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 can't find the sporting regs of that time anywhere, so I'll have to take your word. But seeing that all other cars were pushed on the side of the track, on the green, it is a bit strange that they pushed this one back on track.
I only used that example as you mentioned Senna feeling hard done to excused his later move to use an illegal bump start. Of course Prost has responsibility for that incident, however I don't feel that he was 100% responsible. Put yourself into his seat; you are ahead on track and your team mate is making what probably looks in your mirrors like a desperate dive on your inside at your corner. Now if you factor in all that had happened before then, the background between them with Prost feeling that Senna is getting better engines, etc., a couple of track squeezes between them and Senna's reputation of "let me through or else"... Well, he chose to not let him through (he pretty much admitted to this if I'm not mistaken). In a really clumsy way. As you mentioned above, it is easy to analyse this in depth now, but all this happened in a split second.
Generally I think the onus is always with the overtaker to complete a safe overtake. Or used to be at least, although I am not sure if this is in the rule books. This is also true on the road as well, where the car being overtaken is not obliged to slow down, move out of the way or change his course in any way.