet, or the verbatim statements of Verstappen and other people involved in matters. That was good.
Yet I'm afraid my personal conclusion will not be that Benetton and Schumacher were operating legally in 1994, but rather that they were prepared to and indeed did cross the line of legality in more ways than one. Not that this would be unique in F1 or motorsports in general, quite the contrary. It's most of the time a matter of degrees, what you can get away with, did you get caught, did the punishment fit the crime... i don't think there's anyone squeaky clean in this business.
Benetton@1994, I reckon, were prepared to push it further than others, they we're caught and punished (not necessarily at the right times and for the right things, mind you), but ultimately it served them well enough as they got away with the big prize that season. Wasn't the first and won't be the last time such happened. It is what it is, and above all, history.
@as65p - I respect your view, but FYI pretty much every review of the book disagrees with your opinion.
See for yourself within the links in my earlier posts. Indeed within that link containing the telemetry traces within the book, if you translate the text from dutch you'll see the reviewer explictly says, and I quote:
It is written in such a way that yourself can draw conclusions
Don't believe this... then see the opening of chapter 14 image which starts with a picture of Flavio looking doggy in 2009 with a caption reminding people he was given a lifetime ban from F1 in 2009 & he was Benetton's top man in 1994. Want, another example... look who asked the question at 56.15 here;https://www.youtube....h?v=c6902_YS4REwhich resulted in the 1994 Benetton / Pembrey story last year. The book exclusively reveals another simliar story to that, where a Williams man (Richard Wise) told me him & Ayrton felt they saw something simliar at another test. Fully details and even images of the sort of tyremarks left behind are exclusively contained in the book. Hopefully that should show you I have investigated both sides equally throughly ;-)
I tend to find the best way to dismattle an argument is to keep scruitnising it until it either stands up to scrutiny or falls down like a cheap suit. I even said that in our 2017 discussion and subsquently invited you to keep giving me your point of view so I could "scruitnise" it in the sort of detail I think they deserved within the book. I bet even those who believe them haven't looked into in the detail the book does.
So as a direct result of our 2017 conversation I included the point you made about 1994 being the only year a V8 won a WDC in the 1990's. I also had a equally heated debate with ensign14 about 1994 in 2016 and I told ensign14 at Race Retro this year I was incredibly grateful for that debate for the things he raised which are also discussed in the book. Like for instance how Larousse used Benetton gearboxes so is that why they saved them in the fuel fire case etc. So hopefully those who have read it will agree that the book does not shy away from discussing any argument on 1994. Even my main Williams contributor (Paul West) claimed the "book is a fair and balanced look at the 94 season and all of the various rumors.”
Now lets move the discussion back to the left foot braking theory, please.
So what is everyone’s thoughts on this theory based on the above?
It's not a new theory. Schumacher's use of left foot braking causing his engine to sound different in the corners during the 94 season has been previously discussed.
If you're going to pitch a new theory to sell a book I'd recommend having at least some evidence or insider knowledge rather than a couple of minor quotes.
Senna must have heard something at Suzuka. Carrying on with the implications of left foot braking, could it be that Schumacher was keeping his foot on the brake lightly while accelerating through the corner to prevent the unloaded inside rear wheel from spinning, supplementing the limited slip differential? Would this have produced an audible difference in the engine note?
Prior to Willem Toet's 2015 Linkedin article I used to believe Senna didn't hear anything at Aida 94, but in the race footage you can see Senna's head move in such a way when he was walking back to the pits (well into the braking zone and circa 100 + meters from the traction zone out of turn 1). Senna's head movement does suggest he was suprised by what he heard, and IIRC only at that point does he stop walking and listen for a couple of laps. This is why I am now of the opinion he did hear something.
Leaving the throttle partially open during braking zones also kept exhaust gases flowing through the exhaust blown diffusers (see the images within the previous link). Not only did this provide increased rear grip, it also had the side effect of reducing the sudden shift in handling balance that occurred when the throttle was suddenly closed. Around the time Benetton utilised a more extreme exhaust-blown diffuser than rivals (discussed in detail within the book) which conversely required huge driver skill and confidence to unlock its benefits. But if they could via “left foot braking”, then it helped the driver maintain a higher speed throughout the corner and because the engine was closer to its optimum power band it could accelerate on exit quicker too. Within the book there is are telemetry traces supporting everything like the ones shown here: also suggest Schumacher was LFB through Bridge (although one can't see the brake trace there).
