planetf1.com

Siao7 wrote:I have no bias, but thanks for that. You realise that Senna admitted it himself about the accident, right? And do you feel that anyone who feels wronged by the stewards should go out and ram people? Or as you say give them the chance to get out of the way or crash?

Do you really feel that he gave Prost the chance to decide? If you tell someone "I'll kick you or punch you, the choice is yours", you are not giving them a choice my friend...

By the way it was the stewards that agreed the change, but they were not the ones that should have made that change.

Look, many think that this was justified in light of the chicane incident the year before, if people want to think that revenge is OK on a high speed corner (in which someone was killed in a similar accident a few years later) then they can I suppose.

I agree that he felt aggravated as you pointed out, but that doesn't excuse it. I didn't discount this fact, but he had the time to sit and think it over and decide his course of action, one that didn't involve risking his colleague's life preferably. It was a high speed corner incident that was outright stupid and dangerous, no amount of aggravation can justify that. He knowingly put Prost's life in danger, so I don't get it how you don't want to think of this as a cold and calculated move.

I was not in MS's head, nor were you for that matter. The first incident was pretty much him trying to block the inside line when he was ahead and botched it. Even Hill said he should have waited and pass later on. You can see foul intentions if you want, but I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt, thank you.

With JV he did it out of desperation, saw it getting out of his hands and did the move that he saw went unpunished at least twice before. But there is a difference of making a decision like this in the calm of your room the day before and right there in the race, even in the lap before as you say. You may not want to buy it, which is cool. I have never forgiven him for that move myself, it was stupid to say the least.

Did I ever in my post suggest that I support what Senna did? And can you point me to the quote from Senna where he said I took him out? From what I am aware, all Senna confessed to was that Prost was not going to turn the corner before him. And your analogy is totally wrong. Prost was given a choice, crash or let off which is more akin to " I will punch you or you have the choice of running away". Guess which one Prost chose. That is beside the point. All I did was point out that Senna was aggravated because of the politics that Prost and JMB were playing and the collision was the result of that.

I don't think Shumi's attempt in 1994 was a botched block. He had damaged his car. And considering these guys are professional drivers and Schumi was not really a rookie, he knew he was not finishing the race. Hill saying that he should have waited doesn't change the fact that Shumi decided to attack Hill in the corner. His race was done. Now whether he was thinking of forcing Hill to crash on his own accord or he was trying to take him out is debatable as you mentioned, I was not there in his head. I would have still considered this as a one time mistake done in the heat of championship battle, however since he repeated this same tactic again I am not willing to give him the benefit of doubt. And the difference between Senna and Schumacher was that at least Senna confessed and mentioned the reasons for his actions. Schumacher never accepted his mistakes and never accepted that he did anything wrong. Which tells me one was a more emotional reaction and the other was a character flaw. As I mentioned in my previous post, if your first goto plan at the sign of losing is trying to take your championship rival out of the race, you have a character flaw and can and should be labelled a cheater.

Fiki wrote:

souvikbh1980 wrote:Yes, the pole position was always on the dirty side in Suzuka, and Senna saw the effect each time he started from pole, he lost ground to Prost. Both in 88 (though in 88 I think he stalled--I might be wrong) and 89. So why shouldn't he complain about it? He took more risks than Prost in qualifying was faster than Prost, why should he not get the benefit of starting from pole?

Dirty or clean wasn't a consideration at that time, pole position was on the side of the track giving the polesitter the shortest distance to the inside of the first corner, plus a distance advantage due to stacking of the grid.
So, saying that qualifying 2nd put Prost on "pole position" is false. It is also often forgotten that drivers used to clean up the pole position by passing over that side of the grid during training sessions and qualifying, knowing they had a 50-50 chance of starting from there.

I don't know why Senna felt he had the right to demand anything concerning the side pole position should be on. But he certainly seemed to believe that winning the race on lap 1 in turn 1 was far too late. It had seemingly to be won on the starting grid.

In the years after pole position was placed on the 'clean' side of the track, it became customary for the polesitter to angle his car towards the dirty side, in order to block the driver who qualified 2nd, should he dare to have a better start anyway... That's how silly Senna's action turns out to have been in the end.

