Senna - Prost crash Japan 1989

[Mark]

Just been to see the Senna film (see separate thread in the F1 forum to discuss that)

One of the main foci of the film was his battles with Alain Prost and in particular the incident at the 1989 Japanese Grand Prix where they collided at the final chicane. Senna was then pushed back into the race and won, but was then disqualified.

What's your opinion of the incident and importantly Senna's exclusion, was it politically motivated by a French boss of the FIA who wanted Prost to win as the film suggests?

Also as I understand it under current rules Senna would not have been excluded for cutting the chicane as no advantage was gained.

[DBell]

I have not seen the film, so I'm going by what I remember of the incident. Didn't Senna's car actually stall and when they were pushing him, he bump started the car?. I thought that was clearly against the rules at that time.

[Mark]

There's quite a few videos on YouTube
http://www.google.co.uk/m/search?oe=UTF-8&client=safari&q=senna+Prost+crash+1989&hl=en-gb&tbs=vid:1&tbm=vid&ei=yIfqTYC7FtDCjQe3ppfLAQ&ved=0CBYQ7QkwAA

Yes I think Senna's car did stall and the marshalls push started him and he got back into the race.

I do remember a more recent incident where marshals push started a car and because it was pushed out of a dangerous position this was deemed acceptable.

It did seem odd that they talked solely about cutting the chicane and nothing about the push start.

[Big Ben]

They have pushed the right car in that second ocasion.... there's the big difference. They helped in the fabrication of a legend... and by legend I mean fake

[Rollo]

"It was the only place I could overtake. Somebody who should not have been there just closed the door on me and that was that"
- Aryton Senna, 22 Oct 1989

"I warned him before the start. Many times I have backed off to avoid an accident with him. This time, I told him I would not do it"
- Alain Prost, 22 Oct 1989

The evidence to me suggests that it should be a 50-50 blame split because of where Senna's wheels were relative to Prost's rollover hoop.
However, both drivers were not only at fault, but downright culpable.

This is not a 50-50 incident but a 100-100 incident where both drivers were bloody minded. Neither had any intent to yield.

[ShiftingGears]

For Senna's disqualification - for that I have no doubt that it was Balestre favouring Prost. That disqualification was a total disgrace.

[Mark]

I certainly agree with the 100%-100% view. It's more the restart, disqualification and rule that "the distance of the race must be respected", which seems quite different to today.

[steveaki13]

Yes now adays, someone can be pushed back into the race, if they are in a dangerous position, but I have watched a few old GP's again from that era and often Minardi's or Brabhams (for example) would spin and be pushed back into the race and seemed to carry on.

The disqualification did seem strange if it was just for cutting the chicane. Clearly today you would be OK, because he lost 30 seconds and didn't gain an advantage.

If he had been disqualified for the collision, there could have been no arguements there.

I wasn't watching F1 live in the late 80's although I have since collected all the races and have now seen the season in full and seen the rift between the two grow through the season. It would seem strange to think they were favouring Prost though.

[D-Type]

I haven't seen the film. Yet! The following is written from memory.

The incident itself is one issue. The facts are simple: the two drivers collided at the chicane. Viewing the film from different angles it is possible to allocate blame, but that is a matter of opinion. I agree with the 100%:100% interpretation. Two drivers who were both determined to occupy the same piece of track.

The disqualification is a different issue. If I remember the way things worked 20 years ago, the decision was made by the race stewards who came from the organising club. If someone disagreed, they could appeal to the FIA to have the decision reviewed, which was not done on this occasion. Jean Balestre took it upon himself to say "I support the organisers' decision", which is somewhat different from actually making the decision to disqualify Senna. Was he expressing his personal opinion, or making a stement in the name of the FIA? I don't know.

