Slightly different footage of Senna's crash...
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
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.
And really - that's where the discussion can really go no further. In the end, he crashed and died - no amount of discussion or debate will bring him back or be of any help to those who were intimately involved in the events of that day.
All I know is that it is a day that changed F1 forever - and will probably be seen as the point at where it began a long slow decline towards irrelevance.
All I know is that it is a day that changed F1 forever - and will probably be seen as the point at where it began a long slow decline towards irrelevance.
Eric Mc said:
And really - that's where the discussion can really go no further. In the end, he crashed and died - no amount of discussion or debate will bring him back or be of any help to those who were intimately involved in the events of that day.
All I know is that it is a day that changed F1 forever - and will probably be seen as the point at where it began a long slow decline towards irrelevance.
I think Senna would have probably hated some of the changes that were made following his accident; long sweeping bends being replaced with low-speed chicanes is, if I'm guessing, not the sort of thing he'd have wanted to see.All I know is that it is a day that changed F1 forever - and will probably be seen as the point at where it began a long slow decline towards irrelevance.
Not sure about F1 beginning a slow decline towards irrelevance is entirely fair though; personally I don't enjoy it as much as when Senna/Prost/Mansell were around but I put that down more to my slow decline towards becoming a grumpy old man than anything else!
There's always the "grumpy old man" aspect to consider - although I do my best not to concede to the onset of same.
I really do think that F1 grew and grew and grew as far as world impact is concerned all through the 70s and 80s and became more and more intense - with massive battles, not just on track but also psychological, building between people like Senna, Prost, Mansell, Schumacher and Hill. After Senna died and Hill eventually won his championship in 1996, I think that the intensity began to dribble away.
And I don't see it ever returning.
I really do think that F1 grew and grew and grew as far as world impact is concerned all through the 70s and 80s and became more and more intense - with massive battles, not just on track but also psychological, building between people like Senna, Prost, Mansell, Schumacher and Hill. After Senna died and Hill eventually won his championship in 1996, I think that the intensity began to dribble away.
And I don't see it ever returning.
Eric Mc said:
There's always the "grumpy old man" aspect to consider - although I do my best not to concede to the onset of same.
I really do think that F1 grew and grew and grew as far as world impact is concerned all through the 70s and 80s and became more and more intense - with massive battles, not just on track but also psychological, building between people like Senna, Prost, Mansell, Schumacher and Hill. After Senna died and Hill eventually won his championship in 1996, I think that the intensity began to dribble away.
And I don't see it ever returning.
I think any sport thrives on competitive rivalries and F1 can sometimes be a bit lacking in that regard. That's especially true if one team is dominant and within that team either one driver is clearly better than the other or, worse, one driver has number one status and cannot even be challenged by his teammate (witness Schumacher at Ferrari). In 1988/89 McLaren were dominant but they had the two best drivers and were prepared to let them race; that created lots of tension within the team but made for quite compulsive viewing for the rest of us! I really do think that F1 grew and grew and grew as far as world impact is concerned all through the 70s and 80s and became more and more intense - with massive battles, not just on track but also psychological, building between people like Senna, Prost, Mansell, Schumacher and Hill. After Senna died and Hill eventually won his championship in 1996, I think that the intensity began to dribble away.
And I don't see it ever returning.
I think there is still the potential for some good rivalries and interesting racing in F1 today but in the last few years we've seen one team dominant (first Red Bull, more latterly Mercedes) and in both cases I think one driver was clearly stronger than the other (Vettel in the Red Bull, then Hamilton in the Mercedes). Yes I know Rosberg won the title last year but only thanks to a combination of circumstances which torpedoed Hamilton's challenge; Nico knows that and I suspect that's why he's quit (i.e. he knows Lewis is unlikely to be quite so unlucky again and knows he's unlikely to beat him unless he is). However, if the new regulations for 2017 level the playing field in terms of the competitiveness of the cars I think a battle between Hamilton and the Ferrari and/or Red Bull drivers could make for a good spectacle; Alonso is also still up there in terms of driver talent but sadly I don't see McLaren giving him a car that's capable of fighting for victories this year.
[quote=Eric Mc]There's always the "grumpy old man" aspect to consider - although I do my best not to concede to the onset of same.
I really do think that F1 grew and grew and grew as far as world impact is concerned all through the 70s and 80s and became more and more intense - with massive battles, not just on track but also psychological, building between people like Senna, Prost, Mansell, Schumacher and Hill. After Senna died and Hill eventually won his championship in 1996, I think that the intensity began to dribble away.
And I don't see it ever returning.
The biggest issue with modern F1 is that it is not free on say the BBC or ITV.
If you are wanting to attract new young fans you need to have free TV coverage.
I really do think that F1 grew and grew and grew as far as world impact is concerned all through the 70s and 80s and became more and more intense - with massive battles, not just on track but also psychological, building between people like Senna, Prost, Mansell, Schumacher and Hill. After Senna died and Hill eventually won his championship in 1996, I think that the intensity began to dribble away.
And I don't see it ever returning.
The biggest issue with modern F1 is that it is not free on say the BBC or ITV.
If you are wanting to attract new young fans you need to have free TV coverage.
One thing that really surprised me was Bruno Senna driving for Williams.
After what happened to Senna and the findings of the Court case for Ayrton Senna's nephew to drive for Williams was surprising.
I know Williams always have had Senna's name on their cars for his foundation since his death and also taking on Bruno must have helped ease any issues.
But again was this a sign of guilt by Williams or just a case of circumstances?
Tin foil hat on
After what happened to Senna and the findings of the Court case for Ayrton Senna's nephew to drive for Williams was surprising.
I know Williams always have had Senna's name on their cars for his foundation since his death and also taking on Bruno must have helped ease any issues.
But again was this a sign of guilt by Williams or just a case of circumstances?
Tin foil hat on
ELUSIVEJIM said:
Luck Hill was not injured or worse.
Why so? Are you suggesting what happened is common place, or that Williams have a reputation for shoddy cars, or what? I'd say far from lucky, that there's no chance whatsoever of the same happening again, and it didn't. (And nor before either)ELUSIVEJIM said:
Yet they still allowed Hill to race without knowing the issue Senna had.
Allowed yes, but nobody forced him. I guess he knew he was a big boy and could make decisions for himself.LaurasOtherHalf said:
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.
Then why do you suppose it took two rather drawn out trials to come to the conclusion? I guess if it's basic engineering to not know that column broke it must have been beyond the guys ability to make it in the first place. F1 cars are prototypes, every event the car has new parts, some are more marginal that others and mistakes can happen. The drivers know they are driving a prototype that brings potential risks.
Even in the current era, you see failures. Remember the Toro Rosso that lost both front uprights under braking? This last year we saw suspension failures when the kerbs became more severe, Buttons last race ended with front suspension failure.
The reason we see less dramatic results of these failures is because of the circuit design and safety now inbuilt into the cars. Be in no doubt that in a mechanical sport, even with the best of facilities and brains, they will get it wrong.
F1 cars are not road cars with huge over engineered strength, they are the total opposite where any additional weight is punished on the stop watch.
I get to see F1 cars stripped down to the last nut and bolt, its my job to restore and race prep them. Part of that process is to crack test any critical safety related component. You would be amazed what we find cracked when we do a restore on a car that was raced and then parked up before I get to strip it.
Even in the current era, you see failures. Remember the Toro Rosso that lost both front uprights under braking? This last year we saw suspension failures when the kerbs became more severe, Buttons last race ended with front suspension failure.
The reason we see less dramatic results of these failures is because of the circuit design and safety now inbuilt into the cars. Be in no doubt that in a mechanical sport, even with the best of facilities and brains, they will get it wrong.
F1 cars are not road cars with huge over engineered strength, they are the total opposite where any additional weight is punished on the stop watch.
I get to see F1 cars stripped down to the last nut and bolt, its my job to restore and race prep them. Part of that process is to crack test any critical safety related component. You would be amazed what we find cracked when we do a restore on a car that was raced and then parked up before I get to strip it.
heebeegeetee said:
Then why do you suppose it took two rather drawn out trials to come to the conclusion? I guess if it's basic engineering to not know that column broke it must have been beyond the guys ability to make it in the first place.
