Ayrton Senna the movie.

The way I see it, Senna was royaly screwed by the FIA and Balestre in '89. My take on the actual accident there is much in line with Playlife, and it can be chalked down to a (hard) racing incident. What followed was wrong.

Given that, Senna took out his anger and frustration in the wrong way in '90, but in view of the circumstances I can understand it.

In 1990, Senna explicitly told everyone that if there was a gap going down into turn one he would be there, Prost knew this everyone knew this. The rest is history.

1989, Senna made the exact same move on Nannini later in the race without any drama whatsover.

The DQ is well covered in the movie along with the following years driver's meeting in which Senna walked out because of the hypocrisy.

da silva wrote:In 1990, Senna explicitly told everyone that if there was a gap going down into turn one he would be there, Prost knew this everyone knew this. The rest is history.

1989, Senna made the exact same move on Nannini later in the race without any drama whatsover.

The DQ is well covered in the movie along with the following years driver's meeting in which Senna walked out because of the hypocrisy.

Senna had every right to be f#cking pissed off in the driver debriefing in 1990 because of the hypocrisy - I 100% agree with him.

But the question remains, why was he DQ? For not stopping at the STOP sign? If so, then the going backwards against traffic they were talking about has nothing to do with anything. If he was penalised because he didn't go backwards, then yes he was wrongly punished.

But no one can prove either way so this is why I leave that incident, the 1989 Suzuka DQ, as 'unknown' for now.


Nannini was running 2-3 seconds per lap slower (if not more). If Senna didn't get him there, he would have got him powering out of the chicane. Nannini knew this and so didn't fight. There were still another 2-3 laps to go anyway so it was inevitable. P2 would have been Nannini's highest finishing position to date so the last thing he wanted to do was push his luck with a driver known for collisions.


And yes Senna did say he would go for a gap. But that doesn't give him right to do it. If Hamilton states before the race "I'm going for any gap" drivers aren't going to suddenly yield and move out the way!

Senna hit the back of Prost's rear wing - it wasn't even his rear wheel. There was no gap. Prost said in an interview with TF1 right after the race that he thought it was deliberate for this exact reason. And he was 100% right.

It sounds like I am going to have to see these races before I watch this movie if it ever comes out on DVD.

TopContender wrote:It sounds like I am going to have to see these races before I watch this movie if it ever comes out on DVD.

I can fix you up with these races if you want TC. I have a huge collection of VHS (300+) but I also have a lot converted to PC so let me know if interested

Having not seen some of the old races for years, it's strange to realise how your memories of the events can be quite a way off what actually happened, not to mention that you might have different views on things to what you did back in the day.

PLAYLIFE wrote:

da silva wrote:In 1990, Senna explicitly told everyone that if there was a gap going down into turn one he would be there, Prost knew this everyone knew this. The rest is history.

1989, Senna made the exact same move on Nannini later in the race without any drama whatsover.

The DQ is well covered in the movie along with the following years driver's meeting in which Senna walked out because of the hypocrisy.

Senna had every right to be f#cking pissed off in the driver debriefing in 1990 because of the hypocrisy - I 100% agree with him.

But the question remains, why was he DQ? For not stopping at the STOP sign? If so, then the going backwards against traffic they were talking about has nothing to do with anything. If he was penalised because he didn't go backwards, then yes he was wrongly punished.

Sorry for the delay in replying, crazy busy. I was always lead to believe the DQ was for cutting the chicane, period. Not stalling or push starting or stopping in the chicane. The FIA directorate said that a driver should go backwards, although they NEVER enforced this rule on anyone other than this circumstance. This was covered by Ron Dennis in the movie with his video examples and of course in the driver's meeting the following year. I think Senna was unfaily treated, but of course I would.

Furthermore, Prost turned in extremely early into the chicane, he knew what he was doing and he also knew Senna was there as he'd tried to defend by going middle of the road. There is a video on youtube somewhere that show's Alain's regular line versus the one he took on lap 47, quite telling.

da silva wrote:
Sorry for the delay in replying, crazy busy. I was always lead to believe the DQ was for cutting the chicane, period. Not stalling or push starting or stopping in the chicane. The FIA directorate said that a driver should go backwards, although they NEVER enforced this rule on anyone other than this circumstance. This was covered by Ron Dennis in the movie with his video examples and of course in the driver's meeting the following year. I think Senna was unfaily treated, but of course I would.

Furthermore, Prost turned in extremely early into the chicane, he knew what he was doing and he also knew Senna was there as he'd tried to defend by going middle of the road. There is a video on youtube somewhere that show's Alain's regular line versus the one he took on lap 47, quite telling.

No worries ds

Yep agreed Prost turned in earlier than you'd expect. I still don't think Senna should have gone for the gap as he was too far back. But that's another argument!

Yep he was DQ for chicane cutting. I would love to see the official FIA report on the DQ though, the detail, if they said anything about the STOP sign which wasn't adhered to. I'm not sure how credible the 'going backwards' part was - the problem I have with it is if they really expected someone to go backwards, why would they have staggered the 'chicane short cut' barriers and placed a STOP sign there? If they expected the drivers to go backwards, why not just put a flush barrier across the shortcut part of the circuit so it's impossible to go through? Again, I think only the official documentation can really answer my query.

Perhaps we should write a letter to the FIA requesting the official report?

lol

Let's put it down to just another example of stewards inconsistency.

Remember earlier in the season, Mansell was banned for one race for ignoring the black flags in Portugal (and fined $50,000). The following race in Jerez, Senna ignored black flags all around the circuit and the red flag at the start/finish line during practice and only received a $20,000 fine.

Given Grouillard, Brundle and Prost received $10,000 fines for minor indiscretions (ignoring red light end of pit-lane, pit-lane speeding, and not showing up to a press conference respectively), Senna had gotten off VERY lightly.

And no driver or person should take black/red flags lightly. It doesn't matter if it's a race or practice, they are equally as critical. Just a year later at he same circuit Donnelly had his appalling accident which left his body in the middle of the road. Imagine if Senna, or anyone, continued around the circuit at full pace when an 'aircraft accident' had happened with black/red flags flying - could you imagine*?

This is part of the reason why I don't buy into the FISA conspiracy. Sure Senna may have been dealt with harshly at Suzuka, but if FISA really wanted punish Senna, they had opportunities to do it earlier in the season legitimately. They had the Mansell incident the race before, giving a huge fine and 1 race ban. They had every right to give a similar penalty to Senna. Delete his qualifying time, or let him race under probation and disqualify him after the race (Jacques 1997, so he races thinking he can get points otherwise he may take out his competitor), or ban him for 1 race as they did Mansell.


And let's not forget Senna was never punished for intentionally taking out his competitor at Suzuka in 1990. An act which would otherwise have serious consequences, perhaps even a year ban. Yet the stewards nor FISA, with every right to slam down a huge punishment, did nothing.

You can slice and dice it anyway you want, but inconsistent and unfair decisions are made all the time. Senna was a victim, just like Prost and so many others.




*
In fact, Senna did this in 1993 Belgium through Eau Rouge when Zanardi had his terrible accident. With double waved yellows, marshals and doctors on the circuit, debris everywhere, Senna went through the then blind Eau Rouge at unabated speed, almost taking out team-mate Andretti and a whole bunch of people. Andretti who was in front was able to slow down, so Senna should have been able to too. That deserved a harsh penalty without doubt. 7 people on the track, a seriously injured driver still in the car, a slow moving car...it could have been a terrible incident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3HsAFz5cEs

If you're trying to suggest Balestre was on Senna's side and fair to him on a whole or even on occasion I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on that. As to your examples I'd have to pull out my Autocourses to read up on the incidents.

Your video example of Spa suggests Senna's speed was already greatly abated otherwise he would never have been able to stop, furthermore he then got out of his car and helped Zanardi.

Regardless of how you feel about Ayrton I will always see him in a good light, IMO he was the quickest to ever grace a track, his commitment was second to none and his natural talent surpasses any I've yet to see. Prost is regarded as one of the best ever and he had his ass handed to him by Senna in his own team, nuff said.

Nope, not at all suggesting Balestre was on Senna's side. Just that if Balestre really wanted to favour Prost he had his opportunities to penalise Senna legitimately and thus effecting the WDC result.

Autocourse 1989 does mention the points above about the penalties (I had read it a few months back).

Don't get me wrong, Senna is a great driver and he brought lots to the sport, probably the most from his era. He achieved some fantastic things but also had his negative moments. But that's part of racing and all drivers experience that, especially those at the top. I try to see both sides of the coin. Senna is always the example people use that he was the victim of everything, and yes there are occasions he most definitely was, but he also was the offender on occasions too.

I personally don't think Senna 'handed Prost's ass to him'. I think ultimately they were evenly matched, just had different strengths. You don't win 51 or 41 races because you're no good.

As the stats say, they each won 1 championship in the same car. Even if Senna did win 1989 Suzuka, he had to win in Adelaide to become champion which obviously wouldn't have happened. And I don't think Ayrton would have driven any differently whether there was a championship at stake or not, knowing his mentality.
And in 1990, the McLaren was (marginally) the better car and it was a close fought WDC. Had it not been for the intentional crash, it could have gone down right to the wire.

And don't get me wrong, Senna was no angel. Senna was a victim of Balestre and Prost's politicking and although many disagree with how Senna handled it, he did handle it and he put an end to it. Prost was a great driver but the fuel rules of the time heavily favoured his style, one only has to look at the qualifying times when they were both in the same car to see how much quicker Senna was.

No doubt Senna was the fastest driver over 1 lap (maybe ever?). Prost had a lot of front row starts too (43% compared to Senna on 54%) so he was no slouch. All their stats are very similar, percentage wise. Except for poles and fastest laps, the latter in Prost's favour 41-19.

Could sit and chat about who was involved in the most competitive era too but it's a pointless discussion as it's all 'what if' stuff.

It was a great rivalry for F1, two very talented drivers with two very different styles. One full of aggression and speed, the other consistent and faultless. I could count on my hand how many times Prost spun in his career, that is impressive in itself. I lost count how many times Senna was on provisional pole by some margin then went out and beat it again.

Prost he never lost his speed when they went away from economy formula. If a driver can't adapt, I'd question his talent. I think Senna was perfectly capable of driving any car to any regulation as quick if not quicker than anyone. And he proved that throughout his career with great wins in the Lotus and McLaren when it was an economy formula.

I think an important point in the movie is that both Prost and Senna needed each other, I don't think either of their legends would be as great without them.

Definitely, that's arguably what Schumacher is missing from a lot of his career. The only driver to really challenge him was Hakkinen, and in my opinion, those were the best years of Schumacher too (1998-2001).

So Netflix is streaming the movie so I got to see it. Having never seen The Senna era's races I have to say that Balestre was a prick. Senna seems to have driven with pure passion and that got the best of him sometimes both on and off the track. Prost was calculating and used that on and off the track. I did like the fact that they showed Rubens' and Ratzenger's crashes, and didn't toss that aside.

Good read this...

PLAYLIFE wrote:Definitely, that's arguably what Schumacher is missing from a lot of his career. The only driver to really challenge him was Hakkinen, and in my opinion, those were the best years of Schumacher too (1998-2001).

i'd say JPM had M$ on his toes a lot as well.

in fact (insert conspiracy theory here) if R$ was not at Williams alongside JPM i think JPM would have beaten M$ and been a world champion.

JPM had huge talent and on his day could beat MS for sure. But I doubt he could beat Schumacher over a full season. Personally I felt he made too many mistakes and had too many 'off' days.

I think both RS and JPM were fortunate that the Williams was as good as it was.

Neither RS nor JPM ever impressed in another team (Toyota/McLaren respectively). JPM was comprehensively beaten by Raikkonen in 2005 (112 to 60) and was again getting beaten by Kimi when JPM left half way through the season in 2006.

Ralf, well apart from a lucky podium in Oz with Toyota, don't really remember much else from him! He and Trulli seemed to be matched relatively well which doesn't say much for either.

glendo wrote:

PLAYLIFE wrote:Definitely, that's arguably what Schumacher is missing from a lot of his career. The only driver to really challenge him was Hakkinen, and in my opinion, those were the best years of Schumacher too (1998-2001).

i'd say JPM had M$ on his toes a lot as well.

in fact (insert conspiracy theory here) if R$ was not at Williams alongside JPM i think JPM would have beaten M$ and been a world champion.

JPM's skill was outdone by his own bad judgement and temper. In 2003 he had very good chances to become world champion, and during the French GP all went downhill at a pitstop, after which he threw the toys out of the pram. Later at McLaren he made Ron Dennis look like a fool after the "tennis ball" slipup, when the media in general knew he had a motocross accident, and again he threw the toys out of the pram and sought refuge in NASCAR. Last I heard of him is that he spectacularly crashed a Jet dryer truck at the Daytona 500 causing a huge fire.
In hindsight, I'd say now that many expectations on him to become a consistent contendor for the championship were overhyped at the moment.

With Hakkinen gone, JPM was the only driver to really take it to Schumacher as of 2002. Actually, as of 2001 as Mika didn't do all that much in his last season (okay, he got two race wins showing he still had it in a diminished McLaren).

JPM came from CART where he had made a huge impact for his no-nonsense driving style, and I think it was in his first year in F1 he passed Schumacher through the Senna S at Interlagos showing he was not intimidated. He may have been over-hyped, but it was good to see at least somebody not just pulling aside for M$.

Yeah Monty lost control of the car and hit the track dryer at the Daytona 500! They had to stop the race for 2 hours, let the 200+ gallons of jet fuel burn off on the track, and fix the track. In all honesty the car was screwed up when he left the pits, and he wasn't even up to speed when a part broke on the car and took him for a ride.

That was one scary incident for 'pinball'. But I think that officially capped that he had hit everything you could possibly hit in motor-sport! He was a lucky boy.

The 'new' JPM (in terms of spectacular) is Kobayashi, he is brilliant to watch. Lewis has always been pretty racey too. There's always the few that have these characteristics, it's just that they're rarely up the pointy end of the field.

i've said it before... give koby a decent car and he will dominate.

glendo wrote:i've said it before... give koby a decent car and he will dominate.

Best Japanese F1 driver ever I think. Strange because I didn't rate him at all in GP2 but in F1 he really flourished. Despite that great races he's had and the fighting nature, he is somewhat inconsistent. Now that the Sauber is a solid car capable of regularly challenging for mid-to-bottom end of the points, I will be closely watching him hoping he has improved his consistency.