115 replies to this topic

[Torx]

"- Sutimisenesto oli aikaisemmin ollut autoissa. 1994 sitä ei olisi enää saanut olla. Kaikki tällainen, mikä on aikaisemmin ollut sallittua ja yhtäkkiä kielletään, niin totta kai sitä vielä yritetään käyttää hyväksi, kunhan siitä ei jäädä kiinni. En yhtään sitä epäile, etteikö jotain olisi ollut. Varmaan jotain yritettiin ja kokeiltiin. Tuskin Benetton ainoa tiimi oli, kyllä varmasti muissakin tiimeissä kokeiltiin. Siinä vaiheessa elektroniikan piilottelu oli helpompaa kuin nykyään, Järvilehto toteaa.

Joka tapauksessa Schumacherin autossa oli erilaisia toimintoja kuin Järvilehdon kilpurissa.
- Olihan siellä vähän erikoisia juttuja silloin tällöin meneillään. Kyllähän siellä oli sellaisia nappeja, joita paineltiin tiimikaverin autossa ihan eri järjestyksessä. Vaikea sanoa, mitä se sitten tarkoitti, Järvilehto jatkaa.

Järvilehto painottaa kuitenkin, ettei hänellä ole esittää mitään todisteita Schumacherin auton mahdollisista sääntöjenvastaisuuksista.
- Niitä on vaikea ikinä todistaa. Voihan se olla, ettei niitä ole ikinä ollutkaan."

(MTV3)

Source: http://www.mtv3.fi/u...et.shtml?205581

My free translation about the most relevant bits:

-Traction Control had been in the cars earlier. In 1994 this was not to be allowed anymore. All this kind of stuff which has earlier been permitted and suddenly is made illegal is ofcourse tried to be taken advantage of still as long as you don't get caught. I don't doubt for a second that there was nothing. Probably something was tried and tested. I don't think that Benetton was the only team, I'm sure that other teams tried similar things. During those times hiding the electronics was easier than nowadays says Lehto.

In any case Schumacher's car had different kinds of functions than JJ's racer. -There were some special kind of things going on in there every now and then. There were buttons in the car which were pressed in totally different sequence on Schumacher's car. It's difficult to say what that exactly meant continues JJ.

JJ makes it clear however that he has no evidence whatsoever about the possible illegalities on Schumacher's car. -These things are very hard to prove ever. It can be that there never was anything.

---
The article mentions also that fact about the Benetton LC which was found in the FIA inspection but never found actually used in the races.

[Chris_Amon]

MS´s 1994 Benetton could have raced with illegal devices. Could. Just like Ferrari, McLaren and Williams could. There are no saints in F-1, especially in these teams. The aim of every car designer is to find the roles in the rules and if the FIA duty was to discover all of them.

[Chris_Amon]

Anyway, given that everybody could have raced with such devices, it was a impressive achievement to win a season with a V-8...

[Big Block 8]

Originally posted by Chris_Amon
Anyway, given that everybody could have raced with such devices, it was a impressive achievement to win a season with a V-8...

Why? The engine performance isn't exactly in direct relation with it's number of cylinders.

[Chris_Amon]

I am not so sure about it, but in fact I was talking about the fall of the V8 configuration, which was being overlooked and, ultimately, was banned by the FIA (alongside all others except the V10). And by the way, Renault V10 had a better overall in that season.

[Group B]

Originally posted by Big Block 8


Why? The engine performance isn't exactly in direct relation with it's number of cylinders.

Er, yes - it is. Do you see any v-twins out there? Certain factors vary considerably with the number of cylinders.

[A3]

Jos had the same suspicions about the B194: http://forums.atlasf...&threadid=54043

[HSJ]

Originally posted by Group B


Er, yes - it is. Do you see any v-twins out there? Certain factors vary considerably with the number of cylinders.

Power is pretty much down to the cylinders, unless I'm badly mistaken. But similarly the engine was lighter and smaller, giving better packaging, meaning lower c of g and better (possible) aero solutions. And of course fuel consumption was similarly smaller, meaning that in race spec the car is on the average much lighter, which then has a direct lap time significance. Just like Renault in 2003 with their engine weren't terribly handicapped except in comparison to Ferrari and BMW, simply because they had a lot of advantage in center of gravity and fuel economy.

