Jump to content


Photo

Senna mystery


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
238 replies to this topic

#201 pbukovca

pbukovca
  • Member

  • 36 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 07 March 2014 - 16:53

Where did you see this on camera footage from Schumacher's camera ?

 

Even for lap 6 when Senna makes it through Tamburello at the restart ?

 

 



Advertisement

#202 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 5,565 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 07 March 2014 - 18:16

Where did you see this on camera footage from Schumacher's camera ?

 

Even for lap 6 when Senna makes it through Tamburello at the restart ?

 

I am not sure which laps, but several after the restart and most definitely the lap in which you see Senna go off the track. To be clear: I don't have any access to earlier unseen footage. A friend was so friendly to share a dropbox with me when whe discussed this thread.



#203 pbukovca

pbukovca
  • Member

  • 36 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 08 March 2014 - 02:20

Here is everything I know:

 

From Maurice Hamilton's Williams book from 2009

 

etting the Scene – Williams in 1994/5 incorporating “The Cars”

With a change in colour scheme, The fortunes of Williams changed for 1994 and the death of Ayrton Senna had far-reaching effects both for the sport, but also on how Williams engineered it's racing cars. The single biggest factor in the change was the banning of driver aids for 1994, this forced Williams (who had been using active suspension longest and had most to lose) to passively suspend their cars. It was quickly found that Williams aero concepts, that had been developed through FW14 and FW15, had become too peaky to run on a passivley suspended car. FW16 still bore a family resemblance to FW14 and I think Williams underestimated the effect that the loss of their stable underbody aero platform would have on the car overall. The car was reportedly very difficult to drive in the early races of 1994. Senna could drag a time of it using his talent and dogged determination, but Hill would struggle more with it:



Adrian Newey: “Having active suspension banned was a big setback to our 1994 programme. I have to admit that in designing the 1994 car I underestimated how important it was going to be to get a very broad ride-height map again. I think, having been away from passive cars for longer than anyone else, I disadvantaged us slightly. So when the FW16 first came out it was too ride-height sensitive, which made it very tricky to drive, even for someone of Ayrton's huge talent. It was very difficult to handle over a race distance”

Over the course of the year, FW16 was massaged and developed by Hill, Coulthard and Mansell (all respected testers), and probably towards the end of 1994 had become the fastest car of the year after all. However this was the first year since 1990 that Williams did not have the overall best car. Benetton's plucky Cosworth V8-powered B194 held that honour (even without trick ECUs). Only the brilliance of Senna could put the car on pole in the early races, yet even he was unable to manage the car's ill handling to the extent that he could outpace Schumacher over a full race distance. It was a difficult period of adjustment.

 

 

Adrian went on to say the side pods were too long and causing all kinds of handling problems because they were stall or causing the floor stall.  He said you could run the car low

(especially the front which one always wants to do) or avoid it by running the car high, but you  would lose downforce.   Senna's car needed all the downforce he could get

to hang in there with Schumacher even though at low ride heights it was unstable.  Shortly after the Monaco Grand Prix an interview was conducted with Rory Byrne and the journalist

brought up the point that the Benetton never bottomed out.  He went on to say he designed the car to "have downforce" at all ride heights or something like this.  I did not understand

then like I do now that he made the car that was not peaky.   Pat Symonds last year in an article said the aero map for B194 was "perfectly shaped" and the car was also perfectly balanced.

Also I think the downforce though might have been less than what the FW16 had (but not by much in my opinion but what do I know ;)  it had the high nose.  It's front wing

was more three dimensional than that of the FW16 and was a full span wing.  The Benetton had a better front wing system and although the high nose caused some lift

it ultimately also mean more rear downforce from the diffuser.  Compared to the Williams how much I don't know.  But for sure the high nose would send more air

to the diffuser and cleaner air with means less turbulence and a high pressure recovery efficiency from the diffuser.   As the Williams had an inferior front wing system

they were limited as to how much rear wing they could put on and keep the car balanced.   I know Gary Anderson switched in 1993 from his twin arched diffuser

which was less pitch sensitive to the Williams style five arch/tunnel style which gave more peak downforce but was more pitch sensitive and stalled at a higher ride height.

He tweaked it for the 1994 Jordan so that it would stall at a lower ride height.  I have no idea about the Williams diffuser other than an old Autosport article

that said the diffuser was longer, wider and more curved ( therefore certainly higher) than the 1993 FW15C.

 

Presumably the larger area ratio means more downforce but perhaps stalling also at a higher ride height, but I have no clue.   The sidepods for the 1994 Williams  where

slightly shorter, but only just.  Gary Anderson went on to tell Ian Bamsey over the course of 1993 and 1994 the front of the floor is the most critical because it is the closest

to the ground ( cars are run with rake).  In fact the 1993 Jordan was designed have active ride height control at the front (because that is where it was most important).

The longer the pod, the closer to the ground the leading edge gets.  Joseph Katz told me in an email that this problem of getting too close to the ground is more pronounced

especially at the front than at the back for obvious reasons.  Damon Hill in an 1993 interview with Ian Bamsey said the front of the floor is the most critical

to control even on the 1993 Williams.  Consider there is an optimum ride height for a flat bottomed car to run at.  Damon went on to say

with active fuel loads have no effect.  As fuel was burned off over the race the Williams car stayed low the whole race while in 1992 the passive cars were

getting higher out of this range.  So over the course of the entire race distance the Williams has more downforce.  Also during difference

cornering phases the attitude of the car is held constant.  But the most important advantage of active is you can run a very PEAKY aero map

and that means MUCH MORE downforce.   Sergio Rinland said in the wind tunnel he could get his 1992 car to get very high aerodynamic efficiency

in one position but they lost it as soon as the model was moved.  They did not have active.  Consider the proverbial problem in engineering of trade offs.

 

Make something lighter, but then you compromise stiffness and structural integrity.  With aero the same thing.   For each position there is optimum

aerodynamic set up dictated by and geometric parameter on the car's outer surfaces.  The angle, size, length or position of a vane or strake can affect

the levels of downforce you get at a certain ride height.  But with passive suspension the car will move around and the designer needs to adjust the cars

aero surfaces so that they don't give maximum downforce in any one configuration, but less over a range of car positions.

 

You have a "broader" aero map with less downforce.  Two magazines in 1994 said the Williams team said the new shorter side pods on the FW16B

made it easier for them to control the ride height.   They were using stiff springs and that killed their mechanical grip compared to the Benetton

in slow corners which already had more downforce in the slow corners due to the broader aero map.  

 

If you put on the captions in the 1994 part of Kapadia's Senna movie you will see the now famous conversation between Senna and Newey and David Brown on the Friday.

Senna says the car is worse and changing balance all the time.   Newey asks him "Do you want to raise the front?"  And David Brown said you would have to "brake more"

(into the corners).  Senna says "No."

 

He wants the car as fast as possible even though it made the floor stall worse.

 

That is everything I know.  I just don't know why the car did not fly off the track in Brazil in Aida if it was stalling so bad all the time.  :)

 

 



#204 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 5,565 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 08 March 2014 - 09:59

Here is everything I know:

 

From Maurice Hamilton's Williams book from 2009

 

etting the Scene – Williams in 1994/5 incorporating “The Cars”

With a change in colour scheme, The fortunes of Williams changed for 1994 and the death of Ayrton Senna had far-reaching effects both for the sport, but also on how Williams engineered it's racing cars. The single biggest factor in the change was the banning of driver aids for 1994, this forced Williams (who had been using active suspension longest and had most to lose) to passively suspend their cars. It was quickly found that Williams aero concepts, that had been developed through FW14 and FW15, had become too peaky to run on a passivley suspended car. FW16 still bore a family resemblance to FW14 and I think Williams underestimated the effect that the loss of their stable underbody aero platform would have on the car overall. The car was reportedly very difficult to drive in the early races of 1994. Senna could drag a time of it using his talent and dogged determination, but Hill would struggle more with it:



Adrian Newey: “Having active suspension banned was a big setback to our 1994 programme. I have to admit that in designing the 1994 car I underestimated how important it was going to be to get a very broad ride-height map again. I think, having been away from passive cars for longer than anyone else, I disadvantaged us slightly. So when the FW16 first came out it was too ride-height sensitive, which made it very tricky to drive, even for someone of Ayrton's huge talent. It was very difficult to handle over a race distance”

Over the course of the year, FW16 was massaged and developed by Hill, Coulthard and Mansell (all respected testers), and probably towards the end of 1994 had become the fastest car of the year after all. However this was the first year since 1990 that Williams did not have the overall best car. Benetton's plucky Cosworth V8-powered B194 held that honour (even without trick ECUs). Only the brilliance of Senna could put the car on pole in the early races, yet even he was unable to manage the car's ill handling to the extent that he could outpace Schumacher over a full race distance. It was a difficult period of adjustment.

 

 

Adrian went on to say the side pods were too long and causing all kinds of handling problems because they were stall or causing the floor stall.  He said you could run the car low

(especially the front which one always wants to do) or avoid it by running the car high, but you  would lose downforce.   Senna's car needed all the downforce he could get

to hang in there with Schumacher even though at low ride heights it was unstable.  Shortly after the Monaco Grand Prix an interview was conducted with Rory Byrne and the journalist

brought up the point that the Benetton never bottomed out.  He went on to say he designed the car to "have downforce" at all ride heights or something like this.  I did not understand

then like I do now that he made the car that was not peaky.   Pat Symonds last year in an article said the aero map for B194 was "perfectly shaped" and the car was also perfectly balanced.

Also I think the downforce though might have been less than what the FW16 had (but not by much in my opinion but what do I know ;)  it had the high nose.  It's front wing

was more three dimensional than that of the FW16 and was a full span wing.  The Benetton had a better front wing system and although the high nose caused some lift

it ultimately also mean more rear downforce from the diffuser.  Compared to the Williams how much I don't know.  But for sure the high nose would send more air

to the diffuser and cleaner air with means less turbulence and a high pressure recovery efficiency from the diffuser.   As the Williams had an inferior front wing system

they were limited as to how much rear wing they could put on and keep the car balanced.   I know Gary Anderson switched in 1993 from his twin arched diffuser

which was less pitch sensitive to the Williams style five arch/tunnel style which gave more peak downforce but was more pitch sensitive and stalled at a higher ride height.

He tweaked it for the 1994 Jordan so that it would stall at a lower ride height.  I have no idea about the Williams diffuser other than an old Autosport article

that said the diffuser was longer, wider and more curved ( therefore certainly higher) than the 1993 FW15C.

 

Presumably the larger area ratio means more downforce but perhaps stalling also at a higher ride height, but I have no clue.   The sidepods for the 1994 Williams  where

slightly shorter, but only just.  Gary Anderson went on to tell Ian Bamsey over the course of 1993 and 1994 the front of the floor is the most critical because it is the closest

to the ground ( cars are run with rake).  In fact the 1993 Jordan was designed have active ride height control at the front (because that is where it was most important).

The longer the pod, the closer to the ground the leading edge gets.  Joseph Katz told me in an email that this problem of getting too close to the ground is more pronounced

especially at the front than at the back for obvious reasons.  Damon Hill in an 1993 interview with Ian Bamsey said the front of the floor is the most critical

to control even on the 1993 Williams.  Consider there is an optimum ride height for a flat bottomed car to run at.  Damon went on to say

with active fuel loads have no effect.  As fuel was burned off over the race the Williams car stayed low the whole race while in 1992 the passive cars were

getting higher out of this range.  So over the course of the entire race distance the Williams has more downforce.  Also during difference

cornering phases the attitude of the car is held constant.  But the most important advantage of active is you can run a very PEAKY aero map

and that means MUCH MORE downforce.   Sergio Rinland said in the wind tunnel he could get his 1992 car to get very high aerodynamic efficiency

in one position but they lost it as soon as the model was moved.  They did not have active.  Consider the proverbial problem in engineering of trade offs.

 

Make something lighter, but then you compromise stiffness and structural integrity.  With aero the same thing.   For each position there is optimum

aerodynamic set up dictated by and geometric parameter on the car's outer surfaces.  The angle, size, length or position of a vane or strake can affect

the levels of downforce you get at a certain ride height.  But with passive suspension the car will move around and the designer needs to adjust the cars

aero surfaces so that they don't give maximum downforce in any one configuration, but less over a range of car positions.

 

You have a "broader" aero map with less downforce.  Two magazines in 1994 said the Williams team said the new shorter side pods on the FW16B

made it easier for them to control the ride height.   They were using stiff springs and that killed their mechanical grip compared to the Benetton

in slow corners which already had more downforce in the slow corners due to the broader aero map.  

 

If you put on the captions in the 1994 part of Kapadia's Senna movie you will see the now famous conversation between Senna and Newey and David Brown on the Friday.

Senna says the car is worse and changing balance all the time.   Newey asks him "Do you want to raise the front?"  And David Brown said you would have to "brake more"

(into the corners).  Senna says "No."

 

He wants the car as fast as possible even though it made the floor stall worse.

 

That is everything I know.  I just don't know why the car did not fly off the track in Brazil in Aida if it was stalling so bad all the time.  :)

 

Excellent post!

 

But the car did fly off in Brazil and Aida, did not? Aerton spun in Brazil, and Damon and Aerton both spun in Aida... at the same place, if I recall correctly.

 

One element you can add to your briljant story is that Schumacher - driving the Benetton that had a better aeromap in the first place - was someone who could drive 'hysterical car', if I am correct: he liked cars very pointy, and he was someone who did a lot of corrections mid-corner.

Another factor perhaps...



#205 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 62,687 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 08 March 2014 - 12:24

I think that's a misunderstanding. The issue with the Williams wasn't balance but inconsistency of balance. 



#206 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,538 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 08 March 2014 - 13:39

Not teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, but just to clarify, the differences between active and passive (or more correctly reactive suspension)

 

Reactive, is, as it is describes, it reacts to forces upon it. A wheel hits a bump, and the spring tries to push it back down again, but like all springs, they can bounce, so you have to have a shock absorber (or damper) to "damp" the bounce effect. The art with this in racing is to have the springs soft enough to handle an uneven surface, but stiff enough to hold the car at the perfect height for the aero package and mechanical grip to be optimised, while also having enough damper control to stop the bounce effect, but without overwhelming the spring rate. (we wont go into bump stops etc)

 

Active is a whole different ball game. Adrian described it as; " like the muscle in your leg as you climb a flight of moving stairs while carrying a tray of glasses filled with water, the muscles sense the changes in height, and loads acting upon them and the actively adjust to keep the persons body stable" 

 

I once watched Damon's FW15 leave the garage while I was in the pit lane. David Brown had his foot on the nose while he waited for a gap to let Damon out into the pit lane, when he took his foot off and stepped back, the nose went down, not up, so the car had been pushing up against his foot, it had actively been trying to get the nose up to it's height setting. I later mentioned it and was then shown the car replay an entire lap of the track, as it sat, engine off, in the garage. The car rolled, dived, raised and lowered it's nose and rear end as it was on a flat set up pad, on the track, it would have been holding the car level. It was quite surreal. As I said before, this sort of control allowed Williams to control the car over and above just as suspension, the stall button raising the rear to stall the downforce, reducing the drag and getting more speed on the straights.The big problem was, did the stall button constitute a driver moveable aerodynamic device, which would have been against the rules.

 

So, when Williams returned to re-active suspension, springs and dampers, Adrian looked into retaining this straight line advantage by having a stall system that would raise the rear of the car on the straights. I have yet to find out how it was done, but the fact the idea was to stall the aero' and required fore aft pitching to be "inbuilt" may be a factor in this element of the cars handling problems.


Edited by f1steveuk, 08 March 2014 - 19:02.


#207 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 5,565 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 08 March 2014 - 14:01

Not teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, but just to clarify, the differences between active and passive (or more correctly reactive suspension)

 

Reactive, is, as it is describes, it reacts to forces upon it. A wheel hits a bump, and the spring tries to push it back down again, but like all springs, they can bounce, so you have to have a shock absorber (or damper) to "damp" the bounce effect. The art with this in racing is to have the springs soft enough to handle an uneven surface, but stiff enough to hold the car at the perfect height for the aero package and mechanical grip to be optimised, while also having enough damper control to stop the bounce effect, but without overwhelming the spring rate. (we wont go into bump stops etc)

 

Active is a whole different ball game. Adrian described it as; " like the muscle in your leg as you climb a flight of moving stairs while carrying a tray of glasses filled with water, the muscles sense the changes in height, and loads acting upon them and the actively adjust to keep the persons body stable" 

 

I once watched Damon's FW16 leave the garage while I was in the pit lane. David Brown had his foot on the nose while he waited for a gap to let Damon out into the pit lane, when he took his foot off and stepped back, the nose went down, not up, so the car had been pushing up against his foot, it had actively been trying to get the nose up to it's height setting. I later mentioned it and was then shown the car replay an entire lap of the track, as it sat, engine off, in the garage. The car rolled, dived, raised and lowered it's nose and rear end as it was on a flat set up pad, on the track, it would have been holding the car level. It was quite surreal. As I said before, this sort of control allowed Williams to control the car over and above just as suspension, the stall button raising the rear to stall the downforce, reducing the drag and getting more speed on the straights.The big problem was, did the stall button constitute a driver moveable aerodynamic device, which would have been against the rules.

 

So, when Williams returned to re-active suspension, springs and dampers, Adrian looked into retaining this straight line advantage by having a stall system that would raise the rear of the car on the straights. I have yet to find out how it was done, but the fact the idea was to stall the aero' and required fore aft pitching to be "inbuilt" may be a factor in this element of the cars handling problems.

 

And there the idea of 'snap' return of downforce returns in my head. He, I was just getting cosy with the 'steering failure'-hypotheses!



#208 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 62,687 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 08 March 2014 - 14:16

There's going to be some delay with the downforce reappearing. Not big, but it would be there. 

 

You can also get snap mechanical grip if the car bottoms. 



#209 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,538 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 08 March 2014 - 15:15

Back to holes in cheese!!!



#210 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 5,565 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 08 March 2014 - 16:26

Oh, but whatever the cause was, the holes in the cheese did align in Senna's accident. Like in any accident, there was no 'single' cause, but just a set of the 'right' circumstances.


Edited by Nemo1965, 08 March 2014 - 16:26.


#211 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,538 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 08 March 2014 - 16:37

Oh, but whatever the cause was, the holes in the cheese did align in Senna's accident. Like in any accident, there was no 'single' cause, but just a set of the 'right' circumstances.

Bottom line of any accident, several things that you don't want to happen, that do, just when you don't want them to!


Edited by f1steveuk, 08 March 2014 - 17:40.


#212 Spinnekop

Spinnekop
  • Member

  • 48 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 08 March 2014 - 17:22

Hi Nemo,

F1steveuk

 

Interesting what you say about people working in F1 now who don't seem to know how ground effect works. Not that I pretend that I know how, but recently I saw on tv an expert explain how ground effect worked and I thought: 'Eh?'

 

You say that the effect of the diffuser is 'transmitted' to the front, under the seat of the driver approximately. I always thought (and please, don't start insulting me if I am wrong, you know who's!) that the venturi-effect was caused by the differences of two channels of air (or fluid). With an airplane-wing, the top of the wing is curved, the underside is flat...The air over the top of the wing is slowed down, the air under the wing keeps the same speed. The air flowing over the wing gets released once it has cleared the curved resistance. And speeds up to reach the same speed as its counterbrother. The difference between the two airspeeds gives lift. If you turn the process around, you get 'downforce'.

 

In other words: the effect gets its effect not where the (reversed) curve is, but where the flat (opposite) of that curve is.

 

Christ on a side-car... 

 

Sorry don't mean to be pedantic but the physics that are involved with how air craft wings create lift and ground effects suck cars down is not quite correct.

 

Both effects operate on the principle that when a gas or fluid's speed is increased it's pressure reduces. The curve on the top of an air craft wing increases the distance the air passing over the wing needs to cover in relation to the air flowing under it so it ha to speed up to maintain with the forward movement of the the plane through the air. The increase in air velocity over the top of the wing creates a low pressure on the top of the wing relative to the slower moving air pasing under the wing. This results in an upward force being applied to the wing(the wing is being sucked upwards)

 

Ground effects use the same principle by increasing the velocity of the air passing under the vehicle creating a low pressure which sucks the car to the ground. Pretty much the greatest downward pulling force (sucking effect) will be exerted in the area of the chassis where the greatest increase in the speed of the airflow occurs. That area could well possibly be under the drivers seat especially if that position is close to the vehicles CoG to help maintain the balance of the vehicle, ie: to prevent the vehicle being pulled down more at the front or at the rear :up:


Edited by Spinnekop, 08 March 2014 - 17:23.


#213 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,538 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 08 March 2014 - 17:52

I'll be pedantic back  ;)

 

Ground effect, as in the Lotus 78/79 Williams FW07 era, wasn't using the sidepods of the car as upside down wings as such, though that was Peter Wright's idea originally, as with the little side extensions on the March 701. Without the endplates, or the skirts, these would have produced some downforce, but the endplates and skirts sealed the airflow underneath from the outside airflow, so they the area under the car became a venturi, which squashed the air at the front, and then as the sloped surface opened up, accelerated it out, same result though, it created a massive area of low pressure, hence the cars flying off if suddenly the skirts jammed in the up position. The area of the highest low pressure could be moved backwards and forwards by changing the profile and length, something Ligier were accused of being able to do when moving on the JS11/12 I think.

 

What we are discussing is the downforce generated by a diffuser, which doesn't require endplates and skirts, and can create an area of low pressure well forward of where it is fitted. Jeez I am going to have to start reading books again, my memory can't cope!!



#214 DogEarred

DogEarred
  • Member

  • 10,180 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 08 March 2014 - 18:33

I'll ratchet up the pedantry!

 

(and stand to be corrected as usual)

 

Strictly speaking, for cars, the term should be 'reverse ground effect'.

 

The term was first coined for the fact that aircraft wings experience slightly increased underside pressure when close to the ground. This increases lift.

To increase downforce, the wing section is of course inverted.

 

There is a fascinating section of aviation that has exploited this phenomenon (in addition to glider pilots) to produce some incredible low flying vehicles - notably from Russia. But that's another topic.



#215 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 5,565 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 08 March 2014 - 18:38

Thanks DogEarred and Steve and Spinnekop, I am willing to learn!



#216 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,538 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 08 March 2014 - 18:45

The more I have to remember, the more I think I need to learn it again!



#217 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,253 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 08 March 2014 - 19:00

 

Spinnekop, you need to learn how to use the quote buttons. That was confusing.

 

 

I once watched Damon's FW16 leave the garage while I was in the pit lane. David Brown had his foot on the nose while he waited for a gap to let Damon out into the pit lane, when he took his foot off and stepped back, the nose went down, not up, so the car had been pushing up against his foot, it had actively been trying to get the nose up to it's height setting. I later mentioned it and was then shown the car replay an entire lap of the track, as it sat, engine off, in the garage. The car rolled, dived, raised and lowered it's nose and rear end as it was on a flat set up pad, on the track, it would have been holding the car level. It was quite surreal. As I said before, this sort of control allowed Williams to control the car over and above just as suspension, the stall button raising the rear to stall the downforce, reducing the drag and getting more speed on the straights.The big problem was, did the stall button constitute a driver moveable aerodynamic device, which would have been against the rules.

 

So, when Williams returned to re-active suspension, springs and dampers, Adrian looked into retaining this straight line advantage by having a stall system that would raise the rear of the car on the straights. I have yet to find out how it was done, but the fact the idea was to stall the aero' and required fore aft pitching to be "inbuilt" may be a factor in this element of the cars handling problems.

 

You must mean Damon's FW15C there.

 

I think I have an idea of how this would be done. If you have a steeper diffuser, the stalling height is higher than normal. See the link to Katz above. Perhaps what Adrian was trying to do was have a diffuser that would stall when the downforce reached a certain value, at a certain speed, pushing the suspension into the stall region. It would have to be tuned to happen above the speeds for the fastest corner of the track. If Senna was trying to get the car as low as possible at Imola, that could well have left Tamburello on a knife edge, where hitting a bump incorrectly would have resulted in that major loss of downforce at the worst moment.

 

I'll ratchet up the pedantry!

 

(and stand to be corrected as usual)

 

Strictly speaking, for cars, the term should be 'reverse ground effect'.

 

The term was first coined for the fact that aircraft wings experience slightly increased underside pressure when close to the ground. This increases lift.

To increase downforce, the wing section is of course inverted.

 

There is a fascinating section of aviation that has exploited this phenomenon (in addition to glider pilots) to produce some incredible low flying vehicles - notably from Russia. But that's another topic.

 

Actually, ground effect is simply the term for the amplication of aerodynamic effects when in close proximity to a surface. What you're referring to would be ground effect lift devices. Ekranoplans are cool though!



#218 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,538 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 08 March 2014 - 19:04

Yes, your right I have FW16's on the brain, edited, ta!



#219 Spinnekop

Spinnekop
  • Member

  • 48 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 08 March 2014 - 19:12

Sorry will work on the qouting :blush:  Dogearred fully with you on the "wing in ground" effect aircraft the Russians developed very fascinating and clever concept to increase earodynamic efficiency. Off to google you've given me something to keep me busy for a few hours researching, Cheers  ;)



Advertisement

#220 swintex

swintex
  • Member

  • 536 posts
  • Joined: February 04

Posted 08 March 2014 - 21:25

A bit OT

I later mentioned it and was then shown the car replay an entire lap of the track, as it sat, engine off, in the garage. The car rolled, dived, raised and lowered it's nose and rear end as it was on a flat set up pad, on the track, it would have been holding the car level. It was quite surreal. 

I have a recollection of a piece on something like "Tomorrows World" (late 80s ?) demonstrating the future of active suspension for road cars.

 

I recall a series of runs from a fixed low level camera showing a car (a Volvo?) approaching the camera through a slalom course of cones.

 

The first run was with the active turned off, and of course the car is seen to roll towards the outside of each turn. That looked quite normal.

 

The second run was with the active set to cancel the roll, and that looked really rather odd, seeing a big saloon cornering absolutely flat.

 

For the third run, the suspension was set to counter the roll, and that, like the Williams in the garage, looked really quite surreal, leaning into the corners like a bike.



#221 Glengavel

Glengavel
  • Member

  • 981 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 08 March 2014 - 22:35

A bit OT

I have a recollection of a piece on something like "Tomorrows World" (late 80s ?) demonstrating the future of active suspension for road cars.

 

I recall a series of runs from a fixed low level camera showing a car (a Volvo?) approaching the camera through a slalom course of cones.

 

The first run was with the active turned off, and of course the car is seen to roll towards the outside of each turn. That looked quite normal.

 

The second run was with the active set to cancel the roll, and that looked really rather odd, seeing a big saloon cornering absolutely flat.

 

For the third run, the suspension was set to counter the roll, and that, like the Williams in the garage, looked really quite surreal, leaning into the corners like a bike.

 

I remember a similar article article about a Citroen Xantia - is that what you're thinking of?



#222 swintex

swintex
  • Member

  • 536 posts
  • Joined: February 04

Posted 09 March 2014 - 11:12

I remember a similar article article about a Citroen Xantia - is that what you're thinking of?

It could easily have been.

 

Richard



#223 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,538 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 09 March 2014 - 11:51

Lotus did a road version of the Espirit with active didn't they, and I think TW featured that as well.



#224 swintex

swintex
  • Member

  • 536 posts
  • Joined: February 04

Posted 09 March 2014 - 21:39

I remember a piece about the Esprit, but that wasn't what I was thinking of.

 

My recollection of the slalom feature is definitely of a (big) saloon, which is probably why it looked so weird.

 

I can imagine not being surprised seeing something like an Esprit leaning into a corner.



#225 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 9,083 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 09 March 2014 - 23:15

If they had had their eye on the ball they would have featured an 'A Class' Mercedes - or was that later?

 

I'm coming round to the 'Unanticipated aerodynamic instability' hypothesis as more credible than a steering column failure which appears due to impact.

 

Given the way that Italian Law works, I can fully understand the Williams team's coyness and that of the F1 establishment (whatever name[s] it went under in 1994).



#226 ovfi

ovfi
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 10 March 2014 - 01:21



If they had had their eye on the ball they would have featured an 'A Class' Mercedes - or was that later?

 

I'm coming round to the 'Unanticipated aerodynamic instability' hypothesis as more credible than a steering column failure which appears due to impact.

 

Given the way that Italian Law works, I can fully understand the Williams team's coyness and that of the F1 establishment (whatever name[s] it went under in 1994).

I think something , that is well documented in the Italian process, hasn't been mentioned: the picture of the steering column fracture's is there, and it shows a fragile fracture, meaning a fracture that began by fatigue sometime before the accident (as much time as shown by the polished section, which is near 30% of the total section, from memory). It is unlikely that it failed after the collision, much more probable that it failed before the collision. I suggest that someone in this forum get these photos (I saw it many years ago in the TV) and ask an engineering expert for an independent opinion. I'm a retired engineer, and I think the Italians did a correct conclusion on the accident.


Edited by ovfi, 10 March 2014 - 01:39.


#227 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 5,565 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 10 March 2014 - 08:36



If they had had their eye on the ball they would have featured an 'A Class' Mercedes - or was that later?

 

I'm coming round to the 'Unanticipated aerodynamic instability' hypothesis as more credible than a steering column failure which appears due to impact.

 

Given the way that Italian Law works, I can fully understand the Williams team's coyness and that of the F1 establishment (whatever name[s] it went under in 1994).

 

Before I read the book with which this thread started, I was with you. But I've changed my mind, for me now the steering failure is the most probable, the 'UAI' still very possible.

 

Regarding your view on Italian law; I am not quite sure if that is a. in general correct, b. correct regarding the investigation into Senna's death. I find that if in Italy something judicial happens, especially regarding motorsport, in the British press at least there is an enormous hostility and mockery. This obscures sometimes that the investigations themselves are not as shoddy as the (British) press makes it seem. For example, I remember bitter scorn in the UK when Italian courts cleared Patrese of all charges regarding to Ronnie Petterson's death... But I think, in hindsight that all evidence taken in account, the Italian court was right, wasn't she?

 

Now take the Senna-accident. You can't say that the Italian justice department made half work of it. As far as I know, the Italian researchbureau they used to analyse the video's has a good reputation. They interviewed several ex-F1 drivers (Alboreto), ex-F1 engineers (Mauro Foghieri), asked for their opinion... And all in all I can say, also having read Tamburello, that the conclusion 'steering failure' has a lot going for it. We can still argue about it, ofcourse, but I don't think it is fair, as happens a lot, to say: 'Well, that was the conclusion of the ITALIAN justice-department, so their conclusion is suspect.'

 

PS: If I used a bit of strawman regarding your opinion, I apologise. Perhaps I read sentiments in your short post that were not there in the first place.

 

EDIT: For forgotten words and such...


Edited by Nemo1965, 10 March 2014 - 08:49.


#228 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 49,242 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 10 March 2014 - 09:03

 

Now take the Senna-accident. You can't say that the Italian justice department made half work of it. As far as I know, the Italian researchbureau they used to analyse the video's has a good reputation. They interviewed several ex-F1 drivers (Alboreto), ex-F1 engineers (Mauro Foghieri), asked for their opinion... And all in all I can say, also having read Tamburello, that the conclusion 'steering failure' has a lot going for it. We can still argue about it, ofcourse, but I don't think it is fair, as happens a lot, to say: 'Well, that was the conclusion of the ITALIAN justice-department, so their conclusion is suspect.'

 

The Italian legal system found Patrick Head guilty of manslaughter in 2007.  13 years after the crash.  But could not render a punishment as the statute of limitations in Italy meant it had to be given 7 years after the crash.  We're not dealing with brains here.

 

The reputation of the Italian legal system is sub-toilet in most English lawyers' minds.  To give you an example of how rancid it is, in 2012 a corporate magazine nominated Giambrone Law as Italian Law Firm of the Year.  In 2013 the English Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Signor Giambrone off the Register of European Lawyers.



#229 Regazzoni

Regazzoni
  • Member

  • 2,178 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 March 2014 - 09:07

The Italian legal system found Patrick Head guilty of manslaughter in 2007.  13 years after the crash.  But could not render a punishment as the statute of limitations in Italy meant it had to be given 7 years after the crash.  We're not dealing with brains here.

 

The reputation of the Italian legal system is sub-toilet in most English lawyers' minds.  To give you an example of how rancid it is, in 2012 a corporate magazine nominated Giambrone Law as Italian Law Firm of the Year.  In 2013 the English Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Signor Giambrone off the Register of European Lawyers.

 

They should hire a bigot like you.

 

Audit trail.



#230 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 5,565 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 10 March 2014 - 09:24

The Italian legal system found Patrick Head guilty of manslaughter in 2007.  13 years after the crash.  But could not render a punishment as the statute of limitations in Italy meant it had to be given 7 years after the crash.  We're not dealing with brains here.

 

The reputation of the Italian legal system is sub-toilet in most English lawyers' minds.  To give you an example of how rancid it is, in 2012 a corporate magazine nominated Giambrone Law as Italian Law Firm of the Year.  In 2013 the English Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Signor Giambrone off the Register of European Lawyers.

 

Okay, lets say you are right, for sake of argument. Even if we think the Italian legal brains are subpar, was the investigation into the cause of Senna's accident subpar? Can we disregard the findings of the investigation by the Italian justice-department because we think the verdict of manslaught is incorrect and unjust (which I think it is, by the way).

 

The Italian investigation brought forth strong arguments in 'favour' of steering failure. And even 'inferior legal brains' can sometimes get things right.



#231 blackmme

blackmme
  • Member

  • 743 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 10 March 2014 - 09:35

. Even if we think the Italian legal brains are subpar, was the investigation into the cause of Senna's accident subpar?"  "And even 'inferior legal brains' can sometimes get things right."

 

I don't think Ensign was in any way suggesting that Italian legal brains are sub par.  Rather that the mechanics and culture of the Italian legal system is by the (not too lofty) standards of much of the rest of Europe slow and inefficient.

 

Regards Mike



#232 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 9,083 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 10 March 2014 - 09:42

Let's get this right.  I am not criticising the thoroughness of the Italian investigation.  Nor am I criticising Italian lawyers in any way. 

 

I am simply reminding people of the fact that the way the"Due process of law" proceeds in Italy is very different from the way it works under English Law and in the USA which is based on English Law. 



#233 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 5,565 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 10 March 2014 - 09:44

Let's get this right.  I am not criticising the thoroughness of the Italian investigation.  Nor am I criticising Italian lawyers in any way. 

 

I am simply reminding people of the fact that the way the"Due process of law" proceeds in Italy is very different from the way it works under English Law and in the USA which is based on English Law. 

 

I was not trying to strawman you, honest!



#234 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 49,242 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 10 March 2014 - 10:27

They should hire a bigot like you.

 

Audit trail.

 

Ever had dealings with the Italian legal system?  Four years to go from the start of a claim to the trial.  In that time you can go from a standing start in the UK to the Supreme Court.  The European Court of Human Rights, bless their little hearts, has repeatedly castigated Italy for its legal processes being a breach of human rights because of their pace - and nothing is being done.  Right now there are at least ten thousand cases against Italy before the ECtHR because of the delays in justice.

 

As an aside, I noted at the weekend that yet another case is being brought against Italy because of non-Italian professors being paid 50% of the amount their Italian colleagues receive.  Despite a number of rulings, Italy still refuses to comply.

 

Why do you think litigators commonly refer to the Italian Torpedo?  That's the practice of launching a hopeless claim in Italy, because the Italian court will take a decade to sort it out.  Which means that you cannot be sued in a more competent jurisdiction.  Even Italian lawyers use the term.

 

Okay, lets say you are right, for sake of argument. Even if we think the Italian legal brains are subpar, was the investigation into the cause of Senna's accident subpar? Can we disregard the findings of the investigation by the Italian justice-department because we think the verdict of manslaught is incorrect and unjust (which I think it is, by the way).

 

The Italian investigation brought forth strong arguments in 'favour' of steering failure. And even 'inferior legal brains' can sometimes get things right.

 

How could it be a fair trial?  The only time evidence was heard by a judge was in 1997 and he dismissed all charges.  Ten years later, after something like three prosecution appeals and one prosecution request to withdraw, the Italian system decided Head was guilty.  Of course, by then he could not appeal because the evidence was long gone and he would not have thought to cross-appeal a decade earlier.



#235 Regazzoni

Regazzoni
  • Member

  • 2,178 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 March 2014 - 11:03

Ever had dealings with the Italian legal system?  Four years to go from the start of a claim to the trial.  In that time you can go from a standing start in the UK to the Supreme Court.  The European Court of Human Rights, bless their little hearts, has repeatedly castigated Italy for its legal processes being a breach of human rights because of their pace - and nothing is being done.  Right now there are at least ten thousand cases against Italy before the ECtHR because of the delays in justice.

 

As an aside, I noted at the weekend that yet another case is being brought against Italy because of non-Italian professors being paid 50% of the amount their Italian colleagues receive.  Despite a number of rulings, Italy still refuses to comply.

 

Why do you think litigators commonly refer to the Italian Torpedo?  That's the practice of launching a hopeless claim in Italy, because the Italian court will take a decade to sort it out.  Which means that you cannot be sued in a more competent jurisdiction.  Even Italian lawyers use the term.

 

 

How could it be a fair trial?  The only time evidence was heard by a judge was in 1997 and he dismissed all charges.  Ten years later, after something like three prosecution appeals and one prosecution request to withdraw, the Italian system decided Head was guilty.  Of course, by then he could not appeal because the evidence was long gone and he would not have thought to cross-appeal a decade earlier.

Bullshit. All your posts are only snobbish bullshit. No wonder you keep your identity well covered, to be free to post all your meaningless posh, bigoted nonsense and insults. They must handpick people like you at Oxford. When the Italians will need your insults as informed opinion about their judicial system, they will call you.

 

The thread is about the technical cause of Senna's accident, not to apportion guilt or discuss judicial systems. So far it has been only half-baked pseudo-engineering - not even dignified half-baked engineering - and the usual British contempt towards Italian matters. Same old same old.

 

Anybody can put forward any criticism, observation or else of the book's arguments that opened the thread?



#236 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 5,565 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 10 March 2014 - 11:18

 

How could it be a fair trial?  The only time evidence was heard by a judge was in 1997 and he dismissed all charges.  Ten years later, after something like three prosecution appeals and one prosecution request to withdraw, the Italian system decided Head was guilty.  Of course, by then he could not appeal because the evidence was long gone and he would not have thought to cross-appeal a decade earlier.

 

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. As you say: the image of Italian law in the UK is subtoilet. Rightfully or wrongfully. I was not talking about the verdict, I was not defending the verdict (see my post). I was talking to the investigation that led to the verdict. I know that DRS disabled did not mean it like that, and you probably don't mean it, but if any poster sweeps away the steering failure hypotheses with references to the failing Italian justice system, I think that poster, willing or not, says: 'The opinion of X is not valid because person X is person X.'

 

Lets us put it in perspective. Adrian Newey himself has admitted (it's in this thread somewhere) that the steering column design and/or engineering was 'poor'. I will quote him directly: There's no doubt that the steering column failed and the big question was whether it failed in the accident or did it cause the accident? It had fatigue cracks in it and it would have failed at some point. There is no question that its design was very poor. However, all the evidence suggests the car did not go off the track as a result of steering column failure."

 

Well, I disagree about the last line by now, and we should discuss the last line. Or should we say that the steering failure is taboo because it just happen to be the conclusion of the Italian lawsystem? I don't want that. There are some very smart people here who's brain I want to pick.



#237 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,538 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 10 March 2014 - 11:22

Waaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic!!! I'm sitting out again!!



#238 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 49,242 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 10 March 2014 - 11:26

The thing with the investigation is that it was effectively contracted out by the prosecutor.  Did the defence get a go at their own report?  And then you've got the fairly crucial legal point about motor racing being dangerous, about it being right on the edge, about cars being at the very limit of their capabilities.  It's well established that in sport things are allowed that would not be allowed on the street because of the very nature of sport.  And that's just scratching the surface of the legal issues involved.  We haven't even gone into whether Benetton having illegal software was a causative factor.

 

Bullshit. All your posts are only snobbish bullshit. No wonder you keep your identity well covered, to be free to post all your meaningless posh, bigoted nonsense and insults. They must handpick people like you at Oxford. When the Italians will need your insults as informed opinion about their judicial system, they will call you.

 

Feel free to point out anything I said which was wrong. 

 

And I have never ever been called "posh" before.  Working class, state educated, earned a univ scholarship, had one prospective employer tell me they'd decline because they weren't sure clients would understand my accent...



#239 Twin Window

Twin Window
  • Nostalgia Host

  • 6,611 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 10 March 2014 - 11:52

OK, that's enough for now.

Thread closed.