Slightly different footage of Senna's crash...
Discussion
The Surveyor said:
Your extract only adds to the conspiracy theory around the data box, just further finger pointing at Williams. If Williams and Charlie Whiting had left the data boxes in the car at trackside, your extract shows that the Italian authorities were totally incapable of getting any data from them, damaged or not. They didn't have the right connectors, and even then they needed a data 'card' to access the data, a card which they never asked for. Shear incompetence.
There was also no conspiracy to ensure the race to run, letting the race run is just what happens. Races were just not stopped or cancelled due to the death of a driver. There isn't a precedence for that, and how would running the race or not impact on the 'hassle over the Italian legal system' ?
You're looking for another angle to a conspiracy that just isn't there.
I may be remembering it wrong but it was written in a Senna autobiography and also mentioned in several documentaries about him and the crash that the black boxes were removed. I don't have the sources to hand and yes, I agree it just adds to the conspiracy theory and finger pointing rather than hard facts but I've had it in my head for longer than I can remember about the black boxes so I'm sure I must've read/heard about it somewhere else. Quite willing to bow to evidence of the contrary though.There was also no conspiracy to ensure the race to run, letting the race run is just what happens. Races were just not stopped or cancelled due to the death of a driver. There isn't a precedence for that, and how would running the race or not impact on the 'hassle over the Italian legal system' ?
You're looking for another angle to a conspiracy that just isn't there.
I also fully agree that the Italians in charge of the case were clearly extremely incompetent and just looking for someone to blame but if you're Williams and you believe you're completely innocent of all responsibility for the crash then surely you cooperate fully with the investigation and even though the incompetent fools hadn't asked for a card that they didn't know about or anything like that, you provide if for them to prove you're cooperating fully. Anything less than that adds to any lingering doubts of guilt.
I grew up as a child a massive Williams fan. My first model car was the FW14 with a red 5 on it. I had Senna's Williams as a Scalextric car, I was a huge Damon fan. I picked places to eat on holidays because the awning above the restaurant had Segafredo advertised on it and I recognised it from the FW16 onwards. I don't like having any sort of doubt about the way they conducted themselves around the Senna crash but it's there.
It wasn't a conspiracy to let the race run that I'm suggesting. Like you said, it happens and there is no precedence however under Italian law (here comes the legal system argument), if they'd declared Ratzenberger dead at the race track like they should've done, the whole weekend would've been called off and the track would've been a crime scene. They decided to dare pull the wool over peoples eyes in both Ratzenberger and Senna's crashes by saying they both died in the hospital.
It goes back to the ethics of it. Nobody with even an ounce of sense would've thought Ratzenberger would've survived his crash and the shots of him being given CPR after his lifeless head rolling around on his broken neck as the car slid down the hill would've said to the millions watching that's he's dead right there and then.
In Senna's case again, it was obvious to everyone that he was dead but they announced it at the hospital even though quite clearly Bernie knew because of the Italian legal system and the fact that the police and other investigative authorities would've cancelled the weekend regardless of FIA/Bernie/Imola organiser's intentions.
Edited by F1GTRUeno on Friday 13th January 11:04
JNW1 said:
......
However, I don't think you can necessarily use an argument that because something's not happened in F1 historically it never should. .....
Agreed, but in the context of that race weekend at Imola and that race, and the decision made by Bernie, Charlie Whiting, and all the others there in those post-accident minutes, you would not expect them to make a decision to cancel the race when there was no precedent to do it.However, I don't think you can necessarily use an argument that because something's not happened in F1 historically it never should. .....
Afterwards, after some reflection, and in light of the emotive outpouring, and with inputs from drivers, circuit owners, and even Senna's family, you could argue that they may consider cancelling a race if there was a similar situation. But trackside is not the place to make such big policy u-turn IMHO.
To blame anybody for letting the race run just isn't fair.
JNW1 said:
I take your point about where do you draw the line and for me that would be if there's been a fatality part-way through either a qualifying session or a race then that session or race should be stopped as a mark of respect to the driver who's been killed. On that admittedly subjective view the situation with Dan Wheldon was handled correctly in my eyes whereas the situations with Ratzenberger and Senna weren't. However, I totally understand that drivers know the risks before they get in the car and want to race and compete; therefore, come the next session or race the default has to be "back to work" as otherwise the sport stops. I certainly wouldn't suggest a track should never be used again purely because there was once a fatality there although an incident of that sort may prompt a rethink of the layout (as indeed it did at Imola).
