132 replies to this topic

[Buttoneer]

This weeks 'Ask Nigel' has this snippet in a discussion about whether F1 was ever going to see the end of the Spygate thing;

As for F1, the fact is that, as Stewart said of the 'Spygate' affair, this sort of thing has always gone on - indeed a couple of weeks ago Adrian Newey said the same, adding that there had been far worse examples of it in the past that had gone unpunished - and, in many cases, undetected. Anyone in the paddock, for example, will tell you that one year - no, I'm not saying which - the world championship was won by a blatantly illegal car.

So which year do we think it was? The easy contender must be the traction control Benetton in 1994 but I'm not sure whether that is considered 'blatant'. Maybe one of the ground-effect Lotus' used in 1978 or even the TMD Renault from last year? Or maybe, none of the above.

Which year do we think it was?

[Mika Mika]

Got to be the Benetton....

[selespeed]

1994

[F1Fanatic.co.uk]

In the past he's made remarks about the 1981 Brabham being underweight, particularly at the Monaco Grand Prix where Nelson Piquet beat Gilles Villeneuve to pole position.

[SchumiF1]

2007 McLaren MP4-22 (they won the WCC after all)

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by F1Fanatic.co.uk
In the past he's made remarks about the 1981 Brabham being underweight, particularly at the Monaco Grand Prix where Nelson Piquet beat Gilles Villeneuve to pole position.

A quick check tells me that Williams won the championship that year but maybe Nigel has used the term loosely in his new article and referred to the car used by the championship winner?

[cheesy poofs]

Originally posted by F1Fanatic.co.uk
In the past he's made remarks about the 1981 Brabham being underweight, particularly at the Monaco Grand Prix where Nelson Piquet beat Gilles Villeneuve to pole position.

I'd second that, but I honestly think the 83 Brabham with its 'special fuel' takes my vote.

[Gilles4Ever]

Originally posted by cheesy poofs


I'd second that, but I honestly think the 83 Brabham with its 'special fuel' takes my vote.

I think that was it too, afaik there was more than just the fuel tanks. Also remember who owned that team ;)

[sensible]

Fer fecks sake, get over it nige. they cheated, they were caught, they were punished. however many others did or did not cheat does not change that fact, however much mclaren-style dissembling pr you indulge in.

[ensign14]

Probably 1994, but maybe 1983. Roebuck is a Prostophile and it's on record that Renault considered appealing Piquet's Brabham on the basis that it used illegal fuel. And Piquet's 1981 Brabham was illegal, but that was very swiftly followed by everyone on the grid.

Then again every turbo engine was illegal.

[HSJ]

Originally posted by sensible
Fer fecks sake, get over it nige. they cheated, they were caught, they were punished. however many others did or did not cheat does not change that fact, however much mclaren-style dissembling pr you indulge in.

Expect more of the same for years, maybe decades, from the British media. They are never going to admit that one of their teams has done the most foul thing ever in F1 history. It always has to be someone else, like the French or the Germans. Take the Newey quote for example, Newey did say a bit more than just 'it has always gone on' or whatever, he did think McLaren deserved to be punished.

[karlth]

Originally posted by SchumiF1
2007 McLaren MP4-22 (they won the WCC after all)

No and neither did the Benetton in 1994, Williams took the constructors title.

The only team in modern F1 which have been proven to cheat during the season and won a championship is Benetton in 1994 when they took the WDC. They ran an illegal refuelling rig for about half the season and the car was fitted with Traction Control as well (although use was never proven, the software was in the car).

Then again has has been pointed out it could be Brabham.

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by HSJ


Expect more of the same for years, maybe decades, from the British media. They are never going to admit that one of their teams has done the most foul thing ever in F1 history. It always has to be someone else, like the French or the Germans. Take the Newey quote for example, Newey did say a bit more than just 'it has always gone on' or whatever, he did think McLaren deserved to be punished.

I know this thread isn't about Kimi but any chance of staying on topic since you already have plenty of bash threads available?

@ Karlth, the Brabham didn't win the WCC title either so in that regard it falls outside of your criterion as with the Benetton.

It's hard to say whether it is right to include cars that provided a WDC rather than simply a WCC winning car as the text suggests.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by HSJ


Expect more of the same for years, maybe decades, from the British media. They are never going to admit that one of their teams has done the most foul thing ever in F1 history.

I think he is, indeed, referring to a British team!

Benetton in '94.

The '81 Brabham was illegal, but then so was every other car in the field, and the '83 Brabham is often said to have been running illegal fuel, but that's a myth easily dismissed by reference to some of the classier documents of the time (try 'The 1000bhp Grand Prix Cars', by Ian Bamsey, which gives the complete constituents of the Brabham 'rocket fuel'),

Interesting the ensign raises the 'every turbo was illegal' point, too, as they were'nt - Ken Tyrrel challenged it, and lost.

As for the 'most foul thing ever in F1 history' - do we count Renault as British, or French?

[Clatter]

Originally posted by Lifew12


I think he is, indeed, referring to a British team!

Benetton in '94.

The '81 Brabham was illegal, but then so was every other car in the field, and the '83 Brabham is often said to have been running illegal fuel, but that's a myth easily dismissed by reference to some of the classier documents of the time (try 'The 1000bhp Grand Prix Cars', by Ian Bamsey, which gives the complete constituents of the Brabham 'rocket fuel'),

Interesting the ensign raises the 'every turbo was illegal' point, too, as they were'nt - Ken Tyrrel challenged it, and lost.

As for the 'most foul thing ever in F1 history' - do we count Renault as British, or French?

Benetton was an Italian team.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Clatter


Benetton was an Italian team.

Indeed you are correct! How time muddies the memory......

[karlth]

Originally posted by Buttoneer
@ Karlth, the Brabham didn't win the WCC title either so in that regard it falls outside of your criterion as with the Benetton.

Which is why I think he is talking about the WDC, and probably Benetton.

[pacificquay]

Benetton raced as a British team in 1994.

They only changed to Italian in about 96/7

[wingwalker]

I'm pretty sure it's 1994. If it was about early 80's I think it wouldn't be a that much of a big deal to simply name the car. But it's not that easy to openly call a cheater one of the biggest names in modern day F1.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by HSJ


Expect more of the same for years, maybe decades, from the British media. They are never going to admit that one of their teams has done the most foul thing ever in F1 history. It always has to be someone else, like the French or the Germans.

Benetton = British; Brabham = British. Damn, those facts seem to interfere with quasi-racist bigotry yet again.

Originally posted by Lifew12
Interesting the ensign raises the 'every turbo was illegal' point, too, as they were'nt - Ken Tyrrel challenged it, and lost.

Only cos it was too inconvenient to tell every team bar one "you're disqualified".

[kismet]

Any chance that Roebuck's referring to something that went undetected, not just unpunished? Why refuse to name the culprit if it's indeed one of the usual suspects everyone "knows" about?

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by kismet
Any chance that Roebuck's referring to something that went undetected, not just unpunished? Why refuse to name the culprit if it's indeed one of the usual suspects everyone "knows" about?

Because his job relies on him being on at least reasonably good terms with these people, perhaps?

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by ensign14

.


Only cos it was too inconvenient to tell every team bar one "you're disqualified".

True, whereas it was quite easy for them to change the story a few times in order to bump out Uncle Ken (who, ironically, was the original sigantory to Renault's customer engine plan!)

[karlth]

Originally posted by kismet
Any chance that Roebuck's referring to something that went undetected, not just unpunished? Why refuse to name the culprit if it's indeed one of the usual suspects everyone "knows" about?

Mosley said that one of the teams in 2000 cheated, although not one of the front running teams.

Roebuck was once quoted saying as well that the reason for the TC reintroduction was because some of the teams were running the system undetected.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by karlth


Mosley said that one of the teams in 2000 cheated, although not one of the front running teams.

I'd heard something about 1999, but can't remember if it was from Mosley. Not the champion or runner-up team.

[karlth]

Originally posted by ensign14

I'd heard something about 1999, but can't remember if it was from Mosley. Not the champion or runner-up team.

Yes, you are probably right. 1999.

[FNG]

Yes, I remember hearing talk of the Jordan of 1999 being an illegal car. If memory serves it was traction control.

[SchumiBoy]

Originally posted by karlth


Yes, you are probably right. 1999.

It was 1999 and everybody was looking at Jordan

[wingwalker]

I also read here that someone from Jordan not-quite-officially-but-still confirmed it years later.

[Buttoneer]

Neither the Jordan car, nor either of it's drivers, won a championship that year. Not that I'd put it past Eddie to cheat and still fail but it can't be the car Nigel is referring to.

[Only Massa]

I must say I am disgusted by Roebuck's opinion about Mclaren's cheating.
He's trying to convince us that stealing ALL THE IP from another team is a normal thing in F1. That's only pathetic nationalism translated into bad journalism.

And I'm disgusted by his half-words about a car "blatantly illegal"

A good journalist would have said what car was blatantly illegal and would have taken responsiblity for his actions. Journalist with no balls or with a Paragon-oriented agenda can only rely on innuendos to confirm an undefendable thesis.

I want FACTS and journalists with enough balls and competence to support them.

Thank God, Nigel "I love Ronnie" Roebuck will cease his collaboration with Autosport. It was about time. The way he dealt with the McLaren spying scandal lost him my trust.

[Galko877]

Originally posted by FNG
Yes, I remember hearing talk of the Jordan of 1999 being an illegal car. If memory serves it was traction control.

Indeed Mosley said that one of the teams was running illegal cars in 1999. But didn't he also say it was NOT one of the teams who were fighting for the title? I have haard rumours it was Stewart. Remember how unusually great Stewart was in 1999. Of course, the same could be said of Jordan as well, but I have heard it was Stewart.

(But given Roebuck's hate towards Schumacher he probably refers to Benetton 1994.)

[Clatter]

Originally posted by Only Massa
A good journalist would have said what car was blatantly illegal and would have taken responsiblity for his actions. Journalist with no balls or with a Paragon-oriented agenda can only rely on innuendos to confirm an undefendable thesis.

I want FACTS and journalists with enough balls and competence to support them.

The problem is that F1 journalists rarely name names, or ask the really hard searching questions of the authorities for fear of losing thier license, and therefore, income.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Only Massa

A good journalist would have said what car was blatantly illegal and would have taken responsiblity for his actions.

No journalist who wished to continue covering the sport would do such a thing. He wouldn;t get past the gate next time.

[FLB]

Originally posted by karlth


Yes, you are probably right. 1999.

The French press theorized at the time it may have been Jordan and that it may have explained why their competitiveness dropped so much from 2000-onwards. The reasoning I remember is that there were more than a few people who thought the way Frentzen's car stopped at the 'Ring was a bit, shall we say, 'suspicious'.

That being said, nothing's ever been proven.

[Galko877]

Originally posted by Only Massa
I must say I am disgusted by Roebuck's opinion about Mclaren's cheating.
He's trying to convince us that stealing ALL THE IP from another team is a normal thing in F1. That's only pathetic nationalism translated into bad journalism.

And I'm disgusted by his half-words about a car "blatantly illegal"

A good journalist would have said what car was blatantly illegal and would have taken responsiblity for his actions. Journalist with no balls or with a Paragon-oriented agenda can only rely on innuendos to confirm an undefendable thesis.

I want FACTS and journalists with enough balls and competence to support them.

Thank God, Nigel "I love Ronnie" Roebuck will cease his collaboration with Autosport. It was about time. The way he dealt with the McLaren spying scandal lost him my trust.

