Jos Verstappen: "Schumacher used TC in 1994"

[strad]

I wanted to point out is that one can't define F1 as sportless win by any mean kind of competition, simply because that became modus operandi of certain people and the F1 ruling body. I always look at F1 as whole, from 1950 onwards, and if there were decades of fairplay and knighthood prior to mid 90s and what followed under MoSSley regime, than as a fan I raise voice to stand for those virtues.

The feeling I have is that certain young people like one I've confronted opinions with, have no desire at all to learn about what went before, and so they build whole idea of what F1 is on its shameful period, that was unfortunately the time they started watching it.

I was young too, but I loved reading about Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart... even about pre-WWII GP era, and based on all that I've learned, I find it offensive when someone defines F1 as "winning at all costs sport", simply because one driver and people that surrounded him, made success with such methods, and got away with it as they were blessed by former FIA führer.

Too right Manchild....too right

[LionKing]

I wanted to point out is that one can't define F1 as sportless win by any mean kind of competition, simply because that became modus operandi of certain people and the F1 ruling body. I always look at F1 as whole, from 1950 onwards, and if there were decades of fairplay and knighthood prior to mid 90s and what followed under MoSSley regime, than as a fan I raise voice to stand for those virtues.

The feeling I have is that certain young people like one I've confronted opinions with, have no desire at all to learn about what went before, and so they build whole idea of what F1 is on its shameful period, that was unfortunately the time they started watching it.

I was young too, but I loved reading about Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart... even about pre-WWII GP era, and based on all that I've learned, I find it offensive when someone defines F1 as "winning at all costs sport", simply because one driver and people that surrounded him, made success with such methods, and got away with it as they were blessed by former FIA führer.

Too right Manchild....too right

"In 1956 Fangio took over his team-mate's cars after his suffered mechanical problems in three races, the Argentine, Monaco and Italian Grands Prix. At the season-ending Italian Grand Prix, Fangio's Ferrari team mate Peter Collins, who was in a position to win the World Championship with just 15 laps to go, handed over his car to Fangio. They shared the six points won for second place, giving Fangio the World title."

Is this is the knighthood and fairplay you are talking about???

[Richard]

I initially thought about quoting that example. However it is different because that was how the sport operated in those days, it was common for drivers to be substituted. There were 10 instances of drivers swapping cars mid-race in the 1956 season(ie 20 drivers). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Formu ... on#Drivers

It was all above board and within both the letter and spirit of the rules.

[SeijaKessen]

BTW, I have nothing against young people, what I wanted to point out is that one can't define F1 as sportless win by any mean kind of competition, simply because that became modus operandi of certain people and the F1 ruling body. I always look at F1 as whole, from 1950 onwards, and if there were decades of fairplay and knighthood prior to mid 90s and what followed under MoSSley regime, than as a fan I raise voice to stand for those virtues.

The feeling I have is that certain young people like one I've confronted opinions with, have no desire at all to learn about what went before, and so they build whole idea of what F1 is on its shameful period, that was unfortunately the time they started watching it.

I was young too, but I loved reading about Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart... even about pre-WWII GP era, and based on all that I've learned, I find it offensive when someone defines F1 as "winning at all costs sport", simply because one driver and people that surrounded him, made success with such methods, and got away with it as they were blessed by former FIA führer.

Manchild, I am one of the younger people out there, just to tell you, I was born the year Ayrton Senna made his F1 debut with Toleman. I enjoy F1 a lot, but I find the previous eras probably more fascinating than the modern era for a variety of reasons.

I am curious though, what are some of the things the Moseley regime did outside of the 1994 debacle with Bennetton?

[flynfrog]

That photo shows MSC's B194 that was on auction at ebay. Perhaps illegal electronics was in the round steering wheel, which wasn't sold by Benetton together with the car?

http://i.auto-bild.de/ir_img/6/8/3/1/6/ ... 06a639.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_oC5L-Z4TQg4/S ... 194ua3.jpg

http://i.auto-bild.de/ir_img/6/8/3/1/6/ ... e9a097.jpg

BTW, I have nothing against young people, what I wanted to point out is that one can't define F1 as sportless win by any mean kind of competition, simply because that became modus operandi of certain people and the F1 ruling body. I always look at F1 as whole, from 1950 onwards, and if there were decades of fairplay and knighthood prior to mid 90s and what followed under MoSSley regime, than as a fan I raise voice to stand for those virtues.

The feeling I have is that certain young people like one I've confronted opinions with, have no desire at all to learn about what went before, and so they build whole idea of what F1 is on its shameful period, that was unfortunately the time they started watching it.

I was young too, but I loved reading about Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart... even about pre-WWII GP era, and based on all that I've learned, I find it offensive when someone defines F1 as "winning at all costs sport", simply because one driver and people that surrounded him, made success with such methods, and got away with it as they were blessed by former FIA führer.

I think that Benetton had said they did use TC in testing ect. Its pretty hard for the TC to work without the sensors installed.

[xpensive]

Of course he used TC launch control and every other cheating method they could come up with, I remember at times being able to hear the systems at work. There was simply no other way that he could have outdriven Senna's Renault V10 with his Ford V8.

All this was obviously sanctioned by MrM, a well known germanophile.

[strad]

Is this is the knighthood and fairplay you are talking about???

Exactly...Nobody MADE Collins do that...HE OFFERED. He thought he would have time to win many chanmopionships,,Instead he died.

Indeed, Collins was on the verge of becoming Britain's first F1 World Champion when he handed his Lancia-Ferrari D50 over to team leader Juan Manuel Fangio after the latter suffered a steering-arm failure toward the end of the Italian Grand Prix at Monza. Collins eventually finished second, but the advantage handed to Moss, and the extra points gained by Fangio's finish, demoted Collins to third in the championship. Collins' selfless act gained him respect from Enzo Ferrari.

Collins was in a position to win the World Championship but when he came in for a tire check with 15 laps to go he made the remarkable decision to hand over his car to Fangio, thus giving Fangio the chance to win another World title. It was a great sporting gesture.

Ya don't know what you were talking about...LionKing

[LionKing]

So everytime Fangio's car broke down that year he decided to give his car to him?

[manchild]

LionKing, with all respect, why are you now trying to generate dirt where no one before you has has ever even thought of? Trying to manipulate actions of the most noble drivers and moments in motorsport history just for the sake of justifying most disgraceful driver and moments in motorsport history is truly pathetic.

A lot is still said about Peter reliquishing his own 1956 title chances to his team leader Fangio, but as in most occasions the nostalgic myth is bigger than historical truth. Peter’s gesture is often set as the prime example of sportsmanship of days gone by, compared to today’s egotistical driver morals. Looking at the points situation ahead of the 1956 Italian GP, however, the chances of Collins winning the World Championship were purely mathematical, and they didn’t improve during the race. In fact, after Fangio had retired both Behra and Collins needed a win and the point for fastest lap to take the title. So to become World Champion the Englishman would have had to up his pace considerably to overtake his flying countryman, and set fastest lap in the process, as a mere win would not suffice on countback, as both Fangio and Collins would have taken three wins. But at the moment Collins gave his car to the Maestro, team manager Sculati had told Collins that Moss had just set fastest lap, thus effectively finishing his title hopes. Also, the other only title outsider – Jean Behra – had retired on lap 23, quite a number of laps before Collins stepped out of his car to hand it over to his team leader.

Strangely, several commanding sources claim that Fangio needed to go out to take second place to gain the title, but looking at the points situation that is simply nonsense. With the best-result rule still firmly in place, any result by Fangio in a shared car would have been scratched anyway, so 30 points was the best he could do at the moment the Argentinian took over the No.26 car. Even more peculiar is the often heard suggestion that Moss was on his way to the title by taking the win and fastest lap, with Fangio needing those points to stay ahead of Moss, but being on 19 points leaving the Nürburgring the Maserati driver had stopped being a title candidate after the preceding German GP!

As for the sportsmanship issue, Peter’s gesture was nothing but magnanimous but it only came after young Musso point-blank refused to give up his car in front of his home crowd – so much for widespread sportsmanship in the good old fifties. This is also why it can be argued that the Collins/Fangio myth is often misused in today’s debate on team orders. Collins didn’t obey to team orders, he gave up his car voluntarily. And Musso didn’t obey his team manager either, he simply didn’t – which was seen by some as ungraceful to Fangio, the multiple World Champion. It shows that team orders were seen in a totally different light – they were part of the deal and disobeying them was the unsportsmanlike thing to do, instead of the other way around, as most motor racing fans in today’s individualistic world want it to be. They even go as far as asking themselves how Enzo Ferrari would have felt, which would probably be the opposite to what they are romantically inclined to think. One thing is certain – Collins’ sportsmanship created an even bigger affection with the Commendatore, but perhaps for different seasons than often believed. Knowing where Mr Ferrari’s interests were usually located – with the team, and the team only – it can be argued that he valued Collins most for being the team player that he proved to be by handing over his car to the greater and faster driver.

[strad]

Collins didn’t obey to team orders, he gave up his car voluntarily.

The important part to our discussion.

[Cuky]

I sadly must agree that Formula 1 is "win at all costs" sport. And it became that the moment sponsors entered the sport. Now to be able to remain in sport it is not just to be known and fast, it is just not enough. Sponsors will always stick with teams and drivers who win races and championships. More wins = more sponsors, more sponsors = more money, more money = more wins and than all over again.

[strad]

And you think that is a good thing???

[nipo]

I am one of the "young" generation and according to manchild he wouldn't want to discuss with me . I started watching F1 at the time Schumacher started winning WDCs at Ferrari. Without any insight into politics etc., naturally I took Schumi as the hero and Ferrari the symbol of passion and success.

Through the years I've read about how FIA had given favours to the Italian team, and that made the greatest success in F1 history seem questionable to me. But for times before that, the fact remains that I wasn't there when Senna raced, or when people started smashing into each other to win / satisfy their ego / whatever it was (A side note: they don't seem to do specifically that act anymore so maybe it's become less "win at all costs"). It is quite meaningless for me to compare Senna to Schumacher, or to comment on the events of that age.

What's more meaningless, though, is to use Senna as an excuse to legitimize Schumacher's actions. It should all come back to the definitions of sportsmanship - the fine line between trying your best, never giving up, fighting to the finish VS getting the win at others' expense. In my opinion Schumi fans can stop telling the old-time-lovers that because Senna did this Schumi can also do it.

On the other hand, if a person describes a driver to have crashed deliberately into another car, then says "at least he voiced out his conditions" so it is not too bad, I really doubt this person's integrity. I feel this is an argument just for the sake of argument.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

If I supported a driver who drove his car in for his team mate to drive, who would then go on to win a championship.... I would question that mans decision to be in the sport.
It's a sport, not a charity. A noble act indeed but not one in fitting with the raison d'être of taking part to win.

I'm happy that has changed...

[strad]

"It's like trying to tell a stranger 'bout rock and roll."