That is a weird question. He has all the right to demand that the pole position he worked hard for, gives him all the advantage he can get. Considering the fact that he saw for 2 years that he started on pole and lost ground at this very race, he had every right to demand for his advantage. And if as you mention, cleaning the side of pole was done by all drivers and there was no loss because of starting on the dirty side, maybe Senna was an idiot and should have given you a call to get that knowledge. Also why was Senna supposed to lose out on starting from pole and staying ahead of Prost? Yes he could have fought later in the race, but he knew what had happened the previous year, and this time Prost being in another team, don't you think he worried that Prost might take him out again and JMP wouldn't lift a finger to penalize him? I am not justifying his actions in the race, but he definitely had the right to demand starting on the clean side.

Also you seem to believe in a utopian racing series where every driver says "After you Sir!!" when racing. This is racing. The guy ahead always tries to block the guy behind, whereas the guy behind tries all tricks in racing books to get ahead as long as they are deemed legs. This is not a "After You Series". And this is not a new phenomenon. This has been how racing has been since the days when rich guys decided to strap themselves to tubes with 4 wheels and massive engines and called it racing. You might hear about these things regularly now, because of more media coverage and people discussing this on forums, but trust me, every champion racing driver from Nuvolari to the more recent ones have played tricks on tracks and pushed the rules to gain advantage every advantage they could get.

I think this is the "Participation Trophy Generation" which thinks that everything should be fair and equal and everyone should go home happy. Racing was never fair. Since the beginning of racing, guys with the most money got the best cars and won races.

So Stop blaming Senna about the pole being moved to the clean side of the track and therefore giving the pole sitter more advantage.

Jezza13 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

souvikbh1980 wrote:Yes, the pole position was always on the dirty side in Suzuka, and Senna saw the effect each time he started from pole, he lost ground to Prost. Both in 88 (though in 88 I think he stalled--I might be wrong) and 89. So why shouldn't he complain about it? He took more risks than Prost in qualifying was faster than Prost, why should he not get the benefit of starting from pole?

Dirty or clean wasn't a consideration at that time, pole position was on the side of the track giving the polesitter the shortest distance to the inside of the first corner, plus a distance advantage due to stacking of the grid.
.

I'm not quite sure what the rule regarding the location of pole was at that time.

Below is a summary of the location of pole position at each track during the 1990 season.

On racing line / outside of 1st corner:
Brazil
Australia
Germany
Hungary
Portugal
Mexico

Off racing line / inside of 1st corner:
France
Japan
Great Britain
Spain
USA

On racing line / inside of 1st corner:
Belgium
Italy
Monaco
Imola
Canada

Thanks for that research. Clearly there was more to it then I was told in the early eighties. At least it shows being on the racing line was no factor.

souvikbh1980 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

souvikbh1980 wrote:Yes, the pole position was always on the dirty side in Suzuka, and Senna saw the effect each time he started from pole, he lost ground to Prost. Both in 88 (though in 88 I think he stalled--I might be wrong) and 89. So why shouldn't he complain about it? He took more risks than Prost in qualifying was faster than Prost, why should he not get the benefit of starting from pole?

Dirty or clean wasn't a consideration at that time, pole position was on the side of the track giving the polesitter the shortest distance to the inside of the first corner, plus a distance advantage due to stacking of the grid.
So, saying that qualifying 2nd put Prost on "pole position" is false. It is also often forgotten that drivers used to clean up the pole position by passing over that side of the grid during training sessions and qualifying, knowing they had a 50-50 chance of starting from there.

I don't know why Senna felt he had the right to demand anything concerning the side pole position should be on. But he certainly seemed to believe that winning the race on lap 1 in turn 1 was far too late. It had seemingly to be won on the starting grid.

In the years after pole position was placed on the 'clean' side of the track, it became customary for the polesitter to angle his car towards the dirty side, in order to block the driver who qualified 2nd, should he dare to have a better start anyway... That's how silly Senna's action turns out to have been in the end.

That is a weird question. He has all the right to demand that the pole position he worked hard for, gives him all the advantage he can get. Considering the fact that he saw for 2 years that he started on pole and lost ground at this very race, he had every right to demand for his advantage. And if as you mention, cleaning the side of pole was done by all drivers and there was no loss because of starting on the dirty side, maybe Senna was an idiot and should have given you a call to get that knowledge. Also why was Senna supposed to lose out on starting from pole and staying ahead of Prost? Yes he could have fought later in the race, but he knew what had happened the previous year, and this time Prost being in another team, don't you think he worried that Prost might take him out again and JMP wouldn't lift a finger to penalize him? I am not justifying his actions in the race, but he definitely had the right to demand starting on the clean side.

