Mattikake's version of Senna week

[mattikake]

I always prefer real footage of evidence and I have a lot of Senna videos that prove his mettle. I'm no Senna fan and never was, in fact I hated the guy because he was the main rival to my personal favourite - our Nige.

However, I always appreciate talent and skill so here are some direct links to some Senna vids for the indulgent:-

Overtakes:
https://vimeo.com/49542139

Defensive driving:
https://vimeo.com/54450091

Proof of wet mastery?
Start here:
https://vimeo.com/78931949

Official rain master stats:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ljrtsQ8R3E

Car control superiority:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF8hsSsiQVA

Winning the WDC at his first real attempt?
Start here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-L4CItFIhM

Oh and just in case you thought Senna and Prost collided accidently at Suzuka '89, watch this:
https://vimeo.com/48685407

[heebeegeetee]

mattikake said:

Oh and just in case you thought Senna and Prost collided accidently at Suzuka '89, watch this:
https://vimeo.com/48685407

Hmm, this is a strange one.

Firstly, I didn't think anyone (or I certainly never knew anyone) who thought the collision was an accident.

Then - why are you surprised that a defending driver takes a different line from when he's not defending? Why are you showing us how a driver on a quick or qualifying lap, takes a different line to a driver engaged in a battle?

I'm really not sure where you're coming from with this one.

Whether we like it or not, Ayrton was considered at the time to have lowered driving standards and introduced unacceptable methods into racing. He felt that it had to be done, and as he said to Jackie Stewart "if you don't go for the gap then you're no longer a racing driver" yet drivers had raced for decades without routinely colliding with each other.

Have you heard the Tommy Byrne podcast where he says words to the effect "I laugh when people talk about Michael Schumacher being a dirty driver. Ayrton Senna was the dirtiest driver of all time, he'd have you on the grass as soon as look at you..." etc etc.

All that happened at Suzuka was that Ayrton got some back of what he had been handing out. Everybody knows that, I've no idea why you'd want to analyse it 20 years later to the nth degree.

And as for Prost being a liar... come on, he's a racing driver! That's what they do, every single one of them. They all have their own version of events.

[FeelingLucky]

heebeegeetee said:

All that happened at Suzuka was that Ayrton got some back of what he had been handing out.

Hmmm, I'm not sure that's entirely true.

Prost didn't shut the door on him, chop him, block him or even try to run him out.
No, what Prost did, is leave the door open, and when Senna went for the gap, drove into him.

Pure and simple, he did a Maldonardo. Now you *may* be able to find footage of Senna sacrificing his own race just to remove a competitor (Suzuka 90), BUT it will not pre date this little gem of a move from Prost.

This was a watershed moment in their rivalry, and what happened over the next year or so started right here.

[Vocal Minority]

I can't remember the ins and outs of it, as I haven't read the book in ages, but Malcolm Folley's Senna v Prost sets out a fairly compelling argument for the foundations being laid in Imola 1989.

Either way, 2 sad losses, both remembered within their fraternity yesterday and today

[heebeegeetee]

ash73 said:

mattikake said:

Defensive driving:
https://vimeo.com/54450091

He drove like a total dick in some of those moves, and my God the music

Gosh, at 1'34", it doesn't half look like Suzuka but t'other way round.

I don't have much of a problem with Senna's driving there, the message clearly was that if you wanted to pass him you had to be good, and clearly the Berger's, Patrese's and Alboretos of the day weren't up to it.

It's just odd that regarding Suzuka, on the one occasion when one driver gave him a precise taste of his own medicine and stuck one back to him, 20 years later we're still throwing brick-bats at that driver.

Any Mattikake, excellent pieces of work as always, but please, would you mind if I asked one serious question regarding your work?

As with many if not almost all youtube videos of this nature, it definitely has to be watched with the sound off. Serious question: Do you really think we want to hear god-awful euro-electronica blare over/instead of the sounds of those engines and the dulcet tones of James Hunt?

[VladD]

FeelingLucky said:

heebeegeetee said:

All that happened at Suzuka was that Ayrton got some back of what he had been handing out.

Hmmm, I'm not sure that's entirely true.

Prost didn't shut the door on him, chop him, block him or even try to run him out.
No, what Prost did, is leave the door open, and when Senna went for the gap, drove into him.

Pure and simple, he did a Maldonardo. Now you *may* be able to find footage of Senna sacrificing his own race just to remove a competitor (Suzuka 90), BUT it will not pre date this little gem of a move from Prost.

This was a watershed moment in their rivalry, and what happened over the next year or so started right here.

I thought Martin Brundle summed up Senna perfectly. He said that Senna would go for a gap that wasn't really on. He'd let you choose whether to let him though or have an accident. If you let him through once, then he knew he could scare you out of the way every time, so if you wanted to try and be his equal mentally, the only choice you'd have was to have the accident.

This is what I think happen in 89. Senna went for the optimistic move and Prost said no way.

[entropy]

FeelingLucky said:

Hmmm, I'm not sure that's entirely true.

Prost didn't shut the door on him, chop him, block him or even try to run him out.
No, what Prost did, is leave the door open, and when Senna went for the gap, drove into him.

Pure and simple, he did a Maldonardo. Now you *may* be able to find footage of Senna sacrificing his own race just to remove a competitor (Suzuka 90), BUT it will not pre date this little gem of a move from Prost.

This was a watershed moment in their rivalry, and what happened over the next year or so started right here.

I fully disagree. It would be this:

Vocal Minority said:

I can't remember the ins and outs of it, as I haven't read the book in ages, but Malcolm Folley's Senna v Prost sets out a fairly compelling argument for the foundations being laid in Imola 1989.

Pre-race there was a Gentleman's agreement: whoever led into first corner would win the race. This was initially instigated by Prost in '88 but Senna had asked Prost.

Prost led the race until it was restarted due to Berger's fiery shunt at Tamburello. This time Senna overtook Prost at Tosa.

They were supposed to make up at a test in Pembrey but not handled well. Prost revealed all to a L'Equipe journalist supposedly off the record but became big news at the weekend of the Monaco. Senna was not pleased.

There was no going back.

Prost had felt he was being pushed out. It was building up:

'88 Portugese GP Prost was squeezed close to pit wall to which Prost replied replied "if he wants it that badly then he can have it!", Prost was adamant he was given weaker engines, Senna did bugger all testing in the off season due to R&R which infuriated Prost.

Enough was enough and would eventually sign for Ferrari.

Before '89 Japanese GP Prost was adamant he would not leave the door open for Senna and post race he reiterated the same point.

[DHB07]

mattikake said:

Car control superiority:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF8hsSsiQVA

Should read 'car positioning superiority'. I've seen the clip before and it's evident that puts the left side of the car on the drier line which the other drivers fail to do.

Still highlighting his talent which I cannot dispute, just not superior car control in this sense. More grip/track awareness in my eyes.

Edited by DHB07 on Sunday 4th May 20:15

[ukmike2000]

The Senna/Prost thing is a bit overplayed. The same scenario has happened many times over in the years since the incident with the driver claiming either "I didn't see him coming" or "I was defending my line". It really wasn't such a big deal - Senna for all his talents was a bully on the track and often the red mist would cloud his judgement. On this occasion Prost owned him. If you recall, Senna then carried on but was excluded for cutting the chicane - this probably wouldn't have happened in recent years and Prost would have been fined for causing an avoidable accident.
Such is life - it doesn't change a thing. Prost 4 Senna 3

[Shurv]

Senna was a knob. Simple. Never liked him or his driving ethics. Unfortunately Schumacher emulated him and became an even bigger knob. If either had been racing 20 years earlier, they'd both have been killed early in their careers. The worst kind of risk takers and on track bullies. All my own opinion of course.

[superkartracer]

[Catatafish]

superkartracer said:

What are you trying to communicate here?

[mattikake]

Catatafish said:

superkartracer said:

What are you trying to communicate here?

That he trawls the internet looking to download pictures of fit men.

