Prost’s Suzuka chicanery denies Senna the title

105 comments on “Prost’s Suzuka chicanery denies Senna the title”

1. 

   brutus
   22nd October 2014, 13:04

   Senna’s move was wildly optimistic. He was trailing Prost for 40 laps but couldn’t get past, so he tried all or nothing, and took the inside line and braked later.

   By the way, Senna needed to win the last two races, with Prost scoring no points, to be champion. If Prost had let Senna through and finished second, he would be champion anyway.
   1. 

      Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
      22nd October 2014, 15:02

      By the way, Senna needed to win the last two races, with Prost scoring no points, to be champion. If Prost had let Senna through and finished second, he would be champion anyway.

      That is not correct.

      As described in the article, had Senna won both of the remaining races he would have been champion regardless of where Prost finished. It’s important to get that right because it was undoubtedly a factor in the collision. (Incidentally while writing the above I noticed the Wikipedia article on the 1989 Japanese Grand Prix got this point wrong, but that’s not exactly a surprise).

      Here’s the points situation in full. The scoring system was 9-6-4-3-2-1 with drivers only able to count their 11 best results.

      Prost already had thirteen points-scoring finishes and therefore had to drop his two worst scores. He had four wins, six seconds, one third, one fourth and one fifth for a total of 81 before deducting his fourth and fifth place finishes, leaving him on 76. Any further points scores by Prost would obviously also mean further points deductions.

      Senna only had seven points-scoring finishes and therefore any further points he scored would be added to his total without deductions. Six wins and one second place meant he had 60 points.

      Clearly, Senna could only out-score Prost by winning both of the two remaining races, putting him on 78 points.

      If Prost took the next best results available to him – two second places – he would end the season with fifteen points-scoring finishes: four wins, eight seconds, one third, one fourth and one fifth. That would give him 93 points before deducting his four worst results. These would be a fifth, a fourth, a third and one second, a total deduction of 15 points, leaving him on 78.

      Therefore if Senna won both the remaining races the best Prost could do would be to equal his points tally. And in that scenario the tie break would be who had the most wins, which would be Senna with eight wins to Prost’s four.

      Therefore the only way Senna could take the title was to win both the remaining races – but if he did so there was no way Prost could beat him.

      This is exactly why I groan when people talk about bringing back the ‘dropped scores’ points system, because it was too complicated and invariably led to misunderstandings such as yours.
      1. 

         frood19 (@frood19)
         22nd October 2014, 15:57

         i never saw the point of it once teams began attending every grand prix as a matter of course. it made some (limited) sense when people chose not to enter certain events, but i can’t work out what it was doing in 1988/9.

         the current points system is at least something to be thankful for (except i think second should be about 60% of a win, but we can’t have everything)
         1. 

            Anthony
            23rd October 2014, 9:09

            I think it was a great rule and would love it to be brought back! It would mean the driver championship would be less about who had the most reliable car and more about who had the better results! This years a great example, I think it is possible Hamilton can loose the championship having won 11 races!

            These days consistency is so highly rated, you can not afford to take the odd chance and not to finish – its better just to settle for second/third etc. Bring it back and lets see the driver, cars really pushed to the limit…..
            1. 

               regs (@regs)
               23rd October 2014, 23:00

               agree on that. would be nice to see that system again.
   2. 

      pastaman (@)
      22nd October 2014, 16:18

      The video speaks for itself as it has for years, Prost turns in wayyyy too early at the chicane. I don’t see how anyone in their right mind would conclude that was Senna’s fault, and I’m hardly a Senna fanboy.
      1. 

         Chantaal Angier
         17th February 2017, 22:06

         The video definitely speaks for itself. For me, it is when Ayrton Senna wags his finger at Prost.
   3. 

      Iestyn Davies (@fastiesty)
      23rd October 2014, 0:35

      Brutus – the move was the same as Villeneuve on Schumacher at Jerez in 1997, timed to perfection, like Montoya on Schumacher at Brazil in 2001. The only difference was that Schumacher turned in too late in 1997 – Brundle knew that as soon as the contact had happened. And Hunt probably knew the same. To any racing driver, it’s obvious.
2. 

   Ayrtonfan (@)
   22nd October 2014, 13:12

   25 years hey!? I thought it was yesterday and I was 13 again!

   Prost turned in and he knew what he was doing, no-one can deny that!
   Ayrton repaid the favour the next year, no denying that either and I am as pro-Senna as you get- two bad choices by two of the all time greats I’m afraid!

   The worst thing about all of this was Balestre (before and after) this guy must be the worst of all time in a position in F1 with power!!

   Loved seeing the old school racing though !! Cant wait for the next one :)
   1. 

      Patrickl (@patrickl)
      22nd October 2014, 13:42

      Alan Donnelly is another instance of a guy with his own (or Mosley’s) agenda. Taking on the role of “supreme steward” handing out random penalties as he pleased to Hamilton in 2008.
   2. 

      facepalm
      22nd October 2014, 18:25

      Yet only ’90 endangered the drivers and the point that most always forget, when you consider the deaths at Melbourne and Monza, the marshalls. Senna should have been banned for life after that, look at the fatal accident there 2 years later in Japanese F3000. So many say it was pay back, I agree that they differed in severity only, but it was to the point that one risked lives.

      Also the point about ’88 that everyone ignores, Prost outscored Senna, if not for the odd points system, it would not have ended when “He clinched the championship at Suzuka with a race to spare”.

      I was a Senna fanboi in my teens, but grew up and accepted him for what he was, an extremely talented but at times unacceptably reckless driver who today would be banned for some of his acts or at least crucified online. At the very least he would not be revered as he is had he not died. I still recall being at the tracks and hearing the cheers from the crowds when the track radio announcer advised of his retirement.
      1. 

         dazman
         30th October 2014, 16:59

         That`s great as a senna fan that you have a well constructed comment! Well done. There’s one thing about Japan 1989 that people have not talked about, and that is the fact that senna’s ignoring of yellow flags in the previous race. Now if Mansell was banned for missing just one black flag, then why wasn`t senna?!
      2. 

         Westy13
         15th October 2019, 8:43

         That was the points system that was in use back then, every driver knew it, it was the same for all of them. In many ways it’s a positive as it promotes the need to win as many races as possible and with the poor reliability of the cars back then it was again very welcomed. Senna v Prost was an insane battle, but it was clear to everyone that Senna had speed over Prost in all all conditions. Prost was unbeatable when he was happy in the car, but how often do you get that in a season.
3. 

   Lewis McMurray (@celicadion23)
   22nd October 2014, 13:12

   Great piece Kieth, I never ever tire of reading about the Senna/Prost feud :) the events of Suzuka 1989/1990 get more incredible the more you read about them

   One thing though, last paragraph: “The symmetry with the events of Suzuka in 9189” Do let us in on your future-seeing abilities! How does Seb get on at Ferrari next year? :)
4. 

   petebaldwin (@)
   22nd October 2014, 13:14

   Their resolve hasn’t been put to the ultimate test in terms of removing the Championship from someone for deliberate crashing btu they certainly bottled making a decision this year when one title contender deliberately crashed into another….
   1. 

      MattDS (@mattds)
      22nd October 2014, 14:05

      What, Spa again? There are still people thinking Rosberg would have deliberately taken the much larger risk of damaging his front wing because of the much smaller chance to cause a puncture?
      1. 

         KeithR (@)
         22nd October 2014, 16:03

         @mattds Front wing damage at Spa T7 costs 16s max, while a rear puncture costs 120s + aero damage. It was always likely to pay, that’s why Rosberg actively steered into Hamilton. And in more history repeating that followed the stewards’ equally timorous whitewashing at Monaco.

         So now we have to watch Abu Dhabi with that slight question in our minds…
         1. 

            MattDS (@mattds)
            23rd October 2014, 6:59

            @lockup: what? “16s max”? You know what front wing damage will cost max? Look at Alonso, Malaysia 2013. That’s just about what it will cost max.
            On top of that, chances to cause a puncture are FAR smaller than chances to damage a front wing, so the chances of losing points compared to your rival are much bigger than actually gaining from it.
            1. 

               KeithR (@)
               23rd October 2014, 8:05

               @mattds it was not a frontal impact to knock the pylons off, it was a lateral impact like the one Alonso had in that same race or that Hamilton had in Germany – knock the endplate off, or at worst a cascade too. A tenth or two per lap and the team may or may not spend 10s changing it at the stop. Versus a rear puncture that at 3 miles from the pits is race over because you can’t drive slowly enough to protect the floor without going a lap down so that even an SC won’t save you. Do you really not understand this? I’m sure Rosberg did.

               Worst-case outcome was second place, and he was in second already. It was a shot to nothing. That’s why we see his steering-wheel the full 90 degrees right as Lewis’ rear wheel goes past.

