35 replies to this topic

[Todd]

I borrowed this from another site, as I thought people might enjoy it here too.

Originally posted by patu:
The late Ayrton Senna tested a 1992 Penske/Chevy at Firebird Raceway at the invitation of his friend, Emmo. I recently came across a site that had pictures of this test.
Here is Senna talking to Paul Tracy (very young):

Here is Senna at the Penske:


And here is an article that appeared in Road & Track in the march issue of 1993

Senna samples the Penske-Chevy
The prospect of Ayrton Senna following Nigel Mansell to the PPG Indy Car World Series in 1993 gained additional credence when the Brazilian tested a Marlboro Penske-Chevy briefly at Firebird raceway, near Phoenix, Arizona. Senna, at the behest of close friend Emerson Fittipaldi, drove about 25 laps during a mid-December test. By about 7 laps, he was up to competitive Indy-car times. Afterward I spoke to the three-time Formula 1 World Champion:

What were your initial impressions after driving the Indy Car?
“It was a new experience for me. It was something special; it’s really good when you get to try something completely new. I really enjoyed it. I had fun, which is the most important thing for a driver.
“I have to thank Roger Penske and the team for giving me this great opportunity. It was very exciting. It’s a funny feeling for me –after so many years of driving in Formula 1- to have those feelings like you are very young, much younger than you are, which is great, you know?”
How did the car compare to your regular F1 McLaren-Honda?
“It’s more ‘driveable’. In a way it’s more for the driver, which is great. It’s how I think it should be because the public does not know whether you are going five seconds quicker or slower in lap times. The important thing is that the competition can be decided by the drivers, not the cars. I think that’s where Formula 1 has been wrong, especially last season.”
“Everything was very new to me. I had to get used to driving with a gear lever again, to a clutch pedal, to the turbo engine, and to the brakes, which are completely different from those in F1, not being carbon brakes.”
“The Penske reminded me of the old days in Formula 1 where human side was the most important thing. Today Formula 1 is so sophisticated that the computers do most of the driving for you. If you have a clever computer, you are in good shape; if you have a monkey one, you’re in trouble, you know?”
“What I experienced with the Indy car was that human input has a tremendous value –and I really got excited about it.”

Do you think the Indy Car series is correct in placing a severe restriction on technology?
“The restrictions only give a more even performance between the cars, so that is good, yes. This way the driver’s ability plays more in the final results.
“In Formula 1 during 1992,Williams was in a different world than everybody else. No matter what you did –working with the team or as a personal challenge driving over the limits in certain situations – you were between one and two seconds off. That’s crazy. Stupid.”

How did you feel about the safety aspects of the Indy car?
“Well, the car is strong. It looks strong. Of course, I think when you go the speeds that you go on the ovals, it’s tough: If you get a mechanical failure or if you make a mistake, the wall is there waiting for you. So you’d better make sure first of all you stay away from it!”
“But I think, in all honesty, one of the limiting aspects of Indy today is the safety aspect of the ovals –that in my opinion has to be improved, to preserve the men who give the show to everybody; and I believe there are always ways of improving the safety if the people corcerned are willing. That means the teams, the drivers adn the organizers need to pull together in the same direction. I think that happens in IndyCar racing.”

How much have you thought about switching to the IndyCar series?

“If I think back one year ago, I didn’t have much interest about Indy. As the year went by, given the difficulties of Formula 1 –in the political aspect of it and the sporting aspect of it- I lost a lot of my enthusiasm for F1. Emerson got me involved in this test – so it’s his fault!- and now that I have had a try, I’m getting back some of the feelings that I consider important form the mental side for me to be driving.”

I think that Senna had a lot of leverage with the FIA at the time, although they wouldn't have admitted it. Prost was non-committal towards F1, and Mansell had defected. The threat of losing Senna probably led to the rule changes that undermined his trip to Williams and precipitated his death.

[Peeko]

I agree. Senna was pulling the same stunt Enzo Ferrari pulled years back when he built a Ferrari CART car. I don't really think Senna had any plans to leave, but he was undoubtely F1's main attraction as far as driver's go, and he knew it.

[Megatron]

Senna had made a few comments before about Indy Cars, but he always talked about doing them AFTER F1 was over. He talked about how he liked less pressure but hated the "ful course yellows".

[Jhope]

I agree with Peeko here. I truly believe this was a strategic move on Senna's behalf. Remember that 1993 was comming up, and he had no deal with McLaren yet. This could have scared Ron half to death, and besides Mansell not coming back and Prost just there to fill in space and take a given championship, there was no star power in F1 at the time. I would hardly call Micheal a star at the time. He was more like Jenson is today...except for a couple of race wins.

[John B]

Senna dropped a few rumors to the press during that time, one quote "there is a possibility that I might race in the Indy car series next year." There was also speculation that he would run at Indy while competing in F1.

He also offered late in 1992 to drive at Williams for free, an announcement which obviously surprised FW, and was declined.

I wonder what Michael Andretti thought Senna's status would be as he concluded negotiations with Dennis in the fall of 92. Did he think he would be gone from McLaren, or was he assuming he would take on Senna as a teammate?

His comments about oval safety came after the previous year's Indy, a disaster of a month which saw one fatality and many injuries, one of which occurred to none other than his former F1 rival Piquet (correct me if that's the wrong year)

[magic]

senna-marlboro-brasil-emmo-friends-problem-solution-pr-stunt.

[Maldwyn]

Originally posted by patu:

How did the car compare to your regular F1 McLaren-Honda?
“It’s more ‘driveable’. In a way it’s more for the driver, which is great. It’s how I think it should be because the public does not know whether you are going five seconds quicker or slower in lap times. The important thing is that the competition can be decided by the drivers, not the cars. I think that’s where Formula 1 has been wrong”

When will the FIA listen and learn?

[molive]

magic-weird-speak-nonsense

;)

[Ross Stonefeld]

CART is no better in terms of 'racing' or 'competitiveness'

[Todd]

Originally posted by Maldwyn

Originally posted by patu:

How did the car compare to your regular F1 McLaren-Honda?
“It’s more ‘driveable’. In a way it’s more for the driver, which is great. It’s how I think it should be because the public does not know whether you are going five seconds quicker or slower in lap times. The important thing is that the competition can be decided by the drivers, not the cars. I think that’s where Formula 1 has been wrong”

When will the FIA listen and learn?

Maldwyn,

The FIA was listening, and they tried their best to reverse this trend in 1994, when they banned driver's aides and active ride. The result was Senna's death.

[John]

Ross, I think CART does offer better overtaking opportunities (thus better racing among the teams) and this is only limited by the type of street courses they layout or choose (too narrow, its like they go to Monaco 5 times a season). It doesn't seem to prevent the most outrageous overtaking attempts, which is a driver problem CART has.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I've never felt (especially now having seen the entirety of Imola 94) that Senna's death was in any way related to differing technical regulations

[K�rjist�j�]

People are always saying that overtaking "is the thing". I don't think so. What I believe, is that tight wheel to wheel racing is the most exiting thing. Overtaking isn't any less or more fun than the usual "on the train tracks" situation F1 has. It's all about racing.

[Maldwyn]

Todd, I'd question whether Senna's death was caused by FIA regulation changes but my point was that AS enjoyed the experience of a "driveable" car which allowed the driver more influence over the end result than he was able to have in F1.

[ASaSeN]

Senna got within 0.4 of Emersons best time that day btw.

[JayWay]

although on roadcourses there is a BIT more passing then in F1, I think if you took away all the ovals and bullrings, people would have a vastly different view of CART. And it would not be known as such a competitive series.

Anyways I seem to remember the Penskes cleaning up on road courses. Atleast Ferrari and McLaren had eachother to battle.

[John B]

True, especially factoring in yellows and teams running similar car packages. In 1993 and 1994 Penskes did dominate road courses, so much so that there were traction control protests and inspections. Andretti and Unser Jr had some runaways in the years before (Portland, Mid-Ohio, Long Beach, Road America, etc.) that as well. Some of the temporary road courses have produced the most action (Vancouver, Toronto, Long Beach)

[Bob Nomates]

Todd, why did the rule changes cause Senna's death?

Senna died because a wheel pierced his helmet, which was possibly caused because the steering failed and because there were no tyres lined up against the wall.

[Williams]

Todd:

Things possibly contributing to Senna's death:

Use of "safety" (ironic name) car instead of simply stopping the race. This caused low tire pressures and bottoming of Senna's vehicle.

Close competition from Benneton, forcing Senna to push too hard through Tamburello, taking him onto the bumpier inside line he had told Hill to avoid.

Poor initial design of the Williams car.

Possibility of Benneton illegally using traction control.

Possibility of Williams modifying the steering column at Senna's request, causing a fracture before or during the accident.

I don't really see where the rule changes contributed to Senna's death, unless you are saying the Senna had been spoiled by the use of electronic driver aids and was having a problem coming to grip with the new vehicles, or you are saying the Benneton cheated and Senna had to push too hard in his conventional car in order to beat Schumacher's electronically-aided one. The first theory is somewhat contradicted by Senna's enjoyment of the CART test.

[Mila]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I've never felt (especially now having seen the entirety of Imola 94) that Senna's death was in any way related to differing technical regulations

indeed, a possible factor, but obviously we are now (and always will be, I guess) in a state of conjecture when it comes to Senna's accident.

I think that the rule change--timing-wise--was a bad move. wasn't it the case that the FIA didn't allow the designers enough time to develop non-TC cars for the 94 season?

[Ross Stonefeld]

I dont buy tire pressures at all. Maybe if it had happened their first time through Tamburello after the yellow, as it would have been their first 'hot' turn. Additionally no other drivers had problems.

[Todd]

Williams,

A look at this post shows a number of ways that the rule change contributed:

Originally posted by Williams
Todd:

Things possibly contributing to Senna's death:

Use of "safety" (ironic name) car instead of simply stopping the race. This caused low tire pressures and bottoming of Senna's vehicle. This is valid and not too new rules-related.

Close competition from Benneton, forcing Senna to push too hard through Tamburello, taking him onto the bumpier inside line he had told Hill to avoid. This is valid and not new rules-related.

Poor initial design of the Williams car. Williams changed from the previous design BECAUSE OF THE NEW RULES. Senna put himself in this car because he expected the dominance of the 'automatic' Williams of the previous seasons.


Possibility of Benneton illegally using traction control. I don't belive this excuse for a second, but obviously this wouldn't have been the case without the rule change making Williams' and McLaren's traction controls illegal.

Possibility of Williams modifying the steering column at Senna's request, causing a fracture before or during the accident. Senna wouldn't have been looking for things to change, if he wasn't unhappy with the car. That all goes back to not getting a true successor to Mansell's and Prost's active cars.

I don't really see where the rule changes contributed to Senna's death, unless you are saying the Senna had been spoiled by the use of electronic driver aids and was having a problem coming to grip with the new vehicles This is possible, or you are saying the Benneton cheated and Senna had to push too hard in his conventional car in order to beat Schumacher's electronically-aided one He may have thought so. The first theory is somewhat contradicted by Senna's enjoyment of the CART test. SENNA'S CART TEST WAS PRIOR TO THE '93 SEASON. McLAREN DIDN'T FULLY GET THEIR ELECTRICKERY RUNNING UNTIL '93. THEREFORE, ANY RELIANCE SENNA DEVELOPED ON DRIVING AIDES WOULD HAVE OCCURED AFTER THE TEST.

[Smooth]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I dont buy tire pressures at all. Maybe if it had happened their first time through Tamburello after the yellow, as it would have been their first 'hot' turn. Additionally no other drivers had problems.

Actually, Damon mentioned that Senna had complained about the safety car, for the very reason that it took a couple of laps to get the tire pressures up. Schumacher had also stated that Senna's Williams had been bottoming hard through Tamburello. After Imola, remember, they added the 'Plank' to monitor ride height. Senna seemed to be riding awfully low there, as well as at Brazil, a very bumpy circuit where his care looked out of sorts on a few bumpy sections. I think it was one way Williams was trying to get a it more aero grip on the car without adding so much downforce.

[Piquet_1]

It's not the passing which exactly makes CART more interesting (to me, and it wasn't always this case) is that you never know who's going to win. It's a far more competitive series than F1.

Last year at this time, we all knew either MH or MS would win the WDC - I didn't know de Ferran would win CART's title. And the same can be said for 2001, I know (barring extreme tragedy) one of the two drivers who will win the majority of the races and who will win the WDC, but don't know who will win the majority of CART races or the title, not by a long shot.

To me, CART's seasons are more exciting.

[Williams]

Todd:

Poor initial design of the Williams car. Williams changed from the previous design BECAUSE OF THE NEW RULES. Senna put himself in this car because he expected the dominance of the 'automatic' Williams of the previous seasons.

Williams may have changed from the previous design becuase of the new rules, but so did everybody else. This may be hairsplitting a bit, but, the problems arose not strictly because of the new rules, but because of Williams' relatively poor response to them. The fact that Damon was later able to carry the fight with Benneton to the wire where Senna had had so many problems indicates a substantial car improvement, and indicates that the car could have been better when Senna drove it, in spite of the rule changes. The rules changes were not at fault, Williams engineering was.

Possibility of Williams modifying the steering column at Senna's request, causing a fracture before or during the accident. Senna wouldn't have been looking for things to change, if he wasn't unhappy with the car. That all goes back to not getting a true successor to Mansell's and Prost's active cars.

Senna was unhappy with how cramped the cockpit was and asked for the change. The fact that such a change was possible within the new rules again points to a failure of Williams engineering, not a result of rules.

I understand what you are saying with regard the change of rules triggering changes in car design which may have contributed to Senna's death, but my point is that the rules were not strictly responsible for the problem, but rather the inadequate response of the team. It is just a pity that a number of small happenstances came together in such a way as to to be lethal in the case of Senna, but I think it can only be said that the rule changes had an indirect part in his death.

The other thing is, it probably was not too unreasonable for Senna to think that the Williams dominance would continue. Williams had already won championships in dominant style before electronic aids, and Williams had a superb reputation as an engineering company, as well as exclusive use of the Renault engine. All teams were faced with the new challenge, and if any team was going to produce a great new car under the new rules, it would be Williams.

[magic]

senna was right after all.

dh almost winning the wdc in '94, throwing away the '95 wdc in spite of having the best car, '96 winning the wdc thanx to having the best car, than jv winning the '97 also thanx to the top 2 williams.

if dh and rookie jv could win wdc's in the williams would senna have?

toooooooooo bad as died.
he would have whupped ms in the '95'96and '97 williams.
senna a 6x wdc, 70+vics and 100+ poles.

dxmn.

[John B]

Exactly how far was Benetton behind Williams in the technology race?

Where I'm going with this is, ironically being behind in 1993 could theoretically be an advantage for 1994 in that a team which spent more time working with 'conventional' machinery would have less of an adjustment to the new rules. If Williams spent 2 1/2 years with a highly computerized car and Benetton 1/2 year, Benetton would have had the more recent experience working with an conventional setup, and perhaps be in a better position to produce a car that would be effective out of the box.

Just a thought...

[magic]

good thinking.

[Piquet_1]

Originally posted by John B
Exactly how far was Benetton behind Williams in the technology race?

Where I'm going with this is, ironically being behind in 1993 could theoretically be an advantage for 1994 in that a team which spent more time working with 'conventional' machinery would have less of an adjustment to the new rules. If Williams spent 2 1/2 years with a highly computerized car and Benetton 1/2 year, Benetton would have had the more recent experience working with an conventional setup, and perhaps be in a better position to produce a car that would be effective out of the box.

Just a thought...

Bingo. Benetton's car was a development from the the previous season(s) while Williams had to start from (relatively) scratch.

[MrAerodynamicist]

Didn't the '94 Williams have pitch stablity problems which in 92/93 the active suspension hid as it keep the car level?

[hyper!! james]

Back to the CART test thing, I read that he drove in Andretti's car with his seat, his belts (too loose) and pedals (too far away). The fact that he got within a second of Fittipaldi just underlines the mans talent.

Back to safety, I think CART racing is better simply because of the amount of concrete around the tracks, which promotes a more disciplined approach to racing.

There the guys know to respect the tracks and each others safety, unlike some of the idiots that drive in F1 that drive like maniacs because they know that they are unlikely to be hurt in an accident.

I think Paulo Ghislemberti's death at Monza when they had been told to take it easy is underlying proof of this.

[SlateGray]

Thanks for the post Todd! It is nice to see some reasoned debate insted of the usual MS good / MS bad name calling contests we see in other threads.

[JPMCrew]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
CART is no better in terms of 'racing' or 'competitiveness'

How many teams - drivers - won races in CART last year? I believe 11 drivers won races and about 15 had a real chance to win a race. Compare that to F1.

[Piquet_1]

Originally posted by hyper!! james
Back to the CART test thing, I read that he drove in Andretti's car with his seat, his belts (too loose) and pedals (too far away). The fact that he got within a second of Fittipaldi just underlines the mans talent.

I don't understand - Andretti's car? Mi. Andretti was at Newman-Haas in 92, and has never driven for Penske (and even if he did drive MA's car, I doubt the pedals would be too far away unless they had drastic preference differences. MA isn't any taller than AS was, I think). Also the car AS is driving is Fittipaldi's - he drive #4 that year. But still, perhaps the car wasn't exactly setup for him, don't know.

[hyper!! james]

Sorry, I read the article back in 1994 and just told it from my fuzzy memory!

It was indeed Fittipaldi's car. Fittipaldi was taller and fatter(!) than Senna, and apparently Ayrton was so excited to try the CART machine that he just told them to leave the settings as they were.

Pure genius.

[senninha]

Originally posted by Williams
Todd:

Things possibly contributing to Senna's death:

Use of "safety" (ironic name) car instead of simply stopping the race. This caused low tire pressures and bottoming of Senna's vehicle.

Close competition from Benneton, forcing Senna to push too hard through Tamburello, taking him onto the bumpier inside line he had told Hill to avoid.

Poor initial design of the Williams car.

Possibility of Benneton illegally using traction control.

Possibility of Williams modifying the steering column at Senna's request, causing a fracture before or during the accident.

I'd add one more possibility: the "vodoo" did by some fans...

Think that irritates me when some try to put some guilty on Senna's due the modifying the steering column. Afterall, Senna was Williams's driver not engineer. Patrick Head was Williams's engineer chief.