rec.autos.simulators

OT: TLC program on Senna's crash

Nic

OT: TLC program on Senna's crash

by Nic » Thu, 22 May 2003 03:54:38




> > The hydraulics of the power
> > steering unit were fine also, meaning that it was working, so
> > effectively both ends of the column were fully operational, but they
> > can't say whether or not the connection (the column itself) was fully
> > intact, partially broken or completely severed.

> And what conclusion do you draw from this?

That Williams F1 were lying. They claim they have evidence that the
steering column broke as the car hit the wall. They don't. They have
evidence that the power steering unit was working, and that the
steering wheel was being moved, but not that one was getting to the
other. The videos clearly show that the wheels didn't move, so either
Senna didn't turn the wheel, or something broke.

There is no way to know for sure. I know what I believe, and nobody
has offered a more likely sequence of events in my opinion, than what
I personally believe after extensive study. You are welcome to believe
what you like, I'm not trying to persuade people, just to offer more
facts than they might already know.

If I told you I was an 'expert witness', would you believe me? If I
told you I was just guessing, would you not believe me? The facts are
the same whether a 5 year old kid tells you them or God himself tells
you them.

Thanks for that amazing piece of information. Who are *your* sources?
;-)

Malc

OT: TLC program on Senna's crash

by Malc » Thu, 22 May 2003 05:39:08





> > > The hydraulics of the power
> > > steering unit were fine also, meaning that it was working, so
> > > effectively both ends of the column were fully operational, but they
> > > can't say whether or not the connection (the column itself) was fully
> > > intact, partially broken or completely severed.

> > And what conclusion do you draw from this?

> That Williams F1 were lying.

The court case ruled in their favour. This, by definition, means that they
were not lying. It's how the law works, whether you agree with it or not.
Sometimes rulings are changed in the light of new evidence, but one thing
you can guarantee is that neither side will have provided more evidence than
necessary ;-)
You get the feeling that there was more going on than was revealed, and that
it doesn't quite add up. That still doesn't make Williams guilty. For all
you know the information you feel is missing may simply be that the steering
input sensor was faulty. Hardly a crime, is it?

Not if you just said so without backing it up. That was my point. By all
means have an opinion, but please don't preach 'the truth'. It doesn't sit
well with the nature of usenet ;-)

I make it up as I go along ;-)

Malc.

alex

OT: TLC program on Senna's crash

by alex » Thu, 22 May 2003 11:33:03



Wasn't this rule introduced right after (and very likely because of)
Senna's crash?

Alex.

alex

OT: TLC program on Senna's crash

by alex » Thu, 22 May 2003 11:48:05



They were running very close to the ground then and small difference
in the line could have been the difference between bottoming out and not.
They might have been running higher. Or low pressure theory might be
correct and be the reason. Or both.
If memory serves me right, there were few very similar crashes
(Berger and Piquet?) several years before. That was one of the reasons
why organizers came under the fire, because the accident could have
been foreseen and prevented. Since then the minimal ride height was
increased and "wooden" plank has been introduced.

That's ok to bottom out when you don't need to turn (unless you end up
wearing off the plank beyond allowed limit). If you do it in the turn,
where you use all the traction tyres can provide, you will probably
lose it.

Alex.

Nic

OT: TLC program on Senna's crash

by Nic » Thu, 22 May 2003 19:09:35


> The court case ruled in their favour. This, by definition, means that they
> were not lying.

No it doesn't. It means that the court believed them.

Steering wheel is turning.
Power steering works.
-> Steering column was not broken

That argument is exactly the same as this:

I can turn my PC steering wheel.
GPL will respond to wheel inputs.
-> I can control GPL.

It's flawed, because the wheel connector might not be stuck in the
back of the computer. I can still turn the wheel, GPL will still react
to input, but it won't get any input because the wheel isn't plugged
in.

Just because a court believes it, doesn't make it automatically true.

Okay, how about some *** theories then? That seems to be the
Usenet nature...

1) The two black boxes (engine and car) were both removed. They were
scratched, but intact. Charlie Whiting ordered that the car BB was to
be given directly to the Williams team (to see if the cause might
affect Hill's car). The BB was not released by Williams for a month,
and when it was, it was 'destroyed'.

2) David Coulthard made a video showing the many centimetres of wheel
travel. The video had a sheet behind the wheel, so the viewers could
not see into the***pit. The steering column mount on the original
car was rigid (see photos), and the only movement would have been
slight bending of the column, maybe a couple of millimetres.

3) The FOCA stream of onboard footage from the incident, which has a
+10 second blank patch between switching off Senna's camera and moving
to another driver (Berger, IIRC).

4) Many teams were going to boycott racing in Italy if Williams were
found guilty.

5) The FIA were going to stop racing in Italy if Williams were found
guilty, meaning a loss of over 30 events per year.

Hehe, you can believe some, none, or all of the above. Believe me,
many people do. And you know what else, it might have been aliens :-D

BTW, I don't want anybody to be found guilty of manslaughter, I just
want to know the cause. If it was a steering column failure, I don't
want anybody at Williams to be hung for it.

lol.

Todd Walke

OT: TLC program on Senna's crash

by Todd Walke » Thu, 22 May 2003 23:13:52



This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a Usenet group in a
long time. Does it also mean that OJ wasn't lying either since he got
off?

--
__________________________
Todd Walker
http://twalker.d2g.com
__________________________

Malc

OT: TLC program on Senna's crash

by Malc » Fri, 23 May 2003 02:02:54




> > The court case ruled in their favour. This, by definition, means that
they
> > were not lying.

> This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a Usenet group in a
> long time. Does it also mean that OJ wasn't lying either since he got
> off?

In the law's eyes, yes.

If that's the most ridiculous thing you've read on usenet you need to get
about more ;-)

Malc.

Ruud van Ga

OT: TLC program on Senna's crash

by Ruud van Ga » Fri, 23 May 2003 02:11:22





>> The court case ruled in their favour. This, by definition, means that they
>> were not lying.

>This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a Usenet group in a
>long time. Does it also mean that OJ wasn't lying either since he got
>off?

Not to mention people getting off the hook for procedural mistakes.
Court decisions try to reflect the truth, but in reality they merely
have consequences that just reflect the state of the trial.
Lawyers on one side painting everything black, and on the other side
white, will always be far from the truth however. There is nothing but
gray. :)

Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
Pencil art  : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

Malc

OT: TLC program on Senna's crash

by Malc » Fri, 23 May 2003 02:45:59







> >> The court case ruled in their favour. This, by definition, means that
they
> >> were not lying.

> >This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a Usenet group in a
> >long time. Does it also mean that OJ wasn't lying either since he got
> >off?

> Not to mention people getting off the hook for procedural mistakes.
> Court decisions try to reflect the truth, but in reality they merely
> have consequences that just reflect the state of the trial.
> Lawyers on one side painting everything black, and on the other side
> white, will always be far from the truth however. There is nothing but
> gray. :)

You explained it better than I managed, thanks Ruud ;-)

Malc.

Eldre

OT: TLC program on Senna's crash

by Eldre » Fri, 23 May 2003 09:24:19



>The court case ruled in their favour. This, by definition, means that they
>were not lying.

Nope, that just means the *court* didn't believe they were lying.  Actually, it
means they couldn't prove it without a reasonable doubt.  Neither of those has
ANYTHING to do with if they were really lying or not...

Eldred
--
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPLRank:-1.950
MonsterRank: +305.145
N2002 Rank:+17.59

Never argue with an idiot.  He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Don Jenning

OT: TLC program on Senna's crash

by Don Jenning » Wed, 11 Jun 2003 21:04:33

I'm assuming that wasn't a sound-only clip, but that's what it is for me.
Being codec-illiterate, any idea what I might need to get video?

Thanks,
Don

Wil

OT: TLC program on Senna's crash

by Wil » Thu, 12 Jun 2003 08:46:29


> "EldredP" wrote...
> > >Just caught part of a TLC program called "Countdown to Danger".   >
>  ftp://141.211.234.112/countdown_to_danger_senna_crash.zip
> > :-)

> I'm assuming that wasn't a sound-only clip, but that's what it is for me.
> Being codec-illiterate, any idea what I might need to get video?

> Thanks,
> Don

http://www.divx.com/

rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.