Don't you think the other drivers on the grid had worked hard for their position? I know Berger supported Senna in his demand, but changing the side pole position was on, affected the position of every single driver in the race.
If Senna didn't know something I knew about cleaning up the grid, then perhaps he needed to watch what other drivers did during the weekend? I know he wasn't an idiot, and that he knew people were cleaning up the grid and why they did so.
I have no idea who JMP is supposed to be.

souvikbh1980 wrote:Also you seem to believe in a utopian racing series where every driver says "After you Sir!!" when racing. This is racing. The guy ahead always tries to block the guy behind, whereas the guy behind tries all tricks in racing books to get ahead as long as they are deemed legs. This is not a "After You Series". And this is not a new phenomenon. This has been how racing has been since the days when rich guys decided to strap themselves to tubes with 4 wheels and massive engines and called it racing. You might hear about these things regularly now, because of more media coverage and people discussing this on forums, but trust me, every champion racing driver from Nuvolari to the more recent ones have played tricks on tracks and pushed the rules to gain advantage every advantage they could get.

I think this is the "Participation Trophy Generation" which thinks that everything should be fair and equal and everyone should go home happy. Racing was never fair. Since the beginning of racing, guys with the most money got the best cars and won races.

I have no idea what the "Participation Trophy Generation" is supposed to be, but if drivers can't compete fairly, they should be removed from the racing - rich or otherwise. That's what you do with cheaters.

souvikbh1980 wrote:So Stop blaming Senna about the pole being moved to the clean side of the track and therefore giving the pole sitter more advantage.

I don't blame Senna for trying to get the pole moved to the clean side. I blame him for making a song and dance about it, while forgetting there were drivers up and down the grid being affected by it. And I blame him even more for risking the life of a fellow competitor by taking him out deliberately in turn 1.

lamo wrote:If Alain Prost "beat" Schumacher in 1993 then surely Damon Hill out did Michael too or maybe it was just the car? Prost was pretty poor in 1993 and was lucky to beat Damon by such a margin. Hill broke down from the lead 2 or 3 times that season.

Prost made quite a few errors too, spinning out in Brazil, jumping the start at Monaco, stalling on the grid in Hungary.

Prost had 1 mechanical failure all season, Senna had 4. Prost beat him by 16 points in one of the most dominant cars of all time that that rarely broke down. Hill also had 4 mechanical retirements.

I forgot where I heard or read this at the time, but one commentator said that Prost had great difficulty with the car being too automated. Remember his penalty at the start of the race in Monaco? Or his problems in Donington? It was said his own gentle, subtle way of treating his car got in the way of how the car needed to be treated to let the systems do all the work. I wouldn't be surprised if his age were a factor in this too.

I wonder whether Mansell had the same kind of problem in 1991. If so, then Patrese does seem to have had the upper hand during that season, until told he wasn't supposed to be winning.

souvikbh1980 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:I have no bias, but thanks for that. You realise that Senna admitted it himself about the accident, right? And do you feel that anyone who feels wronged by the stewards should go out and ram people? Or as you say give them the chance to get out of the way or crash?

Do you really feel that he gave Prost the chance to decide? If you tell someone "I'll kick you or punch you, the choice is yours", you are not giving them a choice my friend...

By the way it was the stewards that agreed the change, but they were not the ones that should have made that change.

Look, many think that this was justified in light of the chicane incident the year before, if people want to think that revenge is OK on a high speed corner (in which someone was killed in a similar accident a few years later) then they can I suppose.

I agree that he felt aggravated as you pointed out, but that doesn't excuse it. I didn't discount this fact, but he had the time to sit and think it over and decide his course of action, one that didn't involve risking his colleague's life preferably. It was a high speed corner incident that was outright stupid and dangerous, no amount of aggravation can justify that. He knowingly put Prost's life in danger, so I don't get it how you don't want to think of this as a cold and calculated move.

I was not in MS's head, nor were you for that matter. The first incident was pretty much him trying to block the inside line when he was ahead and botched it. Even Hill said he should have waited and pass later on. You can see foul intentions if you want, but I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt, thank you.

With JV he did it out of desperation, saw it getting out of his hands and did the move that he saw went unpunished at least twice before. But there is a difference of making a decision like this in the calm of your room the day before and right there in the race, even in the lap before as you say. You may not want to buy it, which is cool. I have never forgiven him for that move myself, it was stupid to say the least.

Did I ever in my post suggest that I support what Senna did? And can you point me to the quote from Senna where he said I took him out? From what I am aware, all Senna confessed to was that Prost was not going to turn the corner before him. And your analogy is totally wrong. Prost was given a choice, crash or let off which is more akin to " I will punch you or you have the choice of running away". Guess which one Prost chose. That is beside the point. All I did was point out that Senna was aggravated because of the politics that Prost and JMB were playing and the collision was the result of that.

I don't think Shumi's attempt in 1994 was a botched block. He had damaged his car. And considering these guys are professional drivers and Schumi was not really a rookie, he knew he was not finishing the race. Hill saying that he should have waited doesn't change the fact that Shumi decided to attack Hill in the corner. His race was done. Now whether he was thinking of forcing Hill to crash on his own accord or he was trying to take him out is debatable as you mentioned, I was not there in his head. I would have still considered this as a one time mistake done in the heat of championship battle, however since he repeated this same tactic again I am not willing to give him the benefit of doubt. And the difference between Senna and Schumacher was that at least Senna confessed and mentioned the reasons for his actions. Schumacher never accepted his mistakes and never accepted that he did anything wrong. Which tells me one was a more emotional reaction and the other was a character flaw. As I mentioned in my previous post, if your first goto plan at the sign of losing is trying to take your championship rival out of the race, you have a character flaw and can and should be labelled a cheater.

He admitted it to a number of people, you can find Jackie Steward's article where he stated it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formul ... Prost.html

Letting off is not an option for a racing driver, you just talked about "after you sir" races. You covered it very well indeed. So there was no opton really, was there? To put the blame on Prost, especially when he wasn't aware what choice he was bring given there (I doubt Ayrton told him out of courtesy before the race), is absurd. Putting Prost's life in danger at that high speed corner was an absolutely horrible thing to do.

Let's agree to disagree regarding Schumacher 94. But you don't seem to understand that in 97 he tried the recipe that was never punished before, it was what some drivers did before, rightly or wrongly. We can leave it at that if you want

Great OP sandman, I had a look at this a few years back as well, looking at how much of a driver's career they spent at the same team as a world champion, future champion or race winner.

Although Massa, Prost, Lauda and Nico Rosberg made my top dozen or so drivers for toughest teammates, most of the drivers from before the 1980s can't compete in terms of absolute wins, poles, etc because careers were shorter.

In full seasons or near-full seasons, these are some of the drivers who had the toughest time just looking at titles and race wins, in my opinion. Not foolproof because arguably some drivers who did not get a championship or win may have been better than those who did but here are some more names that seldom, if ever, enjoyed an easy ride. In no particular order, I nominate the following:

First, some of the toughest careers in terms of teammates, in my opinion, from the 1950s that obviously intertwine with one another.

Jose Froilan Gonzalez drove alongside Alberto Ascari, Juan Manuel Fangio and Mike Hawthorn for all but the seasons where he only competed in a sporadic race or two.

Alberto Ascari drove with Fangio, Giuseppe Farina, Piero Taruffi and Hawthorn.

Peter Collins, himself a driver who may have become champion had he lived longer, drove alongside quite a group. Fangio, Hawthorn, Musso and Wolfgang von Trips.

Mike Hawthorn drove in the same teams as Ascari, Farina, Gonzalez, Collins, Musso and von Trips.

Fangio did enjoy good machinery but that was from his status as probably the best driver (Denis Jenkinson bucked conventional opinion and thought Ascari was better). He had to beat some fine drivers along the way to his five titles: Farina, Luigi Fagioli, Gonzalez, Stirling Moss, Musso and Collins. Think how different Gonzalez, Ascari, Collins, and Moss' careers may have been if Fangio hadn't recovered from his broken neck.

Also worth mentioning:

Tony Brooks was in the same teams as Moss, Phil Hill and Graham Hill for most of his career.

Bruce McLaren, who may well have emulated Jack Brabham in winning the title in a car bearing his name had he lived longer, competed alongside Brabham, Phil Hill, Denny Hulme and Jochen Rindt.

John Watson had quite a tough run of teammates. From 1978-1983 he drove in the same teams as Lauda, Prost and Patrick Tambay.

More recently, David Coulthard drove with Damon Hill, Mika Hakkinen, Kimi Raikkonen and Mark Webber, only having an “easy” time from 2005-2006 when he was partnered with Christian Klien.

Alain Prost!

lamo wrote:If Alain Prost "beat" Schumacher in 1993 then surely Damon Hill out did Michael too or maybe it was just the car? Prost was pretty poor in 1993 and was lucky to beat Damon by such a margin. Hill broke down from the lead 2 or 3 times that season.

