Slightly different footage of Senna's crash...
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
Derek Smith said:
Eric Mc said:
I wouldn't call it the worst weekend. Have you ever watched the film of the Dundrod TT in 1955?
Or the 1955 Le Mans 24.
Not F1. That's what was meant by the sport.Or the 1955 Le Mans 24.
Stirling Moss, Mike Hawthorn, Peter Walker, Reg Parnell, Roy Salvadori, Colin Chapman (yes that one), Cliff Allison, Peter Collins, Tony Brooks, Lance Macklin, Jim Russell.
A few overseas drivers also turned up Fangio, Von Tripps, Eugenio Castellotti, Piero Taruffi, Carol Shelby, Jo Bonnier, Jean Behra, Masten Greogry.
That's an astonishing entry list.
Eric Mc said:
Just shows that motor racing was a far broader church than it is now. Even though these races were not F1 or Grands Prix, they were every bit as prestigious and attracted the best drivers and teams.
Exactly.Drivers were prepared and allowed to go and race in different series around the World.
Perhaps when drivers like Jim Clark were lost during these races away from F1 teams were then not willing to let this go on.
I don't think that made much of an impact as far as reluctance to race in other series goes. In that and earlier eras, racers just raced because they needed to race to earn a living. So they raced in everything they could - if the money was right. Racing in F1 was not particularly more lucrative compared to other series. In fact, the reason why Chapman, Lotus and Clark were drawn to the Indy 500 was purely because the prize money available was huge compared to F1
Indeed, up until the 1980s, F1 was as dangerous, if not MORE dangerous, than many other categories.
The change came in the 1970s as F1 began to pull ahead of other formulae prestige and public perception wise and the money in F1 became self sustaining in its own right. Other commercial restrictions - such as contract clauses that prohibited drivers from participating in other series was also a major factor. And that, of course,was due to the increased involvement of sponsors and other commercial interests in the sport.
Indeed, up until the 1980s, F1 was as dangerous, if not MORE dangerous, than many other categories.
The change came in the 1970s as F1 began to pull ahead of other formulae prestige and public perception wise and the money in F1 became self sustaining in its own right. Other commercial restrictions - such as contract clauses that prohibited drivers from participating in other series was also a major factor. And that, of course,was due to the increased involvement of sponsors and other commercial interests in the sport.
Having watched the various videos showing the in-car clip etc.., it really doesn't look like there is any visible movement of the front wheel to counter a slide, or any evidence of the orientation of the car body / camera mount turning to the left relative to the track showing the car starting to spin out at the rear.
What I see looks a lot more like the steering suddenly centering (as a result of something breaking) and Senna's head coming over to the left because of the sudden straightening of the car's trajectory (thus pushing him to the left in the cockpit as the car effectively "turns" slightly to the right relative to its previous course).
The straight path across the rest of the track and the grass to the wall seems to also suggest that the front wheels were not turned at all, despite the limited grip once on the grass, if he'd managed to get any left steering lock on then I would expect to see some evidence of either the front wheels rapidly altering position or the car performing at least some degree of left turn, as seen in other videos showing similar losses of rear grip.
What I see looks a lot more like the steering suddenly centering (as a result of something breaking) and Senna's head coming over to the left because of the sudden straightening of the car's trajectory (thus pushing him to the left in the cockpit as the car effectively "turns" slightly to the right relative to its previous course).
The straight path across the rest of the track and the grass to the wall seems to also suggest that the front wheels were not turned at all, despite the limited grip once on the grass, if he'd managed to get any left steering lock on then I would expect to see some evidence of either the front wheels rapidly altering position or the car performing at least some degree of left turn, as seen in other videos showing similar losses of rear grip.
JimSuperSix said:
Having watched the various videos showing the in-car clip etc.., it really doesn't look like there is any visible movement of the front wheel to counter a slide, or any evidence of the orientation of the car body / camera mount turning to the left relative to the track showing the car starting to spin out at the rear.
What I see looks a lot more like the steering suddenly centering (as a result of something breaking) and Senna's head coming over to the left because of the sudden straightening of the car's trajectory (thus pushing him to the left in the cockpit as the car effectively "turns" slightly to the right relative to its previous course).
The straight path across the rest of the track and the grass to the wall seems to also suggest that the front wheels were not turned at all, despite the limited grip once on the grass, if he'd managed to get any left steering lock on then I would expect to see some evidence of either the front wheels rapidly altering position or the car performing at least some degree of left turn, as seen in other videos showing similar losses of rear grip.
Just after Senna crashed John Watson "who was the commentator for Eurosport" stated that the car obviously had an issue for Senna to have crashed.What I see looks a lot more like the steering suddenly centering (as a result of something breaking) and Senna's head coming over to the left because of the sudden straightening of the car's trajectory (thus pushing him to the left in the cockpit as the car effectively "turns" slightly to the right relative to its previous course).
The straight path across the rest of the track and the grass to the wall seems to also suggest that the front wheels were not turned at all, despite the limited grip once on the grass, if he'd managed to get any left steering lock on then I would expect to see some evidence of either the front wheels rapidly altering position or the car performing at least some degree of left turn, as seen in other videos showing similar losses of rear grip.
Tamburello was not a difficult corner. The only crashes which have happened there were due to mechanical issues.
It was either the steering column or a slow puncture.
I still personally feel it was the steering column.
Brundle obviously would have a chance to know more or find out more information than us fans but it is surprising that he is only "finding" out new information in 2015.
I wonder who disclosed it.
I had a conversation only this month at the Chinese Grand Prix, where I learned quite a bit more information, he discloses. “I’m nervous about putting my opinion on it, because the cars didn’t have as many data acquisition tools then. It was probably a set-up issue – a combination of low tyre pressure, an odd aerodynamic effect on the car, and Ayrton pushing hard against Schumacher. But the impression is that his steering column failed.”
I wonder who disclosed it.
I had a conversation only this month at the Chinese Grand Prix, where I learned quite a bit more information, he discloses. “I’m nervous about putting my opinion on it, because the cars didn’t have as many data acquisition tools then. It was probably a set-up issue – a combination of low tyre pressure, an odd aerodynamic effect on the car, and Ayrton pushing hard against Schumacher. But the impression is that his steering column failed.”
jm doc said:
His steering column failed, it's obvious, and it was even sitting there in the car afterwards, in two pieces.
There's no dispute the steering column was found to be broken after the accident but Williams attributed that to the impact and said up to that point their telemetry had shown it to be intact and still working. In terms of the apparent excess movement of the column referred to by the OP, in his book Damon Hill says it was the on-board camera that was moving rather than the steering column. However, what I don't quite understand about that is why the steering column would appear to move so much relative to the rest of the car; if the camera was wobbling around wouldn't the whole of the image move but the steering column stay in place relative to rest of the car?
Also, to my eyes at least the column on Senna's car does appear to be moving around more in the race than it did in the morning warm-up session; therefore, if that apparent excess movement was indeed just a function of the camera moving about had that somehow worked loose between the warm-up and the race?
I do agree Senna wasn't perfect - nobody is after all - and it is possible he made a mistake. However, when I watched the accident live I remember thinking "something's broken on the car for him to go off like that" and if I'm honest I do still wonder; guess we'll never know for sure though...
JNW1 said:
There's no dispute the steering column was found to be broken after the accident but Williams attributed that to the impact and said up to that point their telemetry had shown it to be intact and still working.
In terms of the apparent excess movement of the column referred to by the OP, in his book Damon Hill says it was the on-board camera that was moving rather than the steering column. However, what I don't quite understand about that is why the steering column would appear to move so much relative to the rest of the car; if the camera was wobbling around wouldn't the whole of the image move but the steering column stay in place relative to rest of the car?
Also, to my eyes at least the column on Senna's car does appear to be moving around more in the race than it did in the morning warm-up session; therefore, if that apparent excess movement was indeed just a function of the camera moving about had that somehow worked loose between the warm-up and the race?
I do agree Senna wasn't perfect - nobody is after all - and it is possible he made a mistake. However, when I watched the accident live I remember thinking "something's broken on the car for him to go off like that" and if I'm honest I do still wonder; guess we'll never know for sure though...
All those points/joints between the steering wheel and tyre contact patch and the accident caused the shaft to sheer precisely where the column had been altered?In terms of the apparent excess movement of the column referred to by the OP, in his book Damon Hill says it was the on-board camera that was moving rather than the steering column. However, what I don't quite understand about that is why the steering column would appear to move so much relative to the rest of the car; if the camera was wobbling around wouldn't the whole of the image move but the steering column stay in place relative to rest of the car?
Also, to my eyes at least the column on Senna's car does appear to be moving around more in the race than it did in the morning warm-up session; therefore, if that apparent excess movement was indeed just a function of the camera moving about had that somehow worked loose between the warm-up and the race?
I do agree Senna wasn't perfect - nobody is after all - and it is possible he made a mistake. However, when I watched the accident live I remember thinking "something's broken on the car for him to go off like that" and if I'm honest I do still wonder; guess we'll never know for sure though...
No offence, but anyone who thinks it was anything but the failure of the steering column is either retarded or incapable of understanding basic engineering. There may be many good reasons as to why this wasn't officially given as the reason but it's there as plain as day.
Just because Senna might not have been the most sporting of sportsmen or free of career errors does not change this.
If you're still incapable of realising this, just think about who would gain from Senna's death being blamed on anyone but himself. Williams, F1, Circuit de Imola, Dr Watkins? You're talking about a law suit of quite possibly the richest/highest earning sportsman on the planet.
The simplest answer is mechanical failure caused his crash. The easiest answer for all concerned was he caused it himself.
LaurasOtherHalf said:
JNW1 said:
There's no dispute the steering column was found to be broken after the accident but Williams attributed that to the impact and said up to that point their telemetry had shown it to be intact and still working.
In terms of the apparent excess movement of the column referred to by the OP, in his book Damon Hill says it was the on-board camera that was moving rather than the steering column. However, what I don't quite understand about that is why the steering column would appear to move so much relative to the rest of the car; if the camera was wobbling around wouldn't the whole of the image move but the steering column stay in place relative to rest of the car?
Also, to my eyes at least the column on Senna's car does appear to be moving around more in the race than it did in the morning warm-up session; therefore, if that apparent excess movement was indeed just a function of the camera moving about had that somehow worked loose between the warm-up and the race?
I do agree Senna wasn't perfect - nobody is after all - and it is possible he made a mistake. However, when I watched the accident live I remember thinking "something's broken on the car for him to go off like that" and if I'm honest I do still wonder; guess we'll never know for sure though...
All those points/joints between the steering wheel and tyre contact patch and the accident caused the shaft to sheer precisely where the column had been altered?In terms of the apparent excess movement of the column referred to by the OP, in his book Damon Hill says it was the on-board camera that was moving rather than the steering column. However, what I don't quite understand about that is why the steering column would appear to move so much relative to the rest of the car; if the camera was wobbling around wouldn't the whole of the image move but the steering column stay in place relative to rest of the car?
Also, to my eyes at least the column on Senna's car does appear to be moving around more in the race than it did in the morning warm-up session; therefore, if that apparent excess movement was indeed just a function of the camera moving about had that somehow worked loose between the warm-up and the race?
I do agree Senna wasn't perfect - nobody is after all - and it is possible he made a mistake. However, when I watched the accident live I remember thinking "something's broken on the car for him to go off like that" and if I'm honest I do still wonder; guess we'll never know for sure though...
No offence, but anyone who thinks it was anything but the failure of the steering column is either retarded or incapable of understanding basic engineering. There may be many good reasons as to why this wasn't officially given as the reason but it's there as plain as day.
Just because Senna might not have been the most sporting of sportsmen or free of career errors does not change this.
If you're still incapable of realising this, just think about who would gain from Senna's death being blamed on anyone but himself. Williams, F1, Circuit de Imola, Dr Watkins? You're talking about a law suit of quite possibly the richest/highest earning sportsman on the planet.
The simplest answer is mechanical failure caused his crash. The easiest answer for all concerned was he caused it himself.
LaurasOtherHalf said:
JNW1 said:
There's no dispute the steering column was found to be broken after the accident but Williams attributed that to the impact and said up to that point their telemetry had shown it to be intact and still working.
In terms of the apparent excess movement of the column referred to by the OP, in his book Damon Hill says it was the on-board camera that was moving rather than the steering column. However, what I don't quite understand about that is why the steering column would appear to move so much relative to the rest of the car; if the camera was wobbling around wouldn't the whole of the image move but the steering column stay in place relative to rest of the car?
Also, to my eyes at least the column on Senna's car does appear to be moving around more in the race than it did in the morning warm-up session; therefore, if that apparent excess movement was indeed just a function of the camera moving about had that somehow worked loose between the warm-up and the race?
I do agree Senna wasn't perfect - nobody is after all - and it is possible he made a mistake. However, when I watched the accident live I remember thinking "something's broken on the car for him to go off like that" and if I'm honest I do still wonder; guess we'll never know for sure though...
All those points/joints between the steering wheel and tyre contact patch and the accident caused the shaft to sheer precisely where the column had been altered?In terms of the apparent excess movement of the column referred to by the OP, in his book Damon Hill says it was the on-board camera that was moving rather than the steering column. However, what I don't quite understand about that is why the steering column would appear to move so much relative to the rest of the car; if the camera was wobbling around wouldn't the whole of the image move but the steering column stay in place relative to rest of the car?
Also, to my eyes at least the column on Senna's car does appear to be moving around more in the race than it did in the morning warm-up session; therefore, if that apparent excess movement was indeed just a function of the camera moving about had that somehow worked loose between the warm-up and the race?
I do agree Senna wasn't perfect - nobody is after all - and it is possible he made a mistake. However, when I watched the accident live I remember thinking "something's broken on the car for him to go off like that" and if I'm honest I do still wonder; guess we'll never know for sure though...
No offence, but anyone who thinks it was anything but the failure of the steering column is either retarded or incapable of understanding basic engineering. There may be many good reasons as to why this wasn't officially given as the reason but it's there as plain as day.
Just because Senna might not have been the most sporting of sportsmen or free of career errors does not change this.
If you're still incapable of realising this, just think about who would gain from Senna's death being blamed on anyone but himself. Williams, F1, Circuit de Imola, Dr Watkins? You're talking about a law suit of quite possibly the richest/highest earning sportsman on the planet.
The simplest answer is mechanical failure caused his crash. The easiest answer for all concerned was he caused it himself.
There are no various joints in the system, it is a straight shaft bolted direct to the rack assembly at one end and has the quick release boss on the other end, with a single support bracket mounted off the dash area bulkhead, common practice on F1 cars of the period. There was a step down gear built into the steering rack assembly that allows the column to be a single piece sitting higher in the tub than would be available to them with a none step down rack assembly and UJ joint.
Its likely the column wouldn't have sheered off in impact had it not been modified with a small diameter thin wall tube, but the fact it had sheered where it has does not mean it failed prior to the impact.
There is enough evidence for either scenario, which is why it is still being discussed all these years later.
jsf said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
JNW1 said:
There's no dispute the steering column was found to be broken after the accident but Williams attributed that to the impact and said up to that point their telemetry had shown it to be intact and still working.
In terms of the apparent excess movement of the column referred to by the OP, in his book Damon Hill says it was the on-board camera that was moving rather than the steering column. However, what I don't quite understand about that is why the steering column would appear to move so much relative to the rest of the car; if the camera was wobbling around wouldn't the whole of the image move but the steering column stay in place relative to rest of the car?
Also, to my eyes at least the column on Senna's car does appear to be moving around more in the race than it did in the morning warm-up session; therefore, if that apparent excess movement was indeed just a function of the camera moving about had that somehow worked loose between the warm-up and the race?
I do agree Senna wasn't perfect - nobody is after all - and it is possible he made a mistake. However, when I watched the accident live I remember thinking "something's broken on the car for him to go off like that" and if I'm honest I do still wonder; guess we'll never know for sure though...
All those points/joints between the steering wheel and tyre contact patch and the accident caused the shaft to sheer precisely where the column had been altered?In terms of the apparent excess movement of the column referred to by the OP, in his book Damon Hill says it was the on-board camera that was moving rather than the steering column. However, what I don't quite understand about that is why the steering column would appear to move so much relative to the rest of the car; if the camera was wobbling around wouldn't the whole of the image move but the steering column stay in place relative to rest of the car?
Also, to my eyes at least the column on Senna's car does appear to be moving around more in the race than it did in the morning warm-up session; therefore, if that apparent excess movement was indeed just a function of the camera moving about had that somehow worked loose between the warm-up and the race?
I do agree Senna wasn't perfect - nobody is after all - and it is possible he made a mistake. However, when I watched the accident live I remember thinking "something's broken on the car for him to go off like that" and if I'm honest I do still wonder; guess we'll never know for sure though...
No offence, but anyone who thinks it was anything but the failure of the steering column is either retarded or incapable of understanding basic engineering. There may be many good reasons as to why this wasn't officially given as the reason but it's there as plain as day.
Just because Senna might not have been the most sporting of sportsmen or free of career errors does not change this.
If you're still incapable of realising this, just think about who would gain from Senna's death being blamed on anyone but himself. Williams, F1, Circuit de Imola, Dr Watkins? You're talking about a law suit of quite possibly the richest/highest earning sportsman on the planet.
The simplest answer is mechanical failure caused his crash. The easiest answer for all concerned was he caused it himself.
There are no various joints in the system, it is a straight shaft bolted direct to the rack assembly at one end and has the quick release boss on the other end, with a single support bracket mounted off the dash area bulkhead, common practice on F1 cars of the period. There was a step down gear built into the steering rack assembly that allows the column to be a single piece sitting higher in the tub than would be available to them with a none step down rack assembly and UJ joint.
Its likely the column wouldn't have sheered off in impact had it not been modified with a small diameter thin wall tube, but the fact it had sheered where it has does not mean it failed prior to the impact.
There is enough evidence for either scenario, which is why it is still being discussed all these years later.
Having said that, as per my previous post, some of the on-board footage does look strange and it certainly appears to me that the steering column in Senna's car was moving around a lot more in the race than it was in the morning warm-up session. So for me there's still doubt in my mind as to what actually happened; on balance I do lean towards a failure of the steering column causing the accident but only one person knows for sure and sadly he's no longer with us...
I'm amazed at the ignorance shown by many posters on this thread. The retrial concluded the steering column did break and Williams were culpable:
Thus, on 13 April 2007, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation delivered its own verdict (number 15050) stating that: "It has been determined that the accident was caused by a steering column failure. This failure was caused by badly designed and badly executed modifications. The responsibility for this falls on Patrick Head, culpable of omitted control".
Thus, on 13 April 2007, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation delivered its own verdict (number 15050) stating that: "It has been determined that the accident was caused by a steering column failure. This failure was caused by badly designed and badly executed modifications. The responsibility for this falls on Patrick Head, culpable of omitted control".
ELUSIVEJIM said:
Exactly.
Drivers were prepared and allowed to go and race in different series around the World.
Perhaps when drivers like Jim Clark were lost during these races away from F1 teams were then not willing to let this go on.
Because of the way F1 has been pushed in the media over the last 30 years, fans have put it a cut above - I think we all know people who don't give a rats arse about racing outside of F1. I had a friend who wanted to be an motor racing journalist, but with the best will in the world, knew fDrivers were prepared and allowed to go and race in different series around the World.
Perhaps when drivers like Jim Clark were lost during these races away from F1 teams were then not willing to let this go on.
k all about racing outside of F1. Literally fk all. And I think some drivers also think that and wouldn't race in something else given the chance. Some would I am sure. But others probably wouldn't as it would be a bit beneath them.
All IMHO of course.
Olivera said:
I'm amazed at the ignorance shown by many posters on this thread. The retrial concluded the steering column did break and Williams were culpable:
Thus, on 13 April 2007, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation delivered its own verdict (number 15050) stating that: "It has been determined that the accident was caused by a steering column failure. This failure was caused by badly designed and badly executed modifications. The responsibility for this falls on Patrick Head, culpable of omitted control".
What ignorance?Thus, on 13 April 2007, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation delivered its own verdict (number 15050) stating that: "It has been determined that the accident was caused by a steering column failure. This failure was caused by badly designed and badly executed modifications. The responsibility for this falls on Patrick Head, culpable of omitted control".
You are talking about ITALIAN courts here - which have a notorious record of flip flopping their decisions and blaming whoever is NOT Italian when something bad happens.
Vocal Minority said:
Because of the way F1 has been pushed in the media over the last 30 years, fans have put it a cut above - I think we all know people who don't give a rats arse about racing outside of F1. I had a friend who wanted to be an motor racing journalist, but with the best will in the world, knew fk all about racing outside of F1. Literally fk all.
And I think some drivers also think that and wouldn't race in something else given the chance. Some would I am sure. But others probably wouldn't as it would be a bit beneath them.
All IMHO of course.
So true.k all about racing outside of F1. Literally fk all. And I think some drivers also think that and wouldn't race in something else given the chance. Some would I am sure. But others probably wouldn't as it would be a bit beneath them.
All IMHO of course.
Formula 1 and Grand Prix racing was once a fully integral part of the whole motor sport pantheon. Now it is an isolated and separate activity that has less and less in common with the rest of the genre.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff