It's difficult to have an honest discussion about Senna, even to this day. He's been raised to this mythical level where any criticism is seen as heresy.
Agreed. Personally I've always thought Prost was the better all-round driver, whilst Senna was the faster in ideal conditions. The Senna approach is favoured by so many great drivers (with lots of justification) but I look at someone like Colin McRae and think he could have won many more rallys and championships if sometimes he'd taken the Prost approach and driven more to the conditions rather than always flat out.
I took it as "take any *good* passing opportunity. To allow an opponent to keep a lead when you should've taken it is shameful. Others seem to think it meant "dive bomb no matter what from 4 links back" 🤦♂️
Don't: Max Verstappen '15-'20 Do: Max Verstappen '21-'22 Think his carreer best sums it up, in '21 he was reserved but elbows out when he had to. In '22 he was even more mature, just lookat his Spa race the composure he showed during the first lap letting several cars pass him to avoid collissions.
@@JuicedOnKids he tried his best but unfortunately got repeatedly driven into by the Mercs. Luckily last year he was far enough ahead of them so they crashed into others.
If the f1 fanbase already had a complete meltdown over the course of the 2021 season, I can't even imagine what would happen if f1 Twitter was a thing in the 1989 and 1990 seasons (might as well include 1994 and 1997 lmao)
I was on a couple relatively large F1 forums in 1997. I predicted Jerez 97 before Villeneuve did publicly. I became so-called "Schumi hater #1" on them following that incident by his fans apologizing for him and even received threatening emails from other contributors (back when email addresses were publicly accessible through our profiles lol).It really wasn't any different, there were just fewer forums.
Senna just could not admit he had done it on purpose, because he could not risk the championship. I fully understand him and would probably have done the same, because he just hadn't been treated fair in 1989. But I think it's interesting how Senna gets away with his often quite aggressive driving and some questionable manoeuvres much better than Schumacher with his ones. As you say in the video - If it gets close, the most successful drivers will always try to stretch the rules because they are absolutely determined to win. Therefore all of these great champions should be judged in equal measure.
To be fair, the system really favoured Senna against Prost. Prost had outscored Senna by 9 points in 1988. This would be 25 points today and Senna still won the title due to the dropped scores rule. In 1989 Prost would've been Champions like 3 races before the end of the season, but the points system kept Sennas challenge alive.
@@eggselent9814 are you born in 2006 ? if anything you just explained why todays system is unfair and back then gave everyone a chance to fight for the championship to the last race
@@cobosil It was the points system. See, up until 1990 not all results counted towards the championship. In 1988 the best 11 out of 16 results counted for the title. Now Prost was an incredibly consistent driver, while Senna wasn't. In 1988 Prost had outscored Senna by 11 points, however due to that rule, Prost lost the points gained from 3 second places, which led to him losing the title to Senna by 3 points, despite having 11 points more In todays points, Verstappan could've outscored for example Hamilton by 30,5 points and still not win the title. The same goes for 1989. By the time the Japanese GP was held, Prost had a 21 point lead over Senna. As there were only 9 points to be gained from a race, Prost should have already been champion. However the system still gave Senna the chance at the title.
@@eggselent9814 I understand what you saying, but the thing is what he already said, both drivers know how the point system works, what they needed to do, there wasnt really a benefit to them both related to that, i mean, you are literally comparing a system point from 1988 to other from 2010+
I don't get why anyone could take this quote seriously. It was an excuse after an accident which Senna caused deliberately. You can only use it as a joke after you hit someone but people really believe in it.
this is what happens in the Media, especiallh sports media. These guys just make a half thought-out comment and it's presented as if its a peer reviewed philosophy paper revealing a core belief of the sporter in question. Reporter: "do you think Alonso could challenge you for the title next year?" Max: "sure he's a fast driver". Next day: "Max slams Lewis Hamilton and fails to mention him as his main challenger for the next year".
