Official Senna telemetry Imola 94?

[GitanesBlondes]

Let's be realistic here, Senna couldn't have done anything to steer the car if the front end became disturbed.

From the moment the car oversteers to when it hits the wall, you're looking at a span of about 2 seconds. He did the right thing when the FW-16 hits the first bump. Had there been no further bumps, he likely would have been fine at that point. The problem is the second bump in the corner which looks to have altered the handling characteristics of an already ill-handling car even further.

Invoking Ukyo Katayama as FoxHound did is hysterical as what would he have done better? Nothing.

Steering column failure would not have caused the car to oversteer as it did.

[timbo]

Let's be realistic here, Senna couldn't have done anything to steer the car if the front end became disturbed.

But why the front end lost grip?
The front wing still should have provided enough DF for the front. I just don't see how the transition from oversteer to understeer could have happened. Oversteer is logical if underbody loses grip. Without rear-end grip the were no chance of catching oversteer and the accident should have looked like Piquet's in 1987.
Instead it looks like Berger's in 1989, and it was reported it was caused by some sort of failure (suspension?) on the car.

Steering column failure would not have caused the car to oversteer as it did.

The moment of oversteer is very short. In fact my view what exactly happened is that there was a moment of bottoming out, but it was not a big singular event that caused the crash. The momentarily oversteer was either catched by driver or just settled itself, but it caused some sort of malfunction which resulted in massive understeer. Maybe the bump and countersteering movement were enough to cause a steering failure.

[FoxHound]

Unsure why you'd think it hysterical, gitanes.

If katayama couldn't correct and recover a situation, he wouldn't have been in formula one.

[GitanesBlondes]

[*]

Let's be realistic here, Senna couldn't have done anything to steer the car if the front end became disturbed.

But why the front end lost grip?
The front wing still should have provided enough DF for the front. I just don't see how the transition from oversteer to understeer could have happened. Oversteer is logical if underbody loses grip. Without rear-end grip the were no chance of catching oversteer and the accident should have looked like Piquet's in 1987.
Instead it looks like Berger's in 1989, and it was reported it was caused by some sort of failure (suspension?) on the car.

Steering column failure would not have caused the car to oversteer as it did.

The moment of oversteer is very short. In fact my view what exactly happened is that there was a moment of bottoming out, but it was not a big singular event that caused the crash. The momentarily oversteer was either catched by driver or just settled itself, but it caused some sort of malfunction which resulted in massive understeer. Maybe the bump and countersteering movement were enough to cause a steering failure.

The Williams was noted before the FW-16B came along to display both the capability of understeering and oversteering on the same lap as was mentioned earlier. Senna complained about experiencing both things that weekend going around Imola.

One thing I did want to mention is that no one's chassis was bottoming out as much as Senna's was during the race. Berger's Ferrari was bottoming out a bit, but not even at the level the Williams was. Schumacher in contrast had minimal bottoming out. Something else to consider is many of the drivers that weekend were opting to take a slightly wider line going through Tamburello because they were complaining of the cars becoming unsettled due to the undulations in that section. Senna was the only one who was taking that extreme inside line through the corner. It's actually interesting to watch the way guys were running through the corner the whole race.

In any event, how I look at everything regarding that race weekend is like this:

• First real power circuit of that season
  Skittish cars due to the rule changes
  First true test of lower downforce settings with the 1994 regulations
  A Williams that was not designed well
  A very beat up and uneven track surface
  Extreme ride height settings on Senna's car
  High pressure on Senna due to a poor start to the season
  Taking a line through Tamburello he should not have been taking and knew it

All of which finally showed the prediction by Senna in the pre-season that there would be accidents. It was the perfect storm of events.

Why I don't buy steering column breakage is because it's simplly too neat of an explanation. It's the only one that wraps up nice and neat so one can stick it into a box. It's a fraudulent explanation [in my opinion] designed to make most fans feel more comfortable with what happened, and most are happy to accept it. It doesn't call into question that Senna himself made what was in all likelihood a very bad decision that was aimed at helping him extract the most out of the car assuming all things were normal for the race. As was exhibited throughout many times in his career, it was a calculated gamble that was to hopefully put him in the winner's circle for the first time that season. Had the door really been opened publicly to ride heights, poor track surface, etc. it would have opened a really dangerous Pandora's Box that might not have been shut. Instead getting people focused on the steering column horseshit allowed F1 to go around and start fixing all the things no one cared enough to fix till an audience of 300 million watched one of the great racers in history killed due to avoidable circumstances. That is why to this day no one in F1 publicly states anything to the contrary. Better to let people believe something that doesn't call the entire sport into question.

I hate to say it, but all of the time he spent with Alain 5 and 6 years earlier should have taught him the virtue of going for guaranteed points finishes at times to avoid needing to run the gauntlet with wins in order to make up, or maintain position in the championship standings. There would have been less pressure that weekend on him had he done so, and wouldn't have resulted in him approaching the race with the feeling of having a gun pointed to his head. He was driving at an unsustainable pace anyway. He set the third fastest lap of the day on the restart lap...which to me is absolutely insane considering he had a full fuel tank.

[timbo]

The Williams was noted before the FW-16B came along to display both the capability of understeering and oversteering on the same lap as was mentioned earlier. Senna complained about experiencing both things that weekend going around Imola.

That doesn't tell much. It does happen with pitch sensitive cars and doesn't involve bottoming, but developing such a degree of understeer is very rare and doesn't normally happen.

Why I don't buy steering column breakage is because it's simplly too neat of an explanation. It's the only one that wraps up nice and neat so one can stick it into a box. It's a fraudulent explanation [in my opinion] designed to make most fans feel more comfortable with what happened, and most are happy to accept it.

Eh? So you don't accept it because it is "simply too neat"? You know, this place is F1technical.

That is why to this day no one in F1 publicly states anything to the contrary. Better to let people believe something that doesn't call the entire sport into question.

Really? You posted a quote by Adrian Newey, who said he doesn't think that the column was broken before the accident. He isn't in F1 anymore?
What I actually see is that nobody in Williams accepted a steering column as a factor that contributed to a crash. The BBC video also dismisses it.

He was driving at an unsustainable pace anyway. He set the third fastest lap of the day on the restart lap...which to me is absolutely insane considering he had a full fuel tank.

Proves nothing. The Williams and Benetton cars were in a class of their own. The fastest time that day was recorded by Damon Hill on 10th lap, so he was also driving not on empty tanks.

[GitanesBlondes]

The Williams was noted before the FW-16B came along to display both the capability of understeering and oversteering on the same lap as was mentioned earlier. Senna complained about experiencing both things that weekend going around Imola.

That doesn't tell much. It does happen with pitch sensitive cars and doesn't involve bottoming, but developing such a degree of understeer is very rare and doesn't normally happen.

Why I don't buy steering column breakage is because it's simplly too neat of an explanation. It's the only one that wraps up nice and neat so one can stick it into a box. It's a fraudulent explanation [in my opinion] designed to make most fans feel more comfortable with what happened, and most are happy to accept it.

Eh? So you don't accept it because it is "simply too neat"? You know, this place is F1technical.

That is why to this day no one in F1 publicly states anything to the contrary. Better to let people believe something that doesn't call the entire sport into question.

Really? You posted a quote by Adrian Newey, who said he doesn't think that the column was broken before the accident. He isn't in F1 anymore?
What I actually see is that nobody in Williams accepted a steering column as a factor that contributed to a crash. The BBC video also dismisses it.

He was driving at an unsustainable pace anyway. He set the third fastest lap of the day on the restart lap...which to me is absolutely insane considering he had a full fuel tank.

Proves nothing. The Williams and Benetton cars were in a class of their own. The fastest time that day was recorded by Damon Hill on 10th lap, so he was also driving not on empty tanks.

