Senna over rated

[mattikake]

JNW1 said:

mattikake said:

I would say disagree, but it's not even that. It's simply wrong. I have evidence now that proves Prost took Senna out deliberately in 1989. ( https://vimeo.com/48685407 ) 100% catagorically Prosts intent and fault. Prost perpetuated the rumour before the race and set Senna up to fall to it, which being a racer, Senna duely obliged. Clever, conceited and a pretty evil example of bad losership, especially considering Prost could've won that race too.

All that video proves is that a driver takes a different line through a corner when he's defending a position from what he takes when he's got a clear track behind him (there's a surprise then!). The only thing that's "simply wrong" is to say the video constitutes 100% conclusive evidence that the incident was Prost's fault; frankly it does nothing of the sort IMO! The reality is that there was no way Senna could have overtaken Prost at that chicane without Prost's co-operation and Prost had made it quite clear before the race that any such co-operation wouldn't be forthcoming. However, even knowing that Senna dived down the inside - presumably thinking Prost would revert to type and do anything to avoid a coming together - and he called it wrong when Prost closed the door. Whether Prost tempted Senna to have a go is pure speculation but Senna was the one doing the overtaking and therefore the onus was on him to make sure he could make the pass stick. He obviously didn't think Prost should have turned-in but in the same circumstances would he have kept left and allowed anyone to pass him at that chicane? Of course not!

You're clearly a Senna fan and that's fair enough, lots of people are. I certainly appreciated the skill and talent he had behind the wheel but I'm afraid we'll have to agree to differ on some of the tactics he used; you obviously think he's being unfairly maligned, I think you're re-writing history through rose-tinted spectacles!

There's always one.

For the record and for upteenth time, I'm am not a fan of Senna. I never have been. I detested the guy when he was racing because I was a Mansell fan. I geered and booed him when he walked past us when he retired at Silverstone 89. I'm a fan of empiricism, nothing else. It's people like you who cannot see, read, understand or think, that really grates. I even make a little vid to make it as easy as possible just for people like you. I use trackside markers, video overlays, different angles, big bright straight lines and small words. I help as much as I can. I've converted and shut-up many... but there's always one...

The evidence is plain to see. The proven FACTS are

1) Prost turned-in early (that's TURNED-IN, not MOVED OVER @ 1:15. If he moved over, he would've had to straighten the wheel to take a 2nd bite at the apex, but he doesn't. It's because he's turning-in and still turning-in for an apex that only involves Sennas car, AFTER Senna's car is committed to coming alongside. Even when Sennas car is interlocked with Prosts, Prost STILL keeps turning-in. The mental retardation to take this as a fair defense beggars belief.),

2) Prost braked earlier @ 2:10. The two overlaid feeds start to de-sync. That can only happen if ... er... they start to become unsynchronised by something like, say, an earlier braking point. It could be magic, but I think that's unlikely.

These are the only two FACTS that vid PROVES. Anything else is conclusion based on the facts (this is how the empirical science method has worked for the last 500 years btw) and where subjection is used, it is clearly pointed out by using the word... erm... "subjective" to be duely discounted where appropriate.

So basically you're saying to defend a position you 1) aim to round the corner by turning in BEFORE the apex, thereby aiming to drive off the nearside of the track (WTF?) And 2) brake earlier thereby allowing the other driver to sail past much more easily, which somehow makes it harder for them to go past... Riiight.

Did you notice the condescending tone? I bet you saw that bit, huh?

[mattikake]

Eric Mc said:

Explain what you see here -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf_AwV66ss0

Senna moving to defend 0.16s (4 frames @ 25fps) before Prost, and because even Senna cannot see into the future, accidently shoving Prost toward the wall.

Crap camera angle btw. There is a better one.

I'll do a little vid for the dumb for this one, one day too.

[Eric Mc]

And it just goes to show - the obvious can be in front of one's eyes - but the prejudiced will always fail to see it.

[heebeegeetee]

mattikake said:

There's always one.

For the record and for upteenth time, I'm am not a fan of Senna. I never have been. I detested the guy when he was racing because I was a Mansell fan. I geered and booed him when he walked past us when he retired at Silverstone 89. I'm a fan of empiricism, nothing else. It's people like you who cannot see, read, understand or think, that really grates. I even make a little vid to make it as easy as possible just for people like you. I use trackside markers, video overlays, different angles, big bright straight lines and small words. I help as much as I can. I've converted and shut-up many... but there's always one...

The evidence is plain to see. The proven FACTS are

1) Prost turned-in early (that's TURNED-IN, not MOVED OVER @ 1:15. If he moved over, he would've had to straighten the wheel to take a 2nd bite at the apex, but he doesn't. It's because he's turning-in and still turning-in for an apex that only involves Sennas car, AFTER Senna's car is committed to coming alongside. Even when Sennas car is interlocked with Prosts, Prost STILL keeps turning-in. The mental retardation to take this as a fair defense beggars belief.),

2) Prost braked earlier @ 2:10. The two overlaid feeds start to de-sync. That can only happen if ... er... they start to become unsynchronised by something like, say, an earlier braking point. It could be magic, but I think that's unlikely.

These are the only two FACTS that vid PROVES. Anything else is conclusion based on the facts (this is how the empirical science method has worked for the last 500 years btw) and where subjection is used, it is clearly pointed out by using the word... erm... "subjective" to be duely discounted where appropriate.

So basically you're saying to defend a position you 1) aim to round the corner by turning in BEFORE the apex, thereby aiming to drive off the nearside of the track (WTF?) And 2) brake earlier thereby allowing the other driver to sail past much more easily, which somehow makes it harder for them to go past... Riiight.

Did you notice the condescending tone? I bet you saw that bit, huh?

Why do you have such an obsession with this one incident? Everyone knows what happened and everyone knew at the time. But everyone was pretty pleased to see Senna just get a little taste of his own medicine, just for once.

I'll repeat, as one of the drivers said at the time, it was so unusual for Prost to drive dirty that when he did it he did it badly.

People were getting tired at the time of the new low in ethics that Senna had brought to the sport, and nobody at the time was too bothered about this one incident. Nobody was bothered that the dirtiest driver in F1 had just been given a slap back. That was the problem Senna had afterwards, getting people to take in interest in his plight. Nobody at the time cared too much, in fact that had been rather glad to see it.

[DJRC]

i.e. a little poetic justice had been served.

One rather suspects you were a kid at the time MK, not an adult.

[Alfanatic]

mattikake said:

Alfanatic said:

You need look no further than the evasive action Nannini had to take in Suzuka '89 when Senna overtook him in the same place he tried to take Prost. Had Prost not collided with Senna earlier, then Prost would have had to do exactly the same thing Nannini did - slither straight on towards the run off with his wheels locked up and watch Senna cruise off into the distance.

Well that's just a difference of opinion that will never be agreed other than to disagree.

I've just watched this overtake again and Senna is fully alongside Nannini at least 20 metres before the apex of the final chicane, far more than he has any right or need to be, by standards then or now. Sure it's in the braking zone, but Nannini has plenty fair time to decide what to do as Senna is making the move down the inside before the braking zone. Nannini, not a drive renowed for race craft, chose to brake too hard/panic. I would say Nannini was surprised but he knew Senna was coming for several laps and at a massive and inevitable rate.

And it's not like Nannini struggled to make the corner even after lengthening his braking with a lock-up.

Seemed a perfectly fair move to me. A simple run down the inside.

What is your idea of a fair overtake, to happen in the middle of a straight with no attempt to defend it whatsoever?

Alfanatic said:

That was not an unusual Senna overtake, and Suzuka '89 wasn't the first time for him either. It was, however, very unusual in F1 at the time to force another driver to take evasive action like that. It may not be now, but it was then.

It wasn't unusual. It wasn't bad IMO.

If you want to see desperate dives you want to have a look at a most of Alboreto's out-of-control snaking overtakes (I was and still intend to do a vid on this sometime - and positive pov not negative)! Pure and simple "get out of my way" moves. And how villified is he?

There's just too much scope for others' bitterness AND lack of video evidence for me to buy any of it. Sorry. I'm too accustomed to empricism.

Alfanatic said:

You may have seen them all and decided it was all perfectly cool. I have no problem with that, but many of us have seen exactly the same things you have, and reach a different conclusion to you. Your argument that it all never happened simply doesn't wash. Brundle and Prost aren't the only two F1 drivers who were active while Senna was who disagree with your conclusion, though they are the only two apart from Mansell who were competing against him for a championship (but that wasn't the case when Mansell's hand expressed his displeasure directly to Senna's throat).

Edited by Alfanatic on Wednesday 28th November 12:39

Yep well there you go. The ONLY reason I say and insist it didn't happen this way is because most of it has been caught on film. So it's evidence. Not opinion, heresay, rumour and that of other people who were directly involved who have their own personal agendas.

btw, the Mansell incident was Spa 87 IIRC? That was 100% Mansell's fault. He tried to go round the outside at Pouhon or something in a ridiculously optimisitc move. He wasn't even alongside, let alone ahead, cut in and ran into Senna who unsurprisingly, was entering the corner. Madness.

He hung Nannini out to dry. Pretty ordinary today and not dangerous even then, but unusual then and symbolic of Senna's overtaking philosophy. My evidence is the number of people who watched Senna in F1 for many years and concluded that he was introducing a new level of ruthlessness and aggression not seen before in the sport. Even those who supported him rarely denied that he was making the other driver choose to get out of the way or have an accident, they just didn't find his tactics unpalatable, just like Schumacher fans today don't see his cheating as an unacceptable weakness but instead see it as symptomatic of his commitment to winning.

Not that it needs saying, but for the record, no, I don't take objection to every overtake that didn't happen undefended in the middle of the straight. If I did, how could I possibly single Senna out? that was a silly extrapolation on your part, really.

As for the rest, as you say, it wasn't bad In you opinion, and as I have said it was bad in mine. Two conflicting opinions, there endeth the argument.

I am looking forward to your Alboreto compilation, and I say that sincerely.

Edited by Alfanatic on Wednesday 28th November 17:13

[coppice]

mattikake said:

There's always one.

For the record and for upteenth time, I'm am not a fan of Senna. I never have been. I detested the guy when he was racing because I was a Mansell fan. I geered and booed him when he walked past us when he retired at Silverstone 89. I'm a fan of empiricism, nothing else. It's people like you who cannot see, read, understand or think, that really grates. I even make a little vid to make it as easy as possible just for people like you. I use trackside markers, video overlays, different angles, big bright straight lines and small words. I help as much as I can. I've converted and shut-up many... but there's always one...

The evidence is plain to see. The proven FACTS are

1) Prost turned-in early (that's TURNED-IN, not MOVED OVER @ 1:15. If he moved over, he would've had to straighten the wheel to take a 2nd bite at the apex, but he doesn't. It's because he's turning-in and still turning-in for an apex that only involves Sennas car, AFTER Senna's car is committed to coming alongside. Even when Sennas car is interlocked with Prosts, Prost STILL keeps turning-in. The mental retardation to take this as a fair defense beggars belief.),

2) Prost braked earlier @ 2:10. The two overlaid feeds start to de-sync. That can only happen if ... er... they start to become unsynchronised by something like, say, an earlier braking point. It could be magic, but I think that's unlikely.

These are the only two FACTS that vid PROVES. Anything else is conclusion based on the facts (this is how the empirical science method has worked for the last 500 years btw) and where subjection is used, it is clearly pointed out by using the word... erm... "subjective" to be duely discounted where appropriate.

So basically you're saying to defend a position you 1) aim to round the corner by turning in BEFORE the apex, thereby aiming to drive off the nearside of the track (WTF?) And 2) brake earlier thereby allowing the other driver to sail past much more easily, which somehow makes it harder for them to go past... Riiight.

Did you notice the condescending tone? I bet you saw that bit, huh?

Here's a question- how old were you when you jeered and booed Senna because- bless- you liked Our Noige more ? Eight ? And presumably not a big exponent of your trumpeted empiricism at the time? Here's some advice- spend a little less time obsessing over old videos and maybe get out a bit more- maybe go and watch some motor racing even ?

Edited by coppice on Wednesday 28th November 18:33

[JNW1]

mattikake said:

For the record and for upteenth time, I'm am not a fan of Senna. I never have been. I detested the guy when he was racing because I was a Mansell fan. I geered and booed him when he walked past us when he retired at Silverstone 89. I'm a fan of empiricism, nothing else. It's people like you who cannot see, read, understand or think, that really grates. I even make a little vid to make it as easy as possible just for people like you. I use trackside markers, video overlays, different angles, big bright straight lines and small words. I help as much as I can. I've converted and shut-up many... but there's always one...

Oh dear, think that little lot says far more about you than it does about me. I've had a quick look back on this thread and I can't see where you've told us on numerous occasions that you're not a Senna fan; perhaps you've made it clear on other threads but I'm not a massive follower of your posts to be honest.

In terms of the Suzuka 1989 incident, we don't actually need a video to tell us what happened (interesting though your video is). Quite simply, Prost closed the door on Senna just as he said he would if Senna attempted an ambitious overtake (and overtaking at a place that required the co-operation of the other driver would probably fall into the category of ambitious). Whether Prost tried to tempt Senna into making the move so he could take him out deliberately only Prost knows; given the history of the man I'd say it's unlikely but only Prost knows for certain. Was Prost right to close the door? It went against the grain for him to do something like that and in some ways I suspect he regrets doing it; however, he was fed-up of being bullied out of the way and had decided enough was enough. Senna would have done exactly the same if the postions had been reversed but the difference is he wouldn't have thought twice about doing it as driving like that came as second nature to him!

Anyway, you clearly have a different view on this so I think we just need to agree to disagree.

[mattikake]

Well that was such an un-PHer-like level-headed reply I now feel guilty for my outburst, so I apologise for my attitude, but not my stance.

JNW1 said:

I've had a quick look back on this thread and I can't see where you've told us on numerous occasions that you're not a Senna fan; perhaps you've made it clear on other threads but I'm not a massive follower of your posts to be honest.

Sadly, while defending empiricism (and therefore Senna) I get labelled as a Senna fan, many times. No. Fan of empiricism. The truth is as the truth is. I can accept it. So many times people can't seem to separate the two, so I continually find I have to point out I'm no fan of Senna and never was. Respect yes, fan no.

Simpleton association grates. I can accept what I see without bias. e.g. just as the vid says, my initial impression (for about 20 years) was Prost turned in on Senna, for which there could be many reasons (poor attempt at defense, error, loss of composure etc.), but when putting the evidence together it became apparent he was much more premeditated than I thought and Prost much more devious than I thought. I have accepted what I saw. My perception of Prost has changed.

JNW1 said:

Senna would have done exactly the same if the postions had been reversed but the difference is he wouldn't have thought twice about doing it as driving like that came as second nature to him!

Quite. From what I have seen of Senna's defensive driving, he'd have pulled off a successful block much earlier in the move, Prost would've bottled and nothing else would've happened. Remembering of course, Senna also needed to finish that race...

JNW1 said:

Anyway, you clearly have a different view on this so I think we just need to agree to disagree.

I'd much rather be able to say Senna was a dirty cheating git and be done with it. But various facts suggest this would be an unfairly over-inflated label. You either accept what you see or not. Agree or disagree is semantically irrelevant.

Oh btw, I was 16yo in '89. I booed, my dad and most of the brits around me booed (or cheered tifosi style etc.). My bro didn't though and due to wearing a McLaren cap, he has my envy of the memory of catching an wry smile from Senna... a few yards away in those days. I wouldn't mind but my bro was a glory-hunting treacherous little git at the time.

[coppice]

This Brit didn't boo Senna in 89 - only a tiny minority of idiots did. Most of us were there to enjoy the race and support whoever won. Motor sport's general lack of tribalism is one of its main appeals to many.

[mattikake]

^ I guess it's hard to join in with the crowd when you're sat at home infront of the TV.

[MikeyMike]

Over-rated? Not in my opinion. Certainly romanticised as a result of his untimely demise but what you cannot argue with is that Senna was one of the most successful drivers in the history of F1. I guess what it comes down to, is how do his achievements and the manner in which he accomplished them rate alongside the other great names.

I am a Senna fan, unashamedly so. I was one of those geeks who dragged his totally disinterested other half along to the cinema to watch "Senna" , and I do consider him to be the greatest racing driver I have ever seen.

Admittedly, part of his appeal is the mystique that surrounded him, most tend to attribute that mystique to his death, what they fail to realise (or remember) is that this aura of mystique was created many years before his death and was a result of his exploits on track combined with a fascinating psyche, incredible intensity and unique charisma.

When all is said and done, Senna performed above and beyond his peers so consistently as to seemingly raise to another level of performance that his opponants simply could not attain. When you consider the level of competition he faced, the likes of Prost, Mansell, Piquet and laterly Schumacher, all considered "Greats" in their own right, that accomplishment is even more impressive.

In my opinion, other drivers have reached such levels of performance, Michael Schumacher certainly, Gilles Villeneuve, Mansell and Alonso also, but none of them did/do it as consistently as Senna.

Any public figure who attracts such adoration will naturally attract detractors. We will never be able to say who was the greatest driver for reasons already covered in this thread, what is undeniable is that no driver before or since has garnered such a following. The statistics tell of a driver who was peerless over the flying lap and consistently successful over the race distance. However, statistics tell just half of the story, unfortunately the true measure of Senna's talent is in the realms of the intangible.

I'm sure that even his detractors will agree that Senna was a strong candidate for the mantle of greatest driver ever, so for that reason I don't think it is valid to assert that he was over-rated as a driver. He was arguably the greatest ever, no more, no less.

[bloberoo]

Arollingstone!!!......and he mentioned Moss, classic!
Lets put it this way , more people would be more accurate over - rating Ayrton than the ones under - rating him Retrospectively.
Im biased, Im guilty of watching Grand Prix since a little old year called 1984, and I knew Diddly Squat but knew he wasnt like the rest of them ......., as years went by he kinda confirmed what I thought then .... Prost being that good and him being better speaks volumes. It took till Alonso to find someone who impressed me that much... and with all due Respect to Mr Bellof. Respects as always to all opinions...

[shoestring7]

Grandad Gaz said:

Have you seen the video of him at Monaco when he was with the Toleman (I think) team?

He came second and would certainly have won if the race had not been stopped due to rain. The Toleman was nowhere near a winning car. A bit like one of the current drivers coming second in a Caterham or HRT today!

What he did that day shows just how good he was.

I'm surprised that no-one seems to have yet pointed out that contrary to what the Senna myth makers would have you believe, had the '84 Monaco GP continued Stefan Bellof in the handy n/a Tyrrell would have won the race. When the flag fell he was catching Senna and Prost hand over fist.

It's always interesting to see these 'greatest ever' arguments spin round and round. My own view FWIW is that its not *what* they do, but *how* they do it that makes a champion great.

For that reason alone I'd place Clark/Moss/Fangio/Rosemeyer ahead of Schumacher and Senna all day long.

SS7

[heebeegeetee]

shoestring7 said:

I'm surprised that no-one seems to have yet pointed out that contrary to what the Senna myth makers would have you believe, had the '84 Monaco GP continued Stefan Bellof in the handy n/a Tyrrell would have won the race. When the flag fell he was catching Senna and Prost hand over fist.

Getting past a determined Senna would have been another thing though.

Not many managed it.

[shoestring7]

heebeegeetee said:

shoestring7 said:

I'm surprised that no-one seems to have yet pointed out that contrary to what the Senna myth makers would have you believe, had the '84 Monaco GP continued Stefan Bellof in the handy n/a Tyrrell would have won the race. When the flag fell he was catching Senna and Prost hand over fist.

Getting past a determined Senna would have been another thing though.

Not many managed it.

Someone willing to risk their life overtaking around the outside of Eau Rouge would have found a way.

SS7

[Alfanatic]

heebeegeetee said:

shoestring7 said:

I'm surprised that no-one seems to have yet pointed out that contrary to what the Senna myth makers would have you believe, had the '84 Monaco GP continued Stefan Bellof in the handy n/a Tyrrell would have won the race. When the flag fell he was catching Senna and Prost hand over fist.

Getting past a determined Senna would have been another thing though.

Not many managed it.

It gets mentioned every time that race comes up, as does the fact that Bellof's car was disqualified for being underweight.

Also, while double checking the infringement reason, I came across a claim that Senna would not have finished either, allegedly Toleman had said that his suspension had suffered damage at some point and would not have lasted more than a few more laps. Or something. First time I've heard that one though.

If that second claim is true then Prost was the one most likely to win anyway, which, funnily enough, is what actually did happen.

Edited by Alfanatic on Monday 3rd December 12:38

[heebeegeetee]

shoestring7 said:

Someone willing to risk their life overtaking around the outside of Eau Rouge would have found a way.

SS7

Or, not being able to pass Ickx at Spa does not translate into being able to pass Senna at Monaco.

[stuttgartmetal]

Prost bore Ayrtons coffin.

Ayrton's car failed, because the tyre pressure dropped when they went cold behind the safety car,and he pushed it too hard, snapping the column.
IMO

[fatboy69]

Alfanatic said:

Patrick Head was found guilty. Eventually. (7 years later, I believe). Senna also suffered - I think - a broken neck and a skull fracture, one caused by the wheel itself, not sure about the neck fractures. Outside of statute of limitations so no action was taken (or all of this was a clever Wiki edit by some PHer to settle a similar thread to this about a month ago).

Any of these injuries on their own would likely have killed him.

Sid Watkins said that Senna did not have so much as a bruise on him, let alone any broken bones, & had the steering arm not pierced his helmet where it did Ayrton would have walked away from the accident.

He didn't have a broken neck or a fractured skull.

The suspension arm pierced his helmet - 6 inches higher or lower & he would have survived the accident.