Slightly different footage of Senna's crash...
Discussion
George29 said:
Why would I want to re-read the entire thread again? Most of it is full of made up "facts" with nothing to back it up
If you haven't done so already I suggest you have a read of Martin Zustack's short book on the subject; a link is in the post below and, while nothing is ever going to be conclusive where this is concerned, it's interesting and informative IMO. number 46 said:
This link to an book about the possible causes of Sennas crash is very interesting reading. Its seems to conclude that steering failure is the most likely cause.
http://martinzustak.com/files/Tamburello_PDF_versi...
http://martinzustak.com/files/Tamburello_PDF_versi...
JNW1 said:
George29 said:
Why would I want to re-read the entire thread again? Most of it is full of made up "facts" with nothing to back it up
If you haven't done so already I suggest you have a read of Martin Zustack's short book on the subject; a link is in the post below and, while nothing is ever going to be conclusive where this is concerned, it's interesting and informative IMO. number 46 said:
This link to an book about the possible causes of Sennas crash is very interesting reading. Its seems to conclude that steering failure is the most likely cause.
http://martinzustak.com/files/Tamburello_PDF_versi...
http://martinzustak.com/files/Tamburello_PDF_versi...
Unless you post the point for him.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
His attention span will not last that long.
Unless you post the point for him.
I'm actually questioning all your claims because the info I have direct from the Williams factory and engineers involved in the trial and designing the FW16 give a different series of accounts. Stop pretending you know everything about this and claiming everything you find on the internet as a fact Unless you post the point for him.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
JNW1 said:
George29 said:
Why would I want to re-read the entire thread again? Most of it is full of made up "facts" with nothing to back it up
If you haven't done so already I suggest you have a read of Martin Zustack's short book on the subject; a link is in the post below and, while nothing is ever going to be conclusive where this is concerned, it's interesting and informative IMO. number 46 said:
This link to an book about the possible causes of Sennas crash is very interesting reading. Its seems to conclude that steering failure is the most likely cause.
http://martinzustak.com/files/Tamburello_PDF_versi...
http://martinzustak.com/files/Tamburello_PDF_versi...
Unless you post the point for him.
George29 said:
I'm actually questioning all your claims because the info I have direct from the Williams factory and engineers involved in the trial and designing the FW16 give a different series of accounts. Stop pretending you know everything about this and claiming everything you find on the internet as a fact
Next you will be saying you are actually Frank Williams. JNW1 said:
As the author freely admits, the truth of what happened went to the grave with Ayrton Senna. We're therefore left with forming a view based on the evidence we have and personally I lean towards agreeing with Zustack's conclusion (i.e. a steering column failure of some sort probably caused the accident). Doesn't make it a fact of course but the strange movement of the yellow button on the steering wheel points to something different happening on lap 7 at Imola from what had happened on previous laps across that race weekend (and indeed what had happened at the previous two races as well). The idea that that irregular movement was caused by the steering column starting to fail seems plausible to me and I've yet to see a credible alternative explanation....
Exactly.Michele Alboreto who had an accident at Tamburello stated in court that an accident at Tamburello was only due to a mechanical issue with a car.
Not one accident at Tamburello over the years were due to a driver losing it without a problem with the car.
Piquet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLyAKkeA25Q
Patrese
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCcf_aTuldY
Berger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asLvb9mQhuw
Unfortunately no sign of Michele Alboreto's accident online.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 17th January 21:02
ELUSIVEJIM said:
What you believe clearly differs from what I believe.
Clearly you think Senna lost it and crashed without any issues with the car.
If you agree that their was an issue with the Williams then it was Senna's fault.
Clearly not a Senna fan.
This is the best post in this thread - it shows exactly why some are so desperate to argue until the cows come home that it couldn't possibly be either the car bottoming out or whatever - it HAD to be something that their idol could not possibly either be at fault for or had no chance to do anything about.Clearly you think Senna lost it and crashed without any issues with the car.
If you agree that their was an issue with the Williams then it was Senna's fault.
Clearly not a Senna fan.
Reminds me a bit of how they could never countenance the fact that Schumacher may have been the match for Senna on pace - Benetton had to be cheating in every possible way, as that was the only way the 34 year old Senna could be beaten.
number 46 said:
Senna liked a large diameter wheel, therefore the load on his column compared to Hills may have been more??
It doesn't matter how large or small the steering wheel is, the torque applied to the column is dictated only by the relationship between the tyre grip and the steering rack load ratio through the assembly.Using a large steering wheel reduces the amount of effort the driver has to put into the steering system, not the amount of work the steering column does.
It's very basic mechanical leverage principles.
vonuber said:
This is the best post in this thread - it shows exactly why some are so desperate to argue until the cows come home that it couldn't possibly be either the car bottoming out or whatever - it HAD to be something that their idol could not possibly either be at fault for or had no chance to do anything about.
Reminds me a bit of how they could never countenance the fact that Schumacher may have been the match for Senna on pace - Benetton had to be cheating in every possible way, as that was the only way the 34 year old Senna could be beaten.
For what it's worth I wasn't really a great Senna fan; he was indisputably quick on a flying lap but I didn't much care for some of his tactics (to put it mildly) and I always thought Prost was a more complete driver. However, that notwithstanding, in terms of his accident at Imola I still think on balance the evidence more supports a steering column failure than it does a simple driver error.Reminds me a bit of how they could never countenance the fact that Schumacher may have been the match for Senna on pace - Benetton had to be cheating in every possible way, as that was the only way the 34 year old Senna could be beaten.
I also think that on balance Benetton were probably cheating in 1994; viewed in conjunction with his move on Hill in the final race it all made for a pretty hollow driver's title for Schumacher IMO....
vonuber said:
This is the best post in this thread - it shows exactly why some are so desperate to argue until the cows come home that it couldn't possibly be either the car bottoming out or whatever - it HAD to be something that their idol could not possibly either be at fault for or had no chance to do anything about.
Reminds me a bit of how they could never countenance the fact that Schumacher may have been the match for Senna on pace - Benetton had to be cheating in every possible way, as that was the only way the 34 year old Senna could be beaten.
I doubt you would find many people thinking the Benetton was 100% legal in 1994.Reminds me a bit of how they could never countenance the fact that Schumacher may have been the match for Senna on pace - Benetton had to be cheating in every possible way, as that was the only way the 34 year old Senna could be beaten.
For a fact the FIA revealed Benetton had been using an illegal fuel valve without a fuel filter that allowed fuel into the car 12.5% faster than a legal fuel valve. GUILTY.
JNW1 said:
For what it's worth I wasn't really a great Senna fan; he was indisputably quick on a flying lap but I didn't much care for some of his tactics (to put it mildly) and I always thought Prost was a more complete driver. However, that notwithstanding, in terms of his accident at Imola I still think on balance the evidence more supports a steering column failure than it does a simple driver error.
Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know. Watching the Senna documentary he is on record saying how the cars were much harder to drive, with spins and crashes much more likely that year as all the electronics had gone. Even Williams admit the car was unstable in its handling. So it is not beyond the realm of possibility is it.ELUSIVEJIM said:
George29 said:
Do we? Do you really think if the mechanics knew a steering column had a crack in it then they would allow it on track? What evidence have you got to support this claim?
Perhaps reading the whole thread again would save posting this again.Newey quote
"The steering column failure, was it the cause, or did it happen in the accident?" said Newey, speaking in an exclusive interview broadcast on 5 live F1 on Thursday.
"There is no doubt it was cracked. Equally, all the data, all the circuit cameras, the on-board camera from Michael Schumacher's car that was following, none of that appears to be consistent with a steering-column failure.
What Adrian Newey is saying is that there was evidence of cracking in the assembly. He is not saying that the cracking evidence shows a column failure prior to the crash.
I could go into my stores at work tomorrow and pull out components from F1 cars I race prepare that have cracks in them, that have not failed.
You find cracks in serviceable components all the time on racing cars, its why we crack test them and life them. When you crack test a component, you wont find any cracks in it, until its started to crack, its not yet failed.
A whole multi billion £ industry works on this principle of None Destructive Testing of components. I used to work on the equipment that caries out these tests in a previous life that was used on anything from an oil refinery, airframe, racing car or nuclear power station.
On the F1 cars I race prepare, the FIA insists everything safety critical is crack tested every 2 years. They insist all new components including spares are crack tested before use. I go further and crack test everything every year, with the more heavily loaded components crack tested after every event and then removed from service even when not showing signs of cracking when service life dictates.
With all mechanical components, even with the best design and systems in place, you can have unexpected failures. That's the nature of the beast of working with metallurgy. We do what we can to keep everyone as safe as possible via the systems put in place, but no one working with these high performance vehicles will ever be able to say they will never see a component failure. It's simply not possible.
vonuber said:
JNW1 said:
For what it's worth I wasn't really a great Senna fan; he was indisputably quick on a flying lap but I didn't much care for some of his tactics (to put it mildly) and I always thought Prost was a more complete driver. However, that notwithstanding, in terms of his accident at Imola I still think on balance the evidence more supports a steering column failure than it does a simple driver error.
Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know. Watching the Senna documentary he is on record saying how the cars were much harder to drive, with spins and crashes much more likely that year as all the electronics had gone. Even Williams admit the car was unstable in its handling. So it is not beyond the realm of possibility is it.As you say, we'll never know for certain but from the evidence I've seen if I was a betting man my money would be on a problem with the steering column being the most likely cause of Senna's accident.
jsf said:
I've come to the conclusion Jim, that you are a bit thick.
What Adrian Newey is saying is that there was evidence of cracking in the assembly. He is not saying that the cracking evidence shows a column failure prior to the crash.
I could go into my stores at work tomorrow and pull out components from F1 cars I race prepare that have cracks in them, that have not failed.
You find cracks in serviceable components all the time on racing cars, its why we crack test them and life them. When you crack test a component, you wont find any cracks in it, until its started to crack, its not yet failed.
A whole multi billion £ industry works on this principle of None Destructive Testing of components. I used to work on the equipment that caries out these tests in a previous life that was used on anything from an oil refinery, airframe, racing car or nuclear power station.
On the F1 cars I race prepare, the FIA insists everything safety critical is crack tested every 2 years. They insist all new components including spares are crack tested before use. I go further and crack test everything every year, with the more heavily loaded components crack tested after every event and then removed from service even when not showing signs of cracking when service life dictates.
With all mechanical components, even with the best design and systems in place, you can have unexpected failures. That's the nature of the beast of working with metallurgy. We do what we can to keep everyone as safe as possible via the systems put in place, but no one working with these high performance vehicles will ever be able to say they will never see a component failure. It's simply not possible.
Newey himself has no idea whether the column broke before of after the crash. What Adrian Newey is saying is that there was evidence of cracking in the assembly. He is not saying that the cracking evidence shows a column failure prior to the crash.
I could go into my stores at work tomorrow and pull out components from F1 cars I race prepare that have cracks in them, that have not failed.
You find cracks in serviceable components all the time on racing cars, its why we crack test them and life them. When you crack test a component, you wont find any cracks in it, until its started to crack, its not yet failed.
A whole multi billion £ industry works on this principle of None Destructive Testing of components. I used to work on the equipment that caries out these tests in a previous life that was used on anything from an oil refinery, airframe, racing car or nuclear power station.
On the F1 cars I race prepare, the FIA insists everything safety critical is crack tested every 2 years. They insist all new components including spares are crack tested before use. I go further and crack test everything every year, with the more heavily loaded components crack tested after every event and then removed from service even when not showing signs of cracking when service life dictates.
With all mechanical components, even with the best design and systems in place, you can have unexpected failures. That's the nature of the beast of working with metallurgy. We do what we can to keep everyone as safe as possible via the systems put in place, but no one working with these high performance vehicles will ever be able to say they will never see a component failure. It's simply not possible.
It also was stated that it would have failed at some point.
Again look at the courts verdict if you find it hard to think this actually happened.
Also check out the footage of Senna and the rest of the field during the practice and qualifying sessions for Imola that weekend.
Senna's williams, Schumachers Benetton and most of the field were all bottoming out when negotiating Tamburello.
This was normal.
Finally if you think you are going to get a reaction for calling me thick then jog on.
Very mature
jsf said:
ELUSIVEJIM said:
George29 said:
Do we? Do you really think if the mechanics knew a steering column had a crack in it then they would allow it on track? What evidence have you got to support this claim?
Perhaps reading the whole thread again would save posting this again.Newey quote
"The steering column failure, was it the cause, or did it happen in the accident?" said Newey, speaking in an exclusive interview broadcast on 5 live F1 on Thursday.
"There is no doubt it was cracked. Equally, all the data, all the circuit cameras, the on-board camera from Michael Schumacher's car that was following, none of that appears to be consistent with a steering-column failure.
What Adrian Newey is saying is that there was evidence of cracking in the assembly. He is not saying that the cracking evidence shows a column failure prior to the crash.
I could go into my stores at work tomorrow and pull out components from F1 cars I race prepare that have cracks in them, that have not failed.
You find cracks in serviceable components all the time on racing cars, its why we crack test them and life them. When you crack test a component, you wont find any cracks in it, until its started to crack, its not yet failed.
A whole multi billion £ industry works on this principle of None Destructive Testing of components. I used to work on the equipment that caries out these tests in a previous life that was used on anything from an oil refinery, airframe, racing car or nuclear power station.
On the F1 cars I race prepare, the FIA insists everything safety critical is crack tested every 2 years. They insist all new components including spares are crack tested before use. I go further and crack test everything every year, with the more heavily loaded components crack tested after every event and then removed from service even when not showing signs of cracking when service life dictates.
With all mechanical components, even with the best design and systems in place, you can have unexpected failures. That's the nature of the beast of working with metallurgy. We do what we can to keep everyone as safe as possible via the systems put in place, but no one working with these high performance vehicles will ever be able to say they will never see a component failure. It's simply not possible.
The crack in Senna's steering column was a fatigue crack and you can actually see this in the photographs a link to which was posted earlier in the thread.
So we have a car with a significant crack in a modified steering column, that goes off the track in a straight line as if there was a steering failure and when the car is examined the column is broken. A court carries out a forensic examination of all the evidence and concludes that there was a failure of the steering column.
As I said, who's thick here.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff