53 replies to this topic

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

Hi there.
I have just come back from college and have just has my psychology lesson, the objective is to find out specific relationships between certain people and I thought that the good people on AtlasF1 could help me as they are alot older and wiser than me on the subject on Formula One , Ayrton Senna and probably have a better understanding of psychology too (i hope )

Well the task is to get an article regarding sport feuds within teams and unravel some psychological assumption (i'll explain this a bit later on * ) - The magazine i have picked it the August 2001 (yup 2001) Formula One magazine , the one with Ralf Schumacher's face on the cover with the title "2002's World Champion In waiting" and a blue back ground.

If you flick over to page 140 we can see the article entitles 'When Feuds were Really Feuds' and a picture of Ayrton Senna ramming into Prost's Ferrari at the 1990 Japanese GP.

This is what is written on the work sheet (basically my task)

"You have to find a newspaper or article from a magazine, on which you have will perform a psychological analysis. Journalists frequently write articles that raise psychological issues or make psychological assumptions (eg * something like alcohol leads to agressive behaviour or something like that - a valid assumption) . You need to find an article that raises at least three psychological issues or assumption, and you must be able to clearly identify these

Read the article

• Identifying the three issues
• Relating psychological theories or studies to each case (ie something like Senna's destructive behaviour ie 1990 Suzuka)
and finally
• You have to make three suggestions concerning how psychological research can be used to affect the issues in the article (eg how can we prevent the high agression levels linked to alcohol use - warning labels on bottle is a suggestion etc ) - PS remember it doesnt have to linked to aggression (there are other aspects involved in Senna-Prost relationship ie such as not talking etc)


I feel as though i can do most of it, but not in enough depth to get an A or even a B grade (which is what i REALLY need to contribute towards an excellent courswork grade which should by June 2004 help me get a brilliant grade so i can become a psychologist) - but i need your help! Hopefully you can all help me in some way or another

Take care,
Thanx alot

Capser the Friendly Ghost

[ILV4RCING]

Try to understand Ayrton by understanding his relationship with religion. Then depart from the fact of how only a chosen one is selected to save us and add the pain of living in perpetual motion and the hungry (soul hunger) desire to become the next redentor by materializing those desires in competition.
I hope it make sense.
There is no way to measure what move you to be the best but you can see certain a relation with the way that person is living. :

[holiday]

Originally posted by Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
The magazine i have picked it the August 2001 (yup 2001) Formula One magazine , the one with Ralf Schumacher's face on the cover with the title "2002's World Champion In waiting"...

judging by the cover what could be the contents like ...

[raceday]

Here's Prost perspective on Senna

http://www.angelfire...agix/prost.html and the same on another page http://mypage.bluewi...tfan/senna2.htm

If you wanna read alot of speculation and some facts go to the forum AtlasF1 court, go to the case "Did Senna end an era of sportmanship?"

Don't know if this is what you're looking for but it might be an interesting read?

Good luck with the task!

[aportinga]

So you're having us do your homework?

Bring on the credits......

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

Originally posted by aportinga
So you're having us do your homework?

Bring on the credits......

lol narh not homework, just some different idea's to my own, i could probably come up with a C or D++ type answer (which is pretty excellent, a D++ at A-level would be about an A* or A+ at GCSE level essentially)

I just need a broader range of idea's which will help me get an A for my courswork, so walking into the exam (i think it is exactly one year from now as we have started the A2/A-level year 3 months early to get a head start) i would be guaranteed a D or E grade if i get top marks (89-100%) on this task, which would be excellent.


Aportinga, if i get good marks on this i am allowed to credit my external helper, but would need real names of the people that have done so, so if anyone is cool with that its fine by me

more ideas, keep em comin please, they're excellent so far

[aportinga]

Oh good god - you don't want me to help you with this.....

[CLX]

How about:

Senna + Prost = two sides of the same coin

???

Good luck with your work.

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

Originally posted by aportinga
Oh good god - you don't want me to help you with this.....

yes i do! pleeeeeeeease! If you dont want to me to name u thats ok bro I'll understand but I'd still value your opinion, coz i think you'd have somethign interesting to say, as will anyone who is willing to help out, certainly better than my idea lol

[Monsell]

Hi,

Since not everybody has the magazine and to benefit from a bigger pool of fans with opinions on the subject, I advice you write your “three psychological issues or assumptions” with your explanation and let us comment in favor or against them.

[speedmaster]

More than just religion it would be needed to understand the weight Senna carried having a full country behind him. His dedication, passion and capability of fight adversity came in a moment the country was leaving years of dictatorship and military rulling which destroyed the economy and all emrgent leadership... he brought back some national pride and it was a blessing see him beating all to the checkered flag...

We had other champions like Emmo (not charismatic) and Piquet (self centered) so it all exploded over Senna.

Also to understand Prost issue we MUST review what was done in the previous year with Ballestre actions to make Prost champion - ADMITED later by himself - and the latin nature of Senna. He had to swallow the crash Prost imposed him the previous year (a deliberate move by Prost ). The following year Senna knew he should pass Prost quickly and having nothing to lose went all for it. Prost knew it and closed the door, Senna initially brought his car out of line, 2 weel on the grass (check the slow motion) and then, seeing that he would end up crashing decided to go ahead and make the mess. IMHO he did it very lightly... I would have done it harder to avoid the chance of having the race restarted...

Senna did exactly what Schummi did with Damon the following year and tried to do with JV...

I would classify it as a dangerous payback. And to be honest, it was the most pleasant championship he earned... payback is always very rewarding....

[Velocifer]

Interesting topic, but boy do I hate to be reminded that what journalists sometimes spew out is just some silly arsed formula they ‘learned’ in school. “The three assumptions..” tsk!

Anyway, here’s my take then:

‘The three issues’:

1. Peoples hero-worshipping nature occasionally creates excessively big egos
2. Excessively big egos creates feuds in Sports
3. Excessively big egos in feuds destroys Sport

Related theories:

1. Sport is by nature a hero-worshipping exercise (titans of Greece, gladiators of Rome à Senna, Beckham)
2. Megalomania is commonly associated with sport (Any Roman emperor, Hitler …… ……….) and is by nature aggressive and prone to grandiose shows which inevitably leads to spectacular conflicts.
3. Megalomaniacs are delusional and can’t think that anything could be more important than them. “hey look at my balls!!”

Suggested research:

1. How to get people out of their obsession about personalities and more onto values of concept. (Love, Sport)
2. How to recognize potentially dangerous megalomaniac behaviour at an early stage and especially in close contact motor sport.
3. How to further promote a culture of sacrosanctity of modern ideals among sporting bodies and government institutions. (FIA would be a good starting point )

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

Originally posted by Velocifer
Interesting topic, but boy do I hate to be reminded that what journalists sometimes spew out is just some silly arsed formula they ‘learned’ in school. “The three assumptions..” tsk!

Anyway, here’s my take then:

‘The three issues’:

1. Peoples hero-worshipping nature occasionally creates excessively big egos
2. Excessively big egos creates feuds in Sports
3. Excessively big egos in feuds destroys Sport

Related theories:

1. Sport is by nature a hero-worshipping exercise (titans of Greece, gladiators of Rome à Senna, Beckham)
2. Megalomania is commonly associated with sport (Any Roman emperor, Hitler …… ……….) and is by nature aggressive and prone to grandiose shows which inevitably leads to spectacular conflicts.
3. Megalomaniacs are delusional and can’t think that anything could be more important than them. “hey look at my balls!!”

Suggested research:

1. How to get people out of their obsession about personalities and more onto values of concept. (Love, Sport)
2. How to recognize potentially dangerous megalomaniac behaviour at an early stage and especially in close contact motor sport.
3. How to further promote a culture of sacrosanctity of modern ideals among sporting bodies and government institutions. (FIA would be a good starting point )

Velocifer! I would kiss your feet if you were here right now man!
Thanks!

[Vrba]

Originally posted by speedmaster
....The following year Senna knew he should pass Prost quickly and having nothing to lose went all for it. Prost knew it and closed the door, Senna initially brought his car out of line, 2 weel on the grass (check the slow motion) and then, seeing that he would end up crashing decided to go ahead and make the mess. ....

A very interesting interpretation knowing that Senna himself admitted that he decided before the race that if Prost is in front going into first corner, Senna wouldn't allow him make it.

Hrvoje

[Sith]

Senna could not accept being beaten, this is why he was so flawed. Add to that that pole position had been switched after Qualifying. Knowing his most bitter rival would disapear up the road as he had done 12 months earlier if he (Prost) was to lead after turn 1. This all adds up to why he did what he did! He said to a Mclaren insider, "he better not take the lead, else he won't make it into the corner" So yes it was pre-meditated. Pressure was telling on Ayrton. something he could never quite deal with.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Sith
Senna could not accept being beaten, this is why he was so flawed. Add to that that pole position had been switched after Qualifying. ....

