ALL ABOUT FORMULA 1
LANGUAGE
REVIEWS OF ALL SEASONS
LIES TOLD IN F1
In motorsports in general, it's more common than you might think for teams, engineers, and drivers to lie when it comes to some secret that has given them a technical advantage, or when there's an illegality with the car, or even when there's unsportsmanlike conduct by the driver or the team.
On this page of the website, I will give a small sample of these lies, and I dare say that many things behind the scenes in F1 we will NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH about, because F1 is an extremely political sport.
Ferrari Team:
The Ferrari team has a considerable history of providing untruthful explanations. Anything goes when it comes to misleading the competition.
In 1988, Ferrari made five engine upgrades (Mexico, Canada, France, Belgium, and Italy), reaching a power output close to 700 HP, which was more powerful than the Honda engine, but the Maranello team never disclosed this information. The Ferrari one-two start (Berger-Alboreto) at Silverstone, the fastest track of the season, and Berger's performance in the 1988 Australian GP, where he drove without controlling fuel consumption (source: Berger's book "Na Reta de Chegada" pg 33), overtaking Senna and Prost and leaving them in the dust until he abandoned the race, clearly showed us that the Ferrari engine was much more powerful than was disclosed at the time.
In 1997, Argentinian Noberto Fontana gave an interview with Jornal Olé saying that Jean Todt approached people from the Sauber team, asking him to get in the way of Jacques Villeneuve in the championship decision at the European GP 97. “I blocked him during 3 or 4 corners, damaging me. And neither Schumacher nor Todt thanked me." Jean Todt denied having made such a request to the Sauber team, but since the Argentine had nothing to gain by lying about the matter, it seemed that the Ferrari CEO was lying.
In 1998, in GP Austria, Schumacher was having car problems and the team ordered Eddie Irvine not to pass the German, the Irishman complied with the order. After the race, the press claimed “marmalade” and asked why Irvine slowed down the race pace, he said the brakes were critical so he slowed down the race pace. Of course it wasn't that, the team didn't let him tell the truth...
In 2000, at the Monaco GP, Michael Schumacher was leading the race, but on lap 55 he crashed his car into the guardrail and broke his rear suspension. This was confirmed by two people who were present in Monaco watching the race: a user from the F1 AUTORACING forum and an F1 fan (a friend of my colleague Eduardo Passini from Piracicaba, São Paulo). In the statement released after the race, Ferrari claimed that "exhaust gases melted the rear suspension arm," something very strange, since the turbulence generated by the car's high speed considerably reduces the temperature of these gases. It is clear that this was a lie to cover up the driving error.
In 2003, Rubinho suffered an accident at the Hungarian GP, due to a broken suspension. Ferrari released a note saying that "Rubens Barrichello attacked the curbs in an unusual way, and this caused damage to the car's suspension" (Source: Anuário AUTOMOTOR 2003 pg 131). But in the race, Schumacher followed the same path as the Brazilian on the curbs and nothing happened to Alemão. As this season Rubinho had some friction within Ferrari regarding the choice of tires for Schumacher, it seemed that this note was more of a reprisal against the brazilian than an explanation for the accident.
In 2005, Ferrari was doing poorly in the championship and failed to comply with the SUZUKA AGREEMENT signed by all F1 teams, which limited tire testing. Ferrari tested its tires by running 264 laps around Fiorano and Jean Todt refused to admit he was doing anything wrong, claiming the agreement had lapsed. (Source: Anuário Francisco Santos 2005 pg 56) But what Todt didn't say is that Ferrari forced the non-renewal of the agreement, by not attending the last meeting, when it was necessary for the F1 teams to be present. Nothing like a half lie to achieve your goals.
In 2006, in Q3 at the Monaco GP, Schumacher was on provisional pole, lost control of the car and blocked everyone who was coming to do their flying laps. Telemetry proved that he did it on purpose, as no one loses control of the car at 16 km/h. The stewards were right to punish the German, but the Ferrari team defended their driver, claiming that he made a mistake.
Schumacher deliberately stopped the car in Q3 Monaco 2006, but Ferrari said it was a "genuine driving error".
Still in 2006, at the Hungarian GP, Schumacher went to defend his position and unnecessarily forced the wheels to touch with Nick Heidfeld's car. The seven-time champion damages his Ferrari and abandons the race. But in an official statement, Ferrari said that "it was a problem with the car's steering wheel." This explanation doesn't match what we saw in the race...
In 2018 and 2019, Ferrari gained extra engine power; to throw off the competition, the Italian team claimed this boost came from state-of-the-art fuel. However, in 2020, the FIA discovered that Ferrari had circumvented the FIA's fuel flow sensor, allowing them to use more power than usual at times. Consequently, the FIA secretly penalized all teams using Ferrari engines by limiting their throttle travel.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK2nwTILYrs (Mika Salo in a video by the Ressaca F1 channel, February 2021)
McLaren Team:
In 1988, McLaren started the season dominating, but when they arrived at Silverstone, the fastest track in F1 that season, McLaren couldn't keep up with the Ferraris in practice. McLaren's engineers said the problem was "the aerodynamic package they brought to Silverstone," but the explanation wasn't convincing, as they reverted to the previous package and the car continued to lose time to Ferrari.
In fact, McLaren's engineers suspected that Ferrari (*) had surpassed the Honda engine's power, but they misled the competition by claiming the problem lay elsewhere. Senna won the 1988 British Grand Prix because the race took place in the rain; had it been a dry race, he would have struggled greatly to win. Furthermore, Prost's poor performance in that race, he retired while running in 15th place, demonstrated that the McLaren car was not performing well at Silverstone.
(*) Ferrari upgraded its engine in Mexico (gaining around 30 HP), Canada (gaining 20/25 HP), and France (with an undisclosed gain). These power gains, combined with McLaren's performance loss at Silverstone, helped the Italian team perform well on that track.
O Globo newspaper, June 7, 1988, pg. 24 and July 21, 1988, pg. 28
In 1994, McLaren had an automatic gearbox to upshift and semi-automatic gearbox to downshift, when it should have been semi-automatic to either go up or down the gears. McLaren bosses claimed that "the gearbox was automatic, but the drive was mechanical", which doesn't make any sense. No punishment was given as it was considered a "good faith" interpretation of the regulation. At the time, it became clear that the FIA was complicit in the irregularities committed by Benetton and McLaren. (Source: Francisco Santos F1 Yearbook 1994 pg 39)
In 2007, the McLaren team broke out regarding the theft of Ferrari's design. At the time, the FIA deducted McLaren's points from the Constructors' Championship but maintained the drivers' points. In the last two races of the year, strangely, the McLaren car lost performance; this was never disclosed by the FIA or McLaren, but it may have been a secret technical penalty imposed on McLaren by the FIA (as it did with Ferrari in 2020). We will never know the truth about what happened at the end of 2007, but many people have had doubts, and some even infer conspiracy theories...
Brabham Team:
In 1982, FISA regulations said that the car would be weighed before and after races, but allowed fluids lost during the race to be replenished. Brabham took this loophole in the regulations and added a water tank, which was unloaded at the start of the races, so they raced below the regulations, this tank was refilled after the race and they returned to the regulation weight.
See how far the teams' lies go: the Brabham team said that "the tank was to cool the brakes." Piquet said that Murray created a 40-liter system that sprayed water on the brake discs to cool them... We all know that you can't cool brakes with water. At the time, other teams also used this trick, but none of them said it was to cool the brakes.
The lie was so well thought out inside Brabham, that if they were caught in an inspection they would have been able to prove that the system was to cool the brakes and to this day Piquet says that the system was legal.
Brabham BT 50 raced with a water tank at the beginning of 1982.
Benetton Team:
Benetton with Flavio Briatore became a team with a recurring history of lies in F1.
In 1993, the "engine war" between McLaren and Benetton took place, and to this day, some sources provide inaccurate information regarding when the two teams began using the same-specification of Ford engine.
In mid-1993, a gentlemen's agreement was reached between Ford, Benetton, and McLaren, stipulating that McLaren would receive the "Series 7" engine for the 1993 British Grand Prix, while Benetton would have the "Spec 8" engine at its disposal to maintain its advantage over McLaren. This information was confirmed by a Ford Brazil executive who wished to remain anonymous (see the *Jornal do Brasil* report from April 21, 1993, page 20).
At the 1993 British Grand Prix, Benetton most likely bluffed by claiming they were still using the Series 7 engine, as they did not want to reveal they were already using the Series 8. This suspicion arose from Benetton's performance relative to McLaren—their best of the season—where Schumacher was 1.5 seconds faster than Senna on a track where engine power is crucial.
Articles from *O Globo* (April 18, 1993, p. 55; June 6, 1993, p. 59) and *Jornal do Brasil* (April 21, 1993, p. 20) regarding the use of Series 7 and 8 engines by Benetton and McLaren.
.png)
At the 1993 German Grand Prix, it is confirmed that Ford made the Series 8 engine available to both teams; while it was used during practice sessions, both teams opted for the Series 7 in the race due to reliability concerns. The gap between Senna and Schumacher was less than 0.1 seconds—a much smaller margin than the 1.5-second difference seen at Silverstone—leading to the suspicion that Benetton had already been using the Series 8 engine in Britain.
Benetton's indignation has only one explanation: they had already been secretly using the 8-series engine since the British GP and were bluffing about it. When Ford supplied the Series 8 engine to McLaren in Germany, it narrowed the gap between Benetton and McLaren.
Knowing Flavio Briatore, it is quite likely that he ordered the team members to "bluff" to confuse the press, and especially McLaren, about the advantages of using the Ford esp 8 engine compared to the esp 7. For this reason, several sources, today, still inadvertently report that Benetton used the 7 series in England.
Even though the Ford 8-series engine had only 10 more horsepower than the 7-series, the 8-series' major advantage was its low-end torque, which was significantly better than that of the 7-series engine.
IRREGULARITIES OF THE BENETTON 1994
In 1994, several teams attempted to circumvent F1 regulations; while FIA stewards managed to uncover these irregularities, the FIA was unfortunately quite lenient with the teams involved.
The FIA discovered that Schumacher's Benetton featured a hidden launch control system that could easily be used as standard traction control during races. Benetton claimed the device was a carryover from the 1993 car's traction control system and that it could only be activated via driver inputs in "Menu 13" on the steering wheel controls.
During the German Grand Prix, a fire broke out involving Jos Verstappen’s Benetton car, leading to an investigation into the removal of the fuel filter from the refueling hose. However, because there was a document signed by Charlie Whiting authorizing the Ligier team (also managed by Flavio Briatore) to remove the filter, Benetton used this as an argument to avoid punishment.
In Belgium, they discovered that the wooden panel on the bottom of the Benetton, required by the FIA regulations that year, had been sanded. The explanations for these irregularities were the most absurd possible:
"The electronic systems on the steering wheel in the Benetton were carry-overs from the 1993 car."
"Benetton's CT wasn't electronic, it was legal."
"Schumacher spun in a corner during the race in Spa, so the wooden board lost thickness."
Years later, former Benetton Engineer Willem Toet confirmed that Benetton used the CT (launch control), but it worked if the atmospheric conditions did not change much from training to the race, being able to change engine acceleration rates according to atmospheric pressure inside the engine's air intake and added that the CT was cool.
In the interview he reported: “high precision sensors”, “collect data with asphalt grip levels”, “control of acceleration rates in stages”, “cuts in ignition levels”, “it cut the low voltage transferred to the coils ”.
Everything he said are electronic devices in their design or are electronically activated, so they would be irregular in the same way, even though he said they were legal. That's why his explanation wasn't convincing.
In the summary of Willem Toet’s interview on the Driver 61 channel, at the 14-minute mark, he stated that there was a launch traction control system active only in first gear. He then mentioned he was unaware of the "launch control" feature found in MENU 13 of the steering wheel software, a feature that would be completely illegal, and speculated that it must have been used only on Friday. How could the very engineer who claims the system was legal be unaware of such a system existing in MENU 13 of the software?
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu2vU0NOBx4&t=189s (DRIVER 61)
A contradiction of this size only reinforces that there is something very wrong in his explanation or he was missing the truth.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu2vU0NOBx4&t=907s (DRIVER 61).
Contradictions:
-
Willem Toet's testimony is inconsistent with Benetton's explanation at the time, which stated that the systems were carry-overs from the 1993 car. If the 1993 systems were proven to be electronic, and Willem Toet claims the devices were non-electronic, the explanations are highly contradictory.
-
If Benetton was lagging behind in terms of traction control (it was the last major F1 team to adopt the technology), how did they manage to introduce a non-electronic traction control system in less than a year?
-
Using electronic software for traction control would have been against the regulations, so why did Benetton test traction control software, specifically "Menu 13" on the steering wheel's control unit on a Friday, as Willem Toet stated? It makes no sense.
-
If the CT was legal, why did only Schumacher's car have this device? Lehto and Verstappen said they did not have it in their cars, and the FIA inspection proved their cars were "clean". Jos Verstappen himself said that there were electronic driving aids and that Flavio Briatore declined when asked about it.
Remembering that in 1999, the FIA discovered that 3 teams (including Benetton) were using disguised CT, which consisted of a PITOT tube in the engine's air intake that allowed comparing the real speed with the speed of the wheels, and if there was a difference, the The electronics acted by delaying ignition and engine power, preventing wheel slippage. (Source: Anuário Francisco Santos 2000 pg 70). With that, the FIA changed the regulations and allowed any CT and CL from the Spanish GP 2001 onwards. In other words. In other words, it seems that Willem Toet's explanation is out of touch with the times.
Photo of the floor of the Benetton 1994
Jack Ickx on Monaco 1984:
After the 1984 Monaco Grand Prix, Race Director Jack Ickx was heavily questioned because the race was stopped ILLEGALLY. He waved the red flag, and an Automobile Club de Monaco official waved the checkered flag, when he should have waved the red flag, waited for the stewards to assess the track conditions, and then, if necessary, definitively ended the race with the checkered flag.
After the race, the Belgian gave an official interview saying that the decision to end the race was his. Years later, in an informal conversation with Reginaldo Leme, the Belgian confessed that he received pressure from the FISA President, Jean Marie Balestre, to end the race, all indications being that it was to benefit Alain Prost, Balestre's compatriot. Of course, he had to lie to protect the FISA President.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BTxEAPI68A&t=595s (Reginaldo Leme AUTOMOTOR)
FISA carried out an investigation into the interruption of this race, which came to nothing, because Balestre was the most interested in ending the race, which is why they didn't punish anyone. See below the report from Jornal do Brasil on June 9, 1984, pg 20 on the subject.
Ligier Team:
In training for the 1983 German GP, Raul Boesel suffered a serious accident and had to be hospitalized. No one from the team went to visit him in the hospital, but when he returned to the Ligier team, they ordered him not to disclose that the cause of the accident was the rupture of one of the brake circuits.
Knowing the F1 teams, if Raul Boesel died in this accident, they would certainly do the same as Williams did in Senna's accident, they would put the cause of the accident in the loss of control of the car.
Raul Boesel's Ligier at the 1982 Belgian GP.
Williams Team:
In 1987, Piquet was successfully developing active suspension, but was leaving Williams. At the Mexico GP, the team surprisingly took away his active suspension, claiming they didn't have the parts to use it on two cars, but in fact, Mansell didn't like the suspension and said he didn't want to use it. As Williams did not want to benefit a driver who was leaving the team, they decided to lift the Brazilian's active suspension. In other words, the explanation they gave was not convincing, as the motivation was political and not technical.
In 1994, an analysis conducted by the University of Bologna in Italy proved that the steering column of Senna's Williams car in the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix was 60% broken due to fatigue (slow rupture or ductile fracture) and 40% broken due to rapid rupture (brittle or catastrophic rupture). However, Williams disregarded this technical analysis, creating a narrative that the tires were cold and the car lost lift to absolve themselves of blame for the accident. And there are people who, even today, believe in the "smokescreen" that Williams created to cover up the true cause of the accident...
All the drivers and engineers from the other teams say that only a mechanical failure could have caused the Williams car to lose control at Tamburello, with the exception of the Williams engineers and drivers. It became clear that the team members (Patrick Head, Adrian Newey, Frank Dernie, Damon Hill, David Coulthard, etc.) made a pact to defend the team from any responsibility for Senna's death.
NOTE: See details of the accident on the page “Death of Senna in 1994”.
Electron microscope analysis by the University of Bologna showed that the steering column had suffered a 60% fatigue failure, but Williams strategically concealed this problem.
Red Bull Team:
The 2021 season was extremely balanced. Red Bull's car started the year better, then Mercedes improved its car and finished better. When Red Bull was better, there was information that was widely publicized in the F1 media saying that the lubricants used by HONDA WERE COSMETICS BASE, which was why they generated more power in the HONDA engine.
Does anyone think that if this were the secret of the HONDA engine, this information would be disclosed externally?
Of course not!
In the opinion of the site's author, the Honda engine improved its power, this was a proven fact, but the main factor in Red Bull's good performances was its aerodynamics, which is why the Austrian car was performing well on all tracks of the season. However, it was thought that the Honda engine was responsible for Red Bull's success, precisely to outwit the competition that the secret was in aerodynamics. The reason is simple: if you have a strong point, hide it and let your opponents think that your strong point is someone else.
Source: Website Motor Sport
Renault Team:
At the end of the 2008 season, Renault's sponsors were pressuring the team for better results, so the Renault team, led by Flavio Briatore, decided to simulate an accident involving the second driver (Nelson Piquet Jr.) on lap 14, to benefit the first driver (Fernando Alonso) who made his pit stop on lap 12. After the yellow flag, all the drivers would drive slowly on the track and make their pit stops, while Alonso would be in the lead because he had made his stop before everyone else and would win the race.
In 2009, Nelsinho Piquet reported the fraud, and telemetry proved that he accelerated prematurely and caused the crash on purpose. The FIA investigated and punished the members of the Renault team for the event, but Renault members among them: Flavio Briatore and Pat Symonds denied it all the time, even though there was complete proof that they were involved. When it comes to Flavio Briatore, you can expect anything...
Watch an informative video about the events of this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEue6yGpt-0 (CANAL ENERTO)
