The Toyota cheat

[Daniel]

http://homepage.virgin.net/shalco.com/tte_ban.htm

Something I've been trying to find for ages :D

[Daniel]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e118/z510/Misc/tte-restrict.jpg

Forgot this too :)
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e118/z510/Misc/tte-restrict.jpg

[BDunnell]

With hindsight, I love the suggestion in the link you included in your first post that banning Toyota would weaken 'an already frail championship'. Today, that might be a decent plea in mitigation, but then...!

As with Michael Schumacher being excised from the 1997 F1 points table but not excluded from every race, the Toyota ban created one of those weird statistical anomalies that is very hard to justify or explain, except on the grounds of the sheer complication of altering every result.

[Daniel]

I'm amazed that more people aren't interested in this. It's one of the most famous "cheats" ever seen! :mark:

[Daniel]

With hindsight, I love the suggestion in the link you included in your first post that banning Toyota would weaken 'an already frail championship'. Today, that might be a decent plea in mitigation, but then...!

As with Michael Schumacher being excised from the 1997 F1 points table but not excluded from every race, the Toyota ban created one of those weird statistical anomalies that is very hard to justify or explain, except on the grounds of the sheer complication of altering every result.
Quite funny isn't it :) To me some of the best years happened after Toyota were banned :D

[Zico]

Very Interesting, thanks for that Daniel..

I remember feeling so bad for Delecour on the Monte that year with Auriol blitzing him, albiet only only on the uphill sections it was blindingly obvious that something shady was going on..

I still wonder how much extra power this ingenious design released.. Any airflow dynamics experts on here?

[Livewireshock]

It makes the "water cooled" brakes in F1 look like childs play as far as ingenuity. This was such a clever engineering effort & it boggles the mind to think how long Toyota got away with it.

[Daniel]

Very Interesting, thanks for that Daniel..

I remember feeling so bad for Delecour on the Monte that year with Auriol blitzing him, albiet only only on the uphill sections it was blindingly obvious that something shady was going on..

I still wonder how much extra power this ingenious design released.. Any airflow dynamics experts on here?
Well the article says 25% more air and maybe 50bhp but who knows really :)

I think McKlein's Rally or Rally Cars said that there was a date stamped on the parts but my copies are 10,000k's away :p

I know it's unrelated but I find it amusing that people say the FIA won't ban McLaren for any possible advantage they've gained from the documents they had. I have a belief that the FIA are all about fair play and if they find out that McLaren have cheated they'll make them the Toyota of the WRC :)

How did the F1 water cooled brakes work? :)

This is where I found the picture and link too :) Good read that!

http://forums.autosport.com/showthread.php?threadid=90222

[BDunnell]

As I recall, further suspicions were aroused when Kankkunen showed a turn of speed in Catalunya that he had never demonstrated on dry tarmac before, and never would do again.

[Daniel]

I always thought it was at the superspecial in Australia when Auriol pulled away from someone else at the stage start. Probably a combination though

[Josti]

As I recall, further suspicions were aroused when Kankkunen showed a turn of speed in Catalunya that he had never demonstrated on dry tarmac before, and never would do again.

I was about to say the same. He was very much on charge, until he crashed out. Though Auriol didn't seem to have his rally there.

And who remembers that short interview with Kankkunen on the Portugal Rally earlier that year, when they asked him how these Toyota's where so powerfull these days, and Juha's clever response with the muscles and the little wink. Sure there was something more going on.

[Daniel]

Well Juha always did like a bit of a joke though.

[jparker]

Just to remind some people, the turbo cheat (legally speaking) was't against the rules.
Obviously there was intention to overcome the restriction, but Toyota did it without braking the rules. In order words Toyota were baned based on their intention, no legal grounds.
This ban was the reason for Toyota to stop its WRC program, and they did it in stile, winning the manu title without turbo cheats. BTW, TTE were great professional team, building great cars, and great drivers. Toyota give the championship title to many rally legends. Too bad FIA had to punish them for its own mistakes and personal dislikes, something that they probably deeply regret now.

[Zico]

Just to remind some people, the turbo cheat (legally speaking) was't against the rules.
Obviously there was intention to overcome the restriction, but Toyota did it without braking the rules. In order words Toyota were baned based on their intention, no legal grounds.
This ban was the reason for Toyota to stop its WRC program, and they did it in stile, winning the manu title without turbo cheats. BTW, TTE were great professional team, building great cars, and great drivers. Toyota give the championship title to many rally legends. Too bad FIA had to punish them for its own mistakes and personal dislikes, something that they probably deeply regret now.


Bypassing the restrictor wasnt against the rules?.. Why bother trying to hide it then?

Toyota fan?

[Daniel]

yes very silly statement. When ford had a sort of reserve air tank that was against the spirit of the rules but was still legal because the air went through the restrictor. Toyota's solution was highly illegal.

[Nenukknak]

http://homepage.virgin.net/shalco.com/tte_ban.htm

Something I've been trying to find for ages :D

You should've asked, I posted the article on this forum already a couple of years ago. ;) :D

[Daniel]

my apologies :p

[MikeD]

How did the F1 water cooled brakes work? :)
http://forums.autosport.com/showthread.php?threadid=90222

Damn, that's a long time ago. I think it was Williams, Brabham and Lotus that used the system. I think they filled the brakes with water to keep the minimum required weight, but the water in the brakes evaporated very quickly allowing the cars to run under the required 600 kg(?) during the race. And when the cars came in for new tires, new water was added again. That way the car was at the right weight off track but below the right weight on track.

I not 100% sure that was what happened, but it was something like that.

And I think the teams did it as a response to FISA favorising the manufacturer teams (Ferrari, Renault, Talbot Ligier and Alfa Romeo.)

But I am not 100% sure. As I said it's a long time ago. I remember that it was at the Brazilian GP that it was discovered, but I can't remember the year.

[Bazza2541]

Was their not something floating around too about Lancia filling the fire extinguishers on the Integrales with N2O? Or was that just a rallying urban myth?

[Livewireshock]

Damn, that's a long time ago. I think it was Williams, Brabham and Lotus that used the system. I think they filled the brakes with water to keep the minimum required weight, but the water in the brakes evaporated very quickly allowing the cars to run under the required 600 kg(?) during the race. And when the cars came in for new tires, new water was added again. That way the car was at the right weight off track but below the right weight on track.

I not 100% sure that was what happened, but it was something like that.

And I think the teams did it as a response to FISA favorising the manufacturer teams (Ferrari, Renault, Talbot Ligier and Alfa Romeo.)

But I am not 100% sure. As I said it's a long time ago. I remember that it was at the Brazilian GP that it was discovered, but I can't remember the year.

It was abused a bit more blatantly that suggested above. This happened in the midst of the FISA-FOCA wars in F1 in the early Eighties.

Essentially they were regular air cooled brakes that had a water cooling system added to it by the FOCA aligned teams, Brabham & Williams in particular. Under the wording of the rules the car had to be weighed with all coolant & lubricants in the car. The water tank was filled before scrutineering to ensure correct minimum weight. Straight afterwards, the water was drained or sprayed out (but not over the brakes) over the initial laps & the brakes operated as normal air cool brakes.

At the time there was an interval between the end of race & post race scrutineering that allowed teams to refill the water reservoir to bring the car back up to minimum allowed weight. This was allowed because coolants & lubricants were able to be topped up.

The full nature of this system was discovered after the end of the 1982 Brazilan F1GP when FISA aligned Renault team, who came 3rd with Prost, protested against the FOCA aligned Brabham of Nelson Piquet (1st) & Williams of Keke Rosberg (2nd) for being under weight. Subsequently they were both disqualified but strangely none of the other FOCA cars who had the same system were.

All the FOCA teams appealed the decision but the FIA Court of Appeals took some time to hear the case. While the appeal was heard, FISA aligned Ferrari turned up at USGP with two rear wings, both of legal size & shape, because nothing in the rules stated you were only allowed one wing. Gilles was disqualified after finishing 3rd that day.

Brabham & Williams lost their appeals which led to all the FOCA based teams to boycott the 1982 San Marino grand prix in protest. It goes with out saying that this was a very ugly time in the sport.

[jparker]

yes very silly statement. When ford had a sort of reserve air tank that was against the spirit of the rules but was still legal because the air went through the restrictor. Toyota's solution was highly illegal.

Something against the spirit of the rules is not illegal. Simply put, in its ruling FIA assumed that controlling the size of the restrictor is all they need to enforce. Well, they were proven wrong.
So, instead of admitting that, they punished TTE. Not good.
So, what Toyota did? They removed the turbo cheat, won the title again (proving they are still the best team/car around), and said bye bye forever :up:
In other words, thanks to FIA we lost one of the most exciting car in WRC.

[jso1985]

so you're suggesting they shouln't have been punished for the good of sport? :s

[Bazza2541]

so you're suggesting they shouln't have been punished for the good of sport? :s


Apparently the FIA don't like smarty-pants!!!

[jparker]

so you're suggesting they shouln't have been punished for the good of sport? :s

Correct, it wasn't TTE's fault after all. Their restrictor size was in accordance to the rule. The rule itself was governing only the size of the restrictor, nothing else. FIA were confident that that's all they need and that there was no work around it, but they were wrong. TTE saw that gap in the ruling and got advantage out of it. That's it.

[Daniel]

Something against the spirit of the rules is not illegal. Simply put, in its ruling FIA assumed that controlling the size of the restrictor is all they need to enforce. Well, they were proven wrong.
So, instead of admitting that, they punished TTE. Not good.
So, what Toyota did? They removed the turbo cheat, won the title again (proving they are still the best team/car around), and said bye bye forever :up:
In other words, thanks to FIA we lost one of the most exciting car in WRC.
You are merely repeating what I said. I said it wasn't illegal therefore they (Ford) weren't punished. What Toyota did was illegal

[bowler]

Something against the spirit of the rules is not illegal. Simply put, in its ruling FIA assumed that controlling the size of the restrictor is all they need to enforce. Well, they were proven wrong.
So, instead of admitting that, they punished TTE. Not good.
So, what Toyota did? They removed the turbo cheat, won the title again (proving they are still the best team/car around), and said bye bye forever :up:
In other words, thanks to FIA we lost one of the most exciting car in WRC.

What TTE did was against the rules, full stop. They were excluded because what they did was illegal. Brilliant, but illegal.

Thanks to the FIA Toyota moved from one FIA championship to another FIA championship. Your logic doesn't follow. Toyota moved because they wanted to be somewhere else, not because they were caught cheating years earlier.

[A.F.F.]

I don't get it :confused:

How we lost Toyota since they came back with Corolla WRC?

[Camelopard]

I always thought it was at the superspecial in Australia when Auriol pulled away from someone else at the stage start. Probably a combination though

Yes that was what I was told from someone at the Australian Team. The cheat was discovered by studying the turbo under a microscope and a 'hair' could be seen where it shouldn't have been.....

[Mirek]

jparker: According to the rulles all air going to the turbocharger must go through the restrictor. And the air comming outside the restrictor is therefore illegal. That's all and easy to understand, isn't it?

[Daniel]

Yes that was what I was told from someone at the Australian Team. The cheat was discovered by studying the turbo under a microscope and a 'hair' could be seen where it shouldn't have been.....
I wouldn't thought simply spraying a dye or something around the restrictor while ensuring that none of the dye got in through the restrictor would have shown it up.