Note also how Herbert also says in that video how Schumacher was constantly on the throttle, which concurs with quote all of Schumachers' 1994 teammates made at the time (i.e. Schumacher was especially good under braking & in fast corners etc).
It's not a new theory. Schumacher's use of left foot braking causing his engine to sound different in the corners during the 94 season has been previously discussed.
To clarify for thesecond time here, the new theory within the book and the subject of this thread...is was Schumacher's LFB what Senna may have heard at Aida 1994? Not did Schumacher's LFB cause a different engine sound in 1994. If you dispute it is a new theory, can you kindly provide evidence of where it has been discussed before?
If you're going to pitch a new theory to sell a book I'd recommend having at least some evidence or insider knowledge rather than a couple of minor quotes.
So you don't consider Mark Blundell, Frank Dernie & Willem Toet F1 insiders then?
The book contains main period quotes from all the key players, and has been read and approved by today's top F1's technical man Ross Brawn (there's a photo of him with the book at http://www.1994f1.com/sample-page/). Also Max Mosley has read and approved of the book. Tony Jardine's recent tweet about the book sums it up best IMO:
"(it has) Masses of research and expert opinion that may make you think again about causes and results."
Probably nothing I say or provide as evidence will convince some people of this. However that does not change the fact that a common theme within all the reviews (which people can verify themselves) is the book is full of exclusives and hitherto unpublished / forgotten evidence. For instance another key exclusive within the book is for the first time since 1994, the Benetton "junior employee" blamed for causing the Hockenheim 1994 fire speaks out over what really happened? By way of a teaser, he does admits to certain things & provides a key internal Benetton memo from the time...but what??
Too many more exclusives to explain here but they are obvious from the free book sample or the book's website. All the book's exclusives are precisely why so many people are changing their mind on 1994, having read the book (again all that is verifiable within the reviews). And I personally admire those people who when they learn of the book's exclusive material are not afraid to rethink their opinions on 1994.
Now let's try and keep the conversation focused on the LFB theory & people's opinion on it?
Just a few things solely from this page, which I'm afraid don't fill me with confidence regarding your endlessly proclaimed objectivity.
1. You name Martin Blundell as one source which supposedly confirms the theory the sound Senna heard might have been from left foot braking. Yet what he says in the quote has practically the opposite meaning.
..... When asked whether the sound could have been left foot braking, Blundell responded “in terms of your description on what the input, outputs and benefits that would all make a lot of sense. Left foot braking was something that became a trend at that stage again, I was probably in the minority because I didn’t left foot brake, I was a conventional right foot braker and I think Rubens (Barrichello) was like me for quite a long time...It (left foot braking) would have made a different sound in that it would have had RPM carried into a corner, but I don’t think that would have made a sound like traction control.”
So, Blundell thinks the different engine sound created by left foot braking could NOT be mistaken for traction control. His statement pretty much says the opposite of what you seem to believe it says.
On a sidenote, also contrary to your claims, Blundell thinks he was in the minority not using left-foot braking.
2. concerning how you made Willem Toet "change his mind", hmm.... from what you quote him saying in your book, that's only about what he thinks Senna might have heard or not. As far as I can see he hasn't changed his mind about Benetton having that kind of traction control he describes in the Linkedin article. So the relevant information about Benetton having TC with the question being if it was legal or not, hasn't changed at all.
3. You say your book has been
"... read and approved by today's top F1's technical man Ross Brawn."
At the very least that needs a clarification what exactly Brawn approves of. You writing a book? Or does he approve every word of it as true? The thing you present as proof of his approval, i.e. the picture on your reviews page where he says: “This will make a great book. Good luck!”, well, it sounds a bit shallow for you to run around claiming he has "read and approved of" your book, based on that one-liner.
On a more serious note, I can emphatically recommend this book. It is not just interesting and thought-provoking - especially to me, a Schumi-sceptic - but it also has loads of fascinating gen that I'm not sure has been in any similar work. Perhaps the odd magazine. Things like telemetry traces and an explanation as to how they relate to driving techniques.
It's the sort of thing you'd expect "proper" journalists to do but they don't really. (If Piola ever wrote a book...) It shows that there is the ability to get the info, and to get interested and interesting people to talk about it. And you can do that without any "in" in the F1 media.
