35 replies to this topic

[30ft penguin]

Interesting interview in the online edition of German magazine Auto Motor und Sport:

 

http://www.auto-moto...et-8313172.html

 

He says on that year's car, the sidepods were too long so that the diffusor did not work correctly. They tried to modify the car, but did not manage it in time for the Imola race. In the interview, he also talks about what he thinks could have happened to cause the accident according to the data they got from the car.

 

[derstatic]

That's a very interesting read. Thanks for sharing!

Newey should be the one who knows best how that car worked and he obviously has access to the data from the car.

I think he somewhat  easily dismisses the steering column as cause for the accident, but being the designer that's probably a  defence mechanism but the stall theory is interesting and it seems to make sense watching the video from MS' car.

[D-Type]

Does any one know the cut-off date under italian law for the Statute of Limitation or equivalent?  ie how many years after the accident could Newey and other members of the Williams team still be charged with something?  Or conversely, when can they reveal all they know without putting themselves at risk of prsecution?

[derstatic]

If I understand the Italian statute of Limitations (as read on wikipedia I might add) the felony in this case would be manslaughter and the maximum prison time for this is 5 years. Statute of Limitations in Italy are according to the same source the same time as the maximum prison time for that felony but no less than six years. So If i understand it correctly the crime (if this was a crime) would not be possible to prosecute after May 1 2000, six years after Senna's death. But I think it would be good if someone with a deeper knowledge of law, and Italian law in particular has a final say in this.

[DRSdisabled]

That's a very interesting read. Thanks for sharing!

Newey should be the one who knows best how that car worked and he obviously has access to the data from the car.

I think he somewhat  easily dismisses the steering column as cause for the accident, but being the designer that's probably a  defence mechanism but the stall theory is interesting and it seems to make sense watching the video from MS' car.

 

That twitch left and right can be explained in several ways. Also, in the article, he doesn't tackle any of the new analysis published recently....

[superstring]

That twitch left and right can be explained in several ways. Also, in the article, he doesn't tackle any of the new analysis published recently....

Excuse my ignorance, but where can I find this new analysis?  Thanks.

[tifosiMac]

Does any one know the cut-off date under italian law for the Statute of Limitation or equivalent?  ie how many years after the accident could Newey and other members of the Williams team still be charged with something?  Or conversely, when can they reveal all they know without putting themselves at risk of prsecution?

I thought Newey, had all been acquitted in 2005 and Head had his conviction 'timed out'. I don't think Newey would be talking on record now if he thought it could incriminate him and assume the deadline for prosecution has passed now. I don't know for sure though. 

[BRG]

I thought Newey, had all been acquitted in 2005 and Head had his conviction 'timed out'. I don't think Newey would be talking on record now if he thought it could incriminate him and assume the deadline for prosecution has passed now. I don't know for sure though. 

I doubt if even Italian law would support a prosecution for less than optimal aerodynamics.  Or the entire Ferrari team would be convicted every year.

[Lee Nicolle]

I doubt if even Italian law would support a prosecution for less than optimal aerodynamics.  Or the entire Ferrari team would be convicted every year.

[D-Type]

I doubt if even Italian law would support a prosecution for less than optimal aerodynamics.  Or the entire Ferrari team would be convicted every year.

Fair point.  But, prior to the Statute of Limitations expiring, if Newey had stated this publicly it could well have been interpreted as an attempt to produce a smokescreen to "distract attention from other Williams actions"

A "reverse conspiracy" theory if you like.

Edited by D-Type, 01 May 2014 - 21:00.

[holiday]

Ultimately, what Newey now says is irrelevant. Because D. Hill drove the same "flawed" car, but suffered no major crash with it. Newey offers no explanation for this.

[Ross Stonefeld]

He wasn't going as fast?

[PCC]

Ultimately, what Newey now says is irrelevant. Because D. Hill drove the same "flawed" car, but suffered no major crash with it. Newey offers no explanation for this.

But any accident is the result of a huge number of converging variables, the exact sequence of which is rarely repeatable. There have been occasional exceptions in extraordinary circumstances (for example Montjuic 1969) but generally, accidents don't repeat themselves just because the car is the same.

[Michael Ferner]

He wasn't going as fast?

 

So, we're back to driver error?

[Ross Stonefeld]

A car not on the limit won't have the same kind of results. Whether mechanical failure, design imbalances, driver error, etc. 

[Radoye]

Ultimately, what Newey now says is irrelevant. Because D. Hill drove the same "flawed" car, but suffered no major crash with it. Newey offers no explanation for this.

 

 

He wasn't going as fast?

 

 

But any accident is the result of a huge number of converging variables, the exact sequence of which is rarely repeatable. There have been occasional exceptions in extraordinary circumstances (for example Montjuic 1969) but generally, accidents don't repeat themselves just because the car is the same.

 

 

So, we're back to driver error?

 

 

A car not on the limit won't have the same kind of results. Whether mechanical failure, design imbalances, driver error, etc. 

 

Wasn't it being said that Senna insisted his car to be set up as low as possible, much lower than Hill's, which made it faster but also exaggerated the aero problems inherent in the car?

[hogstar]

The accident was driver error in relation to the car and its set up. Over simplistic perhaps, but often the basic reasons can be over analysed. His death was extremely bad luck of course, though I always thought Senna was going to meet his maker sooner or later because of how hard he drove his cars and his somewhat immortal stance. Hill was an underrated driver, but Senna was always going to be quicker and could push a car to its limits and beyond. If that race had of been held a few months later, I don't believe that accident would of happened as the FW16 by that stage would of been much more manageable and therefore Senna could of pushed it harder and most importantly, safer. 

 

I think I'm correct in that Sid Watkins saw the way Senna's car was handling at Imola and said he expected a big accident. I can't remember the exact quote, but it was words to that effect.  I suppose the fact that the car was flawed (aerodynamically at least) must of hit Williams hard and especially Newey. They knew the car should of been better and it wasn't.

Edited by hogstar, 02 May 2014 - 19:40.

[holiday]

But any accident is the result of a huge number of converging variables, the exact sequence of which is rarely repeatable. There have been occasional exceptions in extraordinary circumstances (for example Montjuic 1969) but generally, accidents don't repeat themselves just because the car is the same.

 

The prime variable in identical cars is by far and away the man behind the steering wheel. So why did Hill not suffer from these car deficiencies? Claiming that there were a "huge number of converging variables" at play is tantamount to saying that the role of these deficiencies in the accident must have been homeopathic small, so small that they cannot be determined. Frankly, this sounds a bit like mechanical obscurantism to me.

[holiday]

The accident was driver error in relation to the car and its set up.

 

That makes much more sense to me. A driver overdoing his difficult car.

Edited by holiday, 03 May 2014 - 12:45.

[funformula]

Why do we all discuss the reason for the Senna accident?

Because it happened at a place where usually a driver error can be eliminated as a possible reason. So there must have been something wrong with the car (steering, flat tire, aerodynamic...)

There was legal action to find out the reason and (maybe?) to find someone guilty with lead to nothing.

 

Why don´t we discuss the reason for the Ratzenberger accident?

Because it happened at a place where usually a driver error can be eliminated as a possible reason. There was definitly something wrong with the car. (The front wing collapsed)

Was there any legal action???

 

According to Adrian Newey a Simtek team member came to him in Friday evening asking for advice how to improve the Simtek front wing because it had broken in Friday practice. Neweys answer was that the improvement should be the task for the Simtek designer. The answer from the Simtek team member was that he would love to ask him but he is out for dinner.

 

Don´t get me wrong here, I don´t want to blame anyone here. For sure everyone did the best he could do in designing, constructing, building, assembling and driving these racecars.

Due to the nature of this game there will always be a risk of getting something wrong with unforseenable outcome.

To handle these outcomes in the way it´s been handeled in italian legacy isn´t the right way in my opinion.

What I´m puzzeled about is, why they spend so much time and effort in finding the reason for the Senna accident? Was it to find a responsible person which they can condemn?

If so, then there it must have been a lot easier to find this person in the Ratzenberger case. But was there any legal action?

[Ross Stonefeld]

I thought Ratzenberger went off and slightly damaged the car, but continued on another lap and that's when the wing failed?

[D-Type]

My understanding is that the way Italian Law works is that they need to find a cause for a death.  If it isn't medical , in the case of a sudden death they need to find another cause, something that someone (the deceased or someone else) does - .  Their legal system does not accept force majeure or if it does, it is a last resort.

 

According to Motorsport Memorial

 

It is believed that the front wing failure was caused by an off-track excursion at the Tosa bend on the previous lap. After passing over the kerbs Ratzenberger restarted at slow speed and swerved from side to side to check anything was broken, and then he carried on, going for a qualifying time.

If the Italian courts can accept this, they have got their reason - 'He damaged the wing in an off-course excursion and this led to his accident'.  Hence no need to take any further action.

 

In the case of Senna's accident they don't have a clear cut reason.

 

Edit:  I hadn't seen Ross's post when I wrote this.

Edited by D-Type, 29 May 2014 - 23:17.

[DRSdisabled]

The accident was driver error in relation to the car and its set up. Over simplistic perhaps, but often the basic reasons can be over analysed. His death was extremely bad luck of course, though I always thought Senna was going to meet his maker sooner or later because of how hard he drove his cars and his somewhat immortal stance. Hill was an underrated driver, but Senna was always going to be quicker and could push a car to its limits and beyond. If that race had of been held a few months later, I don't believe that accident would of happened as the FW16 by that stage would of been much more manageable and therefore Senna could of pushed it harder and most importantly, safer.

I think I'm correct in that Sid Watkins saw the way Senna's car was handling at Imola and said he expected a big accident. I can't remember the exact quote, but it was words to that effect. I suppose the fact that the car was flawed (aerodynamically at least) must of hit Williams hard and especially Newey. They knew the car should of been better and it wasn't.

Sid Watkins, Life at the Limit, Macmillan 1996, page 9: "the pace car came off. During the next lap the formula one cars were released to race. Senna was at the front, closely followed by Schumacher. These two went off like lightning on their next lap. My premonition crystallized. I turned to Casoni. 'There's going to be a ****ing awful accident any minute.' The rest of the cars disappeared from view at the end of the pit straight into Tamburello. The next moment the red flags were out again." - nothing to do with Senna car's handling at Imola.

I think we should look at the facts rather than opinions....

[DRSdisabled]

He wasn't going as fast?

Not a constructive comment perhaps but was Damon ever going as fast?

[DRSdisabled]

Autosport, May 1, 2014 issue, page 21, Martin Brundle quote: "Things like the shunt at the start, then the hassle in the pitlane, leaving four mechanics needing medical treatment. And one thing that surprised me, watching the film, was how good Ayrton’s car seemed to be. There was one lap of in-car footage before the accident that I hadn’t seen before. That surprised me."

[rallen]

He wasn't going as fast?

Didn't Hill get the fastest lap of the race?

[BRG]

Didn't Hill get the fastest lap of the race?

You should realise that Hill was the Alex Yoong of his generation.  All his poles, fastest laps, race wins and WDC were optical illusions or mistakes by the timekeepers.  Any reputation he has is entirely due to the evil British media lying to us about him.

 

Or an alternative view is that he was beating Senna in 1984.

[MCS]

Oh God, not more of this.

 

Hardly surprising that so many TNFers have left - a couple of whom I met for a beer with this lunchtime. Neither of them bother themselves with contributing anymore.

 

Perhaps we could just get all of this Piquet, Senna, Schumacher stuff put somewhere else?

 

(Edit to correct spelling)

Edited by MCS, 29 May 2014 - 15:50.

[sterling49]

Brilliant Mark.....nail on head rings a bell, I had a sneaky feeling you would post this, and seconded here from the Garden of England. 

 

Don't folks ever get fed up with this same old, same old?

[pRy]

Post deleted. Sorry for bothering you.

[MCS]

Post deleted. Sorry for bothering you.

There's no need to apologise pRy!

 

I just wish we had better lines of demarcation - but maybe that's too severe a comment and perhaps I think TNF is something it actually isn't anymore.  I will probably get a warning now!!

 

Another Edit (because I can't spell).

Edited by MCS, 29 May 2014 - 17:13.

[scheivlak]

 

Perhaps we could just get all of this Piquet, Senna, Schumacher stuff put somewhere else?

 

Absolutely not - people have to learn that it's just nostalgia they're chasing!

[Glengavel]

There's no need to apologise pRy!

 

I just wish we had better lines of demarcation - but maybe that's too severe a comment and perhaps I think TNF is something it actually isn't anymore.  I will probably get a warning now!!

 

Another Edit (because I can't spell).

 

Ah, that's nostalgia for you - not what it used to be...

[hogstar]

Ultimately, what Newey now says is irrelevant. Because D. Hill drove the same "flawed" car, but suffered no major crash with it. Newey offers no explanation for this.

 

Hill was smart because he took the smoother, but slower line. It was the common sense line when you've got an ill handling car which the FW16 was. 

 

Senna needed a percentage drive to get points on the board, but Senna didn't do percentages. 

 

Ayrton when all said and done drive too fast for the conditions and had a lot of bad luck. 

[PayasYouRace]

Adrian writes quite openly about the aerodynamic “flaws” of the car in How To Build a Car. After having two cars, the FW14 and FW15, with active suspension keep the ride height and pitch perfectly optimised, the FW16 married those same aerodynamic concepts with passive suspension. As an result, they produced a car that was overly sensitive to changes in ride height and pitch, especially when tracks were bumpy.

 

It also doesn’t sound like anything new that Ayrton had his car set up lower than Damon. He could cope with a twitchier car, and Damon needed a smoother, more predictable car. It’s hardly outrageous that this one time, with tyres not fully up to temperature, it bit him on a bump. Unfortunately he was extremely unlucky with his impact into an unprotected concrete wall. Side note: Where the Imola circuit designers also charged and taken to court for their part in Ayrton’s death?

[sabrejet]

I see Glenn Miller's gone missing.