327 replies to this topic

[man]

especially without checking for credibility of said source.

OK: here you go.

The comment I referred to can be found in the book: Gilles Villeneuve by Nigel Roebuck, a M******O Autocourse publication, by Hazleton Publishing, released in 1990,
ISBN 0-905138-70-8, page 25.

It literally reads: "And that's why I get pissed off now when people compare Senna with him." (him is Gilles)

Now, are you gonna challenge this quote because it it appearing in a book, written by a journalist of who it is known that he was biased towards Gilles and in awe of him and thus included this comment? And because of his well known opinion on Gilles not being objective and cherrypicking comments in his book?

I'm asking you to analyse the credibility of the comments made about Senna from Keke, not whether Keke uttered those words or not. Keke received a verbal thrashing from Uncle Ken for his antics at Brands. So my point is, how can we take Keke seriously when he himself was guilty of intentional dangerous driving?

Edited by man, 06 May 2023 - 11:05.

[Henri Greuter]

I'm asking you to analyse the credibility of the comments made about Senna from Keke, not whether Keke uttered those words or not. Keke received a verbal thrashing from Uncle Ken for his antics at Brands. So my point is, how can we take Keke seriously when he himself was guilty of intentional dangerous driving?

Keke made the comments based on his own experiences withe dueling with both drivers.

I fail to see how  his own misdoings with other drivers you consider of more importance can be of influence on Keke's own opinions about two other drivers he had been in combat with he mentioned and were printed.

Must I rate whatever Hamilton said about duelling with Alonso and Rosberg because of his behaviour towards Max Verstappen?

 

By the way, are you also pursuing towards outspoken Senna supporters to analyse any comment they offer in their defence of Senna?

 

 

My comment that set you off was to support a comment from another fellow forum member who stated that Senna and Gilles can not be compared.

I stated a quote from a publication in which this opinion of the forum member was supported by a person who has personal experience in dealing with both of them on the race track.

Now, had someone else, who has never admitted his feelings about Senna on this forum, posted the comment: would it by then had more credibility for you?

Or would you have reacted onto him in a similar manner as you did to me?

Is the opinion of a poster on a certain topic for you the yardstick as for how to rate the information/data being posted about that certain topic?

Edited by Henri Greuter, 06 May 2023 - 11:48.

[AnttiK]

the same Keke that brake tested rookie Capelli and intentionally blocked Senna during the same weekend?

 

I think in wheel to wheel racing situations Keke was usually a hard but fair driver, but he had a tendency of lecturing other drivers/exacting revenge on the circuit if he felt someone had wronged him. The Capelli and Senna incidents were by no means the only ones but he also brake tested Rothengatter in the '84 Montreal qualifying and the cars even made contact.

[gillesfan76]

 

That's not a tacit admission of any wrongdoing by himself whatsoever.

 

Au contraire, he explicitly points at Mansell being the culprit in that quote that's to be found on the provided link. The quote consists of three sentences of which you provided two (that don't say anything about the guilt question btw), but the one in which he, like I said, emphatically points at Mansell being the one in the wrong, you left out. Why?

 

So here's the full quote:

 

 

So that first sentence actually also gives context to the following two:

 

'Because Mansell tried to do the impossible and unexpected (and possible illegal in terms of rules of race engagement), I realized too late what was going on to still save the situation (for us both); I tried everything possible nonetheless, but plain old logic and physics decided it was impossible to prevent a collision.'

 

 

Because it’s subjective and I don’t agree with it. Senna claimed that there was only room for one car there. Well from the footage and the track photos, it looks enough for two cars to me. Of course not when one is sliding. Anyway just my opinion. I’m a big Senna fan but not a blind one.

[Collombin]

The Capelli and Senna incidents were by no means the only ones but he also brake tested Rothengatter in the '84 Montreal qualifying and the cars even made contact.

Keke had a couple of revenge incidents with De Cesaris too. One of them he felt quite proud of afterwards.

[man]

Keke made the comments based on his own experiences withe dueling with both drivers.
I fail to see how his own misdoings with other drivers you consider of more importance can be of influence on Keke's own opinions about two other drivers he had been in combat with he mentioned and were printed.
Must I rate whatever Hamilton said about duelling with Alonso and Rosberg because of his behaviour towards Max Verstappen?

By the way, are you also pursuing towards outspoken Senna supporters to analyse any comment they offer in their defence of Senna?


My comment that set you off was to support a comment from another fellow forum member who stated that Senna and Gilles can not be compared.
I stated a quote from a publication in which this opinion of the forum member was supported by a person who has personal experience in dealing with both of them on the race track.
Now, had someone else, who has never admitted his feelings about Senna on this forum, posted the comment: would it by then had more credibility for you?
Or would you have reacted onto him in a similar manner as you did to me?
Is the opinion of a poster on a certain topic for you the yardstick as for how to rate the information/data being posted about that certain topic?

Profound feelings like hatred results in you forfeiting any possibility of being taken seriously on matters relating to the Brazilian, therefore I cannot be bothered trying to decode and make sense of what you've written at this time - unfortunately. In summary, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. For me, it doesn't matter if it is Senna, Gilles, Keke, Berger, Alboreto, Roebuck or flippin David Prophet!

[absinthedude]

Keke was no angel. Wonderfully exciting driver but he had "red mist syndrome". That said, I think we can take something from what he's said about personally duelling with Senna, GIlles and others. As an armchair fan at the time, there really was a difference between how Senna acted on track compared to everyone else at the top level. 

 

Of course they are all flawed diamonds. None of them is perfect. Senna brought in the whole "let me through or we crash" phenomenon. Prost was overly political behind the scenes. Piquet is a racist, homophobe who also made hurtful comments about his competitors and their families....Mansell would whine after what looked like an easy race about how the gearstick fell off, the engine wasn't quite right, the tyres were off and how it was actually really difficult....Keke liked to put young upstarts in their place....and yet all were also blessed with amazing talents behind the wheel. None of them needed to act those ways. 

[Henri Greuter]

Profound feelings like hatred results in you forfeiting any possibility of being taken seriously on matters relating to the Brazilian, therefore I cannot be bothered trying to decode and make sense of what you've written at this time - unfortunately. In summary, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. For me, it doesn't matter if it is Senna, Gilles, Keke, Berger, Alboreto, Roebuck or flippin David Prophet!

 

OK, if you rate anything I write about certain topics with the yardstick my opinion on that  topic. Fine.

In other words: You are doing this on a personal base, because of me as a person with a certain opinion you don't appreciate.

 

Agian: I only provided support to the opinion written by another fellow forum member and as far as I know, that driver had personal experience with dealing with both Senna and Gilles. Is his opinion of no value amymore because he was no angel himself?

Austrian journalist Heinz Pruller, who wrote GP season annuals that very much became the documentation of how the Austrian F1 drivers did tyhat year also mentioned how after hs return Niki Lauda got into a number of scenes with Rosberg. I know he was no angel.

 

Agiain, I wonder how how you would have reacted on the contents of my post if it had been written by anybody else of who you don't know his opinion on Senna yet or at least not as negative as I am about him if I add all the pro's against the cons I have about him.

And if you were not bothered about my post, then why did you went out on nailing me and starting this what has by now become a personal vendetta against me?

Instead of your reaction showing that you didn't bother at all and thus ignored my post?

Edited by Henri Greuter, 07 May 2023 - 14:02.

[chrcol]

car on outside turned into other car, which driver was on outside?

[eab]

Because it’s subjective and I don’t agree with it. Senna claimed that there was only room for one car there. Well from the footage and the track photos, it looks enough for two cars to me. Of course not when one is sliding. Anyway just my opinion. I’m a big Senna fan but not a blind one.

Ok it's perfectly fine not to agree with it, but it's exactly thát line that makes it abundantly clear that Senna wasn't admitting to anything but that the collision was on Mansell.

[WonderWoman61]

Paul Henri Cahier posted this on Twitter yesterday, having never seen this before, neither had I. It appears to be the infamous collision between Prost and Senna at Suzuka in 1989 from a different angle. In that spirit, I figured others might also find it interesting. Does it change or add to your existing view of the incident?

https://www.youtube....h?v=jVh4oKqxtJo

To me, that pretty much confirms it was more Prost's fault than Senna's and Senna was screwed over.

[Beri]

Profound feelings like hatred results in you forfeiting any possibility of being taken seriously on matters relating to the Brazilian, therefore I cannot be bothered trying to decode and make sense of what you've written at this time - unfortunately. In summary, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. For me, it doesn't matter if it is Senna, Gilles, Keke, Berger, Alboreto, Roebuck or flippin David Prophet!

I've rarely see an admission of weakness this obvious. You've been calling out Henri on the fact that Keke went on record stating something that was his opinion. Yet you seem to disregard his opinion simply because he was no saint himself. And this is the only reason for you not to listen to any reasoning done by anyone who takes the words of Keke for granted.

But you seem to forget that it takes a crook to identify a crook. And I will take the word from said crook many times over the one of a saint in the case of identifying a crook. So if Keke said the driving antics of some other driver were below par, I will take his word on it.

[George Costanza]

To me, that pretty much confirms it was more Prost's fault than Senna's and Senna was screwed over.

Yeah I agree with that.

[man]

I've rarely see an admission of weakness this obvious. You've been calling out Henri on the fact that Keke went on record stating something that was his opinion. Yet you seem to disregard his opinion simply because he was no saint himself. And this is the only reason for you not to listen to any reasoning done by anyone who takes the words of Keke for granted.

But you seem to forget that it takes a crook to identify a crook. And I will take the word from said crook many times over the one of a saint in the case of identifying a crook. So if Keke said the driving antics of some other driver were below par, I will take his word on it.

If it's a sign of weakness that I cannot be bothered to reason and seek objectivity with a self confirmed hater whose English is all over the shop on an internet forum, then yes, I am indeed weak! I accept that English may not be his first language, however I've already made the points I wanted to in this thread. Feel free to review. If you perceive this as a moral defeat of some form, well, whatever tickles your fancy!

[Beri]

Calling someone out on his English language, when his native language isn't English, is so pedantic. It shows who you really are, even if you try to save your bottom by talking it down one sentence later.

[man]

Calling someone out on his English language, when his native language isn't English, is so pedantic. It shows who you really are.

No, I wasn't. I was clarifying why I cannot be bothered in trying to have a rational discussion with a self confirmed hater. Over and out.

[Beri]

A hater? Or someone who simply doesn't like said driver or his antics? Quite a rough choice of wording by you if you decide to call someone a hater since I know it is the latter. Sadly it still shows who you really are, over and out.

[krea]

Paul Henri Cahier posted this on Twitter yesterday, having never seen this before, neither had I. It appears to be the infamous collision between Prost and Senna at Suzuka in 1989 from a different angle. In that spirit, I figured others might also find it interesting. Does it change or add to your existing view of the incident? 
 

 

Makes me wonder how Senna intended to get into the chicane properly. 

[man]

A hater? Or someone who simply doesn't like said driver or his antics? Quite a rough choice of wording by you if you decide to call someone a hater since I know it is the latter. Sadly it still shows who you really are, over and out.

I can only judge Henri by what he has written and considering he has indeed written "I hate Senna" who am I to try and second guess him? That really is the final word from me on this tedious matter!

Edited by man, 07 May 2023 - 21:58.

[Beri]

Makes me wonder how Senna intended to get into the chicane properly.

Senna or Prost?

Prost would have cut the corner by the looks of it.

[krea]

Senna or Prost?

Prost would have cut the corner by the looks of it.

 

You are aware that Senna was in the inside trying to divebomb himself into the lead. Prost wouldn't have any problems turning into the corner.  

[RacingFan10]

This angle makes it more clear than any other. Prost was like, I'd rather crash into you that let you past, not far off from Schuamcher vs Villeneuve incident.

 

 

You are aware that Senna was in the inside trying to divebomb himself into the lead. Prost wouldn't have any problems turning into the corner.  

 

You make it sound like divebombing is illegal. And it seems Prost decided to turn into Senna instead of turning into the corner.

[ANF]

Senna or Prost?

Prost would have cut the corner by the looks of it.

Yeah, Prost was heading for the grass with that turn-in.

[Beri]

Yeah, Prost was heading for the grass with that turn-in.

To Krea, this is exactly what I meant. There is an overhead view of the incident:
https://m.youtube.co...h?v=SEB_V7QYr7M

Compare this to the footage in the OP and it is clear that Prost turned in way too early and would have likely cut the apex.

[chrcol]

You are aware that Senna was in the inside trying to divebomb himself into the lead. Prost wouldn't have any problems turning into the corner.  

Not really relevant, Prost turned into him, end of discussion.

 

Because Prost did that, we will never know if Senna would have made the corner.

[absinthedude]

To Krea, this is exactly what I meant. There is an overhead view of the incident:
https://m.youtube.co...h?v=SEB_V7QYr7M

Compare this to the footage in the OP and it is clear that Prost turned in way too early and would have likely cut the apex.

 

There is not, and never has been, a rule or even understanding that one must make the apex of a corner.

 

THat was invented by Max's fans a couple of years ago. 

 

But it is curious how different the two angles look. I'm still, as a photographer, curious how much the foreshortening effect of an obviously long lens affects the "new" footage.  

[krea]

Actually there is quite the amount of written down understandings how overtakes and defending are supposed to be done. Missing the apex and forcing the other car to either move away or to get hit is indeed against the rules of modern F1.

In the case of Suzuka, Senna again tried to force himself into the inside basically demanding the other driver to move to avoid a crash. Prost couldn’t care less.

[PlatenGlass]

Actually there is quite the amount of written down understandings how overtakes and defending are supposed to be done. Missing the apex and forcing the other car to either move away or to get hit is indeed against the rules of modern F1.

In the case of Suzuka, Senna again tried to force himself into the inside basically demanding the other driver to move to avoid a crash. Prost couldn’t care less.

He pulled alongside and Prost turned in on him. There was no "forcing" except by Prost. It was a normal attempt at an overtake. It was a bit tight for space but still legitimate.

James Hunt said that Prost was always going to turn in because he had nothing to lose, while blaming Senna. But I'm not sure it's possible to pass another car without making yourself vulnerable to being taken out.