F1 Legends - Sky

To prepare for the title decider Japanese GP of 1999, Irvine read inspirational books while Mika Hakkinen was sweating it out at the gym and test track. And we all know how that race ended.

Not even Schumacher already on holiday from a broken leg could go slow enough for Irvine to catch up.

Edited by Tron, 27 September 2013 - 00:05.

Besides that Hakkinen episode, where can I find the others?

It's not in YouTube and I don't live in UK...

Besides that Hakkinen episode, where can I find the others?

It's not in YouTube and I don't live in UK...

Prost - http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Rh2U7NkTw1Y

 

Mansell - http://www.youtube.c...h?v=7iBz6IGWbL4

To prepare for the title decider Japanese GP of 1999, Irvine read inspirational books while Mika Hakkinen was sweating it out at the gym and test track. And we all know how that race ended.

Not even Schumacher already on holiday from a broken leg could go slow enough for Irvine to catch up.

 

 

If Michael won the race, Eddie would been champion.

Edited by George Costanza, 25 October 2013 - 01:40.

If Michael won the race, Eddie would been champion.

Yeah, Mika won the title for himself in the end.

 

Mika was fantastic in Japan.

It's a show I quite enjoy; always plenty of little nuggets of info that are worth knowing... listening to Irvine speak though was like wading through treacle. Thoroughly enjoyed the Gordon Murray and Max Mosley episodes too; came away with some more positive feelings towards Max afterwards. 

 

As an aside, what saddens me with this show and all the archive footage shown in HD on Sky is how great it looks, and how I wish, wish, wish FOM would loosen the locks on the archive and re-release the old  season review videos on Blu-Ray, or at least as HI DEF downloads. The archive footage looks fab, yet we're still stuck with VHS or 'format transferred' versions of that footage at home. Poor show all round. 

Edited by grandmastashi, 12 November 2013 - 14:07.

I am really hoping they show the JV soon.

 

Bit like Irvine, its a sure thing he will not sit on the fence about things

It's a show I quite enjoy; always plenty of little nuggets of info that are worth knowing... listening to Irvine speak though was like wading through treacle. Thoroughly enjoyed the Gordon Murray and Max Mosley episodes too; came away with some more positive feelings towards Max afterwards. 

 

As an aside, what saddens me with this show and all the archive footage shown in HD on Sky is how great it looks, and how I wish, wish, wish FOM would loosen the locks on the archive and re-release the old  season review videos on Blu-Ray, or at least as HI DEF downloads. The archive footage looks fab, yet we're still stuck with VHS or 'format transferred' versions of that footage at home. Poor show all round. 

+1000

 

 

As an aside, what saddens me with this show and all the archive footage shown in HD on Sky is how great it looks, and how I wish, wish, wish FOM would loosen the locks on the archive and re-release the old  season review videos on Blu-Ray, or at least as HI DEF downloads. The archive footage looks fab, yet we're still stuck with VHS or 'format transferred' versions of that footage at home. Poor show all round. 

SKY probably don't want you to be able to watch what you want. If they have exclusive access to decent footage, well that is a valuable asset that they can onsell to you in various ways. If FOM was to just sell it to anyone for private viewing pleasure then it would lessen the scope of repackaging for the likes of SKY.

SKY probably don't want you to be able to watch what you want. If they have exclusive access to decent footage, well that is a valuable asset that they can onsell to you in various ways. If FOM was to just sell it to anyone for private viewing pleasure then it would lessen the scope of repackaging for the likes of SKY.

 

True, but like all the other sports they show Sky pay a licence for the use of the pictures and their tape libraries from the various sport governing bodies, that doesn't stop those governing bodies releasing video on their own websites or Blu Rays in the shops.. for example Sky Sports pay a lot for WWE wrestling, but it doesn't stop WWE releasing new DVDs and Blu Rays every week.

 

FOM's reticence to re-release the old footage on new formats goes way back to before the Sky deal was ever in place. I used to work at the F1 Shop in Chester and let me tell you the looks we used to get from customers for only being able to stock the 81 to 02 season reviews on VHS were frequent once the shift to DVD had happened. Whilst I'm happy to keep a VHS player in the spare room to watch 'All Over Down Under' occasionally, it would be nice to have a HD file tucked away on my home theatre PC, rather than the pile of dusty videos my other half detests...  

 

I'd pay very good money for a Blu Ray boxset of all the old season reviews, or boxset profiles of drivers covering their histories, best wins etc... when you've got a tape library as vast as F1's and a captive audience it's a licence to print money. Also, my 10 year old kid recently asked me about why all the fuss about Senna, so I tried to show him the 88 VHS season review. He gave up after 10 minutes because the picture quality was so bad compared to what he's used to now!

 

My boy is like a sponge with F1 at the moment, but any history before 2002 is very difficult to show him; kids are a key demographic because if you hook them early they'll be fans for life. 

 

Sorry for the rant, it's something I have a bit of bee in my bonnet about at the moment! 

Sorry for the rant, it's something I have a bit of bee in my bonnet about at the moment! 

 

 

Great rant!

 

Here's mine

 

I feel like the rights holders are custodians of sports (and in other cases cultural) history. Like a landowner of some significant site. Sure, they have the property right. It goes beyond that into obligation to be a dutiful and responsible custodian of these artifacts. Not merely a hoarder and exploiter.

 

When it comes to the history, the footage they have stashed away, it isn't just their property. It is a part of our experiences as witnesses to the deeds of years gone by. Your desire to relate these to your son, that is a human thing, natural and obvious to anyone that has social values. Meantime, we wait....for them to make it into the current age of information.

 

 

Having said all that, I am enjoying the legends shows, great stuff sky

Great rant!

 

Here's mine

 

I feel like the rights holders are custodians of sports (and in other cases cultural) history. Like a landowner of some significant site. Sure, they have the property right. It goes beyond that into obligation to be a dutiful and responsible custodian of these artifacts. Not merely a hoarder and exploiter.

 

When it comes to the history, the footage they have stashed away, it isn't just their property. It is a part of our experiences as witnesses to the deeds of years gone by. Your desire to relate these to your son, that is a human thing, natural and obvious to anyone that has social values. Meantime, we wait....for them to make it into the current age of information.

 

 

Having said all that, I am enjoying the legends shows, great stuff sky

 

Agreed entirely... and also from me, thumbs up to Sky! 

I own the Senna film in Blu Ray, I think that is proof alone that the old stuff can look great enhanced

 

 

I'd pay very good money for a Blu Ray boxset of all the old season reviews, or boxset profiles of drivers covering their histories, best wins etc... when you've got a tape library as vast as F1's and a captive audience it's a licence to print money. Also, my 10 year old kid recently asked me about why all the fuss about Senna, so I tried to show him the 88 VHS season review. He gave up after 10 minutes because the picture quality was so bad compared to what he's used to now!

Have you tried showing him the Senna film in Blu Ray or DVD, it is stunning.

 

Never knew there was a F1 store in Chester, gutted I missed that, Chester is like my 2nd home as my Best Friend lives round there.

Edited by sennafan24, 13 November 2013 - 15:56.

I own the Senna film in Blu Ray, I think that is proof alone that the

 

Have you tried showing him the Senna film in Blu Ray or DVD, it is stunning.

 

Never knew there was a F1 store in Chester, gutted I missed that, Chester is like my 2nd home as my Best Friend lives round there.

He's getting it for Christmas so we'll watch it then... am anticipating tears! 

 

Sadly the F1 shop closed in about 2005/6, it used to be up on the rows on Bridge Street. Worked there for three years and loved every minute of it; the guy who owned it blamed the closure on Schumacher's years of dominance and not the the 33% markup he used to have on everything... 

He's getting it for Christmas so we'll watch it then... am anticipating tears! 

 

Sadly the F1 shop closed in about 2005/6, it used to be up on the rows on Bridge Street. Worked there for three years and loved every minute of it; the guy who owned it blamed the closure on Schumacher's years of dominance and not the the 33% markup he used to have on everything... 

I was 24 when I watched the Senna film and cried, so it no biggie    Bet the Lewis and Jenson years would have made the store a tidy profit if the store had stayed open, I would have been a customer for sure. I am judging that on TV ratings that increased once Schumi's domination ended.

 

However, Schumi fans are rabid, in 2004 I cleared out a friend of my Brother's room as he had sadly passed away, his room was like a shrine of Schumacher. Portraits and pictures everywhere of him, with the Ferrari love as well, it probably was the markup you mentioned, as Schumi loyalists will indulge greatly, they are the hardcore of the hardcore fans so to speak. Only Senna merchandise is meant to sell better all time.

 

SKY have not showed the season reviews for a while, I enjoyed them so much I even watched some years that were one-sided like 2002 and 2004. Its a effective yet fairly quick way of getting research. I was mostly a casual fan until 2012 when I committed my viewing habits, the season reviews and books helped me gain a comprehensive knowledge of modern F1 history.

Thanks to sennafan24 and to all those posting links to this great series.

I saw the Jo Ramirez 'Architects of F1' segment last week and eat it up with a spoon.

 

Only caught a few minutes of the 'Eddie on his yacht' one before having to turn it off....(knowing what I do about him) as it made me slightly nauseous.

 

Wonder how incendiary ole' JV is gonna be

 

  to Sky for these interviews.

 

Jp

Edited by jonpollak, 15 November 2013 - 02:22.

 

I saw the Jo Ramirez 'Architects of F1' segment last week and eat it up with a spoon.

 

 

I can return the thanks as I have not got round to watching the Ramirez one, thanks for the link 

Jo Ramirez is a class act. F1 needs people like him. He's one of the few that had anything nice to say about Ronny D.

Remember Brazil? He shut Berger out on the first corner while the Austrain had the racing line. And Portugal? When he took out an already black flagged Mansell. On both occassions James Hunt said "stupid".

 

Yes, there were mechanical problems, but the Senna film unfairly left those and his clumsy moments out all to blame Prost.

 

 

 

A championship is won across the whole season, not just on one race.

My point is that Senna film made Prost as his only reason to have lost 1989 title, while leaving out a huge chunk as mentioned above.

 

Not only that, but Senna made an error and spun off in Silverstone also. It is well known that Prost was the underdog in 1989 and that both Honda and the team gave preferential treatment to Senna. Both of these facts were painfully apparent in Italy. Even Roebuck and Ramirez confirmed that at Monza, Senna had two chassis, 2 engines and some 20-25 mechanics working on his cars at his side of the garage. Prost had 1 chassis, 1 engine and 5 mechanics on his side. It is also quite telling that in the qualifying Senna was 1.8 seconds faster than Prost in the same car on a track where they do full power for around 70-75% of the lap. No doubt that Senna was the greatest qualifier of them all and could give any driver past or present a few tenths on any track over one flying lap on a Saturday. But being almost 2 seconds quicker, that was just ridiculous, especially when one takes into account that a year earlier Senna was 0.3 faster than Prost on Saturday. 

 

That 0.3 seconds from 1988 was a reasonable and a fully credible gap between the two on one lap. But to actually insist that Prost got suddenly 1.5 seconds slower in a year without any reasons in the background is just mind-numbingly silly. It is also argued that Senna's frequent technical failures that year could be the results of newer hence more unreliable parts on his car. Ron Dennis wanted Prost to stay for 1990 and Prost would have accepted the offer but only under one condition: that Dennis would publicly announce that Senna is the clear No.1 of the team and Prost is the clear No.2. Of course this would have damaged the "our drivers are always equal in their statuses"  image heavily that McLaren carefully maintaned throughout the years so Dennis rejected the idea. Prost therefore duly cancelled his contract with the team even though he didn't have a drive at that time for 1990 yet. It just shows how serious and desperate that whole situation was.

 

Regarding Suzuka I don't there's anything to confess on his part as he was always open about what happened there. Before the race he announced that he would not open the door ever again for Senna for he had done it on quite a few occasions, even before the two got paired up at McLaren. He braked and turned in way earlier at the chicane, yes - and he never ever said that he didn't. By being in front and leading the race he had every right to choose his braking point and his line whilst defending his lead.

 

There is a very important detail that can not be stressed out enough but still many people are quite happy to ignore it: that the rules state that one has to give room to the other car when the attacking car is completely, wheel-to-wheel beside the leading car. Even with Prost braking way too early, even with him turning in earlier, even with Senna cutting through the pit lane entry and putting a wheel to the grass, even with his desperate move to divebomb in next to Prost with too much speed, it was still Prost's right front wheel that collided with Senna's front wing when the two crashed. This means that Prost was still a good .4-.5 meter ahead of Senna when they touched. Senna could not for a second manage to be wheel-to-wheel with Prost at the corner, let alone under braking, let alone coming out of 130R because Prost was ahead of him with at least half a meter all the time. Which in turn means that Prost was not obliged to give room to Senna at all, it was still his right to stick to his line and to defend it in any way he saw fit.

 

Prost only gave a taste for Senna of the Brazilian's own medicine. He wouldn't lift off because that was his line by clearly being ahead all the time. He didn't want to crash but he was never prepared to open the door once again either. Senna should have lifted but he never did - it was a racing incident between two committed drivers and that is that. 

 

Those fans who blame Prost should also remember how in numerous instances Senna didn't give room to cars that attacked him and unlike him in Suzuka, those drivers actually got completely side-to-side with him hence were fully eligible to be given room. Still Senna never gave room to any of them and he spun them or pushed them off the track. On the following images one can clearly see how the attackers managed to put their wheels next to Senna's and claimed the right to be given room by doing so - only to be denied.

 

Rosberg at Brands Hatch in 1985 on lap 7:

 

 

Mansell at Rio in 1986 on lap 1:

 

 

Mansell again, at Spa in 1987, again on lap one (actually Mansell here wasn't only wheel-to-wheel, but already ahead - still got spun off by the Brazilian):

 

 

Berger at Rio in 1989, right after the start:

 

 

As it can clearly be seen in all of the cases above those drivers attacking Senna were next to him. Therefore I don't think it is a valid argument that Senna should have been given room at Suzuka in 1989. Even if we ignore that he wasn't up wheel-to-wheel next to Prost (which we shouldn't really!), we still can't ignore the controversy here then. We can't have it both ways that Senna was right in all these cases where he was defending and denied to give room but at the same time, he also was a victim when he attacked Prost and wasn't given room. This would just be a classical case of a double standard.

 

Jo Ramirez said that Prost only made one error at that corner: that he didn't just let Senna fly by him because it was clear from Senna's telemetry that he never would have been able to manage the corner with that speed and angle he was approaching it. According to Ramirez he would have just hit the unforgivingly high kerb there at the chicane and would have broken his suspension in the process.

 

Prost wasn't the one to be solely blamed there. In my opinion it was just a normal racing accident where neither parties can exclusively be held responsible.

Edited by Britophile, 14 November 2013 - 05:09.

Wow! Now this thread will heat up!

It is possible to spoil the strength of a reasonably sound argument by pushing things too far. Trying to blame Senna for the collision with Mansell at Spa in 1987, for example.

Britophile - Glad you decided to stick about

 

Anyway, the engine favoring rumors have never stacked up fully, for example Roebuck claims that it went on in 1988, first in favor of Senna, then later on in favor of Prost to keep the WDC running. But Prost himself, fails to mention this in the SKY interview, and admits he only suspected it.

 

There were accusations from both sides, Senna claimed McLaren favored Prost, Jo Rameriz said there was a strong feeling that Senna was a Honda driver in a McLaren car, and Prost was a McLaren driver with a Honda engine. Rameriz claims that no one was favored, I have heard that Monza story before but never seen proof, even if it was true it made no difference, Senna's car failed him, handing Prost the win.

 

Another common misconception is that proof of Honda's favoring Senna came when Prost was quicker in France, and that Honda felt the need to assist Prost in his home town to help relations. This is flawed, as Prost was simply mega fast in France, he did well there in 1991 in his off-pace Ferrari, even beating Senna who had a better car.

 

The problem with Japan 1989 is that he claims he did not see Senna in his mirror, and some, including myself do not believe him. I do admire Prost as a driver, and do not dislike him as such, but when you watch the interview with SKY he looks very uncomfortable when the subject comes up, he shuffles about a lot. I think he knew exactly what he was doing. That is not to see Senna played a part in that incident, he was faster than Prost and would have passed him if he would have waited for a better chance. Given what happened though, Senna should have never been excluded from the standings for that race.

 

1989 is a horrible year to draw any conclusions, Senna finished ahead 9-1 when both finished, but the odd silly collision from Senna like the Berger one and the Mansell one, which I do not defend, coupled with a bunch of costly DNF's, made Prost Champion. If Honda did favor Senna, they ended up favoring Prost with the amount of points Senna lost from engine failure. 1988 is probably the most reflective year, but even then it was not a points battle, it was a battle for race wins given the dynamic of the McLaren dominance and the scoring system being best of 11.

 

The problem with all this is that Roebuck is Prost's buddy, and Roebuck himself admits he remembers things more from Prost's side of the coin, he is not a objective observer, not that I am in this case given my man crush on Senna. Roebeck would only get his stories from Prost, so his analysis does not mean much to what actually happened in my opinion.

 

Rameriz is probably a better source.

It is possible to spoil the strength of a reasonably sound argument by pushing things too far. Trying to blame Senna for the collision with Mansell at Spa in 1987, for example.

 

I am not necessarily pointing any fingers here, my goal was only to point out that Senna had many incidents like that. In Portugal 1989 for example it was the very same situation once again with Mansell, still I fully blame Mansell for that collision.

Britophile - Glad you decided to stick about

 

Anyway, the engine favoring rumors have never stacked up fully, for example Roebuck claims that it went on in 1988, first in favor of Senna, then later on in favor of Prost to keep the WDC running. But Prost himself, fails to mention this in the SKY interview, and admits he only suspected it.

 

There were accusations from both sides, Senna claimed McLaren favored Prost, Jo Rameriz said there was a strong feeling that Senna was a Honda driver in a McLaren car, and Prost was a McLaren driver with a Honda engine. Rameriz claims that no one was favored, I have heard that Monza story before but never seen proof, even if it was true it made no difference, Senna's car failed him, handing Prost the win.

 

Another common misconception is that proof of Honda's favoring Senna came when Prost was quicker in France, and that Honda felt the need to assist Prost in his home town to help relations. This is flawed, as Prost was simply mega fast in France, he did well there in 1991 in his off-pace Ferrari, even beating Senna who had a better car.

 

The problem with Japan 1989 is that he claims he did not see Senna in his mirror, and some, including myself do not believe him. I do admire Prost as a driver, and do not dislike him as such, but when you watch the interview with SKY he looks very uncomfortable when the subject comes up, he shuffles about a lot. I think he knew exactly what he was doing. That is not to see Senna played a part in that incident, he was faster than Prost and would have passed him if he would have waited for a better chance. Given what happened though, Senna should have never been excluded from the standings for that race.

 

1989 is a horrible year to draw any conclusions, Senna finished ahead 9-1 when both finished, but the odd silly collision from Senna like the Berger one and the Mansell one, which I do not defend, coupled with a bunch of costly DNF's, made Prost Champion. If Honda did favor Senna, they ended up favoring Prost with the amount of points Senna lost from engine failure. 1988 is probably the most reflective year, but even then it was not a points battle, it was a battle for race wins given the dynamic of the McLaren dominance and the scoring system being best of 11.

 

The problem with all this is that Roebuck is Prost's buddy, and Roebuck himself admits he remembers things more from Prost's side of the coin, he is not a objective observer, not that I am in this case given my man crush on Senna. Roebeck would only get his stories from Prost, so his analysis does not mean much to what actually happened in my opinion.

 

Rameriz is probably a better source.

 

Thanks, mate

 

I agree that Roebuck is admittedly very fond on Prost so he can not always be labelled as absolutely objective. However Honda always had this habit of preferring a driver over another. This was confirmed by Rosberg when he got inferior equipment from Honda in 1985 from Austria onwards when he announced before the practice that he would leave the team at the end of the season to join McLaren. This Honda driver favoritism was again confirmed by Mansell when Piquet was preferred over him in 1987 as Piquet had that massive shunt in Imola and Honda felt that Piquet was very brave to carry on with the season so he "deserved" to be put forward.

 

Apart from all that, Senna always had a very strong realtionship with them even as a Lotus driver. If memory serves me well, it was in 1986 when after practice for the Belgian GP, Mansell complained about that Senna had been supplied with a special qualifying engine by Honda and that he felt it wasn't right as he was fighting for the WDC as a Honda driver yet he had never received such attention from them. This incident was yet another reason why slowly but surely Honda got more fond on Piquet by 1987.

 

So taking everything into account, especially the 1.8 seconds gap in qualifying at Monza it is quite clear that something must have been going on in 1989. The team's position also was quite clear when Ron Dennis started his campaign for Senna after Suzuka. That wasn't an image of a team principal who was happy as long as one of his drivers sealed the WDC - which Prost had done already by then. That was a team principal who wanted his preferred driver to be crowned as champion. 

 

This said I must stress out that this detracts nothing from the utter genius of Senna. He was arguably one of the greatest drivers of all times and on a flying lap he was the fastest of them all, past or present, period. He also held his own against Prost in 1988 fair and square so by no means I want to imply he couldn't have beaten Prost on his own merit. He was more than capable to do so and Prost himself would be the first man to admit that. But by 1989 the gap between the two escalated in such a suspicious degree and there are just too many things out there hinting that it wasn't for no reasons. Especially if we also consider that Prost knew the MP4/5 much better as he almost single-handedly worked on it and tested it tirelessly through the winter of '88/'89 in order for Senna having the chance to spend these months back home in Brazil with his family.

Yeah it is suspect.

 

But Senna in 1988 proved he could pull out such gaps like he did in 1989, at Monaco it was 1.4 seconds between Senna and Prost, so it is possible that Senna pulled out that lap at Monza on merit.  I cannot dismiss Honda favoring Senna 100%, he clearly had a better relationship with Honda than anyone else, they adored him clearly.

 

As I said, given the dynamics of 1989 and the speculation, its hard to quantify driving merit, which is strange for a direct teammate comparison. 1988 is a bit easier without as much variables to consider, but even then Prost fans cry foul at the points system, and the McLaren domination meaning that wins cost more than consistency.

 

Both were not in their primes, Prost was more seasoned and a bit slower that years prior, Senna had the raw speed but did not develop into the finished product until 1991 time when he stopped getting into silly collisions. I do think overall Senna is better, but both are in my top 3 drivers and ahead of anyone on the current grid, and I rate at least 1 of them above Schumi, maybe both depending on what day you ask me.

Senna and Prost are equally great.

Prost fans cry foul at the points system

 

They know not of what they speak.

They know not of what they speak.

Well I agree there, they both knew the system they were working in, and that wins would matter more give the dynamic. The 1988 season review scores it in wins, to prevent confusion, 8-7 to Ayrton it reads at the end.

 

Then again, I always bang on about 9-1 in races finished in 1989, so I am guilty of being selective myself to suit the driver I support/think is better.

Yeah it is suspect.

 

But Senna in 1988 proved he could pull out such gaps like he did in 1989, at Monaco it was 1.4 seconds between Senna and Prost, so it is possible that Senna pulled out that lap at Monza on merit.  I cannot dismiss Honda favoring Senna 100%, he clearly had a better relationship with Honda than anyone else, they adored him clearly.

 

As I said, given the dynamics of 1989 and the speculation, its hard to quantify driving merit, which is strange for a direct teammate comparison. 1988 is a bit easier without as much variables to consider, but even then Prost fans cry foul at the points system, and the McLaren domination meaning that wins cost more than consistency.

 

Both were not in their primes, Prost was more seasoned and a bit slower that years prior, Senna had the raw speed but did not develop into the finished product until 1991 time when he stopped getting into silly collisions. I do think overall Senna is better, but both are in my top 3 drivers and ahead of anyone on the current grid, and I rate at least 1 of them above Schumi, maybe both depending on what day you ask me.

 

At Monaco Ayrton was always a beast. However that 1.4 seconds gap in qualifying was down to Prost knowing he wasn't likely going to beat Senna at the practice anyway so he used Saturday again to work on his race setup. As a result he was some 0.8 sec faster than Senna in the warm-up session on Sunday morning just before the race. At the start he slipped his clutch and got stuck behind Berger which gave Senna the opportunity to build up a massive cushion of around almost a minute. However as soon as he could pass by Berger in lap 54 he started to put in fastest lap after fastest lap. Senna - despite being repeatedly told by Dennis not to - desperately tried to match and improve on Prost's lap times and in the process he hit the wall at Portier in lap 65. I believe this was a very important step in the development of Senna as a complete package as he realised he gave away a guaranteed victory because of his pride. He was so angry with himself that he rushed home to his appartment and refused to talk to anyone for hours.

 

Well I agree there, they both knew the system they were working in, and that wins would matter more give the dynamic. The 1988 season review scores it in wins, to prevent confusion, 8-7 to Ayrton it reads at the end.

 

Then again, I always bang on about 9-1 in races finished in 1989, so I am guilty of being selective myself to suit the driver I support/think is better.

 

I agree, the rules of the scoring system were clear to both of them. And yes, the wins tally is 8-7 to Ayrton but we should remember that in Monza Prost had an engine failure and had to retire. With Senna colliding Schessler near the end of the race this would have handed the win for Prost. And in Japan Prost had gearbox problems, that's why Senna was able to catch up to him after his disastrous start. In fact, Senna never had any technical issues that forced him to retire in 1988 while Prost had two race ending failures plus his gearbox trouble at Suzuka. Even with the gearbox problems Prost was able to maintain the gap to Senna at Suzuka but at the end of lap 27 he was badly blocked by de Cesaris when he caught the Italian to lap him which gave the opportunity to Senna for overtaking Prost. Afterwards Senna pulled away proving that even though he was faster than the struggling Prost, the Frenchman was able to keep him behind as Suzuka was never a track where overtaking was easy. 

 

So yes, I agree that it is pointless for the Prost fans to blame the scoring system now as the very same system gave Prost three titles. It is however worth noting that according to Ramirez Senna himself was not completely satisfied with his victory over Prost because he indeed scored less points than him, making him the only WDC who won the title despite not scoring the most points over the course of a seson.

Edited by Britophile, 14 November 2013 - 17:10.

making him the only WDC who won the title despite not scoring the most points over the course of a seson.

 

John Surtees says hi.

 

I think Senna had the edge in both seasons. 2-0 to Senna in titles would not have been unjust. 1-1 is probably fair though.

I am not sure of the races, but in 1988 when Senna was 7-4 up he did have two races which were hindered with fuel read out problems, which started the Roebuck conspiracy that Honda were favoring a different driver at different stages.

 

Senna also had car problems at Brazil which lead to him being DQ'ed in the end, so the luck in 1988 was fairly even.

Edited by sennafan24, 14 November 2013 - 17:23.

I am not sure of the races, but in 1988 when Senna was 7-4 up he did have two races which were hindered with fuel read out problems, which started the Roebuck conspiracy that Honda were favoring a different driver at different stages.

 

Plus I swear he had a engine failure in 88, maybe at San Marino

 

Well in 1988 he won at Imola so I am not sure what race you are referring to. He had a disqualification in Brazil and two retirements in 1988 (Monaco, Monza) but none of those were the result of a technical failure. 

Well in 1988 he won at Imola so I am not sure what race you are referring to. He had a disqualification in Brazil and two retirements in 1988 (Monaco, Monza) but none of those were the result of a technical failure. 

Nah I edited the Imola suggestion, I got that mixed up.

 

The Brazil race was ruined before he retired by car failure though, here is the race report from Wiki

 

"Senna's gear selector mechanism broke and he had to complete the lap jammed in first gear. The first start was aborted and Senna started from the spare car in the pits"

 

Like I said above Senna had problems with fuel read outs whilst he was 7-4 up on Prost, which allowed Prost to claw back to 7-6, Senna only managed a 6th and a 4th in those races, despite taking pole in both, so whilst he had no DNF's from car failure, he had 3 races practically ruined by them.

Nah I edited the Imola suggestion, I got that mixed up.

 

The Brazil race was ruined before he retired by car failure though, here is the race report from Wiki

 

"Senna's gear selector mechanism broke and he had to complete the lap jammed in first gear. The first start was aborted and Senna started from the spare car in the pits"

 

Like I said above Senna had problems with fuel read outs whilst he was 7-4 up on Prost, which allowed Prost to claw back to 7-6, Senna only managed a 6th and a 4th in those races, despite taking pole in both, so whilst he had no DNF's from car failure, he had 3 races practically ruined by them.

 

Yeah I only saw it now, sorry 

 

So that's basically three races for each in the bin then - it does indeed even out in the end.

Yeah I only saw it now, sorry 

 

So that's basically three races for each in the bin then - it does indeed even out in the end.

No problem, my mistake

 

Yeah it did, 3 races ruined each, its hard to quantify how much either lost from their DNF's though. Prost did get a 2nd in Japan, but two non finishes, whilst Senna had one non finish and a two low scoring finishes, so it would appear it was all very close on that side as well.

No problem, my mistake

 

Yeah it did, 3 races ruined each, its hard to quantify how much either lost from their DNF's though. Prost did get a 2nd in Japan, but two non finishes, whilst Senna had one non finish and a two low scoring finishes, so it would appear it was all very close on that side as well.

 

Wow, a reasoned and polite discussion about two rival F1 drivers on the forum. Thanks to both of you (Britophile and sennafan24) for the research and insights.

Regarding Japan 1989, Ayrton could have just waited another time to pass. I do believe Alain should have given him more room, but I think Ayrton was going a little bit too fast for that corner itself, he likely would have spun. The better driver that season would be Ayrton. In 1988, they were generally on par with each other.

 

In 1990, though, Alain had one of his best. Driving a Ferrari and nearly winning the title? Something Ferrari hadn't done, at the time, since 1979.

Edited by George Costanza, 15 November 2013 - 01:36.

 

Apart from all that, Senna always had a very strong realtionship with them even as a Lotus driver. If memory serves me well, it was in 1986 when after practice for the Belgian GP, Mansell complained about that Senna had been supplied with a special qualifying engine by Honda and that he felt it wasn't right as he was fighting for the WDC as a Honda driver yet he had never received such attention from them. This incident was yet another reason why slowly but surely Honda got more fond on Piquet by 1987.

 

 

 

Not sure if anyone's picked up this yet. This story must be a bit mangled because Senna had a Renault engine in 1986. Was this happening in Belgium 87?

Not sure if anyone's picked up this yet. This story must be a bit mangled because Senna had a Renault engine in 1986. Was this happening in Belgium 87?

 

Are you really going to do research over a story that starts with "Mansell complained..."? Think again!

 

 

 

In 1990, though, Alain had one of his best. Driving a Ferrari and nearly winning the title? Something Ferrari hadn't done, at the time, since 1979.

1990 is another debate to itself, its again hard to quantify. The McLaren would be better at one track, and the Ferrari would be better at the next. Prost felt that the Ferrari was better by Japan time, and some insiders have stated that the McLaren had the better engine, whilst the Ferrari had the better chassis (it could be the other way round, I forget)

 

Prost was brilliant in 1990, as was Senna. There teammates do not give us much clues, Berger who is better than some give credit, did beat Mansell in the standings, however  Mansell had a off-year, he basically gave up as he felt Ferrari were mistreating him, and did not turn up to team meetings or anything.  Berger and Mansell are pretty equal in general in my book, and their time as teammates proves this when you research their performances a little (Mansell outscored Berger, but Berger had worse luck) 

 

One thing 1990 does give us though is Senna vs Prost with a whole team behind them, and a car set up to their individual needs. So it was a fresh spin on the rivalry.

Right.

 

Who does everyone want to see get done in this series.

 

Given his SKY job, I expect Damon Hill to get one sooner rather than later. Even though he was already interviewed at length, I would not put it past Brundle getting one. Irvine being on has stretched the tag of legend, so even Johnny Herbert may get one. 

 

If he recovers enough, Nelson Piquet would be a riot. And Schumi would be a good choice, as well its Schumi.

As it can clearly be seen in all of the cases above those drivers attacking Senna were next to him. Therefore I don't think it is a valid argument that Senna should have been given room at Suzuka in 1989. Even if we ignore that he wasn't up wheel-to-wheel next to Prost (which we shouldn't really!), we still can't ignore the controversy here then. We can't have it both ways that Senna was right in all these cases where he was defending and denied to give room but at the same time, he also was a victim when he attacked Prost and wasn't given room. This would just be a classical case of a double standard.

 

Jo Ramirez said that Prost only made one error at that corner: that he didn't just let Senna fly by him because it was clear from Senna's telemetry that he never would have been able to manage the corner with that speed and angle he was approaching it. According to Ramirez he would have just hit the unforgivingly high kerb there at the chicane and would have broken his suspension in the process.

 

Prost wasn't the one to be solely blamed there. In my opinion it was just a normal racing accident where neither parties can exclusively be held responsible.

 

Senna had one half of his car alongside when Prost turned in at Suzuka 89. Because of that Senna had a justification to be there and to be given space. Prost ignored that and turned into Senna far earlier than the optimal line for the chicane suggests. Quite obviously Prost crashed into Senna intentionally. I really can't see how anyone with any sense could dispute that.

 

And yet, Prost supporters/Senna haters like to ignore this intentional collision and yet harp on about Suzuka 90.

Senna had one half of his car alongside when Prost turned in at Suzuka 89. Because of that Senna had a justification to be there and to be given space. Prost ignored that and turned into Senna far earlier than the optimal line for the chicane suggests. Quite obviously Prost crashed into Senna intentionally. I really can't see how anyone with any sense could dispute that.

 

And yet, Prost supporters/Senna haters like to ignore this intentional collision and yet harp on about Suzuka 90.

The difference we have there is, we can prove that Suzuka 90 was intentional, Senna admitted it. Japan 89, myself and you are probably in the majority in thinking Prost did it on purpose, but it is far from conclusive. Prost still denies it to this day, and some credible people believe him.

 

The debate is actually simpler than it actual appears, and it is simply did Prost see Senna in his mirror, Prost says no and that is his defense, I speculate he did and he knew what he was doing. But I cannot prove it. Regardless if Senna would make the corner or not is irrelevant, as the question is "did Prost turn early to intentionally block/ram into Senna" as that was the outcome of the event.

 

Some Prost defenders state Prost was justified as he had grown tired with Senna's antics, so some Prost fans think he was guilty.

The difference we have there is, we can prove that Suzuka 90 was intentional, Senna admitted it. Japan 89, myself and you are probably in the majority in thinking Prost did it on purpose, but it is far from conclusive. Prost still denies it to this day, and some credible people believe him.

 

The debate is actually simpler than it actual appears, and it is simply did Prost see Senna in his mirror, Prost says no and that is his defense, I speculate he did and he knew what he was doing. But I cannot prove it. Regardless if Senna would make the corner or not is irrelevant, as the question is "did Prost turn early to intentionally block/ram into Senna" as that was the outcome of the event.

 

It's just silly to suggest that a driver like Prost would turn in far too early just accidentally, and to blindly believe he didn't see another car behind, in particular such an important car as Senna's. But hard-up Prost apologists decide for themselves what they think about the collision.

Senna had one half of his car alongside when Prost turned in at Suzuka 89. Because of that Senna had a justification to be there and to be given space. Prost ignored that and turned into Senna far earlier than the optimal line for the chicane suggests. Quite obviously Prost crashed into Senna intentionally. I really can't see how anyone with any sense could dispute that.

And yet, Prost supporters/Senna haters like to ignore this intentional collision and yet harp on about Suzuka 90.

By saying that Senna had justification to be given space you do realise that at the same time you accuse Senna of spinning off Rosberg at Brands Hatch in 1985, Mansell at Rio in 1986 and Berger at Rio in 1989, right? As I wrote, you can't have it both ways.

I believe that Prost knew what he was doing. He braked earlier, he took a defensive line, it is obvious that he was aware of Senna. What I don't believe is that he wanted the crash to be the only possible outcome of his maneuvre. Niki Lauda said that if Prost had wanted Senna to be out of the race he could easily have caused race ending damage to the Brazilian's car - which he obviously didn't do. In fact they barely touched. Have you seen the onboard footage of the contact? Even the camera stays on picture without any shaking, the cars are almost absolutely intact. Only the left side of Senna's front wing cracks but still stays on and falls off just later on in the lap due to the g-forces it was hit with at high speed. The impact of the contact of the two cars' were very small by any standards and it happened at a very slow speed of around 40 mph.

What I think of the incident is that Prost had one of those sudden "oh no you don't" moments. He said before the race that he wasn't going to open the door ever again for Senna and that is exactly what happened. I think he gave Senna the choice whether it is going to be a crash or whether Senna lifts off. As Martin Brundle said, this was psychological tactics that were pretty much brought into the sport by Senna. He would put the nose of his car next to the other car, kind of saying "let me through or we crash". So that day Prost didn't let him through as this time he wanted to force his will on Senna rather than the other way around. He didn't necessarily wanted to crash, but he certainly didn't do anything to avoid it either. That is why I said it was a racing incident of two very committed, or dare I say stubborn drivers. In my opinion they were equally responsible for the incident.

Regarding the following year I need to point out two very important things. The first is as sennafan24 already mentioned, that was a premeditated action from Senna. Even in the law of the United Kingdom premeditation is an aggravation. According to one of McLaren mechanic it was obvious from looking at the telemetry that Senna never wanted to make that first turn, he "never lifted for the corner at all – he simply took aim". A year later he admitted it himself that he wanted to crash into Prost.

And the second and even more important point - that was an unfathomably more dangerous move. Jo Ramirez explained how he never understood those who claimed that "Prost did the same a year earlier, so what". Oh ye gods no, it wasn't even the least bit the same.

In 1989, they collided at the very end of the race, meaning their fuel tanks were almost bone dry hence there wasn't any danger of fire. They collided at the slowest corner of the circuit with the slowest possible speed whilst there were no other cars around which could have got involved in the incident too.

In 1990 however, the crash happened at a very high speed, they were doing around 130-140 mph when they touched. They rushed off the track to the gravel trap and crashed heavily into the barriers. Apart from that they were carrying 195 litres of extremely flammable fuel onboard each car and they had 26 other cars screaming down behind them in the first corner with the same speed and the same amount of fuel. It is just terrible even to think of what could have happened. Senna couldn't have possibly known whether their cars would catch on fire, or whether other drivers who might also crash at the first corner or lose control of their cars would crash into their cars in the gravel trap. The whole thing could have ended up in causing serious injuries or God forbid fatalities which would have meant that Senna would have been tried in a penal procedure. Just as Patrese almost had to go to court in 1978 because of the death of Ronnie Peterson, or Frank Williams had to appear in front of an Italian court when Senna died.

It always baffles me when people somehow imply that what Senna did that day was "justified" and it was "just the same" like the year before. It is quite telling that even Ron Dennis who was very close to Senna confirmed that he had seen on Senna that he was in "massive conflict" with himself as he was "certainly not proud of himself" and was so deeply repulsed of what he had done. Upon arriving back to the pits nobody from the team but Dennis congratulated him for winning the title. Jo Ramirez wrote he himself was praying for the race to be restarted as he didn't want to believe that Senna would win the title in such an undignified, dangerous and shameful way. Premeditatedly using a racing car as a potentially deadly weapon can not be possibly justified and I can't understand how some fans still try to do it to this day when it is widely known that even Ayrton himself reportedly disapproved his own actions.

I believe that Senna was a good man but a very emotional one. So while in the heat of the moment he didn't realise the possible consequences of his actions, I am sure he wouldn't have done such a thing in his right mind and he certainly didn't think of killing Prost, or himself, or both of them. But the thing is that he easily could have. That's what Ramirez meant when he wrote he wanted the race to be restarted because "Ayrton was so much better than this". I agree with these sentiments so I don't think it is right at all to mention the two incidents in the same sentence because they were so massively unalike that the differences could fill a book.

Edited by Britophile, 16 November 2013 - 12:10.

They are different in circumstances, and probably the dangers were worse for 1990. But the principle was still the same, "I am willing, to block you in a way that will lead to a crash"  Askra brings up a good point that a driver of Prost's class would not enter a corner that early unless he had motivation to do so.

 

For me they are both as bad as each other, because no matter what we say about the 1990 crash, it was provoked by Prost using a similar principle, it became a "eye for an eye" between those two. The crash in 1989 also cost Sena a race win that would have kept the WDC alive, Senna would have probably not have won the WDC if the result had be upheld, but it would have be due to bad luck in the next race, where he was winning (the rain limited his vision when he crashed into the back of a car, I think it was Brundle).

 

Instead the title was decided due to Senna thinking that Prost and the system had conspired against him. The next year with the whole, dirty side of the track debate, it pushed him too far, like Prost had been pushed too far the year before. Both brought out the worst in each other, before Japan 89, both had done thing to one another that created that scenario. 

 

I think both were/are nice men, and their competitive natures and unfortunate circumstances brought out the worst in them. I always excuse both for their actions somewhat, as both men had serious reasons for what they did, so I can excuse them both in the grand scheme of things. 

 

Its sounds like I am saying their rivalry was a bad thing, from a spectator stand point it was not, its my favorite sporting rivalry. Arguably the two greatest drivers that ever lived, battling it out, and both with different backgrounds, styles and personalities. 

 

The fact they became friends in the end is overlooked, and proves my point that they were normally nice men, that their rivalry brought the worst out of.

Edited by sennafan24, 16 November 2013 - 14:18.

John Watson is the next person to be featured, after the Brazilian Grand Prix broadcast.

They are different in circumstances, and probably the dangers were worse for 1990. But the principle was still the same, "I am willing, to block you in a way that will lead to a crash"  Askra brings up a good point that a driver of Prost's class would not enter a corner that early unless he had motivation to do so.

 

For me they are both as bad as each other, because no matter what we say about the 1990 crash, it was provoked by Prost using a similar principle, it became a "eye for an eye" between those two. The crash in 1989 also cost Sena a race win that would have kept the WDC alive, Senna would have probably not have won the WDC if the result had be upheld, but it would have be due to bad luck in the next race, where he was winning (the rain limited his vision when he crashed into the back of a car, I think it was Brundle).

 

Instead the title was decided due to Senna thinking that Prost and the system had conspired against him. The next year with the whole, dirty side of the track debate, it pushed him too far, like Prost had been pushed too far the year before. Both brought out the worst in each other, before Japan 89, both had done thing to one another that created that scenario. 

 

I think both were/are nice men, and their competitive natures and unfortunate circumstances brought out the worst in them. I always excuse both for their actions somewhat, as both men had serious reasons for what they did, so I can excuse them both in the grand scheme of things. 

 

Its sounds like I am saying their rivalry was a bad thing, from a spectator stand point it was not, its my favorite sporting rivalry. Arguably the two greatest drivers that ever lived, battling it out, and both with different backgrounds, styles and personalities. 

 

The fact they became friends in the end is overlooked, and proves my point that they were normally nice men, that their rivalry brought the worst out of.

 

Very good points, mate.

 

And yes, they relationship completely changed after Prost retired. It is not far fethced at all to say they became friends. Even according to Ayrton's sister, Viviane, Ayrton lost his motivation when Prost retired. They needed each other as they pushed each other to the very limits of their capabilities. I reckon without their rivalry their reputation today wouldn't be the same.

 

When Ayrton died, Alain reportedly said that a big part of him died too. He was shocked and deeply saddened. He was reluctant to attend at the funeral at first because he thought the Brazilian people would see it as an offense. But the exact opposite happened - everybody was very welcoming to him and he said afterwards that he would have regretted it in his entire life had he decided not to be there.

 

I would only make on addition though. The thing that I couldn't approve from Ayrton regarding their 1990 incident is that he was angered by Balestre and the FISA and beacuse of that he took revenge on Prost who had nothing to do with the whole dirty side of the track dispute. In fact this whole "they took the pole from Ayrton" thing is not what happened. Jo Ramirez wrote in his book that Senna and Berger went to see the stewards on Saturday morning about switching the pole position to the clean side of the track. Their request was turned down straight away on the spot!

 

In other words, Ayrton knew way before the qualifying that in case he takes pole he would start from the dirty side of the track. He was angry because his request got rejected straight away and not because he got tricked somehow after he grabbed the pole. I think this puts everything into a different perspective. I just can't understand why he thought the solution to this problem would be to ram into his rival who had nothing to do with it. What I would have liked to see from him instead is something like "right, so you want to play the game this way - then I start from the dirty side and I will win from there, up yours!" That's what Ramirez wanted from him to do too.

 

I personally believe Ayrton pushed the envelope way more than anybody else in the sport. But that's probably because he arguably had a far greater desire to win than anybody else too. 

 

But he still was a very good man. I read that when he was shown the footage of the crash in 1990 his first reaction was that the video was fake because that's not what had happened. It took some half an hour to convince that the video was real and indeed the crash happened like that. To me it just proves that he was a decent person and he just didn't realise in the heat of the moment how dangerous his maneuvre was and that normally he wouldn't have done such a thing.

 

I agree that they were arguably the two greatest drivers the sport has ever seen. It is amazing how they were different in their personalities, their style and their motivation but still they got the same results. If one looks at their statistics it is almost uncanny how they achieved such similar results in many categories with such different approaches.

For me they are both as bad as each other, because no matter what we say about the 1990 crash, it was provoked by Prost using a similar principle, it became a "eye for an eye" between those two.

 

No, sorry.  That won't wash.  1989 was extremely out of character for Prost - and was surely in part precipitated by Senna's woeful move on the straight at Estoril.  Whereas Senna was a serial offender when it came to driving morals. 

 

There's a world of difference between Prost taking a slightly naughty line into a chicane and Senna deliberately, maliciously, cold-bloodedly and pre-meditatedly taking Prost out at the first corner of a Grand Prix right in front of a full grid of cars, at such speed that they went straight through the sand and into the distant barrier.

 

At worst Prost's was a minor battery; at best Senna's was attempted grievous bodily harm.

No, sorry.  That won't wash.  1989 was extremely out of character for Prost - and was surely in part precipitated by Senna's woeful move on the straight at Estoril.  Whereas Senna was a serial offender when it came to driving morals. 

 

There's a world of difference between Prost taking a slightly naughty line into a chicane and Senna deliberately, maliciously, cold-bloodedly and pre-meditatedly taking Prost out at the first corner of a Grand Prix right in front of a full grid of cars, at such speed that they went straight through the sand and into the distant barrier.

 

At worst Prost's was a minor battery; at best Senna's was attempted grievous bodily harm.

I am going to not respond, as I do not want to ruin what would have been a nice a balanced debate between me and Britophile.

 

Britophile - Senna always felt FISA greatly favored Prost, which was ironic given that Prost felt Honda favored Senna. It was flawed logic that the pole sitter would be at a disadvantage, so I can see why Senna was angry and the memory of the incident the year before sent him over the edge, still I am not condoning what he did.

 

Also, Senna had a long standing grudge due to Monaco 1984, where he felt Pros was favored by the system as well.

 

A lot happened between both before Japan 1989 though, from both sides. Prost himself admitted as much, and even took a share of the blame, which is not shocking as he like Senna, was a class act all in all.