Newey and Senna's accident: when nightmares last for years

There are times when, especially after years, you should reflect on your intentions and think about whether or not you should speak out of turn.

The memory of Ayrton Senna, over 17 years, has been called into question time and time again to retrace the moments of the accident that took him away from Formula 1 and the world.
In the face of a certain and proven truth, we continue to follow a path full of hypotheses that have nothing to do with what really happened on the fateful 1st May 1994.
Around that day, and that event, too many pieces of the mosaic mysteriously disappeared, too many gaps were left unfilled and will remain so.

However, what is very annoying, in this case, is the insult to the intelligence of the enthusiast which comes directly from the most brilliant engineer of Formula 1 in recent decades, namely Adrian Newey. 17 years later, Newey returns to talk about that accident, indicating a mysterious puncture as the cause of Ayrton's off-track exit.

Beyond the fact that we don't understand the need to issue such a statement, almost as if we wanted to pass the buck with some time delay, even the walls know the tragic sequences of that day. Everyone knows that the cause of everything was the broken steering column. Everyone knows that that steering broke because it was cut, lengthened with a piece of smaller section and welded as any person could do and not Formula 1 technicians. Everyone knows that, despite the request coming directly from Senna, it was impossible to drive the Williams (he was touching the inside of the cockpit with his knuckles), this was done, if you'll use the term, by dogs.

Indeed, so as not to miss anything, hypotheses speak of a modification to the steering column carried out not during the Imola weekend (and therefore in a hurry), but even on the sidelines of the first GP of the season in Brazil.

To refresh your memory, let's also remember that Senna only ran the race in Brazil (and not even all of it due to a spin). In Aida, in fact, he was hit by Hakkinen at the first corner and, in fact, only covered a few hundred metres. If the hypothesis of modification at the beginning of the season was correct, between tests and the race that column could have lasted more or less 500 km, no more. What would it have cost to build a new one at least for the first race in Europe?

Returning to Newey and the puncture, we don't understand who could believe such a hypothesis. Apart from the fact that the trial made it clear that no tires were punctured, from any footage it is clear that it cannot be as the then Williams Engineer says. On the other hand, the live shot, with Ayrton's car 'filmed' by Schumacher's camera, was quite clear.

Do we want to hypothesize a 'progressive' puncture of any of the tyres? Well, she would definitely have been warned by Ayrton, who would have slowed down. Also because a puncture of a tire corresponds to the lowering of the height of the car on that suspension unit and the raising of the opposite tire diagonally (remember Schumacher in Brazil in 2006). Imagining the puncture of Ayrton's right rear, this would have corresponded to the lifting of the left front. At 300 per hour? Unlikely.

Instead, we want to hypothesize a tire burst (which didn't happen, no such event can be seen from Schumacher's camera).

Here's what happens in that case and at those speeds

Gilles Villeneuve, at the curve later named after him, again in Imola, 1980.

Or, if we want to cite other examples, Ralf Schumacher in Indianapolis, 2004 (with Williams) and 2005 (with Toyota).

In short, whichever way you want to look at it, any hypothesis other than that of the broken steering wheel falls short in the face of the evidence of the facts. In order to clear their conscience, someone also spoke of Ayrton's illness. And how would Williams have stopped in the last second and a half, alone? The telemetry speaks clearly.

Ok, let's not dwell on it. Also because anyone who has followed the events that followed the accident for some time will know everything by heart.

The fact remains that such statements, in addition to twisting the knife in the wound of those who supported Ayrton, reveal a sort of internal discomfort. If after 17 years there is still a need to seek the truth at all costs to convince oneself that one is not indirectly to blame for what happened, evidently these years have been very, very long. And the following ones will be too.

Alessandro Secchi
F1Grandprix.it