Historic examples of rule bending and breaking

[ibsey]

Recently stumbled across a few more examples to post here. Hopefully they will be of interest.

Firstly during the 2011 Turkey FP2 BBC red button coverage, in the commentary Maurice Hamilton, talks about an incident at Wakins Glen in 1976, where the Mclaren mechanics "went to great lengths" to retrive a fire existingister which had fallen off James Hunt's car (fire existingisters were situated just above the engine's in thoses day). Maurice said that the feeling at the time was why did Mclaren go to such great lengths to retrive it? But nothing was ever proven.

Also recently rewatched the 2006 Barain GP & in the ITV commentary, Martin Brundle was talking about Ferrari's new front wing legailty being called into question by all the other teams for flexing too much (all of which sounds a little familiar doesn't it?). Although it has to be said that during the Ferrari / M Schumi domination years (2000 - 2004) Ferrari's rivals did have somewhat of a history of crying foul when there was no real reason for doing so. For instance during the 2002 Spainish GP ITV commentary, James Allen talks about how Mclaren had made noises that the 2002 Ferrari was illegal but didn't have any evidence to back up those allegations & how it was probably a way of throwing dirt on their rival after Mclaren had just got lapped by Ferrari in the previous race at Imola in a dry / normal conditions.

Interesting in that Barain 2006 commentary, Brundle admitted that his 1993 Ligier wings used to flex under load (implying it might not have complied with the regulations). This is particularly fascinating as I know Ligier reverted back to their 1991 spec rear wing for the 1994 Belgian GP (& possibly other races in 1994), presumably because they were concerned about safety after Imola 1994?

I think I heard ages ago that when Ross Brawn joined Ferrari in 1997, he went about encripting the Ferrari's team Radio (back in the days when Radio transnmissions were not broadcast on TV like they are today) to ensure that no-one from outside Ferrari could be listening in. So this got me thinking, has there been any instances of teams secretley listening in on their rival's radio transmissions prior to 1997 - or was it just paranornia from Ferrari / Ross Brawn (who of course arrived from Benetton & that 1994 season with).

[ibsey]

Just remembered another one to post here. The Michelin / Bridgestone tyre contreversey around Monza 2003. After the 2003 Hungarian GP (notable for HWNSNBM's debut) Ferrari & Bridgestone (who had just finished that race in circa 8th place a lap down!!!) instigated a protest against their rivals Michelin, over their tread width. Michelin previously had their tread width clarified by the FIA before Imola 2001 (via an oral answer from two FIA officals). However, it has to be said when Bridgestone started to become uncompetitive, they started to have a different interpretation of this & was troubled with how to deal with it. Therefore Bridgestone photographed the Michelin tyres after the 2003 Hungary race & approached both Ferrari & the FIA to clarify the issue. The FIA subsquently decided that tread width on tyres would now be measured before & after each race. Looking back now all of this appeared to hamper Michelin's tyre development thereafter & arguably cost them both 2003 titles?

I've sourced all of the above info, from the offical 2003 F1 review DVD & in it, Patrick Head was particularly displeased about this situation. It worth watching just to see Patrick's facial expressions at Ross Brawn's explainations at the Pre Monza 2003 press conference.

Would be interested to know what other people's thoughts are on this? I mean do people think Michelin were cheating (as the Bridgestone accusations imply), or as Patrick Head claimed was this just a synciacal ploy from Ferrari & Bridgestone to fight for the championship both on & off the track? (i.e by destablising Michelin)

Personally I agree with the latter & think it was suspecious that Bridgestone only raised their concerns after they started falling behind the pace. I mean if they really did have a problem with Michelin's tread width then they shouldn't have waited two & a half years later to shout about it? I mean by waiting this long, it set a precedent to Michelin, letting them believe their tread width philosphy is all above board...thus allowing them to develop further down that particular route. So when the rug was pulled from under their feet by Bridgestone, it meant that they had lost 2 & a half years of tyre development, not just one or two races as it should have been!!!

So to me this whole affair actually smacks off Bridgestone cheating, because they knew they couldn't compete with Michelin anymore so they looked to manipulate the anthorities & change the rules to favour them instead. Simliar to a football player who falsely takes a dive in order to get a penalty kick for his team. I know that some may say that this 'part of the game' in other sports like football, but I like to think that in F1 we have always been above that type of behaviour. In 2003 it seems we were not.


Also In Eddie Jordan's book, I think he talks about an incident in the early 1980's (possibly 1983) where his F3 team were taking part in either Macau or somewhere in Italy (I think latter actually) & there was a problem with the race authorities who were accusing him of tampering with the Toyota engines he was using, as the rest of the F3 field were using something like Alfa (or at least Italian made/refurbed) engines. I can't rememeber anymore than that i'm afraid, but I have a feeling EJ was accusing the officals responsible of being very corrupt.

[mario]

Also recently rewatched the 2006 Barain GP & in the ITV commentary, Martin Brundle was talking about Ferrari's new front wing legailty being called into question by all the other teams for flexing too much (all of which sounds a little familiar doesn't it?).

That accusation was indeed raised at the time, although it seems that the accusation wasn't entirely without foundation - Ferrari were using a Toyota style upper wing at the time (i.e. blended into the nosecone of the car), but the connection between the wing and the noscone itself was not entirely rigid (it consisted of a relatively flexible strip of carbon fibre that onboard footage showed was twisting and warping under load). Although the FIA normally makes some allowance made for flexing bodywork under load - because it is impossible to have perfectly rigid wings - what Ferrari did was suggested to be a violation of the rules that bodywork has to be rigidly attached to the chassis, which is why Ferrari thickened that connection after other teams appealed.

Ironically, there was a similar accusation made against McLaren a few years later - the MP4-23 used a wing which passed over the top of the nose tip instead of blending into it, and footage from a nose cone camera showed that wing was also moving noticeably at speed (it would deflect downwards quite noticeably under load), which is why McLaren had to attach a small metal stay to that wing (it seems Whiting let them off if they made sure it didn't happen again). Mind you, there is some suggestion that Williams might have also been caught in that instance (Williams moved to add a stay to their wing at the same time).

I think I heard ages ago that when Ross Brawn joined Ferrari in 1997, he went about encripting the Ferrari's team Radio (back in the days when Radio transnmissions were not broadcast on TV like they are today) to ensure that no-one from outside Ferrari could be listening in. So this got me thinking, has there been any instances of teams secretley listening in on their rival's radio transmissions prior to 1997 - or was it just paranornia from Ferrari / Ross Brawn (who of course arrived from Benetton & that 1994 season with).

The only times where those accusations have been made that I can remember off the top of my head are modern (Red Bull indirectly accused Ferrari of listening in on their radio messages to anticipate their pit stops in the past few years - Horner said something like "It was strange that Ferrari were always ready for a pit stop whenever we wanted to make one" - though Ferrari claimed that they simply relied on somebody on the pit wall keeping an eye on the Red Bull mechanics and keeping their mechanics informed).
I wouldn't be entirely surprised if there were attempts in the past to listen in to the radio traffic of others - knowing that a rival is in tyre trouble, for example, or thinking of switching tyre compound, could be invaluable information if you're not entirely sure what to do.

[WeirdKerr]

Recently stumbled across a few more examples to post here. Hopefully they will be of interest.

Firstly during the 2011 Turkey FP2 BBC red button coverage, in the commentary Maurice Hamilton, talks about an incident at Wakins Glen in 1976, where the Mclaren mechanics "went to great lengths" to retrive a fire existingister which had fallen off James Hunt's car (fire existingisters were situated just above the engine's in thoses day). Maurice said that the feeling at the time was why did Mclaren go to such great lengths to retrive it? But nothing was ever proven.
Also recently rewatched the 2006 Barain GP & in the ITV commentary, Martin Brundle was talking about Ferrari's new front wing legailty being called into question by all the other teams for flexing too much (all of which sounds a little familiar doesn't it?). Although it has to be said that during the Ferrari / M Schumi domination years (2000 - 2004) Ferrari's rivals did have somewhat of a history of crying foul when there was no real reason for doing so. For instance during the 2002 Spainish GP ITV commentary, James Allen talks about how Mclaren had made noises that the 2002 Ferrari was illegal but didn't have any evidence to back up those allegations & how it was probably a way of throwing dirt on their rival after Mclaren had just got lapped by Ferrari in the previous race at Imola in a dry / normal conditions.

Interesting in that Barain 2006 commentary, Brundle admitted that his 1993 Ligier wings used to flex under load (implying it might not have complied with the regulations). This is particularly fascinating as I know Ligier reverted back to their 1991 spec rear wing for the 1994 Belgian GP (& possibly other races in 1994), presumably because they were concerned about safety after Imola 1994?

I think I heard ages ago that when Ross Brawn joined Ferrari in 1997, he went about encripting the Ferrari's team Radio (back in the days when Radio transnmissions were not broadcast on TV like they are today) to ensure that no-one from outside Ferrari could be listening in. So this got me thinking, has there been any instances of teams secretley listening in on their rival's radio transmissions prior to 1997 - or was it just paranornia from Ferrari / Ross Brawn (who of course arrived from Benetton & that 1994 season with).

i wonder if they(Mclaren) were possibly using some sort of NOS system???

[ibsey]

Just came across this story & thought it might be relevant to post here.

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/ask_n ... from-amon/

As I don't know enough about that race (well before my time) or the circustamances behind it to comment upon it. I would love to hear from anyone who may be able to add their thoughts on this subject.

Also do we consider Honda apparently fiddling with Mansell's engines towards the end of 1987 as cheating? Thereby 'helping' Piquet (a Honda driver for 1988) to win the championship.

Also I believe Prost complainted about the same treatment from Honda at Monza 1989, who were trying to help Senna (a Honda driver in 1990) win this time. Prost latter spoke out about it in the after race press conference. Only to have to retract his words latter on the strict instructions of Ron Dennis. Otherwise he would probably have found himself without a car for those last few championship deciding races.

From what I have read / heard on the subject I think there is something to this, therefore Honda did try to manufacture the title for their subsequent year's driver.

I have also read alot of BS in the wake of the Senna film about how Prost only won by playing politics etc (alot of which I can't be bothered to reply to as they are just absured). Therefore I think the Monza 1989 example shows us that Senna could also get involved in poltics (something conveniently left out in the film) when it suited him.

People may say that Senna wasn't the perpitrator on this example, Honda was. True. However Senna, to my knowledge, never tried to retify the situation either. Thus allowing himself & Prost to fight fairly with equal engine specifications. That to me is just as bad. IIRC Prost complianted about his engine's lack of power all weekend at Monza 1989, so I find it highly unlikely that Senna didn't know about.

Also, in light of what happened in Suzuka 1989, perhaps Monza 1989 also helps us understand Prost's threats & actions towards Senna in a better context.

[Ferrim]

Also I believe Prost complainted about the same treatment from Honda at Monza 1989, who were trying to help Senna (a Honda driver in 1990) win this time. Prost latter spoke out about it in the after race press conference. Only to have to retract his words latter on the strict instructions of Ron Dennis. Otherwise he would probably have found himself without a car for those last few championship deciding races.

He went back to that line a few years later, in a very insightful interview with Nigel Roebuck:

"By the time we got to Monza, I was ahead of him in the championship, by about 10 points. But that race. was the real low point between McLaren and me. Senna had two cars, with 20 people around him, and I had just one car, with maybe four or five mechanics working for me. I was absolutely alone, in one part of the garage, and that was perhaps the toughest weekend of my racing career. Honda was really hard against me by then, and it was difficult trying to fight for the championship in that situation. In practice, Ayrton was nearly two seconds quicker than me - OK, as I said, he was certainly a better qualifier than I was, but two seconds? That was a joke."

You can find the whole interview here: http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20073


About the 2003 Bridgestone complains, their true impact must be amongst the most exaggerated claims in the history of F1. In late 2004, Pierre Dupasquier (Michelin's F1 program boss at the time) acknowledged in an interview with AtlasF1 that the modifications to their tyres were minimal. The result of the Hungarian GP was an aberration -the same tyres have been good enough for Barrichello to win the British GP one month earlier. Of course, it triggered the protests, but then, the final three races didn't show any significative harm for Michelin. Monza, with its big kerbs, was always going to be a good track for the Bridgestone tyres (whose profile allowed the cars to attack them better). Still, Montoya was on the chase the whole race, and he was so so sooo close to overtaking Schumacher on the first lap, going into the Variante della Roggia: I believe he would have won the race if he had managed to overtake (he was actually ahead in the middle of the corner, but Schumacher had the better line for the exit). Then, at Indianapolis, Räikkönen scored pole and Schumacher was only 7th, but during the race it rained and Bridgestone definitely had the better tyres for these conditions. Montoya didn't help his cause either, with a silly contact against Barrichello, that earned him a drive-through penalty. For the final race the championship was all but settled, Schumacher nine points ahead of Räikkönen, but for the record it must be said that Montoya led after the first lap and looked very well for the win until his engine expired. So, I don't really think that the protests after the Hungarian GP had a decisive impact in the championship results.

[ibsey]

You can find the whole interview here: http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20073

Thanks for sharing that interview with us Ferrim. It was so insightful, from a man who's word one can rely apon. That was probably the best interview I've ever read.

To be honest I'm not in love with Prost's driving style, in the same way that I love Gilles' driving style. I respect & try to learn from Prost's style. But I can't fall in love it. As much as do I want to. However his race intelliegence & tactics simply blow my mind. Like the bit about Suzuka 1989, where he said....

"I didn't want him too close, obviously, but I wanted him close enough that he would hurt his tyres; my plan was then to pus hard over the last ten laps."

I recall Prost saying the in the interview he did on the extras bit on the Senna film DVD, that "people will find probably find this difficult to believe but he was 'toying' & 'playing' with Senna before their accident". Presumably this is what he was referring to.

Massive thanks once again for sharing that with us.

So, I don't really think that the protests after the Hungarian GP had a decisive impact in the championship results.

Fair point, very well argued & one can't help but agree with you.

Perhaps there may have been small element of Bridgestone successful destablising Michelin by the 2003 protest. To what extend is difficult to know. However as you suggest above, it didn't seem to be the decisive factor in the championship.

[mario]

Just came across this story & thought it might be relevant to post here.

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/ask_n ... from-amon/

As I don't know enough about that race (well before my time) or the circustamances behind it to comment upon it. I would love to hear from anyone who may be able to add their thoughts on this subject.

Would it be possible for you to post the article here so we can read it in full? I'd be interested in reading into the claims, though it is not the first time that I've heard an allegation that BRM were using an oversized engine at the 1970 Belgian GP. It'd be a pretty big risk to run an engine that was about 10% bigger than normal though, as that would not be a subtle change to make, but it does seem strange that BRM were more competitive than normal in that race.
On the other hand, the P153 was designed by Tony Southgate at a time when he had already won praise for his work at Lola, plus the P153 was competitive at other high speed, low downforce tracks like Monza (he was in a fight for the lead of the Italian GP, for example, until his engine failed) - so it is perhaps possible that the car was simply well suited to high speed tracks where downforce was a secondary consideration (particularly as a number of rivals - March and Lotus in particular - were struggling with aerodynamic lift).

[midgrid]

IIRC, Motor Sport ran a Simon Taylor's Lunch With... Robin Herd last year or the year before, in which he said that Amon should have won that race, but "as everyone knows, Rodríguez had an oversized engine", or similar throwaway words to that effect. This attracted a rebuttal from Southgate, or another member of the BRM team, in a following issue, either in the letters page or in a stand-alone article (possibly in Doug Nye's section at the back?).

[ibsey]

Would it be possible for you to post the article here so we can read it in full? I'd be interested in reading into the claims,

Whoops! completely forgot that one had to registered in order to read the 'full' article. By the way, it is free to register with them to get the full article & they have got so many more interesting stories avalaible to read on their website.

Anyway in the meantime I'm happy to post the article here for you Mario...


One that got away from Amon

Nigel Roebuck

Dear Nigel,
Please tell me it isn’t true, the allegation that Pedro Rodríguez was running a 3.3-litre engine in his BRM when he narrowly beat Chris Amon’s March to win the 1970 Belgian GP. If he had been running such an engine, how on earth would it have got past the scrutineers?

There’s no chance, I suppose, of retroactively awarding the win to Chris Amon? (One of the greatest racing drivers, uncrowned or crowned, I’m sure you’ll agree.)
David Goddard

Dear David,
It has never been proved that BRM was using a 3.3-litre engine at Spa in 1970, but, as Robin Herd said in Simon Taylor’s interview with him in the March issue of Motor Sport, “It’s generally accepted now that Pedro had a 3.3-litre engine that day. We knew it right after the race…”

All I can tell you is what Chris Amon told me a couple of years after the race. Amon had qualified his March 701 on the front row, alongside the sister (Tyrrell-entered) car of Jackie Stewart, and the Lotus 49 of Jochen Rindt. Rodríguez, meantime, started from the third row.

Amon passed Stewart for the lead on lap three, and Rodríguez passed him a lap later, to move up to second. On lap five Pedro took the lead, and for the rest of the race he and Chris ran together, finishing a second apart. On the last lap Amon steeled himself to take the Masta Kink without lifting, and set a new lap record, six-tenths faster than Stewart’s pole time, but even so he could do nothing about the BRM.

Amon was invariably brilliant at Spa, but so was Rodríguez, and if Chris was disappointed – yet again – to be denied a Grand Prix victory, he was… surprised, let’s say, by the BRM’s speed on race day. “You’d expect a ‘twelve’ to have an advantage over an ‘eight’ at a place as quick as Spa, but Pedro hadn’t been that quick in practice, and when I saw off Jackie I thought I’d cracked it. Then I saw this white thing in my mirrors, and thought, ‘Where the hell did he come from?’

“That was one thing. What really amazed me, though, was the way Pedro overtook me. I got out of Eau Rouge better than he did, but up the hill to Les Combes he just drove past – didn’t even bother to slipstream me! That thing was unbelievable in a straight line – I was pretty disappointed to be beaten that day, because I honestly don’t think I could have driven any harder, but later on someone who’d then been part of the BRM team told me I shouldn’t feel too bad about it…”

It’s a lovely thought – now to award the victory to Amon, one of the greatest drivers, crowned or uncrowned, as you say. But I guess it will for ever remain in his ‘if only’ box…

9 comments on One that got away from Amon

Yoris, 26 February 2010 16:07
Dear Nigel,
if Pedro had been running a 3.3 litre engine at Spa, then there is absolutely NO WAY that Chris Amon could have finished within 1 second of the BRM, he would have been WAY behind.
Thanks for your most enjoyable column !
Yoris

Russell, 26 February 2010 22:10
Drivers often only go fast enough to win. To win by a big margin would have alerted the officials straight away.

steve bagnall, 27 February 2010 10:08
Nigel
If I had an extra 300cc i would make darned sure I only just beat my opposition. Why attract attention.
Interesting though.
Steve

Yoris, 27 February 2010 13:23
Nigel,
can anyone believe that Max Mosley would not have protested the BRM if, as Robin Herd now says, they knew right after the race that it was illegal ?
as for just beating the opposition so as to not attract attention, I don’t believe that the expression ” JUST beating them ” figured in Pedro’s vocabulary.
Anyway, isn’t there anyone from the seventies BRM-team around to put an end to this speculation ?
Looking forward to hearing from them !
Yoris

