88 replies to this topic

[Bono]

Just read this article. Just don't know if this is new or not. Very intersting regarding what AP said regarding Honda and AS... Enjoy.


Senna took 26 poles during 88/89 seasons and 18 poles during 90/91 season, that is the total of 44 poles out of 65. During this time McLaren/Honda was the best car/engine in the field and everyone knows, that Berger wasn't given an equal treatment to challenge AS poles. But according to Prost, he was blocked by Honda to challenge AS for the poles too. So my question is, was he really the best qualifier???
this is what Prost told to Nigel Roebuck in Motorsport 01/10/98.
"For 89, i was worried about Honda and i think my biggest problem was that i never had the relationship with them that AS did. From the beginning, it was something i never felt i had under control. I wouldn't have cared very much if they'd simply preferred one driver in the team, but the way they handled in the situation was very difficult for me, because AS and I had different driving styles. I never understood why Honda took his side so much. It wasn't that i thought it was a question of the Brazilian sales market or the French market or anything like that. It was more a human thing. I worked with Honda again last year, now as a team owner and it srtuck me again. I think the Japanese just work differently. In a team, they always favour someone over the rest. I have heard it said about their motorcycle team as well.

Let me give you an example. At one point in 88, the last year we were allowed to run turbos, i asked for some specific changes to the engine to suit my driving style and we worked on it for two days at Paul Richard. At the end of that test i was verry happy, but at the next race, one week later, they never put that strategy on my engine. Then we went to the French GP-and suddenly the engine was just as i had wanted. You understand what i am saying? AS and i raced for two seasons together in McLaren, and at both the French GPs i was on pole position and won the race. Everyone said, 'oh look, it's Prost in front of his home crowd' and that sort of thing. It was nothing like that. It was just that at those races i had something which enabled me to foght...Understand me, this is nothing against AS, OK.

Anyway, before the 89 season i had dinner at the golf club in Geneva with Honda's then chairman, Mr Kawamoto and four other people. And he admitted that i was right in believing that Honda was more for AS than for me. He said, You want to know why we push AS so much? well, i can't be 100% sure. But one thing he did let me know was that the new generation of engineers working on the engine were in favour of AS, because he was more the samurai and i was more the computer. So, that was an explanation and i was very happy afterwards because then at least i knew very well that something was not correct.

Part of my problem had been that Ayrton was so quick. It wasn't easy to know how much was that and how much was Honda helping him. So after this dinner with Mr Kawamoto, i thought, well, at least i am not stupid. Something really was going on, and now i know the situation.

By the time we go to Monza, i was ahead of him in the WDC, by about 10 points. But that race was the real low point between McLaren and me. AS had 2 cars with 20 people around him and I had just one car with maybe 4 or 5 mechanics working for me. I was absolutely alone in one part of the garage and that was perhaps the toughest weekend of my racing career. Honda was really hard against me by then and it was difficult trying to fight for the WDC in that situation. In practice, AS was nearly 2s quicker then me. OK, as i said , he was certainly a better qualifier than i was, but 2s?? that was a JOKE.

[JForce]

Just shows you that all the BS regarding MS can be DIRECTLY translated onto Ayrton Senna.

[da Silva]

That´s Prost version. This is what McLaren says about -89


But that just tells half the story. It was a year in which Prost became increasingly paranoid about his teammate. They fell out at Imola, when Prost felt that Senna had breached a no passing agreement. Prost went further at Monaco where Senna scored a superb victory, apparently without second gear. At Monza Prost accused Honda of favouring Senna and would then reveal that he was leaving the team. Earlier in the year, he had written off a monocoque at Phoenix, the first such accident he'd had in five and a half years with the team. Three races later, he and Senna collided at the Suzuka chicane, and even though neither of them scored points in the last two races, the championships still went to McLaren.
Against this intensely political background, McLaren and Honda provided the best combination for the best two, if different, drivers in the field. Oatley's design still followed similar lines to those before, but weight shaving continued throughout the year, although it also suffered a handling imbalance. The team also introduced a complete new rear end, based around a transverse gearbox, midway through the season.
Honda, meanwhile, made a phenomenal effort, with five different specifications of engine for various conditions, circuits and situations. They reaped their reward, but there was a human cost. And it was interesting that Senna suffered more mechanical failures than Prost...

[Doug Nye]

Alain Prost was absolutely not at all paranoid - until he believed that everybody had turned against him.