[Daniel]

]jparker: According to the rulles all air going to the turbocharger must go through the restrictor. And the air comming outside the restrictor is therefore illegal. That's all and easy to understand, isn't it?
:up: That's exactly why Ford got away with their "catch tank" idea. Because technically it wasn't illegal because all the air passed through the restrictor. But of course it wasn't in the spirit of the rules so the FIA banned it. I think that's an even better idea than Toyota's because they stayed within the rules.

[BDunnell]

In other words, thanks to FIA we lost one of the most exciting car in WRC.

What were the Celicas that took part in 1996, then?

I'm afraid I think your logic is seriously flawed.

[Daniel]

Sadly it's just entertainment to some people. If someone cheats people just want them slapped on the wrist and allowed to stay so the show can go on :mark:

[dime3]

Apparently the FIA don't like smarty-pants!!!
:p

[jonkka]

What were the Celicas that took part in 1996, then?

Privateer entries, either truly privately owned/run cars or importer teams. That's why Toyota had only so many rallies with Kankkunen in 1996, not all countries had willing importer (or importer at all). Note that Toyota cars were not banned, just Toyota as official manufacturer entry.

[amberie]

How much did the drivers know about the cheat? Did that factor into the exclusion of Auriol and Kankkunen from the drivers' points?

[BDunnell]

Privateer entries, either truly privately owned/run cars or importer teams. That's why Toyota had only so many rallies with Kankkunen in 1996, not all countries had willing importer (or importer at all). Note that Toyota cars were not banned, just Toyota as official manufacturer entry.

Yes, I knew that — I was asking because of the point I quoted, which seemed to state that the exclusion meant the end of the Celica in the WRC.

[LeonBrooke]

It was such an ingenious self-hiding device, I would've been tempted to award them the world manufacturer's title simply for having big brains :D

Of course it couldn't be allowed, and the FIA did the right thing in the circumstances.

[janvanvurpa]

Something against the spirit of the rules is not illegal. Simply put, in its ruling FIA assumed that controlling the size of the restrictor is all they need to enforce. Well, they were proven wrong.
So, instead of admitting that, they punished TTE. Not good.
So, what Toyota did? They removed the turbo cheat, won the title again (proving they are still the best team/car around), and said bye bye forever :up:
In other words, thanks to FIA we lost one of the most exciting car in WRC.

It was a blatant cheat, did you ever see the diagram? "All air......muist enter thru..."
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e118/z510/Misc/tte-restrict.jpg

[jparker]

OK, fine. I guess I miss Toyota very much.

[janvanvurpa]

OK, fine. I guess I miss Toyota very much.

Know what ya mean, and to think, they left off Rally to go do pansy weenie, lame F1.
At least under GpA rules it showed they could build a car that worked as good as anybody -----but ever do a clutch replacement on a Celica ST165 or ST185?
Official book time is 22.8 hours, I've had two different friends who took well more than that--first time.

Oh for the days when MFGs had to make 5000 of the cars they rallied.

[FrankenSchwinn]

http://homepage.virgin.net/shalco.com/tte_ban.htm

Something I've been trying to find for ages :D

funny cause i knew about that when i first really got into rallying, 1998, maybe some people should stop bitching about the sport and learn about it instead (not personally directed at you daniel).


by the way, anyone else see toyota's ban of 95 as the reason colin only won one championship?

[Daniel]

Oh I knew about it but had never seen a diagram of how it worked :)

I do agree that there is a lot of enjoyment to be gained by understanding the sport better and learning a bit of history. Kind of like going to Rome and not looking at the Colliseum and being a bit too interested in what's going on now rather than how it came to be.

P.S there's a thread in the transport section you might want to look at about Woodeye's 403 ;)

[Josti]

by the way, anyone else see toyota's ban of 95 as the reason colin only won one championship?

No, McRae proved to be the fastest. At most times, he was faster than teammate Sainz and only in Spain, after team orders, he came in 2nd, while it was pretty clear he would have won it. Then of course, he took it all deserved at the RAC.

As for Toyota, only Kankkunen could have managed a shot on the title (due to his consistency). Though I doubt he would have succeed. Auriol was mostly of the pace, and pretty much the same story goes for Schwarz.

[jparker]

No, McRae proved to be the fastest. At most times, he was faster than teammate Sainz and only in Spain, after team orders, he came in 2nd, while it was pretty clear he would have won it. Then of course, he took it all deserved at the RAC.

As for Toyota, only Kankkunen could have managed a shot on the title (due to his consistency). Though I doubt he would have succeed. Auriol was mostly of the pace, and pretty much the same story goes for Schwarz.

I disagree, but there is no point arguing.

[Daniel]

Thing is Toyota was cheating so you can't compare anyone with them.

[Josti]

I disagree, but there is no point arguing.

Indeed, let's not get into a big discussion on this. And as Daniel said, it's hard to compare when Toyota never made it to the climax. I do want to pinpoint that it was pretty much a Subaru year (even when Toyota was still participating). Kankkunen never really seemed to be able to push the whole rally. At least, not till the end. Auriol's win in Corsica was only because of Ford's caught on bad luck.

I'm not sure what your exact disagreement is, but Sainz and McRae where pretty equal contenders, but in the end, McRae was just the better of the two. But again, everyone has their opinion, let's keep it that way ;)

[alleskids]

Australia was the last complete rally before Catalunya.
Kankkunen had 62 points, McRae 55, Auriol 51, Sainz 50.
Kankkunen got offroad on day 2. Auriol had sterring problems and was 4th ?
So it would have been:
Sainz 70
McRae 70
Kannkunen 62
Auriol 61
So Kannkunen was 8 points behind with a furies McRae heading for his home win. Had TTE and Kannkunen still competed, McRae would still have been World Champion 1995. So he deserved his title.

[BDunnell]

I do agree that there is a lot of enjoyment to be gained by understanding the sport better and learning a bit of history. Kind of like going to Rome and not looking at the Colliseum and being a bit too interested in what's going on now rather than how it came to be.

I agree. If more people know more about the sport's history, it also means that there is less reason for embarrassing situations to arise like being forced to say, 'What? You've never heard of the Manta 400?'

[Daniel]

and have people asking if it's some kind of Impreza

[calibr]

http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v79/229/44/563676776/n563676776_56560_3336.jpg

Here is one st205. Originaly Petter Solberg`s ex car. Now, Group N4 driver Bernt Kollevold in Norway.

Must say it is a beutyfullcar :)

CalibR

[FrankenSchwinn]

I agree. If more people know more about the sport's history, it also means that there is less reason for embarrassing situations to arise like being forced to say, 'What? You've never heard of the Manta 400?'

exactly why i don't post much anymore!

[Daniel]

exactly why i don't post much anymore!
That's why I don't post here often either. Some people's idea of history is when Sebastien got his first title :mark:

[AndyRAC]

That's why I don't post here often either. Some people's idea of history is when Sebastien got his first title :mark:

Totally agree, look at the WRC programs; Greatest, Drivers, Crashes,etc, when they show highlights from previous years all they show is 2000 onwards. It's as if they want to disassociate themselves from the glory days of the WRC. When it was a proper championship.

[Daniel]

Totally agree, look at the WRC programs; Greatest, Drivers, Crashes,etc, when they show highlights from previous years all they show is 2000 onwards. It's as if they want to disassociate themselves from the glory days of the WRC. When it was a proper championship.
Agreed. That's why I get frustrated when you have to discuss an issue of great importance to the WRC with someone whose idea of ancient WRC history is when Petter Solberg used to win rallies :mark:

[A.F.F.]

C'mon guys, aren't you a bit harsh??

There are members here on the forum who would put you ( and me ) in shame with their experience of life and knowledge with rallying ;)

When we get new fans to our belowed sport, isn't it better they ask the questions, even stupid ones than just live in disbelief and look even bigger morons.

btw.. there were WRC before Petter started winning ?? :eek: Mein gott!

[Daniel]

C'mon guys, aren't you a bit harsh??

There are members here on the forum who would put you ( and me ) in shame with their experience of life and knowledge with rallying ;)

When we get new fans to our belowed sport, isn't it better they ask the questions, even stupid ones than just live in disbelief and look even bigger morons.

btw.. there were WRC before Petter started winning ?? :eek: Mein gott!
Definitely AFF :)

It's not that people come out and ask questions :) Just like when I ask you what a Finnish word means in English. It's like when I talk about all of my experience of driving on ice and snow and how I must be just as good as those Finns who have been driving on icy roads since before they could crawl :)

[A.F.F.]

It's like when I talk about all of my experience of driving on ice and snow and how I must be just as good as those Finns who have been driving on icy roads since before they could crawl :)

Or mastering education with 6 months experience of school assistent ;)

Don't get me wrong Daniel, we can all look in the mirrow.

I think Qui-Gon Jin said it best when he said: " There is always a bigger fish." Let's just all try to fit in the same pond :)

[Daniel]

Or mastering education with 6 months experience of school assistent ;)

Don't get me wrong Daniel, we can all look in the mirrow.

I think Qui-Gon Jin said it best when he said: " There is always a bigger fish." Let's just all try to fit in the same pond :)
Yeah but Qui-Gon Jin got his butt kicked by Darth Maul ;)

That and a teacher with a lot of experience agreed with me ;)

[Livewireshock]

C'mon guys, aren't you a bit harsh??

There are members here on the forum who would put you ( and me ) in shame with their experience of life and knowledge with rallying ;)

When we get new fans to our belowed sport, isn't it better they ask the questions, even stupid ones than just live in disbelief and look even bigger morons.

btw.. there were WRC before Petter started winning ?? :eek: Mein gott!

Very well said. We must be open to all & tolerant of all signs into our forum. We all have different levels of knowledge but we all share a single passion for this great sport.

Rather than knocking those less or more knowledgealbe, let us help each other out & help everyone to increase their knowledge base. We all started from scratch somewhere & no one can improves themselves without others who are willing to help them.

[Daniel]

Very well said. We must be open to all & tolerant of all signs into our forum. We all have different levels of knowledge but we all share a single passion for this great sport.

Rather than knocking those less or more knowledgealbe, let us help each other out & help everyone to increase their knowledge base. We all started from scratch somewhere & no one can improves themselves without others who are willing to help them.
I couldn't agree more. But I also think that if someone has just come into knowing about the sport and starts talking big and arguing with people yet doesn't have the historical understanding of the sport then it's best for that person to get a gentle tap on the head and be brought back to earth. Simply saying "You don't know jack" is not the right way to deal with people like that and education is the only way to help them. I'm probably guilty of it a fair amount of the time I'll admit :mark:

[FrankenSchwinn]

that's what search engines are for......

[jparker]

I couldn't agree more. But I also think that if someone has just come into knowing about the sport and starts talking big and arguing with people yet doesn't have the historical understanding of the sport then it's best for that person to get a gentle tap on the head and be brought back to earth. Simply saying "You don't know jack" is not the right way to deal with people like that and education is the only way to help them. I'm probably guilty of it a fair amount of the time I'll admit :mark:

Are you talking about me pal? Are you the person to decide and judge what the level of "historical undestanding" of the sport others have? In fact, what makes you feel you have this historical understanding?

The fact that I admited I may be wrong, doesn't mean you are right? I know the Toyota cheat story very well. The fact is that Toyota were in very embarasing situation and didn't want to speak loud about it, covered a lot of the real facts of this story. That's why you don't know the whole story either. So, I may be wrong, but I don't aggree that you are 100% right. What's important to know at this point is the fact that Toyota DID NOT change the size of the restrictor. That's it, I'm not going to say more.

[Daniel]

No not you at all. Apologies if you think this :) The thread got off topic ;)

[bowler]

Toyota please

[Daniel]

sorry bowler :) didn't mean to take the thread off topic