Who should have been 94 world champion?
GP Centre
1994 season, who should have been world champion in that year?
Please give reasons.
Thanks
Brian
-----------------------
The GP Centre
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/4097/frmeindx.htm
F1 history in the making!
Mr. Hot Pants
<masterpiece snipped>
> Finally, he shows that my nick for him
What would that be?
> (Scum)
Oh yeah.. that's it.
> Scum is scum.
Ahhh.. so THAT'S what your nickname refers to! *Now* I get it! Crystal
clear!
Mr. Hot Pants
"Prepare your pants for a ground assault!"
RPP
wrote:
>Considering all the controversies and the spectacular finish to the
>1994 season, who should have been world champion in that year?
>
>Please give reasons.
>
Easy. Lets face the facts, Scum cheated and was punished for that. Now
I know some may say he was punished for something else completely, but
compare Scum's dominant form before the suspension and after. Hill was
clearly more dominant after Scum came back, and he was going to take
Adelaide as well. Scum drove for a huge portion of the season racking
up points in an illegal car, having his fuel pumped in throughh
filterless hoses. Look also at the plank incident if u want an example
of his disregard for fair play.
Some will say he didnt cheat at all. I ask you why did Benneton refuse
to give FIA access to their computers? Why was there an option to turn
on launch control in a secret menu? Why was the option not diabled but
very much opperational? The Williams was an active car in 1993 yet had
no such problems while Benneton said they couldnt get rid of it
without screwing up their software? Thats bogus.
Some may also say Scum didnt know. Is it realistic that Scum who knew
EVERYTHING about the car, knew it inside and out, tested it for
months, drove thousands of miles in it, wouldnt know about that? Thats
also bogus.
And finally some will say Benneton didnt cheat at all. Why then did
FIA punish him with 3 races? You think it was because of something as
trivial as the official reason?
So after all that cheating Scum was suspended and came back to find he
was no match for Damon who pressured him into making a mistake at
Adelaide. After all that cheating Scum puts his final touch on the
most despicable season EVER for any driver in F1 history, when he
takes out Damon to claim the WC.
Finally, he shows that my nick for him (Scum) is 100% accurate, he
launches a hate operation on Damon through the media, calling him
everything he can think of. Scum is scum.
Samo Korosec
> Scum is scum.
right. you wouldn't need such a long reply to come to that point. it's a
fact. ;o)
Samo
--
U've been mailed by Samo Korosec, the |o' man
http://xype.com ICQ # 13852999
RPP RPP
Actually, I'm a fucking idiot who doesn't know anything - except I
hate Scum. My opinions are baseless. But I do LOVE my hero
Hill, who is a scum sucker.
Bob Helland
He got the most points.
Bob
GP Centre wrote in message <35d1505...@news.super.net.uk>...
>Considering all the controversies and the spectacular finish to the
>1994 season, who should have been world champion in that year?
>
>Please give reasons.
>
Dinga
definitely a better driver than Hill.
RPP wrote in message <35d25d55...@news.kwom.com>...
>On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 08:38:18 GMT, bahe...@geocities.com (GP Centre)
>wrote:
>
RPP
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 03:42:02 GMT, le...@mail.netinc.ca (RPP) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 08:38:18 GMT, bahe...@geocities.com (GP Centre)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Considering all the controversies and the spectacular finish to the
>>>1994 season, who should have been world champion in that year?
>>>
>>>Please give reasons.
>>>
>>
Hey, great immiation of me dick head.
Knobby
RPP wrote in message , > Yadayadayada
Come now guv,..tell us how you really feel !!!
However, as an end result, I must agree. Schumacher did not deserve to win
the WC as a direct result of the Adelaide incident, irregardless of what
happened prior in the season. That one incident alone should have warranted
a multi-race ban and points removal as per Jerez and Villy. It is
inexcusable and unsportmanlike to intentionally take out an opponent in
order to win in today's F1. This is not NASCAR or a demolition derby at the
local amateur track. It is dangerous and, quite frankly, cowardly. If
anybody seems to think that Schuey running into Hill at Adelaide was an
accident, I ask, What colour is the sky in your world? It was beyond any
doubt what Schumacher was attempting, just look at the replays (in both
cases!). What irks me is that the silly tosser continues to bend/break the
rules, case in point, Jerez. Sure, he was punished, but he did it again and
only received a "Naughty, naughty boy" from Ecclescakes. I will admit that
Schumacher is a very talented driver, but I have very little respect for
him.
Cheers,
Knobby
knobby*NOBLOODYSPAM*@telusplanet.net
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/knobby
Remove spam blocker from all paths to reply
"You can not shake hands with a clenched fist" Golda Meir
Rochester
RPP wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 08:38:18 GMT, bahe...@geocities.com (GP Centre)
> wrote:
>
> >Considering all the controversies and the spectacular finish to the
> >1994 season, who should have been world champion in that year?
> >
> >Please give reasons.
> >
>
> Hill was clearly more dominant after Scum came back, and he was going to
> take
> Adelaide as well.
I recall Micheal beating Damon very decisively on his return to Jerez.
> Look also at the plank incident if u want an example
> of his disregard for fair play.
And the fact that the FIA, after this incident, made the exact same plank
wear legal says what?
> Some will say he didnt cheat at all.
Most actually.
> I ask you why did Benneton refuse
> to give FIA access to their computers? Why was there an option to turn
> on launch control in a secret menu? Why was the option not diabled but
> very much opperational?
There was proof it was there, but never any proof that it was
operational. Besides, if you were paying attention to the 1993 season
you'd have seen how ineffectual the launch system was.
> The Williams was an active car in 1993 yet had
> no such problems while Benneton said they couldnt get rid of it
> without screwing up their software? Thats bogus.
They didn't have active suspension in their car either in 1994. Launch
control and active suspension are, if you didn't know, entirely different
things. Being in the computer industry, and having done some programming
I can tell you that disabling a routine or feature is far more safe than
deleting it from the code. Were not talking HTML markup here.
> And finally some will say Benneton didnt cheat at all. Why then did
> FIA punish him with 3 races? You think it was because of something as
> trivial as the official reason?
Basically because the FIA has proven over and over again what a joke their
officiating is. Supposedly banning team orders this year despite the fact
its occured and accepted is a prime example, and then saying that they're
not banned after all when they realized the ridiculousness of the entire
order, and then sort of saying they are in fact banned. Really clear
that. Furthermore, I'd seen other cars overtake others on the warmup lap
before and thought nothing of it when it happened at Silverstone in 1994.
The FIA had a change of heart however. Benetton instructed Micheal to
ignore the black flag and he did. Result, banned for two races. Don't
you recall Mansell ignoring a black flag? Where's your cheating Mansell
scum tirade? Let me guess, Micheal intentionally passed Hill so that he
could let the FIA punish him for using that special beam that sucks power
from competitors' cars, and say that it was because of ignoring a black
flag. Nice of him wasn't it?
> So after all that cheating Scum was suspended and came back to find he
> was no match for Damon who pressured him into making a mistake at
> Adelaide.
Recall Nakano pressuring Damon into a mistake at Imola? Drivers make
mistakes, they do.
> After all that cheating Scum puts his final touch on the
> most despicable season EVER for any driver in F1 history, when he
> takes out Damon to claim the WC.
What have you to say about Ayrton?
> Finally, he shows that my nick for him (Scum) is 100% accurate, he
> launches a hate operation on Damon through the media, calling him
> everything he can think of. Scum is scum.
Again, tell us your carefully considered thoughts on Ayrton Senna and
Alain Prost's relationship, and while you're at it, include Ayrton and
Piquet, Mansell and Piquet, Mansell and everyone else... And then tell us
how Hill and Schumacher differ.
racerX66
>Hey, great immiation of me dick head.
Or is that 'Great Imitation of a Dickhead?'
GP Centre
>Hill, who is a scum sucker.
>
Nice to know there are some good friends in this group with honest
opinions on drivers. (I hate schu too).
Ian Thomas
>
> But I do LOVE my hero Hill, who is a scum sucker.
I thought that was Irvine. :-)
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/ian.thomas1
Ian Thomas, at work, Woking, Surrey, England.
([:])
jame...@spammenot.rocketmail.com
<nospam...@mail.mountain.wave.ca_nospam> wrote:
>
>
>RPP wrote:
>
[snip]
>> Look also at the plank incident if u want an example
>> of his disregard for fair play.
>
>And the fact that the FIA, after this incident, made the exact same plank
>wear legal says what?
It says that they are inconsistent as usual and that there seems to be an
unusual correlation between FIA U-turns and Schumacher benefiting...
>
>> Some will say he didnt cheat at all.
>
>Most actually.
Please post your source. I for one do not recall being polled by you.
>
>> I ask you why did Benneton refuse
>> to give FIA access to their computers? Why was there an option to turn
>> on launch control in a secret menu? Why was the option not diabled but
>> very much opperational?
>
>There was proof it was there, but never any proof that it was
>operational. Besides, if you were paying attention to the 1993 season
>you'd have seen how ineffectual the launch system was.
Actually there was no proof that they had used it. There was proof that it was
in place and that it was not disabled. Tell me how that means it was not
operational?
Apparently by 1994 the system was much more effective. Ayrton Senna for one
believed that they were using it. it is surprising what bugs talented engineers
can resolve given time.
>
>> The Williams was an active car in 1993 yet had
>> no such problems while Benneton said they couldnt get rid of it
>> without screwing up their software? Thats bogus.
>
>They didn't have active suspension in their car either in 1994. Launch
>control and active suspension are, if you didn't know, entirely different
>things. Being in the computer industry, and having done some programming
>I can tell you that disabling a routine or feature is far more safe than
>deleting it from the code. Were not talking HTML markup here.
As a software engineer of many years I would have to disagree with you. If the
code was entirely disabled then that would have the same effect as removing it.
The only time you would leave it in place is if you are not sure that it isn't
being used. If you are that unsure of the behaviour of your software and the
possible code paths then you really shouldn't be building such systems.
[snip]
>
>> After all that cheating Scum puts his final touch on the
>> most despicable season EVER for any driver in F1 history, when he
>> takes out Damon to claim the WC.
>
>What have you to say about Ayrton?
Didn't appreciate it when he did it either. I think it brought the sport into
disrepute and showed that he was not a true sportsman. Just like Michael.
>
>> Finally, he shows that my nick for him (Scum) is 100% accurate, he
>> launches a hate operation on Damon through the media, calling him
>> everything he can think of. Scum is scum.
>
>Again, tell us your carefully considered thoughts on Ayrton Senna and
>Alain Prost's relationship, and while you're at it, include Ayrton and
>Piquet, Mansell and Piquet, Mansell and everyone else... And then tell us
>how Hill and Schumacher differ.
Excuse me - but why don't you tell me how DH and MS are the same? The list
would be far shorter.
David
David Sidwell
(remove SpamMeNot. to email reply)
"Well, if you had Michael Schumacher up your backside for one-and-a-half hours you would be mentally drained!!"
- Alan Jones commentating on the 1997 San Marino GP.
"while I have never used a pole-axe I have had some experience with farm animals, yes."
- My favourite quote from spider (aka Cal) in an rasf1 1997 post.
Herbert Eitel
jame...@SpamMeNot.rocketmail.com schrieb im Beitrag
<35d3fdca.4383877@news>...
> On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 21:11:57 -0400, Rochester
> <nospam...@mail.mountain.wave.ca_nospam> wrote:
> >
> >And the fact that the FIA, after this incident, made the exact same
plank
> >wear legal says what?
>
> It says that they are inconsistent as usual and that there seems to be an
> unusual correlation between FIA U-turns and Schumacher benefiting...
Please give examples and post your sources.
You certainly cannot say that for 1994.
> >
> >> Some will say he didnt cheat at all.
> >
> >Most actually.
>
> Please post your source. I for one do not recall being polled by you.
Well, fans are what they are - just fans! for one or the other guy.
Apart from great parts of the British press (no wonder) I remember
a poll in F1 circles including names like Prost!, FW!, Lauda, Stewart
and a lot more. They all called it a racing accident, although some
were disapointed about such an end of a season not unlike
the Senna/Prost incidents years before.
Schumacher defended his line and he had the right to do
so. Hill bumped into the Benneton as he did at least twice
again in 1995 with the difference that it wasn't the last race
but he probably also lost the WC to drive this way!
But almost everybody said
that the right man got the WC '94 because of the whole season.
Schumacher had 4 races less and won inspite of that.
With their accusation against Schumacher most of
the prosecutors try to avoid to see Hill as a looser.
He srewed up 'cause he couldn't wait.
I totally agree with Prost and the others: Schumacher
acted instictively as a racer. Hill did probably the same
but not to his advantage.
There will always be fans who never can get over it!:-)
> >There was proof it was there, but never any proof that it was
> >operational. Besides, if you were paying attention to the 1993 season
> >you'd have seen how ineffectual the launch system was.
>
> Actually there was no proof that they had used it. There was proof that
it was
> in place and that it was not disabled. Tell me how that means it was not
> operational?
> Apparently by 1994 the system was much more effective. Ayrton Senna for
one
> believed that they were using it.
This is still just a rumor - not more. Who is the source who
actually heard him say that. And by the way: was only Senna
capable to hear or feel or whatever recognize that?!
That makes the whole thing even more unlikely.
Herbert
A fan of Johnny!:-)
_99_Nasty__FT
A thought just came to mind (ouch dat hurts). Could it be that MS was always
faster than his teammates at Bennetton becuase they "let him in" on all the
illegal trickery and didn't trust the #2 drivers enough to also enlighten
them?
Juergen Brosius
little >respect for him.
I agree, I totally lost respect for Schumacher after Jerez - and with
hindsight already after Adelaide.
Juergen
--
usual disclaimers
Juergen Brosius
Inst. f. eXp. Pathol.
University of Muenster
Von-Esmarch-Str. 56
D-48149 Muenster, Germany
Fax: +49 251 835 8512
Tel: +49 251 835 8511
RPP
<nospam...@mail.mountain.wave.ca_nospam> wrote:
>
>> no such problems while Benneton said they couldnt get rid of it
>> without screwing up their software? Thats bogus.
>
>They didn't have active suspension in their car either in 1994. Launch
>control and active suspension are, if you didn't know, entirely different
>things. Being in the computer industry, and having done some programming
>I can tell you that disabling a routine or feature is far more safe than
>deleting it from the code. Were not talking HTML markup here.
>
TYhats not the point now. The point is Williams got rid of their code
for the driver aids, while Benneton left in where it could be
activated.
Stefan Mazur
> Schumacher defended his line and he had the right to do
> so.
Since when does hitting a wall is part of the racing line? Schumacher
should not have defended the line knowing that is race was over. Even if
he did not knew he should a least have waited an appropriate time to
regain the racing line. If it would have been a mid field driver who add
did this he would have been ban for at least 3 races.
> Hill bumped into the Benneton as he did at least twice
> again in 1995 with the difference that it wasn't the last race
> but he probably also lost the WC to drive this way!
> But almost everybody said
> that the right man got the WC '94 because of the whole season.
> Schumacher had 4 races less and won inspite of that.
I agree. Schumacher was the best man in 94. But that does not justify
what he did. There was no way that he could have continued the race, why
try to defend the line?
>
> With their accusation against Schumacher most of
> the prosecutors try to avoid to see Hill as a looser.
> He srewed up 'cause he couldn't wait.
True, he should and could have waited. He did not see that and loss big
time.
> I totally agree with Prost and the others: Schumacher
> acted instictively as a racer. Hill did probably the same
> but not to his advantage.
> There will always be fans who never can get over it!:-)
But does acting instictively makes it ok? When a hockey player trips
another he usually does it out of instinc, does this mean that he should
not be punish? Why can't the same logic be apply to F1 where the
consequences can be more dramatic (no I'm not accusing MS of trying to
kill Hill!).
> This is still just a rumor - not more. Who is the source who
> actually heard him say that. And by the way: was only Senna
> capable to hear or feel or whatever recognize that?!
> That makes the whole thing even more unlikely.
Senna and quite a number of F1 observer believed it was there. I have a
nuclear missile at home but I have no intention of using it. Do you
trust me? Why would Benneton not use a device capable of helping then if
it was so easy for them to use it?
>
> Herbert
> A fan of Johnny!:-)
--
Stefan Mazur
******************
Please insert these lines in all of your web pages
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript">
<!-- // Find out if browser is IE
var uagent=navigator.userAgent; // If it is, then...
if (uagent.indexOf("MSIE") == 25) { // Drop a hint...
alert( 'You are using IE. Shame on you!' )
// And cause IE to shut down. (Brilliant security, Microsoft!)
self.close()
} //-->
</SCRIPT>
RPP
>Schumacher defended his line and he had the right to do
>so. Hill bumped into the Benneton as he did at least twice
>again in 1995 with the difference that it wasn't the last race
>but he probably also lost the WC to drive this way!
>But almost everybody said
Scum defended his line? id buy this if his goddam car was road worthy.
After tha hit into the wall, he wouldnt have driven 300 m further
anyway. He knew it, he is experienced and he knew that his suspension
was shot. At that moment then, he was no longer a race participant,
and he was reduced to taking Hill out to defend his tainted WC.
As for Hill bumping into Scum, I guess JV bumped into Scum at Jerez.
Lets absolve Scum of all the blame.
>that the right man got the WC '94 because of the whole season.
>Schumacher had 4 races less and won inspite of that.
>
And before the suspension he raced in an ILLEGAL CAR. He cheated to
gain an advantage.
>With their accusation against Schumacher most of
>the prosecutors try to avoid to see Hill as a looser.
>He srewed up 'cause he couldn't wait.
Hill screwed up because Scum is a piece of cheating scum. There was no
way for hill to wait, because Scum was out of it. Hill didnt see the
crash, all he saw was Scum off the track. Hill had to come by Scum at
that point and Scum was gonna go after him no matter what.
>
>This is still just a rumor - not more. Who is the source who
>actually heard him say that. And by the way: was only Senna
>capable to hear or feel or whatever recognize that?!
>That makes the whole thing even more unlikely.
>
Senna was the one who publically expressed his views. He wasa great
driver who obviously knew a thing or two about racing and technology.
He recognized Scum's cheating and said he was compiling his own
evidence that he would present later on. Too bad he died, because he
could have exposed Scum as the cheat scum he is.
ric...@my-dejanews.com
jame...@SpamMeNot.rocketmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 21:11:57 -0400, Rochester
> <nospam...@mail.mountain.wave.ca_nospam> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> [snip]
> >> Look also at the plank incident if u want an example
> >> of his disregard for fair play.
> >
> >wear legal says what?
>
> It says that they are inconsistent as usual and that there seems to be an
> unusual correlation between FIA U-turns and Schumacher benefiting...
> >
And just how did MS benefit from this? Was he returned the win at Spa in
'94?
> >> Some will say he didnt cheat at all.
> >
> >Most actually.
>
> Please post your source. I for one do not recall being polled by you.
>
> >
> >> I ask you why did Benneton refuse
> >> to give FIA access to their computers? Why was there an option to turn
> >> on launch control in a secret menu? Why was the option not diabled but
> >> very much opperational?
> >
> >There was proof it was there, but never any proof that it was
> >operational. Besides, if you were paying attention to the 1993 season
> >you'd have seen how ineffectual the launch system was.
>
> Actually there was no proof that they had used it. There was proof that it was
> in place and that it was not disabled. Tell me how that means it was not
> operational?
>
The FIA in their press release said "...certain proof that it was not
used...."
> Apparently by 1994 the system was much more effective. Ayrton Senna for one
> believed that they were using it. it is surprising what bugs talented engineers
> can resolve given time.
>
How do you know that? How did Senna know? You didn't, guesses both.
Rich
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
jame...@rocketmail.spammenot.com
>
>jame...@SpamMeNot.rocketmail.com schrieb im Beitrag
><35d3fdca.4383877@news>...
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 21:11:57 -0400, Rochester
>> <nospam...@mail.mountain.wave.ca_nospam> wrote:
>> >
>> >And the fact that the FIA, after this incident, made the exact same
>plank
>> >wear legal says what?
>>
>> It says that they are inconsistent as usual and that there seems to be an
>> unusual correlation between FIA U-turns and Schumacher benefiting...
>
>Please give examples and post your sources.
>You certainly cannot say that for 1994.
Changing the plank wear tolerances so that Benetton wouldn't fall foul
of it again in 1994? Changing the stupid sudden enforcement of no
team rules imposed after McLaren's win in the first race this year as
soon as Ferrari looked like they need this ability to continue to
fight for this year's championship? Not disqualifying Benetton for
having illegal software installed on their 1994 cars?
>
>> >
>> >> Some will say he didnt cheat at all.
>> >
>> >Most actually.
>>
>> Please post your source. I for one do not recall being polled by you.
>
>Well, fans are what they are - just fans! for one or the other guy.
>Apart from great parts of the British press (no wonder) I remember
>a poll in F1 circles including names like Prost!, FW!, Lauda, Stewart
>and a lot more. They all called it a racing accident, although some
>were disapointed about such an end of a season not unlike
>the Senna/Prost incidents years before.
>Schumacher defended his line and he had the right to do
>so. Hill bumped into the Benneton as he did at least twice
>again in 1995 with the difference that it wasn't the last race
>but he probably also lost the WC to drive this way!
>But almost everybody said
>that the right man got the WC '94 because of the whole season.
>Schumacher had 4 races less and won inspite of that.
I have no disagreement with the fact that Michael was 1994 WC. I
disagree with how he was allowed to come by that championship however.
Most people will agree that Hill's bumps into Schumcaher were not a
deliberate attempt to take him off. Mostly they were stupid driver
errors but that does not imply malice.
>
>With their accusation against Schumacher most of
>the prosecutors try to avoid to see Hill as a looser.
>He srewed up 'cause he couldn't wait.
>I totally agree with Prost and the others: Schumacher
>acted instictively as a racer. Hill did probably the same
> but not to his advantage.
Disagree - Schumacher acted with malice as racing instinct is to avoid
accidents. Same old argument - you will not be convinced.
>There will always be fans who never can get over it!:-)
See. :)
>> >There was proof it was there, but never any proof that it was
>> >operational. Besides, if you were paying attention to the 1993 season
>> >you'd have seen how ineffectual the launch system was.
>>
>> Actually there was no proof that they had used it. There was proof that
>it was
>> in place and that it was not disabled. Tell me how that means it was not
>> operational?
>
>> Apparently by 1994 the system was much more effective. Ayrton Senna for
>one
>> believed that they were using it.
>
>This is still just a rumor - not more. Who is the source who
>actually heard him say that. And by the way: was only Senna
>capable to hear or feel or whatever recognize that?!
>That makes the whole thing even more unlikely.
No it wasn't only Senna who said that. It was Senna who was the most
respected voice of the GP drivers at the time and who had prett ymuch
the most experience. It was also Senna who was regularly battling
with him at the front. The source is professor Sid Watkin's book - an
excellent read from a very knowledgeable source.
>
>Herbert
>A fan of Johnny!:-)
David
Bruno Melli
: Considering all the controversies and the spectacular finish to the
: 1994 season, who should have been world champion in that year?
Both Schumaker or Senna could have won it.
The Williams wasn't up to speed at the start of the season.
Result: Senna 0, Schu 20. It was pretty obvious Senna had to
drive the wheels off his car to keep up with the Benetton.
Assuming Schu didn't get suspended that's a tough call. He might have
accumulated enough points to have a comfortable lead while Williams
fixed their cars . But the end of the season would have been all Senna's.
At that point the roles were reversed. Schu had to drive the wheels
off of his car to keep up with Damon. I think everyone would agree
that Damon was never a match for Senna.
Bummer. That would have been a hell of a dog fight. We did get one after all
but that was more due to the FIA playing around than anything else.
3 races for passing on the parade lap was a farce. Had it not been for that,
Damon would not have been a factor. Even if he clearly was faster at the
end.
bruno.
Rochester
RPP wrote:
> Senna was the one who publically expressed his views. He wasa great
> driver who obviously knew a thing or two about racing and technology.
> He recognized Scum's cheating and said he was compiling his own
> evidence that he would present later on. Too bad he died, because he
> could have exposed Scum as the cheat scum he is.
August 14, 1998. Idiocy gets it definitive definition!
Rochester
RPP wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 21:11:57 -0400, Rochester
> <nospam...@mail.mountain.wave.ca_nospam> wrote:
> >
> >> The Williams was an active car in 1993 yet had
> >> no such problems while Benneton said they couldnt get rid of it
> >> without screwing up their software? Thats bogus.
> >
> >They didn't have active suspension in their car either in 1994. Launch
> >control and active suspension are, if you didn't know, entirely different
> >things. Being in the computer industry, and having done some programming
> >I can tell you that disabling a routine or feature is far more safe than
> >deleting it from the code. Were not talking HTML markup here.
> >
>
> TYhats not the point now. The point is Williams got rid of their code
> for the driver aids, while Benneton left in where it could be
> activated.
Sure, go ahead, activate it. Of course it can't do much when the hardware
that the software is addressing no longer exists on the car.
GP Centre
>
>He got the most points.
I said "should" not "was"!
RPP
<nospam...@mail.mountain.wave.ca_nospam> wrote:
>
>Sure, go ahead, activate it. Of course it can't do much when the hardware
>that the software is addressing no longer exists on the car.
>
>
Launch control couyld verty well have been activated on tha Benneton
and used in races. Get a fucking clue newbie.
Stevep
>The FIA in their press release said "...certain proof that it was not
>used...."
Rich, I think you'll find that the *actual* wording used was: "...certain
evidence that it was not used...". There is a huge difference between the
two, isn't there?
Steve Perry.
ric...@my-dejanews.com
Oh, that was from memory. I guess it does make a big difference to you, a
small one to me.
Evidence: Cookies gone, nobody but me at home, me sitting at the couch
covered with crumbs with an empty milk glass sitting beside me.
Proof:
Steve sees me eating said cookies.
Both cases, it's pretty obvious what happened.
RPP
>>
>
> Oh, that was from memory. I guess it does make a big difference to you, a
>small one to me.
>
>Evidence: Cookies gone, nobody but me at home, me sitting at the couch
>covered with crumbs with an empty milk glass sitting beside me.
>
>Proof:
>Steve sees me eating said cookies.
>
>Both cases, it's pretty obvious what happened.
>
If it makes little sense now I know why you are such a moron. Evidence
is material which helps in proving a fact. Proof proves that fact
100%, thats why it is proof.
Evidence would be a bloody glove, proof would be O.J admitting to the
murders.
ric...@my-dejanews.com
Evidence would be Nichole's or Ron Goldman's blood on the glove, shows how
much evidence means to some people, doesn't it?
RPP
>>
>
> Evidence would be Nichole's or Ron Goldman's blood on the glove, shows how
>much evidence means to some people, doesn't it?
>
Im nopt discussing OJ, because thats a really stupid topic.
if evidence is as you say cookie crumbs all over you and proff is you
being caught red handed, lets compare that to 1994.
proof: no real proof, Scum didnt admit anything, just like OJ didnt
admit to anything.
evidence: the cookie crumbs would ofcourse be the still activated
traction control found in a secret menu. Now if Benneton really did
disarm the thing then they had no reason to fear anything did they,
yet they went to the trouble of hiding it in elaborate menus, still
active! Certainly nothing to convicet him since we need a bit more,
but just like OJ, does anyone really have any doubt when faced with a
mountain of evidence this size???
if the knife isnt mine, I aint gonna dig a hole somweher in the
canadian north where no man has set foot just to hide something that
couldnt possibly incriminate me, am I now?
as a final comparison with OJ, OJ and Scumbag both have a lot of money
and good lawyers. Scumbag also had Max and Bernie who make their
living on this cheat's reputation.
Herbert Eitel
_99_Nasty__FT <t51...@spectranet.ca> schrieb im Beitrag
<OFXA1.524$kU6.2...@198.235.216.4>...
Yes, that's pretty obvious (ouch!). And it's the same thing with Ferrari
since 1996, too.
He probably even cheated with Jordan and Benneton in 1991 since he beat
also Piquet. That's more than evident, isn't it? Pretty clever, btw not to
inform the teammate, but to tell all the mechanics and engineers of the
team.
Ah, I see, Schumacher put it in the car all by himself - after midnight!:-)
Btw, why not pay Brundle, Patrese, Herbert, and Irvine half of the salary
of Schumacher and just let them drive faster?
Stupid cheating theory # 1053: Ferrari payed Hakkinen to slow down in
Hungary - heard from a Hill fan :-?
Stupid cheating theory # 1054: McLaren is cheating the whole season so far.
To avoid suspicion, they accuse Ferrari of cheating all the time!:-)
Herbert
A fan of Johnny!:-)
Who did not know that Michael was
cheating the whole season - poor guy.
Peter
>
> GP Centre (bahe...@geocities.com) wrote:
> : Considering all the controversies and the spectacular finish to the
> : 1994 season, who should have been world champion in that year?
>
> Both Schumaker or Senna could have won it.
> The Williams wasn't up to speed at the start of the season.
> Result: Senna 0, Schu 20. It was pretty obvious Senna had to
> drive the wheels off his car to keep up with the Benetton.
>
I wouldn't have said that the Williams was not up to speed - 3 Poles for
Senna in the first 3 races doesn't suggest that the car was slow.
Possibly it was better in qualifying trim but the results show 3 poles,
one spin and two DNFs through accidents, the Aida one was certainly
someone else's fault.
ric...@my-dejanews.com
le...@mail.netinc.ca (RPP) wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 1998 23:40:37 GMT, ric...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > Evidence would be Nichole's or Ron Goldman's blood on the glove, shows how
> >much evidence means to some people, doesn't it?
> >
>
> Im nopt discussing OJ, because thats a really stupid topic.
>
> if evidence is as you say cookie crumbs all over you and proff is you
> being caught red handed, lets compare that to 1994.
>
> proof: no real proof, Scum didnt admit anything, just like OJ didnt
> admit to anything.
>
> evidence: the cookie crumbs would ofcourse be the still activated
> traction control found in a secret menu. Now if Benneton really did
> disarm the thing then they had no reason to fear anything did they,
> yet they went to the trouble of hiding it in elaborate menus, still
> active! Certainly nothing to convicet him since we need a bit more,
> but just like OJ, does anyone really have any doubt when faced with a
> mountain of evidence this size???
>
No, the cookie crumbs would be the "certain evidence" it was not used,
you're not following this well, are you? OK what about '95?
> if the knife isnt mine, I aint gonna dig a hole somweher in the
> canadian north where no man has set foot just to hide something that
> couldnt possibly incriminate me, am I now?
>
If you disabled something but didn't delete it, the way to get to it would
be destroyed, right?
> as a final comparison with OJ, OJ and Scumbag both have a lot of money
> and good lawyers. Scumbag also had Max and Bernie who make their
> living on this cheat's reputation.
>
Yeah, I could tell by Silverstone '94 and the the JV appeal before Jerez
'97 that the FIA are definately backing MS all the way.
ric...@my-dejanews.com
jame...@rocketmail.SpamMeNot.com wrote:
> On 14 Aug 1998 12:18:42 GMT, "Herbert Eitel" <e...@ict.fhg.de> wrote:
>
> >
> >jame...@SpamMeNot.rocketmail.com schrieb im Beitrag
> ><35d3fdca.4383877@news>...
> >> <nospam...@mail.mountain.wave.ca_nospam> wrote:
> >> >
> >plank
> >> >wear legal says what?
> >>
> >> It says that they are inconsistent as usual and that there seems to be an
> >> unusual correlation between FIA U-turns and Schumacher benefiting...
> >
> >Please give examples and post your sources.
> >You certainly cannot say that for 1994.
>
> Changing the plank wear tolerances so that Benetton wouldn't fall foul
> of it again in 1994? Changing the stupid sudden enforcement of no
> team rules imposed after McLaren's win in the first race this year as
> soon as Ferrari looked like they need this ability to continue to
> fight for this year's championship? Not disqualifying Benetton for
> having illegal software installed on their 1994 cars?
They changed the plank rule because numerous cars finished races in '94
with the planks worn past the limit. Schumacher was just the only one
punished for it. Yup, they were definately looking out for Mikey on that
one.
If they DQ'ed the Benettons for the software, then the McLarens would also
be punished in the same way. Mika and Brundle being the dirty cheats they
are.
>
The plank rules and team orders rulings were stupid and thankfully the FIA
could find it within themselves and overturn their previous rulings.
>
> I have no disagreement with the fact that Michael was 1994 WC. I
> disagree with how he was allowed to come by that championship however.
>
I'm glad you agree with that fact, can you also agree to the fact that if
Damon would have won, it would have been a hollow victory, only to make '95
that much more embarassing?
>
> >> >There was proof it was there, but never any proof that it was
> >> >operational. Besides, if you were paying attention to the 1993 season
> >> >you'd have seen how ineffectual the launch system was.
> >>
> >> Actually there was no proof that they had used it. There was proof that
> >it was
> >> in place and that it was not disabled. Tell me how that means it was not
> >> operational?
> >
What proof? Do tell.
> >> Apparently by 1994 the system was much more effective. Ayrton Senna for
> >one
> >> believed that they were using it.
> >
> >This is still just a rumor - not more. Who is the source who
> >actually heard him say that. And by the way: was only Senna
> >capable to hear or feel or whatever recognize that?!
> >That makes the whole thing even more unlikely.
>
> No it wasn't only Senna who said that. It was Senna who was the most
> respected voice of the GP drivers at the time and who had prett ymuch
> the most experience. It was also Senna who was regularly battling
> with him at the front.
>
For all three races Senna started in '94?
In Brazil, Senna won the start from pole.
In the Pacific GP, Schumacher did from second.
In San Marino, Senna won the start from pole.
JJ Lehto's car even stalled in San Marino, before you even start, why would
Benetton NOT want both cars to do well for the CC?
Monte Carlo, Schumacher from pole. Spain, Schumacher from pole, JJ had
another bad start. Canada, Schumacher from pole. France, Schumacher from
third, Mansell had a bad start falling behind Hill. England, Hill from pole.
Germany, Schumacher makes up one position from fourth. Hungary, Hill and
Schumacher side-by-side entering turn one. Spa, Barrachello from pole. Jerez,
Hill from second, passing MS. Japan, Schumacher from pole. Australia,
Schumacher from second, Mansell had a bad start, Hill also moved ahead of his
teammate by the first corner
I see four better than average (average being just keeping your grid
position) starts, the Pacific, French, German and Australian GP's. The
German GP is hard to count because everybody but Hill got away well at the
start, but I did anyway.
Hill got two better than average starts, France, Spain and Australa.
Starting better than the "cheating" Benetton in Spain no less.
Taking out Mansell's two bad starts which allowed the two drivers behind to
move up, you leave one "great" start for Damon and two for Schumacher. Far
from enough to say that without a doubt, that Benetton were cheating
If they were cheating, what happened to the other five races? And how the
hell did Damon pass MS on the start in Spain? OH, that's right, they can't
even cheat well, right?
Stevep
> They changed the plank rule because numerous cars finished races in '94
>with the planks worn past the limit. Schumacher was just the only one
>punished for it. Yup, they were definately looking out for Mikey on that
>one.
Please explain this comment. When, exactly, did the FIA 'change' the plank
rule? I don't believe they ever did. The wear rule is the same now as it
was at the beginning - there is a minimum thickness for the plank over a
percentage of its surface. What other cars finished with similar plank wear
but remained unpunished? Name names, please, or provide extracts from the
FIA releases in which the 'changes' were announced.
> The plank rules and team orders rulings were stupid and thankfully the
FIA
>could find it within themselves and overturn their previous rulings.
When did the FIA overturn previous plank rulings?
> I'm glad you agree with that fact, can you also agree to the fact that if
>Damon would have won, it would have been a hollow victory, only to make '95
>that much more embarassing?
*If* Hill had won, his Championship would have been as hollow a victory as
that of the man who actually 'won' it, but for very different reasons.
Steve Perry.
Herbert Eitel
Stevep <Stev...@globalnet.co.uk> schrieb im Beitrag
<6refcf$oa6$1...@heliodor.xara.net>...
> ric...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6rcquv$5lb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > They changed the plank rule because numerous cars finished races in
'94
> >with the planks worn past the limit. Schumacher was just the only one
> >punished for it. Yup, they were definately looking out for Mikey on
that
> >one.
>
> Please explain this comment. When, exactly, did the FIA 'change' the
plank
> rule? I don't believe they ever did. The wear rule is the same now as
it
> was at the beginning - there is a minimum thickness for the plank over a
> percentage of its surface. What other cars finished with similar plank
wear
> but remained unpunished? Name names, please, or provide extracts from
the
> FIA releases in which the 'changes' were announced.
Well, the first and best known example was Berger in Hockenheim '94.
That was two races before! Spa. The FIA said: the rule was too new.
In Spa we had a very rainy weekend.
In fact there was not one dry session not even during Sunday warm up.
The sun came out one hour before the start and almost all teams
decided to lift their cars one or the other Millimeter to be save -
also Benneton. But it wasn't high enough. It was a fine masterful drive
by Schumi - yes you guessed right I was there :-) - and a well
deserved win, IMO. The FIA thought different, and yes according to that
rule, he had to be disqualified - maybe despite the spin over the curbs.
Neither this excuse nor the weather of the weekend had any
effect about their decicion - they were really after him at that time
to bring more tension into the race for the WC. They know he
couldn't be stopped otherwise.
I'm not sure about this rule however and what happened to it.
It's possible that the cars have to have a higher position nowadays
anyway or something like that. Same thing about the jump starts
btw. It's very seldom to here anything about one. When was the last
penalty? I can't believe that all the drivers get used to it in the
meantime.:-)
I also assumed that the plank rule does not exist anymore
considering the sparks on Schumis Ferrari and some other cars
in some races especially in 1997.
> > I'm glad you agree with that fact, can you also agree to the fact that
if
> >Damon would have won, it would have been a hollow victory, only to make
'95
> >that much more embarassing?
>
> *If* Hill had won, his Championship would have been as hollow a victory
as
> that of the man who actually 'won' it, but for very different reasons.
Well, not all of your British fellows have the same opinion as you.
Some of the points Hill got without Schumacher racing were
not deserved as a lot of Brits also admitted. At least the
win in Spa and Estoril (teamorders for Coulthard)
was a gift for him. So, considering the
whole season from a sporting point of view, the one point advantage
for Schumacher above Hill before Adelaide was a joke.
Michael should have led at least 20 to 30 points which would
have been the right measurement between the two rivals.
When you argue that he did not deserve it according to the rules
- hmm, obviously the accident in Adelaide was also according to
the rules because there was not even a protest of the Williams team!!
It was not a satifying finish - admitted - but a lot of what
happened was not satisfying in 1994.
Apart from Adelaide there was not one single race during
the whole season with both competing where Hill could beat
Michael decicively!!!!! And even there he was slowly falling back through
the traffic and made a mistake in the end that cost him his last chance
- another gift he just threw away!
Suzuka?! - yes a great race from both drivers with Schumacher just
on the unlucky part of the strategy since there was no way to predict
what happened in this race according to the
aweful weather. And Hill had to run for his money although Schumacher
had to make an extra stop! Not very decicive.
Wake up, after the death of Senna, the best driver won the WC in 1994!
ric...@my-dejanews.com
"Stevep" <Stev...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> ric...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6rcquv$5lb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > They changed the plank rule because numerous cars finished races in '94
> >with the planks worn past the limit. Schumacher was just the only one
> >punished for it. Yup, they were definately looking out for Mikey on that
> >one.
>
> Please explain this comment. When, exactly, did the FIA 'change' the plank
> rule? I don't believe they ever did. The wear rule is the same now as it
> was at the beginning - there is a minimum thickness for the plank over a
> percentage of its surface. What other cars finished with similar plank wear
> but remained unpunished? Name names, please, or provide extracts from the
> FIA releases in which the 'changes' were announced.
>
Damn me for listening to what someone said here! I hadn't heard it either
until a few days ago when someone wrote it, it might have even been in this
thread.
> > The plank rules and team orders rulings were stupid and thankfully the
> FIA
> >could find it within themselves and overturn their previous rulings.
>
> When did the FIA overturn previous plank rulings?
>
See above.
> > I'm glad you agree with that fact, can you also agree to the fact that if
> >Damon would have won, it would have been a hollow victory, only to make '95
> >that much more embarassing?
>
> *If* Hill had won, his Championship would have been as hollow a victory as
> that of the man who actually 'won' it, but for very different reasons.
>
Yes, it wasn't what you would call "great." It sucks that the WC battle
ended the way it did, but Schumacher did a better job of "earning" the title
than Hill.
Stevep
[In response to questions from me about when the FIA *changed* the plank
rules]
>Well, the first and best known example was Berger in Hockenheim '94.
>That was two races before! Spa. The FIA said: the rule was too new.
There is no reference to any incident involving the plank prior to Spa in
Autocourse or Autosport 1994 F1 review. I do not recollect any incidents
prior to Spa either. There is nothing on my race-tapes either. I am not
convinced that there were any such incidents before Spa.
>In Spa we had a very rainy weekend.
>In fact there was not one dry session not even during Sunday warm up.