I have always wondered why people wanted his opinion at all. I mean there were some topics in this 'Ask Nigel' series in which I'm interested in, therefore I read his answers sometimes (rather rarely, I have to say) and almost always I have found inaccuracies in them... I mean factual inaccuracies, not just a different opinion than mine. :

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Galko877




I have always wondered why people wanted his opinion at all. I mean there were some topics in this 'Ask Nigel' series in which I'm interested in, therefore I read his answers sometimes (rather rarely, I have to say) and almost always I have found inaccuracies in them... I mean factual inaccuracies, not just a different opinion than mine. :

If you don't want someone'e opinion, don't read it!

I'm interested, while you're on it, about these factual inaccuracies - can we have some?

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Only Massa
I must say I am disgusted by Roebuck's opinion about Mclaren's cheating.
He's trying to convince us that stealing ALL THE IP from another team is a normal thing in F1. That's only pathetic nationalism translated into bad journalism.

And I'm disgusted by his half-words about a car "blatantly illegal"

A good journalist would have said what car was blatantly illegal and would have taken responsiblity for his actions. Journalist with no balls or with a Paragon-oriented agenda can only rely on innuendos to confirm an undefendable thesis.

Nonsense. An investigative journalist backed up with a big wallet would say what car was "blatantly illegal" because he could afford the defamation claim. I think anyone who has a serious interest in F1 knows there are serious concerns about the legality of the WDC winning cars in 1983 and 1994. But have you seen any journalist anywhere in the world accuse them of cheating in those words?

And how, my dear Only Massa, can you say this is "nationalism" when nobody is suggesting that the fingered team here is Ferrari?

Originally posted by Galko877
Indeed Mosley said that one of the teams was running illegal cars in 1999. But didn't he also say it was NOT one of the teams who were fighting for the title? I have haard rumours it was Stewart. Remember how unusually great Stewart was in 1999. Of course, the same could be said of Jordan as well...

I'd heard it for both but discounted Stewart as it seemed a fairly organic "improvement" (they had a 2nd in their debut season, IIRC) from a stable base, before Ford wrecked it. But then again it's possible that a number of teams were using an imaginative interpretation of TC.

[Knot]

2007 Ferrari.

It's an exact copy of the 2008 McLaren.

Ban!

[Galko877]

Originally posted by Lifew12


If you don't want someone'e opinion, don't read it!

I'm interested, while you're on it, about these factual inaccuracies - can we have some?

But if you don't read somebody's opinion how do you know if you want it or not? You have to know a thing to form an opinion on it, don't you? It's not that I have read it all the time, but when I saw a headline about a driver or a team I liked sometimes I took a look just to see what makes Roebuck's opinion so special. And I have found it's no more special or even accurate than many of the forummers' here.

One of the articles I remember, just from the top of my head, is when he was asked why Schumacher never went to Mercedes in F1. Because MS is one of my favourite drivers and I know his story pretty well to me Roebuck's answer showed how little he knows about him. I always knew he disliked him, but if he is in the role of a knowledgable journalist whose opinion is seeked by many, at least he should try to do a little research on the subject before he answers. What he answered was basically a lot of nothing with a little bit of speculation from him on why it might have been. While we have documented events and comments to answer that question. He used none of those facts, instead he just speculated...

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Galko877


But if you don't read somebody's opinion how do you know if you want it or not?

Touche - great answer.

b]

[You have to know a thing to form an opinion on it, don't you? It's not that I have read it all the time, but when I saw a headline about a driver or a team I liked sometimes I took a look just to see what makes Roebuck's opinion so special. And I have found it's no more special or even accurate than many of the forummers' here.

[/b]

I wasn't aware that Roebucks opinion was special; his passion for the sport has always been what interested me (more so some years ago as opposed to now).

One of the articles I remember, just from the top of my head, is when he was asked why Schumacher never went to Mercedes in F1. Because MS is one of my favourite drivers and I know his story pretty well to me Roebuck's answer showed how little he knows about him. I always knew he disliked him, but if he is in the role of a knowledgable journalist whose opinion is seeked by many, at least he should try to do a little research on the subject before he answers. What he answered was basically a lot of nothing with a little bit of speculation from him on why it might have been. While we have documented events and comments to answer that question. He used none of those facts, instead he just speculated...

