Jump to content


Photo

Ross Brawn gives his views on the 1994 controversies


  • Please log in to reply
287 replies to this topic

#1 Rediscoveryx

Rediscoveryx
  • Member

  • 2,815 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 25 November 2004 - 22:13

In the december issue of MotorSport Magazine there is an interesting article on the 1994 season, in which Ross Brawn gives his views on some of the controversies of that season. Here are some of the most interesting information from the interview (remember that this is mostly Ross Brawns view, so it's likely to be somewhat biased):

* Benetton never conducted any serious development of their 1993 car after it's completion - all design work in 1993 was done on the 1994 spec car. Ross Brawn regards the 1994 Benetton as better than the 1994 Williams.

* According to the author of the article, software tests were only conducted on the top three finishing cars of the San Marino GP (ie Schumi's Benetton, Larini's Ferrari and Häkkinen's McLaren). This is very interesting if true, because it means that the other teams didn't have their software checked until later (if ever). It should be noted that all three tested cars contained illegal software. The problem that the FIA had with regards to attaining the source codes necessary to analyze the software were due to Ford, not Benetton (according to Ross Brawn). Ford considered this to be their "intellectual property" and thus they didn't want anyone to gain access to them.

* Ross Brawn still seems to be very bitter about the way that he feels the Benetton team was mistreated by the FIA (and the media) in 1994.

* Traction Control was never found on the Benetton, the famous "Option 13" was Launch Control. According to Ross Brawn, Benetton proved to the FIA that the Option was impossible to activate.

* At Silverstone, the Benetton team were initially handed a piece of paper that read "5 sec penalty". The Benetton team assumed that five seconds would be added to Schumacher's finishing time. When the stewards put out the black-flag the Benetton team were informed that it was due to the team failing to take a stop-and-go penalty. The Benetton team then showed the piece of paper to the stewards who then - according to R.Brawn - admitted their mistake and told the Benetton team that it would be okay if they took Michael in for a stop-and-go immidiately, which they duly did. In spite of this Michael was disqualified.

* The Benetton team had initially not planned to appeal against the one race ban Schumacher was handed following the British GP. This ban was to be served at the German GP at Hockenheim, which was the circuit on the calendar that least favoured their Ford engines. However, given Schumacher's popularity in Germany, Brawn claims that Benetton were given indications from "important people" that an appeal would be looked upon favourably if they appealed so that Schumacher could race in Germany and that this was why Benetton appealed the decision. The appeal eventually yielded an increase in punishment from a one-race ban to a two-race ban.

* Ross Brawn claims that Benetton had been given permission from the FIA to remove the filter from the fuel hoses. Benetton still claim that the missing filter was not the reason for Verstappen's pit lane fire at Hockenheim.


Well there is the most interesting stuff, make of it what you want. The article (seven pages long, though filled with pictures) includes a lot of other interesting stuff as well and is well worth a read.

Advertisement

#2 Sir Frank

Sir Frank
  • Member

  • 4,275 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 25 November 2004 - 22:40

Thanks for posting this :up:

Its quite remarkable that it took 10 years for the media to ask all these question and get answers.

The Silverstone GP bit is just :rolleyes: :mad:

#3 eoin

eoin
  • Member

  • 5,014 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 25 November 2004 - 22:46

Thanks for the tip Rediscoveryx.

Some very interesting points- none of them have been raised before? Like Sir Frank I find that amazing.

#4 bira

bira
  • Member

  • 13,359 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 25 November 2004 - 22:59

Originally posted by Sir Frank
Thanks for posting this :up:

Its quite remarkable that it took 10 years for the media to ask all these question and get answers.

The Silverstone GP bit is just :rolleyes: :mad:


I don't agree with you that these questions weren't asked and these answers weren't given. It is a very interesting read but, it has to be said, it is not new information. Many from Benetton, Ross included, already said the same things.

The Silverstone bit can even be found on this BB from 4 years ago. See this post :)

#5 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 29,011 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 25 November 2004 - 23:05

Indeed everything he is saying has been said many times. some of it is of course fair game for the old 'yeah right he would say that' like the electronics stuff, but the black flag story for example is just one of those things where endless repetition of the 'make ms look bad' story has created the general impression that things were one way when they were in fact another.

god can that thread really have been 4 years ago? Im getting OLD.