               Totally deliberate, and totally whitewashed by the stewards like the historical examples, and Monaco.
            2. 

               MattDS (@mattds)
               23rd October 2014, 8:53

               @lockup I’ve seen enough racing to know that even wing-to-tyre contact can cause an aerodynamical imbalance that can make you lose the wing on the next high-speed part, cause understeer and send you off, and what not. Front wing damage does not cost you “16s max”. It’s flawed thinking and it’s nonsense to try and keep that up.

               Worst case was him out of the race and Hamilton winning. Chances of that were higher as well, seeing how the chances of causing a puncture are far lower than front wing damage. On top of that a puncture can range anywhere in severity from a slow one to one that basically explodes your tyre in a matter of seconds. So you’re looking at smaller odds to damage the tyre vs your own front wing, and then you’re still looking at only a portion of that which would effectively see your opponent a minute down or more (it was 45 seconds in this case).

               I have no doubt that he did something deliberate, and that was trying to stick it to Hamilton by staying in there when he really didn’t have the right to. But thinking that the intended outcome was front wing damage and a puncture, that’s stretching too far. The intended outcome was Hamilton backing off so Rosberg could barge his way through.
            3. 

               KeithR (@)
               23rd October 2014, 9:08

               @mattds take a look at the screenshot of Rosberg’s onboard here:

               http://www1.skysports.com/f1/report/24096/9441022/nico-rosbergs-simmering-anger-with-lewis-hamilton-spills-over-at-spa-and-

               It’s not possible for Hamilton to back off or for Rosberg to get through. Lewis is through already.

               And look at Rosberg’s steering. It was so momentary you couldn’t really see it in the real-time video, but there it is.

               It was absolutely vital that Pirro only looked at the incident for 10 seconds! Otherwise he’d have had to do something ;)
            4. 

               MattDS (@mattds)
               23rd October 2014, 10:19

               Like you say yourself: it was so momentary you couldn’t really see it in the real-time video. This is par for the course in driving race cars: sometimes they control their car, based on what they feel, by giving a momentary flick to the steering wheel.

               Re-read that article. It speaks of how easy it is to damage a front wing, since it’s invisible at two meters away on an extremity of the car. Then the article goes on to explain how Pirelly states that the chance to create a puncture is large but only on a small part of the tyre.

               And in effect what you (and some others) are saying is that Rosberg aimed a, to him, invisible part of his car at a small part of Hamilton’s car, while cornering, with the purpose of eliminating Hamilton and calculating that he would be just fine.

               I’m just not buying that.
      2. 

         Kanil (@kanil)
         23rd October 2014, 1:40

         People apparently think quite highly of Rosberg’s ability to determine ahead of time if hitting another car will cause damage more damage to it than it does to him.
         1. 

            Robbie (@robbie)
            23rd October 2014, 13:58

            @mattds and @kanil I’m with you. @petebaldwin and far moreso @lockup who has continually called NR ‘a cheat’ will likely never be convinced otherwise. My goodness if NR is a cheat, what must they think of MS? I’d say NR is an angel by comparison.

            And LH has not been ‘innocent’ either, yet is somehow not ‘a cheat’. Earlier in the season when both drivers were upping the boost on their own in order to compete, LH did it again such that he even apologized to the team after the fact and after the win. He would only have apologized if he had done it after a point where they were asked not to do that and instead to go by their instructions on boost from the pits. And if in fact NR did something sneaky at Monaco, which @lockup even goes so far as to cry conspiracy and coverup on the part of the stewards, perhaps LH brought that upon himself with his apologetic win ahead of Monaco.

            Anyway I’d take NR standing his ground like we hope to see in a great rivalry, such as Senna/Prost, any day over a one-rooster team who’s subservient would not have even tried to stand his ground like NR did in Spa. Perhaps not even allowed to by contract. And NR, thankfully, never apologized for doing that…just for the unintended consequences that robbed the team of points and the fans of a race-long dual.
            1. 

               KeithR (@)
               23rd October 2014, 14:45

               @robbie Cmon there was nothing ‘standing his ground’ about what Rosberg did in Spa. It was weak and desperate. Even Brundle called it petulant. Got him booed, turned the media against him, and alienated his team, quite rightly.

               As for the victim-blaming, Lauda admitted it was Nico who first used boost against orders, at Bahrain.

               In any case boost is not on the same scale as Mirabeau. Which yes WAS like Rascassegate, except that it did look like a momentary decision by Schumi whereas Rosberg clearly planned his cheat from the start of Q3, when he did his riskily fast banker in order to have choice of track position – which he mysteriously used to run first…

               It’s true I could not like MS. I did like Nico, but this year has been very disillusioning. Michael IMO failed to distinguish between winning and being the best, but most of the time he was a fabulous, classy racing driver, and as far as I can think his dark moments were at least spontaneous.
            2. 

               Robbie (@robbie)
               23rd October 2014, 15:12

               @lockup And of course I expected no less of a response from you and disagree. To you, Brundle calling it petulant doesn’t mean stubborn, or immature…it means deliberate and vicious. Only in your mind has he turned the media against him, like that matters even if it were true, to the point where it would affect any driver’s behavior on the track, and only in your mind has he alienated his team. Only in your mind can you erase LH doing an apology worthy act, simply because NR allegedly did it ‘first’…ie. as long as NR did it, LH is innocent when he does it. Only in your mind are MS’s multitudinal indiscretions ‘spontaneous’ yet NR is ‘a cheat’ doing premeditated and deliberate things. As I predicted, I said you would never be convinced otherwise, but that’s ok because I won’t be swayed from my stance either.
            3. 

               KeithR (@)
               23rd October 2014, 15:32

               @robbie aren’t we supposed to be talking about F1 rather than ‘my mind’?

               Lewis has not ‘done it’. He made the same minor transgression as Nico over using boost. That is not in the same league as either Monaco or Spa.

               I would say in this context ‘petulant’ means deliberate and childishly bad-tempered. But that’s Brundle’s interpretation of the move, when as we heard in live commentary he was terribly keen to call it merely ‘clumsy’, but honest enough to revise that somewhat, later on.

               My interpretation is unencumbered by any F1 duties, and less generous I’m afraid. I am quite sure Nico is clever enough to have done the math.

               I am open to evidence on the premeditation of Michael vs Nico’s cheats. Not that it’s a major distinction, to be honest. Just a bit stunning that MS actually looks LESS deceitful, in Monaco at least.
            4. 

               Robbie (@robbie)
               24th October 2014, 1:46

               @lockup So are you telling me Brundle has claimed the same as you, that NR literally steered into LH on purpose? Ala MS on JV? I believe that the only thing deliberate was him standing his ground and fighting with his car to do so.

               As to MS trying to get away with literally parking his car across the track, vs. Nico going right off the track without possibly knowing that would cause a yellow, I’d say MS wins the deceit game on that one. At worse NR is guilty of knowing that he had a banker lap and could take added risk on that lap. Deliberately going for it…sure. Deliberate lockup to screw up LH? Unproven. Unpenalized. MS…penalized big time. But keep grasping at straws to make NR out to be the villian. Just that you aren’t selling it well.
            5. 

               KeithR (@)
               24th October 2014, 10:01

               @robbie well we’ve been round this loop before. Why are you asking me what Brundle wrote when I’ve just linked it? He said:

               ” having turned away initially, he then not only straightens the wheel but actually turns towards Hamilton. It was an instantaneous moment of anger and petulance…”

               Though I think he knew exactly what the likely outcome would be, 3 miles from the pits.

               In Monaco the track evolves with each run, so they want to go last. Why did Rosberg go first?

               That’s how Hamilton knew it was a cheat before he even got out of the car, and how we know it was premeditated, whereas Schumi just made an error on the entry to Rascasse and went for the cheat on impulse, as far as we know.

               and @mattds Brundle also says

               “contact by a front wing end fence on the relatively small curve between the tyre tread and the side wall of a rotating tyre creates a 90% chance of a puncture”

               90%.

               Bear in mind that the end fence is something like a foot long, and they only have to INCLUDE the vulnerable area in the hit. Nothing pinpoint about it. And anyone who’s ever watched a race start should get that drivers know pretty exactly where their front wings are. He just needed enough force of impact to squash the sidewall bulge, which he took care to achieve as we see on Brundle’s page as I linked.

               So there’s the evidence, or some of it, that Rosberg is a cheat. You don’t have to believe it. I didn’t want to, either.

               And flashback-wise there’s the shoddy, timid stewarding that is not necessarily any improvement on 1989, 1990, 1994 or the other occasions since. As you point out it was a lot better in 2006, before a driver’s dad’s colleague was driver steward, citing his honesty as evidence of his honesty or boasting about only spending ten seconds looking at a full-speed replay.
            6. 

               petebaldwin (@)
               24th October 2014, 10:20

               @robbie – I will never be convinced that someone who admitted to deliberate crashing isn’t a cheat. No. You are right there.

               I accept that it was just desperation and it was a snap decision. I imagine Nico is disappointed in himself and these things happen. Obviously Monaco was very dodgy too when he went down the escape road but instead of staying out of the way, reversed back onto the track…

               It’s interesting that you mention Schumacher because he did the same thing. He made a snap decision to not let a driver past him and deliberately crashed into someone. Prost/Senna was another as was Prost/Heidfeld in Formula E.

               Hamilton has also made some questionable decisions in the past and got caught out so I’m not for one second saying he is in the clear.

               My point wasn’t really complaining about Rosberg though as he made a decision to crash into Lewis and that was that. The issue was that the FIA took no action. How often does one car hit the rear of another and puncture one of their tyres and get away with no punishment?
         2. 

            Bobby (@f1bobby)
            24th October 2014, 18:37

            The intention is what counts here; Rosberg deliberately hit Hamilton’s car in a moment of brain fade.
      3. 

         petebaldwin (@)
         24th October 2014, 10:23

         @mattds – I don’t think it was calculated. I think he just thought “**** that!” and steered to the right hoping for the best.

         He’d been passed by Hamilton before and was pushed off the track on the exit so he tried to be aggressive. Sadly he messed it up but somehow got completly away with it.

         Penalties are often given for “avoidable accidents.” I cannot see any way that this could be considered unavoidable.
         1. 

            Robbie (@robbie)
            24th October 2014, 14:14

            @lockup I hadn’t gone to the link because I thought it was just a screenshot…didn’t realize it was MB’s article. MB supports my point. He calls it debatable, which obviously the stewards agreed with as they did not penalize NR. MB talks of not avoiding an accident vs. a deliberate act to hit someone. Angry? Sure. Petulant? Sure. Sounds like a rivalry to me. Straightens his wheel? Sure. Turns toward Hamilton? Sure. To keep his car in control.

            I reiterate MB does not say Nico deliberately took LH out. What MB describes is a tough rivalry and potential emotions that carried over from previous races. Again, a rivalry. The stewards obviously found nothing deliberate so it is debatable otherwise, as MB points out. At worse it was Senna-like in that NR tried to force LH’s hand. It may have not worked this time, and been clumsy, but to brand NR a cheat over it is unfounded, and has never been part of NR’s makeup.

            As to Monaco, you ask, why did NR go first? Surely that is not his decision, right? Drivers don’t just get to pull out of the pits whenever they want, right? If you think NR also intentionally and on his own went out first to screw up LH then you are in another world of conspiracy theorizing that is unreasonable. But then I guess I shouldn’t be surprised when here you are talking about percentages chance of puncturing a tire and therefore that being evidence that NR must be a cheat. Wow. This is one amazing driver to be that precise with his front wing. This is my issue with your stance. Such weak little points of anything you can grasp at to desperately call evidence with which to castigate NR. A person’s debatable opinion. A percentage of a tire getting punctured. Your own conjecture over what the stewards are thinking or what their motives are, like you were a fly on the wall. Come on. When it comes to presenting evidence you’d be laughed out of court.

            @petebaldwin Fair comment. You ask how often does one car hit the rear of another and get away without punishment. I would say when it is deemed a racing incident, as opposed to a deliberate act. Trying to be aggressive is far different from a deliberate act. Well…he deliberately stood his ground…deliberately was not going to back down…and that is far from deliberately hitting someone, let alone deliberately calculating what it takes to cut someone’s tire and then with surgical precision going ahead and doing that in a premeditated way, which is what it would have taken for a cheat to pull that off. No way that in a split second of anger and petulance NR was calculating 90%…front wing end plate…I’ll survive it and LH won’t…simply jink the wheel like this…and other such drivel.

            You might be right that this was avoidable, but the stewards did not deem it deliberate so they must at some point leave room for racing between two strong rivals fighting for the WDC. If it wasn’t deliberate, how much policing and influence and interjection do we want? I appreciate the stewards letting this rivalry sort itself out on the track and will trust that when there is in fact deliberate contact, that will be addressed.
            1. 

               KeithR (@)
               24th October 2014, 14:35

               @robbie So you can’t explain why Rosberg chose to run first in Monaco.

               Brundle says it was done in anger. That means it wasn’t an accident.

               He steered hard right when the rear was not certainly not moving right.

               Brundle says he was told by Pirelli there’s a 90% chance of puncturing a rotating tyre if the outer ring of sidewall is engaged by a wing end fence. The tyre is only at 19 psi, so the sidewall squashes easily. The end fence is about 1 foot long, giving 2 feet of margin to line it up. We’re talking a very gifted, experienced F1 driver…

               You don’t need to take issue with my stance. You need to address the evidence, or just admit that your belief is independent of evidence.

               The stewards’ decisions are not evidence. One admitted to only spending ten seconds on it, the other blatantly prejudged it and avoided inconvenient evidence. The stewarding was a disgrace in both cases.
            2. 

               Robbie (@robbie)
               24th October 2014, 16:55

               @lockup This is where you lose me. “So you can’t explain why Rosberg chose to run first in Monaco.”

               I think I already pointed out that wouldn’t be his choice, but the team’s. If you are bound and determined that he himself gets to just pull out of the pits whenever he likes, then we needn’t go any further. No wonder this is like hitting one’s head against a brick wall.
            3. 

               KeithR (@)
               24th October 2014, 17:08

               @robbie lol, so Rosberg doesn’t get to discuss it? He earns the choice with his first run and then nobody consults him about this totally mysterious decision to pick the slower option? Link please :)

               Glad you finally accept Spa, at least.
            4. 

               Robbie (@robbie)
               24th October 2014, 17:49

               @lockup Ah, so now NR is part of a discussion. Well that’s better than you making it sound like it was only his decision so that he could go out there and screw LH. And you even say he earned the choice, meaning to me this was how they do it on the team. So he made a choice which he was given and earned which you claim was the ‘slower option’ whatever that means, and are therefore questioning how the team didn’t consult him about this mysterious choice? Are you a fly on the wall? You know what went on in the discussions? You have obviously convinced yourself they said to him something like What are you crazy? And then you ask ME to link please? What does that even mean? Link to what? Wow. As I’ve said before, you have quite the imagination. As to accepting Spa, I think I have spelled out well enough what I accept of it, and it certainly is not your version of it, and I’m glad you’re glad for that, but then you like to create your own facts and evidence out of some soap-opera like story making, so you are no doubt fashioning a way to figure out how I have completely agreed with you.
            5. 

               KeithR (@)
               24th October 2014, 18:25

               @robbie Why would Rosberg have run first? What would be the motive? It’s slower, because the track evolves. You claimed it was the team’s decision but you can’t substantiate or even explain that.

               Rosberg did a fast banker, which is riskier obviously, then used the choice that give him to run first. Why? It’s slower.
            6. 

               Robbie (@robbie)
               24th October 2014, 18:49

               @lockup I would suggest the track does not evolve like you claim and that it is more about getting out there when nobody will be ahead to impede. If it was suitable at Monaco for everyone to wait to the very last due to the track evolving, then there would be every car out on the track in the last few minutes and many cars getting held up and therefore not able to capitalize on a faster track. I think you are assuming that all tracks get faster and that it is always key that every car be out there at the end and obviously places like Monaco are not conducive to that…otherwise NR would have gone last given the choice.

               And I haven’t claimed anything…just refuted what you have said. You made it sound like it was strictly NR’s decision, which I refuted, then you admitted it was a team decision, which made more sense to me, and the onus is not on me to explain your whacky thinking as to why they wouldn’t talk NR out of some ‘mysterious’ decision…your wording. Your invention.

               Why would a fast banker be risky at a place like Monaco when, as the clock is running down and runs will get more limited, you have to take your opportunities while the track is clear? At Monaco I think it is far riskier to leave it and assume you will have a clear run and a negligably faster track with a few minutes to go. What good is a track that might…might be faster by a hair…when traffic is the far greater danger?
            7. 

               KeithR (@)
               24th October 2014, 19:17

               @robbie, Merc sent their cars out one after the other. Either Lewis was going to be directly behind Nico, or vice-versa. It’s a street track, it evolves.

               A banker is safe. That is of the essence. It gets you the front row, so you cannot be worse than the front row. That’s why it’s called a banker. To go faster risks a mistake and being nowhere. So you need a REASON to put in a fast banker.

               A faster banker gets you the right to go second in the second run. It’s a tiny advantage, so not worth a lot of risk.

