31 replies to this topic

[Senna]

More historical F1 insight:



Schumacher regretted pushing Senna too hard

By Derick Allsop The Times



ACCORDING to Di Spiers, who ran the Benetton motorhome, a distraught Michael Schumacher blamed himself for Senna’s accident at the fateful San Marino Grand Prix. “He cried his eyes out,” she said. “He said it was his fault because he pushed Ayrton too hard, which it wasn’t, of course. But he was heartbroken and we tried to comfort him.”

Schumacher did not regret that he had clashed with Senna on occasions but would have been happier if they had not. “There were many circumstances where I felt I was not respected at all by him and at certain times he tried to teach me a lesson on the circuit,” he said. “But from this base, at the beginning of my Formula One career, I believe I became respected by him and I can be proud that we got on well at the end.”

Schumacher did not attend the funeral in São Paulo but now regrets it. “To feel what I felt at that time it was not necessary to go to church or be present at the funeral,” he said. “I don’t go to church, but I know what I believe, what I think and what my emotions are. It would have been easy to be there because Ayrton was my idol from back when I saw him in a go-kart race".

“But also, at the time, my emotions and feelings about racing were confused. I didn’t know if I wanted to continue racing. It was only after a test at Silverstone that I felt I could go on. Without that test I would not have been able to go to the next race feeling sure I could drive normally.

“These were the reasons why I did not go to the funeral, but to be honest, now I regret that I wasn’t there. It was probably the wrong decision. I have heard it said that some people who went to the funeral were not sincere, but we do not know and I do not judge.”

[funkejay]

Senna, on Jan 20 2006, 01:40 PM, said:

More historical F1 insight:
Schumacher regretted pushing Senna too hard

By Derick Allsop The Times



ACCORDING to Di Spiers, who ran the Benetton motorhome, a distraught Michael Schumacher blamed himself for Senna’s accident at the fateful San Marino Grand Prix. “He cried his eyes out,” she said. “He said it was his fault because he pushed Ayrton too hard, which it wasn’t, of course. But he was heartbroken and we tried to comfort him.”

Schumacher did not regret that he had clashed with Senna on occasions but would have been happier if they had not. “There were many circumstances where I felt I was not respected at all by him and at certain times he tried to teach me a lesson on the circuit,” he said. “But from this base, at the beginning of my Formula One career, I believe I became respected by him and I can be proud that we got on well at the end.”

Schumacher did not attend the funeral in São Paulo but now regrets it. “To feel what I felt at that time it was not necessary to go to church or be present at the funeral,” he said. “I don’t go to church, but I know what I believe, what I think and what my emotions are. It would have been easy to be there because Ayrton was my idol from back when I saw him in a go-kart race".

“But also, at the time, my emotions and feelings about racing were confused. I didn’t know if I wanted to continue racing. It was only after a test at Silverstone that I felt I could go on. Without that test I would not have been able to go to the next race feeling sure I could drive normally.

“These were the reasons why I did not go to the funeral, but to be honest, now I regret that I wasn’t there. It was probably the wrong decision. I have heard it said that some people who went to the funeral were not sincere, but we do not know and I do not judge.”

The arrogance - that the great Brazilian couldn't handle the pressure that the then young Schumi was putting him under, and that's what caused his accident!!! So typical that this would be the first thought in Schumi's mind..... not that there might have been a technical problem or a mechanical failure..... but that Senna just couldn't handle his challenge.

Edited by funkejay, 21 January 2006 - 12:23 AM.

[pumpdoc]

Sorry but at the time many people thought that Senna was pushing to hard to keep ahead, and many still do..........

[funkejay]

pumpdoc, on Jan 20 2006, 06:21 PM, said:

Sorry but at the time many people thought that Senna was pushing to hard to keep ahead, and many still do..........

I understand some of the cynism, Bruce, but all the evidence points to a mechanical failure as the cause of the accident, and not driver error. At the time, when I watched it live, the very first thought that entered my head was that something broke, so sudden was the departure from the track - it wasn't as if he drifted off-line and lost it through a corner, or failed to get the car under him after a big moment - which might have suggested some kind of driver error.

But (in my opinion) for Schu to be so wracked with guilt spoke more to his megalomaniacal self-perception than it did to his concern for Senna at the time.

