planetf1.com

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Prost shunted Senna off to win a championship before Senna returned the favour. Had Prost been appropriately punished in 89 I doubt Senna would have felt safe to do what he did in 1990.

I'm getting a sense of deja vu and I suspect we've argued this point before, but I think there's a major difference between the two. What Senna did was unacceptably dangerous, and openly motivated by revenge. No legitimate regulatory body would allow someone to win a championship that way.

They both deliberately caused a crashed to win a title. Neither should have been allowed to win a title that way.

Senna's is only worse in the sense that it's higher risk but the precedent had been set the year before. Prost not only clearly tried to take him out but when that failed he got DSQ'd on a technicality. For something that had never even previously been punished. Yes, what he did was unacceptable but he was very heavily provoked. I think all of us would have had our judgement clouded by a sense of huge injustice had we been in Senna's position.

I disagree with this, I personally think that while Senna's was a horrible act, Prost's is more debatable if you want. I know that Prost was the thinker, the professor, but I do not think that he wanted to win the title that way; more like he wanted to show Senna that he wouldn't bulge to his bullish tactics, paid him in the same coin of "I'll put my car there and you decide if we will crash or not". There's a difference. I can't prove it though and frankly I wouldn't be surprised nor object to Prost getting penalised for the crash and eventually losing the WDC.

As for 1990, revoking his license was taken back. And I agree that the 1989 technicality was wrong; he should have been punished for being push-started. He obviously felt provoked by Balestre not bulging in his ridiculous demand to change the grid sides, something that he was fine the years before that. I've never seen a driver demanding to change something on a track to suit him, never before, never after. That was Senna being bigger than the sport itself and I am not sure how it justifies using his car as a weapon. It was a premeditated act, not red mist, I am not sure we ever had this before or after. He was provoked the year before if you want, but his retaliation put lives in danger.

But we are slowly getting off topic.

Post simply turned into the corner way to early. He basically side swiped him in a straight. If you look where Prost starts steering right you can easily tell he isn't aiming for the apex and Senna is alongside him at this point. Prost definitely deliberately caused the crash.

If he hadn't decided to do that I very much doubt Senna would have shunted Prost a year later merely over the starting grid positions. Not that I think it excuses it.

At the end of the day both should have been DSQ'd but if you do that for 89 you probably stop 90, 94 and 97.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Prost shunted Senna off to win a championship before Senna returned the favour. Had Prost been appropriately punished in 89 I doubt Senna would have felt safe to do what he did in 1990.

I'm getting a sense of deja vu and I suspect we've argued this point before, but I think there's a major difference between the two. What Senna did was unacceptably dangerous, and openly motivated by revenge. No legitimate regulatory body would allow someone to win a championship that way.

They both deliberately caused a crashed to win a title. Neither should have been allowed to win a title that way.

Senna's is only worse in the sense that it's higher risk but the precedent had been set the year before. Prost not only clearly tried to take him out but when that failed he got DSQ'd on a technicality. For something that had never even previously been punished. Yes, what he did was unacceptable but he was very heavily provoked. I think all of us would have had our judgement clouded by a sense of huge injustice had we been in Senna's position.

I disagree with this, I personally think that while Senna's was a horrible act, Prost's is more debatable if you want. I know that Prost was the thinker, the professor, but I do not think that he wanted to win the title that way; more like he wanted to show Senna that he wouldn't bulge to his bullish tactics, paid him in the same coin of "I'll put my car there and you decide if we will crash or not". There's a difference. I can't prove it though and frankly I wouldn't be surprised nor object to Prost getting penalised for the crash and eventually losing the WDC.

As for 1990, revoking his license was taken back. And I agree that the 1989 technicality was wrong; he should have been punished for being push-started. He obviously felt provoked by Balestre not bulging in his ridiculous demand to change the grid sides, something that he was fine the years before that. I've never seen a driver demanding to change something on a track to suit him, never before, never after. That was Senna being bigger than the sport itself and I am not sure how it justifies using his car as a weapon. It was a premeditated act, not red mist, I am not sure we ever had this before or after. He was provoked the year before if you want, but his retaliation put lives in danger.

But we are slowly getting off topic.

Post simply turned into the corner way to early. He basically side swiped him in a straight. If you look where Prost starts steering right you can easily tell he isn't aiming for the apex and Senna is alongside him at this point. Prost definitely deliberately caused the crash.

If he hadn't decided to do that I very much doubt Senna would have shunted Prost a year later merely over the starting grid positions. Not that I think it excuses it.

At the end of the day both should have been DSQ'd but if you do that for 89 you probably stop 90, 94 and 97.

Prost turned in an angle that wouldn't make the apex, that is not contested, but I was merely examining the intention. Prost had talked about shutting the door and standing up to Senna's bullish driving. So I do not think that it would need a WDC ban, maybe a black flag for this race. If he did it to win the WDC, then a WDC ban would have been appropriate. I mean it is difficult to distinguish, isn't it? And I would not expect Prost to come out and say "yeah, I did it to win the WDC", that's why I will not push on the matter. It is just my gut feeling that he did it more as a statement to Senna.

In any case, punishing turning into someone would have most likely stopped later situations as you mentioned. And Prost should have been punished for causing that collision.

Siao7 wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:There does seem rather too much of a reluctance on the stewards part to award penalties for dodgy overtaking or dodgy defending when collisions are avoided.

Hamilton should really have had a penalty for Monaco 2016, Leclerc for his dangerous defence at Monza, Stroll in Austria, Kvyat's torpedo in China etc etc.

Also the modern penalty system can be a bit unsatisfying. There are times IMO where black flags would have been appropriate. Schumacher on Barrichello in 2010 springs to mind (I know that predates the current penalty point system), as does Grosjean at Spain 2018 which I can't believe wasn't punished with a race ban.

Sorry if I'm being daft, but the Grosjean incident is the one that he spun in the opening lap in the Spanish GP, right? Why a race ban?

I think it could be Grosjean's decision to spin the rear wheels to keep the car running which created a load of smoke and blocked the view of those behind him. Not sure it was quite bad enough for a race ban.

In my opinion, one of the worst judgements of any driver since Grosjean in Spa 2012 was possibly Sainz in Canada 2017. He also seemed totally unaware of his surroundings. Had Grosjean partly alongside him on the inside well befor the corner, and in a similar was to Grosjean at Spa, pushed him onto the grass. Grosjean came back on track and survived the first push, but then Sainz just drove to the right of the circuit suddenly as if nobody was there, making both himself and Grosjean loose control of their cars. Sainz walloped into Massa who also got taken out. Alonso and others had to take avoiding action. Grosjean just about managed to save himself spinning but had to pit to repair damage. I think this quite possibly should have been a race ban if I'm honest as it wasn't just one time he didn't realise he had a car along side. It could have resulted in far more carnage.

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:There does seem rather too much of a reluctance on the stewards part to award penalties for dodgy overtaking or dodgy defending when collisions are avoided.

Hamilton should really have had a penalty for Monaco 2016, Leclerc for his dangerous defence at Monza, Stroll in Austria, Kvyat's torpedo in China etc etc.

Also the modern penalty system can be a bit unsatisfying. There are times IMO where black flags would have been appropriate. Schumacher on Barrichello in 2010 springs to mind (I know that predates the current penalty point system), as does Grosjean at Spain 2018 which I can't believe wasn't punished with a race ban.

Sorry if I'm being daft, but the Grosjean incident is the one that he spun in the opening lap in the Spanish GP, right? Why a race ban?

I think it could be Grosjean's decision to spin the rear wheels to keep the car running which created a load of smoke and blocked the view of those behind him. Not sure it was quite bad enough for a race ban.

In my opinion, one of the worst judgements of any driver since Grosjean in Spa 2012 was possibly Sainz in Canada 2017. He also seemed totally unaware of his surroundings. Had Grosjean partly alongside him on the inside well befor the corner, and in a similar was to Grosjean at Spa, pushed him onto the grass. Grosjean came back on track and survived the first push, but then Sainz just drove to the right of the circuit suddenly as if nobody was there, making both himself and Grosjean loose control of their cars. Sainz walloped into Massa who also got taken out. Alonso and others had to take avoiding action. Grosjean just about managed to save himself spinning but had to pit to repair damage. I think this quite possibly should have been a race ban if I'm honest as it wasn't just one time he didn't realise he had a car along side. It could have resulted in far more carnage.

Ah thanks. I am not sure if anyone crashed because of the smoke, he collected another car due to the spin I think, but not because of the smoke. Maybe a penalty of some sort, but a ban sounds a bit harsh.

Siao7 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:There does seem rather too much of a reluctance on the stewards part to award penalties for dodgy overtaking or dodgy defending when collisions are avoided.

Hamilton should really have had a penalty for Monaco 2016, Leclerc for his dangerous defence at Monza, Stroll in Austria, Kvyat's torpedo in China etc etc.

Also the modern penalty system can be a bit unsatisfying. There are times IMO where black flags would have been appropriate. Schumacher on Barrichello in 2010 springs to mind (I know that predates the current penalty point system), as does Grosjean at Spain 2018 which I can't believe wasn't punished with a race ban.

Sorry if I'm being daft, but the Grosjean incident is the one that he spun in the opening lap in the Spanish GP, right? Why a race ban?

I think it could be Grosjean's decision to spin the rear wheels to keep the car running which created a load of smoke and blocked the view of those behind him. Not sure it was quite bad enough for a race ban.

In my opinion, one of the worst judgements of any driver since Grosjean in Spa 2012 was possibly Sainz in Canada 2017. He also seemed totally unaware of his surroundings. Had Grosjean partly alongside him on the inside well befor the corner, and in a similar was to Grosjean at Spa, pushed him onto the grass. Grosjean came back on track and survived the first push, but then Sainz just drove to the right of the circuit suddenly as if nobody was there, making both himself and Grosjean loose control of their cars. Sainz walloped into Massa who also got taken out. Alonso and others had to take avoiding action. Grosjean just about managed to save himself spinning but had to pit to repair damage. I think this quite possibly should have been a race ban if I'm honest as it wasn't just one time he didn't realise he had a car along side. It could have resulted in far more carnage.

Ah thanks. I am not sure if anyone crashed because of the smoke, he collected another car due to the spin I think, but not because of the smoke. Maybe a penalty of some sort, but a ban sounds a bit harsh.

I remember Grosjean got a 3 place grid drop for the next race. Although can't remember exactly what he got at the time. Presumably several penalty points. In the one with Sainz that I mentioned, That also resulted in 2 penalty points and a 3 place grid drop for the next race, though I personally thought that penalty was very weak.

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:There does seem rather too much of a reluctance on the stewards part to award penalties for dodgy overtaking or dodgy defending when collisions are avoided.

Hamilton should really have had a penalty for Monaco 2016, Leclerc for his dangerous defence at Monza, Stroll in Austria, Kvyat's torpedo in China etc etc.

Also the modern penalty system can be a bit unsatisfying. There are times IMO where black flags would have been appropriate. Schumacher on Barrichello in 2010 springs to mind (I know that predates the current penalty point system), as does Grosjean at Spain 2018 which I can't believe wasn't punished with a race ban.

Sorry if I'm being daft, but the Grosjean incident is the one that he spun in the opening lap in the Spanish GP, right? Why a race ban?

I think it could be Grosjean's decision to spin the rear wheels to keep the car running which created a load of smoke and blocked the view of those behind him. Not sure it was quite bad enough for a race ban.

In my opinion, one of the worst judgements of any driver since Grosjean in Spa 2012 was possibly Sainz in Canada 2017. He also seemed totally unaware of his surroundings. Had Grosjean partly alongside him on the inside well befor the corner, and in a similar was to Grosjean at Spa, pushed him onto the grass. Grosjean came back on track and survived the first push, but then Sainz just drove to the right of the circuit suddenly as if nobody was there, making both himself and Grosjean loose control of their cars. Sainz walloped into Massa who also got taken out. Alonso and others had to take avoiding action. Grosjean just about managed to save himself spinning but had to pit to repair damage. I think this quite possibly should have been a race ban if I'm honest as it wasn't just one time he didn't realise he had a car along side. It could have resulted in far more carnage.

I know you aren't a fan of Sainz but that was hardly race ban worthy.

JN23 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:There does seem rather too much of a reluctance on the stewards part to award penalties for dodgy overtaking or dodgy defending when collisions are avoided.

Hamilton should really have had a penalty for Monaco 2016, Leclerc for his dangerous defence at Monza, Stroll in Austria, Kvyat's torpedo in China etc etc.

Also the modern penalty system can be a bit unsatisfying. There are times IMO where black flags would have been appropriate. Schumacher on Barrichello in 2010 springs to mind (I know that predates the current penalty point system), as does Grosjean at Spain 2018 which I can't believe wasn't punished with a race ban.

Sorry if I'm being daft, but the Grosjean incident is the one that he spun in the opening lap in the Spanish GP, right? Why a race ban?

I think it could be Grosjean's decision to spin the rear wheels to keep the car running which created a load of smoke and blocked the view of those behind him. Not sure it was quite bad enough for a race ban.

In my opinion, one of the worst judgements of any driver since Grosjean in Spa 2012 was possibly Sainz in Canada 2017. He also seemed totally unaware of his surroundings. Had Grosjean partly alongside him on the inside well befor the corner, and in a similar was to Grosjean at Spa, pushed him onto the grass. Grosjean came back on track and survived the first push, but then Sainz just drove to the right of the circuit suddenly as if nobody was there, making both himself and Grosjean loose control of their cars. Sainz walloped into Massa who also got taken out. Alonso and others had to take avoiding action. Grosjean just about managed to save himself spinning but had to pit to repair damage. I think this quite possibly should have been a race ban if I'm honest as it wasn't just one time he didn't realise he had a car along side. It could have resulted in far more carnage.

I know you aren't a fan of Sainz but that was hardly race ban worthy.

I never really was a fan or not a fan of Sainz back in 2017, but it has to be said, the first half of the season was pretty terrible in terms of some mistakes by him. Anyway, To my eyes, I see a lot of similarities to Spa 2012 here - just the outcome luckily wasn't quite as bad. But that was partly due to avoiding action from Grosjean. Pushing Grosjean onto the grass was bad enough, but later on he still turns in (like Grosjean on Hamilton) and messes everything up badly. Pretty similar to me.

mikeyg123 wrote:If he hadn't decided to do that I very much doubt Senna would have shunted Prost a year later merely over the starting grid positions. Not that I think it excuses it.

At the end of the day both should have been DSQ'd but if you do that for 89 you probably stop 90, 94 and 97.

I see a difference between an unsporting move to take your rival out of the race, and a potentially fatal revenge-driven attack on the very first lap of the race. You seem to be dismissing the danger aspect, but to me it's a very important difference between the two. Prost should have been disqualified, but IMO Senna should have been banned from F1.

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:If he hadn't decided to do that I very much doubt Senna would have shunted Prost a year later merely over the starting grid positions. Not that I think it excuses it.

At the end of the day both should have been DSQ'd but if you do that for 89 you probably stop 90, 94 and 97.

I see a difference between an unsporting move to take your rival out of the race, and a potentially fatal revenge-driven attack on the very first lap of the race. You seem to be dismissing the danger aspect, but to me it's a very important difference between the two. Prost should have been disqualified, but IMO Senna should have been banned from F1.

I wouldn't disagree with that. If by Prost being DSQ'd you mean DSQ'd from the championship or at least the very least forced to sit out the final race.

In my head I'm in a strange place with the Senna one. I completely agree that it's worse but at the same time I find myself more easily able to empathise with Senna's situation given how unjustly he was dealt with the year before.

But yeah, put the two incidents in isolation just judging for what they are in themselves then Senna's is definitely worse.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:If he hadn't decided to do that I very much doubt Senna would have shunted Prost a year later merely over the starting grid positions. Not that I think it excuses it.

At the end of the day both should have been DSQ'd but if you do that for 89 you probably stop 90, 94 and 97.

I see a difference between an unsporting move to take your rival out of the race, and a potentially fatal revenge-driven attack on the very first lap of the race. You seem to be dismissing the danger aspect, but to me it's a very important difference between the two. Prost should have been disqualified, but IMO Senna should have been banned from F1.

I wouldn't disagree with that. If by Prost being DSQ'd you mean DSQ'd from the championship or at least the very least forced to sit out the final race.

In my head I'm in a strange place with the Senna one. I completely agree that it's worse but at the same time I find myself more easily able to empathise with Senna's situation given how unjustly he was dealt with the year before.

But yeah, put the two incidents in isolation just judging for what they are in themselves then Senna's is definitely worse.

I still don't think he was unjustly dealt, he should have been DSQ'd for one reason or another in 1989. Prost being at fault in the collision doesn't mean that Senna should have received outside help to jump start the car. I think his temper and ego got the better of him.

And being feeling hard done a year before doesn't excuse what he did.

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:If he hadn't decided to do that I very much doubt Senna would have shunted Prost a year later merely over the starting grid positions. Not that I think it excuses it.

At the end of the day both should have been DSQ'd but if you do that for 89 you probably stop 90, 94 and 97.

I see a difference between an unsporting move to take your rival out of the race, and a potentially fatal revenge-driven attack on the very first lap of the race. You seem to be dismissing the danger aspect, but to me it's a very important difference between the two. Prost should have been disqualified, but IMO Senna should have been banned from F1.

I wouldn't disagree with that. If by Prost being DSQ'd you mean DSQ'd from the championship or at least the very least forced to sit out the final race.

In my head I'm in a strange place with the Senna one. I completely agree that it's worse but at the same time I find myself more easily able to empathise with Senna's situation given how unjustly he was dealt with the year before.

But yeah, put the two incidents in isolation just judging for what they are in themselves then Senna's is definitely worse.

I still don't think he was unjustly dealt, he should have been DSQ'd for one reason or another in 1989. Prost being at fault in the collision doesn't mean that Senna should have received outside help to jump start the car. I think his temper and ego got the better of him.

And being feeling hard done a year before doesn't excuse what he did.

Being deliberately crashed into and taken out by your championship rival would be enough of a reason for someone to feel they had been treated unjustly.

The bump start didn't break the rules. It was allowed at the time hence why they couldn't DSQ him for that and had to put it on something nefarious about not completing the full distance because he used the run off on the chicane to get going.

It doesn't excuse what Senna did a year later but I think it makes his inset going into the weekend a little more understandable. He'd been screwed over royally the year before.

mikeyg123 wrote:Prost shunted Senna off to win a championship before Senna returned the favour. Had Prost been appropriately punished in 89 I doubt Senna would have felt safe to do what he did in 1990.

I believe that if you look at the two incidents objectively, you will see the main and crucial difference. 1989 shows us that a defending driver is defenceless against a "divebomb", regardless of wether the attacker simply misjudged, or went ahead and put all the responsibility for avoiding an accident on the defender. This is also what Ricciardo experienced a week ago - and which also keeps me nicely on-topic.
But Prost's problem wasn't simply avoiding a collision; it was denying Senna the opportunity of staying in the title race by so doing.
Which means that the entire discussion revolves around whether one considers Senna's attempt as a normal attempt at an overtake.
To my mind, Prost's initial hesitation in closing the door simply shows him behaving as he normally would; wanting to avoid an accident. But since Senna was behind, and the pass wasn't on, he felt he could close the door regardless of how it would turn out.

In 1990 only Prost was racing. Senna stopped racing the moment Prost drew ahead. There wasn't even an accident to be avoided.

Last year's question and conclusion by Leclerc after the Austrian Grand Prix showed how poorly the FIA still manages the sport. I could not understand how he was let off for his defence in Monza; no rule allows it. But the same is true for running people off the track, as Hamilton did to Albon only 2 weeks ago.

There is, I feel, one thing that can be said in defence of the stewards: it isn't because a particular crew of stewards made a wrong ruling X number of races ago, that another team of stewards should make the same mistake a few weeks/months later, simply in the interest of consistency.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:If he hadn't decided to do that I very much doubt Senna would have shunted Prost a year later merely over the starting grid positions. Not that I think it excuses it.

At the end of the day both should have been DSQ'd but if you do that for 89 you probably stop 90, 94 and 97.

I see a difference between an unsporting move to take your rival out of the race, and a potentially fatal revenge-driven attack on the very first lap of the race. You seem to be dismissing the danger aspect, but to me it's a very important difference between the two. Prost should have been disqualified, but IMO Senna should have been banned from F1.

I wouldn't disagree with that. If by Prost being DSQ'd you mean DSQ'd from the championship or at least the very least forced to sit out the final race.

In my head I'm in a strange place with the Senna one. I completely agree that it's worse but at the same time I find myself more easily able to empathise with Senna's situation given how unjustly he was dealt with the year before.

But yeah, put the two incidents in isolation just judging for what they are in themselves then Senna's is definitely worse.

I still don't think he was unjustly dealt, he should have been DSQ'd for one reason or another in 1989. Prost being at fault in the collision doesn't mean that Senna should have received outside help to jump start the car. I think his temper and ego got the better of him.

And being feeling hard done a year before doesn't excuse what he did.

Being deliberately crashed into and taken out by your championship rival would be enough of a reason for someone to feel they had been treated unjustly.

The bump start didn't break the rules. It was allowed at the time hence why they couldn't DSQ him for that and had to put it on something nefarious about not completing the full distance because he used the run off on the chicane to get going.

It doesn't excuse what Senna did a year later but I think it makes his inset going into the weekend a little more understandable. He'd been screwed over royally the year before.

I am pretty sure it did, what happened to unaided and alone? As far back as the 1956 Argentine GP where Fangio got a push start and it was protested, only to be rejected as there was no evidence. Marshals can help a car to get out of a tight spot and not to jump start it, that was never allowed in F1 to my knowledge.

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Prost shunted Senna off to win a championship before Senna returned the favour. Had Prost been appropriately punished in 89 I doubt Senna would have felt safe to do what he did in 1990.

I believe that if you look at the two incidents objectively, you will see the main and crucial difference. 1989 shows us that a defending driver is defenceless against a "divebomb", regardless of wether the attacker simply misjudged, or went ahead and put all the responsibility for avoiding an accident on the defender. This is also what Ricciardo experienced a week ago - and which also keeps me nicely on-topic.
But Prost's problem wasn't simply avoiding a collision; it was denying Senna the opportunity of staying in the title race by so doing.
Which means that the entire discussion revolves around whether one considers Senna's attempt as a normal attempt at an overtake.
To my mind, Prost's initial hesitation in closing the door simply shows him behaving as he normally would; wanting to avoid an accident. But since Senna was behind, and the pass wasn't on, he felt he could close the door regardless of how it would turn out.

In 1990 only Prost was racing. Senna stopped racing the moment Prost drew ahead. There wasn't even an accident to be avoided.

Last year's question and conclusion by Leclerc after the Austrian Grand Prix showed how poorly the FIA still manages the sport. I could not understand how he was let off for his defence in Monza; no rule allows it. But the same is true for running people off the track, as Hamilton did to Albon only 2 weeks ago.

There is, I feel, one thing that can be said in defence of the stewards: it isn't because a particular crew of stewards made a wrong ruling X number of races ago, that another team of stewards should make the same mistake a few weeks/months later, simply in the interest of consistency.

This is true, but they also having something called a precedence. A team can use that case to defend their actions as it has been allowed before.

There is no perfect system in my mind, stewards will get some things wrong as each person interprets things differently sometimes. Just look in the forum, or even drivers blaming each other. Stewards generally do a good job, considering, but we can expect them to get things wrong. So the real question is do we employ the same stewards or just keep changing them on a race to race basis? Both options have pros and cons.

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote: I see a difference between an unsporting move to take your rival out of the race, and a potentially fatal revenge-driven attack on the very first lap of the race. You seem to be dismissing the danger aspect, but to me it's a very important difference between the two. Prost should have been disqualified, but IMO Senna should have been banned from F1.

I wouldn't disagree with that. If by Prost being DSQ'd you mean DSQ'd from the championship or at least the very least forced to sit out the final race.

In my head I'm in a strange place with the Senna one. I completely agree that it's worse but at the same time I find myself more easily able to empathise with Senna's situation given how unjustly he was dealt with the year before.

But yeah, put the two incidents in isolation just judging for what they are in themselves then Senna's is definitely worse.

I still don't think he was unjustly dealt, he should have been DSQ'd for one reason or another in 1989. Prost being at fault in the collision doesn't mean that Senna should have received outside help to jump start the car. I think his temper and ego got the better of him.

And being feeling hard done a year before doesn't excuse what he did.

Being deliberately crashed into and taken out by your championship rival would be enough of a reason for someone to feel they had been treated unjustly.

The bump start didn't break the rules. It was allowed at the time hence why they couldn't DSQ him for that and had to put it on something nefarious about not completing the full distance because he used the run off on the chicane to get going.

It doesn't excuse what Senna did a year later but I think it makes his inset going into the weekend a little more understandable. He'd been screwed over royally the year before.

I am pretty sure it did, what happened to unaided and alone? As far back as the 1956 Argentine GP where Fangio got a push start and it was protested, only to be rejected as there was no evidence. Marshals can help a car to get out of a tight spot and not to jump start it, that was never allowed in F1 to my knowledge.

I don't think there's any rule that said the bump start is not allowed. Marshalls are allowed to push the car to a safer spot. If the car restarts when doing that I don't think there is a rule in place that prevents ya driver from getting back in the race. If there was then they would have used that to DSQ him rather than have to find something tenuous about him not completing the full distance.

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote: I see a difference between an unsporting move to take your rival out of the race, and a potentially fatal revenge-driven attack on the very first lap of the race. You seem to be dismissing the danger aspect, but to me it's a very important difference between the two. Prost should have been disqualified, but IMO Senna should have been banned from F1.

I wouldn't disagree with that. If by Prost being DSQ'd you mean DSQ'd from the championship or at least the very least forced to sit out the final race.

In my head I'm in a strange place with the Senna one. I completely agree that it's worse but at the same time I find myself more easily able to empathise with Senna's situation given how unjustly he was dealt with the year before.

But yeah, put the two incidents in isolation just judging for what they are in themselves then Senna's is definitely worse.

I still don't think he was unjustly dealt, he should have been DSQ'd for one reason or another in 1989. Prost being at fault in the collision doesn't mean that Senna should have received outside help to jump start the car. I think his temper and ego got the better of him.

And being feeling hard done a year before doesn't excuse what he did.

Being deliberately crashed into and taken out by your championship rival would be enough of a reason for someone to feel they had been treated unjustly.

The bump start didn't break the rules. It was allowed at the time hence why they couldn't DSQ him for that and had to put it on something nefarious about not completing the full distance because he used the run off on the chicane to get going.

It doesn't excuse what Senna did a year later but I think it makes his inset going into the weekend a little more understandable. He'd been screwed over royally the year before.

I am pretty sure it did, what happened to unaided and alone? As far back as the 1956 Argentine GP where Fangio got a push start and it was protested, only to be rejected as there was no evidence. Marshals can help a car to get out of a tight spot and not to jump start it, that was never allowed in F1 to my knowledge.

Senna was black flagged for short cutting the chcicane, something that in the past drivers had gotten away with.

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
I wouldn't disagree with that. If by Prost being DSQ'd you mean DSQ'd from the championship or at least the very least forced to sit out the final race.

In my head I'm in a strange place with the Senna one. I completely agree that it's worse but at the same time I find myself more easily able to empathise with Senna's situation given how unjustly he was dealt with the year before.

But yeah, put the two incidents in isolation just judging for what they are in themselves then Senna's is definitely worse.

I still don't think he was unjustly dealt, he should have been DSQ'd for one reason or another in 1989. Prost being at fault in the collision doesn't mean that Senna should have received outside help to jump start the car. I think his temper and ego got the better of him.

And being feeling hard done a year before doesn't excuse what he did.

Being deliberately crashed into and taken out by your championship rival would be enough of a reason for someone to feel they had been treated unjustly.

The bump start didn't break the rules. It was allowed at the time hence why they couldn't DSQ him for that and had to put it on something nefarious about not completing the full distance because he used the run off on the chicane to get going.

It doesn't excuse what Senna did a year later but I think it makes his inset going into the weekend a little more understandable. He'd been screwed over royally the year before.

I am pretty sure it did, what happened to unaided and alone? As far back as the 1956 Argentine GP where Fangio got a push start and it was protested, only to be rejected as there was no evidence. Marshals can help a car to get out of a tight spot and not to jump start it, that was never allowed in F1 to my knowledge.

Senna was black flagged for short cutting the chcicane, something that in the past drivers had gotten away with.

Yes I know that, thank you

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I wouldn't disagree with that. If by Prost being DSQ'd you mean DSQ'd from the championship or at least the very least forced to sit out the final race.

In my head I'm in a strange place with the Senna one. I completely agree that it's worse but at the same time I find myself more easily able to empathise with Senna's situation given how unjustly he was dealt with the year before.

But yeah, put the two incidents in isolation just judging for what they are in themselves then Senna's is definitely worse.

I still don't think he was unjustly dealt, he should have been DSQ'd for one reason or another in 1989. Prost being at fault in the collision doesn't mean that Senna should have received outside help to jump start the car. I think his temper and ego got the better of him.

And being feeling hard done a year before doesn't excuse what he did.

Being deliberately crashed into and taken out by your championship rival would be enough of a reason for someone to feel they had been treated unjustly.

The bump start didn't break the rules. It was allowed at the time hence why they couldn't DSQ him for that and had to put it on something nefarious about not completing the full distance because he used the run off on the chicane to get going.

It doesn't excuse what Senna did a year later but I think it makes his inset going into the weekend a little more understandable. He'd been screwed over royally the year before.

I am pretty sure it did, what happened to unaided and alone? As far back as the 1956 Argentine GP where Fangio got a push start and it was protested, only to be rejected as there was no evidence. Marshals can help a car to get out of a tight spot and not to jump start it, that was never allowed in F1 to my knowledge.

I don't think there's any rule that said the bump start is not allowed. Marshalls are allowed to push the car to a safer spot. If the car restarts when doing that I don't think there is a rule in place that prevents ya driver from getting back in the race. If there was then they would have used that to DSQ him rather than have to find something tenuous about him not completing the full distance.

If you listen to the commentary by Walker and Hunt, James tells us Senna would be disqualified for receiving a push start, while Murray brings up the dangerous position. A number of years ago, we discussed this on this forum, with the rules as they stood at that point (I think about a decade ago, when the rules were not yet as cut up and badly pasted as they are now). My understanding was that a car breaking down on the track was in a dangerous position, and had to be removed from the track by the marshals under yellow flags. Once off the track, problem solved, as nobody was supposed to go off track.
For the sake of completeness, forum member jsoucek gave her more elaborate reading of the same rules, with her legal background. I tried and failed to read the rules as she did, but it is clear that the notion of a dangerous position has been abused ever since. What is clear, that throughout the 1980s, a driver whose car failed, simply rolled off the track and parked his car.

If memory serves, Prost's car was parked by the stewards on the grass alongside the escape road, which to my mind proves that Senna's car would have been safe as well once off it. I will have to try and find an image of this. What is clear is that Senna asked to be pushed onto the escape road - note that BOTH cars came to a stop on the track and therefore Prost didn't shunt Senna off, as somebody wrote. Once on the escape road, Senna signalled again, this time for a push start. He then proceeded ahead and rejoined the track past the chicane.

Senna's disappointment is easily understood, but his stuborness in bullying drivers into giving way at the first sight of him isn't. And as I posted here years ago, I understood that according to Senna's book on F1 racing, the corner was Prost's. Which is more or less born out by James Hunt's comments.

How much ill feeling could have been avoided if the stewards, or the FIA itself, had explained to fans what had just happened? Ah well, see my earlier comments.

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:
I still don't think he was unjustly dealt, he should have been DSQ'd for one reason or another in 1989. Prost being at fault in the collision doesn't mean that Senna should have received outside help to jump start the car. I think his temper and ego got the better of him.

And being feeling hard done a year before doesn't excuse what he did.

Being deliberately crashed into and taken out by your championship rival would be enough of a reason for someone to feel they had been treated unjustly.

The bump start didn't break the rules. It was allowed at the time hence why they couldn't DSQ him for that and had to put it on something nefarious about not completing the full distance because he used the run off on the chicane to get going.

It doesn't excuse what Senna did a year later but I think it makes his inset going into the weekend a little more understandable. He'd been screwed over royally the year before.

I am pretty sure it did, what happened to unaided and alone? As far back as the 1956 Argentine GP where Fangio got a push start and it was protested, only to be rejected as there was no evidence. Marshals can help a car to get out of a tight spot and not to jump start it, that was never allowed in F1 to my knowledge.

I don't think there's any rule that said the bump start is not allowed. Marshalls are allowed to push the car to a safer spot. If the car restarts when doing that I don't think there is a rule in place that prevents ya driver from getting back in the race. If there was then they would have used that to DSQ him rather than have to find something tenuous about him not completing the full distance.

If you listen to the commentary by Walker and Hunt, James tells us Senna would be disqualified for receiving a push start, while Murray brings up the dangerous position. A number of years ago, we discussed this on this forum, with the rules as they stood at that point (I think about a decade ago, when the rules were not yet as cut up and badly pasted as they are now). My understanding was that a car breaking down on the track was in a dangerous position, and had to be removed from the track by the marshals under yellow flags. Once off the track, problem solved, as nobody was supposed to go off track.
For the sake of completeness, forum member jsoucek gave her more elaborate reading of the same rules, with her legal background. I tried and failed to read the rules as she did, but it is clear that the notion of a dangerous position has been abused ever since. What is clear, that throughout the 1980s, a driver whose car failed, simply rolled off the track and parked his car.

If memory serves, Prost's car was parked by the stewards on the grass alongside the escape road, which to my mind proves that Senna's car would have been safe as well once off it. I will have to try and find an image of this. What is clear is that Senna asked to be pushed onto the escape road - note that BOTH cars came to a stop on the track and therefore Prost didn't shunt Senna off, as somebody wrote. Once on the escape road, Senna signalled again, this time for a push start. He then proceeded ahead and rejoined the track past the chicane.

Senna's disappointment is easily understood, but his stuborness in bullying drivers into giving way at the first sight of him isn't. And as I posted here years ago, I understood that according to Senna's book on F1 racing, the corner was Prost's. Which is more or less born out by James Hunt's comments.

How much ill feeling could have been avoided if the stewards, or the FIA itself, had explained to fans what had just happened? Ah well, see my earlier comments.

This is my take as well, but I do take the point on board that they gave him a Mickey Mouse penalty, something that would make anyone angry.

But he should have been penalised that day in my view, it is just that they chose the wrong penalty. How apt for an inconsistent penalties thread!

Siao7 wrote:This is my take as well, but I do take the point on board that they gave him a Mickey Mouse penalty, something that would make anyone angry.

But he should have been penalised that day in my view, it is just that they chose the wrong penalty. How apt for an inconsistent penalties thread!

Do you mean Senna? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:This is my take as well, but I do take the point on board that they gave him a Mickey Mouse penalty, something that would make anyone angry.

But he should have been penalised that day in my view, it is just that they chose the wrong penalty. How apt for an inconsistent penalties thread!

Do you mean Senna? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

Yes, Senna. The penalty they gave him was a joke, but he should have been penalised for receiving outside help.

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:This is my take as well, but I do take the point on board that they gave him a Mickey Mouse penalty, something that would make anyone angry.

But he should have been penalised that day in my view, it is just that they chose the wrong penalty. How apt for an inconsistent penalties thread!

Do you mean Senna? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

Yes, Senna. The penalty they gave him was a joke, but he should have been penalised for receiving outside help.

I don't think that broke the rules though. I'm sure if they could have penalised him for that instead then they would have done. Remember Hamilton 18 years later getting craned out of the barriers to rejoin the race. I agree it's a grey area.

Either way my point is that had Prost been appropriately punished for causing a crash to win a championship then I doubt Senna would have done so in 1990 nor Schumacher in 94 and 97. If you're looking for a moment that started the deliberate championship deciding crashes then it's Suzuka 1989 not Suzuka 1990 and whilst I don't try and paint Senna as a 100% innocent party in all of it he shouldn't shoulder all the blame.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:This is my take as well, but I do take the point on board that they gave him a Mickey Mouse penalty, something that would make anyone angry.

But he should have been penalised that day in my view, it is just that they chose the wrong penalty. How apt for an inconsistent penalties thread!

Do you mean Senna? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

Yes, Senna. The penalty they gave him was a joke, but he should have been penalised for receiving outside help.

I don't think that broke the rules though. I'm sure if they could have penalised him for that instead then they would have done. Remember Hamilton 18 years later getting craned out of the barriers to rejoin the race. I agree it's a grey area.

Either way my point is that had Prost been appropriately punished for causing a crash to win a championship then I doubt Senna would have done so in 1990 nor Schumacher in 94 and 97. If you're looking for a moment that started the deliberate championship deciding crashes then it's Suzuka 1989 not Suzuka 1990 and whilst I don't try and paint Senna as a 100% innocent party in all of it he shouldn't shoulder all the blame.

Yes, we have already agreed on that:

Siao7 wrote: In any case, punishing turning into someone would have most likely stopped later situations as you mentioned. And Prost should have been punished for causing that collision.

Hamilton's crane incident was different. I remember it was heavily debated as it was unprecedented. He was helped by the crane (which breaches the "driving unaided and alone" clause), but this is allowed if the car is in a dangerous position (which it was). Although the race was under safety car and then red flagged, which kind of negated the part of being in danger. So what is correct? The FIA said subsequently after the race that the crane incident was ok (although many thought that Hamilton got preferential treatment), but has since then banned mechanical assistance if we are to believe wikipedia.

The crucial difference though, is that Hamilton very wisely kept his engine running. He did not get a bump start from the marshals so it is not really the same. Under the current rules I think that if a driver can restart his own car unaided and without external help, he is allowed to rejoin.

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:This is my take as well, but I do take the point on board that they gave him a Mickey Mouse penalty, something that would make anyone angry.

But he should have been penalised that day in my view, it is just that they chose the wrong penalty. How apt for an inconsistent penalties thread!

Do you mean Senna? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

Yes, Senna. The penalty they gave him was a joke, but he should have been penalised for receiving outside help.

I don't think that broke the rules though. I'm sure if they could have penalised him for that instead then they would have done. Remember Hamilton 18 years later getting craned out of the barriers to rejoin the race. I agree it's a grey area.

Either way my point is that had Prost been appropriately punished for causing a crash to win a championship then I doubt Senna would have done so in 1990 nor Schumacher in 94 and 97. If you're looking for a moment that started the deliberate championship deciding crashes then it's Suzuka 1989 not Suzuka 1990 and whilst I don't try and paint Senna as a 100% innocent party in all of it he shouldn't shoulder all the blame.

Yes, we have already agreed on that:

Siao7 wrote: In any case, punishing turning into someone would have most likely stopped later situations as you mentioned. And Prost should have been punished for causing that collision.

Hamilton's crane incident was different. I remember it was heavily debated as it was unprecedented. He was helped by the crane (which breaches the "driving unaided and alone" clause), but this is allowed if the car is in a dangerous position (which it was). Although the race was under safety car and then red flagged, which kind of negated the part of being in danger. So what is correct? The FIA said subsequently after the race that the crane incident was ok (although many thought that Hamilton got preferential treatment), but has since then banned mechanical assistance if we are to believe wikipedia.

The crucial difference though, is that Hamilton very wisely kept his engine running. He did not get a bump start from the marshals so it is not really the same. Under the current rules I think that if a driver can restart his own car unaided and without external help, he is allowed to rejoin.

I think we will have to agree to disagree. You don't think the bump start was legal and I don't think there was anything in the rules to prevent it. It doesn't look like either of us will change our opinions without fresh evidence that I doubt even exists.

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:This is my take as well, but I do take the point on board that they gave him a Mickey Mouse penalty, something that would make anyone angry.

But he should have been penalised that day in my view, it is just that they chose the wrong penalty. How apt for an inconsistent penalties thread!

Do you mean Senna? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

Yes, Senna. The penalty they gave him was a joke, but he should have been penalised for receiving outside help.

It would be interesting to know why he didn't get that.

I usually watched the BBC YouTube footage when reviewing Suzuka 1989, but on the ESPN Speedworld YouTube film I found just now, I was astounded to find that Senna had already been disqualified by the time he was coming into the pitlane after the race! One of the commentators also brought up what I recall about using the entry to the pitlane to mount an attack into the chicane. I must say I was pleasantly surprised by how matter of fact the comments were.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yClLItUVEKc&t=2432s
I think that for a complete understanding of the whole episode, it would be necessary to read all the reports, from the first to the last, including the appeal by the McLaren team and the outcome of that. I always found the official yearbooks far too expensive, but perhaps they contained interesting information concerning all the mistakes made at that chicane.

At least for this year, we have all the stewards' decisions available. I'm going to have another look at those investigated.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:Do you mean Senna? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

Yes, Senna. The penalty they gave him was a joke, but he should have been penalised for receiving outside help.

I don't think that broke the rules though. I'm sure if they could have penalised him for that instead then they would have done. Remember Hamilton 18 years later getting craned out of the barriers to rejoin the race. I agree it's a grey area.

Either way my point is that had Prost been appropriately punished for causing a crash to win a championship then I doubt Senna would have done so in 1990 nor Schumacher in 94 and 97. If you're looking for a moment that started the deliberate championship deciding crashes then it's Suzuka 1989 not Suzuka 1990 and whilst I don't try and paint Senna as a 100% innocent party in all of it he shouldn't shoulder all the blame.

Yes, we have already agreed on that:

Siao7 wrote: In any case, punishing turning into someone would have most likely stopped later situations as you mentioned. And Prost should have been punished for causing that collision.

Hamilton's crane incident was different. I remember it was heavily debated as it was unprecedented. He was helped by the crane (which breaches the "driving unaided and alone" clause), but this is allowed if the car is in a dangerous position (which it was). Although the race was under safety car and then red flagged, which kind of negated the part of being in danger. So what is correct? The FIA said subsequently after the race that the crane incident was ok (although many thought that Hamilton got preferential treatment), but has since then banned mechanical assistance if we are to believe wikipedia.

The crucial difference though, is that Hamilton very wisely kept his engine running. He did not get a bump start from the marshals so it is not really the same. Under the current rules I think that if a driver can restart his own car unaided and without external help, he is allowed to rejoin.

I think we will have to agree to disagree. You don't think the bump start was legal and I don't think there was anything in the rules to prevent it. It doesn't look like either of us will change our opinions without fresh evidence that I doubt even exists.

That's fair enough. Civilised disagreement, doesn't happen often!!

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:This is my take as well, but I do take the point on board that they gave him a Mickey Mouse penalty, something that would make anyone angry.

But he should have been penalised that day in my view, it is just that they chose the wrong penalty. How apt for an inconsistent penalties thread!

Do you mean Senna? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

Yes, Senna. The penalty they gave him was a joke, but he should have been penalised for receiving outside help.

It would be interesting to know why he didn't get that.

I usually watched the BBC YouTube footage when reviewing Suzuka 1989, but on the ESPN Speedworld YouTube film I found just now, I was astounded to find that Senna had already been disqualified by the time he was coming into the pitlane after the race! One of the commentators also brought up what I recall about using the entry to the pitlane to mount an attack into the chicane. I must say I was pleasantly surprised by how matter of fact the comments were.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yClLItUVEKc&t=2432s
I think that for a complete understanding of the whole episode, it would be necessary to read all the reports, from the first to the last, including the appeal by the McLaren team and the outcome of that. I always found the official yearbooks far too expensive, but perhaps they contained interesting information concerning all the mistakes made at that chicane.

At least for this year, we have all the stewards' decisions available. I'm going to have another look at those investigated.

Good find Fiki, thank you, will take a while to find the incident I think, I'll have a look after finishing work.

The incident is at 1:18:29. But I'm going to watch the whole race again sometime.

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:This is my take as well, but I do take the point on board that they gave him a Mickey Mouse penalty, something that would make anyone angry.

But he should have been penalised that day in my view, it is just that they chose the wrong penalty. How apt for an inconsistent penalties thread!

Do you mean Senna? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

Yes, Senna. The penalty they gave him was a joke, but he should have been penalised for receiving outside help.

It would be interesting to know why he didn't get that.

I usually watched the BBC YouTube footage when reviewing Suzuka 1989, but on the ESPN Speedworld YouTube film I found just now, I was astounded to find that Senna had already been disqualified by the time he was coming into the pitlane after the race! One of the commentators also brought up what I recall about using the entry to the pitlane to mount an attack into the chicane. I must say I was pleasantly surprised by how matter of fact the comments were.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yClLItUVEKc&t=2432s
I think that for a complete understanding of the whole episode, it would be necessary to read all the reports, from the first to the last, including the appeal by the McLaren team and the outcome of that. I always found the official yearbooks far too expensive, but perhaps they contained interesting information concerning all the mistakes made at that chicane.

At least for this year, we have all the stewards' decisions available. I'm going to have another look at those investigated.

Good find Fiki, thank you, will take a while to find the incident I think, I'll have a look after finishing work.

Having watched it now, I can actually say that it re-enforced my view that Senna was definitely up for a DSQ, at least for the push start. First of all, they all say that being push started is a no-no, comparing also other motorsports. They also mention that you have to re-enter the track where you left it (not sure about this one!) while they go on to say that he cut the chicane. They also mention how they expected him to be black flagged for the push start every time he passed the pit straight (including a funny story of how Senna ignored something like 10 black flags in Spain and got a far lenient penalty ($20k) than Mansel ignoring a blag flag in Portugal ($50k and a race ban), calling for double standards).

At some point someone mentions the 1982 GP as an example of pushing someone out of harm's way and not push start them. That is the one Patrese won, after spinning into Loews Hairpin, he was flat across the track (no escape place there) risking being T-boned. Patrese was only pushed on the side by the marshals and his car was left there. His car started rolling on the slope by itself, he managed to put his car into gear, start it up and he went on to write history. He was investigated for being push started, but eventually cleared.

Murray and Hunt commentating mention how push-start is a DSQ:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3_WOtyg9Dw (after 4:40)

Siao7 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:Do you mean Senna? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

Yes, Senna. The penalty they gave him was a joke, but he should have been penalised for receiving outside help.

It would be interesting to know why he didn't get that.

I usually watched the BBC YouTube footage when reviewing Suzuka 1989, but on the ESPN Speedworld YouTube film I found just now, I was astounded to find that Senna had already been disqualified by the time he was coming into the pitlane after the race! One of the commentators also brought up what I recall about using the entry to the pitlane to mount an attack into the chicane. I must say I was pleasantly surprised by how matter of fact the comments were.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yClLItUVEKc&t=2432s
I think that for a complete understanding of the whole episode, it would be necessary to read all the reports, from the first to the last, including the appeal by the McLaren team and the outcome of that. I always found the official yearbooks far too expensive, but perhaps they contained interesting information concerning all the mistakes made at that chicane.

At least for this year, we have all the stewards' decisions available. I'm going to have another look at those investigated.

Good find Fiki, thank you, will take a while to find the incident I think, I'll have a look after finishing work.

Having watched it now, I can actually say that it re-enforced my view that Senna was definitely up for a DSQ, at least for the push start. First of all, they all say that being push started is a no-no, comparing also other motorsports. They also mention that you have to re-enter the track where you left it (not sure about this one!) while they go on to say that he cut the chicane. They also mention how they expected him to be black flagged for the push start every time he passed the pit straight (including a funny story of how Senna ignored something like 10 black flags in Spain and got a far lenient penalty ($20k) than Mansel ignoring a blag flag in Portugal ($50k and a race ban), calling for double standards).

At some point someone mentions the 1982 GP as an example of pushing someone out of harm's way and not push start them. That is the one Patrese won, after spinning into Loews Hairpin, he was flat across the track (no escape place there) risking being T-boned. Patrese was only pushed on the side by the marshals and his car was left there. His car started rolling on the slope by itself, he managed to put his car into gear, start it up and he went on to write history. He was investigated for being push started, but eventually cleared.

Murray and Hunt commentating mention how push-start is a DSQ:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3_WOtyg9Dw (after 4:40)

All I'll say is if the push start was illegal then he would have been DSQ'd for the push start rather than the stewards having to basically make something up. They obviously felt they couldn't make it stick.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:Having watched it now, I can actually say that it re-enforced my view that Senna was definitely up for a DSQ, at least for the push start. First of all, they all say that being push started is a no-no, comparing also other motorsports. They also mention that you have to re-enter the track where you left it (not sure about this one!) while they go on to say that he cut the chicane. They also mention how they expected him to be black flagged for the push start every time he passed the pit straight (including a funny story of how Senna ignored something like 10 black flags in Spain and got a far lenient penalty ($20k) than Mansel ignoring a blag flag in Portugal ($50k and a race ban), calling for double standards).

At some point someone mentions the 1982 GP as an example of pushing someone out of harm's way and not push start them. That is the one Patrese won, after spinning into Loews Hairpin, he was flat across the track (no escape place there) risking being T-boned. Patrese was only pushed on the side by the marshals and his car was left there. His car started rolling on the slope by itself, he managed to put his car into gear, start it up and he went on to write history. He was investigated for being push started, but eventually cleared.

Murray and Hunt commentating mention how push-start is a DSQ:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3_WOtyg9Dw (after 4:40)

All I'll say is if the push start was illegal then he would have been DSQ'd for the push start rather than the stewards having to basically make something up. They obviously felt they couldn't make it stick.

What do you base that comment on, Mikey?

I agree that Senna should (also) have been disqualified for outside assistance in restarting his car, but there may be a reason why Senna made such a drama of discussing it a year later in the briefing. I think he knew that it was he himself who had signalled the marshals to push him off the track and onto the escape road. If it was his intention all along to get them to bump start his car, then it would have been wiser to push him following the chicane trajectory. Since he ordered what happened himself, he then chose a year later to ridicule what he should have done, once on the escape road with a running engine.
Yes, we have discussed this before, and no, I haven't changed my mind about it being perfectly possible to rejoin from the escape road and follow the chicane. The reason is simple; double waved yellow flags, which meant something back in the day.

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:Having watched it now, I can actually say that it re-enforced my view that Senna was definitely up for a DSQ, at least for the push start. First of all, they all say that being push started is a no-no, comparing also other motorsports. They also mention that you have to re-enter the track where you left it (not sure about this one!) while they go on to say that he cut the chicane. They also mention how they expected him to be black flagged for the push start every time he passed the pit straight (including a funny story of how Senna ignored something like 10 black flags in Spain and got a far lenient penalty ($20k) than Mansel ignoring a blag flag in Portugal ($50k and a race ban), calling for double standards).

At some point someone mentions the 1982 GP as an example of pushing someone out of harm's way and not push start them. That is the one Patrese won, after spinning into Loews Hairpin, he was flat across the track (no escape place there) risking being T-boned. Patrese was only pushed on the side by the marshals and his car was left there. His car started rolling on the slope by itself, he managed to put his car into gear, start it up and he went on to write history. He was investigated for being push started, but eventually cleared.

Murray and Hunt commentating mention how push-start is a DSQ:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3_WOtyg9Dw (after 4:40)

All I'll say is if the push start was illegal then he would have been DSQ'd for the push start rather than the stewards having to basically make something up. They obviously felt they couldn't make it stick.

What do you base that comment on, Mikey?

I agree that Senna should (also) have been disqualified for outside assistance in restarting his car, but there may be a reason why Senna made such a drama of discussing it a year later in the briefing. I think he knew that it was he himself who had signalled the marshals to push him off the track and onto the escape road. If it was his intention all along to get them to bump start his car, then it would have been wiser to push him following the chicane trajectory. Since he ordered what happened himself, he then chose a year later to ridicule what he should have done, once on the escape road with a running engine.
Yes, we have discussed this before, and no, I haven't changed my mind about it being perfectly possible to rejoin from the escape road and follow the chicane. The reason is simple; double waved yellow flags, which meant something back in the day.

Why would he do that? Plenty of people had gone across chicanes before without being DSQ'd. Plenty have done it since without being DSQ'd. They made an exception for Senna.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:Having watched it now, I can actually say that it re-enforced my view that Senna was definitely up for a DSQ, at least for the push start. First of all, they all say that being push started is a no-no, comparing also other motorsports. They also mention that you have to re-enter the track where you left it (not sure about this one!) while they go on to say that he cut the chicane. They also mention how they expected him to be black flagged for the push start every time he passed the pit straight (including a funny story of how Senna ignored something like 10 black flags in Spain and got a far lenient penalty ($20k) than Mansel ignoring a blag flag in Portugal ($50k and a race ban), calling for double standards).

At some point someone mentions the 1982 GP as an example of pushing someone out of harm's way and not push start them. That is the one Patrese won, after spinning into Loews Hairpin, he was flat across the track (no escape place there) risking being T-boned. Patrese was only pushed on the side by the marshals and his car was left there. His car started rolling on the slope by itself, he managed to put his car into gear, start it up and he went on to write history. He was investigated for being push started, but eventually cleared.

Murray and Hunt commentating mention how push-start is a DSQ:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3_WOtyg9Dw (after 4:40)

All I'll say is if the push start was illegal then he would have been DSQ'd for the push start rather than the stewards having to basically make something up. They obviously felt they couldn't make it stick.

What do you base that comment on, Mikey?

I agree that Senna should (also) have been disqualified for outside assistance in restarting his car, but there may be a reason why Senna made such a drama of discussing it a year later in the briefing. I think he knew that it was he himself who had signalled the marshals to push him off the track and onto the escape road. If it was his intention all along to get them to bump start his car, then it would have been wiser to push him following the chicane trajectory. Since he ordered what happened himself, he then chose a year later to ridicule what he should have done, once on the escape road with a running engine.
Yes, we have discussed this before, and no, I haven't changed my mind about it being perfectly possible to rejoin from the escape road and follow the chicane. The reason is simple; double waved yellow flags, which meant something back in the day.

Why would he do that? Plenty of people had gone across chicanes before without being DSQ'd. Plenty have done it since without being DSQ'd. They made an exception for Senna.

Not having the rules of that year to hand, I don't know whether it was allowed or not. If not, then the stewards could still turn a blind eye if nothing was gained by using the escape road. The one example that comes to mind, other than Suzuka, is the escape road at Monaco, if you missed the chicane. You simply continued down that street and rejoined the track further on, after having been given clearance by the marshal(s) there.

I'm surprised you think the stewards couldn't make outside assistance stick. I think not listing all the mistakes Senna made may have been done to avoid the feeling they were out for him. Looking at all the mistakes shows they didn't have to be. And his revenge for their interference in his feud with Prost should have earned him a year on the sidelines, fastest driver in the world or not.

I think there has been a change in approach to the black and white flag this year. There are many complaining that Grosjean got away with what he did despite having got a warning, but did anyone else notice Stroll also got a black and white flag? While what grosjean did looked worse, I don't think either of these moves will have earned this flag in the past couple of years. Not to say they shouldn't, but there is inconsistency here. They seem to have become significantly stricter with it this year. Grosjean got it again in the first race which i think was due to exceeding track limits multiple times. This was after he had gone off and then had a problem with his breaks. Quite likely the reason in the first place. I've seen drivers frequently exceed track limits. Since when did this get them the black and white flag? I'm not denying Grosjean did anything wrong last time out which was for a different reason, but I am certain drivers have got away with moves like this in extremely recent races such as Brazil last year. Does anyone remember the sudden direction change Leclerc did on Norris in Brazil and Norris had to take sudden avoiding action for a pointless defence in the same way Grosjean did with Ricciardo? Palmer pointed this out as looking a bit dangerous.

In a way, I am actually defending Grosjean yet again. He mentioned that other drivers did similar in the past few years (even very recently) and he is right. It is dirty driving, but I think he is right to point out the inconsistency. I don't think what Stroll did was anywhere near bad enough to get a black and white flag. Perhaps some of his points that we didn't hear could have mentioned some incidents from last year which made them decide not to penalise him further.

I will even add that a driver that everyone knows I'm clearly a fan of (Bottas), he looked to attempt to cut off the inside when Ricciardo dived down in China 2018. He suddenly steered towards Ricciardo twice in the braking zone, although did open it both times. But it was pretty close to contact. If that was this year and Ricciardo had complained about it, I feel that could have been a warning for Bottas.

What I find odd is what is the purpose of the black and white flag? If it is a warning then why did Grosjean not get a penalty when he ignored the warning and did it again? Regardless if you think the warning was fair or not that seems kind of odd?

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 03, 2020 12:26 pm

What I find odd is what is the purpose of the black and white flag? If it is a warning then why did Grosjean not get a penalty when he ignored the warning and did it again? Regardless if you think the warning was fair or not that seems kind of odd?

Just weak stewarding.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 03, 2020 12:26 pm

What I find odd is what is the purpose of the black and white flag? If it is a warning then why did Grosjean not get a penalty when he ignored the warning and did it again? Regardless if you think the warning was fair or not that seems kind of odd?

I found that odd myself. Black & white flag is your absolute last warning before you get a penalty for whatever action you have performed. So why did Grosjean not get a penalty for a repeated offense of the same nature????

Imo the stroll move was not deserving of the black & white as it wasn’t performed in the breaking zone iirc like Grosjean did also the albon penalty was nonsense. Kmag made a mistake and albon went for the gap along side then kmag in typical kmag fashion came over like albon wasn’t there. So how is that albons fault???? That one made no sense to me.

Mayhem wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:32 pm

... the albon penalty was nonsense. Kmag made a mistake and albon went for the gap along side then kmag in typical kmag fashion came over like albon wasn’t there. So how is that albons fault???? That one made no sense to me.

Ironically, had Albon not tried to back out it would have most likely been (front) wheel-to-wheel contact, both cars would have almost certainly continued and no penalty likely applied.

Mayhem wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:32 pm

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 03, 2020 12:26 pm

What I find odd is what is the purpose of the black and white flag? If it is a warning then why did Grosjean not get a penalty when he ignored the warning and did it again? Regardless if you think the warning was fair or not that seems kind of odd?

I found that odd myself. Black & white flag is your absolute last warning before you get a penalty for whatever action you have performed. So why did Grosjean not get a penalty for a repeated offense of the same nature????

Imo the stroll move was not deserving of the black & white as it wasn’t performed in the breaking zone iirc like Grosjean did also the albon penalty was nonsense. Kmag made a mistake and albon went for the gap along side then kmag in typical kmag fashion came over like albon wasn’t there. So how is that albons fault???? That one made no sense to me.

I agree. The Albon penalty is totally bizarre. You may as well ban everyone from overtaking on the inside if the driver on the outside is just allowed to sweep across and claim a piece of track another driver is already on.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 03, 2020 2:25 pm

Mayhem wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:32 pm

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 03, 2020 12:26 pm

What I find odd is what is the purpose of the black and white flag? If it is a warning then why did Grosjean not get a penalty when he ignored the warning and did it again? Regardless if you think the warning was fair or not that seems kind of odd?

I found that odd myself. Black & white flag is your absolute last warning before you get a penalty for whatever action you have performed. So why did Grosjean not get a penalty for a repeated offense of the same nature????

Imo the stroll move was not deserving of the black & white as it wasn’t performed in the breaking zone iirc like Grosjean did also the albon penalty was nonsense. Kmag made a mistake and albon went for the gap along side then kmag in typical kmag fashion came over like albon wasn’t there. So how is that albons fault???? That one made no sense to me.

I agree. The Albon penalty is totally bizarre. You may as well ban everyone from overtaking on the inside if the driver on the outside is just allowed to sweep across and claim a piece of track another driver is already on.

Well, the stewards argue, based on all the data they have, that Albon started the move when Magnussen already was reclaiming racing line (i. e. too late for executing the move).
Albon says 50/50 and racing incident what was my take from TV broadcast as well. Horner called the penalty hard but fair.