Suzuka 1989, proof Prost took Senna out deliberately

[mattikake]

REALIST123 said:

oyster said:

mattikake said:

From what I have seen around, there's a lot of people that still think it was just a "racing accident". Mostly idiots, noobs and youtubers etc. granted... but also quite a few I've seen on PH.

Maybe those people will keep quiet from posting this time?

Even if deliberate it was at slow speed and not dangerous at all. What Senna did the following year was 10 times worse and 2 wrongs don't make a right (although they did back then as they both won championships - albeit the wrong way round).

At least Senna told everyone he was going to do it.

...And why. Also Senna never denied it. Prost keeps doing so, even in a book as recent as Senna versus Prost.

[Spanna]

theshrew said:

Senna got his own back. It was obvious that was going to happen at the time. All the talk was about the pole position placement.

In some respects i think Senna got a bad deal from the FIA especially when that French fella was in charge ( i forget his name ) he certainly seemed to look after Prost.

I should mention I wasn't born until after Senna's death.

What I know is simply from watching replays of the races, the Senna documentary and talking to my uncle. I still maintain that Prost was good, but he did seem helped along far too often by the head of F1 at that time, much like how the Italians have/had complete control over World Superbikes and also how Rossi has been favoured in MotoGP in the past.

It is clear Prost provoked a situation where a collision was likely and took advantage of his position to win the championship as did Senna. Not that anyone could blame him, everything seemed to be decided against him. Changing the side of the track of pole position after he already gained the position. It was clear to everyone that decision was to benefit Prost.

Corruption, plain to see that no one could or did do anything about. wkers.

Edited by Spanna on Monday 1st October 17:56

[Alfanatic]

Spanna said:

theshrew said:

Senna got his own back. It was obvious that was going to happen at the time. All the talk was about the pole position placement.

In some respects i think Senna got a bad deal from the FIA especially when that French fella was in charge ( i forget his name ) he certainly seemed to look after Prost.

I should mention I wasn't born until after Senna's death.

What I know is simply from watching replays of the races, the Senna documentary and talking to my uncle. I still maintain that Prost was good, but he did seem helped along far too often by the head of F1 at that time, much like how the Italians have/had complete control over World Superbikes and also how Rossi has been favoured in MotoGP in the past.

It is clear Prost provoked a situation where a collision was likely and took advantage of his position to win the championship as did Senna. Not that anyone could blame him, everything seemed to be decided against him. Changing the side of the track of pole position after he already gained the position. It was clear to everyone that decision was to benefit Prost.

Corruption, plain to see that no one could or did do anything about. wkers.

Edited by Spanna on Monday 1st October 17:56

Senna was moaning because they decided not to change the pole position side when he asked them to, not because they did change it. It had always been on the right at Suzuka, though ultimately Senna's point was acknowledged and pole at Suzuka is now on the left.

Also those those saying that Senna just did it as revenge are forgetting why Prost did it in the first place, and that he also gave warning that he was tired of jumping out of the way when Senna gave him move over or crash ultimatums, and that the next time he was not going to move out the way.

This didn't all start at Suzuka 1989.

Oh and Mattikake, seriously, if you want a thread full of only people who share your own opinion, start your own forum.

Edited by Alfanatic on Monday 1st October 18:27

[Mr_Thyroid]

REALIST123 said:

At least Senna told everyone he was going to do it.

That makes it premeditated and worse in the eyes of anyone who's intelligence is beyond that of the playground.

[nsa]

Nice analysis, but I much preferred your video of Lewis's overtakes:

http://vimeo.com/50429563

Thanks for putting them together.

[pw32]

NISaxoVTR said:

Most drivers take a different line when someone is closing on them to over take, I don't think that is proof positive that he had plotted to 'take him out' from the begining. I personally think he decided he wasn't going to be bullied/embarrassed by Senna and put his car in a position where he let Senna decide if they would have an accident or not.

Interesting and agree with this, I watched the video having not seen the incident for many years fair happy that Prost deliberately caused the crash, however watching your video I now think it was actually more Senna's doing. Sure Prost was over more, but that is a natural when you are defending a position. In my view (as a racer) with Prost positioning his car in that manor that would deter most people from trying to overtake as the move isn't on unless the other driver is willing to make allowances and avoid the contact. Senna should of, and i am sure did know but still went for it. Either way Prost held the cards and he stuck a move on him and ran out tarmac. Whilst I cannot remember the laps coming up to this I am sure there are better opportunities to make a move stick. All looked a bit amateur hour from Senna and desperate.

In my opinion whilst the video is good the evidence presented doesn't back up the case.

PS: For the sake of clarity I was never a big Senna or Prost fan.

[Clevers]

mattikake said:

https://vimeo.com/48685407

Catch it before FOM attempt to hide the truth (again).

Disclaimer: I made this vid ages ago and the it's a bit ropey - a couple of edits away from the final version, but doing the overlays and stills themselves took about a week. I was going to show comparison of Prost's line from Senna's perspective through 130R on a normal lap, and the lap where he was suckering him in. The difference was visual to the viewer and therefore, huge. But due to repeated blocks and attention from FOM, I lost interest.

Who cares, Mansell was better than both of them and would have dummied Prost one way and then gone the other, or just have gone round the outside heroically.

On a serious note, great video analysis work, but shouldn't you get out more?

[Dave200]

This is about the fourth time I have seen you post this video, which is bordering on obsessive...

[weyland yutani]

The worst thing about the whole incident wasn't Prost's unsporting behaviour but the ridiculous DSQ handed to Senna for "missing the chicane".

[Fire99]

weyland yutani said:

The worst thing about the whole incident wasn't Prost's unsporting behaviour but the ridiculous DSQ handed to Senna for "missing the chicane".

Sadly Balastre made it far too obvious that he was discriminating against Senna. That was a blatant incident. As much as Senna was a pretty ruthless racer, he certainly appeared a fairly sensitive bloke within.

To be honest the whole Balastre saga would have boiled my wee too!

[DJRC]

theshrew said:

Spanna said:

As much of a bd I think Prost was, he was still a truly great driver. What about the other Senna/Prost crash the following season?

Senna got his own back. It was obvious that was going to happen at the time. All the talk was about the pole position placement.

In some respects i think Senna got a bad deal from the FIA especially when that French fella was in charge ( i forget his name ) he certainly seemed to look after Prost.

You dont know your history very well then. Balestre and Prost loathed each other and Prost was invariably more outspoken about him than Senna who was often perceived as the golden boy and got special treatment.

[mattikake]

NISaxoVTR said:

Most drivers take a different line when someone is closing on them to over take, I don't think that is proof positive that he had plotted to 'take him out' from the begining. I personally think he decided he wasn't going to be bullied/embarrassed by Senna and put his car in a position where he let Senna decide if they would have an accident or not.

Did you see the bit where Prost is aiming to turning onto the grass on the inside of the corner in the vid and continues to do so after contact is made? That is not a line where the decision to crash is Senna's. It's a line to make deliberate contact.

pw32 said:

Interesting and agree with this, I watched the video having not seen the incident for many years fair happy that Prost deliberately caused the crash, however watching your video I now think it was actually more Senna's doing. Sure Prost was over more, but that is a natural when you are defending a position. In my view (as a racer) with Prost positioning his car in that manor that would deter most people from trying to overtake as the move isn't on unless the other driver is willing to make allowances and avoid the contact. Senna should of, and i am sure did know but still went for it. Either way Prost held the cards and he stuck a move on him and ran out tarmac. Whilst I cannot remember the laps coming up to this I am sure there are better opportunities to make a move stick. All looked a bit amateur hour from Senna and desperate.

In my opinion whilst the video is good the evidence presented doesn't back up the case.

PS: For the sake of clarity I was never a big Senna or Prost fan.

I think you need to watch the video again then. The points I made are a fact of the evidence that appears absolutely only due to overlaying the frames - to the point that not even I expected to see what I found, as per the comments in the vid.

Some other facts;
- Senna never got as close to Prost in the entire race as he did on this lap (which annoys me as Prost could've won fair and square).
- There is more than a full car width between Senna and Prost, as Senna manoeuvers down the inside. Even with today's rules, this does not constitute a fair block.
- Senna's car was straight and true, fully on the tarmac. He did not run out of anything.
- "Should have".

You're a "racer"? No chance.

[vonuber]

Next week: positive proof MSC rammed JV deliberately.

Don't miss our fortnight anniversary show featuring Benedict II who may be a catholic.

[mattikake]

Alfanatic said:

Also those those saying that Senna just did it as revenge are forgetting why Prost did it in the first place, and that he also gave warning that he was tired of jumping out of the way when Senna gave him move over or crash ultimatums, and that the next time he was not going to move out the way.

Senna didn't make one single "move over or crash" overtake on Prost up until Suzuka '89. He made a dodgey block in Estoril (a move where Senna moved first, then Prost - which means it cannot be a reactive block, only an over-zealous proactive defense. In reality given the difference between Senna moving, then Prost, was 4 frames @ 25fps = 0.16 seconds and human reaction time is 0.3 seconds, it was neither reactive by Prost or Senna. It was just chance.) and broke the first corner agreement in Imola.

The "move over or crash" angle is Prost trying to cover-up his sore losership. Mansell had far more reason to have that opinion than Prost!

But yeah, it didn't start just in Suzuka '89.

Alfanatic said:

Oh and Mattikake, seriously, if you want a thread full of only people who share your own opinion, start your own forum.

Dunno what I was after tbh. Not long uploaded the vid after it being blocked and then denied by YT for a couple of years (and some rather interesting emails from someone claiming to work for FOM), I thought I'd try Vimeo, so stuck it up. You'll note it's only been up a few weeks, as have the others, as I see how far I can get to repopulate stuff, before FOM step in again I bet.

There's some, and there still are, "those who do not see". All fun though.

[skeggysteve]

All I see from the OP's video is another Senna fan unable accept the fact that Senna was flawed.
Senna was good, yes, but like MSC he wasn't 'that' good.

If either of them were 'that' good why did they have to cheat or do the off the start 'chop'?

If you want to understand how a really great driver treats other drivers on the track I suggest you read other drivers comments about Gilles Villeneuve - look out for the quote from Keke Rosberg and the one referring to wet qualifying in Canada, can't remember the driver, but it's well worth finding.

[Ahonen]

mattikake said:

The "move over or crash" angle is Prost trying to cover-up his sore losership.

Utter rubbish, as well you know. You must try to understand that Senna was a dirty driver, despite your obvious hero worship. He pioneered the 'move or crash' style that Schumacher utilised so effectively afterwards. This is not a Prost opinion, it is the opinion of many, many people who worked in or watched F1 at the time.

As an aside, that Senna film was not exactly unbiased and it surprises and disappoints me how many people have taken the careful editing as absolute fact. As someone pointed out above, Prost absolutely hated Balestre.

[AreOut]

skeggysteve said:

If either of them were 'that' good why did they have to cheat or do the off the start 'chop'?

Where did Senna cheat exactly? Aggressive driving is not cheating, turning into someone is. There is a line. Thin one though.

[mattikake]

mattikake said:

Alfanatic said:

that he [Prost] also gave warning that he was tired of jumping out of the way when Senna gave him move over or crash ultimatums

Senna didn't make one single "move over or crash" overtake on Prost up until Suzuka '89.

The "move over or crash" angle is Prost trying to cover-up his sore losership.

Ahonen said:

Utter rubbish, as well you know. You must try to understand that Senna was a dirty driver,

Just re-quoting the original context. It was implied Prost was sick of Senna crashing into him. I point out no such event ever happened, much less repeatedly.

The only utter rubbish was your selective quoting implying that my statement referred to everyone, as well you know.

I make no reference to Senna's reputation or other incidents with other drivers. However, of such claims to the "move or crash" stance there were fewer incidents than most on the grid today. If you choose to refute, watch the races, try counting the incidents that were proven/known/accepted to be his fault. Last time I counted, it was 3.

Ahonen said:

your obvious hero worship.

I do not worship Senna. I worship empiricism. I was a Mansell fan then, Gilles fan before that and a Hamilton fan now. I just happen to see right through Prost in this particular scenario, because I've seen similar many times before (can't beat them? Try some other angle) and in some cases there is video evidence to back me up.

Ahonen said:

He pioneered the 'move or crash' style that Schumacher utilised so effectively afterwards. This is not a Prost opinion, it is the opinion of many, many people who worked in or watched F1 at the time.

Another fact, Senna never took out a single person in an attempted overtake (apart from the deliberate crash at Suzuka '90, which of course wasn't actually an attempted overtake). If you choose to refute, try counting the incidents. They come to 0.

If it was a "move or crash" style it worked out as just "move". The crash interpretation is completely fabricated by someone who doesn't like losing in an equal fight... (can't beat them? Try some other angle)

Senna and the Schmacker are not cut from the same cloth.

Ahonen said:

As an aside, that Senna film was not exactly unbiased and it surprises and disappoints me how many people have taken the careful editing as absolute fact.

Are you seriously attempting to imply my opinion is tainted by one (crap) Senna movie or that I have edited the Suzuka incident to favour Senna? I watched all this unfold first time round live, and as you may guess, I have every race from 1980 on my PC. I have no need to watch a one-sided documentary to reform my 30-year opinion.

The curious thing about implying assumption; is that they tend to come from those who are so used to making so many themselves, that cannot comprehend how other people can look at things empricially.

Edited by mattikake on Tuesday 2nd October 02:50

[John D.]

johnfelstead said:

What's a youtuber and why is it a bad thing? lol

Go on YouTube and read some of the comments to a vid such as this. There's your answer

[Alfanatic]

mattikake said:

mattikake said:

Alfanatic said:

that he [Prost] also gave warning that he was tired of jumping out of the way when Senna gave him move over or crash ultimatums

Senna didn't make one single "move over or crash" overtake on Prost up until Suzuka '89.

The "move over or crash" angle is Prost trying to cover-up his sore losership.

Ahonen said:

Utter rubbish, as well you know. You must try to understand that Senna was a dirty driver,

Just re-quoting the original context. It was implied Prost was sick of Senna crashing into him. I point out no such event ever happened, much less repeatedly.

The only utter rubbish was your selective quoting implying that my statement referred to everyone, as well you know.

I make no reference to Senna's reputation or other incidents with other drivers. However, of such claims to the "move or crash" stance there were fewer incidents than most on the grid today. If you choose to refute, watch the races, try counting the incidents that were proven/known/accepted to be his fault. Last time I counted, it was 3.

Ahonen said:

your obvious hero worship.

I do not worship Senna. I worship empiricism. I was a Mansell fan then, Gilles fan before that and a Hamilton fan now. I just happen to see right through Prost in this particular scenario, because I've seen similar many times before (can't beat them? Try some other angle) and in some cases there is video evidence to back me up.

Ahonen said:

He pioneered the 'move or crash' style that Schumacher utilised so effectively afterwards. This is not a Prost opinion, it is the opinion of many, many people who worked in or watched F1 at the time.

Another fact, Senna never took out a single person in an attempted overtake (apart from the deliberate crash at Suzuka '90, which of course wasn't actually an attempted overtake). If you choose to refute, try counting the incidents. They come to 0.

If it was a "move or crash" style it worked out as just "move". The crash interpretation is completely fabricated by someone who doesn't like losing in an equal fight... (can't beat them? Try some other angle)

Senna and the Schmacker are not cut from the same cloth.

Ahonen said:

As an aside, that Senna film was not exactly unbiased and it surprises and disappoints me how many people have taken the careful editing as absolute fact.

Are you seriously attempting to imply my opinion is tainted by one (crap) Senna movie or that I have edited the Suzuka incident to favour Senna? I watched all this unfold first time round live, and as you may guess, I have every race from 1980 on my PC. I have no need to watch a one-sided documentary to reform my 30-year opinion.

The curious thing about implying assumption; is that they tend to come from those who are so used to making so many themselves, that cannot comprehend how other people can look at things empricially.

Edited by mattikake on Tuesday 2nd October 02:50

it didn't because Prost kept jumping out of the way, up until Suzuka. But whatever, as usual it's "none so blind as those who don't see it mattikake's way", same st new day. This is only going to end in repetition leading to personal insults, so I'm out.