Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Senna, Schumacher, etc. In today’s paddock. [Split]


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#101 BiggestBuddyLazierFan

BiggestBuddyLazierFan
  • Member

  • 519 posts
  • Joined: April 18

Posted 25 January 2019 - 13:21

Remind me (von Trips is a very wrong answer indeed by the way).

Suzuka interview was 1991.


Last time a driver died when another driver crashed into him was von Trips incident.

Paleti crashed into Pironi, but Pironi lived on

Also Villeneuve crashed into Maas, but Maas lived on

Ok, I May forgot Patrese in Monza 1978 but it was multi car pileup

Advertisement

#102 Collombin

Collombin
  • Member

  • 4,555 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 25 January 2019 - 13:41

But von Trips moved over on Clark, not vice versa.

#103 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 22,060 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 25 January 2019 - 13:46

Exaggerating?

We have seen several freak accidents happening over the years that were believed to be not possible until they did happen and proved that anything was and is possible on a race track.

Piquet and Berger can talk about the Tamburello crash they survived, if not for that freak suspension part, Senna might have been able to join them. But there was that freak suspension part.

Senna already had a reputation of being utterly defensive in blocking ( think Estoril '87 & 89 with Mansell) as well as being overly agressive in attacking in order to improve position (think '90 on Hungaroring at Nannini). I can't recall anything of that by MS between Spa '91 ad Imola '94 yet out of the top of my head but good chance there were such moments of him by then already. In later years he certainly showed he was capable of them.
I am not gonna say that the scenario I wrote down was to happen one way or another. But dismissing it as over the top and exaggerating? With these two selfish and ruthless drivers in equal equipment against another? Anything could happen as far as I can see. And if anything was between them alone that is kind of OK I suppose. But should an innocent third party becoming involved because of being at the wrong place at the wrong time and pay whatever price for it, that would be unacceptable for me.
Again, I don't say it would have happened. But dismissing the chances like you do, I can't and I didn't at the time. I've had seen enough of Senna alone at that time to know that nothing was too low for him to prevent defeat at all costs if he had a hand in it. And in this case, one driver with such an attitude was/is enough for a recipe that could lead to whatever disaster we believe(d) to be impossible.

So all through Sennas career you feared for something terrible to happen to other competitors because of what you perceived as dangerous driving by Senna. Yet as it happened, nothing of the sort happened. Still, 25 years on, you can't stop being concerned about the chances something which evidently did not happen might have happened?

 

Okay....



#104 FordFiesta

FordFiesta
  • Member

  • 224 posts
  • Joined: January 19

Posted 25 January 2019 - 17:12

Senna didnt have mentality of politician

If he dud have, he would have find his way into Williams in 1993 if not 1992


Although, Prost had a contract for 1994, Senna made him disappear. That that was a season with a bad car was, in hindsight, sheer luck for Prost.

But he couldnt because he lacked political skills.

Prost had political mentality

I beleive that Senna couldnt even run his private team. Let alone be president of Brasil. As some suggested


And brain drivers could run teams? Prost? Stewart? Yeah, come again...

Ayrton Senna was only ever good in only one thing. Driving race car. And perhaps he was the best in the world doing that.

Other than driving he didnt stand out at anything.

He couldnt even held a proper press conference without speaking about unfairness like some child. Thats far from being a politician.

And that interview with Jackie Stewart after 1990 Suzuka was completely misplaced.

He would be eaten alive in the world of politics. He just did not have a talent for politics.

And he despised it afterall


Yeah, he probably would have been assassinated.

Everyone who wants to change things positively gets assassinated. Lincoln, Ghandi, King, Kennedy, Kennedy...

#105 FordFiesta

FordFiesta
  • Member

  • 224 posts
  • Joined: January 19

Posted 25 January 2019 - 17:19

Piquet and Berger can talk about the Tamburello crash they survived, if not for that freak suspension part, Senna might have been able to join them. But there was that freak suspension part.


Speaking of that: Isn't it weird that both times Mansell was either teammate of those Tamburello victims (Piquet 1987, Berger 1989) or the successor of one...

It's kinda creepy...

#106 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,831 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 25 January 2019 - 19:03

Speaking of that: Isn't it weird that both times Mansell was either teammate of those Tamburello victims (Piquet 1987, Berger 1989) or the successor of one...

It's kinda creepy...

 

Now that is indeed creepy....



#107 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 6,250 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 25 January 2019 - 19:52

Speaking of that: Isn't it weird that both times Mansell was either teammate of those Tamburello victims (Piquet 1987, Berger 1989) or the successor of one...

It's kinda creepy...

 

 

And then there is this one:

 

 

 


Edited by garoidb, 25 January 2019 - 19:57.


#108 FordFiesta

FordFiesta
  • Member

  • 224 posts
  • Joined: January 19

Posted 25 January 2019 - 20:01

Holy moly...

#109 BiggestBuddyLazierFan

BiggestBuddyLazierFan
  • Member

  • 519 posts
  • Joined: April 18

Posted 25 January 2019 - 22:23

Although, Prost had a contract for 1994, Senna made him disappear. That that was a season with a bad car was, in hindsight, sheer luck for Prost.


And brain drivers could run teams? Prost? Stewart? Yeah, come again...


Yeah, he probably would have been assassinated.

Everyone who wants to change things positively gets assassinated. Lincoln, Ghandi, King, Kennedy, Kennedy...


Oh come on

Senna didnt have any political aspirations. He only wanted to drive. And his only preocupation was winning races.

He was pure racer. Just like Mario Andretti.

#110 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 22,060 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 25 January 2019 - 23:01

Oh come on

Senna didnt have any political aspirations. He only wanted to drive. And his only preocupation was winning races.

Not quite. Since 1993 he and his sister where already busy developing the idea to what became shortly after his death Instituto Ayrton Senna, mainly a charity organization to help brazilian kids. I think it's safe to say he would have been pretty involved in that project. No idea if it would have lead to a political career, but the jump from trying to fix what's wrong in your place with charity to trying to fix it politically isn't unheard of.



#111 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 18,261 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 25 January 2019 - 23:13

It wasn't the steering column that killed him. It was the suspension striking his helmet. The halo would likely have stopped it.

I remember reading during the time of the introduction of HANS about it. Can't find it on the web. The issue was that Senna's accident was not survivable in any case. Senna and Ratzenberger both sustained a basilar skull fracture. In the case of Ratzenberger it was the primary cause of his death. With Senna seemingly a secondary effect.

 

With HANS restraining his head movement, would the suspension part have hit Senna's head? That we never know, but HANS was designed in the early 1980's, so it was available back then. After the Imola weekend it still took years to make it for the device into F1. That particular weekend however changed the thinking about safety in F1.

 

Not that it helped MSC anything from not being seen in the paddock these days. Such is life at times.



#112 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,831 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 26 January 2019 - 09:46

And then there is this one:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I had forgotten this one entirely......

 

Can you believe that?  Nigel Mansell being the good luck charm you need when in Imola and crashing at Tamburello.....

 

 

But then also another thought:  Three massive crashes in 6 years between '87 and 92.....

That Tamburello still was the way it was two years later.....



#113 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,175 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 26 January 2019 - 10:00

 

 

But then also another thought:  Three massive crashes in 6 years between '87 and 92.....

That Tamburello still was the way it was two years later.....

 

We know why that was though. The only idea anyone had at the time was to increase the runoff without changing the corner, and they were faced with the river on the other side of the trees. If it was today, any number of other ideas might have been also been considered. Not just the chicane they eventually did build. That was so 90s in it's approach. They might have moved the corner inwards to increase the runoff (they had to eat into that land to build the chicane anyway), or they might have been able to put down a proper tarmac runoff with a SAFER or Tecpro barrer to arrest wayward cars.



#114 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 6,250 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 26 January 2019 - 10:40

I had forgotten this one entirely......

 

Can you believe that?  Nigel Mansell being the good luck charm you need when in Imola and crashing at Tamburello.....

 

 

But then also another thought:  Three massive crashes in 6 years between '87 and 92.....

That Tamburello still was the way it was two years later.....

 

Michele Alboreto also had a big one there in 1991 (I think) in a Footwork. I can't find a video but there are photos online. I suppose the fact that people were more or less walking away from these accidents (or at least recovering quickly) was part of why nothing was done. 



#115 FordFiesta

FordFiesta
  • Member

  • 224 posts
  • Joined: January 19

Posted 26 January 2019 - 10:59

We know why that was though. The only idea anyone had at the time was to increase the runoff without changing the corner, and they were faced with the river on the other side of the trees. If it was today, any number of other ideas might have been also been considered. Not just the chicane they eventually did build. That was so 90s in it's approach. They might have moved the corner inwards to increase the runoff (they had to eat into that land to build the chicane anyway), or they might have been able to put down a proper tarmac runoff with a SAFER or Tecpro barrer to arrest wayward cars.


Berger told something interesting: both (him and Senna) were walking on the track at that specific place and were thinking how to put the wall further away and, as you already mentioned, agreed that that wasn't possible because of the river.

But they couldn't come to the conclusion that for example a chicane (even an amateurish one like that which was constructed in Barcelona) would've immediately solved the problem.

They didn't come to that conclusion because they were d**b but because that way of thinking was not common at that time before the tragedy in Imola.

#116 NotAPineapple

NotAPineapple
  • Member

  • 339 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 26 January 2019 - 11:24

It was a suspension part that inflicted what was acknowledged to be the fatal injury. A HALO might have bounced it off upwards...
But also downwards....

I think lots of things working together on todays cars would have saved Senna's life.

Firstly the wheel tethers are the most likely saving grace as broken suspension parts generally stay attached to the wheel or the rest of the chassis and can't get anywhere near the driver's head anymore.

Suspension components are now carbon which shatter into superlight splinters in an accident and could not pierce a helmet. Steel suspension of the 90s became heavy sishkebob spears when they broke free from the car.

Senna's helmet very likely was forced up against the wall with the offending suspension parts during the accident. Today with high cockpit sides, improved side impact structures and HANS, the drivers head is more or less kept centralised on the cockpit and away from debris in the impact zone. Watch Mika Hakkinens Adelaide crash to se how drivers heads actually went outside the cockpit in the old low sided cockpits.

Finally, helmet standards have improved massively. The part that the suspension pierced was reinforced via regulations after Massa's spring strike incident. The shell's pircing resistence today is also, via regulations, much more resistent than helmets of the 90s.

The halo is then the unknown. I'm convinced the above improvements would have saved Senna but if somehow a small piece of debris was to aimed at a drivers head its 50-50 as to whether the halo would deflect it or let it through.

For big stuff like wheels and large body components (which have been the main source of injury and death in open wheel racing in the last 20 years) it's obviously massive improvement.