>The sun came out one hour before the start and almost all teams
>decided to lift their cars one or the other Millimeter to be save -
>also Benneton. But it wasn't high enough.
It was enough for everyone else...
>It was a fine masterful drive
>by Schumi - yes you guessed right I was there :-) - and a well
>deserved win, IMO. The FIA thought different, and yes according to that
>rule, he had to be disqualified - maybe despite the spin over the curbs.
It was a good drive by Schumi - BUT his car failed post-race scrutineering -
and the FIA found (and published supporting evidence) that Schumi's spin did
*not* cause the wear on the plank. The official report found that the
overall wear on the plank was caused by the car running to low to the
ground - exactly what the plank rule was introduced to prevent. That was
the Benetton team's fault.
>Neither this excuse nor the weather of the weekend had any
>effect about their decicion - they were really after him at that time
>to bring more tension into the race for the WC. They know he
>couldn't be stopped otherwise.
This is just not true, I'm afraid. The weather had nothing to do with the
ride hieght of Scumi's car.
>I'm not sure about this rule however and what happened to it.
The rule still exists, and has been unchanged since it was introduced.
>It's possible that the cars have to have a higher position nowadays
>anyway or something like that. Same thing about the jump starts
>btw. It's very seldom to here anything about one. When was the last
>penalty? I can't believe that all the drivers get used to it in the
>meantime.:-)
The teams are running within the ride-height rules. The rule has *not* been
changed. I think that someone was penalised for a jump-start in the German
GP this year (a Prost, I believe) - it does still happen.
>I also assumed that the plank rule does not exist anymore
>considering the sparks on Schumis Ferrari and some other cars
>in some races especially in 1997.
The plank rule *does* still exist.
I had said in an earlier reply: *If* Hill had won, his Championship would
have been as hollow a victory
as that of the man who actually 'won' it, but for very different reasons.
>Well, not all of your British fellows have the same opinion as you.
>Some of the points Hill got without Schumacher racing were
>not deserved as a lot of Brits also admitted. At least the
>win in Spa and Estoril (teamorders for Coulthard)
>was a gift for him. So, considering the
>whole season from a sporting point of view, the one point advantage
>for Schumacher above Hill before Adelaide was a joke.
>Michael should have led at least 20 to 30 points which would
>have been the right measurement between the two rivals.
This is just rubbish! Even if team orders played a part in Spa and Estoril,
Hill still deserved the points. Do you think that all the points Schumi has
had served to him on a plate by Irvine are undeserved? In any event, at
Estoril, Hill overtook Coulthard when David made an error while overtaking a
backmarker [Eric Comas]. After their 2nd fuel stops, Hill was 3.7 seconds
ahead of Coulthard, and perhaps at that point it was decided by Williams
that Hill should be allowed [by Coulthard] to back of to ensure a 1-2
victory.
At Spa, Hill was lapping consistently faster than although behind Coulthard,
who was suffering due to a broken rear wing, and Patrick Head made a
decision to call David in to check the wing for safety's sake. He allowed
Coulthard to continue after inspection. It is very fair to claim that that
inspection was made to allow Hill past Coulthard. So what? Damon Hill was in
fact the fastest car on the track for most of the race. The fact that
Schumi's car was to fail the post race tests and his win declared void was
Hill's good luck. Good luck is something Schumi has more than his fair
share of. That's life.
>When you argue that he did not deserve it according to the rules
>- hmm, obviously the accident in Adelaide was also according to
>the rules because there was not even a protest of the Williams team!!
The fact that Williams didn't protest was because Frank Williams couldn't
believe that Schumi *could* do anything like that intentionally (he said so
in interviews). After Jerez 1997 he knows better!
>It was not a satifying finish - admitted - but a lot of what
>happened was not satisfying in 1994.
True. I *am* glad that it was Schui who won a questionable Championship
rather than Hill.
>Apart from Adelaide there was not one single race during
>the whole season with both competing where Hill could beat
>Michael decicively!!!!! And even there he was slowly falling back through
>the traffic and made a mistake in the end that cost him his last chance
>- another gift he just threw away!
The first part of the season Hill was driving in the shadow of Ayrton Senna.
After Senna's death, it was hardly surprising that both Hill and Williams as
a team did not function terribly well for a while. Apart from Schumi's
complete stupidity in the British GP, there were reasons for both drivers
why some of there performances were less than startling. In the GP of
Europe, Hill had the measure of Schumi from a driving point of view. He
only lost 1st place to Schumi because he had to make an extra fuel stop due
to a refuelling problem on his scheduled stop. He still came second.
Adelaide - Threw it away? I think not. FYI Hill was *gaining* on Schumi,
who was feeling the pressure and duly lost it and hit the wall. He was OUT.
Car broken. Hill came by, Schumi Schmackered him. End of story. Not
Hill's fault by any stretch of the wildest imagination. Benefit of doubt
given to Schumi [again]. Real truth emerges in 1998 at Jerez [and before if
the facts are reviewed].
>Suzuka?! - yes a great race from both drivers with Schumacher just
>on the unlucky part of the strategy since there was no way to predict
>what happened in this race according to the
>aweful weather. And Hill had to run for his money although Schumacher
>had to make an extra stop! Not very decicive.
It looked pretty decisive to most other people. We can all make excuses for
why someone else did better than our man during a race.
>Wake up, after the death of Senna, the best driver won the WC in 1994!
You wake up. Win at any cost doesn't equal 'the best'. Schumi is a great
driver. He will always be remembered as a flawed one though. With his
skills, he shouldn't need to do the things he does.
Steve Perry.
RPP
>In article <6refcf$oa6$1...@heliodor.xara.net>,
> "Stevep" <Stev...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> ric...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6rcquv$5lb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> > They changed the plank rule because numerous cars finished races in '94
>> >with the planks worn past the limit. Schumacher was just the only one
>> >punished for it. Yup, they were definately looking out for Mikey on that
>> >one.
>>
>> Please explain this comment. When, exactly, did the FIA 'change' the plank
>> rule? I don't believe they ever did. The wear rule is the same now as it
>> was at the beginning - there is a minimum thickness for the plank over a
>> percentage of its surface. What other cars finished with similar plank wear
>> but remained unpunished? Name names, please, or provide extracts from the
>> FIA releases in which the 'changes' were announced.
>>
>
> Damn me for listening to what someone said here! I hadn't heard it either
>until a few days ago when someone wrote it, it might have even been in this
>thread.
>
I knew you never had any facts from my first confrontation with you.
all your knowledge is second hand from rasf1, whjich wouldnt be bad if
you listened to ME and not to some know nothings like Bumboy II or
SeanG or the rest of the Scummy desciples.
>> *If* Hill had won, his Championship would have been as hollow a victory as
>> that of the man who actually 'won' it, but for very different reasons.
>>
>
> Yes, it wasn't what you would call "great." It sucks that the WC battle
>ended the way it did, but Schumacher did a better job of "earning" the title
>than Hill.
>
If earning it is cheating then Scum did a much better job than Damon
who because of his honor and sense of fair play is uselss at cheating,
while Cheatmacher has that down to an art and science.
RPP
<Stev...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Herbert Eitel wrote in message <01bdcb76$e5e0b410$5a916099@qa-vanitas>...
>[In response to questions from me about when the FIA *changed* the plank
>rules]
>>Well, the first and best known example was Berger in Hockenheim '94.
>>That was two races before! Spa. The FIA said: the rule was too new.
>
>There is no reference to any incident involving the plank prior to Spa in
>Autocourse or Autosport 1994 F1 review. I do not recollect any incidents
>prior to Spa either. There is nothing on my race-tapes either. I am not
>convinced that there were any such incidents before Spa.
>
Its probably because there wasnt. Its pathetic when Scum fans must
make up incidents like that just to show that Cheatmacher isnt the
lone cheater. Well he isnt, Irvine is good at that too.
>>In Spa we had a very rainy weekend.
>>In fact there was not one dry session not even during Sunday warm up.
>>The sun came out one hour before the start and almost all teams
>>decided to lift their cars one or the other Millimeter to be save -
>>also Benneton. But it wasn't high enough.
>
>It was enough for everyone else...
Exactlly. And Benneton was also the only ones who couldnt deactivate
their traction control COINCIDENCE? HAHA
>
>>It was a fine masterful drive
>>by Schumi - yes you guessed right I was there :-) - and a well
>>deserved win, IMO. The FIA thought different, and yes according to that
>>rule, he had to be disqualified - maybe despite the spin over the curbs.