DCN

[bira]

Jo Ramirez already said that Honda, to a large extent, favoured Senna and built their engines to suit him better.

[Felix Muelas]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Alain Prost was absolutely not at all paranoid - until he believed that everybody had turned against him...

And that happened exactly when ?

fm

[servellen]

Indeed, there have been reprots of Senna finishing the race with minimum fuel left in the tank, while Prost's tank still had just too much. The tuning of the engines was not of the same quality.

[jimm]

Originally posted by bira
Jo Ramirez already said that Honda, to a large extent, favoured Senna and built their engines to suit him better.

But the team favored Prost after thier history together right? Prost was beaten in 1988 fair and square. I have an interveiw with Prost on tape where he admitts that Senna was faster, but only because he took more risks. Still he was faster.

[jimm]

Originally posted by JForce
Just shows you that all the BS regarding MS can be DIRECTLY translated onto Ayrton Senna.

Winning over the team to support your efforts is part of the game. Totally different than with MS as Senna never had a contract giving him the rights to passes and Prost NEVER pulled over to let Senna pass. Big difference

[Vrba]

Bono,
it's always nice to see the truth displayed. Senna myth will stop one day.

Hrvoje

[Viktor]

Originally posted by jimm


But the team favored Prost after thier history together right? Prost was beaten in 1988 fair and square. I have an interveiw with Prost on tape where he admitts that Senna was faster, but only because he took more risks. Still he was faster.

I woth not say that Prost was beaten by Senna "fair and square" in 1988. Prost still hade more points at the end of the season in 1988 then Senna but Senna won due to the points/championship rules at the time.

/Viktor

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Viktor

I woth not say that Prost was beaten by Senna "fair and square" in 1988. Prost still hade more points at the end of the season in 1988 then Senna but Senna won due to the points/championship rules at the time.

/Viktor

I will admit that Prost was beaten fair and square in 1988 because the rules were the same for both and known in advance. However, it was a very close affair and Prost could have easily won the title. Far away from "Senna beat Prost hands down" as some see it. In fact Prost dominated Senna more during 1989...in points, only thing that matters.

Hrvoje

[jimm]

Originally posted by Viktor

I woth not say that Prost was beaten by Senna "fair and square" in 1988. Prost still hade more points at the end of the season in 1988 then Senna but Senna won due to the points/championship rules at the time.

/Viktor

As per your own admission in a different thread, you cannot make that judgement as Senna may have driven differently had the rules been different.

[jimm]

Originally posted by Vrba


I will admit that Prost was beaten fair and square in 1988 because the rules were the same for both and known in advance. However, it was a very close affair and Prost could have easily won the title. Far away from "Senna beat Prost hands down" as some see it. In fact Prost dominated Senna more during 1989...in points, only thing that matters.

Hrvoje

sorry did not see, disregard previous post ref 1988.

I disagree with you about the points. I think the wins matter more. After all, do you remember who finished 6th in the 9 races we have had even this year (without looking it up)? I bet you remember all the winners even back through the last few years.

You race to win. Not score points.

[Jdcasas]

And the point of this discussion is?
Come on people, the facts are that senna somehow managed to get the upperhand on prost. Whichever method he used I dont care, he managed to do it.

Why would a team favor ayrton senna over alain prost? If the whole better engines for senna thing is true, there has to be a decent reason for it. An example of this is Schumacher being faster than barrichello, that is why schumacher gets most support. I know Barrichello is not even in the same league as Prost, but if honda knew that senna was faster than prost (which I do believe) then why not give preferential treatment? Prosts statement is bound to be biased, and we wont really know how it all "went down"

I obviously dont know what really went on in the Mclaren team, and perhaps its a true tragedy that senna got better engines that prost without any good reasons . In the end, everyone will think their own way and the discussion will go on forever

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

Originally posted by jimm


Totally different than with MS as Senna never had a contract giving him the rights to passes and Prost NEVER pulled over to let Senna pass. Big difference

Can I have a copy of that contract.
Everyone seems to have it except me

[Rene]

Originally posted by jimm


But the team favored Prost after thier history together right? Prost was beaten in 1988 fair and square. I have an interveiw with Prost on tape where he admitts that Senna was faster, but only because he took more risks. Still he was faster.

Take a look at some of those wins by Senna....I have never seen Ron happier...not even with Mika...Ron and Senna had a special relationship, of that there is no doubt....as to who Mclaren favoured more?! Jo is perhaps the only one with any insight...but it wouldn't surprise me either way...

[Liam]

I must have left my copy at home, sorry.

[420]

Yea, I want one too!!

Originally posted by BuonoBruttoCattivo


Can I have a copy of that contract.
Everyone seems to have it except me

[jimm]

Originally posted by Rene


Take a look at some of those wins by Senna....I have never seen Ron happier...not even with Mika...Ron and Senna had a special relationship, of that there is no doubt....as to who Mclaren favoured more?! Jo is perhaps the only one with any insight...but it wouldn't surprise me either way...

I think Ron was pretty happy with Prost after 20+wins and 2 WDC. Why would he favor a driver, who until then was fast but unproven, over Prost after that history unless Senna earned it?

[jimm]

Originally posted by BuonoBruttoCattivo


Can I have a copy of that contract.
Everyone seems to have it except me

Ferrari team members from Rubi to Brawn to MS and Irvine have talked about the second driver clause. I've never been to see Mt Everest but pretty sure from all reports it is there.

[Boing Ball]

"I think Ron was pretty happy with Prost after 20+wins and 2 WDC. Why would he favor a driver, who until then was fast but unproven, over Prost after that history unless Senna earned it?"

Could it be because Prost was about to leave McLaren at the end of 1989 season to race for certain famous Italian team? Take a note that Prost talks about the 1989 season here and not the previous one when the two drivers were closer to each other in qualifying. Senna was most certainly a proven driver in 1989.

[AgRacer]

As per your own admission in a different thread, you cannot make that judgement as Senna may have driven differently had the rules been different.

Senna always drove to win. Second, in his mind, was the first loser.

[bira]

This is what Jo said:

"You know, when Ayrton came to McLaren, people said that Senna was a Honda driver (because he drove with them before) and Prost was a McLaren driver," he says. "Well, Senna was the newcomer - Alain did it all already - and whether or not Honda favoured him factually? I don't know. Personally I tend to think they did. Ayrton used to spend a lot of time with Honda. He used to spend hours and hours with Honda talking about the engine, so he was more understanding of how the engine works best, and to a large extent the engine was developed based on his liking and needs. Honda were definitely working with Ayrton the way that he likes it. And Ayrton had a special way of driving - it was like he had a spring on his foot, punching the throttle very quickly. Alain tried it once, but it was impossible for him. He could not drive like that. So yes, because of the relationship, the engine suited Ayrton more than it did Alain."

http://www.atlasf1.c...view/goren.html

[da Silva]

Originally posted by bira
Jo Ramirez already said that Honda, to a large extent, favoured Senna and built their engines to suit him better.

It a huge differance to say that they built their engines to suit one driver thom they been working with before than giving driver X better engines like some does.

This year Coulthard nearly snatched pole at Monaco with his underpowered McLaren. It´s more about chassis and skill than engine. This is also the place were AS blew of Prost with 1.4 and 1.1 seconds.

I wonder if Ferrari favours Barrichello over Schumacher

[lumepo03]

We are all a little prejudice. I liked both Senna and Prost. How they made the car perform fascinating. Aryton with his use of the engine and correction on the steering wheel. Alain was the complete opposite, smooth on the power and hardly any correction on the steering. Yet they both are taking the car to the limit. Prost must be commended for the way he made best of the situation. The sport is truly now a one driver team. Any set-up of the chassis/engine is going to compromise one of the drivers. When you have the 2 best in the world on the same team one of them will suffer badly.
I applaud Prost for allowing Senna into the team when he was at McLaren. How many victories would he have had had he refused? When he was at Williams and refused Senna as a teammate he was ridiculed for it. Poor Alain can never win in some peoples eyes. Still this is not a sport for the meek.

[cv2000]

Originally posted by jimm


Ferrari team members from Rubi to Brawn to MS and Irvine have talked about the second driver clause. I've never been to see Mt Everest but pretty sure from all reports it is there.

please tell us more about this clause...

[mtl'78]

You folks have to remeber that PRost would periodically say this kind of stuff just to blow some smoke up Senna's ass, and since Prost was a master at this kind of thing it often worked. He would enrage Senna.

Just part of their rivalry. If Senna was dirty on the track (and he was) then Prost was dirty off it!

[lukywill]

very good post and actual.
(good times)

indeed that´s the problem with the actual championship: nobody believes it. it´s a fake.

[Ricardo F1]

Interesting stuff. Jo Ramirez's comments were interesting, rather than translating it as Honda favoring Senna you could easily relate it to Senna working a damn sight harder than Prost. If they managed to get his powerplant working more efficiently for him because he stayed all night to work with them to do it then surely that's Prosts fault not Sennas?

[John B]

The Monza weekend Prost mentioned continued to deteriorate during the race. Senna walked away from Prost, then blew his engine handing AP the victory in front of the Ferrari crowd (he had just signed for Ferrari for 1990). Prost gave the trophy to the crowd, which pissed Dennis off to no end......the story was subsequently overshadowed by the incidents in the following races at Portugal (AS/NM) and Suzuka (AP/AS).

[JForce]

Originally posted by jimm


Ferrari team members from Rubi to Brawn to MS and Irvine have talked about the second driver clause. I've never been to see Mt Everest but pretty sure from all reports it is there.

Both contracts, those of MS and RB, state that whoever is more dominant gets preferential treatment, and that the driver will do whatever the hell he is told to do. So if Rubens whoops MS's ass, he will get all the support.

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by JForce


Both contracts, those of MS and RB, state that whoever is more dominant gets preferential treatment, and that the driver will do whatever the hell he is told to do. So if Rubens whoops MS's ass, he will get all the support.

Source?

[nja]

Originally posted by JForce


Both contracts, those of MS and RB, state that whoever is more dominant gets preferential treatment, and that the driver will do whatever the hell he is told to do. So if Rubens whoops MS's ass, he will get all the support.

can't help with a source, but there is a quote from RB somewhere recently that both his and MS's contracts are identical as far as team orders are concerned, as referred to by JForce. Don't kinow whether its true or not, but i don't know why RB would simply lie straight out rather than avoid the question or give no comment. I am inclined to take his word.

But the wording "dominant" is vague enough for the Ferrari bosses to make of it what they will really.

[Rene]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Interesting stuff. Jo Ramirez's comments were interesting, rather than translating it as Honda favoring Senna you could easily relate it to Senna working a damn sight harder than Prost. If they managed to get his powerplant working more efficiently for him because he stayed all night to work with them to do it then surely that's Prosts fault not Sennas?

You can't argue that Prost didn't work his ass off with the team and engineers...he has an excellent reputation as a development driver and as an extremely hard worker....

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by Rene


You can't argue that Prost didn't work his ass off with the team and engineers...he has an excellent reputation as a development driver and as an extremely hard worker....

I'm just saying what Jo said. Senna spent night and day with the Honda engineers, Prost didn't.

[bira]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Source?

Michael Schumacher: "It's never written into any contract that a driver is a Number Two driver. The Number Two is always the slowest driver. Eddie Irvine was always Number Two because he was slower. I'm sorry, but I couldn't drive slower so that he could be Number One! But it will be the same with Rubens Barrichello. If Rubens is quicker than me, then he will be Number One and I will be Number Two." -- http://www.atlasf1.c...00/jan/1885.htm


Rubens Barrichello: "If I have a chance to win in the opening race they'll allow me to win," the Brazilian told reporters during the team's traditional winter break in the Italian Dolomites. "If Michael has 20 points more than me half way through the championship then clearly I'll help him." -- http://www.atlasf1.c...00/jan/1881.htm


Barrichello: If I came to this team and said I want to be number one, I would suggest I would have trouble. Michael is in his fifth year trying to win the championship and he's brought speed to the team and a lot of experience and motivation to the team. I think the team is better because of him.

So I had to come in in quite a small way. I had to come in and ask for some equal terms, and ask for support, and that's what they are giving me. I think they will let me win right from the start. I have nothing in my contract saying that I have to let Michael by. We both have to support the team, we both have to obey team orders. As long as I'm in front because I deserve it, I should have no problem. -- http://www.atlasf1.c...00/feb/1978.htm


Jean Todt: You must remember that it's the Ferrari team, so what we want is for Ferrari to achieve the best results, using the best drivers, the best engineers and the best mechanics. Michael and Rubens drive for Ferrari, and Ferrari decides that if there's a need what strategy is the best for Ferrari and then it may be in favour of one or the other. But at the moment the intention is for them to test as much as they can to develop the car and then they will get the same car. Then we will see who will get the best out of it, and then we can start to build strategies. -- http://www.atlasf1.c...00/feb/1978.htm


Todt: "Rubens is not number two. The thing is that since Michael and Rubens comprised the team, most of the time Michael has been in front and being in front, he has put himself into a priority situation. [...] (If) Rubens or Michael's teammate is consistently in front of Michael, Michael will have to help the team and his teammate. That's the way it has been, and that's the way it will be in the future." -- http://www.atlasf1.c...p/id/4472/.html



To be clear: I don't dispute that de facto Schumacher reigns the team and Barrichello is 'Number Two'. I don't think anyone could dispute that. But I don't think there's a clause in either Schumacher's contract or Barrichello's that states Schumacher is 'Number One' and Barrichello is 'Number Two'. Most likely, both have a clause stating they must abide to the team's orders. And I think Malaysia 1999 actually proves that.

[jimm]

Originally posted by Boing Ball


Could it be because Prost was about to leave McLaren at the end of 1989 season to race for certain famous Italian team? Take a note that Prost talks about the 1989 season here and not the previous one when the two drivers were closer to each other in qualifying. Senna was most certainly a proven driver in 1989.

Senna started at Mclaren in 1988. He had a handful of wins and poles and a bunch of DNFs. Prost, on the other hand, was regarded as THE best driver in F1 with the best team and everything was hugs and kisses. As a matter of fact Ron wanted Piquet and Prost PUSHED to have Senna in the team.

Prost was quite happy at Mclaren until he started getting beat on a regular basis by Senna. He only moved to the Red cars when he realized he could not share the car with senna. The same reason he blocked Senna's move to Williams in 1993. If it was all about the engines then surely the French Renaults in the back of Frenchman Prost's car would have been at least as strong as Senna's.

[baddog]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1


Source?

the recent judgement of the fia world council contained these interesting words. "Nevertheless the Council finds it impossible to sanction the two drivers, because they were both contractually bound to execute orders given by the team." now this COULD be seen as an indication that both drivers contracts are pretty much the same 'agrees to execute any orders given by the team'

Shaun

[AndreasF1]

Hrjove: Bono,
it's always nice to see the truth displayed. Senna myth will stop one day.

Hrvoje

Hrvoje, maybe in your country :-) You only wish people will talk about MS as much as people talk about Senna. But believe me, when one day people stop talking about MS, Senna will still be talked about. And thats a fact

PS: You call a statement by Prost , the greatest F1 politican off all time the truth? What else do you believe in, UFO's and sea monsters?

[jimm]

Originally posted by bira
This is what Jo said:


"You know, when Ayrton came to McLaren, people said that Senna was a Honda driver (because he drove with them before) and Prost was a McLaren driver," he says. "Well, Senna was the newcomer - Alain did it all already - and whether or not Honda favoured him factually? I don't know. Personally I tend to think they did. Ayrton used to spend a lot of time with Honda. He used to spend hours and hours with Honda talking about the engine, so he was more understanding of how the engine works best, and to a large extent the engine was developed based on his liking and needs. Honda were definitely working with Ayrton the way that he likes it. And Ayrton had a special way of driving - it was like he had a spring on his foot, punching the throttle very quickly. Alain tried it once, but it was impossible for him. He could not drive like that. So yes, because of the relationship, the engine suited Ayrton more than it did Alain."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bira
Jo Ramirez already said that Honda, to a large extent, favoured Senna and built their engines to suit him better.

http://www.atlasf1.c...view/goren.html

As Jo is part of the Atlas staff now, you can ask him to clarify this statement but I find a difference between "an engine that suited Senna more" and "favored to a large extent."

[bira]

Jimm the quote is self explanatory.

to a large extent the engine was developed based on his liking and needs. Honda were definitely working with Ayrton the way that he likes it. ... So yes, because of the relationship, the engine suited Ayrton more than it did Alain

[jimm]

Originally posted by bira
Jimm the quote is self explanatory.

that quote says that the engines were more to Senna's liking not that they were purposely made to hurt Prost, that he got crap slow engines while Sennas were always the best only that they suited the way he drove more.

To me that is not being favored to a large extent that is being favored by a small extent.

He is on staff at atlas, just pointblank ask him how much of a difference was made and wether or not in his opinion, Senna did or could beat Prost in a striaght fight for the title. That settles it right?

[bira]

jimm why do I need to ask him such a silly question for you? I posted a quote that is self explanatory. It's very clear to me so I find no reason to waste my own time or Jo's time simply because you are trying to read something that isn't there and then claim that it isn't there! Just e-mail him. If he finds your question worth replying, he will. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, however...

[jimm]

Originally posted by bira
jimm why do I need to ask him such a silly question for you? I posted a quote that is self explanatory. It's very clear to me so I find no reason to waste my own time or Jo's time simply because you are trying to read something that isn't there and then claim that it isn't there! Just e-mail him. If he finds your question worth replying, he will. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, however...

Coming from the same person who equates most of the time (a non absolute) with always (an absolute) I am not surprised you read what you want to from the quote.

The quote is not Senna got cream and Prost got crap regardless of what you say.

Look I don't want to fight. If you give me his e-mail address I would be more than happy to e-mail him with this and about 100 other questions I would love to have the answer to from what must have been one of the most interesting times and teams to be in. Always interesting hearing his stories.

[bira]

Originally posted by jimm


Coming from the same person who equates most of the time (a non absolute) with always (an absolute) I am not surprised you read what you want to from the quote.

The quote is not Senna got cream and Prost got crap regardless of what you say.

Look I don't want to fight. If you give me his e-mail address I would be more than happy to e-mail him with this and about 100 other questions I would love to have the answer to from what must have been one of the most interesting times and teams to be in. Always interesting hearing his stories.

jimm, oh boy how you are getting on my nerves.

One of the things I find most distasteful and annoying is people who look to argue over anything that comes their way, even if it's void of any reason or content.

Please show me where I said that "Senna got cream and Prost got crap". Please show me where I said that Jo's quote proves that "they were purposely made to hurt Prost, that he got crap slow engines while Sennas were always the best."

Like I said, you are looking for something that isn't there just so you can then yell - hey, it isn't there! well guess what, it's actually not there!

But it does not change - nor detract - from the fact that someone who worked at the team at the time believes that they were designed and developed to suit Senna's style. In fact, if you do some research you might learn that the engine units arrive from the factory identical for all intent and purpose. So there wasn't a tag on one that said "Senna" and on another that says "Prost". They were fantastic engines, but Senna was able to get the better of them because they were designed and developed to suit Senna's style.

Maybe after the 10th time time you read it you'll also understand it, I don't know. But in the mean time please find something else to argue about - like, something that actually has a conflict in it!


Oh, and if you are an Atlas F1 subscriber you can find Jo's e-mail link in all his articles (which actually include stories which you say are "always interesting" to hear.)

p.s.

Coming from the same person who equates most of the time (a non absolute) with always (an absolute) I am not surprised you read what you want to from the quote.

Wtf is that supposed to mean? And how can you say after that, "Look I don't want to fight."? That is exactly what you DO want to do.

As for reading things in quotes that aren't there? let's see...

I post the following: "Jo Ramirez already said that Honda, to a large extent, favoured Senna and built their engines to suit him better."

Then I post the actual quote: "... and to a large extent the engine was developed based on his liking and needs. Honda were definitely working with Ayrton the way that he likes it. ... So yes, because of the relationship, the engine suited Ayrton more than it did Alain."

Then you come raging in, stating that "The quote is not Senna got cream and Prost got crap regardless of what you say. "

Since I did not say that, not even insinuated that, I believe you owe me an apology.

And next time, pick a fight with someone else please.

[Ricardo F1]

Furthermore Jo points to Senna working all day and night with the Honda engineers whereas Prost didn't, which would explain why they were more suited to him than Prost.

[bira]

back to topic, I found another quote describing the relationship between Senna and Honda.

This is from "As Time Goes By", the speaker is Peter Warr (Lotus) :

"...[Senna's] done a deal with Honda to take the engines to McLaren and he was totally in love with Honda and their way of working, and Honda were totally in love with him. If he said I want the Honda in the back of a Sinclair C5 they would have said yes, how many do you want and where do you want them delivered? He had an enormous pull with Honda."

(the italics appear in the original text)

[Toxicant]

I don't think Prost was "invited"to spend nights, weekends and holidays working with Honda where as Senna was treated as a "family member".

I don't think its to hard to understand, ever work within a team and see the difference how some people are treated?

Senna was great, no doubt...but the same things some of you say about the treatment Schumacher recieves, Senna did also.

Face it, Senna wasn't any better then Prost, given the best car you could flip a coin to see who would end up on top any given day.

Now really, is that such an awful thing to admit and admire?

[Raelene]

I thought I read somewhere (F1 Mag?) that Honda told Senna they were leaving McLaren before they even told RD - anyone confirm?