there was obviously a second shooter on a grassy knoll ...GitanesBlondes wrote:There was a sniper in the trees with the perfect vantage point.bhallg2k wrote:Well, wait a minute. This video seems to support the notion that Senna was shot. Let's explore this exciting new possibility.
Even his head moves back and to the left.
Case closed.
segedunum wrote:There is no evidence that the steering column, failed causing the crash. Never has been. In fact, there was telemetry evidence that it had stayed intact. It came out of an assumption that something must have failed on the car. Unless somebody, and the investigators never did in a month of Sundays, eliminate why Senna's car made this noise, and moved around so much on his final lap:
then all other theories of mechanical failures or foul play are just plain speculation. I mean, come on, listen to what sound the engine makes as downforce is applied to the car and look at the on board shot as Senna moves into Tamburello. The car is moving around like it's on ice.
I was highly sceptical about that as well, and while there is usually some give in how much a wheel can move by no wheel should ever move by that much. However, from the video you showed it was said that "The effort to deflect it by this much is quite considerable...", which means that while the wheel has some give it is only with some considerable force. Given that Senna was desperately trying to get his car to turn left at the time and would have been pulling on the wheel pretty damn hard, this seems entirely plausible. Besides, telemetry showed that the power to the power steering was still being applied right up until the accident, but was moving around in a slightly erratic fashion around the time of the problem, as you might expect if the wheel was being pulled hard over and another force was overriding the steering and pushing the car straight on.
The whole steering column failure theory depends on the supposed movement and the proper position of a yellow button. Until the above evidence of the behaviour of Senna's car is investigated and discounted, I can't see the whole steering column theory as a productive use of investigative time. To tell you the truth, I don't think Williams or the FIA knew the exact cause of the accident at all, hence the butt covering to safeguard Formula One (I don't believe the loss of TV coverage excuse), but the regulations that came in afterwards, such as the wooden planks and minimum ride height specifications, tell you a lot about what they thought the problem was.
One piece of evidence did come out during the trial from Damon Hill that I thought was very interesting, but is totally overlooked. I can't remember where I read it, and it might have been in Richard Williams's book, but Damon said something to the effect of: "I set my car up in a way where I thought I could finish the race. I didn't think Senna could".
No, the theory is actually based on fact that it did broke. The only question is whether it was broken before the impact or at the moment of impact. Another fact is that the column already had fatigue cracks developed by the time of the accident.GitanesBlondes wrote:I was looking through old threads on here, and saw this post a member made...interesting reading.
segedunum wrote:....
The whole steering column failure theory depends on the supposed movement and the proper position of a yellow button.
...
Thank god someone finally said it =D> I've been waiting all daylangwadt wrote: there was obviously a second shooter on a grassy knoll ...
I started off long ago thinking it was a steering column failure, but over time my view on that shifted as the more I looked at all of the various factors, the less likely steering failure seemed.timbo wrote:No, the theory is actually based on fact that it did broke. The only question is whether it was broken before the impact or at the moment of impact. Another fact is that the column already had fatigue cracks developed by the time of the accident.GitanesBlondes wrote:I was looking through old threads on here, and saw this post a member made...interesting reading.
segedunum wrote:....
The whole steering column failure theory depends on the supposed movement and the proper position of a yellow button.
...
If you think that oversteer proves bottoming (which might have happened) you have to explain why it developed into understeer. The front wing still had to have downforce and the balance shift should've caused it to spin.GitanesBlondes wrote:No matter how quick it happened, the FW-16 does oversteer in the corner.
My thoughts too, and remember there were serious accidents with Piquet and Patrese there too!piast9 wrote:Since the thread went quite off the original topic I think I'd share my thoughts on the Tamburello itself. In 1989 Gerhard Berger suffered horrific crash at that corner. Looking at today standards it looks amazing that nothing was done to this corner to prevent such impacts in the future. There was the hard wall far from the tarmac which caused that if something went wrong then the car hit hard the concrete wall at 45° angle with terrible consequences.
Yep. It was Elvis!bdr529 wrote:Thank god someone finally said it =D> I've been waiting all daylangwadt wrote: there was obviously a second shooter on a grassy knoll ...
There is a simple reason for this and that is the underside of the car was doing the steering. If anyone actually did any reading in this thread they would have picked that up.SatchelCharge wrote:...how are you still ignoring the fact that the front wheels quite clearly straighten up even though the steering wheel is still turned left?
If the car is sitting on the underfloor (for whatever reason) the load on tyres is less. If there's a loss of downforce the load on the tyres is again less. Why do you think it would be suddenly immensely hard to turn the wheels? It's a contradiction.munudeges wrote:Under those circumstances you've got the car underside right on the track surface effectively aquaplaning on it. With the forces involved you're faced with a situation where the driver can turn left and pull as hard on the wheel as he likes but the car and the wheels will not turn. You factor in the loss of downforce on top of that and you have a car that was never going to turn left.
But a lot to 'lose' for 'some' if the truth came out. And let me tell you this; it has a bad habit of doing so.gilgen wrote: Let the poor guy RIP. Nothing to be gained from "new" speculation
Oh for goodness sake! The truth has been out for a long time, but maybe you just do not like accepting it?Shrieker wrote:But a lot to 'lose' for 'some' if the truth came out. And let me tell you this; it has a bad habit of doing so.gilgen wrote: Let the poor guy RIP. Nothing to be gained from "new" speculation
