Michael Schumacher & traction control...

[LDN]

I've been trying to work out how many championships Schuey has won with traction control and how many he has won without TC; does anyone know?

I know his first championship was won with traction control despite it being banned; a few teams had 'hidden' it and his car was one of them but I'm hazy; anyone have the offical stat on this?

[mattikake]

Possibly all of the WDC's had some element of TC, but an oficial stat is probably unlikely as this was all unofficial! The FIA gave up on the ban in er... 2002 IIRC... because it was impossible to police. You know this means many teams were running some form of it or another.

As I see it, Schumi's all-conquering driving style was based around TC. Without it, he was fast, but not 'all-conquering' as per 1992 and 1993, especially when comparing wet weather performances with perhaps only 2 good drives out of 7 wet races. (7 wins out of 11 in 'official' TC times in the wet). A considerable difference in form. And TC is obviously more significant in the wet...

[LDN]

I thought as much...

Even the first championship he won, where Schueys use of TC was 'unofficial'; it seemed that everyone knew Benetton had TC - locked away under some three up two down secret procedure to engage it: that's as I understand it anyway.

BTW, this is not a MS bashing thread as I'd like to see Mercedes do well; I was just chatting earlier with a friend about this and wanted to clarify as I said that Schuey loves traction control and I wanted a stat on championships won with TC.

[ForzaGilles]

No TC in '94/'95 though was there?

[Nick M]

ForzaGilles said:

No TC in '94/'95 though was there?

Not according to the regulations....

[sjtscott]

This brought back some memories of that season, just read all the events Benetton were 'involved' or 'accused' off that year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Formula_One_chea...

I note it fails to mention Schuie driving Hill off the track at Adelaide to win the title by 1 point though.

[JustNeil]

You could actually buy a 1994 Benetton Ford, complete with traction control.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/11/10/michael-schu...

Says more than any amount of denials...

[Derek Smith]

One of the Benetton mechanics said that the car had everything but cruise control.

It was a tawdry period. I can't quite remember who was in charge of Benetton at the time but the allegations amounted to systematic cheating at all races. The removal of the fuel filter was one of the most dangerous examples of cheating that's ever occurred in the history of motor racing. I hope the person in charge was severely dealt with. The potential for serious injury and death was tremendous.

What got me at the time was that the launch control they used was well known but it didn't stop Murray Walker going on about how great a starter Schumacher was. Then the traction control and the title reinmaster came about with suggestions that his days in karting was what gave him the edge, as if Hill (who lapped Prost in identical machiery at a soaking Donington) couldn't hope to be anywhere near as good. Looking back now it is apparent that Hill's car control was the equal of Schumacher's given equal regulations.

Further, no one in the mdedia, and in this I include those periodicals that suggest they are the voice of F1, mentioned the much faster pitstops despite there being a patently obvious 'case to answer'. Even my mates noticed it and some of them were all but drunk by the time of the first tyre changes.

The period was overshadowed by the deaths of Ratzenberger and Senna and they did take away attention from the corruption endemic at that time in certain teams. Certainly it took mine. If I'd known what was going on in the background with corrupt lawyers and negotiations I have to say I would probably have moved on from F1. I'm still bitter.

I'm all for inventive interpretation of the regulations. I thought the Brabham fan car was great, although the twin-chassied Lotus was a pargon of virtue beside it, but it needed to be banned. The flexible wing is another such example. But deliberate cheating, as went on the in early 90s and beyond, was despicable. It has led to an acceptance of such things.

Had those with a responsibility for policing such things done their job things would have been much different but we were stuck with who we got.

The elephant in the room is Brawn of course. Those who call Alonso Teflonso need to consider if the Spaniard deserves his reputation of being the biggest cheat in F1.

[LDN]

@ Derek. Well said and a good point regarding attention being diverted as I'd long forgotten just how bad it was. The fuel filter was another issue, you're right.

I still think that with the right car under him, MS might be fighting with the front-runners but his legacy is certainly questionable. In any case, while I don't view Schuey as the driving god some seem to; I'd like to see Brawn get Mercedes up to speed.

[GTP rpm]

Derek, how many F1 teams on todays grid do you think are not cheating?

[williamp]

GTP rpm said:

Derek, how many F1 teams on todays grid do you think are not cheating?

I doubt there are too many. There are a few examples of cars which are not illegal, which have found loop-holes and are exploiting them. Cheating is another thing entirely.

