planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:59 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5482
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

That's true, we slightly derailed this, as this was a whole incident.

I can't find a sporting reg of that period, but push starts were not allowed since the Fangio days.

IIRC, push starts were an oft-talked about topic at the time. Since gears were manual, it was much more common for cars to stall after an incident. I remember more than one occasion where drivers were given assistance and it resulted in some debate, not least with the commentators. They had a loop-hole a mile wide where marshalls were given discretion if they felt the car was in a dangerous position, which inevitably led to a lot of discussion as to what was considered dangerous. let's just say their definitions of what constituted safe were much broader than what would be accepted today

Going back to the Senna-Prost incident, it could be argued that Senna could feel justifiably hard done by if him requiring a push was the result of his main WDC rival taking him out with a questionable move. But in any event, even with that ammunition available to them the FIA chose to introduce a reason which baffled pretty much everybody at the time, even those who felt Senna should have been punished


I have not seen this anywhere, was that in the regulations? That it was on the steward's discretion?

Back on the incident, if you read I agreed in most my posts that it was a stupid reason to give. But this is something that the stewards can only answer, not me.

Senna feeling hard done is understandable, then again it does not mean much; Vettel felt hard done by Lewis this year, it does not justify ramming him however...

I don't have them to hand, but yes, that was in the regulations. If the stewards felt it was in an unsafe place they had discretion to push the car

In answer to your last point, no-one's arguing that feeling hard done by is a licence to take aggressive action against an opponent. On the contrary, mikeyg123 and I have been arguing that Prost's feelings of entitlement to that corner in no way gave him the right to turn into Senna. That action made him 100% responsible for the consequences


I can't find the sporting regs of that time anywhere, so I'll have to take your word. But seeing that all other cars were pushed on the side of the track, on the green, it is a bit strange that they pushed this one back on track.

I only used that example as you mentioned Senna feeling hard done to excused his later move to use an illegal bump start. Of course Prost has responsibility for that incident, however I don't feel that he was 100% responsible. Put yourself into his seat; you are ahead on track and your team mate is making what probably looks in your mirrors like a desperate dive on your inside at your corner. Now if you factor in all that had happened before then, the background between them with Prost feeling that Senna is getting better engines, etc., a couple of track squeezes between them and Senna's reputation of "let me through or else"... Well, he chose to not let him through (he pretty much admitted to this if I'm not mistaken). In a really clumsy way. As you mentioned above, it is easy to analyse this in depth now, but all this happened in a split second.

Generally I think the onus is always with the overtaker to complete a safe overtake. Or used to be at least, although I am not sure if this is in the rule books. This is also true on the road as well, where the car being overtaken is not obliged to slow down, move out of the way or change his course in any way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6914
Location: Belgium
Exediron wrote:
Just to clarify things here and bring them back to the core of the topic: Fiki, are you actually saying that a driver in front has no responsibility to avoid a collision if the driver behind is attempting an overtake that might be unsuccessful if things are allowed to run their course?
No, I'm not saying that, though it may look like it. I am trying to look at both sides of the issue, through the prism of too little available period information, made even more difficult by trying to reconcile it with recent, available information, that seems to be based on something I can't find even in the current rules (i.e. being allowed to remain on the racing line, through being ahead).

Two things have surprised me and forced me to be less inclined to simply declare Prost "guilty": Senna's description of racing etiquette and how it applies to an overtake attempt as in the case in question, and Ramirez's statement that Senna was too fast, which obviously has a bearing on the possible outcomes of the attempt.

The reason I can't positively say the driver in front has no responsibility, is the fact that there is nothing in the rules that places the responsibility of avoiding a failed attempt by another driver, onto the defender's shoulders. A further reason is, that Prost may or may not have been aware of how far Senna was alongside when he closed the door, having earlier judged Senna too far away to attempt a regular outbraking manoeuvre.

The simple fact that an overtake attempt might go wrong and involve the defender in an accident, and that therefore the defender suddenly becomes fully responsible for avoiding that accident, does not represent a balanced view of the application of the sporting regulations, nor of racing etiquette. I am inclined to say that the raison d'être of racing etiquette, is precisely the avoidance of accidents through dangerous and unsporting driving in the first place.

Exediron wrote:
Senna's disqualification, and the merits thereof, are a completely separate line of discussion from the collision at the chicane. The question posed by this thread is did Prost have a responsibility to avoid contact with Senna, or was the only responsibility on Senna - as the overtaking driver - to avoid putting himself in a situation where Prost might contact him?
I agree that the disqualification is a separate issue. But I believe Senna is too easily believed as to the reasons it came to pass. The recent "documentary" has done more harm than good, understandable though its reasoning may have been.

You have made a mistake I think; the question is not merely which of the two drivers was fully responsible. It is perfectly possible that the stewards reached a judgement of 'racing incident' if neither driver was predominantly responsible. I referred earlier to the rule that punishes a driver who causes an avoidable accident. That's why I ask the forum how to define a dive bomb, and how to defend against it.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6914
Location: Belgium
Siao7 wrote:
I can't find the sporting regs of that time anywhere, so I'll have to take your word. But seeing that all other cars were pushed on the side of the track, on the green, it is a bit strange that they pushed this one back on track.
They didn't, Siao. They pushed the car, but it was Senna who decided where it was being pushed.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2513
Siao7 wrote:
... Generally I think the onus is always with the overtaker to complete a safe overtake. Or used to be at least, although I am not sure if this is in the rule books. This is also true on the road as well, where the car being overtaken is not obliged to slow down, move out of the way or change his course in any way.
I'd argue that all drivers have a responsibility to ensure that such maneuvers are completed safely. That is, to ensure one overtakes safely and to ensure that one defends safely. I'd suggest that a portion of fault could be attributed to both drivers in this instance.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:42 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12584
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

That's true, we slightly derailed this, as this was a whole incident.

I can't find a sporting reg of that period, but push starts were not allowed since the Fangio days.

IIRC, push starts were an oft-talked about topic at the time. Since gears were manual, it was much more common for cars to stall after an incident. I remember more than one occasion where drivers were given assistance and it resulted in some debate, not least with the commentators. They had a loop-hole a mile wide where marshalls were given discretion if they felt the car was in a dangerous position, which inevitably led to a lot of discussion as to what was considered dangerous. let's just say their definitions of what constituted safe were much broader than what would be accepted today

Going back to the Senna-Prost incident, it could be argued that Senna could feel justifiably hard done by if him requiring a push was the result of his main WDC rival taking him out with a questionable move. But in any event, even with that ammunition available to them the FIA chose to introduce a reason which baffled pretty much everybody at the time, even those who felt Senna should have been punished


I have not seen this anywhere, was that in the regulations? That it was on the steward's discretion?

Back on the incident, if you read I agreed in most my posts that it was a stupid reason to give. But this is something that the stewards can only answer, not me.

Senna feeling hard done is understandable, then again it does not mean much; Vettel felt hard done by Lewis this year, it does not justify ramming him however...

I don't have them to hand, but yes, that was in the regulations. If the stewards felt it was in an unsafe place they had discretion to push the car

In answer to your last point, no-one's arguing that feeling hard done by is a licence to take aggressive action against an opponent. On the contrary, mikeyg123 and I have been arguing that Prost's feelings of entitlement to that corner in no way gave him the right to turn into Senna. That action made him 100% responsible for the consequences


I can't find the sporting regs of that time anywhere, so I'll have to take your word. But seeing that all other cars were pushed on the side of the track, on the green, it is a bit strange that they pushed this one back on track.

I only used that example as you mentioned Senna feeling hard done to excused his later move to use an illegal bump start. Of course Prost has responsibility for that incident, however I don't feel that he was 100% responsible. Put yourself into his seat; you are ahead on track and your team mate is making what probably looks in your mirrors like a desperate dive on your inside at your corner. Now if you factor in all that had happened before then, the background between them with Prost feeling that Senna is getting better engines, etc., a couple of track squeezes between them and Senna's reputation of "let me through or else"... Well, he chose to not let him through (he pretty much admitted to this if I'm not mistaken). In a really clumsy way. As you mentioned above, it is easy to analyse this in depth now, but all this happened in a split second.

Generally I think the onus is always with the overtaker to complete a safe overtake. Or used to be at least, although I am not sure if this is in the rule books. This is also true on the road as well, where the car being overtaken is not obliged to slow down, move out of the way or change his course in any way.


I disagree with your last paragraph. If the driver in front decides to do what Prost did the driver behind had has no chance of avoiding an accident. If Senna divebombed or not there is still no way he could have avoided that accident. Every overtake that happens under braking rely's on the driver in front not swiping in to the overtaking driver. I also don't believe that just because you are in front you have a right to take whatever line you chose if someone else has managed to get alongside you. If someone's already on the bit of track you want then tough.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21117
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

That's true, we slightly derailed this, as this was a whole incident.

I can't find a sporting reg of that period, but push starts were not allowed since the Fangio days.

IIRC, push starts were an oft-talked about topic at the time. Since gears were manual, it was much more common for cars to stall after an incident. I remember more than one occasion where drivers were given assistance and it resulted in some debate, not least with the commentators. They had a loop-hole a mile wide where marshalls were given discretion if they felt the car was in a dangerous position, which inevitably led to a lot of discussion as to what was considered dangerous. let's just say their definitions of what constituted safe were much broader than what would be accepted today

Going back to the Senna-Prost incident, it could be argued that Senna could feel justifiably hard done by if him requiring a push was the result of his main WDC rival taking him out with a questionable move. But in any event, even with that ammunition available to them the FIA chose to introduce a reason which baffled pretty much everybody at the time, even those who felt Senna should have been punished


I have not seen this anywhere, was that in the regulations? That it was on the steward's discretion?

Back on the incident, if you read I agreed in most my posts that it was a stupid reason to give. But this is something that the stewards can only answer, not me.

Senna feeling hard done is understandable, then again it does not mean much; Vettel felt hard done by Lewis this year, it does not justify ramming him however...

I don't have them to hand, but yes, that was in the regulations. If the stewards felt it was in an unsafe place they had discretion to push the car

In answer to your last point, no-one's arguing that feeling hard done by is a licence to take aggressive action against an opponent. On the contrary, mikeyg123 and I have been arguing that Prost's feelings of entitlement to that corner in no way gave him the right to turn into Senna. That action made him 100% responsible for the consequences
I doubt the marshals had any say in this, on their own, but may have been briefed about this prior to the annual Grand Prix. Likewise, I doubt the stewards would have any say in this, bar offering interpretation of the rules as laid down by the international sporting code. Likewise for Race Control.
I point this out, because for the race in question, it is clear that there was no other rule in force at Suzuka (nor, as far as I remember, anywhere else in the world bar Monaco for reasons already explained), than the obligation to get the car off the race track. Which is why three cars were parked simply alongside the race track, and a fourth (Prost's) alongside the escape road.
The reason why they were not considered to pose any danger for cars racing, have already been explained. Looking at them from today's perspective is simply wrong.

to be fair I don't recall if it was the marshalls or the stewards, but I don't think it's really relevant. The point is that there was discretion to allow a driver to receive assistance if it was deemed that his car was in an unsafe position. It happened more than you think and Murray Waker even mentioned it during the race when Senna got his push.

No-one's looking at it from today's perspective. There was no hard and fast definition, but it's a completely irrelevant line of reasoning. It's simply immaterial, since it was not given as a reason for anything and therefore plays no part in the results that day. It could have, but it didn't


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21117
MB-BOB wrote:
Exediron wrote:
The question posed by this thread is did Prost have a responsibility to avoid contact with Senna, or was the only responsibility on Senna - as the overtaking driver - to avoid putting himself in a situation where Prost might contact him?


When racing for position...
1) It is not required of any driver leading another to yield the position.
2) it is the responsibility of the driver desiring to overtake to do so cleanly

Prost, who was leading, had the privilege of defending his position, AND -- because he was leading -- the privilege to take his line into the corner. Senna divebombed him so late that it guaranteed that Prost would have no opportunity to take his line into the corner at all. (See item #1) Further -- and more illustrative -- Senna divebombed him at a momentum that guaranteed that both -- once collided -- would slide past the racing line, completely across the track, and over the track boundary, into the runoff zone. (See item #2) In other words, Senna was not going to make the corner himself, regardless if Prost yielded or not.

Prior to the accident at Suzuka the following year (1990) -- which was a duplicate of the previous year, with Prost also ahead -- Senna stated that "No matter what happened, he would not yield the corner and that Prost taking his normal racing line would result in an accident." Not "may" or "could" result in an accident, but "would." This attitude, freely admitted, illustrated that Senna did not care to overtake "cleanly." Instead he sought to bully the other driver into yielding, when that driver was not remotely obligated to do so, knowing and accepting that a collision was 100% the outcome.

Senna was a gifted driver, but sometimes we forget he was also quite reckless at times.

I couldn't disagree more with practically all of this. Of course a driver leading another is required to yield if by not doing so he initiates contact. He doesn't have a god-given right to drive as if he's the only one on the track


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21117
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

That's true, we slightly derailed this, as this was a whole incident.

I can't find a sporting reg of that period, but push starts were not allowed since the Fangio days.

IIRC, push starts were an oft-talked about topic at the time. Since gears were manual, it was much more common for cars to stall after an incident. I remember more than one occasion where drivers were given assistance and it resulted in some debate, not least with the commentators. They had a loop-hole a mile wide where marshalls were given discretion if they felt the car was in a dangerous position, which inevitably led to a lot of discussion as to what was considered dangerous. let's just say their definitions of what constituted safe were much broader than what would be accepted today

Going back to the Senna-Prost incident, it could be argued that Senna could feel justifiably hard done by if him requiring a push was the result of his main WDC rival taking him out with a questionable move. But in any event, even with that ammunition available to them the FIA chose to introduce a reason which baffled pretty much everybody at the time, even those who felt Senna should have been punished


I have not seen this anywhere, was that in the regulations? That it was on the steward's discretion?

Back on the incident, if you read I agreed in most my posts that it was a stupid reason to give. But this is something that the stewards can only answer, not me.

Senna feeling hard done is understandable, then again it does not mean much; Vettel felt hard done by Lewis this year, it does not justify ramming him however...

I don't have them to hand, but yes, that was in the regulations. If the stewards felt it was in an unsafe place they had discretion to push the car

In answer to your last point, no-one's arguing that feeling hard done by is a licence to take aggressive action against an opponent. On the contrary, mikeyg123 and I have been arguing that Prost's feelings of entitlement to that corner in no way gave him the right to turn into Senna. That action made him 100% responsible for the consequences


I can't find the sporting regs of that time anywhere, so I'll have to take your word. But seeing that all other cars were pushed on the side of the track, on the green, it is a bit strange that they pushed this one back on track.

I only used that example as you mentioned Senna feeling hard done to excused his later move to use an illegal bump start. Of course Prost has responsibility for that incident, however I don't feel that he was 100% responsible. Put yourself into his seat; you are ahead on track and your team mate is making what probably looks in your mirrors like a desperate dive on your inside at your corner. Now if you factor in all that had happened before then, the background between them with Prost feeling that Senna is getting better engines, etc., a couple of track squeezes between them and Senna's reputation of "let me through or else"... Well, he chose to not let him through (he pretty much admitted to this if I'm not mistaken). In a really clumsy way. As you mentioned above, it is easy to analyse this in depth now, but all this happened in a split second.

Generally I think the onus is always with the overtaker to complete a safe overtake. Or used to be at least, although I am not sure if this is in the rule books. This is also true on the road as well, where the car being overtaken is not obliged to slow down, move out of the way or change his course in any way.

Thing is, it's not simply a case of "chose not to let him through." Prost chose to steer into Senna. It doesn't matter what Prost may or may not have felt; that action alone gave him full responsibility for the accident.

A driver does have a responsibility to initiate a safe overtake. But it's more common that not for a driver to rely on the other to alter his line once a move has begun, otherwise more than half the non-DRS assisted overtakes would never happen. Out-braking another at a corner is one of the most tried and tested and, dare I say it, spectacular and lauded moves in motor-racing, and almost all of those require the driver being overtaken to cooperate and alter his driving line. This notion that a driver somehow has the right to a piece of track regardless of whoever else might already be there is just nonsense. No driver has the right to any piece of track if it means by doing so he comes into contact with another. Drivers must be aware of the actions of others at all times and act accordingly


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5482
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
I can't find the sporting regs of that time anywhere, so I'll have to take your word. But seeing that all other cars were pushed on the side of the track, on the green, it is a bit strange that they pushed this one back on track.
They didn't, Siao. They pushed the car, but it was Senna who decided where it was being pushed.

Well, this is where I was getting to... That they actually didn't; if they steered him the car would/should be at the edge on the green.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6914
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:

IIRC, push starts were an oft-talked about topic at the time. Since gears were manual, it was much more common for cars to stall after an incident. I remember more than one occasion where drivers were given assistance and it resulted in some debate, not least with the commentators. They had a loop-hole a mile wide where marshalls were given discretion if they felt the car was in a dangerous position, which inevitably led to a lot of discussion as to what was considered dangerous. let's just say their definitions of what constituted safe were much broader than what would be accepted today

Going back to the Senna-Prost incident, it could be argued that Senna could feel justifiably hard done by if him requiring a push was the result of his main WDC rival taking him out with a questionable move. But in any event, even with that ammunition available to them the FIA chose to introduce a reason which baffled pretty much everybody at the time, even those who felt Senna should have been punished


I have not seen this anywhere, was that in the regulations? That it was on the steward's discretion?

Back on the incident, if you read I agreed in most my posts that it was a stupid reason to give. But this is something that the stewards can only answer, not me.

Senna feeling hard done is understandable, then again it does not mean much; Vettel felt hard done by Lewis this year, it does not justify ramming him however...

I don't have them to hand, but yes, that was in the regulations. If the stewards felt it was in an unsafe place they had discretion to push the car

In answer to your last point, no-one's arguing that feeling hard done by is a licence to take aggressive action against an opponent. On the contrary, mikeyg123 and I have been arguing that Prost's feelings of entitlement to that corner in no way gave him the right to turn into Senna. That action made him 100% responsible for the consequences
I doubt the marshals had any say in this, on their own, but may have been briefed about this prior to the annual Grand Prix. Likewise, I doubt the stewards would have any say in this, bar offering interpretation of the rules as laid down by the international sporting code. Likewise for Race Control.
I point this out, because for the race in question, it is clear that there was no other rule in force at Suzuka (nor, as far as I remember, anywhere else in the world bar Monaco for reasons already explained), than the obligation to get the car off the race track. Which is why three cars were parked simply alongside the race track, and a fourth (Prost's) alongside the escape road.
The reason why they were not considered to pose any danger for cars racing, have already been explained. Looking at them from today's perspective is simply wrong.

to be fair I don't recall if it was the marshalls or the stewards, but I don't think it's really relevant. The point is that there was discretion to allow a driver to receive assistance if it was deemed that his car was in an unsafe position. It happened more than you think and Murray Waker even mentioned it during the race when Senna got his push.

No-one's looking at it from today's perspective. There was no hard and fast definition, but it's a completely irrelevant line of reasoning. It's simply immaterial, since it was not given as a reason for anything and therefore plays no part in the results that day. It could have, but it didn't
Zoue, it is correct that it wasn't used, which to my mind makes it an interesting point for discussion. But then, neither was the accident! Still, you believe Prost was 100% responsible, which clearly wasn't the view the stewards took. Also an interesting point for discussion, and the reason for this thread.

I honestly don't recall cases of drivers being push started, prior Suzuka 1989, though I suppose there may have been cases. If you recall any, please let us search for footage or reports, so we could form a clearer opinion on how and why they occurred. Did any of such cases carry serious consequences, such as this one? And even if they did, would reporters or broadcasters have mentioned whether the stewards spoke to the drivers or the marshals afterwards?

