20/21 Years Later - Senna Vs Prost

[ADx_Wales]

1989, Suzuka, Prost and Senna collide into the Casio Triangle, Prost out, Senna continues and wins. But is Immediately Disqualified. Prost Wins Title.

1990, Suzuka, Prost and Senna collide into the first turn, both retire. Senna Wins Title.

Imagine these two Incidents happening In the current climate of F1, obviously the safety measures in place after Senna's fate make this concept inconcievable, How would the FIA Stewarding of this year take to the lightening striking twice... even with the likes of Tom Kristensen and Danny Sullivain deciding the fate of their (far more) superiors?

[Phoenix]

For the 1989 incident, they'd have punished Senna with a drive-through, perhaps, but they wouldn't have disqualified him. As for 1990, Senna would have been immediately disqualified from the championship a la Michael Schumacher 1997 and banned from motor racing for at least quite a bit of time.

[mario]

For the 1989 incident, they'd have punished Senna with a drive-through, perhaps, but they wouldn't have disqualified him. As for 1990, Senna would have been immediately disqualified from the championship a la Michael Schumacher 1997 and banned from motor racing for at least quite a bit of time.

Given that Senna was disqualified for receiving external assistance (being push started by the stewards down the escape road), I would have to assume that the same penalty would have been applied. After all, whilst the exact nature of the 1989 collision between Prost and Senna is still up for discussion, what cannot be disputed was that Senna did rejoin the race as a result of being push started by the marshalls.
At the time, and still today, that is an instant disqualification unless his car was in a dangerous positon and had to be moved (which was why, for example, Hamilton could continue at the European GP in 2007 - and also in part because the rules did not outlaw external mechanical assistance in the form of the marshalls crane at the time). Possibly, with a former driver on the panel, he might have been able to argue the "dangerous position" defence, but I suspect that the stewards would still have disqualified him today, even with that defence.

As for 1990, the problem there is that, at the time, nobody knew that Senna's move was premeditated, and that only came out much later, when the time had already passed for the FIA to take any retrospective action. If you did not know in advance that it was a deliberate crash, then from the video footage, you might be mistaken for not realising it was intentional.
If the stewards were deceived, and mistook it for a "racing incident", then Senna would, under todays rules, probably receive a grid penalty at the next race for "causing an avoidable accident". If the stewards did suspect that something was up, and these days they probably would have better telemetry and video footage available to them to help them, they would probably refer the situation to the WMSC and let them decide what to do (like 1997 - there, the stewards referred Schumacher to the WMSC and they were the ones who disqualified him from the Championship, not the stewards).

[watka]

As for 1990, the problem there is that, at the time, nobody knew that Senna's move was premeditated, and that only came out much later, when the time had already passed for the FIA to take any retrospective action. If you did not know in advance that it was a deliberate crash, then from the video footage, you might be mistaken for not realising it was intentional.
If the stewards were deceived, and mistook it for a "racing incident", then Senna would, under todays rules, probably receive a grid penalty at the next race for "causing an avoidable accident". If the stewards did suspect that something was up, and these days they probably would have better telemetry and video footage available to them to help them, they would probably refer the situation to the WMSC and let them decide what to do (like 1997 - there, the stewards referred Schumacher to the WMSC and they were the ones who disqualified him from the Championship, not the stewards).

I always assumed this was premediated. Didn't Senna get angry that he was made to start on pole on the dirty side of the track, and then publicly declared that if Prost was ahead by the first turn, he wasn't going to make it any further?

[ADx_Wales]

Senna got angry when they said nobody is to cut the Casio Triangle if they overshoot the braking area.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49qF32Pazwc

[eagleash]

As for 1990, the problem there is that, at the time, nobody knew that Senna's move was premeditated, and that only came out much later, when the time had already passed for the FIA to take any retrospective action. If you did not know in advance that it was a deliberate crash, then from the video footage, you might be mistaken for not realising it was intentional.
If the stewards were deceived, and mistook it for a "racing incident", then Senna would, under todays rules, probably receive a grid penalty at the next race for "causing an avoidable accident". If the stewards did suspect that something was up, and these days they probably would have better telemetry and video footage available to them to help them, they would probably refer the situation to the WMSC and let them decide what to do (like 1997 - there, the stewards referred Schumacher to the WMSC and they were the ones who disqualified him from the Championship, not the stewards).

