Newey on Imola 1994

[andrew]

My question is, where did the puncture come from?

The debris?

Probably but, I think under Italian law there has to be a culpable party. Obviously not possible here.

[gridwalker]

It doesn't matter any more : the case was closed 13 years after the event and the statute of limitations for this type of case (under italian law) is 7 years and 6 months. Therefore, no further proceedings may take place and Patrick Head has to live with his manslaughter charge.

All things considered, I don't think that the charge against his name has affected Patrick any more than Senna's death would have done in the first place.

[nacho]

My question is, where did the puncture come from?

The debris?

There was the big crash at the start which was cleaned up.

[HampusA]

Lehto got hit from behind i think.

[Jon]

Am I missing the logic here???

First he says:

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. However, all the evidence suggests the car did not go off the track as a result of steering column failure."

So, the evidence says the steering column was going to crack at some point in the race (analysis of the steering column, I'm guessing), but no, this wasn't the cause, he is dead certain.

On the other hand, he says:

which leaves you expecting that the right rear tyre probably 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.

So, to sum it up, there's evidence that the steering column was, inevitably, going to snap at some point, but no, he chooses the theory where the tyre "probably" picked a puncture.

I'm sorry, but this is either a case of classic rationalization, or classic shifting the blame from the car to bad luck/fate...

[Richard]

Yes you are missing some logic, the flaw is that you expect a clear cut definitive answer.

How about summing it up that some evidence shows steering column failure as the cause, but that is not consistent with the behaviour of the car and driver on the track?

[marcush.]

I have to say that it does not add to my respect for Newey.to try and find possible explanations years later and no real answer is not really satisfactory and not appropriate for someone with the standing of Newey.The Williams guys have to accept the responibility for losing their driver in a car that left the track not by driver error that´s the simple truth.The car was meeting contemporary safety requirements but you could argue if the people involved could have done a lot more for safety without compromising performance.
Deep inside he and Head both know they simply have responibility for what happened on that day.But that´s racing.It´s dangerous and guys like Senna are fully aware of it accepting the potential outcome.

I don´t see why you should not be able to reproduce what happened and single out the potential courses for it happening.It may be just they cannot talk about it due to legal issues and have to just bear it to the end of their lives.

[Richard]

to try and find possible explanations years later and no real answer is not really satisfactory

Newey didn't raise this. It comes from a long interview covering a lot of topics. It just happens that the journalist included questions about Senna as well as RB, Webber, Vettel, etc .

Newey's reply is that he still has unanswered questions, that's an honest answer. I'd be worried if if he didn't have some unanswered questions.

[Just_a_fan]

So, to sum it up, there's evidence that the steering column was, inevitably, going to snap at some point, but no, he chooses the theory where the tyre "probably" picked a puncture.

I'm sorry, but this is either a case of classic rationalization, or classic shifting the blame from the car to bad luck/fate...

No, he says that the steering column was faulty but the way the accident progressed suggests that something other than steering column failure initiated the crash.

That is using an objective analysis of available evidence to produce a hypothesis.

If the steering column had failed the car would have behaved differently which suggests that, although containing a latent defect, the column was not the cause of the accident.

Seems like reasonable logic to me.

[andrew]

So where does this leave the Italian investigation if a puncture is the cause and not a faulty steering column?

[Just_a_fan]

In the past.

The accident is now so long ago that it is out of time for further action I believe.

[Reventon]

....

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

If possible can you post the video? (frame by frame video you studied)

[marcush.]

to try and find possible explanations years later and no real answer is not really satisfactory

Newey didn't raise this. It comes from a long interview covering a lot of topics. It just happens that the journalist included questions about Senna as well as RB, Webber, Vettel, etc .

Newey's reply is that he still has unanswered questions, that's an honest answer. I'd be worried if if he didn't have some unanswered questions.

How can you possibly design a car when someone has lost his life in one of your creations as a result of your lack of knowledge?
Barnard did investigate the Berger accident in Imola very deeply because he felt unable to continue working as a designer not knowing what the real cause of the accident was.This is what I expect of Neweay as well.

[HampusA]

Why all this talk about wether he over-steered or under-steered, if he got a puncture etc?
The crash itself wasn´t the reason he died.
If the suspension wouldn´t have penetrated his helmet he would still be alive today no matter what fault the car was involved in.

Part of the suspension penetrated his helmet. Whatever happened that caused him to go off isn´t really relevant because he would have survived the acident ifit weren´t for the suspension part penetrating the helmet and ultimately the skull.