We now come on to the third aspect: how Senna viewed the affair. This is the most difficult to asses as it is a combination of his opinion and ours rather than being a question of fact. We know that Senna had tremendous self belief - more than the self confidence that all successful drivers have. It is one of the reasons he was so successful. One manifestation of this is that he seemed to believe that he could do no wrong. Or possibly it was more a case of not being able to admit, even to himself, that he had made a mistake. So, having been in a 50:50 (or 100:100) situation, because of his make up he had to blame someone else - ie Prost. Then when "the authorities" didn't agree with his viewpoint, he genuinely believed it was a conspiracy against him because Balestre and Prost were both French and he said so. Understandably, the President of the FIA took a dim view of the situation. As he saw it, a driver was questioning the authority of the whole structure that runs the sport - organising clubs, FIA, himself at the pinnacle of the pyramid. Even if the said driver was the recently dethroned world champion he could not accept that. And he and the FIA acted accordingly.

I have not made any mention of Balestre's personality as it is largely irrelevant to the core issue. Yes, he was arrogant and autocratic but this affects the way he communicated his decisions more than the decisions themselves

[DBell]

I haven't seen the film. Yet! The following is written from memory.

The incident itself is one issue. The facts are simple: the two drivers collided at the chicane. Viewing the film from different angles it is possible to allocate blame, but that is a matter of opinion. I agree with the 100%:100% interpretation. Two drivers who were both determined to occupy the same piece of track.

The disqualification is a different issue. If I remember the way things worked 20 years ago, the decision was made by the race stewards who came from the organising club. If someone disagreed, they could appeal to the FIA to have the decision reviewed, which was not done on this occasion. Jean Balestre took it upon himself to say "I support the organisers' decision", which is somewhat different from actually making the decision to disqualify Senna. Was he expressing his personal opinion, or making a stement in the name of the FIA? I don't know.

We now come on to the third aspect: how Senna viewed the affair. This is the most difficult to asses as it is a combination of his opinion and ours rather than being a question of fact. We know that Senna had tremendous self belief - more than the self confidence that all successful drivers have. It is one of the reasons he was so successful. One manifestation of this is that he seemed to believe that he could do no wrong. Or possibly it was more a case of not being able to admit, even to himself, that he had made a mistake. So, having been in a 50:50 (or 100:100) situation, because of his make up he had to blame someone else - ie Prost. Then when "the authorities" didn't agree with his viewpoint, he genuinely believed it was a conspiracy against him because Balestre and Prost were both French and he said so. Understandably, the President of the FIA took a dim view of the situation. As he saw it, a driver was questioning the authority of the whole structure that runs the sport - organising clubs, FIA, himself at the pinnacle of the pyramid. Even if the said driver was the recently dethroned world champion he could not accept that. And he and the FIA acted accordingly.

I have not made any mention of Balestre's personality as it is largely irrelevant to the core issue. Yes, he was arrogant and autocratic but this affects the way he communicated his decisions more than the decisions themselves

This an excellent post, D-Type. I agree with this 100%.

[Rollo]

YouTube - ‪Senna & Prost collision at chicane on lap 46 Suzuka 1989 Onboard F1 History‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOOgfsc5wc4)

- Senna first demands that his car is push-started from a dangerous position - well within the rules.
- By the time the Honda engine roars into life again, the car was well up the escape road; therefore not on the track and in a place where a push-start was against the rules because the car was technically no longer in danger.
- He then proceeded to drive through a temporary tyre "chicane" on the escape route.

Have a look at what happened when he tried to pass Nanini
YouTube - ‪Gran Premio del Giappone 1989: Sorpasso di Senna su Nannini‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-maTueelYbo&playnext=1&list=PLCDD48125FC79B315)

Senna only didn't end up crashing a second time because Nanini was more charitable; the red mist had certainly descended in Senna's helmet. If Senna had been given the race win, then Benetton almost certainly would have challenged the results.

Ultimately it was probably the right decision by the FIA... which is odd.

[D-Type]

I wonder ...
...Did a little bit of "face-saving" feature here?

To explain: As the car was no longer in a dangerous position the push start was against the rules. The organisers could not admit they were at fault so they "corrected their error" by disqualifying the car on other grounds.

[wedge]

Sure its easy to say 100:100 but I would err towards Prost at fault. Senna makes banzai moves but it was a very clumsy piece of defensive driving from Prost who decides to move over on Senna at the last moment.

You could say that Prost cracked. He never liked the fact that Senna had become Golden Boy.

In 1988 Portuguese GP Senna pushed Prost next to the pit wall and post race said that if Senna wanted to win that badly then he could have it.

Imola 1989 Senna asks Prost how they should run to the first corner at the start and Prost said like last year (whoever led into the first corner shall win the race; the gentleman's agreement ocurred in previous races in the previous season). Race is restarted after Berger's horrific crash and Senna passes Prost. Cue hissyfits and Prost admits that he was stupid to make such an agreement.

Prost is adamant Honda/McLaren favouring Senna which turns out to be true in Honda's case. Prost signs with Ferrari and gives his trophy/champagne to the tifosi at the Italian GP. Ron Dennis said the act was disrespectful thus adding more fuel into the fire.

Prost never understood why Honda favoured Senna. IIRC Honda honcho Goto-san finally admitted to Prost that the Japanese are admiral of the 'warrior spirit' or some such in a person's characteristic.

[Hawkmoon]

For Senna's disqualification - for that I have no doubt that it was Balestre favouring Prost. That disqualification was a total disgrace.

I disagree. The rules at the time prohibited cars from receiving help to get back on the track. Mansell was disqualified the following year when he overshot his pit and the Ferrari crew pushed him back to the pit box to work on the car.

Was Balestre happy that Senna was disqualified? Probably. Was the qualification just? Yes (at least as far as my memory goes. It was 20 years ago and the old grey matter ain't what it used to be :D ).

[Mark]

It's just curious that, given all the reasons they could have come up with, e.g receiving outside help etc, they chose "cutting the chicane"

[SGWilko]

The rules at the time prohibited cars from receiving help to get back on the track.

So why was he disqualified on the grounds of 'cutting the chicane' then?

Ooopss, should read all posts before adding comments!!!! Mark beat me to it!

[Retro Formula 1]

It was pure BS.

Senna went for a gap and Prost turned into him. Prost couldn't claim he didn't see him or was going for the corner because purposely turned in way before the apex.

YouTube - ‪Senna & Prost minor collision of the 1989 F1Japan Grand Prix‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouf1ybLjaik&feature=related)

[D-Type]

It was pure BS.

Senna went for a gap and Prost turned into him. Prost couldn't claim he didn't see him or was going for the corner because purposely turned in way before the apex.

YouTube - ‪Senna & Prost minor collision of the 1989 F1Japan Grand Prix‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouf1ybLjaik&feature=related)

The fact is that the cars collided. Attempting to allocate blame is fruitless: it is not 50:50 - nor is it 100:0 or 0:100. Debating who was more to blame gets us nowhere. It becomes nothing more than re-stating of individual opinions formed 20 years ago.

Can we please focus on the aftermath: the push start, the disqualification and various reactions to it.

And do so in the context of the rules and custom at the time.

[Don Capps]

By the 1989 season, it had already been a number of seasons since I had written off Formula One as pretty much a waste of my time and, as a result, by then shifting my motor racing interests elsewhere, my focus on active series being the US series -- CART, IMSA, and NASCAR -- with my major focus being then, as now, on racing history.

By sheer happenstance, I caught the race in question and witnessed, through the magic of television, the incident in question. Then, as now, the political machinations and turmoil of Formula One were far more interesting than any of the actual racing on the track, as well as being far more entertaining, of course. Therefore, it was scarcely a surprise when Prost and Senna da Silva managed to test the laws of physics and attempt to occupy the same piece of real estate simultaneously. As usual, the laws of physics prevailed. It is at this point that rational thought pretty much gets shelved and the cow pat tossing takes over.

That it could probably and possibly be an actual racing incident is, of course, quickly dismissed. Prost HAD to have deliberately turned into Senna and Senna HAD to have tried to force a move that could have waited. Those that contend that the apportionment of the blame be on a "100%/100%" basis might be on to something that passion of the times did not allow -- rationality.