However, I don't think you can necessarily use an argument that because something's not happened in F1 historically it never should. After all, go back to Zandvoort in 1973 and most of the drivers continued to race past Roger Williamson's car while the poor bloke was literally burning alive; if people had taken the view "that's just the way we do things in F1" nothing would have changed but thankfully it did and for the better!
With regards to whether or not the race/session should be stopped, to my mind it depends on when the person officially dies. In the case of Senna, he essentially died on impact but he was kept alive artificially so his official time of death was hours later (whether or not this is morally acceptable is another question). In that instance the word was that Senna was injured and on his way to hospital. I know that a small number of people knew that he was beyond help and many people feared the worst but officially and technically he was still alive so what is the right decision to make at that moment? However, I don't think you can necessarily use an argument that because something's not happened in F1 historically it never should. After all, go back to Zandvoort in 1973 and most of the drivers continued to race past Roger Williamson's car while the poor bloke was literally burning alive; if people had taken the view "that's just the way we do things in F1" nothing would have changed but thankfully it did and for the better!
I'm not sure how long it took to announce Ratzenbergers death but if it was during the session then I feel that it should have been stopped and not restarted. Dan Wheldon's death was announced relatively quickly as I remember so I felt that it was appropriate to abandon the event.
Most drivers want to carry on as "thats what they would want us to do" but I remember feeling conflicted at Le Mans when I heard that Allan Simonsen had died. I lost all enthusiasm for the race at that point but everyone just carried on. I still dont know what was the right thing to do. In the end whatever you do isn't going to bring the deceased back and I dont suppose there really is a right or wrong answer as different people will have different perspectives
24lemons said:
With regards to whether or not the race/session should be stopped, to my mind it depends on when the person officially dies. In the case of Senna, he essentially died on impact but he was kept alive artificially so his official time of death was hours later (whether or not this is morally acceptable is another question). In that instance the word was that Senna was injured and on his way to hospital. I know that a small number of people knew that he was beyond help and many people feared the worst but officially and technically he was still alive so what is the right decision to make at that moment?
I'm not sure how long it took to announce Ratzenbergers death but if it was during the session then I feel that it should have been stopped and not restarted. Dan Wheldon's death was announced relatively quickly as I remember so I felt that it was appropriate to abandon the event.
Most drivers want to carry on as "thats what they would want us to do" but I remember feeling conflicted at Le Mans when I heard that Allan Simonsen had died. I lost all enthusiasm for the race at that point but everyone just carried on. I still dont know what was the right thing to do. In the end whatever you do isn't going to bring the deceased back and I dont suppose there really is a right or wrong answer as different people will have different perspectives
Agree 100%. And I was also there when Simonsen died and felt just the same, as a spectator you feel the conflict, as a race organiser the pressures must be immense.I'm not sure how long it took to announce Ratzenbergers death but if it was during the session then I feel that it should have been stopped and not restarted. Dan Wheldon's death was announced relatively quickly as I remember so I felt that it was appropriate to abandon the event.
Most drivers want to carry on as "thats what they would want us to do" but I remember feeling conflicted at Le Mans when I heard that Allan Simonsen had died. I lost all enthusiasm for the race at that point but everyone just carried on. I still dont know what was the right thing to do. In the end whatever you do isn't going to bring the deceased back and I dont suppose there really is a right or wrong answer as different people will have different perspectives
24lemons said:
JNW1 said:
I take your point about where do you draw the line and for me that would be if there's been a fatality part-way through either a qualifying session or a race then that session or race should be stopped as a mark of respect to the driver who's been killed. On that admittedly subjective view the situation with Dan Wheldon was handled correctly in my eyes whereas the situations with Ratzenberger and Senna weren't. However, I totally understand that drivers know the risks before they get in the car and want to race and compete; therefore, come the next session or race the default has to be "back to work" as otherwise the sport stops. I certainly wouldn't suggest a track should never be used again purely because there was once a fatality there although an incident of that sort may prompt a rethink of the layout (as indeed it did at Imola).