AFAIK, the situation was different here: Senna asked for pole position to be moved but it remained where it was since who-knows-when and it was moved to other side (more benefitting for polesitter) for the 1991 race.

Hrvoje

[Sith]

He didn't get his answer till Q was over!!! This is what convinced him even more that Balestre was against him!!!

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Sith
He didn't get his answer till Q was over!!! This is what convinced him even more that Balestre was against him!!!

That may have been the case. That Balestre was against him is beyond doubt and, for a person on such a duty, it's absoutely intolerable and unforgivable. However, Senna contributed a lot to that with his completely unjustified reactions after 1989 Japanese Grand Prix.

Hrvoje

[Jacar�]

Originally posted by Velocifer
1. Peoples hero-worshipping nature occasionally creates excessively big egos
2. Excessively big egos creates feuds in Sports
3. Excessively big egos in feuds destroys Sport

if Ferrari_F1_fan_2001 is writing a psychology paper, is it OK to use the word 'ego' like we do in everyday speech, or does it have a technical meaning within a particular psychological theory like Freud's division of the mind into id, ego,superego?

[Henri Greuter]

as far as I could work out: '1990 wasn't so much an affair of Senna vs. Prost but Senna vs Balestre. That Prost got involved with it was unavoidable but if Senna's own words must be believed, then the accident of '90 would have happened with any other driver who qualified on the front row with him.

Biggest problem: study everything what happened in '89 (long before Suzuka!) because Senna claimed his reaction was partly inspired by what happened in Suzuka the year before but much of those arguements are highly debatable if valid at all. A lot happened in '89 that makes Suzuka '89 even more debatable in my point of view.

I opened a thread on all that last year december and got shafted because of it being anti Senna and I had made the error to admit in all honesty (within the piece) that I couldn't stand Senna. And this lots of the thoughts and facts as I listed them not being seen unobjective anymore by most. And after being attacked I reacted too fierce to my critics.
That doesn't however change a lot of the facts as they were and the plots as they were that year '89 as I wrote them down.
Thus here's my advise: Study the entire '89 season first. I don't mind if you search for that thread of mine too but perhaps it is better to use that piece as a guidance and look for other pieces of approvals within all kind of publications yourself.

Henri Greuter

[Jacar�]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
Biggest problem: study everything what happened in '89 (long before Suzuka!) because Senna claimed his reaction was partly inspired by what happened in Suzuka the year before but much of those arguements are highly debatable if valid at all. A lot happened in '89 that makes Suzuka '89 even more debatable in my point of view.

or the student might just focus on the psychological issue of Senna's disillusionment with the system, his loss of faith in FISA. The student might look at Freud's theory of development to explain how belief in authority, justice, fairness were held to be so important by Senna. Research might be done to see what effect the loss of confidence in the fairness of sport has on competitors, whether they might be motivated to take the law into their own hands, or whether they follow the example of bad sportsmen from the past.

[Jacar�]

Originally posted by ILV4RCING
Try to understand Ayrton by understanding his relationship with religion

maybe focus the issue on the conflict caused by Prost's claim that 'Ayrton thinks he can't kill himself because he believes in God.' There are psychological theories of religion that say religious belief is motivated by the fear of death. Senna himself says that fear of harm is a necessary psychological mechanism for self-preservation. The student might suggest some practical research to study the fear of drivers at the limit, by measuring such indicators as adrenaline and pulse rate, and then seeing whether there is any correlation with religious belief.

[Fortymark]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
as far as I could work out: '1990 wasn't so much an affair of Senna vs. Prost but Senna vs Balestre. That Prost got involved with it was unavoidable but if Senna's own words must be believed, then the accident of '90 would have happened with any other driver who qualified on the front row with him.

Biggest problem: study everything what happened in '89 (long before Suzuka!) because Senna claimed his reaction was partly inspired by what happened in Suzuka the year before but much of those arguements are highly debatable if valid at all. A lot happened in '89 that makes Suzuka '89 even more debatable in my point of view.

I opened a thread on all that last year december and got shafted because of it being anti Senna and I had made the error to admit in all honesty (within the piece) that I couldn't stand Senna. And this lots of the thoughts and facts as I listed them not being seen unobjective anymore by most. And after being attacked I reacted too fierce to my critics.
That doesn't however change a lot of the facts as they were and the plots as they were that year '89 as I wrote them down.
Thus here's my advise: Study the entire '89 season first. I don't mind if you search for that thread of mine too but perhaps it is better to use that piece as a guidance and look for other pieces of approvals within all kind of publications yourself.

Henri Greuter

My opinion is that Senna never started anything. He may have not backed off but he wasn´t unfair.
As an example, the famous pitwall incident at Estoril in -88. Senna swered against Prost a little bit.
Nobody never mentions the previous lap when Prost almost pushed Senna off the tarmac.
There are always two sides of an story.

The Imola -89 story. They had an agreement for the start, Senna toke it and pulled away from Prost. He had started to get himself an gap over Prost. Why should he have given up that advantage? An restart is not an new race, it´s just an temporary stop and restart of the race that´s going on.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Fortymark


My opinion is that Senna never started anything. He may have not backed off but he wasn´t unfair.
As an example, the famous pitwall incident at Estoril in -88. Senna swered against Prost a little bit.
Nobody never mentions the previous lap when Prost almost pushed Senna off the tarmac.
There are always two sides of an story.....

Just as Prost didn't back off in Suzuka in 1989....and Prost wasn't being unfair by any means.
Senna's 1989 season showed clear frustration of a man who couldn't believe someone else could claim the title. He had noone to blame but himself and couldn't have accepted that. That's how it all begun. Noone stole the title from Senna. What wasn't his, couldn't have been stolen.

Hrvoje

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

Originally posted by Jacaré

if Ferrari_F1_fan_2001 is writing a psychology paper, is it OK to use the word 'ego' like we do in everyday speech, or does it have a technical meaning within a particular psychological theory like Freud's division of the mind into id, ego,superego?

We're not going to be looking at the Freudian concepts in much detail this year, that was the starting year (AS year) - but i think we can make some references to the 'ID , Ego and SuperEgo' in our course work if we can link the work to it. It will just depend on what concept of the 'ego' we are referring to and then use the appropriate terminology.

Thanx

AJ

[Slyder]

Some guys overlook that after Senna's move in Estoril 1988, Prost later in the year did the same thing to Senna in Suzuka when Senna was passing him. Senna had to go wide over the white line and pretty much almost into the pit road exit when Prost swerved to block him

http://www.mclarenf1...-japan-1988.avi

[speedmaster]

Originally posted by Vrba

A very interesting interpretation knowing that Senna himself admitted that he decided before the race that if Prost is in front going into first corner, Senna wouldn't allow him make it.

Hrvoje

I'm not saying he didn't decide before but he had an hesitation moment - the video is there to prove. Otherwise why put 2 wheels in the grass before going for it.

You know what I think? Prost wanted the shunt. He knew he would be beaten fair and square and this was his way of going out in a better note.

After all Balestre did to give him the championship the previous year it was a pleasure see the pay back happening...

Senna

[speedmaster]

Originally posted by Slyder
Some guys overlook that after Senna's move in Estoril 1988, Prost later in the year did the same thing to Senna in Suzuka when Senna was passing him. Senna had to go wide over the white line and pretty much almost into the pit road exit when Prost swerved to block him

http://www.mclarenf1...-japan-1988.avi

boy oh boy...what a piece of driving, what a genius... Senna Forever!!!!

[speedmaster]

Sorry guys, this is my 1000 posting... since we are discussing Senna I would like that this one was related to him.

For all the happy Sundays he gave me, cheers and thanks!!!

Senna, simply the best

[Vrba]

Originally posted by speedmaster


I'm not saying he didn't decide before but he had an hesitation moment - the video is there to prove. Otherwise why put 2 wheels in the grass before going for it.

You know what I think? Prost wanted the shunt. He knew he would be beaten fair and square and this was his way of going out in a better note.

After all Balestre did to give him the championship the previous year it was a pleasure see the pay back happening...

Senna

Are you serious?
If you are, then,

Hrvoje

[Henri Greuter]

speedmaster quote:

You know what I think? Prost wanted the shunt. He knew he would be beaten fair and square and this was his way of going out in a better note.

=====


Prost wanted a shunt? To happen in front of 24 other drivers coming up from behind him at increasing speeds?
To save face while he was driving a car that in recent events had gained momentum on the McLaren and as long as he gave it his best shot and the car remained reliable he still had a chance for the title?

Remember: Prost was part of that crash that ended the career of Pironi so I think it to be very unlikely that Prost was willing to be involved in an accident. Most unlikely I would say, certainly not on purpose. The more while at the time Prost had nothing to gain with an accident alkl all but everything to loose.



Henri Greuter

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Slyder
Some guys overlook that after Senna's move in Estoril 1988, Prost later in the year did the same thing to Senna in Suzuka when Senna was passing him. Senna had to go wide over the white line and pretty much almost into the pit road exit when Prost swerved to block him

http://www.mclarenf1...-japan-1988.avi

It's not even comparable. Prost left enough space for two cars to pass. If that's swerving than we must invent new term for Senna's usual antics.

Hrvoje

[Vrba]

Originally posted by speedmaster
Sorry guys, this is my 1000 posting... since we are discussing Senna I would like that this one was related to him.

For all the happy Sundays he gave me, cheers and thanks!!!

Senna, simply the best

With such objective fans like you, Senna doesn't need enemies :-)

Hrvoje

[ILV4RCING]

Originally posted by Jacaré

maybe focus the issue on the conflict caused by Prost's claim that 'Ayrton thinks he can't kill himself because he believes in God.' There are psychological theories of religion that say religious belief is motivated by the fear of death. Senna himself says that fear of harm is a necessary psychological mechanism for self-preservation. The student might suggest some practical research to study the fear of drivers at the limit, by measuring such indicators as adrenaline and pulse rate, and then seeing whether there is any correlation with religious belief.

Very true, indeed.

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Post your final paper so we can read it. Not to critisize it, but to see other points of view.

Physical reactions to an emotional stage may give you a parameter for comparison between drivers.

[speedmaster]

Originally posted by Vrba

Are you serious?
If you are, then,

Hrvoje

Much more than serious... Prost had some history as he spun once during the warm up lap just not to race...

Sorry, that's my impression... you can discount that I always hated Prost...

;)

[speedmaster]

Originally posted by Vrba

With such objective fans like you, Senna doesn't need enemies :-)

Hrvoje

Don't pamper me, I can get used to it.....

[speedmaster]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
speedmaster quote:

You know what I think? Prost wanted the shunt. He knew he would be beaten fair and square and this was his way of going out in a better note.

=====


Prost wanted a shunt? To happen in front of 24 other drivers coming up from behind him at increasing speeds?
To save face while he was driving a car that in recent events had gained momentum on the McLaren and as long as he gave it his best shot and the car remained reliable he still had a chance for the title?

Remember: Prost was part of that crash that ended the career of Pironi so I think it to be very unlikely that Prost was willing to be involved in an accident. Most unlikely I would say, certainly not on purpose. The more while at the time Prost had nothing to gain with an accident alkl all but everything to loose.



Henri Greuter

We have a different view of Prost's personality but,again, being sincere I hated his personality so you can discount my oppinion. I still think that Prost knew he would be hit by Senna and, at least, asked to see it... and saw! I would feel what Senna felt at that moment being able to pay it back. Right? no, absolutelly,but someone said that all that is good in life is imoral, illegal or makes you fat.

Ayrton, later, in the day of his death made peace with Prost. If I were Senna's family he would not carry his coffin...

[Vrba]

Originally posted by speedmaster


Much more than serious... Prost had some history as he spun once during the warm up lap just not to race...

Sorry, that's my impression... you can discount that I always hated Prost...

;)

Yes, he spun in the rain in Imola in 1991....hardly any connection with 1989 events. Senna meanwhile had fresh memories of some spins before 1989....
Nevertheless, if Prost wanted the crash, how did he made Senna execute it? Especially if it was certain Senna would have won....

Hrvoje

[Vrba]

Originally posted by speedmaster

....
Ayrton, later, in the day of his death made peace with Prost. If I were Senna's family he would not carry his coffin...

If I were Prost I wouldn't have either....

Hrvoje

[Bob Nomates]

Senna’s aim was to beat Prost when he first moved to McLaren which was going to be a difficult task given that Prost was already seen as the best driver in the best team, so why would McLaren or anyone else for that matter want to change that?….it was working out nicely for them. Senna however wanted to be the best driver in F1 and to beat Prost so it was always going to be messy, could you imagine a driver like Senna joining Ferrari to partner Michael today?
I would say that Senna, all things considered did a very good job of dethroning him, he managed to drive a wedge in the team and build up his own support, and despite all the problems people started to trust in his ability over Prost, which was a massive achievement in itself.
Prost started to whinge a lot and Senna took his driving ability to another dimension in order to win, Post got dirty and Senna got more dirty, he wanted to get the better of him in every way.

To sum it all up Senna wanted to beat Prost, which is a fair honest thing to want to do and is the name of the game after all . Prost didn’t want to play the game, he was very defensive in his battles on and off the track, using his position to play dirty!
Despite what people may think about Senna he did genuinely want to be the best, and if he had been battling against a different driver I think it would have been a different story. If Prost had set his stall out differently Senna would have played fair.

[speedmaster]

Originally posted by Bob Nomates
Senna’s aim was to beat Prost when he first moved to McLaren which was going to be a difficult task given that Prost was already seen as the best driver in the best team, so why would McLaren or anyone else for that matter want to change that?….it was working out nicely for them. Senna however wanted to be the best driver in F1 and to beat Prost so it was always going to be messy, could you imagine a driver like Senna joining Ferrari to partner Michael today?
I would say that Senna, all things considered did a very good job of dethroning him, he managed to drive a wedge in the team and build up his own support, and despite all the problems people started to trust in his ability over Prost, which was a massive achievement in itself.
Prost started to whinge a lot and Senna took his driving ability to another dimension in order to win, Post got dirty and Senna got more dirty, he wanted to get the better of him in every way.

To sum it all up Senna wanted to beat Prost, which is a fair honest thing to want to do and is the name of the game after all . Prost didn’t want to play the game, he was very defensive in his battles on and off the track, using his position to play dirty!
Despite what people may think about Senna he did genuinely want to be the best, and if he had been battling against a different driver I think it would have been a different story. If Prost had set his stall out differently Senna would have played fair.

a very good summary of the reality... Senna simply played by the rules of the prior dominant guy in F1. He dethroned the guy and then things got messy.

Answering VRBA about how he managed to make Senna go for it he didn't...he played it all and got it in the end. It is my oppinion that Prost was beaten at the time, moreover with the Balestre issue becoming more and more public, so he would try anything not to lose on the track.

It is quite clear that he moved to the right KNOWING that Senna would be there. I was expecting a crash earlier but Senna, don't know why, brought the car to the right until he got the right wheel on the grass. If he continued in that path he would have spun. If you look to the video in very slow motion and pay close attention to Ayton's front whells you will see the grass issue and then a slight movement to the left aligning the car and then driving into Prost.

Pay back day... not exactly civilized but nonetheless a sweet day... Senna 4ever!!!!

[Rene]

Originally posted by Bob Nomates
Despite what people may think about Senna he did genuinely want to be the best, and if he had been battling against a different driver I think it would have been a different story. If Prost had set his stall out differently Senna would have played fair.

That statment is so wrong, on so many levels....I guess you didn't see any of the battles between Senna and Mansell, or Senna and Piquet, etc etc... How many other drivers did Senna run off the rode? Ever watch him lap back markers? Fair and Senna two words which dont seem to go together...

[Rene]

Originally posted by speedmaster


I'm not saying he didn't decide before but he had an hesitation moment - the video is there to prove. Otherwise why put 2 wheels in the grass before going for it.

You know what I think? Prost wanted the shunt. He knew he would be beaten fair and square and this was his way of going out in a better note.

After all Balestre did to give him the championship the previous year it was a pleasure see the pay back happening...

Senna

I'm going to bookmark this post, as the funniest post of the year... Its even funnier when one realizes you are being serious...makes me wonder if you actually watched F1 back then...

[Jacar�]

Originally posted by Rene
Fair and Senna two words which dont seem to go together...

but the irony is that Senna thought himself fair, a person acting according to principles, like Prost explained

He was extremely religious, and he used to go on about that, about speaking the truth, about his education, his upbringing, and everything else. At the time, I used to think that some of the things he did on the track didn't fit with all that, but now it seems to me he really didn't know he was sometimes in the wrong. As I said, he had these rules, he played by them, and he wasn't interested in anything else. Looking back, I really think he believed he was always in the right, always telling the truth - and on the track he was exactly the same way.

http://mypage.bluewi...tfan/senna2.htm

[Jacar�]

Originally posted by Bob Nomates
I would say that Senna, all things considered did a very good job of dethroning him, he managed to drive a wedge in the team and build up his own support

I think this is an interesting aspect of the rivalry for a psychology student to investigate. When a team doesn't designate a #1 and #2 driver, and lets them fight it out like at McLaren, what are the psychological issues involved with winning support within the team? Prost suggests that Senna won support from Honda because he embodied the fighting spirit of Japanese Samurai ... nothing to do with politics or driving: a purely psychological connection between Senna and the collective unconscious of the Japanese ....

[Vrba]

Originally posted by speedmaster


I'm not saying he didn't decide before but he had an hesitation moment - the video is there to prove. Otherwise why put 2 wheels in the grass before going for it.

You know what I think? Prost wanted the shunt. He knew he would be beaten fair and square and this was his way of going out in a better note.

After all Balestre did to give him the championship the previous year it was a pleasure see the pay back happening...

Senna

Prost had just pulverized Senna in the Spanish Grand Prix. Ferrari dominated in Portugal. Ferrari was on song in the latter part of 1990 and Senna was the one who knew he was beaten and that his chances of winning in Japan if Prost stayed in the race were at best minimal. Ferrari became a faster car and Prost was very fast as well. There was no way that Senna could have won any of the last 4 races of 1990 on merit.....and that was the very reason why did he resort to damage limitation: if they are both out, then Prost wouldn't have gained any points over Senna. That may be in fact the real reason why did Senna run into Prost. It was the case of pure unscrupulosity and greed for the title. Senna knew that his most likely hope to win the title was if Prost retired and Senna took care of it. Senna then tried to mask it with all that whining and stories about stolen 1989 title....while in fact it had nothing to do with it. If it was any other driver instead of Prost, Senna would probably have done the same but his explanation would have been different, depending what plot theory could he have made up.

Hrvoje

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Bob Nomates
....
Despite what people may think about Senna he did genuinely want to be the best, and if he had been battling against a different driver I think it would have been a different story. If Prost had set his stall out differently Senna would have played fair.

He didn't want to be the best. He was convinced that he is the best, that winning the title was his God-given right and was unable to accept otherwise. If the facts showed that was not the case (and they often did)....well, it's bad for the facts. Senna would have used all kinds of dirty play then.
If Senna was fair, why were at least 8 or so drivers angry with him as early as in 1985? His results weren't as such that it should be of particular worry to them. But his tactics, dirty play and manoeuvres were.

Hrvoje

[Velocifer]

Originally posted by Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
Velocifer! I would kiss your feet if you were here right now man!
Thanks!

Suddenly I feel as though something is swelling inside and I want more of it. Time to go crush someone with my wit and I will even break the house rule if that's what it takes!

[Rene]

Originally posted by Jacaré

but the irony is that Senna thought himself fair, a person acting according to principles, like Prost explained


http://mypage.bluewi...tfan/senna2.htm

I agree that Senna thought his actions were always reasonable....doesn't mean he was right....

I am just glad I was able to watch that time in F1, as I truly believe it was the pinnacle of F1....

(and thats saying something considering how fond I am of Gilles Villeneuve)

[speedmaster]

Originally posted by Vrba


Prost had just pulverized Senna in the Spanish Grand Prix. Ferrari dominated in Portugal. Ferrari was on song in the latter part of 1990 and Senna was the one who knew he was beaten and that his chances of winning in Japan if Prost stayed in the race were at best minimal. Ferrari became a faster car and Prost was very fast as well. There was no way that Senna could have won any of the last 4 races of 1990 on merit.....and that was the very reason why did he resort to damage limitation: if they are both out, then Prost wouldn't have gained any points over Senna. That may be in fact the real reason why did Senna run into Prost. It was the case of pure unscrupulosity and greed for the title. Senna knew that his most likely hope to win the title was if Prost retired and Senna took care of it. Senna then tried to mask it with all that whining and stories about stolen 1989 title....while in fact it had nothing to do with it. If it was any other driver instead of Prost, Senna would probably have done the same but his explanation would have been different, depending what plot theory could he have made up.

Hrvoje

Passion is like this: you have your oppinion which I respect and I have mine... as in your mind I can't figure out also what kind of Formula 1 you were watching back then...even Balestre recognized the cons they did against Senna but, as I said, passion is passion and we will be always thinking differently.

Cheers...