Senna vs Brundle

[ferrisbueller]

JNW1 said:

ferrisbueller said:

Senna taking Prost off is well documented, Prost doing the same the other way around the previous year, not so much.

It wasn't the same though was it? To make the overtake stick at the chicane would have needed Prost's co-operation (in the sense of leaving the door open) and Prost was never going to do that (and nor would Senna had the positions been reversed!).

This is the joy of debate. Prost had said he would shut the door and he did. However, he did so in such a way which betrayed the fact it was a blatant punt. As blatant as the following year, just at a lower speed.

JNW1 said:

ferrisbueller said:

Prost blocking Senna's move to Williams would IMO appear to be a weakness, but justifiable given in like-for-like equipment Senna would have stuffed him, again.

In the two years together at McLaren it was one title each and, while Senna was without doubt the quicker of the two over a flying lap, Prost was invariably much closer in race conditions and was also better at setting-up the car. So not exactly stuffed, if Ayrton had been that much better he'd have won the world titles in both 1988 and 1989 with ease but he didn't! In terms of blocking a competitive team mate, didn't Senna do exactly that to stop Lotus hiring Derek Warwick?

In 1989, other than Brazil, Prost only "beat" Senna, when Senna didn't finish i.e. when both cars finished, Senna won.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Formula_One_sea...

Senna finished in Japan, and won, only for Balestre to decide he hadn't completed the race distance after Prost's punt failed to disable the car. Balestre's intervention took 9 points from Senna. We're then into the wonderful of what ifs to guess what would have happened next.

JNW1 said:

ferrisbueller said:

It's amazing all of the other stuff that people overlook or forget.

Or choose to remember with their own slant on it!

Absolutely, though you may have misunderstood my comments. I was responding to the suggestion that Prost was angelic, not trying to suggest that Senna himself was - he surrendered any moral high ground he could ever have hoped for in 1990.

Wasn't this thread about Brundle?!

[amgmcqueen]

Eric Mc said:

Senna made LOADS of mistakes. Despite what many people seem to think, he was human - and he made mistakes.

Why is every post you make regarding Senna tinged with disdain?

[tumble dryer]

amgmcqueen said:

Eric Mc said:

Senna made LOADS of mistakes. Despite what many people seem to think, he was human - and he made mistakes.

Why is every post you make regarding Senna tinged with disdain?

Start from the top of the thread and read down; I think he's explained himself pretty well.

You might not agree, but that's what forums are about.

[JNW1]

ferrisbueller said:

Absolutely, though you may have misunderstood my comments. I was responding to the suggestion that Prost was angelic, not trying to suggest that Senna himself was - he surrendered any moral high ground he could ever have hoped for in 1990.

Wasn't this thread about Brundle?!

I think the comment made about Prost was that he was flawless rather than angelic and I took that to mean he wasn't an aggressive or dirty driver in the same way Senna was. Generally I think that's fair in the sense Prost rarely had comings together with other drivers whereas that was almost normal for Senna (and not just in F1, from memory he regularly had incidents in F3 as well including with Brundle on more than one occasion). I think there's little doubt Prost was quite political out of the car but on track he would generally allow people room to race and not barge his way through or deliberately cause accidents; Suzuka 1989 was probably the one occasion where he behaved differently but he'd said quite clearly that he wasn't going to leave the door open for Senna any more and was good to his word. The fact he closed it in a relatively clumsy way probably shows it wasn't a natural thing for him to do but where did the blame lie, with Prost for closing the door (as he said he would) or with Senna for putting himself in a position where he was relying on the co-operation of his title rival to complete the overtake? Given the circumstances personally I think Senna would have been better advised to make a clean move elsewhere on the track but it's one of those things where opinion will always be divided; however, even if you put the blame 100% on Prost (which I don't) I think it would be grossly unfair to use that one incident as evidence his on-track behaviour was no different from Senna - the reality is he was nowhere near as aggressive and IMO his style was much closer to that of (say) a Jackie Stewart.

You're right, this thread was meant to be about Brundle but the fact we still debate Senna and Prost after all these years probably reflects that that era was something special in the sport - rare to have two drivers of that calibre in the same car and given licence by their team to race!

[Eric Mc]

amgmcqueen said:

Why is every post you make regarding Senna tinged with disdain?

It's not - but he should be recognised for what he was - a seriously driven individual who had many human failings He also had the ability to push himself to the limit and motivate those around him .

And later in life his work outside of F1 was commendable.

But he wasn't a god. He wasn't perfect. And he was heavily criticised at times during his racing career for some of the things he did on and off track.

[Vocal Minority]

ferrisbueller said:

T

The theory of his death cementing his legacy is equally flawed. The extra WDCs he would have won had he lived would have taken care of that. FFS, he already had three and his CV was hardly lacking in examples of brilliance.

.

No one is saying it secured his legacy - no one would contest his talent or impact. I am saying that the kind of international devotion, which in some quarters borders on the messianic, would not have occurred and there would be a greater divide between those who had affection (note affection, not respect or recognition) for him as a great of the sport.