It's not the first time we have discussed "a dangerous place" on this forum; after all it was one of Schumacher's favourite tactics to get out of a pickle. Which reminds me of this interesting accident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yXH7YLAzIA "Switch it off, just like anybody else..." At least Martin Brundle knows that yellow flags are there for a reason. Also "That might work at the Nürburgring..." Quite indicative that danger was pretty low down the order of importance for a jump start or assistance out of the sand trap.
I doubt there is a better example of the ludicrousness of assistance out of a sand trap than the German Grand Prix of 2007. Danger was clearly less important than having a number of cars actually running.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5482
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
IIRC, push starts were an oft-talked about topic at the time. Since gears were manual, it was much more common for cars to stall after an incident. I remember more than one occasion where drivers were given assistance and it resulted in some debate, not least with the commentators. They had a loop-hole a mile wide where marshalls were given discretion if they felt the car was in a dangerous position, which inevitably led to a lot of discussion as to what was considered dangerous. let's just say their definitions of what constituted safe were much broader than what would be accepted today

Going back to the Senna-Prost incident, it could be argued that Senna could feel justifiably hard done by if him requiring a push was the result of his main WDC rival taking him out with a questionable move. But in any event, even with that ammunition available to them the FIA chose to introduce a reason which baffled pretty much everybody at the time, even those who felt Senna should have been punished


I have not seen this anywhere, was that in the regulations? That it was on the steward's discretion?

Back on the incident, if you read I agreed in most my posts that it was a stupid reason to give. But this is something that the stewards can only answer, not me.

Senna feeling hard done is understandable, then again it does not mean much; Vettel felt hard done by Lewis this year, it does not justify ramming him however...

I don't have them to hand, but yes, that was in the regulations. If the stewards felt it was in an unsafe place they had discretion to push the car

In answer to your last point, no-one's arguing that feeling hard done by is a licence to take aggressive action against an opponent. On the contrary, mikeyg123 and I have been arguing that Prost's feelings of entitlement to that corner in no way gave him the right to turn into Senna. That action made him 100% responsible for the consequences


I can't find the sporting regs of that time anywhere, so I'll have to take your word. But seeing that all other cars were pushed on the side of the track, on the green, it is a bit strange that they pushed this one back on track.

I only used that example as you mentioned Senna feeling hard done to excused his later move to use an illegal bump start. Of course Prost has responsibility for that incident, however I don't feel that he was 100% responsible. Put yourself into his seat; you are ahead on track and your team mate is making what probably looks in your mirrors like a desperate dive on your inside at your corner. Now if you factor in all that had happened before then, the background between them with Prost feeling that Senna is getting better engines, etc., a couple of track squeezes between them and Senna's reputation of "let me through or else"... Well, he chose to not let him through (he pretty much admitted to this if I'm not mistaken). In a really clumsy way. As you mentioned above, it is easy to analyse this in depth now, but all this happened in a split second.

Generally I think the onus is always with the overtaker to complete a safe overtake. Or used to be at least, although I am not sure if this is in the rule books. This is also true on the road as well, where the car being overtaken is not obliged to slow down, move out of the way or change his course in any way.

Thing is, it's not simply a case of "chose not to let him through." Prost chose to steer into Senna. It doesn't matter what Prost may or may not have felt; that action alone gave him full responsibility for the accident.

A driver does have a responsibility to initiate a safe overtake. But it's more common that not for a driver to rely on the other to alter his line once a move has begun, otherwise more than half the non-DRS assisted overtakes would never happen. Out-braking another at a corner is one of the most tried and tested and, dare I say it, spectacular and lauded moves in motor-racing, and almost all of those require the driver being overtaken to cooperate and alter his driving line. This notion that a driver somehow has the right to a piece of track regardless of whoever else might already be there is just nonsense. No driver has the right to any piece of track if it means by doing so he comes into contact with another. Drivers must be aware of the actions of others at all times and act accordingly


Ok, I'll reply to this one for all the replies that I received above. By no means the leading driver has zero responsibility. But at different stages of the overtake. The leading driver has responsibility when the other driver has a part of his car alongside him, he needs to leave space, this goes without saying.

The first part of the overtake, as you also mention, that is falling squarely on the overtaker. You can't have driver A divebombing and putting part of the blame on to driver B ahead. We had this discussion in the forum a number of times; if the overtaker desperately divebombs on a gap that is disappearing and manages to put an inch of his front wing alongside the other car before they crash, this does not mean that he was alongside and had claim of the corner. (I am not saying that this was the case here in case anyone gets confused)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21117
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

I have not seen this anywhere, was that in the regulations? That it was on the steward's discretion?

Back on the incident, if you read I agreed in most my posts that it was a stupid reason to give. But this is something that the stewards can only answer, not me.

Senna feeling hard done is understandable, then again it does not mean much; Vettel felt hard done by Lewis this year, it does not justify ramming him however...

I don't have them to hand, but yes, that was in the regulations. If the stewards felt it was in an unsafe place they had discretion to push the car

In answer to your last point, no-one's arguing that feeling hard done by is a licence to take aggressive action against an opponent. On the contrary, mikeyg123 and I have been arguing that Prost's feelings of entitlement to that corner in no way gave him the right to turn into Senna. That action made him 100% responsible for the consequences


I can't find the sporting regs of that time anywhere, so I'll have to take your word. But seeing that all other cars were pushed on the side of the track, on the green, it is a bit strange that they pushed this one back on track.

I only used that example as you mentioned Senna feeling hard done to excused his later move to use an illegal bump start. Of course Prost has responsibility for that incident, however I don't feel that he was 100% responsible. Put yourself into his seat; you are ahead on track and your team mate is making what probably looks in your mirrors like a desperate dive on your inside at your corner. Now if you factor in all that had happened before then, the background between them with Prost feeling that Senna is getting better engines, etc., a couple of track squeezes between them and Senna's reputation of "let me through or else"... Well, he chose to not let him through (he pretty much admitted to this if I'm not mistaken). In a really clumsy way. As you mentioned above, it is easy to analyse this in depth now, but all this happened in a split second.

Generally I think the onus is always with the overtaker to complete a safe overtake. Or used to be at least, although I am not sure if this is in the rule books. This is also true on the road as well, where the car being overtaken is not obliged to slow down, move out of the way or change his course in any way.

Thing is, it's not simply a case of "chose not to let him through." Prost chose to steer into Senna. It doesn't matter what Prost may or may not have felt; that action alone gave him full responsibility for the accident.

A driver does have a responsibility to initiate a safe overtake. But it's more common that not for a driver to rely on the other to alter his line once a move has begun, otherwise more than half the non-DRS assisted overtakes would never happen. Out-braking another at a corner is one of the most tried and tested and, dare I say it, spectacular and lauded moves in motor-racing, and almost all of those require the driver being overtaken to cooperate and alter his driving line. This notion that a driver somehow has the right to a piece of track regardless of whoever else might already be there is just nonsense. No driver has the right to any piece of track if it means by doing so he comes into contact with another. Drivers must be aware of the actions of others at all times and act accordingly


Ok, I'll reply to this one for all the replies that I received above. By no means the leading driver has zero responsibility. But at different stages of the overtake. The leading driver has responsibility when the other driver has a part of his car alongside him, he needs to leave space, this goes without saying.

The first part of the overtake, as you also mention, that is falling squarely on the overtaker. You can't have driver A divebombing and putting part of the blame on to driver B ahead. We had this discussion in the forum a number of times; if the overtaker desperately divebombs on a gap that is disappearing and manages to put an inch of his front wing alongside the other car before they crash, this does not mean that he was alongside and had claim of the corner. (I am not saying that this was the case here in case anyone gets confused)

Yes, agree. That's why I specified "initiate." My point was that once he commits, then the car being overtaken has to take his presence into account and not just claim the corner as if the overtaking driver wasn't there. There is no longer any question of ownership


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6914
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
My point was that once he commits, then the car being overtaken has to take his presence into account and not just claim the corner as if the overtaking driver wasn't there. There is no longer any question of ownership
Zoue, there is one point I believe you are forgetting in all this. The defending driver has to divide his attention between making the upcoming corner in the best way possible for him (even more difficult to judge when coming up to as tight a chicane as the Suzuka one was), and judging whether a following driver is in a position to attack or not, and if attacking, how to respond.

Expecting the defender to sacrifice attention for the corner, simply to keep tracking the attacker, is exactly why a dive bomb is a dive bomb. Hence my earlier question, to which I have not read a convincing answer. I don't expect one, because of the very nature of that kind of attack: present the defender with an unsolvable problem.

While I know any driver can make a mistake and fully execute an optimistic outbraking attack rather than abort it, I also feel it is too easy to transfer all of his responsibility onto the defender's shoulders, simply because the attack is there. As I said before; the rules forsee a punishment for causing an avoidable accident; none for failing to avoid it.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:05 pm
Posts: 49
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
My point was that once he commits, then the car being overtaken has to take his presence into account and not just claim the corner as if the overtaking driver wasn't there. There is no longer any question of ownership
Zoue, there is one point I believe you are forgetting in all this. The defending driver has to divide his attention between making the upcoming corner in the best way possible for him (even more difficult to judge when coming up to as tight a chicane as the Suzuka one was), and judging whether a following driver is in a position to attack or not, and if attacking, how to respond.

Expecting the defender to sacrifice attention for the corner, simply to keep tracking the attacker, is exactly why a dive bomb is a dive bomb. Hence my earlier question, to which I have not read a convincing answer. I don't expect one, because of the very nature of that kind of attack: present the defender with an unsolvable problem.

While I know any driver can make a mistake and fully execute an optimistic outbraking attack rather than abort it, I also feel it is too easy to transfer all of his responsibility onto the defender's shoulders, simply because the attack is there. As I said before; the rules forsee a punishment for causing an avoidable accident; none for failing to avoid it.