Obviously having a V8 was hardly an advantage! Of course the Benny was handicapped on the engine side, no doubt about it. Luckily for Benetton and Schumacher Senna died and all Williams had was Hill - not exactly world class adversary - and a car that suffered from handling problems without the previous year's fancy driver aids and all that. At the same time the B194 was a beautifully handling car, like the previous Benettons. In fact this is why Byrne is probably really the best designer of his era: he has the patience to do good evolutions rather than go a bit overboard with technology like Newey has a habit of doing. That means much more workable and driveable cars, which then turns into pace and wins and championships.

Anyway, Lehto didn't say anything that I haven't heard from him before.

[MortenF1]

Originally posted by Big Block 8


Why? The engine performance isn't exactly in direct relation with it's number of cylinders.

That's right, and I remember an article by the late Harvey Postletwaithe, saying how it was not at all an easy decision to go for a V10 over a V8. Now, most did so it was the best all things considered, but according to him, not by much.

[Big Block 8]

Originally posted by Group B


Er, yes - it is. Do you see any v-twins out there? Certain factors vary considerably with the number of cylinders.

Well, do you see any V-20s? Or V-30s? Even if they were / had been legal? Of course "certain factors" vary, but they are either for the better or for the worse. Number of cylinders is a compromise number, depending on the emphasis of the designer. V8s, V10s and V12s all have their benefits and drawbacks. It definitely isn't "the more the better", when the number of cylinders is concerned. Current consensus is 10, but the year isn't 1994.

[Group B]

Originally posted by Big Block 8


Well, do you see any V-20s? Or V-30s? Even if they were / had been legal? Of course "certain factors" vary, but they are either for the better or for the worse. Number of cylinders is a compromise number, depending on the emphasis of the designer. V8s, V10s and V12s all have their benefits and drawbacks. It definitely isn't "the more the better", when the number of cylinders is concerned. Current consensus is 10, but the year isn't 1994.

I didn't say more was better, I said that certain factors of performance vary with the number of cylinders. Which they do. I seriously doubt that 8 was the all round ideal way to go in 1994 any more than it is in 2004.

[Big Block 8]

Originally posted by HSJ


Power is pretty much down to the cylinders, unless I'm badly mistaken. But similarly the engine was lighter and smaller, giving better packaging, meaning lower c of g and better (possible) aero solutions. And of course fuel consumption was similarly smaller, meaning that in race spec the car is on the average much lighter, which then has a direct lap time significance. Just like Renault in 2003 with their engine weren't terribly handicapped except in comparison to Ferrari and BMW, simply because they had a lot of advantage in center of gravity and fuel economy.

It's a little more complicated than that, regarding the power, but otherwise those are good points.

Originally posted by HSJ
Obviously having a V8 was hardly an advantage! Of course the Benny was handicapped on the engine side, no doubt about it. Luckily for Benetton and Schumacher Senna died and all Williams had was Hill - not exactly world class adversary - and a car that suffered from handling problems without the previous year's fancy driver aids and all that. At the same time the B194 was a beautifully handling car, like the previous Benettons. In fact this is why Byrne is probably really the best designer of his era: he has the patience to do good evolutions rather than go a bit overboard with technology like Newey has a habit of doing. That means much more workable and driveable cars, which then turns into pace and wins and championships.

It is reported that the Ford V8 was a bit down on power compared to the Ferrari and Renault, but it was still stronger than the other engines on the grid. It also benefitted from the reasons mentioned above.

I would agree that having the V8 probably wasn't an advantage, but I also wouldn't instantly call it a disadvantage either.

[Big Block 8]

Originally posted by Group B


I didn't say more was better, I said that certain factors of performance vary with the number of cylinders. Which they do. I seriously doubt that 8 was the all round ideal way to go in 1994 any more than it is in 2004.

As I said in my first post, the cylinder number isn't in direct relation with engine performance, which we both seemingly agree after all.

Why do you doubt it, as the Ford obviously was a very potent powerplant?

[Group B]

Originally posted by Big Block 8


As I said in my first post, the cylinder number isn't in direct relation with engine performance, which we both seemingly agree after all.

Why do you doubt it, as the Ford obviously was a very potent powerplant?