I always assumed this was premediated. Didn't Senna get angry that he was made to start on pole on the dirty side of the track, and then publicly declared that if Prost was ahead by the first turn, he wasn't going to make it any further?

Yes, that's how I remember it from the time. (?).
Senna said something like "I'm going to go for the first corner & if Alain's in the way, so be it".
He did, Alain was, it be'd.

[Ferrim]

The thing is that Senna doesn't deliberately crash into Prost. It's actually Prost the one who turns in and crashes against Senna. Of course, it's completely Senna's fault there, and they crash because Senna wants to. He decided to take the inside line and drive as if Prost wasn't there, but you can see that he's turning slightly right all the time, until they impact, because he was actually trying to take the corner. He could have just kept driving on a straight line and accelerating.

I'm not defending Senna here by any means, what he did was a disgrace because he decided he was going to be leading after the first corner no matter what. He knew there would most likely be a collision and he didn't care. So he deliberately caused an incident, even if it wasn't exactly turning into Prost (think about Schumacher vs. Villeneuve in '97, for comparison). But at the time you could think it was a racing incident, like you could think of the Schumacher-Hill collision at Adelaide in 1994.

[Cynon]

For the 1989 incident, they'd have punished Senna with a drive-through, perhaps, but they wouldn't have disqualified him. As for 1990, Senna would have been immediately disqualified from the championship a la Michael Schumacher 1997 and banned from motor racing for at least quite a bit of time.

1991 - Senna to CART, probably to drive for Tony Bettenhausen because that team was basically Roger Penske's B-Team until Stefan Johansson proved to be a dud. By the way, the Tony Bettenhausen team eventually became Minardi Team USA in Champ Car ... and that team is now back to being HVM Racing...

...because CART I don't think was a part of the FIA. USAC (which sanctioned the Indianapolis 500) certainly was, though.

[mario]

The thing is that Senna doesn't deliberately crash into Prost. It's actually Prost the one who turns in and crashes against Senna. Of course, it's completely Senna's fault there, and they crash because Senna wants to. He decided to take the inside line and drive as if Prost wasn't there, but you can see that he's turning slightly right all the time, until they impact, because he was actually trying to take the corner. He could have just kept driving on a straight line and accelerating.

I'm not defending Senna here by any means, what he did was a disgrace because he decided he was going to be leading after the first corner no matter what. He knew there would most likely be a collision and he didn't care. So he deliberately caused an incident, even if it wasn't exactly turning into Prost (think about Schumacher vs. Villeneuve in '97, for comparison). But at the time you could think it was a racing incident, like you could think of the Schumacher-Hill collision at Adelaide in 1994.

That was what I was trying to get at - Senna had been very clever in how he phrased his comments, because he made it sound as if he was simply going to go for any possible gap that there would be when going into the first corner. And, when the two collided, Senna was taking a tight inside line, whilst Prost was sweeping across from the more traditional wide line and relying on Senna to lift off. Of course, Senna was not going to lift off, and a collision was inevitable, but the way that it happened was such that it looked more like a desperate lunge by Senna then a planned manoeuvre.

[TomWazzleshaw]

The thing is that Senna doesn't deliberately crash into Prost. It's actually Prost the one who turns in and crashes against Senna. Of course, it's completely Senna's fault there, and they crash because Senna wants to. He decided to take the inside line and drive as if Prost wasn't there, but you can see that he's turning slightly right all the time, until they impact, because he was actually trying to take the corner. He could have just kept driving on a straight line and accelerating.

I'm not defending Senna here by any means, what he did was a disgrace because he decided he was going to be leading after the first corner no matter what. He knew there would most likely be a collision and he didn't care. So he deliberately caused an incident, even if it wasn't exactly turning into Prost (think about Schumacher vs. Villeneuve in '97, for comparison). But at the time you could think it was a racing incident, like you could think of the Schumacher-Hill collision at Adelaide in 1994.