If nothing else, the incident would seem to support the notion that it is less what you do than how you do it. Of course, given the fury -- now as then -- of the rabid Senna da Silva fans, any fodder that Balestre offered up was suffient in and of itself to keep the fire simmering on this for, literally, ages. That Balestre, knowingly or not, tossed fuel onto the flames of passion is one of the reasons this incident continues to boil up from time to time.

At the time, I thought that Senna da Silva was more than a bit optimistic regarding the move, attempting to wedge his car into a space and intimidate someone who was obviously not going to be intimidated -- any paying the consequence. Then again, I was also a bit surprised to find out that Senna da Silva was disqualified for doing whatever it was that he did at the chicane. I do remember thinkg at the time that nothing good will come out of this as Senna da Silva -- and his legions of fans -- sulked and expressed poisonous thoughts about Balestre and Prost and any and everything connected with the incident. While I doubt that I, with my limited knowledge of the many arcane and needlessly complicated regulations polluting F1 -- not that I would venture an opinion, of course -- would have disqualified Senna da Silva, that is also irrelvant. It happened and that as that. Such an attitude, naturally, spoils the fun of those willing to whip themselves into a frenzy over this.

Not being much of a "fan" of either Senna da Silva or Balestre, plus not being all that concerned with those things over which I had no control, I figured that this was simply another sign of the F1 apocalypse and relegated it to the rubbish heap of the present, something historians might waste time with in the distant future.

To me, the 1989 incident is, in and of itself, rather small potatoes, and it is the consequence of that incident, what happened the following year, that is of real interest. Rarely do causation and result get such timely confirmation as Senna da Silva finally admitted, albeit with rather a few qualifiers, that he did indeed, with malice aforthought do what he did in 1990 in great part as a response to the events surrounding what had occurred a year earlier.

Although there was an "Atlas F1 Court" that was convened regarding this incident a number of years ago, I recall that I found both the proceedings and the result of the case itself rather flawed at the time. Then again, I thought that the entire "court" idea was a bad idea poorly executed. Just my observation, of course.

[Rollo]

For you entertainment I present the end of the 1989 Italian GP...
YouTube - ‪1989 Italy GP - P10/10‬‏ (http://youtu.be/wxLiBo61s3U)

Of particular note is what happens from 8:10 in this video. Prost drops his trophy to the crowd below, and on the afternoon that his win gave the Constructor's Championship to McLaren.

By way of background, this shows to the surface of the utter bile which would have been bubbling underneath. In that context the incident at Suzuka starts to make a lot more sense.


To me, the 1989 incident is, in and of itself, rather small potatoes

I will point out that this was the moment at which the championship was closed; that was of significance in 1989. (Who could predict the events of 1 year later?)

Going into the race the gap was Prost 76 (81) and Senna 60 (60). Had Senna not been DQ'd and allowed to win the race it would have been Prost 76 (81) and Senna 69 (69). It would have still been mathematically possible for Senna to win the World Championship at Adelaide (which was a shockingly wet race, at which Prost acted really petulantly). Would Prost have decided to withdraw? I think not.

[Don Capps]

For you entertainment I present the end of the 1989 Italian GP...
YouTube - ‪1989 Italy GP - P10/10‬‏ (http://youtu.be/wxLiBo61s3U)

Of particular note is what happens from 8:10 in this video. Prost drops his trophy to the crowd below, and on the afternoon that his win gave the Constructor's Championship to McLaren.

By way of background, this shows to the surface of the utter bile which would have been bubbling underneath. In that context the incident at Suzuka starts to make a lot more sense.

I will point out that this was the moment at which the championship was closed; that was of significance in 1989. (Who could predict the events of 1 year later?)

Going into the race the gap was Prost 76 (81) and Senna 60 (60). Had Senna not been DQ'd and allowed to win the race it would have been Prost 76 (81) and Senna 69 (69). It would have still been mathematically possible for Senna to win the World Championship at Adelaide (which was a shockingly wet race, at which Prost acted really petulantly). Would Prost have decided to withdraw? I think not.

