The stuff about the rear wing is interesting and at the same time mind bending. Meanwhile I watched the A380 fly overhead on its way into Birmingham for a couple of years thinking "HOW DO YOU STAY IN THE AIR?!" I guess magic.
The main thing that stands out to me about having drivers like Senna and Michael not really around anymore is that the F1 world never really found out about how they would have been influenced by them post-driver career. Team owners? Driver program manager? Announcer? It would be neat to have them around in that fashion still.
Yeah would you see a grey haired Senna in a Papaya orange anorak exchanging glances at Prost on the Alpine side of the pitwall. Or would he be mentoring the next generation of Brazilian heroes to F1? Would we see Schumacher in silver hanging around Mercedes with his kid. Or would the two do endurance racing? Man...
I would say it was steering column failure that caused Senna's accident. Footage of the steering wheel for the last two laps before the accident showed a distinct abnormality in the steering wheel movement around it's regular axis. Before the failure the steering wheel is behaving in a stable manner. When the steering column finally failed the front wheels snapped straight and Senna never tried to turn the car away from the oncoming wall. All he could do was hit the brakes and drop two gears to try and slow the car. The car bottoming out could certainly have stressed the poorly modified steering column.
That was indeed the cause. The video showing the apparently 'normal' movement of the steering wheel is an insult to the intelligence of racing fans around the world. The onboard footage from that weekend only shows extreme movement on laps 6 and 7. RIP Senna - I will never forget that day 💔
And you are an engineer? f1 driver? I didn’t think so. Maybe do an automotive engineering degree and then voice your opinion. If you look at all of sennas in car footage from the beginning of the 1994 season till the lap when he died, his steering wheel was reacting like that all season. So it wasn’t the steering wheel. I am an engineer however but in the aerospace industry, so I do have solid background in aerodynamics. Sennas car suffered from an aerodynamic stall. In other words, his car lost most if not all of the downforce on his car about 1.7 seconds before he crashed. Senna was also taking the more dangerous inside line when entering the tamberello. This can easily be seen from Schumachers in car camera where senna repeatedly took a harder inside line going into the tamberello where a large bump was located. Senna also did a last minute setup change to his car having reduced his cars ride height to its minimum ride height. It was a combination of factors that caused sennas crash, and none involved the ridiculous notion that the steering column snapped. If I had to make an educated guess on what caused his accident, I would say it was a right rear suspension failure.
@thedorianmode8087 the idea that the steering broke is absurd to me. There is no way Williams would put a driver in a car if they thought the steering could fail. It would be like putting a driver in a car that had it's brakes adjusted and one day the breaks stopped working. It's nonsense. The car was so low it was scrapping on the road at that exact corner. When you are going around a bend at over 300kmh any loss of traction for a split second would send the car off the track. We have all seen F1 cars that lose down force, they completely go haywire. Senna flew off the track, he had no time to turn the corner. If he flew into a wall of tires, set up for that corner, we would have the answer because Senna would tell us what happened.
On the 1997 game, Murray Walker says something on the lines of 'Frank Williams has had to deal with tragedy in recent years' during his commentary. 4 year old me had no idea he was referencing Senna at that time
I am from Imola and attended winter tests, qualifying and race as usual with my dad since 1983. I was at Tosa curve as usual on Saturday and Sunday and the wrecked Simtek just stopped in front of us. Most shocking experience in my life. On Sunday we saw the crash of Ayrton as well but hundreds yards away and none of us really understood the destiny of Ayrton until we got home and watched the news. There's no smartphones in 1994 and the speaker just said "Senna out". We just saw the helicopter taking off to Ospedale Maggiore at Bologna. Rest in peace 🇧🇷🇦🇹
Honestly I think Mosely should be held accountable for what happened in 1994. Had he said "okay, from 1995 X is going to happen" teams would have had more time to prepare and actually make cars designed to run without driver aids rather than taking the cars they had already designed and simply removing the aids from them.
@@MrSniperfox29 guess Mosely was counting on all the teams totally redesigning instead of copy pasting them. But like I said the data wasn’t as available then as it is now.
To some extent that's why Lola failed miserably. If they had an opportunity to delay their entry by another year they wouldn't be on most people's worst teams of all time shortlist
Senna’s death affected me deeply at the time and still does and will for the rest of my days. Your presentation in this video was very gracious. Thank you.
Schumacher said that the B194 and B195 were almost impossible to drive and if you watch the replays of those seasons, those cars were all over the place, so the FW16 wasn't alone in being tough to drive.
They did and this was the era where they were experimenting with early crude forms of blown diffusers which were only on throttle which created a certain way you had to drive the car maintaining a little bit of throttle through corners Not surprising that Left foot braking became the dominant way of driving during that time which ended/limited the careers of those with mangled feet
@@RANDOMZBOSSMAN1 the blown diffuser had been around for a few years. It’s that they only worked on throttle which made the rear ends go super twitchy on the brakes. Schumacher was able to keep the throttle open just enough to get maximum braking with maximum downforce. Kinda started the left foot revolution while those used to H patterns were still using the left foot.
@@Padgeot Schumacher told them not to be surprised if the 195 spun in the pitlane! Herbert and Jos the Boss could barely hold on to the B194 by all accounts.
Minor point of order: Jody Scheckter raced car 0 at the 1973 Canadian and US GPS, but Damon Hill was the first and only to use it across a full season :)
I'm not sure how true it is, but it was reported that Prost did tell Senna that the car was very difficult to drives the FW16 was an evolved passive suspended version of the FW15C which Prost reckoned that the suspension was hiding the inadequacy of the chassis and aerodynamics.
Abruptly stripping the cars of all technological aids made them even more unsafe. Williams had the most advanced systems, and therefore the most work to do to reconfigure their cars for the new rules. The source of these changes being a power play by Ferrari with the FIA.
I always think i f they wouldn't have done that Ayrton would've gone to Indy car racing because he hated all the electronic aids.... and Indy cars had none or few.
The story of the FW16 is one of the most fascinating - and saddest - story lines since I became a serious F1 fan in the early 90s. I remember all of this going down real time, even if it was harder to get updated info as an American back then. If you get a chance, watch Senna's '94 Brazilian GP. Namely the opening laps and after the first round of pit stops. Even though the car's faults caught up with him, watching him work that thing was nothing short of legendary. I can still hear the sound of that Renault RS6 buzzing during his onboard footage.
That year they had band all the driver aids, but did nothing about the engines which were the same power from the previous year. I have said from the moment it happened, the biggest contribution to Senna’s crash was the rule changes.
Lovely video, and confirms my aging memory that the FW16 was in fact terrible. I've had people blame Damon as being the reason the season was bad in discussions, which I never agreed with. I always look forward to your videos in my subscription feed!
Senna was doing with the Williams what Leclerc is doing with that Ferrari. Over driving and trying to get it to do stuff it doesn’t want to do and wondering why he’s in a wall. Damon and Carlos were keeping it within their own and/or the car’s limits.
@@AidanMillward Oh I agree both Leclerc and Senna are/were getting 101% out of the flawed package they are given. Leclerc pushes the Ferrari so hard that it can appear that it's a driver problem, when it's them grasping for every ounce out of the car. That's not a slight at Damon or Carlos it's just a different threshold of the driver factor. Leclerc pushed so hard in Miami as he does, he binned it. It's no different than Senna pushing that FW16, safety is just in such a better place now thankfully.
I don't see how anyone can blame Hill when Newey, Senna, Mansell...everyone...said the car was very difficult. Newey even said they forgot how to build a passive suspended car
Berger crashing while existing the pits at Portugal and almost wiping out Derek Warwick because of the active suspension failing was an example of the danger of the systems.
2:28 Those squiggly lines need a lot of development before they are ready for racing. Just finished the Newey book so this is all fresh for me. Glad to see it done here.
The anhedral on the B-52's thin, low chord wing is to allow for its upward flex when loaded, primarily. The droop on the tail of a/c like the F4 Phantom II is, as you describe, to retain tailplane effectiveness at high AOA. The long chord wing shadows the tailplane to the airflow, particularly at high AOA or bank angles.
I would love to hear your take on each of the accidents of Imola -94. How they happened and what parts of the engineering or lack thereof played into them.
Flat undertray cars were death traps…they worked during the turbo era because of the huge wings and tyres…between 1989 and 1994 the aspie’s gained not far off 200bhp, and the wings and tyres got smaller. Active suspension and the like just extended the grace period. When that was gone, there wasn’t enough time in one winter to back out fully the peaky aero you can get away with in cars that don’t dive or roll, after which the cars became outright death traps…
I was wondering what might have been if the ban on driver aids had come in for 1995, not 1994. All the teams had their 94 cars already designed by the announcement of the ban, so the lateness of it caused the hurried re-design and no time to test it properly.
Yeah that's why I don't just blame the rear wing and why I don't think the car was necessarily terrible. With driver aids and electronics it probably wouldn't have come to light.
On 1 lap, Ayrton stated how demanding was the car. For a whole GP, we only have Brazil 94 to talk about. Damon never pushed the way Ayrton did so. Damon was GP driver, not racing driver. A racing driver always pushes the cas to go beyond the limits. Remembering circumstances before his crash in Imola, the more I look into it, it's like his front tires were losing grip early in the corner with no chance to turn. We could talk about surface of the track but The steering wheel excuse looks so convenient I've never seen any stress test applied on it (agressive use or impact of crash on it, which one happened really)
@@Ahito1984 The telemetry analyzed on the investigation showed that in mid corner his steering instantly plunged to 0 degrees. At that exact moment he was still turning left and braked where you shouldn't brake. That's why the steering column collapse explanation is oddly convenient.. it's the one that makes the most sense anyways. I think that the theory of the car bottoming out that caused this accident to be bollocks. Let's apply physics here - when someone racing is in a corner, turning while accelerating, and suddenly his tires lose contact to the ground, does the car go **completely straight** to the wall or does it follow the laws of physics and spins? Hell, any other time they were bottoming out, the car was not just jumping straight like taking off like a plane, they often spun.
@@rigel8755yup like a skateboard with no wheels it should’ve just freely spun around, or if it was that high load high speed etc it should’ve at LEAST had a bit more loose and fluid movements than what we saw which was such a clunky awkward change of direction
@@rigel8755exactly right. The obvious answer is usually the right answer. In legal terms while fighting a legal case it's best to create doubt , if other explanations were put forward , it muddies the waters. Several prominent team leaders and senior drivers conclude there was a car failure. All but admitting it was a steering failure.
Randomly I was looking at lap times literally 2 days ago with 1993 cars vs 1994 cars before Spain. The cars were as fast as the previous years in some cases faster and this was without all the gizmos that made the cars more stable and with the added lower fuel levels due to refueling You have to ask what were the FIA thinking with the rule change created even faster more dangerous and twitcher cars so many bad crashes and injuries
My son and I really love your videos and especially love the ones when you are on camera. We assume as you are making you videos shorter to perhaps get more views you may have decided to not appear on camera. There may be some other reason and we totally respect your choices as your content it so incredibly amazing. You know so much about the sport we love and have been sharing for 27 years that we will always be huge fans but just wanted you to know we miss your charming face. We also love love love your dry wit.
to use the problematic aero as the explanation of Senna crash is more than acceptable than many others that i heard over the years, after all he passes by a bump and the rear clue to the floor and he lost control. Great video about the car
@@ELUSIVEJIM That is conjecture. The Italian Kangaroo Court - whose credibility has always been zero, not least because they took 'only' three years to exonerate Patrese for something he never did - stated they thought it was the most likely cause, not fact. The Italians should have shut the event down after Roland's death, but to circumnavigate this, they classed his death as off track. I digress, The FOM examined the column and stated from the evidence that it did not break prior to impact in their view. In simple terms, Senna drove too fast for the conditions. That is an over simplification, but if you're driving a nervous car you want a steady race and get points. That wasn't the Senna way, but this guy has been driving beyond the limit a lot in his career and finally met his match in the undeveloped FW16. The car needed a lot of respect and Senna drove hell for leather in a car that wasn't capable of it at that point. Hill was the smart one that weekend, by driving the smoother line that avoided the bump. Had Senna done the same, he might still be here.
I still think The Michael would have been able to hold.off Senna in 94. Benetton probably would not have taken the risks they took which caused his ban if Senna was still there. 1995 would have been a monumental title battle between Schumacher and Senna though
You say that if the old numbering system was in place in 2017 Bottas would have run 0 but, according to the logic Williams used (0 was given to the driver who was already at the team), I guess Hamilton would have used the 0 and Bottas the 2.
I inform you that in 1994 Williams won the constructors' world championship with 118 points. But what are we talking about? Then everyone is sorry that Senna died, but he could also not have raced in San Marino given the mourning of poor Ratzenberger the day before
I could've guessed it was Ferrari that was behind the ban on active suspension. They've been behind just about anything else that has been banned in the history of the sport.
At imola,the safety car was a Vauxhall Cavalier 4x4 turbo(in its day,was a quick car) however still not quick for that era of F1. Alot of mitigating circumstances when active suspension was banned,which led to incidents with the whole grid.And to be honest the whole weekend was a shitshow. RIP Senna / Ratzenberger
What surprises me about what happened at Imola 94 is senna went of on his second lap after the safety car not the first? You’d think he would have had the accident on his first attempt at going into tamburello, as that would be when he’s tires would be at there coldest so even lower ride hight then his second attempt.
There was a picture taken just before the accident (first lap after the safety car I think) where there’s a piece of sky blue debris near Senna’s car. It’s assumed it’s a piece of Lehto’s car from the start line shunt. Maybe it caused a slow puncture
@@AidanMillward The bumps in Tamburello were worse that year; Senna’s telemetry records that the car stepped out after he hit one of the bumps and he lifted the throttle and tried to correct the steering slightly. That was the initial part, as after that the car hit the next bump and then that’s when the car just went straight for the wall. It was the bumps, the fW16 design problems, low ride height set-up, the safety car/cold tires, and Senna driving too aggressively on the inside line and lifting and trying to correct that caused the accident.
Because he went faster on that second lap through Tamburello (several kph recorded by the telemetry) and took a tighter more aggressive trajectory - and the car stepped out over one of the bumps. It is rare, but there is onboard footage from Senna’s car from the first lap through Tamburello after the safety car and it was already bottoming like crazy, you could see from the camera cutting out a lot.
@@AidanMillward Right. It’s the emotional explanation to preserve the myth that Senna was a faultless icon, but analysis of the telemetry reveals these details. I say this as a deep Senna admirer for anyone reading… Also, it is uncommonly known that there was a rift in the Senna family caused by Adriane Galistue, his girlfriend at the time. Senna’s brother, Leonardo, was there that weekend and they got in an argument, supposedly over her, which I theorize contributed to Senna’s already agitated psychological state (along w/ the accidents that weekend).
Anhedral rear wing of the FW16: I'd need to get to my copy of Newey's book to look up the actual reason for it. One can find a rear shot of Senna at Imola 94' where some quite low black surface is pretty much parallel to the lower rear wing element above it. Bet you all of this is there to accelerate what's coming out of the diffusor. Added benefit seems to be better exposure to clean airflow in the center. Oddly enough, since a racecar's wing is there to produce downforce instead of lift, one could argue, the FW16's rear wing element to actually be dihedral ;)
With all due respect, if Hill could haul that car into Championship contention, so could Senna, and then we have the era leading up to the 96 and 97 Championship winning cars. Had he lived, we could be discussing him as a 5 or 6 tines Champion.
@Aidan Millward I think 1994 was Damon's best season... better than the 1996 season. Cos Damon literally dragged a team from a very sad time to coming only 1 point away from winning the title.
To this day, I feel the way many people state how bad the Williams was is ridiculous. Damon constantly got top 4 when it was at its worst. Thats not a bad car. There have been many many f1 cars that were mistakes and the Williams simply wasnt as good as it couldve been, thats all. By Barcelona, still early in the season, it was a very good car.
It’s unbelievable people are still posting that Senna lost the car or made a mistake. Senna was killed due to the horrendous work done to his steering column which failed.
The car went in a straight line, also no evidence of from both onboard and external camera of the wheels rotating. It's evident and clear to see, that steering wasn't working.
@@testdrive7772 exactly - the car didn't even start turning into the corner. Wheels were pointing straight ahead - there has never been a crash there which wasn't a mechanical failure. It was proven in court after a long trial - yet people still like to post that Senna made a mistake. He didn't.
Anhedral wings in transporters: It makes it so that this big ass plane can actually roll - period. Dihedral wings are aerodynamically stable. On top of that, transport planes usually (well known exception: The strategic transporter concept that later became the Boeing 747) have shoulder mounted wings and their CoG far _below_ their CoL. That makes them even more stable along the roll axis. Combined, you'd need excessive aileron size or angle of attack and the associated drag and induced yaw to achieve any sort of roll rate.
People who are scared of flying think "How do you stay in the air?" with most/all aircraft, I find. I certainly did. I didn't go overseas until my 30th birthday, and it was for my anxiety just as much as my mum's MS that we were moved to the front of the plane, where I swear the guy doing the safety demonstration was a doppelganger for Daniel Ricciardo. It's a reminder that Ferrari International Assistance predated Schumacher et al. I suppose that aggression works because the tech can pick up the slack, so to speak, leaving the driver free to focus on the road and put their foot down. It's one of the reasons I've also run a mile from the notion of learning to drive. Gears make me feel uncomfortable. I don't care how many times Mum and others say they're fine, I don't believe them. Too complex. Hand off the wheel to gear shift, alarm bells go off in my head. Then, rather than "how do you stay in the air?", it's "how do you not immediately spin and crash?" like one of those disaster movie-level Irish road safety ads where they fly off the road and roll over fifteen times. Automatics or electrics on the face of it should reduce the fear by not needing hands off the wheel so much, but then I move into fear of the unknown. I've driven a kart, but that's it. Games with a wheel have been a disaster, since having to remember to shift every corner, every lap, even with flappy paddles, is exhausting to a dyspraxic. So when oldies moan about traction control, software such as what Williams utilised, and other things as being 'too simple', I have felt a little insulted in the past. A bit of a 'leave this to the grown ups, little boy', gatekeeper kind of attitude. 1994 to me was what happened when trying to adhere to that principle too much. There was a fear of a terrible accident, but attempts to curb that ended up causing terrible accidents instead.
I'm not sure, but I think it failed in Spain... Portugal was bergers error, and anyway by Portugal the ban on gizmos for 94 had already been implemented * Not 100%, could be wrong about some of that!
Actually the Italian court put a verdict (after a ridiculously long investigation through the years) that the steering column did break and found Patrick Head guilty. It's the official verdict, guys. But he never got to jail because too much time has passed since 1994. Still it doesn't change the fact. ETA: the Williams team was finally found guilty for Senna's death. "The Williams team was entagled for many years in a court case with the Italian prosecutors over manslaughter charges, ending in a guilty verdict for Patrick Head. The Italian Court of Appeal, on April 13, 2007, stated the following in the verdict numbered 15050: "It has been determined that the accident was caused by a steering column failure. This failure was caused by badly designed and badly executed modifications of the steering column. The responsibility of this falls on Patrick Head, culpable of omitted control". Even being found responsible for Senna's accident, Patrick Head wasn't arrested: in Italy the statute of limitation for manslaughter is 7 years and 6 months, and the final verdict was pronounced 13 years after the accident.
Italian justice is a bit odd. I think that was done more for political reasons and find a semi respectable way out for everyone. Someone gets done. - Patrick Head. But doesn't go to Jail. So doesn't cause a big fight or appeal. Just leave it not worth it etc.
Yet people still comment "that was just the Italian justice system" - it was a thorough investigation and they established what happened. Although it shouldn't have needed to take all those years considering the fact that the wheels on the car didn't turn going into the corner.
Senna asked for those modifications. Plus there's nothing to suggest the thing broke to cause the crash or broke in the crash. Schumacher's onboard shows the thing step out.
@@AidanMillward Why aren't the wheels turning.. trying to avoid a straight line to the wall? I'm sure that question have been asked a bizillion times..
It won 7 races that season so compared to last season and this season with Mercedes it was a success with the championship being decided on last race where Schumacher robbed Damon Hill of the title.
@@gerardgomez4075 I mean, it was a shadow of the car mansell and prost won their titles in and yet michael needed to cheat to win by ONE point. Started the season as second driver and almost won. I say Damon did great. 👌
It always makes me laugh when people do not realise how bad the car that started the season was and how it was not the best car even after they got it working. People talk a lot of shit about Damon and how Schumacher won in the inferior car, not understanding that firstly the Benetton was not inferior to the Williams, it was the class of the field that year. And that if we talk about ifs, buts and maybes, if Damon took that challenge to Schumacher (and yes I fully admit Damon was not as good as Schumacher), Senna would have probably won that season easily had he not died, even in a car that was not the best car on the grid.
4:46 - There's a reason why anhedral wings are mounted high and dihedral wings are mounted low. The stability is achieved by how the fuselage interacts with the wings aerodynamically. About how the pressure area off the nose interarts with wings. Not just the center of gravity / pendulum effect..The williams anhedral lower wing had no true fuselage to interact with, aerodynamically.
Worth a mention about the FW15D - the '93 car (FW15C) but without the electronic bits that were banned for '94. Senna wanted this to start the season and in hindsight, he was probably right as Williams could have introduced the FW16 when its issues had been ironed out later on (Patrese discussed helping out with testing that year at Imola and Frank was agreeable to this) Senna's experience however, should have been steady for the first few Grand Prix given how problematic the FW16 was. Whether this was ever discussed between himself and Williams I have no idea, but the combination of a fast, but nervous handling car and a driver known for driving beyond the limit, is potentially going to have serious consequences. And sadly, it did.
Ok so if I understand correctly, the B wing did stall the airflow from the diffuser. Apparently that's what this year's Redbull DRS is doing, thus decreasing the drag in the straights and giving them the famous "better top speed". Its either that or I'm comparing apples to baby formula and am very confused. I have very rudimentary notions of aerodynamics BTW, my work doesn't have anything to do with it
it's called the "beam wing." It's purpose, other than the obvious of creating some downforce on its own, is to try to bridge the airflow gap between the main wing and the diffuser, to get them working in harmony to assist each other rather than as two separate and distant devices. The airflow after the wing is upwards at an angle, and this upward flow "pulls" the air below upwards a bit. The airflow exiting the diffuser is also angled upwards a bit. Putting another device between the two (the beam wing) gives some extra upwards angling of the flow to "pull" the diffuser's upward flow further upward (making it more effective for downforce) and getting it close enough to also be affected by the main wing's "pulling" up. Under normal circumstances "stalling" doesn't come into play at all. What DRS does is eliminate (most of) the downforce of the upper plane of the wing when it opens (greatly reduced angle of attack), which also changes the airflow over the main plane, often causing it to partially stall the main plane. This is also referred to as "separation" of airflow from the rearmost bottom surface of the wing, since the curve is too sharp for the airflow to "stick" to. That's why there are two elements with a gap between them: the gap allows some air between the two elements, and that air exiting at an upward angle from the slot helps the flow from the bottom element "stick" to it and "stick to" the upper plane as well, whereas a single-piece would be too steep and the air flow would "unstick" from the surface partway along the upward curve. This separation of flow reduces the downforce. The clever bit that RBR is doing, is designing the geometry and spacing of the main plane, beam wing, and diffuser exit in such a way that when the DRS opens and stalls/separates the airflow from the main plane, it does so in such a way that the "unstuck" airflow from the main plane -- which is now flowing more directly rearwards having separated earlier -- is no longer helping "pull up" the airflow from the beam wing. Now, the beam wing's airflow is at less of an upward angle (having lost the "assist" from the main plane's airflow) and more directly rearward, which does the same thing to the diffuser: it's exit airflow is less "assisted" or "pulled up extra" by the beam wing. This less efficient airflow that is going more "straight back" out of the diffuser than "upward angle" also means that the airflow inside the diffuser is having a harder time "sticking" to the underside surface of the diffuser, and it separates from the surface somewhere under there. This separation in the diffuser, like with the main plane with DRS open, reduces the downforce, and reducing downforce generally corresponds to a reduction in drag. This happens to some extent in all of the cars, but RBR exaggerated this effect by purposely designing the diffuser with a steeper section midway through that NEEDS the "assistance" of the beam wing to keep flow attached (rather than it being able to stay attached on its own), so that the open DRS and reduced beam wing effectiveness would cause a sharper contrast in downforce and drag reduction. I hope that was explained in an understandable way. It's much easier to understand with some diagrams or images, but can't post those in TH-cam comments as far as I know. Look up either "ScarbsTech" or "Giorgio Piola" and I'm assuming you can find some drawings explaining it better.
watson brands hatch 85 was number 1 and ronnie peterson in 74 the number 0 was used by scheckter in 1973 in Canada and USA.and before the 1973 numbering system 1 was used by anyone as Chris Amon was number 1, Jean-Pierre Beltoise and many others
C130 Hercules does not have an anhedral wing - it's fairly unusual as it's flat with only a thinning of the wing along its length changing the profile. Wing profiles achieve various outcomes, inherent stability, reduced turbulence impact etc. For a fighter that is under full electronic control they are made unstable which also makes them more agile, the Typhoon has a centre of pressure (lift) in front of the centre of mass (C of G) which is the reverse of a naturally stable design.
It was plain crazy just to ban every aid without a plan B Max was an idout as was them blanket towing Ferrari's moaning just because they could not get toys to work. I still to this day lay the blame on the FIA rash banning of all aids instead of using the following year to work out a workerble solution. Those deaths should have never happened.
Like I said, the data and tech then wasn’t like it is now. None of the teams protested saying “this will be a problem” so I guess they assumed the same in that it wouldn’t be the issue it turned out to be.
@@AidanMillward Yes this is very true.but one of the facts is that the final rule changes were only decide after half way through that season, at which point most teams were already developing next years Cars. None of the teams were going to restart costly development programs so they all had to adapt their current designs to work in the new analoge format. after Senna did his first test drive of car his profoundly said "Senna had said prophetically after testing his now gizmo-free car during pre-season testing. “It's going to be a season with lots of accidents and I'll risk saying we'll be lucky if something really serious doesn't happen..." for me haa someone who followed F1 before and during this period 1994 was a horrid year for any fan of F1 from the first seasons practice you could see every team and drive was struggling to make the new format work . I think both F1 and the the FIA and FISA learnt a lesson from that tragic year at least now any major rules changes go through some sort of development fase first. I was never a Max or Bernie Fan since Max was first elected to the FIA presidents position in 1991 and then also became FISA president in 1993. I only saw these two as protecting their intrests in F1 going at the costs of every other form of motor sport. I know Max did a lot for general car safty though so that was something.
@@TheWPhilosopher Race car designers always push the limits I am sure he felt bad just as much as Frank or all the team did. It was no lesser saddness and loss that the Likes of Colin Chapman felt when he lost drivers in his cars due to major failures in his car designs I think it hit Williams hard and F1 because everyone thought those dark days of driver deaths at races were over. It will always remain a dark day for motorsport.
Lotus was the pioneer of active suspension in 1982, took the first 2 victories for a car with active suspension in 1987. Lotus had an arguably superior system than even williams until 1993.
Steering column clearly snapped in the corner, thats why the car went straight and Senna leaned to the side as a natural reaction, if it was the rear overstearing Senna would have turned the steering to the right but no... he steered more to the left. Typical reaction when you lose steering in your car.
F1 car sparks are caused by titanium skid blocks contacting the ground, carbon fibre doesn't spark and nor is it very good in a friction situation, you'd probably want a Kevlar skin to deal with that!
Immediately the car that comes to mind is the MP4-24 of 2009 Whilst it never became a championship winning car it showed impressive levels of development though the season
Of course ... if Ferrari cant actually do the work, be inventive and actually think up a new technological breakthrough idea, they cheat and manipulate the rules to outlaw the work other teams have done and benefit from their own inability to actually be creative by any means necessary. One wonders ... is this just a Ferrari failing to succeed on their own merits ... yet once again, or the Italian dogma of refuse to lose at all costs, so do whatever you gotta do? If they cant cheat, and dont have a real innovative leader, then are they just a mid pack runner?
That was Enzo's modus operandi from the very beginning. Late to catch on to disc brakes, late to catch on to independent rear suspensions (in the street cars, at least), late to catch on to mid-engined cars, late to catch on to aerodynamics...
Let’s be honest though, this car would have won every race or close to from imola onwards With senna. Oh god, are we still saying he crashed because of handling issues and ride height?😂
A film of the whole season would be good. But you know it’s going to end up like the senna doc and be vetted by the family to make it seem like Benetton and Michael were worse than Lance Armstrong.
I don't think the Fw16 was bad. It was as good as the Fw14 from 1991. Drivers said,about the Fw14,it had a lack of traction. And yet they scored podiums and Victories. I think the fact that made it "go wrong" was the combination of mistakes and bad decisions. Taking Senna onboard was a bad one. He never had to live with a poor traction car as the Fw16, and he expected to have a good car in this aspect. Now, his McLarens were very good at traction. So why would not the Williams be? I think he did Not know how to manage that. Also getting Damon Hill, a Rockie in his 2nd full year wasn't also a good choice. The kid was not a superstar and will never be. He was okay but maybe Patrese would have performed way better in this car that he might have understand quickly super well as he drove the Fw14. Now again the succession of mistakes from 1992 (firing Mansell and getting Prost who after 1993 decided to retire and also not being able to keep Patrese neither Mansell the two original drivers of a car like the Fw16) wasn't particularly any good idea. But they did. You have to add to this that MSC was growing up quick and Benetton too. And they did a fantastic job. BUT check what Mansell achieved in 4 races non consecutive while he was driving at Indycar. He put the car easily in front row at his first appearance. Why? Because he was used to drive a very very similar car in 1991 and knew how to properly handle it. He also put in on pole in his last race for Williams in Australia and was about to end up 3r but got the win. That speaks by itself. The lack of traction is something Ayrton wasn't used to and Damon was probably so inexperienced in a car like it that none of them understood how to handle that. If they'd have kept Mansell from 1992 onwards I think story would be very different.
I believed that the steering column broke for many years but bear with me. If you watch closely, at roughly the same time some interference comes on the screen, the rear steps out quite a lot. You can see from Schumacher's onboard that this coincides with a bottom out. It could have also come from a slow rear right puncture, as Newey states or the FW16 being a turd in general. Why Senna wasn't able to catch the slide could be down to 4 things: He was caught by surprise as he was already thinking about the next corner; That car was a pig to drive; There simply wasn't enough road; He didn't want to over correct like he did in Brazil earlier that year. Perhaps a combination of all 4. However one thing is certain: the rear wouldn't step out if the steering broke. The was would just head off straight into the wall.
Everyone was having issues with their cars in 1994, not just Williams. McLaren had those horrid Peugeot engines, Ferrari were still trying to recover from their awful 1992 and 1993 seasons (their cars were rubbish so they made sure everyone else went back to their level using the FIA), Tyrrell were still using the terribly unreliable Yamaha V10, Lotus were on life support (soon joined in bankruptcy by Pacific and Simtek), Footwork, Ligier, Sauber and Minardi were midfield at best and Larrouse were bottom of the grid really. The only teams with a positive outlook for 1994 were Jordan and Benetton - Benetton with their "software development" and Jordan getting some reliability from their Hart V10s at last.
Ligier was under tremendous financial pressure too. So bad they actually pulled a Haas 2021 in 1994 on their otherwise pretty ok 1993 car (best of the rest behind the big 4). Larrousse had always been struggling (like Minardi), but Sauber and Footwork-Arrows looked alright. While it was using 1993 Ford engines, the car was agile and pretty fast on the slow to mid-speed tracks. Quite possibly one of the better chassis on the grid.
Yeah both joined Williams the winning title holder and this eligible for 1+2 but 1 reserved for champion. No champion so 0 or 2. Try telling Senna he's gotta have 0 😅
The stuff about the rear wing is interesting and at the same time mind bending. Meanwhile I watched the A380 fly overhead on its way into Birmingham for a couple of years thinking "HOW DO YOU STAY IN THE AIR?!"
I guess magic.
What about the broken steering column?
We all live in a Simulation but Codemasters didn't program it
@@jamesstewart1794 what about it?
@@jamesstewart1794 7:39
If there is one thing I've gotten from planes and cars, its that Aerodynamics is itself Dark Magic.
As a Ferrari fan I’d say the best have bad decades. Sometimes quarter centuries
yes and weirdly 1-2s are rare in the off years but not as rare as youd think berger, alesi could of done that sevral times
😂
@@xiricada7121 i know its laughable the 94-95 period was several times it could of been done
As a Cubs fan, I’ve got to agree.
@@cmSaSChicago should kidnap Theo Epstein and force him to GM the Cubs again.
The main thing that stands out to me about having drivers like Senna and Michael not really around anymore is that the F1 world never really found out about how they would have been influenced by them post-driver career. Team owners? Driver program manager? Announcer? It would be neat to have them around in that fashion still.
Excellent comment.
Yeah would you see a grey haired Senna in a Papaya orange anorak exchanging glances at Prost on the Alpine side of the pitwall. Or would he be mentoring the next generation of Brazilian heroes to F1? Would we see Schumacher in silver hanging around Mercedes with his kid. Or would the two do endurance racing? Man...
I would say it was steering column failure that caused Senna's accident.
Footage of the steering wheel for the last two laps before the accident showed a distinct abnormality in the steering wheel movement around it's regular axis.
Before the failure the steering wheel is behaving in a stable manner.
When the steering column finally failed the front wheels snapped straight and Senna never tried to turn the car away from the oncoming wall. All he could do was hit the brakes and drop two gears to try and slow the car.
The car bottoming out could certainly have stressed the poorly modified steering column.
We’ll probably never know.
The Italian legal system is a minefield and seems made up as it goes along.
That was indeed the cause. The video showing the apparently 'normal' movement of the steering wheel is an insult to the intelligence of racing fans around the world. The onboard footage from that weekend only shows extreme movement on laps 6 and 7. RIP Senna - I will never forget that day 💔
And you are an engineer? f1 driver?
I didn’t think so.
Maybe do an automotive engineering degree and then voice your opinion.
If you look at all of sennas in car footage from the beginning of the 1994 season till the lap when he died, his steering wheel was reacting like that all season.
So it wasn’t the steering wheel.
I am an engineer however but in the aerospace industry, so I do have solid background in aerodynamics.
Sennas car suffered from an aerodynamic stall. In other words, his car lost most if not all of the downforce on his car about 1.7 seconds before he crashed.
Senna was also taking the more dangerous inside line when entering the tamberello. This can easily be seen from Schumachers in car camera where senna repeatedly took a harder inside line going into the tamberello where a large bump was located.
Senna also did a last minute setup change to his car having reduced his cars ride height to its minimum ride height.
It was a combination of factors that caused sennas crash, and none involved the ridiculous notion that the steering column snapped.
If I had to make an educated guess on what caused his accident, I would say it was a right rear suspension failure.
@thedorianmode8087 the idea that the steering broke is absurd to me. There is no way Williams would put a driver in a car if they thought the steering could fail. It would be like putting a driver in a car that had it's brakes adjusted and one day the breaks stopped working. It's nonsense. The car was so low it was scrapping on the road at that exact corner. When you are going around a bend at over 300kmh any loss of traction for a split second would send the car off the track. We have all seen F1 cars that lose down force, they completely go haywire. Senna flew off the track, he had no time to turn the corner. If he flew into a wall of tires, set up for that corner, we would have the answer because Senna would tell us what happened.
On the 1997 game, Murray Walker says something on the lines of 'Frank Williams has had to deal with tragedy in recent years' during his commentary. 4 year old me had no idea he was referencing Senna at that time
I am from Imola and attended winter tests, qualifying and race as usual with my dad since 1983. I was at Tosa curve as usual on Saturday and Sunday and the wrecked Simtek just stopped in front of us. Most shocking experience in my life. On Sunday we saw the crash of Ayrton as well but hundreds yards away and none of us really understood the destiny of Ayrton until we got home and watched the news. There's no smartphones in 1994 and the speaker just said "Senna out". We just saw the helicopter taking off to Ospedale Maggiore at Bologna. Rest in peace 🇧🇷🇦🇹
Honestly I think Mosely should be held accountable for what happened in 1994. Had he said "okay, from 1995 X is going to happen" teams would have had more time to prepare and actually make cars designed to run without driver aids rather than taking the cars they had already designed and simply removing the aids from them.