[Senna]

Yes, it could be viewed in terms of MS’s boundless arrogance…

[F1 FANatic]

i think that its ok to be arrogant if you have the skills to back it up, something Schumi had and has.

JB saying he 1 is the number that suits him best is an example when arogance is not a good thing. same with MW saying hes better that Schumi.

seams that the mediocer drivers are overflowing with arogance but some of the top drivers dont have enough. sometimes you need the arogance to boost your moral and that of your team

[Senna]

F1 FANatic, on Jan 21 2006, 10:28 PM, said:

i think that its ok to be arrogant if you have the skills to back it up, something Schumi had and has.

JB saying he 1 is the number that suits him best is an example when arogance is not a good thing. same with MW saying hes better that Schumi.

seams that the mediocer drivers are overflowing with arogance but some of the top drivers dont have enough. sometimes you need the arogance to boost your moral and that of your team

An excellent post.  

Narain Karthikeyan for example is a prime example of an inept driver with an inflated ego.  Narain of course said that he was a superior driver to 'doorknobs', that he would regularly finish in the top 10 on merit in the new Jordan etc…we all remember Narain as the driver who paid an extortionate amount of money to secure a drive with F1 minnows Jordan, and the driver who, somehow, managed to crash on a straight at China 05.  Hilariously, he blamed the combination of cold tyres and the artificial grass providing insufficient grip for his faux pas!

[monza gorilla]

pumpdoc, on Jan 21 2006, 12:21 AM, said:

Sorry but at the time many people thought that Senna was pushing to hard to keep ahead, and many still do..........

Count me among that number.

[AutoRacer5]

Michael was rightfully upset I think. Hell I could see his point.

[funkejay]

F1 FANatic, on Jan 21 2006, 04:28 PM, said:

i think that its ok to be arrogant if you have the skills to back it up, something Schumi had and has.

JB saying he 1 is the number that suits him best is an example when arogance is not a good thing. same with MW saying hes better that Schumi.

seams that the mediocer drivers are overflowing with arogance but some of the top drivers dont have enough. sometimes you need the arogance to boost your moral and that of your team

While I agree with you, I think that there are different kinds of arrogance, or at least situations in which it is less desirable than others.

And it appears that this is a topic I know something about, as I understand that I am one of the most arrogant people my girlfriend seems to have ever met. Although I think she is probably mistaken, I have yet to convince her of that...... maybe she just hasn't met enough people..... I dunno, but anyway, back to the topic at hand.

Arrogance can certainly be good (or at least useful) in some contexts - it can help to raise your confidence in situations where it is essential to achieving your goal, i.e. like motor-racing, or persuading someone to join you in some folly...... But in other circumstances that same arrogance can not only serve absolutely no useful function, but also act as obstacle to overcome.

In this context, it strikes me as a contemptuous, or at least disdainful, assumption that the great Senna wasn't good enough to handle the pressure and broke under the strain of competing against Schumi.

Although Senna certainly had a penchant for taking risks and driving to the limit and beyond, his driving style played no part in his accident, nor was it a driving error that caused his death (either as a result of Schumi or any other factor). Rather, the investigation into his death suggests that a steering shaft failure (caused by a hastily shortened and re-welded steering shaft) resulted in him losing control of his car, which then veered suddenly to the right, leaving the track and colliding into the barrier at high speed.

I've included a link where you can watch the original footage of the accident - you can see the car bottom out and a flash when the undertray strikes the racing surface just moments before suddenly spearing off the track at 193 mph. This sudden and jarring contact very likely caused the already weakened weld (holding the remaining two halves of the shaft together) to break, and left Senna with little or no control over the car.

http://media.putfile...nna---Imola-199

Although the telemetry confirmed that Senna was able to slow the car to 135 mph before striking the barrier, there appeared to be no change whatsoever in the direction or attitude of the car after that last sudden movement, which strongly suggests that, although Senna was still able to apply the brakes, he no longer had any steering control over the FW16. Had he any control over the front wheels at all, he would have attempted to steer away from the crash, to strike the wall at a more glancing (and therefore less dangerous) angle. But the video shows the Williams followed a direct trajectory towards the oncoming concrete wall.

As the car immediately following Senna, Schumi would have, must have, been able to see this for himself, and as a result, it seems to me that the only possible explanation for him ignoring the most obvious cause of the crash (a mechanical failure) would be the hubris of assuming that he was simply too much for one of the greatest racing drivers to have ever lived to cope with.

How ever have the others managed to survive competing alongside him since?

Edited by funkejay, 22 January 2006 - 06:18 AM.

[F1 FANatic]

funkejay, on Jan 22 2006, 06:14 AM, said:

While I agree with you, I think that there are different kinds of arrogance, or at least situations in which it is less desirable than others.

And it appears that this is a topic I know something about, as I understand that I am one of the most arrogant people my girlfriend seems to have ever met. Although I think she is probably mistaken, I have yet to convince her of that...... maybe she just hasn't met enough people..... I dunno, but anyway, back to the topic at hand.

Arrogance can certainly be good (or at least useful) in some contexts - it can help to raise your confidence in situations where it is essential to achieving your goal, i.e. like motor-racing, or persuading someone to join you in some folly...... But in other circumstances that same arrogance can not only serve absolutely no useful function, but also act as obstacle to overcome.

In this context, it strikes me as a contemptuous, or at least disdainful, assumption that the great Senna wasn't good enough to handle the pressure and broke under the strain of competing against Schumi.

Although Senna certainly had a penchant for taking risks and driving to the limit and beyond, his driving style played no part in his accident, nor was it a driving error that caused his death (either as a result of Schumi or any other factor). Rather, the investigation into his death suggests that a steering shaft failure (caused by a hastily shortened and re-welded steering shaft) resulted in him losing control of his car, which then veered suddenly to the right, leaving the track and colliding into the barrier at high speed.

I've included a link where you can watch the original footage of the accident - you can see the car bottom out and a flash when the undertray strikes the racing surface just moments before suddenly spearing off the track at 193 mph. This sudden and jarring contact very likely caused the already weakened weld (holding the remaining two halves of the shaft together) to break, and left Senna with little or no control over the car.

http://media.putfile...nna---Imola-199

Although the telemetry confirmed that Senna was able to slow the car to 135 mph before striking the barrier, there appeared to be no change whatsoever in the direction or attitude of the car after that last sudden movement, which strongly suggests that, although Senna was still able to apply the brakes, he no longer had any steering control over the FW16. Had he any control over the front wheels at all, he would have attempted to steer away from the crash, to strike the wall at a more glancing (and therefore less dangerous) angle. But the video shows the Williams followed a direct trajectory towards the oncoming concrete wall.

As the car immediately following Senna, Schumi would have, must have, been able to see this for himself, and as a result, it seems to me that the only possible explanation for him ignoring the most obvious cause of the crash (a mechanical failure) would be the hubris of assuming that he was simply too much for one of the greatest racing drivers to have ever lived to cope with.

How ever have the others managed to survive competing alongside him since?

im going to take that as sarcasm.

nomatter what you think about him, you must admit that VERY few people have skills with a formula one care coming close to those of Michael. Senna was one of the few how was on par with Michael or you could say michael was one of the few on par with Senna. there is no doubt about this. also, you said that him being the car right behind him that that was also the reason Michael thought what he did, the article sais that Michael thought this in the motor home after the race, this would have been way before the investigation even got under way.

what would you have thought had you been in his shoes, you see your rivale push to stay ahead and then he zoomes of the track and into the wall, i dont think the first thought would have been:
"i guess they welded the steering colum badly and he happened to have a jaring hit that broke it so he carined into the wall"

most likely it would have been:
"he must have been trying to brake as late as possible and lost control"

and nomatter what you say, in such a situation it is human nature to blame ones self to make the unexplainable explainable.

[cavallino]

funkejay, on Jan 21 2006, 11:12 AM, said:

The arrogance - that the great Brazilian couldn't handle the pressure that the then young Schumi was putting him under, and that's what caused his accident!!! So typical that this would be the first thought in Schumi's mind..... not that there might have been a technical problem or a mechanical failure..... but that Senna just couldn't handle his challenge.

Oddly enough, it is hard to believe I know of that mythical faultless driving machine, Senna did make mistakes, just like Marilyn Monroe would have looked ugly at 60.