Observe...

Car was capable of exhibiting two extreme handling characteristics.

Senna's choice was to run the car as low as possible to the ground to compensate for all the issues with handling.

Understeer would be possible with what happened in Tamburello. It was a corner you did not want to have to slow down in due to the aerodynamic profile being altered. Not sure if you are aware also of how many drivers commented on how sensitive the front end of the cars were to anything? Senna did make a huge mistake when he went to 50% throttle as that was when everything changed. While it was his instinct to do that, it was the wrong move.

Ok, regarding the steering column breaking, there is zero proof at all it broke prior to the crash. All the telemetry shows it was functioning. Hence why I tell you the entire thing is an absolute myth served up to people. The Senna film was even worse with the proclamations it had to be steering column failure because there was no way he could have screwed up.

Not sure why that is so difficult for you to understand as all the computer data showed the steering was responding up until impact. The steering column breaking is an explanation for knaves and fools who would accept that because as mentioned, it feels simply and neat. It also coincidentally was the easiest way for the Italian prosecutors to pursue a case. That was an easier explanation to make in court than anything else was.

Yes and most people dismiss Adrian Newey's comments as saying, "Oh well he would lie because he had a lot to lose."

Actually yes, it proves he was driving on the edge. The tires were not fully up to temperature on lap 6.

You are correct about the Benetton being in a class of it's own...what with illegal software in the ECU.

[timbo]

Understeer would be possible with what happened in Tamburello. It was a corner you did not want to have to slow down in due to the aerodynamic profile being altered.

And I keep asking you HOW it was possible. I haven't read any plausible explanation.

Not sure if you are aware also of how many drivers commented on how sensitive the front end of the cars were to anything? Senna did make a huge mistake when he went to 50% throttle as that was when everything changed. While it was his instinct to do that, it was the wrong move.

Do you know anything about vehicle dynamics? Please explain how lifting the throttle could promote massive understeer. If anything it promotes snap oversteer.

Ok, regarding the steering column breaking, there is zero proof at all it broke prior to the crash. All the telemetry shows it was functioning. ...

Not sure why that is so difficult for you to understand as all the computer data showed the steering was responding up until impact.

How exactly do you know that? Firstly, published data show anomalies -- i.e. buildup in STGPR, secondly you need to have a detailed knowledge of the design of the system to be able to make any definitive judgments.

The steering column breaking is an explanation for knaves and fools who would accept that because as mentioned, it feels simply and neat. It also coincidentally was the easiest way for the Italian prosecutors to pursue a case. That was an easier explanation to make in court than anything else was.

Ever heard of Occam's razor?
The bottoming theory has to explain all the phenomena observed including understeer. Which I haven't seen done.

Yes and most people dismiss Adrian Newey's comments as saying, "Oh well he would lie because he had a lot to lose."

And if you read his comments and take everything he says, he tells that there was something else causing problems, which he suggested was right rear puncture.

Actually yes, it proves he was driving on the edge. The tires were not fully up to temperature on lap 6.

So why the accident occurred on next lap when the tyres were up to temperature?

[munudeges]

And it is up to engineer to provide a driver a car which is safe.

No idea what you're trying to say. I hope you realise that arguing a health and safety standpoint regarding motorsport is ludicrous. Set up is down to the driver and ride height is the most basic aspect. To not see that there was something abnormal about that is painting over the most obvious and visual evidence that there is.

I saw plenty of cars generating sparks in Imola and other tracks. Never a single incident attributed to this.

Not as much as Senna's you didn't and the car was horribly unstable through Tamburello even on the previous lap. You do know that the difference between the highest and lowest point of the track through there was fifteen centimetres right and it was greater on the inside where Senna was? It wasn't exactly billiard table Magny Cours. You do know what that does to a Formula 1 car, right? The same pattern was seen at the first race in Brazil.