And it took him a year to admit that, yes, in fact it was just a half-baked excuse to justify his crash into Prost in Suzuka. But people nowadays either take it as proof that "real drivers are hard-wired to go for any gap that appears in front of them", which, while not exactly wrong, can't be done 100% of the time, or as an argument to defend blatant divebombing, even if it results in a perfectly avoidable crash.
It's really telling that Senna reacted so strongly, even to Jackie Stewart asking him the question. To me it feels like Senna knew that he was in the wrong, and that's why he got mad about it. Anyone else he could brush off and say they don't know about racing. But it touched a nerve that it was someone who was a real, champion saying he was too aggressive. And I think that's because Senna knew it was true.
...especially since, because Prost was such a well connected a-hole...the only way to win was apparently to sink to a level of violence even Senna didn't like. That's the toxicity of F1 for you.
Yes, it touched a nerve with Senna especially Stewart's accusation that he had been involved in more collisions than the total amount of collisions of all the previous champions before him. Stewart claimed that he had done his homework but still came out with that rubbish. No wonder Senna was agitated
The problem is that Europeans could not stand a Brazillian just beating the shit out of everyone. Prost deliberately drove into Senna in 89 and Jean Marie Ballestre protected his fellow countryman, and the year after, just before the race, recognized that It was a lot more unsafe to do what Senna had been penalised the year before than what he did to return to the track. That drove Senna mad, and he got tired of all the politics involved and just MASTERFULLY took Prost out of the race. All we Brasillians at the time wanted to see Senna win on the track, but we had a sense of revenge when Senna did to Prost what Prost had done to Senna in the previous year.
I believe this actually started because Senna, who qualified on pole was put on the inside "off the racing line". A decision by the FIA on which side of the track pole position would be. Typically it would be on the inside of Turn 1 but on some tracks this means pole starts on the dirty side of the track. Senna felt that the FIA who had "been against" him the year before was trying to favour Prost again. So, he decided that he was going to be first into turn one as the only way Prost would be ahead is because the start on the racing line for him gave him an advantage.
That begs the question, why doesn’t F1 have a choose rule? Qual shouldn’t decide starting position, it should decide the order that drivers pick their starting spot. Sometimes in NASCAR, one lane will build up 6-7 positions over the other because it’s the preferred line.
From what I've heard, (yes heard, I didn't watched F1 regularly before 2001 and in '90 I was really young wouldn't even know anything about it) the pole position in Suzuka traditionally started in the inside line, the dirty part of the track it wasn't changed to f*d up Ayrton
The pole in Suzuka was always on the inside, you can check the starts of the 1987-1990 Japanese GPs or Japanese categories like the Japanese F2/F3000. It not only happened at Suzuka but in Fuji as well for example. What happened in 1990 is that Senna, who got jumped at the start by Prost in 1989 (I don't count 1988 as he stalled), asked the stewards to change the pole side before the qualifying and they originally agreed to it only to be overturned later, which enraged Senna. So to be more correct, is not that they switched the grid position to screw Senna, but that they did NOT switch the grid position to screw Senna.
@@coronasdelaurel There is no documented evidence of the officials agreeing to change pole. Even the Wikipedia entry for this sights an article that makes no mention of this. Only Senna's word which is not a reliable source of info.
I would be bothered too if I was Senna and in 1989 Prost crashed into me by taking the final chicane 20m early, then the officials disqualifying me for cutting the chicane despite already losing a minute of time.
I think in these situations the attacking Driver's mindset is - "F*ck the rules. I hope the other Driver yields." And if the other Driver yields, there is no story. If he doesn't and there is a crash, then it becomes a big story.
Back in those days it seemed drivers like Ayrton were determined to gain an advantage through “out psyching” your rivals. From memory, many less experienced guys and No.2 driver types would almost always yield to him. I think that Senna must have thought there was also a good possibility that, “Stop the race there’s rain” Prost, would have taken the corner slightly wider because there wasn’t a chance in hell that the car he could hear over his right shoulder wasn’t Senna. Yeah, I didn’t like Prost. But only after he ran off to his Chocken Hawk, Jean Marie Balestre in 89’ at Suzuka. Until then, I was more of a F1 fan than of any particular driver. F^*king little Fia Presidential cock sock!
