Talk:Allegations of cheating during the 1994 Formula One World Championship

Release of computer source codes

"McLaren sent a copy of the system immediately, but Benetton failed to do so until three weeks after the San Marino race which could have allowed them in the three-week gap to change the system."

But, according to the 1994 AUTOCOURSE (p.179), both Benetton and McLaren were fined $100,000 between the British and German GPs for failing to disclose their codes with sufficient alacrity. Hmmm....--Diniz(talk) 19:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to the Michael Schumacher: The Rise of a Genius book (p. 44):

McLaren did as told [in sending the systems] but Benetton dragged its feet and sent the documents three weeks late which could have allowed the team time to falsify them.

D.M.N. (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sections

I think that the current sections are somewhat arbitrary. "Background" and "Details" imply different levels of explanation of broadly the same subject, but the article in its current state is a chronological narrative of events divided in the middle. I would suggest a system more along these lines:

Background

Concerning events prior to 1994.

Initial allegations

Start of the 1994 season to Senna's death.

Rule changes

Senna's death, rule changes, antagonism between teams (esp. Benetton) and FIA.

The diffusers weren't banned, they were just restricted in size in order to cut downforce production from the underfloor. After all, F1 cars have been using them continuously since 1983, when "skirted" ground effect was banned. Vikirad (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC) EDIT: One of the paragraphs said that the diffusers were banned after the Monaco Grand Prix, that's what I was referring to.

Renewed allegations

Race start at the French GP, Schumacher's driving at the British GP and initial $25,000 fine, Charlie Whiting's report on "Option 13" and the questionable legality of Benetton's software, Benetton's fuel filter, McLaren's automated upchange device, Schumacher's worn plank and DQ from the Belgian GP, Schumacher's collision with Hill at the Australian GP (think this should be added).

Here's my go at a paragraph on the incident:

Further controversy appeared at the championship finale in Australia. Following his win at Suzuka in the previous round, Damon Hill now trailed Michael Schumacher by a single point. In qualifying Hill's teammate took pole position with the German alongside him on the front row. Both Schumacher and Hill made it passed Mansell at the start and chased each other for a majority of race. That was, until 32 when the German driver ran off the track and the Brit decided to take the inside line for the upcoming corner. Schumacher turned into Hill, apparently unaware of Hill's presence, and broke the Williams' suspension whilst taking himself out of the race by crashing into the barriers along the outside of the corner. Hill retired the same lap after his team could not repair the damage inflicted upon his car from his collision with Schumacher.

The incident brought much controversy within the motorsport community and the British press, a majority of the latter accused the German of turning into Hill on purpose to stop the Brit from winning the championship. Even at the time of the incident, on the BBC's live broadcast of the race, commentator Murray Walker commented that the move was "desperate" and he thought it was "to stop Damon Hill from winning the championship". Walker has since changed his opinions on the incident, saying that the incident was not intentional.

Anyway, that's all I can remember off by heart about the incident. I'll have to check Walker's commentary quote because I feel it maybe misquoted in some places. Anyway, if someone could check about the neutrality because we all know what happened last time we talked about this... ;-) --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 16:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

FIA action

The FIA's response through court sessions and hearings to the events in the previous section, respectively: no action (so no need to mention it again); DQ, bigger fine and two-race ban, subsequently upheld; no action at World Council meeting taken as use of illegal software is not proven; found guilty of breaking the regulations but not punished due to valid plea in mitigation; ditto; no further action; ditto.

Legacy

I think this should be added as well. Essentially, Schumacher's WDC is viewed as tainted (I can find lots of refs, given the time), but deliberate cheating cannot be proven.

Since the "Renewed allegations" and "FIA action" sections would overlap chronologically, it would be necessary to reintroduce the timeline.--Diniz(talk) 20:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the layout and re-introduced the timeline (not yet finished). D.M.N. (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Williams 1992

Williams 1992 championship - "with some questioning if Nigel Mansell's 1992 Drivers' Championship victory ". Questioned by whom ? Certainly there was no such speculation in the press of the period in question. The 1992 Williams was adjudged legal during the 1992 season. The comment is spurious and as such I have deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.141.145 (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you have misjudged the context of that quotation. The point is that in 1993, the FIA was attempting to ban driver aids (they needed the unanimous agreement of all the teams to do so), and Whiting's memorandum declaring the cars with such aids illegal under the existing regulations was more of a political gambit than a serious threat to alter the 1993 or 1992 championships. The "some" refers to members of the Williams team, unnamed in the source, who made these comments to make the point that the motive of the memorandum was to force the teams to agree to ban the aids in 1994, rather than to alter the current or most recent championship.--Midgrid(talk) 16:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

