Page 1 of 4

Hill - the deserved 1994 champion

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:16 pm
by PTRACER
Scott Mansell's analysis fits mine - Schumacher's rear-right suspension broke when he went off into the wall. He knew this right away.

The unanswered question is whether he crashed into Hill deliberately, or whether the car was so broken, the Bennetton was out of control as it hurtled towards the apex of the next corner and it was Hill's mistake to put himself in harm's way.

The second idea isn't something I've considered before, because for as long as I remember, I always thought Schumacher was a cheat and a dirty driver and even though he's a vegetable now, my opinion is never going to change.

Does anyone believe Schumacher WASN'T at fault here? Also, what could have been done about it in order to (rightfully) give Hill the championship win?


Re: Hill - the deserved 1994 champion

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:59 pm
by Antonov
Schumacher's Benetton was damaged, there is no doubt.

He took Hill off with intent - had it been that his car was out of control, Schumacher would have been happy to use that as a defense.

Hill did not see Schumacher go off. He simply saw a gap open up and didn't have to think twice.

Senna would have had 94 easy in the end imo.

Re: Hill - the deserved 1994 champion

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 14:20 pm
by erwin greven
Hill saw that Schumacher had an off, but did not knew that the car was damaged.

Re: Hill - the deserved 1994 champion

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 14:42 pm
by Everso Biggyballies
The reality was Hill, with hindsight, should have not been so impatient and gone for the pass in a better spot.

But did Schumi act with intent? I have no sdoubt in my mind.

As for what could have been done. Apparently it was up to Williams to lodge a protest. They chose not to, in respect, as I read from an interview with Patrick Head many moons ago, to the death that year of Senna, and with that in mind did not want to win the title in a courtroom in what likely would have become a shitfight of judgements appeals and counter appeals. I think PH said if Michael felt (morally) comfortable with the way he won the title so be it.

Re: Hill - the deserved 1994 champion

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 15:09 pm
by kals
Everso Biggyballies wrote:
1 week ago
The reality was Hill, with hindsight, should have not been so impatient and gone for the pass in a better spot.

But did Schumi act with intent? I have no sdoubt in my mind.

As for what could have been done. Apparently it was up to Williams to lodge a protest. They chose not to, in respect, as I read from an interview with Patrick Head many moons ago, to the death that year of Senna, and with that in mind did not want to win the title in a courtroom in what likely would have become a shitfight of judgements appeals and counter appeals. I think PH said if Michael felt (morally) comfortable with the way he won the title so be it.
This. I can’t add anything more.

Considering how 1994 had been and how Benetton had behaved, this conclusion and how the title was settled felt fitting.

Re: Hill - the deserved 1994 champion

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 19:08 pm
by Andy
Everso Biggyballies wrote:
1 week ago
The reality was Hill, with hindsight, should have not been so impatient and gone for the pass in a better spot.

But did Schumi act with intent? I have no sdoubt in my mind.

As for what could have been done. Apparently it was up to Williams to lodge a protest. They chose not to, in respect, as I read from an interview with Patrick Head many moons ago, to the death that year of Senna, and with that in mind did not want to win the title in a courtroom in what likely would have become a shitfight of judgements appeals and counter appeals. I think PH said if Michael felt (morally) comfortable with the way he won the title so be it.
Considering how Senna acted throughout his career, I'd say yes Schumacher pulled the stunt fully intentionally.
You may like it or not, the so called greats of your sport (mine it isn't anymore) all did it. Perhaps, not as obvious and blunt but they did and still do.
Just a small, late edit.
In the undying words of the late David Jefferies: “Those who risk nothing, do nothing, achieve nothing, become nothing.”

Re: Hill - the deserved 1994 champion

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 00:23 am
by MonteCristo
Chin just showed it again 3 years later.

Re: Hill - the deserved 1994 champion

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 01:28 am
by erwin greven
Andy wrote:
1 week ago
Considering how Senna acted throughout his career, I'd say yes Schumacher pulled the stunt fully intentionally.
You may like it or not, the so called greats of your sport (mine it isn't anymore) all did it. Perhaps, not as obvious and blunt but they did and still do.
Just a small, late edit.
In the undying words of the late David Jefferies: “Those who risk nothing, do nothing, achieve nothing, become nothing.”
I don't like it. And because it is not true: Clark did not need it. Stewart did not need it. Andretti did not need it. Fangio, Moss... nope.