Shaun

#6 JtP

JtP
  • Member

  • 358 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 25 November 2004 - 23:06

After Briatore's letter to the FIA, it was obvious that Benneton were going to be got. The fact they were ruining the championship by running away with it, thus resulting in no last race showdown probably led to any the events over the season.

And hey, what did we get? A last race decider.

#7 Fortymark

Fortymark
  • Member

  • 5,911 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 25 November 2004 - 23:54

Ross Brawn regards the 1994 Benetton as better than the 1994 Williams.



Finally

#8 CARVER

CARVER
  • Member

  • 278 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 25 November 2004 - 23:56

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx
....
* According to the author of the article, software tests were only conducted on the top three finishing cars of the San Marino GP (ie Schumi's Benetton, Larini's Ferrari and Häkkinen's McLaren). This is very interesting if true, because it means that the other teams didn't have their software checked until later (if ever). It should be noted that all three tested cars contained illegal software. The problem that the FIA had with regards to attaining the source codes necessary to analyze the software were due to Ford, not Benetton (according to Ross Brawn). Ford considered this to be their "intellectual property" and thus they didn't want anyone to gain access to them....


A very interesting (and common) problem. This happens when you create rules/regulations, but you do not properly check (or are unable to do so) to see if everyone is playing by the rules. The teams know that if they can build in stuff that is illegal, but will not be found by the FIA, that other teams can do so as well. But there is probably no way that they can prove whether or not the other teams are actually doing it. For a team this could be justification enough to go ahead and implement these illegal changes, because if you don't you might not be able to compete with those who presumably do break the rules. I think this was also the reason why traction control was allowed a few years ago (because everyone was using it anyway). But if the FIA would suddenly come up with a new way to check the software they could possibly discover your illegal software and disqualify you because of this. Teams don't like this risk.

#9 eoin

eoin
  • Member

  • 5,014 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 26 November 2004 - 00:11

Originally posted by bira


I don't agree with you that these questions weren't asked and these answers weren't given......


You can always count on Bira to spoil our fun!

#10 bira

bira
  • Member

  • 13,359 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 26 November 2004 - 00:15

Naaaa, it was a very interesting read. I was only responding to Sir Frank, who I think had a veiled criticism in his post towards the media as a whole for not asking "these questions" or getting "these answers".

By all means, ignore me and continue the "fun" - it's always interesting to see how the years change (or not) a common debate :D

#11 eoin

eoin
  • Member

  • 5,014 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 26 November 2004 - 00:22

Will do :D

Ignore mode: on
Ok I think we are onto an even BIGGER story than Dupasquier confirming that Michelin didn't change their tyre after TyreGate....... wait a minute I see what you are trying to do!!! ;)

#12 RiDE

RiDE
  • Member

  • 1,027 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 26 November 2004 - 00:24

Originally posted by Fortymark


Finally


I'm sure Patrick also thinks his FW16 as better than the B194. :wave: What the hell do you expect these people to say?

#13 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 29,011 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 26 November 2004 - 00:28

Originally posted by Fortymark


Finally


You are accepting everything he says in this interview as 100% correct then?

Shaun

#14 karlth

karlth
  • Member

  • 16,290 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 26 November 2004 - 00:31

"Rosebud"

#15 HBoss

HBoss
  • Member

  • 4,220 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 26 November 2004 - 02:44

Originally posted by Fortymark


Finally


This will never end.
No matter what is said, some people will always, for whatever reasons, ignore all statements like this one from R Brawn and state the contrary. Even if they are a more than decade away (and not necessarily having watched the races) and had no involvement whatsoever in the making of the 1994 cars...

#16 bira

bira
  • Member

  • 13,359 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 26 November 2004 - 03:00

Originally posted by HBoss
No matter what is said, some people will always, for whatever reasons, ignore all statements like this one from R Brawn and state the contrary.