Prost made quite a few errors too, spinning out in Brazil, jumping the start at Monaco, stalling on the grid in Hungary.

Prost had 1 mechanical failure all season, Senna had 4. Prost beat him by 16 points in one of the most dominant cars of all time that that rarely broke down. Hill also had 4 mechanical retirements.

He was past his peak and had just sat out for a year. It only makes sense that he was a bit rusty. Believe it or not the man is human

Also, "beat", who talks like that? If Hakkinen "beat" Frentzen in 1999. If Vettel "beat" Alonso in 2012. If Hamilton "beat" Ricciardo in 2014. Well yeah, they did beat them. And Prost beat everyone in 1993

souvikbh1980 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

souvikbh1980 wrote:Yes, the pole position was always on the dirty side in Suzuka, and Senna saw the effect each time he started from pole, he lost ground to Prost. Both in 88 (though in 88 I think he stalled--I might be wrong) and 89. So why shouldn't he complain about it? He took more risks than Prost in qualifying was faster than Prost, why should he not get the benefit of starting from pole?

Dirty or clean wasn't a consideration at that time, pole position was on the side of the track giving the polesitter the shortest distance to the inside of the first corner, plus a distance advantage due to stacking of the grid.
So, saying that qualifying 2nd put Prost on "pole position" is false. It is also often forgotten that drivers used to clean up the pole position by passing over that side of the grid during training sessions and qualifying, knowing they had a 50-50 chance of starting from there.

I don't know why Senna felt he had the right to demand anything concerning the side pole position should be on. But he certainly seemed to believe that winning the race on lap 1 in turn 1 was far too late. It had seemingly to be won on the starting grid.

In the years after pole position was placed on the 'clean' side of the track, it became customary for the polesitter to angle his car towards the dirty side, in order to block the driver who qualified 2nd, should he dare to have a better start anyway... That's how silly Senna's action turns out to have been in the end.

That is a weird question. He has all the right to demand that the pole position he worked hard for, gives him all the advantage he can get. Considering the fact that he saw for 2 years that he started on pole and lost ground at this very race, he had every right to demand for his advantage. And if as you mention, cleaning the side of pole was done by all drivers and there was no loss because of starting on the dirty side, maybe Senna was an idiot and should have given you a call to get that knowledge. Also why was Senna supposed to lose out on starting from pole and staying ahead of Prost? Yes he could have fought later in the race, but he knew what had happened the previous year, and this time Prost being in another team, don't you think he worried that Prost might take him out again and JMP wouldn't lift a finger to penalize him? I am not justifying his actions in the race, but he definitely had the right to demand starting on the clean side.

Also you seem to believe in a utopian racing series where every driver says "After you Sir!!" when racing. This is racing. The guy ahead always tries to block the guy behind, whereas the guy behind tries all tricks in racing books to get ahead as long as they are deemed legs. This is not a "After You Series". And this is not a new phenomenon. This has been how racing has been since the days when rich guys decided to strap themselves to tubes with 4 wheels and massive engines and called it racing. You might hear about these things regularly now, because of more media coverage and people discussing this on forums, but trust me, every champion racing driver from Nuvolari to the more recent ones have played tricks on tracks and pushed the rules to gain advantage every advantage they could get.

I think this is the "Participation Trophy Generation" which thinks that everything should be fair and equal and everyone should go home happy. Racing was never fair. Since the beginning of racing, guys with the most money got the best cars and won races.

So Stop blaming Senna about the pole being moved to the clean side of the track and therefore giving the pole sitter more advantage.

Senna was right that pole should have been on the clean side. I don't think anyone would dispute that. The whole thing about Senna's demands to move pole position always seems to pop up as if he was hard done by the FIA. But the FIA carried on as they always had, placed pole where it always had been. Where was this big crime where the FIA acted harshly against him? This idea that he was pushed by the FIA/Balestre to act as he did is a crap attempt at justifying his terrible actions in the race

Everyone focuses on 1990 but for me the worst thing in the Senna-Prost rivalry was Japan 1989. What an awesome recovery drive from Senna after Prost deliberately turned in on him. The DQ that Senna received in that race was probably the worst stewards' decision ever. Especially when you consider all of the events that surrounded it and the way Prost buddied up to Belestre (not to mention Belestre's very clear bias with regards to Senna/Prost). One of the most disgusting series of events in F1 history for me.

hittheapex wrote:Great OP sandman, I had a look at this a few years back as well, looking at how much of a driver's career they spent at the same team as a world champion, future champion or race winner.

Although Massa, Prost, Lauda and Nico Rosberg made my top dozen or so drivers for toughest teammates, most of the drivers from before the 1980s can't compete in terms of absolute wins, poles, etc because careers were shorter.

In full seasons or near-full seasons, these are some of the drivers who had the toughest time just looking at titles and race wins, in my opinion. Not foolproof because arguably some drivers who did not get a championship or win may have been better than those who did but here are some more names that seldom, if ever, enjoyed an easy ride. In no particular order, I nominate the following:

First, some of the toughest careers in terms of teammates, in my opinion, from the 1950s that obviously intertwine with one another.

Jose Froilan Gonzalez drove alongside Alberto Ascari, Juan Manuel Fangio and Mike Hawthorn for all but the seasons where he only competed in a sporadic race or two.

Alberto Ascari drove with Fangio, Giuseppe Farina, Piero Taruffi and Hawthorn.

Peter Collins, himself a driver who may have become champion had he lived longer, drove alongside quite a group. Fangio, Hawthorn, Musso and Wolfgang von Trips.

Mike Hawthorn drove in the same teams as Ascari, Farina, Gonzalez, Collins, Musso and von Trips.

Fangio did enjoy good machinery but that was from his status as probably the best driver (Denis Jenkinson bucked conventional opinion and thought Ascari was better). He had to beat some fine drivers along the way to his five titles: Farina, Luigi Fagioli, Gonzalez, Stirling Moss, Musso and Collins. Think how different Gonzalez, Ascari, Collins, and Moss' careers may have been if Fangio hadn't recovered from his broken neck.

Also worth mentioning:

Tony Brooks was in the same teams as Moss, Phil Hill and Graham Hill for most of his career.

Bruce McLaren, who may well have emulated Jack Brabham in winning the title in a car bearing his name had he lived longer, competed alongside Brabham, Phil Hill, Denny Hulme and Jochen Rindt.

John Watson had quite a tough run of teammates. From 1978-1983 he drove in the same teams as Lauda, Prost and Patrick Tambay.

More recently, David Coulthard drove with Damon Hill, Mika Hakkinen, Kimi Raikkonen and Mark Webber, only having an “easy” time from 2005-2006 when he was partnered with Christian Klien.

Good summaries

sandman1347 wrote:Everyone focuses on 1990 but for me the worst thing in the Senna-Prost rivalry was Japan 1989. What an awesome recovery drive from Senna after Prost deliberately turned in on him. The DQ that Senna received in that race was probably the worst stewards' decision ever. Especially when you consider all of the events that surrounded it and the way Prost buddied up to Belestre (not to mention Belestre's very clear bias with regards to Senna/Prost). One of the most disgusting series of events in F1 history for me.

Do you have a source for believing Prost buddied up to Balestre?

Fiki wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:Everyone focuses on 1990 but for me the worst thing in the Senna-Prost rivalry was Japan 1989. What an awesome recovery drive from Senna after Prost deliberately turned in on him. The DQ that Senna received in that race was probably the worst stewards' decision ever. Especially when you consider all of the events that surrounded it and the way Prost buddied up to Belestre (not to mention Belestre's very clear bias with regards to Senna/Prost). One of the most disgusting series of events in F1 history for me.

Do you have a source for believing Prost buddied up to Balestre?

A one-sided movie perhaps?

mcdo wrote:

Fiki wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:Everyone focuses on 1990 but for me the worst thing in the Senna-Prost rivalry was Japan 1989. What an awesome recovery drive from Senna after Prost deliberately turned in on him. The DQ that Senna received in that race was probably the worst stewards' decision ever. Especially when you consider all of the events that surrounded it and the way Prost buddied up to Belestre (not to mention Belestre's very clear bias with regards to Senna/Prost). One of the most disgusting series of events in F1 history for me.

Do you have a source for believing Prost buddied up to Balestre?

A one-sided movie perhaps?

Both from the same country, clearly biased scum!

Mansell had it tough with de Angelis, Keke Rosberg, Piquet and Prost as team-mates.
Farina had Fangio then Ascari as team-mates, can't get much tougher than that.

POBRatings wrote:Mansell had it tough with de Angelis, Keke Rosberg, Piquet and Prost as team-mates.
Farina had Fangio then Ascari as team-mates, can't get much tougher than that.

Indeed, don't know how I passed over Farina, but I did. A shame that it was such a lethal era and that Fangio and Ascari didn't have more time racing against one another in comparable machinery. With Moss thrown in for good measure, wow.