The Death of Ayrton Senna De Silva.

It is just over 3 years ago that Formula 1s Ayrton Senna died after crashing out, while competing (and in fact leading) the 1994 San Marino grand prix at Imola, while driving an FW 14 Williams, leaving behind a sport and a worldwide fan club that has not yet fully recovered from the loss. Due to the fact that a number of apparently unresolved issues remain, particularly in the minds the authorities in Italy, on whos soil Senna died, this entire matter is still very much a current issue. The Italian prosecutor has in fact decided, on the basis of there being no obvious reason why Sennas car crashed, that Frank Williams, the team owner, the cars designer, Adrian Newey, Patrik Head, technical director of the team at the time and the track owners should stand trial for manslaughter. The prosecutor, who it must be said is acting correctly according to Italian law, had prosecuted the team members on the basis that there was no obvious reason why an experienced driver of Sennas calibre should lose control of his car and crash. He also held that the Williams team members had allowed Senna to drive his race car with known defects and also held that the race track officials should also stand accused, on the basis of the poor condition of the race track surface. In relation to the car, a broken steering column found post accident, which the prosecution allege was negligently modified and welded immediately pre race, was in their view responsible for the accident and Sennas death. It is inconceivable that intention formed any part of the mental frame of mind of any of the defendants, hence the fact that this is not a murder trial but if negligence or recklessness is established, this would be sufficient to successfully convict any or all of the defendants of manslaughter. This high profile case is of special interest to the writer for a number of reasons but particularly because of its F1 back drop and also due to the technical explanations being put forwarded as to the cause of the accident, by all sides in the matter.

The Italian magistrate, Maurizio Passarini, who is in charge of the official investigation, has assembled an undisputed team of experts headed by Professor Lorenzini, a materials specialist at Bologna University to conduct a technical investigation into the circumstances of the accident and based on their findings, the prosecution have brought manslaughter charges against all of the defendants in the case. The investigation team, using highly technical 3D computer generated simulations, coupled with telemetry data from the two on board black boxes and video images from the on board T.V. camera, have what they believe is an accurate reconstruction of the accident circumstances, which is forming the basis of the prosecution case. It is worth pointing out that the black boxes mentioned above are not the same in design or function to the black boxes used in aircraft, which assist air accident investigators reconstruct air accidents. F1 black boxes, as in this case, provide a means for Williams to monitor chassis and gearbox parameters, and Renault to monitor engine performance data during each race by means of a radio link to the pits, for instantaneous and subsequent evaluation. Although both black boxes also have some data recording capability, their primary purpose is not accident investigation and although I accept that the data produced has some investigational value, this data proves nothing in relation to the alleged broken steering component. In fact, this data shows that Senna, while negotiating the now infamous Tamburello bend, throttled off in two stages immediately prior to his car leaving the racing surface, which suggests that at least as far as Senna was concerned, there was nothing wrong with his steering at that point, late in the sequence of events. It further indicates that he was trying to correct the cars trajectory with the steering, rather than brake, prior to impacting the wall on the outside of the bend. Although the central argument is simple, the technical argument has become extremely complex with the prosecution maintaining that the steering column fractured prior to the accident, thus causing the accident and the defence maintaining that the severity of the impact caused the steering column fracture, because of the high forces involved in the crash.

Its the classic cause and effect argument which in my view is not capable of being fully resolved and depending on which side of the fence the argument is being put forward from, both sides of the argument can be argued with equal enthusiasm and vigour. Of crucial importance in evaluating this matter are the statements of Michael Schumacher (who was in second place behind Senna and who was following close behind) indicated that Sennas car was producing an abnormal amount of sparks because it appeared to be riding much closer to the ground, than usual. In order to appreciate why this was the case, it is necessary to understand the factors which affect the ride height of a F1 car. The FW 16 Williams in particular had a particularly rigid suspension to the point that it was not a suspension at all in in the normal context. It is desirable, within the race set up of a F1 car, to run the vehicle as close to the ground as possible, particularly at Imola which is known to be a fast circuit. The advantage of the undershell aerodynamics can only be utilised provided the vehicle runs as close to the ground as is feasible without touching, with the only flexibility in the ride height being provided by the side walls of the tyres. In other words, lower tyre pressures, lower ride height, softer setting, higher tyre pressures, higher ride height and a harder suspension setting. At the optimum setting, the FW 16 would have been an extremely difficult and uncomfortable car to drive on anything other than a smooth surface. As race tyres warm up, the temperature of the tyres causes the air within the tyres to expand, thus increasing the pressure within the tyres, and thus increasing the ride height of the car, therefore affecting its handling. It is necessary for the engineers to calculate in advance of each race, the expected temperature of the day of the race and adjust the tyre pressures accordingly. The purpose of the heated tyre blankets is to bring the tyres as close to race temperature as possible so that the optimum tyre pressure (and therefore ride height) is reached as soon into the race as possible. The effect of this is that the car does not reach its optimum racing setup until the tyres have fully warmed up. The car starts the race lower and rises up as the temperature of the tyres increases.

Admittedly, the height variation is very minor but vitally important given that the height difference may only result in the difference of a fraction of a second per lap, but in a 55 lap race (on average) the winning margin may only be 10 to 15 seconds or so and sometimes less. The cumulative effect of a very minor lap advantage therefore, has huge significance as the race progresses. On the day in question prior to Sennas accident, an incident on the track required the safety car to appear for a total of six laps, during which time the tyres, despite the drivers attempts to keep them fully warm by weaving back and forth across the track, would have cooled down, and particularly in the case of the Williams car, would have reduced the ride height. I believe that this is a crucial factor in the accident occurring. Ayrton Senna died of severe head injuries after being struck by a long smooth object with a rounded end above the right eyebrow, believed to have been inflicted by a section of suspension arm which became airborne after the impact. Theoretically, race helmet visors are thought to be practically bullet proof and are tested to withstand stone impacts travelling many hundreds of miles an hour. In this case however, it is thought that the suspension component (although the precise section of component was not positively identified) somehow penetrated the helmet through the small gap between the helmet and the top of the visor. Were it not for this unlucky fatal blow, Senna would in all probability have survived this accident, notwithstanding the fact that his car struck a concrete wall at the outside of Tamburello, at a speed in excess of 100 mph. While the prosecution seems to be utterly preoccupied with the theory of the negligently (or recklessly) modified steering column and as a consequence, who killed Senna, they appear to be totally ignoring other vitally relevant factors and not asking the most important and constructive question of all, what killed Ayrton Senna. It is not surprising that the prosecution seems to be totally obsessed about pursuing the who question, given the amount of money that they have spent attempting to prove the defective steering scenario, by means of exotic computer generated reconstructions and other means.

Central to this evidence are the in car video camera clips which shows among other things, sunlight reflecting on the left front steering arm of Sennas car in addition to showing Sennas body language as he negotiates the various bends leading up to the accident scene. Taking the second issue first, it will be appreciated by most everyday drivers that during the course of negotiating a significant bend, particularly one thats taken slightly to fast, there is a tendency to lean ones body, and particularly ones head towards the inside of the bend almost in an effort to encourage the vehicle around the bend. Countering centrifugal and centripetal forces is actually the reason why this occurs and racing drivers, because of the substantially higher forces involved and depending on individual driving style, tend to exaggerate this. Consider a race car turning a corner at speed, centripetal forces are applied to the vehicle from the frictional effects between the track surface and the tyres. Centrifugal forces are applied by the car, opposing the centripetal force. If the track and tyre conditions cannot create enough centripetal force from friction, then there is not enough pull to keep the car on its circular path and it will skid, usually at a tangent to the circular path. Simply put, when a bucket is filled with water, it can be rotated vertically by the handle and if the swing is fast enough, the water will remain in the bucket even while it is inverted. The centrepetal force is being provided by the persons arm, preventing the bucket from departing from the circular motion and the centrifugal force keeps the water in the bucket, while its inverted. The above paragraphs should be borne in mind and will be helpful when evaluating the conclusions of this article. In relation to the reflected sunlight on the left steering arm of Sennas car, it is argued by witnesses for the prosecution that the in car video footage shows that sun light flashes on the metal steering arm move to the left (relative to the video camera) and at the same time, Sennas gloved hand moves towards the bottom of the steering wheel, proving it is argued that the steering was working at this point.

Sennas helmet can then be seen moving dramatically further to the left as if he is trying to instinctively correct the cars path of travel (under steering) and at the same time, the points of light on the metal steering arm move to the right, the inference being that the arm is moving back towards the body of the car and the steering wheels are adopting the straight ahead position. This proves the prosecution allege, that the steering wheel and the road wheels are no longer connected and that steering failure occurred at this point. Mysteriously, the in car picture stops at that point and the final seconds prior to the impact with the wall and the impact itself is not captured on tape. I have a number of difficulties with this theory, the first being that as Tamburello is a tight left hand bend, the suns relative position to the car will change as the car negotiates the bend and as a consequence, the points of reflected light on the steering arm will also move along the arm without the cars steering wheel being turned further in either direction. Secondly, I would argue that Sennas helmet dramatically moving further to the left can be explained by Sennas realisation that his car was seriously under steering and the movement of his head to the left was simply an instinctive reaction to this fact. Thirdly, and most importantly, detailed analysis of the steering column showed that it was cracked through only 20% approx. of its cross sectional area therefore it still had 80% approx. connection which was more that sufficient to manoeuvre the vehicle. The important point here is that although the steering column was found to be cracked post accident, it was still connected and therefore did not fail. The possibility that the cracking of the steering column was caused by the severity of the impact, does not appear to be receiving any serious consideration by the prosecution, but remarkably, they were prepared to join the track owners as co defendants on the basis that the bumps at Tamburello and elsewhere on the track may have caused enough vibration to damage the welding on the steering column of the Williams. This, it appears to me, to be tacit acceptance that the welding could have failed as a result of the impact also. It is important to recall at this point that the telemetry data showed that Senna throttled off in two stages rather than brake, suggesting that at that late stage, Senna was confident of controlling the situation.

This view is supported by the fact that the television images of the Williams, shows no sign that emergency braking was initiated and the absence of tyre smoke prior to the car departing the track is extremely relevant. Given the extent that the prosecution say the steering column and wheel was moving around prior to the accident suggesting free play in the mechanism, I find it inconsistent that a driver of Sennas calibre would not have noticed such excessive movement, particularly when one considers the extent to which an F1 driver is involved in the technical pre race set up. In the context of the cause of the accident, I would suggest that Sennas loss of control of the Williams was due to the underside of the car bottoming out on the bumps in the vicinity of the Tamburello bend, due to its lower ride height, so as to cause the level of grip between the tyres and the track surface to degrade sufficiently, therefore reducing the centripetal force to a point that allowed centrifugal force to take the car off the track, which would be equivalent to letting go the swinging bucket of water, in the above example. The effect of this would result in the Williams sliding off the track on its belly with most of the weight of the car being transferred to the track through its underside rather than all of the weight of the car being transferred to the track through the tyres. Having viewed many hours of video footage of the race and particularly the accident itself, I have concluded that the failed steering column is a utter red hearing and I strongly feel that the manslaughter charges should be dropped. Many people feel that this case should never have been brought and there are those who cynically feel, justifiably or not, that had this been an Italian racing team, the Italian authorities would not have acted in the manner they have in this instance. On that black weekend approx. three years ago, another driver, Roland Ratzenberger of the Simtek team was also killed at the same track, yet the authorities felt that as his death was not suspicious, no one was charged in that instance. In contrast to the Italian authorities position, Flavio Briatore, team boss of the Italian based Benetton team to his credit, suggested that if charges were brought against Williams, his team would boycott the Italian and San Marino GPs. If the Williams team and others are actually convicted, that decision may well result in Italian tracks being removed from the F1 calender in the future.

If anything is to be learned from Sennas death, which ought to be the real purpose of any enquiry, the presence of certain concrete walls, at strategic locations on various F1 tracks around the world should receive serious consideration. The wall that Senna struck at Tamburello is still there and may yet claim further victims. It has been struck many times previously without fatality primarily due to the slightly different angle that the wall was struck on those occasions. On this point, I can recall accomplished drivers such as Gerhard Berger, Nelson Piquet and Ricardo Patrese all crashing at the Tamburello bend, during previous races and this fact is difficult to ignore in relation to the well documented bumps in this area of the track. Numerous other theories also abound in relation to the cause of this accident, the most interesting of which is the track debris theory which is something that I dismiss as being irrelevant, primarily due to the fact that the newspaper photos, showing something on the track prior to the accident, depict an area of the track approx. 700 meters before the bend where the accident occurred and unless this debris damaged a tyre for instance (which it did not) its remoteness from the accident scene renders the likelihood of its involvement in the accident, slight in the extreme. Interestingly, none of the drivers (and presumably even Senna) saw track debris in the vicinity of the accident scene and certainly no driver reported seeing any debris on the track (as far as I am aware) after the race. This I find peculiar given that six slow laps behind the safety car would have given the drivers ample opportunity to view the track, in a manner not possible to view it during a race and surely, any track debris would have been noticed by at least some of the drivers at that time. Another theory being suggested is that Senna passed out because of a particular breathing technique he used of holding his breath, in order to intensify his concentration for and during a race. These theorists put forward as proof of this, the fact that Sennas head falling dramatically to the left in the in car shots, is actually Senna becoming unconscious. I have already dealt with this point earlier. Medically, I would have thought that this theory would be impossible to prove or disprove at any subsequent post mortem, but in any event, it should be remembered that the telemetry data showed that throttle, brake and steering inputs were being made by Senna, up until the last second and this is not consistent with a driver who has passed out.

My views have been arrived at and outlined here without having examined a single piece of physical evidence (although I have viewed the on line photographs of the wrecked car and various other components removed from it after the accident). This article is therefore simply, a critical evaluation of the technical evidence that has been presented at the trial so far, my own knowledge of F1 and what I witnessed myself via the television images on race day (and what I have viewed many times since). Particularly helpful in following this case were the translated online court reports of the trial, published in Italy by La Gazzetta dedo Sport and Corriere Della Sera. In the context of a conviction in relation to a possible boycott of future Italian F1 races, it should be appreciated that given the massive following that the Ferrari team in particular have in Italy, (and to a slightly lesser degree, Italian drivers of non Italian teams) this would be a huge sanction, the importance of which, is surely not lost on the Italian authorities, even at this critical late stage in the trial, which resumed after the summer break, during September. Although some are arguing that F1 drivers are well aware of the risks involved, are paid huge sums of money to drive what are effectively design prototypes and consequently, must take it as it comes, this argument is not valid and one I personally disagree with. The reality is that if the team engineers were indeed negligent or reckless in carrying out modifications to the car, which I do not accept (in fact, Sennas team mate Damon Hills car was also similarly modified) then it is likely that they will and should be found culpable. I find it inconceivable that given the vast sums of money spent by F1 teams in designing and manufacturing race cars, the high calibre of the Engineers involved and the overall dedication to perfection within F1 generally, that they would risk losing two priceless drivers not to mention two cars (worth approx. 700,000 each) on a modification carried out negligently or recklessly, to such an important and vital component as a steering column. The F1 authorities have gone to great lengths to keep F1 relatively safe by constantly restricting team engineers in the area of vehicle top speed and a further round of controversial regulations, particularly in relation to tyres and car widths, are being actively proposed.

Some of the drivers reaction to these new proposals and technical changes are lukewarm at best if not openly hostile and some have said that the tyre proposals in particular would be a retrograde step in terms of safety. I would make the point that in order that F1 maintains its huge following as a spectator sport, of which high speed is an important factor, current speeds can safely remain if tracks were suitably modified to include additional run off areas, gravel traps and increased impact absorption devices. Some concrete walls should have no place in F1. Liam Cotter.