[mattikake]

heebeegeetee said:

mattikake said:

Oh and just in case you thought Senna and Prost collided accidently at Suzuka '89, watch this:
https://vimeo.com/48685407

Hmm, this is a strange one.

Firstly, I didn't think anyone (or I certainly never knew anyone) who thought the collision was an accident.

Some people think it was an accident.

heebeegeetee said:

Then - why are you surprised that a defending driver takes a different line from when he's not defending?

If Prost was defending, why did he brake about 10 metres earlier and aim to enter the corner about 5 metres earlier?

heebeegeetee said:

Why are you showing us how a driver on a quick or qualifying lap, takes a different line to a driver engaged in a battle?

It wasn't a quali lap, it was a race lap about 5 laps earlier. All on-board laps were exactly the same as this "quali" lap. The only one that was markedly different was the one where Senna was lured in...

Prost knows how to defend. Aggressively, dangerously, ungentlemanly or fairly. Take a look at the German GP 1981.

It's a shame that there was never on-board footage from Senna's car as he followed Prost through the 130R on a regular lap. On the lap they collided, Senna must've taken about 10 metres out of him in the 130R. The gain was huge. Why is that? Cynical me says Prost decided to lure him in.

heebeegeetee said:

I'm really not sure where you're coming from with this one.

Prost's take-out, regardless of the underlying reasons, was 100% deliberate. Yet because of Senna's racing ethics history has Senna as the villain, not the victim. IMO incidents should be judged on the incident themselves, not premeditating circumstances.

heebeegeetee said:

Whether we like it or not, Ayrton was considered at the time to have lowered driving standards and introduced unacceptable methods into racing. He felt that it had to be done, and as he said to Jackie Stewart "if you don't go for the gap then you're no longer a racing driver" yet drivers had raced for decades without routinely colliding with each other.

Like this. So what? That doesn't mean every time a collision happens it's automatically his fault. Rules, fairness and sport are about impartiality.

heebeegeetee said:

All that happened at Suzuka was that Ayrton got some back of what he had been handing out.

In the name of sport, does that make it ok then?

heebeegeetee said:

Everybody knows that, I've no idea why you'd want to analyse it 20 years later to the nth degree.

Because, it occurred to me, no-one has.

heebeegeetee said:

And as for Prost being a liar... come on, he's a racing driver! That's what they do, every single one of them. They all have their own version of events.

Fully agreed. I just wish he would MTFU up.

Edited by mattikake on Wednesday 7th May 22:57

[VladD]

mattikake said:

Prost's take-out, regardless of the underlying reasons, was 100% deliberate. Yet because of Senna's racing ethics history has Senna as the villain, not the victim. IMO incidents should be judged on the incident themselves, not premeditating circumstances.

We're all going to have different opinions and mine is simply that Senna went for a gap that wasn't really there, he was way too far back to try the overtake. He was hoping he'd frighten Prost out of the way, and that was never going to happen. The Martin Brundle quote I referenced above sums it up nicely.

[heebeegeetee]

mattikake said:

Lots of stuff

Unfortunately I think this is starting to look a little like the current Jeremy Clarkson debacle, where someone has gone to great lengths to show how outraged we should be but hardly anyone is interested.

I don't think any harm was done to the sport that day. All that happened was that a dirty driver got some back. No, it's not right but does anybody care? It's always great to see a bully get whacked back. (And I'm aware that 'bully' may not be the best term, but still possibly not wildly inaccurate).

If you are worried about the sport Matt, concentrate on the events 12 months later, when a driver deliberately smashed another off the track at high speed and then lied about it afterwards.

I don't buy the 'lured' him in theory, but even so, so what? It worked. Prost made a mistake in getting out of the car (worst mistake of his life, according to Prost). Prosts car was undamaged and so he could have continued and taken the chequered flag.

I can fully understand why a defending driver will take a different line to a driver on a clear track, indeed I've been watching this happen in almost every race I've seen over the past 35 years. We see it ourselves at least 20 Sundays a year, currently.

[VladD]

A bit OT, but this is a good read.

[heebeegeetee]

Gaz. said:

TBH it was a really stty way to win a championship and no better than Schumacher in 1994 or 1997, then to go to JMB to get Senna disqualified on a technicality so forgotten they had to look it up in the rule book.

Not sure I agree with your last point. Prost got out of his car because he knew a push start would not have been legal with the cars where they were, and indeed I recall watching thinking "none of this is legal so I can't see the point" when watching Senna be restarted and all that happened on track afterwards.

I imagine that Prost went to the stewards to ensure they were aware of the rules, given that a championship rested on it. As stated, Prosts car was undamaged, so he could have and should have let the marshals bump start him in the same manner and he would have driven to the flag without a pit-stop and won easily.

Had Senna been awarded the championship I guess it would have been on the technicality of Prost not being on top of the rules at that precise point.

It could be said that had Senna steered his car to keep it on track (and thus endangering the marshals) then his start would have been legal. If you want to describe a rule as a technicality though, I'm not sure I agree.

[FeelingLucky]

VladD said:

mattikake said:

Prost's take-out, regardless of the underlying reasons, was 100% deliberate. Yet because of Senna's racing ethics history has Senna as the villain, not the victim. IMO incidents should be judged on the incident themselves, not premeditating circumstances.

We're all going to have different opinions and mine is simply that Senna went for a gap that wasn't really there, he was way too far back to try the overtake. He was hoping he'd frighten Prost out of the way, and that was never going to happen. The Martin Brundle quote I referenced above sums it up nicely.

Not only did Senna go for a gap that WAS there, he got his car into that gap.
Prost didn't close the door, Senna was already alongside when Prost drove into him.

The re-start was deemed legal due to the cars being in a dangerous position, and Senna was directed down the escape road by a flag marshal.

JMB was a powerful ally, and during his reign often put his own agenda before the interests of the sport. Never forget that the following year, Senna won the debate before qualifying, that the pole should offer the driver a competitive advantage, and therefore should be on the clean side. This was all agreed to BEFORE qually took place. Once Senna had won pole, ONLY THEN, did JMB nix it. Does anybody genuinely beleive that had Prost won pole, it would NOT have been on the clean side?

Had JMB GENUINELY believed pole should remain on the dirty side, and if he had any integrity, he would have shut the debate down before it started, at least then everybody would have gone into qually knowing where the goal posts where.

Senna started to believe (with some justification) that he was up against not only Prost, but the governing body also.

[entropy]

heebeegeetee said:

Not sure I agree with your last point. Prost got out of his car because he knew a push start would not have been legal with the cars where they were, and indeed I recall watching thinking "none of this is legal so I can't see the point" when watching Senna be restarted and all that happened on track afterwards.

I imagine that Prost went to the stewards to ensure they were aware of the rules, given that a championship rested on it. As stated, Prosts car was undamaged, so he could have and should have let the marshals bump start him in the same manner and he would have driven to the flag without a pit-stop and won easily.

Had Senna been awarded the championship I guess it would have been on the technicality of Prost not being on top of the rules at that precise point.

It could be said that had Senna steered his car to keep it on track (and thus endangering the marshals) then his start would have been legal. If you want to describe a rule as a technicality though, I'm not sure I agree.

heebeegeetee said:

Not sure I agree with your last point. Prost got out of his car because he knew a push start would not have been legal wiAth the cars where they were, and indeed I recall watching thinking "none of this is legal so I can't see the point" when watching Senna be restarted and all that happened on track afterwards.

I imagine that Prost went to the stewards to ensure they were aware of the rules, given that a championship rested on it. As stated, Prosts car was undamaged, so he could have and should have let the marshals bump start him in the same manner and he would have driven to the flag without a pit-stop and won easily.

Jo Ramirez thought Prost should have carried on.

Ron Dennis argued that push starts have happened. IIRC he cited that year's Austrian GP had examples.

Prost didn't do himself any favours when before AND after the race that he wasn't going to leave the door open for Senna so there is a great argument for Prost purposely barging into Senna.