Well I'm not sure either of us are genuinely up to the job of assessing the hp/torque/weight/cog/fuel consumption/etc properties of a 3½ V10 F1 engine vs 3½ V8 F1 engine and proving that one is better, but my memories of the time suggest very strongly that 10 was considered the way to go on overall balance of properties by the vast majority, with Ford only running an 8 because they hadn't got round to/afforded developing a 10.

[nigel red5]

None of what Lehto said is "new" news really. All this has been known for a long time. Intensive investigations by the independent LPDA company revealed exactly what was in Schumacher`s Benetton B194 (once they got the source codes)......
To some of you the Lehto comments may seem like a shock. It was an 8 button sequence IIRC rightly, which could be engaged on the line once the car was in neutral - at this point i ask you to watch again, the first 3 seconds of the 1994 French Grand Prix.

Anyway, it`s done and dusted, no point dredging that old chestnut back up again... it was just a line to say what Lehto has said, is oof no new importance

[MortenF1]

There, found the article. Here are the important bits... :

....The V10 tends to have a slight power advantage, but V8's still tend to have a better spread of power (as well as being lighter, less complex, cheaper to maintain and more economical). And a V10 lose more heat down the exhaust, which has to be heavier and bulkier than a V8's. You also lose a surprising amount of the extra energy into the cooling system, which means you need bigger radiators, which in turn disturb you car's aerodynamics. Designing a car from a clean sheat you'd probably want a V10, but if the rules were to change- if refuelling were banned, say- you'd probably argue for a high-tech V8.

[A3]

Originally posted by nigel red5
the first 3 seconds of the 1994 French Grand Prix.

Interesting, I don't have that on tape. What actually happens?

[Vrba]

Originally posted by A3


Interesting, I don't have that on tape. What actually happens?

Schumacher starts from the second row of the grid (3rd place, IIRC) and easily overtakes both front row Williams drivers and leads into first corner. Given that Schumacher's starts during his careed weren't the best around, either he was really lucky or the car had launch control. The same thing happened a few races later in Adelaide.
BTW, I'm nit-picking now but, other advantages aside, I'm not sure that V8 can provide a lower CoG. Having less cylinders for the same swept volume, V8's cylinders have to be bigger, meaning longer stroke and wider bore and giving shorter but higher and wider engine (for the same vee angle, of course).

Hrvoje

[mattemejl]

A V8 engine is a bit down on power, but requires less fuel (=lighter car). While using up much more fuel, a V12 - like the ferrari - it has a lot more horsepower. The renault V10 is pretty much a compromise...

How does it affect race performances?
The B193 was always the fastest car at the end of the races. MS set a lot of lap records and made up places in the final laps. Clearly the B193 worked best with a low fuel load. The introduction of refuelling in 1994 worked in benettons favour. That way they could always run the car light and be competetive throughout the races, as the B194 also worked best on a light fuel load. The benettons were always doing many pitstops to take advantage on that. They didn´t loose much time in the pitstops, since the ford V8 didn´t require as much fuel as the V10´s and V12´s, the pitstops were very fast.

The french GP is a good example: MS did an amazing start, I don´t know if he had LC or not, BUT he was on a three stop strategy while DH and NM was on two. With an engine requiring less fuel, and with one more pitstop, the benetton was A LOT lighter at the start. Without a good start (=taking the lead), his three stopper wouldn´t have won the race...

The problem with running an underpowered V8, is straightline speed. At hockenheim and monza, a heavy fuel load is no problem. Power is everything. That´s why the ferraris, with the powerful V12´s, qualified 1-2 at both GPs, while the benettons were nowhere...

Williams, with the V10´s, were the most concistant team. They couldn´t beat the benettons handling at tight twisty circuits, and they were low on power against the ferraris at the high speed tracks, but they were always up there at every GP, fighting against benetton OR ferrari.
McLaren never made it to the finish thanks to peugeot, so who cares....

In 1995, everything changed for benetton, as the B195 were faster with a heavy fuel load. So the team did fewer stops than most others. I remember in Monaco, where DH and MS were running close together after the start. Everyone thought they were on the same strategy, and was looking forward to a close and exiting race. After a third of the race DH makes his first pitstop, but MS keeps on going and going... MS wins easily with a singel stop to DH´s two.

Benetton probably wanted more concistency, so they signed with renault instead for the ´95 season. With the extra horsepower in the V10, they won both at hockenhein and monza, where they were off the pace just one year earlier...

