Why was the death of Ayrton Senna so controversial? [Part 6]

The controversial practice of the race marshals (PART 2):

Although the race marshals were already under scrutiny for the handling of Rubens Barichello’s condition their neglect stemmed far beyond this during the weekend. They were open to more controversy as when Senna was receiving track side attention after his crash they allowed another car on track. After Senna’s incident the race was red flagged. Under FIA regulation this meant that the on track action was suspended until further notice. As part of this no driver is allowed to leave the pit garages and resume driving. (Wikipedia, 2014) Yet despite this, as medical attention is being administered to Senna, the broadcast picks up sound of a car starting up and leaving the pit garages. Then the camera sees the potentially disastrous incident whereby Erik Comas driving in his Larrousse shoots round Tamburello at racing speed heading towards all the exposed medical staff, ambulances and air rescue helicopter. (Казаков, 2013, p. 11:36)The controversy arises as to how Comas was allowed to leave the pits under red flag conditions. The responsibility of which either lies with the race marshals or his team, Larrousse, for ignoring or being ignorant of rules or track condition and sending Comas out in his car. Once again this suggests further negligence attributing to the controversies that surround the death of Ayrton Senna.   

Unfortunately this is not the end of the marshals’ malpractice. Adrian Newey, Williams F1’s chief designer controversially blamed Senna’s entire accident on an event that could have been prevented by the race marshals. A puncture. As the lights when out for the 1994 Imola Grand Prix JJ Lehto stalled his Benetton on the grid, leaving him helpless and relying on the cars behind him to react fast enough and avoid careering into the back of his car. All the drivers as far back as the 11^th row of the grid managed to avoid the stationary car. However as Pedro Lamy approached his view was blocked by the cars in front of his Lotus 107C. Therefore as soon at Lehto came into view Lamy had little time to react. As such his car hit the back of Lehto. This pitched debris up into the air and into the crowd hitting 4 spectators. (Hilton, 1999, p. 197)

The controversy of this specific issue is whether or not the marshals did a sufficient job of clearing the on track debris.  Adrian Newey sights the cause of crash as a puncture picked up on Lap 7. Thus causing a drop of pressure in the tyres in turn lowering the car ride height and causing the afore mentioned loss of grip from the absence of the ‘ground effect’ principle. He is quoted as having said, “the car bottomed out much harder on that second lap which again appears to be unusual because the tyre pressure should have come up by then – which leaves you expecting that the right rear tyre probably picked up a puncture from debris on the track." (McCrae, 2011) Newey therefore attributes the death to a debris related puncture. In Newey’s defence, a puncture related accident is plausible. In the wake of Senna’s death, controversial images immerged of a piece of debris on track at the entrance to Tamburello with the trajectory of Senna’s car aiming straight for it. With such fine margins in Formula 1, this single piece of debris may well be attributed to the cause of the accident. However the origin of these photos and the likely hood of the debris affecting Senna’s car was widely debated. Therefore whether it be the debris itself or the fabrication of these images, the ‘puncture theory’ contributes in making the death of Ayrton Senna controversial.

Therefore once again the marshals are brought into question as a source of controversy. Although the quantity of debris from Lehto and Lamy’s was colossal, necessary precautions should have taken place to ensure that the race was only restarted after the entirety of the pieces of carbon fibre had been removed from the track. This responsibility, if true, therefore lies with the race officials and the marshals for not ensuring that the correct and full procedure was followed. Either way it seemingly only adds to the inevitable conclusion that the death of Ayrton Senna was so controversial because of the amount of neglect that occurred on all fronts and in every sector of the sport.

Conclusion:

In conclusion there is a great array of conflicting and varying reasons as to why Senna’s accident occurred. As a result his death remains a colossal source of controversy. Ayrton Senna’s death was a landmark episode in history. Look beyond his on track ability, his cult hero status and the romantic tales of the past and there lies a dark truth behind the events that surrounded his accident.  It must be noted that as the cause of the crash is still unconfirmed, the death cannot and may not have included or have been caused by any one of the factors listed. But nevertheless one has to conclude that by virtue of the illegal practice, neglect, mortality and lack of answers that encircle the race weekend and trial that this event is certainly the most controversial in Formula One’s past.