That was what I was trying to get at - Senna had been very clever in how he phrased his comments, because he made it sound as if he was simply going to go for any possible gap that there would be when going into the first corner. And, when the two collided, Senna was taking a tight inside line, whilst Prost was sweeping across from the more traditional wide line and relying on Senna to lift off. Of course, Senna was not going to lift off, and a collision was inevitable, but the way that it happened was such that it looked more like a desperate lunge by Senna then a planned manoeuvre.

So what you're saying is Senna was even more of a genius (abit a flawed one) than we give him credit to be?

[Aerond]

The 1990 collision would never happen today, as it happened in the first place because the stewards rejected to move the Pole Position to the outside as Senna asked (the inside was dirtier and Senna knew that he was probably going to be passed by Prost at the start). If that happened today the drivers would be listened in that matter.

[Myrvold]

I think you assume that FIA, the stewards and Charlie has become wiser, not so sure

However, Bernie can't walk on the grid and say "you will drive!" anywmore. That's a shame!

[CarlosFerreira]

All very good points.

The Schumacher-Villeneuve incident set the scene for future action; anyone doing that sort of thing would be disqualified on the spot.

What worries me is a different situation. I give you Abu Dhabi 2010: points leader Fernando Alonso, 1 point ahead of Australia's Mark Webber, defends from an overtaking maneuver from his Championship rival. They brush, they touch (as they have in the past) and Mark comes off the worst, on only 3 wheels, while Fernando powers on to win the Championship. Analysis of telemetry is inconclusive: Fernando did turn in on Mark, but he was also fighting oversteer, caused by early and eager application of power. Now, the Internet IMPLODES under the weight of protests and arguments, Joe Saward goes apoplectic, and Captain Hammer find himself awkwardly agreeing with him.

The stewards grind to a halt. And a bunch of men in suits are left to decide the outcome of the WDC. That, my friends, in the real nightmare scenario.

Oh, and Kristensen? Only Schumacher can hope to hold a candle to Tom. True legend.

[ADx_Wales]

Also, I would like to throw Senna's "Overtaking" Style into question...

..The "Put yourself in a position that the overtake-ee has to concede to otherwise you both go out" Method, or the "Senna Method".

If someone did that recently and failed, they would get penalised, there were several occasions when Senna did this and caused a retirement, Nannini in Hungary 1990 springs instantly to mind, because I Liked Nannini and was not impressed that nothing was done about Senna.

[Ferrim]

Also, I would like to throw Senna's "Overtaking" Style into question...

..The "Put yourself in a position that the overtake-ee has to concede to otherwise you both go out" Method, or the "Senna Method".

If someone did that recently and failed, they would get penalised, there were several occasions when Senna did this and caused a retirement, Nannini in Hungary 1990 springs instantly to mind, because I Liked Nannini and was not impressed that nothing was done about Senna.

Senna himself would tell you that "if you no longer go for a gap that exists, then you're no longer a racing driver"

Someone posted that part of his famous interview with Jackie Stewart on the Autosport forums after Hamilton's first lap crash at Monza, which was clearly a brainfade by him, trying to justify it. I couldn't but answer that this argument is null and void since there wasn't a gap down Massa's inside (Alonso was there). That's the kind of thing Senna used to do, certainly.

BTW, what about their 1989 crash? It is also part of this "Senna style" of overtaking that we are discussing, although I find it to be one of the most justified instances of it. Firstly because he desperately needed to pass Prost to keep his title chances alive, and secondly because I feel Prost chose to collide there. When you see it for the first time you feel that Senna was just trying to pass from too far behind (probably thinking about his "if you no longer go for a gap" thing, to justify himself and feel all was fine), Prost turned in normally (as he couldn't expect Senna attacking him from so far behind) and they crashed.

