Ayrton Senna is overrated. Discuss...
Discussion
ELUSIVEJIM said:
Halmyre said:
Nothing Hill says contradicts Newey's statement. If anything it supports it. Newey says it bottomed out; Hill says it bottomed out. Newey says he maybe had a puncture; Hill says Senna took a tighter line - which maybe means he picked up some debris which punctured his tyre.
And anyone can make an error. No-one is infallible.
If the car bottomed out it was due to having a right rear puncture not Senna making a mistake or taking a different line.And anyone can make an error. No-one is infallible.
Again car issue.
Saying that Senna never made an error was a non-sequitur - of course he made errors. Everyone does.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
So basically you are stating it is stupid of me saying Senna would not lose it at tamburello curve yet then post stating it was more than likely Senna had a right rear puncture.
And still Newey can not tell if the steering column broke before the accident or not?
BTW I know Senna could spin or crash but I am talking about Tamburello curve which was not even a corner.
The only accidents there have been due to cars hitting each other or a car issue.
Again Senna had a car issue.
While commentating on the race that weekend John Watson stated Senna must have had a car issue as it is not a difficult curve to take.
Erm.. no that wasn't what I said at all - I said it was ridiculous to suggest that a driver like Senna would never make a mistake at a curve, at the time you hadn't clarified that you specifically meant that curve. I still don't think it beyond the realm of possibility that he could make a mistake at Tamburello but that's neither here nor there really since I'm not suggesting that he did "lose it" when he had his fatal accident.And still Newey can not tell if the steering column broke before the accident or not?
BTW I know Senna could spin or crash but I am talking about Tamburello curve which was not even a corner.
The only accidents there have been due to cars hitting each other or a car issue.
Again Senna had a car issue.
While commentating on the race that weekend John Watson stated Senna must have had a car issue as it is not a difficult curve to take.
And yes Newey is saying that he can't be sure if it broke before the accident, but he doesn't believe that it did. The sections I restored to the quote are him explaining his reasoning as to why he doesn't think the steering column was the cause. Given your opening statement was:
ELUSIVEJIM said:
The biggest flaw with Ayrton Senna was his Williams FW 16 steering column at the tamburello curve.
You clearly believe that that steering column failed and caused the accident, you then posted an edited quote from Newey with the specific parts where he argues against the steering column as the cause removed in support of your position. You are of course free to believe the steering column failure theory or not, I genuinely couldn't care less, it was the misrepresenting what Newey said that I object to.[quote=KaraK]
You clearly believe that that steering column failed and caused the accident, you then posted an edited quote from Newey with the specific parts where he argues against the steering column as the cause removed in support of your position. You are of course free to believe the steering column failure theory or not, I genuinely couldn't care less, it was the misrepresenting what Newey said that I object to.
The quote I copied was from a forum. Clearly looking at the actual article by James Allen it is very clear it was edited to make it sound more convincing.
Obviously I would not have copied and pasted this if I thought it was false. This I do agree is totally false which I am sorry about.
I still feel that even back in 1994 teams were able to determine exactly what happened to Senna's car but important evidence was not available.
During the court proceedings the following was mentioned regarding Senna's car
This focused initially on whether the FIA had been informed of a modification to Senna's steering column made two weeks before the race.
In his testimony Whiting said that Senna's car had been modified without permission before the race, but the modification would have been bound to have been reported at the next regular check.
Williams claimed they had already informed the FIA and could prove it. Whiting, who in 1994 was responsible for checking all F1 cars, said that he had approved Senna's car in February and again in March.
But after looking at photographs of minor changes to the chassis Whiting told the court: "I don't remember this on Senna's car."
Whiting was asked to explain why he had contravened his own regulations by giving the black box, taken from Senna's car, to the Williams team before handing it over to officials.
Whiting claimed he had done so because of the overriding need to make sure the other Williams car might not suffer the same strange loss of control which had apparently affected Senna's.
He confirmed the statement made yesterday by Bernard Duffort, the Renault electronics expert, and told the court he had authorised the Williams representatives to remove the black box immediately after the accident, but it had been damaged in the crash and all the efforts made at the circuit to read the data were in vain.
However, Marco Spiga, an electronics expert, disputed Whiting's claim and said he felt it could be used.
Whiting's statement was in direct contradiction to a testimony given yesterday by Fabrizio Nosco who said that "apart from a few scratches, both black boxes were intact when he removed them from Senna's car."
A further investigation of the data recorder was called for, and all the parties involved were summoned to an examination of the unit at the Engineering Department of Bologna University on March 24.
You clearly believe that that steering column failed and caused the accident, you then posted an edited quote from Newey with the specific parts where he argues against the steering column as the cause removed in support of your position. You are of course free to believe the steering column failure theory or not, I genuinely couldn't care less, it was the misrepresenting what Newey said that I object to.
The quote I copied was from a forum. Clearly looking at the actual article by James Allen it is very clear it was edited to make it sound more convincing.
Obviously I would not have copied and pasted this if I thought it was false. This I do agree is totally false which I am sorry about.
I still feel that even back in 1994 teams were able to determine exactly what happened to Senna's car but important evidence was not available.
During the court proceedings the following was mentioned regarding Senna's car
This focused initially on whether the FIA had been informed of a modification to Senna's steering column made two weeks before the race.
In his testimony Whiting said that Senna's car had been modified without permission before the race, but the modification would have been bound to have been reported at the next regular check.
Williams claimed they had already informed the FIA and could prove it. Whiting, who in 1994 was responsible for checking all F1 cars, said that he had approved Senna's car in February and again in March.
But after looking at photographs of minor changes to the chassis Whiting told the court: "I don't remember this on Senna's car."
Whiting was asked to explain why he had contravened his own regulations by giving the black box, taken from Senna's car, to the Williams team before handing it over to officials.
Whiting claimed he had done so because of the overriding need to make sure the other Williams car might not suffer the same strange loss of control which had apparently affected Senna's.
He confirmed the statement made yesterday by Bernard Duffort, the Renault electronics expert, and told the court he had authorised the Williams representatives to remove the black box immediately after the accident, but it had been damaged in the crash and all the efforts made at the circuit to read the data were in vain.
However, Marco Spiga, an electronics expert, disputed Whiting's claim and said he felt it could be used.
Whiting's statement was in direct contradiction to a testimony given yesterday by Fabrizio Nosco who said that "apart from a few scratches, both black boxes were intact when he removed them from Senna's car."
A further investigation of the data recorder was called for, and all the parties involved were summoned to an examination of the unit at the Engineering Department of Bologna University on March 24.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 30th September 14:42
ELUSIVEJIM said:
KaraK said:
You clearly believe that that steering column failed and caused the accident, you then posted an edited quote from Newey with the specific parts where he argues against the steering column as the cause removed in support of your position. You are of course free to believe the steering column failure theory or not, I genuinely couldn't care less, it was the misrepresenting what Newey said that I object to.
The quote I copied was from a forum. Clearly looking at the actual article by James Allen it is very clear it was edited to make it sound more convincing.Obviously I would not have copied and pasted this if I thought it was false. This I do agree is totally false which I am sorry about.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
I still feel that even back in 1994 teams were able to determine exactly what happened to Senna's car but important evidence was not available.
During the court proceedings the following was mentioned regarding Senna's car
The rest of the info you posted it's pretty much a straight copy/paste from the "S files", which is not exactly an objective source. In fact it's almost an archetypical conspiracy-loon site. Everything is presented with a very clear agenda towards the argument that the steering failed, Williams were at fault and then every man and his dog covered it up. The whole thing is replete with snide Ad hominem attacks on Williams personnel (including giving Damon Hill a bit of a savaging), and bolding of individual words and phrases like they are some kind of dramatic smoking gun.During the court proceedings the following was mentioned regarding Senna's car
Honestly if it wasn't about such unfortunate subject matter it would be funny, instead it just comes across as a bit morbid and kinda creepy.
Normally I wouldn't bother dignifying that sort of thing with a response but since it's Friday let's give it a whirl:
The S Files said:
This focused initially on whether the FIA had been informed of a modification to Senna's steering column made two weeks before the race.
In his testimony Whiting said that Senna's car had been modified without permission before the race, but the modification would have been bound to have been reported at the next regular check.
Williams claimed they had already informed the FIA and could prove it. Whiting, who in 1994 was responsible for checking all F1 cars, said that he had approved Senna's car in February and again in March.
But after looking at photographs of minor changes to the chassis Whiting told the court: "I don't remember this on Senna's car."
Williams' and Whiting's differing accounts about whether or not he was aware of the modification to the steering column before the race could be taken as either of them covering their arse over it. Or it could simply be that a busy man like Charlie Whiting genuinely didn't remember it or that Williams thought Charlie was aware when he wasn't. I'm inclined to apply Hanlon's Razor here myself but either way it's "he said - she said" and proves nothing one way or the other. Moreover whether Charlie knew of the modifications or not has no bearing on whether the steering column caused the crash - only on potential culpability if it did.In his testimony Whiting said that Senna's car had been modified without permission before the race, but the modification would have been bound to have been reported at the next regular check.
Williams claimed they had already informed the FIA and could prove it. Whiting, who in 1994 was responsible for checking all F1 cars, said that he had approved Senna's car in February and again in March.
But after looking at photographs of minor changes to the chassis Whiting told the court: "I don't remember this on Senna's car."
The S Files said:
Whiting was asked to explain why he had contravened his own regulations by giving the black box, taken from Senna's car, to the Williams team before handing it over to officials.
Whiting claimed he had done so because of the overriding need to make sure the other Williams car might not suffer the same strange loss of control which had apparently affected Senna's.
He confirmed the statement made yesterday by Bernard Duffort, the Renault electronics expert, and told the court he had authorised the Williams representatives to remove the black box immediately after the accident, but it had been damaged in the crash and all the efforts made at the circuit to read the data were in vain.
Again if you were looking for nefariousness you could infer that Charlie was attempting to help Williams in some sort of cover up but I'd say it's highly unlikely. His reason for contravening the regs is certainly plausible and in keeping with his general responsibility towards the safety of the teams/drivers in the race. And how likely is it really that in the midst of a serious crisis that he and Williams sat down and worked out an evil scheme to hamper the investigation? Especially as they were passed the black box "immediately"?Whiting claimed he had done so because of the overriding need to make sure the other Williams car might not suffer the same strange loss of control which had apparently affected Senna's.
He confirmed the statement made yesterday by Bernard Duffort, the Renault electronics expert, and told the court he had authorised the Williams representatives to remove the black box immediately after the accident, but it had been damaged in the crash and all the efforts made at the circuit to read the data were in vain.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
However, Marco Spiga, an electronics expert, disputed Whiting's claim and said he felt it could be used.
Whiting's statement was in direct contradiction to a testimony given yesterday by Fabrizio Nosco who said that "apart from a few scratches, both black boxes were intact when he removed them from Senna's car."
A further investigation of the data recorder was called for, and all the parties involved were summoned to an examination of the unit at the Engineering Department of Bologna University on March 24.
Williams engineers reported that they couldn't recover the data from the recorder due to it being damaged in the crash, and the best argument against that is that someone (who was an FIA safety inspector not an electrical engineer) saw them before they were passed to Williams and claimed that they looked scratched but intact? Really? You could say the same about the Clio sat on my drive, still doesn't fWhiting's statement was in direct contradiction to a testimony given yesterday by Fabrizio Nosco who said that "apart from a few scratches, both black boxes were intact when he removed them from Senna's car."
A further investigation of the data recorder was called for, and all the parties involved were summoned to an examination of the unit at the Engineering Department of Bologna University on March 24.
king start though! 
If that guy can accurately tell the functional status of electronics by sight alone then he is exceptionally talented -Possibly even some form of Wizard. 
I don't mean to imply any dishonesty on his part you understand, just that you really can't tell whether an electronic component is functional until you plug it in and try it.Meanwhile, on that site (and elsewhere) much is made of the amount of play in the steering wheel seen on the onboard footage (particularly on the Betamax format copy of the feed as it's of higher quality than the VHS footage), when this was presented as evidence of imminent steering column failure Williams refuted this by showing footage of David Coulthard turning the wheel of an FW16 at the factory which demonstrated similar movement. That would tally with what Newey freely admits - that the modified steering column wasn't a great bit of engineering but that doesn't mean it was necessarily responsible for the crash. Similarly the lack of steering input once the car had left the track is consistent with it being broken true enough, but it's also consistent with the explanation that Senna was attempting to maximise braking as posited by Williams' defense lawyers.
So we can either buy into the "S files" conspiracy angle, which would require a substantial number of Williams F1 employees (including David Coulthard and Damon Hill) to have perjured themselves for their employer, over the death of a colleague no less. They would then have to have all kept silent on this in the intervening years! Or we can take it as a tragic accident where we will in all likelihood never know the full story
Edited by KaraK on Friday 30th September 17:14
KaraK said:
Williams engineers reported that they couldn't recover the data from the recorder due to it being damaged in the crash, and the best argument against that is that someone (who was an FIA safety inspector not an electrical engineer) saw them before they were passed to Williams and claimed that they looked scratched but intact? Really? You could say the same about the Clio sat on my drive, still doesn't fking start though! If that guy can accurately tell the functional status of electronics by sight alone then he is exceptionally talented -Possibly even some form of Wizard. I don't mean to imply any dishonesty on his part you understand, just that you really can't tell whether an electronic component is functional until you plug it in and try it.
Meanwhile, on that site (and elsewhere) much is made of the amount of play in the steering wheel seen on the onboard footage (particularly on the Betamax format copy of the feed as it's of higher quality than the VHS footage), when this was presented as evidence of imminent steering column failure Williams refuted this by showing footage of David Coulthard turning the wheel of an FW16 at the factory which demonstrated similar movement. That would tally with what Newey freely admits - that the modified steering column wasn't a great bit of engineering but that doesn't mean it was necessarily responsible for the crash. Similarly the lack of steering input once the car had left the track is consistent with it being broken true enough, but it's also consistent with the explanation that Senna was attempting to maximise braking as posited by Williams' defense lawyers.
So we can either buy into the "S files" conspiracy angle, which would require a substantial number of Williams F1 employees (including David Coulthard and Damon Hill) to have perjured themselves for their employer, over the death of a colleague no less. They would then have to have all kept silent on this in the intervening years! Or we can take it as a tragic accident where we will in all likelihood never know the full story
Very well put. king start though! If that guy can accurately tell the functional status of electronics by sight alone then he is exceptionally talented -Possibly even some form of Wizard. I don't mean to imply any dishonesty on his part you understand, just that you really can't tell whether an electronic component is functional until you plug it in and try it.Meanwhile, on that site (and elsewhere) much is made of the amount of play in the steering wheel seen on the onboard footage (particularly on the Betamax format copy of the feed as it's of higher quality than the VHS footage), when this was presented as evidence of imminent steering column failure Williams refuted this by showing footage of David Coulthard turning the wheel of an FW16 at the factory which demonstrated similar movement. That would tally with what Newey freely admits - that the modified steering column wasn't a great bit of engineering but that doesn't mean it was necessarily responsible for the crash. Similarly the lack of steering input once the car had left the track is consistent with it being broken true enough, but it's also consistent with the explanation that Senna was attempting to maximise braking as posited by Williams' defense lawyers.
So we can either buy into the "S files" conspiracy angle, which would require a substantial number of Williams F1 employees (including David Coulthard and Damon Hill) to have perjured themselves for their employer, over the death of a colleague no less. They would then have to have all kept silent on this in the intervening years! Or we can take it as a tragic accident where we will in all likelihood never know the full story
Edited by KaraK on Friday 30th September 17:14
KaraK said:
or we can take it as a tragic accident where we will in all likelihood never know the full story
Indeed.Edited by KaraK on Friday 30th September 17:14
& as a side note, we still don't even know for sure what caused Alonso's crash testing in Barcelona ...& that's with modern telemetry & the driver still around to give feedback- well, sort of
angrymoby said:
Indeed.
& as a side note, we still don't even know for sure what caused Alonso's crash testing in Barcelona ...& that's with modern telemetry & the driver still around to give feedback- well, sort of
I would be pretty sure they know fine what happened but wanted to either save Alonso or McLaren's blushes & as a side note, we still don't even know for sure what caused Alonso's crash testing in Barcelona ...& that's with modern telemetry & the driver still around to give feedback- well, sort of
Sennas crash will forever be open to conjecture....
I saw it live & immediately thought 'car failure'....as it went off it never appeared to change its line
However, I was without the benefit of telemetry.
Certainly the FW16 was ill-handling- Hill mentions the 'porpoising' tendency in his book. Tyre pressures were low & the car fat with fuel. Thus the bottoming through Tamburello was a contributing factor for me.
Just with gut reaction & watching the footage over & over, it still appears to me that the car initially has a 'moment' & oversteers- but as that is subtlely corrected the front wheels appear to just straighten & never turn again
I've read all the blurb about how he was braking & downshifting etc but the straight trajectory has always been troubling to me
I saw it live & immediately thought 'car failure'....as it went off it never appeared to change its line
However, I was without the benefit of telemetry.
Certainly the FW16 was ill-handling- Hill mentions the 'porpoising' tendency in his book. Tyre pressures were low & the car fat with fuel. Thus the bottoming through Tamburello was a contributing factor for me.
Just with gut reaction & watching the footage over & over, it still appears to me that the car initially has a 'moment' & oversteers- but as that is subtlely corrected the front wheels appear to just straighten & never turn again
I've read all the blurb about how he was braking & downshifting etc but the straight trajectory has always been troubling to me
chrismc1977 said:
Sennas crash will forever be open to conjecture....
I saw it live & immediately thought 'car failure'....as it went off it never appeared to change its line
However, I was without the benefit of telemetry.
Certainly the FW16 was ill-handling- Hill mentions the 'porpoising' tendency in his book. Tyre pressures were low & the car fat with fuel. Thus the bottoming through Tamburello was a contributing factor for me.
Just with gut reaction & watching the footage over & over, it still appears to me that the car initially has a 'moment' & oversteers- but as that is subtlely corrected the front wheels appear to just straighten & never turn again
I've read all the blurb about how he was braking & downshifting etc but the straight trajectory has always been troubling to me
Please read;I saw it live & immediately thought 'car failure'....as it went off it never appeared to change its line
However, I was without the benefit of telemetry.
Certainly the FW16 was ill-handling- Hill mentions the 'porpoising' tendency in his book. Tyre pressures were low & the car fat with fuel. Thus the bottoming through Tamburello was a contributing factor for me.
Just with gut reaction & watching the footage over & over, it still appears to me that the car initially has a 'moment' & oversteers- but as that is subtlely corrected the front wheels appear to just straighten & never turn again
I've read all the blurb about how he was braking & downshifting etc but the straight trajectory has always been troubling to me
ELUSIVEJIM said:
No doubt you got your information from the flawed 2004 National Geographic documentary entitled Seconds from Death.
Do you really think a driver of Ayrton Senna's skill level would lose the car in a curve?
Tamburello was fast but it was not difficult.
Both Nelson Piquet and Gerhard Berger's accidents there were due to car failures.
Quote by Adrian Newey
“The day after the race was a Bank Holiday Monday and some of us came in to try and trawl though the data and work out what happened, ” Newey adds. “They were dark weeks. The honest truth is that no one will ever know exactly what happened. There’s no doubt the steering column failed and the big question was whether it failed in the accident or did it cause the accident? It had fatigue cracks and would have failed at some point. There is no question that its design was very poor.
The car bottomed much harder on that second lap which again appears to be unusual because the tyre pressure would have come up by then – which leaves you expecting that the right rear tyre picked up a puncture from debris on the track. If I was pushed into picking out a single most likely cause that would be it.”
Further question put to Newey was
Could the bumps at Tamburello have broken the steering column?
It is possible.
So even after the accident they state they have no real idea of what happened.
I find that very hard to believe.
Please take time to read;Do you really think a driver of Ayrton Senna's skill level would lose the car in a curve?
Tamburello was fast but it was not difficult.
Both Nelson Piquet and Gerhard Berger's accidents there were due to car failures.
Quote by Adrian Newey
“The day after the race was a Bank Holiday Monday and some of us came in to try and trawl though the data and work out what happened, ” Newey adds. “They were dark weeks. The honest truth is that no one will ever know exactly what happened. There’s no doubt the steering column failed and the big question was whether it failed in the accident or did it cause the accident? It had fatigue cracks and would have failed at some point. There is no question that its design was very poor.
The car bottomed much harder on that second lap which again appears to be unusual because the tyre pressure would have come up by then – which leaves you expecting that the right rear tyre picked up a puncture from debris on the track. If I was pushed into picking out a single most likely cause that would be it.”
Further question put to Newey was
Could the bumps at Tamburello have broken the steering column?
It is possible.
So even after the accident they state they have no real idea of what happened.
I find that very hard to believe.
Ok, read those but I have to be honest I don't see what they add? The spectator's accounts mean nothing really, yes they were eye witnesses but I would be surprised if they had a better view then the TV cameras and I imagine the majority of them were lay people. Some pseudo-conspiracy theory talk about people in the Williams garage which has nothing to back it up and...? We'll that appears to be it, obviously there is more to the book then the scanned pages here but since it's by Tom Rubython, I imagine it's probably more of the same.
KaraK said:
Ok, read those but I have to be honest I don't see what they add? The spectator's accounts mean nothing really, yes they were eye witnesses but I would be surprised if they had a better view then the TV cameras and I imagine the majority of them were lay people. Some pseudo-conspiracy theory talk about people in the Williams garage which has nothing to back it up and...? We'll that appears to be it, obviously there is more to the book then the scanned pages here but since it's by Tom Rubython, I imagine it's probably more of the same.
...though you omit comment about the official court of enquiry findings made by a panel of experts. Strange that you appear to not see that and/or worthy of comment by your scrutiny...Fortitude said:
KaraK said:
Ok, read those but I have to be honest I don't see what they add? The spectator's accounts mean nothing really, yes they were eye witnesses but I would be surprised if they had a better view then the TV cameras and I imagine the majority of them were lay people. Some pseudo-conspiracy theory talk about people in the Williams garage which has nothing to back it up and...? We'll that appears to be it, obviously there is more to the book then the scanned pages here but since it's by Tom Rubython, I imagine it's probably more of the same.
...though you omit comment about the official court of enquiry findings made by a panel of experts. Strange that you appear to not see that and/or worthy of comment by your scrutiny...I have a book which shows that the police tried to fit up the 'Babes in the Wood' suspect. It was set to rock the legal world. Unfortunately, between printing and publication the suspect tried the same thing on another child - identical MO, but this time he was aware of forensic methods. I loaned the book to the SIO in charge of the second enquiry and he negated all the 'facts' raised by the author in a five minute chat.
It all boils down to whether you can trust the court of enquiry. There's nothing more to it than that. In order to understand how much faith we can place on their findings you need know their politics. There was much discussion on this at the time and, going by this thread, since.
The point of view of Williams is often dismissed as 'they would say that, wouldn't they', and there is a degree of truth in that. However, it goes for any court as well.
I don't know the truth of the incident. The thing is, I think that goes for everybody.
Fortitude said:
KaraK said:
Ok, read those but I have to be honest I don't see what they add? The spectator's accounts mean nothing really, yes they were eye witnesses but I would be surprised if they had a better view then the TV cameras and I imagine the majority of them were lay people. Some pseudo-conspiracy theory talk about people in the Williams garage which has nothing to back it up and...? We'll that appears to be it, obviously there is more to the book then the scanned pages here but since it's by Tom Rubython, I imagine it's probably more of the same.
...though you omit comment about the official court of enquiry findings made by a panel of experts. Strange that you appear to not see that and/or worthy of comment by your scrutiny...VladD said:
... low tyre pressures, a bumpy corner and loss of downforce.
In other words, trying to go too fast too soon, on tyres which weren't yet up to temperature. He made a mistake.When any driver is killed, you always hear, "he couldn't have made a mistake," well nobody's perfect, people in all walks of life make mistakes and F1 drivers are no different. For some reason Senna was sh*t scared of not being in the best car and had moved heaven and earth to get into a Williams - and having produced no results in the first two races of the season, was under pressure to break his duck in the third.
And he just tried too hard.
I was lucky enough to work in F1 for a short time and spoke at length to some quite influential engineers. One of them who worked for McLaren told me that in his opinion Senna was the greatest he had ever seen for how he could balance to car perfectly on the brakes/throttle with a delicacy, feel and sensitivity that no other driver bar one who would come along later could do..... that other driver is Lewis Hamilton.
cb1965 said:
I was lucky enough to work in F1 for a short time and spoke at length to some quite influential engineers. One of them who worked for McLaren told me that in his opinion Senna was the greatest he had ever seen for how he could balance to car perfectly on the brakes/throttle with a delicacy, feel and sensitivity that no other driver bar one who would come along later could do..... that other driver is Lewis Hamilton.
Without wishing to derail the thread, I do think it will be interesting in 20 years time to see how Lewis' career and ability will be regarded. I think he'll be right up there.Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff