planetf1.com

Senna was't pushed to the side of the track. Even off circuit he was still very clearly in a dangerous position. The Marshalls were still in the process of pushing him to safety when his engine fired up.

The video footage is there and I honestly don't now how anybody could even debate it. You would have to argue that being just off the edge of a circuit, exactly where any car would end up that had a problem going into the chicane isn't a dangerous place to be.

Even the stewards knew they could never have made that one stick.

At the end of the day Senna did not get DSQ for the bump start so that line of discussion is completely irrelevant. It's just attempts to deflect from Prost causing a crash to ensure the championship and the stewards making a wildly inconsistent decision.

mikeyg123 wrote:Senna was't pushed to the side of the track. Even off circuit he was still very clearly in a dangerous position. The Marshalls were still in the process of pushing him to safety when his engine fired up.

The video footage is there and I honestly don't now how anybody could even debate it. You would have to argue that being just off the edge of a circuit, exactly where any car would end up that had a problem going into the chicane isn't a dangerous place to be.

Even the stewards knew they could never have made that one stick.

At the end of the day Senna did not get DSQ for the bump start so that line of discussion is completely irrelevant. It's just attempts to deflect from Prost causing a crash to ensure the championship and the stewards making a wildly inconsistent decision.

The video footage is indeed there, and your comment rather condemns Senna.

Prost's car has been pushed off the chicane, and to the left of the escape road, which remains clear...

Who is steering Senna's car? Senna. Is he steering it away from what you consider a dangerous place, i.e. the escape road? No, he isn't.

Instead of steering onto the grass verge, Senna urges the marshals to push him until his engine fires, and he can rejoin the race, using that same "dangerous" escape road he has been in far longer than necessary...

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Senna was't pushed to the side of the track. Even off circuit he was still very clearly in a dangerous position. The Marshalls were still in the process of pushing him to safety when his engine fired up.

The video footage is there and I honestly don't now how anybody could even debate it. You would have to argue that being just off the edge of a circuit, exactly where any car would end up that had a problem going into the chicane isn't a dangerous place to be.

Even the stewards knew they could never have made that one stick.

At the end of the day Senna did not get DSQ for the bump start so that line of discussion is completely irrelevant. It's just attempts to deflect from Prost causing a crash to ensure the championship and the stewards making a wildly inconsistent decision.

The video footage is indeed there, and your comment rather condemns Senna.

Prost's car has been pushed off the chicane, and to the left of the escape road, which remains clear...

Who is steering Senna's car? Senna. Is he steering it away from what you consider a dangerous place, i.e. the escape road? No, he isn't.

Instead of steering onto the grass verge, Senna urges the marshals to push him until his engine fires, and he can rejoin the race, using that same "dangerous" escape road he has been in far longer than necessary...

But that is allowed. He is allowed a push as long as he is not in a safe place which he wasn't. So the push is fine. Honestly, you're desperately clutching at straws here. Prost caused a crash with Senna and should receive condemnation for that. Why dwell so much on Senna. Even of he did break any rules his failures on that day ate insignificant compared to Prost's cheat.

If Prost had jumped the start in Suzuka 1990 would that mitigate Senna's cheat 20 seconds later. I don't believe it would have done and it doesn't in this case either.

The escape road was where they pushed Prost's car as well, down the escape road and to the grass area. That was the safe place, and it is the same place that they started pushing Senna's car as well before he jump started it.

You can actually see that the marshals did a good job and pushed it there; in the beginning they pushed it backwards towards the track in order to untangle the two cars. At some point I thought he would have gone down the normal chicane route, but Senna chose the escape road. Almost as if he knew he could push start the car there.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Senna was't pushed to the side of the track. Even off circuit he was still very clearly in a dangerous position. The Marshalls were still in the process of pushing him to safety when his engine fired up.

The video footage is there and I honestly don't now how anybody could even debate it. You would have to argue that being just off the edge of a circuit, exactly where any car would end up that had a problem going into the chicane isn't a dangerous place to be.

Even the stewards knew they could never have made that one stick.

At the end of the day Senna did not get DSQ for the bump start so that line of discussion is completely irrelevant. It's just attempts to deflect from Prost causing a crash to ensure the championship and the stewards making a wildly inconsistent decision.

The video footage is indeed there, and your comment rather condemns Senna.

Prost's car has been pushed off the chicane, and to the left of the escape road, which remains clear...

Who is steering Senna's car? Senna. Is he steering it away from what you consider a dangerous place, i.e. the escape road? No, he isn't.

Instead of steering onto the grass verge, Senna urges the marshals to push him until his engine fires, and he can rejoin the race, using that same "dangerous" escape road he has been in far longer than necessary...

But that is allowed. He is allowed a push as long as he is not in a safe place which he wasn't. So the push is fine. Honestly, you're desperately clutching at straws here. Prost caused a crash with Senna and should receive condemnation for that. Why dwell so much on Senna. Even of he did break any rules his failures on that day ate insignificant compared to Prost's chest.

If Prost had jumped the start in Suzuka 1990 would that mitigate Senna's cheat 20 seconds later. I don't believe it would have done and it doesn't in this case either.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Senna was't pushed to the side of the track. Even off circuit he was still very clearly in a dangerous position. The Marshalls were still in the process of pushing him to safety when his engine fired up.

The video footage is there and I honestly don't now how anybody could even debate it. You would have to argue that being just off the edge of a circuit, exactly where any car would end up that had a problem going into the chicane isn't a dangerous place to be.

Even the stewards knew they could never have made that one stick.

At the end of the day Senna did not get DSQ for the bump start so that line of discussion is completely irrelevant. It's just attempts to deflect from Prost causing a crash to ensure the championship and the stewards making a wildly inconsistent decision.

The video footage is indeed there, and your comment rather condemns Senna.

Prost's car has been pushed off the chicane, and to the left of the escape road, which remains clear...

Who is steering Senna's car? Senna. Is he steering it away from what you consider a dangerous place, i.e. the escape road? No, he isn't.

Instead of steering onto the grass verge, Senna urges the marshals to push him until his engine fires, and he can rejoin the race, using that same "dangerous" escape road he has been in far longer than necessary...

But that is allowed. He is allowed a push as long as he is not in a safe place which he wasn't. So the push is fine. Honestly, you're desperately clutching at straws here. Prost caused a crash with Senna and should receive condemnation for that. Why dwell so much on Senna. Even of he did break any rules his failures on that day ate insignificant compared to Prost's cheat.

If Prost had jumped the start in Suzuka 1990 would that mitigate Senna's cheat 20 seconds later. I don't believe it would have done and it doesn't in this case either.

Sorry Mikey, I simply have to disagree. If you consider the escape road to be a dangerous place, then I can't see any reason to prolong remaining there.
An accidental bump start when being pushed off could be allowed, but not intentionally steering away from the safe grass verge and urging the marshals to push until the engine starts, could not. As you said, the video footage is there, and that is what you see. No clutching at straws; the bump start is intentional and sought by Senna, without the wish for safety.

I'm happy to keep searching for the full story behind the hit between the two cars, but Ramirez's statement makes it next to impossible to lay full responsibility with Prost.

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Senna was't pushed to the side of the track. Even off circuit he was still very clearly in a dangerous position. The Marshalls were still in the process of pushing him to safety when his engine fired up.

The video footage is there and I honestly don't now how anybody could even debate it. You would have to argue that being just off the edge of a circuit, exactly where any car would end up that had a problem going into the chicane isn't a dangerous place to be.

Even the stewards knew they could never have made that one stick.

At the end of the day Senna did not get DSQ for the bump start so that line of discussion is completely irrelevant. It's just attempts to deflect from Prost causing a crash to ensure the championship and the stewards making a wildly inconsistent decision.

The video footage is indeed there, and your comment rather condemns Senna.

Prost's car has been pushed off the chicane, and to the left of the escape road, which remains clear...

Who is steering Senna's car? Senna. Is he steering it away from what you consider a dangerous place, i.e. the escape road? No, he isn't.

