OT: Senna: Why the Criminal Prosecution?

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.

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:27:49 GMT, "Rudeboy" <[email hidden]> wrote: >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

Driving is negligence so lets start with the drivers.. DW "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:27:49 GMT, "Rudeboy" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >If Williams was trying to push the envelope of speed over safety andfailed > >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 unlessit > >was deliberately done to cause injury. > > Negligence that results in death is punishable as a crime in most > countries. > > Jason

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... :-) "Rudeboy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pBghc.178727$Pk3.173723@pd7tw1no... > 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 itwas > 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 andfailed > 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 unlessit > 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'tthat > designer prosecuted? > > The whole prosecution just seemed crazy to me and has only continued toget > crazier as the years go by. > > Sorry been thinking a lot about it lately. Just my two cents. > > --- 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

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 brothel. 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! "Rudeboy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pBghc.178727$Pk3.173723@pd7tw1no... > 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 itwas > 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 andfailed > 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 unlessit > 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'tthat > designer prosecuted? > > The whole prosecution just seemed crazy to me and has only continued toget > crazier as the years go by. > > Sorry been thinking a lot about it lately. Just my two cents. > >

"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:4085f5a1$0$438 $[email hidden]: > Just that italy is kicking english > arse all over the place is all. They love to dominate them Plonk!

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:27:49 GMT, "Rudeboy" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (23 lines)

>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

"machf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:27:49 GMT, "Rudeboy" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >I don't want to rehash the various theories and conspiracies but onething > >I've never understood is, assuming for a minute it was the steeringcolumn > >that broke and caused the accident. And assuming for the moment that itwas > >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 andfailed > >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 unlessit > >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'tthat > >designer prosecuted? > > > >The whole prosecution just seemed crazy to me and has only continued toget > >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 howmany > people I hear around here saying "I want to be like Senna", and thinkingthe > streets are their own private racetracks. To them, I say "Yes, go on, bejust

Quoted text (9 lines)

> 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

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 nasty but true thing to say !

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

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 08:54:25 -0700, "Nigel Nichols" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>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

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.

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

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:08:50 +0200, Txl <[email hidden]> wrote: >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

>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. 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

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

"Nigel Nichols" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c66lo3$167$[email hidden]... > > 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 causingit > 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 didit > not. > If any legalities ought to be entered into, and they shouldn't, then it should be against the rule makers for getting rid of constant ride height along with a shitload of other technology all in that year. The entire thing is a dago sham and anyone who can't see the futility of the "royal" (LOL) family is a fool. Some pommy ought to be over there kicking there little spagetti munching arses all over the place just for even entertaining these idiotic manslaughter ideas. Moral to story - the new millenium sees Italy dominating Britain on and off the track :)

[email hidden] (EldredP) wrote in news:[email hidden]: > I finally saw Barichello's accident, thanks to Ped Xing. Yow - there > could have been THREE fatalities that weekend... :-( Rubens is indeed a lucky man. That was an appalling accident. -- Ped Xing

You're right. Whole thing is just a farse. If Williams is found guilty, then we will see a whole bunch of law suits:) "Rudeboy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pBghc.178727$Pk3.173723@pd7tw1no... > 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 itwas > 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 andfailed > 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 unlessit > 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'tthat > designer prosecuted? > > The whole prosecution just seemed crazy to me and has only continued toget > crazier as the years go by. > > Sorry been thinking a lot about it lately. Just my two cents. > >