planetf1.com

mikeyg123's point is that had he turned in a few meters later, and so on a normal trajectory for the corner, it would be different. There would have been a collision just as well.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

I know, I wasn't objecting it. He lost sympathy because of that early move

Yes the turning in early changed the dynamics of an accident coming towards Prost, to Prost making sure the accident happened.

On a separate issue an overtake almost always involves one of the parties "getting out of the way". I've never understood people defending the leading driver when he ignores another car alongside him and just takes his normal line.

In my view if someone's managed to get alongside you can't just drive as if they weren't there, even if they atecon the bit of track you want.

Atecon?

I agree with the last part, an overtaking move changes the dynamics of the car positions in a turn.

You always have to give e-space!

I'm not sure but I think it was meant to be "Are on"!

Ok, that makes more sense!!!

I think it's only a slight difference, personally. Fact is that the majority of overtaking moves (unless you are talking about a straightforward DRS overtake) tend to rely on a little bit of cooperation from the party being overtaken. Outbraking into a corner has always been an accepted part of racing. If Prost left the door open enough that Senna could get alongside, then that's his fault for not covering him off. He can't just turn in regardless of where another driver is and pretend that it's nothing to do with him

I think they should rewrite the rules so that both drivers have a responsibility to allow a driver alongside them to stay on the track.

The issue would still remain of how best to write a rule regarding a driver knowing the other driver had an overlap that he should respond to.

That would be right, if there was no problem with using the pitlane entry to launch an attack. (I ran out of free searches on the Motorsport archive, looking for an article on Suzuka '89, though I'm not sure this would be covered in detail if I did find it.) Surely there must be a decent analysis of the 1989 incident somewhere on the net, preferably with a full stewards' report?
A second point, based on what I read concerning steward consistency in articles on pre-Suzuka races), perhaps Prost no longer trusted the FIA to act against Senna's disregard for the rules/etiquette, and decided to force them into action. Questionable, yes, but perhaps understandable?

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

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

Even if, and it's a big if as it is almost always allowed, Senna was not allowed to use the pitlane entry road then I still don't think that gives Prost the right to deliberately turn into another car.

If Villenueve had not been punished for ignoring yellow flags in 97 would Schumacher have been justified in turning into him?

This is just a question of motivation, but I don't see any that would excuse him from deliberately ramming Senna. If Prost did it on purpose, then regardless of the motivation he would have been in the wrong

There's no "if" involved. Prost had said before the race to this team and to Senna, that the door would not be open. So, if we looked no further, that would be it, Prost guilty.

But the explanation by Mr Whiting this year, forces us to look further. If a driver on the inside is ahead at the apex, then according to Mr Whiting he is allowed to run the outside driver off the track. I have already said I don't know which rule(s) this is based on, though it may have its origins in racing etiquette, though that is just me thinking out loud. None of the rules I am aware of, speaks of being ahead at the apex.
According to what Senna wrote in his book on racing, because Prost was still ahead, he should have backed out. Going by what Mr Whiting explained this year, the driver ahead was allowed to run the attacking driver off the track. Or not?

If using the pitlane entry was indeed not allowed to launch an attack, then Prost's defence coming right to that pitlane line, meant Senna had no way other than going left of Prost, to try to launch an overtake attempt. But he didn't, he chose to use the pitlane entry regardless (see above) to launch an inside lunge. That would mean Senna was responsible for the accident.

It seems to me that most reports about that race are written without full knowledge of the rules (nothing new there, that is still too often the case), as they were in force at the time. There's plenty of discussion to be found about the accident online, but hardly any solid information. And of course, the stewards' verdict for disqualification as reported in the press at the time, doesn't help us much either. Senna did cut the chicane, but that was hardly his only mistake.

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

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

Even if everyone accepts your view on all of the above it still does not exonerate Prost from turning into a car alongside him. Nobody can just back out of an overtake into a hard braking zone.

How can any driver back out of an attempted out brake overtaking manoeuvre?

I think we're over-analysing. None of the above matters. We're not discussing whether Prost should have felt put out by Senna's overtaking attempt, but whether he was guilty of deliberately ramming Senna. I don't see how his motives have any bearing: if Prost rammed another driver on purpose, then he was at fault. That's all there really is to it.

Either over analysing or deflection.

Exactly, but that's not the only question: how can any driver defend against one that leaves him only two options - yield or crash, even if it's his corner?

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

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

I don't agree, that's not what we're discussing, since Prost gave us the answer. Mikey asked a very pertinent question.

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

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

What is your definition of yielding?

If someone is able to get alongside you then you are no longer able to take the line you want. It works the same the other way as well, the overtaker can't ignore the guy he is overtaking on the outside of him and shove him off the circuit in order to take the widest line into the corner.

What is it you think we are discussing, then?

Sadly this is what most drivers are doing today, especially Alonso

_________________
« Violent delights have violent ends »

I've rarely seen Alonso or anybody else push someone outside of them off track into a corner as they overtake. The only example of that I can think of is Hamilton overtaking Kobayashi in Spa in 2011.

On the exit of corner you are unfortunately correct. All the drivers do it now.

Keeping the door open to avoid an accident, being ahead and being allowed to take the corner, is yielding to a dive bomb. I suppose you might also almost define it as avoiding an unavoidable accident.

That is correct if you only consider ability. In this particular case, there are two problems with this simple statement. First, it doesn't consider the driver ahead's right to the corner, and secondly, if the pitlane really wasn't allowed for use in launching an attack, then the attacking driver didn't get alongside, or more precisely, he didn't get alongside in an allowed manner. Max Verstappen used a way to get alongside (and past) in a similar manner at Austin, though he and we all knew it wasn't allowed. Hence my search for what the rules said about pitlane entry and whether it could be used as part of the track or not.

Which is one of the reasons I'm so suprised it is now considered acceptable to do so after the apex. Again, I fail to spot the relevant rule in the current ones. Perhaps I should contact Romain Grosjean, and ask him.

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

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

Please don't take this the wrong way, but "driver responsibility while overtaking". I would say in the case of Suzuka 1989, that would first and foremost concern Senna's role. I would agree it would be relevant to analyse Prost's role, but he has himself said why he turned in, so his role is clear.

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

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

Being half a car length ahead doesn't give you the right to the corner at all.

If you have allowed somebody to get alongside you then you should accommodate them. Pretty much any overtake on the inside under braking requires the driver being overtaken to adjust how they take the corner and not use parts of the track they would usually use.

A driver shouldn't use drive to the apex of a corner if he has been beaten to it. In this case it looked like Senna was going to beat Prost to the apex in terms of car positioning. Unfortunately we won't know for sure because Prost turned into him before we got to the corner.

I don't see any value in discussing the pitlane thing. Drivers often drive in the pit entry or exit if it is next to the track. In Brazil the pit entry used to be on the racing line! Nobody ever got penalised. Given in this case Senna got penalised for an infraction always ignored previously I think it's safe to conclude that had the FIA been able to nail him for using the pitlane they would have.

According to which rule, Mikey? You highlight precisely the point I think Mr Whiting left unexplained.

Perhaps you might give your definition of a dive bomb attack. Does it concern only beating someone to the apex? What drivers should and shouldn't do, ought to be clear from reading the rules. But I dare say it isn't. Or isn't always.

I think, since it was reported at the time, that it may be the crux of the matter. Since then, we've seen rules being brought in, being taken out again, and lots and lots of requests for clarification.

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

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

I'm not overly bothered about what it says in the rules. I am discussing apportioning blame as to contact when overtaking in general.

It's a moot point in the Senna/Prost case as Prost turned into Senna too early to find out what would happen next.

Forgive me, but I fail to see how Prost's state of mind has any bearing on his responsibility while overtaking. If he turned in on purpose, then he bears full responsibility for the crash. What he may have felt at the time is immaterial.

As for Senna's actions, I don't see that what he did was i any way questionable. Prost left a gap and Senna went for it. At worst it was ambitious, but it was not inevitable that a crash would ensue. That was 100% down to Prost

I'm astonished how you can first ask very pertinent questions, and then disregard the rules when trying to find the answers.

I agree Prost's feelings don't come into it. I don't understand why you feel it's necessary to point that out.

There are only two possible outcomes for a situation in which one driver, leaves the other to decide to have a crash or not. Senna knew the risks he took; a crash that took himself out, would end the championship in Prost's favour. Perhaps Senna thought Prost would once again yield despite what he had said (we only have Prost's word that he also told Senna), but the attempt was not similar to the one on Nannini. Unlike Nannini, Prost did take a defensive line. Which is where the pitlane entry problem comes into the question.

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

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

Because I know it's not covered in the rules. They are left deliberately vague.

Prost turned in too early for the corner so unless he made a major error he was only turning into Senna. Any movement where one car passes another requires both drivers to not turn into each other when side by side.

Literally every single overtake gives both drivers the option to cause an accident in the same way as Prost did there. Every time an overtake occours the overtaking driver is relying on the driver he is overtaking to deliberately swipe into him on the way past.

perhaps because you brought them up in the first place?

You keep talking about who had right of way and whether or not the pit lane entrance was usable, but none of that matters when discussing the responsibility for one driver deliberately crashing into another. It's just deflection, in an attempt to grant some degree of legitimacy to actions which had none. Whether Prost felt he was entitled to the piece of track makes no difference, if he knew that by taking it he would ram another.

Senna took no more of a risk than any driver who attempts to out-brake another. As mikeyg123 states, almost every overtaking manoeuvre relies on the cooperation of the other driver to some extent or other. Pretty much every overtake Ricciardo has ever made would have ended in an accident if the other driver hadn't yielded track space, or otherwise continued as if he wasn't there, but no-one's calling for him to be banned on the grounds of dangerous driving and, what's more, he has a reputation as one of the best overtakers on the grid precisely because of that.

If you're ahead on the inside at the apex then you're entitled to take the racing line out of the corner.

If there is someone alongside you then i disagree. You shouldn't just ignore someone alongside you even if they are on the part of the track that you want.

you're not entitled to ram another car, no matter what the circumstances.

I assure you I'm not deflecting. I am trying, not very successfully, to find why Prost did what he did, and whether he had the right to the corner. I don't look too much to the outcome of the appeal that McLaren/Senna lodged, but it clearly wasn't what they had hoped for. Instead, Senna was given an extra punishment for dangerous driving prior to Suzuka.

James Hunt, long before the stewards had reached their verdict, put the full blame on Senna. Admittedly, like myself, he thought outside assistance would be the reason for Senna's disqualification. But he didn't leave any doubt about Senna's attempt.

Technically speaking, Senna didn't take more of a risk, if you only look at that particular overtake. The risk of injury was certainly less than it might have been at the only other overtaking position, in turn 1. He even came out of it with an almost intact car; so much for your claim that Prost rammed him.
But Senna did take a very great risk with his dive bomb, in that he knew that if he took Prost out and himself, he would lose the championship. Knowing Prost had said he wouldn't open the door, he knew he had to make a perfect overtake. He didn't.

I like Ricciardo a lot, but Mikey is right in that every overtake relies on sporting co-operation between sportsmen. Senna threw that away even before he came into F1. You either yielded, or faced a repair bill.

I wish the FIA archives went back as far as 1989, but they don't. And it is proving very hard to find good race reports, rather than opinions. Stewards' reports and the appeal verdicts would be much more interesting than fan bias.

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

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

Prost saying he wouldn't leave the door open is irrelevant in the discussion because he did very much leave the door open. How else could Senna get alongside up the inside?

It's what happened next after Prost left the door open that is the issue.

Prost caused the crash before the corner by taking an abnormal line and turning way too early. This isn't a case of a driver not yielding it's a case of Prost driving into the side of Senna.

Jacques Villenueve's car suffered even less damage in Jetex but I don't think that excuses Schumacher one bit and neither does lack of damage here excuse Prost. I would say both would class as s good solid "ram".

I don't think it's so much my claim, as a fact that Prost drove into Senna. If s driver deliberately turning into and hitting another isn't a ram, then what is? Just because Senna's car wasn't a write-off doesn't change that. I don't really understand your comment here.

Again, you talk about Prost's "right" to the corner. But any right he may have had still doesn't make him entitled to pretend as though the other car simply wasn't there. In terms of culpability, Prost still had a responsibility to avoid contact, regardless of how legitimate he felt his claim to the corner was. I fear your replies seem to be missing this very salient point

From "Senna versus Prost" by Malcolm Folley (Arrow books): [quote=Jo Ramirez]I told Prost he had made the two biggest mistakes of his career. Firstly, when Ayrton went on the inside you should have left him, not closed the door. He was going so quick there was no way he would have got round the corner.[/quote]
You will find the second in the book.

Ramirez agrees with those who found Senna's attempt desperate - as Hunt said straightaway. The problem remains, how to defend against it. Because Ramirez doesn't say how he thought Prost should have reacted. And this was at the chicane in its first configuration; much tighter than it is these days.

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

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

You keep parroting this however I don't think Prost's onboard supports this.

I disagree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n50TWnKujrE&t=24s

Look at the angle of the front left wheel here just as Prost turns in decisively.

He's going to cut the corner. Nobody who intends to take that corner would turn in there.

What? Ramirez says exactly that - "when Ayrton went on the inside you should have left him, not closed the door."

He says exactly what he thinks Prost should have done. I don't know how he could have made it clearer.

I mean I disagree with the premise anyway but you can't have it both ways.