Instead of steering onto the grass verge, Senna urges the marshals to push him until his engine fires, and he can rejoin the race, using that same "dangerous" escape road he has been in far longer than necessary...

But that is allowed. He is allowed a push as long as he is not in a safe place which he wasn't. So the push is fine. Honestly, you're desperately clutching at straws here. Prost caused a crash with Senna and should receive condemnation for that. Why dwell so much on Senna. Even of he did break any rules his failures on that day ate insignificant compared to Prost's cheat.

If Prost had jumped the start in Suzuka 1990 would that mitigate Senna's cheat 20 seconds later. I don't believe it would have done and it doesn't in this case either.

Sorry Mikey, I simply have to disagree. If you consider the escape road to be a dangerous place, then I can't see any reason to prolong remaining there.
An accidental bump start when being pushed off could be allowed, but not intentionally steering away from the safe grass verge and urging the marshals to push until the engine starts, could not. As you said, the video footage is there, and that is what you see. No clutching at straws; the bump start is intentional and sought by Senna, without the wish for safety.

I'm happy to keep searching for the full story behind the hit between the two cars, but Ramirez's statement makes it next to impossible to lay full responsibility with Prost.

No, it absolutely doesn't. I fail to see how what anyone says could exonerate someone from deliberately turning into another.

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Senna was't pushed to the side of the track. Even off circuit he was still very clearly in a dangerous position. The Marshalls were still in the process of pushing him to safety when his engine fired up.

The video footage is there and I honestly don't now how anybody could even debate it. You would have to argue that being just off the edge of a circuit, exactly where any car would end up that had a problem going into the chicane isn't a dangerous place to be.

Even the stewards knew they could never have made that one stick.

At the end of the day Senna did not get DSQ for the bump start so that line of discussion is completely irrelevant. It's just attempts to deflect from Prost causing a crash to ensure the championship and the stewards making a wildly inconsistent decision.

The video footage is indeed there, and your comment rather condemns Senna.

Prost's car has been pushed off the chicane, and to the left of the escape road, which remains clear...

Who is steering Senna's car? Senna. Is he steering it away from what you consider a dangerous place, i.e. the escape road? No, he isn't.

Instead of steering onto the grass verge, Senna urges the marshals to push him until his engine fires, and he can rejoin the race, using that same "dangerous" escape road he has been in far longer than necessary...

But that is allowed. He is allowed a push as long as he is not in a safe place which he wasn't. So the push is fine. Honestly, you're desperately clutching at straws here. Prost caused a crash with Senna and should receive condemnation for that. Why dwell so much on Senna. Even of he did break any rules his failures on that day ate insignificant compared to Prost's cheat.

If Prost had jumped the start in Suzuka 1990 would that mitigate Senna's cheat 20 seconds later. I don't believe it would have done and it doesn't in this case either.

Sorry Mikey, I simply have to disagree. If you consider the escape road to be a dangerous place, then I can't see any reason to prolong remaining there.
An accidental bump start when being pushed off could be allowed, but not intentionally steering away from the safe grass verge and urging the marshals to push until the engine starts, could not. As you said, the video footage is there, and that is what you see. No clutching at straws; the bump start is intentional and sought by Senna, without the wish for safety.

I'm happy to keep searching for the full story behind the hit between the two cars, but Ramirez's statement makes it next to impossible to lay full responsibility with Prost.

None of which was against the rules so not a problem.

Prost deliberately turned into Senna. Senna going in too deep or not is not relevant because Prost crashed into him before it became relevant.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote: The video footage is indeed there, and your comment rather condemns Senna.

Prost's car has been pushed off the chicane, and to the left of the escape road, which remains clear...

Who is steering Senna's car? Senna. Is he steering it away from what you consider a dangerous place, i.e. the escape road? No, he isn't.

Instead of steering onto the grass verge, Senna urges the marshals to push him until his engine fires, and he can rejoin the race, using that same "dangerous" escape road he has been in far longer than necessary...

But that is allowed. He is allowed a push as long as he is not in a safe place which he wasn't. So the push is fine. Honestly, you're desperately clutching at straws here. Prost caused a crash with Senna and should receive condemnation for that. Why dwell so much on Senna. Even of he did break any rules his failures on that day ate insignificant compared to Prost's cheat.

If Prost had jumped the start in Suzuka 1990 would that mitigate Senna's cheat 20 seconds later. I don't believe it would have done and it doesn't in this case either.

Sorry Mikey, I simply have to disagree. If you consider the escape road to be a dangerous place, then I can't see any reason to prolong remaining there.
An accidental bump start when being pushed off could be allowed, but not intentionally steering away from the safe grass verge and urging the marshals to push until the engine starts, could not. As you said, the video footage is there, and that is what you see. No clutching at straws; the bump start is intentional and sought by Senna, without the wish for safety.

I'm happy to keep searching for the full story behind the hit between the two cars, but Ramirez's statement makes it next to impossible to lay full responsibility with Prost.

None of which was against the rules so not a problem.

Prost deliberately turned into Senna. Senna going in too deep or not is not relevant because Prost crashed into him before it became relevant.

Outside assistance wasn't allowed. I don't understand how you can say Senna's action was. Had the engine caught when the marshals disentangled the cars, he would have been on the track, and resuming the race would have been fully within the rules. But the engine didn't bump start then, or there.

I also find it hard to understand why you declare the escape road to be a dangerous place, without explaining where it says so in the rules.
Everybody understands what can happen if a car goes off at full speed into any off-track area , but follow that reasoning through to its ultimate conclusion, and the only safe option is not to race at all.

I don't mind discussing Prost's share of responsibility for the accident, but not without taking into account Senna's share. Which Ramirez's statement puts into perspective.

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote: The video footage is indeed there, and your comment rather condemns Senna.

Prost's car has been pushed off the chicane, and to the left of the escape road, which remains clear...

Who is steering Senna's car? Senna. Is he steering it away from what you consider a dangerous place, i.e. the escape road? No, he isn't.

Instead of steering onto the grass verge, Senna urges the marshals to push him until his engine fires, and he can rejoin the race, using that same "dangerous" escape road he has been in far longer than necessary...

But that is allowed. He is allowed a push as long as he is not in a safe place which he wasn't. So the push is fine. Honestly, you're desperately clutching at straws here. Prost caused a crash with Senna and should receive condemnation for that. Why dwell so much on Senna. Even of he did break any rules his failures on that day ate insignificant compared to Prost's cheat.

If Prost had jumped the start in Suzuka 1990 would that mitigate Senna's cheat 20 seconds later. I don't believe it would have done and it doesn't in this case either.

Sorry Mikey, I simply have to disagree. If you consider the escape road to be a dangerous place, then I can't see any reason to prolong remaining there.
An accidental bump start when being pushed off could be allowed, but not intentionally steering away from the safe grass verge and urging the marshals to push until the engine starts, could not. As you said, the video footage is there, and that is what you see. No clutching at straws; the bump start is intentional and sought by Senna, without the wish for safety.

I'm happy to keep searching for the full story behind the hit between the two cars, but Ramirez's statement makes it next to impossible to lay full responsibility with Prost.

None of which was against the rules so not a problem.

Prost deliberately turned into Senna. Senna going in too deep or not is not relevant because Prost crashed into him before it became relevant.

Outside assistance wasn't allowed. I don't understand how you can say Senna's action was. Had the engine caught when the marshals disentangled the cars, he would have been on the track, and resuming the race would have been fully within the rules. But the engine didn't bump start then, or there.

I also find it hard to understand why you declare the escape road to be a dangerous place, without explaining where it says so in the rules.
Everybody understands what can happen if a car goes off at full speed into any off-track area , but follow that reasoning through to its ultimate conclusion, and the only safe option is not to race at all.

I don't mind discussing Prost's share of responsibility for the accident, but not without taking into account Senna's share. Which Ramirez's statement puts into perspective.

You keep saying this, but it's simply not true. Ramirez states quite categorically that Prost should not have turned in. He doesn't put any other perspective on Prost's error to mitigate that.

The rules don't have to explicitly state that a specific section of the track is dangerous. It's plain to the naked eye that an area immediately beyond a turning point would potentially be dangerous to a car which failed to brake for any reason. Obstructing an escape road would mean there is no longer an escape road.

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:I'm happy to keep searching for the full story behind the hit between the two cars, but Ramirez's statement makes it next to impossible to lay full responsibility with Prost.

No, it absolutely doesn't. I fail to see how what anyone says could exonerate someone from deliberately turning into another.

I've already explained the Prost perspective of the affair; he was ahead and "it was his corner".

Senna knew the risks and rushed in where he should have treaded carefully and prepare a better attempt.

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:I'm happy to keep searching for the full story behind the hit between the two cars, but Ramirez's statement makes it next to impossible to lay full responsibility with Prost.

No, it absolutely doesn't. I fail to see how what anyone says could exonerate someone from deliberately turning into another.

I've already explained the Prost perspective of the affair; he was ahead and "it was his corner".

Senna knew the risks and rushed in where he should have treaded carefully and prepare a better attempt.

If it was Prost's corner then why did he did turn in before the corner?

I completely disagree with the premise that it was Prost's corner but since Prost actually turned into Senna before the corner I'm not even sure that is relevant.

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:I'm happy to keep searching for the full story behind the hit between the two cars, but Ramirez's statement makes it next to impossible to lay full responsibility with Prost.

No, it absolutely doesn't. I fail to see how what anyone says could exonerate someone from deliberately turning into another.

I've already explained the Prost perspective of the affair; he was ahead and "it was his corner".

Senna knew the risks and rushed in where he should have treaded carefully and prepare a better attempt.

It wasn't "his" corner, not to the extent that he could just turn in regardless of whoever was there. Once he opened the door and Senna made his move, Prost lost all entitlement to taking the racing line. If Prost thought as you appear to, then it may explain why he did what he did, but this only underlines how deeply in the wrong he was and emphasises that the accident was 100% his fault.

Whether Senna's attempt was good enough to allow him to take the corner without Prost causing the accident, we'll never know for sure. But that's an entirely different matter, in any case. Responsibility for the accident was Prosts: if he thought Senna was going to overcook it then he should have done something on the lines of Vettel's actions when Ricciardo made his desperate lunge in Spain (I think) in 2016. Drivers have to take the actions of others into account when taking the lines they do

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:But that is allowed. He is allowed a push as long as he is not in a safe place which he wasn't. So the push is fine. Honestly, you're desperately clutching at straws here. Prost caused a crash with Senna and should receive condemnation for that. Why dwell so much on Senna. Even of he did break any rules his failures on that day ate insignificant compared to Prost's cheat.

If Prost had jumped the start in Suzuka 1990 would that mitigate Senna's cheat 20 seconds later. I don't believe it would have done and it doesn't in this case either.

Sorry Mikey, I simply have to disagree. If you consider the escape road to be a dangerous place, then I can't see any reason to prolong remaining there.
An accidental bump start when being pushed off could be allowed, but not intentionally steering away from the safe grass verge and urging the marshals to push until the engine starts, could not. As you said, the video footage is there, and that is what you see. No clutching at straws; the bump start is intentional and sought by Senna, without the wish for safety.

I'm happy to keep searching for the full story behind the hit between the two cars, but Ramirez's statement makes it next to impossible to lay full responsibility with Prost.

None of which was against the rules so not a problem.

Prost deliberately turned into Senna. Senna going in too deep or not is not relevant because Prost crashed into him before it became relevant.

Outside assistance wasn't allowed. I don't understand how you can say Senna's action was. Had the engine caught when the marshals disentangled the cars, he would have been on the track, and resuming the race would have been fully within the rules. But the engine didn't bump start then, or there.

I also find it hard to understand why you declare the escape road to be a dangerous place, without explaining where it says so in the rules.
Everybody understands what can happen if a car goes off at full speed into any off-track area , but follow that reasoning through to its ultimate conclusion, and the only safe option is not to race at all.

I don't mind discussing Prost's share of responsibility for the accident, but not without taking into account Senna's share. Which Ramirez's statement puts into perspective.

You keep saying this, but it's simply not true. Ramirez states quite categorically that Prost should not have turned in. He doesn't put any other perspective on Prost's error to mitigate that.

The rules don't have to explicitly state that a specific section of the track is dangerous. It's plain to the naked eye that an area immediately beyond a turning point would potentially be dangerous to a car which failed to brake for any reason. Obstructing an escape road would mean there is no longer an escape road.

What is Ramirez's reason for saying so? He doesn't explain.
I understand he would rather not see an accident between two of his team's cars, maximizing the team result is the first requirement from the team's point of view. Which is why he also said Prost shouldn't have left his car. To enable him to also continue his race? A rather odd thing to say, considering a bump start was only allowed under certain conditions, as Hunt immediately realised and told us.
But nothing of what Ramirez said, undermines his statement that Senna was too fast. Not fast, too fast.

Motor racing is dangerous. But that has nothing to do with a driver getting an illegal bump start.

A car stranded on track is in a dangerous place, because only the track can be used for racing.

I'm not advocating obstructing an escape road, indeed I pointed out that it was Senna who wanted to remain there, until he had achieved his aim of receiving an illegal bump start.
When there has been an incident at any point on the track, yellow flags are waved. How about drivers respecting the rules on how to behave there? Even Piquet, in the 1990 driver briefing, showed that he knew respect for yellow flags being waved was insufficient.

Motor racing is dangerous. That fact should not be abused in the search for loopholes, or illegal advantage disguised as concern for safety.

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote:Sorry Mikey, I simply have to disagree. If you consider the escape road to be a dangerous place, then I can't see any reason to prolong remaining there.
An accidental bump start when being pushed off could be allowed, but not intentionally steering away from the safe grass verge and urging the marshals to push until the engine starts, could not. As you said, the video footage is there, and that is what you see. No clutching at straws; the bump start is intentional and sought by Senna, without the wish for safety.

I'm happy to keep searching for the full story behind the hit between the two cars, but Ramirez's statement makes it next to impossible to lay full responsibility with Prost.

None of which was against the rules so not a problem.

Prost deliberately turned into Senna. Senna going in too deep or not is not relevant because Prost crashed into him before it became relevant.

Outside assistance wasn't allowed. I don't understand how you can say Senna's action was. Had the engine caught when the marshals disentangled the cars, he would have been on the track, and resuming the race would have been fully within the rules. But the engine didn't bump start then, or there.

I also find it hard to understand why you declare the escape road to be a dangerous place, without explaining where it says so in the rules.
Everybody understands what can happen if a car goes off at full speed into any off-track area , but follow that reasoning through to its ultimate conclusion, and the only safe option is not to race at all.

I don't mind discussing Prost's share of responsibility for the accident, but not without taking into account Senna's share. Which Ramirez's statement puts into perspective.

You keep saying this, but it's simply not true. Ramirez states quite categorically that Prost should not have turned in. He doesn't put any other perspective on Prost's error to mitigate that.

The rules don't have to explicitly state that a specific section of the track is dangerous. It's plain to the naked eye that an area immediately beyond a turning point would potentially be dangerous to a car which failed to brake for any reason. Obstructing an escape road would mean there is no longer an escape road.

What is Ramirez's reason for saying so? He doesn't explain.
I understand he would rather not see an accident between two of his team's cars, maximizing the team result is the first requirement from the team's point of view. Which is why he also said Prost shouldn't have left his car. To enable him to also continue his race? A rather odd thing to say, considering a bump start was only allowed under certain conditions, as Hunt immediately realised and told us.
But nothing of what Ramirez said, undermines his statement that Senna was too fast. Not fast, too fast.

Motor racing is dangerous. But that has nothing to do with a driver getting an illegal bump start.

A car stranded on track is in a dangerous place, because only the track can be used for racing.

I'm not advocating obstructing an escape road, indeed I pointed out that it was Senna who wanted to remain there, until he had achieved his aim of receiving an illegal bump start.
When there has been an incident at any point on the track, yellow flags are waved. How about drivers respecting the rules on how to behave there? Even Piquet, in the 1990 driver briefing, showed that he knew respect for yellow flags being waved was insufficient.

Motor racing is dangerous. That fact should not be abused in the search for loopholes, or illegal advantage disguised as concern for safety.

He doesn't need to explain any further than he did. Prost shouldn't have turned in when the only outcome was hitting another car. I don't see why Ramirez would need to elaborate on something so self evident?

As for saying that Prost shouldn't have left his car, he did elaborate on that. He said that if Prost had remained with his car - which had suffered no damage - the likelihood was that both drivers would have been given assistance and carried on and neither would have been penalised. Both cars were in a potentially dangerous situation and it certainly wouldn't have been the fist time that cars were helped on their without punishment in such a case, as Murray Walker stated when he was commenting at the time. But not carrying on was to Prost's advantage.

As for his comment that Senna was too fast, that doesn't exonerate Prost's actions in the slightest. It also offers the elaboration that you feel is missing from Ramirez' statement, in that if Senna was too fast then he wouldn't have made the corner, so if Prost had held off and let him shoot by, he could then have navigated the corner securely and remained ahead.

I don't understand what you mean by Senna wanting to remain there. He had little choice in the matter. But in any event it's irrelevant in the context of driver responsibility for the accident. His actions were after the damage had already been done and he'd been taken out of the race - arguably deliberately - by his opponent. It's unclear why you are focusing on the later events when they all stemmed from Prost's own illegal action in trying to prevent Senna getting ahead at all costs.

mikeyg123 wrote:Senna was't pushed to the side of the track. Even off circuit he was still very clearly in a dangerous position. The Marshalls were still in the process of pushing him to safety when his engine fired up.

The video footage is there and I honestly don't now how anybody could even debate it. You would have to argue that being just off the edge of a circuit, exactly where any car would end up that had a problem going into the chicane isn't a dangerous place to be.

Even the stewards knew they could never have made that one stick.

At the end of the day Senna did not get DSQ for the bump start so that line of discussion is completely irrelevant. It's just attempts to deflect from Prost causing a crash to ensure the championship and the stewards making a wildly inconsistent decision.

While I agree that the escape road would be considered to be a dangerous place nowadays, it certainly was not back then. Only cars stranded on the track itself were in a dangerous position in this regard.

Why the desperate desire to paint Senna in completely innocent colours?

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Senna was't pushed to the side of the track. Even off circuit he was still very clearly in a dangerous position. The Marshalls were still in the process of pushing him to safety when his engine fired up.

The video footage is there and I honestly don't now how anybody could even debate it. You would have to argue that being just off the edge of a circuit, exactly where any car would end up that had a problem going into the chicane isn't a dangerous place to be.

Even the stewards knew they could never have made that one stick.

At the end of the day Senna did not get DSQ for the bump start so that line of discussion is completely irrelevant. It's just attempts to deflect from Prost causing a crash to ensure the championship and the stewards making a wildly inconsistent decision.

While I agree that the escape road would be considered to be a dangerous place nowadays, it certainly was not back then. Only cars stranded on the track itself were in a dangerous position in this regard.

Why the desperate desire to paint Senna in completely innocent colours?

Clearly it was considered dangerous. They didn't leave Prost's car there. Even then nobody would have left a car just off the race track in the run off in a heavy braking zone.

No desperate desire to do anything but Senna's wrongdoing in this case is so minor in barely registers against Prost's. I don't think the fact we end up talking more about Senna daring to try and continue in the race, rather than Prost taking out his competitor to win the championship though.

Why the continued refusal to condemn Prost for taking out his championship rival?

Not dangerous enough for bump starts. Pushing cars further away is a different story.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Not dangerous enough for bump starts. Pushing cars further away is a different story.

The car had to pushed further than the edge of the track which it was. Senna was still in a dangerous position when the car fired up. But it's not really relevant anyway. Prost had already crashed into him at that point. Even if Senna shouldn't have attempted to continue (Honestly, do you blame him for trying?) that doesn't mitigate or excuse Prost.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Not dangerous enough for bump starts. Pushing cars further away is a different story.

The car had to pushed further than the edge of the track which it was. Senna was still in a dangerous position when the car fired up. But it's not really relevant anyway. Prost had already crashed into him at that point. Even if Senna shouldn't have attempted to continue (Honestly, do you blame him for trying?) that doesn't mitigate or excuse Prost.

Well, of course I do not blame Senna for trying to continue. Still, that does not change the fact that the DSQ was justified, although poor stewarding gave insufficient/wrong reasons.

As for the racing incident, an overaggressive (maybe hopeless) move launched outside the regular track met with a clumsy defence move, half-heartedly exercised.Poor driving by Prost? Yes, especially since he was always judged against higher standards than Senna.
A penalty for Prost? Well, not at that time - neither was Senna penalized for Suzuka '90 (or for any of his other countless offences), nor Schumacher for '94, which were both much worse. And even Jerez '97 merely yielded a symbolic penalty.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Senna was't pushed to the side of the track. Even off circuit he was still very clearly in a dangerous position. The Marshalls were still in the process of pushing him to safety when his engine fired up.

The video footage is there and I honestly don't now how anybody could even debate it. You would have to argue that being just off the edge of a circuit, exactly where any car would end up that had a problem going into the chicane isn't a dangerous place to be.

Even the stewards knew they could never have made that one stick.

At the end of the day Senna did not get DSQ for the bump start so that line of discussion is completely irrelevant. It's just attempts to deflect from Prost causing a crash to ensure the championship and the stewards making a wildly inconsistent decision.

While I agree that the escape road would be considered to be a dangerous place nowadays, it certainly was not back then. Only cars stranded on the track itself were in a dangerous position in this regard.

Why the desperate desire to paint Senna in completely innocent colours?

Clearly it was considered dangerous. They didn't leave Prost's car there. Even then nobody would have left a car just off the race track in the run off in a heavy braking zone.

No desperate desire to do anything but Senna's wrongdoing in this case is so minor in barely registers against Prost's. I don't think the fact we end up talking more about Senna daring to try and continue in the race, rather than Prost taking out his competitor to win the championship though.

Why the continued refusal to condemn Prost for taking out his championship rival?

Mikey, Prost's car was pushed onto the grass verge to the left of the escape road, that kept the escape road open. But that is exactly where they left it, it wasn't moved and was still there at the end of the race.
Why? Because only a car on the race track was considered to be in a dangerous place. And Prost's car wasn't the only one; a Brabham was abandoned on the right verge before the esses, and two more cars just beyond the bridge. Right alongside the track, not even an escape road...

While pushed offf the track, Senna could have steered his car to a spot behind, or in front of Prost's, but he chose to remain in your "dangerous place" with the marshals he was urging to push him, so he could rejoin the race.

My reasons for seeing Prost's side of the affair have already been explained.

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:None of which was against the rules so not a problem.

Prost deliberately turned into Senna. Senna going in too deep or not is not relevant because Prost crashed into him before it became relevant.

Outside assistance wasn't allowed. I don't understand how you can say Senna's action was. Had the engine caught when the marshals disentangled the cars, he would have been on the track, and resuming the race would have been fully within the rules. But the engine didn't bump start then, or there.

I also find it hard to understand why you declare the escape road to be a dangerous place, without explaining where it says so in the rules.
Everybody understands what can happen if a car goes off at full speed into any off-track area , but follow that reasoning through to its ultimate conclusion, and the only safe option is not to race at all.

I don't mind discussing Prost's share of responsibility for the accident, but not without taking into account Senna's share. Which Ramirez's statement puts into perspective.

You keep saying this, but it's simply not true. Ramirez states quite categorically that Prost should not have turned in. He doesn't put any other perspective on Prost's error to mitigate that.

The rules don't have to explicitly state that a specific section of the track is dangerous. It's plain to the naked eye that an area immediately beyond a turning point would potentially be dangerous to a car which failed to brake for any reason. Obstructing an escape road would mean there is no longer an escape road.

What is Ramirez's reason for saying so? He doesn't explain.
I understand he would rather not see an accident between two of his team's cars, maximizing the team result is the first requirement from the team's point of view. Which is why he also said Prost shouldn't have left his car. To enable him to also continue his race? A rather odd thing to say, considering a bump start was only allowed under certain conditions, as Hunt immediately realised and told us.
But nothing of what Ramirez said, undermines his statement that Senna was too fast. Not fast, too fast.

Motor racing is dangerous. But that has nothing to do with a driver getting an illegal bump start.

A car stranded on track is in a dangerous place, because only the track can be used for racing.

I'm not advocating obstructing an escape road, indeed I pointed out that it was Senna who wanted to remain there, until he had achieved his aim of receiving an illegal bump start.
When there has been an incident at any point on the track, yellow flags are waved. How about drivers respecting the rules on how to behave there? Even Piquet, in the 1990 driver briefing, showed that he knew respect for yellow flags being waved was insufficient.

Motor racing is dangerous. That fact should not be abused in the search for loopholes, or illegal advantage disguised as concern for safety.

He doesn't need to explain any further than he did. Prost shouldn't have turned in when the only outcome was hitting another car. I don't see why Ramirez would need to elaborate on something so self evident?

As for saying that Prost shouldn't have left his car, he did elaborate on that. He said that if Prost had remained with his car - which had suffered no damage - the likelihood was that both drivers would have been given assistance and carried on and neither would have been penalised. Both cars were in a potentially dangerous situation and it certainly wouldn't have been the fist time that cars were helped on their without punishment in such a case, as Murray Walker stated when he was commenting at the time. But not carrying on was to Prost's advantage.

As for his comment that Senna was too fast, that doesn't exonerate Prost's actions in the slightest. It also offers the elaboration that you feel is missing from Ramirez' statement, in that if Senna was too fast then he wouldn't have made the corner, so if Prost had held off and let him shoot by, he could then have navigated the corner securely and remained ahead.

I don't understand what you mean by Senna wanting to remain there. He had little choice in the matter. But in any event it's irrelevant in the context of driver responsibility for the accident. His actions were after the damage had already been done and he'd been taken out of the race - arguably deliberately - by his opponent. It's unclear why you are focusing on the later events when they all stemmed from Prost's own illegal action in trying to prevent Senna getting ahead at all costs.

Of course there is more to be learned from Ramirez. I would like to know what he said to Senna about his attempt, going too fast. Don't you?

You are completely wrong about Senna having no choice in the matter; please read my explanation to Mikey. Prost's car was steered by a marshal, Senna's by himself. Which is why he just kept going in the escape road. He did have a choice in the matter, but chose to remain there, hoping for an illegal push start.

Your comment about Prost staying ahead at all cost is amusing. What is the purpose of a dive bomb attack? You yield, or we crash. Why did Senna not make a proper attempt? Because he couldn't, not yet on that lap.

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:Outside assistance wasn't allowed. I don't understand how you can say Senna's action was. Had the engine caught when the marshals disentangled the cars, he would have been on the track, and resuming the race would have been fully within the rules. But the engine didn't bump start then, or there.

I also find it hard to understand why you declare the escape road to be a dangerous place, without explaining where it says so in the rules.
Everybody understands what can happen if a car goes off at full speed into any off-track area , but follow that reasoning through to its ultimate conclusion, and the only safe option is not to race at all.

I don't mind discussing Prost's share of responsibility for the accident, but not without taking into account Senna's share. Which Ramirez's statement puts into perspective.

You keep saying this, but it's simply not true. Ramirez states quite categorically that Prost should not have turned in. He doesn't put any other perspective on Prost's error to mitigate that.

The rules don't have to explicitly state that a specific section of the track is dangerous. It's plain to the naked eye that an area immediately beyond a turning point would potentially be dangerous to a car which failed to brake for any reason. Obstructing an escape road would mean there is no longer an escape road.

What is Ramirez's reason for saying so? He doesn't explain.
I understand he would rather not see an accident between two of his team's cars, maximizing the team result is the first requirement from the team's point of view. Which is why he also said Prost shouldn't have left his car. To enable him to also continue his race? A rather odd thing to say, considering a bump start was only allowed under certain conditions, as Hunt immediately realised and told us.
But nothing of what Ramirez said, undermines his statement that Senna was too fast. Not fast, too fast.

Motor racing is dangerous. But that has nothing to do with a driver getting an illegal bump start.

A car stranded on track is in a dangerous place, because only the track can be used for racing.

I'm not advocating obstructing an escape road, indeed I pointed out that it was Senna who wanted to remain there, until he had achieved his aim of receiving an illegal bump start.
When there has been an incident at any point on the track, yellow flags are waved. How about drivers respecting the rules on how to behave there? Even Piquet, in the 1990 driver briefing, showed that he knew respect for yellow flags being waved was insufficient.

Motor racing is dangerous. That fact should not be abused in the search for loopholes, or illegal advantage disguised as concern for safety.

He doesn't need to explain any further than he did. Prost shouldn't have turned in when the only outcome was hitting another car. I don't see why Ramirez would need to elaborate on something so self evident?

As for saying that Prost shouldn't have left his car, he did elaborate on that. He said that if Prost had remained with his car - which had suffered no damage - the likelihood was that both drivers would have been given assistance and carried on and neither would have been penalised. Both cars were in a potentially dangerous situation and it certainly wouldn't have been the fist time that cars were helped on their without punishment in such a case, as Murray Walker stated when he was commenting at the time. But not carrying on was to Prost's advantage.

As for his comment that Senna was too fast, that doesn't exonerate Prost's actions in the slightest. It also offers the elaboration that you feel is missing from Ramirez' statement, in that if Senna was too fast then he wouldn't have made the corner, so if Prost had held off and let him shoot by, he could then have navigated the corner securely and remained ahead.

I don't understand what you mean by Senna wanting to remain there. He had little choice in the matter. But in any event it's irrelevant in the context of driver responsibility for the accident. His actions were after the damage had already been done and he'd been taken out of the race - arguably deliberately - by his opponent. It's unclear why you are focusing on the later events when they all stemmed from Prost's own illegal action in trying to prevent Senna getting ahead at all costs.

Of course there is more to be learned from Ramirez. I would like to know what he said to Senna about his attempt, going too fast. Don't you?

You are completely wrong about Senna having no choice in the matter; please read my explanation to Mikey. Prost's car was steered by a marshal, Senna's by himself. Which is why he just kept going in the escape road. He did have a choice in the matter, but chose to remain there, hoping for an illegal push start.

Your comment about Prost staying ahead at all cost is amusing. What is the purpose of a dive bomb attack? You yield, or we crash. Why did Senna not make a proper attempt? Because he couldn't, not yet on that lap.

Not really, no. He thought Senna was going too fast - to me that's self-explanatory and needs no further elaboration. It's not exactly earth-shaking.

I don't quite get what choice you felt he had. I don't think he "chose" to remain there - his car was stationary. Of course he's going to try and get going again if he can: any competitive driver would. But that's wholly irrelevant in the context of driver responsibility.

Glad I could brighten up your day, but how else would you view deliberately driving into an opponent? How can you say for certain that Senna's attempt wasn't proper? We only have opinion that he wouldn't have made the corner, but it's a fact that Prost steered into him. And by doing so he took away any certainty that Senna's move was in any way inappropriate

This is going on circles now. As we said a few pages ago, the crash was caused primarily by Prost turning in earlier than normal. Helped also by the fact that Senna looked to be divebombing. It's as simple as that.

However, while turning into an opponent wasn't exactly urged, back then it wasn't necessarily punished either, as witnessed. So no point mulling over it.


What was punished was Senna's joining the track illegally. Prost's car was left at the edge of the escape road, which was deemed a safe place at the time, seeing that they did not remove it before the end of the race. So as Fiki explained, the fact that Senna didn't park it safely, but instead chose to bump start it, is clearly an infraction. One that they completely misquoted when handing the penalty.

Exediron wrote:

22.4 If a car stops on the track it shall be the duty of the marshals to remove it as quickly as possible so that its presence does not constitute a danger or hinder other competitors. Under no circumstances may a driver stop his car on the track without justifiable reason.

If any mechanical assistance received during the race results in the car re-joining the stewards may exclude him from the race (other than under Article 22.7(d).

Assuming this rule did apply in 1989, the stewards could have DSQ'd Senna on the basis of a push-start, but were not obliged to. The reason given for his DSQ was not this. So what's the point of arguing Senna's actions in this context?

Edited for clarity

tootsie323 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

22.4 If a car stops on the track it shall be the duty of the marshals to remove it as quickly as possible so that its presence does not constitute a danger or hinder other competitors. Under no circumstances may a driver stop his car on the track without justifiable reason.

If any mechanical assistance received during the race results in the car re-joining the stewards may exclude him from the race (other than under Article 22.7(d).

Assuming this rule did apply in 1989, the stewards could have DSQ'd Senna on the basis of a push-start, but were not obliged to. The reason given for his DSQ was not this. So what's the point of arguing Senna's actions in this context?

Edited for clarity

that's correct: the stewards had discretion to penalise or not, depending on whether they felt the car was in a dangerous position. But, as you say, he wasn't penalised for that (which would have been legitimate), so that line of conversation is redundant.

The thread is about driver responsibility while overtaking, so what happened after is a moot point

Zoue wrote:

tootsie323 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

22.4 If a car stops on the track it shall be the duty of the marshals to remove it as quickly as possible so that its presence does not constitute a danger or hinder other competitors. Under no circumstances may a driver stop his car on the track without justifiable reason.

If any mechanical assistance received during the race results in the car re-joining the stewards may exclude him from the race (other than under Article 22.7(d).

Assuming this rule did apply in 1989, the stewards could have DSQ'd Senna on the basis of a push-start, but were not obliged to. The reason given for his DSQ was not this. So what's the point of arguing Senna's actions in this context?

Edited for clarity

that's correct: the stewards had discretion to penalise or not, depending on whether they felt the car was in a dangerous position. But, as you say, he wasn't penalised for that (which would have been legitimate), so that line of conversation is redundant.

The thread is about driver responsibility while overtaking, so what happened after is a moot point

That's true, we slightly derailed this, as this was a whole incident.

I can't find a sporting reg of that period, but push starts were not allowed since the Fangio days.

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

tootsie323 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

22.4 If a car stops on the track it shall be the duty of the marshals to remove it as quickly as possible so that its presence does not constitute a danger or hinder other competitors. Under no circumstances may a driver stop his car on the track without justifiable reason.

If any mechanical assistance received during the race results in the car re-joining the stewards may exclude him from the race (other than under Article 22.7(d).

Assuming this rule did apply in 1989, the stewards could have DSQ'd Senna on the basis of a push-start, but were not obliged to. The reason given for his DSQ was not this. So what's the point of arguing Senna's actions in this context?

Edited for clarity

that's correct: the stewards had discretion to penalise or not, depending on whether they felt the car was in a dangerous position. But, as you say, he wasn't penalised for that (which would have been legitimate), so that line of conversation is redundant.

The thread is about driver responsibility while overtaking, so what happened after is a moot point

That's true, we slightly derailed this, as this was a whole incident.

I can't find a sporting reg of that period, but push starts were not allowed since the Fangio days.

IIRC, push starts were an oft-talked about topic at the time. Since gears were manual, it was much more common for cars to stall after an incident. I remember more than one occasion where drivers were given assistance and it resulted in some debate, not least with the commentators. They had a loop-hole a mile wide where marshalls were given discretion if they felt the car was in a dangerous position, which inevitably led to a lot of discussion as to what was considered dangerous. let's just say their definitions of what constituted safe were much broader than what would be accepted today

Going back to the Senna-Prost incident, it could be argued that Senna could feel justifiably hard done by if him requiring a push was the result of his main WDC rival taking him out with a questionable move. But in any event, even with that ammunition available to them the FIA chose to introduce a reason which baffled pretty much everybody at the time, even those who felt Senna should have been punished

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:
That's true, we slightly derailed this, as this was a whole incident.

I can't find a sporting reg of that period, but push starts were not allowed since the Fangio days.

IIRC, push starts were an oft-talked about topic at the time. Since gears were manual, it was much more common for cars to stall after an incident. I remember more than one occasion where drivers were given assistance and it resulted in some debate, not least with the commentators. They had a loop-hole a mile wide where marshalls were given discretion if they felt the car was in a dangerous position, which inevitably led to a lot of discussion as to what was considered dangerous. let's just say their definitions of what constituted safe were much broader than what would be accepted today

Going back to the Senna-Prost incident, it could be argued that Senna could feel justifiably hard done by if him requiring a push was the result of his main WDC rival taking him out with a questionable move. But in any event, even with that ammunition available to them the FIA chose to introduce a reason which baffled pretty much everybody at the time, even those who felt Senna should have been punished

I have not seen this anywhere, was that in the regulations? That it was on the steward's discretion?

Back on the incident, if you read I agreed in most my posts that it was a stupid reason to give. But this is something that the stewards can only answer, not me.

Senna feeling hard done is understandable, then again it does not mean much; Vettel felt hard done by Lewis this year, it does not justify ramming him however...

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:Of course there is more to be learned from Ramirez. I would like to know what he said to Senna about his attempt, going too fast. Don't you?

You are completely wrong about Senna having no choice in the matter; please read my explanation to Mikey. Prost's car was steered by a marshal, Senna's by himself. Which is why he just kept going in the escape road. He did have a choice in the matter, but chose to remain there, hoping for an illegal push start.

Your comment about Prost staying ahead at all cost is amusing. What is the purpose of a dive bomb attack? You yield, or we crash. Why did Senna not make a proper attempt? Because he couldn't, not yet on that lap.

Not really, no. He thought Senna was going too fast - to me that's self-explanatory and needs no further elaboration. It's not exactly earth-shaking.

I don't quite get what choice you felt he had. I don't think he "chose" to remain there - his car was stationary. Of course he's going to try and get going again if he can: any competitive driver would. But that's wholly irrelevant in the context of driver responsibility.

Glad I could brighten up your day, but how else would you view deliberately driving into an opponent? How can you say for certain that Senna's attempt wasn't proper? We only have opinion that he wouldn't have made the corner, but it's a fact that Prost steered into him. And by doing so he took away any certainty that Senna's move was in any way inappropriate

Well, I would like to know what Ramirez thought Senna should have done, knowing he was going too fast, yet forcing himself up the inside. If he didn't feel Senna was putting the other team car at risk, I for one would like to understand why he didn't.
I would also like to know whether he spoke to Senna about racing etiquette, and possible general team orders on overtaking a team car. I can understand any such orders would not be made public in the first year(s) after the incident. But all these years later, it might throw a light on possible team bias against Prost.

I just checked; from the moment Senna's car left the track (crossed the white line between track and escape road), Senna's car wasn't stationary. The first attempt to bump start almost made it stop, but Senna gestured the marshals on, and the car kept rolling. He could have steered to safety off the escape road, but chose not to. So any "danger" a car in the escape road was in, was prolonged by Senna's decision to try to get an illegal bump start.
And as I said to Mikey, the cars parked beside the track indicate that my reading of the "dangerous place" rule is far more likely to be correct for that era, than his.

Prost's statements leave some doubt as to whether he says he was aware enough of Senna's speed, to keep the door shut rather than widen out and prepare to turn in. If he wasn't surprised, and his actions were deliberate from beginning to end, then still the fact remains that he was ahead, and it was his corner. The thing to bear in mind, is that Senna's speed didn't necessarily mean he would completely overshoot the chicane. Remember this was a very slow speed chicane, and Senna simply blocking the road enough for Prost, to make a switchback impossible. And then what? As I said straightaway; how do you defend against a dive bomb?

Siao7 wrote:What was punished was Senna's joining the track illegally. Prost's car was left at the edge of the escape road, which was deemed a safe place at the time, seeing that they did not remove it before the end of the race. So as Fiki explained, the fact that Senna didn't park it safely, but instead chose to bump start it, is clearly an infraction. One that they completely misquoted when handing the penalty.

Was the bump start mentioned? I don't recall them doing so at all, but could be wrong.

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:Of course there is more to be learned from Ramirez. I would like to know what he said to Senna about his attempt, going too fast. Don't you?

You are completely wrong about Senna having no choice in the matter; please read my explanation to Mikey. Prost's car was steered by a marshal, Senna's by himself. Which is why he just kept going in the escape road. He did have a choice in the matter, but chose to remain there, hoping for an illegal push start.

Your comment about Prost staying ahead at all cost is amusing. What is the purpose of a dive bomb attack? You yield, or we crash. Why did Senna not make a proper attempt? Because he couldn't, not yet on that lap.

Not really, no. He thought Senna was going too fast - to me that's self-explanatory and needs no further elaboration. It's not exactly earth-shaking.

I don't quite get what choice you felt he had. I don't think he "chose" to remain there - his car was stationary. Of course he's going to try and get going again if he can: any competitive driver would. But that's wholly irrelevant in the context of driver responsibility.

Glad I could brighten up your day, but how else would you view deliberately driving into an opponent? How can you say for certain that Senna's attempt wasn't proper? We only have opinion that he wouldn't have made the corner, but it's a fact that Prost steered into him. And by doing so he took away any certainty that Senna's move was in any way inappropriate

Well, I would like to know what Ramirez thought Senna should have done, knowing he was going too fast, yet forcing himself up the inside. If he didn't feel Senna was putting the other team car at risk, I for one would like to understand why he didn't.
I would also like to know whether he spoke to Senna about racing etiquette, and possible general team orders on overtaking a team car. I can understand any such orders would not be made public in the first year(s) after the incident. But all these years later, it might throw a light on possible team bias against Prost.

I just checked; from the moment Senna's car left the track (crossed the white line between track and escape road), Senna's car wasn't stationary. The first attempt to bump start almost made it stop, but Senna gestured the marshals on, and the car kept rolling. He could have steered to safety off the escape road, but chose not to. So any "danger" a car in the escape road was in, was prolonged by Senna's decision to try to get an illegal bump start.
And as I said to Mikey, the cars parked beside the track indicate that my reading of the "dangerous place" rule is far more likely to be correct for that era, than his.

Prost's statements leave some doubt as to whether he says he was aware enough of Senna's speed, to keep the door shut rather than widen out and prepare to turn in. If he wasn't surprised, and his actions were deliberate from beginning to end, then still the fact remains that he was ahead, and it was his corner. The thing to bear in mind, is that Senna's speed didn't necessarily mean he would completely overshoot the chicane. Remember this was a very slow speed chicane, and Senna simply blocking the road enough for Prost, to make a switchback impossible. And then what? As I said straightaway; how do you defend against a dive bomb?

BIB is your interpretation not a fact. How you defend from a dive bomb is not relevant unless you think the correct way to do it is to turn in before the corner to guarantee an accident. If you can no longer keep your position without resorting to cheating then I'm afraid you've already lost it.

Fiki wrote:Well, I would like to know what Ramirez thought Senna should have done, knowing he was going too fast, yet forcing himself up the inside. If he didn't feel Senna was putting the other team car at risk, I for one would like to understand why he didn't.

Trouble is, it's all very well analysing everything from the comfort of your living room, with all the benefits of pause and rewind to help analyse the pros and cons of every parameter, but in the split second available to the drivers they have to make a judgement call on whether or not there's a chink in the other driver's armour. I think you are severely over-analysing what possible choices Senna may have had, when what it boils down to is that he saw there was a gap and he went for it. Her didn't have the luxury of waiting for another opportunity to present itself, since for all he knew there may not even have been another opportunity. Prost left the door open and Senna went for it. That's pretty much it. It doesn't need extensive sole searching.

Fiki wrote:I would also like to know whether he spoke to Senna about racing etiquette, and possible general team orders on overtaking a team car. I can understand any such orders would not be made public in the first year(s) after the incident. But all these years later, it might throw a light on possible team bias against Prost.

I think you're drawing conclusions to fit your own judgement, here. You can't draw any conclusions on driver preference from whether or not Ramirez spoke to Senna, or even whether he shared your view on driver etiquette. He may just have easily spoken with Prost and told him that he should learn not to leave the door open in future.

Fiki wrote:I just checked; from the moment Senna's car left the track (crossed the white line between track and escape road), Senna's car wasn't stationary. The first attempt to bump start almost made it stop, but Senna gestured the marshals on, and the car kept rolling. He could have steered to safety off the escape road, but chose not to. So any "danger" a car in the escape road was in, was prolonged by Senna's decision to try to get an illegal bump start.

So he may have tried it on. Shock, horror that a highly competitive individual refused to give up. This kind of thing happened all the time in the 80s: it was nothing new. And sometimes drivers were given the benefit of the doubt. But I'm curious that you appear to be more upset by this than Prost turning into an opponent. Which is the bigger crime to you, I wonder?

Fiki wrote:Prost's statements leave some doubt as to whether he says he was aware enough of Senna's speed, to keep the door shut rather than widen out and prepare to turn in. If he wasn't surprised, and his actions were deliberate from beginning to end, then still the fact remains that he was ahead, and it was his corner.

This is far from being a fact. It was not Prost's corner at all; he lost that right when he allowed Senna to come up the inside of him and should have covered him off to ensure that couldn't happen. And once again, whatever erroneous feelings of ownership a driver may have, this never gives them the right to simply turn into another car. Never.

Fiki wrote:The thing to bear in mind, is that Senna's speed didn't necessarily mean he would completely overshoot the chicane. Remember this was a very slow speed chicane, and Senna simply blocking the road enough for Prost, to make a switchback impossible. And then what? As I said straightaway; how do you defend against a dive bomb?

So? Where's the rule that says a driver must complete a corner with a ballet-like move? If he gets ahead by blocking Prost, that's perfectly legitimate. Especially if by doing so he doesn't overshoot the corner and leave the track. It doesn't have to look pretty. As to how to block; that's an easy one. Cover off the inside to make sure a dive bomb doesn't happen in the first place. But again, the prospect of losing the lead does not give a driver licence to take an opponent out. It never has and I daresay it never will

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:Of course there is more to be learned from Ramirez. I would like to know what he said to Senna about his attempt, going too fast. Don't you?

You are completely wrong about Senna having no choice in the matter; please read my explanation to Mikey. Prost's car was steered by a marshal, Senna's by himself. Which is why he just kept going in the escape road. He did have a choice in the matter, but chose to remain there, hoping for an illegal push start.

Your comment about Prost staying ahead at all cost is amusing. What is the purpose of a dive bomb attack? You yield, or we crash. Why did Senna not make a proper attempt? Because he couldn't, not yet on that lap.

Not really, no. He thought Senna was going too fast - to me that's self-explanatory and needs no further elaboration. It's not exactly earth-shaking.

I don't quite get what choice you felt he had. I don't think he "chose" to remain there - his car was stationary. Of course he's going to try and get going again if he can: any competitive driver would. But that's wholly irrelevant in the context of driver responsibility.

Glad I could brighten up your day, but how else would you view deliberately driving into an opponent? How can you say for certain that Senna's attempt wasn't proper? We only have opinion that he wouldn't have made the corner, but it's a fact that Prost steered into him. And by doing so he took away any certainty that Senna's move was in any way inappropriate

Well, I would like to know what Ramirez thought Senna should have done, knowing he was going too fast, yet forcing himself up the inside. If he didn't feel Senna was putting the other team car at risk, I for one would like to understand why he didn't.
I would also like to know whether he spoke to Senna about racing etiquette, and possible general team orders on overtaking a team car. I can understand any such orders would not be made public in the first year(s) after the incident. But all these years later, it might throw a light on possible team bias against Prost.

I just checked; from the moment Senna's car left the track (crossed the white line between track and escape road), Senna's car wasn't stationary. The first attempt to bump start almost made it stop, but Senna gestured the marshals on, and the car kept rolling. He could have steered to safety off the escape road, but chose not to. So any "danger" a car in the escape road was in, was prolonged by Senna's decision to try to get an illegal bump start.
And as I said to Mikey, the cars parked beside the track indicate that my reading of the "dangerous place" rule is far more likely to be correct for that era, than his.

Prost's statements leave some doubt as to whether he says he was aware enough of Senna's speed, to keep the door shut rather than widen out and prepare to turn in. If he wasn't surprised, and his actions were deliberate from beginning to end, then still the fact remains that he was ahead, and it was his corner. The thing to bear in mind, is that Senna's speed didn't necessarily mean he would completely overshoot the chicane. Remember this was a very slow speed chicane, and Senna simply blocking the road enough for Prost, to make a switchback impossible. And then what? As I said straightaway; how do you defend against a dive bomb?

BIB is your interpretation not a fact. How you defend from a dive bomb is not relevant unless you think the correct way to do it is to turn in before the corner to guarantee an accident. If you can no longer keep your position without resorting to cheating then I'm afraid you've already lost it.

Exactly this. I'm simply amazed that this should even be a bone of contention.

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:
That's true, we slightly derailed this, as this was a whole incident.

I can't find a sporting reg of that period, but push starts were not allowed since the Fangio days.

IIRC, push starts were an oft-talked about topic at the time. Since gears were manual, it was much more common for cars to stall after an incident. I remember more than one occasion where drivers were given assistance and it resulted in some debate, not least with the commentators. They had a loop-hole a mile wide where marshalls were given discretion if they felt the car was in a dangerous position, which inevitably led to a lot of discussion as to what was considered dangerous. let's just say their definitions of what constituted safe were much broader than what would be accepted today

Going back to the Senna-Prost incident, it could be argued that Senna could feel justifiably hard done by if him requiring a push was the result of his main WDC rival taking him out with a questionable move. But in any event, even with that ammunition available to them the FIA chose to introduce a reason which baffled pretty much everybody at the time, even those who felt Senna should have been punished

I have not seen this anywhere, was that in the regulations? That it was on the steward's discretion?

Back on the incident, if you read I agreed in most my posts that it was a stupid reason to give. But this is something that the stewards can only answer, not me.

Senna feeling hard done is understandable, then again it does not mean much; Vettel felt hard done by Lewis this year, it does not justify ramming him however...

I don't have them to hand, but yes, that was in the regulations. If the stewards felt it was in an unsafe place they had discretion to push the car

In answer to your last point, no-one's arguing that feeling hard done by is a licence to take aggressive action against an opponent. On the contrary, mikeyg123 and I have been arguing that Prost's feelings of entitlement to that corner in no way gave him the right to turn into Senna. That action made him 100% responsible for the consequences

Just to clarify things here and bring them back to the core of the topic: Fiki, are you actually saying that a driver in front has no responsibility to avoid a collision if the driver behind is attempting an overtake that might be unsuccessful if things are allowed to run their course?

Senna's disqualification, and the merits thereof, are a completely separate line of discussion from the collision at the chicane. The question posed by this thread is did Prost have a responsibility to avoid contact with Senna, or was the only responsibility on Senna - as the overtaking driver - to avoid putting himself in a situation where Prost might contact him?

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:What was punished was Senna's joining the track illegally. Prost's car was left at the edge of the escape road, which was deemed a safe place at the time, seeing that they did not remove it before the end of the race. So as Fiki explained, the fact that Senna didn't park it safely, but instead chose to bump start it, is clearly an infraction. One that they completely misquoted when handing the penalty.

Was the bump start mentioned? I don't recall them doing so at all, but could be wrong.

What I meant was "missed", they said "cutting the chicane" instead of "start with outside help".

Exediron wrote:The question posed by this thread is did Prost have a responsibility to avoid contact with Senna, or was the only responsibility on Senna - as the overtaking driver - to avoid putting himself in a situation where Prost might contact him?

When racing for position...
1) It is not required of any driver leading another to yield the position.
2) it is the responsibility of the driver desiring to overtake to do so cleanly

Prost, who was leading, had the privilege of defending his position, AND -- because he was leading -- the privilege to take his line into the corner. Senna divebombed him so late that it guaranteed that Prost would have no opportunity to take his line into the corner at all. (See item #1) Further -- and more illustrative -- Senna divebombed him at a momentum that guaranteed that both -- once collided -- would slide past the racing line, completely across the track, and over the track boundary, into the runoff zone. (See item #2) In other words, Senna was not going to make the corner himself, regardless if Prost yielded or not.

Prior to the accident at Suzuka the following year (1990) -- which was a duplicate of the previous year, with Prost also ahead -- Senna stated that "No matter what happened, he would not yield the corner and that Prost taking his normal racing line would result in an accident." Not "may" or "could" result in an accident, but "would." This attitude, freely admitted, illustrated that Senna did not care to overtake "cleanly." Instead he sought to bully the other driver into yielding, when that driver was not remotely obligated to do so, knowing and accepting that a collision was 100% the outcome.

Senna was a gifted driver, but sometimes we forget he was also quite reckless at times.

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:
That's true, we slightly derailed this, as this was a whole incident.

I can't find a sporting reg of that period, but push starts were not allowed since the Fangio days.

IIRC, push starts were an oft-talked about topic at the time. Since gears were manual, it was much more common for cars to stall after an incident. I remember more than one occasion where drivers were given assistance and it resulted in some debate, not least with the commentators. They had a loop-hole a mile wide where marshalls were given discretion if they felt the car was in a dangerous position, which inevitably led to a lot of discussion as to what was considered dangerous. let's just say their definitions of what constituted safe were much broader than what would be accepted today

Going back to the Senna-Prost incident, it could be argued that Senna could feel justifiably hard done by if him requiring a push was the result of his main WDC rival taking him out with a questionable move. But in any event, even with that ammunition available to them the FIA chose to introduce a reason which baffled pretty much everybody at the time, even those who felt Senna should have been punished

I have not seen this anywhere, was that in the regulations? That it was on the steward's discretion?

Back on the incident, if you read I agreed in most my posts that it was a stupid reason to give. But this is something that the stewards can only answer, not me.

Senna feeling hard done is understandable, then again it does not mean much; Vettel felt hard done by Lewis this year, it does not justify ramming him however...

I don't have them to hand, but yes, that was in the regulations. If the stewards felt it was in an unsafe place they had discretion to push the car

In answer to your last point, no-one's arguing that feeling hard done by is a licence to take aggressive action against an opponent. On the contrary, mikeyg123 and I have been arguing that Prost's feelings of entitlement to that corner in no way gave him the right to turn into Senna. That action made him 100% responsible for the consequences

I doubt the marshals had any say in this, on their own, but may have been briefed about this prior to the annual Grand Prix. Likewise, I doubt the stewards would have any say in this, bar offering interpretation of the rules as laid down by the international sporting code. Likewise for Race Control.
I point this out, because for the race in question, it is clear that there was no other rule in force at Suzuka (nor, as far as I remember, anywhere else in the world bar Monaco for reasons already explained), than the obligation to get the car off the race track. Which is why three cars were parked simply alongside the race track, and a fourth (Prost's) alongside the escape road.
The reason why they were not considered to pose any danger for cars racing, have already been explained. Looking at them from today's perspective is simply wrong.

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:What was punished was Senna's joining the track illegally. Prost's car was left at the edge of the escape road, which was deemed a safe place at the time, seeing that they did not remove it before the end of the race. So as Fiki explained, the fact that Senna didn't park it safely, but instead chose to bump start it, is clearly an infraction. One that they completely misquoted when handing the penalty.

Was the bump start mentioned? I don't recall them doing so at all, but could be wrong.

What I meant was "missed", they said "cutting the chicane" instead of "start with outside help".

Thanks Siao, that's what remembered also. Hence my wish to read relevant documents from the race in question, and from the appeal hearing and verdict by the World Motor Sport Council.

One thing that might help, is knowing why so many people believe Senna's claim that Balestre wanted him disqualified. There are reports available that he was in no way instrumental in the stewards reaching their verdict.