[Fortymark]

BTW, I'm nit-picking now but, other advantages aside, I'm not sure that V8 can provide a lower CoG. Having less cylinders for the same swept volume, V8's cylinders have to be bigger, meaning longer stroke and wider bore and giving shorter but higher and wider engine (for the same vee angle, of course).

So compaired to an V12 the V10 have bigger cylinders, longer stroke, higher and wider...
Higher Cog...

Sorry for nit-picking hrvoje..

[Fortymark]

The problem with running an underpowered V8, is straightline speed. At hockenheim and monza, a heavy fuel load is no problem. Power is everything. That´s why the ferraris, with the powerful V12´s, qualified 1-2 at both GPs, while the benettons were nowhere...

The Benetton was fast on all kinds of tracks, Monaco, Hungary, Barcelona, Canada and even at Hockenheim...

[mattemejl]

Originally posted by Fortymark


The Benetton was fast on all kinds of tracks, Monaco, Hungary, Barcelona, Canada and even at Hockenheim...

No, it wasn´t. At hockenheim he barely could keep up with berger. Jos came in early, so he was on two stops. MS never did a pitstop because of the engine failure, but he was probably on the same strategy. Berger on the other hand was on a one stop strategy.

Anyway, I was just pointing out the differences between V8´s, V10´s and V12´s...

[Rainer Nyberg]

Orignally posted by Big Block 8
Current consensus is 10, but the year isn't 1994.

Consensus by default...Toyota would have built a V12 (it was already designed) for their entry into F1 if they hadn't been outlawed and they had to revert their plans.

[holiday]

Originally posted by Torx
I don't think that Benetton was the only team, I'm sure that other teams tried similar things.

I could be totally wrong but wasn't Ferrari the only team then actually found guilty by the FIA to have and have run traction control. Wasn't it on Berger's Ferrari? Or am I maybe confusing things in hindsight?

[Fortymark]

Originally posted by mattemejl


No, it wasn´t. At hockenheim he barely could keep up with berger. Jos came in early, so he was on two stops. MS never did a pitstop because of the engine failure, but he was probably on the same strategy. Berger on the other hand was on a one stop strategy.

Anyway, I was just pointing out the differences between V8´s, V10´s and V12´s...

The same Berger whom always was quick at Hockenheim and won a superb race there in -97.
If he could barely keep up with an car with over 800hp and a driver whom is superquick on that
circuit that´s hardly "being nowhere" imo

[ckkl]

Originally posted by Vrba
BTW, I'm nit-picking now but, other advantages aside, I'm not sure that V8 can provide a lower CoG. Having less cylinders for the same swept volume, V8's cylinders have to be bigger, meaning longer stroke and wider bore and giving shorter but higher and wider engine (for the same vee angle, of course).

Hrvoje

I think you're a bit off there with the simplifications.

The height of one bank off the V8 is more affected by the conrod length than the piston stroke (i.e. a few mm of increase in piston stroke is negligible compared to the actual conrod length). You can't simply assume constant V-angle as well; the term "oversimplification" is subjective, but that's oversimplifying. V10s of the era (e.g. Renault) ran a 72 degree V angle, which is optimal from a pure engine standpoint. V8s ran a 90 degree V angle. (The basic formula is divide the number of cylinders on one bank by 360 degrees.)

So one can argue, with some certainty, that a V8 provides a lower CoG.

Ofcourse I'm no engineer and definitely not a Cosworth engineer.

[Fortymark]

Actually Renault used an 67 degree angle for the V10, later switched to 72 degrees in -95 IIRC.
Zetec-R had an 75 degree angle.

OT
The Porsche Carrera GT engine is an 68 degree V10 design btw

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Chris_Amon
MS´s 1994 Benetton could have raced with illegal devices. Could. Just like Ferrari, McLaren and Williams could.

Except Benetton was the only team where illegal software was found - still active - on the car. Hidden away on a secret menu so (say) FIA inspectors could not see it.

[ckkl]

Originally posted by Fortymark
Actually Renault used an 67 degree angle for the V10, later switched to 72 degrees in -95 IIRC.
Zetec-R had an 75 degree angle.

Thanks for the correction.

Strange numbers those are.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by ckkl


I think you're a bit off there with the simplifications.

The height of one bank off the V8 is more affected by the conrod length than the piston stroke (i.e. a few mm of increase in piston stroke is negligible compared to the actual conrod length). You can't simply assume constant V-angle as well; the term "oversimplification" is subjective, but that's oversimplifying. V10s of the era (e.g. Renault) ran a 72 degree V angle, which is optimal from a pure engine standpoint. V8s ran a 90 degree V angle. (The basic formula is divide the number of cylinders on one bank by 360 degrees.)

So one can argue, with some certainty, that a V8 provides a lower CoG.

Ofcourse I'm no engineer and definitely not a Cosworth engineer.

Agreed, especially about the conrod lengths! Plenty of possibilities here. Although it's not so simple with vee angles either, even firing order can be achieved with various vees.....

Hrvoje

[Big Block 8]

Originally posted by race addicted
There, found the article. Here are the important bits... :

....The V10 tends to have a slight power advantage, but V8's still tend to have a better spread of power (as well as being lighter, less complex, cheaper to maintain and more economical). And a V10 lose more heat down the exhaust, which has to be heavier and bulkier than a V8's. You also lose a surprising amount of the extra energy into the cooling system, which means you need bigger radiators, which in turn disturb you car's aerodynamics. Designing a car from a clean sheat you'd probably want a V10, but if the rules were to change- if refuelling were banned, say- you'd probably argue for a high-tech V8.

This pretty much sums it up nicely, thanks.

Regarding the peak hp difference, Ford did nicely on that department too. This is from the thread http://forums.atlasf...y=&pagenumber=2

Just for comparison looking back at magazines, the 1994 edition did a very
good job at the engine values. The figures for Imola (1994) are:

Race Qualifying

code:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Williams-Renault (RS-6) 770 bhp 780
Benetton-Ford (Zetec-r) 755 bhp 765 (..Schumacher use only, Lehto used race engine)
McLaren-Peugeot (3.5 V10) 730 bhp 745
Ferrari (F4 A-94) 800 bhp 820 (..Berger use only, Larini used race engine)
Ligier-Renault 770 bhp 780
Tyrrell-Yamaha 700 bhp 715
Footwork-Ford (Ford HBV) 705 bhp 720
Lotus-Mugen Honda 720bhp 735
Jordan - Hart 710bhp 725
Larrousse - FordV 705bhp 720
Minardi - FordV 705bhp 720
Sauber - Mercedes 725bhp 745
Simtek - FordV 705bhp 720
Pacific - IImor 700bhp 715
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting to see here, is that the Ferrari had a 30 peak hp advantage compared to Renault, but Ford had only 15 less than the Renault. Ford also had a 25 hp advantage compared to Peugeot's V10.

[Big Block 8]

Originally posted by Rainer Nyberg


Consensus by default...Toyota would have built a V12 (it was already designed) for their entry into F1 if they hadn't been outlawed and they had to revert their plans.

True, but the emphasis moved to 10s before the rule was set. As I recall, no-one was building 8s or 12s before this rule.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Big Block 8


True, but the emphasis moved to 10s before the rule was set. As I recall, no-one was building 8s or 12s before this rule.

A possibility was hinted that wealthier teams might build special tailor-made engines for the tracks with particular demands (V8 for Monaco, V12 for old Hockenheim and Monza). V10 is the best compromise but not optimal for all the tracks....indeed, back in 1950s, Ferrari built and tested a 2-cylinder engine for use at slow tracks that should supposedly give higher torque but, having had only 2 cylinders, it was terribly unbalanced and run everything but smoothly.

Hrvoje

[Big Block 8]

Originally posted by Vrba

A possibility was hinted that wealthier teams might build special tailor-made engines for the tracks with particular demands (V8 for Monaco, V12 for old Hockenheim and Monza). V10 is the best compromise but not optimal for all the tracks....indeed, back in 1950s, Ferrari built and tested a 2-cylinder engine for use at slow tracks that should supposedly give higher torque but, having had only 2 cylinders, it was terribly unbalanced and run everything but smoothly.

Hrvoje

Thanks for info, I was wondering why did they actually enforce such a rule.

[HSJ]

Originally posted by Big Block 8


It's a little more complicated than that, regarding the power, but otherwise those are good points.



