Newey on Imola 1994

[Richard]

HampusA - I'm not sure what you getting at. It was that big wall getting in the way that destroyed the suspension, causing several massive head injuries. So on your logic it was the wall's fault?

Remember this is the era when Ratzenberger and Earnhardt both died of basal skull fractures, that would have killed Senna if the wheel and suspension hadn't hit him first.

[Reventon]

....

[HampusA]

Exactly, Sennas body was 100% fine. He died because of a freak accident.
So determing wether he had to little pressure in the tires, steering failed etc doesn´t really matter because if the suspension wouldn´t have penetrated his helmet he would still be alive despite him over/understeering into the barriers or if the tire pressure was to little etc.

What killed him was part of the suspension. the crash itself he would have walk away from totally ok.
People crash all the time, it´s normal. Dying of freak accidents is not though.

[Richard]

the crash itself he would have walk away from totally ok.
People crash all the time, it´s normal.

You need to learn a bit of history. Start off with this one just 24 hours before Senna died. A simple high speed collision with a barrier, just like Senna's 24 hours later. He died. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkneSUex74c

Then have a look at this one from 2001. See car number 3. Its an enclosed car, the crash structure was perfectly intact. He died. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVKLpNK6SqE

Here is the list of the F1 fatalities, there are too many brave young men on that list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fo ... _accidents

The day when people think walking away from a crash is normal, is the day complacency sets in, and that's when we'll have the next fatality.

[gridwalker]

I gotta agree with Richard : Hampus, how many fatal accidents have you watched live on TV? Anyone who was watching F1 that weekend will remember why that wasn't (and must never become) "normal".

[TzeiTzei]

Something I find strange that Senna didn't weave behind the safety car so surely his tyres would not have been up to temperature or pressure. Just seems a bit strange to me.

Weaving behind the safety car doesn't warm the tyres. Or atleast that's what Martin Brundle has said several times.

[djos]

Something I find strange that Senna didn't weave behind the safety car so surely his tyres would not have been up to temperature or pressure. Just seems a bit strange to me.

Weaving behind the safety car doesn't warm the tyres. Or atleast that's what Martin Brundle has said several times.

Agreed, hard braking is much more effective from what most drivers have said.

[HampusA]

I gotta agree with Richard : Hampus, how many fatal accidents have you watched live on TV? Anyone who was watching F1 that weekend will remember why that wasn't (and must never become) "normal".

But still, during that time, every time they crashed they did not die. That time was over. It wasn´t the Jim Clark era even though people still died sometimes.

His body was 100% in good shape, if the suspensions part had hit him 6 inches to the left or right Senna would still be here.. well atleast walk away from that crash (he might have killed himself later)

[rayden]

Something I find strange that Senna didn't weave behind the safety car so surely his tyres would not have been up to temperature or pressure. Just seems a bit strange to me.

Weaving behind the safety car doesn't warm the tyres. Or atleast that's what Martin Brundle has said several times.

Agreed, hard braking is much more effective from what most drivers have said.

so drivers weave because it warms their arms up reducing risk of muscle strain?

not being smart-ass (ok maybe just a little ) just genuinely curious.

i was under the impression hard accelerating and braking is generally frowned upon behind the safety car (fuji 08 anyone?) - hence the weaving.

brundle has said a few things that have made me go in the past.

[Richard]

if the suspensions part had hit him 6 inches to the left or right Senna would still be here.. well atleast walk away from that crash

The Ratzenberger accident shows that a crash at that speed into a wall was certain to be fatal. After all Ratzenberger hit a relatively flexible barrier while Senna hit a solid wall. Remember there was no HAS in those days.

I guess we'll just have to disagree.

[marcush.]

Weaving behind the safety car doesn't warm the tyres. Or atleast that's what Martin Brundle has said several times.

Agreed, hard braking is much more effective from what most drivers have said.

so drivers weave because it warms their arms up reducing risk of muscle strain?

not being smart-ass (ok maybe just a little ) just genuinely curious.

i was under the impression hard accelerating and braking is generally frowned upon behind the safety car (fuji 08 anyone?) - hence the weaving.

brundle has said a few things that have made me go in the past.[/quote]


weaving is to get rid of the pickup or better try not to pick it up .
Nothing else than serious sustained force input will keep the tyre temps and impürtantly pressures where you need them.So weaving does not anything meaningful for temps.Kicking the front end loose ,hard breaking and hard acceleration does this .

[HampusA]

if the suspensions part had hit him 6 inches to the left or right Senna would still be here.. well atleast walk away from that crash

The Ratzenberger accident shows that a crash at that speed into a wall was certain to be fatal. After all Ratzenberger hit a relatively flexible barrier while Senna hit a solid wall. Remember there was no HAS in those days.

I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Two similar crashes doesn´t necessarily mean identical outcome.

Yes let´s agree to disagree,

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

One event happening does not mean the inevitable outcome of another. The suspension component breaking and piercing Senna's helmet was just a set of circumstances perfectly aligned to create tragedy.

My own feelings are that something on the rear failed (or was failing) that unsettled it over the bump which caused it to oversteer unexpectedly. And because Senna was driving the Williams which had stability issues, the problem may have been exacerbated by this.

Blame culture will want its scapegoat, From Newey and Head throught to Senna making a mistake and then there's the tyre theory which I would most likely be inclined to believe, as those closest to the incident believe.
What we can say for sure, is that the death's of Senna and Ratzenberger irrevocably changed F1. It probably saved the lives of a half dozen drivers when you think of the changes that were made. Hakkinen, Kubica, Webber hell even Schumacher in Silverstone 99 could have come off far worse.

Lets take Newey on his word. The guy evidently has to live with what happened and still has his demons to overcome from the accident. Accident.

[gridwalker]

I gotta agree with Richard : Hampus, how many fatal accidents have you watched live on TV? Anyone who was watching F1 that weekend will remember why that wasn't (and must never become) "normal".

But still, during that time, every time they crashed they did not die. That time was over. It wasn´t the Jim Clark era even though people still died sometimes.

The consensus of opinion within the paddock following Imola 1994 was that F1 had been extremely lucky to have gone so long without a fatality : At that time, impact testing was rudimentary at best and head protection was non-existent. The steps that have been taken since that weekend in the name of improving safety (many of which seemed to be draconian knee-jerk reactions at the time) have completely changed the game in terms of managed risk.

Non-fatal car crashes may have been common back then, but that was a statistical anomaly; F1 had been living on borrowed time for over a decade, ignoring blatant safety issues because the statistics made the sport seem safer than it was.

Statistical anomalies happen all the time; get a mathematician to explain the statistics and perceptual myths behind a "lucky streak" and you will see how the random nature of event sequences can distort your interpretation of a sequence to give the impression that an "extreme" outcome is much less likely that it really is ... that was what everyone THOUGHT was normal until Mayday 1994.

Suddenly, 2 drivers were dead within 48 hours and the entire sport had to rethink its approach. If the investigation into these deaths and subsequent response by the teams and FIA had ignored all of the contributory factors and had focussed solely on the item that struck the fatal blow (the broken suspension, as you kindly pointed out) then the culture of accepted risk would have continued within the sport unmoderated and we would have had many more fatalities in the following years.

To say that the circumstances surrounding that weekend were a "normal" occurrence strikes me as horrendously blasé : surely these people who gave their lives for our entertainment deserve a bit more respect.

[andrew]

Something I find strange that Senna didn't weave behind the safety car so surely his tyres would not have been up to temperature or pressure. Just seems a bit strange to me.

Weaving behind the safety car doesn't warm the tyres. Or atleast that's what Martin Brundle has said several times.

Yep, hard braking is better but I rememner hearing that it is more of a psychological thing for the driver as they feel they are warming the tyres.