schumacher-hill 1994(that incident)
Discussion
flemke said:
pablo said:
yawn, probably. and how many races was suchmacher banned/disqualified for that season? Silverstone?
Fewer than the number that he won whilst using traction control.fair enough but if it was such an advantage, why wasnt his team mate finishing second if they both had traction control?......
pablo said:
flemke said:
pablo said:
yawn, probably. and how many races was suchmacher banned/disqualified for that season? Silverstone?
Fewer than the number that he won whilst using traction control.fair enough but if it was such an advantage, why wasnt his team mate finishing second if they both had traction control?......
His team mates were firstly JJ Lehto until he got injured at San Marino. He stalled on the startline and caused the crash that brought out the saftey car, perhaps the traction control prevented his clean getaway? He was then replaced by the very inexperienced Jos Verstappen.
Edited by FourWheelDrift on Thursday 9th November 11:50
pablo said:
flemke said:
pablo said:
yawn, probably. and how many races was suchmacher banned/disqualified for that season? Silverstone?
Fewer than the number that he won whilst using traction control.fair enough but if it was such an advantage, why wasnt his team mate finishing second if they both had traction control?......
Do we know that both cars were running TC? We know that MS's was, because that was the one that was scrutinised (not to mention which, in a car mag someone is currently offering MS's '94 car for sale as it was originally raced in '94 - 'with TC').
Just because his teammates were less successful than he hardly means that the cars were legal.
Edited by flemke on Thursday 9th November 12:46
pablo said:
agreed, but its highly unlikely that they would be running different cars for different drivers to such an extent that one would have traction control and another not? what about the spare car? who is that set up for in these circumstances?
The allegation is that the relevant software was loaded on the grid from a laptop into the RAM. As soon as the engine was switched off, the program was deleted (and therefore not directly detectable). The spare car would only gain the software if it was called into action and there was time to load it. It would also be highly likely that the second car would never receive the upload - why double the risk of detection or being grassed-up? Many teams over the years have provided additional support or better equipment to the preferred driver - even the 'serious' teams with two prospective winners (Rosberg & Laffite at Williams being a good example).
The allegation also continues that the cause of the Silverstone problems (MS playing silly buggers on the warm-up lap) were caused by the illegal software corrupting on transfer - the car believed it had started the race, and MS was trying to not to give the game away. That he then ignored the black flag meant he just got what he deserved.
Suggesting that the FIA manipulated the season (in favour of Hill) doesn't really stack up. The rumour of the illegal software was out in April. Whilst difficult to detect directly (see above), the FIA could have obtained telemetry from every start that year. Any software-controlled starts would have shown up identical parameter traces (wheel slip, ignition retard/cut) that would be impossible for any driver to provide. The correct penalty, if the allegations were proven, would have been a minimum one year ban from all forms of FIA competiton for the team and potentially longer bans for any team members directly implicated. So if you believe the allegations, BenettonF1, Schumacher, and all those people who turned up at Ferrari in later years got away scott free.
HiRich said:
pablo said:
agreed, but its highly unlikely that they would be running different cars for different drivers to such an extent that one would have traction control and another not? what about the spare car? who is that set up for in these circumstances?
The allegation is that the relevant software was loaded on the grid from a laptop into the RAM. As soon as the engine was switched off, the program was deleted (and therefore not directly detectable).
Suggesting that the FIA manipulated the season (in favour of Hill) doesn't really stack up. The rumour of the illegal software was out in April. Whilst difficult to detect directly (see above), the FIA could have obtained telemetry from every start that year. Any software-controlled starts would have shown up identical parameter traces (wheel slip, ignition retard/cut) that would be impossible for any driver to provide.
Rich,
I recently did a wee bit of research on this question and it appeared that Benetton had admitted that there was a TC programme on the car that was scrutinised, but they claimed that it was there only for "testing".
flemke, i was brought up on a diet of villeneuve, clark, fittipaldi and senna. i didnt rate hill as a driver and he had a distinct lack of personality. i know it doesnt matter in terms of driving ability but for me a driver should have an unshakeable mental attitude that he will win every race, and race to the end regardless. f1 has a number of drivers in it who will happily trundle round and call 10th place "ok" or "a success!" which drives me mad. If senna had finished 10th he would not have given an interview let alone describe it as ok!. i never got the impression Hill had that fight in him. as much as i never liked mansell as a person, i did like his fight and his desire.
re silverstone, if the same thing happened today, i do not think that Charlie Whiting would apply the same punishment, i think a driver overtaking at tht stage of the warm up lap would not recieve a penalty. i see it happening a lot in club motorsport and schumacher was not in front come Copse if i remember correctly, he had already slowed down and hill was back ahead. were williams testing schumacher? people rarely raise the thought that Hill deliberately went slow, i cant remember it now but was the car in third close to the back of Hill?
the FIA had the chance to stop it all ages ago and ban all the telemetry, the fly by wire throttle etc but didnt. i blame them more than bennetton. do the FIA want F1 to be the pinnacle of motorsport or have enjoyable racing? i dont think it can have both.
i dont know, i just think that everyone was out to get Schumacher and used every advantage possible, threw the book and the maximum possible penalty at him whereby they could, is it any wonder he turned into the driver he did? i loved it when he thrashed everyone on talent alone, especially in 96 when that ferrari was the worst ferrari since the Alboreto/Tambay era and yet he still managed a race win or two.
good discussion, you are battering me with factual kowledge and all i have is something that i cant quite describe but i think "balls" is the best description! Schumacher had them, Hill did not. sorry guys, thats as scientific as i go.
re silverstone, if the same thing happened today, i do not think that Charlie Whiting would apply the same punishment, i think a driver overtaking at tht stage of the warm up lap would not recieve a penalty. i see it happening a lot in club motorsport and schumacher was not in front come Copse if i remember correctly, he had already slowed down and hill was back ahead. were williams testing schumacher? people rarely raise the thought that Hill deliberately went slow, i cant remember it now but was the car in third close to the back of Hill?
the FIA had the chance to stop it all ages ago and ban all the telemetry, the fly by wire throttle etc but didnt. i blame them more than bennetton. do the FIA want F1 to be the pinnacle of motorsport or have enjoyable racing? i dont think it can have both.
i dont know, i just think that everyone was out to get Schumacher and used every advantage possible, threw the book and the maximum possible penalty at him whereby they could, is it any wonder he turned into the driver he did? i loved it when he thrashed everyone on talent alone, especially in 96 when that ferrari was the worst ferrari since the Alboreto/Tambay era and yet he still managed a race win or two.
good discussion, you are battering me with factual kowledge and all i have is something that i cant quite describe but i think "balls" is the best description! Schumacher had them, Hill did not. sorry guys, thats as scientific as i go.
I've just learned something interesting in this months Motor Sport. (Today I've read two utterly superb articles, one on Jim Clark, who surely has to be the f1 driver with most natural talent of all time, and, Simon Taylor has lunch with Brian Redman at Harry Ramsdens at Guisely. What a fantastic article. God, the modern lot are boring! Buy this months mag, its fantastic).
Anyway, Nigel Roebuck does another yawntastic piece on schumacher, which I considered to be way below Roebucks usual standards. Whast he does say though, which I've never heard before, is that they applied th wrong penalty to schumacher for his heinious crime of playing games with hill on the warm up lap at Silverstone. Apparently the rule book required them to start schumacher from the back of the grid, but it seems they didn't know this. So they gave him the black flag much later in the race, which was wrong.
Roebuck says Benetton did nothing to pull schumacher in, but thats stretching truth to the limit imo. What benetton did do was argue vociferously with Charlie Whiting was it? It was seen clearly on tv, and I can recall seeing tom walkinshaw arguing fiercely.
Benetton was a young team with a rookie driver who were showing up the establishment. This was where the cheating rumours came from. Nobody believed that Flav, Brawn and schumacher could be that good, and the only possible explanation was that they were cheating. It was ever thus.
The establishment did all they could to slap this team down, but they couldn't find any evidence of usage of traction control. Isn't it odd, that all these years later, the same team in effect (Renault) are still regarded as the best starters. How have they managed to get away with cheating so long?
So its interesting that this fact about the penalty applied at silverstone has emerged (well, like i say, i've never heard it before, i'm wondering if its correct). One thing that will always remain though: If that was the wrong penalty applied at the British Grand Prix it will have been so through error, not cheating. The British simply do not cheat. Its called gamesmanship when the brits cheat. Its only called cheating when Johnny Foreigner indulges in gamesmanship.
If it had been Hill in that benetton and schumacher in that williams, for the whole season and absolutely everything else as it was, then I say this nation would have 100% the opposite view of what happened. Hill would have been the rightful champion after being unjustly given a 3 race ban. Schumacher would have been a cheat for bouncing poor Hill into the air at Adelaide.
I totally agree with the comment that I read by Ross Brawn. In '94 the best driver won in the best car for the best team. Any other result would have been a travesty.
Anyway, Nigel Roebuck does another yawntastic piece on schumacher, which I considered to be way below Roebucks usual standards. Whast he does say though, which I've never heard before, is that they applied th wrong penalty to schumacher for his heinious crime of playing games with hill on the warm up lap at Silverstone. Apparently the rule book required them to start schumacher from the back of the grid, but it seems they didn't know this. So they gave him the black flag much later in the race, which was wrong.
Roebuck says Benetton did nothing to pull schumacher in, but thats stretching truth to the limit imo. What benetton did do was argue vociferously with Charlie Whiting was it? It was seen clearly on tv, and I can recall seeing tom walkinshaw arguing fiercely.
Benetton was a young team with a rookie driver who were showing up the establishment. This was where the cheating rumours came from. Nobody believed that Flav, Brawn and schumacher could be that good, and the only possible explanation was that they were cheating. It was ever thus.
The establishment did all they could to slap this team down, but they couldn't find any evidence of usage of traction control. Isn't it odd, that all these years later, the same team in effect (Renault) are still regarded as the best starters. How have they managed to get away with cheating so long?
So its interesting that this fact about the penalty applied at silverstone has emerged (well, like i say, i've never heard it before, i'm wondering if its correct). One thing that will always remain though: If that was the wrong penalty applied at the British Grand Prix it will have been so through error, not cheating. The British simply do not cheat. Its called gamesmanship when the brits cheat. Its only called cheating when Johnny Foreigner indulges in gamesmanship.
If it had been Hill in that benetton and schumacher in that williams, for the whole season and absolutely everything else as it was, then I say this nation would have 100% the opposite view of what happened. Hill would have been the rightful champion after being unjustly given a 3 race ban. Schumacher would have been a cheat for bouncing poor Hill into the air at Adelaide.
I totally agree with the comment that I read by Ross Brawn. In '94 the best driver won in the best car for the best team. Any other result would have been a travesty.
heebeegeetee said:
The establishment did all they could to slap this team down, but they couldn't find any evidence of usage of traction control.
And what would be required for evidence of "usage" - having someone sit on Schumacher's lap whilst he drove?
They found TC on the car. If it wasn't there for use in a race, what else would it have been doing in a race car?
heebeegeetee said:
Isn't it odd, that all these years later, the same team in effect (Renault) are still regarded as the best starters. How have they managed to get away with cheating so long?
First, TC is used for a lot more than just launch control. You may remember that Senna became convinced that Benetton was using TC because he heard it in operation as he stood along a part of the circuit far from the pits and listened to Schumacher exit a nearby bend.
Second, it's widely believed that the Renaults were good off the line in the early '00s because of their rearward weight bias and the software skills of one of their engineers.
Third, Renault were the "same team in effect", except for a few small changes such as Brawn, Byrne and Schumacher - in other words, the guys calling the shots!
heebeegeetee said:
I totally agree with the comment that I read by Ross Brawn. In '94 the best driver won in the best car for the best team. Any other result would have been a travesty.
Ah, okay. That settles it. It's always good to hear the opinion of an objective, unbiased, disinterested expert witness, such as the guy who ran the Benetton team.
We're convinced now!
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff