Damon Hill 2 X WDC / Schumacher truths (merged).

[Yoong Montoya]

Originally posted by frostblade
Considering Benetton were the only ones suspected of having it in 1994, and Charlie Whiting was very suspicious of their starts. Why he never said anything about anyone else that year I don't know. They had to take the car to pieces from what I understand to find Benetton's TC. Hardly the same as the previous year's system...

Anyway, saying they all had it doesn't make it right.

No, but saying only Benetton cheated in 1994 and every other team was squeaky clean is wrong too.

[frostblade]

Show me where I said they were? I'm pretty sure Williams didn't have traction control though in 1994.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Yoong Montoya
Yeah, but how do you know he wasn't just making excuses for his poor start to the season?

The fact that Traction Control was found "hidden" in the Benetton software does back up Senna's claims imo. (Even if it was disabled, but then that would have be easy to do, why did the Benny drivers rev hell out of their car before switching it off after the race?)

Benetton claimed that it was too expensive to remove it from the software, but this is a professional racing team we are talking about, surely the cost of removing the software is nothing to the conspiricy's that were bound to follow had the TC been found.

[f1_smiley]

whew.... finally caught up with the last page.
the pages seem to just pile up while i was reading. :-)
wasn't a fan then to have been able to view all the races but have a season review tape as well as some books to base things from, a scarce commodity here.
scores, facts and statistics tell how a driver wins based on the regulations that were set, 'ethics' show on the one hand a person's greatness.
close call at that, i'd give the trophy to schu but the "championship" to damon.

[Tye]

Originally posted by frostblade
Maxell, the 94 Benetton did have traction control on it. That's not a rumour, it's a fact. They claimed it was only used in testing, but to quote Pitpass "If you believe that, you're likely to buy gold bricks from strangers".

Just do a search on google for 'Benetton "Traction Control" cheating'.

For the people complaining that Michael always gets accused of cheating if he wins and no one mentions it when he loses, well that's just an apologist line. You can't portray Michael as the poor little lost boy like that. In my eyes, Michael is a 5 times WDC, and you are damn good to achieve something like that...

frostblade,

Good post and keep them coming.At least you see the situation at Benetton that year for what it really was and that was an honourless team trying to cheat their way to the titles.It was just unfortunate that the powers of F1 decided not to ban the team from the championship.

I found the Benetton's teams explanation on the traction/launch control issue a complete joke because no team would run the risk of having this type of software in their cars if they weren't intent on using it.I think that this is another pathetic example of the most dishonest sportsman in the history of sport looking to grab all the glory in spite of the other teams playing by the rules.It doesn't matter what team Michael goes to, there is always controversy surrounding him and there rightfully should be some serious consequences for his actions.No wonder Johnny Herbert wasn't allowed to look at his telemetry the following year!

I thought you might like to read some pertinent information on this topic.I have posted some of an article from an Autosport during the time of the controversy.

Autosport

25th August 1994

Further shadows have been cast on Schumacher's season by the discovery in the Benetton of computer software that could be used to perform an automatic start.Damon Hill has been close to Schumacher on the grid of every race this year,so does he think they were using it?

"I have no idea.All I can say that is since Magny-Cours(when the issue of driver aids and Benetton was first raised)his starts haven't been so good have they? We have to be honest about that.He's made a lot of practice starts here in testing.I've seen smoke pouring off his tyres when he's been doing them and I never saw one bit of smoke in the first eight races of the season. These are just observations.I'm not saying any more than that."

I found Damon's thoughts very interseting as did the world of F1.I will say that what I found particulary amusing about the situation was that you'd think that all teams would focus on the current regulations which didn't allow the use of this type of software,not the previous years regulations that did allow the use of driver aids.The team had the software for only one reason,and that was to gain an unfair advantage over his competition because Schumacher knew in his heart that he couldn't win fair and square.Some racer this guy has turned out to be.

Tye

[Yoong Montoya]

Originally posted by frostblade
Show me where I said they were? I'm pretty sure Williams didn't have traction control though in 1994.

Well, Ferrari got caught with traction control after Aida. Check these articles out.
http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=111&FS=F1
http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=147&FS=F1


Another article:

At the French Grand Prix in late June, Schumacher beat Hill
off the line with a start so flawless that it hardened the
suspicions lurking in many minds. This was the kind of
get-away that had been seen many times in the previous
two seasons, when the top teamshad enjoyed the benefit of
the now proscribed traction control systems and fully auto-
matic gearboxes.

Announcing its ban on monst kinds of computer-controlled
devices, the FIA had been loud in its insistence that the new
regulations would be regularly and strictly policed. And in
July, shortly after the British Grand Prix, the FIA's technical
commision produced the findings from a software analysis
company, LDRA of Liverpool, which it had hired to conduct
its spot checks into computer programmes being used by
three teams: Ferrari, McLaren and Benetton.

To enable these checks to be made, the teams had first to
agree to surrender thei source codes: the means of access to
their computer programmes. Ferrari, spooked by the unpun-
ished discovery of their use of a variation on traction control at
Aida, readily complied; their cars were found to be clean.
McLaren and Benetton, however, refused to produce the
source codes, claiming that to do so would first compromise
the commercial confidentiality and second, infringe the 'in-
tellectual copyright' of their sofware supplier. When it was
pointed out to them that LDRA is often enlisted by the British
government to look into military software whose confidenti-
ality is covered by the Official Secrets Act, and carries weigh-
tier consequences than a sliver cup, a few bottles of
champagne and the further inflation of a few already oversized
egos, they gave in.

Both teams were fined $100 000 for attmpting to obstruct
the course of justice. And when the findings emerged, both
appeared to have had something to hide. In McLaren's case it
was a gearbox programme permitting automatic shifts. After
much deliberating, and to the surprise of many, the FIA
eventuallydecided that this was not illegal. But Benetton had
something far more exciting up their sleeves.

When LDRA's people finally got into the B194's computer
software, they discovered a hidden programme, and it was
dynamite: something which allowed Schumacher to make
perfect starts merely by flooring the throttle and holding it
there, the computer taking over to determine the correct
matching of gear-changes to engine speed, ensuring that the
car reached the first corner in the least possible time, with no
wheel spin or sideslip, all its energy concentrated into forward
motion. Before the winter, this combination of traction con-
trol and gearboxautomation would be legal. Now,
although explicitly outlawed by the regulations, it was still
there. If you knew how to find it. Because it was invisible.

It took even the LDRA;s people a while. What you had to do
was call up the software's menu of programmes, scroll down
beyond the bottom line, put the curasor on an apparently blank
line, press a particular key (no clue to that, either) - and, hey
presto, without anything showing on the screen, the special
programme was there.

The called it 'launch control', and LDRA's computer
detectives also discovered the means by which the driver
could activate it on his way to the starting grid. It involved a
sequence of commands using the throttle and clutch pedals
and the gear-shift 'paddles' under the streering wheel. Ben-
atton couldn't deny its existence, but they did claim that it
hadn't been used saince it had been banned. So why was it still
there, and why had its existence been so carefully disguised?

It remained in the software, they said, because to
remove it would be too difficult. The danger was that in
the purging of one programme, others might become cor-
rupted. Best to leave it be. But, so that the driver couldn't
accidently engage it and thereby unintentionally break the
new rules, 'launch control' had been hidden carefully away
behind a series of masking procedures.

'That's enough to make me believe tey were cheating,' an
experienced software programmer with another Formula
One team told me. 'Look, we purged our software of
all illegal systems during the winter. I did it myslef. OK, our
car isn't quite as sophisticated as the Benetton. But it only took
me two days. That's all. Perfectly straighforward. And the fact
that they disguised it was very suspicious.'

Then he told me the most interesting this I heard all year.

Here's what you can do, he said, if you want to get
away with something. You write an illegal programme - an
offspring of traction control, say, such a prescription for rev
limits in each gear for a particular circuit - and you build into
it a self-liquidating facility. This is how it works. The car
leaves the pits before the race without the programme in its
software. The driver stops the car on the grid, and gets out.
His race engineer comes up and, as they do in pre-race
period before the grid is cleared, he plugs his little laptop
computer into the car - and presses the key that downloads
the illegal programme. For the next hour and a half the driver
makes unrestricted use of it. Thanks to efficiency, he wins
the race. He takes his lap of honour, he drives back down the
pit lane, he steers through the cheering crowds into the parc
ferme where the scrutineers are waiting to establish the win-
ning car's legality, and he switches off the engine. And the
programme disappears, leaving not a trace of existence.

'It's easy,' the software man said. 'In fact, we use it all the time
in testing, when we just want to try something out without
having it hanging around to clutter up the system. And it's just
about impossible to police. The FIA came round the teams early
in the season, asking advice on what to do. But they're totally
out of their depth here, not surprisingly. It's like crime. There's
always more at stake for the criminals than for the police, so the
criminals are always a step ahead. It's a nightmare, really."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Richard Williams
pp:177-179
"The Death Of Ayrton Senna"


McLaren also got caught running an automatic gearbox. And they got away with it too! The only reason the FIA didn't ban Benetton is because they caught Ferrari and McLaren first and didn't bother to ban them, so they couldn't show double standards by banning Benetton and letting everyone else off!

[Splatz the Cow]

Great post, great read.

Thanks for the time and effort in that one.

[Yoong Montoya]

Originally posted by Splatz the Cow
Great post, great read.

Thanks for the time and effort in that one.

No problem. I just wanted to prove that Benetton were not the only ones cheating in 1994, and that they did not invent cheating. Besides, what they did is not much different than what Michelin did this year - yet a lot of people still think Michelin were innocent

[Logrence]

Michael, he earnt it.

[frostblade]

So, anyone got an evidence that Williams were cheating? If you read those articles, it doesn't say McLaren were cheating, they were found to have a suspicious program that the FIA decided were legal. Benetton on the other hand had a traction control system that they had spent a great deal of time hiding away. The whole bit about hiding the menu so it doesn't get used is rubbish. All you do is take it off the menu, then there is no chance.

Anyway, what you seem to be missing is that proving that Ferrari and McLaren were cheating doesn't mean Williams were, or that Michael deserved the championship.

[Yoong Montoya]

Originally posted by frostblade
So, anyone got an evidence that Williams were cheating? If you read those articles, it doesn't say McLaren were cheating, they were found to have a suspicious program that the FIA decided were legal. Benetton on the other hand had a traction control system that they had spent a great deal of time hiding away. The whole bit about hiding the menu so it doesn't get used is rubbish. All you do is take it off the menu, then there is no chance.

Are you a McLaren fan frostblade?

That article said that McLaren got caught running an automatic gearbox which was illegal. McLaren had an illegal car in 1994. Period. Just because they didn't achieve anything doesn't mean they were innocent.

[frostblade]

Nooooo, I'm not a McLaren fan. Can't you tell I'm a Williams/Damon Hill fan? Honestly...

Anyway, as I said, if you actually read those articles you'll see they weren't cheating. But to save you time, here is the exact quote about McLaren's gearbox

In McLaren's case it was a gearbox programme permitting automatic shifts. After much deliberating, and to the surprise of many, the FIA eventuallydecided that this was not illegal.

So, you are wrong to say McLaren were running an illegal car in 1994. Not that it got them far if they were of course if the were...

[Yoong Montoya]

Originally posted by frostblade
Nooooo, I'm not a McLaren fan. Can't you tell I'm a Williams/Damon Hill fan? Honestly...

Anyway, as I said, if you actually read those articles you'll see they weren't cheating. But to save you time, here is the exact quote about McLaren's gearbox



So, you are wrong to say McLaren were running an illegal car in 1994. Not that it got them far if they were of course if the were...

Didn't they declare Benetton's software legal as well? Same thing as McLaren.

[Tye]

Originally posted by Yoong Montoya
Didn't they declare Benetton's software legal as well? Same thing as McLaren.

When the cloud of thick black smoke had settled,the FIA proclaimed that the software in the Benetton was legal during the season.However,you are clearly missing the point of the matter.The point is that the Benetton team were found to have illegal software in their car.It's as simple as that.It was found in Michael's car and that's all that matters at this point in time.The traction/launch control was activated by Michael through his steering wheel before races.No bloody team in their right mind would run illegal software in their cars unless they were going to use it,and by the observations of a certain Damon Hill,it was most certainly used during the season.

Man...this is so simple to figure out.

Tye

[Teretonga]

Damon would have been WDC if he hadn't been hit by Schumi in Adelaide or even if he'd managed to finish the race in a reasonable points paying position and earn't what he needed to get the title. that he didn't is entirely becuase he was taken out. If it was deliberate Schumi didn't deserve the 94 title so yes damon would then get it. Was the move deliberate? You have to make up your own mind on that but that incident and 97 at jerez mean that in my mind it doesn't matter if Schumi wins 30 titles he'll never be a great like Clark, Stewart, Fangio, Prost or Fittapaldi (to name a few multiple title winners). Fast, effective, efficient, yes, but great? No.

[Yoong Montoya]

Originally posted by Tye
When the cloud of thick black smoke had settled,the FIA proclaimed that the software in the Benetton was legal during the season.However,you are clearly missing the point of the matter.The point is that the Benetton team were found to have illegal software in their car.It's as simple as that.It was found in Michael's car and that's all that matters at this point in time.The traction/launch control was activated by Michael through his steering wheel before races.No bloody team in their right mind would run illegal software in their cars unless they were going to use it,and by the observations of a certain Damon Hill,it was most certainly used during the season.

Man...this is so simple to figure out.

Tye

So, the software was deemed illegal at the time. Got it.

But I really meant was that the only reason why Benetton were not banned is because Ferrari and McLaren had been caught with illegal software first and were left off, so they couldn't ban Benetton or they would have had to ban Ferrari and McLaren too.

It seems no one minds cheating as long as there are no Germans involved

[Smokey 6 litre]

Originally posted by Yoong Montoya
It seems no one minds cheating as long as there are no Germans involved

We Brits never cheat...unless we realy realy need too!

[Gt_R]

==========
Ferrari, spooked by the unpun-
ished discovery of their use of a variation on traction control at
Aida, readily complied; their cars were found to be clean.
McLaren and Benetton, however, refused to produce the
source codes, claiming that to do so would first compromise
the commercial confidentiality and second, infringe the 'in-
tellectual copyright' of their sofware supplier. When it was
pointed out to them that LDRA is often enlisted by the British
government to look into military software whose confidenti-
ality is covered by the Official Secrets Act, and carries weigh-
tier consequences than a sliver cup, a few bottles of
champagne and the further inflation of a few already oversized
egos, they gave in.

Both teams were fined $100 000 for attmpting to obstruct
the course of justice. And when the findings emerged, both
appeared to have had something to hide. In McLaren's case it
was a gearbox programme permitting automatic shifts. After
much deliberating, and to the surprise of many, the FIA
eventuallydecided that this was not illegal. But Benetton had
something far more exciting up their sleeves.
=========

Ferrari, Mclaren and Benetton all ran certain systems which act like Traction Control. They were found out in the order above. Ferrari was adviced not to use it, no punishments given. Mclaren's system is dubious and FIA didn't punish them either. Benetton hid a complicated set of program which activates a Launch Control, but they claim they din't use it.

Benetton isn't clean. But to claim they should have been punished while not clearing off the other 2 teams who are also suspected of cheating AND had softwares on their car to do that is simply not consistent.

And as usual. The spotlight is on Michael.

[johnw]

Mmmm! Wonder why?

[Yoong Montoya]

Originally posted by Gt_R
Ferrari, Mclaren and Benetton all ran certain systems which act like Traction Control. They were found out in the order above. Ferrari was adviced not to use it, no punishments given. Mclaren's system is dubious and FIA didn't punish them either. Benetton hid a complicated set of program which activates a Launch Control, but they claim they din't use it.

Benetton isn't clean. But to claim they should have been punished while not clearing off the other 2 teams who are also suspected of cheating AND had softwares on their car to do that is simply not consistent.

And as usual. The spotlight is on Michael.

Exactly.

[ljakse]

Originally posted by Gt_R
And as usual. The spotlight is on Michael.

Well, he the WDC thanks to 'illegal software he didn't use'.
If Berger had won it maybe he would have been under the spot lights, but he ended up 50 points behind TGF that year, and BTW, didn't drive his car into somebody else's for it. Or maybe, Hakkinen would, but he ended even further down.

Michael did it to himself, by himself. If he haven't had done Adelaide '94 and Jerez '97 he would still be under the spot lights, but in totally different light - he would have been regarded as the greatest ever driver in F1. But since he did what he did, there will allways be a shadow above his achievements. And as long as there are people to talk about it, he will not reach the greatness of Fangio (5 times WDC), Moss (0 times WDC) or Villeneuve Sr (0 times WDC) though he is the the owner of all but one record in F1.

[Gt_R]

I see, an incident in 94, an incident in 97 and a couple of small incidents can be conviently used to rubbish all the achievements he earned over more than a decade in F1.

I won't say Michael's the best man ever, but some of the criticisms aimed at Michael here are sitting on the borders of silliness.

[ljakse]

Originally posted by Gt_R
I see, an incident in 94, an incident in 97 and a couple of small incidents can be conviently used to rubbish all the achievements he earned over more than a decade in F1.

Actually, it all started in Macao (1990 IIRC).
At that time I, probably as many others didn't think that it's gonna be his general attitude. Anyway, it took him few years to prove us being too optimistic.

And, not just Adelaide '94 & Jerez '97. Many times noone got hit by Michael Schumacher only 'coz they evaded fast enough (his lil bro included).

And yes, few of those carry as much weight as his 7 WDCs.
Of course, that's only IMO.

[Gt_R]

7?

[ljakse]

Yeah, right, it was too late to edit when I saw it...