Seems more like a parellal to the WRC accident this year - even if it's not your fault, you can't help blaming yourself.

Quote

As the car immediately following Senna, Schumi would have, must have, been able to see this for himself

As he was ambling trackside, so had every oppurtunity to closely observe everything happened, even if it was at as you say 135 miles an hour, he was not flashing past at a similar speed himself.

Its like a game, two people pushing each other and enjoying it at the same time, and suddenly its not a game anymore..

[funkejay]

F1 FANatic, on Jan 22 2006, 01:01 AM, said:

im going to take that as sarcasm.

as you should.....

F1 FANatic, on Jan 22 2006, 01:01 AM, said:

nomatter what you think about him, you must admit that VERY few people have skills with a formula one care coming close to those of Michael. Senna was one of the few how was on par with Michael or you could say michael was one of the few on par with Senna. there is no doubt about this. also, you said that him being the car right behind him that that was also the reason Michael thought what he did, the article sais that Michael thought this in the motor home after the race, this would have been way before the investigation even got under way.

You misunderstood me. I'm not saying that Michael thought it was his fault because he was right behind Senna, I'm saying that he was in the ideal place to see that Senna's Williams suddenly and savagely changed direction and shot straight off the track into the wall, and that the most reasonable and likely explanation for this was a mechanical failure, not driver error.

F1 FANatic, on Jan 22 2006, 01:01 AM, said:

what would you have thought had you been in his shoes, you see your rivale push to stay ahead and then he zoomes of the track and into the wall, i dont think the first thought would have been:
"i guess they welded the steering colum badly and he happened to have a jaring hit that broke it so he carined into the wall"

most likely it would have been:
"he must have been trying to brake as late as possible and lost control"

I did not suggest that Schumi should have realized the precise nature of the mechanical failure, but rather that the behaviour of the car immediately after bottoming out was more consistent with a loss of control caused by mechanical failure than with a shunt caused by driver error.

As for Senna trying to break as late as possible, Tamburello at the time was merely a bend, and not the chicane it is now (it was changed as a result of the Brazillian's death). As a high speed sweeper/kink, it was taken at full throttle (Senna was going 193 mph at the time he lost control) and so he was not braking, late or otherwise, until after the car veered off track. Schumi had taken that corner many many many times before and would have known that Senna's FW16 was not under braking at the time the car lost control.

F1 FANatic, on Jan 22 2006, 01:01 AM, said:

and nomatter what you say, in such a situation it is human nature to blame ones self to make the unexplainable explainable.

Actually, I'm not so sure about that. Although survivor's guilt is a well recognized phenomenon, it generally does not set in immediately, and the most likely initial reaction would be to look for the most probable explanation that does not result in personal responsibility. As a result, Schumi's reaction seems more atypical than it it does typical.

[cavallino]

Senna, on Jan 22 2006, 09:51 AM, said:

Narain of course said that he was a superior driver to 'doorknobs',

False.

Quote

that he would regularly finish in the top 10 on merit in the new Jordan etc…

False. In any case not even Senna could have done it in that car.

Quote

we all remember Narain as the driver who paid an extortionate amount of money to secure a drive with F1 minnows Jordan

rubbish

http://www.totalf1.c...824

You negate any positive contribution you make to the forum with your arrogance and your megalomaniacal obsession with certain drivers, and by trying blatantly pass off lies as fact. Not to mention your role in the problems on this forum.

Edited by cavallino, 22 January 2006 - 07:42 AM.

[funkejay]

cavallino, on Jan 22 2006, 01:31 AM, said:

As he was ambling trackside, so had every oppurtunity to closely observe everything happened, even if it was at as you say 135 miles an hour, he was not flashing past at a similar speed himself.

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say Cavallino..... but to clarify things a little bit, although Senna hit the wall at 135 mph, he was going 193 mph at the time he lost control.

Despite the high speeds, Schumi was following immediately behind Senna (the interval between them as they crossed the line was less than a second) and travelling at almost exactly the same speed as the Brazillian. And because all speed is relative, they would have been relatively motionless vis a vis one another.