But I've seen two revealing shots: one of them of Prost's on board camera, that shows him turning in in a very radical way (similar to Schumacher at Jerez in '97); the second one was taken from an helicopter, and shows that the way Prost was turning in, he would cut the corner if Senna wasn't there. My feeling is that Senna was wrong there, but Prost was no angel either.

[kowalski]

But I've seen two revealing shots: one of them of Prost's on board camera, that shows him turning in in a very radical way (similar to Schumacher at Jerez in '97); the second one was taken from an helicopter, and shows that the way Prost was turning in, he would cut the corner if Senna wasn't there. My feeling is that Senna was wrong there, but Prost was no angel either.

eh?

Prost wanted to go out? to get public sympathy? not in a million years....

I don't think Senna would even have gotten around the corner the speed he went in... I know we all love the folk hero Senna but to try and claim 'Prost crashed into Senna' is madness...

[ADx_Wales]

eh?

Prost wanted to go out? to get public sympathy? not in a million years....

Prost, Championship Contender despite McLaren's Honda mechanics, and quite possibly Big Ron, being on the side of Senna now that the FRENCHMAN, was to leave for Ferrari, and made it quite clear that he was no longer being treated fairly despite being close-knit with the Ojjehs who were responsible for the TAG-Porsches, and who are still part of the McLaren financial setup, proof of this can be found in the John Watson episode of the Motorsport Magazine Podcast <plug plug etc.>.

The FIA was not as unified back then, before Mosely, Jean-Marie Balestre, FRENCHMAN, was seen to be on the side of his countryman all the way through the post-Suzuka incident, even had senna BANNED for the 1990 F1 season to a point.

Conspiracy Theorists would have stood up back then...

And we all remember Prost's demands of not going ahead with the complete deluge that was the 1989 Australian Grand Prix too, only for the drivers to change their mind at the last minute.

The Afava video which document's Prost's race history up until the begining of the 1993 season also suggests that Prost is considerd a "moaner".

To a point everyone wants everything their way, sometimes we wake up to the fact that we have to give a little to get something, Prost is/was a person who wanted things HIS way, Not just with his Leadership of the McLaren team, but also being able to screw Nigel Mansell over in the British GP of 1990, Mansell had the faster car in Qually, and Prost practically got the Ferrari team to steal it off Nigel, Prost won the race, Nigel announced his retirement from F1, also no angel himself coming to think of it. But these attitudes rub off on other people. Prost would also sign for Williams in the end of 1992, which triggerd Mansell's second retirement announcement, but this is spreading away from the main topic of the biggest rivalry in F1, I suppose it's all relative though.

[Ferrim]

But I've seen two revealing shots: one of them of Prost's on board camera, that shows him turning in in a very radical way (similar to Schumacher at Jerez in '97); the second one was taken from an helicopter, and shows that the way Prost was turning in, he would cut the corner if Senna wasn't there. My feeling is that Senna was wrong there, but Prost was no angel either.

eh?

Prost wanted to go out? to get public sympathy? not in a million years....

I don't think Senna would even have gotten around the corner the speed he went in... I know we all love the folk hero Senna but to try and claim 'Prost crashed into Senna' is madness...

I'm talking about the 1989 incident, just in case. Crashing in 1990 made no sense for Prost, but it did in 1989: it settled the title in his favour.

[bighaydo]

About the 1990 accident, Massa got away without a penalty in 2010... but I suppose they would have been far more draconian if the title was on the line and Liuzzi was in contention...

1989 - to my eye that was always Prost's fault - he was probably in a less generous mood about when Senna would send one up the inside having been made a fool in Imola earlier in the year. Senna did come from a long way back, but made a similar pass stick on Nannini later on. I think Prost's premeditation was obvious when he unclipped his belts and hopped out within seconds of the accident... Jo Ramirez has commented that Prost "made the biggest mistake of his life" that day because there was no damaged bodywork on Prost's car and air in all four tyres - so he could have kept going without the pitstop that Senna needed to make!

Senna was in enough trouble after 1989 - they didn't grant him his superlicence until just before the first race in Phoenix!

[mario]

About the 1990 accident, Massa got away without a penalty in 2010... but I suppose they would have been far more draconian if the title was on the line and Liuzzi was in contention...

