ibsey wrote:
I can confirm your lot at GPrejects are alot more logical and reasoned in your arguements. And also you seem to read and understand posts much better.
Yay, we are rejectful at trolling!
ibsey wrote:
I can confirm your lot at GPrejects are alot more logical and reasoned in your arguements. And also you seem to read and understand posts much better.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
MCard LOLAdinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
Quote
Our primary concern was race tactics and we gave very serious thought to a suitable tactical plan. Naturally, we could remember all too clearly how Schumacher had beaten us off the line in France.
Quote
You can imagine my excitement when Micheal ran into difficulties and I suddenly caught and passed him; there wasn't a great deal of sympathy coming from my directiion. My main thought was that it was about time he had a bit of bad luck. So much for sportsmanship!
So, we sat on the pit wall and did our bit. I said to Micheal 'come on, let's forget all this b*llshit and attempts at psychological warfare.' He said: 'Yes after the championship.' So I said 'Fine' - and squeezed a little harder when i shook his hand.
Quote
It seemed to me Micheal was being pretty cautious on the first lap but even so, he nearly went off. Someone had dropped oil during the parade lap and the effect of the oil mixing with water created a rainbow effect on the track surface. He hit it first and missed the apex of the corner. The next thing, he was sideways, heading towards the gravel travel. I was saying 'Go on Micheal! Go on! Don't hang on to it! I was definitely wishing him to go off. I couldn't help it.
Quote
About 30 minutes into the race - so well after the deadline the notice should have been given - the team were handed a notice by the stewards which said ' a 5 seconds time penalty would be applied to car number 5 for a infringement on the parade lap'. That was all the notice said. He also says he can remember consternation by the team saying how there was nothing in the regulations about the parade lap. Machett's also confirms the term 'parade lap' does not exist in the 1994 regulations and the notice should have said 'formation lap'. Given this the team thought it might have something to do with the laps the drivers wave to the crowd a on a open top truck a couple of hours before the race hence the confusion. Also Machett wasn't personally wasn't aware of M Schumi's antics on the formation lap.
He conceeds some other teams members may have been aware of the formation lap antics, but at that time it happened on a regular basis and particularly given Hakkinen did exactly the same thing, it is possible they didn't give this a second thought. Furthermore David Hobb's says during his time it was very common for cars to overtake on the formation lap, and that was the first time he ever realized it there was a rule not to do it. The team discussed the notice and concluded a time penalty would be added on at the end of their race. So they were extremely surprised and amazed when they were shown the black flag.
Whislt the black flag was shown the team went to find the race officials and clarify matters and they reached an agreement to withdraw the black flag and serve the S&G. Note during this time they moved from the pitlane (where the worlds press could hear the discussions) to discuss the matter somewhere more private – which cost them more time. During this time M Schumi was told to stay out until they sorted things out which took around 3 laps. He also says that as soon as the team were made aware of what the penalty was for, they instructed M Schumi to serve the S&G penalty, which is what he did. He says after the S&G was eventually served both the race officials and the team thought that was the end of the matter.
As a result of this unfortunate incident the Maserati was despatched to the factory for repair but Bruce took in a couple of non-championship Fl races at Oulton Park and Aintree, where he finished first and third respectively, before setting off for the Nurburgring where he had secured an entry in the German Grand Prix. "This proved to be a fiasco, for I spun the car out in the country when I hit a patch of oil, knocking off the exhaust pipe in the process." But Halford was running in seventh place at the time, and there was no way in which he was about to give up. After all, this was his first Continental Grand Prix with the Maserati.
But the exhaust tailpipe had become detached a short way back from the exhaust manifold allowing the gases to blow up into the cockpit, making Halford feel. a little on the groggy side. In fact Bruce wasn't feeling well at all, the Maserati starting to weave about the track as its driver became drowsy under the effect of the fumes. Meanwhile the race officials, who'd by now been informed that he had been push-started after his spin, were frantically trying to black flag the apparently ailing car off the track. Equally determined, Halford was ignoring their pleas for three laps as he was now in fourth place.