[FourWheelDrift]

During practice for the 1994 Pacific GP at the Aida circuit Alesi's stand-in Nicola Larini leaked to members of the Italian media about using traction control. And according to F1 journo Joe Saward after Senna was taken out by Hakkinen early on in the race he stayed track-side to listen to the cars, on returning to the Williams pits his opinion was the Benetton's were illegal.

Obviously since Flavio Briatore was the man in charge in 1994 they didn't do anything wrong.

[LDN]

FourWheelDrift said:

During practice for the 1994 Pacific GP at the Aida circuit Alesi's stand-in Nicola Larini leaked to members of the Italian media about using traction control. And according to F1 journo Joe Saward after Senna was taken out by Hakkinen early on in the race he stayed track-side to listen to the cars, on returning to the Williams pits his opinion was the Benetton's were illegal.

Obviously since Flavio Briatore was the man in charge in 1994 they didn't do anything wrong.

It seems Senna was right too.

[Derek Smith]

GTP rpm said:

Derek, how many F1 teams on todays grid do you think are not cheating?

It depends what you mean by cheating. If you are talking about moveable floors, oversized bargeboards, the strange gearbox of Mclaren that got banned, then they all are, and continue to do so.

However, the systemised rule breaking that went on in Benetton under FB and Brawn when MS was in the team, I'd say very few. I admit to feeling that Ferrari did at times but I've not really tried to prove that. The crash of Piquet? I'd say just the one. Risking the lives of all those around them by removing a fuel fileter? Just Benetton.

I remember feeling a sense of betrayal when Ken Tyrell admitted to upping the octane rating of the fuel in his cars. Since then I've read a lot about the pressures he was under - most of it political and all from one person - at the time and since then I've come to understand (and forgive) him. But Briatore? I can't see any justification that could possibly change my mind that he was and remains the worst thing that ever happened to F1.

There is no doubt in my mind that anyone who drove for him had an unfair advantage in those days so their results are contaminated.

[DrTre]

Brundle has always remained silent on these matters (edit- i think?). I know he wasn't in the car in the 94 season but I'd be intrigued to hear his take on his Benetton/Briatore years.

Edited by DrTre on Monday 13th September 21:37

[Derek Smith]

Bedazzled said:

but at the end of the day it also spoils the memories of those supposed great victories which I watched in awe at the time.

I'm with you there, 100%.

That's what I feel now. I used to run a fantasy F1 game at work in those days, the payment being they had to read my copy, and used to research stats which, to my mind, proved how great MS was. I had many hours of 'discussions' with friends about him and gradually, as these strange circs came to light, and Senna's comments, I began to realise I'd been conned.

[GTP rpm]

Derek Smith said:

GTP rpm said:

Derek, how many F1 teams on todays grid do you think are not cheating?

It depends what you mean by cheating. If you are talking about moveable floors, oversized bargeboards, the strange gearbox of Mclaren that got banned, then they all are, and continue to do so.

However, the systemised rule breaking that went on in Benetton under FB and Brawn when MS was in the team, I'd say very few. I admit to feeling that Ferrari did at times but I've not really tried to prove that. The crash of Piquet? I'd say just the one. Risking the lives of all those around them by removing a fuel fileter? Just Benetton.

I remember feeling a sense of betrayal when Ken Tyrell admitted to upping the octane rating of the fuel in his cars. Since then I've read a lot about the pressures he was under - most of it political and all from one person - at the time and since then I've come to understand (and forgive) him. But Briatore? I can't see any justification that could possibly change my mind that he was and remains the worst thing that ever happened to F1.

There is no doubt in my mind that anyone who drove for him had an unfair advantage in those days so their results are contaminated.

I understand that there are varying degree's of cheating, but where do you personally draw the line to then deem ones championship winning performances, genuine or not?

Nearly all of the drivers in our sport that we consider to be greats, have won WDC's other than a handful. To do this, you need a very competative car...you simply cannot win a WDC in the worst car!

So why does it matter if the car is superior to others, by being legal...or illegal?

Edited by GTP rpm on Monday 13th September 22:19

[Derek Smith]

GTP rpm said:

I understand that there are varying degree's of cheating, but where do you personally draw the line to then deem ones championship winning performances, genuine or not?

Nearly all of the drivers in our sport that we consider to be greats, have won WDC's other than a handful. To do this, you need a very competative car...you simply cannot win a WDC in the worst car!

