Jos Verstappen: "Schumacher used TC in 1994"

[Raiden]

I might add, there's nothing illegal about electronic aids in general. Modern formula 1 cars are electric beasts. Adjustable differentials, as were referred to earlier, would have been quite legal. It is traction control, amongst other things, that is illegal.

Verstappen never actually says that Schumacher's Benetton was illegal. He just says that Schumacher's car had electronic devices that his car didn't.

[manchild]

I don't know why I'm getting into this, but just for another reply I am.

You do realise Schumacher didn't pass Senna because of an illegal fuel rig, right? Schumacher left the pits 1.9 seconds ahead of Senna. It wasn't even close. The Benetton stop was 6.4 seconds and the Williams stop was 8.0 seconds. The fuel rig would have gained, at a maximum, 1 second.

No, I don't, especially since the only source to backup it is your own estimate of 1 second gain, which is by my opinion something no one would risk DSQ for. Three seconds or more would be worth risk that enables to overtake in pits even the car that started refueling earlier.

Schumacher passed Senna because the Benetton crew were quick and the Williams crew were tardy, because he was fuelled lighter than Senna (V8 engine remember), and because he was quicker entering and exiting his pitbox than Senna. Maybe the fuel filter was involved, maybe not, but Schumacher already had plenty of time on Senna for those other reasons. He was gonna pass him anyway.

So according to you, 3.5L V8 has significantly lower consumption than 3.5L V10 and therefore needs significantly less fuel?


To sum up MS 1994 season:

- Used TC and LC
- Overtook on parade lap
- Ignored black flag
- Used illegal refueling rig for 10 out of 16 races
- Crashed into Damon Hill in order to get rid of him

That is not a champion and a sportsman, that is crook and a villain.

[yace]

To sum up MS 1994 season:

- Used TC and LC _____________ LC was also found at rivals, right?
- Overtook on parade lap_______ agree, but he gave the position back
- Ignored black flag ___________ it was an order from the team
- Used illegal refueling rig for 10 out of 16 races __ agree
- Crashed into Damon Hill in order to get rid of him __ agree, but why the fia didn't disgrace him after that?

[Raptor22]

Manchild do you need a tissue?

Dredging up the past with such vitriole.

Much of what happened in 1994 has been put into context by time and history.

Schumacher's passing on the parade lap was very much a bit of gamesmanship on his part. He simply did it to unsettle Hill off the start line. He got wrapped over the knuckles, not even a warning a straight ban.

The black flag was due to his team telling him to stay out while they sort out the matter with the FIA. If you recall, he was called in for a penalty for passing Hill on the parade lap. In that (the 2nd time it happended on the lap) it was because Hill slowed suddenly and Schumacher took avoiding action and drover around him.
Williams lodged a formal complaint and got Schumacher a penalty. BEnetton appealed but kept Schumacher out. Benettons argued that the penalty was dished out after the statute of limitations had expired (there is a 25min window). But its England with an English driver in with a chance of winning so the race stewards didn't really give hot and handed out a black flag because Benetton has protested.

TC was never found on the car. LC was and it was Option 13. It was never proven to be used since the sensor suit (those little electronic gubbins that measure wheel slip) required to enable it was never found on the car on race weekends.

Then we have the stupid skidplank story. Schumacher was excluded from the Belgian Gp because the skid plank was worn too far. Benetton appealed because the wear scars on the plank indicated the wear was due to the car spinning over the kerbs earlier in the race. The race stewards were under FIA pressure to ensure Schumacher but mostly Benetton had a rough ride so they were excluded on the letter of the laaw and not common sense.

The Fuel rig filter is a matter of interpretation. The FIA stipulated that no tampering of the fuel to allow a increased flow rate is allowed.
Benetton saw a loophole and decided that removing a fuel filter is not considered tampering because its part that does not alter the functioning of the rig. They impreted tampering as increasing the speed of the electric motor or raising the pressure throgh mechanical modification. removing the filter was considered a maintenance issue and it was an acceptable risk.

The fire that resulted on Verstappens car was never directly attributed to dirt due to the filter being not present. The accident report merely stated that it was irregular and a possible contrbuting factor. The likely causal effect was simply that the nozzle was not fitted properly to the cars tank filler inlet during the stop. It has to go on square and straight. If it goes on skew the filler valve does not close properly. Thats hwo those rigs work. It was simply an accident but it happened to Benetton so that was an excuse for the FIA to wrap them over the knuckles again.

You can chose to view 1994 in many ways but those who do view it as a villianous scenario I feel incredibly sorry for because it really highlights a complete lack of understanding of the politics of F1

[timbo]

- Used TC and LC

And once again, even if they used it, they certainly wanted to swap and did swap all that for Renault engine.

[siskue2005]

Thank you Jos!

Previous two seasons have proved that when MS is in the midfield car and without FIA help, he is just another midfield driver.

Senna died trying to get away from illegally superior car that was chasing him. He died because it was impossible, and in his mind he either knew about Benetton's dirt and opted to fight no matter what, or wasn't really aware of it. I'd go for second possibility, since he'd turn paddock upside down if he suspected something, in order to get Benetton checked. Flavio and Brawn were just small fries who wanted quick success just like MS. In years that followed, together with Todt and Mossley they've destroyed all of F1 virtues that were standing in their way to "success".

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad6l2yHTS0Y[/youtube]

OH LORD!....So Schumacher killed Senna?! lol it is like some Alfred hitchcok movie with a strange twist in the end

[siskue2005]

To sum up MS 1994 season:

- Used TC and LC

LC = Lauch control software was found in his car by FIA
BUT TC = traction control???? where was it found in his car ?? got any proof?

[yace]

i agree, if they found the LC, they would also found the TC if it was really in the car

[Mandrake]

Manchild you must be very bitter.....

Senna died because Schumacher was faster using an illegal car? Senna would have pushed his car no matter what or who was behind him and how fast that person would have been.....it was the car that failed in a flatout corner, there's nothing he would have done differently there!

I can accept different oppinions, but is just SO wrong. What excuse do you have for the deaths of Ratzenberger and other F1 drivers?

[Gerhard Berger]

Manchild do you need a tissue?

Dredging up the past with such vitriole.

Much of what happened in 1994 has been put into context by time and history.

Schumacher's passing on the parade lap was very much a bit of gamesmanship on his part. He simply did it to unsettle Hill off the start line. He got wrapped over the knuckles, not even a warning a straight ban.

Just to add to what you've said (agree with everything you have said), Schumacher also passed Senna on the parade lap at Interlagos, but there as never any punishment handed out for it. The penalty he received at Silverstone was very harsh.

The black flag was due to his team telling him to stay out while they sort out the matter with the FIA. If you recall, he was called in for a penalty for passing Hill on the parade lap. In that (the 2nd time it happended on the lap) it was because Hill slowed suddenly and Schumacher took avoiding action and drover around him.
Williams lodged a formal complaint and got Schumacher a penalty. BEnetton appealed but kept Schumacher out. Benettons argued that the penalty was dished out after the statute of limitations had expired (there is a 25min window). But its England with an English driver in with a chance of winning so the race stewards didn't really give hot and handed out a black flag because Benetton has protested.

I read an intervie with Ross Brawn a couple of years ago. He said that the British stewards handed the team a piece of paper stating 5 second penalty on it. Brawn and Walkinshaw thought this 5 seconds would be added to Schumacher's time at the end of the race since it as never stated this was a stop and go penalty. While the nature of the penalty as being debated, Schumacher was told to stay out and he therefore receieved the black flag. It was a mess up by the British stewards, and that wouldn't be the first time.

TC was never found on the car. LC was and it was Option 13. It was never proven to be used since the sensor suit (those little electronic gubbins that measure wheel slip) required to enable it was never found on the car on race weekends.

I think you can look at some of his starts and see it was not used. Silverstone was a great example - excessive wheelspin and tyresmoke on Schumacher's start, whilst Hill got away perfectly and was already a few car lengths ahead before the first corner.

[TzeiTzei]

There's nothing really new in what Verstappen said. In my mind i have no doubt that the two Benetton cars were different, and that Schumacher's had some illegal electronic gadgets to make it go faster. But no one outside the Benetton crew can ever prove that they were actually used. And that's why the FIA couldn't penalize them. The talk about it being too difficult to remove the features from ECU was absolutely rubbish. They just didn't want to.

Also the TC or LC or whatever doesn't even have to be in the source code of the ECU. They could just load the illegal programs to RAM with a laptop when the car is started. The program on the RAM then removes itself once the car is switched off after the race. And so no one can ever prove they had any illegal software on board, yet alone used in the race.

This being F1technical, i find it disappointing to see this debate heading to the usual Schumacher vs. Senna fanboy battle. Could we stay on the topic?

[siskue2005]

There's nothing really new in what Verstappen said. In my mind i have no doubt that the two Benetton cars were different, and that Schumacher's had some illegal electronic gadgets to make it go faster. But no one outside the Benetton crew can ever prove that they were actually used. And that's why the FIA couldn't penalize them. The talk about it being too difficult to remove the features from ECU was absolutely rubbish. They just didn't want to.

Also the TC or LC or whatever doesn't even have to be in the source code of the ECU. They could just load the illegal programs to RAM with a laptop when the car is started. The program on the RAM then removes itself once the car is switched off after the race. And so no one can ever prove they had any illegal software on board, yet alone used in the race.

This being F1technical, i find it disappointing to see this debate heading to the usual Schumacher vs. Senna fanboy battle. Could we stay on the topic?

this shows that you have just got the gist of what happened back then

The ECU was actually Mclaren's when they used Ford engines....thats the same ECU program was given with the new Ford engines in 1994...it had Lauch control software NOT THE TRACTION CONTROL software! which is difficult to remove as it came with the ford's engine mapping....and remember its 1994 not 2011 when computers and laptops had just 200 MB hard drive and 64 MB ram etc. and there was no way they could remove the LC alone and remap the entire FORD engine's mapping.
So they hide it inside the menu without any way to work it out.

and it is one thing to have LC and TC SOFTWARE you actually need LC AND TC HARDWARE in the car to make it work
which is sensors for detecting wheel spin, and sensors to detect throttle movement etc
Which where never found in the car....FIA did examine the car for these specific hardware...without which there is no use of software in the ECU
So the FIA decided to not punish them coz they didnt have LC or TC Hardware in the car!

[bizadfar]

Manchild has been bitterchild since 2005. Move on.
Or check out his posts in 2006 blasting Ferrari/MS lol.

[Ferraripilot]

4 pages of this, really? last word has been said many times. It had LC on TC. No sensors in the car anywhere. I won't say how I feel about Senna's emotions about it, but may he RIP and Schu will continue visiting his grave every time he is in Brasil. Respect

[Raiden]

I don't know why I'm getting into this, but just for another reply I am.

You do realise Schumacher didn't pass Senna because of an illegal fuel rig, right? Schumacher left the pits 1.9 seconds ahead of Senna. It wasn't even close. The Benetton stop was 6.4 seconds and the Williams stop was 8.0 seconds. The fuel rig would have gained, at a maximum, 1 second.

No, I don't, especially since the only source to backup it is your own estimate of 1 second gain, which is by my opinion something no one would risk DSQ for. Three seconds or more would be worth risk that enables to overtake in pits even the car that started refueling earlier.

It's not a question of risk, Benetton didn't think they would get disqualified for removing the filter. And they weren't. In any case, Intertechnique measured at 12.5% the increase in the rate of fuel flow by removing the filter. Assuming Schumacher and/or Benetton had removed the filter this gives Schumacher 0.9 seconds gain. Schumacher was easily more than 0.9 seconds ahead of Senna leaving the pits. So he didn't pass Senna because of a removed fuel filter.

Schumacher passed Senna because the Benetton crew were quick and the Williams crew were tardy, because he was fuelled lighter than Senna (V8 engine remember), and because he was quicker entering and exiting his pitbox than Senna. Maybe the fuel filter was involved, maybe not, but Schumacher already had plenty of time on Senna for those other reasons. He was gonna pass him anyway.

So according to you, 3.5L V8 has significantly lower consumption than 3.5L V10 and therefore needs significantly less fuel?

Yes, in this case. Williams were faster down the straights with more power, but had worse fuel consumption. On the other hand Benetton had a more surefooted, agile car, with good torque.