Rich Ambroson, 27 February 2010 17:45
I have to completely agree with Yoris. Why should we take Robin Herd’s word for gospel, regarding the remark about it being “generally accepted” that Pedro had a 3.3? After all Herd was with an opposing team…

John Adlington, 2 April 2010 16:10
As an ex BRM Apprentice and employee from 1969 to 1976 I would like to add a couple of points to this story of the 3.3 litre engine.
Tony Southgate, Tim Parnell and Alan Challis are correct in this months issue (May 2010) that it was a standard legal 3.0 litre engine in Pedro’s car. He won the race because he was bloody good round Spa.
I cannot remember in my time at BRM any story of a 3.3 litre engine being built until 1972 which was for the Rothmans race at Brands Hatch, which if I remember correctly was an open to all comers type race.
The other point which people have missed is that cheating in the sport would not have been a road that the workforce at BRM would have travelled down. Remember, the company was owned by Sir Alfred Owen and if anyone had been daft enough to sanction racing an illigal engine or car then he would probably shut the doors for good.

Brett Hart, 10 April 2010 06:01
This really does smack of utter nonsense.

If BRM ran 3.3litres that day, many people would have chucked a big, loud & JUSTIFIED ‘tanty’.

That Herd let ‘sleeping dogs lie’ that day (or even “right after the race”) & then mention this years later sounds like someone who is just plain foolish & deserves much derision.

Yell immediately, not years later. And after Perdo had perished. Big girls blouse!

Brett Hart, 10 April 2010 06:05
I recently had a chat gentleman Vern Schuppan & asked him about whether the 2nd kink on Mulsanne Straight was taken flat out.

“Yep, sure was. Even in the wet…. But the Masta Kink at the old Spa circuit – now that is a story in itself”

Alas, his time was fleeting & had to run.

Tony Geran, 12 April 2010 04:19
While sympathetic to Amon’s plight it is a bit rich for a self confessed cheat – Brambilla’s “pole” in Sweden in 1975 – to denigrate a driver who can’t respond in this way.

[mario]

Would it be possible for you to post the article here so we can read it in full? I'd be interested in reading into the claims,

Whoops! completely forgot that one had to registered in order to read the 'full' article. By the way, it is free to register with them to get the full article & they have got so many more interesting stories avalaible to read on their website.

Anyway in the meantime I'm happy to post the article here for you Mario...

Thanks for posting that - it's an interesting read, though I'll be taking Robin Herd's comments with a pinch of salt given that he has a vested interest in this particular debate.

From what I can see of a contemporary report of the race - Denis Jenkinson in the 1970 version of Motor Sport - it seems to be the case that BRM used a different engine in practise to the one they used in the race, but that is because Rodriguez suffered a connecting rod failure on the engine he had been using in practise. It also has to be said that although BRM were initially struggling in practise due to gearbox problems - Jackie Oliver had a valve failure because his gearbox kept jumping out of gear, which meant that the engine kept over revving - so the combination of gearbox problems and slight damage to their engines might go some way to explaining why BRM were struggling for pace in practise. Added to that, Jenkinson did point out that March had never tested the 701 at a high speed circuit before and that the team were struggling with the front of the car lifting at high speed, with the implication being that March were probably running with more front wing than their rivals as a result.

Now, Jenkinson doesn't make any reference to allegations of BRM using oversized engines, and he was present at the race itself - it is possible that he might not have wanted to get his company into trouble, but it seems odd that he wouldn't have referenced those allegations if they had arisen at the time, even if to dismiss them.

[dinizintheoven]

"By the time we got to Monza, I was ahead of him in the championship, by about 10 points. But that race. was the real low point between McLaren and me. Senna had two cars, with 20 people around him, and I had just one car, with maybe four or five mechanics working for me. I was absolutely alone, in one part of the garage, and that was perhaps the toughest weekend of my racing career. Honda was really hard against me by then, and it was difficult trying to fight for the championship in that situation. In practice, Ayrton was nearly two seconds quicker than me - OK, as I said, he was certainly a better qualifier than I was, but two seconds? That was a joke."

You can find the whole interview here: http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20073

Marvellous - and I read the whole thing in Alain Prost's voice as well, similar to what happens with Morgan Freeman.

[ibsey]

FYI. Just came across this thread which provides so many more great cheating stories.

http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s ... etton+1994.

[ibsey]

Recently learnt about some extermely clever technology that was banned before it ever got to race in F1. Williams development of; Constantly Variable Transmission (CVT), in 1993. Appartently this was a gearbox that was directly linked to the engine, & different from the semi automatic gearbox. CVT basically worked by keeping the engine RPM at optiumal revs for the driver. There is footage of this system at work here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkY_EeHwlcQ

...at around 25.40 mintues

Unless I am very much mistaken, the car didn't appear to change gear whatsoever. Whislt I think, Williams weren't looking to intentional cheat in F1 by developing this system. I think it is more likely the FIA probably banned it, because Williams were already dominating in 1993 & it would have added to the costs & driver aids they were trying to control. I do think it is still worth a mention here anyway.

[Faustus]

Recently learnt about some extermely clever technology that was banned before it ever got to race in F1. Williams development of; Constantly Variable Transmission (CVT), in 1993. Appartently this was a gearbox that was directly linked to the engine, & different from the semi automatic gearbox. CVT basically worked by keeping the engine RPM at optiumal revs for the driver. There is footage of this system at work here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkY_EeHwlcQ

...at around 25.40 mintues

Unless I am very much mistaken, the car didn't appear to change gear whatsoever. Whislt I think, Williams weren't looking to intentional cheat in F1 by developing this system. I think it is more likely the FIA probably banned it, because Williams were already dominating in 1993 & it would have added to the costs & driver aids they were trying to control. I do think it is still worth a mention here anyway.

It basically keeps the engine at peak torque all the time, essentially by creating an infinite number of gear ratios, so you don't hear the sound of a gear change.
It was perfectly legal under the 1993 regulations.
There was a DAF Formula 3 car in the 60s that used one and the same company went on to later help Williams with their system. By the time Williams tested it on a car in 1993, it had already been banned, but it's the sort of thing where if you have a car ready to go, might as well test it and learn as much as possible from it, because technology has a way of coming back in slightly different form (think of blown diffusers, pull-rod suspension and stuff like that in the last few years).

[ibsey]

Recently learnt about some extermely clever technology that was banned before it ever got to race in F1. Williams development of; Constantly Variable Transmission (CVT), in 1993. Appartently this was a gearbox that was directly linked to the engine, & different from the semi automatic gearbox. CVT basically worked by keeping the engine RPM at optiumal revs for the driver. There is footage of this system at work here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkY_EeHwlcQ

...at around 25.40 mintues

Unless I am very much mistaken, the car didn't appear to change gear whatsoever. Whislt I think, Williams weren't looking to intentional cheat in F1 by developing this system. I think it is more likely the FIA probably banned it, because Williams were already dominating in 1993 & it would have added to the costs & driver aids they were trying to control. I do think it is still worth a mention here anyway.

It basically keeps the engine at peak torque all the time, essentially by creating an infinite number of gear ratios, so you don't hear the sound of a gear change.
It was perfectly legal under the 1993 regulations.
There was a DAF Formula 3 car in the 60s that used one and the same company went on to later help Williams with their system. By the time Williams tested it on a car in 1993, it had already been banned, but it's the sort of thing where if you have a car ready to go, might as well test it and learn as much as possible from it, because technology has a way of coming back in slightly different form (think of blown diffusers, pull-rod suspension and stuff like that in the last few years).

Thanks for that info Faustus. In your professional opinion do you think, that Williams (or any other F1 team for that matter) have since used any aspects of CVT technology under ‘a different form’ as you say?

I can’t think of anything off the top of my head, however just wanted to ask a professional like yourself.

[Faustus]

I'm sure that some of the inspiration behind things life the seamless-shift gearboxes have come from CVTs. The gear selector drum arrangement definitely comes from it.
Probably as well some of the weird traction control systems that were tested that used clutch engagement.

That's ex-professional, by the way, although possibly may be professional again quite soon.

[ibsey]

Thanks for your help on that. Completely forgot about the seamless-shift gearboxes.

That's ex-professional, by the way, although possibly may be professional again quite soon.

I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that.

[Wizzie]

I'm sure that some of the inspiration behind things life the seamless-shift gearboxes have come from CVTs. The gear selector drum arrangement definitely comes from it.
Probably as well some of the weird traction control systems that were tested that used clutch engagement.

That's ex-professional, by the way, although possibly may be professional again quite soon.

So you're gonna be Stefano Domenicalli's replacement when the Ferrari fans start getting sick of him?

[AdrianSutil]

Or maybe replacing Massa himself

Whtever it is, good luck

[Faustus]

While sorting through the many piles and boxes full of magazines in my (not-so-) spare room, I came across a pile of old Racecar Engineerings. There was one from January 2005 that had a great article on the Front Torque Transfer system that BAR used in 2004 and was banned. It also had some great insights from Pat Symmonds about the similar system that Benetton used in 1999.
I can scan the article and post it somewhere, if anyone is interested.

[Bleu]

In 1996 German Grand Prix qualifying, Tyrrell decided to fit the car with four front tyres. They needed to make a bit of setup change to make the car legal. Katayama actually improved his time, but Salo's car broke down in the run.

[dr-baker]

In 1996 German Grand Prix qualifying, Tyrrell decided to fit the car with four front tyres.

I think that Tyrrell used to regularly do this in 1976 and 1977 as well.

[mario]

While sorting through the many piles and boxes full of magazines in my (not-so-) spare room, I came across a pile of old Racecar Engineerings. There was one from January 2005 that had a great article on the Front Torque Transfer system that BAR used in 2004 and was banned. It also had some great insights from Pat Symmonds about the similar system that Benetton used in 1999.
I can scan the article and post it somewhere, if anyone is interested.

I certainly would be interested in reading about that, since, from what I can recall, there were quite a few vociferous complaints on both sides over that system in 2004 (weren't Renault especially vocal about that device back in 2004? IIRC, Ferrari were fairly quiet on that issue simply because the F2004 had such a performance advantage that they had no need to complain, whereas Renault and BAR were in a pretty fierce fight over 2nd in the WCC and Renault would have gained more from handicapping BAR).

[ibsey]

IIRC Ferrari also got into a bit of bother regarding which tyres they were fitting on their cars, during the 2002 Brazilian GP.

This race as you may recall was the debut race for the F2002. However their was only one F2002 car available, as M Schumi's race car of course. This meant Rubens' car & the spare car were both the F2001. However IIRC the F2001 & F2002 both had slight differences in the size of their wheels. Which meant that they required different sized tyres. Therefore Ferrari had to have 7 sets of tyres for the F2002. As well another 7 sets (of different sized tyres) on standby for the F2001. Effectively meaning they were able to choose from 14 sets of tyres.

Since there was a rule at the time which stated that each car & driver were only allowed 7 sets of tyres throughout a GP weekend. Initially some of the other teams were questioning whether M Schumi & Ferrari were in fact in breach of that particular regulation. However IIRC before qualifying that weekend, a comprise was reached by Ferrari & its opposition. Which stated as long as M Schumi & Ferrari didn't use more than 7 sets (of the 14 sets it had available) then they wouldn't protest against Ferrari.

Similarly I think it is mentioned in the 1997 FIA season review that questions were raised over how many sets of tyres M Schumi & Ferrari used during the 1997 Canadian GP weekend. Unfortunately I don't know anymore on that particular situation (i.e. whether they were using too many sets of tyres or indeed what the background behind it was). I would love to hear from someone who might know more about it & might be kind enough to fill us in.

[ibsey]

While sorting through the many piles and boxes full of magazines in my (not-so-) spare room, I came across a pile of old Racecar Engineerings. There was one from January 2005 that had a great article on the Front Torque Transfer system that BAR used in 2004 and was banned. It also had some great insights from Pat Symmonds about the similar system that Benetton used in 1999.
I can scan the article and post it somewhere, if anyone is interested.

I certainly would be interested in reading about that, since, from what I can recall, there were quite a few vociferous complaints on both sides over that system in 2004 (weren't Renault especially vocal about that device back in 2004? IIRC, Ferrari were fairly quiet on that issue simply because the F2004 had such a performance advantage that they had no need to complain, whereas Renault and BAR were in a pretty fierce fight over 2nd in the WCC and Renault would have gained more from handicapping BAR).

Me too I would love to read about that...but only if you have the time to scan & post the article.

I would be particularly interested to learn about Benetton's Front Torque Transfer system from 1999. Because as I mentioned in one of my first posts on this thread, there is one case of 'supposed' cheating that I would love to get to the bottom. For your ease I'll quote my earlier post....

just before the 2000 San Marino GP, Murray Walker interviewed Max Mosley Re; the new measures to tighten up on illegal traction control devices (the interview where Murray Walker does an Ali G impression at the end). Anyway in the interview, Max Mosley said that the new measures had been brought in specifically because the FIA found a midfield team (didn't mention which one) was using some kind of illegal traction control device. It has always bugged me, not knowing which team Max was refering to & I would be extermely grateful if anyone could shed any further light on this?

I suspect it may have been Benetton, for three reasons;

1. Benetton & later on Renualt have always been in the forefront of traction control / launch control devices.

2. They were using a radical Front Torque Transfer system in 1999. Although admittedly I don't know the in's & out's of what that system did, so I don't know whether it is likely to have influenced traction control.

3. A mate of mine, reckoned he was at Sliverstone once when Benetton were testing a system that remotely launched the car of the start line (from the pits) around that time. Although as this mate (being a very successful sales person) can occassion stretch the truth, so I'm not sure whether to believe this or not.

So I would love to see your article to assess the feasibility of reason no.2. To see whether the development of the Front Torque Transfer (FTT) system, may have lead to Benetton discovering something in 1999 which was the... 'some kind of illegal traction control device by a midfield team'... that Max Mosely was reffering in that interview with Murray Walker during ITV's buildup coverage to the 2000 San Marino GP. I would also appreciate any thoughts you (or indeed Mario) may have on the matter. I.e. whether you think Benetton's FTT system could (in theory at least) have led to some kind of illegal TC device. Or am I barking up the wrong tree. Since you both seem to be much more techincally gifted than I could ever be. Only if you have time to respond though.

EDIT; Might that also be one of the reasons why Renault, who had brought the Benetton team in early 2000, were especially vocal about BAR's FTT device back in 2004? (as Mario mentions) Since they knew, perhaps from 1st hand experience, it could lead to a borderline device that would give BAR an 'unfair advantage' ? Just a theory.

Also thinking about it now, in the cold light of day some 13 years after the Max Mosely interview. Perhaps that was also one of the reasons why Benetton sold the team to Renualt. Which IIRC was also around early 2000. Perhaps therefore Mosley told Benetton...'look we won't tell the public about your illegal TC device. But one of the conditions of keeping the Benetton name from being tarnished is that you leave F1 & never return again?'. Am I right in thinking that since 2002, (when ownership of the team had been transferred over to Renualt) Benetton have never since had any involvement with F1?

Perhaps all the above is nothing more than coincidence & I'm turning into one of those internet conspiracy theorist in my old age. But the pieces of this jigsaw puzzle do seem to be fitting together rather nicely, I have to say. Furthermore at this stage I can't think of a single shred of evidence which might suggest it to have been another midfield team (other than Benetton). That Max was referring to in that early 2000 interview.

I have posted previously how I didn't think Benetton used illegal TC devices in 1994, so some people may be confused as to why I think Benetton was the team Max Mosely was referring to in his early 2000 interview. Here's my reasoning... I think Flavio & Pat basically got fed up with all the TC/ fuel filling & other cheating accusations from 1994, when I don't believe they were cheating. So they basically though; 'well if we are playing by the rules & still getting accused, then we might as well look for loopholes!'. Which ultimately led to the FTT system & maybe other (TC) devices we don't fully know about?

Just in case you are not aware. There is a simliar thread entitled 'Cheating or bending the rules' going strong within the Autosport forum. In particular people have been discussing in detail the Tyrell 1984 affair. Which there are some very interesting points being made. Here's a link for anyone that might be interested; http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s ... &start=200

[takagi_for_the_win]

Similarly I think it is mentioned in the 1997 FIA season review that questions were raised over how many sets of tyres M Schumi & Ferrari used during the 1997 Canadian GP weekend. Unfortunately I don't know anymore on that particular situation (i.e. whether they were using too many sets of tyres or indeed what the background behind it was). I would love to hear from someone who might know more about it & might be kind enough to fill us in.

Yeah, Williams had accused Ferrari of using 31 tyres during the course of the weekend, 3 more than the allowed limit of 28. However, nothing could be proved, as the bloke who was keeping an eye on the tyres lost count (taken roughly from my 1997/98 F1 Yearbook, in case you're wondering)

[ibsey]

Similarly I think it is mentioned in the 1997 FIA season review that questions were raised over how many sets of tyres M Schumi & Ferrari used during the 1997 Canadian GP weekend. Unfortunately I don't know anymore on that particular situation (i.e. whether they were using too many sets of tyres or indeed what the background behind it was). I would love to hear from someone who might know more about it & might be kind enough to fill us in.

Yeah, Williams had accused Ferrari of using 31 tyres during the course of the weekend, 3 more than the allowed limit of 28. However, nothing could be proved, as the bloke who was keeping an eye on the tyres lost count (taken roughly from my 1997/98 F1 Yearbook, in case you're wondering)

Thanks for the info, takagi for the win. I wonder if the reason the bloke lost count, was maybe a big pile of money Ferrari might have been waving in front of him?

[mario]

So I would love to see your article to assess the feasibility of reason no.2. To see whether the development of the Front Torque Transfer (FTT) system, may have lead to Benetton discovering something in 1999 which was the... 'some kind of illegal traction control device by a midfield team'... that Max Mosely was reffering in that interview with Murray Walker during ITV's buildup coverage to the 2000 San Marino GP. I would also appreciate any thoughts you (or indeed Mario) may have on the matter. I.e. whether you think Benetton's FTT system could (in theory at least) have led to some kind of illegal TC device. Or am I barking up the wrong tree. Since you both seem to be much more techincally gifted than I could ever be. Only if you have time to respond though.

I've got time for a quick comment - from what I can recall of the discussions about BAR's device in 2004, which also brought up the device Benetton used in 1999, the idea was that the device would redistribute loads across the front suspension to prevent the front of the car from rolling as it cornered. Whilst it might have been a coded term for some sort of traction control device on the car, most of the reports from the time that I've seen and from the later 2004 controversy suggested that wasn't the case, and it really was for improving front, rather than rear, traction.
From what I can recall, though, Brundle interviewed one of the former Benetton drivers in 2004 about that device and was told that the theoretical performance benefit was more than outweighed by the weight and bulkiness of the system, particularly because the weight distribution was further forward than they wanted it to be.

[midgrid]

IIRC Ferrari also got into a bit of bother regarding which tyres they were fitting on their cars, during the 2002 Brazilian GP.

This race as you may recall was the debut race for the F2002. However their was only one F2002 car available, as M Schumi's race car of course. This meant Rubens' car & the spare car were both the F2001. However IIRC the F2001 & F2002 both had slight differences in the size of their wheels. Which meant that they required different sized tyres. Therefore Ferrari had to have 7 sets of tyres for the F2002. As well another 7 sets (of different sized tyres) on standby for the F2001. Effectively meaning they were able to choose from 14 sets of tyres.

Since there was a rule at the time which stated that each car & driver were only allowed 7 sets of tyres throughout a GP weekend. Initially some of the other teams were questioning whether M Schumi & Ferrari were in fact in breach of that particular regulation. However IIRC before qualifying that weekend, a comprise was reached by Ferrari & its opposition. Which stated as long as M Schumi & Ferrari didn't use more than 7 sets (of the 14 sets it had available) then they wouldn't protest against Ferrari.

Similarly I think it is mentioned in the 1997 FIA season review that questions were raised over how many sets of tyres M Schumi & Ferrari used during the 1997 Canadian GP weekend. Unfortunately I don't know anymore on that particular situation (i.e. whether they were using too many sets of tyres or indeed what the background behind it was). I would love to hear from someone who might know more about it & might be kind enough to fill us in.

Schumacher also used too many sets of tyres during practice and qualifying for the 1993 San Marino Grand Prix, but was not punished as the Goodyear technicians had stencilled an excess set in error (I wonder what would happen if something like this were to happen during a tyre war?).

[ibsey]

An example of Eddie Jordan's ingenuity: at the 1995 Hungarian Grand Prix, Eddie Irvine's Saturday qualifying times were disallowed as he received an illegal push-start on the circuit, dropping him from seventh to fifteenth on the grid. Jordan, however, noticed that the official time sheet for the session had not been marked "provisional" as it was supposed to, and thus the original result had to stand.

I believe a similar thing happened at the 1991 Mexican GP. Andrea de Cesaris' Jordan was initially disqualified from an impressive 4th in the race for pushing his car over the line. But was later reinstated, after EJ had successfully argued that de Cesaris was lap behind the leaders when he proceeded to (illegally) push his car. Therefore the race was effectively over by that point.

[SeedStriker]

A clear example of rule bending was the Renault's Mass Dampers of 2006, a totally ingenious (and analog) gadget that the FIA banned just because Ferrari was being moped that year and a ridiculous technicallity: It wasn't informed on time (let's be honest, 2 hours later is not enough to ban a system) to the FIA. Schumacher didn't have the car advantage anymore, Alonso was on fire, and a brilliant idea was banned because the cheating kings yelled "cheaters"? C'mon man!

[mario]

A clear example of rule bending was the Renault's Mass Dampers of 2006, a totally ingenious (and analog) gadget that the FIA banned just because Ferrari was being moped that year and a ridiculous technicallity: It wasn't informed on time (let's be honest, 2 hours later is not enough to ban a system) to the FIA. Schumacher didn't have the car advantage anymore, Alonso was on fire, and a brilliant idea was banned because the cheating kings yelled "cheaters"? C'mon man!

The thing is, Briatore claimed at the time, and still maintains to this day, that it was McLaren, not Ferrari, that lobbied the FIA to have that device banned (did McLaren ever refute those allegations at the time either? I'm not entirely sure if they did.)

[ibsey]

So I would love to see your article to assess the feasibility of reason no.2. To see whether the development of the Front Torque Transfer (FTT) system, may have lead to Benetton discovering something in 1999 which was the... 'some kind of illegal traction control device by a midfield team'... that Max Mosely was reffering in that interview with Murray Walker during ITV's buildup coverage to the 2000 San Marino GP. I would also appreciate any thoughts you (or indeed Mario) may have on the matter. I.e. whether you think Benetton's FTT system could (in theory at least) have led to some kind of illegal TC device. Or am I barking up the wrong tree. Since you both seem to be much more techincally gifted than I could ever be. Only if you have time to respond though.

I've got time for a quick comment - from what I can recall of the discussions about BAR's device in 2004, which also brought up the device Benetton used in 1999, the idea was that the device would redistribute loads across the front suspension to prevent the front of the car from rolling as it cornered. Whilst it might have been a coded term for some sort of traction control device on the car, most of the reports from the time that I've seen and from the later 2004 controversy suggested that wasn't the case, and it really was for improving front, rather than rear, traction.
From what I can recall, though, Brundle interviewed one of the former Benetton drivers in 2004 about that device and was told that the theoretical performance benefit was more than outweighed by the weight and bulkiness of the system, particularly because the weight distribution was further forward than they wanted it to be.

Thanks for the info Mario. I really do appreciate your great posts. Perhaps we are indeed therefore 'barking up the wrong tree' in investigating whether Benetton's FTT system could have been linked to, in some shape or form, the supposed ' illegal traction control device. BTW I did try searching for a clip of the Mosley/Walker interview on you tube, to post here with no success however. However having watched it several times over the years on my own personal video recording, when I recorded ITV's coverage of that race 'live'. I am 100% certain of Max Mosley's accusations.

Thinking more into what I remember about the situation, at the time. I vaguely recall hearing from somewhere that the illegality arose after that 'midfield' team started using their pit-lane speed limiter button outside of the pitlane i.e. on the rest of the circuit. IIRC they basically had programmed software into their pitlane speed limiter, which acted as a form of TC device. Since the FIA were quite naively not checking pitlane speed limiters for TC devices during 1999 (when the incident is said to have occurred). The team managed to get away with it.

I believe this was the reason that from Sliverstone 2000 onwards (the race after San Marino that year). Whenever teams activated their pitlane speed limit buttons, as a by product, it had to also activate a flashing red light on the back of the car. Therefore very visibly showing everyone (including the FIA) that their pitlane speed limiter button was activated. Also am I correct in thinking at Sliverstone 2000 the FIA explictly stated teams weren't allowed to have the pitlane speed limiter switched on whenever they were out on the race track anymore?

Certainly I remember those changes new regulations & others changes which simplified teams engine maps etc, were all hurriedly introduced between San Marino 2000 & Sliverstone 2000. In fact I did a quick search on Wikipedia to double check the situation & even 'all knowing' Wikipedia didn't seem to have any information on the matter (although maybe that was just me not searching correctly or not allowing it enough time to search in adequate detail?).

Although I can't be 100% certain of the above due to my rapidly fading memory these days (too much partying since then to blame for that ). I would say I am around 75% certain (maybe more) of the above. Put it like this I honestly don't know where else the idea of using the pitlane speed limit button, as a TC device might have entered my head from? Certainly I would never have thought of that up by myself...even in a million years (I wish I was that clever). So I am pretty certain that was what I heard at the time. As the reason behind the new changes to clean up any TC devices which was implemented between San Marino & Sliverstone 2000.

EDIT; I'll try and dig up & watch the recording of the aforementioned Mosley/Walker interview & the races around that time that time in early 2000 to see if I can find any further clues on the matter. However this might take a couple of days or so, so bear with me.

[midgrid]

A clear example of rule bending was the Renault's Mass Dampers of 2006, a totally ingenious (and analog) gadget that the FIA banned just because Ferrari was being moped that year and a ridiculous technicallity: It wasn't informed on time (let's be honest, 2 hours later is not enough to ban a system) to the FIA. Schumacher didn't have the car advantage anymore, Alonso was on fire, and a brilliant idea was banned because the cheating kings yelled "cheaters"? C'mon man!

The thing is, Briatore claimed at the time, and still maintains to this day, that it was McLaren, not Ferrari, that lobbied the FIA to have that device banned (did McLaren ever refute those allegations at the time either? I'm not entirely sure if they did.)

This would make sense, as McLaren was using its own trick suspension component in the form of the J-damper/inerter (which was legal under the FIA's interpretation of the rules that saw the mass damper banned), and the mass damper was a rival technology being used to achieve the same overall effect.

[ibsey]

I'll try & keep this short and sweet since my body is crying out for sleep now. But just watching ITV's buildup coverage for the 2000 British GP. Brundle interviews Adrain Newey. Newey says that in addition to the teams using pitlane speed limit buttons on the race track, they had also developed a number of other grey areas like anti stall software strategies (for starts) in effect using them as Launch Control systems. Also teams were abusing the mandatory speed sensors by fitting them on the rear wheels & making them act as a sort of rev limiter in 1st gear off the start line. A sort of TC device. So to prevent this, from Sliverstone 2000 onwards the FIA stated they needed to be on the front wheels only. Given F1 cars are RWD only, this elimates this particular problem.

Also found this interesting article when conducting more research into the matter;

London, England, Nov. 11, 2000 — Traction control and associated electronic systems are poised to be back in F1 next season after its reintroduction was given a unanimous green light by the F1 Technical Working Group on Thursday.

After eight years wrestling with the problems of legislating against such control systems, the FIA is now prepared to give in to the engineers who say that such systems are impossible to police. The governing body has also written to the competing teams acknowledging that it is now satisfied that one or more teams were using traction control illegally "in 1998 and earlier."

Nobody is prepared to name the guilty parties – indeed they may not be certain of their identity – but the near-impossibilities of policing such systems have prompted the technical directors of all the teams to vote in favor of the readoption of traction control.

"I am in favor of such a development," said McLaren technical director Adrian Newey. "I am no great fan of traction control as such, but the fact that you have fuel and ignition systems on any car means that, in my view, if you have the mindset to cheat and use traction control, then the basic tools are in place for you to do so.

"I think it is a pragmatic and positive thing to do, because races have clearly been won in the past by cars using traction control, and this is an unacceptable situation."

Source; http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s ... ntrol+2000

(1st post)

[ibsey]

Couldn't resist posting this example I just stumbled apon;

My favorite "cheating" tale comes from the Piquet/Mansell days at Williams.

A particular weekend Nelson simply could not be as fast as The Lion. Then, on saturday, he stayed at the boxes untill late night, cheating with the mechanics, seeing people going to the hotel, etc. The first moment he find himself alone, he, huh.... relieved himself hight under Nigel's car.

Sunday morning, there was panic at Williams boxes. Nigel car's leeking some liquid. Fuel? Brakes fluid? Well, the crew get busy to find the defect, taking Mansell's car apart while Piquet took his car to the Warm-up, made the racing fine-tune, etc.

Nelson's only dificulty was to keep the straight face while all that happened

Source; http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s ... 6058&st=40
(post no.65)

Brilliant Stuff!

[dr-baker]

Couldn't resist posting this example I just stumbled apon;

My favorite "cheating" tale comes from the Piquet/Mansell days at Williams.

A particular weekend Nelson simply could not be as fast as The Lion. Then, on saturday, he stayed at the boxes untill late night, cheating with the mechanics, seeing people going to the hotel, etc. The first moment he find himself alone, he, huh.... relieved himself hight under Nigel's car.

Sunday morning, there was panic at Williams boxes. Nigel car's leeking some liquid. Fuel? Brakes fluid? Well, the crew get busy to find the defect, taking Mansell's car apart while Piquet took his car to the Warm-up, made the racing fine-tune, etc.

Nelson's only dificulty was to keep the straight face while all that happened

Source; http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s ... 6058&st=40
(post no.65)

Brilliant Stuff!

A typo I assume?

[ibsey]

BTW I did try searching for a clip of the Mosley/Walker interview on you tube, to post here with no success however. However having watched it several times over the years on my own personal video recording, when I recorded ITV's coverage of that race 'live'. I am 100% certain of Max Mosley's accusations.

Just dug out my video recording for ITV's coverage of the 2000 San Marino GP, with the aforementioned 'Murray Meets' interview with Max Mosley (which wasn't easy since I've just moved...so still living out of boxes).

Anyway, the jest of the transcript goes something like this;

MW; Their have been suspections in the last 2/3 years of teams using TC devices, why has it taken the FIA so long to get on top of this?

MM; We are always stopping teams & we are generally on top of it, but we don't always tell the other teams whom made the complaint for 'breach of confidentially' reasons. The reason we have taken these dramatic steps (reffering to the technical changes implemented between San Marino & Sliverstone 2000, aimed to cut out potential TC devices). is because evidence emerged last year that somebody did something that we didn't spot. Something quite serious.

MW; Major team or Minor team?

MM; Middle ranking.

[ibsey]

Couldn't resist posting this example I just stumbled apon;

My favorite "cheating" tale comes from the Piquet/Mansell days at Williams.

A particular weekend Nelson simply could not be as fast as The Lion. Then, on saturday, he stayed at the boxes untill late night, cheating with the mechanics, seeing people going to the hotel, etc. The first moment he find himself alone, he, huh.... relieved himself hight under Nigel's car.

Sunday morning, there was panic at Williams boxes. Nigel car's leeking some liquid. Fuel? Brakes fluid? Well, the crew get busy to find the defect, taking Mansell's car apart while Piquet took his car to the Warm-up, made the racing fine-tune, etc.

Nelson's only dificulty was to keep the straight face while all that happened

Source; http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s ... 6058&st=40
(post no.65)

Brilliant Stuff!

A typo I assume?

Yeah I think so. For ease, I just copied & paste the previous person's post from that thread. My guess is he meant to say...'chating with the mechanics'. I hope that helps.