Much in the same way people ignore all statements from Michelin that their tyre is better, or all statements from Jean Todt that his driver is the best ever, etc.? At what point do you accept such statements as gospell and at what point do you reject them as biased opinions that count for little? :lol:

#17 RiDE

RiDE
  • Member

  • 1,027 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 26 November 2004 - 04:20

Originally posted by bira


Much in the same way people ignore all statements from Michelin that their tyre is better, or all statements from Jean Todt that his driver is the best ever, etc.? At what point do you accept such statements as gospell and at what point do you reject them as biased opinions that count for little? :lol:


:up:

#18 ralphrj

ralphrj
  • Member

  • 275 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 26 November 2004 - 04:47

Originally posted by RiDE


I'm sure Patrick also thinks his FW16 as better than the B194. :wave: What the hell do you expect these people to say?


Close.

From the same article...

"We had a pretty good car by the end of the year as the results showed. If anything, we had a car that was slightly quicker than the Benetton." - Adrian Newey

#19 Schuperman

Schuperman
  • Member

  • 1,745 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 26 November 2004 - 04:54

Originally posted by HBoss
This will never end.
No matter what is said, some people will always, for whatever reasons, ignore all statements like this one from R Brawn and state the contrary. Even if they are a more than decade away (and not necessarily having watched the races) and had no involvement whatsoever in the making of the 1994 cars...

I respect Brawn's statements. He may have some basis/ proofs to back his statements.

However, Brawn's view the 1994 Benetton were better than the 1994 Williams were not supported by strong evidences, results etc. The team could only secured WDC. WCC went to Williams. Without MS, Benetton 1994 were relegated into a midfield team. In the first 3 races, where were his teammates in quals and races? When MS was out in some races due to suspension, why Benetton performed very badly? This kind of questions must be answered in convincing manners.

Advertisement

#20 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 29,011 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 26 November 2004 - 05:03

Maybe it was a shade better. If you actually look at a comparative race by race performance, Michael DESTROYED Damon after all, it wasnt even close. It had been very very close with Ayrton.
Shaun

#21 Schumirocks

Schumirocks
  • Member

  • 269 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 26 November 2004 - 05:26

Originally posted by Schuperman

When MS was out in some races due to suspension, why Benetton performed very badly? This kind of questions must be answered in convincing manners.


:up: It was shocking to see how badly MS's teammates performances not only relatively to him but also to the rest of the field during that season. It's hard for me to believe Benetton was a better than the Williams that year.

#22 Ventura

Ventura
  • Member

  • 1,507 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 26 November 2004 - 06:04

I think the B194 started out better in terms of handling but after the FIA rules changes, the Williams seem to sort out their chassis problems and became the quicker car during the 2nd half of the season. If you look at the no.2 driver in the Benetton...the performances were quite mediocre.

#23 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 11,065 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 26 November 2004 - 07:39

Originally posted by Ventura
I think the B194 started out better in terms of handling but after the FIA rules changes, the Williams seem to sort out their chassis problems and became the quicker car during the 2nd half of the season. If you look at the no.2 driver in the Benetton...the performances were quite mediocre.


The other Benetton drivers really didn't have a shot even with all intrigue omitted. Lehto suffered severe neck and base of skull injuries during testing and did not have anywhere near proper time to recover before start of the season, Verstappen, whom seemed quite promising at the time, was drafted in the middle of the seson to stand in for Lehto with the team already firmly locked in Schumcahers title bid.

#24 Arrow

Arrow
  • Member

  • 9,190 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 26 November 2004 - 07:48

The benetton was better at the start of the year.Remember schumacher lapped hill at brazil by mid race, and i dont beleive he could of done that in equal cars.However this all changed as the williams was developed and the rule changes were brought im.

#25 Vrba

Vrba
  • Member

  • 3,334 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 26 November 2004 - 07:51

Originally posted by Fortymark


Finally

He also said that 1993 Benetton wasn't developed seriously during the course of the season. So mucvh about it being better than McLaren.

Hrvoje

#26 Shiftin

Shiftin
  • Member

  • 5,976 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 26 November 2004 - 07:52

Anything on the fact that Verstappen always was slowed down 5 seconds a lap to make MS look good?

#27 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 11,065 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 26 November 2004 - 07:59

Originally posted by Vrba
He also said that 1993 Benetton wasn't developed seriously during the course of the season. So mucvh about it being better than McLaren.

Hrvoje


Why? If Ferrari had raced entirety of 2004 with car not fundametally developed from what they started with at Melbourne they still would have been better than roughly 8 or 7 contenders on the grid at the end of the season. So even providing Brawn is scrupulously honest the statement as such is hardly conclusive in one direction or another.

#28 david_martin

david_martin
  • Member

  • 1,989 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 26 November 2004 - 08:02

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx
The problem that the FIA had with regards to attaining the source codes necessary to analyze the software were due to Ford, not Benetton (according to Ross Brawn). Ford considered this to be their "intellectual property" and thus they didn't want anyone to gain access to them.


You can safely substitute Cosworth for Ford all the way through those two sentences.

#29 Vrba

Vrba
  • Member

  • 3,334 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 26 November 2004 - 08:53

Originally posted by Oho


Why? If Ferrari had raced entirety of 2004 with car not fundametally developed from what they started with at Melbourne they still would have been better than roughly 8 or 7 contenders on the grid at the end of the season. So even providing Brawn is scrupulously honest the statement as such is hardly conclusive in one direction or another.

May be so but, given the past of the McLaren and Benetton and also the other facts relevant for 1993, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that Benetton had better car. Its only advantage was one-spec newer engine (insignificantly different) for half a season. Chassis, electronics, team, team's experience, drivers' experience, everything else was on McLaren's side. B193 was not a very good car by any means.

Hrvoje

#30 LuckyStrike1

LuckyStrike1
  • Member

  • 8,681 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 26 November 2004 - 08:56

"it wasn't us, it was them"

#31 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 11,065 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 26 November 2004 - 09:07

Originally posted by Vrba
Its only advantage was one-spec newer engine (insignificantly different) for half a season. Chassis, electronics, team, team's experience, drivers' experience, everything else was on McLaren's side. B193 was not a very good car by any means.

Hrvoje


So as things stand Brawns comment on seized development on Benetton actually made no difference cosidering you previously either knew or had decided McLaren was better on almost all aspects, even driver experince when in fact Häkkinen bore the brunt of McLaren testing while Senna primarly showed up only to race. Perhaps you should take a couple more IQ tests to convince a simpleton like me....

#32 Vrba

Vrba
  • Member

  • 3,334 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 26 November 2004 - 09:14

Originally posted by Oho


So as things stand Brawns comment on seized development on Benetton actually made no difference cosidering you previously either knew or had decided McLaren was better on almost all aspects, even driver experince when in fact Häkkinen bore the brunt of McLaren testing while Senna primarly showed up only to race. Perhaps you should take a couple more IQ tests to convince a simpleton like me....

I have already taken a most relevant IQ test and was quite happy with the results, thank you.
Now, tell me what are the arguments that Benetton could have been a Better car? It never before was, it wasn't in 1993 either, especially with chassis and electronics disadvantages.

Hrvoje

#33 angst

angst
  • Member

  • 7,135 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 26 November 2004 - 09:17

Originally posted by Vrba
I have already taken a most relevant IQ test and was quite happy with the results, thank you.
Now, tell me what are the arguments that Benetton could have been a Better car? It never before was, it wasn't in 1993 either, especially with chassis and electronics disadvantages.

Hrvoje


The McLaren was designed (AFAIK) around the Renault V10 and was re-jigged to fit the Ford V8. The Benetton was designed from the outset around the Ford V8. There must surely be some advantage in that.

#34 Garagiste

Garagiste
  • Member

  • 3,799 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 26 November 2004 - 09:34

Originally posted by ralphrj

.........
"We had a pretty good car by the end of the year as the results showed. If anything, we had a car that was slightly quicker than the Benetton." - Adrian Newey


Operative words being "by the end of the year", once they had re-designed the sidepods, etc.
So we have both Brawn and Newey in agreement that for half the season at least, the Benny was the better car. Yet still the "inferior package" cobblers continues, ah well.