I was voicing an opinion, for a change, which I still stick by: small potatoes. The only entertainment value in Formula One by then were the cutthroat politics behind the scene and childish antics of several of the drivers, especially a certain Brazilian. It mattered not a single whit to me whether it was Senna da Silva , Prost or Petunia the Pig who won the world championship that year. It still does not. I was -- and I still am -- utterly uninterested in F1 from that era. However, the lunacy of the politics were -- and still are -- rather fascinating. The "racing" basically was rather pathetic given that Senna da Silva and Prost held almost all the cards and one of them, not the French chap, was a nut case.

Your "petulance" remark regarding Prost is interesting given that he was probably the only sane person among the drivers that day by refusing to start, something which the conditions proved to be a good decision (I had to pull Autocourse off the shelf to see if that was the race I thought it was).

All this is simply personal opinion which is entirely separate from any sense of historical objectivity -- which really is not an issue given that I never intend to write about this era. That is, not the racing. The politics and the off-track nonsense, however, is another deal entirely. However, given that my list of projects needing to get done is already way too long, somewhat doubtful that much of anything from this era will ever get done.

As an aside, I have always rather liked Lauda's approach to trophies and could never work up much indignation regarding Prost's tossing the trophy into the crowd, which seem to still be able to get panties in a wad in certain crowds.

[Garry Walker]

Sure its easy to say 100:100 but I would err towards Prost at fault. Senna makes banzai moves but it was a very clumsy piece of defensive driving from Prost who decides to move over on Senna at the last moment.

You could say that Prost cracked. He never liked the fact that Senna had become Golden Boy.

In 1988 Portuguese GP Senna pushed Prost next to the pit wall and post race said that if Senna wanted to win that badly then he could have it.

Imola 1989 Senna asks Prost how they should run to the first corner at the start and Prost said like last year (whoever led into the first corner shall win the race; the gentleman's agreement ocurred in previous races in the previous season). Race is restarted after Berger's horrific crash and Senna passes Prost. Cue hissyfits and Prost admits that he was stupid to make such an agreement.

Prost is adamant Honda/McLaren favouring Senna which turns out to be true in Honda's case. Prost signs with Ferrari and gives his trophy/champagne to the tifosi at the Italian GP. Ron Dennis said the act was disrespectful thus adding more fuel into the fire.

Prost never understood why Honda favoured Senna. IIRC Honda honcho Goto-san finally admitted to Prost that the Japanese are admiral of the 'warrior spirit' or some such in a person's characteristic.Yeah, I am sure Senna loved that Honda favouritism, considering the engine failures he had.


It's just curious that, given all the reasons they could have come up with, e.g receiving outside help etc, they chose "cutting the chicane"
Because, in the theory, the only correct way to join the race after missing a chicane, would have been to turn around and go back against where other cars are coming and join the racetrack by doing that, which in itself was completely idiotic. YouTube - ‪Driver briefing Suzuka 1990‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49qF32Pazwc)

The crash was 100 % prost fault, with the way he turned in, if Senna had not been there, Prost would have turned onto the grass that was on the inside line.


Thankfully Senna punished prost in the right way a year later

[D-Type]

Yeah, I am sure Senna loved that Honda favouritism, considering the engine failures he had.


Because, in the theory, the only correct way to join the race after missing a chicane, would have been to turn around and go back against where other cars are coming and join the racetrack by doing that, which in itself was completely idiotic. YouTube - ‪Driver briefing Suzuka 1990‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49qF32Pazwc)

The crash was 100 % prost fault, with the way he turned in, if Senna had not been there, Prost would have turned onto the grass that was on the inside line.


Thankfully Senna punished prost in the right way a year later

Can I reiterate. I do not want this thread to go down that route.

[wedge]

Because, in the theory, the only correct way to join the race after missing a chicane, would have been to turn around and go back against where other cars are coming and join the racetrack by doing that, which in itself was completely idiotic. YouTube - ‪Driver briefing Suzuka 1990‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49qF32Pazwc)

:up:

Mark, the incident is even not worthy of discussion. The drivers' briefing at the 1991 German GP showed how arrogantly stupid Balestre was.

[D-Type]

Is Balestre the subject of this thread?

[SGWilko]

Is Balestre the subject of this thread?

