Hill Says Senna to blame at Imola !!!

What's the mistake?
The car bottomed out, in that dip. Loss of downforce, resulting in a crash. This we know. Maybe the older guys here could tell me if warming the tires was a big deal back then. Currently, it's a very big deal, but back then, I don't think many people viewed it as a problem. The safty car was brought out only a few times before that day, maybe no one knew how serious tire pressures were. Now that I think of it, Senna knew, he tried to hurry up the pace car by pulling along side of it....

 

If i remember correctly the steering column broke due to the vibrations caused by not very smooth Imola track. I also recall reading that Senna asked a few weeks earlier to have his steering column changed to a thinner one because he couldnt fit or wasnt comfortable enough in the cockpit.

 

They extended it by one inch. It did not break, causing the crash. It broke because of the crash. A loss of downforce caused by the car touching the track caused the crash. Low tire pressure and a dip in the road caused the car to bottom out and at the speed he was going, it didn't take long to run out of road.

 

As good as Senna was, he was wreckless and that could have very well contributed to the crash. He was an accident waiting to happen every time he drove.

 

Really beside his incidents with Prost, how many times did he make mistakes at a race beside Monaco in 1988? How many times did he throw a race away?
As far as the car bottoming and cold tires, he said the races 3rd fastest lap on his 6th lap prior to crashing on lap 7. Only Schumacher and Hill set a faster lap near the end of the race. Hill should be lucky that Patrick Head immediately turned off the Power Steering in his Williams right after Senna's crash. The one thing no one ever seems to bring up is there was a Problem with Senna's Power Steering.

 

I thought those were honest, thoughtful comments. IMO they ring true. I have viewed the various films many times and read a lot on the incident and do not believe the steering column broke. I was a big fan of Senna's but think he pushed too hard on cold tires on a bumpy track with a young, extremely talented competitor not far behind him in what was an equal if not superior car.

He made the ultimate payment for his mistake. Sad but I think its stupid to blame others. Opening the case again is pointless. Well maybe pointless for everyone except the lawyers.

 

Will Hill's story ("Did Ayrton Foresee His Death") on the other thread here be continued this week? I thought it was very interesting, but it ended at the pre-race briefing.

 

intentional pun? he clearly was not "wreckless", but maybe "reckless".

some of Hill's comments are a little strange, like the one about Senna filling our needs for a martyr hero, or similar.

 

Yeah, we had this debate a while ago on here. Actually twice. I always thought, that it was the broken steering column that caused it, but after having heard some of the arguments am not so sure anymore. The Speed TV review of the race kinda hinted towards the cold tires and bottoming out as well. So it would be driver error.

What is odd about this, is of course the timing just before the trial is about to begin (as Jon pointed out). Sounds fishy and I never liked Hill either btw.

Interestingly enough I just read, that the Italian investigation into the accident confirmed that the steering colum broke and most likely BEFORE he hit the wall. Maybe Oliver Stone can make a "documentary" about it?

 

Damon Hill is a schmuck, pure and simple.

 

At the end of the day only Senna was in the cockpit not Hill or anyone else and these theories are pointless,it was a death(however regretable)in a dangerous sport,I think its time for this particular incident to be left alone,but I feel another "Grassy Knol" conspiracy theory coming out.

 

Hill is a dork. Had Senna not died Hill would have never been Champion, he had luck to be in a Williams. Schumacher was right when he criticized Hill in 94, does anyone remember his last year at Jordan.

Senna knew the risks and he would probably turn over in his grave regarding this Trial nonsense. Only in Italy can they do such a thing.

However, I originally thought it was Cold Tires and Bottoming, but as Keke Rosberg and Michele Alboreto testified it was something else. The reason I say this is that Senna's prior lap was extremely quick for that stage in the race. There is a theory that has been very well guarded by Williams that their was a lack of pressure in the Power Steering System of Senna's car that might have caused him going off. Had Senna simply tried to spin the car instead of trying to remain in the race he probably would have made it. In the end it doesn't matter, because in a way Senna contributed to his own death.

Just weeks before Imola, Senna was at the track with the Organizers, all he could have asked for was for some tires at that spot at Tamburello, where he died. What saved Schumacher (England) and Panis (Canada) in the later years was the Tire Walls. Senna could have had that knowing that Berger and Piquet had almost died there. But he said nothing and therefore he was partially to blame for his own death.

But Hill is a total wanker with his Martyr Hero B.S.

 

To me, it was a combination of cold tires, bumpy track and a pushing Senna. There is no doubt that he was the best of his generation in driving on the edge...as Schuie is today. (To me, the definition of driving on the edge is defined every time these guys take the track in the wet - very clear who can really handle the car.) Even if the steering column broke...it was a racing accident and not manslaughter.

As for Hill blaming Senna, well, it was crystal clear from the total wins Hill posted that the car made him champion...not the driver. He may have known what it was like to drive the car but he will never know what it is like to be the best driver driving the car.

