36 replies to this topic

[Louis Mr. F1]

i read this from autosport's Nigel Roebuck column, maybe you 'll find it interesting


Dear Nigel,
Suzuka 1989. In your opinion, did Prost commit a professional foul on Senna, or was it
just a 'racing accident'.
Mike Hamilton, Holywell, Wales

Dear Mike
A fascinating question, and one which has been debated endlessly over the years. Did
Prost indeed commit 'a professional foul' on Senna at Suzuka in 1989, or was it just a
racing accident?
I was near the chicane at Suzuka that day, and walked back down to the pits with Prost after
he had abandoned his car. And what I remember most was Alain's disbelief that Ayrton
had tried to pass at that point on that particular lap. "He just wasn't close enough," he said,
"and I never thought he'd try it. On some previous laps, he'd been closer than that – and
hadn't made a move. Even if I hadn 't been there, at that speed, and on that tight line, he
would never have made it through the corner..."

Then there was the response of Keke Rosberg, which was cynical, but also good-natured.
"Alain is the cleanest driver in Formula 1," Keke chuckled. "Always has been. To be honest,
I think he'd reached a point where he wasn't prepared to be screwed around by Ayrton any
more – and so he simply closed the door on him. You could tell he'd never done anything
like that before in his life – because he did it so badly!"

A couple of years ago, nearly a decade after the event, I spoke to Prost again about it, and
this is what he said on the tape.

"Nigel, all these years later, I give you my word that, if I had deliberately tried to put Ayrton
off, I would tell you. The situation was this: many times, during our two years as
team-mates, he'd forced his way by, putting me in a position where I was obliged to get out
of the way – otherwise we'd crash, and that would be both McLarens out on the spot.

"So, we got to Suzuka, with the World Championship to be decided between us. I thought
about the situation, and then I said to both the team and the press, 'There's no way I'm
going to open the door any more – I've had enough of that.' In the team, you know, we
talked very often about the first corner, the first lap, and Ron [Dennis] always said that the
important thing was we shouldn't hit each other, we should think of the team.

"Well, as far as I'm concerned, I thought about the team, and Ayrton thought about himself.
All the time. I remember the start of the British Grand Prix in '89; going into Copse, if I hadn't
moved two or three metres we'd have hit each other, and both McLarens would have been
out immediately. And that sort of thing happened often.

"As for the accident at Suzuka, I know everybody thinks I did it on purpose: I did not open the
door, and that's it. I took my corner, and that was the end of it. I didn't want to finish the race
like that – I wanted to win it. I had a good car. I'd been very bad in qualifying, and
concentrated absolutely on the race; in the warm-up I was much quicker than Ayrton, and
for the race I was quite confident – even when he started catching me.

"I didn't want him too close, obviously, but I wanted him close enough that he would hurt
his tyres a bit; my plan was then to push hard over the last 10 laps. As it was, he tried to
pass – and for me the way he did it was impossible, because he was going so much
quicker than usual into the braking area.

"I couldn't believe he tried it on that lap, because I looked in my mirrors as we came up to
the chicane and he was so far back. I saw where he was, I came off the throttle, braked –
and turned in. When you look in your mirrors, and a guy is 20 metres behind you, it's
impossible to judge. I didn't even realise he was trying to overtake me, but at the same
time I thought, 'There's no way I'm going to leave him even a gap of one metre. No way...'"

Back to where we started. Was it deliberate or not? I've always said that Prost is as honest
a man as ever I have come across in Formula 1, and, after knowing him for more than 20
years, I have never caught him out in a lie. So that's my opinion.

Other people's opinion, though, perhaps counts for more. "In the end," said Jackie Stewart,
"it doesn't matter whether or not Alain closed the door. The fact remains that Ayrton was in
the wrong because he allowed himself to be at someone else's mercy. Once he made his
move, the matter was out of his hands: if Prost was prepared to lose the race, OK, he'd be
through; but if he wasn't, then Senna was in trouble..."

As for Mario Andretti, he cut through all the cant, and saw the coming-together as just one
of those things. "If I was in Prost's shoes, I'd have done the same – and, let's face it, if the
situation had been reversed, Senna would have done the same! Senna should have
expected it, but you can't fault him for trying. That was the only place he was going to pass."

On this, I suspect, the jury will be out for ever.


maybe Prost had a point afterall, i thought he was the one to be blamed for the accident.


bye

[MacFan]

So much for Prost's integrity. I watched the tape of this incident over and over in 1989, and while Senna may not have made it round the corner without using Prost's car as a brake, Prost turned in to the corner about 20 metres earlier than he had done on every previous lap - surprising for a driver known for his incredible consistency...

[doohanOK]

I think this incident will forever be argued about.

I personally believe the situation was inevitable, but that Senna seemed quicker than Prost at that time on the circuit. I think Prost did it deliberately, mainly because he was pissed off with Senna, and because of the fact that Balestre was running the sport.

regards,
doohanOK.

[RedFever]

Other people's opinion, though, perhaps counts for more. "In the end," said Jackie Stewart,
"it doesn't matter whether or not Alain closed the door. The fact remains that Ayrton was in
the wrong because he allowed himself to be at someone else's mercy. Once he made his
move, the matter was out of his hands: if Prost was prepared to lose the race, OK, he'd be
through; but if he wasn't, then Senna was in trouble..."

I pretty much agree with this, same goes for Aussie 94.

[mtl'78]

But that goes both ways. Senna's response to Stewart was (loosely) "I am a racing driver, the day I don't take a gap, I will no longer BE a racing driver"

Putting yourself at one's mercy is part and parcel of overtaking. That is why it requires bravery. Jerez 1997 is the perfect example, JV put himself at MS' mercy, but what is the alternative? finish second? not for drivers like this...

As far as the incident. I always thought that there was more room for interpretation on the 1st incident, than in 1990... Prost was a gentleman driver 99% of his career. Aside from this incient, there are few instances where his morals could be questioned. The same couldn't be said for Senna. He was an aggressive driver who often bullied himself ahead of the competition.

[Clatter]

Having just rewatched the incident, I'm still convinced it was deliberate. Prost turns into the corner way before the apex. This wasnt simply closing the door, its was slamming it.

I cant in any way agree with JYS saying that you shouldnt put you self in the situation where someone could crash into you, as this would mean you could never overtake. You should be able to manouvere without the fear of someone deliberatly trying to take you out.

[Ellen2]

well, Senna hit Prost's Ferrari in the back, at the start, with 24 cars following. Quite different from Suzuka the year before......and Senna had problems with Irvine, with Mansell, with Piquet, the list goes on

[MichiganF1]

JYS was off base in this statement. Of course you put yourself at the mercy of someone else every time you pass.

Does anyone have a link to where I can get footage of the incident? I've never seen it before.

[magic]

worst consequence of this incident (prost ramming, prost getting away with it, prost rewarded with a wdc-title,
senna punished for being rammed):

a young german guy watching television, realising that in f1 you can ram and get away with it.

won him his first wdc.

[BuzzingHornet]

http://www.f-1.ru/video/archive_e.html

its on this site

my 2p's worth is that Prost moved over on Senna, he was trying to make a point ant it almost backfired... he was lucky to take the title that year

[MichiganF1]

Thanks Buzz.

I must say, after watching the video, that Prost is at fault. No way should he apex that early. Funny, his hand movements on the wheel parallel those of Schuey in '97....

[Chris G.]

Prost's fault. The difference between Senna and Prost is that move there. Prost does not have the nads to even think about such a move - thus, it surprised him.

If Prost really believed Senna was coming in too fast he would have let him go, knowing Senna would miss the turn and end up in the gravel. Prost knew the only way to stop Senna was to wreck him, so he did. Once a twit, still a twit.

[Simioni]

If Prost had decided he wasn't going to take it from Senna anymore, he should have let that door closed, not rammed into Senna once he was alongside. And Senna wasn't going too fast, by the time Prost hit him they were both slowing down at the same ratio. They both went no further than 5 meters into the ran-off area after they had tangled. Doesn't look to fast to me.

JYS' quote is insane. What was Senna supposed to do then, sit there and lose the championship? I guess that Villeneuve could be blamed if he lost the 97 WDC then since he put himself at MS' mercy...

Ellen,

well, Senna hit Prost's Ferrari in the back, at the start, with 24 cars following. Quite different from Suzuka the year before......and Senna had problems with Irvine, with Mansell, with Piquet, the list goes on

...so? Senna could've been the cause for all the violence and suffering in the world, it still wouldn't change the fact that it was Prost who ram into him in 89. It doesn't excuse anything, but if Prost hadn't caused the 1st Suzuka 'incident', the 2nd might as well not had happened...

[mtl'78]

I just watched it again and Senna went into the pitlane exit to get alongside. From Prost's onboard cam he seems to take the corner normally, and Senna wasn't even with him, he was still behind when they touched. I guess I believe Prost.

[Ray Bell]

I agree that Stewart is putting the question in another field when he says that. "Putting yourself at the mercy..." is not the question.
Prost did it, he was the 'Professor' and had done his sums. Slowest point on the circuit, safest place to do it, put Senna in his place after all he'd done before.
Not right, but was it avoidable?

[MacFan]

Ray,

Senna could quite easily have avoided it. He should have realised that Prost wouldn't make it easy for him. To overtake at that chicane requires a high level of co-operation from the driver being passed. Prost had made so many statements of non co-operation that even blind Freddy could see that pass was never on. Doesn't excuse what Prost did though.

[Ray Bell]

Agreed. He was trying Prost on and came off the worst for it. Prost was using the opportunity to make a statement. The race fans missed out, of course, but that's not the object of the drivers' exercise...

[HB?!]

The biggest diference between Senna and Prost shows up when you realize that FIA stands for 3 FRENCH words. How else do you think Prost got away with the WDC in such an unsporting way???

[Ray Bell]

Settle down, it's already 38 years since they sent Colin Chapman home from Le Mans because he had six-stud rear wheels on the Lotus 23!

[MacFan]

Yeah right HB, and Senna ramming Prost off at the first corner of the same race the following year, at high speed, in front of 24 cars, all because he didn't get to start from the side of the track he wanted to, was somehow "sporting"?

[The Mirror]

The helicopter shot tells the story. Ayrton's move was quite clearly on, and if it hadn't been for the championship, Alain might have let him through. Alas, after the Portugal incident, I suppose Prost had had quite enough of Senna, and turned in on him early. If that had been Alain's intended line through the corner without anyone alongside, he would have never made the left hand portion of the chicane without nearly coming to a stop. Alain clunked him, no question.

[HB?!]

You're right MacFan, it wasn't. I never said Senna wasn't an ass... But if they had done something to Prost that year, maybe Senna and Schumacher would have tought twice when trying to knock another driver off the track.

[MacFan]

They should have made an example of Prost. The trouble is, this debate is still a debate 10 years later, because many people still believe Prost was innocent. Senna's shunt in 1990 and Schumacher's in 1997 were much more blatant, and should IMO have been punished.

Senna didn't learn his dodgem-car tactics from Prost - on the contrary, Senna did more than anybody else to bring these tactics to F1. Prost was clumsily trying to do the same as Senna regularly did to him, in much the same way as Damon Hill always looked ham-fisted when he tried to block or pass like Schumacher.

[Simioni]

mtl'78,

I just watched it again and Senna went into the pitlane exit to get alongside.

The pitlane entrance is painted on the actual race track. Anytime you get two cars alongside there the one in the inside will be on the "pitlane".

From Prost's onboard cam he seems to take the corner normally

From the helicopter shot you see Prost turning in way earlier than the normal line. From the onboard camera you see his head looking at the mirror instead of aiming at the apex, as he turns into Senna.

and Senna wasn't even with him

He didn't have to be. Racing etiquette says that with 2/3 of the car inside somebody, you have the corner. Shot from the helicopter shows Senna with way more than 2/3 alongside Prost. His front wheels were aligned with Prost's steering wheel, thus the corner was his.