It is reported that the Ford V8 was a bit down on power compared to the Ferrari and Renault, but it was still stronger than the other engines on the grid. It also benefitted from the reasons mentioned above.

I would agree that having the V8 probably wasn't an advantage, but I also wouldn't instantly call it a disadvantage either.

Okay. Flav claimed recently that they were down by 80-90hp compared to Renault back then. I don't know about that, especially coming from Flavio, but I'm sure they had a significant power deficit.

Race addicted pointed out my comment in a pm about the handling of the B194. There's a danger someone took that to mean easy to drive. That's not what I meant though. When I say the B194 or B195 were great handling, I don't mean easy to drive as such, more like the ability of the car to handle corners and kerbs and all that. The cars were probably quite challenging to drive actually. In this the situation is analogical to McLarens of 98-00. Those cars were also great handling cars, but not easy to drive. What I mean by that is that up until a point the car is easy to drive. Going beyond that limit the car gets nervous, but it still handles predictably and you can get a good/great lap time out of it in the hands of a skillful driver (not necessarily in the hands of a journeyman/midfielder). That is what I mean by good/great handling.

Oppositely, there are cars like the McLarens of 2001-2003 which are not great handling because they are not predictable. That means you can't get consistent lap times in a race so easily, nor can the drivers push them in qualifying because they cannot know if the car will respond predictably. That means taking a risk in qualifying may end up in an off-track excursion even without any real error by the driver; he could simply have done what worked the last time out, but this time the car responded differently. Even if your setup and fuel load are the same as last time, a tiny difference in the set of tyres you have booted on this time around could put the car off balance too easily. This is especially bad for setup work because even a little change can destroy the balance.

By comparison cars like most Byrne cars and those Newey cars like 96-97 Williams or 98-00 McLarens which are predictable you can push much more easily knowing that the car will respond like it the last time with that setup and fuel load, and especially that it will respond logically to setup changes etc. That means it is good for qualifying where you must go to the very limit but still stay on track, and also great for racing because you get consistent and fast lap times. But like I said, you may need a skillful driver to do it. Then there are also cars like the 2001 Sauber which was relatively easy to drive to the limit, but there just wasn't any more lap time in it after that because the car wasn't capable of providing more grip and what have you. I wouldn't call a car like that as a great handling car because there are things that you can't do with it. Still, the 2001 Sauber was quite predictable in its behaviour AFAIK and not very difficult to drive as such. Ditto 2002 Sauber, but the 2003 car clearly had a lot of issues.

Hope that makes a distinction between handling and ease of driving. That's the way I define it, though many of you might not.

[Big Block 8]

HSJ,

Thanks for input. I won't go into handling speculations, as those are quite hard to differentiate.

However, that Flavio's "80-90 hp" deficit would mean over 10% difference in power and hence in acceleration figures. That would be very hard to make up with other benefits and very hard to be not noted from the outside calculations. Those Quattroruote figures just seem far more sensible. But hey, if Flavio was talking business, it would mean that if the Renault had 770 hp, Ford Zetec would have had 680-690 hp, less than the Pacifics and Simteks!

Or did Flavio actually think that his Benetton was actually carrying a Ford's (HB)V instead of a Zetec?

[HSJ]

BB8 Great that you dug up some realistic power figures. That's the first time I see anything worth quoting on the matter. Sure I'd seen some "estimates" but they were nothing more than some journo's guesses. So the Benny was 15hp down on power, that means .2+ sec on average (range being .15-.30sec depending on track), and that's actually less than I thought. I had thought the gap was in the range of 30+ hp, but apparently not. Well, considering the chassises (is that correct for plural? or is it just 'chassis' rather than 'chassises'?), and that the B195 had the same engine as the Williams that year, there's no MS fan on earth who can now convince me that MS had a lesser car, even though that has become a canonised "fact" even among the so-called experts. What bull. Quite the contrary, Benny was the better chassis in 94, and equal in 95, hence both in 1994 and 1995 the cars were pretty much equal.

No wonder the same "experts" think MS is still the best driver, they're REALLY doing it the way I always suspected: they start with the initial assumption that MS is the best, and then they rate the cars based on that, then look at race results and surprise, surprise! the only conclusion they can then get out of that "reasoning" is that MS is the best. Pathetic. I am ever more convinced that my current method of first ignoring the drivers and rating the cars, and only then rating the drivers going by what they do with the equipment they have is the much superior way.

