planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:05 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14176
If Senna doesn't overshoot the corner and makes the turn then he has made a good pass.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Fiki wrote:
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7355
Location: Belgium
mikeyg123 wrote:
If Senna doesn't overshoot the corner and makes the turn then he has made a good pass.
Well, not if he can't make it , without bearing in mind the presence of the driver ahead. Doing that is simply bullying.

As I already said, there's a difference between taking the chicane too fast on your own and clumsily making it, and doing the same while forcing the driver ahead to make the room you need to be able to do it. Isn't that the essence of throwing away racing etiquette and simply bullying your way past?
The mere fact of being faster than the driver ahead, doesn't mean you're going to get past. Zandvoort 1985 showed us that. A defending driver also has his rights.

_________________
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: Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7355
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
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
Wrong. He was going too fast, as noted by Ramirez. Possibly not to make it through the corner on his own, but that is not what we are discussing.
There was no room for two cars at normal racing speed through that chicane, and Senna would have had to make a pass as he later showed with Nannini, to make a good pass on Prost. He had to get ahead of Prost prior turn-in and he failed to do that. I don't know when Senna knew a conventional attempt would fail, he may have realised it too late.

_________________
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: Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
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
Wrong. He was going too fast, as noted by Ramirez. Possibly not to make it through the corner on his own, but that is not what we are discussing.
There was no room for two cars at normal racing speed through that chicane, and Senna would have had to make a pass as he later showed with Nannini, to make a good pass on Prost. He had to get ahead of Prost prior turn-in and he failed to do that. I don't know when Senna knew a conventional attempt would fail, he may have realised it too late.

It is (part of) what we are discussing. Ramirez thought he was too fast, but it wasn't impossible that Senna could have made the corner.

But the bottom line is that if he couldn't make the corner, he would overshoot and been unable to overtake Prost. If he could make the corner, OTOH, then it would have been a perfectly legitimate pass and the "too fast" thing would have been redundant. Either way, it doesn't excuse Prost from causing a collision by turning into him


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
If Senna doesn't overshoot the corner and makes the turn then he has made a good pass.
Well, not if he can't make it , without bearing in mind the presence of the driver ahead. Doing that is simply bullying.

As I already said, there's a difference between taking the chicane too fast on your own and clumsily making it, and doing the same while forcing the driver ahead to make the room you need to be able to do it. Isn't that the essence of throwing away racing etiquette and simply bullying your way past?
The mere fact of being faster than the driver ahead, doesn't mean you're going to get past. Zandvoort 1985 showed us that. A defending driver also has his rights.

No, it's not. It's racing.

Drivers force themselves past all the time. As mentioned already several times, outbraking another is a long-established move in motor racing and almost invariably involves the overtaken driver having to adjust his line. If you make the corner, however clumsily, then you have completed a fair pass (assuming no contact, of course).

A defending driver never has the right to cause an accident


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14176
Both the attacking and defending driver have to take the other into account. Neither driver can take the line they want if it's already occupied.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7355
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
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
Wrong. He was going too fast, as noted by Ramirez. Possibly not to make it through the corner on his own, but that is not what we are discussing.
There was no room for two cars at normal racing speed through that chicane, and Senna would have had to make a pass as he later showed with Nannini, to make a good pass on Prost. He had to get ahead of Prost prior turn-in and he failed to do that. I don't know when Senna knew a conventional attempt would fail, he may have realised it too late.

It is (part of) what we are discussing. Ramirez thought he was too fast, but it wasn't impossible that Senna could have made the corner.

But the bottom line is that if he couldn't make the corner, he would overshoot and been unable to overtake Prost. If he could make the corner, OTOH, then it would have been a perfectly legitimate pass and the "too fast" thing would have been redundant. Either way, it doesn't excuse Prost from causing a collision by turning into him
No, the bottom line of that part of the argument is what you define as being able to make the corner with another driver ahead.

_________________
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: Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7355
Location: Belgium
mikeyg123 wrote:
Both the attacking and defending driver have to take the other into account. Neither driver can take the line they want if it's already occupied.
I agree. Which is why I have been searching for reasons why the stewards didn't punish Prost.

_________________
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: Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
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
Wrong. He was going too fast, as noted by Ramirez. Possibly not to make it through the corner on his own, but that is not what we are discussing.
There was no room for two cars at normal racing speed through that chicane, and Senna would have had to make a pass as he later showed with Nannini, to make a good pass on Prost. He had to get ahead of Prost prior turn-in and he failed to do that. I don't know when Senna knew a conventional attempt would fail, he may have realised it too late.

It is (part of) what we are discussing. Ramirez thought he was too fast, but it wasn't impossible that Senna could have made the corner.

But the bottom line is that if he couldn't make the corner, he would overshoot and been unable to overtake Prost. If he could make the corner, OTOH, then it would have been a perfectly legitimate pass and the "too fast" thing would have been redundant. Either way, it doesn't excuse Prost from causing a collision by turning into him
No, the bottom line of that part of the argument is what you define as being able to make the corner with another driver ahead.

It's not, really. Defining being able to make the corner is pretty easy - if you can get your car around it while staying on track, you have made it. Another car being ahead is not relevant if that car leaves a gap where you can poach the place off him.

I don't understand this insistence that Prost being ahead gave him the right to do as he pleased. Do you feel that the leading driver has no obligation to see where the car behind is when making a move?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Both the attacking and defending driver have to take the other into account. Neither driver can take the line they want if it's already occupied.
I agree. Which is why I have been searching for reasons why the stewards didn't punish Prost.

That's the thing, though. It's Prost who moved into a space already occupied by Senna, not the other way around


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7355
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
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
Wrong. He was going too fast, as noted by Ramirez. Possibly not to make it through the corner on his own, but that is not what we are discussing.
There was no room for two cars at normal racing speed through that chicane, and Senna would have had to make a pass as he later showed with Nannini, to make a good pass on Prost. He had to get ahead of Prost prior turn-in and he failed to do that. I don't know when Senna knew a conventional attempt would fail, he may have realised it too late.

It is (part of) what we are discussing. Ramirez thought he was too fast, but it wasn't impossible that Senna could have made the corner.

But the bottom line is that if he couldn't make the corner, he would overshoot and been unable to overtake Prost. If he could make the corner, OTOH, then it would have been a perfectly legitimate pass and the "too fast" thing would have been redundant. Either way, it doesn't excuse Prost from causing a collision by turning into him
No, the bottom line of that part of the argument is what you define as being able to make the corner with another driver ahead.

It's not, really. Defining being able to make the corner is pretty easy - if you can get your car around it while staying on track, you have made it. Another car being ahead is not relevant if that car leaves a gap where you can poach the place off him.

I don't understand this insistence that Prost being ahead gave him the right to do as he pleased. Do you feel that the leading driver has no obligation to see where the car behind is when making a move?
What I feel is unimportant. What interests me is what the rules said about what happened. And also how something I can't find in them, can apparently be used in stewards' verdicts even now.

A reference on Wikipedia (article on Senna), leads to a copy of the New Times Straits newspaper reporting the 1989 Japanese Grand Prix. It names the article Senna was disqualified for:
New Times Straits wrote:
A statement from the secretary general of the International Motor Sport Federation (FISA) Yvon Leon said Senna had “avoided the chicane and therefore committed an infringement (Article 56, 1989 FIA Formula One world championship regulations) a breach of which shall result in exclusion of the car and driver from the event”.
I hope I can come across more real information on this episode.

_________________
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: Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14176
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Both the attacking and defending driver have to take the other into account. Neither driver can take the line they want if it's already occupied.
I agree. Which is why I have been searching for reasons why the stewards didn't punish Prost.

