102 replies to this topic

[Dr. Austin]

Senna and Prost started all of the chopping, blocking and swerving to begin with.

 

Worth noting is that no one else ever had a problem racing Prost, but once Senna started pulling dirty tricks Prost had to play that game too.  Pretty disgusting conduct from both of them, but then again, no one else ever had a problem racing Prost.

 

89 and 90 were disgraceful simply because no one had ever stooped that low before. Now dirty tricks are just how it's done.

[garoidb]

Senna and Prost started all of the chopping, blocking and swerving to begin with.

 

Worth noting is that no one else ever had a problem racing Prost, but once Senna started pulling dirty tricks Prost had to play that game too.  Pretty disgusting conduct from both of them, but then again, no one else ever had a problem racing Prost.

 

89 and 90 were disgraceful simply because no one had ever stooped that low before. Now dirty tricks are just how it's done.

 

The 1980 championship was also decided by a collision between the protagonists too. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, no clear footage of this incident exists. 

[as65p]

The 1980 championship was also decided by a collision between the protagonists too. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, no clear footage of this incident exists. 

 

Plus 1967 1964, with Surtees' teammate Bandini damaging Hills car in Mexico.

 

But hey, that's all against the supposed narrative how all evil in F1 only started with Senna.

Edited by as65p, 26 July 2018 - 07:13.

[Henri Greuter]

Let me guess. In your world 1989 never happened?
 
For me
 
1994 - Benetton was cheating and the MS rammed out Hill in the last GP. 
2012 - the level of difference between vettel and alonso was just so huge, completely undeserved title.

In my world 1989 does exist.
It was the year after 1988, the year in which during the GP of Portugal Senna almost drove Prost into the pitwall in an attempt to prevent being overtaken and that forced several mechanics who were hanging signal board out for their drivers to hurridly retrieve it to prevent Prost running into them.
One of the earliest signs in the feud between Prost and Senna that for at least one of them defeat was no option and everything permitted to avoid it.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 26 July 2018 - 07:21.

[PayasYouRace]

In my world 1989 does exist.It was the year after 1988, the year in which during the GP of Portugal Senna almost drove Prost into the pitwall in an attempt to prevent being overtaken and that forced several mechanics who were hanging signal board out for their drivers to hurridly retrieve it to prevent Prost running into them.One of the earliest signs in the feud between Prost and Senna that for at least one of them defeat was no option and everything permitted to avoid it.

No matter how many times I watch that overtake from Portugal 1988 I’ll never see it as anything other than hard, fair racing.

[7MGTEsup]

In my world 1989 does exist.
It was the year after 1988, the year in which during the GP of Portugal Senna almost drove Prost into the pitwall in an attempt to prevent being overtaken and that forced several mechanics who were hanging signal board out for their drivers to hurridly retrieve it to prevent Prost running into them.
One of the earliest signs in the feud between Prost and Senna that for at least one of them defeat was no option and everything permitted to avoid it.

 

From what I remember Senna put a bit of a squeeze on Prost but there was still plenty of room for his car. Drivers today give much less room but I don't hear hysterics about it.

 

I seem to remember misure Prost taking Piquet out at the 1983 Dutch gp, maybe getting some practice in for Suzuka 89 perhaps?

[Henri Greuter]

From what I remember Senna put a bit of a squeeze on Prost but there was still plenty of room for his car. Drivers today give much less room but I don't hear hysterics about it.
 
I seem to remember misure Prost taking Piquet out at the 1983 Dutch gp, maybe getting some practice in for Suzuka 89 perhaps?

1988 was spoken about after the race as being uncalled. Maybe it is taken for granted nowadays but not back then. So seen with the standards of that time....

1983 Prost/Piquet. The funny thing about that was that Piquet knew that he had to retire from the race eventually with mechanical failure. Had Prost not ran into him, he might have won the race. But with running into Piquet and retire because of that incident he actually did Piquet a favour by not extending the lead.
Had Prost won Zandvoort then the title had been his. But it was driver error most of all. Given the strories of what had happened earlier that morning, Prost might not have been fully there that afternoon.

[as65p]

In my world 1989 does exist.
It was the year after 1988, the year in which during the GP of Portugal Senna almost drove Prost into the pitwall in an attempt to prevent being overtaken and that forced several mechanics who were hanging signal board out for their drivers to hurridly retrieve it to prevent Prost running into them.

What a colourful description, like copied straight from a contemporary report of Nigel Roebuck. Unfortunately, even after all those years the actual footage still hasn't come round to display the same drama.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=lf_AwV66ss0

 

Always a meter between the two cars, always more than that between Prosts car and the pit wall, all within the white lines.... I doubt anyone today would blink at what was back then made into an extraordinary event. Mainly by people who had a vivid interest in making it so, of course. Namely Prost himself and his then court journalist Mr. Roebuck.

 

Back in a less dramatic reality it was just a firm defensive move, with the defender ultimately giving in when it became clear it doesn't work. Racing, IOW. To add more perspective, the universally acclaimed scene between Mansell and Senna down the Barcelona straigth from 1992 has the cars much closer for a much longer period of time.

 

PS: I see PayasYouRace has already beaten me to it in much fewer words...

Edited by as65p, 26 July 2018 - 08:36.

[7MGTEsup]

1983 Prost/Piquet. The funny thing about that was that Piquet knew that he had to retire from the race eventually with mechanical failure. Had Prost not ran into him, he might have won the race. But with running into Piquet and retire because of that incident he actually did Piquet a favour by not extending the lead.
Had Prost won Zandvoort then the title had been his. But it was driver error most of all. Given the strories of what had happened earlier that morning, Prost might not have been fully there that afternoon.

 

Even with all the excuses he still ran another car clean off the road, doesn't fit with the angelic/victim roll Prost likes to play.

 

At the end of the day they are all arrogant racing drivers it comes with the job.

[garoidb]

1988 was spoken about after the race as being uncalled. Maybe it is taken for granted nowadays but not back then. So seen with the standards of that time....

1983 Prost/Piquet. The funny thing about that was that Piquet knew that he had to retire from the race eventually with mechanical failure. Had Prost not ran into him, he might have won the race. But with running into Piquet and retire because of that incident he actually did Piquet a favour by not extending the lead.
Had Prost won Zandvoort then the title had been his. But it was driver error most of all. Given the strories of what had happened earlier that morning, Prost might not have been fully there that afternoon.

 

I never read that before. Are you sure you are not conflating it with Hockenheim 1982?

 

On Prost's morning difficulties, it never affected his sainthood. 

[boillot]

I never read that before. Are you sure you are not conflating it with Hockenheim 1982?

On Prost's morning difficulties, it never affected his sainthood.

As I recall, Piquet had a damper failure and was about to retire.

[Sterzo]

Plus 1967 1964, with Surtees' teammate Bandini damaging Hills car in Mexico.

 

But hey, that's all against the supposed narrative how all evil in F1 only started with Senna.

There was never any serious suspicion that Bandini acted deliberately. Read Graham Hill's account of it.

[Collombin]

There was never any serious suspicion that Bandini acted deliberately. Read Graham Hill's account of it.

Or watch it. More Graham's fault IMO.

[noriaki]

There was never any serious suspicion that Bandini acted deliberately. Read Graham Hill's account of it.

 

 

Never read this account, would you point out where it is?

 

I have seen the video and whilst it doesn't really straight up incriminate Bandini, I cannot really see what Graham could have differently either. 

[D28]

There was never any serious suspicion that Bandini acted deliberately. Read Graham Hill's account of it.

Graham took it in stride in the spirit of the times; he sent Lorenzo a Christmas package, an LP of advanced driving lessons.

[Dr. Austin]

The 1980 championship was also decided by a collision between the protagonists too. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, no clear footage of this incident exists. 

 

 

I had to look it up, but if you are talking about Jones/Piquet colliding on the start at Canada, both resumed on the restart, and there were still two races to go. It's not quite the same thing as ramming a guy in the last race. Neither of those guys were widely known for playing dirty or causing stupid accidents, so suspect it was simply an accident. I watched the 1980 season review video and you are right......there is no footage

 

Collisions are ok. They have happened forever. You just hate to see one be the determining factor in a championship, and it's even worse if it's deliberate. That's just downright cowardly. 

 

Now if you are talking about another incident, please elaborate.

Edited by Dr. Austin, 26 July 2018 - 14:36.

[Henri Greuter]

Please elaborate. My memory is failing me.

Canada GP, right after the start Jones ran into the other title candidate, Piquet. A restart followed with Piquet in the backup car but he then retired from the race. Supposedly that backup car was the car he qualified with for the race, with specuial qualifying engine etc.
Piquet's retirement clinced the title for Jones on the spot.
There has been specuialtion that Jones, and let's phrase this careful: was taking more chances because Piquet had to win the last wo races of the season to take the title and thus had to be more careful than he, Jones had to be. Any failure by Piquet and he was champion. I have read less careful expressions about Jones' behaviour.
But if it comes to title deciding accidents between the first two drivers in the standings, this one is ever so often overlooked but definitely was one.
The race is also remembered for a massive crash which effectively meant the end of the career of Jean-Pierre Jabouille.

[PlatenGlass]

Even with all the excuses he still ran another car clean off the road, doesn't fit with the angelic/victim roll Prost likes to play.
 
At the end of the day they are all arrogant racing drivers it comes with the job.

I don't think running him clean off the road really fits what happened, because it makes it look intentional. It was a mistake he made when trying to outbrake Piquet. He lost it on the brakes and hit Piquet.

And there's no question he could possibly have done it on purpose. It would make no sense. Such contact wasn't guaranteed to put either out of the race, and could easily have resulted in Prost's retirement but not Piquet's. Watch from about 3:27

[Dr. Austin]

There has been specuialtion that Jones, and let's phrase this careful: was taking more chances because Piquet had to win the last wo races of the season to take the title and thus had to be more careful than he, Jones had to be. 

 

 

Now I get it. Thanks.

[garoidb]

I had to look it up, but if you are talking about Jones/Piquet colliding on the start at Canada, both resumed on the restart, and there were still two races to go. It's not quite the same thing as ramming a guy in the last race. Neither of those guys were widely known for playing dirty or causing stupid accidents, so suspect it was simply an accident. I watched the 1980 season review video and you are right......there is no footage

 

Collisions are ok. They have happened forever. You just hate to see one be the determining factor in a championship, and it's even worse if it's deliberate. That's just downright cowardly. 

 

Now if you are talking about another incident, please elaborate.

 

Yes, that is the incident. I tend more towards Henri's outlook above than yours, in truth. 

 

By the way, the famous incidents of 1989 and 1990 also took place in the penultimate races. 

[Dr. Austin]

Am I permitted to invite you to have a look on what I wrote about that study or are you instantly of opinion that because of my feelings about Senna I cannot be unbiased?
Anyway: I invite you: http://8w.forix.com/wc1989.html

 

Damm. Now have to read the whole website! Excellent reference, thanks.

[Cornholio]

I had to look it up, but if you are talking about Jones/Piquet colliding on the start at Canada, both resumed on the restart, and there were still two races to go. It's not quite the same thing as ramming a guy in the last race. Neither of those guys were widely known for playing dirty or causing stupid accidents, so suspect it was simply an accident. I watched the 1980 season review video and you are right......there is no footage

 

Collisions are ok. They have happened forever. You just hate to see one be the determining factor in a championship, and it's even worse if it's deliberate. That's just downright cowardly. 

 

Now if you are talking about another incident, please elaborate.

 

I could swear I remember seeing footage of it, but doing a search to find then that's technically correct, it was televised but the moment of contact happens just out of camera shot.

 

 

The best I can tell Jones does pinch Piquet towards the wall a bit as they go into the first bend and out of camera shot, but the collision has already happened by the time it switches to the second camera, it doesn't really look particularly blatant from what *is* visible, just racing side by side into a high speed S-bend on cold tyres with the field bunched up these things can happen as you say.

[Dr. Austin]

Yes, that is the incident. I tend more towards Henri's outlook above than yours, in truth. 

 

By the way, the famous incidents of 1989 and 1990 also took place in the penultimate races. 

 

Two differences here. Senna just flat out rammed Prost in 90 and that was all there was to it. Both cars in the fence and championship decided.

 

 

In 89, Senna actually got back into the race and won it, which would have taken the championship to the finale except he was disqualified for not rejoining the track where he went off. This put the championship out of Senna's reach. So, while the collision set everything up, it was actually the Suzuka DQ that settled the title.

 

No matter how you slice it, both championships were not very satisfying.

[Dr. Austin]

 

The best I can tell Jones does pinch Piquet towards the wall a bit as they go into the first bend and out of camera shot, but the collision has already happened by the time it switches to the second camera, it doesn't really look particularly blatant from what *is* visible, just racing side by side into a high speed S-bend on cold tyres with the field bunched up these things can happen as you say.

 

I see it the same way, but they switch cameras at just he right time to ruin the shot! All we can do is guess.

[as65p]

There was never any serious suspicion that Bandini acted deliberately. Read Graham Hill's account of it.

 

Depends on what you call serious. I can offer at least from "Grand Prix Ferrari: The Years of Enzo Ferrari’s Power, 1948-1980 by Anthony Pritchard" where the author suggested that everyone has to make up his own mind if Bandini acted deliberately to improve teammate Surtees title chances or not.

 

But of course, no internet hence no big ongoing drama in those days.

[as65p]

I could swear I remember seeing footage of it, but doing a search to find then that's technically correct, it was televised but the moment of contact happens just out of camera shot.

 

 

The best I can tell Jones does pinch Piquet towards the wall a bit as they go into the first bend and out of camera shot, but the collision has already happened by the time it switches to the second camera, it doesn't really look particularly blatant from what *is* visible, just racing side by side into a high speed S-bend on cold tyres with the field bunched up these things can happen as you say.

 

I had to look it up, but if you are talking about Jones/Piquet colliding on the start at Canada, both resumed on the restart, and there were still two races to go. It's not quite the same thing as ramming a guy in the last race. Neither of those guys were widely known for playing dirty or causing stupid accidents, so suspect it was simply an accident. I watched the 1980 season review video and you are right......there is no footage

 

Collisions are ok. They have happened forever. You just hate to see one be the determining factor in a championship, and it's even worse if it's deliberate. That's just downright cowardly.

 

Suzuka '90 wasn't the last race of the season either.

 

Other than that, the main difference appears to be that Jones never admitted to thinking before the start "I won't let Piquet turn into the first bend ahead of me", like Senna did re: Suzuka '90. The pure actions on the two occasions are very similar though, one WDC contender driving into another, which then proves decisive for the title outcome.

 

The only other difference is, in Suzuka there were no consequences for the field behind Prost and Senna (only dramatic fan fiction how Senna could have killed half the field with his move) whereas in Canada '80 there was actually a multiple car pile up caused by the Piquet/Jones contact.

[boillot]

I could swear I remember seeing footage of it, but doing a search to find then that's technically correct, it was televised but the moment of contact happens just out of camera shot.

 

 

The best I can tell Jones does pinch Piquet towards the wall a bit as they go into the first bend and out of camera shot, but the collision has already happened by the time it switches to the second camera, it doesn't really look particularly blatant from what *is* visible, just racing side by side into a high speed S-bend on cold tyres with the field bunched up these things can happen as you say.

 

Jones was getting quite nervous towards the end of the season because after Imola, Piquet even managed to take the points' lead. Jones wasn't prepared to let the title he worked hard for slip through his fingers and was prepared to do whatever was necessary to win it.

It's in fact a bit strange that the Montreal accident went under the radar, probably because Jones won the last 2 races and the title and overall looked like the deserving winner in 1980. But actually, he inded pushed Piquet to the wall. Piquet then had to restart in the spare car that was guaranteed to break (I have no idea why couldn't he take Rebaque's spare because Brabham had 4 cars in Montreal, perhaps there was some rule in place against it) and then it was all over.

Edited by boillot, 26 July 2018 - 22:17.

[boillot]

I have done a study on the season 1989. You mentioned Balestre acting but the strange thing is that Balestre had a few more golden opportunities to act and support Prost which could have decided the titler instanly, yet he didn't do so and occasionally even allowed Senna to be favoured compared with other drivers.

Am I permitted to invite you to have a look on what I wrote about that study or are you instantly of opinion that because of my feelings about Senna I cannot be unbiased?
Anyway: I invite you: http://8w.forix.com/wc1989.html

 

Wonderful piece of work!

 

I would only try to amend the last sentence: FISA failed to react in 1985 by banning Senna for the whole 1986 and thus retain the standards of acceptable driver behaviour for years to come. The very fact that we now see the 1988 Portugal incident as something normal is a lasting effect of the damage Senna did to the sport.

 

Some people here say that such a behaviour existed before Senna. That is true but it was incidental. Senna was the first driver to apply such driving manners as standard, as his way of driving and on-track behaviour.

 

Had Senna indeed been properly dealt with early in his F1 career, we'd probably been spared many of those controversies.

But on the other side, that's stuff of the legends and we have something to talk about now!

Edited by boillot, 26 July 2018 - 22:57.

[KrlBrmmn]

In my world 1989 does exist.
It was the year after 1988, the year in which during the GP of Portugal Senna almost drove Prost into the pitwall in an attempt to prevent being overtaken and that forced several mechanics who were hanging signal board out for their drivers to hurridly retrieve it to prevent Prost running into them.
One of the earliest signs in the feud between Prost and Senna that for at least one of them defeat was no option and everything permitted to avoid it.

 

 

Schumacher even topped that in Hungary 2010 driving Rubens into the wall, far more dangerous and crazy.

[Dr. Austin]

The very fact that we now see the 1988 Portugal incident as something normal is a lasting effect of the damage Senna did to the sport.

This

Edited by PayasYouRace, 27 July 2018 - 07:01.
Please stop SHOUTING! It’s rude and unwelcome.

[as65p]

 

Wonderful piece of work!

 

I would only try to amend the last sentence: FISA failed to react in 1985 by banning Senna for the whole 1986 and thus retain the standards of acceptable driver behaviour for years to come. The very fact that we now see the 1988 Portugal incident as something normal is a lasting effect of the damage Senna did to the sport.

 

Some people here say that such a behaviour existed before Senna. That is true but it was incidental. Senna was the first driver to apply such driving manners as standard, as his way of driving and on-track behaviour.

 

Had Senna indeed been properly dealt with early in his F1 career, we'd probably been spared many of those controversies.

But on the other side, that's stuff of the legends and we have something to talk about now!

 

 

The leaps of logic when it comes to Senna continue to amaze.

 

You yourself describe just two posts above how Jones "drove Piquet into the wall" 8 years before Portugal 1988, yet then you cite the latter occasion as the defining moment of F1 driving standards to this day.

 

The only thing such creative lines of thinking prove is that to this day the name Senna creates emotions that apparently transcend all logic...

[Henri Greuter]

Schumacher even topped that in Hungary 2010 driving Rubens into the wall, far more dangerous and crazy.

True.
Or, in case you care a bity about it, how about Salazar at Indy '96 on the restart at Indy with Davy Jones.
But you seem to miss the point that: If Schumacher did top it: he didn't set the standard, he was not the first to do it. Someone else did it first, introducing the tactic on the track.
I don't defend MS for Hungary 2010: A race ban or more would have been fine with me.
But the problem with some (I repeat some) of MS offences is that he wasn't the first to do it, there were examples before that and left unpunished. And had that been dealth with better at that time it may never have gone so far as things went on occasion, MS being an exponent of that.

Edit: And Senna was not always the first to introduce questionable or worse behaviour on the track, but he was for sure the one who was doing questionable and dnagerous things more often than anyone else till that time.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 27 July 2018 - 06:23.

[boillot]

The leaps of logic when it comes to Senna continue to amaze.

You yourself describe just two posts above how Jones "drove Piquet into the wall" 8 years before Portugal 1988, yet then you cite the latter occasion as the defining moment of F1 driving standards to this day.

The only thing such creative lines of thinking prove is that to this day the name Senna creates emotions that apparently transcend all logic...

Actually, I was misunderstood
Jones indeed drove Piquet in the wall but that was not the usual manner Jones went racing (and he was one of the harder racers out there).
Portugal 1988 was by no means a defining moment. It was just another piece in the puzzle that started in 1984/85. I’d say that the defining moments were Senna’s intentional obstruction of other drivers in Monaco qualifying and later closing the door on Rosberg at Brands Hatch, both in 1985.

My point is that if FIA made Senna sit out 1986, we would likely have higher diving standards for the past decades, and we may have seen a better Senna as well.

Edited by boillot, 27 July 2018 - 08:56.

[7MGTEsup]

Actually, I was misunderstood
Jones indeed drove Piquet in the wall but that was not the usual manner Jones went racing (and he was one of the harder racers out there).
Portugal 1988 was by no means a defining moment. It was just another piece in the puzzle that started in 1984/85. I’d say that the defining moments were Senna’s intentional obstruction of other drivers in Monaco qualifying and later closing the door on Rosberg at Brands Hatch, both in 1985.

My point is that if FIA made Senna sit out 1986, we would likely have higher diving standards for the past decades, and we may have seen a better Senna as well.

 

I don't follow your logic as banning Grosjean in 2012 didn't stop Maldanado from being a clown. If ever you listen to some of these drivers they see themselves as blameless 99.99999% of the time so don't see what they have done wrong. It happens in the normal world too otherwise people would not commit any crimes as other people have been caught an punished in the past.

[as65p]

Actually, I was misunderstood
Jones indeed drove Piquet in the wall but that was not the usual manner Jones went racing (and he was one of the harder racers out there).
Portugal 1988 was by no means a defining moment. It was just another piece in the puzzle that started in 1984/85. I’d say that the defining moments were Senna’s intentional obstruction of other drivers in Monaco qualifying and later closing the door on Rosberg at Brands Hatch, both in 1985.
 

While not the finest pieces of driving known to mankind, those transgressions were by no means invented by Senna, nor where they even as particulary bad as some try to make out. Lumping that and Portugal '88 together into a big bad all conquering lowering of driving standards forever after is just ... hilarious. Certainly some people feel strong enough about it all to devote a lot of effort promoting such a view, but that doesn't mean it's any less laughable.

 

And just a small note on Brands '85. This is that terrible thing Senna did to Rosberg

 

https://youtu.be/92v91qnjQjM?t=932

 

Now tell me again with a straight face how out of order, never seen before that defense was. Sure Rosberg felt strongly about it, as any driver in that situation would. Nonetheless, it's just a standard racing scene known since man competed on four wheels. If anything, Rosbergs revenge a few laps later when he blatantly blocked Senna while being a lap down and thereby let Mansell through was more out of order.

 

PS: just to make it clear I personally don't see any problem neither with Senna defense nor with Rosbergs revenge. Those were the days were such little things were settled on track between grown men, as evident by authorities not caring at all at the time.

Edited by as65p, 27 July 2018 - 09:49.

[boillot]

I don't follow your logic as banning Grosjean in 2012 didn't stop Maldanado from being a clown. If ever you listen to some of these drivers they see themselves as blameless 99.99999% of the time so don't see what they have done wrong. It happens in the normal world too otherwise people would not commit any crimes as other people have been caught an punished in the past.

By 2012 it was way too late. The generations of drivers have been spoiled.

[7MGTEsup]

While not the finest pieces of driving known to mankind, those transgressions were by no means invented by Senna, nor where they even as particulary bad as some try to make out. Lumping that and Portugal '88 together into a big bad all conquering lowering of driving standards forever after is just ... hilarious. Certainly some people feel strong enough about it all to devote a lot of effort promoting such a view, but that doesn't mean it's any less laughable.

 

And just a small note on Brands '85. This is that terrible thing Senna did to Rosberg

 

https://youtu.be/92v91qnjQjM?t=932

 

Now tell me again with a straight face how out of order, never seen before that defense was. Sure Rosberg felt strongly about it, as any driver in that situation would. Nonetheless, it's just a standard racing scene known since man competed on four wheels. If anything, Rosbergs revenge a few laps later when he blatantly blocked Senna while being a lap down and thereby let Mansell through was more out of order.

 

PS: just to make it clear I personally don't see any problem neither with Senna defense nor with Rosbergs revenge. Those were the days were such little things were settled on track between grown men, as evident by authorities not caring at all at the time.

 

Rosberg got fully alongside and then half heartedly backed down on the brakes therefore allowing Senna to take the racing line. Pretty sure I have seen the same sort of thing from previous years to Senna arriving on the scene. Some people would have you believe that Senna wrote the book on that sort of driving when it just isn't true.

[boillot]

While not the finest pieces of driving known to mankind, those transgressions were by no means invented by Senna, nor where they even as particulary bad as some try to make out. Lumping that and Portugal '88 together into a big bad all conquering lowering of driving standards forever after is just ... hilarious. Certainly some people feel strong enough about it all to devote a lot of effort promoting such a view, but that doesn't mean it's any less laughable.

And just a small note on Brands '85. This is that terrible thing Senna did to Rosberg

https://youtu.be/92v91qnjQjM?t=932

Now tell me again with a straight face how out of order, never seen before that defense was. Sure Rosberg felt strongly about it, as any driver in that situation would. Nonetheless, it's just a standard racing scene known since man competed on four wheels. If anything, Rosbergs revenge a few laps later when he blatantly blocked Senna while being a lap down and thereby let Mansell through was more out of order.

PS: just to make it clear I personally don't see any problem neither with Senna defense nor with Rosbergs revenge. Those were the days were such little things were settled on track between grown men, as evident by authorities not caring at all at the time.

Again, you are applying today’s standards. Brands 1985 was outrageous by the standards of the day.
And I’m not just lumping together Monaco and Brands 1985 with Portugal 1988. There were so many incidents in between that are too numerous to remember (Australia and several more in 1985, Brazil 1986, Spain 1987, etc.). I can go race by race if necessary.

Senna was extremely fast but he was the first really systematically dirty driver in the history of the sport.

[7MGTEsup]

By 2012 it was way too late. The generations of drivers have been spoiled.

 

1 persons actions spoil a generation lol that's some pretty far reaching claim.

 

I would say the bad driving is down to the massive improvement in safety and the lack of fear of being hurt. If you keep moving the danger back people will push the limits more and more it's completely normal behaviour in humans.

[ensign14]

What a colourful description, like copied straight from a contemporary report of Nigel Roebuck. Unfortunately, even after all those years the actual footage still hasn't come round to display the same drama.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=lf_AwV66ss0

 

Always a meter between the two cars, always more than that between Prosts car and the pit wall, all within the white lines.... I doubt anyone today would blink at what was back then made into an extraordinary event.

 

Mainly because the actions of Senna and Schumacher became normalized.  Things are getting a bit back to normal now though.

 

Senna's action then was appalling and it is a blot on the history of F1 that he never had a proper penalty for his conduct.  Prost came pretty close to clonking the pitboards, which had to be brought in sharpish.
 

[ensign14]

Plus 1967 1964, with Surtees' teammate Bandini damaging Hills car in Mexico.

 

But hey, that's all against the supposed narrative how all evil in F1 only started with Senna.

 

It must be remembered that at the time of Bandini's somewhat over-optimistic overtaking manoeuvre, the on-the-road champion was Jim Clark.  Surtees needed a whole load of things to get to the title at that moment.
 

[as65p]

Again, you are applying today’s standards. Brands 1985 was outrageous by the standards of the day.

 

No, not by any means.

 

Just two quick examples of drivers of drivers touching in battle similar or worse to Brands '85. There are many similar events, but naturally the footage is either bad or missing completely. Which may be part of the problem.

 

https://youtu.be/uNg6IvrIHbk?t=89

 

https://youtu.be/qdbHDG36RHY?t=227

 

And I’m not just lumping together Monaco and Brands 1985 with Portugal 1988. There were so many incidents in between that are too numerous to remember (Australia and several more in 1985, Brazil 1986, Spain 1987, etc.). I can go race by race if necessary.

 

 

And you still won't find anything supporting that theory how Senna changed driving standards forever. Sure he was a hard racer, but many before him had similar or worse incidents. Hunt, Scheckter, Brambilla, Regazzoni, Jones, Villeneuve, to name just a few. Singling out Senna has no true base in real world events. And making him reponsible for every transgression since is just plain silly.

[7MGTEsup]

Mainly because the actions of Senna and Schumacher became normalized.  Things are getting a bit back to normal now though.

 

Senna's action then was appalling and it is a blot on the history of F1 that he never had a proper penalty for his conduct.  Prost came pretty close to clonking the pitboards, which had to be brought in sharpish.
 

 

Nobody to that point had thought of putting a squeeze on someone trying to pass them? Senna was a visionary in that case then as he seems to have invented defensive driving. You know the thing that people moan is lost with the advent of DRS free passes on the straight.

[as65p]

It must be remembered that at the time of Bandini's somewhat over-optimistic overtaking manoeuvre, the on-the-road champion was Jim Clark.  Surtees needed a whole load of things to get to the title at that moment.
 

Which is exactly what happened.

[boillot]

1 persons actions spoil a generation lol that's some pretty far reaching claim.

I would say the bad driving is down to the massive improvement in safety and the lack of fear of being hurt. If you keep moving the danger back people will push the limits more and more it's completely normal behaviour in humans.

One person spoiled it because he was the best driver of his generation, a multiple WDC, did it many times and always got away with it.

Edited by boillot, 27 July 2018 - 11:16.

[boillot]

Nobody to that point had thought of putting a squeeze on someone trying to pass them? Senna was a visionary in that case then as he seems to have invented defensive driving. You know the thing that people moan is lost with the advent of DRS free passes on the straight.

If you watch e.g. 1984 races you’ll see very little defensive driving. It was not a part of racing etiquette.

[Dr. Austin]

Nobody to that point had thought of putting a squeeze on someone trying to pass them? Senna was a visionary in that case then as he seems to have invented defensive driving. You know the thing that people moan is lost with the advent of DRS free passes on the straight.

 

Except it's not a free pass. The lead driver can swerve over and block you any time he pleases. The rules say you are allowed one swerve, but we routinely see three, four, five swerves on a single straight. 

[Dr. Austin]

One person spoiled it because he was the best driver of his generation, a multiple WDC, did it many times and always got away with it.

 

They used to speed all the time under yellow until it got someone killed, and now they are a little more careful. That's what it's going to take to stop all the dirty driving. Of course, if it causes another Lemans 1955, we're going to have bigger problems.

[as65p]

Except it's not a free pass. The lead driver can swerve over and block you any time he pleases. The rules say you are allowed one swerve, but we routinely see three, four, five swerves on a single straight. 

 

Sometimes I really do wonder if there's more than a single reality.

 

The trouble is, even if there are more, why do we all need to come together in this single reality to argue over events in different ones?

[Sterzo]

There was never any serious suspicion that Bandini acted deliberately. Read Graham Hill's account of it.

 

 

Never read this account, would you point out where it is?

 

I have seen the video and whilst it doesn't really straight up incriminate Bandini, I cannot really see what Graham could have differently either. 

Graham Hill's book "Life at the Limit," last paragraph of Chapter 10: "A lot of people suggested at the time it was deliberate, but I certainly didn't think so. I wouldn't believe that of Bandini; it was obvious to me he was making a desperate manoeuvre to get by and he just overcooked it."

 

Can't provide a link as it's in a yellowed old paperback book.