#35 Sir Frank

Sir Frank
  • Member

  • 4,275 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 26 November 2004 - 09:43

Originally posted by bira


I don't agree with you that these questions weren't asked and these answers weren't given. It is a very interesting read but, it has to be said, it is not new information. Many from Benetton, Ross included, already said the same things.

The Silverstone bit can even be found on this BB from 4 years ago. See this post :)


Its new for me, I always start my thinking from "I have read almost everything what is out there to be read, surely I couldnt have missed such an important thing". I might need to adjust that, especially for things happened so long ago.

I was only responding to Sir Frank, who I think had a veiled criticism in his post towards the media as a whole for not asking "these questions" or getting "these answers".


In fact, its not veiled. I have read articles or interviews where my logic springs up questions that would be almost inevitable to ask. Still, these questions are not asked, which leads me to 3 possible conclusion that either 1, the question was asked but not answered. 2, the interviewer does not know sufficently enough or is just not good enough to do the job. 3, what interests me so much is almost non important for him (or for the majority of other readers), which will partly lead me back to option No2.

#36 DaleCooper

DaleCooper
  • Member

  • 2,512 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 26 November 2004 - 09:44

Vrba wrote:

I have already taken a most relevant IQ test and was quite happy with the results, thank you.



I myself have done extensive Image Quality tests on MY MONITOR, and let me tell you, MY MONITOR is the best monitor this side of Vienna! :clap:


On topic, I would say that if I were a Michael Schumacher detractor, I would not acknowledge what Ross Brawn said about the 1994 Bennetton. For if I were to take what he says about the 1994 season, and Schumacher in general, for granted, it would make Michael look like an angel, and a fast one at that! So perhaps certain people need to make up their minds about what side they really want to be on. Decision time! :rotfl:


Cooper

#37 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 11,065 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 26 November 2004 - 09:59

Originally posted by Vrba
I have already taken a most relevant IQ test and was quite happy with the results, thank you.


Hrvoje


Indeed I remember you making a number out of your presumed high IQ based on a test score and how wonderrfully bright and objective the test result made you, but still I am not convinced considering a simpleton like me can back up a semi truck through the holes in your arguments. The same no doubt is true with me but then again i have not advertised my near genius IQ score...

#38 DaleCooper

DaleCooper
  • Member

  • 2,512 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 26 November 2004 - 10:18

Oho wrote:


Indeed I remember you making a number out of your presumed high IQ based on a test score and how wonderrfully bright and objective the test result made you, but still I am not convinced considering a simpleton like me can back up a semi truck through the holes in your arguments. The same no doubt is true with me but then again i have not advertised my near genius IQ score...



Give the lad a break, everybody needs to toot their horn every once in a while, even Coulthard! :lol:


Cooper

#39 angst

angst
  • Member

  • 7,135 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 26 November 2004 - 10:20

Originally posted by DaleCooper
Vrba wrote:

I have already taken a most relevant IQ test and was quite happy with the results, thank you.



I myself have done extensive Image Quality tests on MY MONITOR, and let me tell you, MY MONITOR is the best monitor this side of Vienna! :clap:


On topic, I would say that if I were a Michael Schumacher detractor, I would not acknowledge what Ross Brawn said about the 1994 Bennetton. For if I were to take what he says about the 1994 season, and Schumacher in general, for granted, it would make Michael look like an angel, and a fast one at that! So perhaps certain people need to make up their minds what side they really want to be on. Decision time! :rotfl:


Cooper


I don't see the logic in this particular line of argument. Somebody can be 'economical' with the truth about certain issues, while still being honest about others. He's hardly going to suggest that they built a pig of a car, that they were cheating and that they acted stupidly at the British Grand Prix.

If you watch the '94 Benetton and Williams you can plainly see that, where the Williams is twitchy and wayward, the Benetton is light years ahead in terms of grip and traction - certainly earlier in the season. By the end of the season the Williams was the better car, no doubt in my mind. But early season the Benetton was the best car out there.

As far as the British GP goes, Schumacher was shown the black flag and ignored it, probably on the advice of the team. No matter what the circumstances there is no way that ignoring a black flag will be tolerated. It can't be, it would set a dangerous precedent and for Benetton to have acted as they did was at best naiive.