[ckkl]

Originally posted by HSJ

No wonder the same "experts" think MS is still the best driver, they're REALLY doing it the way I always suspected: they start with the initial assumption that MS is the best, and then they rate the cars based on that, then look at race results and surprise, surprise! the only conclusion they can then get out of that "reasoning" is that MS is the best. Pathetic. I am ever more convinced that my current method of first ignoring the drivers and rating the cars, and only then rating the drivers going by what they do with the equipment they have is the much superior way.

I agree that many ppl are guilty of rating the car based on their preconceptions of the driver. It's not a very accurate way to judge.

But I want to know how you can judge the equipment without a driver? Obviously none of us mortals get a chance to test these beasts (nor would we know how to). You need a driver to make the car move, don't you?

[Claudius]

Originally posted by HSJ
...

No wonder the same "experts" think MS is still the best driver, they're REALLY doing it the way I always suspected: they start with the initial assumption that MS is the best, and then they rate the cars based on that, then look at race results and surprise, surprise! the only conclusion they can then get out of that "reasoning" is that MS is the best. Pathetic. I am ever more convinced that my current method of first ignoring the drivers and rating the cars, and only then rating the drivers going by what they do with the equipment they have is the much superior way.

At least, some of the "experts" were watching F1 races back then and could see with their own eyes what was happening.
Quite different from teenage boys who started watching F1 in 99 and are involved in revisionism.
And hyping up their own driver of course...

[Vrba]

Originally posted by HSJ
BB8 Great that you dug up some realistic power figures. That's the first time I see anything worth quoting on the matter. Sure I'd seen some "estimates" but they were nothing more than some journo's guesses. So the Benny was 15hp down on power, that means .2+ sec on average (range being .15-.30sec depending on track), and that's actually less than I thought. I had thought the gap was in the range of 30+ hp, but apparently not. Well, considering the chassises (is that correct for plural? or is it just 'chassis' rather than 'chassises'?), and that the B195 had the same engine as the Williams that year, there's no MS fan on earth who can now convince me that MS had a lesser car, even though that has become a canonised "fact" even among the so-called experts. What bull. Quite the contrary, Benny was the better chassis in 94, and equal in 95, hence both in 1994 and 1995 the cars were pretty much equal.

No wonder the same "experts" think MS is still the best driver, they're REALLY doing it the way I always suspected: they start with the initial assumption that MS is the best, and then they rate the cars based on that, then look at race results and surprise, surprise! the only conclusion they can then get out of that "reasoning" is that MS is the best. Pathetic. I am ever more convinced that my current method of first ignoring the drivers and rating the cars, and only then rating the drivers going by what they do with the equipment they have is the much superior way.

You're flattering yourself when using the word "method" for your silly anti-Schumacher spluttering
Just please explain how could you rate the car ignoring the drivers when the only way to see the car in action is when it's driven by drivers?!? Now, it would be possible if one car is driven by all the drivers on the grid but when it's driven by mere 2 race drivers (testing discounted as not relevant), it's simply impossible to know. You decided that B194 had better chassis than Williams. How? Because Schumacher won in it. And what about other drivers that drove it? Why were they so much slower? Why don't you use THEM as your yardstick? Applying the very same "method" ( ), the 2003 McLaren was equal best (or the best) car and it's just Kimi's incompetence as a driver that prevented him from winning the title! Remember, you may know the power figures but there's no way you could know the details about car's handling, power delivery and other characteristics that you prtend to know. You are criticising Schumi fans but your so-called car-rating starts with AN ASSUMPTION than MS is worth a **** and that every car he won with must consequently be a very good car!! You are discounting, of course, any of Schumacher teammates. How else could you decide on a car's perfomance? It is not possible to rate cars as isolated objects. I'm sorry but everything you wrote here is not just nonsense (because I'm sure you do it not out of ignorance but on purpose) but plain old crap.
BTW, the plural is "chassis".

Hrvoje

[Frans]

Between now and 10 years, Michael will finally come clean and confess that he HAS used ILLEGAL traction control in the 1994 season.

even thén people will not believe him.

the fact there was an possibilty to cheat, is enough. As if, AS IF they wouldn't use it!!

Besides the TC issieu and LC back in 1994, the Benetton team was already bann-able, but no one ever speaks of it.