So why does it matter if the car is superior to others, by being legal...or illegal?

i have to say i have little reard for the WDC. It is an artificial creation designed solely to keep peopl interested during the final race or two. It proves a bit less than nothing. In some season drivers had to drop their worst points score. A pathetic ruling.

As for cheating: I would certainly draw the line at forcing a car to crash to help a team mate. I would also put removing a filter from the fuel pipe as over the line, and beyond the pale as well.

But the manipulation of the software when it was banned is also there. It against the whole reason of the sporting spectacle.

F1 is a team sport. Normally no driver wins, only the team does although that's not entirely true. There were the Senna/Prost years in identical cars. There was Mansell/Piquet, with the former having an underpowered car for some time, there was Alonso/Hamilton. All fascinating seasons and, I would suggest, the only times when one could say without doubt that one driver was better than the other, although, of course, maybe not in the case of Senna/Prost.

It is one thing to misinterpret the rules, another to ignore them entirely. The fan car was open and above board, and indeed found to be legal (if memory serves). The McLaren gearbox evidently complied with the letter of the rules but not the spirit, the pumping in of water to bring a car up to the correct weight was completed overtly. There is a big, big difference between that and what was done in Benetton. And a rather obvious one I would have thought.

[SRT77]

Derek Smith said:

GTP rpm said:

Derek, how many F1 teams on todays grid do you think are not cheating?

It depends what you mean by cheating. If you are talking about moveable floors, oversized bargeboards, the strange gearbox of Mclaren that got banned, then they all are, and continue to do so.

However, the systemised rule breaking that went on in Benetton under FB and Brawn when MS was in the team, I'd say very few. I admit to feeling that Ferrari did at times but I've not really tried to prove that. The crash of Piquet? I'd say just the one. Risking the lives of all those around them by removing a fuel fileter? Just Benetton.

I remember feeling a sense of betrayal when Ken Tyrell admitted to upping the octane rating of the fuel in his cars. Since then I've read a lot about the pressures he was under - most of it political and all from one person - at the time and since then I've come to understand (and forgive) him. But Briatore? I can't see any justification that could possibly change my mind that he was and remains the worst thing that ever happened to F1.

There is no doubt in my mind that anyone who drove for him had an unfair advantage in those days so their results are contaminated.

Are Alonsos two championships with Renault and Briatore then also tainted and contaminated in the same way. I seem to remember launch control being banned but Renault always making amazing starts. And we do know now that Alonso and Briatore are not adverse to bending the truth.

[thunderbelmont]

Bedazzled said:

Derek Smith said:

The elephant in the room is Brawn of course.

Hear hear. Most of the other cheats from the Benetton 'crazy gang' (Schuey, Briatore, Symonds, etc) have been found out but I'm amazed mud hasn't stuck to Ross Brawn as he was technical director while all this was going on. The stories are well known, illegal TC, illegal ride height, running underweight using fuel ballast, increasing the fuel rig flow rate, even adding lead ballast to Schuey's helmet after races. I'm sure there's plenty more too. I'm glad it's catching up with them but sadly it doesn't change the stats.

IMHO this year has done a lot to expose Schumacher's reliance on having an advantage but at the end of the day it also spoils the memories of those supposed great victories which I watched in awe at the time. Was he ever that great? What would his reputation be if he had won 3-4 championships fairly? Could he have beaten Senna? We were certainly robbed of an epic battle there. Sadly these days I know better than to believe my own eyes when I see two Ferrari's on the podium at Monza, but despite all that (maybe because of it?) I still love F1.

I'm curious as to what the other teams of that era may have been up to as well though.

F1 was/is all about finding holes in the rules, and if you've got enough front, making the holes yourself. The great exponent in recent years for weilding the holesaw was Mr Thomas Walkinshaw. He was behind the filter issue (which was deemed a contributory factor to the massive pit/refuelling fire in the Benny pit back in '94), and was "let go" by Benjaminton at the request of the FIA.

Menu 13 was still in the Cosworth/Ford software up into 1999. A touch more hidden, and by then not accessible by the driver, but still there.

Michael entered F1 in the years of pitstop refuelling, and did very very little in the way of proper on-track overtaking. Ross Brawn masterminded most of his F1 wins through being extremely clever in the way of tactics and out-foxing the opposition. Without Brawn, Schumacher wouldn't have won a single championship.