I don't know the answer - what is it?

Incidentally, the last time I spoke to him we talked about Schumacher - I don't think he dislikes him at all, but rather dislikes the latter day ethics that arrived in F1 in the Senna era, and were continued through Michaels tenure.

[ZZMS]

Originally posted by Knot
2007 Ferrari.

It's an exact copy of the 2008 McLaren.

Ban!

[pingu666]

havent read roebrok for awhile, but one gets the feeling he troths at the mouth less than the average forum goer ;)

[Galko877]

Originally posted by Lifew12

I don't know the answer - what is it?

As you know MS came to F1 as a Mercedes factory driver. They paid his first ride with Jordan. Mercedes kept an option on him until the beginning of 1993. In 1993 Mercedes was entering F1 with Sauber and they even issued an official statement that their drivers would be Schumacher and Wendlinger! (A pretty well-documented intent, I would say.) However by the time MS found his new home at Benetton and they were on their way up, so understandably he wasn't too keen on joining Sauber-Mercedes. He told this to Peter Sauber and Sauber was a gentleman and said: "There is no way you can force a driver to do something he doesn't want." So they simply released him from his contract with Mercedes. (Wouldn't happen in today's F1, I think.)

This however wasn't the last time Schumacher and Mercedes considered a re-union. When Michael negotiated with Ferrari in 1995, he also negotiated with McLaren-Mercedes. Why did he choose Ferrari over Mercedes? The answer is from the man himself:

“There were several conversations and meetings with McLaren-Mercedes, for example 1995 in Monte Carlo,” he said in an interview with German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung’s magazine.

“But I noticed that we didn’t really fit together.

“I didn’t fit to McLaren or to be honest to McLaren boss Ron Dennis.

“It seemed to work out with Mercedes I am sure we would have found a way.

“Ron Dennis and I had different ideas how a Formula 1 team should work.”

(From ITV-F1.com)

Michael's reasoning goes a bit further in explaining what those "different ideas" mean (in short he says: it's not about wanting a Nr 1 contract - according to MS he never had that -, but in his opinion once the team can see who is the faster, and who has a better shot at the title, they have to support that driver), but it's already off topic here, so I don't want to copy the whole article here.

There were also negotiations between Michael and McLaren in 1998.

As for Roebuck's answer, you can search for that in the autosport.com database. It's more just a speculation without considering these above facts and quotes from the man who knows it the best - MS.

But I don't want to discuss MS-Mercedes relations here, it's waaaaay off topic. All I want to say, in the articles I've read from Roebuck he didn't seem to me more knowledgable than any average fan. Maybe I just read the wrong articles, I don't know. He is probably more knowledgable on subjects he likes, at least I hope.

[giacomo]

Originally posted by Lifew12


No journalist who wished to continue covering the sport would do such a thing. He wouldn;t get past the gate next time.

No need for him to get past the gate if he hasn't the balls to publish what's going on behind the gate.

[Burai]

http://www.autosport...x.html/id/22023 is the Schumacher article in question.

I see nothing there which explicitly disagrees with what you've said in any way.

[angst]

Originally posted by giacomo
No need for him to get past the gate if he hasn't the balls to publish what's going on behind the gate.

But then, he's only not saying what's going on behind the gate to those who don't want to see what he's saying.....

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Burai
http://www.autosport...x.html/id/22023 is the Schumacher article in question.

I see nothing there which explicitly disagrees with what you've said in any way.

Yeah, I read it earlier, and wouldn't call it factually inaccurate in any way.

[Group B]

Originally posted by angst


But then, he's only not saying what's going on behind the gate to those who don't want to see what he's saying.....

That'll be those who like their journalists to demonstrate at least a semblance of impartiality then

[giacomo]

Originally posted by angst

But then, he's only not saying what's going on behind the gate to those who don't want to see what he's saying.....

I would like to know which championship was won by a blatantly illegal car. Seriously. But Roebuck did not tell me.