As for the software. How can you prove that a program cannot be activated? The defence used by Benetton was that to remove the launch control software would be to undermine legal software on the car. This being the case then certain facets of the 'illegal' software must have still have been active in some way and therefore almost certainly would be capable of being activated.

Advertisement

#40 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 11,065 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 26 November 2004 - 10:27

Originally posted by angst


As for the software. How can you prove that a program cannot be activated? The defence used by Benetton was that to remove the launch control software would be to undermine legal software on the car. This being the case then certain facets of the 'illegal' software must have still have been active in some way and therefore almost certainly would be capable of being activated.


By deleting all entry points...

Benetton excuse was valid considering how error prone programming is and how errors can be masked in binary images of programs, however the elaborate mechanism FIA:s hired software analysis firm found in the code to activate the "illegal" features does in my mind undermine credibilty of Benettons defence, in the cases of Ferai and McLaren apparently no such mechanisms were found, certainly not reported.

#41 DaleCooper

DaleCooper
  • Member

  • 2,512 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 26 November 2004 - 10:40

angst wrote:


I don't see the logic in this particular line of argument. Somebody can be 'economical' with the truth about certain issues, while still being honest about others. He's hardly going to suggest that they built a pig of a car, that they were cheating and that they acted stupidly at the British Grand Prix.


Since you seem so set on determining the truth( a most lofty ideal, rarely reached in the rarefied F1 smog), let me point out a couple of no brainers:

1- Brawn is not in a position to say the 1994 Benneton was better, he can only offer his educated guess. Sure it may be better than most, but it is as valid as his comments on Schumacher's driving ability, no more, or less. This is OPINION, not a fact.
2- He can be CERTAIN of whether they cheated or not, as he was in the loop, so his answers are either the truth or a lie, or a clever sidestep etc...
3- He can assess, from his PROBABLY complete knowledge of the chain of events, the operational integrity, and honesty, of Benneton at the British GP, but again, whether he speaks the whole truth is another matter


It is up to you to decide to believe those things he should know to a fault, and those things he is just giving his opinion on. But if you choose to accept his OPINION on one matter, perhaps you need to consider accepting his OPINION on another related matter, as either way, he knows way more than you or I, and he certainly seems consistent enough.


Cooper

#42 JtP

JtP
  • Member

  • 358 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 26 November 2004 - 11:08

Originally posted by Shiftin
Anything on the fact that Verstappen always was slowed down 5 seconds a lap to make MS look good?


What, at every team Jos has been with? In fact, MS slowing down at times gave Verstappen extra points. In Hungary 94. MS let Jos unlap himself at the start of the last lap, two other cars in front of hi broke down on the last lap and elevated Jos to the podium. Hill on the other hand lapped a problem hit DC at the British GP and didn't let him unlap himself. Blundell(?) and Hakkinen tripped over each other just before the finish line and stopped, but DC had already taken the flag so could not gain from it.

The truth is, there is no point in any team slowing a driver to make the no 1 driver look good if it deprives the team of points and money. In fact, Benneton in those days was on a performance related sponsorship deal, so points made prizes.

#43 angst

angst
  • Member

  • 7,135 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 26 November 2004 - 11:10

Originally posted by DaleCooper
angst wrote:


I don't see the logic in this particular line of argument. Somebody can be 'economical' with the truth about certain issues, while still being honest about others. He's hardly going to suggest that they built a pig of a car, that they were cheating and that they acted stupidly at the British Grand Prix.


Since you seem so set on determining the truth( a most lofty ideal, rarely reached in the rarefied F1 smog), let me point out a couple of no brainers:

1- Brawn is not in a position to say the 1994 Benneton was better, he can only offer his educated guess. Sure it may be better than most, but it is as valid as his comments on Schumacher's driving ability, no more, or less. This is OPINION, not a fact.
2- He can be CERTAIN of whether they cheated or not, as he was in the loop, so his answers are either the truth or a lie, or a clever sidestep etc...
3- He can assess, from his PROBABLY complete knowledge of the chain of events, the operational integrity, and honesty, of Benneton at the British GP, but again, whether he speaks the whole truth is another matter


It is up to you to decide to believe those things he should know to a fault, and those things he is just giving his opinion on. But if you choose to accept his OPINION on one matter, perhaps you need to consider accepting his OPINION on another related matter, as either way, he knows way more than you or I, and he certainly seems consistent enough.