Re: Hill - the deserved 1994 champion

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 01:56 am
by sadsac
Schumi was guilty in my opinion he knew well Damon was there and his first championship title was lost unless he did something drastic
and poor old Hill went for it when he should have hung back a bit longer , Kinda similar to what he did to Villeneuve a few seasons after
I also blame Flavio Briatore he wanted it as much as Shumi and history tells us he turned out to be a cheat :suspicious: :suspicious:

Re: Hill - the deserved 1994 champion

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 06:43 am
by Andy
erwin greven wrote:
1 week ago
Andy wrote:
1 week ago
Considering how Senna acted throughout his career, I'd say yes Schumacher pulled the stunt fully intentionally.
You may like it or not, the so called greats of your sport (mine it isn't anymore) all did it. Perhaps, not as obvious and blunt but they did and still do.
Just a small, late edit.
In the undying words of the late David Jefferies: “Those who risk nothing, do nothing, achieve nothing, become nothing.”
I don't like it. And because it is not true: Clark did not need it. Stewart did not need it. Andretti did not need it. Fangio, Moss... nope.
I, perhaps, should have added in my lifetime.
In my early days, circuits and vehicles were made safer. Not to todays overboarding h&s standards but certainly safer from a time when the Fangios', Mosses',Clarks' etc. raced. Before my lifetime, a stunt which Schumi pulled on Hill could well mean death, as much as the tiniest of mistakes. The evolution of safety standards has helped a lot in making drivers more agressive, more wreckless, in my lifetime.
In my lifetime, because that's what I was able to witness rather than building my opinion of the hear-say about the times before.

Secondly, How is it possible that a race such as Monaco '83 had become one of F1 greatest races if you put the same scale on it?
Surely, it wasn't the deciding title race but if you watch some of the overtakes of a (dare I say, ahem) young German driver, it makes Schumis on track achievements almost looking nice.

Thirdly, one point that usually gets slagged off but still stands, and shows up bigger than ever these days.
While Germans have a lot of compassion for the English and their history it is not like that on the other side of the channel towards Germans and their history. You have the odd ones out, undeniably but that's that. Odd ones out.

Eversince Germany had overtaken England economically past WW2, the English had a rather jealous look over the channel to the country they still held occupied in parts. This was paired, at least in the days prior to Schumachers '94 title, with some missing knowledge about the not too far away times of the Nazi regime here in Germany. I had been over in 1992 as an exchange pupil and we were received with a raised right arm and a 'Sieg Heil' by pupils of the school we went to. Back then they didn't know much more than there was a certain Mr. Hitler who reigned over Germany and was allied with Italy. And more importantly, that they won the second world war over him. This is all stuff, which had been used by the British far right along with other topics to spread their lies and win the Brexit-referendum, just a tad over 20 years past the Schmumichels '94 title.

The Schmumichels move on Hill remains a thorn in the English butt. In a year when Senna probably would have won the the title but died unfortunately, an Englishman took over in the English car the now dead ex-champion drove. And many would have loved seeing the English driver bringing home the title in the very English car, Senna lost his life in. In Sennas memory.
Now this isn't exclusively English but a theme that probably goes on in every sport and sports nation and has been taken to the extreme when Michael Dunlop won the 250cc race at the 2008 Northwest 200, 2 days past his father Roberts' death at the circuit in the same class Robert had entered.

Schmumichels blunt attempt on Hill brought out a lot of the old prejudices between England and Germany, whether conciously or unconciously. The evil (Italian-German) axis against the still occupying British. Dirty tricks against the self acclaimed fair play.
If it had been anyone else who had wrecked Hill's title chance the outcry would not have been as loud as it became. But as it turned out old themes were fed very well.

I'm sorry if any of my English as well as British mates are feeling hurt after reading above, especially the third paragraph. But there's more to it than the Schmumichels dirty trick and why it ain't received that well, even if it gets discarded.

Finally, I put my quote from above in again.
In the undying words of the late David Jefferies: “Those who risk nothing, do nothing, achieve nothing, become nothing.”
Every championship winner in their time, had followed Jeffo's quote and even future champions will. In times of Fangio, Moss and Clark risking meant different than in the days of the Sennas or Schmumichels. What unites them is that all took a risk more than once but ultimately did something, achieved something and became someone.

Re: Hill - the deserved 1994 champion

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:52 pm
by Everso Biggyballies
I guess this topic fits in with the thread title, being it is about the traction control issues that Senna was convinced Schumacher / Benetton were using that year, 1994. William Toet, the renowned Aerodynamicist and engineer, believes that Schumacher was not using traction control, but rather was the first to incorporate the use of left foot breaking whilst also trailing the throttle.... There are still many, including Max Mosley, head of the FIA at the time, who believe Michael was cheating in an area it could not be proven.... remember the ruling that year was no use of traction control.... Schumacher's car was found to have the software in its ECU, something that technically was legal. You could have it, just not allowed to use it. Of course this raises issues of whether a team would go the the bother of having something they could not use, in the software system. If only on the basis of something uneccessary that could affect the reliability of the ECU.

Personally I think this is an interesting article and theory, one which puts forward another option, but it is nothing that will prove his innocence or guilt inreference to the TC alleged scandal.

This article was on our Channel 9 news website today.
New theory emerges for Schumacher cheating scandal

New light has been shed on one of the greatest controversies in Formula One history – whether or not Michael Schumacher cheated his way to his first world championship in 1994.

Ayrton Senna famously went to his grave believing Schumacher’s Benetton team was using traction control to minimise wheel-spin under hard acceleration, which had been outlawed from the start of the 1994 season.

Senna was killed after crashing during the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix, with some believing he pushed his Williams beyond the limit in a desperate attempt to stay ahead of the illegal car of Schumacher.

Senna had retired on the opening lap of the previous race in Japan, and before returning to the pits, stood trackside to observe his rivals, becoming suspicious about the legality of his main rival’s car after hearing the engine note under braking.

“Senna himself was convinced that there was something different about Schumacher’s car,” former Williams team manager Ian Harrison told Autosport in 2014.

“Whether there was or not I don’t know, but Senna was utterly sure there was.”

The suspicions gained further credibility in 2011, when Schumacher’s teammate from 1994, Jos Verstappen, claimed the German was using banned electronic driving aids.

Now a new theory has emerged, which some former F1 figures believe puts Schumacher in the clear.

Michael Schumacher was dogged by accusations of cheating through the 1994 season.
A just-published book – 1994: The Untold Story of a Tragic and Controversial Season, floats the idea that Schumacher’s technique of braking with his left foot could have fooled Senna into thinking the Benetton was illegal.

Left-foot braking was new to Formula One in 1994, but Schumacher was quick to adapt and telemetry traces from later in his career showed how he used his right foot to maintain 10-15 per cent throttle even while braking with his left foot. This method kept the car stable and allowed the aerodynamics to work more efficiently.

Willem Toet, the Australian-raised Head of Aerodynamics for Benetton in 1994, believes it was Schumacher’s technique that Senna mistook for illegal traction control.

“I think it was the use of left-foot braking combined with the throttle which would have made the strange noise,” he said.

“It would have been strange to hear the engine working in those places on the track.

“That’s what I believe is the most likely scenario.”

Mark Blundell drove for Tyrrell in 1994, and agrees that left-foot braking “became a trend at that stage,” and “it would have made a different sound.”

Suspicions that the Benetton was illegal reached fever-pitch midway through the 1994 season, after the sport’s governing body, the FIA, seized the black box that contained the engine management software.

An independent analysis of the source code revealed Benetton had software “capable of breaching the regulations,” and although the team admitted the existence of the code, it claimed it was redundant and could not be activated by Schumacher.

The rules at the time only prevented the use of traction control, not the existence of software that might be used to implement it. As the FIA had no proof it was being used, no action was taken.

A mechanic for Senna’s teammate Damon Hill also revealed that engine supplier Renault were convinced Benetton were using traction control based on analysis of audio recordings. Team owner Frank Williams has since confirmed that Senna wanted to lodge an official protest, but Williams chose not to.

In a season full of controversy, the championship went down to the final race in Adelaide. With Schumacher just a single point in front of Hill, the pair were battling for the lead of the Grand Prix when they collided as Schumacher returned to the track after briefly losing control, putting both drivers out and handing the German the title.


Michael Schumacher leads Damon Hill at the 1994 Adelaide Grand Prix. (AAP)
Although many felt Schumacher had deliberately caused the collision knowing his damaged car wouldn’t have been able to finish the race, Hill’s team declined to protest.

“We at Williams were already 100 per cent certain that Michael was guilty of foul play,” said technical director Patrick Head.

“We seriously considered lodging a formal protest there and then, on the grounds that it had been so blatant.

“Because 1994 was the terrible year it was – in other words, because Ayrton Senna had been killed in one of our cars – we didn’t really think it would have been right for Damon to win the world championship that year, especially if he’d done so in court, so we didn’t protest.”

Although stewards investigated the crash and took no action, FIA boss Max Mosely later revealed in his autobiography that he felt otherwise.

“My private view was that Michael was very lucky not to be penalised and thus lose his world championship.”

It brought an end to a season of acrimony, although accusations he cheated his way to the 1994 title would dog Schumacher for the rest of his career.

“I would never use an illegal system,” Schumacher said in 1998.

“I know in 1994 that we didn’t have anything illegal, but there was so much talk it became like the truth.”

And as the 25th anniversary of that terrible season approaches, perhaps this new book brings us one step closer to uncovering what really happened.
https://wwos.nine.com.au/motorsport/mic ... 5af3a221dd

Re: Hill - the deserved 1994 champion

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 13:08 pm
by DoubleFart
Fyi, I got that book for Christmas.

Re: Hill - the deserved 1994 champion

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 13:50 pm
by erwin greven
So the car makes a different sound when braking. And what does that have to do with traction control, which is used at acceleration?

Re: Hill - the deserved 1994 champion

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 14:17 pm
by Michael Ferner
erwin greven wrote:
1 week ago
So the car makes a different sound when braking. And what does that have to do with traction control, which is used at acceleration?
My thoughts, too.

As to the Adelaide collision, I gave Schumi the benefit of doubt for three years, then I knew better. Really unfortunate that Hill didn't see Schumi hit the wall, so he was right in going for the gap. But you can see in the pictures just before the collision, that Michael's right rear is askew, he was most definitely out. Whether he had time to realize that while trying to regain control and the track, then seeing Hill approach, is another question. But, after seeing him steer into Villeneuve on instinct, there never was a shred of doubt in my mind about what happened in '94.

Re: Hill - the deserved 1994 champion

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 15:06 pm
by PTRACER
Andy wrote:
1 week ago
Thirdly, one point that usually gets slagged off but still stands, and shows up bigger than ever these days.
While Germans have a lot of compassion for the English and their history it is not like that on the other side of the channel towards Germans and their history. You have the odd ones out, undeniably but that's that. Odd ones out.

Eversince Germany had overtaken England economically past WW2, the English had a rather jealous look over the channel to the country they still held occupied in parts. This was paired, at least in the days prior to Schumachers '94 title, with some missing knowledge about the not too far away times of the Nazi regime here in Germany. I had been over in 1992 as an exchange pupil and we were received with a raised right arm and a 'Sieg Heil' by pupils of the school we went to. Back then they didn't know much more than there was a certain Mr. Hitler who reigned over Germany and was allied with Italy. And more importantly, that they won the second world war over him. This is all stuff, which had been used by the British far right along with other topics to spread their lies and win the Brexit-referendum, just a tad over 20 years past the Schmumichels '94 title.

The Schmumichels move on Hill remains a thorn in the English butt. In a year when Senna probably would have won the the title but died unfortunately, an Englishman took over in the English car the now dead ex-champion drove. And many would have loved seeing the English driver bringing home the title in the very English car, Senna lost his life in. In Sennas memory.
Now this isn't exclusively English but a theme that probably goes on in every sport and sports nation and has been taken to the extreme when Michael Dunlop won the 250cc race at the 2008 Northwest 200, 2 days past his father Roberts' death at the circuit in the same class Robert had entered.

Schmumichels blunt attempt on Hill brought out a lot of the old prejudices between England and Germany, whether conciously or unconciously. The evil (Italian-German) axis against the still occupying British. Dirty tricks against the self acclaimed fair play.
If it had been anyone else who had wrecked Hill's title chance the outcry would not have been as loud as it became. But as it turned out old themes were fed very well.

I'm sorry if any of my English as well as British mates are feeling hurt after reading above, especially the third paragraph. But there's more to it than the Schmumichels dirty trick and why it ain't received that well, even if it gets discarded.
Image

Image

Sorry, but I think considering this an issue of national pride, or a Germany v. Britain issue, is way off the mark. Much of Schumacher's career is clouded by accusations of cheating and 1994 was the peak of this. The car allegedly ran TC illegally all year, he overtook Hill on the warm-up lap at Silverstone and blatantly ignored the black disqualification flags, at Belgium he was disqualified for having an illegal car and received a two race ban and finally, he finished his season off by purposely driving into his main rival at the championship decider after breaking his car on a concrete wall. What a way to taint your own championship season.