![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 25, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that there were several
allegations of cheating during the
1994 Formula One season? |
"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)
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.
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:
Concerning events prior to 1994.
Start of the 1994 season to Senna's death.
Senna's death, rule changes, antagonism between teams (esp. Benetton) and FIA.
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).
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)