F1 World Champion 2014
Lewis Hamilton
Newey speaks for first time about how Senna’s death almost made him quit
News
Newey speaks for first time about how Senna’s death almost made him quit
Posted By: James Allen  |  16 May 2011   |  11:33 pm GMT  |  69 comments

Donald McRae, the award winning writer from the Guardian, has done it again with a groundbreaking interview with Adrian Newey, the design genius behind Red Bull’s current domination of Formula 1.

But the quotes which catch the eye are not about Sebastian Vettel or Mark Webber, they concern the death of Ayrton Senna, 17 years ago this month, in a Newey designed Williams-Renault car.


“The little hair I had all fell out in the aftermath,” Newey told McRae for an article in today’s Guardian. “So it changed me physically. It was dreadful. Both Patrick Head and myself separately asked ourselves whether we wanted to continue in racing. Did we want to be involved in a sport where people can die in something we’ve created? Secondly, was the accident caused by something that broke through poor or negligent design? And then the court case started.”

Newey’s words come as Senna is being widely reconsidered by fans from the time and by a new generation discovering him for the first time thanks to the documentary film “Senna”, which opens in the UK in two weeks time.

There is an intense scene in the film near the end, where an obviously agitated Senna tells Newey and engineering colleague David Brown that the car is suffering from a “changing balance” in the corners, one he is struggling to control. The car had been updated after failing to work in the opening three races of 1994 and Senna says that the car is “worse” if anything.

One of the central mysteries of Senna’s death is what caused his accident. The film is inconclusive on the matter, leaving it open as to what caused the steering column to break- was it the cause or the effect? And Newey’s testimony in the Guardian is in line with that,

“The day after the race was a Bank Holiday Monday and some of us came in to try and trawl though the data and work out what happened, ” Newey adds. “They were dark weeks. The honest truth is that no one will ever know exactly what happened. 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.

“If you look at the camera shots, especially from Michael Schumacher’s following car, the car didn’t understeer off the track. It oversteered which is not consistent with a steering column failure. The rear of the car stepped out and all the data suggests that happened. Ayrton then corrected that by going to 50% throttle which would be consistent with trying to reduce the rear stepping out and then, half-a-second later, he went hard on the brakes. The question then is why did the rear step out? The car bottomed much harder on that second lap which again appears to be unusual because the tyre pressure should have come up by then – 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.”

Read the Guardian article HERE

Featured News
MORE FROM JA ON F1...
Share This:
Posted by:
Category:
69 Comments
  1. Jo Torrent says:

    On Newey considering retiring
    *************************

    I don’t believe that Newey ever considered to retire. He thought about it for sure as a consequence for a big shock as F1 went more than a decade without causalities (hope I’m not wrong) and people started to believe that F1 was safe and that causalities were unimaginable.

    When such a shock hits you and you are the one who made the car which caused the death you clearly have second thoughts about why are you there, how much are you responsible, is it worth it, etc….

    Once the shock has passed, he had probably known that he’ll carry on and that he’ll carry on.

    There’s Berger too who was close to Senna and who talked about retiring but carried on. I don’t know if someone retired afterwards

    1. Jo Torrent says:

      maybe Dr. Watkins

    2. Steve says:

      A decade without loss is a bit of a stretch. Another driver died at the same event in qualifying.

    3. G says:

      When millions of dollars are involved, even the un-priceless life of someone can’t have a legal justice court.
      In this case, it’s very clear that when you go beyond the limits, risk is greather. If you win you are a genious, but if you kill one of your pilots, well it’s like it’s part of the contract and you should not take respo in this.
      Again, unfair and that’s why actually nowadays sports doesn’t exists anymore, only MONEY is the RULER!

    4. marky says:

      A driver also died in testing(Elio de Angelis in 1986)

  2. Jo Torrent says:

    Chapman was tougher
    ***************

    In 1969, Jochen Rindt wrote a letter complaining about Lotus lack of reliability (which meant high probability of death at the time. He concluded the letter by saying “Please give my suggestions some thought, I can only drive a car in which I have some confidence, and I feel the point of no confidence is quite near.”

    These are words that freeze the blood. Rindt died a year later in Monza due to a break failure at the entry of “La Parabolica” in FP. He won the world championship that year despite missing the last 4 races becoming the 1st and hopefully only posthumous World Champion.

    Chapman lost his 2nd driver 2 years after his beloved Jim Clark. I never heard that he ever considered retiring which shows times have changed.

    1. Born 1950 says:

      One of Chapman’s favourite sayings was, “anyone can build a car that’ll last the race; but only a genius can build a car that will only just last the race”. I believe it was originally a Frank Lloyd Wright quote that started, “anyone can build a building that will last for ever…”.

      One of the problems of race cars tends to be that the more fragile you make them the faster they go. It’s a philosophy that probably shouldn’t apply to bits like steering columns and brake pedals.

  3. Jo Torrent says:

    Il Commendatore was even tougher
    *****************************

    I saw few years ago a documentary about Enzo Ferrari. I can’t recall the exact time or circumstances of what happened, but a driver racing a GT Ferrari lost his life in an accident. Enzo wasn’t at the circuit and his crew phoned him to inform about what happened. Enzo said what should be said in such circumstances, then waited a bit and added “what about the car ?”

    That shows how Enzo cared about his drivers. He was a very tough man. Only Bernie is made of the same mold.

    He was deeply affected by the death of Gilles Villeneuve and highly regarded Nuovolari, but besides those 2, I don’t know if he ever cared for another driver.

  4. Jo Torrent says:

    About the accident itself
    *********************

    It is well established that Senna died because the wheel suspension upright assembly killed him after getting loose due to the impact.

    Besides that, he didn’t have the slightest bruise in his body. He was very unlucky that day because the tyre could have gone anywhere and it chose the cockpit. If such a thing happened today, the driver will probably die even if the cockpits are much narrower further reducing the probability.

    So why should anybody feel guilty for what happened. F1 cars are prototypes which always have reliability issues, things like that happened that day and might happen today. The cockpit protected the driver’s body and the shock with the wall did no harm.

    The only thing that killed Senna was bad luck, the same bad luck that almost ended Massa’s life.

    The bad luck hit 5 times injuring Ferrari mechanics, Spectators, Barrichello and killing Ratzenberger and Senna.

    If you don’t believe in Curse, that week-end should convince you. In Arabic we call it “THE EYE” which means the evil eye. That week-end the eye was on Imola.

    1. Lilla My says:

      Generally I understand your point about bad luck. If that wheel had flown 15 cm further, Senna would have come out unscratched.
      But why should anybody feel guilty? Because a driver died (in fact two drivers that weekend) – and if you don’t believe in destiny, you think that it shouldn’t have happened, that a wheel shouldn’t just get loose with a piece of suspension attached to it killing the driver. The good thing is that conclusions have been drawn and wheels hardly ever fly around with parts of suspension after a crash, but stay attached to the car. So in this sense the tragedies of that weekend were “needed” because they showed what had to be improved in the safety area. But still, if that was my car, I wouldn’t be able to simply say “it was bad luck”, but would feel guilty that the way my car was built contributed to somebody’s death.
      I’m not trying to say that it was Williams fault, but rather that though Senna died because he was unlucky this particular moment, the bad luck was aided by the construction of the car, which enebled the wheel to get loose.

    2. the_rh1no says:

      Jo, you have written some good things in your monopoly at the top of this comment wall. However, I really don’t think you can call the 1994 Imola race week end as being affected by a curse or “the eye”. It was perhaps one of the worst weekends in the history of formula one, but I believe that all these events, have somewhere, an explanation and the explanation does not require the reliance on the concept of curses.

      Whilst we may never know with 100percent certainty the reason why Senna crashed, we can understand more about what led to some of the other events. It is also this rationale of trying to comprehend what has happened, rather than reducing a series of unfortunate events to the result of a curse that has led to fundamental improvements in driver safety. After all defining what went wrong, or searching for the cause, allows us to create solutions to the problems.

      Whilst the sport should never have needed a terrible weekend like this to place the concept of safety of paramount importance, it will always remind us that it cannot be taken for granted. The levels of safety in formula one, are almost unbelievable and I think that this a good thing. I also think that this would not have come about with the grouping of these events as a curse or bad luck. So with respect we should remember these events for what they were, but in the aftermath be thankful for what they have led to.

      I hope that nothing like this ever happens again in formula one and I think with the improvements that have occurred, in respect to safety, that they unlikely to happen. However we should never relax the continual drive to improve safety of both driver, teams and spectators, to do so would be dangerous.

    3. Born 1950 says:

      The evil eye? Tosh. It was a statistical probability that one day a driver was going to be hit by a wheel that broke loose. It had happened many times before and missed the driver. In that place and time it happened to be Senna who was in the line of fire.

      That two drivers could die in one weekend is well within statistical probability. And it happened then. Every time those drivers race there is the possibility of a death — though thankfully it’s becoming more and more unlikely due to improving safety regulations.

    4. David Tompkins says:

      Has anybody ever commented on the fact that Ayrton’s head/helmet slumps (in the mirror) quite far to the left, exactly at the point (the apex) at which he straight-lined. If you study the angle of his head around the rest of the circuit, it is either horizontal or only slightly inclined at the corners. I have not seen an onboard view of his previous laps at Tamburello to compare the effect of the G-forces on his head at that point, but the head angle looks unnatural, as though he had passed out.

  5. Jo Torrent says:

    Newey Success with RedBull
    ***********************

    People regard Newey success with RedBull as a huge achievement because he’s managing it with a privateer team owned by a company which greatest achievement was to mix sugar and caffeine and sell it. Some already did that and call it Coffee.