I'm afraid there are a lot of people out there who simply don't want to accept ever that their hero was even remotely responsible in any way for his demise. There always has to be someone else to blame and that's the way it will always be. Heroes are heroes, but they are not gods I'm afraid.

[munudeges]

Do you know anything about vehicle dynamics? Please explain how lifting the throttle could promote massive understeer.

I suggest you look into how a car that generates most of its grip aerodynamically and cannot take any corner at speed with it actually works. It's very well known that lifting off the throttle gives you even less grip and you fall out of the window that the car operates in. You must keep your right foot in to make a Formula 1 car work, but Senna had little choice. Given that the underside of the car was doing the steering and the underfloor aerodynamics weren't working as a result then you have your answer.

[GitanesBlondes]

Do you know anything about vehicle dynamics? Please explain how lifting the throttle could promote massive understeer.

I suggest you look into how a car that generates most of its grip aerodynamically and cannot take any corner at speed with it actually works. It's very well known that lifting off the throttle gives you even less grip and you fall out of the window that the car operates in. You must keep your right foot in to make a Formula 1 car work, but Senna had little choice. Given that the underside of the car was doing the steering and the underfloor aerodynamics weren't working as a result then you have your answer.

An interesting comment I read awhile back was from Gerard Ducarouge who said that under normal conditions at that time, the aerodynamic package was generating 2600kg on the car through Tamburello, but if there was even a slight issue with the front wing, the car would lose 500kg right off of that. Not saying that there was front wing damage, but even the slightest alteration of airflow to the front of the car would completely change exactly how the car would handle.

Kind of reminds me of when Mika Hakkinen had that rear wing collapse at Hockenheim in '99 at 190MPH right before the stadium section. Instantly lost rear end grip in that case. Not having optimal flow over and under a F1 car is a recipe for disaster, and the Williams had brought a new front wing to Imola to try and help with the aero package.

[timbo]

Do you know anything about vehicle dynamics? Please explain how lifting the throttle could promote massive understeer.

I suggest you look into how a car that generates most of its grip aerodynamically and cannot take any corner at speed with it actually works. It's very well known that lifting off the throttle gives you even less grip and you fall out of the window that the car operates in. You must keep your right foot in to make a Formula 1 car work, but Senna had little choice. Given that the underside of the car was doing the steering and the underfloor aerodynamics weren't working as a result then you have your answer.

Lifting the throttle always causes the car to decelerate. It also shifts the weight forwards. Lifting the throttle can upset the car indeed, but it should promote oversteer not understeer.

[Shrieker]

but it should promote oversteer not understeer.

Unless something is broken.

[timbo]

An interesting comment I read awhile back was from Gerard Ducarouge who said that under normal conditions at that time, the aerodynamic package was generating 2600kg on the car through Tamburello, but if there was even a slight issue with the front wing, the car would lose 500kg right off of that. Not saying that there was front wing damage, but even the slightest alteration of airflow to the front of the car would completely change exactly how the car would handle.

A front wing or front suspension problem would cause understeer indeed. The Ratzenberger crash was due to front wing damage and car understeered.

[munudeges]

Lifting the throttle can upset the car indeed, but it should promote oversteer not understeer.

A loss of aerodynamic grip == car taking corner faster than it can physically go == understeer. Simple. It seems counterintuitive but that's how an aerodynamically driven car works. Once you slow down and get out of the operating window everything is a downward spiral.

[timbo]

Lifting the throttle can upset the car indeed, but it should promote oversteer not understeer.

A loss of aerodynamic grip == car taking corner faster than it can physically go == understeer. Simple. It seems counterintuitive but that's how an aerodynamically driven car works. Once you slow down and get out of the operating window everything is a downward spiral.

No. Not that simple. It could be the case if the lost downforce was equally distributed between front and rear axle. But in case of bottoming the loss is mostly at the rear and the loss of downforce produced by floor should shift balance towards the front, promoting oversteer.