Lets try not to take up this thread & waste each other's time but getting blog down in such petiteness until you've at least read the book. Because you are getting the wrong end of the stick from not having read the whole book. I'll respond to a few things to show you what I mean.
Just a few things solely from this page, which I'm afraid don't fill me with confidence regarding your endlessly proclaimed objectivity.
1. You name Martin Blundell as one source which supposedly confirms the theory the sound Senna heard might have been from left foot braking. Yet what he says in the quote has practically the opposite meaning.
..... When asked whether the sound could have been left foot braking, Blundell responded “in terms of your description on what the input, outputs and benefits that would all make a lot of sense. Left foot braking was something that became a trend at that stage again, I was probably in the minority because I didn’t left foot brake, I was a conventional right foot braker and I think Rubens (Barrichello) was like me for quite a long time...It (left foot braking) would have made a different sound in that it would have had RPM carried into a corner, but I don’t think that would have made a sound like traction control.”
So, Blundell thinks the different engine sound created by left foot braking could NOT be mistaken for traction control. His statement pretty much says the opposite of what you seem to believe it says.
Let's just examine what Williams team manager in 1994 Ian Harrison (who stood alongside Senna at Aida 1994) is quoted as saying within the OP article (which itself was taken from a 2014 Autosport article). Harrison said “Senna himself was convinced that there wassomething differentabout Schumacher’s car,Whether there was or not I don’t know, but Senna was utterly sure there was.”
Then respected F1 journalist, Nigel Roebuck said during MotorSport Magazine's June 2011 podcast that "Somebody senior at Williams told me… Senna said to the Williams guys those two Benetton cars are two entirely different cars. With the one leading (at Aida) behaving differently from the one that wasn’t leading." Whilst Dickie Standford at 56:48 says; "Ayrton was convinced they (Benetton) were doing something" here;
Note in all 3 statements the bolded bit does not say "traction control". The automatic assumption when you hear something different within the engine note, tends to be TC because that is usually the only electronic driver aid the lay person usually says. Case in point FP3 at Aida 1994, Ferrari get busted for having a rev limiter on their car which made a distinctive sound (explained in the book) and everyone just called it TC despite Ferrari's PR team's best efforts to correct them all at the time. I never claim the LFB sound sounds exactly like TC either in the book or here, so Blundell's comments do not contradict anything.
Even if you are correct on this point, then doesn't that show how balanced the book is by including contradictory statements side by side thereby allowing the reader to judge for themselves? With the above theory I am wondering if Senna heard "something" on the Benetton (remember that is the precise wording all 3 above statements say) and then jumped to certain presumptions?
Worth noting that Senna was so furious at being taken out of that first corner, IIRC he accused Hakkinen of doing it deliberately during that day. I think it was only during the plane journey home, that Senna had calm down enough to start thinking rationally again, and realised that Mika hadn't done it on purpose. That little back story shows, anger clearly clouds one's judgement on certain things... Also worth noting Hakkinen misheard a radio message at Australia 1998 and pitted for no reason. So drivers mishearing things can happen. Also worth noting Senna was walking past the braking zone of turn 1 at Aida 1994, and was quite some way away from the traction zone out of turn 1.https://www.motorspo... ... &year=1994
On a sidenote, also contrary to your claims, Blundell thinks he was in the minority not using left-foot braking.
There are two types of LFB one through high speed corners and one through heavy braking zones. Most F1 drivers can do the latter even with a 3 pedal layout, because you tend not to need the clutch pedal through a high speed corner. That was what Blundell was referring to as he later explains within the book and why LFB under heavy braking was so hard for him & Herbert (due to his smashed legs). I may the full audio of Blundell's 30 minute interview with me here in during the summer at some point, so keep a look out for it (if you don't want to buy the book).
I know some won't believe this but for what its worth forum memeber mfd can confirm this if you want to ask him privately. However I had a very respected ex F1 driver who was one of few people to drive the B194 during the 1994 F1 season, confirmed to me he also felt that is most likely what Senna heard. I tried multiple times to get him to go on record with that statement, but his current work meant he could no longer contribute and I didn't want to push the issue after Blundell said about the LFB theory and I quote “in terms of your description on what the input, outputs and benefits that would all make a lot of sense."
