280 replies to this topic

[POLAR]

Sorry for another Senas accident thread, but I need to ask this:
What would Williams or FOA trying to conceal by making the accident inboard footage dissapear?
1. A defect that would be evident from that camera angle?
2. Something really violent during the crash?
3. Something else?
Then again, I´m sorry if its a redundant thread, but I think that is worth to talk about this specific matter in a new thread. Specially afetr Hills comments.

Thanks

Polar

[glorius&victorius]

I think out of respect for Ayrton Senna they concealed it.
Just like for Lady Di the photo's of her dying were not published.

[MCH]

Originally posted by glorius&victorius
I think out of respect for Ayrton Senna they concealed it.
Just like for Lady Di the photo's of her dying were not published.

OT: I read those Lady Di photo's will get published sometime soon.

Unlikely this will happen with the Senna footage of course as the footage isn't owned by some papparazo

[SCHUEYFAN]

I saw a program on TLC last year on Ayrton's accident and they showed the in car camera footage. The focus of the investigation was the steering wheel and they were trying to show it was flexing while he was driving, since this is one of the explanations for the accident in that the steering column broke.

I recall there was a constantly lit green light on the left side of the steering wheel and they digitized its motion and showed on a computer monitor that the steering wheel was in fact moving excessively from side to side. Most of the show was filler but this analysis was startling and my jaw dropped when I saw this footage. One would think the steering wheel in a formula one car cannot move at all, but their analysis clearly showed sigificant movement. One expert, however, said this amount of movement is normal and would not have contributed to the failure of the column. I'm a professional engineer and I have studied materials analysis and I believe there is some merit to the abnormal movement potentially causing shearing of the column shaft. If anyone know when this may be re-aired, post it for all to see. I wonder if this was part of the evidence in the first trial that was released or leaked publicly.

[wherezmyz]

SCHUEYFAN, check out: http://www.cineca.it...enna/movie.html
and
http://www.thesennaf...iles/start.html

[swintex]

For those that really want it, The Senna Files has a lot of material.

The links to the CINECA material seem to not work as they once did, but can be got at via their search facility

[D-Type]

Can someone please refresh my memory please?

1. Did the official enquiry conclude that the steering column broke brfore or after the impact?

2. Has anybody made the simple comparison of the in-car footage with similar footage to establish whether there was excessive flexure?

3. Is it too simplistic to assume that the loss of tyre temperature due to following the safety car lead to
(a) Loss of adhesion?
(b) An increase in the effective elastic modulus that resulted in less centrifugal expansion of the tyres leading in turn to lower ground clearance and unexpected grounding of the car?

I am asking for facts not uninformed speculation.

[POLAR]

So you are like just the rest of us.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by SCHUEYFAN
I saw a program on TLC last year on Ayrton's accident and they showed the in car camera footage. The focus of the investigation was the steering wheel and they were trying to show it was flexing while he was driving, since this is one of the explanations for the accident in that the steering column broke.

I recall there was a constantly lit green light on the left side of the steering wheel and they digitized its motion and showed on a computer monitor that the steering wheel was in fact moving excessively from side to side. Most of the show was filler but this analysis was startling and my jaw dropped when I saw this footage. One would think the steering wheel in a formula one car cannot move at all, but their analysis clearly showed sigificant movement. One expert, however, said this amount of movement is normal and would not have contributed to the failure of the column. I'm a professional engineer and I have studied materials analysis and I believe there is some merit to the abnormal movement potentially causing shearing of the column shaft. If anyone know when this may be re-aired, post it for all to see. I wonder if this was part of the evidence in the first trial that was released or leaked publicly.

Isnt it possible he's moving the wheel, or the wheel is moving as a result of the front wheels bouncing about as he goes over an uneven surface? If you take your hands off the wheel on a really bumpy road, the wheel is going to go back and forth a bit as the differences are fed through the front wheels. Or watch the next time a guy goes through the gravel trap.

[panzani]

This BBC link shows in 10 steps what some think really happened, with sketches and timeframes, using the car onboard computer data.

[Ross Stonefeld]

That to me is the most logical and intelligent explanation. He had the equivalent of getting sideways on an oval where when you correct it shoots off to the right.

[POLAR]

I´ve just got the footage from MS´s car and theres is lot of sparks coming of the rear of AS´s car. My thoghts at the time was that the rear right wishbone did give up, lifting the left front spoiler and wheel, then steering the car to the wall. Another intriguing fact lookin g at the onboard cam, at first you cant see Sennas helmet, but suddenly, he leans forward like he had a spook, then the image cuts. So it doesnt look like a error to me, but more like he was caught on something really unespected. And that steering collumn theory doesnt convince me as well. Bt what do I know, I am just an advertising man...

Polar

[speedmaster]

Originally posted by panzani
This BBC link shows in 10 steps what some think really happened, with sketches and timeframes, using the car onboard computer data.

Show what they think it happened as, unhapily, we won't know it ever.... Senna was not infalible but the theory that he would have taken a trajectory that wouldn't fit the car does not convince me either...

No matter what a tragedy for auto racing and I hope he can RIP.... an top of the tops racing driver and awesome personality and humam being... and that's why he is still alive in our thoughts

Senna Forever...

[speedmaster]

Originally posted by POLAR
I´ve just got the footage from MS´s car and theres is lot of sparks coming of the rear of AS´s car. My thoghts at the time was that the rear right wishbone did give up, lifting the left front spoiler and wheel, then steering the car to the wall. Another intriguing fact lookin g at the onboard cam, at first you cant see Sennas helmet, but suddenly, he leans forward like he had a spook, then the image cuts. So it doesnt look like a error to me, but more like he was caught on something really unespected. And that steering collumn theory doesnt convince me as well. Bt what do I know, I am just an advertising man...

Polar

That crap car (at that time) had something that resembles a suspension but it was not... The sparks were just a measure of how hard he had to fight with it to beat Schummi for the pole in the previous 3 races and to be in front of him during those initial laps...

By the way I don't think it was polite from Michael say that he felt culprit for Senna's death as he was probably forcing him much... IMHO to much self-esteem from his part as "poor guy, I was too good for him and he died for it..." Maybe just my natural antiphaty towards Schummi but i do think it was not that classy to say it.

Senna forever...

[fullcourseyellow]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
That to me is the most logical and intelligent explanation. He had the equivalent of getting sideways on an oval where when you correct it shoots off to the right.

Kind of like Dale Earnhardt's accident?

[masterhit]

Low tyre pressures are probably the most likely cause of such an accident rather than steering failure, however it is no coincidence that Hill was told to switch off his power steering as a precaution following the accident as steering failure seemed a possibility in some form.

Anyway this has been discussed many, many times and the truth will never be known. Anything else we'd have to make up. It would just be guesses. Senna has gone.

[Buford]

Originally posted by fullcourseyellow

Kind of like Dale Earnhardt's accident?

Like Gordon Smiley - the worst single car accident in racing history.

[Patrice L'Rodent]

Please leave this subject be.
On May Day in 1994, the Good Lord tapped Ayrton Senna on the shoulder and called him home.
Rehashing flawed data will not change this, so maybe it is time to leave the man to Rest In Peace.
Pat Clarke

[POLAR]

I respect your point of view, but this matter is still fascinating to many people, not in a morbid way, but as a genuine mistery, not unlike JFK assassination in a much smaller scale. Those tapes will show someday, people will talk someday, and then we wil know what to really think about this accident, about the sport(?) that we love, about Frank Williams, Patrick Head, and most of all Ayrton Senna da Silva. Dont be fooled, we dont know the truth yet. Like agent Mulder always says, its out there, its all out there...

[RTH]

Auto Express magazine UK printed a 3 page article on 7th Feb 1997 with muliple close up photographs of the 2 severed ends of the thin wall steel tubular steering colunm and a report by the expert metalurgist, who said the evidence was consistant with metal fatigue

[Svend]

Originally posted by panzani
This BBC link shows in 10 steps what some think really happened, with sketches and timeframes, using the car onboard computer data.

A lot of nonsense if you ask me;

- lift to correct oversteer?
- double g-forces due to a different line through Tamburello?

What does seem sensible is that the car oversteered. In the onboard you can clearly see the front of the car snap towards the inside kerb.

[Jordan191]

Originally posted by fullcourseyellow

Kind of like Dale Earnhardt's accident?

Dale had help

[Jordan191]

Originally posted by SCHUEYFAN
I saw a program on TLC last year on Ayrton's accident and they showed the in car camera footage. The focus of the investigation was the steering wheel and they were trying to show it was flexing while he was driving, since this is one of the explanations for the accident in that the steering column broke.

I recall there was a constantly lit green light on the left side of the steering wheel and they digitized its motion and showed on a computer monitor that the steering wheel was in fact moving excessively from side to side. Most of the show was filler but this analysis was startling and my jaw dropped when I saw this footage. One would think the steering wheel in a formula one car cannot move at all, but their analysis clearly showed sigificant movement. One expert, however, said this amount of movement is normal and would not have contributed to the failure of the column. I'm a professional engineer and I have studied materials analysis and I believe there is some merit to the abnormal movement potentially causing shearing of the column shaft. If anyone know when this may be re-aired, post it for all to see. I wonder if this was part of the evidence in the first trial that was released or leaked publicly.

In that same TLC program they demonstrated that the steering collumm has a certain amount of movement built into it and that the movement in the footage was consistant.

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by speedmaster


That crap car (at that time) had something that resembles a suspension but it was not... The sparks were just a measure of how hard he had to fight with it to beat Schummi for the pole in the previous 3 races and to be in front of him during those initial laps...

By the way I don't think it was polite from Michael say that he felt culprit for Senna's death as he was probably forcing him much... IMHO to much self-esteem from his part as "poor guy, I was too good for him and he died for it..." Maybe just my natural antiphaty towards Schummi but i do think it was not that classy to say it.

Senna forever...

Michael didn't say he was too good for him did he, remember what MS said at the austrailia press conference when he won the title, "To me it was always clear, Ayrton would win the champioonship, not me, Ayrton was the best driver, I would like to take this title and give it to him."

Pushing Senna hard in the race is just what a driver would do, he didn't have the benefit of hindsight to what would happen, if he did, would it have changed anything, maybe Senna wouldn't have pushed too much that early, who knows, but he was there, he saw the crash, and he thought about quitting f1 after it, f1 felt dangerous after that, you don't need to have a go at MS while honoring Senna. I'm sure apart of MS has thought about things he could of done to prevent it, but I'm sure he and along with many if they had a time machine or some power to go back and warn Senna of what would happend, would do it, thats life, a good quote in Point Break "It's not tragic dying what you love doing."I'm sure there are worser ways to go out in this life, he went out number one in front, he has fans who continue to remember him and celebrate his life, it's sad losing him that early or not at all, but if you live a life worth remembering like Bruce Lee said, your immortal, and whether its morbid fasination or not, the whole way Senna went out, perhaps created a legend larger then if he continued f1 and retired, something about going out on top leaves a lasting impression, if you think about it in these terms, it's not tragic, something worth celebrating, the beginning and middle of the journey is always fun, the endings are always less fun and sad, thats life, thats what happened to Senna, thats what will happen to us most likely, from highschool to jobs, to stressed out jobs, to retirement and toasting the good old days, the ending is never the best moment most of the time, Senna's death made me think about life alot, and other people I know who are gone, appreciate everything until the end, and you've created a wave in the oceans of time that people around you remember, and they will continue that wave, Senna was driven by emotion, this is a post of emotion:D


Senna lived life on the edge for a reason, he knew everyday he could be gone in split second, it's why even driving Tony Jardine to the track, he would blast it down there, Senna left a lasting impression of how life is very short, what did you do today etc He was very human and explosive with his emotions, he was special in displaying that, so apart from being a great f1 driver, he was showing his beliefs in his driving and press conferences, it's stuff you don't forget, a great warrior of humanity that happend to be in the sport we watch, great great combination

[Rade]

Originally posted by panzani
This BBC link shows in 10 steps what some think really happened, with sketches and timeframes, using the car onboard computer data.

In this clip you can see how Senna turn the wheel to the left (see wheel yellow buttom).
¿Why the car did'nt turn to the left?

[ill_ninio]

because the cars bottom plate was touching the ground and lifting the front wheels of the ground... (?)

[Spunout]

Actually you can see Senna correcting the car by turning RIGHT, apparently because the bottom of the car touched the track and caused rear end to get loose. And when the tyres touched the track again the car went to the direction front tyres were pointing to - RIGHT.

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by panzani
This BBC link shows in 10 steps what some think really happened, with sketches and timeframes, using the car onboard computer data.

What bothers me there is that it doesn't fit with the telemetry. The lateral G-Force is a continious around 2 G throughout the corner with some up and down spikes. Before the bump it increases to 2.7G and spikes at the bump to 3G+, but it drops to absolutely almost zero (to 0.3 to 0 and even slightly negative) in a few hundredths of a second just to move straight on exactly as you'd expect from a car with no steering. The 'double slapper' (skid / front skid) theory would result in rotational and lateral forces which simply don't show on the telemetry.


Pure from the onboard and telemtry (a more detailed video is at http://www.cineca.it...ies/cam_car.mov or http://www.cineca.it...ies/cam_car.mpg) I would say he's got no steering at all.

[pRy]

Why did the footage cut out?

The official story is that the TV people were limited to the number of camera feeds they could use at once back then, and the director, or whoever, switched to another camera and that caused the Senna onboard footage to end at that point. It wasn't the most exciting nor stable of picture locations. If Bernie/Max or someone else took a decision, I'm not sure about.

Why was his wheel moving so far down?

David Coulthard sat in the Williams and was filmed flexing his wheel up and down in the same way. Conclusion: Perfectly normal.

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by Svend

A lot of nonsense if you ask me;
- lift to correct oversteer?

Precisely what you do when losing rear wheels grip on a rear-wheel powered car, don't you?

[kos]

Originally posted by Vagabond

Precisely what you do when losing rear wheels grip on a rear-wheel powered car, don't you?

Not always because lifting from throttle could shift cars weight to the front and unload rear tyres thus creating even more oversteer.

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by kos

Not always because lifting from throttle could shift cars weight to the front and unload rear tyres thus creating even more oversteer.

Well, it could be bad, but not lifting is certainly already bad once the slide began. It's a matter of choosing less evil. Why lifting is always worse to the extent of calling it nonsense is beyond my reach.

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by kos

Not always because lifting from throttle could shift cars weight to the front and unload rear tyres thus creating even more oversteer.

On the second thought, I even disagree. Lifting unloads rear tires only when grip is good. When grip is lost engine rpms have no direct influence on the load distribution between the axes. The rear axis is actually unloaded immediately once the grip is lost. The only way to correct its load is by first acquiring grip which is done by lowering rpms.

[fingers]

Originally posted by Svend


A lot of nonsense if you ask me;

- lift to correct oversteer?
- double g-forces due to a different line through Tamburello?

What does seem sensible is that the car oversteered. In the onboard you can clearly see the front of the car snap towards the inside kerb.

OK so lets see all the other occasions when an F1 car and especially one driven by Senna was going fast on cold tyres all those thousands of occasions and by the way those occasions when one tiny movements simply corrects the car easy. What about all those times Senna corrected the car because of oil of the damp track or even a failure and any other driver, its a total ignorant joke saying he just flung off the road. His bloody steering broke its flipping obvious the reasons they manufactured the case to say otherwise is purely to protect the team and that's fair enough because the law stink and they don't deserve the trouble blame would give them. Also what I wanna know is why all the fuss about the what happened and who's fault it was that the car left the track ? THAT didn't kill him anyway THAT was what caused him to go off not kill him, he was killed by lack of head protection from the car and his helmet and the circumstancial position of his wheel and tyre barriers etc. thousands of F1 cars have flown off the track why aren't they investigated it was his bloody helmet visor being penetrated that killed him not him shooting off !

[int2str]

First of all, after all those years, seeing these videos still gives me a weird feeling in my stomach. No matter the person, we are watching the last seconds of somebodies life here.
God bless you, Senna.

Thats said, here's a question which has been bugging me:

In the inboard footage you can very clearly (about the only think *I* can see clearly) that Senna is leaning his head *way* far to the left after he has lost control of the car, much more than through the beginning part of the corner where it's more the "normal" counter-leaning in high speed turns.

Every driver leans the head sideways like that in high speed turns to counter the G-forces - thats not what I mean. Senna does this at the beginning of the turn. When we looses control (around second 14 in the last video link) he turns his head *much* more. This is to me an indicator that he wanted to force the car over to the left at that point. I seriously would expect the wheels to turn left as a result at this point. At that point it was not time for minor corrections which would be hard to see.

Senna body language indicates he realized he lost it and try to force it over, the wheel direction does not show any sign of this. Therefore I believe that indeed his steering column did not allow him to turn the wheels anymore.

Comments?

Cheers,
André

[POLAR]

I was always suspicious about that steering column theory, but I must admitt that now it seems the most plausible to me. Great job guys, I feel like we did our little amateur detective research.

Polar

[Spunout]

int2str,

When Senna realized he lost it he slammed the brakes to slow down the speed, as telemetry shows. When front tyres are locked, steering has no effect anyway.




1) 1994 cars were set up extremely low RIDE HEIGTH to maximize downforce (faster air flow = more downforce, less space between car & track = faster air flow).

2) During safety car period tyre pressures went down, lowering RIDE HEIGTH even more.

3) When MS was behind Senna he noticed the bottom of the car touched the track several times (sparks), making it difficult for Senna to control his car.

4) In Tamburello there was a big bump and the bottom of the car touched the ground, causing the car to oversteer.

5) Senna DID correct by steering RIGHT - very small correction, hard to see. But telemetry proves this as well.

6) When the front tyres touched the track again the car went to the direction front tyres were pointing to - RIGHT.

7) Since it was too late to make the corner, Senna slammed the brakes to slow down the speed...

8) The rest we know

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by Mosquito
What bothers me there is that it doesn't fit with the telemetry. The lateral G-Force is a continious around 2 G throughout the corner with some up and down spikes. Before the bump it increases to 2.7G and spikes at the bump to 3G+, but it drops to absolutely almost zero (to 0.3 to 0 and even slightly negative) in a few hundredths of a second just to move straight on exactly as you'd expect from a car with no steering.

Or a car thats suddenly lost grip. Losing grip is exactly that, the loss of coefficient of friction with the road. You hit a puddle of water and hydroplane off, it doesnt matter how far you have the wheels turned, you're gonna lose your G force.

Thats how you interpret understeer and oversteer on data analysis. Comparing the dip in lateral G mid-corner with steering angle.

[Arrow]

There is so much bullshit floating around about this incident that its easy to become submerged in it.
Stepping back from it all and overviewing the fundamentals of the incident gives to me the clearest view.

Fact is that a driver(arguably the best of all time) went straight on through a simple left hander which was comfortably flat in the dry or wet.
A car just "losing it" through tamburello was unprecedented i beleive.

Those are the bare bones of it and there is enough leeway in F1 to dress them up how you like,which is what has been done here,but i dont buy it.

The official cause proposes that a cummulation of freakish circumstances brought upon this unfathomable event.
The loss of downforce theory doesnt add up to.I fail to beleive that sliding over some bumps can vanquish such an amount of downforce to cause a car to go straight on through a left hand sweeper.
The car was still travelling at 190 odd mph which means the wings were still "working" and generating enourmous downforce.,and im pretty sure they offer the significant part of the downforce in the equation.

Further more... from michaels onboard it looked as if senna simply just drove off the track.
From sennas onboard it looked like he just let go of the wheel and went straight.
The car doesnt jink violently,it just turns off!

Then there are the many questions like,why did the Tv director pick that moment to switch to katayamas irrelevant tyrell?
Why was the williams black box smashed to smithereens after it was extracted intact from the car?

One things for sure.
If you were going to have steering failure through tamburello,thats what it would of looked like.....

[pRy]

Originally posted by Arrow

Further more... from michaels onboard it looked as if senna simply just drove off the track.
From sennas onboard it looked like he just let go of the wheel and went straight.
The car doesnt jink violently,it just turns off!

Schumacher himself said Senna stepped out the previous lap at the exact same spot and that he was suprised Senna didn't lose control at that point.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by pRy


Schumacher himself said Senna stepped out the previous lap at the exact same spot and that he was suprised Senna didn't lose control at that point.

I know what michael said.There has a lot been said though,im just commenting on what it looked like from the footage available.

[pRy]

Originally posted by Arrow


I know what michael said.There has a lot been said though,im just commenting on what it looked like from the footage available.

Sure, but isn't Schumacher the best eye witness? The image of Senna from Schumachers cam is blured at best. Schumacher was right there looking at the back of Sennas car from close up for several laps. I'd rather listen to what Schumacher felt he saw than try to use my own non excistant opinion. Schumacher clearly felt that Senna was having difficulties with that particular corner.

The circumstances are clear :

+ Senna complained that the pace car used at Aida drove too slow and effected tyres to a point where by they lacked grip and the situation had become potentially dangerous. He attempted to get other drivers to express their own concerns over this subject to avoid it seeming like it was just his complaint.

+ Senna had decided to run with low downforce because his Williams was clearly not a match for the Benetton. This was his decision. A calculated risk. He knew he had to stay infront of Schumacher and the Williams needed more downforce. Remember that Senna spun out of the Brazilian GP. Senna? spin out of a GP? That was clearly either Senna frustrated with his car, or Senna driving a car that would not be driven as fast as Senna required of it.

+ Sennas fear, the pace car, was brought out, and they were forced to run laps behind the pace car which dropped tyre pressures due to the lack of heat generated. This caused the already low Senna to become even lower.

+ Senna had warned Damon Hill to avoid taking a tight line in Tamburello due to the bumps and the way the Williams struggled to handle them.

+ Senna took a tight line because a) Schumacher was up his rear wing constantly and didn't show any signs of dropping back and b) Senna felt that he had to win Imola at all costs, because his Championship score was a 0.

The circumstances came together. It was a freak event that was created by circumstance. The same way that the Space Shuttle lost a piece of foam on take off that was noticed but not acted upon that allowed hot gasses to enter the wing that led to the shuttle entering a spin that led to the shuttle breaking up.

History has repeated itself. Look at Schumacher, he caused his Benetton one year at Monza to snap to the left and smash into a barrier, almost hitting a concrete wall in the process. Why? Because Schumacher was wanting to take his Benetton which wasn't giving him what he needed, that little bit futher, and he lost control. It's simple dynamics. Everything has a limit. The Williams had lots of limits that day, Senna didn't know when, or how, to back off.

[Spunout]

"Or a car thats suddenly lost grip. Losing grip is exactly that, the loss of coefficient of friction with the road. You hit a puddle of water and hydroplane off, it doesnt matter how far you have the wheels turned, you're gonna lose your G force."

Exactly. Now I guess it is clear for everyone what happens if the bottom of the car touches the track, causing the loss of grip...

This is why G-force dropped to 0 - ZERO. Momentarily the tyres were not even touching the track, and in such situation even Ayrton Senna can crash out.

Arrow,

Actually the car went RIGHT, not STRAIGTH.

[Williams]

Originally posted by Arrow
Then there are the many questions like,why did the Tv director pick that moment to switch to katayamas irrelevant tyrell?
Why was the williams black box smashed to smithereens after it was extracted intact from the car?

Just on this one point, what is the alternative explanation ? Is there any way the director could have known what was about to happen, and so avoided showing it ? Even assuming some sort of broad conspiracy, what, other than simple coincidence, would explain the camera switching away at that moment ?

[SeanValen]

"There are no small accidents on this circuit" - talking about the race at Imola circuit [30 April 1994]


He was right.

[Pinguin]

Originally posted by Arrow

Then there are the many questions like,why did the Tv director pick that moment to switch to katayamas irrelevant tyrell?
Why was the williams black box smashed to smithereens after it was extracted intact from the car?

I beleive the fatal onboard video would have eventually leaked somehow if it existed... probably the TV director switched off the camera in anticipation of some nasties...

Even more interesting/revealing to me is the fact that the Williams black box was indeed smashed to tatters after it was extracted intact from the car.

The greatest puzzle of Formula One history remains the circumstances surrounding Sena's death, just like the greatest puzzle of American history remains the assasination of JFK...

[masterhit]

Originally posted by Arrow

Further more... from michaels onboard it looked as if senna simply just drove off the track.
From sennas onboard it looked like he just let go of the wheel and went straight.
The car doesnt jink violently,it just turns off!

You may be right but I disagree with this last part having seen Berger's accident at the exact corner when his front wing failed. It was very similar, no sudden change in direction, just no more response. It is like trying to steer a plane when a wing fails. I'm not saying that is what caused the accident however.

Equally the same is true for tyre pressures as well, acute understeer can occur which would not produce a visible oversteering snap movement.

But yeah, it's hard to say. They destroyed the evidence certainly of the car if not indeed the footage.

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


Or a car thats suddenly lost grip. Losing grip is exactly that, the loss of coefficient of friction with the road. You hit a puddle of water and hydroplane off, it doesnt matter how far you have the wheels turned, you're gonna lose your G force.

Thats how you interpret understeer and oversteer on data analysis. Comparing the dip in lateral G mid-corner with steering angle.

But it doesn't fit. First of all, the lateral G forces drop to as good as zero and stay there. The assumption is that he's really in some sort of zero-grip situation? For at least around second (and perhaps longer as the recording stops with -0.15G)? Senna was such a mediocre driver and with such bad reflexes that he could make no correction at all? Even losing essential aerodynamics, unless the car is airborne or literally floating on water, he should be able to produce more lateral force than a few tenths of a G. And the car doesn't do a kind of slapper motion, it just moves on straight. It just doesn't fit.

Show me precedents. Are there similar accidents? I know of none so from the top of my head, the only one I recall is Berger at the exact same corner moving also straight on as he lost all steering when his front wing failed. That's the importance and effect of front wing downforce. The front wing and downforce thereof is not effected by ground effect and airflow under the car. So, if (as proposed) according to the theory the airflow under the car was disrupted affecting downforce, then still at some point, we'd expect the front tyres to at least bite at some point. They never do. It just moves straight on. It defies all logic.

The car goes straight with virtually no indication of violent rotation, slapper movements or anything else. It goes straight, period. And the theory is that due to disruption in downforce, the car goes in such inbalance that Senna is unable to correct it, even to the extent that it seems to be floating on water. But if the car is really struggling under lack of downforce, then it's amazing it's able to pull 4Gs of braking force. The only ~solution~ proposed to this is that Senna has given up steering at this point, are we really to believe that? Does Senna's helmet still strongly to the left indicate he has given up any chance of turning it back to the road?

It makes no sense at all.

[masterhit]

Originally posted by Mosquito
But it doesn't fit. First of all, the lateral G forces drop to as good as zero and stay there. The assumption is that he's really in some sort of zero-grip situation? For at least around second (and perhaps longer as the recording stops with -0.15G)? Senna was such a mediocre driver and with such bad reflexes that he could make no correction at all? Even losing essential aerodynamics, unless the car is airborne or literally floating on water, he should be able to produce more lateral force than a few tenths of a G. And the car doesn't do a kind of slapper motion, it just moves on straight. It just doesn't fit.

Show me precedents. Are there similar accidents? I know of none so from the top of my head, the only one I recall is Berger at the exact same corner moving also straight on as he lost all steering when his front wing failed. That's the importance and effect of front wing downforce. The front wing and downforce thereof is not effected by ground effect and airflow under the car. So, if (as proposed) according to the theory the airflow under the car was disrupted affecting downforce, then still at some point, we'd expect the front tyres to at least bite at some point. They never do. It just moves straight on. It defies all logic.

The car goes straight with virtually no indication of violent rotation, slapper movements or anything else. It goes straight, period. And the theory is that due to disruption in downforce, the car goes in such inbalance that Senna is unable to correct it, even to the extent that it seems to be floating on water. But if the car is really struggling under lack of downforce, then it's amazing it's able to pull 4Gs of braking force. The only ~solution~ proposed to this is that Senna has given up steering at this point, are we really to believe that? Does Senna's helmet still strongly to the left indicate he has given up any chance of turning it back to the road?

It makes no sense at all.

Understeer is classically when a car goes straight on, and is a real possibility if not probability.

It's not true to say a car only ever oversteers, i.e. snaps violently. As such terminal, unrecoverable understeer cannot be ruled out, indeed is arguably the most likely symptom, though the cause(s) cannot be known, just speculated on.

[Mosquito]

Fine, so explain to me how a car which supposedly is beyond the control of the driver due to severe inbalance from hitting upon bumps in the circuit is able to move along in such a perfect straight line. Explain to me how the driver is not able to make any change in direction (assumed due to lack of downforce / grip), but still able to decelerate at a massive 4Gs? Explain to me how the supposed lack in downforce mostly affects the back end (fron wing operates as normal), and it does not behave as a dart arrow being thrown backwards?