1989 - to my eye that was always Prost's fault - he was probably in a less generous mood about when Senna would send one up the inside having been made a fool in Imola earlier in the year. Senna did come from a long way back, but made a similar pass stick on Nannini later on. I think Prost's premeditation was obvious when he unclipped his belts and hopped out within seconds of the accident... Jo Ramirez has commented that Prost "made the biggest mistake of his life" that day because there was no damaged bodywork on Prost's car and air in all four tyres - so he could have kept going without the pitstop that Senna needed to make!

Senna was in enough trouble after 1989 - they didn't grant him his superlicence until just before the first race in Phoenix!

Hmm, even now it seems that the debate about what happened all those years ago rumbles on (and, on a side note, I agree that were Massa and Liuzzi the ones fighting for the title, the stewards would have probably had a closer look at that accident).

Did Prost intend on taking Senna out in 1989? It is hard to say. True, he did turn into the corner is a slightly odd way, and the fact that he got out of the car so quickly does perhaps seem odd. On the other hand, Prost probably assumed that as he had stalled, he could not restart the race, and there was no point in staying in the car - a push start from the stewards would have probably lead to a disqualification, as it did for Senna. And even by Senna's standards, his passing move came from a very long way back, and seemed quite desperate - I have to agree with many that there is a good chance that, had Prost not his Senna, that Senna would probably have gone wide, or even off the track, such was the speed he carried into the corner.
Personally, I am not entirely convinced that Prost wanted to take Senna out - however, I think that if he saw that the two of them were going to come together, he was going to leave it up to Senna to take avoiding action (in other words, not intentionally seeking an accident, but not actively seeking to avoid one either).

[bighaydo]

Weird thing is about Suzuka 1989 - what was the specific reason for Senna being DQ'd at the end? Was it for receiving external assistance, dangerous driving or for omitting the Casio Triangle when he rejoined the racetrack? I've heard accounts on all sides of the equation... I know Jean Marie Balestre played his hand and prevented Senna from stepping onto the rostrum, but did we ever get an official reason behind it all?

If omitting the chicane was the reason for the DQ, this explains what upset Ayrton in the infamous driver briefing clip when he stormed out - they were talking about what happens if you overshoot the chicane and Ayrton was trying to reason that it was dangerous for people to turn around and head in the opposite direction. Cutting the chicane would be the more logical choice, and given the bollards in place there would have been no advantage gained.

I always found it ironic that at the Nurburgring in 2003 with Schumacher (and in 2007 with Hamilton) how the external assistance was justified through the car being in a dangerous position - by putting more people in a more dangerous position to move it!

Gotta love grey areas!

[Ferrim]

Did Prost intend on taking Senna out in 1989? It is hard to say. True, he did turn into the corner is a slightly odd way, and the fact that he got out of the car so quickly does perhaps seem odd.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=V7V6ON5P

This is the footage I was referring to earlier in this thread.

Just look at the onboard from 00:50. By 00:58 it's obvious (to me at least) that Prost was never going to make that corner, because he wasn't even trying anymore, he was turning towards Senna. I hadn't seen this for years (it was in an old CD of mine, circa 2004) and didn't remember how blatant it was.

[bighaydo]

Did Prost intend on taking Senna out in 1989? It is hard to say. True, he did turn into the corner is a slightly odd way, and the fact that he got out of the car so quickly does perhaps seem odd.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=V7V6ON5P

This is the footage I was referring to earlier in this thread.

Just look at the onboard from 00:50. By 00:58 it's obvious (to me at least) that Prost was never going to make that corner, because he wasn't even trying anymore, he was turning towards Senna. I hadn't seen this for years (it was in an old CD of mine, circa 2004) and didn't remember how blatant it was.

I haven't seen a great deal of inboard footage with Prost, but is it normal for him to have moved his right hand to around 1-2 o'clock when his left is at 9?

Was he suspecting that he might have dislocated his thumb should he have hit something?

Haven't seen this for a while either - how narrow is the run up to the chicane!?