Well written. I agree 100%.

_________________
Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21117
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
My point was that once he commits, then the car being overtaken has to take his presence into account and not just claim the corner as if the overtaking driver wasn't there. There is no longer any question of ownership
Zoue, there is one point I believe you are forgetting in all this. The defending driver has to divide his attention between making the upcoming corner in the best way possible for him (even more difficult to judge when coming up to as tight a chicane as the Suzuka one was), and judging whether a following driver is in a position to attack or not, and if attacking, how to respond.

Expecting the defender to sacrifice attention for the corner, simply to keep tracking the attacker, is exactly why a dive bomb is a dive bomb. Hence my earlier question, to which I have not read a convincing answer. I don't expect one, because of the very nature of that kind of attack: present the defender with an unsolvable problem.

While I know any driver can make a mistake and fully execute an optimistic outbraking attack rather than abort it, I also feel it is too easy to transfer all of his responsibility onto the defender's shoulders, simply because the attack is there. As I said before; the rules forsee a punishment for causing an avoidable accident; none for failing to avoid it.

I think a driver is very capable (at least, he should be) of looking in his mirrors while preparing to take a corner. I don't think it's a reasonable defence to claim that he didn't have time to look. Prost was well aware that Senna was right on his tail and certainly a driver of his calibre should have been able to cope. He left the door open and should not have been surprised that Senna then took advantage.

I don't think the problem is unsolvable at all. It may be unwinnable, at least initially, but that's an entirely different thing. As in my previous example, when Vettel found Ricciardo steaming up the inside he had little choice but to give him room. He didn't just turn into him as though he wasn't there. Subsequently, Ricciardo's excess speed made him overshoot and Vettel got his position back. This is what Prost should have done and if Senna was indeed going too fast then he would have taken the place back in exactly the same way. There is a solution and it definitely involves not hitting the other car


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6914
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
My point was that once he commits, then the car being overtaken has to take his presence into account and not just claim the corner as if the overtaking driver wasn't there. There is no longer any question of ownership
Zoue, there is one point I believe you are forgetting in all this. The defending driver has to divide his attention between making the upcoming corner in the best way possible for him (even more difficult to judge when coming up to as tight a chicane as the Suzuka one was), and judging whether a following driver is in a position to attack or not, and if attacking, how to respond.

Expecting the defender to sacrifice attention for the corner, simply to keep tracking the attacker, is exactly why a dive bomb is a dive bomb. Hence my earlier question, to which I have not read a convincing answer. I don't expect one, because of the very nature of that kind of attack: present the defender with an unsolvable problem.

While I know any driver can make a mistake and fully execute an optimistic outbraking attack rather than abort it, I also feel it is too easy to transfer all of his responsibility onto the defender's shoulders, simply because the attack is there. As I said before; the rules forsee a punishment for causing an avoidable accident; none for failing to avoid it.

I think a driver is very capable (at least, he should be) of looking in his mirrors while preparing to take a corner. I don't think it's a reasonable defence to claim that he didn't have time to look. Prost was well aware that Senna was right on his tail and certainly a driver of his calibre should have been able to cope. He left the door open and should not have been surprised that Senna then took advantage.

I don't think the problem is unsolvable at all. It may be unwinnable, at least initially, but that's an entirely different thing. As in my previous example, when Vettel found Ricciardo steaming up the inside he had little choice but to give him room. He didn't just turn into him as though he wasn't there. Subsequently, Ricciardo's excess speed made him overshoot and Vettel got his position back. This is what Prost should have done and if Senna was indeed going too fast then he would have taken the place back in exactly the same way. There is a solution and it definitely involves not hitting the other car
Again you overlook something: it was, as I have repeatedly mentioned, a very tight and therefore slow chicane. So even though Ramirez says Senna was going too fast, a clear overshoot would not have been much different from what we saw now. That leaves a very clumsy passage through the chicane as the only likely outcome if Prost didn't turn in. Acceptable for Senna, perhaps, if we accept that a desperate attempt is always better than discretion and a later, bettter attempt. But unacceptable to the person who was ahead, and whose corner it was. The reason I keep pointing out it was Prost's corner, is Mr Whiting's explanation post-Francorchamps 2017.

Directly to the point of attention split; you expect the defending driver not only to defend, but to keep the attacker's mistakes into account simply because he didn't. That is not just accepting the possibility of the driver making a mistake, but excusing him for camouflaging his "yield or crash" attitude as a one.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:52 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12584
Let's just say the above is all true....

I still don't see any of it excusing Prost turning in early to cause an accident. It's not like he just took a normal line and didn't leave Senna space. He took an abnormal line to make sure he hit Senna before the corner. Saying hechad to do it to stay ahead is absolutely no defence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21117
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
My point was that once he commits, then the car being overtaken has to take his presence into account and not just claim the corner as if the overtaking driver wasn't there. There is no longer any question of ownership
Zoue, there is one point I believe you are forgetting in all this. The defending driver has to divide his attention between making the upcoming corner in the best way possible for him (even more difficult to judge when coming up to as tight a chicane as the Suzuka one was), and judging whether a following driver is in a position to attack or not, and if attacking, how to respond.

Expecting the defender to sacrifice attention for the corner, simply to keep tracking the attacker, is exactly why a dive bomb is a dive bomb. Hence my earlier question, to which I have not read a convincing answer. I don't expect one, because of the very nature of that kind of attack: present the defender with an unsolvable problem.

While I know any driver can make a mistake and fully execute an optimistic outbraking attack rather than abort it, I also feel it is too easy to transfer all of his responsibility onto the defender's shoulders, simply because the attack is there. As I said before; the rules forsee a punishment for causing an avoidable accident; none for failing to avoid it.

I think a driver is very capable (at least, he should be) of looking in his mirrors while preparing to take a corner. I don't think it's a reasonable defence to claim that he didn't have time to look. Prost was well aware that Senna was right on his tail and certainly a driver of his calibre should have been able to cope. He left the door open and should not have been surprised that Senna then took advantage.

I don't think the problem is unsolvable at all. It may be unwinnable, at least initially, but that's an entirely different thing. As in my previous example, when Vettel found Ricciardo steaming up the inside he had little choice but to give him room. He didn't just turn into him as though he wasn't there. Subsequently, Ricciardo's excess speed made him overshoot and Vettel got his position back. This is what Prost should have done and if Senna was indeed going too fast then he would have taken the place back in exactly the same way. There is a solution and it definitely involves not hitting the other car
Again you overlook something: it was, as I have repeatedly mentioned, a very tight and therefore slow chicane. So even though Ramirez says Senna was going too fast, a clear overshoot would not have been much different from what we saw now. That leaves a very clumsy passage through the chicane as the only likely outcome if Prost didn't turn in. Acceptable for Senna, perhaps, if we accept that a desperate attempt is always better than discretion and a later, bettter attempt. But unacceptable to the person who was ahead, and whose corner it was. The reason I keep pointing out it was Prost's corner, is Mr Whiting's explanation post-Francorchamps 2017.

Directly to the point of attention split; you expect the defending driver not only to defend, but to keep the attacker's mistakes into account simply because he didn't. That is not just accepting the possibility of the driver making a mistake, but excusing him for camouflaging his "yield or crash" attitude as a one.

But surely if he can make the chicane, however clumsily, then he hasn't gone in too fast and the move is a perfectly acceptable one? It's only too fast if he overshoots, in which case we're back to the scenario where Prost can cut back inside him again.

I expect the driver to turn into a corner while being completely aware of everything that is happening around them. Senna didn't just materialise: Prost should have seen him diving up the inside and acted accordingly. Which brings us back to the point made at the beginning of this thread that Prost did, in fact, see Senna and knew perfectly well what he was doing when he turned in much earlier than he normally did at that corner and took Senna out. The alternative is that he was driving strangely erratically, which doesn't really make sense


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6914
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue, there is one point I believe you are forgetting in all this. The defending driver has to divide his attention between making the upcoming corner in the best way possible for him (even more difficult to judge when coming up to as tight a chicane as the Suzuka one was), and judging whether a following driver is in a position to attack or not, and if attacking, how to respond.

Expecting the defender to sacrifice attention for the corner, simply to keep tracking the attacker, is exactly why a dive bomb is a dive bomb. Hence my earlier question, to which I have not read a convincing answer. I don't expect one, because of the very nature of that kind of attack: present the defender with an unsolvable problem.

While I know any driver can make a mistake and fully execute an optimistic outbraking attack rather than abort it, I also feel it is too easy to transfer all of his responsibility onto the defender's shoulders, simply because the attack is there. As I said before; the rules forsee a punishment for causing an avoidable accident; none for failing to avoid it.

I think a driver is very capable (at least, he should be) of looking in his mirrors while preparing to take a corner. I don't think it's a reasonable defence to claim that he didn't have time to look. Prost was well aware that Senna was right on his tail and certainly a driver of his calibre should have been able to cope. He left the door open and should not have been surprised that Senna then took advantage.

I don't think the problem is unsolvable at all. It may be unwinnable, at least initially, but that's an entirely different thing. As in my previous example, when Vettel found Ricciardo steaming up the inside he had little choice but to give him room. He didn't just turn into him as though he wasn't there. Subsequently, Ricciardo's excess speed made him overshoot and Vettel got his position back. This is what Prost should have done and if Senna was indeed going too fast then he would have taken the place back in exactly the same way. There is a solution and it definitely involves not hitting the other car
Again you overlook something: it was, as I have repeatedly mentioned, a very tight and therefore slow chicane. So even though Ramirez says Senna was going too fast, a clear overshoot would not have been much different from what we saw now. That leaves a very clumsy passage through the chicane as the only likely outcome if Prost didn't turn in. Acceptable for Senna, perhaps, if we accept that a desperate attempt is always better than discretion and a later, bettter attempt. But unacceptable to the person who was ahead, and whose corner it was. The reason I keep pointing out it was Prost's corner, is Mr Whiting's explanation post-Francorchamps 2017.

Directly to the point of attention split; you expect the defending driver not only to defend, but to keep the attacker's mistakes into account simply because he didn't. That is not just accepting the possibility of the driver making a mistake, but excusing him for camouflaging his "yield or crash" attitude as a one.

But surely if he can make the chicane, however clumsily, then he hasn't gone in too fast and the move is a perfectly acceptable one? It's only too fast if he overshoots, in which case we're back to the scenario where Prost can cut back inside him again.

Zoue, this is from an earlier post of yours: "My point was that once he commits, then the car being overtaken has to take his presence into account and not just claim the corner as if the overtaking driver wasn't there. There is no longer any question of ownership".

Now you make it even more difficult for a defending car ahead of a tight chicane. Not only are you saying that regardless of the degree of optimism displayed by the dive bombing driver, he even has to make extra room for the dive bomber, as the only way his car is going to get through the chicane, if he is going to make it at all, is for the defender to remove himself from the procedure. That is simply not racing! I admit I don't have the appeal hearing's full documentation, but Senna was punished for dangerous driving. And that is what you seem to be allowing in your explanation.

Zoue wrote:
I expect the driver to turn into a corner while being completely aware of everything that is happening around them. Senna didn't just materialise: Prost should have seen him diving up the inside and acted accordingly. Which brings us back to the point made at the beginning of this thread that Prost did, in fact, see Senna and knew perfectly well what he was doing when he turned in much earlier than he normally did at that corner and took Senna out. The alternative is that he was driving strangely erratically, which doesn't really make sense
Look at it from the cockpits of both drivers; the only one who has a full view of things, and therefore the better awareness, is the attacker. It is the reason why so many overoptimistic attempts at outbraking used to end in contact; the defender is forced to split his attention, not the attacker.

Prost had already seen that Senna was too far behind. And so did Senna, or his speed would have not been excessive for the attempt.
So you are right in saying Prost knew; which is the very reason "ownership of the corner" comes into it. A concept brought up by Mr Whiting only last year.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:53 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12584
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue, there is one point I believe you are forgetting in all this. The defending driver has to divide his attention between making the upcoming corner in the best way possible for him (even more difficult to judge when coming up to as tight a chicane as the Suzuka one was), and judging whether a following driver is in a position to attack or not, and if attacking, how to respond.

Expecting the defender to sacrifice attention for the corner, simply to keep tracking the attacker, is exactly why a dive bomb is a dive bomb. Hence my earlier question, to which I have not read a convincing answer. I don't expect one, because of the very nature of that kind of attack: present the defender with an unsolvable problem.

While I know any driver can make a mistake and fully execute an optimistic outbraking attack rather than abort it, I also feel it is too easy to transfer all of his responsibility onto the defender's shoulders, simply because the attack is there. As I said before; the rules forsee a punishment for causing an avoidable accident; none for failing to avoid it.

I think a driver is very capable (at least, he should be) of looking in his mirrors while preparing to take a corner. I don't think it's a reasonable defence to claim that he didn't have time to look. Prost was well aware that Senna was right on his tail and certainly a driver of his calibre should have been able to cope. He left the door open and should not have been surprised that Senna then took advantage.

I don't think the problem is unsolvable at all. It may be unwinnable, at least initially, but that's an entirely different thing. As in my previous example, when Vettel found Ricciardo steaming up the inside he had little choice but to give him room. He didn't just turn into him as though he wasn't there. Subsequently, Ricciardo's excess speed made him overshoot and Vettel got his position back. This is what Prost should have done and if Senna was indeed going too fast then he would have taken the place back in exactly the same way. There is a solution and it definitely involves not hitting the other car
Again you overlook something: it was, as I have repeatedly mentioned, a very tight and therefore slow chicane. So even though Ramirez says Senna was going too fast, a clear overshoot would not have been much different from what we saw now. That leaves a very clumsy passage through the chicane as the only likely outcome if Prost didn't turn in. Acceptable for Senna, perhaps, if we accept that a desperate attempt is always better than discretion and a later, bettter attempt. But unacceptable to the person who was ahead, and whose corner it was. The reason I keep pointing out it was Prost's corner, is Mr Whiting's explanation post-Francorchamps 2017.

Directly to the point of attention split; you expect the defending driver not only to defend, but to keep the attacker's mistakes into account simply because he didn't. That is not just accepting the possibility of the driver making a mistake, but excusing him for camouflaging his "yield or crash" attitude as a one.

But surely if he can make the chicane, however clumsily, then he hasn't gone in too fast and the move is a perfectly acceptable one? It's only too fast if he overshoots, in which case we're back to the scenario where Prost can cut back inside him again.

Zoue, this is from an earlier post of yours: "My point was that once he commits, then the car being overtaken has to take his presence into account and not just claim the corner as if the overtaking driver wasn't there. There is no longer any question of ownership".

Now you make it even more difficult for a defending car ahead of a tight chicane. Not only are you saying that regardless of the degree of optimism displayed by the dive bombing driver, he even has to make extra room for the dive bomber, as the only way his car is going to get through the chicane, if he is going to make it at all, is for the defender to remove himself from the procedure. That is simply not racing! I admit I don't have the appeal hearing's full documentation, but Senna was punished for dangerous driving. And that is what you seem to be allowing in your explanation.

Zoue wrote:
I expect the driver to turn into a corner while being completely aware of everything that is happening around them. Senna didn't just materialise: Prost should have seen him diving up the inside and acted accordingly. Which brings us back to the point made at the beginning of this thread that Prost did, in fact, see Senna and knew perfectly well what he was doing when he turned in much earlier than he normally did at that corner and took Senna out. The alternative is that he was driving strangely erratically, which doesn't really make sense
Look at it from the cockpits of both drivers; the only one who has a full view of things, and therefore the better awareness, is the attacker. It is the reason why so many overoptimistic attempts at outbraking used to end in contact; the defender is forced to split his attention, not the attacker.

Prost had already seen that Senna was too far behind. And so did Senna, or his speed would have not been excessive for the attempt.
So you are right in saying Prost knew; which is the very reason "ownership of the corner" comes into it. A concept brought up by Mr Whiting only last year.


The attacking driver can do bugg*r all if the defending driver decides to turn into him in the braking zone before the corner. It being in your words "a divebomb" or not makes not a jot of difference in this case. The attacking driver being over ambitious doesn't give the defending driver the right to steer into him before both even reach the corner.

Lets just say you're wrong and Senna could get the move done fairly. Would that make Prost's actions worse? What would it actually change? Would Prost not have turned into him because he thought it looked fair?

I think Senna's attempt was fine but I don't thin that matters because it was clearly not a factor in Prost's mind when deciding to cause a crash. How could it be? As you say a lots going on, how could he judge.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6914
Location: Belgium
mikeyg123 wrote:
The attacking driver can do bugg*r all if the defending driver decides to turn into him in the braking zone before the corner. It being in your words "a divebomb" or not makes not a jot of difference in this case.
On the contrary, it makes all the difference! It is the very reason why a dive bomb is not simply called a superb outbraking manoeuvre.

mikeyg123 wrote:
The attacking driver being over ambitious doesn't give the defending driver the right to steer into him before both even reach the corner.
You have just described the reason why a desperate driver goes into a dive bomb at all.

mikeyg123 wrote:
Lets just say you're wrong and Senna could get the move done fairly. Would that make Prost's actions worse? What would it actually change? Would Prost not have turned into him because he thought it looked fair?
If I were wrong (and may respectfully point out I'm not claiming I'm right in the first place), we wouldn't still be discussing this.

But your questions are hypothetical anyway; Ramirez confirmed Senna was too fast. It is not the responsibility of the defending driver to enable poor overtaking.

Now let's just say I am "right", and Senna going ahead anyway, and Prost moving out of the way to avoid a crash resulted in a Senna/Schlesser type of accident. What would you say then?

mikeyg123 wrote:
I think Senna's attempt was fine but I don't thin that matters because it was clearly not a factor in Prost's mind when deciding to cause a crash. How could it be? As you say a lots going on, how could he judge.
Look at it from the position of Senna; he's too fast but goes ahead anyway, Prost will just have to yield or there will be a crash. One which Senna could not afford to knock him out of the race and the championship. If Senna didn't even think that through, it says a lot about him. And as we saw, Prost was willing to give him the unaffordable option.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:39 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12584
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
The attacking driver can do bugg*r all if the defending driver decides to turn into him in the braking zone before the corner. It being in your words "a divebomb" or not makes not a jot of difference in this case.
On the contrary, it makes all the difference! It is the very reason why a dive bomb is not simply called a superb outbraking manoeuvre.

mikeyg123 wrote:
The attacking driver being over ambitious doesn't give the defending driver the right to steer into him before both even reach the corner.
You have just described the reason why a desperate driver goes into a dive bomb at all.

mikeyg123 wrote:
Lets just say you're wrong and Senna could get the move done fairly. Would that make Prost's actions worse? What would it actually change? Would Prost not have turned into him because he thought it looked fair?
If I were wrong (and may respectfully point out I'm not claiming I'm right in the first place), we wouldn't still be discussing this.

But your questions are hypothetical anyway; Ramirez confirmed Senna was too fast. It is not the responsibility of the defending driver to enable poor overtaking.

Now let's just say I am "right", and Senna going ahead anyway, and Prost moving out of the way to avoid a crash resulted in a Senna/Schlesser type of accident. What would you say then?

mikeyg123 wrote:
I think Senna's attempt was fine but I don't thin that matters because it was clearly not a factor in Prost's mind when deciding to cause a crash. How could it be? As you say a lots going on, how could he judge.
Look at it from the position of Senna; he's too fast but goes ahead anyway, Prost will just have to yield or there will be a crash. One which Senna could not afford to knock him out of the race and the championship. If Senna didn't even think that through, it says a lot about him. And as we saw, Prost was willing to give him the unaffordable option.