Cooper


I didn't get my point across obviously. You seemed to be arguing that if one still maintained that the Benetton was the better car of '94 then, because this was the opinion of Ross Brawn then one would have to take on board his other opinions.


What I was saying is that I believe the '94 Benetton to have been the better car from my observations. It is my opinion. If Brawn says he believes the car was the best then that is, as you say, his opinion. If Newey says that the Williams was by the end of the year the best car, then that is another opinion which, by implication suggests he too believes the Benetton to have been the better car at the beginning of the year. These are opinions which are convergent with my own, so I am hardly going to disagree with them.

The other issues are on matters which could reflect very badly on himself. His point about proving that the software couldn't be activated is anything but consistent. One of the main questions asked of Benetton was why there was a complex mechanism for accessing the program. As for the incident at Silverstone I did accept that there may have been more going on that meets the eye ('94 was a very ugly year for any number of reasons) but Benetton were, at best, naiive to think that ignoring a black flag would not result in some form of punishment form the FIA - regardless of the circumstances. Especially given the ugly nature of the season.

I simply didn't understand why, if I believe the Benetton was the best car of the year (certainly the first half) that I then have to believe that everything that Benetton and Schumacher did that year was whiter than white. There is no contradiction in believeing one while questioning the other.

As for 'truth', it is always subjective, if it wasn't then there wouldn't be discussion forums.

#44 Schuperman

Schuperman
  • Member

  • 1,745 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 26 November 2004 - 11:13

Originally posted by Vrba
May be so but, given the past of the McLaren and Benetton and also the other facts relevant for 1993, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that Benetton had better car. Its only advantage was one-spec newer engine (insignificantly different) for half a season. Chassis, electronics, team, team's experience, drivers' experience, everything else was on McLaren's side. B193 was not a very good car by any means.

That's the problem being a MS. No matter what car he has driven so far, it has always been perceived by many to be the best car (1994 - 95, 2000-04), , or equally best car (1997- 1999) or top car (Jordan 1991) or at worst the second best car (1996). Interestingly, Benetton 1996 were perceived to be inferior than Ferrari 1996, when MS left them.

Historically, McLaren were the winning team from 1988 - 1991. Williams in 1992 - 1993 and 1996 -1997. Ironically, when MS came to compete in F1, all of the sudden, whatever teams he has joined, has been perceived to be the top team. Thus, who is the lucky part here... MS or the team he has joined? I guess that's why he is getting paid so highly.... because the team knew it.. whenever MS is in your team, your car will automatically be promoted into the best car... at worst the second best car. This guy is really lucky... off and on the tracks... ;)

What a pity for Senna.. :cry: Every team he joined, the car was instantly relegated into a self-destructive car but his genius had rescued them some winnings.. McLaren was the best car in 1988 - 1989, when Prost left in 1990... it was no longer enjoy being the absolute best car. Williams was the best car in 1992 - 1993, when Prost left, Senna joined.... it was no longer the best car. Was it a curse? Ccould be that the reason he offered himself free in order to join the team? :(

BTW I will give my utmost respect, to any drivers who could get the similar result like MS, if they could win WDC by driving other than McLaren and Williams in future, especially for teams that have never won WDC/ WCC. I always regard these two teams are the best in the business, save MS. For example, if Massa could help Sauber to win WDC, I will salute him. If Ralf or Trulli could help Toyota win WDC, I will salute them. If Alonso or GF could revive Renault, I will salute them. As simple as that. MS did it twice. First Benetton. Then Ferrari. He didnt have the chance to do that with Jordan. Prost almost did it with 1990 Ferrari.

#45 JtP

JtP
  • Member

  • 358 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 26 November 2004 - 11:23

Originally posted by Arrow
The benetton was better at the start of the year.Remember schumacher lapped hill at brazil by mid race, and i dont beleive he could of done that in equal cars.However this all changed as the williams was developed and the rule changes were brought im.