However, I don't think you can necessarily use an argument that because something's not happened in F1 historically it never should. After all, go back to Zandvoort in 1973 and most of the drivers continued to race past Roger Williamson's car while the poor bloke was literally burning alive; if people had taken the view "that's just the way we do things in F1" nothing would have changed but thankfully it did and for the better!
With regards to whether or not the race/session should be stopped, to my mind it depends on when the person officially dies. In the case of Senna, he essentially died on impact but he was kept alive artificially so his official time of death was hours later (whether or not this is morally acceptable is another question). In that instance the word was that Senna was injured and on his way to hospital. I know that a small number of people knew that he was beyond help and many people feared the worst but officially and technically he was still alive so what is the right decision to make at that moment? However, I don't think you can necessarily use an argument that because something's not happened in F1 historically it never should. After all, go back to Zandvoort in 1973 and most of the drivers continued to race past Roger Williamson's car while the poor bloke was literally burning alive; if people had taken the view "that's just the way we do things in F1" nothing would have changed but thankfully it did and for the better!
I'm not sure how long it took to announce Ratzenbergers death but if it was during the session then I feel that it should have been stopped and not restarted. Dan Wheldon's death was announced relatively quickly as I remember so I felt that it was appropriate to abandon the event.
Most drivers want to carry on as "thats what they would want us to do" but I remember feeling conflicted at Le Mans when I heard that Allan Simonsen had died. I lost all enthusiasm for the race at that point but everyone just carried on. I still dont know what was the right thing to do. In the end whatever you do isn't going to bring the deceased back and I dont suppose there really is a right or wrong answer as different people will have different perspectives
Senna was obviously kept alive for a couple of hours after arriving at hospital but in his case we know Bernie and the race organisers were aware he had no chance of survival when he left the circuit. The article from Senna's PR manager suggests that news was deliberately with-held to ensure the race went ahead and, while I appreciate there were commercial interests involved, personally I'm not entirely comfortable with the ethics associated with that.
Wheldon was also airlifted to hospital and, while I'm not sure how quickly he was pronounced dead, the news was communicated officially to the drivers a couple of hours later. Presumably those two hours would have been enough time to get the track cleared and the race restarted but that didn't happen (and at a guess I'd say that's because the organisers knew the severity of Wheldon's injuries and the likely outcome).
I agree completely that we all have different perspectives and I accept there's no right or wrong answer; all I'm saying is that personally what happened after Dan Wheldon's awful accident sits best with me.
angrymoby said:
If you could ask them, i doubt any deceased F1 driver would want a race cancelled because of their own demise.
Yes, I suspect you're probably right. However, there were at least some drivers - Martin Brundle for example - who were unhappy about what happened on race day at Imola.
F1GTRUeno said:
.....
I also fully agree that the Italians in charge of the case were clearly extremely incompetent and just looking for someone to blame but if you're Williams and you believe you're completely innocent of all responsibility for the crash then surely you cooperate fully with the investigation and even though the incompetent fools hadn't asked for a card that they didn't know about or anything like that, you provide if for them to prove you're cooperating fully. Anything less than that adds to any lingering doubts of guilt.
Again, you're using emotive arguments to criticise real-world situations. 'lingering doubts...'?I also fully agree that the Italians in charge of the case were clearly extremely incompetent and just looking for someone to blame but if you're Williams and you believe you're completely innocent of all responsibility for the crash then surely you cooperate fully with the investigation and even though the incompetent fools hadn't asked for a card that they didn't know about or anything like that, you provide if for them to prove you're cooperating fully. Anything less than that adds to any lingering doubts of guilt.
Williams would have been guided by their insurers, or by Sir Frank to cooperate with the investigation. That's very different to actively helping the investigation find incriminating evidence. You would respond to questions in an investigation to defend your actions, not help steer an incompetent enquiry to pin the blame on you. Of course Williams contributed to the death of Senna, they built the horrendous handling thing and modified the steering column etc, but assisting them to find you criminally negligent is another matter altogether.
F1GTRUeno said:
..... They decided to dare pull the wool over peoples eyes in both Ratzenberger and Senna's crashes by saying they both died in the hospital.