1994 Benetton; the way it should NOT be done. Especially the Michael way......
When will we FINALLY stop with saying; "it's suggested they used it, but not alone." into: "we know they used it, only not alone." ??

never, I guess.... wanna bet?

the 1994 title from Michael is the most underserved one, the most controversial and the 1st German drivers worldtitle too..... That's three things, ... minus one (the German part) makes it 2 things to puke on thát particular TITLE. (.......

so ... 10 years ago, it began.... the aggony, the dispicable events, .......... the pain, the unbelief, ..... ..... the beginning of what could be called 10 years from NOW; the End of F1.

..............

[Smooth]

Originally posted by Vrba
Just please explain how could you rate the car ignoring the drivers when the only way to see the car in action is when it's driven by drivers?!?

HSJ is a 'scientist' and he uses a very 'scientific' method to come to his 'conclusions'. His genius should not be questioned, not even by the buffoons in the sport, like Ron Dennis, Frank Williams, Eddie Jordan, etc..... They obviously use the flawed 'method' to rate drivers and cars.

I have often wondered why HSJ doesn't show them the light by sharing his 'method'??!!

[Big Block 8]

HSJ,

I'm sorry, but as there isn't comprehensive performance tests available to the F1 racecars, one must use a driver as a yardstick in measuring the car's capability. Admittedly, this will sometimes lead into very distorted conclusions, if the "expert" does have a distorted view of a driver's capability.

My personal opinion is, that the very top drivers are separated by only a couple of tenths maximum per lap, on the average when all having a good day. Hence consistency and good background forces are the key elements to success.

[paulogman]

Originally posted by Frans


so ... 10 years ago, it began.... the aggony, the dispicable events, .......... the pain, the unbelief, ..... ..... the beginning of what could be called 10 years from NOW; the End of F1.

..............

how many times has f1 been declared dead because of a driver or team that dominates for any period of time?

lighten up, it's a sport

[Schuperman]

Originally posted by Smooth


HSJ is a 'scientist' and he uses a very 'scientific' method to come to his 'conclusions'. His genius should not be questioned, not even by the buffoons in the sport, like Ron Dennis, Frank Williams, Eddie Jordan, etc..... They obviously use the flawed 'method' to rate drivers and cars.

I have often wondered why HSJ doesn't show them the light by sharing his 'method'??!!

Hehehehe.... HSJ never fails to amuse me..... keep on postings....

[100cc]

Originally posted by paulogman

lighten up, it's a sport

yes, but on this bb its the only thing that is of importance.
This is not a bb about life... but a bb about the sport.... so everything about the sport is taken seriously here.

[paulogman]

oh,

so for the bb f1 is dead, and for the rest of the world it's doing fine?

[Frans]

"The King is dead...... Long Life The King!"

[Arrow]

Originally posted by HSJ
BB8 Great that you dug up some realistic power figures. That's the first time I see anything worth quoting on the matter. Sure I'd seen some "estimates" but they were nothing more than some journo's guesses. So the Benny was 15hp down on power, that means .2+ sec on average (range being .15-.30sec depending on track), and that's actually less than I thought. I had thought the gap was in the range of 30+ hp, but apparently not. Well, considering the chassises (is that correct for plural? or is it just 'chassis' rather than 'chassises'?), and that the B195 had the same engine as the Williams that year, there's no MS fan on earth who can now convince me that MS had a lesser car, even though that has become a canonised "fact" even among the so-called experts. What bull. Quite the contrary, Benny was the better chassis in 94, and equal in 95, hence both in 1994 and 1995 the cars were pretty much equal.

No wonder the same "experts" think MS is still the best driver, they're REALLY doing it the way I always suspected: they start with the initial assumption that MS is the best, and then they rate the cars based on that, then look at race results and surprise, surprise! the only conclusion they can then get out of that "reasoning" is that MS is the best. Pathetic. I am ever more convinced that my current method of first ignoring the drivers and rating the cars, and only then rating the drivers going by what they do with the equipment they have is the much superior way.

Lets skip all the rampant speculation.
Dont you beleive that Schumacher was far enough ahead of damon hill as a driver to beat him in inferior equipment?
I doubt you even realize that the above is the pretext of your crappy argument.

[MortenF1]

We need to "define" inferior equipment....