Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
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.
I'm astonished how you can first ask very pertinent questions, and then disregard the rules when trying to find the answers.
Zoue wrote:
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 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.
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.
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.
Zoue wrote:
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.
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.