Anyone who takes the quote at face value is misunderstanding it, its a quote about always giving your all and always trying to be better rather than a quote about making dangerous driving mistakes whenever you can.
No its not. You are no better at understanding it. Its a good sounding gross simplification one liner that Senna delivered to deflect the tough questions. Its just demagoguery. There was nothing more to it. For anyone to take this as some kind of principle to live by is a complete error in understanding under what circumstances this sentence was said.
You want Senna to have said something positive and meaningful and so you're interpreting it in a way that portrays Senna in a good light, even if all evidence points towards Senna gaslighting the media and people
I think the majority of that interview is in Murray Walker’s autobiography. It’s weird how the JYS & Ayrton interview isn’t available to watch in-full. I have only been able to find edited versions and not the very end where Senna basically leaves.
@@jonnyspa27 yes, I have vague recognition of it from the time with Jackie saying that as Senna left but agreed, it's very strange that such a famous and cited interview isn't available anywhere.
"If you no longer go for a gap that exists, then you're no longer a racing driver" - Senna "If you go for a gap that no longer exist, you are Pastor Maldonado" -some meme
Also, he asked for the pole position to be on the left side of the track at suzuka (as it is today) because that's the racing line and they didn't change it. So that also added to his frustration when prost got a much better launch even in spite of being in second place. Also I think that when Senna says "a gap that exists" he means a gap that you can take without causing an accident. Don't you think?
Dear Scott, (if I may), You are almost completely correct, in my opinion. Regarding the historical buildup toward that crash in Suzuka 1990 there is a crucial addition to the 1989 case: In 1990 Senna drove the fastest qualifying lap. And he wanted to start on the left side of the track, but one J.M. Balestre insisted that pole position was on the right side. Even Prost himself later admitted that, had he had pole, and the choice, he would also have chosen the left side. He therefore DID start better, the rest ist histery. Needless to say, Senna was therefore doubly furious, feeling cheated from the 1989 disqualification, and now also from the unfair loss of actual pole position, that was hard earned. He had enough - and the two factors both made him do what he did. So Balestre had his part in that incident, if indirectly. Just wanted to add to your information while applauding your cautionary note for young drivers. Spot on. Greetings, Rolando (Monello)
The context of this quote was used to justify him taking Prost out of the race in the 1990 Japanese Grand Prix, effectively winning him the title. So yeah, it’s wrong
@@eggselent9814 but we’re talking about the 90 one, where the whole grid was moved to accommodate Prost in detriment of Senna. This type of politics is what f1 is about and Senna was 100% right to do what he did.
@@mikepants3736 that is a lie. Pole position was always on the inside on first corner. Always. Senna wanted it to be moved to the outside (a very fair request imo as it's the racing line there and on most circuits) but the race directors refused it. So no, no special rules for Prost. As in 89, Senna was disqualified for cutting the chicane after the crash, once again that was in the rule books. Any justification for this is silly, how would you feel now if both have died here?
Even though I’d give Prost around 60% of the blame for the 1989 crash, it’s rarely mentioned that Senna DNF’ed the final race of the season, so even if he kept his win in Japan, he still wouldn’t have won the title that year
But after the crash. Send was still able to get back to race and would be champion bit was disqualified after finish in some questionable way as well. That is why the1989 championship has this controversy feeling to him.
@@mlustosakm he lost the championship by 16 points back when wins were worth 10 points. Senna would’ve still finished 6 points behind Prost had he kept the win at Suzuka
@@RafitoOoO he crashed out of the race while trying to pass lapped cars in the rain. Prost retired from the race too, but regardless, he was not winning that race or the title
If you've seen the Japanese Tv camera angle showing the accident from the front then the only conclusion anyone can reach is that Prost absolutely did it deliberately and is 100% to blame for the crash in 1989.