They should have been phased out, but hindsight is always perfect.
@@AidanMillward I agree, which is why they never again rushed through such major changes
@@MrSniperfox29 guess Mosely was counting on all the teams totally redesigning instead of copy pasting them.
But like I said the data wasn’t as available then as it is now.
To some extent that's why Lola failed miserably. If they had an opportunity to delay their entry by another year they wouldn't be on most people's worst teams of all time shortlist
@@christopherlesiuk6172 Rush jobs seldom work (with a few exceptions).
Senna’s death affected me deeply at the time and still does and will for the rest of my days. Your presentation in this video was very gracious. Thank you.
Same here..
Yes a huge loss, it's Like the World stopped turning on that day, still can't believe Senna was killed that day so so unfair.
Schumacher said that the B194 and B195 were almost impossible to drive and if you watch the replays of those seasons, those cars were all over the place, so the FW16 wasn't alone in being tough to drive.
Didn’t Berger and Alesi find the B195 to be “almost undriveable” when they tested it?
@@TrickyMario7654 Alesi I think was more outspoken about it being terrible, but yes.
They did and this was the era where they were experimenting with early crude forms of blown diffusers which were only on throttle which created a certain way you had to drive the car maintaining a little bit of throttle through corners
Not surprising that Left foot braking became the dominant way of driving during that time which ended/limited the careers of those with mangled feet
@@RANDOMZBOSSMAN1 the blown diffuser had been around for a few years. It’s that they only worked on throttle which made the rear ends go super twitchy on the brakes.
Schumacher was able to keep the throttle open just enough to get maximum braking with maximum downforce. Kinda started the left foot revolution while those used to H patterns were still using the left foot.
@@Padgeot Schumacher told them not to be surprised if the 195 spun in the pitlane! Herbert and Jos the Boss could barely hold on to the B194 by all accounts.
Minor point of order: Jody Scheckter raced car 0 at the 1973 Canadian and US GPS, but Damon Hill was the first and only to use it across a full season :)
Wow, really never knew that! Thought Damo was the first and only...
Damon is the only driver to finish a race in car 0
I'm not sure how true it is, but it was reported that Prost did tell Senna that the car was very difficult to drives the FW16 was an evolved passive suspended version of the FW15C which Prost reckoned that the suspension was hiding the inadequacy of the chassis and aerodynamics.
Abruptly stripping the cars of all technological aids made them even more unsafe. Williams had the most advanced systems, and therefore the most work to do to reconfigure their cars for the new rules. The source of these changes being a power play by Ferrari with the FIA.
I always think i f they wouldn't have done that Ayrton would've gone to Indy car racing because he hated all the electronic aids.... and Indy cars had none or few.
The story of the FW16 is one of the most fascinating - and saddest - story lines since I became a serious F1 fan in the early 90s. I remember all of this going down real time, even if it was harder to get updated info as an American back then. If you get a chance, watch Senna's '94 Brazilian GP. Namely the opening laps and after the first round of pit stops. Even though the car's faults caught up with him, watching him work that thing was nothing short of legendary. I can still hear the sound of that Renault RS6 buzzing during his onboard footage.
That Renault engine was so strong that the sound of it still creeps me out.
That year they had band all the driver aids, but did nothing about the engines which were the same power from the previous year. I have said from the moment it happened, the biggest contribution to Senna’s crash was the rule changes.
Lovely video, and confirms my aging memory that the FW16 was in fact terrible. I've had people blame Damon as being the reason the season was bad in discussions, which I never agreed with.
I always look forward to your videos in my subscription feed!
Blaming Damon Hill is a silly thing to do when fucking Senna of all people was having trouble with it.
Senna was doing with the Williams what Leclerc is doing with that Ferrari. Over driving and trying to get it to do stuff it doesn’t want to do and wondering why he’s in a wall.
Damon and Carlos were keeping it within their own and/or the car’s limits.
@@AidanMillward Oh I agree both Leclerc and Senna are/were getting 101% out of the flawed package they are given. Leclerc pushes the Ferrari so hard that it can appear that it's a driver problem, when it's them grasping for every ounce out of the car. That's not a slight at Damon or Carlos it's just a different threshold of the driver factor. Leclerc pushed so hard in Miami as he does, he binned it. It's no different than Senna pushing that FW16, safety is just in such a better place now thankfully.
@@peekaboo1575 Take a guess what forum board was peddling the "Damon was the problem" agenda. :p
I don't see how anyone can blame Hill when Newey, Senna, Mansell...everyone...said the car was very difficult. Newey even said they forgot how to build a passive suspended car
Berger crashing while existing the pits at Portugal and almost wiping out Derek Warwick because of the active suspension failing was an example of the danger of the systems.
2:28 Those squiggly lines need a lot of development before they are ready for racing. Just finished the Newey book so this is all fresh for me. Glad to see it done here.
The anhedral on the B-52's thin, low chord wing is to allow for its upward flex when loaded, primarily. The droop on the tail of a/c like the F4 Phantom II is, as you describe, to retain tailplane effectiveness at high AOA. The long chord wing shadows the tailplane to the airflow, particularly at high AOA or bank angles.
1994 - year of complacency….
I would love to hear your take on each of the accidents of Imola -94. How they happened and what parts of the engineering or lack thereof played into them.
Flat undertray cars were death traps…they worked during the turbo era because of the huge wings and tyres…between 1989 and 1994 the aspie’s gained not far off 200bhp, and the wings and tyres got smaller. Active suspension and the like just extended the grace period.
When that was gone, there wasn’t enough time in one winter to back out fully the peaky aero you can get away with in cars that don’t dive or roll, after which the cars became outright death traps…
I was wondering what might have been if the ban on driver aids had come in for 1995, not 1994. All the teams had their 94 cars already designed by the announcement of the ban, so the lateness of it caused the hurried re-design and no time to test it properly.
Yeah that's why I don't just blame the rear wing and why I don't think the car was necessarily terrible. With driver aids and electronics it probably wouldn't have come to light.
Senna put it on pole just underlines how great he was
On 1 lap, Ayrton stated how demanding was the car. For a whole GP, we only have Brazil 94 to talk about.
Damon never pushed the way Ayrton did so. Damon was GP driver, not racing driver.
A racing driver always pushes the cas to go beyond the limits.
Remembering circumstances before his crash in Imola, the more I look into it, it's like his front tires were losing grip early in the corner with no chance to turn.
We could talk about surface of the track but The steering wheel excuse looks so convenient I've never seen any stress test applied on it (agressive use or impact of crash on it, which one happened really)
@@Ahito1984 *car
@@Ahito1984 The telemetry analyzed on the investigation showed that in mid corner his steering instantly plunged to 0 degrees. At that exact moment he was still turning left and braked where you shouldn't brake. That's why the steering column collapse explanation is oddly convenient.. it's the one that makes the most sense anyways. I think that the theory of the car bottoming out that caused this accident to be bollocks. Let's apply physics here - when someone racing is in a corner, turning while accelerating, and suddenly his tires lose contact to the ground, does the car go **completely straight** to the wall or does it follow the laws of physics and spins? Hell, any other time they were bottoming out, the car was not just jumping straight like taking off like a plane, they often spun.
@@rigel8755yup like a skateboard with no wheels it should’ve just freely spun around, or if it was that high load high speed etc it should’ve at LEAST had a bit more loose and fluid movements than what we saw which was such a clunky awkward change of direction
@@rigel8755exactly right. The obvious answer is usually the right answer. In legal terms while fighting a legal case it's best to create doubt , if other explanations were put forward , it muddies the waters. Several prominent team leaders and senior drivers conclude there was a car failure. All but admitting it was a steering failure.
Not only was the Williams was dangerous, they all were. It wasn't skill that kept people alive (mostly) it was a roll of a dice
Randomly I was looking at lap times literally 2 days ago with 1993 cars vs 1994 cars before Spain.
The cars were as fast as the previous years in some cases faster and this was without all the gizmos that made the cars more stable and with the added lower fuel levels due to refueling
You have to ask what were the FIA thinking with the rule change created even faster more dangerous and twitcher cars so many bad crashes and injuries
No real change then. Back then the driver didn't need to be a rocket scientist to work out the steering wheel.
They should have phased out the driver aids to be honest. Starting with the suspension and ending with the traction control.
Banning so many driver aids at once was bound to mean safety issues
@@arthurguitar two drivers killed and I count at least seven potentials.
My son and I really love your videos and especially love the ones when you are on camera. We assume as you are making you videos shorter to perhaps get more views you may have decided to not appear on camera. There may be some other reason and we totally respect your choices as your content it so incredibly amazing. You know so much about the sport we love and have been sharing for 27 years that we will always be huge fans but just wanted you to know we miss your charming face. We also love love love your dry wit.