Bruce pulled into the pits finally to be met by a trade colleague who immediately inquired "How are you ?" Halford replied that he would be all right although he was feeling a bit under the weather. "Well", said his friend, "for heaven's sake play it up a bit, you're in big trouble with the organisers so try and look as though you're really ill." Bruce obliged with an impressive virtuoso performance which clearly caught the sympathy of the ferocious officials. He survived to race again, a few Deutschmarks the poorer after he had paid a small fine imposed by the organising club, but disqualified from his hard-earned fourth place.
ibsey wrote:I know the Hill fans here might not like this too much - but I am not trying to antagonise anyone with the following. Merely trying to spark a bit of a debate.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
MCard LOLAdinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
mario wrote: It has to be noted that Verstappen openly stated that he had absolutely no evidence for his claims - it was based purely on his experience of driving Schumacher's car, which he borrowed after a fault on his own car, on one occasion during one practise session.
Outside of the Netherlands, probably the most widely remembered moment in Grands Prix involving Jos Verstappen is the infamous refuelling fire at Hockenheim, in 1994. Happily, the incident was an atypical occurrence, but in many ways his changing fortunes in that German Grand Prix weekend sum up the Dutchman's F1 career. Whilst having the potential and ability to do really well, he has somehow failed to actually net the expected results, and a good competitive opening has been consistently hard to find.
For the event in question, the difficulties seemed to outweigh the positive aspects. Having encountered trouble with discharged fire extinguisher fluid, Verstappen's biggest problems started in the Friday practice session. Coming across some oil dropped on the track, he spun off and badly damaged his Benetton-Ford. In first qualifying he was allowed to go out in the vehicle of team-mate Michael Schumacher, following the German's initial run. Unfortunately, Jos failed to complete a single lap in this car, as he went off into the gravel for no explicable reason, leaving the team with no usable cars for the remainder of the hour. Although he made the grid on the following day, his car behaved unpredictably and the nineteenth position achieved was his worst slot of the season.
In hindsight it can be seen that, although he showed great promise at times, it was surely much too soon in his career to be racing with such a prominent F1 team. The fact that his team-mate won the World Championship highlighted this, although Jos, in common with other drivers, struggled with a car designed to suit the German. He had been a lot happier in the interim B193B, carried over from 1993.
dr-baker wrote:To be honest, I probably had exactly the same unsportsmanlike thoughts and feelings that Damon had during that season! And I probably would have approved of his tactics at the time if I thought they were going to work!
Schumacher was still intent on undermining his rivals – and in 1994 he insisted haughtily that: "Hill is not world-class." Hill winces. "That one still hurts," he (Hill) says with a rueful smile. "Part of me thinks he was probably right."
A fierce competitor like Schumacher, surely, would not have made such a scathing comment had he not considered Hill a serious threat. "That's what Georgie [Hill's wife] always said. But it does undermine you because it plants the seed in the minds of those who employ you."
During the first qualifying session on Friday morning Rial driver Gregor Foitek suffered a massive accident. Practice had to be red-flagged to allow an ambulance to come to Foitek's aid.
Everyone else but Senna failed to slow down and as was written on page 218 of the Autocourse annual's race report, the Brazilian was seen “running through eight black flags on the circuit, waved yellow flags at the scene of an accident and – most crucially – a red flag at the start-finish line”. On page 218 of his annual Grand Prix Story, Austrian writer Heinz Prüller wrote that Senna was penalized for crossing the finish line at full speed despite a red flag.
According to Autocourse “Senna could count himself exceedingly fortunate to get away with a $20,000 fine and having his times disallowed only up to the point of his transgression, The Brazilian rightfully accepted responsibility for the breach of the rules, but offered no justification…”
There is a question hiding in this Autocourse sentence.
Here was a driver who failed to respond to waved yellow flags at the scene of the accident and also ran through eight black flags shown in a single lap. Of course we don't know where, within the sequence of the black flags, he passed the yellow flags. Were all eight black flags visible after passing the yellows or was the scene of the accident somewhere in the middle of this sequence of black flags? On top of that, Senna ran through a red flag at the finish line.
Now, Senna wasn't in hot pursuit or trying to defend his position. There is every reason to believe that it must have been far easier for him to notice at least one if not more of the waved flags compared to seeing the lone black flag held stationary at the finish line the week before while looking into the sun and defending his position. It can be argued that Mansell committed his offense during the race while Senna made his in a practice session. Does that make a difference? It of any importance when it happens?
Nigel Mansell was fined $50,000 and banned for a race. Senna got away with his times up to that point being erased and a fine of $20,000. This seems to bear out that Mansell's ignoring a black flag during a race was seen as much more offensive. If anything, failing to notice so many flags in the space of a single lap wasn't regarded more offensive as failing to notice the same, single flag on three successive laps. So it seems that the two incidents, despite having similarities, weren't seen similar enough to be punished identically.
Then again, if they are indeed similar enough to warrant identical punishment, why didn't this happen?
Mansell's ban was advised by the stewards at the track before being enforced by Balestre. One big difference may be that the Portuguese stewards for whatever reason didn't advice such a ban for Senna. Balestre didn't have the instrument he used in Mansell's case.
A Senna ban, no matter if it was for the rest of the Spanish weekend or for the next race, would have had a direct effect on the outcome of the world championship. Senna could gain a maximum of 27 points in the three remaining races to overcome his 24-point deficit. Being banned for one event would have meant he could only score points in two more events, thus a maximum of 18, in which case the title had been Prost's. No doubt that banning Senna would have caused an outrage at McLaren and the Senna camp in particular, and among his fans worldwide. His title chances had been hurt enough already by his elimination in Portugal, by a driver who shouldn't have been in the race at that time.
There is much more to say and add to all of this, but let's wait a little and move further ahead in time. Not before making a final observation for the moment, however. Had Senna indeed been banned from the event it would have had another winner, since Ayrton kept his title hopes alive by winning the race. Even more interestingly, had a ban been enforced at the next race, Senna would not have been competing at Suzuka…
This means that the 1989 season could have been decided in Prost's favour right after the 14th race, without any of these 14 races needing to have run a different course than they in fact had. All that was needed was Senna's flag-ignoring offense being rated as equally serious to Mansell's the weekend before and punished accordingly.
ibsey wrote:Being doing my usual digging around and found more evidence which suggests M Schumi's 1994 Silverstone penalty was way too harsh, and motivated by the need to keep the WDC alive. Senna apparently ignore several black flags at Spain 1989 without any DQ's or bans as the below story details;
ibsey wrote:Being doing my usual digging around and found more evidence which suggests M Schumi's 1994 Silverstone penalty was way too harsh, and motivated by the need to keep the WDC alive. Senna apparently ignore several black flags at Spain 1989 without any DQ's or bans as the below story details;According to Autocourse “Senna could count himself exceedingly fortunate to get away with a $20,000 fine and having his times disallowed only up to the point of his transgression, The Brazilian rightfully accepted responsibility for the breach of the rules, but offered no justification…”
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
MCard LOLAdinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
DanielPT wrote:The sport needed to look and be safer and more professional, so the council decided to set the standard right there.
dr-baker wrote:Particularly in light of Max Mosley wanting to be more draconian in applying penalties in 1994.
Tomas Enge continued his learning process with confusion over starting positions and then a unplanned pitstop when he read the wrong pitboard.
The first time I encountered the thoroughness was 1994 when the FIA released technical delegate Charlie Whiting's report to the World Council on investigations into the electrical systems on Schumacher's car at that year's tragic Imola race. Since the beginning of the season there had been rumours that Benetton had something that was getting around the FIA's newly introduced ban on driver aids. The FIA had threatened exclusion from the championship for such a thing and its Hockenheim statement said that on the evidence available in the Schumacher case, such an action would be wrong. But attached to the statement was evidence that appeared damning.
In the Hockenheim paddock nobody talked of anything else. Then came news of a Benetton press conference. There was considerable anticipation going in, with people feeling that basically the FIA was saying, we've got you but we can't quite nail you. This was not long after France, when Schumacher had shot between both Damon Hill and Nigel Mansell on the front row, in their V10 powered Williamses, with his V8 powered Ford, and left them for dead. It prompted much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
It was Brawn who was served up by Benetton and the press did its worst, grilling Ross for 45 minutes on all aspects of the season to date. Certainly, to trip him up you needed to be a much better barrister than anyone wearing an FIA press pass... That's assuming he was there to be tripped up of course. Everyone went in thinking it was an open and shut case. Everyone came out wondering. If Benetton were legit, Ross did an awfully good job of persuading everyone. If they weren't, he was even better.
I know you'll be sat there thinking that anyone with half a brain is going to outwit a bunch of motor racing hacks and, broadly speaking, you're probably right. But, and it's a big 'But', you'd be amazed at how ineffective people can be when put under the spotlight. A case in point was the News of the World journalists trying to defend their Mosley actions last May. They were dreadful and would probably have taken a pasting even if the opposition hadn't been Max. Then there was EJ and the Vodafone case...
Brawn was the exact opposite. He was serious, composed, entirely plausible and had an answer for everything. He was even humorous. At one point he was asked to confirm that Schumacher's start at Magny-Cours was affected solely by Michael, with no electronic or intelligent use of the differential?
"I can make that statement willingly," he replied. "By his own admission Michael was useless at starts last year. He has developed a technique of using the clutch and throttle in a way that for a large percentage of the time can eliminate wheelspin. Michael's view of Magny-Cours is that Damon was slow away from the lights and the TV coverage confirms that."
There was even the hint of a smile when he added: "Michael made an excellent start, Damon backed out and lost his bottle going into the first corner..."
Back at the Benetton motorhome later, discussion among the hacks carried on. What was confusing a few was that Brawn had explained that the '93 Benetton launch control system was based around ignition cut, which had an extremely audible effect. The inference was, if we were using it, you'd have heard it.
"Perhaps Mansell was whingeing so loudly about Schuey's start that it got drowned out?" someone joked.
...Ron Dennis confirms their software contains active ride, TC, power braking and whole host of other features The reason is taht is easier to disarm the features than to reprogramme the software at the risk of introducing errors .....
2. If your computer systems do contain such features but they have been disabled, we shall require precise details of each such system and the steps which have been taken to disable it. If you are in any doubt as to whether any of your systems might breach the regulations, you must declare them and provide details so that we can give a ruling. Following the Belgian Grand Prix, all such features must be eliminated from the computer systems on your cars. If, at the Italian or subsequent grands prix, we find such a system in one of your cars, we shall assume it is there to be used and the Stewards or the FIA will act accordingly.
ibsey wrote:Finally, I have been toying with the idea of writting a book on EVERYTHING that when on in the 1994 season. And allowing the readers to decide from themselves whether they feel Benetton were innocent or guilty. A bit like "making a murder". Any feedback on this idea would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to email me if you would prefer. My main concern is some of the aspects to this case are too techincal for the layman / non F1 fan to understand. So I would really appreciate any thoughts on that in particular.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
MCard LOLAdinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
dr-baker wrote:ibsey wrote:Finally, I have been toying with the idea of writting a book on EVERYTHING that when on in the 1994 season. And allowing the readers to decide from themselves whether they feel Benetton were innocent or guilty. A bit like "making a murder". Any feedback on this idea would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to email me if you would prefer. My main concern is some of the aspects to this case are too techincal for the layman / non F1 fan to understand. So I would really appreciate any thoughts on that in particular.
I think it could be an interesting idea, but on a topic like this, I feel that you will without a doubt need to name all sources of information religiously. Just so nobody can say you made it up. You've done well do so in this thread, so there's no reason why you wouldn't when committing to paper.
Even before the 1994 season began, McLaren had a fuel spillage while testing the refueling system at its factory in Woking.
According to the FIA removal of the filter, mandated after problems for Lotus and Jordan in testing prior to the first race of the season...
Benetton planned to argue that defective refuelling equipment was responsible for the fire and had prepared a list of similar incidents involving problems with the rigs which they and other teams, including Ferrari and Arrows had experienced
Bonfires and death threats
Michael Schumacher, Benetton, Hockenheimring, 1994Germany was in love with its new sporting hero. Tickets for its round of the world championship had sold out in mid-march and a capacity crowd in excess of 140,000 was expected for race day.
But three days before practice was due to start at the Hockenheimring came a shock verdict from the FIA’s World Motor Sport Council. For ignoring black flags during the British Grand Prix, Schumacher was to be banned from the next two races – beginning with his home race.
Some of those attending the race took the news very badly. Wood piles began to appear near the circuit, and fire departments were deployed to dismantle them out of fear that outraged fans were planning to set bonfires in the thick woodland the circuit passed through. Fearing a threat to public safety, the mayor of Hockenheim even made a direct appeal to those in charge to let Schumacher race.
The crisis could be averted if Benetton chose to appeal the decision. But they had incentives not to do so. Missing a race at the Hockenheimring, where their Ford V8-powered car would likely be out-gunned by the V12 Ferraris and V10 Williams-Renaults, would be preferable to missing a race later in the season at a track which suited them better if the outcome of their appeal was the postponement of Schumacher’s ban.
And there was the chance that appealing the ban could invite an even stronger sanction. Eddie Irvine’s one-race ban following the Brazilian Grand Prix was tripled on appeal.
Nonetheless, on the day before practice began Benetton announced they would appeal the decision. As a hearing could not be scheduled for several weeks, it therefore confirmed he would race at home, and the frenzy among the crowd subsided somewhat.
Row over Ferrari airboxes
Then as now, the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve was a circuit which rewarded engine power and straight-line speed. So it was widely anticipated to be a strong venue for Ferrari, the only team in the field to use a V12 engine, who had regularly topped the speed trap tables at earlier races that year.
And while the latest changes to the technical regulations on safety grounds were focused on reducing the top speed of the cars, they could be expected to have just as great an effect on Ferrari’s rivals. The FIA required teams to replace their exotic fuel concoctions with pump petrol (though defining exactly what that constituted was fraught with difficulty) and cut holes in their car’s airboxes to reduce the ‘ram effect’ of air being forced into the engine. Both measures would reduce power output.
Teams interpreted the rules on airboxes in different ways. Most placed holes either directly behind the airbox, through which the rear wing was visible, or on the top. But Ferrari instead cut two modest slits in the sides of their engine covers.
This became a focus of dispute when it became clear the 412T1s enjoyed an even greater straight-line speed advantage than usual during Friday’s running. Having never headed a qualifying session nor got within 1.4 seconds of pole all season, Jean Alesi headed the Friday times by over half a second.
Team principal Jean Todt fumed at suggestions Ferrari had not satisfactorily complied with the new requirements on airbox dimensions. But overnight the team were forced to yield ground and enlarge the slots in their engine cover.
“As a gesture of goodwill, and under no obligation, we put another hole in the airbox of the 412T1,” said Todt. “And, as all could see, it made no difference.” In fact, all could see Alesi was unable to replicate his Friday time on Saturday, while almost every other driver bettered theirs. The speed trap figures also undermined Todt’s claim the larger holes had made “no difference”.
Schumacher therefore took pole position off Alesi, but his lap time was over seven seconds slower than Alain Prost’s from the year before. This was largely due to the installation of a new chicane to slow the drivers before the flat-out series of bends on the approach to the chicane right-left before the pits.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
MCard LOLAdinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
dr-baker wrote:ibsey, it may interest you to listen to the current Motorsport magazine podcast with Pat Symonds. From 44 minutes in, for around 6 minutes, they discuss Schumacher overtake Hill on the parade lap at Silverstone in 1994, plus his perceptions of the pros and cons of that year's Benetton versus the Williams. An interesting conversation as always with that guy.
"I don't think it was an out-psyching thing, so the question is whether it had anything to do with the car's technical parameters.”
Benetton’s refuelling rig had been inspected two days after the German Grand Prix.
Q. Treuthardt: The members of the World Council must have known that the effect of removing the filter was to gain a performance advantage. And the rules clearly imply that all the refuelling rigs should be identical, so as not to provide a performance advantage. They did it, they got a performance advantage, and yet even then no action was taken. If I may follow my first question, I would like to ask if you did this in the interests of the sport.
Mosley: The point about getting an advantage is absolutely valid. But you see, what they were saying was that they thought they were allowed to do it. In other words, if you analyse what they were really saying, what they were saying was, 'we believe that the equipment was now without the filter.' You can argue about that, but that's what they were actually saying. Now the moment you accept that, then they didn't have an advantage, because what they were doing was using THE equipment. And the people who were using the wrong equipment would have a disadvantage. Now as soon as someone pleads guilty, you get into that area. But we never had to consider the guilt or otherwise, because they pleaded guilty.
Q. Treuthardt: Second point?
Mosley: As far as being in the interests of the sport, we thought it was definitely in the interests of the sport to resolve the Benetton filter issue, one way or the other, on September 7. We thought that public opinion, and the interests of the sport, and certainly the teams, would have found it very difficult to accept that we had adjourned the whole thing for six weeks, to have another look at it. Perhaps the result would have been different if we had adjourned: we don't know. But it would certainly not have been the right thing to do. The suggestion that we were lenient in the interests of the sport is incorrect, though. We were lenient because the facts in front of us drove us to be lenient. It may well have been that we would have been less lenient after an adjourned hearing, but we shall never know.
Q. Wagner Gonzales: Benetton claimed that the FIA's Technical Delegate (Charlie Whiting) had given permission for the filter to be removed. What is your feeling about this, and the decision of the "junior employee" to remove it?
Mosley: Well, the thing is that as far as the 'junior employee' is concerned, and his removing the part, once you accept that HE thought, at whatever level, that he could do that, then, immediately, the level of guilt changes. Now it was said by the team that Charlie said they could. What Charlie said he said was, "it's OK by me if it's OK by Intertechnique." In other words, (Whiting was saying) "go and ask Intertechnique, because it is not within my competence."
I think the junior employee thought, because of the Larrousse business, that Intertechnique had said it was alright. Or that was what was presented to us in Paris. And the whole confusion at that level -- (that it was) unknown to Briatore and to Benetton Formula -- was taking place. Now what was said at the beginning of the season was that if we caught somebody with ...it's always the same example: traction control ...I distinctly remember saying that if they deliberately used it, then this means that it is a fraud, like painting a race horse a different color to disguise it. It is analogous to that: if you deliberately change something on the car, with the intention of getting an advantage, you will be out of the championship. That's what we said, and it still remains the case. The problem we were faced with here is that it became apparent on the facts placed before us that this knowledge which is the essential element in deliberate cheating was missing. And from what we were told on September 7, it undoubtedly WAS missing. And as I have already said, we could have had a huge enquiry, who knows? But that's what was there, that's what we decided on.
Q. Gonzales: Do you think mistakes were made by the FIA?
Mosley: Yes. Perhaps I did not say this clearly enough earlier on.
Even before the 1994 season began, McLaren had a fuel spillage while testing the refueling system at its factory in Woking.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
MCard LOLAdinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
ibsey wrote:Hungary 1994:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avWgG2N8-OU
If anyone speaks Dutch would they be able to kindly explain what is being said about the Intertechique equipment between 1.40 and 2.29?
Olav Mol wrote:Here we are at Tyrrell and they've got a spare barrel.
And on that barrell there's this filler cap [points at filler cap], which is where, in Hockenheim, things went wrong for Jos Verstappen.
This [points at ring] is the ring that the nozzle is supposed to fall into, then that valve is pressed [presses valve], and through there, through that small hole, that's where all that fuel has to come through.
It's just a very simple thing with a spring, this is what it looks like from the inside, and that's where 120 litres have to pass through when they're refuelling.
[cut to next shot with a different fuel rig] And that filter [points at filter], that was in this hose, and that's what over at the Benetton team, they removed.
[lifts pump head] That head, by the way, weighs almost 45 kilos, it's very massive. That black ring comes out, and that [points at lamp attached to the fuel rig] is a little lamp, so the mechanics can see when the tank is full. So that will have to help them not to pour in too much fuel.
"Consideration was given to the effect of the absence of the filter previously positioned at the point where the inner hose joins the nozzle unit. (It is understood that this was removed for the Hockenheim race after a lengthy period during which no debris was collected in any of the Benetton Team's filters.)
"Any debris would, under normal circumstances, travel through the connection into the car tank. No evidence was seen, during the examination, of scouring or of other effects which could have resulted from debris fouling any of the moving parts. A study of the layout of the fuel path and of the evidence surrounding the incident did not suggest any way in which any feasible debris contamination from the fuel flow could have caused the failure of the nozzle to engage correctly."
One of the most frightening and memorable incidents of something going wrong was Jos Verstappen's pit stop fire during the German Grand Prix in 1994.
Refuelling during a race was still permitted and on this occasion a sudden spurt of fuel being added to Verstappen's Benetton resulted in a dramatic fireball that engulfed the whole car, including the Dutchman and his crew. Amazingly, everyone escaped serious injury.
"Jos was good about it," remembers Handkammer. "He had a bit of a burnt face but he was great. He was laughing in the end.
"What was tough, though, was the fact Michael Schumacher [Verstappen's team-mate] was due a stop soon after.
"Some of the guys had gone off to hospital already and I needed to find people, but some were saying they didn't know if they could do it.
"It was not needed in the end because Michael's car stopped with a fuel problem but in a way that was worse. It meant we had two weeks of downtime going through what happened, you were just asking: 'Do I really want to be stood in front of a car? Do I really want to be putting fuel in it?'
"If we had done that second pit stop straight away, it would have got it out of the system a bit."
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
MCard LOLAdinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
ibsey wrote: If and when I find more mind blowing stuff on this, I’ll be sure to post it here to my favourite forum.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
MCard LOLAdinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
“But I never had any trouble with Tom (Walkinshaw). He was totally straight and honest with me, and he never asked me to cheat. Actually no team bosses ever asked me to cheat. If there were some dodgy things going on they wouldn’t involve me in it, because I talk too much. And I was known to object to that sort of thing. I reckon you can never feel you’ve won if you’ve done it by cheating.
He (Flavio) displayed the same innocence when amid, the most acrimonious F1 season I can recall in 1994, Benetton was found to have removed the fuel filters that were part of the Intertechnique refuelling apparatus.
In fact, there are some uncanny parallels between that season and this. For background, Max Mosley and the FIA had introduced a number of regulation changes for safety reasons after the deaths of Roland Ratzenberger and Ayrton Senna at Imola. Some were of the opinion that they had not been properly thought through and could actually prove to increase danger.
This was relatively early on in Max's reign, just three years in, and he hadn't yet fully demonstrated his 'determination,' let's call it. But even so, at a time when there were all sorts of rumours about Schumacher and Benetton still using the recently banned traction control, Flavio could have picked a better time to write a letter to the FIA president containing the following paragraph: "Despite these concerns you continue to insist on these ill-conceived measures. It is our opinion that the ability of yourself and your advisors to judge technical and safety issues in Formula One must be questioned."
The Barcelona race followed two days later and, with the track silent when cars should have been practicing and the teams and Max locked in Frank Williams' motorhome, it looked as if F1 was on the brink of anarchy. The race went ahead but there was trouble at mill.
There then followed one of those leaked games of tennis between Max and Bernie. The following Tuesday a letter from Max to Bernie read: "Last Friday, you invited me to a meeting with nine F1 teams... We had what I thought was a friendly and constructive meeting. The fact that the cars of those present were not running was not mentioned. No threats were made and no concessions were sought.
"You can imagine my astonishment when I read next day in the press that 'concessions' had been "wrung" from me, that I had agreed to have no further say in F1 matters, that henceforth all decisions would be taken by the teams, not by the FIA, and so on.
"Allegedly, these stories come from one of the team managers present. I cannot imagine why any of them should wish to fabricate these rather tiresome falsehoods but I should be grateful if, in your capacity as the official representative of the Formula One Constructors on the World Council, you would let me have written confirmation of what really took place. This would help me explain the true situation to the FIA..."
Classic Max. Bernie wrote back, same day: "I am sorry these reports appeared in the press. They are entirely untrue and if they came from one of the teams, this is most regrettable... I am unable to offer any explanation to the statements which appeared in the press, particularly in Italy... It may be that, with the large number of journalists outside Frank's motorhome, one of the team principals was unable to resist the temptation to seek publicity..."
And so when, at the same time as the FIA was investigating the allegations of launch/traction control usage, Benetton was found to have removed its fuel filter, thereby speeding up the fuel flow rate and shortening its pit stop times, the team and Briatore were facing expulsion from the championship. Worse, the revelation came as a result of an investigation into a Benetton pit fire during a stop by Jos Verstappen in the German Grand Prix, so the charge of compromising safety was levelled at the team then, too.
It's very often difficult to decipher what precisely Briatore is saying, but when he hosted the media in his motorhome at the next race, he came out with one of his more memorable lines. "Hey guys," he shrugged, "You know me. I no know the difference - fuel filter, coffee filter, whatever! Speak to the tech guys..."
The FIA president Max Mosley visited Ligier last week to help the team celebrate the start of its 20th season in Formula 1 racing. Ligier's long - and occasionally-distinguished - history, however, is still shorter than the 25-year-old feud between Mosley and the man now in charge of Ligier, Tom Walkinshaw.
It is common knowledge in F1 circles that Mosley and Walkinshaw do not get on and that the rancor dates back to when Walkinshaw drove for Mosley when the FIA president was the boss of March Engineering. This personality clash is understood to have been the root cause of many of the problems last year between Benetton (for which Walkinshaw was working) and the FIA, and there is no question that Walkinshaw was the target for the "management changes" which Benetton agreed to make after the Hockenheim pitlane fire.
....
It is curious that Mosley should feel the need to be involved in this sort of PR exercise, unless he used the trip to have a chat with Walkinshaw to ensure that the Scotsman understands that pushing into the "grey areas" of the regulations will not be tolerated by the FIA.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
MCard LOLAdinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
dr-baker wrote:Unraced F1 posted a link to this on Twitter, and I thought it seemed apt to this conversation.
Back at the ranch. In the meantime, inside the Benetton team, a reason was being created for the team not to discuss their close relationship with Ligier. In order to help Ligier out, track performance wise, without spending a fortune, an agreement was reached to provide “technical assistance”. We were asked to provide certain pieces of design related information. I was not happy to give the info but, as an employee, you don’t always have many choices. One can leave the team of course and that’s what I did a little while later when there was a “last straw” moment - this was one of my reasons for being unhappy with how things were going.
Anyway the resulting help that was given led to Ligier people coming and working at Benetton to make parts – from our moulds! Strictly not correct and really upset a “few” people (inside the company). They arrived in full team clothing which is what created a stir inside the company. So to hide where they came from internally (totally unsuccessful) they were given some Benetton clothing. That pissed the workforce off even more as this was not a privilege given to the guys in the composite workshop they worked beside. That may be one reason why the team didn’t want to immediately disclose that Ligier had a letter from Intertechnique as the team really didn’t want the closeness of the working relationship to come out in full! That would have been another day in Paris to see the headmaster – and would not have ended well for either team!
What justification was there? I recall being told at the time that Ligier were in trouble and that our help would only bring them towards competitiveness, not more. This was certainly perceived as a lower cost way for whoever had put money into buying the team to provide an improvement than funding independent research, but regrettably it was almost certainly outside the law. Intellectually I understood the motives but emotionally I was (very) upset by what the team did. When I got a phone call offering me a dream job elsewhere I said yes where normally I would not have been interested. Having finished the rollout car design for the following year I resigned (with other reasons as well of course).
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
MCard LOLAdinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
On the saturday night before the race, as usual, I went into the garage to check that all the team had been for dinner. I was suprised to find that one person was still there and he was messing about with the fuel rig.
In my naivete I said 'well what are you doing there then? Its a bit late to be messing about with that thing.' From the look I got I decided to go back to the motorhome.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
MCard LOLAdinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
TomPryce wrote:I read the autobiography just this week.
All was mentioned was the "startling discrepancy" between Verstappen and Schumacher, especially in comparison to Schumacher and Lehto previously.
So... meh.