This means that although Senna's car would have been streaking past any trackside observers at nearly 200 mph and very difficult to observe in detail, it would have been much easier for Schumi to see what Senna's car was doing directly in front of him. Remember that Schumi would have been able to see everything first hand that we see in the video taken from his car, only better (as his vision wouldn't be as affected by vibration or the reduced resolution from the on board camera).

[narain fan]

cavallino, on Jan 22 2006, 01:10 PM, said:

False.
False. In any case not even Senna could have done it in that car.
rubbish

http://www.totalf1.c...824

You negate any positive contribution you make to the forum with your arrogance and your megalomaniacal obsession with certain drivers, and by trying blatantly pass off lies as fact. Not to mention your role in the problems on this forum.

[cavallino]

Less than a second while driving a race car. Remember when you see the driver in front of you go off the first reaction is to get past ASAP, you dont worry about whether the driveer would get hurt, because normally they dont. I dont find any reason to believe that Schumacher could have made a judgement on the cause of Senna's accident, something people still argue about today based on what he saw then, if indeed he even bothered to look.

[funkejay]

cavallino, on Jan 22 2006, 05:15 AM, said:

Less than a second while driving a race car. Remember when you see the driver in front of you go off the first reaction is to get past ASAP, you dont worry about whether the driveer would get hurt, because normally they dont. I dont find any reason to believe that Schumacher could have made a judgement on the cause of Senna's accident, something people still argue about today based on what he saw then, if indeed he even bothered to look.

Cavallino, yes, there was less than a second between them. But that fraction of a second only describes the difference in time between the moments that Senna and then Schumi pass the same spot. It does not describe how much time Schumi had to watch what was happening, because what was happening in front of him was moving at the same speed relative to himself. As a result, he had more much than a split second to observe what was happening in front of him. Just watch the tape. Schumi was seeing exactly what we are seening in that tape, but with far better clarity.

I know it's entertaining to play the devils' advocate, but you can't possibly watch that clip and reasonably conclude that Senna's accident was a result of driver error. And I'm not saying that becuase I think that Senna was incapable of making an error. He certainly was, and did so often. But in these circumstances, it defies logic and common sense to suggest that it was a driver's error that sent the car careening off the track through Tamburello.

That is because Tamburello was no more than a kink, and as such, it required no particularly complex driver input to negotiate. In fact, the driver did no more than keep his foot planted on the throttle and feed in a slight turn of the wheel.

Alternatively, what do you propose Senna was doing when he "lost control"? It wasn't as if he was trying to pitch the car through a series of bends, using up too much run off area, applying the throttle too early out of a corner, etc......

They were running at full throttle through a kink that is taken full out. Senna wouldn't have been feeding any input into the car that would have caused him to lose control. Nevertheless, there is a sudden and severe change of direction, then a straight shot into the wall. If you want to ignore the evidence, go ahead, but it strongly suggests a mechanical failure (almost to the exclusion of any other explanation), after which Senna no longer had any directional control of the FW16.

If I (and anyone else who cares to objectively view the evidence) can see that from the tape, then Schumi certainly should have been able to see the same from his vantage.

Nevertheless, if you insist on concluding that the accident could have occured as a result of driver error, I challenge you (or anyone esle) to formulate a reasonable hypothesis as to how that could have happened, which is consistent with the footage I have linked to.

If anyone can produce a persuasive theory to support the assertion that it was reasonable for Schumi to conclude he was responsible for Senna's death by causing the Brazillian to commit an error (and you have to specifically postulate the nature of the error - necessary for it to be both a persuasive and reasonable theory), I will eat my words.

I'm getting weary of posters who want to argue a point but offer no alternative explanation. The blatant and naked assertion, "it could have been driver error", adds nothing to the debate unless there is something offered which supports that conclusion. As an unsubstantiated a priori assumption, it is no more than pure speculation without any analytical examination of the facts.

[pumpdoc]

I'll be your hucklebery...............supose it was 'driver' error to push the car so hard after the restart resulting in bottoming out at that known bad spot that broke the steering shaft?

[monza gorilla]

A car with low tyre pressures, and therefore a reduced ride height, would become a sledge if it bottomed out. As for the steering column breakage, I don't intend to hypothesise but I would not, as Bruce mischievously suggests, say that Senna was in error for pushing so hard that it caused a part to break. In the days of tall, spindly, rear wings it was commonplace for failures to occur. It was never suggested that this could have been avoided by driving slower.
What I believe is that Michael did not force Ayrton into an error. Ayrton was driving as Ayrton did: very quickly, and this one time it had unforeseen consequences..

[pumpdoc]

Sorry if I was missunderstood so let me make clear............I have doubts that the shaft broke before impact with the wall and I'm of the camp that believes that the car bottomed out thus causing the accident..........

[F1 FANatic]

funkejay, we never said it was reasonable for michael to conclude what he did we just came up with theories why he would. you get Your facts right lol

[funkejay]

pumpdoc, on Jan 22 2006, 07:15 PM, said:

Sorry if I was missunderstood so let me make clear............I have doubts that the shaft broke before impact with the wall and I'm of the camp that believes that the car bottomed out thus causing the accident..........

That at least is a possibility which the facts could support, and is consistent with the National Geographic documentary from last year. It was not well received among the F1 fraternity however, and apparently is not the generally accepted explanation amongst most drivers.

Nevertheless, it is plausible.

However, even if true, it does not suggest that the accident was induced by driver error.

Edited by funkejay, 23 January 2006 - 07:43 AM.

[funkejay]

F1 FANatic, on Jan 22 2006, 08:18 PM, said:

funkejay, we never said it was reasonable for michael to conclude what he did we just came up with theories why he would. you get Your facts right lol

You may not have suggested it was reasonable, but you did say.....

F1 FANatic, on Jan 22 2006, 01:01 AM, said:

what would you have thought had you been in his shoes, you see your rivale push to stay ahead and then he zoomes of the track and into the wall, i dont think the first thought would have been:
"i guess they welded the steering colum badly and he happened to have a jaring hit that broke it so he carined into the wall"

most likely it would have been:
"he must have been trying to brake as late as possible and lost control"

and nomatter what you say, in such a situation it is human nature to blame ones self to make the unexplainable explainable.

So, let's review..... you've suggested:

(1) I would have thought the same thing had I been in his shoes,

(2) you don't think it likely that Schumi's first thought would be that the shunt was caused by mechanical failure,

(3) his most likely first thought would have been that it was a result of braking too early (while on a high speed bend), and,

(4) that Schumi's reaction was only natural, i.e. - a matter of "human nature".

I don't think it was uncharitable of me to characterize your post as trying to suggest his response was reasonable.

If that wasn't what you were getting at, what were you trying to say???

pumpdoc, on Jan 22 2006, 01:59 PM, said:

I'll be your hucklebery...............supose it was 'driver' error to push the car so hard after the restart resulting in bottoming out at that known bad spot that broke the steering shaft?

the Doc, quoted by the Doc........ great film!!!!!

[narain fan]

funkejay, on Jan 23 2006, 01:30 PM, said:

You may not have suggested it was reasonable, but you did say.....
So, let's review.....

[funkejay]

narain fan, on Jan 23 2006, 02:03 AM, said:

BTW Narain, I love the pics in your sig - the JB sponsored Williams, too rich!!!!!        

[narain fan]

funkejay, on Jan 23 2006, 01:36 PM, said:

BTW Narain, I love the pics in your sig - the JB sponsored Williams, too rich!!!!!        

all    to the bannerator (Eduardo Capdeville)

[nojvnof1]

   to the bannerator!

[Wez]

pumpdoc, on Jan 21 2006, 02:21 AM, said:

Sorry but at the time many people thought that Senna was pushing to hard to keep ahead, and many still do..........

At the beginning of 1994 at least the Benetton was a better car than the Williams which was very difficult to drive apparently.
I don’t think it was Schumacher pushing Senna 'to hard' as such, but rather had more to do with Senna being the competitor he was and taking every car he ever drove to the absolute max, in otherwise pushing himself hard.
This was apparent in 1993 where Senna driving the highly underpowered Mclaren Ford still finished second in the championship winning several races spectacular fashion along the way.
In this season he also finished above Schumacher who had a better all round package in the Benetton Ford.

[Shadow]

nojvnof1, on Jan 23 2006, 02:04 PM, said:

   to the bannerator!

indeed...indeed