We’re in the process of moving house and I have no background anymore. So no point in being on camera.
@@AidanMillward Thanks for the reply and good luck with the move, All the best from two huge fans.
to use the problematic aero as the explanation of Senna crash is more than acceptable than many others that i heard over the years, after all he passes by a bump and the rear clue to the floor and he lost control. Great video about the car
Rubbish. Senna died due to his car s steering column failing. I really wish people would research before stating rubbish.
@@ELUSIVEJIM That is conjecture. The Italian Kangaroo Court - whose credibility has always been zero, not least because they took 'only' three years to exonerate Patrese for something he never did - stated they thought it was the most likely cause, not fact. The Italians should have shut the event down after Roland's death, but to circumnavigate this, they classed his death as off track. I digress, The FOM examined the column and stated from the evidence that it did not break prior to impact in their view. In simple terms, Senna drove too fast for the conditions. That is an over simplification, but if you're driving a nervous car you want a steady race and get points. That wasn't the Senna way, but this guy has been driving beyond the limit a lot in his career and finally met his match in the undeveloped FW16. The car needed a lot of respect and Senna drove hell for leather in a car that wasn't capable of it at that point. Hill was the smart one that weekend, by driving the smoother line that avoided the bump. Had Senna done the same, he might still be here.
This is tie car story Ive looked forward to and dreaded at the same time.
Well played.
Still a very sore subject nearly 30 years later for some.
I’ve missed the history videos. Keep it going brother
I still think The Michael would have been able to hold.off Senna in 94. Benetton probably would not have taken the risks they took which caused his ban if Senna was still there. 1995 would have been a monumental title battle between Schumacher and Senna though
Shumi had TC. This is why 1994 was a cake walk for him.
You say that if the old numbering system was in place in 2017 Bottas would have run 0 but, according to the logic Williams used (0 was given to the driver who was already at the team), I guess Hamilton would have used the 0 and Bottas the 2.
I inform you that in 1994 Williams won the constructors' world championship with 118 points. But what are we talking about? Then everyone is sorry that Senna died, but he could also not have raced in San Marino given the mourning of poor Ratzenberger the day before
Thanks!
I could've guessed it was Ferrari that was behind the ban on active suspension. They've been behind just about anything else that has been banned in the history of the sport.
At imola,the safety car was a Vauxhall Cavalier 4x4 turbo(in its day,was a quick car) however still not quick for that era of F1. Alot of mitigating circumstances when active suspension was banned,which led to incidents with the whole grid.And to be honest the whole weekend was a shitshow. RIP Senna / Ratzenberger
Alesi had an anhedral front wing on his Tyrell
What surprises me about what happened at Imola 94 is senna went of on his second lap after the safety car not the first? You’d think he would have had the accident on his first attempt at going into tamburello, as that would be when he’s tires would be at there coldest so even lower ride hight then his second attempt.
There was a picture taken just before the accident (first lap after the safety car I think) where there’s a piece of sky blue debris near Senna’s car. It’s assumed it’s a piece of Lehto’s car from the start line shunt.
Maybe it caused a slow puncture
@@AidanMillward The bumps in Tamburello were worse that year; Senna’s telemetry records that the car stepped out after he hit one of the bumps and he lifted the throttle and tried to correct the steering slightly. That was the initial part, as after that the car hit the next bump and then that’s when the car just went straight for the wall. It was the bumps, the fW16 design problems, low ride height set-up, the safety car/cold tires, and Senna driving too aggressively on the inside line and lifting and trying to correct that caused the accident.
Because he went faster on that second lap through Tamburello (several kph recorded by the telemetry) and took a tighter more aggressive trajectory - and the car stepped out over one of the bumps. It is rare, but there is onboard footage from Senna’s car from the first lap through Tamburello after the safety car and it was already bottoming like crazy, you could see from the camera cutting out a lot.
@@sylviusdelvalie9671 that’s what Newey says in the book but all anyone is going to scream is the steering column.
@@AidanMillward Right. It’s the emotional explanation to preserve the myth that Senna was a faultless icon, but analysis of the telemetry reveals these details. I say this as a deep Senna admirer for anyone reading… Also, it is uncommonly known that there was a rift in the Senna family caused by Adriane Galistue, his girlfriend at the time. Senna’s brother, Leonardo, was there that weekend and they got in an argument, supposedly over her, which I theorize contributed to Senna’s already agitated psychological state (along w/ the accidents that weekend).
Anhedral rear wing of the FW16: I'd need to get to my copy of Newey's book to look up the actual reason for it. One can find a rear shot of Senna at Imola 94' where some quite low black surface is pretty much parallel to the lower rear wing element above it. Bet you all of this is there to accelerate what's coming out of the diffusor. Added benefit seems to be better exposure to clean airflow in the center.
Oddly enough, since a racecar's wing is there to produce downforce instead of lift, one could argue, the FW16's rear wing element to actually be dihedral ;)
Yes I thought exactly the same thing, the wing is upside down
Another top notch video.
With all due respect, if Hill could haul that car into Championship contention, so could Senna, and then we have the era leading up to the 96 and 97 Championship winning cars. Had he lived, we could be discussing him as a 5 or 6 tines Champion.
If Senna had won the championship knowing Williams he'd have to leave ir take a pay cut.
Favourite looking car of all time
Preferred the 96 one myself.
@@AidanMillward I just wasn't a fan of the higher top of the 1995/6 onwards cars
@Aidan Millward I think 1994 was Damon's best season... better than the 1996 season. Cos Damon literally dragged a team from a very sad time to coming only 1 point away from winning the title.
you should do a story on the Williams/ Senna crash called "how to destroy evidence".
Most of the data was destroyed in the crash as the computer was on the side of the car that ate the wall.
There is no conspiracy or cover up.
Hello Adrian: Thank you very much for explaining why big planes have anhedral wings. Look after your self.
To this day, I feel the way many people state how bad the Williams was is ridiculous. Damon constantly got top 4 when it was at its worst. Thats not a bad car. There have been many many f1 cars that were mistakes and the Williams simply wasnt as good as it couldve been, thats all. By Barcelona, still early in the season, it was a very good car.
It’s unbelievable people are still posting that Senna lost the car or made a mistake. Senna was killed due to the horrendous work done to his steering column which failed.
The car went in a straight line, also no evidence of from both onboard and external camera of the wheels rotating. It's evident and clear to see, that steering wasn't working.
@@testdrive7772 IKR??... why aren't the friggin' wheels turning??..... I saw a video 2 years ago stating that maybe Ayrton lost consciouness??
@@testdrive7772 exactly - the car didn't even start turning into the corner. Wheels were pointing straight ahead - there has never been a crash there which wasn't a mechanical failure. It was proven in court after a long trial - yet people still like to post that Senna made a mistake. He didn't.
Anhedral wings in transporters: It makes it so that this big ass plane can actually roll - period. Dihedral wings are aerodynamically stable. On top of that, transport planes usually (well known exception: The strategic transporter concept that later became the Boeing 747) have shoulder mounted wings and their CoG far _below_ their CoL. That makes them even more stable along the roll axis. Combined, you'd need excessive aileron size or angle of attack and the associated drag and induced yaw to achieve any sort of roll rate.
I think the accident you meant with Berger in 1993 was on Estoril, not Barcelona. And it was at the end of the F1 1993 season.
People who are scared of flying think "How do you stay in the air?" with most/all aircraft, I find. I certainly did. I didn't go overseas until my 30th birthday, and it was for my anxiety just as much as my mum's MS that we were moved to the front of the plane, where I swear the guy doing the safety demonstration was a doppelganger for Daniel Ricciardo.
It's a reminder that Ferrari International Assistance predated Schumacher et al. I suppose that aggression works because the tech can pick up the slack, so to speak, leaving the driver free to focus on the road and put their foot down. It's one of the reasons I've also run a mile from the notion of learning to drive. Gears make me feel uncomfortable. I don't care how many times Mum and others say they're fine, I don't believe them. Too complex. Hand off the wheel to gear shift, alarm bells go off in my head. Then, rather than "how do you stay in the air?", it's "how do you not immediately spin and crash?" like one of those disaster movie-level Irish road safety ads where they fly off the road and roll over fifteen times. Automatics or electrics on the face of it should reduce the fear by not needing hands off the wheel so much, but then I move into fear of the unknown. I've driven a kart, but that's it. Games with a wheel have been a disaster, since having to remember to shift every corner, every lap, even with flappy paddles, is exhausting to a dyspraxic.
So when oldies moan about traction control, software such as what Williams utilised, and other things as being 'too simple', I have felt a little insulted in the past. A bit of a 'leave this to the grown ups, little boy', gatekeeper kind of attitude. 1994 to me was what happened when trying to adhere to that principle too much. There was a fear of a terrible accident, but attempts to curb that ended up causing terrible accidents instead.
"A bit of a 'leave this to the grown ups, little boy', gatekeeper kind of attitude. "
What, exactly, do you think sports are? Of any type...
3:50 woudnt be Hamilton who had run zero? as you stated he was already there but no Bottas, who should run number 2.
O yes. Back in the day when FIA stood for Ferrari International Assistance.
it's always stood for that 😂 Enzo himself was a sleazebag who was as successful due to political wranglings as he was from competence.
Did Senna spin off or appear to drive in a straight line off the track ? . Surely the latter , that may indicate failure of the steering column
exactly - the car didn't turn into the corner even slightly, the wheels continued to face forwards.
Berger's active suspension failure leaving the pits in '93 was in Portugal, not Spain!
I'm not sure, but I think it failed in Spain... Portugal was bergers error, and anyway by Portugal the ban on gizmos for 94 had already been implemented *
Not 100%, could be wrong about some of that!
awesome video mate! :) thanks
Williams almost came away with a WDC that year after evolving the car. No disrespect to DH, but Senna would of would of won it for sure.
05:20 - Timo's Glock corner: "Junção" (in english "junction")
Had to really think about the pronunciation on that one, given my brain defaults to GCSE Spanish 🤣
Actually the Italian court put a verdict (after a ridiculously long investigation through the years) that the steering column did break and found Patrick Head guilty. It's the official verdict, guys. But he never got to jail because too much time has passed since 1994. Still it doesn't change the fact.
ETA: the Williams team was finally found guilty for Senna's death.
"The Williams team was entagled for many years in a court case with the Italian prosecutors over manslaughter charges, ending in a guilty verdict for Patrick Head. The Italian Court of Appeal, on April 13, 2007, stated the following in the verdict numbered 15050: "It has been determined that the accident was caused by a steering column failure. This failure was caused by badly designed and badly executed modifications of the steering column. The responsibility of this falls on Patrick Head, culpable of omitted control". Even being found responsible for Senna's accident, Patrick Head wasn't arrested: in Italy the statute of limitation for manslaughter is 7 years and 6 months, and the final verdict was pronounced 13 years after the accident.
Italian justice is a bit odd. I think that was done more for political reasons and find a semi respectable way out for everyone. Someone gets done. - Patrick Head. But doesn't go to Jail. So doesn't cause a big fight or appeal. Just leave it not worth it etc.
Yet people still comment "that was just the Italian justice system" - it was a thorough investigation and they established what happened. Although it shouldn't have needed to take all those years considering the fact that the wheels on the car didn't turn going into the corner.
They illegally redesigned the steering wheel column as well using a welder which resulted in the death of a F1 legend.
Senna asked for those modifications.
Plus there's nothing to suggest the thing broke to cause the crash or broke in the crash. Schumacher's onboard shows the thing step out.
@@AidanMillward Why aren't the wheels turning.. trying to avoid a straight line to the wall? I'm sure that question have been asked a bizillion times..
Jody Scheckter raced with the number zero on his McLaren at the 1973 Canadian & American GP's.
My boss absolutely berated me at Silverstone once because I used the term 'front nose' - where else would the nose be?
It won 7 races that season so compared to last season and this season with Mercedes it was a success with the championship being decided on last race where Schumacher robbed Damon Hill of the title.
So damon actually did great in 1994?
Yes.. He is an awesome pilot!
@@gerardgomez4075
I mean, it was a shadow of the car mansell and prost won their titles in and yet michael needed to cheat to win by ONE point. Started the season as second driver and almost won.
I say Damon did great. 👌
After Mansell's red number 5, Hill's number 0 is probably the 2nd best looking number on an F1 car ever. But then perhaps Ferrari's 27 was 2nd best?
McLaren mp4/6 (Number 1).. (for me personally).. the best looking one.
It always makes me laugh when people do not realise how bad the car that started the season was and how it was not the best car even after they got it working. People talk a lot of shit about Damon and how Schumacher won in the inferior car, not understanding that firstly the Benetton was not inferior to the Williams, it was the class of the field that year. And that if we talk about ifs, buts and maybes, if Damon took that challenge to Schumacher (and yes I fully admit Damon was not as good as Schumacher), Senna would have probably won that season easily had he not died, even in a car that was not the best car on the grid.
Very interesting. Thank you!
4:46 - There's a reason why anhedral wings are mounted high and dihedral wings are mounted low. The stability is achieved by how the fuselage interacts with the wings aerodynamically. About how the pressure area off the nose interarts with wings. Not just the center of gravity / pendulum effect..The williams anhedral lower wing had no true fuselage to interact with, aerodynamically.
Why dont you make a video about williams in 1998 season. No one really understood that fast decline
Worth a mention about the FW15D - the '93 car (FW15C) but without the electronic bits that were banned for '94. Senna wanted this to start the season and in hindsight, he was probably right as Williams could have introduced the FW16 when its issues had been ironed out later on (Patrese discussed helping out with testing that year at Imola and Frank was agreeable to this) Senna's experience however, should have been steady for the first few Grand Prix given how problematic the FW16 was. Whether this was ever discussed between himself and Williams I have no idea, but the combination of a fast, but nervous handling car and a driver known for driving beyond the limit, is potentially going to have serious consequences. And sadly, it did.
So, Ferrari and (always!) corrupted FIA have indirectly lead to the tragedies of 1994, haven't they?
Ok so if I understand correctly, the B wing did stall the airflow from the diffuser.
Apparently that's what this year's Redbull DRS is doing, thus decreasing the drag in the straights and giving them the famous "better top speed".
Its either that or I'm comparing apples to baby formula and am very confused. I have very rudimentary notions of aerodynamics BTW, my work doesn't have anything to do with it
it's called the "beam wing." It's purpose, other than the obvious of creating some downforce on its own, is to try to bridge the airflow gap between the main wing and the diffuser, to get them working in harmony to assist each other rather than as two separate and distant devices. The airflow after the wing is upwards at an angle, and this upward flow "pulls" the air below upwards a bit. The airflow exiting the diffuser is also angled upwards a bit. Putting another device between the two (the beam wing) gives some extra upwards angling of the flow to "pull" the diffuser's upward flow further upward (making it more effective for downforce) and getting it close enough to also be affected by the main wing's "pulling" up.
Under normal circumstances "stalling" doesn't come into play at all. What DRS does is eliminate (most of) the downforce of the upper plane of the wing when it opens (greatly reduced angle of attack), which also changes the airflow over the main plane, often causing it to partially stall the main plane. This is also referred to as "separation" of airflow from the rearmost bottom surface of the wing, since the curve is too sharp for the airflow to "stick" to. That's why there are two elements with a gap between them: the gap allows some air between the two elements, and that air exiting at an upward angle from the slot helps the flow from the bottom element "stick" to it and "stick to" the upper plane as well, whereas a single-piece would be too steep and the air flow would "unstick" from the surface partway along the upward curve. This separation of flow reduces the downforce.
The clever bit that RBR is doing, is designing the geometry and spacing of the main plane, beam wing, and diffuser exit in such a way that when the DRS opens and stalls/separates the airflow from the main plane, it does so in such a way that the "unstuck" airflow from the main plane -- which is now flowing more directly rearwards having separated earlier -- is no longer helping "pull up" the airflow from the beam wing. Now, the beam wing's airflow is at less of an upward angle (having lost the "assist" from the main plane's airflow) and more directly rearward, which does the same thing to the diffuser: it's exit airflow is less "assisted" or "pulled up extra" by the beam wing. This less efficient airflow that is going more "straight back" out of the diffuser than "upward angle" also means that the airflow inside the diffuser is having a harder time "sticking" to the underside surface of the diffuser, and it separates from the surface somewhere under there. This separation in the diffuser, like with the main plane with DRS open, reduces the downforce, and reducing downforce generally corresponds to a reduction in drag. This happens to some extent in all of the cars, but RBR exaggerated this effect by purposely designing the diffuser with a steeper section midway through that NEEDS the "assistance" of the beam wing to keep flow attached (rather than it being able to stay attached on its own), so that the open DRS and reduced beam wing effectiveness would cause a sharper contrast in downforce and drag reduction.
I hope that was explained in an understandable way. It's much easier to understand with some diagrams or images, but can't post those in TH-cam comments as far as I know. Look up either "ScarbsTech" or "Giorgio Piola" and I'm assuming you can find some drawings explaining it better.
watson brands hatch 85 was number 1 and ronnie peterson in 74 the number 0 was used by scheckter in 1973 in Canada and USA.and before the 1973 numbering system 1 was used by anyone as Chris Amon was number 1, Jean-Pierre Beltoise and many others
C130 Hercules does not have an anhedral wing - it's fairly unusual as it's flat with only a thinning of the wing along its length changing the profile.
Wing profiles achieve various outcomes, inherent stability, reduced turbulence impact etc.
For a fighter that is under full electronic control they are made unstable which also makes them more agile, the Typhoon has a centre of pressure (lift) in front of the centre of mass (C of G) which is the reverse of a naturally stable design.
It was plain crazy just to ban every aid without a plan B Max was an idout as was them blanket towing Ferrari's moaning just because they could not get toys to work. I still to this day lay the blame on the FIA rash banning of all aids instead of using the following year to work out a workerble solution. Those deaths should have never happened.
Like I said, the data and tech then wasn’t like it is now. None of the teams protested saying “this will be a problem” so I guess they assumed the same in that it wouldn’t be the issue it turned out to be.
@@AidanMillward Yes this is very true.but one of the facts is that the final rule changes were only decide after half way through that season, at which point most teams were already developing next years Cars. None of the teams were going to restart costly development programs so they all had to adapt their current designs to work in the new analoge format. after Senna did his first test drive of car his profoundly said "Senna had said prophetically after testing his now gizmo-free car during pre-season testing. “It's going to be a season with lots of accidents and I'll risk saying we'll be lucky if something really serious doesn't happen..." for me haa someone who followed F1 before and during this period 1994 was a horrid year for any fan of F1 from the first seasons practice you could see every team and drive was struggling to make the new format work . I think both F1 and the the FIA and FISA learnt a lesson from that tragic year at least now any major rules changes go through some sort of development fase first. I was never a Max or Bernie Fan since Max was first elected to the FIA presidents position in 1991 and then also became FISA president in 1993. I only saw these two as protecting their intrests in F1 going at the costs of every other form of motor sport. I know Max did a lot for general car safty though so that was something.
@@clockdva20 was that perhaps a mark of an unconscious guilty conscience? Knowing the rush helped cause the issues?
@@TheWPhilosopher Race car designers always push the limits I am sure he felt bad just as much as Frank or all the team did. It was no lesser saddness and loss that the Likes of Colin Chapman felt when he lost drivers in his cars due to major failures in his car designs I think it hit Williams hard and F1 because everyone thought those dark days of driver deaths at races were over. It will always remain a dark day for motorsport.
@@clockdva20 I meant max but yeah
And yet its my favourite f1 car ever.
Lotus was the pioneer of active suspension in 1982, took the first 2 victories for a car with active suspension in 1987.
Lotus had an arguably superior system than even williams until 1993.
Steering column clearly snapped in the corner, thats why the car went straight and Senna leaned to the side as a natural reaction, if it was the rear overstearing Senna would have turned the steering to the right but no... he steered more to the left. Typical reaction when you lose steering in your car.
F1 car sparks are caused by titanium skid blocks contacting the ground, carbon fibre doesn't spark and nor is it very good in a friction situation, you'd probably want a Kevlar skin to deal with that!
Are there any other instances of cars having a comeback like this? Would love to hear more stories like this.
Immediately the car that comes to mind is the MP4-24 of 2009
Whilst it never became a championship winning car it showed impressive levels of development though the season
Maybe the 2018 Mercedes as that was a nightmare to set up in the first few rounds of the season.
Of course ... if Ferrari cant actually do the work, be inventive and actually think up a new technological breakthrough idea, they cheat and manipulate the rules to outlaw the work other teams have done and benefit from their own inability to actually be creative by any means necessary. One wonders ... is this just a Ferrari failing to succeed on their own merits ... yet once again, or the Italian dogma of refuse to lose at all costs, so do whatever you gotta do? If they cant cheat, and dont have a real innovative leader, then are they just a mid pack runner?
That was Enzo's modus operandi from the very beginning. Late to catch on to disc brakes, late to catch on to independent rear suspensions (in the street cars, at least), late to catch on to mid-engined cars, late to catch on to aerodynamics...
Stil Damon took the championship that year. Well it went to Schumacher but it was actually Damon's 😉
Let’s be honest though, this car would have won every race or close to from imola onwards With senna. Oh god, are we still saying he crashed because of handling issues and ride height?😂
Berger: Estoril
What happened to your What-If-Senna-Survived -video?
I think there should be a Hollywood movie about Imola 94. It is probably the most talked about GP weekend ever... but sadly for the wrong reasons.
A film of the whole season would be good. But you know it’s going to end up like the senna doc and be vetted by the family to make it seem like Benetton and Michael were worse than Lance Armstrong.
@@AidanMillward I didn't really see the Senna Doc slagging off Michael. If anything it was more Senna v Prost for most of it
@AidanMillward benetton did cheat in my mind. Option 13, a subject you love is like a swear word to me. It is like dirty tactics.
Should have built in a Benetton defense shield to the car IMO
9:53
One day, Aidan. One day, you'll manage a video w/o typos in it.
I believe in you, Mate! 👊🏻✌🏻
Noticed That typo as well in the video
I don't think the Fw16 was bad.
It was as good as the Fw14 from 1991. Drivers said,about the Fw14,it had a lack of traction. And yet they scored podiums and Victories.
I think the fact that made it "go wrong" was the combination of mistakes and bad decisions. Taking Senna onboard was a bad one. He never had to live with a poor traction car as the Fw16, and he expected to have a good car in this aspect. Now, his McLarens were very good at traction. So why would not the Williams be? I think he did Not know how to manage that.
Also getting Damon Hill, a Rockie in his 2nd full year wasn't also a good choice. The kid was not a superstar and will never be. He was okay but maybe Patrese would have performed way better in this car that he might have understand quickly super well as he drove the Fw14.
Now again the succession of mistakes from 1992 (firing Mansell and getting Prost who after 1993 decided to retire and also not being able to keep Patrese neither Mansell the two original drivers of a car like the Fw16) wasn't particularly any good idea.
But they did.
You have to add to this that MSC was growing up quick and Benetton too. And they did a fantastic job.
BUT check what Mansell achieved in 4 races non consecutive while he was driving at Indycar. He put the car easily in front row at his first appearance. Why? Because he was used to drive a very very similar car in 1991 and knew how to properly handle it. He also put in on pole in his last race for Williams in Australia and was about to end up 3r but got the win.
That speaks by itself. The lack of traction is something Ayrton wasn't used to and Damon was probably so inexperienced in a car like it that none of them understood how to handle that.
If they'd have kept Mansell from 1992 onwards I think story would be very different.
How did the front wings change the cars?
2:35 and even after, during the Villeneuve years Ferrari was testing a sort os secuential gearbox, but Villeneuve hated it.
CVT was so powerful that Coulthard lapped Silverstone 3 seconds faster than the pole of that same season. FIA banned it even before of its debut.
I believed that the steering column broke for many years but bear with me. If you watch closely, at roughly the same time some interference comes on the screen, the rear steps out quite a lot. You can see from Schumacher's onboard that this coincides with a bottom out. It could have also come from a slow rear right puncture, as Newey states or the FW16 being a turd in general. Why Senna wasn't able to catch the slide could be down to 4 things: He was caught by surprise as he was already thinking about the next corner; That car was a pig to drive; There simply wasn't enough road; He didn't want to over correct like he did in Brazil earlier that year. Perhaps a combination of all 4. However one thing is certain: the rear wouldn't step out if the steering broke. The was would just head off straight into the wall.
None of it would ever happen if ferrari didn't ask the FIA to change the rule only because they were dumb enough to perfect the technology others did.
Could have broken as he counter-steered, which would explain the "over" correction: column stayed centered even as he returned the wheel to left.
Bottomed out and column failure at the exact same time can’t catch it either a steering wheel in your lap
Jody Scheckter raced with the number 0 at McLaren in the early 70s.
thank-you!
So the RB19 quite likely owes its dominance to the lessons learnt from the FW16 - you can't teach that!
Newey's experience in IndyCar (venturi tunnels) is likely more to credit than the FW16
This is a positive comment for the TH-cam algorithm
8:20 Who is "The Michael" and is he someone important? :D
He’s Talking About Michael Schumacher
@@Literallyme-lz7vg It was a joke...;).
@@MrReese understandable have a nice day ✌🏻
Everyone was having issues with their cars in 1994, not just Williams. McLaren had those horrid Peugeot engines, Ferrari were still trying to recover from their awful 1992 and 1993 seasons (their cars were rubbish so they made sure everyone else went back to their level using the FIA), Tyrrell were still using the terribly unreliable Yamaha V10, Lotus were on life support (soon joined in bankruptcy by Pacific and Simtek), Footwork, Ligier, Sauber and Minardi were midfield at best and Larrouse were bottom of the grid really. The only teams with a positive outlook for 1994 were Jordan and Benetton - Benetton with their "software development" and Jordan getting some reliability from their Hart V10s at last.
Ligier was under tremendous financial pressure too. So bad they actually pulled a Haas 2021 in 1994 on their otherwise pretty ok 1993 car (best of the rest behind the big 4). Larrousse had always been struggling (like Minardi), but Sauber and Footwork-Arrows looked alright. While it was using 1993 Ford engines, the car was agile and pretty fast on the slow to mid-speed tracks. Quite possibly one of the better chassis on the grid.
I've often wondered if Senna would have been champion in 94 had he lived.
based on how much quicker he was than Hill, I think it's a safe bet that he would have done.
Pele (healthy) never played a bad game. The exception to proves the rule.
No, Bottas would have had raced with Nr.2, Hamilton with Nr.0.
At 3:45, wouldn't Hamilton get 0 and Bottas 2? the new guy at the team (Senna/Bottas) gets 2 whilst the remaining teammate (Hill/Hamilton) got 0
Hamilton would have 2 since he was already there after Rosberg won
Yeah both joined Williams the winning title holder and this eligible for 1+2 but 1 reserved for champion. No champion so 0 or 2. Try telling Senna he's gotta have 0 😅
fascianating video
First time i've heard about Newey admitting he screwed up! Bet patrick wasn't impressed !