    The thing is I don’t think that such a success would ever be possible in the years where he was working for McLaren. It was a time when privateer were struggling for surviving and each year brought its toll of casualities : Arrows, Prost, Jordan, etc… Teams had to buy a very expensive B-spec engine. A week-end costs 4 to 5 engines and so little money remained for working on mechanics and aeros.

    Now, only 8 engines are necessary for the whole year from HRT to Ferrari. Cosworth aside, all the engines are more or less the same. Not only that but by freezing them and by tweaking some arms the FIA managed to bring the engine cost down which means that engine do make no difference and the advantage Ferrari/Ferrari and McLaren/Mercedes had during the time is no longer there.

    Add to that Mr. Soda Maniac deep pockets and ambitions, Newey talent and you have a fight with the former big names of the game.

    So when people not so smart like Hamilton question how come a Soda company can beat established teams and engine manufacturers, he misses the point that engines means nothing today.

    Bring the 90s rule back and you’ll see how badly will RedBull suffer. Their only chance will be to bring an engine manufacturer on board and hopefully a decent one.

    Still the job done by Newey and co is awesome and the no longer “baby Schumi” did a brilliant (copying his elder methods) job by making sure the co & Newey signed a contract extension before he put his famous finger on a contract.

    1. James Allen says:

      I think your overall point is good, independents couldn’t dream of winning a championship in the manufacturer era, but Red Bull isn’t a typical independent, they were building up a formidable team and they don’t lack personnel. Once the engine stopped being a performance differentiator then we saw Brawn and Red Bull win world titles and that’s been good for the sport

      1. Jo Torrent says:

        I agree that it’s good for the sport and the overall competitiveness of the field.

        With the 4L turbo, engines will be once more differentiators but hopefully an engine freeze will be enforced by 2015 to give us a tighter championship.

    2. DC says:

      “Their only chance will be to bring an engine manufacturer on board and hopefully a decent one”

      If I’ve read that correctly you’re suggesting the Renault is not a good engine manufacturer?

      I know there was some talk of the Renault engine being down on power compared to the Merc a couple of seasons ago, but to question them as a manufacturer is somewhat harsh. Renault have an outstanding record in F1 and are amongst the very top engine suppliers of the modern era.

      I think Red Bull and Renault make a very good fit.

      The 2013 engine regulations may change the order a little, if they actually go ahead, but Renault will be right up there with a solid engine I’m sure.

  6. Jo Torrent says:

    James,

    Off topic : When we read teams spending Ferrari always comes 1st but Ferrari engine is home built and developed and I guess its cost is included.

    On the other hand, McLaren uses free engines happily given -though less than 2 years ago- by Mercedes.

    If that is the case, we’re not comparing eggs with eggs, are we ?

    1. James Allen says:

      You are correct about Ferrari making their own engines and don’t forget that they recoup €6 million from each customer team every year. McLaren have a contract with Mercedes, not sure if the engines are free, but clearly there was a negotiation when they split at the end of 2009

  7. bones says:

    We have seen many times that police can solve cases after many years because forensic technology improves from the time the crime was committed and I wonder if it would be possible to do the same with this tragic accident,but of course we need the evidence,so my question James is if you have any idea where is the car and all the pieces?

    1. James Allen says:

      Good question. I believe it was destroyed after the Italian case ended, but I’ll check

      1. Unoccv3 says:

        That is rather sad if true. Since we stuff race horses and such I would have thought (and maybe this is the Australian in me) that the car would have been kept either by Williams or Renault or someone or some muesuem. I’m sure if there was an F1 exhibition somewhere then many people would be interested in looking at the car.

        As for bones, I don’t think it would work. Technology can’t tell you what happened a tenth of a second apart. Senna aparently broke half a second after lifting. I doubt the tech can tell you what the telemetry does.

        YOu could find out what broke but not in what order or what caused what.

        In crimes there are many markers around givng hints as to what led to what which can help. usually the technology is based around the crime scene not at the crime and given that the scene of the crash was so large and completely gone now we can’t look at that.

      2. Bit morbid, isn’t it? I’m sure displaying the car would attract quite a crowd, but personally I’d say it was in bad taste. I’d much rather celebrate the cars he won in, seeing the car he died in would just be chilling.

        There does seem to be a split amongst F1 fans when it comes to crashes. I remember a competition on the Autosport forums to find the most dramatic F1 picture and it was nearly 50/50 – cars crashing vs. cars on the limit. The only time I’ve been interested in a wreck is David Purley’s car at the Donington museum, which is amazing simply because it’s so hard to imagine anyone getting out of it alive. Unless I was trying to forensically analyse an accident, I wouldn’t want to see a car someone had died in.

    2. Darren says:

      Bones, It was returned to the Williams team after the end of the Italian court case (in 2004 or thereabouts I think).

      From what I remember reading the chassis was reported to be in deteriorated contition and after being returned to Williams it was incinerated.

      1. Phil R says:

        I read in Autosport/F1 Racing some time ago that it was returned around 2004, but that it had been kept at the factory in an area that most employees didn’t even know existed, let alone that the car was there.