>
>It was a good drive by Schumi - BUT his car failed post-race scrutineering -
>and the FIA found (and published supporting evidence) that Schumi's spin did
>*not* cause the wear on the plank. The official report found that the
>overall wear on the plank was caused by the car running to low to the
>ground - exactly what the plank rule was introduced to prevent. That was
>the Benetton team's fault.
Exactly right.
>
>>Neither this excuse nor the weather of the weekend had any
>>effect about their decicion - they were really after him at that time
>>to bring more tension into the race for the WC. They know he
>>couldn't be stopped otherwise.
>
>This is just not true, I'm afraid. The weather had nothing to do with the
>ride hieght of Scumi's car.
>
What else will their excuse be now? Maybe DH weaved somewhere and
Cheatmacher who has ESP was destracted by it.
>>Well, not all of your British fellows have the same opinion as you.
>>Some of the points Hill got without Schumacher racing were
>>not deserved as a lot of Brits also admitted.
How many of the illegally attained points were deserved by Scum?
>> At least the
>>win in Spa and Estoril (teamorders for Coulthard)
Whataboubt team orders for irvine?Herbert?
>>was a gift for him. So, considering the
>>whole season from a sporting point of view, the one point advantage
>>for Schumacher above Hill before Adelaide was a joke.
>>Michael should have led at least 20 to 30 points which would
>>have been the right measurement between the two rivals.
So its OK for Scum to get points in an illegal car. Thats fine, but
punishing him for that is not. If Scum didnt chgeat in 94 he would
have been 20 or 30 points DOWN, and he wouldnt have been banned.
>
>This is just rubbish! Even if team orders played a part in Spa and Estoril,
>Hill still deserved the points. Do you think that all the points Schumi has
>had served to him on a plate by Irvine are undeserved? In any event, at
>Estoril, Hill overtook Coulthard when David made an error while overtaking a
>backmarker [Eric Comas]. After their 2nd fuel stops, Hill was 3.7 seconds
>ahead of Coulthard, and perhaps at that point it was decided by Williams
>that Hill should be allowed [by Coulthard] to back of to ensure a 1-2
>victory.
>
>At Spa, Hill was lapping consistently faster than although behind Coulthard,
>who was suffering due to a broken rear wing, and Patrick Head made a
>decision to call David in to check the wing for safety's sake. He allowed
>Coulthard to continue after inspection. It is very fair to claim that that
>inspection was made to allow Hill past Coulthard. So what? Damon Hill was in
>fact the fastest car on the track for most of the race. The fact that
>Schumi's car was to fail the post race tests and his win declared void was
>Hill's good luck. Good luck is something Schumi has more than his fair
>share of. That's life.
His good luck is that he hasnt been thrown out of F1 yet for all his
cheating and dirty driving.
>
>>When you argue that he did not deserve it according to the rules
>>- hmm, obviously the accident in Adelaide was also according to
>>the rules because there was not even a protest of the Williams team!!
>
>The fact that Williams didn't protest was because Frank Williams couldn't
>believe that Schumi *could* do anything like that intentionally (he said so
>in interviews). After Jerez 1997 he knows better!
>
>>It was not a satifying finish - admitted - but a lot of what
>>happened was not satisfying in 1994.
>
>True. I *am* glad that it was Schui who won a questionable Championship
>rather than Hill.
I guess cheaters do get away with it.
Amybe he does because his skills are rather overrated by many many
people.
>
>Steve Perry.
>
>
Herbert Eitel
> Herbert Eitel wrote in message <01bdcb76$e5e0b410$5a916099@qa-vanitas>...
> [In response to questions from me about when the FIA *changed* the plank
> rules]
> >Well, the first and best known example was Berger in Hockenheim '94.
> >That was two races before! Spa. The FIA said: the rule was too new.
>
> There is no reference to any incident involving the plank prior to Spa in
> Autocourse or Autosport 1994 F1 review. I do not recollect any incidents
> prior to Spa either. There is nothing on my race-tapes either. I am not
> convinced that there were any such incidents before Spa.
I'm sure there was a source. But I have to look for it, too.
> At Spa, Hill was lapping consistently faster than although behind
Coulthard,
> who was suffering due to a broken rear wing, and Patrick Head made a
> decision to call David in to check the wing for safety's sake. He
allowed
> Coulthard to continue after inspection. It is very fair to claim that
that
> inspection was made to allow Hill past Coulthard. So what? Damon Hill was
in
> fact the fastest car on the track for most of the race. The fact that
> Schumi's car was to fail the post race tests and his win declared void
was
> Hill's good luck. Good luck is something Schumi has more than his fair
> share of. That's life.
Yes, but you missed my point here. I ment the failure of the Benetton
team cost Schumacher 10 points. Hill gained 14 points extra
over his rival - on the green table, not on the track.
> >When you argue that he did not deserve it according to the rules
> >- hmm, obviously the accident in Adelaide was also according to
> >the rules because there was not even a protest of the Williams team!!
>
> The fact that Williams didn't protest was because Frank Williams couldn't
> believe that Schumi *could* do anything like that intentionally (he said
so
> in interviews). After Jerez 1997 he knows better!
Sorry, but that's pretty lame. It was about a WC for his driver, wasn't
it?!
> >It was not a satifying finish - admitted - but a lot of what
> >happened was not satisfying in 1994.
>
> True. I *am* glad that it was Schui who won a questionable Championship
> rather than Hill.
Hill may have a different opinion.:-) The championship was only
questionable for him because of Senna. And only 'after'
Adelaide. Before that finish he fought for it like every other
professional driver would have done!
> >Apart from Adelaide there was not one single race during
> >the whole season with both competing where Hill could beat
> >Michael decicively!!!!! And even there he was slowly falling back
through
> >the traffic and made a mistake in the end that cost him his last chance
> >- another gift he just threw away!
>
> The first part of the season Hill was driving in the shadow of Ayrton
Senna.
> After Senna's death, it was hardly surprising that both Hill and Williams
as
> a team did not function terribly well for a while. Apart from Schumi's
> complete stupidity in the British GP, there were reasons for both drivers
> why some of there performances were less than startling. In the GP of
> Europe, Hill had the measure of Schumi from a driving point of view. He
> only lost 1st place to Schumi because he had to make an extra fuel stop
due
> to a refuelling problem on his scheduled stop. He still came second.
Ah, you use excuses, too!
Let's take the second half of the season and only the races they could
compete against each other. I admit that a car Senna could probably win
with
may not be a car for Hill to win with. Indeed Williams had a difficult
season after all.
Hockenhein - both 0
Budapest - Schu 10 Hill 6
Spa Schu 10 Hill 6
Jerez Schu 10 Hill 6
Suzuka Schu 6 Hill 10
Adelaide - both 0
That's what happened on the track. Don't say Spa is not correct.
Hill did NOT beat him there on the track!!
So one race in a whole season?! That's pretty poor to be
called a better driver than Schumacher.
>
> Adelaide - Threw it away? I think not. FYI Hill was *gaining* on
Schumi,
> who was feeling the pressure and duly lost it and hit the wall. He was
OUT.
> Car broken. Hill came by, Schumi Schmackered him. End of story. Not
> Hill's fault by any stretch of the wildest imagination. Benefit of doubt
> given to Schumi [again]. Real truth emerges in 1998 at Jerez [and before
if
> the facts are reviewed].
Hill !!! saw it different! After looking at the video, he said:
My God. I never should have driven into this gap!!
Rallye Racing 1994,12 page 26.
And so did some drivers after Adelaide, e.g. Frentzen - not a friend
of Schumacher, Wendlinger, Boutson. Ex-champions like
Stewart, Prost, Lauda spoke about a deserved WC for Schumacher.
So I'm in good companionship, I guess.;-)
I believe deep in his heart FW thought the same as he always was
full of admiration during the whole season for Schumachers driving skills.
> >Wake up, after the death of Senna, the best driver won the WC in 1994!
>
>
> You wake up. Win at any cost doesn't equal 'the best'.
I didn't say that! It could be a good describtion for Senna!:-)
After all, we have different opinions obviously, but that's not
a dramatic matter, is it!?:-)
BTW, I like Hill a lot and I think he is one of the best drivers currently
driving
F1. I'm not one of those stupid bashers with nothing in the head but
gross insults and offences and at the same time dare to speak about the
characters of others. What a joke!;-)
I just think that he was not up to it and could not cope with Schumacher in
'94.
What we saw in '95 was exactly what makes the difference between a Hill and
a
Schumacher. Without Schumacher changing the team, Hill
would probably not have a title at all, but in 1996 he deserved it
because of a more consistent season.
Stevep
>> Autocourse or Autosport 1994 F1 review. I do not recollect any incidents
>> prior to Spa either. There is nothing on my race-tapes either. I am not
>> convinced that there were any such incidents before Spa.
>
>I'm sure there was a source. But I have to look for it, too.
>
>> At Spa, Hill was lapping consistently faster than although behind
>Coulthard,
>> who was suffering due to a broken rear wing, and Patrick Head made a
>> decision to call David in to check the wing for safety's sake. He
>allowed
>> Coulthard to continue after inspection. It is very fair to claim that
>that
>> inspection was made to allow Hill past Coulthard. So what? Damon Hill was
>in
>> fact the fastest car on the track for most of the race. The fact that
>> Schumi's car was to fail the post race tests and his win declared void
>was
>> Hill's good luck. Good luck is something Schumi has more than his fair
>> share of. That's life.
>
>Yes, but you missed my point here. I ment the failure of the Benetton
>team cost Schumacher 10 points. Hill gained 14 points extra
>over his rival - on the green table, not on the track.
I got the point, and I agree. But Schumi has the benefit of good fortune on
many occassions, too. Most of his victories in '94 and '95 were
attributable to race-stratagy formulated by Ross Braun (as this year!) and
superb pitwork by Benetton, against habitually crap pitwork by Williams for
Hill. There is no denying that the overall Benetton package in those years
was superior to the Williams package - although I do not believe that there
was much to choose between the cars *or* the drivers.
>> The fact that Williams didn't protest was because Frank Williams couldn't
>> believe that Schumi *could* do anything like that intentionally (he said
>so
>> in interviews). After Jerez 1997 he knows better!
>
>Sorry, but that's pretty lame. It was about a WC for his driver, wasn't
>it?!
Not at all. Since he (FW) did not believe MS *could* do anything like that
intentionally, there was no protest. *I* knew, as did many other viewers.
You see, I'd watched Schumi in the lesser formulae and he had done similar
things under pressure, as he did subsequently.
>> >It was not a satifying finish - admitted - but a lot of what
>> >happened was not satisfying in 1994.
>>
>> True. I *am* glad that it was Schui who won a questionable Championship
>> rather than Hill.
>
>Hill may have a different opinion.:-) The championship was only
>questionable for him because of Senna. And only 'after'
>Adelaide. Before that finish he fought for it like every other
>professional driver would have done!
Yes he did. But you are wrong to suggest that the Championship, if Hill had
won it, was questionable because of Senna. The reason it would have been
questionable is that the Schumi hardcore 'fans' would have bleated forever
about how unfair it all is because the FIA made it happen and Hill was in
the best car. In truth, Schumi and Benetton made the bad stuff happen, made
it worse by not accepting Stewards' decisions, and then tried to pass the
buck. The Williams car was well suited to Hill, as was the Benetton to
Schumi. It would be interesting to see how they would have fared driving
the other's car.
>> The first part of the season Hill was driving in the shadow of Ayrton
>Senna.
>> After Senna's death, it was hardly surprising that both Hill and Williams
>as
>> a team did not function terribly well for a while. Apart from Schumi's
>> complete stupidity in the British GP, there were reasons for both drivers
>> why some of there performances were less than startling. In the GP of
>> Europe, Hill had the measure of Schumi from a driving point of view. He
>> only lost 1st place to Schumi because he had to make an extra fuel stop
>due
>> to a refuelling problem on his scheduled stop. He still came second.
>
>Ah, you use excuses, too!
That's not an excuse, its a *reason*. Just like the reason Schumi *didn't*
win at Spa was because he was driving a car which didn't conform to the
regulations. No excuses.
>Let's take the second half of the season and only the races they could
>compete against each other. I admit that a car Senna could probably win
>with
>may not be a car for Hill to win with. Indeed Williams had a difficult
>season after all.
>
>Hockenhein - both 0
>Budapest - Schu 10 Hill 6
>Spa Schu 10 Hill 6
>Jerez Schu 10 Hill 6
>Suzuka Schu 6 Hill 10
>Adelaide - both 0
>
>That's what happened on the track. Don't say Spa is not correct.
>Hill did NOT beat him there on the track!!
Who can say *how* Schumi *would* have performed at Spa *if* his car had been
legal?
>So one race in a whole season?! That's pretty poor to be
>called a better driver than Schumacher.
So the fact that Hill and JV walked away with both drivers and constructors
championships in 1996 means that they are both *better* drivers than Schumi
because they outperformed him at every race? Of course not; the cars had
*something* to do with it. However, this 'so and so is better than someone
else' stuff is all conjecture, pure and simple. The only way to really tell
is to put the drivers head to head in identical equipment, something that we
know Schumi WILL NOT ALLOW!
>>
>> Adelaide - Threw it away? I think not. FYI Hill was *gaining* on
>Schumi,
>> who was feeling the pressure and duly lost it and hit the wall. He was
>OUT.
>> Car broken. Hill came by, Schumi Schmackered him. End of story. Not
>> Hill's fault by any stretch of the wildest imagination. Benefit of doubt
>> given to Schumi [again]. Real truth emerges in 1998 at Jerez [and before
>if
>> the facts are reviewed].
>
>Hill !!! saw it different! After looking at the video, he said:
>My God. I never should have driven into this gap!!
>Rallye Racing 1994,12 page 26.
>And so did some drivers after Adelaide, e.g. Frentzen - not a friend
>of Schumacher, Wendlinger, Boutson. Ex-champions like
>Stewart, Prost, Lauda spoke about a deserved WC for Schumacher.
>So I'm in good companionship, I guess.;-)
Many of those same people said too that they would have taken the same
opportunity Hill tried to take. Hindsight is a wonderful gift, isn't it?
Hill *didn't* know at the time that Schumi had wrecked his car - he saw a
gap and went for it, just like Schumi (and all of your good companions)
would have done.
>I believe deep in his heart FW thought the same as he always was
>full of admiration during the whole season for Schumachers driving skills.
I think we all are. Its just that not everyone believes that he is as good
as HE thinks he is.
>> >Wake up, after the death of Senna, the best driver won the WC in 1994!
>>
>>
>> You wake up. Win at any cost doesn't equal 'the best'.
>
>I didn't say that! It could be a good describtion for Senna!:-)
>After all, we have different opinions obviously, but that's not
>a dramatic matter, is it!?:-)
>
>BTW, I like Hill a lot and I think he is one of the best drivers currently
>driving
>F1. I'm not one of those stupid bashers with nothing in the head but
>gross insults and offences and at the same time dare to speak about the
>characters of others. What a joke!;-)
>I just think that he was not up to it and could not cope with Schumacher in
>'94.
Maybe. Maybe not. We'll never know, really.
Steve Perry.
(Also a fan of J. Herbert).
Edward
Since Schumacher was deprived of 4 races by the FIA/FOCA conspiracy and
still beat Hill, then I hardly think that the result could ever be in any
doubt.
Take away Hill's 4 best results and look at the points difference.
Herbert Eitel
> Herbert Eitel wrote in message <01bdcc1b$c2a3a610$5a916099@qa-vanitas>...
Championship
> >> rather than Hill.
> >
> >Hill may have a different opinion.:-) The championship was only
> >questionable for him because of Senna. And only 'after'
> >Adelaide. Before that finish he fought for it like every other
> >professional driver would have done!
>
> Yes he did. But you are wrong to suggest that the Championship, if Hill
had
> won it, was questionable because of Senna. The reason it would have been
> questionable is that the Schumi hardcore 'fans' would have bleated
forever
> about how unfair it all is because the FIA made it happen and Hill was in
> the best car.
I'm not a Schumi hardcore fan although it may look like sometimes.:-)
What he did in Jerez was simply stupid and a bad mistake!. The situation
in Adelaide '94 was nevertheless different. It's all too easy to shout
'look' he has
done it again' .
Hill mentioned what I was saying above in an interview in the same issue
of Ralley Racing that year page 16-17.
All in all I had the impression that Hill and Williams had far less
difficulties
with what happened in Adelaide than the hardcore fans of Hill
stimulated by the British war press untill the GP in Silverstone
in 1995!:-)