BIB: perhaps not, but I should have thought it relevant in a discussion including bad driving habits?Fiki wrote:I agree that Ricciardo barged past Räikkönen, and I admit I have forgotten how I viewed the matter at the time. But since the stewards decided to take no action, we can only wonder what their rationale was. I'm at a loss to explain it. I wonder whether teams and drivers are now so afraid of being seen as weaklings, that they don't dare to protest an illegal move anymore. McLaren protesting the Prost/Senna incident apparently only came about because Benetton was declared the winning team with Nannini at the wheel. Then again, Williams not even protesting Schumacher's crash post-Adelaide might mean there's something else that holds them back. If so, what?Zoue wrote:But the point of the comparison, when talking about Senna's (potential) culpability, is not what Räikkönen did, but what Ricciardo did. And his action, to effectively barge his way and force the other driver to take evasive action, was very comparable to what Senna did. In fact, I'd go so far as to say Senna's was less dangerous, since Prost had a run off area to escape to, whereas Räikkönen didn't have that much scope to do anything. But Ricciardo wasn't widely condemned, so why should Senna be? Prost lost claim to that piece of track when Senna muscled his way past and he shouldn't have just turned into him as if he wasn't there.Fiki wrote:That's an interesting example, but hardly comparable. Räikkönen was turning in, not closing the door.Zoue wrote:From the transgressors' perspective there's not an awful lot of difference. As for Senna trying to force his opponent, plenty of drivers do that all the time. Look at Ricciardo on Kimi in Monaco last year. It's not right but it's also not that unusual. Staying on the Ricciardo theme, a good number of his overtakes are dive bombs which rely on the other driver to take avoiding action. I'm not a great fan, but OTOH I don't see him being condemned for it by many on here.I don't think Senna's actions in that particular incident were that reprehensible. At most you could say he was trying an opportunistic move, but the one at fault for the accident was Prost in my view. I don't think you could argue that Senna knew there would be an accident, but IMO it's pretty reasonable to assume Prost would have knownFiki wrote:Of course Prost knew an accident would happen. But so did Senna, trying to force his opponent into avoiding it. That's the reason the rules spoke of "causing an avoidable accident".
Likening the two incidents fails since Hill's outside passing attempt had been blocked before trying up the inside. Hill tried both sides, so there was nothing either impossible or over-optimistic about that incident.
The state of Schumacher's car was relevant, in view of what he said about it.
I do think that in both shameful cases, it was the FIA that failed to act like a responsible body. Not much seems to have changed since, which is perhaps understandable from the point of view that F1 is not a sport.
The problem is the "definition" of an optimistic move, and who is responsible if it goes wrong. One thing that makes it even more difficult in the case of Suzuka, was the tightness of the chicane. Even now, after a few modifications (2, if I recall correctly), it is still a very difficult point on one of the best tracks in the world.
Whether Senna knew there would be an accident or not is debatable. You might say he didn't, if he had already become used to seeing drivers give in rather than risk an accident. I saw Max Verstappen display a rather similar attitude prior Singapore this year, and I wasn't surprised he failed to get out of the trap he had created himself. Then again, I do believe he failed to see what was happening - contrary to his explanation afterwards.
Goodness, how have we drifted here, from Massa's thoughts?
I'm sure Senna was aware of the risk of an accident, in the same way that Ricciardo must be whenever he tries one of his kamikaze moves. But Prost had a pair of mirrors and it's almost inconceivable that a driver of his calibre wouldn't have known that Senna beat him to the punch in that corner.
You have a point that Senna may have been used to drivers capitulating, in much the same way that Ricciardo seems to rely on other drivers to give up once he starts his move. But the flip side of that coin is that other drivers, including Prost, should have expected such a move from Senna at some point and should have been on the lookout for it. You can't really have one without the other
The availability of run-off space should never be a consideration in deciding whether an action follows the rules or breaks them.
If I remember correctly, Prost had been expecting an attack, but had decided Senna was too far back. Knowing how sharp the chicane was back then, I would have agreed. Making the apex isn't a full explanation of why Senna might have made the corner. There was only space for one car at normal speed, and Prost was ahead.
If Prost did indeed decide that, then he made a fairly big error, wouldn't you say? Because Senna clearly wasn't too far back, as otherwise they wouldn't have collided. Either way, I think it's difficult to absolve Prost of blame for the accident