Former Benetton Engineer admits they used TC in 1994...https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-rota ... illem-toetbut if you read the update on 12/12/16 it was
legal (letter of law not intent of law) traction control. And before anyone says it was not the intent of the law, I can point to various examples where teams went against the 'spirit of the regulations'. A comparable example would be around 2000 when various teams were using very clever methods to simulate TC leading the FIA legalizing it in the 2001 Spainish GP because it became impossible to police.
In fact just reading Damon Hill's book on the 1994 season and after the British GP in 1994 Max Mosley said to Damon "you did not actually break the rules, so there is nothing we can do. But we think that you went against
the spirit of the regulations". That was after the heinous crime of slowing down to pick up a Union Jack just after he won a race. So bear that in mind before you critise Benetton for coming up with the system mentioned in the above article.
EDIT; Interestingly McLaren were found to have that trick semi auto gearbox for some races in 1994 which pre selected gears in braking areas and IIRC the FIA stated this
was against the rules at the time. Yet in all the years I've been researching the whole 1994 politics & TC accusations I have never come across anyone slating Mclaren for cheating in 1994. Yet plenty of people have of course suggested Benetton & M Schumi cheated in 1994 at any opportunity. I find this very interesting...
Also worth bearing in mind, Benetton were using a Ford V8 which would have helped them off the starts due to the better torque characteristics and lighter fuel load they would have needed (due to the lower fuel consumption of the V8). Also M Schumi used to wheelspin from his grid slot on the formation lap, in order to leave two rubber lines, when it came to the start proper.
Former Benetton Engineer sheds more light on the Fuel Fire Affair...https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/f1-broke ... =prof-postIn that Hill book I reading this is what Hill basically states that the fire had merely confirmed what he had feared all along that when refuelling was introduced to F1 a fire was enevitable and you only need to look at the other forms of motorsport, Le Mans, Indycars where they refuel during races. Also he said he didn't believe for a second when the powers that be in F1 said refuelling would be completely safe, and the Hockenhiem fire was proof of it.
Hill also goes onto state in the days before the Hungary GP, Benetton did not deny that they had removed the filter and in fact they had been given permission to do so. But they also produced a report which said the refueling equipment was not safe and all told the team defended themselves quite vigorously. Yet when the matter when to court, the situtation changed completely and Benetton didn't defend themselves nor appeal the decision and received no DQ or race bans. I repeat
no DQ or race bans! Yet "Plank gate" at Spa 1994 earnt M Schumi a DQ and the whole saga surrounding Sliverstone 1994 arguably cost M Schumi 30 points! There is something fishy about the FIA's allegation that the removal of the fuel filter cause the Hockenhiem fire. Also Hill's comments along with Toet's all seem to correlate with what Steve Machett's has said on the matter, all of which is expressed in my earlier posts.
The Sliverstone 1994 affairI know the thoughts of many people is Benetton & M Schumi deserved the harsh treament after Sliverstone 1994 because they ignore the black flags.
Just to correct a factual mistake (and is commonly made): Michael Schumacher was indeed black flagged by the race stewards in Silverstone. However, the race steward WITHDREW the black flag and eventually 'settled' the mess (they ****ed up) with a stop-go penalty, a fine and a severe warning. However, in an unprecedented move (back then), the FIA independently (i.e., without any side appealing) launched a hearing where Schumacher was subsequently DQ'ed, banned from two races and Benetton received the biggest fine to date - half a million US dollars.
Here's an account of the Silverstone events from Chris Hilton's book on 1994:
Quote
On the warm-up lap before the race Schumacher set off in a cloud of smoke from the tyres, leading Hill - a breach of the rules which state that cars must remain in grid order. Coulthard couldn't get his engine to fire on the grid so the starting procedure had to be aborted. When they tried a second time, Schumacher took the lead again on the warm-up lap and would subsequently claim that Hill was 'going a bit slow'. The rules are clear: Schumacher ought to have been ordered to start from the back of the grid. That did not happen (and ultimately would be the first in many errors the Stewards had made).
Hill took the lead from Schumacher while the Stewards deliberated, decided on a five second penalty and informed Benetton. Crucially the penalty did not include the words 'stop-go'. (Note: back then, it was more common to penalise by adding time to a driver's race than to call him in for a stop-go; Rain) Briatore said 'we were told of the penalty but the stop-go wasn't mentioned. Therefore we didn't ask Michael to come into the pits'. Benetton, and Schumacher when they told him over the radio, assumed the five seconds would be added to his total race time and Schumacher faced the problem of overtaking Hill and getting five seconds clear of him.
After the early pit-stops Schumacher was given the black flag on lap 21. The black flag has always been the ultimate sanction in motor racing and is non-negotiable. The driver's number is displayed at the start-finish line and the black-flag. The indicated driver must come in. This time negotiations - heated - did take place between Benetton and the Stewards and for the next two laps Schumacher continued under the black flag. Then, the black flag was gone, and the Stewards told Benetton that it was withdrawn.
Instead, following the Stewards' orders, Schumacher came in on lap 27 for the stop-go, which essentially cost him the race. The Stewards issued a statement culminating in a decision 'to formally reprimand the competitor Mild Seven Benetton Ford for a lack of a complete understanding of F1 rules and of the need for this to be corrected and for their meticulous application in the future. Michael Schumacher and competitor Mild Seven Benetton Ford were fined US$25,000 for breach of the applicable regulations'. Benetton team manager Joan Villadelprat said 'we messed up but so did the Stewards. The rule says we have to be notified within 15 minutes of the incident'. By now a timetable had been re-created minute by minute, and it showed clearly that Schumacher's original offence - overtaking Hill on the warm-up laps - took place at 2.00, but the Stewards' decision was not announced until 2.27.
[one week later]
The FIA launched an inquiry into the events of Silverstone, and Schumacher was summoned to a meeting of the World Motor Sports Council in Paris on July 26. [...] After the hearing, he lost his six points from Silverstone and was given a two-race ban. Furthermore, Benetton were fined $500,000 for their failure to obey the Stewards' orders at Silverstone.
To this I would add the following:
[*] Prior to the World Council hearing, the WC points tally was: Schumacher 72, Hill 39. With TV rating sinking after Senna's death, I think those numbers speak volume of the FIA's state of mind at that point in time.
[*] That the Stewards really messed up in Silverstone '94 is obvious. The Race Director was in fact fined and reprimanded in that same World Council meeting. Interestingly enough, a similar shambles occured four years later at the same track - remember Schumacher's penalty, that was handed well over the time allowed by the rules, in a hand writing that was not clear of whether it's a stop-go or not? In that case, Ferrari got away with it. Same driver, different team but more importantly - different situation: this time, it was Hakkinen that had a huge lead in a WC that seemed to be about to get cakewalked.
How anyone could point at Silverstone '94 and blame Schumacher, I don't understand. It's more a case of moronic Stewards, manipulative team principals and an agenda-driven FIA. Schumacher, between those three, was nothing more than a pawn. For once, he WAS the innocent victim and not the culprit.
And by the way, it also reminds me of this year's Canadian Grand Prix, where David Coulthard had stalled on the grid and his team breached the 15-seconds clear rule, to fire up his engine. In that case, he ought to have been sent to the back of the grid. He got away with a stop-go penalty. The similarities to Schumacher's offense in Silverstone '94 are striking: in both cases, the drivers breached what is essentially a safety rule, and the penalty to both is to start from the start of the grid (a driver stalling his engine on the grid is supposed to raise his hand, like Schumacher in Suzuka 98). In both cases, the Stewards did not react on time and eventually settled for a stop-go penalty. However, in Coulthard's case the FIA did not launch an inquiry etc. -- again, put in perspective it tells a story about the FIA's agenda: with a 24-point lead in the WC, and the season is not half done yet, Schumacher's only real rival at that point was Coulthard....
Food for thought...
Source;
http://forums.autosport.com/topic/30931 ... ill/page-4IIRC it is stated later on in that thread that the rules at the time allowed for the black flag to be shown for 4 laps, and M Schumi passed it 3 times before it was withdrawn.
Also worth remembering that Mansell ignore the Black flag at Portgual in 1989 (for two laps) and then was involved in a race ending accident with Senna (who was of course fighting for the WDC). So surely the Punishment that Mansell recieved should have been much greater that what M Schumi recieved at Sliverstone in 1994? Yet as we know Mansell 'only' got a one race ban. Where as M Schumi lost arguably 30 points (he was leading at Sliverstone when the black flag was shown, and when he came in for his stop & go). Can't help but feel M Schumi's points lead going into Sliverstone in 1994 had influenced the harsh penalty he/Benetton recieved.
Apologies for the long post, but I hope you find all of the above as interesting as I have. Also if you do a bit of research behind the characters involved (i.e. Max Mosley's father, mother & auntie) and how imcompentant he seemed to be in 1994 on various matters like safety and applying consistent penalties etc. You start to begin understand the whole politics behind 1994. For me this put into context what M Schumi did at Adelaide in 1994,
even thought I don't agree with the manner he chose to settle the title. I merely understand why he did what he did a bit better.