Both Senna and Schumacher had lapped Hill by mid race and Hill was lying third. Hill had even outdragged MS off the line and MS had overtaken him on the second lap. Another point is that both Mansell and Patrese had lapped the field by lap 30 at the same race in 92 and nobody screamed that they were cheating. The only initial problem for the 94 Williams was that Senna wasn't winning in it and he had spent 2 years whining that he couldn't get in a Williams.

#46 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,395 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 26 November 2004 - 11:40

Just a quick observation.

The fanboy mentality displayed in this thread has hit a peak. :rolleyes:

ENJOY THE RACING GUYS, don't defend your hero's like you life depends on it, they are not even aware of the fact you exist :wave:

#47 Schuperman

Schuperman
  • Member

  • 1,745 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 26 November 2004 - 11:51

Originally posted by JtP
The only initial problem for the 94 Williams was that Senna wasn't winning in it and he had spent 2 years whining that he couldn't get in a Williams.

Some posters here claims that Williams 1994 were twitchy. Senna could not handle that twitchy car in the race. But his genius managed him to secure 3 consecutive poles. Hill was not so genius, that's why he was always qualified third on the grid behind Senna and MS. While MS was assisted by illegal software. His teammate was denied this software because MS no. 1 status, that's why he was always qualified 10th on the grid...  ;)

#48 bira

bira
  • Member

  • 13,359 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 26 November 2004 - 11:53

Originally posted by Sir Frank
In fact, its not veiled. I have read articles or interviews where my logic springs up questions that would be almost inevitable to ask. Still, these questions are not asked, which leads me to 3 possible conclusion that either 1, the question was asked but not answered. 2, the interviewer does not know sufficently enough or is just not good enough to do the job. 3, what interests me so much is almost non important for him (or for the majority of other readers), which will partly lead me back to option No2.


Or 4, as the case may be, that you simply haven't read everything or know whether something was already covered or not ;)

#49 DaleCooper

DaleCooper
  • Member

  • 2,512 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 26 November 2004 - 12:12

angst wrote:

I simply didn't understand why, if I believe the Benetton was the best car of the year (certainly the first half) that I then have to believe that everything that Benetton and Schumacher did that year was whiter than white. There is no contradiction in believeing one while questioning the other.


Everything? I just specified the difference between opinions and truth values. You can call Brawn a liar on all sorts of things, that is no concern of mine, and you have that right. My point was about OPINIONS! OPINIONS ONLY! (I write bold so that you understand it is this point that is crucial :) )

IF you take Brawn's opinion on the competitiveness of the 1994 Benneton at face value, you just as surely have to take his opinions on the qualities of Michael Schumacher as a driver at face value. To not do so, indeed introduces a level of bias into a discussion that is both foolhardy and hollow. I don't care whose side you are on, by the way,as I don't know, I am only after consistency.
Furthermore, there is more evidence to back up the latter claim than the former, so surely my reasoning is not a massive stretch. My comment was strictly aimed at those who will seek to wield Brawn's claims as some sort of evidence in order to diminish Schumacher's contribution at Benneton, namely in 1994, while at the same time choking on countless anecdotes describing Schumacher as a supreme driver, from the same source, and disregarding them.

As far as truth being subjective, it is, but only in the realm of the deluded that actually BELIEVE they have found it. The wisest of all will tell you that acceptance of the reality that you may be no closer to the truth at the end of your life as at the beginning may be your only salvation.
Truth exists, our ability to perceive it is very limited. Most people aren't happy with that reality, so they create their own so called TRUTHS, which as you say is mostly subjective, and not worth the toilet paper they read it from.


Cooper

#50 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 11,778 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 26 November 2004 - 12:14

Originally posted by man
Just a quick observation.

The fanboy mentality displayed in this thread has hit a peak. :rolleyes:

:wave:



No, it hasn't.


Read: "Montoya's first date in the McLaren"

or

"Was Prost better than Senna?"

or the one about Prost being better than Schumacher.

Those ones contain expressions of being totally obsessed with one or more drivers that make you shake your head and indications that Harry Potter has a serious rival coming up shortly.


this thread is a love affair compared with the ones I mentioned.

Henri Greuter