- JMG

PS, I would add that I like Hill personally...but he was never on my Fantasy F1 team!

 

Very well put.

Frank, it is funny if Senna was an accident to happen why did he make so few mistakes especially in the rain. Ever watch Donnington 93? The only incidents Senna had was with Prost, and 89 is debatable on who's fault that was.

Every great driver, Schumacher for instance, has situations where he blows it as well, remember Suzuka in 98 stalling from Pole? Crashing into Villeneuve in 97? Spinning off at Indy one year...

 

Damon Hill misses the spotlight. Why else would he say what he did.

 

The onboard computers recorded all steering imput untill impact. How could the shaft be broken and still indicate Senna was turning and pulling it? The shaft was not the cause. And as for diver error, every racing wreck is driver error, if you boil it down. If your tire explodes due to heat, well you shouldn't have pushed so hard. If you lose a gear, perhaps you should have been easier on the gearbox, it could have helped. You ran out of fuel, you should have gone slower. {Where is the button on my keyboard for holy frigin' crap!?} There were and are no perfect drivers. Just good ones and bad ones. Maybe he should have backed off, maybe he should have made a greater effort to miss the dip, maybe he should have protested the SC by waving his hands and doing a little dance. There is no mystery here. He crashed and a piece of suspension caused a fatal head wound. That's it.

 

Hi there,

I think what Hill has said is probably the most likely explanation out of all of them...ie Senna made a mistake by going flat out into a dangerous corner early in the race on cold tyres. Why slag off HIll for stating it?

Senna was a great great driver along with Prost and Mansell of that generation but as others have said he pushed to the limit and therefore is gonna make mistakes. Unfortunately it killed him and we were all deprived of a potentially great rivalvry between him and Schumacher.

Senna has been made into a legend that has grown since his death like all bright stars when they die young but I dont think its unreasonable to say that he would have struggled against schumacher in the mid to late 90s if they had raced. Senna, Prost and Mansell were all very closely matched but Schumie is just in another league versus his current generation.

Its a minor shame that he never properly got the chance to prove it against Senna and the Senna myth wouldnt have materialised I would guess.

Senna did drive sensationally in Donnigton in 93 but all those guys like prost and manselldid some incredible drives against each other. Mansell in a ferrari in Hungary and also him squrming all over Senna in monaco after coming into the pits with a puncture. It was clear that there was very very little to choose between some of these guys. Senna established much of his wins when williams reverted to non turbo in 88 and Maclaren didnt and then they struggled to get their engine deals together till later.


Zak

 

He actually did just that. I didn't remember that from when I was watching the race live on TV, but they did point that out in the Speed show: Senna was pulling alongside the SC and waved the guy on to go faster as he (Senna) realized, that the temps in the tires were going down fast. All the more surprising, that he then still bottomed out knowing that his tires were getting cold.

 

Zak - that has more to do with Schumacher's competition than the man himself. IMO.

I very much doubt Schumacher would have pounded Senna. Racing would have been much closer for sure, but I still think Senna woud have had him.

The one thing both these guys do that is often overlooked is provide amazing feedback to their teams. This ultimately plays a strong part in making the car so overwhelmingly competitive.

And to me, the Pole Position record speaks volumes for raw talent. It's unlikely that Senna's record will be beaten, though it'll be interesting to see if Schumacher tries...

 

Well put, remember the Benetton in 93 with the Factory Ford HB, why did Schumacher win one race to Senna's five with a customer FORD V8? Don't forget that early FW16 had a lot of problems because Williams had been designing an active car for so long. Also Senna started those first 3 races from Pole. Schumacher never passed him on the track, only in Brasil in the pits (Benetton later was fined for their Fuel System which was missing a filter). Senna got booted by Hakkinen at the first corner of the first lap at Aida Japan and than came Imola.

Frankly the competiton now is nowhere near the drivers from the Early to Late 80's. Rosberg, Lauda, Mansell, Piquet, Prost, and Senna.

Zak, I have no doubt that at some point Schumacher would have eclipsed Senna, but Senna would have been long retired by than. When weenies like Hill and Villeneuve won championships in the Williams cars you think Senna would have had a problem from 94-97? You think had Senna not died Benetton would have received the Renault engine in 95?

 

Interesting? Did you mean inevitable? Schumacher will own this record. He is either 6 or 7 behind at this point albeit with 35 or 36 more races under his belt. (I can't remember if it was 65 to 58 before Bahrain or after but this is a stat that I follow.)

Coming from a true Senna fan...it is hard to argue that Schumacher is not going to be the statistically best driver in F1 history. His winning totals, fastest laps, points, world championships, finished races percentage are all higher. Only his pole percentage will be a lower stat than Senna. I am not a Schumacher fan but there it little to doubt in his talent...

- JMG