Those of you saying Senna could have avoided it. Why should he? It's lap 47 of 53. You're 6 laps away from losing the championship. Guy in front leaves you the door opened, what do you do? It was Prost's job to make sure that the door was closed. If he took a nap and Senna managed to get alongside, that's Prost's problem. It's too late to throw hands to the air and act like a brat. It's this attitude that cost Schumacher the 97 championship. At least that time justice was made.

[Rainstorm]

Originally posted by MacFan
They should have made an example of Prost. The trouble is, this debate is still a debate 10 years later, because many people still believe Prost was innocent. Senna's shunt in 1990 and Schumacher's in 1997 were much more blatant, and should IMO have been punished.

Senna didn't learn his dodgem-car tactics from Prost - on the contrary, Senna did more than anybody else to bring these tactics to F1. Prost was clumsily trying to do the same as Senna regularly did to him, in much the same way as Damon Hill always looked ham-fisted when he tried to block or pass like Schumacher.

Excellent post and excellent point made - thank you!

[MacFan]

Simioni,

As I've already stated, if Senna thought Prost would meekly roll over and let Senna tickle his belly, after the way he had chopped and blocked Prost all season, with the WDC at stake, then surely he was extremely naive.

There is not enough room at that chicane for 2 F1 cars to go round side by side, therefore any overtaking move needs the co-operation of the car in front.

[Simioni]

Macfan,

after the way he had chopped and blocked Prost all season

Hmm I think that's a bit over the top. Besides the infamous imola agreement and the start at Silverstone, there was hardly any racing between those 2 in 89. I always thought that Prost whined just a bit too much, a lot like DC these days. Senna and Schumacher are no angels but it seems to me that Prost (like DC) was always ready to cry a river whenever the other guy gave him less than free road...

There is not enough room at that chicane for 2 F1 cars to go round side by side

True. Hence, if someone manages to get alongside you there, you lose the corner. Simple. Turning into someone who is right beside you is not lack of cooperation, it's just plain out of line. If Prost didn't want to make things easy for Senna, he should have kept the door closed all the way. Again, if he misjudged the gap and Senna's braking abilities, that's his problem.

It's mighty ironic that 3 laps later, Senna caught up with Nannini (who was fighting for his 1st win) and passed him in the same place the exact same way. No one accused him of being over-agressive or Nannini of being too cooperative...

[MacFan]

Simioni

OK my memory failed me, if you include 1988 season there were several occasions when Senna was over-aggressive towards Prost, including Portugal, where Senna attempted to force Prost into the wall on the pit straight.

Anyway, regardless of which season it happened, Prost was pissed off with Senna, and wanted to win the WDC. He had said prior to the race that if Ayrton put him into another situation where he had to back off or they would both crash, he would not back off. With this in mind, why did Senna think Prost would back off and let him through? I'm not defending what Prost did, just pointing out that it should have been obvious that Prost would adopt the "keep him behind at all costs" mentality, as used by Senna.

Actually, Prost's words were very similar to DC's after the French GP. It's interesting to see you mention them both as whiners. I see them both as good drivers who believe in racing ethics, trying to express their annoyance and frustration with their unethical rivals.

[kenny]

hmm. how come 3 laps later Senna passed Nannini in the exact same sport, at the exact same speed??? and managed to pass him...

[BuzzingHornet]

Jo Ramirez of McLaren said (in an interview with F1 Racing about a year ago) that that collision was the biggest mistake of Prosts career, especially as they got the car bakc to the garage and found that it was completely undamaged... Prost could have just put it in gear and trundled back onto the track and won the race fair and square, but when they collided his wheels were wrenched violently to the side, so he assumed the car was damaged. He never realised that the steering wheel was at the same angle...

[MacFan]

Originally posted by kenny
hmm. how come 3 laps later Senna passed Nannini in the exact same sport, at the exact same speed??? and managed to pass him...

Nannini's Benetton-Ford wasn't even in the same race as Senna's McLaren-Honda. It was on the same track at the same time, but might as well have been an F3000. Also Nannini didn't have the same "issues" with Senna as Prost did.

People don't seem to understand my point. I didn't say it was impossible to pass at the chicane, I said the driver in front has to co-operate for the move to succeed.

[mtl'78]

People are more apt to criticize prost because Senna is no longer around to defend himself and Prost is. It was a bad overtaking attempt, from too far behind. Even Senna couldn't pass someone like Prost from 20 meters behind. He should have realized that they both had the same braking distances so it would have taken a mistake to pass cleanly. Senna tried to barge his way through and Prost shut the door. You didn't see Senna take ANY action to avoid the accident. He was bent on passing at all costs, and it cost him.

[whiplash]

suzuka 89 was a double whammy for senna. after the incident, which (i believe) was prost's fault, senna was disqualified after winning and then balestre (fia president) slapped a one year suspended ban on senna's head and fined him $xxx for dangerous driving. it seemed like a big sick joke, and was a big contribution (apart from prost)to how senna was feeling one year later.

[Simioni]

Macfan,

Senna said in Suzuka 90 that after the stewards' decision to keep pole position in the dirty side of the track, there would be no way that he would let Prost make the 1st corner ahead. Using your logic, Prost should have known better and left room for Senna, since it was obvious Senna was decided to go for it. Doesn't make any sense does it?


mtl'78,

People are more apt to criticize prost because Senna is no longer around to defend himself and Prost is.

You don't see anybody taking it easier on Senna when talking about Suzuka 90 just because he's dead. Actually it's always brought up whenever people are making a point about his greatness as a driver, often used to overstate how unethical a driver he was, even though he's no longer around to defend himself. Your theory holds no water.

It was a bad overtaking attempt, from too far behind. Even Senna couldn't pass someone like Prost from 20 meters behind. He should have realized that they both had the same braking distances so it would have taken a mistake to pass cleanly. Senna tried to barge his way through and Prost shut the door. You didn't see Senna take ANY action to avoid the accident. He was bent on passing at all costs, and it cost him.

Sorry, this is nonsense. He did come from a long distance, but still managed to get alongside, at a slow enough speed. If you can't see that I can do nothing for you but suggest a good pair of glasses. What should he do to avoid the accident, turn into a hellicopter and fly over Prost? He was taking part in an autorace and was presented with an opportunity to pass. The inside line was open, he took it, and he was in position to claim the corner by the time Prost decided to do something about it. Feel free to believe what you wish, but don't try to rationalize the impossible ;)

[MacFan]

Simioni,

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I'm sure Prost was aware of the noises Senna was making as he threw his toys out of the pram. He should have expected him to try a move at the first corner. Maybe he just couldn't believe that Senna would be lunatic enough to ram him at over 150mph with 24 cars right behind them. It is hardly the same as Prost saying the previous year that he would not move over again if Ayrton forced him into a position where either he moved over or they both crashed. And no, none of this type of driving makes any sense.

[Turbo]

I will always remember this incident well. I had not been watching F1 for long and was shocked by the entire thing. First, that Prost was allowed to win the title after deliberately turning into a car that had made it alongside. Second, that Senna was blamed for the incident. Third, that Senna was threatened with his superlicense being taken away and a ban! None of this make's Senna's more blatant and far more dangerous move in the following season acceptable, of course, but I can understand how he got into that frame of mind. This was, for me, the start of a truly absurdist drama starring the FIA that is still continuing. There are far too many incidents to list, including the 1994 attempt to fix things to remain interesting to the end and the Ferrari barge board incident of last year (not to mention really poor technical regulation decisions).

What should have happened? Give Prost (or whomever) a 10-point penalty for crashing out an opponent. That would solve the whole thing and make the action self-defeating. Instead, the FIA told Senna and the world that it was okay to crash out your opponent to win a title, a lessson that Schumacher learned well. Perhaps they felt it was too close to call, if so, they should have come forward and stated this. Instead, Prost gets the title, and Senna gets blamed for being taken out by an opponent and threatened with a 1-year ban. Unbelievable. It's been 13 years and I still don't believe it.

[Chris G.]

It truly is haunting how similar Prost's and MS's in car shots are. They try once to wreck someone, it doesn't work, so they turn it harder to make it stick.

MS rose above the idiocy of trying to rationalize it. After all these years Prost still insists he did nothing wrong. Karma - Prost is paying for it still today. What a jerk.