If Prost leaves room and Senna hits him then that's Senna's fault. But Prost crashed into Senna before the corner so who knows what would have happened. I fail to see anything in what you write that excuses Prost causing an accident. Senna obviously didn't think he was going to fast or he wouldn't have attempted the overtake. His judgement may have been wrong but no driver who can't afford to crash out is going to knowingly take a corner too fast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21117
Fiki wrote:
Zoue, this is from an earlier post of yours: "My point was that once he commits, then the car being overtaken has to take his presence into account and not just claim the corner as if the overtaking driver wasn't there. There is no longer any question of ownership".

Now you make it even more difficult for a defending car ahead of a tight chicane. Not only are you saying that regardless of the degree of optimism displayed by the dive bombing driver, he even has to make extra room for the dive bomber, as the only way his car is going to get through the chicane, if he is going to make it at all, is for the defender to remove himself from the procedure. That is simply not racing! I admit I don't have the appeal hearing's full documentation, but Senna was punished for dangerous driving. And that is what you seem to be allowing in your explanation.
I don't see how I'm making it more difficult simply by stating that drivers have to be aware of other drivers.

A driver has to make room for another if the alternative is a coming together. This should be self-evident. Again I point you back to the Vettel/Ricciardo example, where Ricciardo was clearly going too fast and Vettel adjusted his line to avoid contact. Ricciardo overshot and Vettel remained ahead. Vettel didn't just turn blindly into him because it was "his" corner. And this is what Prost should have done. And this is racing. As pointed out previously, overtaking by out-braking is a long established skill in motor-racing.

Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I expect the driver to turn into a corner while being completely aware of everything that is happening around them. Senna didn't just materialise: Prost should have seen him diving up the inside and acted accordingly. Which brings us back to the point made at the beginning of this thread that Prost did, in fact, see Senna and knew perfectly well what he was doing when he turned in much earlier than he normally did at that corner and took Senna out. The alternative is that he was driving strangely erratically, which doesn't really make sense
Look at it from the cockpits of both drivers; the only one who has a full view of things, and therefore the better awareness, is the attacker. It is the reason why so many overoptimistic attempts at outbraking used to end in contact; the defender is forced to split his attention, not the attacker.

Prost had already seen that Senna was too far behind. And so did Senna, or his speed would have not been excessive for the attempt.
So you are right in saying Prost knew; which is the very reason "ownership of the corner" comes into it. A concept brought up by Mr Whiting only last year.
There is no concept of ownership that would allow a driver to hit another driver. None. If Prost hit Senna because he felt he owned the corner, then Prost cheated. Prost may have been unhappy with Senna's move, but that still does not entitle him to take matters into his own hands and crash into him. I'm frankly astonished that I should even have to point that out.

The simple fact is that if Senna was indeed going too fast, then he would have overshot the corner. If Prost had given him room, then he would have been able to cut back in. And if Senna didn't overshoot the corner, then he wasn't going too fast. Either way, there is no justification for Prost hitting him


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6914
Location: Belgium
Zoue, I can't watch the Ricciardo attempt at this time, but if it happened on a wider corner, then it won't serve as an example. Also, you are putting the requirement for awareness on a far greater scale for the defender, than for the attacker, who already has the benefit of having the easier, more complete view. So I can't follow your reasoning there.

Unless you can explain why you don't acknowledge the concept of ownership of the corner, despite Mr Whiting doing so, we are stuck, I'm afraid.

I can understand why someone might think I make too much of Jo Ramirez's statement about Senna's speed, but I do consider it crucial. The old expression "a gap that was always going to disappear didn't come into existance without good reason.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21117
Fiki wrote:
Zoue, I can't watch the Ricciardo attempt at this time, but if it happened on a wider corner, then it won't serve as an example. Also, you are putting the requirement for awareness on a far greater scale for the defender, than for the attacker, who already has the benefit of having the easier, more complete view. So I can't follow your reasoning there.

Unless you can explain why you don't acknowledge the concept of ownership of the corner, despite Mr Whiting doing so, we are stuck, I'm afraid.

I can understand why someone might think I make too much of Jo Ramirez's statement about Senna's speed, but I do consider it crucial. The old expression "a gap that was always going to disappear didn't come into existance without good reason.

I'm not putting awareness on a greater scale on the defender. I'm saying a driver can't ignore where the other driver is on track when he makes a move. In this case, Senna had already dived up the inside, so Prost lost the right to turn in.

I think I have already explained it. If you think it's acceptable for a driver to steer into another as if he wasn't there, simply for some strange concept of ownership, then I agree we have zero common ground. I think I've been fairly clear on why I don't agree with it, in that deliberately hitting another car for any reason is unacceptable. Perhaps you might explain why some undefined concept of ownership gives a driver the right to plow into another? F1 has never been a contact sport, so I just don't see how that fits in with the rules in any way.

I'm not quibbling about Ramirez' statement. I'm quibbling about Prost's actions. Firstly, he wasn't aware of Ramirez' statement at the time he crashed into Senna, so it doesn't carry any weight with what he did. Secondly, he couldn't possibly have known for sure that Senna was going too fast. He may have estimated, sure, but that in itself doesn't give him licence to cause a collision. That's the only issue at hand here: whether Prost was in his rights to use his car as a battering ram. And I can't see any reasoning that would produce an affirmative answer to that question


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6914
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue, I can't watch the Ricciardo attempt at this time, but if it happened on a wider corner, then it won't serve as an example. Also, you are putting the requirement for awareness on a far greater scale for the defender, than for the attacker, who already has the benefit of having the easier, more complete view. So I can't follow your reasoning there.

Unless you can explain why you don't acknowledge the concept of ownership of the corner, despite Mr Whiting doing so, we are stuck, I'm afraid.

I can understand why someone might think I make too much of Jo Ramirez's statement about Senna's speed, but I do consider it crucial. The old expression "a gap that was always going to disappear didn't come into existance without good reason.

I'm not putting awareness on a greater scale on the defender. I'm saying a driver can't ignore where the other driver is on track when he makes a move. In this case, Senna had already dived up the inside, so Prost lost the right to turn in.
According to which rule at the time? (Yes, I know racing etiquette is nowhere to be found either.)

Zoue wrote:
I think I have already explained it. If you think it's acceptable for a driver to steer into another as if he wasn't there, simply for some strange concept of ownership, then I agree we have zero common ground. I think I've been fairly clear on why I don't agree with it, in that deliberately hitting another car for any reason is unacceptable. Perhaps you might explain why some undefined concept of ownership gives a driver the right to plow into another? F1 has never been a contact sport, so I just don't see how that fits in with the rules in any way.
As I said also, that question is for Mr Whiting to answer. He used ownership of the corner, defined by position at the apex, as explaining why a driver is allowed to run a car off the track. If it is allowed in 2017, then why would it be wrong in 1989?

Zoue wrote:
I'm not quibbling about Ramirez' statement. I'm quibbling about Prost's actions. Firstly, he wasn't aware of Ramirez' statement at the time he crashed into Senna, so it doesn't carry any weight with what he did. Secondly, he couldn't possibly have known for sure that Senna was going too fast. He may have estimated, sure, but that in itself doesn't give him licence to cause a collision. That's the only issue at hand here: whether Prost was in his rights to use his car as a battering ram. And I can't see any reasoning that would produce an affirmative answer to that question
True, Ramirez spoke after both cars went missing from the race result. But the statement simply confirmed Prost's reading of the situation: Senna too far back for a proper overtake. From a sporting point of view, there is no reason to reward desperation or bullying. And that is again where ownership comes in.

While I am against drivers causing avoidable accidents, it is abundantly clear from the outcome of the accident, that Prost had no idea what a battering ram is supposed to accomplish! As we all saw a year later, Senna had much more experience in that field.


To me as a Formula 1 fan, it is unacceptable that stewards' or race control decisions can't be researched by us. I have no idea whether other sports suffer from a lack of publication of rules that are used in reaching a verdict, but it does seem the case in F1.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2513
You're not going to be able to slam the door if somebody has stuck his foot into it.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6914
Location: Belgium
tootsie323 wrote:
You're not going to be able to slam the door if somebody has stuck his foot into it.
Possibly. But wearing the right kind of shoe might be wise, if the sticker-inner isn't.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21117
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue, I can't watch the Ricciardo attempt at this time, but if it happened on a wider corner, then it won't serve as an example. Also, you are putting the requirement for awareness on a far greater scale for the defender, than for the attacker, who already has the benefit of having the easier, more complete view. So I can't follow your reasoning there.

Unless you can explain why you don't acknowledge the concept of ownership of the corner, despite Mr Whiting doing so, we are stuck, I'm afraid.

I can understand why someone might think I make too much of Jo Ramirez's statement about Senna's speed, but I do consider it crucial. The old expression "a gap that was always going to disappear didn't come into existance without good reason.

I'm not putting awareness on a greater scale on the defender. I'm saying a driver can't ignore where the other driver is on track when he makes a move. In this case, Senna had already dived up the inside, so Prost lost the right to turn in.
According to which rule at the time? (Yes, I know racing etiquette is nowhere to be found either.)

Zoue wrote:
I think I have already explained it. If you think it's acceptable for a driver to steer into another as if he wasn't there, simply for some strange concept of ownership, then I agree we have zero common ground. I think I've been fairly clear on why I don't agree with it, in that deliberately hitting another car for any reason is unacceptable. Perhaps you might explain why some undefined concept of ownership gives a driver the right to plow into another? F1 has never been a contact sport, so I just don't see how that fits in with the rules in any way.
As I said also, that question is for Mr Whiting to answer. He used ownership of the corner, defined by position at the apex, as explaining why a driver is allowed to run a car off the track. If it is allowed in 2017, then why would it be wrong in 1989?

Zoue wrote:
I'm not quibbling about Ramirez' statement. I'm quibbling about Prost's actions. Firstly, he wasn't aware of Ramirez' statement at the time he crashed into Senna, so it doesn't carry any weight with what he did. Secondly, he couldn't possibly have known for sure that Senna was going too fast. He may have estimated, sure, but that in itself doesn't give him licence to cause a collision. That's the only issue at hand here: whether Prost was in his rights to use his car as a battering ram. And I can't see any reasoning that would produce an affirmative answer to that question
True, Ramirez spoke after both cars went missing from the race result. But the statement simply confirmed Prost's reading of the situation: Senna too far back for a proper overtake. From a sporting point of view, there is no reason to reward desperation or bullying. And that is again where ownership comes in.

While I am against drivers causing avoidable accidents, it is abundantly clear from the outcome of the accident, that Prost had no idea what a battering ram is supposed to accomplish! As we all saw a year later, Senna had much more experience in that field.


To me as a Formula 1 fan, it is unacceptable that stewards' or race control decisions can't be researched by us. I have no idea whether other sports suffer from a lack of publication of rules that are used in reaching a verdict, but it does seem the case in F1.

In answer to which rule at the time, ramming another car has never been a part of the rules. It's a no-contact sport.

Running a car off the track is markedly different to ramming a car. I don't think Whiting's comments on the former are in any way applicable to the latter.

Prost's words don't really tally with his actions, which is why people are having difficulty with the events of 1989. He took a very unusual line in that corner, which brought him into direct contact with Senna, and he never adequately explained why he did that. It's difficult to draw any conclusion other than that he saw Senna and chose to make contact rather than cede the place. Which makes the accident his fault. Speculation on whether Senna would have made the corner is just that and cannot be a justification for Prost's actions.

I agree that there should be much greater transparency in the decision making around penalties, especially in this age of instant information access. If they are confident enough to make a decision that has a significant impact on the title fight, they should be confident enough to explain (and justify) their thought processes. Sadly, however, we will never know the real truth about this particular episode, but the only realistic explanation for Prost not deliberately targeting Senna is incompetence, which is hard to reconcile with his ability. The balance of probability indicates intent, which makes Prost the guilty party


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6914
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue, I can't watch the Ricciardo attempt at this time, but if it happened on a wider corner, then it won't serve as an example. Also, you are putting the requirement for awareness on a far greater scale for the defender, than for the attacker, who already has the benefit of having the easier, more complete view. So I can't follow your reasoning there.

Unless you can explain why you don't acknowledge the concept of ownership of the corner, despite Mr Whiting doing so, we are stuck, I'm afraid.

I can understand why someone might think I make too much of Jo Ramirez's statement about Senna's speed, but I do consider it crucial. The old expression "a gap that was always going to disappear didn't come into existance without good reason.

I'm not putting awareness on a greater scale on the defender. I'm saying a driver can't ignore where the other driver is on track when he makes a move. In this case, Senna had already dived up the inside, so Prost lost the right to turn in.
According to which rule at the time? (Yes, I know racing etiquette is nowhere to be found either.)

Zoue wrote:
I think I have already explained it. If you think it's acceptable for a driver to steer into another as if he wasn't there, simply for some strange concept of ownership, then I agree we have zero common ground. I think I've been fairly clear on why I don't agree with it, in that deliberately hitting another car for any reason is unacceptable. Perhaps you might explain why some undefined concept of ownership gives a driver the right to plow into another? F1 has never been a contact sport, so I just don't see how that fits in with the rules in any way.
As I said also, that question is for Mr Whiting to answer. He used ownership of the corner, defined by position at the apex, as explaining why a driver is allowed to run a car off the track. If it is allowed in 2017, then why would it be wrong in 1989?

Zoue wrote:
I'm not quibbling about Ramirez' statement. I'm quibbling about Prost's actions. Firstly, he wasn't aware of Ramirez' statement at the time he crashed into Senna, so it doesn't carry any weight with what he did. Secondly, he couldn't possibly have known for sure that Senna was going too fast. He may have estimated, sure, but that in itself doesn't give him licence to cause a collision. That's the only issue at hand here: whether Prost was in his rights to use his car as a battering ram. And I can't see any reasoning that would produce an affirmative answer to that question
True, Ramirez spoke after both cars went missing from the race result. But the statement simply confirmed Prost's reading of the situation: Senna too far back for a proper overtake. From a sporting point of view, there is no reason to reward desperation or bullying. And that is again where ownership comes in.

While I am against drivers causing avoidable accidents, it is abundantly clear from the outcome of the accident, that Prost had no idea what a battering ram is supposed to accomplish! As we all saw a year later, Senna had much more experience in that field.


To me as a Formula 1 fan, it is unacceptable that stewards' or race control decisions can't be researched by us. I have no idea whether other sports suffer from a lack of publication of rules that are used in reaching a verdict, but it does seem the case in F1.

In answer to which rule at the time, ramming another car has never been a part of the rules. It's a no-contact sport.
True, but neither is dive bombing. Still, that wasn't the rule I was asking about. You wrote
Zoue wrote:
I'm saying a driver can't ignore where the other driver is on track when he makes a move. In this case, Senna had already dived up the inside, so Prost lost the right to turn in.
Although I would normally agree with you, without reference to the rules, it is with reference to the rules that the stewards are supposed to arrive at a verdict. That is the essence of the problem I have with this and quite a number of other incident outcomes.
If the mere presence of a car on the inside is reason enough for a defending driver to yield to the attacker, regardless of how overoptimistic/unsporting/stupid the attacking driver is, then surely that fact is documented in the rules?

Zoue wrote:
Prost's words don't really tally with his actions, which is why people are having difficulty with the events of 1989. He took a very unusual line in that corner, which brought him into direct contact with Senna, and he never adequately explained why he did that. It's difficult to draw any conclusion other than that he saw Senna and chose to make contact rather than cede the place. Which makes the accident his fault. Speculation on whether Senna would have made the corner is just that and cannot be a justification for Prost's actions.
I would love to have Prost explain it to me, because no other source seems to be available to those studying the whole incident. I have brought forward one factor in this discussion, which you reject; being ahead. The basis on which you reject that should be the rules. Note that I have also pointed out that being ahead is nowhere to be found in the rules now, but is still used in at least one 2017 verdict.

I don't know much about other sports, so I can't offer any analogies. Footballers being attacked, rather than the football, perhaps? But I don't know the rules governing football, and I don't find it an interesting enough sport to want to study them.

Zoue wrote:
I agree that there should be much greater transparency in the decision making around penalties, especially in this age of instant information access. If they are confident enough to make a decision that has a significant impact on the title fight, they should be confident enough to explain (and justify) their thought processes. Sadly, however, we will never know the real truth about this particular episode, but the only realistic explanation for Prost not deliberately targeting Senna is incompetence, which is hard to reconcile with his ability. The balance of probability indicates intent, which makes Prost the guilty party
Here also I offered an explanation, which you rejected. Whether the basis for your rejection is merely being realistic, is something I doubt.
One verdict the stewards reached recently sheds some light on the fact that more is used than just the rules: Austria 2016.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:43 am 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12584
I think you're way over complicating the situation. If the rules debar you from deliberately driving into an opponent then Prost broke the rules. Even if it's explicitly laid out in the rules I'm sure we can all agree deliberately causing an accident is wrong. And doing so because otherwise you feared losing a position is no defence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6914
Location: Belgium
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think you're way over complicating the situation. If the rules debar you from deliberately driving into an opponent then Prost broke the rules. Even if it's explicitly laid out in the rules I'm sure we can all agree deliberately causing an accident is wrong. And doing so because otherwise you feared losing a position is no defence.
Which beautifully returns us to my initial question: how do you defend against a dive bomb? Or in other words, who should the stewards punish, when a defender gives the attacker the accident he seeks?

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5482
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think you're way over complicating the situation. If the rules debar you from deliberately driving into an opponent then Prost broke the rules. Even if it's explicitly laid out in the rules I'm sure we can all agree deliberately causing an accident is wrong. And doing so because otherwise you feared losing a position is no defence.
Which beautifully returns us to my initial question: how do you defend against a dive bomb? Or in other words, who should the stewards punish, when a defender gives the attacker the accident he seeks?


I think the argument is that he would have given the attacker the accident he needed all the same if he had taken the normal line. By turning in earlier, he kind of forfeits that for turning into somebody.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:21 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12584
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think you're way over complicating the situation. If the rules debar you from deliberately driving into an opponent then Prost broke the rules. Even if it's explicitly laid out in the rules I'm sure we can all agree deliberately causing an accident is wrong. And doing so because otherwise you feared losing a position is no defence.
Which beautifully returns us to my initial question: how do you defend against a dive bomb? Or in other words, who should the stewards punish, when a defender gives the attacker the accident he seeks?


Well deliberately causing an accident should be the last thing you do.

If you are too late to block then you have to allow space. If it was a divebomb then the overtaking driver will go off. If he stays on the track then he's made a good pass.

If you can no longer remain in your position without causing an accident then I'm afraid the position has already been lost.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6914
Location: Belgium
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think you're way over complicating the situation. If the rules debar you from deliberately driving into an opponent then Prost broke the rules. Even if it's explicitly laid out in the rules I'm sure we can all agree deliberately causing an accident is wrong. And doing so because otherwise you feared losing a position is no defence.
Which beautifully returns us to my initial question: how do you defend against a dive bomb? Or in other words, who should the stewards punish, when a defender gives the attacker the accident he seeks?


I think the argument is that he would have given the attacker the accident he needed all the same if he had taken the normal line. By turning in earlier, he kind of forfeits that for turning into somebody.
That's not a bad point, though "the normal line" is not something you will find described in the rules. The "racing line" only made its first appearance in the official rules a few years ago. And if we were to apply it to this incident, it would require Prost to leave a car's width of space on the outside, on the approach to the corner.

I like the word "needed" in your comment. :D In fact, Senna needed at all cost to avoid an accident, knowing that if there were one, and he were put out of the race, his championship chances were gone. Senna needed to get past Prost, but without risking his car. Which really puts the whole episode into perspective.

It's a bit like Singapore 2017 in reverse; Max saying he will risk everything, because he knows Sebastian can't risk anything, yet has to win. In fact, it even illustrates my point on who has the best view of the situation: the driver behind. Max could get out of it, but chose not to. Just like Senna. Both got their accident.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21117
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think you're way over complicating the situation. If the rules debar you from deliberately driving into an opponent then Prost broke the rules. Even if it's explicitly laid out in the rules I'm sure we can all agree deliberately causing an accident is wrong. And doing so because otherwise you feared losing a position is no defence.
Which beautifully returns us to my initial question: how do you defend against a dive bomb? Or in other words, who should the stewards punish, when a defender gives the attacker the accident he seeks?


I think the argument is that he would have given the attacker the accident he needed all the same if he had taken the normal line. By turning in earlier, he kind of forfeits that for turning into somebody.
That's not a bad point, though "the normal line" is not something you will find described in the rules. The "racing line" only made its first appearance in the official rules a few years ago. And if we were to apply it to this incident, it would require Prost to leave a car's width of space on the outside, on the approach to the corner.

I like the word "needed" in your comment. :D In fact, Senna needed at all cost to avoid an accident, knowing that if there were one, and he were put out of the race, his championship chances were gone. Senna needed to get past Prost, but without risking his car. Which really puts the whole episode into perspective.

It's a bit like Singapore 2017 in reverse; Max saying he will risk everything, because he knows Sebastian can't risk anything, yet has to win. In fact, it even illustrates my point on who has the best view of the situation: the driver behind. Max could get out of it, but chose not to. Just like Senna. Both got their accident.

The normal line doesn’t need to be in the rules. Point is that Prost took a very unusual line for that corner, which would not have enabled him to take he corner optimally. And for such an experienced driver, that was out of character. Which raises questions as to his motivations for doing so. How a line may be described in the rules is irrelevant to that point.

I strongly dispute your assertion that Senna could have backed out but chose not to. There is no evidence for this


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:05 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12584
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think you're way over complicating the situation. If the rules debar you from deliberately driving into an opponent then Prost broke the rules. Even if it's explicitly laid out in the rules I'm sure we can all agree deliberately causing an accident is wrong. And doing so because otherwise you feared losing a position is no defence.
Which beautifully returns us to my initial question: how do you defend against a dive bomb? Or in other words, who should the stewards punish, when a defender gives the attacker the accident he seeks?


I think the argument is that he would have given the attacker the accident he needed all the same if he had taken the normal line. By turning in earlier, he kind of forfeits that for turning into somebody.
That's not a bad point, though "the normal line" is not something you will find described in the rules. The "racing line" only made its first appearance in the official rules a few years ago. And if we were to apply it to this incident, it would require Prost to leave a car's width of space on the outside, on the approach to the corner.

I like the word "needed" in your comment. :D In fact, Senna needed at all cost to avoid an accident, knowing that if there were one, and he were put out of the race, his championship chances were gone. Senna needed to get past Prost, but without risking his car. Which really puts the whole episode into perspective.

It's a bit like Singapore 2017 in reverse; Max saying he will risk everything, because he knows Sebastian can't risk anything, yet has to win. In fact, it even illustrates my point on who has the best view of the situation: the driver behind. Max could get out of it, but chose not to. Just like Senna. Both got their accident.


Unfortunately it's not possible for one car to overtake another without giving the lead driver opportunity to crash into the side of the passing car. A 2nd place was virtually pointless to Prost and he obviously had no intention of racing against Senna.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6914
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
I think the argument is that he would have given the attacker the accident he needed all the same if he had taken the normal line. By turning in earlier, he kind of forfeits that for turning into somebody.
That's not a bad point, though "the normal line" is not something you will find described in the rules. The "racing line" only made its first appearance in the official rules a few years ago. And if we were to apply it to this incident, it would require Prost to leave a car's width of space on the outside, on the approach to the corner.

I like the word "needed" in your comment. :D In fact, Senna needed at all cost to avoid an accident, knowing that if there were one, and he were put out of the race, his championship chances were gone. Senna needed to get past Prost, but without risking his car. Which really puts the whole episode into perspective.

It's a bit like Singapore 2017 in reverse; Max saying he will risk everything, because he knows Sebastian can't risk anything, yet has to win. In fact, it even illustrates my point on who has the best view of the situation: the driver behind. Max could get out of it, but chose not to. Just like Senna. Both got their accident.

The normal line doesn’t need to be in the rules.
I agree. But if it isn't in, there's little point in wanting a driver to use it.

Zoue wrote:
Point is that Prost took a very unusual line for that corner, which would not have enabled him to take he corner optimally. And for such an experienced driver, that was out of character. Which raises questions as to his motivations for doing so. How a line may be described in the rules is irrelevant to that point.
A very unusual line also isn't in the rules, and a driver isn't bound to take a usual line through a corner. In fact, neither driver can take the normal, or usual line through a corner when an overtake is taking place.
Prost's motivation can only be guessed at. We know he said before the race that he didn't intend to open the door. What that meant has been discussed in these pages. The fact is that he has not been punished, while Senna has.

Zoue wrote:
I strongly dispute your assertion that Senna could have backed out but chose not to. There is no evidence for this
At the very least, Senna could have come in at the correct speed. That he came in at too high a speed is put on record by Ramirez. He chose to make his attempt at too high a speed, up the inside. He chose to continue at the point he needed to make his decision. That decision point was not when Prost turned in on him, but rather near the entry to the pitlane. I wish I could find documentation on whether he was allowed to use that entry or not. My reason for reading that has already been explained.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21117
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
The normal line doesn’t need to be in the rules.
I agree. But if it isn't in, there's little point in wanting a driver to use it.
They don't use it because the rules tell them to, they use it because it is the best way to take a corner. If a driver deviates from it, then there is invariably a reason, since he would inevitably be slower. That's all the point a driver needs

Fiki wrote:
A very unusual line also isn't in the rules, and a driver isn't bound to take a usual line through a corner. In fact, neither driver can take the normal, or usual line through a corner when an overtake is taking place.
You seem to be of the opinion that every action needs to be specified by the rules, which simply isn't the case. A driver may take any line he wishes, but at the same time they have to be aware of others around them when doing so
Fiki wrote:
Prost's motivation can only be guessed at. We know he said before the race that he didn't intend to open the door. What that meant has been discussed in these pages. The fact is that he has not been punished, while Senna has.
If you are of the opinion that punishment equals guilt, then there's little point debating anything. I don't share the view that the authorities are infallible

Fiki wrote:
At the very least, Senna could have come in at the correct speed. That he came in at too high a speed is put on record by Ramirez. He chose to make his attempt at too high a speed, up the inside. He chose to continue at the point he needed to make his decision. That decision point was not when Prost turned in on him, but rather near the entry to the pitlane. I wish I could find documentation on whether he was allowed to use that entry or not. My reason for reading that has already been explained.
That he came in too fast was Ramirez' opinion, not a fact. He may have been right, but equally he may have misjudged. And if Senna was too fast, then he would have overshot. In which case, there was nothing for Prost to worry about. But non explanation has been given that would justify Prost causing a collision


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6914
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
A very unusual line also isn't in the rules, and a driver isn't bound to take a usual line through a corner. In fact, neither driver can take the normal, or usual line through a corner when an overtake is taking place.
You seem to be of the opinion that every action needs to be specified by the rules, which simply isn't the case.
That is not the case. I believe that if an action is judged by the stewards (or even on the spot by race control), then it must be possible to find the rules their judgement is based on.

Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Prost's motivation can only be guessed at. We know he said before the race that he didn't intend to open the door. What that meant has been discussed in these pages. The fact is that he has not been punished, while Senna has.
If you are of the opinion that punishment equals guilt, then there's little point debating anything. I don't share the view that the authorities are infallible
Again, that is not the case. You may not have noticed, but I have stated I regret the fact we can't read what the stewards at the race, or the judges at the World Motor Sports Council thought and decided. That is why I am just as surprised as anybody that only cutting the chicane was stated as the cause for the disqualification, while we don't know what the stewards thought of the incident itself.
The point I tried to make, is that there is at least a verdict on Senna's/McLaren's appeal. Whether the WMSC is infallible or not is neither here nor there. Both parties had time and resources available to present their sides of the argument. I gladly accept that hearing the appeal before the final race may have put some time pressure on them, but it was not a knee jerk reaction, the way the stewards' verdict might be thought to have been.

I expect the full report from the WMSC would include at least a partial rationale, and I'm very interested in reading that. As interested as I am in reading what the rules at the time said, and whether I would ultimately agree with what the judges decided.

The rules are there for the benefit of all, not just those who have to judge an incident. They are supposed to guide the actions of drivers in a dangerous sport.

Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
At the very least, Senna could have come in at the correct speed. That he came in at too high a speed is put on record by Ramirez. He chose to make his attempt at too high a speed, up the inside. He chose to continue at the point he needed to make his decision. That decision point was not when Prost turned in on him, but rather near the entry to the pitlane. I wish I could find documentation on whether he was allowed to use that entry or not. My reason for reading that has already been explained.
That he came in too fast was Ramirez' opinion, not a fact. He may have been right, but equally he may have misjudged. And if Senna was too fast, then he would have overshot. In which case, there was nothing for Prost to worry about. But non explanation has been given that would justify Prost causing a collision
Perhaps it was Ramirez' opinion, and perhaps it was more than simply opinion. I would suggest that an important member of the McLaren team would have more information to base his views on, than we. But even if it was 'mere' opinion, it was one that has to carry much more weight than yours or mine. One of the reasons why I would like Ramirez to have told us what he said to Senna, is that it might help us understand his views on the incident. Ramirez wasn't just anybody.
Why you seem to think any excess speed will always result in an overshoot, is something I don't understand. But I've already shown why that need not be the case, so you can read that earlier in this thread.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], mikeyg123 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group