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.As mikeyg123 has already pointed out, if Senna makes the corner then he wasn't going too fast. I fear this may be the crux of our disagreement. All he has to do is make the corner and he has completed a good pass
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