      2. Matt Devenish says:

        I remember reading this as well.

        Apparently it was returned to the team in an extremely poor condition. Rumours were that since the court case ended, it had been stored in a damp lock up. Terrible as this was supposed to be evidence.

        I’ve also read stories that once it was returned to the team, it was simply destroyed. Part of me wants the story of the mystery room to be true, simply because it’s part of the Senna legacy. The realist in me thinks I’m talking bloody nonsense. Either way, it still makes me sad.

        I’ve no idea of it’s accuracy of reporting, but the website “Senna Files” (google it), suggested foul play in the whole investigation, the key area of which was that the data recorders were maliciously tampered with. It’s interesting that the Guardian interview makes direct reference to Newey and engineers spending the days following at the Williams factory analysing the data.

        I was also intrigued by Newey’s comment;

        “There’s no doubt that 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 in it and it would have failed at some point. There is no question that its design was very poor”

        I’ve lost count of the articles and books I’ve read about the accident, but to this day, I’ve NEVER heard or seen reference to a member of the design team admitting it was a poor design, let alone go on to express the view it would have failed.

        Granted the “..would have failed at some point” can be interpreted in many ways and I genuinely believe the team would never send a car to the gird with a known minor fault, let alone a major one such as this. And of course his phrasing might simply be in reference to “given a long enough line on a graph, everything eventually fails” but nevertheless it stirs up emotions. It’s amazing what language can do, especially if taken out of context.

        I’m also interested in his view that it was a slow puncture on the right rear.

        In any case, what does it matter now. I’ve wasted so many hours, as I’m guessing many of you have, thinking about this day. Even if we knew for sure it was a component failure, tyre failure, the low pressure/ride height theory, driver error, it’s never going to bring him back :-(

      3. Jo Torrent says:

        “in an area that most employees didn’t even know existed…”

        that sounds like MI6 stuff.

  8. Pete Muir says:

    Surprised he even suggests that the design of the column was poor at all.

    I wonder if the last couple of seconds footage before the final impact was available for them?

    1. jonrob says:

      If as a an engineer you design something, (particularly back then before all today’s project management systems were in place) There is always something you can improve on or a different way of doing it, the biggest problem is often knowing when to stop, this point is often reached by means of cost or of time running out. I dare say if you asked any of the current F1 engineers if they could improve the steering column on their current cars they would all say yes but we don’t have time, it’s ok for now!

    2. The design was poor – Williams were adapting to life after active suspension and not adapting terribly well.

      Senna wanted to change his driving position and the team obliged, but this required welding a new section into the steering column. It was a rather shoddy solution and, as Newey states, the join was suffering from fatigue and would’ve failed at some point. There’s no way to conclusively determine whether the column broke before the accident or during it, although the nature of the crash does suggest it happened at impact.

  9. brooksy007 says:

    Seems logical if the car bottomed out, but I also believe that the floored design of the car contributed as much to the tragedy. To have a car which both understeers and oversteers is just not safe!

    The track design is also problematic with the barrier due to the creek that runs behind it.

    1. I’ve always contended that there was little wrong with Tamburello other than the bumps. The barrier was unforgiving and not particularly far away, but not especially close or at a bad angle, either. Senna hit it at a fairly oblique angle and, given the construction of the cars at the time, should’ve walked away. It was just the terrible misfortune that the wheel came free the way it did. Because of the speed involved, I don’t think wheel tethers would’ve made much difference either.

  10. James Draper says:

    It is very rare that a true Engineer in F1 will allow a driver to race a car they think is unsafe. There was certainly no intent behind Newey’s design failure, if that was the case for Senna’s car. These are the risks all these players make, it cost Senna his life, and Newey his conscience.

    Engineers in Canada wear an Iron ring, the original rings were constructed using metal from a Quebec bridge which fell due to an engineers calculation errors. This bridge had to be built 3 times before it successfully spanned the St Lawrence seaway.

    “The ring symbolizes the pride which engineers have in their profession, while simultaneously reminding them of their humility.” ironring.ca

    Doctors lose patients. The military kills civilians. Judges sentence the innocent. Mr. Newey is living the life of an Engineer who lost the greatest driver of all time which is something I cannot imagine. The fact that he has the perseverance to continue his trade while fully understanding the negatives which can come is a tribute to him and will make him a legend.

    1. Rich In Norway says:

      Great post!

      1. Matt Devenish says:

        Second that

  11. Dan says:

    At the risk of sparking a conspiracy, I would have thought the sudden change of direction at full speed would cause the same sort of oversteer we saw when Senna went off. Newy is right, it wasn’t straight on relative to the corner, but the car steered right, towards the wall. I always thought this was as a result of the car losing traction, and the physics of the steering column becoming detached at full throttle would likely lead to some oversteer.

    I am glad to hear Newey speak on the subject; I can’t imagine how aware he must have been from that moment on that every driver stepping into his cars was trusting him with their lives.

  12. giorgio0078 says:

    frank statement from the honest man, & RIP Ayrton

  13. James. Did Williams ever get the car back to inspect?

    1. James Allen says:

      I remember there was frustration because it was impounded and they eventually had a chance to inspect it, I think. Its 17 years ago now!

    2. Sebee says:

      Black boxes with telemetry data gone?

      I would like to know if Barachello’s crash resulted in telemetry data being lost to see how reliable the blackboxes were at the time.

      How many times had the black boxes failed in crashes in the prior 3 years before 1994? I have a hard time believing that devices designed to be used under F1 forces didn’t survive this crash. That would really be worth investigating.

      And am I alone at the repulsion of events continuing after a death of a participant? This race is but one example unfortunately and could have stopped the unfortunate Sunday with that decision. I’m absolutely repulsed by the Giro that’s on now for example.

  14. Vassilis Tsakiroglou says:

    [mod - extract of long comment] My conclusion is that there is no conclusion, a definite and crystal clear one at least. However, you can argue forever about understeer or oversteer before FW16 went straight to the wall, but there is a certain point when Senna could not turn the wheel anymore and surrenders to the centrifugal forces of Tamburello. My view is that moment the steering column snapped in his hands, it’s kind of pushing against a closed door which suddenly opens -and that’s all there is to it. After a decade of research, I had to give up trying to unearth the truth, but still I had to believe in an explanation, so as to be able to sleep a bit easier at nights. So, I believe that the column broke and caused the accident, but utterly it was Senna who was responsible for that by insisting on a modification to the steering column.

    I have spend ten years of my life studying every possible source of information about Senna’s life and death. I have travelled lots of times to Italy so as to meet people from CINECA, the University lab that undertook the task of reconstructing the accident, and of course to interview Mr. Passarini. I have watched thousands of times the video footage that CINECA screened during the trial in Imola together with techical minded people,

  15. paul says:

    a very small but interesting comment was made by david brown in the 1994 autocourse summary of williams season.He made the comment that after years of using the highly sophisticated active suspension the team really struggled to return to a conventional system and had to relearn how to set up a conventionaly sprung car at the begining of the year and only felt comfortable with the car by the sixth race or so.Remember how many times senna and hill spun or half spun at interlagos and aida.Hill took the rather sensible route of developing with the car, senna (and this is a mark of his genius)was able to ring the cars neck and get pole laps out of it using his skill to adapt to the cars eratic handling.This was his undoing at imola the caotic start and pressure from schumachers traction controlled benetton contributed to him losing control at tamburello,he was overdriving in my opinion relying on his skill base but just went over the edge on a corner that had no room for error. call it fate and circumstance mixed together.

    1. Blundle says:

      paul says:
      “This was his undoing at imola the caotic start and pressure from schumachers traction controlled benetton contributed to him losing control at tamburello,he was overdriving in my opinion”
      Yes! Schumacher! Arrest this man!

      Sigh… I recommend you a book, “The life of Senna” by Tom Rubython. It has some great chapters too, but for some reason, it seems to talk even more about Schumacher and the whole traction control saga. The book may add fuel to your views and you may find it a very good reading.

      Senna´s death was hard to swallow for many. Now almost 20 years later, it´s time to look back to it in a less emotional way. Of course, the Benneton had some “suspicious” software and I refuse to believe they didnt use it. But they past scrutineering. Thats it. It was Williams that failed to take the corner… possibly in combination with a punctured tyre, as Newey speculates.

      Although, I must agree that Senna was overdriving. But by overdriving, I mean
      Senna´s decision to race that car in the first place. His decision not to set it up in a way which would give him a safer, easier ride( but surely, significantly compromising laptimes). But he wanted to race more than be safe. So if we believe the “cold tyres plus evil to drive car” theory, the driver played his part even before leaving the starting grid.

  16. Mike from Medellin, Colombia says:

    Senna died because of a freak event in which the wheel of his car hit him on the head.

    The cause of the accident is most likely steering column failure. All the evidence points to this and some of the worlds best engineers without a vested interest in the outcome of this case have supported this.

    The car stepped out because there was a nasty bump mid way through tamburello and the Senna has no steering force to counteract this.

    James, will you ever be writing a book on this watershed event for f1?

  17. Michael Grievson says:

    Aweful accident. Lets not forget Roland Ratzenburger lost is life that weekend and I believe Reuben’s almost did as well

  18. richie675 says:

    I watched the Senna trailer at the cinema on Sunday night. The moment when the in-car footage shows Senna approach, and begin to leave the road at, Tamburello corner is extremely frightening to see, even if it was barely a second before the trailer cut away. I even spoke out at the time of watching as it is so clear the car has lost some control.

    Reading as we all have the various possible reasons for over- or understeer, it is incredibly interesting to hear Newey himself comment on the circumstance and his own feelings. It’s impossible not to rate the guy, he’s been so successful, yet he always seems reserved and cautious in his approach.

    James, I would love to know whether you feel this approach by Newey is in some way attributed to Senna’s death, and that he may have been more reckless and determined to succeed in his youth? I’m certainly not placing blame, but as Newey mentions his physicality and questioning of his career in the aftermath, I’m keen to know what implications these have had in his methods.

  19. Alric Kitson says:

    I know it will never be proved one way or another and this is only my opinion, but If those last few seconds of footage had been saved I’m pretty sure we would have seen the steering wheel break in his hands. I know Coulthard said the video showing the vertical movement of the wheel was normal but I still think the way the car went off points towards a loss of steering rather than just the car bottoming. I think the car did bottom out and this was the final hit that snapped the column fully. The car just goes off too straight, surely if Senna was braking like the evidence showed he would have been steering fully left too, yet on the external video that captures the crash it looks like the wheels are not turning left away from the wall.

    1. Unoccv3 says:

      Disagree. If the car bottomed out and the bakc slide out then the back would have started going right of the car. Senna we know changed his throttle to correct and so I’m guessing he also counter steered right.

      If the steering had been lost and the back had stepped out then the car would have spun either left or gith depending on where the forces were going.

      The car didn’t which means there was no sideways force on the car (very unlikely) or Senna was correcting the slide with the steering, ergo the steering must be still working.

      I sitl think the same thing as when I first aw it, the car bottom out, slid right and Senna corrected (what Newey said supports this) and he went into the wall.

      The car was badly setup and was run a bit too low as they tried to adjust from the active suspension that the car was designed for.

  20. Racehound says:

    From the second Ayrtons FW16 veered right and into the wall it is blatantly obvious the car suffered steering column falure BEFORE THE CAR LEFT THE TRACK!!! Absolutely no doubt about that, and all the possible various causes that have been mooted around all this time about the car bottoming out, low tyre pressure, a puncture or even running over debris on the track are all part of the smokescreen designed to get Wallys off the hook before they ended up in the Italian courts!! Had Ayrtons steering been fully functional as the car left the track, then he would have tried to spin the car around and go into the wall BACKWARDS, which would have been the only thing he would have been able to do to lessen the impact that he knew was coming!!! The fact that he was turning the steering wheel to the left, but this was having no effect on the front wheels proves conclusively that the steering column was already disconnected from the steering rack!!!! Maybe 1 day Williams will grow a pair and finally admit to the world what most engineers already know….that steering column failure WAS the cause of the cars sudden change of direction!!! Even the telemetry shows the sudden drop in steering pressure in the system from over 600psi to 0psi within milliseconds of the cars change of direction!! Why would low tyre pressure only affect Ayrtons car but not the following 20 odd cars after they had ALL been following the SC for 7 laps? And why at almost 200 mph did Ayrtons car not spin around as he approached the wall, and with the brakes full on, even though he was turning the steering wheel hard left? The answer my friends is because the column and the front wheels were no longer connected to each other!!! Ayrton was a passenger in a runaway car for the last 2 seconds of his life because of a miscalculation fabricating the modified steering column. Maybe after welding the column somebody ground away too much of the excess material, thereby weakening the column before it was fitted to the car, or maybe thicker tubing was required to ensure the part was strong enough to cope with the demands on it, but either way it was the modification that failed at the worst possible moment. I also remember reading an article which stated that immediately after the crash, Patrick Head was heard muttering “steering power, steering power” , on the pit wall whilst he was looking at the telemetry!!! The real cause of the crash is no mystery to all the engineers in the pit lane at Imola that day..and no mystery to me either!

    1. Tom says:

      This post has exactly the CORRECT information anyone needs about what happened. The only serious explanation anyone can deduce was steering failure.
      If you see photo’s of the wall thickness of the repaired tube that was used to extend the column it is easy to see how it failed.If a larger diameter tube had been welded around the original column then it may have lasted longer but with the heat from the weld destroying the properties and strength of the steel this would still be a bad move even on a non stressed component.
      I hope the truth will be admitted one day by those that know. The last seconds of the camera footage would have shown what happened more clearly. I am guessing someone has the footage somewhere still regardless of what’s been said.

  21. Darren says:

    The debate rages on about what caused the crash and I suppose it will never end. I dont think its that important to know what caused the crash. We know for sure it was one of the following things; steering column failure, puncture, bottoming out, suspension failure, brake failure or a stuck throttle.

    I know not all of these apply to Sennas case as it has been proven he did brake etc.. But the point is that all of these failures had occured many times in the past and have occured many times since then. Im not saying thats acceptable but these are thoughbread racing cars under constant development, things break.

    As Jo Torrent states at the top of the page it was sheer bad luck that killed Senna, had that accident happened another 1000 times he would have walked away. If that same set of circumstances happened today we would probably have another fatality, although the chances have been greatly reduced by the introduction of higher cockpit sides and wheel tethers. But the fact stands that things like wheels flying is and always will be very dangerous, as we were sadly reminded in 2009 with Henry Surtees and Felipe Massa.

    For what its worth I dont think steering column failure caused the crash, I agree with Newey in saying it just doesnt look like a steering failure.

    What is worth remembering is that at the start of the 94 season the Williams was a horrible car to drive, Williams had pionered (I think) and used active suspension for several years and had some of the most sophisticated driver aids in the field. They were struggling to make the car competitive without them. As history shows they sorted it out before the end of the year as Damon Hill won races and came very close to the championship (with a little help from the penalties Benneton got).

    For those first few races though only Sennas sublime skills gave him pole position. Damon Hill also said the car was twitchy and nervous and was never within half a second of Sennas pole laps. Damon Hill was no slouch of a driver but half a second of laptime is the difference between the limit and over the limit.

    Quite simply Senna was driving that car far faster than it was capable of going and as far as Im concerened he lost control. You then factor in other things like his emotional state about Ratzenbergers death the day before and Barrichellos crash on the Friday. His anger at Bennetons apparent use of driver aids, of which Senna was conviced. Add in his awful start to the season and I think you end up with a man who was not in a good frame of mind.

    Until we get that final 2s of on board footage though (which I am convinced exists) we will never know what happened.

    RIP Senna, I cannot wait to see this fim

    1. Jo Torrent says:

      Great movie but too biased point of view. I don’t like Prost but I don’t think he was treated fairly

  22. PaulL says:

    What ever became of the on-car footage seconds before impact? I’ve heard it said that it was lost due to a circumstantial glitch. True??

  23. Cosmo Huber says:

    Another quote from McRae’s interview with Newey: “… because once a team gets run by an accountant, it’s time to move.” Sounds like Williams now, doesn’t it?

  24. Tyler says:

    Does it truly matter what happened? The man is gone, let him rest in peace.

    1. Neil Barr says:

      Certainly, Senna’s death was due to the unimaginably unfortunate trajectory of the right front wheel. But having seen the Williams unexpectedly leave the track and head for the wall we cannot rest until we know the reason for the loss of control. Not persuaded by the weight of a well-reasoned argument, not calmed by the opinion of the honourable and peerless Adrian Newey but convinced by what our eyes have not yet seen: revealing footage. Abe Zapruder, where are you?

  25. F1_Dave says:

    the official theory states that the car bottomed out due to low tyre pressures (be it due to the restart or perhaps a slow puncture), this caused the back end to slide.

    those who question this say ‘well why did the car go straght into the wall rather than slide into it sideways’, the answer to this is simple. as senna corrected the rear re-gained traction & basically turned the car in the direction the wheel was pointing which was to the right.

    this sort of thing happens a lot in indycar racing on ovals. the rear slides, driver corrects only for the rear to regain traction & turn the car into the wall.

    the conspiracy theories surrounding all the missing onboard footage, damaged black boxes & broken steering columns never made any sence to me.
    why would the team, the fia & fom need to bother covering something such as a car failure up?

  26. Graham says:

    Very interesting Newey comments.
    Anyone who has seen the video from Schuey’s following car can certainly convince themselves that the rear of Senna’s car was lower than usual, and that the strat of the accident was ‘self-steer’ following grounding. Notwithstanding the possibility of lower TP’s due to slower running behind the safety car just prior to the accident, while that may have been a factor I was never convinced it was the whole story. A slow puncture does fit the bill. But would it have provided sufficient deflation to cause the accident without Senna noticing it. I think probably yes.
    I was v. surprised that AN commented on the start of a fatigue failure in the steering column. Don’t forget that the col had been modified just before the race at S’s request. It would be interesting to know where that crack had started. If it was related to the mods it must have precipitated quickly, if not – was there no superficial crack testing as part of the pre-race prep?
    Either way, nobody’s fault.
    It’s obvious that immediately after an incident like this everybody associated with the car design/prep will feel bad, but at the end of the day they did nothing to intentionally cause the failure. It may have been an unfortunate error or something completely untraceable priior to the start of the incident, BUT it wasn’t deliberate and if it was sometheing that was missed – it was for a reason.

  27. Eric says:

    James, another poster has brought up the whole business of Schumacher, Benetton, and traction control. From all of my research, and the official FIA releases, all I’ve ever found was the “Option 13,” which you’re no doubt familiar with, that supposedly allowed launch control. The FIA hearing never mentioned traction control, but this always gets brought up, often by fans who do not support Schumacher, and seek to marginalize his talent. I’m aware that Senna apparently suggested that the Benetton had TC, and this idea is cited in countless internet discussions, but was there any real truth to this? Again, the FIA documents I’ve tracked down only mentioned launch control. Any knowledge would be appreciated.

    1. Matt Devenish says:

      Forgive me for quoting without source, but I recall F1 Racing doing an interview with Mosley, either just after he announced his decision to step down as President and then reversed it a month later in 2004/5 or just before he actually did stand down in 2009.

      One of the questions was to do with Benetton and the now infamous “option 13″ and did he have any regrets. The jist of his reply was that with hindsight the FIA shouldn’t have returned the evidence to the team, which rendered any future charge impossible, whether or not Benetton did actually use it in competition or not. Reading between the lines, I think there was a tremendous amount of pressure (not least coming from Bernie, who was far too involved with Flavio at the time) to draw a line under the 1994 season.

      Benetton fully admitted its presence, but vehemently denied it was ever used. Would that excuse stand up today? If McLaren were found to be using a modified version of the standard ECU, but then claimed they were actually using the same software as everyone else, would the FIA return the evidence and forget all about it? I’d fully expect a penalty similar to ’07′s spygate. But the time, the FIA administration and stakes are all far greater and different now than they were almost twenty years ago.

  28. Ambient Sheep says:

    There’s a far longer version of the interview, but without the detailed analysis of the crash, here:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/may/17/adrian-newey-red-bull-ayrton-senna

    which also includes the startling revelations (at least to me) that Newey was expelled from public school, and that Head was found guilty of manslaughter in 2007 but couldn’t be arrested as the Italian Statute of Limitations had timed out.

  29. Jack says:

    Does anybody know is there is any merit to the theory that that the power steering locked or jammed or simply failed mometarily when the pressure surged and then dropped? What could have caused that ?

  30. Dougie Smythe says:

    So Senna went off the track. Lots of F1 cars go off the track. But what did the damage to the suspension that eventually went thru’ his helmet and killed him was that the fact that he crashed hard onto a concrete wall. I cannot believe it; a concrete wall just off a F1 track? If there had been some sort of tyre safety barrier before the concrete wall, Senna would have lived. Senna was killed by the concrete wall at Imola.

    Senna is my F1 hero, and his death put me off F1 for many years.

  31. Mark Island says:

    Any suggestion that Senna “overdrove” that corner are hilarious.
    The corner was always flat out in any car with little effort required from the driver.

  32. Jim Hontz says:

    Regarding The last comment… Just because a particular corner is always taken flat out does not mean that it can’t be overdiven under specific circumstances… If you have a particularly poor handling car to begin with (which Senna did by all reports)subject to both oversteer and understeer (as he states in the film) coupled with Senna’s proclivity to go flat out pushing or exceeding the limits of other mortals because of his brilliance and exceptional reflexes it’s possible that taking that corner flat out on that day at that time in the race was overdriving… In that type of car you may get away with it for a time but one small driving error or one unexpected problem (perhaps a slow rear tire deflation from debris)at that speed and control is gone and you become a passenger… In fact I would argue that Senna practically always overdrove every time he raced… That is not a criticism but rather an acknowledgement that he drove on the ragged edge of car control getting more out of a car than anyone else could… He was Senna…

  33. neil says:

    Tamburello was always a flat-out corner. Was Senna “over-driving”..I’d read a comment in an interview with Damon Hill (can’t recall the magazine) that Senna has warned him that the Williams was nervous over the bumps through Tamburello, and advised a slightly different line through. Senna however stuck to the “traditional” line, showing his commitment to taking pole and trying to win. The FW16 was a dog in the bginning of the season. Had Senna walked away from that accident, we could be sure he would have developed the car and most likely been crowned champion. Sadly, this was not to be. Senna’s death is shrouded with a mystique very much like the man himself was…we will never know. Telemetry does show that he was fighting to regain control of the car, and had slowed it down considerably before impact. Does it show catastrophic failure or a genius who overstepped his mark? Something happened that day in that car, and it robbed us of a man at the height of his powers. I was never a Senna fan, but boy, is he missed. watching him get every ounce of performance from a a car was watching a magician at work.Ayrton Senna da Silva…RIP

  34. Yamamura says:

    The trial in 2007 has already proved that the accident was caused by steering column failure which was caused by poorly designed modification. And the responsibility has fall on Patrick Head.
    Details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ayrton_Senna

    1. Raul says:

      The easiest way would be to use a simulator and use the data, steering input ,speed, steering angle calculate the car trajectory, and see what happens when you brake a steering column or the back steps out and compare results. Mcclaren, Ferrari even Williams have the technology to do it now.

  35. Truth Seeker says:

    The facts speak for themselves. First, after Ratzenberger’s death, according to Italian Law, the race should’ve been cancelled, so blame the organizers, Berniem, and Max. Second, blame Williams and the FIA (Charlie Whiting) as Williams had 2 team persons removed both of the only-scratched black boxes on Whitings authority immediately after the chasis was broought back to the paddock; a full month later, the crash video is missing, all the data is missing, and the boxes were smashed as if by a hammer. Sir Frank, Patrick Head, Mewey, and the rest of those Williams team members have their places reserved for them in Hell for murder! They made a great “well we’ll never know” cover-up of a story to save all their asses!

LEAVE A COMMENT

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Top Tags
SEARCH News
JA ON F1 In association with...
Download the chequered flag podcast today
Download the chequered flag podcast today
Multi award winning Formula One photographer
Multi award winning Formula One photographer