[ferrisbueller]

Vocal Minority said:

ferrisbueller said:

T

The theory of his death cementing his legacy is equally flawed. The extra WDCs he would have won had he lived would have taken care of that. FFS, he already had three and his CV was hardly lacking in examples of brilliance.

.

No one is saying it secured his legacy - no one would contest his talent or impact. I am saying that the kind of international devotion, which in some quarters borders on the messianic, would not have occurred and there would be a greater divide between those who had affection (note affection, not respect or recognition) for him as a great of the sport.

Only in Brazil have I seen devotion of a quasi-religious nature and one could argue it's merited based on what he represented to the country and his legacy in real terms. However, he had that status in life as well as death. Internationally, it's more generally limited to motorsports fans IME. In Brazil, it was pretty much everyone, again IME. And this is 20 years after his death.

I've been to Sao Paulo and I've been to Cemeterio do Morumbi which is manned by armed guards and where a steady stream of people flows through the gates to go and pay their respects. When the guards stopped us as the gates my friend who took me just told the guards that I'd "Come to see Ayrton" - respectful nods exchanged, gates opened. His presence is visible all over the place still in street art, in the media, on posters etc. I can't think I've ever seen anything like it elsewhere.

Agree that absence makes the heart grow fonder and all that and again we're into the realms of opinions and what ifs. I think most people can look at it with a balanced view. I'm a fan. I have pieces of his cars ffs but I can still see the flaws and limitations and now and again he'd piss me off when he used to beat our Nigel.

I never saw Villeneuve (the proper one), Clark, Fangio, Nuvolari or others who people speak of as the Greatest race. Some of those also died too young but none are, as far as I am aware, spoken about in the same way that Senna is/was. Maybe it's a generational thing and the change of media over time. I wouldn't argue the case for anyone being definitively the best as it can never be anything other than hypothetical.

However, I have never seen anyone else "drive" a racing car the way that Senna could and so I see him as such - an effect compounded by that era of 80's and 90's F1 where, safety aside, the sport was arguably at its peak.

Annnnywayyyyy, I think Brundle did an admirable job of keeping tabs on him and is a bloody nice bloke to boot.

[ferrisbueller]

JNW1 said:

ferrisbueller said:

Absolutely, though you may have misunderstood my comments. I was responding to the suggestion that Prost was angelic, not trying to suggest that Senna himself was - he surrendered any moral high ground he could ever have hoped for in 1990.

Wasn't this thread about Brundle?!

I think the comment made about Prost was that he was flawless rather than angelic and I took that to mean he wasn't an aggressive or dirty driver in the same way Senna was. Generally I think that's fair in the sense Prost rarely had comings together with other drivers whereas that was almost normal for Senna (and not just in F1, from memory he regularly had incidents in F3 as well including with Brundle on more than one occasion). I think there's little doubt Prost was quite political out of the car but on track he would generally allow people room to race and not barge his way through or deliberately cause accidents; Suzuka 1989 was probably the one occasion where he behaved differently but he'd said quite clearly that he wasn't going to leave the door open for Senna any more and was good to his word. The fact he closed it in a relatively clumsy way probably shows it wasn't a natural thing for him to do but where did the blame lie, with Prost for closing the door (as he said he would) or with Senna for putting himself in a position where he was relying on the co-operation of his title rival to complete the overtake? Given the circumstances personally I think Senna would have been better advised to make a clean move elsewhere on the track but it's one of those things where opinion will always be divided; however, even if you put the blame 100% on Prost (which I don't) I think it would be grossly unfair to use that one incident as evidence his on-track behaviour was no different from Senna - the reality is he was nowhere near as aggressive and IMO his style was much closer to that of (say) a Jackie Stewart.

You're right, this thread was meant to be about Brundle but the fact we still debate Senna and Prost after all these years probably reflects that that era was something special in the sport - rare to have two drivers of that calibre in the same car and given licence by their team to race!

Agree. People like JYS won multiple titles without the negative publicity related to flare ups. Also that Prost won races off the track. It is ironic that Senna was hoisted by his own petard in so much as, per Brundle's (I'm trying to include him!) comments, he put his car in a risky place and dared Prost to do something about it, which he duly did. I don't think Prost thought he would lunge there - he wasn't on a defensive line. To suggest he'd left the door ajar to have the opportunity to slam it shut would be a speculation too far IMO but the punt was as blatant a move as you could ever wish to see. However, it's an opinion. One man's closing the door, is another man's blatant punt - also see Schumacher vs Hill at Adelaide. However, Senna did then win the race

Also agree that we look back on it as a golden age. Today's F1 is a fk show. I've not given up all hope as it's only a few years since we had 7 different winners of the first 7 races and there are multiple WDCs on the grid but right now I much prefer watching old clips on YouTube!

[angrymoby]

ferrisbueller said:

Agree. People like JYS won multiple titles without the negative publicity related to flare ups. Also that Prost won races off the track. It is ironic that Senna was hoisted by his own petard in so much as, per Brundle's (I'm trying to include him!) comments, he put his car in a risky place and dared Prost to do something about it, which he duly did. I don't think Prost thought he would lunge there - he wasn't on a defensive line. To suggest he'd left the door ajar to have the opportunity to slam it shut would be a speculation too far IMO but the punt was as blatant a move as you could ever wish to see. However, it's an opinion. One man's closing the door, is another man's blatant punt - also see Schumacher vs Hill at Adelaide. However, Senna did then win the race

Also agree that we look back on it as a golden age. Today's F1 is a fk show. I've not given up all hope as it's only a few years since we had 7 different winners of the first 7 races and there are multiple WDCs on the grid but right now I much prefer watching old clips on YouTube!

the Schumacher/ Hill punt wasn't in the same Continent, let alone ball park as Prost/ Senna ...it was that blatant

[JNW1]

ferrisbueller said:

However, Senna did then win the race

Well technically he didn't although I always thought he was excluded for the wrong reason! His car was moved off the track into the escape road and he got a push start from there; not just a case of him managing to bump start it as it was being recovered from a dangerous position, he clearly waved at the marshals to give him a push to get him going when the car is already in the escape road - surely illegal and never understood why that wasn't the reason for his disqualification. He did miss the chicane as well but that happens quite often and isn't normally something that results in disqualification!

ferrisbueller said:

Also agree that we look back on it as a golden age. Today's F1 is a fk show. I've not given up all hope as it's only a few years since we had 7 different winners of the first 7 races and there are multiple WDCs on the grid but right now I much prefer watching old clips on YouTube!

I do find current F1 far less interesting than 20 or 30 years ago but I worry that's just me slipping into grumpy old man syndrome and thinking everything was better in the Good Old Days! The noise of the current cars is horrible though - I would also prefer to listen to a Ferrari V12 on YouTube!

[ferrisbueller]

angrymoby said:

the Schumacher/ Hill punt wasn't in the same Continent, let alone ball park as Prost/ Senna ...it was that blatant

Oh I dunno, I think Schumacher's was pretty bad to be honest

[angrymoby]

ferrisbueller said:

angrymoby said:

the Schumacher/ Hill punt wasn't in the same Continent, let alone ball park as Prost/ Senna ...it was that blatant

Oh I dunno, I think Schumacher's was pretty bad to be honest

[FeelingLucky]

ferrisbueller said:

Agree. People like JYS won multiple titles without the negative publicity related to flare ups. Also that Prost won races off the track. It is ironic that Senna was hoisted by his own petard in so much as, per Brundle's (I'm trying to include him!) comments, he put his car in a risky place and dared Prost to do something about it, which he duly did. I don't think Prost thought he would lunge there - he wasn't on a defensive line. To suggest he'd left the door ajar to have the opportunity to slam it shut would be a speculation too far IMO but the punt was as blatant a move as you could ever wish to see. However, it's an opinion. One man's closing the door, is another man's blatant punt - also see Schumacher vs Hill at Adelaide. However, Senna did then win the race

Also agree that we look back on it as a golden age. Today's F1 is a fk show. I've not given up all hope as it's only a few years since we had 7 different winners of the first 7 races and there are multiple WDCs on the grid but right now I much prefer watching old clips on YouTube!

SURELY the phrase "closing the door" pre supposes the driver taking the corner normally or in some way aiming for the apex, as if nobody else was present?

This is NOT what happened in Suzuka 89, Prost turned in multiple car lengths BEFORE the corner.

Rosberg commented at the time about how "unskilled" Prost was in the act of taking somebody out, as a testament to how little he does it.

[Schermerhorn]

I don't see the Hill/Schumacher incident other than a racing incident personally. Murray Walker and Damon Hill too, when pressed about it, also viewed it as a driving error by Schumacher.

There's no way he could have planned that.

Jerez 1997 definately was yes, but it's in the same context at Japan 1990 in my opnion.

Monaco 2006 was brilliant (but backfired).

[ferrisbueller]

Schermerhorn said:

I don't see the Hill/Schumacher incident other than a racing incident personally. Murray Walker and Damon Hill too, when pressed about it, also viewed it as a driving error by Schumacher.

There's no way he could have planned that.

Racing incident? Coffee - meet screen.

In keeping with the thread title, here's Brundle's thoughts and some insight into Damon's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRKZmeqvVuk

I don't think 1994 is a year to celebrate with respect to F1 in any light, lest we forget Benetton's cheating on and off the circuit.

I think Brundle's views on Schumacher were clear and consistent.

Schermerhorn said:

Jerez 1997 definately was yes, but it's in the same context at Japan 1990 in my opnion.

Disagree. I don't recall any background context to Jerez '97 similar to that around Japan '89 and '90. Happy to be reminded of such.

I couldn't find the Brundle commentary on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYdh73MiQhw

However, I clearly remember him saying something like "That hasn't worked, Michael!"

This was just failing at cheating on an epic scale. The only thing similar to that would be, er, Ooooh....Adelaide '94.

Schermerhorn said:

Monaco 2006 was brilliant (but backfired).

I think I have a different idea of brilliance.