British GP parade lap incident

WTF does schumacher's issue with the parade lap have to do with any "cheating scandal" in 1994? Outside of the inbred, rotten-toothed yellow journalism of the brtisih media, the "black flag" of schumacher was one of the must pathetic and idiotic things ever done by the FIA, not part of a cheating scandal, yet somehow on wikipedia it is some kind of "cheating scandal of 1994". The whole article is some perverse mixture of garbage, fantasy and jingoism.97.83.233.68 (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I might not agree with much of the paragraph above, I do tend to agree that the British GP parade lap incident is not really an example of (attempted) "cheating" per se, and hence probably doesn't belong on this page. Other opinions? DH85868993 (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I would agree and add the FIA were one of the main culprits in the cheating scandal. They had lost Mr Senna at the begining of the season and Mr Prost and Mr Mansell had also left the previous seasons this left an extremly quick driver in a quick car all on his own with no challenges. This could kill viewing figures, We were then entertained by the FIA and it's race bans, black flags and disqualifications during the next few months to find Mr Hill catching the uncatchable. It was pitiful of the FIA and ruined what should have been one of the greatest drivers maiden world championship win. 87.112.129.164 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Proof Senna knew about Left Foot Braking and didn't confuse the technique with an actual illegal traction control system on the B194.

Gerhard Berger (Senna's team mate) using left foot braking in 1992 (the year he was Senna's team mate): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GKwlKvmWB4 85.148.213.144 (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I also removed the sentence that stated that LFB was new to Formula one in 1994 and that Schumacher was an early adopter. This is plainly false information as the F1 dictionary (http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/left_foot_braking.html) lists it having been used since the early 70's. On a personal note it is quite ridiculous to think that arguably the best driver in the world in 1994 would not know or recognize a very fundamental (then) 25 year old driving technique. Especially since his own team mate was using it two years prior. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Corrected SCH's Belgium disqualification

The section was a mess or an outright falsehood. The section claimed the plank was allowed 10mm of wear and had only worn 7.4mm. This is false. The plank ITSELF was 10mm deep and was allowed a 10% margin of wear after the race. It was found to have worn down to 7.4mm due to running too low, so well under the 9mm depth allowed.

The article also avoided mentioning that the appeal for the Belgium disqualification was rejected and the disqualification upheld. This was because the defense rested on the suggestion that the excessive wear was allegedly caused by SCH's spin over the kerb. In reality the damage from the spin was visible much further down the plank and not the area at the front (due to running illegaly low) was the cause for the infraction (also not mentioned in the article until now).

"Quote

The Stewards questioned the Technical Delegate and were informed that the minimum dimension of the skidblock could not be attributed to the spin over the kerb because the accidental damage was clearly marked as located in the drawing submitted by the Technical Delegate and which was mostly transverse in nature, and mostly located at the rear of the skidblock.

The drawing further showed that the area where the minimum dimension of less than 9mm up to a minimum of 7.4mm was located in the general area between 10 and 70 to 80 cm from the front of the skidblock.

There were very light and very few transverse marks in this area, all the marks being generally longitudinal.

The Stewards also received a report of the Clerk of Course which certified that the concerned kerb is flat and that no piece of wood could be found either on the top or the at the side of the relevant kerb."

I changed the paragraph in the article to:

"Before Schumacher's appeal from his disqualification at the British Grand Prix, he was disqualified from the Belgian Grand Prix as his Benetton had excessive wear of the plank.[1] The FIA allowed the ten millimetre deep plank, with one millimeter of wear allowance meaning that the plank must be a minimum of nine millimetres after the race to be deemed legal. Unfortunately, a majority of the plank on Schumacher's car measured 7.4 millimetres, well under the legal tolerance. This due to having run illegally low, and therefore having suffered a much deeper wear [1][23] [36] Benetton, along with Schumacher, claimed that the plank had excessive wear due to a spin by Schumacher during the race.[10][37][38] However, the damage to the plank from the spin was visible further down the plank and was not the cause for the infraction [39] Benetton launched an immediate appeal, with a World Motor Sport Council meeting set for September 5.[40] Benetton’s appeal was rejected and Schumacher’s disqualification was upheld [41]. "

Reference: https://www.racefans.net/2014/08/28/1994-belgian-grand-prix-flashback/ 85.148.213.144 (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/october-1994/10/as-thick-as-a-plank 85.148.213.144 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC) 85.148.213.144 (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Toet admitting that Benetton had traction control, although legal by the letter of technical rules (but not in spirit)

1) here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-rotational-inertia-led-traction-control-willem-toet/

2) 14:23 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1PnMIwQicE?t=863

Should this be written in the article?

95.250.176.27 (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)