Senna - Prost crash Japan 1989

[Don Capps]

For you entertainment I present the end of the 1989 Italian GP...
YouTube - ‪1989 Italy GP - P10/10‬‏

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

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

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

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.