rec.autos.simulators

by **Rudebo** » Thu, 22 Apr 2004 06:27:49

I don't want to rehash the various theories and conspiracies but one thing
I've never understood is, assuming for a minute it was the steering column
that broke and caused the accident. And assuming for the moment that it was
a design flaw that caused the break. (I don't think either actually but
anyway) How does that equal a criminal offence?

If Williams was trying to push the envelope of speed over safety and failed
isn't that the problem in 90% of accidents caused by mechanical failure.
Don't getting me wrong I'm eternally grateful that Motorsport is a
exponentially safer now than ten years ago. I just don't see how a
mechanical failure on a racing car can ever be a criminal offence unless it
was deliberately done to cause injury.

Michele Alboreto died when his tire failed and his car rolled over.
Somebody designed the tire that failed and obviously it was flawed. Why
aren't they prosecuted? Ratzenberger's front wing collapsed. Why isn't that
designer prosecuted?

The whole prosecution just seemed crazy to me and has only continued to get
crazier as the years go by.

Sorry been thinking a lot about it lately. Just my two cents.

by **Jason Moy** » Thu, 22 Apr 2004 06:38:57

Negligence that results in death is punishable as a crime in most
countries.

Jason

by **Don Wilsh** » Thu, 22 Apr 2004 07:27:04

Driving is negligence so lets start with the drivers..

DW

> >If Williams was trying to push the envelope of speed over safety and
failed
> >isn't that the problem in 90% of accidents caused by mechanical failure.
> >Don't getting me wrong I'm eternally grateful that Motorsport is a
> >exponentially safer now than ten years ago. I just don't see how a
> >mechanical failure on a racing car can ever be a criminal offence unless
it
> >was deliberately done to cause injury.

> Negligence that results in death is punishable as a crime in most
> countries.

> Jason

by **Rich** » Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:18:26

This is a little off the topic but worthy of mentioning in light of
engineered designs of what works on paper as opposed to what doesn't out in
"the field.".
I welded for an oilfield company that designed and built vertical
electro-hydraulic surface units. As an alternative to pumpjacks, these were
smaller, cheaper and more cost efficient. These units were shipped from our
shop and it was our responsibility to see that they were assembled properly
and ready to move mobile with ease. We had an engineer who designed the
lifting bracket for these 800-1000lb+ platforms. It was my job to weld the
brackets into place. This bracket consisted of a 4" long flat bar 1/4" thick
and 1" wide. The bracket would be fit welded on its side to the top of the
motor casing with a solid bead running 2 inches on each side. The extended
portion had a hole drilled into it and was used for a hook to lift the
entire unit.
I had expressed my concern to the engineer about the the dangers using such
a small piece to use out in the field where a lot of shaking and dynamics
occur. But he shrugged it off and said it'll be fine as long as the weld is
good. Well, me being welder, what the hell do I know to argue with an
engineer? Low and behold, out in the field guess what started happening?
*Snap* Some pretty close calls....needless to say, I was relieved of my
duties as a result of "substandard" work practices. A couple years went by
and I dropped in to see some of the boys who were still there. They were
still shipping out the electro-hydraulic surface units, but they had an
entirely re-designed lifting bracket that made the ones I welded look like a
toothpick. Oh, and the engineer who corrected me? He was no longer
there...hmm, wonder why?

To conclude, I can only speculate that the engineer lost his job because of
his incompetence.
That being the case, yes designers should be sued.
But what if the production line wasn't up to par?
Well if it wasn't, I'm sure they wouldn't have re-designed the bracket.

Hope this helps... :-)

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.661 / Virus Database: 424 - Release Date: 4/19/2004

by **Byron Forbe** » Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:16:32

Do you really think it's a coincidence that italy just happens to be
home base for Ferrari - Williams being one of it's main rivals? And the
dagos have a shitload of cash to throw at the hoards of corrupt government
people in that ***. This is a perfect example of races being won before
an engine even gets fired up. Let a little sunshine thru buddy :) Got
nothing to do with technicalities at all. Just that italy is kicking english
arse all over the place is all. They love to dominate them dagos do ya know!

by **Dave Henri** » Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:00:24

Plonk!

by **mach** » Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:05:42

>I don't want to rehash the various theories and conspiracies but one thing
>I've never understood is, assuming for a minute it was the steering column
>that broke and caused the accident. And assuming for the moment that it was
>a design flaw that caused the break. (I don't think either actually but
>anyway) How does that equal a criminal offence?

>If Williams was trying to push the envelope of speed over safety and failed
>isn't that the problem in 90% of accidents caused by mechanical failure.
>Don't getting me wrong I'm eternally grateful that Motorsport is a
>exponentially safer now than ten years ago. I just don't see how a
>mechanical failure on a racing car can ever be a criminal offence unless it
>was deliberately done to cause injury.

>Michele Alboreto died when his tire failed and his car rolled over.
>Somebody designed the tire that failed and obviously it was flawed. Why
>aren't they prosecuted? Ratzenberger's front wing collapsed. Why isn't that
>designer prosecuted?

>The whole prosecution just seemed crazy to me and has only continued to get
>crazier as the years go by.

>Sorry been thinking a lot about it lately. Just my two cents.

Because Senna has been deified by some people. You wouldn't believe how many
people I hear around here saying "I want to be like Senna", and thinking the
streets are their own private racetracks. To them, I say "Yes, go on, be just
like Senna, hit a wall at 200km/h and die!"

--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(

remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

by **Paulinh** » Fri, 23 Apr 2004 04:31:00

> >I don't want to rehash the various theories and conspiracies but one
thing
> >I've never understood is, assuming for a minute it was the steering
column
> >that broke and caused the accident. And assuming for the moment that it
was
> >a design flaw that caused the break. (I don't think either actually but
> >anyway) How does that equal a criminal offence?

> >If Williams was trying to push the envelope of speed over safety and
failed
> >isn't that the problem in 90% of accidents caused by mechanical failure.
> >Don't getting me wrong I'm eternally grateful that Motorsport is a
> >exponentially safer now than ten years ago. I just don't see how a
> >mechanical failure on a racing car can ever be a criminal offence unless
it
> >was deliberately done to cause injury.

> >Michele Alboreto died when his tire failed and his car rolled over.
> >Somebody designed the tire that failed and obviously it was flawed. Why
> >aren't they prosecuted? Ratzenberger's front wing collapsed. Why isn't
that
> >designer prosecuted?

> >The whole prosecution just seemed crazy to me and has only continued to
get
> >crazier as the years go by.

> >Sorry been thinking a lot about it lately. Just my two cents.

> Because Senna has been deified by some people. You wouldn't believe how
many
> people I hear around here saying "I want to be like Senna", and thinking
the
> streets are their own private racetracks. To them, I say "Yes, go on, be
just
> like Senna, hit a wall at 200km/h and die!"

> --
> __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
> \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
> _H__/_/ http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> '-_____|(

> remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

See now Ayrton was thinking about driving for Ferrari...so for once, as much
as i hate Ferrari i wouldn`t blame them...
Also if it was the steering colum that broke, Ayrton knew about it being
machined thinner as it was rubbing on his leg... so he was happy with it
being changed.
As for the criminal prosecution... it seems some people are not happy with
it being an accident that went from bad to worse when a part of the wheel
flipped up around and crushed the front part of his head...

How many times can you keep taking the same people to court only for them to
be proven not guilty..?
Isnt there a law against it or something..

I for one found it very hard to deal with what happened... but now almost 10
years on i don`t feel the pain or anger to blame anyone... he has left us
with so much... and he won`t be the last one to die in an F1 car.. which is
a *** but true thing to say !

by **Nigel Nichol** » Sat, 24 Apr 2004 00:54:25

I thought that they had already proven it was the sudden lose of underside
suction due to the car bottoming out (seen as flying sparks from under the
car in film footage) as he entered the turn that cause the car to step out
at the rear. Senna corrected the oversteer with a slight right hand turn but
the car regained full underside suction and traction and the now the slight
right hand turn caused the car to go off the right hand side of the track.
Apparently, in an attempt to get back onto the track Senna had 40 degrees of
left hand turn on the wheel when the car impacted the wall, proving the
steer was not broken due to failure, but rather broke due to the impact on
the wall.

They were setting the cars extremely low at those times and along with the
tires being slightly smaller due to being cooler after the number of pace
speed laps, Senna's car was just that much too close to the track causing it
to bottom out on that bump.
I understood that is why the rule came in with regards to minimum ride
height and the bardge board. The rule came about due to Senna's crash did it
not.

Is the case against the chap who altered the steering column still
pending???

Nigel

--
Redline Race Controls
http://www.wave.co.nz/~lakewood/Redline2.htm

by **Rudebo** » Fri, 23 Apr 2004 07:33:00

Ya the case was just successfully appealed by the Prosecutors and they said
they intend on retrying the case. I don't know about the "chap who altered
the steering column" but the case is manslaughter against Frank Williams and
Adrian Newy.

by **Jason Moy** » Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:16:11

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 08:54:25 -0700, "Nigel Nichols"

>I thought that they had already proven it was the sudden lose of underside
>suction due to the car bottoming out (seen as flying sparks from under the
>car in film footage) as he entered the turn that cause the car to step out
>at the rear. Senna corrected the oversteer with a slight right hand turn but
>the car regained full underside suction and traction and the now the slight
>right hand turn caused the car to go off the right hand side of the track.
>Apparently, in an attempt to get back onto the track Senna had 40 degrees of
>left hand turn on the wheel when the car impacted the wall, proving the
>steer was not broken due to failure, but rather broke due to the impact on
>the wall.

Bingo.

Jason

by **Txl** » Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:08:50

According to FIA rules the ENTIRE race should have stopped on the Saturday
afternoon when Ratzenberger died.

He died of a broken 3rd vertebra, the death was declared at the hospital
but it's obvious that the verterbra was broken in the crash and not in the
ambulance.

FIA rules are CLEAR, if a driver dies on a circuit during official session
the entire event is cancelled, the track is closed for inspection and
nothing takes place until a comission has met.

On the other hand a certain Mr ECCLESTONE has other media and tv rights
priorities.

The sad thing is probably that if Senna crashed Saturday the race would
have not taken place and Ratzenberger would not be dead because of all the
media rattling someone would have thought loudly about this article, but
since nobody in the TV and FIA really cared about Ratzenberger they just
kept on like if nothing had happened.

by **Jason Moy** » Sat, 24 Apr 2004 00:58:55

>According to FIA rules the ENTIRE race should have stopped on the Saturday
>afternoon when Ratzenberger died.

I thought that rule was put into place as a result of Senna's death.

Jason

by **Eldre** » Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:15:30

I finally saw Barichello's accident, thanks to Ped Xing. Yow - there could
have been THREE fatalities that weekend... :-(
But...would they have stopped the race weekend had Rubens died?

Eldred
--
http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
Screamers League
IICC League
GPLRank -6.0 MoGPL rank +267.80
Ch.Rank +52.58 MoC +741.71
Hist. +82.34 MoH:na
N2k3 rank:in progress
Slayer Spektera lvl 72 assassin
Slayer Spectral_K lvl 38 Necro
US East

by **Damien Evan** » Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:36:13

I've got a copy of the episode of 'Formula One Decade' that they showed on
Speed of Imola '94. What a terrible weekend it was. There was actually a
4th incident which happened right at the start of the race where Pedro Lamy
who was unsighted smashed into a stalled J.J. Lehto and careered off into
the wall. It was a horrific impact that could so easily have been a lot
worse if he'd hit the stalled car fully flush instead of just wiping out the
left hand side of it. The race should have been red flagged but instead
they brought out the safety car, causing the tyres to get cold, pressures to
drop and the cars bottoming out at Tamburello (flying sparks were visible
for most cars). I'm not sure if a car's barge board bottoming out would
send it into the wall but I guess it's a possibility.

rec.autos.simulators

OT: Senna: Why the Criminal Prosecution?

OT: Senna: Why the Criminal Prosecution?

OT: Senna: Why the Criminal Prosecution?

OT: Senna: Why the Criminal Prosecution?

OT: Senna: Why the Criminal Prosecution?

OT: Senna: Why the Criminal Prosecution?

OT: Senna: Why the Criminal Prosecution?

OT: Senna: Why the Criminal Prosecution?

OT: Senna: Why the Criminal Prosecution?

OT: Senna: Why the Criminal Prosecution?

OT: Senna: Why the Criminal Prosecution?

OT: Senna: Why the Criminal Prosecution?

OT: Senna: Why the Criminal Prosecution?

OT: Senna: Why the Criminal Prosecution?

OT: Senna: Why the Criminal Prosecution?

OT: Senna: Why the Criminal Prosecution?