Because it suited no one for the guilty verdict to come, no one. You think it's coincidence that the guilty verdict only came about once enough time had passed for their to be no repercussions?heebeegeetee said:
Then why do you suppose it took two rather drawn out trials to come to the conclusion? I guess if it's basic engineering to not know that column broke it must have been beyond the guys ability to make it in the first place.
How did Williams 100% know Hill car was safe?Considering Williams team members at the time are stating Senna's column was at least cracked before he hit the wall.
Martin Brundle spoke to someone at the Chinese GP in 2015 who basically stated it was the steering column.
It took two trials to get the real information and facts.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
How did Williams 100% know Hill car was safe?
Considering Williams team members at the time are stating Senna's column was at least cracked before he hit the wall.
Martin Brundle spoke to someone at the Chinese GP in 2015 who basically stated it was the steering column.
It took two trials to get the real information and facts.
No team can say their car is 100% safe.Considering Williams team members at the time are stating Senna's column was at least cracked before he hit the wall.
Martin Brundle spoke to someone at the Chinese GP in 2015 who basically stated it was the steering column.
It took two trials to get the real information and facts.
Motorsport is dangerous and when you step into the cockpit you should be well aware of the risks you put yourself under.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
How did Williams 100% know Hill car was safe?
Considering Williams team members at the time are stating Senna's column was at least cracked before he hit the wall.
Martin Brundle spoke to someone at the Chinese GP in 2015 who basically stated it was the steering column.
It took two trials to get the real information and facts.
Why are you bringing Williams into this aspect? It was Hill's decision and his alone to race, you should be having a go at him. Nobody at Williams was in a position to instruct or force Hill to race. He was driving the car at the time, he had as good an idea of the condition of the car as anybody, and furthermore he's regarded as a lot more intelligent than most racing drivers I believe, so if I were you I'd take this up with Damon Hill because he decided to race.Considering Williams team members at the time are stating Senna's column was at least cracked before he hit the wall.
Martin Brundle spoke to someone at the Chinese GP in 2015 who basically stated it was the steering column.
It took two trials to get the real information and facts.
Let's be frank - Hill hadn't taken himself out of the first two races like Senna did, and had that championship been run properly by the FIA with proper action against fuel rig tampering and the like, Hill would have been champion that year, so Williams can't have been that tardy.
I doubt very much that at the race "Williams team members at the time are stating Senna's column was at least cracked before he hit the wall" - that sounds absurd to me. At the time nobody had a clue why he had crashed.
"Martin Brundle spoke to someone at the Chinese GP in 2015 who basically stated it was the steering column". - And he will also have spoken to many who don't think that, but we'll ignore them, shall we?
"It took two trials to get the real information and facts." - that shows a lot of naievity on your part imo. I'm glad you have such faith in the legal process, but I've been around too long to share that faith in this country, never mind Italy.
You seem to be lambasting the Williams team here but you are forgetting that Senna was part of that team, so if you're blaming the team you need to include him. We're talking about a driver who had chosen to smash another driver off the track at high speed on a previous occasion, and had countless collisions in his career (remember the Jackie Stewart interview), any one of which could have done him (or others) serious harm, so let's not get feeling too sorry for these tough characters in a tough sport.
Motor racing is dangerous but there are one or two on this thread who are getting a bit Generation Snowflake about it all imo.
jsf said:
F1 cars are prototypes, every event the car has new parts, some are more marginal that others and mistakes can happen. The drivers know they are driving a prototype that brings potential risks.
Even in the current era, you see failures. Remember the Toro Rosso that lost both front uprights under braking? This last year we saw suspension failures when the kerbs became more severe, Buttons last race ended with front suspension failure.
The reason we see less dramatic results of these failures is because of the circuit design and safety now inbuilt into the cars. Be in no doubt that in a mechanical sport, even with the best of facilities and brains, they will get it wrong.
F1 cars are not road cars with huge over engineered strength, they are the total opposite where any additional weight is punished on the stop watch.
I get to see F1 cars stripped down to the last nut and bolt, its my job to restore and race prep them. Part of that process is to crack test any critical safety related component. You would be amazed what we find cracked when we do a restore on a car that was raced and then parked up before I get to strip it.
I've been wanting to write this post for the past week or so. You've captured it far better than I would have.Even in the current era, you see failures. Remember the Toro Rosso that lost both front uprights under braking? This last year we saw suspension failures when the kerbs became more severe, Buttons last race ended with front suspension failure.
The reason we see less dramatic results of these failures is because of the circuit design and safety now inbuilt into the cars. Be in no doubt that in a mechanical sport, even with the best of facilities and brains, they will get it wrong.
F1 cars are not road cars with huge over engineered strength, they are the total opposite where any additional weight is punished on the stop watch.
I get to see F1 cars stripped down to the last nut and bolt, its my job to restore and race prep them. Part of that process is to crack test any critical safety related component. You would be amazed what we find cracked when we do a restore on a car that was raced and then parked up before I get to strip it.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
One thing that really surprised me was Bruno Senna driving for Williams.
After what happened to Senna and the findings of the Court case for Ayrton Senna's nephew to drive for Williams was surprising.
I know Williams always have had Senna's name on their cars for his foundation since his death and also taking on Bruno must have helped ease any issues.
But again was this a sign of guilt by Williams or just a case of circumstances?
Tin foil hat on
eh? that makes no sense? as you'd think Viviane wouldn't let her son anywhere near a team that 'killed' her Brother ...unless of course, she doesn't/ didn't think that.After what happened to Senna and the findings of the Court case for Ayrton Senna's nephew to drive for Williams was surprising.
I know Williams always have had Senna's name on their cars for his foundation since his death and also taking on Bruno must have helped ease any issues.
But again was this a sign of guilt by Williams or just a case of circumstances?
Tin foil hat on
heebeegeetee said:
Why are you bringing Williams into this aspect? It was Hill's decision and his alone to race, you should be having a go at him. Nobody at Williams was in a position to instruct or force Hill to race. He was driving the car at the time, he had as good an idea of the condition of the car as anybody, and furthermore he's regarded as a lot more intelligent than most racing drivers I believe, so if I were you I'd take this up with Damon Hill because he decided to race.
I don't think Hill was pressured to race by the team and reading his book it seemed like the racing driver instinct just kicked-in; as soon as the countdown to the restart began his mindset became one of "this is my job, I have to get on with it in the same way my dad and his peers always did". Damon isn't the sort of bloke to dwell on it but personally I think he was very brave to get in his car and take the restart; he probably knew more about Senna's condition than the other drivers on the grid - which mentally must have difficult for him - but more than that there was a real question as to why Senna had gone off. If it was a result of car failure who's to say the same fault wouldn't have affected Hill's car and that being the case IMO it was pretty brave of Damon to get in the sister car and complete a Grand Prix.Interestingly, the one thing Williams told Hill to do prior to the restart was turn off the power steering which perhaps suggests they had an inclination the accident might have been steering related? However, as Damon points out, the effect of doing that was to put more load on the steering and despite that the steering column in his car survived the entire Grand Prix distance intact. That arguably makes a premature failure of the steering column in Senna's car less likely but bearing in mind the modifications were done manually and in haste I suppose there's every chance the modification in the two cars wasn't done to quite the same standard? Therefore, while I understand the point Damon's making, it's not conclusive evidence that the steering column in Senna's car didn't break and cause his accident.
heebeegeetee said:
Why are you bringing Williams into this aspect? It was Hill's decision and his alone to race, you should be having a go at him. Nobody at Williams was in a position to instruct or force Hill to race. He was driving the car at the time, he had as good an idea of the condition of the car as anybody, and furthermore he's regarded as a lot more intelligent than most racing drivers I believe, so if I were you I'd take this up with Damon Hill because he decided to race.
Let's be frank - Hill hadn't taken himself out of the first two races like Senna did, and had that championship been run properly by the FIA with proper action against fuel rig tampering and the like, Hill would have been champion that year, so Williams can't have been that tardy.
I doubt very much that at the race "Williams team members at the time are stating Senna's column was at least cracked before he hit the wall" - that sounds absurd to me. At the time nobody had a clue why he had crashed.
"Martin Brundle spoke to someone at the Chinese GP in 2015 who basically stated it was the steering column". - And he will also have spoken to many who don't think that, but we'll ignore them, shall we?
"It took two trials to get the real information and facts." - that shows a lot of naievity on your part imo. I'm glad you have such faith in the legal process, but I've been around too long to share that faith in this country, never mind Italy.
You seem to be lambasting the Williams team here but you are forgetting that Senna was part of that team, so if you're blaming the team you need to include him. We're talking about a driver who had chosen to smash another driver off the track at high speed on a previous occasion, and had countless collisions in his career (remember the Jackie Stewart interview), any one of which could have done him (or others) serious harm, so let's not get feeling too sorry for these tough characters in a tough sport.
Motor racing is dangerous but there are one or two on this thread who are getting a bit Generation Snowflake about it all imo.
Why am I bringing Williams into this aspect? Let's be frank - Hill hadn't taken himself out of the first two races like Senna did, and had that championship been run properly by the FIA with proper action against fuel rig tampering and the like, Hill would have been champion that year, so Williams can't have been that tardy.
I doubt very much that at the race "Williams team members at the time are stating Senna's column was at least cracked before he hit the wall" - that sounds absurd to me. At the time nobody had a clue why he had crashed.
"Martin Brundle spoke to someone at the Chinese GP in 2015 who basically stated it was the steering column". - And he will also have spoken to many who don't think that, but we'll ignore them, shall we?
"It took two trials to get the real information and facts." - that shows a lot of naievity on your part imo. I'm glad you have such faith in the legal process, but I've been around too long to share that faith in this country, never mind Italy.
You seem to be lambasting the Williams team here but you are forgetting that Senna was part of that team, so if you're blaming the team you need to include him. We're talking about a driver who had chosen to smash another driver off the track at high speed on a previous occasion, and had countless collisions in his career (remember the Jackie Stewart interview), any one of which could have done him (or others) serious harm, so let's not get feeling too sorry for these tough characters in a tough sport.
Motor racing is dangerous but there are one or two on this thread who are getting a bit Generation Snowflake about it all imo.
Erm. It was there car. I very much doubt Hill would have been told anything apart from Senna was being transported to hospital. A racing driver is there to do a job but when one car goes off the track without any knowledge of why and it looks to everyone that it was a car issue then Williams did take a huge risk putting Hill back out in the Williams.
Hill didn't take himself out in the first two races.
I think you will find Senna spun in the first race in Brazil trying to stay with an illegal Benetton and the second he was hit by Hakinen going into turn one before being hit again by Larini. Remember he still got pole in the first three races of the season. Where was Hill? Hill was no match for Senna and only go the chance of a run due to Senna's death. When push came to shove he binned it going for a stupid move on Schumacher.
The Williams team would not have known exactly what had happened but seeing a steering column detached from the car it is not hard to guess. If as you say they had no clue than why put Damon out for the race.
Martin Brundle clearly has connections in F1. It is pretty obvious to him that the column broke. He felt uncomfortable about stating this which means people in high places know. Damon was stated as being very unclear about certain things during the trial and unable to remember important information about the FW 16. Strange when he was still driving for that team his memory failed him about a car he had driven for a whole season.
It took two trials because information was being withheld. Perhaps it is better to go and read up before posting.
Yes Williams and Senna were a team but you would expect a team to look after their driver and not supply dangerous machinery.
Motorsport is dangerous but if a part fails on a car through poor workmanship or a defect then a team has blood on their hands.
To then state it was driver error is just criminal.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 16th January 11:21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNVOmI64lRs
Go to the 3 minute mark and see what happens with a steering fail.
Oversteer then nothing.
Go to the 3 minute mark and see what happens with a steering fail.
Oversteer then nothing.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff