Disagree Senna mainly lost in 1989 because of mechanical failures ( phoenix, silverstone, France, Italy…) Truth is he was pushing too hard a brand new V10 Honda-gearbox combo which wasn’t perfectly reliable. Prost was smarter this year and against his whole team. Excusez du peu !
I was referencing the final in Suzuka. The FIA stole the win and wdc from Senna by reaching into their bottom draw after the race. "Not completing race distance" . Hilarious. Can you imagine Ham being given the same treatment after falling off the track ? The internet would melt
I agree 100% with your post. I was a big Prost fan at the time. I liked his approach to racing. He was a thinking driver. Prost was never flamboyantn but very efficient. I am glad he is still with us too.
This is a good point and example of "repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes fact" (referring to Senna being robbed, not that he crashed in Australia, obviously!).
Please, tell me who. Let me say very clearly that I think DIRTY drivers are are abominable, but neither Senna nor Verstappen are dirty, they are tough drivers.
So engine and gearbox were not up to his talent. Ok, that's a opinion I respect. But to me it was a racing incident. Still, the disqualification was pure political. See the drivers briefing video where even Piquet, notoriously for disliking Senna, says that it made no sense. That's where I vehemently disagree. Senna didn't ram into Prost, he put his car on the inside to overtake and Prosto closed the dor. They were not under braking so it can't be "ram into".
I know you understand french, William. Should you one day come across the french T.V airing of the 1992 Belgian Grand Prix at Spa, by all means listen to Prost's comments. Prost was in a sabbatical that year after his eviction from Ferrari, so gave a hand a commenting the races from time to time as a guest. Mansell was leading the race on a wet track, with wet tyres, but Senna stubbornly stayed with slicks, and of course was loosing ground. The comments by Prost are a delight; never offensive, but...so much is understated. The offical speakers asks Prost "and from your point of view, Alain, why is Senna so intent to keep the slicks?" Prost: "for the sake of me, I just can't understand what he is trying to prove", etc... Rgds
But you should not "vehemently disagree": Senna himself admitted, one year later after the 1990 accident, that is in 1991, that he had done it "on purpose" (in 1990) to exact a revenge on the refusal of the Grand Prix organisation to change the side of the Pole-Position on track, and because he thought that there was a collusion favorising Prost. (Collusion which existed only in his head; as said many times here, and I shall not repeat why again, there was absolutely NO collusion whatsoever between Balestre and Prost, who disliked each other intensely). Case closed. Senna was everything but a fair player. He was intense, he was passionate, he was talented, he was FAST, but not fair; and he was paranoïd. But, as was my former boss used to say to me "only the paranoïds succeed" (he was paranoïd too...I didn't succeed, but that doesn't mean I'm not paranoïd...) Rgds
Senna didn't ram into Prost in Suzuka 1990 ? Even him admitted it in1991 after winning his third title.
I didn't say he didn't to it on purpose, I said that I vehemently disagree that he RAM INTO Prost. The "door" was open, he put the car on the inside and Prost closed thje door. That's different than RAM INTO another car like Schumacher did.
I like your subttle choice of words: so Senna didn't ram into Prost, let's say he just BUMPED into him.
In the hands of Jim Clark, those engines and transmissions would have both lasted and Jim would have finished at the front of the field. There is a difference between getting all the car can give, and wrestling the car to the point of failure. Clark was getting all the car could give while lasting to the finish line. Senna was win or break. Chapman remarked about Clark that his car needed a lot less "service" than his teammate's car while finishing farther up front. Hamilton preserves his car and tires much like Clark.
He had a better start and took the racing line, aiming at the apex. Nobody could see a fault in his driving.
Don't understand why the '89 title fight gets the attention that it does - likely because of the way it was presented in the documentary. Senna was 16 points behind after the Spanish GP (Round 14 of 16) - 76 to 60. First place at the time was only 9 points. Senna would have needed a win in Japan and Australia and Prost would have had to finish P3 or lower twice (due to the aggregate scoring system in place at the time). Senna crashed out in Australia while the Japan DSQ was still under protest, rendering it all moot. The 1990 reversal was the same situation - Prost needed a win in Japan to keep the title fight going to Australia. I think Senna would have won 5 had he not been killed - 2 more with Williams in 1996/1997.
If Senna/Prost gets this much attention 30+ years later, the HAM/VER thing is just getting warmed up!
The life of the engine and gearbox, as well the ability to avoid collisions, were as much within Senna's control as they were Prost's. He gave up tons of points being hard on his equipment, and making silly mistakes. That's on Senna, not the FIA. Was it a bad decision? Maybe. But it didn't change the championship. Absolutely wrong. Look, I'm a Ferrari fan and I loved Schumacher's skills and what he did for the team, but you'll never hear me defend his driving ethics. I cringe when I hear Ferrari fans try and pretend Schumacher didn't turn in on Villeneuve at Jerez in a deliberate move to make contact with him, and keep him from the title. Being a Ferrari fan and even a fan of Schumacher doesn't make me blind to what he did. To this day, it taints that great Schumacher's legacy. The FIA absolutely did the right thing in stripping him of his points, and making him apologize. Senna constantly ran into Prost, Mansell, and Piquet, in what were more often than not deliberate movements, where he hoped he'd punt his opponent off the road. Japan 1990 was disgusting. Even worse than Jerez 1997. Senna knew exactly what he was doing. Didn't even try to make the corner. Clear as a day he aimed for Prost to take him out. Son of a ***** could've killed them both. Senna should've been thrown out of the championship for it, and made to issue a public apology and acknowledgment of guilt as Schumacher was forced to do.
You'll never hear me say that Senna wasn't more talented skill wise over Verstappen. But while Verstappen has his moments of rough and borderline dirty driving, Senna absolutely was a dirty driver compared to Verstappen. Way worse. I'll say the same of Hamilton vs Schumacher. Schumi was the more talented and brilliant racer compared to Hamilton, but Hamilton does not have near the questionable driving ethics of Schumi. That's just a reality. Tough racing is not giving an inch when you could've, or going for a gap that's borderline. Dirty driving is intentionally putting your opponent in a dangerous position, or using your car as a weapon in some regard. Hamilton, Verstappen, and Vettel make mistakes or have bad judgement, whereas Schumacher and Senna did what they did on purpose. Schumacher and Senna were complicated humans. But lets not pretend that if drivers today did what they did that they wouldn't have the book thrown at them, and that we don't now enforce racing ethics that have been in response to what was taint they put on the sport at times.
Most certainly, I'll be happy to..... I haven't given it a whole lot of thought but right off of the top of my head.....Juan Manuel Fangio, Stirling Moss, Graham Hill, Jack Brabham, Jim Clark, Denny Hulme, Jackie Stewart, Jacky Ickx, Phil Hill, Dan Gurney, Richard Petty, David Pearson, Mark Donohue, Peter Gregg, Sam Posey, Al Holbert, Rick Mears, Mario Andretti.......phewwww, I could go on and on, but that's enough for now. 'Suffice to say, I noticed the change starting to occur in.....ooohhhh.....saaayyy.....the '70/'80s, only to get worse and worse. (what a coincidence.....just when BIG money was starting to come in to the sport....) Edit: I must add, Paul Newman, who I had the honor and pleasure to split a beer with after night practice at Daytona, 1979. A very good race driver for his age; a great man, period.
The change of attitude came when they introduced anti-burst fuel bladders and crash-tested the chassis, eliminating most of the risks of accidents. Some drivers became to feel so safe and protected from the risk of perishing in a fire that they started to weaponise their car. Before that, provoking a collision was very hazardous, and the outcome often disastrous, so there was less aggression.
