planetf1.com

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki 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.

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 known

That's an interesting example, but hardly comparable. Räikkönen was turning in, not closing the door.

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

BIB: perhaps not, but I should have thought it relevant in a discussion including bad driving habits?

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

mds wrote:

Fiki wrote:
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.

Prost turned in before he normally would, that shows intent. If there was only space for one car, then he didn't really have another option than to turn in behind Senna. Senna was there legitimately and it's not because the outside car has a nose ahead, the inside car should just disappear.

Which is precisely why I don't understand this year's ruling concerning the car ahead, and Whiting using this to explain why the inside 'ahead' car being allowed to push the outside car off the track.

On the face of it, you are right in what you say. Apart that is, from the problem is that the rules, such as they are, aren't clear about how to deal with dive bombing.

I believe one of the problems discussed in dealing with the Senna/Prost 1989 tangle, was the use Senna made of the pitlane entry. We see Prost hugging that line, and I believe it was not allowed to use the entry to launch an overtake. I would like to find a good report on this somewhere, as it has a direct bearing on your statement that was there legitimately. I do believe the rules were changed later, and that in later years it would have been legal, but not at the time.

Fiki wrote:Which is precisely why I don't understand this year's ruling concerning the car ahead, and Whiting using this to explain why the inside 'ahead' car being allowed to push the outside car off the track.

You have a good point, but they seem to be consistent about that though:
- An inside car that is ahead is allowed to run the outside car off track
- An outside car that is ahead is not allowed to turn in as if no car were there

However there are differences in both situations. When we talk about the second one (= the Senna-Prost Suzuka '89 situation), we're talking about pre-apex in full braking zone. Assuming both are on the limit of braking, there is no option available to the attacking car when the outside driver decides to turn in. Inside car cannot brake harder, because he's already on the limit. As such, deciding to turn in is a conscious decision to collide.

Now the first example is post-apex in acceleration zone. Here, there are options available to the attacking-but-behind driver on the outside. He can simply go off the throttle or brake.
Also, in this example it doesn't matter if the driver ahead is on the inside or on the outside: suppose a driver manages to emerge ahead on the outside, he kan just as well choose to move to the line on the inside exit of the corner.

So all in all maybe the discussion isn't just inside vs outside, but we need to consider pre-apex vs post-apex as an extra dimension to the discussion.

I believe one of the problems discussed in dealing with the Senna/Prost 1989 tangle, was the use Senna made of the pitlane entry. We see Prost hugging that line, and I believe it was not allowed to use the entry to launch an overtake. I would like to find a good report on this somewhere, as it has a direct bearing on your statement that was there legitimately. I do believe the rules were changed later, and that in later years it would have been legal, but not at the time.

Well I agree that if it wasn't allowed, then the overtake was not on. But then, this only adds blame to Senna instead of absolving Prost - indeed, if it was the case then Senna would have had to receive a penalty.
They never mentioned Senna overtaking neither Prost nor Nannini in the same way, which led me to thinking it was no problem in itself.

Do we know of other overtakes on that spot (in the same way) during that particular period? Do we know of drivers having been punished for it?

Lt. Drebin wrote:There is no way that a move from so much behind would ever work. That was a frustrated dive-bombing.

100%.

Looking at Senna's trajectory AND Speed, there was no way in hell even he would have made that corner. As such this case in particular (excluding all other incidents between them) BOTH of them were trying to prove their point to one another. Senna thought he would be able to intimidate the professor like he'd done with most everyone else and decided he was going to be alongside at that corner and Prost saw him bull rushing his way and shut the door on Senna to show him the Jedi Master could not be intimidated into giving way just because the young lad felt it was his god given right to be there, in front of Prost.

Whilst I know Senna was genuine in naming Terry Fullerton as the greatest driver he'd ever faced, it was also partially a dig at Prost. Fullerton was an outright animal in karts and the reason Senna never beat him was because he simply had not fully developed his driving skills during the years he raced Fullerton. I think if Fullerton had made the jump to F1 while Senna was there or Senna had continued karting for a few more years, he would have been duking it out with Fullerton just as closely as he did with Prost, trading wins with one another. Who knows?… maybe fullerton would have had the measure of all the top guys then just as he did when they raced him in karts.

Fullerton is likely the greatest racing driver most of us never saw make it to the bigtime and for me that is a travesty, but I fully respect Fullerton's reasons for never doing so. Though that decision left him almost penniless, it's quite admirable.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:There is no way that a move from so much behind would ever work. That was a frustrated dive-bombing.

100%.

Looking at Senna's trajectory AND Speed, there was no way in hell even he would have made that corner.

0%.

He was matching speed with Prost, and his trajectory was the same as when he overtook Nannini and successfully made the corner - the apex even.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:There is no way that a move from so much behind would ever work. That was a frustrated dive-bombing.

100%.

Looking at Senna's trajectory AND Speed, there was no way in hell even he would have made that corner. As such this case in particular (excluding all other incidents between them) BOTH of them were trying to prove their point to one another. Senna thought he would be able to intimidate the professor like he'd done with most everyone else and decided he was going to be alongside at that corner and Prost saw him bull rushing his way and shut the door on Senna to show him the Jedi Master could not be intimidated into giving way just because the young lad felt it was his god given right to be there, in front of Prost.

Whilst I know Senna was genuine in naming Terry Fullerton as the greatest driver he'd ever faced, it was also partially a dig at Prost. Fullerton was an outright animal in karts and the reason Senna never beat him was because he simply had not fully developed his driving skills during the years he raced Fullerton. I think if Fullerton had made the jump to F1 while Senna was there or Senna had continued karting for a few more years, he would have been duking it out with Fullerton just as closely as he did with Prost, trading wins with one another. Who knows?… maybe fullerton would have had the measure of all the top guys then just as he did when they raced him in karts.

Fullerton is likely the greatest racing driver most of us never saw make it to the bigtime and for me that is a travesty, but I fully respect Fullerton's reasons for never doing so. Though that decision left him almost penniless, it's quite admirable.

I assume you did see the overtake he pulled on Nannini?

In this era of 100 slow motion replays, from every angle. I suppose it becomes easy to forget that drivers are largely thinking on their feet and never have any more than a few seconds, sometimes less than a second, to process, think, decide and react.

Many a bad or cynical decision has been made in the heat of battle.

mds wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:There is no way that a move from so much behind would ever work. That was a frustrated dive-bombing.

100%.

Looking at Senna's trajectory AND Speed, there was no way in hell even he would have made that corner.

0%.

He was matching speed with Prost, and his trajectory was the same as when he overtook Nannini and successfully made the corner - the apex even.

Nannini never came to the middle of the track, and never hugged the pitlane entry line, the way Prost did. For his overtake of Nannini, Senna had enough room to straddle the pitlane entry line. For his Prost overtake attempt, he had to go fully into the pitlane entry.
It appears that Senna didn't trust the situation during the second overtake either, as he kept some distance between his car and Nannini's. But from his locking up of his left front, it is likely Nannini was in no position to defend the way he might have. A direct comparison with Prost's speed and braking ability is difficult.

Senna's trajectory was only superficially similar. His approach to the overtake attempt was different, and he didn't widen his entry to the apex the way Nannini allowed. I think it is wiser not to point to the second overtake to prove the first was feasible.

I'm still looking for a full report on the race and more specifically the incident and the stewards' verdict and deliberation. Any help would be appreciated.

Fiki, that is precisely what happened and how.

A car merely occupying the same space on 2 different laps on 2 different drivers isn’t enough to say that driver could or would do something identically. Senna’s approach on Prost was considerably shallow and tight the entire way to the corner and at the braking point he was carrying too much speed to allow his car to maintain grip. Prost’s line was the ideal line and even he was carrying less speed going into the turn so Senna’s line being as flat as it was with the speed he was closing on the apex with means his car would have either locked up causing him to continue straight which would have resulted in significant flat spotting causing him to pit (if he didn’t go off track), or he would have cut the track significantly enough that he’d likely been DQ’d.

These cars can do things most other cars cannot, but they do have limits and Senna put his car outside those limits on the dive on Prost. The pass on Nannini was at MUCH Slower speed and Nannini gave him TONS of room and he was not quite as tight to the corner so he was able to better position his car to make the corner. They’re two completely different scenarios.

https://youtu.be/GiTQ9PEbBBA

F1 MERCENARY wrote:Fiki, that is precisely what happened and how.

A car merely occupying the same space on 2 different laps on 2 different drivers isn’t enough to say that driver could or would do something identically. Senna’s approach on Prost was considerably shallow and tight the entire way to the corner and at the braking point he was carrying too much speed to allow his car to maintain grip. Prost’s line was the ideal line and even he was carrying less speed going into the turn so Senna’s line being as flat as it was with the speed he was closing on the apex with means his car would have either locked up causing him to continue straight which would have resulted in significant flat spotting causing him to pit (if he didn’t go off track), or he would have cut the track significantly enough that he’d likely been DQ’d.

These cars can do things most other cars cannot, but they do have limits and Senna put his car outside those limits on the dive on Prost. The pass on Nannini was at MUCH Slower speed and Nannini gave him TONS of room and he was not quite as tight to the corner so he was able to better position his car to make the corner. They’re two completely different scenarios.

https://youtu.be/GiTQ9PEbBBA

What evidence is there that he was carrying too much speed?

And even if he was.... which I don't believe, it doesn't excuse Prost turning into him. If anything it would mean Prost made an even bigger error of judgement. If Senna wasn't going to make the corner all Prost had to do was let Senna skip over it and get the DSQ. No need to crash at all.

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:Fiki, that is precisely what happened and how.

A car merely occupying the same space on 2 different laps on 2 different drivers isn’t enough to say that driver could or would do something identically. Senna’s approach on Prost was considerably shallow and tight the entire way to the corner and at the braking point he was carrying too much speed to allow his car to maintain grip. Prost’s line was the ideal line and even he was carrying less speed going into the turn so Senna’s line being as flat as it was with the speed he was closing on the apex with means his car would have either locked up causing him to continue straight which would have resulted in significant flat spotting causing him to pit (if he didn’t go off track), or he would have cut the track significantly enough that he’d likely been DQ’d.

These cars can do things most other cars cannot, but they do have limits and Senna put his car outside those limits on the dive on Prost. The pass on Nannini was at MUCH Slower speed and Nannini gave him TONS of room and he was not quite as tight to the corner so he was able to better position his car to make the corner. They’re two completely different scenarios.

https://youtu.be/GiTQ9PEbBBA

What evidence is there that he was carrying too much speed?

And even if he was.... which I don't believe, it doesn't excuse Prost turning into him. If anything it would mean Prost made an even bigger error of judgement. If Senna wasn't going to make the corner all Prost had to do was let Senna skip over it and get the DSQ. No need to crash at all.

I don't understand your reasoning. On what grounds would Senna have been disqualified if Prost had given in (from still being ahead, let's not forget), and Senna had made the chicance, even with lots of kerb banging? I'm afraid it would simply have been another one of Senna's overtakes, where the other driver had chosen not to have an accident. And giving in was something Prost had said before the race he wasn't going to do anymore, as Nigel Roebuck reported. I don't know whether Senna knew about this, but he must have known it would happen sooner or later.

I agree that the difference between the two passes doesn't show conclusively whether Senna had the ability to take the chicane "normally", in his attempt on Prost. Though it does show Senna is alongside Nannini a lot earlier than he is able to come alongside Prost. So what it does show, in my opinion, is that Prost was right in judging that Senna was too far back, at least for a normal overtake attempt, such as on Nannini. So a dive bomb attempt, with Prost having to give in, was Senna's only option, if he was to be successful.

Being able to complete the corner is also not the problem, isn't the real question who has the 'right' to the corner, seeing Prost was still ahead? In other words, how on earth does a steward judge whether a dive bomb passing attempt that results in an accident, was the resposibility of the attacker, or the defender? The same question bothers me in Mr Whiting's explanation earlier this year. Which rule applies?

And I still haven't found whether the pitlane entry was considered part of the track in 1989, though it was mentioned at the time in connection with Senna's transgression.

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:Fiki, that is precisely what happened and how.

A car merely occupying the same space on 2 different laps on 2 different drivers isn’t enough to say that driver could or would do something identically. Senna’s approach on Prost was considerably shallow and tight the entire way to the corner and at the braking point he was carrying too much speed to allow his car to maintain grip. Prost’s line was the ideal line and even he was carrying less speed going into the turn so Senna’s line being as flat as it was with the speed he was closing on the apex with means his car would have either locked up causing him to continue straight which would have resulted in significant flat spotting causing him to pit (if he didn’t go off track), or he would have cut the track significantly enough that he’d likely been DQ’d.

These cars can do things most other cars cannot, but they do have limits and Senna put his car outside those limits on the dive on Prost. The pass on Nannini was at MUCH Slower speed and Nannini gave him TONS of room and he was not quite as tight to the corner so he was able to better position his car to make the corner. They’re two completely different scenarios.

https://youtu.be/GiTQ9PEbBBA

What evidence is there that he was carrying too much speed?

And even if he was.... which I don't believe, it doesn't excuse Prost turning into him. If anything it would mean Prost made an even bigger error of judgement. If Senna wasn't going to make the corner all Prost had to do was let Senna skip over it and get the DSQ. No need to crash at all.

I don't understand your reasoning. On what grounds would Senna have been disqualified if Prost had given in (from still being ahead, let's not forget), and Senna had made the chicance, even with lots of kerb banging? I'm afraid it would simply have been another one of Senna's overtakes, where the other driver had chosen not to have an accident. And giving in was something Prost had said before the race he wasn't going to do anymore, as Nigel Roebuck reported. I don't know whether Senna knew about this, but he must have known it would happen sooner or later.

I agree that the difference between the two passes doesn't show conclusively whether Senna had the ability to take the chicane "normally", in his attempt on Prost. Though it does show Senna is alongside Nannini a lot earlier than he is able to come alongside Prost. So what it does show, in my opinion, is that Prost was right in judging that Senna was too far back, at least for a normal overtake attempt, such as on Nannini. So a dive bomb attempt, with Prost having to give in, was Senna's only option, if he was to be successful.

Being able to complete the corner is also not the problem, isn't the real question who has the 'right' to the corner, seeing Prost was still ahead? In other words, how on earth does a steward judge whether a dive bomb passing attempt that results in an accident, was the resposibility of the attacker, or the defender? The same question bothers me in Mr Whiting's explanation earlier this year. Which rule applies?

And I still haven't found whether the pitlane entry was considered part of the track in 1989, though it was mentioned at the time in connection with Senna's transgression.

I was responding to a poster who said Senna had no chance of making the chicane.

And Prost doesn't have to give up. He just has to not steer into a car alongside him.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:Fiki, that is precisely what happened and how.

A car merely occupying the same space on 2 different laps on 2 different drivers isn’t enough to say that driver could or would do something identically. Senna’s approach on Prost was considerably shallow and tight the entire way to the corner and at the braking point he was carrying too much speed to allow his car to maintain grip. Prost’s line was the ideal line and even he was carrying less speed going into the turn so Senna’s line being as flat as it was with the speed he was closing on the apex with means his car would have either locked up causing him to continue straight which would have resulted in significant flat spotting causing him to pit (if he didn’t go off track), or he would have cut the track significantly enough that he’d likely been DQ’d.

These cars can do things most other cars cannot, but they do have limits and Senna put his car outside those limits on the dive on Prost. The pass on Nannini was at MUCH Slower speed and Nannini gave him TONS of room and he was not quite as tight to the corner so he was able to better position his car to make the corner. They’re two completely different scenarios.

https://youtu.be/GiTQ9PEbBBA

What evidence is there that he was carrying too much speed?

And even if he was.... which I don't believe, it doesn't excuse Prost turning into him. If anything it would mean Prost made an even bigger error of judgement. If Senna wasn't going to make the corner all Prost had to do was let Senna skip over it and get the DSQ. No need to crash at all.

I don't understand your reasoning. On what grounds would Senna have been disqualified if Prost had given in (from still being ahead, let's not forget), and Senna had made the chicance, even with lots of kerb banging? I'm afraid it would simply have been another one of Senna's overtakes, where the other driver had chosen not to have an accident. And giving in was something Prost had said before the race he wasn't going to do anymore, as Nigel Roebuck reported. I don't know whether Senna knew about this, but he must have known it would happen sooner or later.

I agree that the difference between the two passes doesn't show conclusively whether Senna had the ability to take the chicane "normally", in his attempt on Prost. Though it does show Senna is alongside Nannini a lot earlier than he is able to come alongside Prost. So what it does show, in my opinion, is that Prost was right in judging that Senna was too far back, at least for a normal overtake attempt, such as on Nannini. So a dive bomb attempt, with Prost having to give in, was Senna's only option, if he was to be successful.

Being able to complete the corner is also not the problem, isn't the real question who has the 'right' to the corner, seeing Prost was still ahead? In other words, how on earth does a steward judge whether a dive bomb passing attempt that results in an accident, was the resposibility of the attacker, or the defender? The same question bothers me in Mr Whiting's explanation earlier this year. Which rule applies?

And I still haven't found whether the pitlane entry was considered part of the track in 1989, though it was mentioned at the time in connection with Senna's transgression.

I was responding to a poster who said Senna had no chance of making the chicane.

And Prost doesn't have to give up. He just has to not steer into a car alongside him.

Yes, but you haven't explained why Senna would have been disqualified if he had not completed the overtake on-track. Just as now, the quality of stewarding was often inadequate.

Supposing Prost had steered away from the accident, how certain would he have been that the dive bomb, completed off-track or very messily on-track, would have led to a disqualification or a penalty for Senna?

Wasn't the direct problem rather that the stewards, at various points in the previous season and a half, had allowed Senna's style of forcing the defender into deciding to have an accident or yield? And the more or less direct result, that steward bumbling meant racing etiquette getting thrown out with the proverbial bath water?
I dare say Mr Whiting's explanation this year leans rather heavily on racing etiquette, without FIA sporting rules stipulating how this is supposed to work. Just as now, the problem then was that just about every other driver had a different explanation about racing etiquette. And where does one find a racing etiquette manual?

And if the problem really is racing etiquette versus sporting rules, then surely two decades after Suzuka, there's work to be done by the FIA?

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:Fiki, that is precisely what happened and how.

A car merely occupying the same space on 2 different laps on 2 different drivers isn’t enough to say that driver could or would do something identically. Senna’s approach on Prost was considerably shallow and tight the entire way to the corner and at the braking point he was carrying too much speed to allow his car to maintain grip. Prost’s line was the ideal line and even he was carrying less speed going into the turn so Senna’s line being as flat as it was with the speed he was closing on the apex with means his car would have either locked up causing him to continue straight which would have resulted in significant flat spotting causing him to pit (if he didn’t go off track), or he would have cut the track significantly enough that he’d likely been DQ’d.

These cars can do things most other cars cannot, but they do have limits and Senna put his car outside those limits on the dive on Prost. The pass on Nannini was at MUCH Slower speed and Nannini gave him TONS of room and he was not quite as tight to the corner so he was able to better position his car to make the corner. They’re two completely different scenarios.

https://youtu.be/GiTQ9PEbBBA

What evidence is there that he was carrying too much speed?

And even if he was.... which I don't believe, it doesn't excuse Prost turning into him. If anything it would mean Prost made an even bigger error of judgement. If Senna wasn't going to make the corner all Prost had to do was let Senna skip over it and get the DSQ. No need to crash at all.

I don't understand your reasoning. On what grounds would Senna have been disqualified if Prost had given in (from still being ahead, let's not forget), and Senna had made the chicance, even with lots of kerb banging? I'm afraid it would simply have been another one of Senna's overtakes, where the other driver had chosen not to have an accident. And giving in was something Prost had said before the race he wasn't going to do anymore, as Nigel Roebuck reported. I don't know whether Senna knew about this, but he must have known it would happen sooner or later.

I agree that the difference between the two passes doesn't show conclusively whether Senna had the ability to take the chicane "normally", in his attempt on Prost. Though it does show Senna is alongside Nannini a lot earlier than he is able to come alongside Prost. So what it does show, in my opinion, is that Prost was right in judging that Senna was too far back, at least for a normal overtake attempt, such as on Nannini. So a dive bomb attempt, with Prost having to give in, was Senna's only option, if he was to be successful.

Being able to complete the corner is also not the problem, isn't the real question who has the 'right' to the corner, seeing Prost was still ahead? In other words, how on earth does a steward judge whether a dive bomb passing attempt that results in an accident, was the resposibility of the attacker, or the defender? The same question bothers me in Mr Whiting's explanation earlier this year. Which rule applies?

And I still haven't found whether the pitlane entry was considered part of the track in 1989, though it was mentioned at the time in connection with Senna's transgression.

I was responding to a poster who said Senna had no chance of making the chicane.

And Prost doesn't have to give up. He just has to not steer into a car alongside him.

Yes, but you haven't explained why Senna would have been disqualified if he had not completed the overtake on-track. Just as now, the quality of stewarding was often inadequate.

Supposing Prost had steered away from the accident, how certain would he have been that the dive bomb, completed off-track or very messily on-track, would have led to a disqualification or a penalty for Senna?

Wasn't the direct problem rather that the stewards, at various points in the previous season and a half, had allowed Senna's style of forcing the defender into deciding to have an accident or yield? And the more or less direct result, that steward bumbling meant racing etiquette getting thrown out with the proverbial bath water?
I dare say Mr Whiting's explanation this year leans rather heavily on racing etiquette, without FIA sporting rules stipulating how this is supposed to work. Just as now, the problem then was that just about every other driver had a different explanation about racing etiquette. And where does one find a racing etiquette manual?

And if the problem really is racing etiquette versus sporting rules, then surely two decades after Suzuka, there's work to be done by the FIA?

BIB: not really relevant, surely? A driver shouldn't be basing his decision for whether or not to ram another on what advantage the other driver may gain if he doesn't. He shouldn't be looking to ram him, period.

The more I see and read about this incident, the more I feel for the stewards. I do think that both drivers dropped the ball. Senna looked like divebombing and Prost like turning in way too early to take that corner. Who's right and who's wrong? Very difficult to say

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:Fiki, that is precisely what happened and how.

A car merely occupying the same space on 2 different laps on 2 different drivers isn’t enough to say that driver could or would do something identically. Senna’s approach on Prost was considerably shallow and tight the entire way to the corner and at the braking point he was carrying too much speed to allow his car to maintain grip. Prost’s line was the ideal line and even he was carrying less speed going into the turn so Senna’s line being as flat as it was with the speed he was closing on the apex with means his car would have either locked up causing him to continue straight which would have resulted in significant flat spotting causing him to pit (if he didn’t go off track), or he would have cut the track significantly enough that he’d likely been DQ’d.

These cars can do things most other cars cannot, but they do have limits and Senna put his car outside those limits on the dive on Prost. The pass on Nannini was at MUCH Slower speed and Nannini gave him TONS of room and he was not quite as tight to the corner so he was able to better position his car to make the corner. They’re two completely different scenarios.

https://youtu.be/GiTQ9PEbBBA

What evidence is there that he was carrying too much speed?

And even if he was.... which I don't believe, it doesn't excuse Prost turning into him. If anything it would mean Prost made an even bigger error of judgement. If Senna wasn't going to make the corner all Prost had to do was let Senna skip over it and get the DSQ. No need to crash at all.

I don't understand your reasoning. On what grounds would Senna have been disqualified if Prost had given in (from still being ahead, let's not forget), and Senna had made the chicance, even with lots of kerb banging? I'm afraid it would simply have been another one of Senna's overtakes, where the other driver had chosen not to have an accident. And giving in was something Prost had said before the race he wasn't going to do anymore, as Nigel Roebuck reported. I don't know whether Senna knew about this, but he must have known it would happen sooner or later.

I agree that the difference between the two passes doesn't show conclusively whether Senna had the ability to take the chicane "normally", in his attempt on Prost. Though it does show Senna is alongside Nannini a lot earlier than he is able to come alongside Prost. So what it does show, in my opinion, is that Prost was right in judging that Senna was too far back, at least for a normal overtake attempt, such as on Nannini. So a dive bomb attempt, with Prost having to give in, was Senna's only option, if he was to be successful.

Being able to complete the corner is also not the problem, isn't the real question who has the 'right' to the corner, seeing Prost was still ahead? In other words, how on earth does a steward judge whether a dive bomb passing attempt that results in an accident, was the resposibility of the attacker, or the defender? The same question bothers me in Mr Whiting's explanation earlier this year. Which rule applies?

And I still haven't found whether the pitlane entry was considered part of the track in 1989, though it was mentioned at the time in connection with Senna's transgression.

I was responding to a poster who said Senna had no chance of making the chicane.

And Prost doesn't have to give up. He just has to not steer into a car alongside him.

Yes, but you haven't explained why Senna would have been disqualified if he had not completed the overtake on-track. Just as now, the quality of stewarding was often inadequate.

Supposing Prost had steered away from the accident, how certain would he have been that the dive bomb, completed off-track or very messily on-track, would have led to a disqualification or a penalty for Senna?

Wasn't the direct problem rather that the stewards, at various points in the previous season and a half, had allowed Senna's style of forcing the defender into deciding to have an accident or yield? And the more or less direct result, that steward bumbling meant racing etiquette getting thrown out with the proverbial bath water?
I dare say Mr Whiting's explanation this year leans rather heavily on racing etiquette, without FIA sporting rules stipulating how this is supposed to work. Just as now, the problem then was that just about every other driver had a different explanation about racing etiquette. And where does one find a racing etiquette manual?

And if the problem really is racing etiquette versus sporting rules, then surely two decades after Suzuka, there's work to be done by the FIA?

Because Senna was DSQ'd for cutting the chicane. It did actually happen.

I'm not sure having a lot to lose by not doing it excuses any driver for crashing into another. See Schumacher.

Out of interest since they became team mates how many times had Senna overtaken Prost on track?

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:Supposing Prost had steered away from the accident, how certain would he have been that the dive bomb, completed off-track or very messily on-track, would have led to a disqualification or a penalty for Senna?

BIB: not really relevant, surely? A driver shouldn't be basing his decision for whether or not to ram another on what advantage the other driver may gain if he doesn't. He shouldn't be looking to ram him, period.

Ordinarily, I would agree. But the conundrum is perhaps best illustrated by the penalty Prost got at Hockenheim 1993(?), for avoiding an accident and failing to use the chicane in doing so. Damned if you don't, and damned if you do, it would seem. Which appears to be the essence of Senna's tactic.

I share Siao7's sentiment about the stewards' task, but I would much rather study their full report and rationale, than feel sorry for them. Understanding the rules, and seeing them respected by the drivers is what interests me.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote:Yes, but you haven't explained why Senna would have been disqualified if he had not completed the overtake on-track. Just as now, the quality of stewarding was often inadequate.

Because Senna was DSQ'd for cutting the chicane. It did actually happen.

Correct. But could Prost have counted on that? Isn't respect for the rules reliant on the knowledge they will be applied correctly every time?

Your question about Prost-Senna overtakes is a very good one. I don't have a copy of every race during those seasons. It might be better to watch those again, rather than rely on biased reports.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:Prost’s line was the ideal line and even he was carrying less speed going into the turn

No, Senna had definitely matched Prost's speed.

These cars can do things most other cars cannot, but they do have limits and Senna put his car outside those limits on the dive on Prost.

Prove it.


Really, this is what it all boils down to:
- admittedly one cannot prove that Senna would have made the corner and so it wasn't a divebomb.
- on the other hand, one cannot prove that Senna wouldn't have made the corner and so it was a divebomb.
The facts then are:
1. Senna had fully matched Prost's speed
2. Prost turned in too soon

So the question is: if Prost, going at the same speed Senna carried, could turn in too early, then why could Senna, at that same speed, not turn in a bit later at the actual apex?

Please explain.

Fiki wrote:I think it is wiser not to point to the second overtake to prove the first was feasible.

Fair enough. I've condensed my reasoning in the previous post here above

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:Supposing Prost had steered away from the accident, how certain would he have been that the dive bomb, completed off-track or very messily on-track, would have led to a disqualification or a penalty for Senna?

BIB: not really relevant, surely? A driver shouldn't be basing his decision for whether or not to ram another on what advantage the other driver may gain if he doesn't. He shouldn't be looking to ram him, period.

Ordinarily, I would agree. But the conundrum is perhaps best illustrated by the penalty Prost got at Hockenheim 1993(?), for avoiding an accident and failing to use the chicane in doing so. Damned if you don't, and damned if you do, it would seem. Which appears to be the essence of Senna's tactic.

I share Siao7's sentiment about the stewards' task, but I would much rather study their full report and rationale, than feel sorry for them. Understanding the rules, and seeing them respected by the drivers is what interests me.

1993 is later, though, so can't be used as an indicator of Prost's state of mind.

But either way, I don't understand how potential consequences of not deliberately ramming an opponent may be used as an excuse for the decision to ram an opponent. It doesn't matter what the stewards may have done; it only matters whether Prost turned in despite knowing Senna was there. If he did, then that puts the blame squarely on him, irrespective of what speed Senna may have been carrying

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:Supposing Prost had steered away from the accident, how certain would he have been that the dive bomb, completed off-track or very messily on-track, would have led to a disqualification or a penalty for Senna?

BIB: not really relevant, surely? A driver shouldn't be basing his decision for whether or not to ram another on what advantage the other driver may gain if he doesn't. He shouldn't be looking to ram him, period.

Ordinarily, I would agree. But the conundrum is perhaps best illustrated by the penalty Prost got at Hockenheim 1993(?), for avoiding an accident and failing to use the chicane in doing so. Damned if you don't, and damned if you do, it would seem. Which appears to be the essence of Senna's tactic.

I share Siao7's sentiment about the stewards' task, but I would much rather study their full report and rationale, than feel sorry for them. Understanding the rules, and seeing them respected by the drivers is what interests me.

1993 is later, though, so can't be used as an indicator of Prost's state of mind.

But either way, I don't understand how potential consequences of not deliberately ramming an opponent may be used as an excuse for the decision to ram an opponent. It doesn't matter what the stewards may have done; it only matters whether Prost turned in despite knowing Senna was there. If he did, then that puts the blame squarely on him, irrespective of what speed Senna may have been carrying

I agree in so far, that we would first have to decide who was ramming whom. What is the definition of a dive bomb overtaking attempt?

You are right about the example not being indicative of Prost's state of mind in 1989, but we don't need any indicators for it. He had clearly stated he would not give in to a dive bombing attempt. Where it would be interesting to know his full thought process, is in working out whether his decision that Senna couldn't mount a normal attack was influenced by his observation that he used the pitlane entry.

mds wrote:Really, this is what it all boils down to:
- admittedly one cannot prove that Senna would have made the corner and so it wasn't a divebomb.
- on the other hand, one cannot prove that Senna wouldn't have made the corner and so it was a divebomb.
The facts then are:
1. Senna had fully matched Prost's speed
2. Prost turned in too soon

So the question is: if Prost, going at the same speed Senna carried, could turn in too early, then why could Senna, at that same speed, not turn in a bit later at the actual apex?

Please explain.

Not that I'm necessarily denying it (I think Senna probably would have made the overtake work) but for the sake of keeping the debate thorough, can you prove he had matched Prost's speed? Neither car is visible in each other's onboard, and I've had a hard time finding a good offboard video that lets you judge the relative speed of the cars accurately.

Point two is not under debate, but I would like to point out that even if Prost turned in too soon (which he did) he wasn't necessarily going to make the corner. He could have had enough grip to change his line and hit Senna, but still not enough to turn fully and make the corner - we can't know that the limit of adhesion wasn't waiting at just another one or two degrees of steering angle.

Exediron wrote: Not that I'm necessarily denying it (I think Senna probably would have made the overtake work) but for the sake of keeping the debate thorough, can you prove he had matched Prost's speed? Neither car is visible in each other's onboard, and I've had a hard time finding a good offboard video that lets you judge the relative speed of the cars accurately.

The video that shows them from left side/front shows it reasonably well IMO. Nothing in it.

Point two is not under debate, but I would like to point out that even if Prost turned in too soon (which he did) he wasn't necessarily going to make the corner. He could have had enough grip to change his line and hit Senna, but still not enough to turn fully and make the corner - we can't know that the limit of adhesion wasn't waiting at just another one or two degrees of steering angle.

Fair enough, but with a few extra meters, speed would have gone down even more, so steering angle can be tightened.

In any case there is NO way of proving Senna divebombed and wouldn't have made the corner. What we can clearly see then is Prost turning in too soon for the corner and hitting Senna. From all of this I'll never understand how Prost isn't clearly the one to blame.

Unless Senna's use of the pit entry was illegal.

mds wrote:In any case there is NO way of proving Senna divebombed and wouldn't have made the corner. What we can clearly see then is Prost turning in too soon for the corner and hitting Senna. From all of this I'll never understand how Prost isn't clearly the one to blame.

Well, since this whole thing started when I blamed Prost for it, I do basically agree with you!

That said, I also think Senna's move - like many of his - was somewhat bullyish, and predicated on the assumption that no car would ever fail to give him space once he had a part of his nose stuck up the inside. But in the final reckoning, I believe that Prost braked too early, was surprised when Senna outbraked him, and decided in a split second that he wasn't going to let it happen this time. The state of the championship may or may not have entered into his decision. I think it's his fault, but I do sympathize with why he did it.

PS: I found a BBC TV snippet of the incident, and broadly agree that the cars were traveling at similar speed when the collision occurred.

Exediron wrote:

mds wrote:In any case there is NO way of proving Senna divebombed and wouldn't have made the corner. What we can clearly see then is Prost turning in too soon for the corner and hitting Senna. From all of this I'll never understand how Prost isn't clearly the one to blame.

Well, since this whole thing started when I blamed Prost for it, I do basically agree with you!

That said, I also think Senna's move - like many of his - was somewhat bullyish, and predicated on the assumption that no car would ever fail to give him space once he had a part of his nose stuck up the inside. But in the final reckoning, I believe that Prost braked too early, was surprised when Senna outbraked him, and decided in a split second that he wasn't going to let it happen this time. The state of the championship may or may not have entered into his decision. I think it's his fault, but I do sympathize with why he did it.

PS: I found a BBC TV snippet of the incident, and broadly agree that the cars were traveling at similar speed when the collision occurred.

to all of this

Exediron wrote:

mds wrote:In any case there is NO way of proving Senna divebombed and wouldn't have made the corner. What we can clearly see then is Prost turning in too soon for the corner and hitting Senna. From all of this I'll never understand how Prost isn't clearly the one to blame.

Well, since this whole thing started when I blamed Prost for it, I do basically agree with you!

That said, I also think Senna's move - like many of his - was somewhat bullyish, and predicated on the assumption that no car would ever fail to give him space once he had a part of his nose stuck up the inside. But in the final reckoning, I believe that Prost braked too early, was surprised when Senna outbraked him, and decided in a split second that he wasn't going to let it happen this time. The state of the championship may or may not have entered into his decision. I think it's his fault, but I do sympathize with why he did it.

PS: I found a BBC TV snippet of the incident, and broadly agree that the cars were traveling at similar speed when the collision occurred.

I don't agree that Prost decided in a split second; he had after all clearly stated he wouldn't open the door.
Couple that with Senna's use of the pitlane entry - still to be confirmed as not allowed - and the fact that Senna was still behind, and the outlook is different.

This is from Senna's book "Principles of Race Driving" (Hazleton, 1993, page 161):

If instead our rival has pulled out of the slipstream and is trying to pass us under braking, but our car is still ahead, we can close the door on him, taking the racing line we want; it is up to him to make sure he does not hit us. The last possibility is the worst one for us: when his attack is successful and he is ahead (even if only by half a metre) at the entry to the bend. Then we have to relinquish our position, yet remain ready to take advantage if he misjudges his braking or is too fast going into the bend. The main point is this: never give up and never lose heart.

The book was first published in Italian, in 1991, so well after the two disastrous Suzuka races, although I don't know how long preparing it took.
How about that first sentence?

Fiki wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mds wrote:In any case there is NO way of proving Senna divebombed and wouldn't have made the corner. What we can clearly see then is Prost turning in too soon for the corner and hitting Senna. From all of this I'll never understand how Prost isn't clearly the one to blame.

Well, since this whole thing started when I blamed Prost for it, I do basically agree with you!

That said, I also think Senna's move - like many of his - was somewhat bullyish, and predicated on the assumption that no car would ever fail to give him space once he had a part of his nose stuck up the inside. But in the final reckoning, I believe that Prost braked too early, was surprised when Senna outbraked him, and decided in a split second that he wasn't going to let it happen this time. The state of the championship may or may not have entered into his decision. I think it's his fault, but I do sympathize with why he did it.

PS: I found a BBC TV snippet of the incident, and broadly agree that the cars were traveling at similar speed when the collision occurred.

I don't agree that Prost decided in a split second; he had after all clearly stated he wouldn't open the door.
Couple that with Senna's use of the pitlane entry - still to be confirmed as not allowed - and the fact that Senna was still behind, and the outlook is different.

This is from Senna's book "Principles of Race Driving" (Hazleton, 1993, page 161):

If instead our rival has pulled out of the slipstream and is trying to pass us under braking, but our car is still ahead, we can close the door on him, taking the racing line we want; it is up to him to make sure he does not hit us. The last possibility is the worst one for us: when his attack is successful and he is ahead (even if only by half a metre) at the entry to the bend. Then we have to relinquish our position, yet remain ready to take advantage if he misjudges his braking or is too fast going into the bend. The main point is this: never give up and never lose heart.

The book was first published in Italian, in 1991, so well after the two disastrous Suzuka races, although I don't know how long preparing it took.
How about that first sentence?

Assuming he thought having just a front wing ahead effectively means "being" ahead, then I'm not sure how he thought this could work: that would mean that when the inside car is braking at full blast, it is OK to just collide as Prost did - because the inside car can't suddenly disappear.

But indeed, then he does absolve Prost from the blame.

But in that case Senna's stance on this is not the same as mine and probably not how drivers usually race these days (and how collisions are judged by stewards) - where when the inside driver has a big overlap he can and will stay on the inside and a collision, given that the inside driver takes the apex, is usually ruled to be the fault of the outside driver.

mds wrote:Assuming he thought having just a front wing ahead effectively means "being" ahead, then I'm not sure how he thought this could work: that would mean that when the inside car is braking at full blast, it is OK to just collide as Prost did - because the inside car can't suddenly disappear.

But indeed, then he does absolve Prost from the blame.

But in that case Senna's stance on this is not the same as mine and probably not how drivers usually race these days (and how collisions are judged by stewards) - where when the inside driver has a big overlap he can and will stay on the inside and a collision, given that the inside driver takes the apex, is usually ruled to be the fault of the outside driver.

You are right, even through I don't agree with you this is how the FIA and stewarts operate.

But, if we are talking driver responsibility in overtake situations, imo the biggest problem is when the inside driver is completing the pass :most of the time, he pushes the overtaken car out of the track. I don't find this particularly great nor ok, but it is apparently tolerated nowadays.

mds wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mds wrote:In any case there is NO way of proving Senna divebombed and wouldn't have made the corner. What we can clearly see then is Prost turning in too soon for the corner and hitting Senna. From all of this I'll never understand how Prost isn't clearly the one to blame.

Well, since this whole thing started when I blamed Prost for it, I do basically agree with you!

That said, I also think Senna's move - like many of his - was somewhat bullyish, and predicated on the assumption that no car would ever fail to give him space once he had a part of his nose stuck up the inside. But in the final reckoning, I believe that Prost braked too early, was surprised when Senna outbraked him, and decided in a split second that he wasn't going to let it happen this time. The state of the championship may or may not have entered into his decision. I think it's his fault, but I do sympathize with why he did it.

PS: I found a BBC TV snippet of the incident, and broadly agree that the cars were traveling at similar speed when the collision occurred.

I don't agree that Prost decided in a split second; he had after all clearly stated he wouldn't open the door.
Couple that with Senna's use of the pitlane entry - still to be confirmed as not allowed - and the fact that Senna was still behind, and the outlook is different.

This is from Senna's book "Principles of Race Driving" (Hazleton, 1993, page 161):

If instead our rival has pulled out of the slipstream and is trying to pass us under braking, but our car is still ahead, we can close the door on him, taking the racing line we want; it is up to him to make sure he does not hit us. The last possibility is the worst one for us: when his attack is successful and he is ahead (even if only by half a metre) at the entry to the bend. Then we have to relinquish our position, yet remain ready to take advantage if he misjudges his braking or is too fast going into the bend. The main point is this: never give up and never lose heart.

The book was first published in Italian, in 1991, so well after the two disastrous Suzuka races, although I don't know how long preparing it took.
How about that first sentence?

Assuming he thought having just a front wing ahead effectively means "being" ahead, then I'm not sure how he thought this could work: that would mean that when the inside car is braking at full blast, it is OK to just collide as Prost did - because the inside car can't suddenly disappear.

But indeed, then he does absolve Prost from the blame.

I think he meant that it is the responsibility of the inside driver to back out, if he realises he isn't far enough alongside.

mds wrote:But in that case Senna's stance on this is not the same as mine and probably not how drivers usually race these days (and how collisions are judged by stewards) - where when the inside driver has a big overlap he can and will stay on the inside and a collision, given that the inside driver takes the apex, is usually ruled to be the fault of the outside driver.

In Mr Whiting's explanation this summer, being ahead was deemed a deciding factor. But it is also one in Senna's explanation. I gladly acknowledge I have no knowledge of a rule in the sporting code that regulates this, but I hope someone will come up with something. Perhaps I should write to the FIA, in view of the fact that quite a few drivers are as in the dark as all of us.

In a way it's sad, and incomprehensible, that so many years afterwards, drivers still are clueless about some of the most basic of racing rules. But at least it means we can't point the finger at our commentators for confusing us further.

Fiki wrote:

Exediron wrote:But in the final reckoning, I believe that Prost braked too early, was surprised when Senna outbraked him, and decided in a split second that he wasn't going to let it happen this time. The state of the championship may or may not have entered into his decision. I think it's his fault, but I do sympathize with why he did it.

I don't agree that Prost decided in a split second; he had after all clearly stated he wouldn't open the door.

Yes, he said that - and then he opened the door, and slammed it when Senna had a foot inside. If he wasn't going to open the door, he should have defended enough to the inside early enough so that Senna couldn't get alongside.

Fiki wrote:I think he meant that it is the responsibility of the inside driver to back out, if he realises he isn't far enough alongside.

Yes but that was my point: assuming the driver is on the limit of braking, which is pretty much to be expected when a driver is trying to outbrake another, there's no backing out. You can't brake more than 100% - anything more will see you break traction.

In Mr Whiting's explanation this summer, being ahead was deemed a deciding factor.

Hmm, could you enlighten me again? Are you sure Whiting wasn't talking about exiting the corner, instead of entering it?

I gladly acknowledge I have no knowledge of a rule in the sporting code that regulates this, but I hope someone will come up with something. Perhaps I should write to the FIA, in view of the fact that quite a few drivers are as in the dark as all of us.
.

The rule that probably comes closest is the one saying you cannot crowd a driver off track (or something to that extent), but that one is pretty much useless since they do it all the time on corner exit and it is allowed by all stewards.

Fantaribo wrote:

mds wrote:Assuming he thought having just a front wing ahead effectively means "being" ahead, then I'm not sure how he thought this could work: that would mean that when the inside car is braking at full blast, it is OK to just collide as Prost did - because the inside car can't suddenly disappear.

But indeed, then he does absolve Prost from the blame.

But in that case Senna's stance on this is not the same as mine and probably not how drivers usually race these days (and how collisions are judged by stewards) - where when the inside driver has a big overlap he can and will stay on the inside and a collision, given that the inside driver takes the apex, is usually ruled to be the fault of the outside driver.

You are right, even through I don't agree with you this is how the FIA and stewarts operate.

But, if we are talking driver responsibility in overtake situations, imo the biggest problem is when the inside driver is completing the pass :most of the time, he pushes the overtaken car out of the track. I don't find this particularly great nor ok, but it is apparently tolerated nowadays.

I'm not really OK with that myself - it's just an observation that it is allowed, if not explicitly by the rules then at least it is an implicit agreement. Big caveat: it's only allowed when the inside driver has managed to get ahead. If he is still behind he is not allowed to do it.

But for that same reason (being an inside driver shouldn't have the right to push another off track) I'm not OK with the idea that an outside driver should be able to just cut to the apex if someone is on his inside and has a decent overlap.

mds wrote:

Fiki wrote:I think he meant that it is the responsibility of the inside driver to back out, if he realises he isn't far enough alongside.

Yes but that was my point: assuming the driver is on the limit of braking, which is pretty much to be expected when a driver is trying to outbrake another, there's no backing out. You can't brake more than 100% - anything more will see you break traction.

Which means that it is the attacking driver's responsibility to know whether his attack has any chance of succeeding or not. In other words, a dive bomb attack is one in which the attacking driver is aware of limited chances of success, but places most of the burden of avoiding the likely crash with his victim.

mds wrote:

In Mr Whiting's explanation this summer, being ahead was deemed a deciding factor.

Hmm, could you enlighten me again? Are you sure Whiting wasn't talking about exiting the corner, instead of entering it?

It is used to decide whether the inside driver is allowed to remain on the racing line, and thus run the outside driver off the track. But it is interesting because Senna also speaks of being ahead, something he failed to achieve. I have always understood the extract from his book to mean that he said himself he was responsible for the accident, because he launched an attack that he could not carry through, and could not get out of.

Fiki wrote:Which means that it is the attacking driver's responsibility to know whether his attack has any chance of succeeding or not. In other words, a dive bomb attack is one in which the attacking driver is aware of limited chances of success, but places most of the burden of avoiding the likely crash with his victim.

That would basically classify every outbraking attempt as being a divebomb. I mean, I don't think any outbraking attempt on the inside is ever done at less than the very edge of braking traction, so no way to ever back out when on the inside and the outside driver wants to cut to the apex.

I can't agree with that definition of a divebomb, nor can I with the idea that the inside driver should always be able to back out of it.

I have always understood the extract from his book to mean that he said himself he was responsible for the accident, because he launched an attack that he could not carry through, and could not get out of.

It seems so (again depending on the definition of ahead he had in mind, but likely the one you do as well), but I actually don't agree with that right there

Surely approaching any heavy braking zone in normal driving, let alone overtaking a driver will be braking on the limit?

I mean approaching that chicane in Suzuka surely every driver is braking as hard as possible whilst maintaining control of the car? He can't just decide to brake a bit harder if he has to suddenly avoid something.

Isn't this why Verstappen gets criticised for moving in the braking zone?

Including my own (lower-level, long-year) racing experience into it, I think it is a psychological game between the combatting drivers. Who is comitted to what extent?

I once read (cannot remember the specific source, though) that Petrov said about Abu Dhabi '10 that if Alonso had tried the do-it-or-crash manoeuvre, he had given in (because he knew the stakes at hand) but he tried everything to signal he would not. And while the main mistake remains with Ferrari strategy, i still think Alonso should have tried the all-or-nothing overtake attempt - but he did not.

Notwithstanding, it is a give-and-take. And Senna always took. Only took, never gave. And before the race and during the race (Suzuka '89), it was clear that this time Prost would not give. Not this time. But Senna still gambled on that he would give. Heck, Prost's defence language was so clear that Senna had to use parts off the track to launch his attack. And Prost would not yield and he did not. In context, I always thought it was justified,

However, if the psychological game goes wrong, it is still a racing incident of some sorts and different from the deliberate foul when you already have lost, like Senna in Suzuka '90, Schumacher in AUS '94 and Jerez '97 - or Vettel in Baku '17. That's a totally different game.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Including my own (lower-level, long-year) racing experience into it, I think it is a psychological game between the combatting drivers. Who is comitted to what extent?

I once read (cannot remember the specific source, though) that Petrov said about Abu Dhabi '10 that if Alonso had tried the do-it-or-crash manoeuvre, he had given in (because he knew the stakes at hand) but he tried everything to signal he would not. And while the main mistake remains with Ferrari strategy, i still think Alonso should have tried the all-or-nothing overtake attempt - but he did not.

Notwithstanding, it is a give-and-take. And Senna always took. Only took, never gave. And before the race and during the race (Suzuka '89), it was clear that this time Prost would not give. Not this time. But Senna still gambled on that he would give. Heck, Prost's defence language was so clear that Senna had to use parts off the track to launch his attack. And Prost would not yield and he did not. In context, I always thought it was justified,

However, if the psychological game goes wrong, it is still a racing incident of some sorts and different from the deliberate foul when you already have lost, like Senna in Suzuka '90, Schumacher in AUS '94 and Jerez '97 - or Vettel in Baku '17. That's a totally different game.

It is different, but no way a racing incident. Suzuka '90 and Prost '89 were premeditated. Senna rammed Prost on purpose in what is still the worst offence to date in my eyes. Prost had also decided that if a move was done he wouldn't yield. He had vowed to that before the race. No racing incidents there...

A few people have talked about "Prost not yeilding". I think he went further than that. He took a totally abnormal line and drove into the driver alongside him. Had he just not left any space at the apex then I would have a lot more sympathy with his actions.

mikeyg123 wrote:A few people have talked about "Prost not yeilding". I think he went further than that. He took a totally abnormal line and drove into the driver alongside him. Had he just not left any space at the apex then I would have a lot more sympathy with his actions.

He called it not yielding; in reality it meant that he wouldn't get out of the way of Senna's signature overtaking move of "get out of the way or get rammed".