               But when you choose to run first and go off and cause a yellow flag, then it’s instant pole, obviously. So that’s worth quite a bit of risk, isn’t it?

               This is how Lewis knew while he was still in the car that it had been a cheat, when he radioed “I should have known”. Because that is the only thing that made sense of Nico choosing to run first.

               Totally premeditated. Nobody wanted to accept it, me included. The drivers did accept it pretty quickly, followed by most of the paddock. Then many doubters got off the fence when Spa happened. He got booed for a reason, and it wasn’t making an innocent error.

               Anyway I’m out now. Our many enthralled readers can make up their own minds at this point :))
            8. 

               Robbie (@robbie)
               24th October 2014, 20:47

               @lockup I agree you need a reason to put in a banker and I explained it…the concern over leaving yourself only one shot at a clean fast lap at Monaco but finding traffic instead. A banker is no guarantee of a front row…nothing is guaranteed in racing. A banker is simply a fast lap while the opportunity is there with the hopes that is good enough for a front row or pole, best case scenario, or at least as high up the grid as possible in case the last final attempt before the clock runs out is scuppered. Nothing was preventing LH or any other driver from getting pole half way through Q3. To suggest the only reason NR went first has to be because he is a cheater is ridiculous. And LH had every opportunity to do the same as NR did by putting in a better lap earlier and then, according to you, being given the choice as to what to do near the end…go out first or second. I’m taking you at your word btw about this choice that the drivers had based on their banker laps. And remind you it is a team decision, as the drivers are part if the team. If LH had a problem with NR then he had a problem with NR’s side of the garage and the principals that oversee both sides of the garage.
5. 

   Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
   22nd October 2014, 13:19

   Meh ! Ayrton, you should’ve waited for the DRS zone…

   These drivers…. they don’t learn, do they?
   1. 

      Ayrtonfan (@)
      22nd October 2014, 13:29

      I would have loved how Senna, Prost, Mansell and Piquet responded to a DRS rule in 1986- “Um, we have spoken about this and, um, your top 4 F1 drivers in the world are going home!!”
   2. 

      Joao (@johnmilk)
      22nd October 2014, 13:42

      COTD right here
6. 

   Atticus (@atticus-2)
   22nd October 2014, 13:25

   I’m glad you took the courage, @keithcollantine, to draw the conclusions from Prost’s onboard and claim – in the title, no less – that it was Prost’s fault and not a racing incident.

   I like Senna, but am by no means a blinded fan of him and if it’d have been the other way around, I’d acknowledge it as his fault as well (like, despite all the understandable motives behind it, I disagree with what he did next year), so I consider my opinion to be fairly objective.
   1. 

      Madi Murphy (@ladym)
      22nd October 2014, 13:35

      @attiducs-2 Personally I’m a Prost fan, but I still can’t get over the fact that anyone thinks he didn’t do it deliberately. Of course he did. Just as, like you say, Senna did the following year. Unfortunately even these all-time greats made some incredibly poor choices sometimes.

      This is what both infuriated and amused me about the whole multi-21 affair in 2013… so many people were appalled that Vettel had the audacity to overtake his teammate, but compared with some of the actions of F1’s heroes such as Prost, Senna and Schumacher, that was positively tame!
      1. 

         Patrickl (@patrickl)
         22nd October 2014, 13:45

         Vettel’s move in Turkey wasn’t any less worse than what Senna and Prost did. Seeing how utterly useless that move was, I’d say it’s an even worse case of malignant wrongdoing on track.
         1. 

            Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
            22nd October 2014, 15:09

            @patrickl

            Vettel’s move in Turkey wasn’t any less worse than what Senna and Prost did. Seeing how utterly useless that move was, I’d say it’s an even worse case of malignant wrongdoing on track.

            Vettel was careless (I assume you mean in 2010), the other two were cynical and probably premeditated (almost certainly so in Senna’s case). What Vettel did was nothing like as bad as either and certainly not “malignant”.

            I find this a bizarre comparison as Vettel would have had nothing to gain from instigating a collision with Webber.
            1. 

               Patrickl (@patrickl)
               22nd October 2014, 15:20

               Just like Maldonado had nothing to gain from ramming Hamilton in Spa during practice?

               Vettel was annoyed with Webber and suddenly swerves across track with a car less than a meter to his side. That’s not careless, that’s an impetuous move with clear malignant intent to “prove a point”.

               There was no way that that move could have ever ended well.