43 replies to this topic

[aportinga]

Of course we all recall the 1994 British GP where on the parade lap Michael Schumacher blasted by Damon Hill who had captured poll the day prior. This was the second time which such an event - involving MS happened that year, the first occurring at Interlagos when MS passed the late Senna on the parade lap. The only dissimilarities of the two events were how they were handled after each race started. Of course in Brazil nothing happened. However at the British GP we saw actions of both incompetence and suspision.

As the regulations state, MS should have been penalized and thus forced to start the race at the back of the grid...that never happened and he was in effect allowed to start the race from P2. Later Schumacher was assessed a 5-second penalty for his tactics on the parade lap. However he ignored the ruling and was subsequently given the black flag. Obviously the team principles argued over the matter only to have MS acknowledge the black flag. At this point he should have been excluded from the race but instead the officials errored once again and allowed him to resume race - eventually collection 6 points.

Later...those 6 points were removed from Schumacher dropping him from 33 to 27 points in the drivers championship. He was also fined $500,000 and suspended from the next 2 races. Furthermore in an un-related incident the team was fined $100,000 for tardy access to computer codes which later led to speculation that the team was utilizing an illegal driver aid.

Obviously this was a total fiasco - handled with less professionalism then expected. But why the 2 race suspension? I cannot seem to find any similar events in the past where such a heavy price has been levied unto a driver - especially when that driver is clearly in the running for a World Championship.

In Adelaide (last race of the season), The battle for WDC was down to 1 point with MS on top and Damon Hill just behind. Speculation from ESPN's Bob Varsha put Schumacher 20 points ahead of Hill had MS never incurred such harsh penalties (2 race suspension and stripped of 6 points in Britain).

Now I heard news throughout the season that the ratings had been suffering since the tragic loss of Ayrton Senna at Imola. Michael Schumacher was clearly demoralizing Hill and the Williams team that season. It was all but certain that Schumacher would be crowned World Champion in OZ by seasons end.

I think you know where I'm going with this so I'll just pose the question...Do you think that the 1994 World Championship was altered in any way that would have included MS and his suspension - specifically as an effort to make the race more close and keep people watching up until the final moment?

I don't know myself...it's very difficult to clearly call either way. What do you think?

[byrkus]

I also believe in that option. Remember, when he came back, he won in Hungary and Belgium, but that race AGAIN ended in controversy, for the wooden plank beneath the car was supposed to be thinner than legal. Maybe so, but they only measured it at one point! And again, he was DSQ and banned... and so, for me, he was RIGHTLY 1994 WC. He only drove on 12 races (against Hill's 16), and he was simply better, no matter what pressure came upon him, or which punishment he got.

[mikedeering]

This one again!

Firstly the 2 race penalty.

The FIA in 1994 were particularly heavey handed. During the season we saw Hakkinen get a 1 race ban for trashing half the grid at Hockenheim (This had come of the back of several other Mika inspired accidents that season.) Irvine was banned for his antics in Brazil. When Jordan appealed, beliving the accident was merely a racing incident, Irvine's ban was upped from 1 to 3 races! So FIA were going on a real power trip in 1994. Based on this evidence, it was obviously not a good idea to question their decisions - Jordan had tried and failed. Since 94 the FIA seem to have mellowed somewhat - now most appeals are successful (Ferrari - Malaysia 99, Jordan USA 01) - but back in 1994 they were not.

Benetton irked the FIA in a number of ways at Silverstone - their driver broke the rules, but Benetton, as was their style in the Briatore-Schumacher days saw fit to argue with the officials and not call their man in. This went on for several laps. In 2001, numerous penalties were idshed out for petty infringements - Ralf at Europe for example, which cost him the race. However, did BMW Williams contest the penalty? Absolutely not - they called their man in. Benetton did not at Silverstone in 1994. The team were acting above the decision makers. If they had just brough MS in, no DQ, no ban etc. But they didn't. MS was disqualified from the results, but reinstated on appeal. The appeal was not to be heard for several weeks. As a result of Benetton's refusal to accept their punishment - in the first instance during the race, and then afterwards, the FIA harshly, but ppredictably given over decisions made that season, banned MS for 2 races.

The fines for Benetton I believe related to other matters - namely the altering of the fuel nozzle. This allowed fuel to flow quicker, given Benetton an on track advantage. Of course, as a result of the mods, a fire occurred in the pits at Hockenheim with Jos Verstappen. The fine was justified - Benetton were clearly cheating. They were lucky to not get further punishment - their defence "The mod was made by a junior member without authorisation" was laughable. If I sent in an inaccurate tax return, would the IRS go easy on me as I had let my cat, who is not strong at maths, work out the numbers? I think not.

So in the context of the time, the ban was predcitable - given not for the original transgression, but the appeal. Today it seems a bit strong, but not in 1994. That said, it just happens that in banning MS (he was also DQ at Spa remember) the WDC went to the wire - a little too convenient for some!

[HSJ]

I don't know what would have been the fair ruling, but MS and Benetton should have been taken out of the whole championship, including all results (wins, points, poles, etc.) because they ran an illegal car. That would have been the only honorable way FIA should have ruled it, but business cowards that they are... I wouldn't have hesitated even for a fraction of a second. Same if McL does the same thing ever.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by HSJ
I don't know what would have been the fair ruling, but MS and Benetton should have been taken out of the whole championship, including all results (wins, points, poles, etc.) because they ran an illegal car. That would have been the only honorable way FIA should have ruled it, but business cowards that they are... I wouldn't have hesitated even for a fraction of a second. Same if McL does the same thing ever.

Apart from the plank thing (which arguably was not their fault entirely) they ran a legal car. So why the tar and feathers?

[Williams]

Even on the plank thing the car was legal. Even though there was a spot worn on the plank deeper than the allowed amount, the final determining factor was the weight of the plank, which was was found to be within limits. Furthermore even the worn section was agreed by all parties to be a result of Schumacher's rough ride over a curb during the race. So this wasn't an instance of Benneton cheating.

[philhitchings]

To answer simply YES.

Merry Christmas to one and all

[mikedeering]

Originally posted by Foxbat


Apart from the plank thing (which arguably was not their fault entirely) they ran a legal car. So why the tar and feathers?

It was illegal to meddle with the fuel filter, but Benetton did. Thus the car was illegal. This is fact.

It is also a fact that the car was equipped with TC, it just required an effort to engage it. Whether it was used in actual races is not known ofcourse, but MS made some terrific getaways in 1994, which is strange because he is not known for his speedy starts (thus the whole argument about history of weaving of the grid...). Only since the reintroduction of TC has MS started to make decent starts - for obvious reasons.

[pRy]

I read something that said the reason MS jumped Hill at the start was to activate TC, and the reason the FIA acted so harshly with the bans was because they rumbled their system.

[b195]

Originally posted by pRy
I read something that said the reason MS jumped Hill at the start was to activate TC, and the reason the FIA acted so harshly with the bans was because they rumbled their system.

Just wondering...

Why would he only do it at Silverstone? He was not on pole in earlier races in 1994, why didn't he also do it then (including Brazil, where he lost a place at the start)?

[baddog]

Originally posted by HSJ
I don't know what would have been the fair ruling, but MS and Benetton should have been taken out of the whole championship, including all results (wins, points, poles, etc.) because they ran an illegal car. That would have been the only honorable way FIA should have ruled it, but business cowards that they are... I wouldn't have hesitated even for a fraction of a second. Same if McL does the same thing ever.

hsj, two points there:

1: mac, ferrari and benetton would have had to go, as all of those cars had similiarly illegal software, albeit in different forms.. but the details dont matter to you right? illegal is illegal in your book?

2: I thought you said you didnt start watching F1 till 98ish? I presume youve read a HELL of a lot or background material on 94 and watched all season reviews etc before commeting so absolutely?

Shaun

[Indian Chief]

Originally posted by pRy
I read something that said the reason MS jumped Hill at the start was to activate TC, and the reason the FIA acted so harshly with the bans was because they rumbled their system.

Like I said on other threads, if this was the case, why did Hill get the much better start?

Surely, MS + LC>>> Hill - LC.

[Thank-U]

Originally posted by mikedeering
This one again!

Firstly the 2 race penalty.

The FIA in 1994 were particularly heavey handed. During the season we saw Hakkinen get a 1 race ban for trashing half the grid at Hockenheim (This had come of the back of several other Mika inspired accidents that season.) Irvine was banned for his antics in Brazil. When Jordan appealed, beliving the accident was merely a racing incident, Irvine's ban was upped from 1 to 3 races! So FIA were going on a real power trip in 1994. Based on this evidence, it was obviously not a good idea to question their decisions - Jordan had tried and failed. Since 94 the FIA seem to have mellowed somewhat - now most appeals are successful (Ferrari - Malaysia 99, Jordan USA 01) - but back in 1994 they were not.

Benetton irked the FIA in a number of ways at Silverstone - their driver broke the rules, but Benetton, as was their style in the Briatore-Schumacher days saw fit to argue with the officials and not call their man in. This went on for several laps. In 2001, numerous penalties were idshed out for petty infringements - Ralf at Europe for example, which cost him the race. However, did BMW Williams contest the penalty? Absolutely not - they called their man in. Benetton did not at Silverstone in 1994. The team were acting above the decision makers. If they had just brough MS in, no DQ, no ban etc. But they didn't. MS was disqualified from the results, but reinstated on appeal. The appeal was not to be heard for several weeks. As a result of Benetton's refusal to accept their punishment - in the first instance during the race, and then afterwards, the FIA harshly, but ppredictably given over decisions made that season, banned MS for 2 races.

The fines for Benetton I believe related to other matters - namely the altering of the fuel nozzle. This allowed fuel to flow quicker, given Benetton an on track advantage. Of course, as a result of the mods, a fire occurred in the pits at Hockenheim with Jos Verstappen. The fine was justified - Benetton were clearly cheating. They were lucky to not get further punishment - their defence "The mod was made by a junior member without authorisation" was laughable. If I sent in an inaccurate tax return, would the IRS go easy on me as I had let my cat, who is not strong at maths, work out the numbers? I think not.

So in the context of the time, the ban was predcitable - given not for the original transgression, but the appeal. Today it seems a bit strong, but not in 1994. That said, it just happens that in banning MS (he was also DQ at Spa remember) the WDC went to the wire - a little too convenient for some!

Totally agree with you Mike.

I also add a few comments:

After the ban, Schummi was furious againts Benetton, as it appears that he was ready to take the penalty, when he saw his 5sec stop and go (this is natural for a sportsman, you take the penalty, and then you argue).
But Briatore told him there is a mistake and he is clearing it with the officials. (those who saw the GP live must remember that the commentators were puzzled by the 5 sec thing, and we were seeing slow mo replays of the start because we thought Schummi might have jump started).

Then when he saw the black flag, again Schumi was about to leave the race and again Falvio told him to hang on.
Etc. etc. so clearly Benetton have pushed a little but too far.

Shcumi could have taken his 5 sec stop and go, and would have been WDC 2 races before the end (maybe!!!! cause only God knows what would have happened in the 2 races where he didn't drive, he could have had an accident a la silverstone and had to be out for 5 races instead).

Regarding the fuel nozzle thing, I still don't understand how the FIA did not give a much harsher punishment:
in 1994, Schumi and Brawn were winning thanks to better strategies and faster pit stops (among other things) and a tampered with fuel nozzle used to give a few % in refueling, wich can make all the difference between exiting the pits ahead of or behind Hill (or whoever).


One of the main reasons why I disrespect the Briatore, Byrne, Brawn team.


But this is all history... the only things to remember in 1994 was the loss of Senna

[Daniel Lester]

At the time I thought the whole Adelaide incident was pure cheating. I'm not so sure it was in hindsight.

However, While Michael deserved the title, Bennetton did not. Even if Michael knew the team were cheating and even if he was part of it as a driver (i.e turning on TC systems in the cockpit), I still don't blame Michael. He was onyl 24/25 and had no power to control what happened within the team (at that stage and at that age) and with Flavio at the top of the team it would have been difficult for Michael to go against the flow (See Wurz, Button, Moreno etc). Had Michael said something, he may have wrecked his career (at least he may have thought this, as it would have gone to court etc) and the careers of alot of the mechanics and engineers that were all innocent in the saga as they just did what they were told in order to earn a living (same as in any big company cheating the system, it's normally the bigwigs that are up to no good and everyone else follows instructions in order to keep thier job).

[Boston Killer]

Originally posted by Foxbat
Apart from the plank thing (which arguably was not their fault entirely) they ran a legal car. So why the tar and feathers?

What about the refueling equipement and use of illegal electronic aids?
While I agree that the plank alone is not enough to ban the team, all those factors combined, plus MS's behaviour should have resulted in a season long (at least!) disqualification.

[Billy]

Originally posted by Williams
Even on the plank thing the car was legal. Even though there was a spot worn on the plank deeper than the allowed amount, the final determining factor was the weight of the plank, which was was found to be within limits. Furthermore even the worn section was agreed by all parties to be a result of Schumacher's rough ride over a curb during the race. So this wasn't an instance of Benneton cheating.

Which plank thing are you talking about?

If it's the DQ from Spa 1994, I think this was the first race where planks were used? If that's the case, it's likely that some teams got it wrong.

The following report gives the reasons for Schumacher's DQ at the Belgian Grand Prix 1994:

The Stewards questioned the Technical Delegate and were informed that the minimum dimension of the skidblock could not be attributed to the spin over the kerb because the accidental damage was clearly marked as located in the drawing submitted by the Technical Delegate and which was mostly transverse in nature, and mostly located at the rear of the skidblock.

The drawing further showed that the area where the minimum dimension of less than 9mm up to a minimum of 7.4mm was located in the general area between 10 and 70 to 80 cm from the front of the skidblock.

There were very light and very few transverse marks in this area, all the marks being generally longitudinal.

The Stewards also received a report of the Clerk of Course which certified that the concerned kerb is flat and that no piece of wood could be found either on the top or the at the side of the relevant kerb.

http://www.motorspor...sp?ID=836&FS=F1

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Boston Killer

What about the refueling equipement and use of illegal electronic aids?

With regards to the refeulling rig, I agree harsher punishment was in order for the team. But to destroy the whole team over something like that?
The electronic aids, well Benneton was never convicted of that, and was not the only team that was suspicious.

While I agree that the plank alone is not enough to ban the team, all those factors combined, plus MS's behaviour should have resulted in a season long (at least!) disqualification.

MS's Behavior? You mean passing Hill on the formation lap Or giving Hill the nudge in what was at the time considered a racing incident.
Maybe Flavio should have recieved some harsh punishment (never work in F1 again ) but to punish/destroy the whole team is imho way over the top.

[Billy]

Originally posted by pRy
I read something that said the reason MS jumped Hill at the start was to activate TC, and the reason the FIA acted so harshly with the bans was because they rumbled their system.

magic recently quoted a post by rainstorm, about Patrick Head's theory that Benetton activated its launch control by accelerating up to a certain speed, hence Hill was ordered to keep it very slow on the warmup lap to see if this was true.

[BuzzingHornet]

No it was NOT the first race where the plank was used

Benetton ran an illegal car in 94, if it had LC in the software it was ILLEGAL, whther it was used or not, end of story.

FWIW, I believe that MS activated the LC too early on the grid at the BGP, and accidentally blasted past Hill. He then panicked and tried to cover it up. Benetton should have been kicked out of the 1994 WC like Toyota were kicked out of the WRC, but the FIA are cowards

Hill is the rightful champion of 1994, sometimes its not about being the fastest , its about playing by the rules.

[Billy]

Originally posted by BuzzingHornet
No it was NOT the first race where the plank was used

I just checked, it was Hockenheim 1994 when the plank was introduced, so Belgium was the 3rd race with planks.

[byrkus]

Originally posted by BuzzingHornet
Hill is the rightful champion of 1994, sometimes its not about being the fastest , its about playing by the rules.

Juast one year earlier (1993) there was only ONE team whose cars were legal. It was BMS Lola... In that case, every other team should be kicked out of competition, and let the two slowest cars decide the championships...

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by BuzzingHornet

Hill is the rightful champion of 1994, sometimes its not about being the fastest , its about playing by the rules.

I'll trade you, Hill 1994 WDC for Prost WDC in the Ferrari


Byrkus> I crack up everytime I see your sig. Very true ;)

[b195]

An interesting sidenote, from an FIA decision in 1994...

It emerged during the hearing that there was a possibility that the company which supplies the refueling equipment, Intertechnique, had authorized another competitor (Larrousse) to remove its filter, as early as last May.

[LB]

This may surprise some of you but I don't think Hill deserved the championship in 1994, never have. I just don't like the way it was won in the end. Put me off MS for life.

I was at Silverstone in 1994 and the confusion among the stands was great as no-one had an idea why there was a penalty against Schumacher what happened there had happened before and since I'm sure if we search about on warm up laps since 1994 we will se the odd bit of overtaking I certainly remember it happening frequently in the 80's. So the penalty was a strange one to start with.

The ban was for ignoring the black flag which is a cardinal sin in F1 and hence full justified black flags aren't just for stop go's remember. Just as any sport you have to accept the decisions of the referees and get on with it. Had Schumacher come in in the allotted time for his 10 second stop go there would be no problem, it was the actions of a Benetton team already under deep suspicion for dubious rule breaking that led to the ban. Had the Benetton team brought Schumacher in we wouldn't have had Adelaide and Schumacher would probably be regarded by more as the worthy champion that year ( which he probably was. damn It must be christmas:D)

Fiddling with the fuel Equipment however was presumably not Schumachers idea nor the traction control stored on the car, If anything I would have banned the Benetton management team (Briatore/ Byrne/ Brawn) from competing in F1 that would have put the cat among the pidgeons in recent years anyway.

[aportinga]

flags aren't just for stop go's remember. Just as any sport you have to accept the decisions of the referees and get on with it.

MS did accept the black flag and came in eventually. The problem was that he also accepted the decisions of the Marshals who also allowed him to continue and collect 6 points. I think this was nothing short of a Chinese fire drill in the very least. Nodoby - not even the track Marshals acted in a professional manner.

My guess is that the pronciples were just as much in the dark as you and the fans in the stands that day.

[Lantern]

Since it is a popular opinion that the FIA was heavy handed during the 1994 season and that Schumacher was treated the same as others were, then explain this.....


If the FIA were so heavy handed why didn't they do anything at OZ? This was a very controversial ending to the championship, surely there were heads to fly for such an incident.......yet there was nothing. Why?? Could it be that the FIA saw their attemt to keep it close was going to actually CHANGE the final outcome of the championship and turned their heads to avoid completely screwing Schumacher out of the title.



As an aside, if I were Schumacher and had been getting it up the ass by the governing body of my sport just to keep me from winning early and at the last race something was to happen to where I wasn't going to win the race and subsequently not be crowned champion due solely to their interference.......I would have rammed the son of a bitch too.

[Boston Killer]

Originally posted by BuzzingHornet
No it was NOT the first race where the plank was used

Benetton ran an illegal car in 94, if it had LC in the software it was ILLEGAL, whther it was used or not, end of story.

FWIW, I believe that MS activated the LC too early on the grid at the BGP, and accidentally blasted past Hill. He then panicked and tried to cover it up. Benetton should have been kicked out of the 1994 WC like Toyota were kicked out of the WRC, but the FIA are cowards

Hill is the rightful champion of 1994, sometimes its not about being the fastest , its about playing by the rules.

Agree completely

[LB]

Originally posted by aportinga


MS did accept the black flag and came in eventually.

Eventually doesn't cut it though , you only have three laps to come in. He took more ( 6 as I recall) thats what the problem was. In fact he should have been stopped from rejoining but as I said the whole thing smacked of conspiracy from the FIA in the first place , Benetton just played into their hands by coming down to their level by arguing.

[gray_cat]

Originally posted by BuzzingHornet
No it was NOT the first race where the plank was used

Benetton ran an illegal car in 94, if it had LC in the software it was ILLEGAL, whther it was used or not, end of story.

FWIW, I believe that MS activated the LC too early on the grid at the BGP, and accidentally blasted past Hill. He then panicked and tried to cover it up. Benetton should have been kicked out of the 1994 WC like Toyota were kicked out of the WRC, but the FIA are cowards

Hill is the rightful champion of 1994, sometimes its not about being the fastest , its about playing by the rules.

Now you seem to have two mutually-exclusive theories on this, BH - one that MS tried to affect Hill's delicate mental balance, and second that he blasted past accidentally - which one you like better ?

Did Tom Walkinshaw come clean on '94 Benetton software yet ?

Check this out, btw:
http://www.atlasf1.c...y=&pagenumber=7

[mikedeering]

I just recalled - Mansell received a one race ban in 1989 for ignoring the black flag at Portugal. He was also fined something like $50,000.

The circumstances were more clearly cut - everyone saw him reverse in the pitlane, but in Mansell's defence, the sun was shining down the pit straight and blinding the drivers. Mansell was tucked under Senna's rear wing while the flag was waved, and Senna himself, who would have had a better view, claimed he saw no flag. Not sure why Ferrari didn't inform Mansell over the radio - or why McLaren didn't inform Senna, because the two then collided a few laps later, wrecking Senna's WDC chase.

[Donny]

I was watching in 94 but was not as "serious" a fan then as I am now. I recall that race but it's almost 9 years ago and I am lost on the specifics. Please clear up one thing for me. I recall the confusion that highlighted the race, what I don't recall as someone else posted it here was that MS was willing to take the initial 5 sec stop/go penalty but was told to stay out by Benneton. Is this speculation, can it be proven?

[Williams]

Which plank thing are you talking about?

Billy according to Matchett's addmittedly biased account of the Spa incident, the skidblock passed the weight test, and he feels it should have been legal. However the steward's report certainly makes sense.

MS was willing to take the initial 5 sec stop/go penalty but was told to stay out by Benneton

Matchett's take on all this, which may not be the best source because I don't expect he was particularly well-informed (or unbiased) on this, was that he believes Michael when he says he "didn't see" the black flag, pointing out that the black flag is one of the few flags which is shown in only one place around the circuit. His argument is that flags can be difficult to see, though my feeling would be that drivers have a sixth sense about when a flag is out and it is something that should grab their immediate attention. He also cites the previous black flag case at Estoril in '89 when Mansell also claimed not to see the black flag. There is no mention of Benetton instructing Michael to stay out and in fact the teams are not informed when a black flag is shown: it's between the driver and the stewards. The team would have known about it at the same time as Michael (assuming he saw it).

[Thank-U]

Originally posted by Donny
MS was willing to take the initial 5 sec stop/go penalty but was told to stay out by Benneton. Is this speculation, can it be proven?

I have only my memory here, should look in the archives somewhere. But I do recall after the race an interview with Schummi (I think I read this in l'Equipe back then) where he was clearly angry at his team telling him to stay on the track and subsequently being black flagged.
He also talked about leaving for another team because Benetton is not defending his interests properly.

But as I said, it is only my memory here.

Btw, at that time, just after Senna's death (my all time favourite driver), I was neutral to all other drivers, had a small preference for Jean Alesi and was looking forward to see Michael and Alesi dicing it in a couple of years... Did not happen unfortunately.

I started disliking the Benetton 3Bs somewhere mid 1994 (and later on Schumi) .
The incident at Silverstone was the first of a series of events that made me lose respect for Briatore, Byrne and Brawn, and the last race did it for Schumi.

[b195]

For an example of a car in front of a car that it shouldn't have been, watch Ralf Schumacher at the 1997 French GP. HHF was a little slow away, and Ralf didn't yield to him until after the corner 180, about halfway around the circuit.

Interestingly, it was actually a 5 second stop-go penalty that was imposed, not the almost always imposed (before and since) 10 second penalty.

OK, this is what I understand happened (based on Matchett's account, as he is in a better position to know what actually happened than me). I apologise in advance if it doesn't seem to make sense in places, that's my fault :-)

Twice on the original formation lap MS passed Hill. The first start was then aborted when DC stalled, which saw DC being made to start from the rear of the field. On the second formation lap MS again passed Hill at least once. About 30 minutes after the (eventual) start of the race Benetton received a copy of the Stewards' Decision, which said "...the stewards have decided to impose a penalty of five seconds (on) Michael Schumacher...". There was no mention of either a) what the penalty was for, or b) whether the penalty would be added to MS's race time or take as a stop-go.

About 10 mins later a marshal arrived with another written message, reminding the team of the penalty and with some info regarding the reason for the penalty, that it was for "overtaking on the warm-up lap". This confused the Benetton team, as they assumed that by the use of the term 'warm-up' that they were talking about the warm-up session, and not the formation lap, which is commonly referred to (not entirely correctly) as the 'warm-up lap'.

So Joan Villadelprat from Benetton headed off to see the Race Director, only to see the black flag being displayed for the #5 car! The Race Director was soon found, and clarified that the penalty was for the formation lap, not the warm-up, and that it was a time penalty, which meant that it was a stop-go penalty.

An agreement with the Race Director was reached, which saw the black flag withdrawn, and MS come in and take the penalty. After the race the team faced the stewards again, which resulted in Benetton being fined $25,000.

The team did not know of the black flag until they Villadelprat saw it when he went looking for the Race Director, which is correct procedure, and so the team could not tell MS to ignore the flag as they themselves didn't know about it!

The team were later summoned to face the World Council. MS himself said told the World Council that he did not see the flag. Mansell similarly missed a black flag in Portugal in 1989 (for reversing in pit lane), was involved in a collision with Senna (who was running second at the time) and received a one race ban with Ferrari being fined $50,000. Five years later in 1994, MS received a two race ban and Benetton were fined $500,000 by the World Council, despite Mansell being involved in a collision while ignoring the flag and MS actually coming in and taking the penalty.

And here is Michael receiving the black flag:

Some questions arise when looking at what happened. There is the question of how the rule which MS 'broke' was/is policed. How do the stewards make sure that no car breaks the rule at each race (and how should the rule itself be interpreted)? The rule was:

"Any car which fails to start or to maintain starting order during the entire formation lap must start the race behind the last line of the grid and must be stationary when the red light comes on. If this car is not stationary when the red light comes on, it must (on circuits where this is practicable) go into the pits at a reduced speed. It can then start from the pits as specified in Article 117."

Also, why didn't the officials move MS to the rear of the grid after the delayed start?

The original Stewards' Decision had two errors in it, referring to a warm-up lap and a penalty, not a time penalty. This may seem petty but the regulations have been written in a way to reduce misinterpretation of them - it is no help when the stewards fail to use the correct terms, and so none of the terms used in the original Decision matched with the regulations, seeing Benetton assume that the time would be added to MS's race time, rather than a stop-go if it had been called a 'time penalty'. It seems likely that if the explanation the team gave is true, then a correctly worded Stewards' Decision would have seen MS take the stop-go and gone on to finish 2nd without all the fuss that subsequently occurred.

Then there is the matter of imposing a penalty on a driver outside the time prescribed under the regulations (as they were at the time - there is now no limit on the time between an incident occurring and the penalty being applied, presumably after what happened at the 1994 and 1998 British Grands Prix) - the regulations don't actually say what should happen if someone imposes (or tries to impose) a penalty outside the time limit:

161. Incident means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any action by any driver, which is reported to the stewards by the clerk of the course and in the opinion of the stewards,
- necessitated the stopping of a race under Article 143;
- constituted a breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code;
- caused a false start by one or more cars;
- caused an avoidable collision;
- forced a driver off the track;
- illegitimately prevented a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre by a driver;
- illegitimately impeded another driver during overtaking.
162. It shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide, upon a report or a request by the race director, if a driver or drivers involved in an incident shall be penalised.
163. The stewards may impose a time penalty on any driver involved in an incident.
164. Should the stewards decide to impose a time penalty, the following procedure shall apply:
a) The stewards shall, no later than fifteen minutes after the occurrence of the Incident, notify the relevant competitor of the time penalty which has been imposed.
b) Notification will be given to the team in any of the ways provided for in these Sporting Regulations and will specify the name and car number of the driver, the time and the period of the time penalty.
c) Subject to f) below, after notification has been given to the team pursuant to a) and b) above, the relevant driver may cover no more than three complete laps before proceeding to the designated area without stopping in the pit lane and he shall remain there for the period of the time penalty.
d) Upon the designated signal, the driver shall rejoin the race.
e) Any breach or failure to comply with Articles 164 c) or 164 d) will result in the car being stopped.
f) If an Incident for which a time penalty is imposed occurs with 12 or less complete laps remaining to the finish of the race, the stewards shall have the right to add the time penalty to the elapsed time of the driver concerned.

As a sidenote, the Clerk of the Course was suspended for 12 months and the Race Director was banned from being Race Director again.

[aportinga]

Great data b195!

[Williams]

Good post B195 ! And a great idea to post that picture. Now I see why Matchett believes that Michael did not see the black flag. It should have been shown on the inside of the curve before the turn or on the outside of the curve after the turn, but certainly not on the inside of the curve after the turn.

[aportinga]

Now I see why Matchett believes that Michael did not see the black flag. It should have been shown on the inside of the curve before the turn or on the outside of the curve after the turn, but certainly not on the inside of the curve after the turn.

I could not agree more...that's really unacceptable to be waiving a black flag at such a point where the drivers vision will not even recognize it.

[byrkus]

Is it something in the rules, where it should be? For what I see is that the flag is shown from the pit area at the S/F line!! So far so good. But why was the S/F so close to the exit of a corner?? I know that later they've moved it down the straight; but in 1994, the midfield cars had to start INTO the corner...

Maybe the organizers had something to do with it, as well??

[b195]

Is it something in the rules, where it should be?

Are you asking is there a place where the black flag should be waved from, or something else?

[Williams]

Matchett makes a good point about this when he says that it should be shown all around the circuit. Matchett uses the example of the red flags, but a better example would be the blue flags (which I believe are also shown all around the circuit), which is meant for one particular driver, and which seems to work fine. Shown at more than one place it would become extremely difficult to argue that the flag was shown from a poor position.

In a way the picture is misleading in that the fact that the camera cannot discern the flag does not mean that the driver could not discern it. But in it's position as shown, there's good reason to believe that a driver would not see it across the armco as he enters the turn, and his concentration is going to be on the outside edge of the turn as he traverses the corner, not on the inside corner. In the precise moment that the picture was taken, Schumacher would had to have been looking sideways at a 90 degree angle in order to see the flag.

Also note that it appears to be a bright sunny day, with the sun coming somewhat from the direction of the flag, making it easier for the black flag to be unseen, especially if it happened to be presented against a dark background.

[BuzzingHornet]

Originally posted by gray_cat

Did Tom Walkinshaw come clean on '94 Benetton software yet ?

LOL
You never said where you stood on the whole thing gray_cat ;) You just went into hiding last time we debated this after you got tangled up in your own argument

[BARnone]

B195:

If Benetton had the notification that Schumacher was getting a penalty - why did they wait 10 minutes and the arrival of another notice to seek clarification?

BARnone.

[gray_cat]

Your memory fails you, BH (not the first time) - I'm still here - couple of your mates are deep in hiding

I said before and I say now - Tom Walkinshaw was Benetton's technical boss in the first half of 90-s, and he (not Ross Brawn, Flav or MS) was the one who decided what to install on the car and engine. If you have questions about Benetton's LC, TC or fueling - just ask Tom - he will tell you whether the car was legal or not.

Or ask Damon Hill - he and Walkinshaw spent enough time together trying to get some traction for that Arrows - worked well once in Hungary, I recall. Walkinshaw could of told Hill a thing or two about his years in Benetton.



So why did MS pass Hill on formation lap - was it faulty LC, psycho-attack or he just wanted to get some air into radiators ?

[b195]

Originally posted by BARnone
If Benetton had the notification that Schumacher was getting a penalty - why did they wait 10 minutes and the arrival of another notice to seek clarification?

Apparently there were several minutes of discussion following the first notice, looking at the regulations and trying to see how the penalty should be applied. I guess as annoyed as they may have been with the penalty, at that point they were willing to accept it (as they believed, thanks to the original wording, that it was five seconds added to the race time) as it wasn't a large penalty and one that could possibly be reduced by some fast driving.