Bellestre paid a not small part in the aftermath of the subject of this thread, yes, so is a fully legitimate line of discussion.

[SGWilko]

Can I reiterate. I do not want this thread to go down that route.

Give over - what you are essentially saying is - "I don't want your opinions on this thread, if they don't fit with my interpretation of the thread title"

[D-Type]

Not at all.

There is simply no point in trying to discuss the on-track incident. After 20 years, people's opinions are polarised and the discussion will go nowhere.

On the other hand, what followed is not so clear cut or the facts all so well known. Clarification of the facts and people's considered interpretation would be of useful.

[D-Type]

Bellestre paid a not small part in the aftermath of the subject of this thread, yes, so is a fully legitimate line of discussion.

Fair point.

What I am trying to cut out is statements displaying a lack of objectivity or flexibility like
The crash was 100 % prost fault, with the way he turned in, if Senna had not been there, Prost would have turned onto the grass that was on the inside line.


Thankfully Senna punished prost in the right way a year later as they will simply bog any discussion down.

[Garry Walker]

Can I reiterate. I do not want this thread to go down that route.

So I am not allowed to state my opinion on who caused the crash?
EDIT: Actually, it seems you also gave an opinion on who caused the crash or who was to blame for it (you blamed them both). Now you are telling people they should not post about that. Funny.


Not at all.

There is simply no point in trying to discuss the on-track incident. After 20 years, people's opinions are polarised and the discussion will go nowhere.
Following the same logic, most discussions on this forum should be banned according to you, because people`s opinions are polarised and the discussion will go nowhere.

[D-Type]

Not so much the opinion as the way you expressed it.

[Garry Walker]

Not so much the opinion as the way you expressed it.

In your opinion both were to blame, in my opinion Prost was to blame 100% and I also explained why I thought that. Are you unhappy with what I posted because it doesnt agree to your view on things? Or is there some unwritten rule about blaming Prost here and one really shouldnt do that?

[D-Type]

No unwritten rules. Simply that the common opinion is that both were partly to blame. Stating Senna was 100% to blame says Prost was blameless and vice versa. Statements like that do not encourage discussion.

[Garry Walker]

No unwritten rules. Simply that the common opinion is that both were partly to blame. Common opinion? I do not think that is the case at all. There are many people and as many people there are, there are opinions. So I am pretty sure you have no factual proof of such sentence that you said. In any case, I gave facts supporting my view that Prost was 100% guilty of that crash. They have yet to be refuted and as long as someone does that, I will obviously not back down from my view.

Stating Senna was 100% to blame says Prost was blameless and vice versa. Statements like that do not encourage discussion.
Yes, it does encourage discussion just as much as saying they were both to blame. Probably such statements usually encourage even more discussion than saying both were to blame.

Would it be detrimental to a discussion to say Senna was 100% to blame for Suzuka 1990 crash? Or that Schumacher was 100% at blame for Jerez?

[D-Type]

Do you really believe that Senna was totally blameless?

[Rollo]

Thankfully Senna punished prost in the right way a year later

Huh?


Can I reiterate. I do not want this thread to go down that route.

I do; so I've started another thread. There's a link here:
http://www.motorsportforums.com/history/146016-senna-prost-crash-japan-1990-a.html

[Garry Walker]

Do you really believe that Senna was totally blameless?Absolutely. I have explained why. Just like Prost had no fault in what happened next year, just like Villeneuve had no fault in Jerez.



I do; so I've started another thread. There's a link here:
http://www.motorsportforums.com/history/146016-senna-prost-crash-japan-1990-a.html

OK

[D-Type]

I do not want to get into a pointless argument, but please consider objectively:

(1) If Senna hadn't attempted to overtake at that point, would the collision have happened?
(2) In your considered opinion, had Prost taken his normal line, would Senna have been able to overtake? Or did the manouvre rely on Prost moving out of the way?
(3) In your considered opinion, when Prost moved across could Senna have braked and avoided the collision?

See why I consider it is wrong to hold Senna to be completely blameless

[Garry Walker]

I do not want to get into a pointless argument, but please consider objectively:

(1) If Senna hadn't attempted to overtake at that point, would the collision have happened?
What a silly question.
I can only ask you this - what is your opinion of Jerez 1997? Who was at fault there? Schumacher 100%, yes? Well, if Villeneuve had not attempted a move, would the collision have happened. Does that somehow make villeneuve guilty?



(2) In your considered opinion, had Prost taken his normal line, would Senna have been able to overtake? Or did the manouvre rely on Prost moving out of the way?In overtaking, you ALWAYS rely on the other guy not doing anything stupid and driving into you. If everyone drove like Prost did that day, there would never be a clean overtake or outbraking, because the other guy would just crash into the overtaker. There have been a huge amount of overtakings into that corner and almost all have been clean.


(3) In your considered opinion, when Prost moved across could Senna have braked and avoided the collision?No, he was too far alongside and Prost was far too late with his move. Of course, the only goal Prost had was to take Senna off.

[raphael_2]

I can't believe what I have read here - what silly questions to ask.

From the evidence Ron Dennis presented, it does seem a strange rule they tried to enforce, which was clearly not enforced at other parts of the season, however I think that the result was the right one. Also, what happened that season does not mean what Senna did the following year acceptable - after what we saw happen to Donelly that season, what Prost did really was unforgivable.

[D-Type]

Now the dust has settled, can we move on.

Clearly nobody will change a long-held opinion about whiose fault the collision was. So there is no point in discussing it, including events that led up to it and determined the mindset of both drivers.

So, let's look at events immediately after the collision.

Can somebody please give an objective factual description of the push start: where the cars were, what direction they were pushed, driver signals etc.

Once we have the facts agreed we can then go on to the relevant regulations and then on to events that followed.

[D-Type]

YouTube - ‪Senna & Prost collision at chicane on lap 46 Suzuka 1989 Onboard F1 History‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOOgfsc5wc4)

- Senna first demands that his car is push-started from a dangerous position - well within the rules.
- By the time the Honda engine roars into life again, the car was well up the escape road; therefore not on the track and in a place where a push-start was against the rules because the car was technically no longer in danger.
- He then proceeded to drive through a temporary tyre "chicane" on the escape route.



Is this correct factually?

[zako85]

In my opinion, Senna vs Prost was one of the most fascinating rivalries in history of motorsport, so there is nothing wrong with discussing it 20 years later. Why do I resurrect this thread? I just got hold of a copy of BBC's VHS record of the race and watched it.

Here is one thing that most people fail to mention in discussions. Senna and Prost were starting from the front row, Prost from 2nd position. Prost jumped the start of the race. There is no doubt about it. The car clearly started moving before the light turned green. The jump start is probably what let Prost reach the first corner before Senna. Why hasn't Prost been penalized for this? Think about this, if Prost didn't jump the start, Senna might have won the race and the crash would not have happened. If Prost was penalized after jumping the start, then Senna again almost certainly would have won this race. Normally, I would expect the team director to raise this issue during the race, but I guess McLaren considered a non-issue as their cars were in 1 and 2 positions, in the race as well as in the championship.

Next onto the crash. I do not always buy into the philosophy that the driver who is first into the corner is always right. In this case, at the moment of crash Prost was not following the usual racing line. He turned "into the corner" way earlier than usual. Almost certainly, the goal was to either crash into Senna or force him off the road (in which case they probably crash anyway). I just don't see how Prost could not have seen Senna in that spot.

I also do not buy the "anti-Senna" argument that "the way Senna was diving into the gap, he would not have been able to turn into the corner anyways". Why not? Didn't Senna overtake race leader Alessandro Nannini in exactly the same corner and in exactly the same way after changing the nose? So, it's possible! Yes, it was wild, Nannini locked the wheels, but in this situation both of the drivers showed super high class. Prost did not.

I also do not always buy the excuse "but Prost warned him before the race!!". This almost sounds like "Prost warned him in advance. Therefore, Prost can't be guilty." Say what? Prost actually issued a warning that he will act like a suicidal kamikaze if Senna tries to overtake him? Does that automatically give Prost the right to actually act in this way on the race track?

And finally the FIA handled the whole thing just terribly. First, as I mentioned, Prost deserved a penalty for jumping the start. Second, it's completely bizarre that Senna got disqualified for missing a chicane instead of for receiving a push start. This shows once again how incompetent FIA was at that time. For me this topic is closed. FIA is most most culpable party in this incident, followed by Prost. And Senna didn't do anything wrong this time.

[D-Type]

In respect of your final point, in 1979 the division of responsibility was different from today. I believe a grand prix was still run by the national sporting authority, in this case the Japanese Automobile Federation, and not by the FIA. One of the stewards of the meeting would be an FIA nominee, but the others came from the national federation or organising club. The FIA had written the general Sporting Regulations but the organisers would add their own Supplementary Regulations. In the event of a disagreement with the organising club an entrant (but not a driver) could appeal to the FIA for a ruling. Although Jean-Marie Balestre was present at the meeting , he was there in his capacity as Chairman of the FIA and had no direct responsibility for the organisation of the meeting. Needless to say he could offer his advice to the organisers who would be unlikely to ignore it.
I may not have got that 100% correct for 1979 but the division of responsibility was on those lines. Later, possibly as a result of these and other incidents the FIA steward or stewards gradually supplanted the organising clubs in the decision making process.

[BDunnell]

1979?

[D-Type]

Doh! 1989 of course! :mad:

[wedge]

Zak - whilst Prost may havye jumped the start (contemporary accounts say he had the perfect start) Senna made matters worse because he had a bad start as the lurches forward off the line and suddenly loses momentum (bogged down? Wheelspin?).

D-Type - I've read that Balestre harrassed the local authorities to ban the Lotus 88 via scrutineering.

[D-Type]

That's what I'm getting at. He had to get them to ban it. The FIA couldn't, or maybe wouldn't, do so directly. I suspect they could only officially intervene on safety grounds. Or if asked to rule on an appeal against an organising club's decision.

[Don Capps]

Interesting that so much discussion goes on (...and on and on and on and on....) without as much of a clue as to the regulations or organization of an event or series and the resultant decision-making processes....

[D-Type]

Don, if you know, please could you possibly clarify what they were.

[Don Capps]

Don, if you know, please could you possibly clarify what they were.

(1) Yes, I know.

(2) Really nothing to clarify, because... Much of what I noted has already been mentioned -- both here and elsewhere -- and can be sorted out with a modest amount of research. Remember: non semper ea sunt quae videntur – Phaedrus. Also, don't fall for the McGuffin....

[D-Type]

Don,
The membership of this forum are not historians or aspiring historians. They are simply motor sport enthusiasts with an interest in the past. I believe they have no interest in researching facts for the sake of it.
As you have hinted, some members judge situations from former years assuming the rules then were broadly the same as now. In my case, I am old enough to know that is not always the case but I am not blessed with 20:20 memory or a copious enough library to fill the gaps.
In this particular case, I know that the basic rule was that it was allowable for marshalls to push a car in a dangerous position to a safe one but it was not allowable to give a stalled car a push start. However, there was a grey area: if while a car was being pushed to safety the driver were to drop the clutch and the engine 'just happened' to fire ...
But I do not know the details of the governance of the sport in 1989. I know it was somewhere between the time when organising clubs were effectively autonymous, free to make their own detailed rules (within the framework of the FIA rules) and to run the races as they saw fit with the Clerk of the Course (who was a member of the organising club) having the final say on the day, and the current situation where all major decisions are made by FIA-appointed stewards advised by an ex-driver. But I don't know how far the evolution had progressed.
So, rather than talking down at the forum members and making empty patronising statements can I ask you again to give us the benefit of your knowledge and experience and confirm my interpretation of the rule on push starts and clarify who at Suzuka in 1989 was responsible for writing the regulations and administering them. If it suits you better, you can consider yourself an academic historian carrying out your duty to teach those less knowledgeable than yourself.

Am I correct in translating non semper ea sunt quae videntur means "things are not always what they appear to be"?