2. concerning how you made Willem Toet "change his mind", hmm.... from what you quote him saying in your book, that's only about what he thinks Senna might have heard or not. As far as I can see he hasn't changed his mind about Benetton having that kind of traction control he describes in the Linkedin article. So the relevant information about Benetton having TC with the question being if it was legal or not, hasn't changed at all.
Again I never said Toet changed his mind about anything other than what Senna MAY have heard at Aida 1994. You are read into things that is not there once again. Regarding the underlined bit, that's covered in the book.
3. You say your book has been
"... read and approved by today's top F1's technical man Ross Brawn."
At the very least that needs a clarification what exactly Brawn approves of. You writing a book? Or does he approve every word of it as true? The thing you present as proof of his approval, i.e. the picture on your reviews page where he says: “This will make a great book. Good luck!”, well, it sounds a bit shallow for you to run around claiming he has "read and approved of" your book, based on that one-liner.
Sorry I forgot to ask Ross if he approved of every word within the book. I'll make sure I'll ask that next time. But I do know he has read the book & has my email address & not complained or sued me yet. Since the book contains alot of Ross quotes, including the WHOLE transcript from his press conference explaining Benetton/FIA "launch control" report and Ross' period & subsquent quotes about all the other accusations, I would suggest Ross approves of at least 50% of the book (i.e. I'm guess he won't approve oft the bits that argue your POV).
I agree it is shallow & I get annoyed how I've worked my butt off for this book to get excellent reviews yet people judge a book on the fame of who poses with it rather than those reviews. I know that for a fact because I've seen how my website hits have increased from averaging 250 per day to 2500 per day purely after I posted that Ross photo and forum member mfb has also seen those website hits. The harsh commercial reality is I won't be able to write any more F1 books without having famous pose with this this one. It is as simple as that.
Your not aware but I've quit my day job to try and make a career writing F1 history books for a living, and need to keep earning money from book sales to make that plan work. I am only expected to earn £10k from thetotal lifeof this book based on the publishers anticipated sales. So you can see it won't be long before financially I need to give up the dream, and go back to a "proper" job.
Ensign14 and a few others know I have been working on this book for years, and for that £10k I'd say possible 4 years worth of 9-5 day job hours have gone into this book. A photo of a well known figure with the book might just help extend that timeframe I have of writing more F1 books, before the money runs out. It will also get the book into more hands thus get more people's opinions about the legality of the 1994 Benetton which is more of a motivator for me than the financial benefits.
Now you know how little "unknown" authors typically make, and how busy they are you can appreciate why I am so keep not to get blog down in such pettiness. So I urge you please read the book before asking me anything more about it. Not least because I have to deal with all the other aggro people are trying to throw at me for not being a famous personality yet daring to write a book on my passion. Or claiming I'm trying to cash in etc.
I've got to be honest...peoples negative towards me as an "unknown" is putting me off writing a 2nd book, irrespective of how well this book does!
It's the sort of thing you'd expect "proper" journalists to do but they don't really.
I'm glad you said that because it explains all the dirty looks I've been getting from "proper" journo's over this book at ASI & Race Retro. Guessing they are afraid, they might have to work a bit harder if more debut authors expose them like this.
Schumacher's start at the French GP 1994 was extraordinary. His start was so good that I remember someone suggesting that traction control had been employed.
I'd be interested to know any thoughts around Schumacher after he moved to Ferrari. He had Brawn and Byrne follow him... plus also a guy by the name of Tad Czapski. Electronics/software wizard who'd been at Benetton iirc.
Around the period of 1997-99 I seem to recall whispers, even in magazines like F1 Racing, that Ferrari were doing some tricky things with engine mapping... didn't Ron Dennis at one point threaten to protest the Ferrari mid '98?
I'd be interested to know any thoughts around Schumacher after he moved to Ferrari. He had Brawn and Byrne follow him... plus also a guy by the name of Tad Czapski. Electronics wizard who'd been at Benetton iirc.
Around the period of 1997-99 I seem to recall whispers, even in magazines like F1 Racing, that Ferrari were doing some tricky things with engine mapping... didn't Ron Dennis at one point threaten to protest the Ferrari mid '98?
Inspired by your very self PlayboyRacer the book does indeed discuss all of that within chapter 14. You may recall telling me you wanted that discussed within the book in the chat we had in the Senna v Schumacher 1994 thread.
Not going to give away too many spoilers but you are correct that during the summer of 1998 (between Austria & Hungary) McLaren felt Ferrari had an an intelligent brake-balance system (claiming the wrong wheels were locking into the corners) & visited Ferrari during the Austrian Grand Prix and threatened to protest if his suspicions continued. At the following race in Germany, Ferrari then performed poorly leading to suggestions they had removed this system after McLaren's actions. All this came months after Ferrari had successfully protested against McLaren’s braking system which allowed their drivers to apply the brakes on the rear wheels independently.
Also discussed is an incident during FP3 at Silverstone 2000, where Schumacher spun off and found himself stuck on the wet grass spinning the rear wheels. He was then observed holding and pressing buttons on the steering wheel before attempting to move again. After a few seconds, his fuel flap opened and he pulled away from the wet grass with no wheel spin whatsoever[1] which only fuelled speculation. Because a new regulation introduced for that race stipulated whenever the pit-lane speed limiter button was activated the fuel flap must automatically open as well. Couple of interesting insights on these incidents as well from Willem Toet who also was at Ferrari by then.
Inspired by your very self PlayboyRacer the book does indeed discuss all of that within chapter 14. You may recall telling me you wanted that discussed within the book in the chat we had in the Senna v Schumacher 1994 thread.
Not going to give away too many spoilers but you are correct that during the summer of 1998 (between Austria & Hungary) McLaren felt Ferrari had an an intelligent brake-balance system (claiming the wrong wheels were locking into the corners) & visited Ferrari during the Austrian Grand Prix and threatened to protest if his suspicions continued. At the following race in Germany, Ferrari then performed poorly leading to suggestions they had removed this system after McLaren's actions. All this came months after Ferrari had successfully protested against McLaren’s braking system which allowed their drivers to apply the brakes on the rear wheels independently.
Also discussed is an incident during FP3 at Silverstone 2000, where Schumacher spun off and found himself stuck on the wet grass spinning the rear wheels. He was then observed holding and pressing buttons on the steering wheel before attempting to move again. After a few seconds, his fuel flap opened and he pulled away from the wet grass with no wheel spin whatsoever[1] which only fuelled speculation. Because a new regulation introduced for that race stipulated whenever the pit-lane speed limiter button was activated the fuel flap must automatically open as well. Couple of interesting insights on these incidents as well from Willem Toet who also was at Ferrari by then.
[1]Autosport, 27/4/2000,
Yes I do remember that conversation we had Ibsey, very cool to know you took it onboard. I'm planning on getting a copy of your book very soon... so look forward to reading about this and everything else.
This time period (97-2000) interests me greatly and, as we know, the traction control ban was lifted in 2001 because it had become so hard to police. I've always been very intrigued into the massive strides Ferrari made 97-99, even when faced with a large deficit to start with (Williams 97/McLaren 98-99) and it seemed to be a period where limits were really pushed and lines possibly crossed, both on and off the track.
Can you shed any light yet on what the basis of a second book may be? Congratulations on your achievement with the first, the reviews have been outstanding and you should be very proud.
Yes I do remember that conversation we had Ibsey, very cool to know you took it onboard. I'm planning on getting a copy of your book very soon... so look forward to reading about this and everything else.
This time period (97-2000) interests me greatly and, as we know, the traction control ban was lifted in 2001 because it had become so hard to police. I've always been very intrigued into the massive strides Ferrari made 97-99, even when faced with a large deficit to start with (Williams 97/McLaren 98-99) and it seemed to be a period where limits were really pushed and lines possibly crossed, both on and off the track.
Can you shed any light yet on what the basis of a second book may be? Congratulations on your achievement with the first, the reviews have been outstanding and you should be very proud.
Thanks for those kind words and I know you will enjoy the second book idea (if it happens) but I'm afraid I can't say what it will be yet. If it does happen, I'll likely announce the idea in the summer/autumn 2019 to my website subscribers. So the best way to find out more is to sign up here; http://www.1994f1.com/contact/ You'll also get free monthly 1994 F1 blogs emailed to you, and various updates/offers on the 1994 book as well.
I'm glad you said that because it explains all the dirty looks I've been getting from "proper" journo's over this book at ASI & Race Retro. Guessing they are afraid, they might have to work a bit harder if more debut authors expose them like this.
At least you found a gap in this PR thread to disrespect those paving your way.
At least you found a gap in this PR thread to disrespect those paving your way.
Which journo's are "paving my way" & how is additional competition disrespectful?
FYI I have been constantly trying to steer the conversation towards the topic subject of whether Senna may have heard LFB on Schumacher's car at Aida 1994. You just need to read my previous posts for evidence of that.
At least you found a gap in this PR thread to disrespect those paving your way.
One of the best books on F1 was by Ted Simon - because he wasn't an F1 journo. Didn't matter if he upset anyone. There's too much paddock-passism these days. Whither Dieter Rencken?
I will get a copy of the book and have a read. It's worth noting that a '94 Benetton was advertised in 'Motor Sport' - and likely elsewhere - for sale a few years back...see this thread https://forums.autos...ula-1-race-car/
It would be interesting to see the setup notes etc for Schumacher's cars and those of his team mates to see differences in brake wear and fuel consumption. I can imagine that Schumacher might pull off the left foot braking/throttle blipping technique in practice or a few race laps, but it would be a lot to expect for 200 miles or 90 minutes.
I'm sceptical whether a driver or engineer exposed to high levels of noise at work would have the hearing to interpret small changes in engine tone. They might hear sound changes and see car behaviour, but I don't believe that they could identify cause and effect.
I find the entire Benetton/Schumacher saga to be disillusioning. There were too many unusual occurrences which make it hard for me to believe people associated with the team, even 25 years later.
It would be interesting to see the setup notes etc for Schumacher's cars and those of his team mates to see differences in brake wear and fuel consumption. I can imagine that Schumacher might pull off the left foot braking/throttle blipping technique in practice or a few race laps, but it would be a lot to expect for 200 miles or 90 minutes.
I have heard Schumacher's brake wear at Adelaide 1994 was significantly higher than his teammate (Herbert's). Guessing it would have been a similar story elsewhere. Especially because in Autosport magazine (11/5/1995) Verstappen admitted “He (Schumacher) was unbelievable in fast corners and under braking." Dernie also noted how Schumacher's was able to apply a smoother transition between throttle & brakes than his teammates which helped keep the pitch of the car stable. Thus improving its aero capabilities. In regards to fuel i'd imagine it would even itself out, given the extra speed one can carry into the corner as a result & the less acceleration required also?
In regards to the bold bit when he joined Benetton, Berger admitted:
"On the first day I comfortably got close to Michael's time and then thought 'Tomorrow, I'll just do those few extra tenths'. But when I tried it I crashed three or four times and that made me think 'wow Michael'. The car was nervous but he managed to hold it there not just for one lap right on the edge, but for 50, 60 or 70 laps."
I also know from Paul Seaby (Benetton mechanic and I think is still the current Renualt F1 team manager?) that the reason that both Alesi & Berger kept crashing the B195, was because they couldn't get used to it's extreme exhaust blown diffuser.
One of the best books on F1 was by Ted Simon - because he wasn't an F1 journo. Didn't matter if he upset anyone. There's too much paddock-passism these days. Whither Dieter Rencken?
I bought the book all those years ago, cannot recall when and you are quite right, it was indeed a very worthy read.
Alas I got rid of my book collection in period and I forgot all about it, must get a copy if they are any left.
Which journo's are "paving my way" & how is additional competition disrespectful?
FYI I have been constantly trying to steer the conversation towards the topic subject of whether Senna [/size]may have heard LFB on Schumacher's car at Aida 1994[/size]. You just need to read my previous posts for evidence of that.
All those coming before make it possible for all us creatives to follow. Never forget that. And Yes, your thread reads like a series of segues to PR from, and this is not an insult.
Anyone knowing me here will tell you I am a huge proponent of the Arts, and support any and all of my contemporaries -- unless seeing anything disrespectful.
Regardless, someone I very much respect here has filled me in on some unconsidered details. Hence, I apologize and wish you the best.
All those coming before make it possible for all us creatives to follow. Never forget that. And Yes, your thread reads like a series of segues to PR from, and this is not an insult.
Noted, and please know it was not my intention for this to become a PR thread. Indeed in post #5 I l posted a couple of links which proves no-one understood the LFB theory without me explaining the research via that link with the book images. Then others started asking about / attacking the book which prompted my responses.
Regardless, someone I very much respect here has filled me in on some unconsidered details. Hence, I apologize and wish you the best.
Thank you and I also apologise if you feel I was being in anyway disrespectful (which wasn't my intention). I hope we can part as friends as I am a massive Gilles fan, so I like your photo.
One of the best books on F1 was by Ted Simon - because he wasn't an F1 journo. Didn't matter if he upset anyone. There's too much paddock-passism these days. Whither Dieter Rencken?
No doubt motorsport journalism, like almost all other areas, suffers from the bubble syndrom... everyone in the circus is more or less living off eachother, and the reluctance to burst or even disturb such a bubble is growing and growing... a less than ideal situation but at the same time quite common. in another discussion I recently stumbled on some words from Martin Brundle in which he (accidentically, I guess) hinted at it: "we are all very lucky to be part of thisgreat sport" .... "this is a very small business"... Another example, when Arrivabene was dismissed, every journo and his dog allegedly knew all along he was a bad choice... but not a day sooner than he was fired did they grace their readers with that knowledge.
All that said, it doesn't follow automatically that every non-journalist from outside the bubble will do a better job.
Thanks for those kind words and I know you will enjoy the second book idea (if it happens) but I'm afraid I can't say what it will be yet. If it does happen, I'll likely announce the idea in the summer/autumn 2019 to my website subscribers. So the best way to find out more is to sign up here; http://www.1994f1.com/contact/ You'll also get free monthly 1994 F1 blogs emailed to you, and various updates/offers on the 1994 book as well.
I didn't think you'd give too much away regarding a follow up book! Already signed up. Cheers!
Ibsy wrote: "I have heard Schumacher's brake wear at Adelaide 1994 was significantly higher than his teammate (Herbert's). "
Bearing in mind Johnny retired early in the race with Gearbox problems and Schumacher had his incident/cheated on lap 35 his brake wear would have been higher. I am not sure how much a team can read into this?
Ibsy wrote: "I have heard Schumacher's brake wear at Adelaide 1994 was significantly higher than his teammate (Herbert's). "
Bearing in mind Johnny retired early in the race with Gearbox problems and Schumacher had his incident/cheated on lap 35 his brake wear would have been higher. I am not sure how much a team can read into this?
Obviously teams assess brake wear during free practice / morning warm up so the driver knows if they need to save their brakes at any stage during the race. Frank Dernie tells the story of how Williams did just that with Jones at Montreal 1979 here;
No doubt motorsport journalism, like almost all other areas, suffers from the bubble syndrom... everyone in the circus is more or less living off eachother, and the reluctance to burst or even disturb such a bubble is growing and growing... a less than ideal situation but at the same time quite common. in another discussion I recently stumbled on some words from Martin Brundle in which he (accidentically, I guess) hinted at it: "we are all very lucky to be part of thisgreat sport" .... "this is a very small business"... Another example, when Arrivabene was dismissed, every journo and his dog allegedly knew all along he was a bad choice... but not a day sooner than he was fired did they grace their readers with that knowledge.
All that said, it doesn't follow automatically that every non-journalist from outside the bubble will do a better job.
It is deeply tiresome when one reads in some retrospective piece that , for example, everybody who was anybody knew that team x was running illegal fuel and team y was using a 4litre engine at Monza. As a mere civilian I only know what I can read at the time and I resent being patronised by insiders . But we should think about the real causes as I think we can assume that in the age of Ecclestone anybody who rocked the F1 boat would suddenly find themselves lacking a paddock pass . Is it any better now ? Or is the question even relevant now ,as judging by the (very good) current Netflix F1 series we now lack journalists who do anything other get awfully excited about the absolutely bleeding obvious and never say anything even remotely controversial. Who knew that 'your teammate is your biggest rival ? ' ?
I'm confused as the conversation seems to be switching between Martin Brundle and Mark Blundell, I'm pretty sure you must be talking about Martin Brundle as I'm not aware of Mark Blundell ever "smashing his legs" or being team mate to Schumacher.
I literally count on something to happen when I post here.
I would prefer to not do so for several reasons.
But I found something in a book I recently finished and maybe, just maybe, this might have a connection with the topic in the OP.
So I take the risk and bring up the following....
People might be familiar with the story about MS driving the 1995 Ferrari (V12) F1, allegedly was faster than Berger and Alesi within a few laps and telling he was surprised that Ferrari had not won more races with it and that with this car he might have won the title easier then with the Benetton.
Personally, I have always rated this story as a PR job by MS in which he achieved two things: downgrading both Alesi and Berger and give the impression that he is indeed the much better driver. And have Ferrari fans wordwide regretting that the for Ferrari hallowed V12 could have had another world title had he driven it....
Besides that: being faster with that V12 over a few laps is one thing, being faster over an entire race with that V12: keeping in mind that thing required way more fuel to cover the distance, thus carry more weight and all that caused for the car.
So I never did take this story very serious.
But recently I finished John Barnard's biography and this book deals with, among other subjects, why Ferrari had to ditch the V12.
The book also gave some insights as of why MS was faster with the V12. I won't spoil things for the author of the book by quoting etc.
But for they who have "The Perfect car": read the pages 497 to 501 for what I am referring to.
In short: Due to the massive friction within the V12 compared to its V10 opponents, the Ferrari car became more unstable when the drivers lifted the accellerator, which both Alesi and Berger hated. MS however had a preferred driving technique in which the fact that the car became unsettled once the driver was off the throttle of all things helped him to employ his favoured driving style.
John Barnard mentioned then how MS used the throttle to create and optimize this unbalance and use it to his advantage.
The words left foot breaking are not used within these descriptions.
Now....
I don't have enough knowledge about engine characteristics between a V8, V10 and V12 if it comes to how they react on getting of the throttle as is described in "the perfect car" for a V12. I don't know if any such an effect can be generated in another manner with a V8 or V10.
But can it be that what Nick Skeens wrote about in "the Perfect Car" is a follow up on what has been posted about the left foot braking by MS with the B194 in '94?
But can it be that what Nick Skeens wrote about in "the Perfect Car" is a follow up on what has been posted about the left foot braking by MS with the B194 in '94?
That sounds very similar to Willem Toet noting how Schumacher's throttle control was incredibly precise and consistent, even in those early days at Benetton:
“One of the early surprises was Michael trying to cope with a car that didn’t have traction control and trying to get the best out of it. One of the ways he described it was: he would push the accelerator to come out of the corner, the car would start to slide so he’d come off the “gas” again but this was happening faster than we could believe and, at the time, I think we were only logging the throttle position at 10 or 20 times per second. When we started logging the throttle position at higher frequencies, we could see what he was doing. We realised that he was pushing the car into a slide, the yaw rate would begin to increase, then he would back off the throttle and the yaw rate would begin to decrease until he would get back on the throttle again. Something we had not seen at that speed before from other drivers..”[1] This explained why Irvine believed Schumacher was excellent at mapping the engine, and throttle response work.[2]
Mark Blundell (not Martin Brundle) told me; about one of the difficulties of LFB...
“If you’re a right foot braker that’s where your power output was on the brake pedal and you would use your left leg as a brace in the cockpit. To then try and achieve the same physical power output on the brake pedal using your left leg, (whilst carrying some throttle with your right foot) and still get the right feel in modulating both pedals that’s quite a difficult process to learn and your body’s got to learn that as well.”
Since F1 drivers experienced up to 5G of force under heavy braking, you need to be incredibly precise and consistent to maintain a constant 15% throttle in those circumstances.
Evidence Senna & Larini (whose never made accusations about this) were stood early into the braking zone of turn 1 at Aida 1994 (see pitlane markings) so were quite some way from the traction zone out of turn 1:
...& to remind you another F1's driver's opinion (& importantly one who doesn't have a vested interest in the matter) on what caused the apparently sound Schumacher's Benetton made in heavily braking zones;
It was definitely not “invented” by Schumacher. That is preposterous.
On a three pedal layout with a H gated shifter it depends on the type of corner and the attitude of the car in roll and pitch whether the driver uses his left foot to brake or not.
Here is Senna’s own teammate G. Berger left foot braking in 1992.
To insinuate that Senna would not know what left foot braking was or not to be able to distinguish the sound is quite ridiculous.
There is no “vested interest”. The Benetton team doesn’t exist anymore. This is Jonathan Williams confirming that Schumacher was using traction and launch control in 1994:
Sorry Mark! Some traps are just unavoidable, they'll get you, even if it takes decades. 