But they did both die in the hospital, fatally injured on the track but pronounced dead at the Hospital, no conspiracy just the clear hard emotion free facts. There was no wool being pulled over anybody's eyes here, it was just a true statement.F1GTRUeno said:
.... quite clearly Bernie knew because of the Italian legal system and the fact that the police and other investigative authorities would've cancelled the weekend regardless of FIA/Bernie/Imola organiser's intentions.
You're guessing what Bernie was thinking here, and using that simplified guess to criticise. Yes, he would have known how the legal system works but he would have had many other factors to consider including the need to keep the show on the road however heartless people think that was. JNW1 said:
Senna was obviously kept alive for a couple of hours after arriving at hospital but in his case we know Bernie and the race organisers were aware he had no chance of survival when he left the circuit. The article from Senna's PR manager suggests that news was deliberately with-held to ensure the race went ahead and, while I appreciate there were commercial interests involved, personally I'm not entirely comfortable with the ethics associated with that.
And those on the scene in October 2014 when Jules Bianchi hit that recovery truck in Japan would have known he would likely die from his injuries, he was pronounced dead 9 months later. Not exactly the same, but an example of how impossibly difficult the situation is for everybody involved when it goes very wrong. No news was deliberately withheld, Bernie made a private statement to the family that he was dead, the Press Officer put out the official confirmation that he was being airlifted to Hospital where he later was pronounced dead.
The Surveyor said:
JNW1 said:
Senna was obviously kept alive for a couple of hours after arriving at hospital but in his case we know Bernie and the race organisers were aware he had no chance of survival when he left the circuit. The article from Senna's PR manager suggests that news was deliberately with-held to ensure the race went ahead and, while I appreciate there were commercial interests involved, personally I'm not entirely comfortable with the ethics associated with that.
And those on the scene in October 2014 when Jules Bianchi hit that recovery truck in Japan would have known he would likely die from his injuries, he was pronounced dead 9 months later. Not exactly the same, but an example of how impossibly difficult the situation is for everybody involved when it goes very wrong. No news was deliberately withheld, Bernie made a private statement to the family that he was dead, the Press Officer put out the official confirmation that he was being airlifted to Hospital where he later was pronounced dead.
JNW1 said:
Yes, I suspect you're probably right. However, there were at least some drivers - Martin Brundle for example - who were unhappy about what happened on race day at Imola.
Ironically, if the race had been stopped then there wouldn't be any conspiracy ...as Williams wouldn't have been given access to Senna's car by Charlie (which iirc is why they were, due to their concerns that whatever happened to Senna could happen to Damon in the sister car)
angrymoby said:
Ironically, if the race had been stopped then there wouldn't be any conspiracy ...as Williams wouldn't have been given access to Senna's car by Charlie (which iirc is why they were, due to their concerns that whatever happened to Senna could happen to Damon in the sister car)
Yet they still allowed Hill to race without knowing the issue Senna had.I don't think that the column in Hills car was modified, why would it be? Senna asked for his column to be modified to make him more comfortable in the car, probably to have the steering wheel a little closer to him, given that Senna was shorter than Hill, that seems like a likely reason.
number 46 said:
I don't think that the column in Hills car was modified, why would it be? Senna asked for his column to be modified to make him more comfortable in the car, probably to have the steering wheel a little closer to him, given that Senna was shorter than Hill, that seems like a likely reason.
Newey's defence lawyer Luigi Stortoni, confirmed the same work had been done on both Williams cars. He said:"Work was done on the steering rod. The same work was done on Hill's car. The diameters of the two pieces of pole were different. But to demonstrate that the job was done well, it has to be shown how Damon Hill had no trouble with his car."
angrymoby said:
Newey's defence lawyer Luigi Stortoni, confirmed the same work had been done on both Williams cars. He said:
"Work was done on the steering rod. The same work was done on Hill's car. The diameters of the two pieces of pole were different. But to demonstrate that the job was done well, it has to be shown how Damon Hill had no trouble with his car."
Yet Newey stated that Senna's column was badly done and no doubt had a crack."Work was done on the steering rod. The same work was done on Hill's car. The diameters of the two pieces of pole were different. But to demonstrate that the job was done well, it has to be shown how Damon Hill had no trouble with his car."
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff