ALL ABOUT FORMULA 1
REVIEWS OF ALL SEASONS
LANGUAGE
LIES TOLD IN F1
It is quite common for F1 Managers and teams to lie when it comes to some technical secret or when there is an illegality in the car or some politicking for or against a driver. A small sample of these lies will be shown here, but I dare say that this sport has so much politics that we will NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH about many things.
Ferrari Team:
The Ferrari team has a very extensive history of untrue explanations. Anything goes to outsmart the competition.
In 1988, the McLaren MP 4/4 was the car to beat. Ferrari made five updates to the engine (Mexico, Canada, France, Belgium and Italy), reaching maximum power at around 700 HP to be the strongest engine in F1, but the Maranello team never announced this power. Ferrari's double start (Berger-Alboreto) at Silverstone (the fastest track of the season) and Berger's performance in the Australian GP 88, where he raced without worrying about consumption, overtook Senna and Prost and left them "in the dust" until abandoning the race (source: book Na Reta de Arrival do Berger pg 33), clearly showed us that the Ferrari engine was much more powerful than what was reported 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 1999, at the British GP, Schumacher's serious accident occurred. First Ferrari claimed that there was no mechanical problem with the car, then the team claimed that there was a failure in the rear brakes. Analyzing the start of this race, apparently the brakes worked well in the previous corners and in the Stowe Schumacher curve he started to brake much later than normal. Eddie Irvine confirmed this and also said that he braked as far into the curve as possible to make it difficult to overtake him. It is not possible to categorically state that Ferrari lied in this case, but changing the version always leaves a doubt in the air...
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 driver's 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 cheated on the FIA's fuel flow sensor, resulting in a power gain. In 2020, the FIA discovered this and secretly punished the Italian team by limiting throttle travel for all Ferrari-powered teams (Source: Mika Salo in the Ressaca F1 Channel video, February 2021 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK2nwTILYrs). At the time, there were rumors that the power gain came from the latest-generation gasoline that led Ferrari to upgrade its engine. Yet another story to throw off the competition...
McLaren Team:
In 1988, McLaren started dominating the season, but then Ferrari made several upgrades to its engine (Mexico, Canada, France, Belgium and Italy) which made its car improve in training. Silverstone was the fastest track in F1 that season, a track where engine power was crucial, and McLaren were unable to keep pace with the Ferraris in practice. McLaren's technicians said the problem was "the aerodynamic package they brought to Silverstone", but the explanation was unconvincing as they reverted to the old package and the car continued to take time away from Ferrari.
In fact, McLaren engineers suspected that in terms of PRACTICE (maximum power) power, the Ferrari engine had surpassed the Honda, but they could not admit this and outwitted the competition by claiming that the problem was something else. Senna only won the 1988 British GP, as the race was in the rain, as if it had been in the dry it would have been very difficult to overcome the Ferraris. And Prost's poor performance in this race showed that McLaren was not doing well on this track.
Ferrari upgraded the engine and gained 20/25 HP in Canada, and in Silverstone McLaren was unbalanced by having to use less rear wing, this made Ferrari do well on that track. (Jornal O Globo 07/06/1988 pg 24 and 21/07/1988 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 was clear that the FIA was complicit in the teams' irregularities.
Below is a case that is not a lie, but rather a POSSIBLE OMISSION by the McLaren team:
In 2007, McLaren's Ferrari design theft scandal broke out. Fernando Alonso denounced the team, creating a very tense atmosphere within McLaren. Many say Hamilton and McLaren lost on purpose, fueled by Hamilton's mistake at the 2007 Chinese GP and the gearbox problem at the 2007 Brazilian GP. But the fact is that McLaren lost performance at the end of the year, so there's a possibility there was an agreement between the FIA and McLaren to stop any further updates to the British team's car. Whether or not this agreement was reached between them, we'll never know the truth...
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. A gentleman's agreement was reached between Ford and McLaren, whereby McLaren would receive the Series 7 engine for the 1993 British Grand Prix, while Benetton would have the Series 8 engine at its disposal to maintain its advantage over McLaren. This information was confirmed by a Ford Brazil executive who, although anonymous, participated in the negotiations, was reported in the newspapers of the time (see below).
During the British Grand Prix weekend, Benetton strangely revealed to the press that they would be using the 7-series (when it should have been the 8-series). However, Benetton's performance against McLaren was by far the best of the season (Schumacher was around 1.5 seconds faster than Senna), on a track where the engine is crucial. This alone raises doubts as to whether Benetton's information was true.
GP England 1993 (qualifying):
Schumacher 1m20s401 (1.5s faster) BOTH WITH DIFFERENT ENGINES
Senna 1m21s986
GP Germany 1993 (qualifying):
Schumacher 1m39s580 (0.1s faster) ENGINES PROVEN TO BE THE SAME
Senna 1m39s616
At the German GP, Ford reportedly made the 8-series engine available to both teams. However, Benetton management was outraged (Source: F1 Yearbook Francisco Santos 1993 pg 118), because it lost its engine advantage, and this can easily be seen in the small time difference between Schumacher and Senna, something that did not happen at Silverstone.
Why was Benetton furious at the German Grand Prix, but strangely NOT furious at the British Grand Prix?
There's only one explanation: Benetton was already secretly using the 8-series engine in Britain and lied about it.
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.
Reproduced by Jornal O Globo 04/18/1993 pg 55 and 06/06/1993 pg 59
In 1994, the Benetton team presented some irregularities in the car and, to top it off, the FIA was naive in allowing the filter to be removed from the fuel hose of the Larrouse, Ligier and, consequently, Benetton.
The FIA discovered that Schumacher's Benetton (only his) had a CT for starts in MENU 13 of the steering wheel control unit and this device could also be easily used during races. 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 reminiscent of 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, 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.
When asked, Willem Toet said he was unaware that the system was hidden in MENU 13 of the steering wheel control unit of Schumacher's car... how can the engineer who claims the system was legal be unaware of such a system?
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).
His testimony is so contradictory to the facts of the time that it is difficult to believe:
-
Willem Toet's testimony contradicts Benetton's explanation that the systems were leftover from the 1993 car, which were demonstrably electronic. But Willem Toet claims that the device was not electronic, so the two explanations are inconsistent.
-
If Benetton was behind in terms of CT (it was the last big F1 team to use this device in 1993), how did they manage to bring in a CT in less than 1 year without using electronics?
-
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, it seems that Willem Toet's explanation is from a CT used by Benetton 5 years later...
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. Later in an informal conversation with Reginaldo Leme, he confessed that he received pressure from the President of FISA, Jean Marie Balestre, to end the race. Of course he had to lie to protect Balestre, as the Frenchman did a "patriotic" thing in that race. 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 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, the analysis carried out by the Faculty of Bologna in Italy proved that the Steering Column of Senna's Williams in the 1994 San Marino GP was ruptured by 60% due to fatigue (slow rupture or ductile fracture) and 40% ruptured by rapid rupture (brittle rupture or catastrophic). But Williams disregarded this technical analysis, creating a narrative that the tires were cold and the car lost support to exempt itself from blame for the accident. It was 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 from the University of Bologna showed that the steering column was 60% broken due to fatigue, but Williams hid this problem to avoid blame for the accident.
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, in my humble opinion this season was a technical tie between Mercedes and Red Bull. 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, the sponsors of the Renault team were pressuring the team for better results, so the Renault team, led by Flavio Briatore (always him!), decided to simulate an accident by the 2nd driver (Nelsinho Piquet), to benefit the 1st driver (Fernando Alonso) who would stop before the accident, and after the yellow flag, Alonso would be at the front of the race, to win it. The farce was set up for the Spaniard to 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)