That's the thing, though. It's Prost who moved into a space already occupied by Senna, not the other way around


:thumbup:

I'm not claiming to know if Senna's pass would have been successful or not but I don't think that's relevant. Prost drove into the side of a car running next to him. That's all there is to it really.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Wrong. He was going too fast, as noted by Ramirez. Possibly not to make it through the corner on his own, but that is not what we are discussing.
There was no room for two cars at normal racing speed through that chicane, and Senna would have had to make a pass as he later showed with Nannini, to make a good pass on Prost. He had to get ahead of Prost prior turn-in and he failed to do that. I don't know when Senna knew a conventional attempt would fail, he may have realised it too late.

It is (part of) what we are discussing. Ramirez thought he was too fast, but it wasn't impossible that Senna could have made the corner.

But the bottom line is that if he couldn't make the corner, he would overshoot and been unable to overtake Prost. If he could make the corner, OTOH, then it would have been a perfectly legitimate pass and the "too fast" thing would have been redundant. Either way, it doesn't excuse Prost from causing a collision by turning into him
No, the bottom line of that part of the argument is what you define as being able to make the corner with another driver ahead.

It's not, really. Defining being able to make the corner is pretty easy - if you can get your car around it while staying on track, you have made it. Another car being ahead is not relevant if that car leaves a gap where you can poach the place off him.

I don't understand this insistence that Prost being ahead gave him the right to do as he pleased. Do you feel that the leading driver has no obligation to see where the car behind is when making a move?
What I feel is unimportant. What interests me is what the rules said about what happened. And also how something I can't find in them, can apparently be used in stewards' verdicts even now.

A reference on Wikipedia (article on Senna), leads to a copy of the New Times Straits newspaper reporting the 1989 Japanese Grand Prix. It names the article Senna was disqualified for:
New Times Straits wrote:
A statement from the secretary general of the International Motor Sport Federation (FISA) Yvon Leon said Senna had “avoided the chicane and therefore committed an infringement (Article 56, 1989 FIA Formula One world championship regulations) a breach of which shall result in exclusion of the car and driver from the event”.
I hope I can come across more real information on this episode.

It's common knowledge why he was excluded. It's equally commonly thought that the reasoning is questionable. But the thread is based on driver responsibility, not stewards' verdicts. That's what we've been discussing. And how you view that is important in the context of the thread


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7355
Location: Belgium
It may be common knowledge why he was excluded, but we now know the article Senna sinned against. Since everybody who watched it can attest that Senna did indeed not take the chicane, I don't see why it would be questionable. In fact, it was the one thing nobody could even try to argue against.

Unless we can find how overtaking rules and overtaking etiquette were officially viewed then and now, we are simply going to have to agree to disagree about why things happened, and how the officials reached their verdicts as they did.

_________________
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: Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Fiki wrote:
It may be common knowledge why he was excluded, but we now know the article Senna sinned against. Since everybody who watched it can attest that Senna did indeed not take the chicane, I don't see why it would be questionable. In fact, it was the one thing nobody could even try to argue against.

Unless we can find how overtaking rules and overtaking etiquette were officially viewed then and now, we are simply going to have to agree to disagree about why things happened, and how the officials reached their verdicts as they did.

That's a bit disingenuous. Senna didn't take the chicane because he was rammed and therefore lost control of the car. It has no bearing on whether he may have been able to take it, if he had not been hit. But in any event, anything after the actual collision is hard to define, given the nature of the accident. And whether he may or may not have been able to take the chicane is irrelevant, because either way it wouldn't have given Prost licence to hit him.

Anyway, you appear to be moving away from the original discussion, which was about driver responsibility and, in this instance, culpability, and are trying to make it about the stewards' verdict. Which is an entirely different topic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:21 am
Posts: 3508
Discussion is becoming circular. After brief discussion it has been decided to let the topic die off.

_________________
AlienTurnedHuman wrote:
Eurytus probably thought he was God. At least until he was banned. Which means if he was God, it makes me very scared of PF1-Mod.

Please report forum problems to us, via PM/Feedback Thread. Screenshots will also help.


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: Mort Canard 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