I was and still am a huge Senna fan, I watched that move live, everyone knew it would not work and he was wrong, but he would win the championship and get payback for the year before. It reminds me of Max blaming Lewis in Italy “that’s what happens when you don’t leave space”, when he only had half a car width and went for it anyway.
yes, and the hypocrisy of him saying that after he said Hamilton had no right to stick his wheel in at Silverstone. To be fair they all talk biased cr@p! so it should be taken in that context.
I'm surprised there are people out there who don't understand this. It should be known, considering that was the climax of one of the most dramatic rivalries in F1 history. Senna was basically trolling Balestre for cheating him out of a WDC the year before.
People just hear that quote and obviously like it, without knowing the whole backstory. That's the truth in most of the cases. Just like with anything nowadays, just look at the taken out of the context headlines. It brainwashes and fucks with people's minds so much, that it's sad.
Balestre (arguably) cheated him out of the chance of staying in the championship fight for the last round, but saying that Balestre actually took a WDC from Senna is an exaggeration: Prost was already leading the championship and did not even need to outscore Senna at Suzuka to claim the title then and there. Senna wasn't blameless in the collision that led to the disqualifying incident with the marshals anyway, and subsequent examples where drivers have actually been allowed to complete the race after similar assistance are also controversial.
@@joelambert7128Oh I 100% agree with you. I worded that poorly, and should've said a _potential_ title. I think it's still a 90% chance Prost takes it. He rightfully earned that title. Moreso it's just Balestre's outrageous actions pushing Senna over the edge, and Senna's perspective on it. I'd forgotten to even mention the pole position drama, which was really the nail in the coffin.
@@seventh-hydra But think with me. Senna ALWAYS HUMILIATED Prost in qualifying. The only reason the championship was like that were the breakdowns of Senna's Mclaren and Mansell who was black flagged in Portugal and continued for 3 laps until he destroyed Senna's car in a crash. Considering the 2 driving the same car without Senna breaking down, he would certainly make up the difference. Even because it was 16 not counting this race where Senna was unfairly disqualified, otherwise it would be 7 points difference.
@@nicolasoliveira4903 Things could have very well shaken out that way, too. Just saying I also don't think Prost was outright given a title he didn't deserve. I have immense respect for both drivers. Personally I think Senna drove better that season, but both are great and that's just how F1 is.
This and Colin McRae's "when in doubt, flat out" are some of my least favorite quotes - at least what comes to motorsports. They are misused all the time to defend bad driving and racing.
A lot of things that Senna did was simply dirty and dangerous. But people, especially the new fans, love to take what he did, and what Schumacher did as a excuse to justify some forms of dangerous driving simply because they’re one of the greatest of all time. I saw hundreds of that very same comments on the main F1 channel alone whenever there’s a crash between 2 drivers, mainly Verstappen and Hamilton. Literally majority of the “fans” (in reality it’s the new fans) nowadays think that bumper cars and pushing drivers off the track every single corner is true racing. It’s absolutely ridiculous these people
I don't think even Senna thought his excuse for hitting Prost was a good one. But given the injustice he'd suffered from Prost and the FIA in the previous year's race, and had been subjected to already at this one, I can forgive him for losing his cool and doing what he did. It was unsportsmanlike sure, but I'm not sure I would have been able to not be that degree of angry and frustrated if I were in his shoes.
if not, then none of you should be pro driver, IMO. If you can't take it, then leave it To me it isn't an acceptable excuse for deliberately crashing in to another car. "But they were mean to me before..." doesn't sound professional at all to me.
@@bennylloyd-willner9667 You're forgetting something of crucial importance here: drama between drivers is if anything more important to the commercial success of F1, NASCAR, etc than good racing. This feud between Senna and Prost is exactly the kind of shit the fans eat up and puts asses in seats. Of course, this is the internet. Either you're a perfect saint or literally Satan. There is no morally gray area anymore. Maybe I was the foolish one to have forgotten that.
@@xen84I'm not sure, but I think you are telling me of in an internettish way, but I still don't think it's the way of a pro to deliberately crash into someone and then initially lie about it. If he was so frustrated by mistreatment he should protest it, but not by crashing IMO . I don't think it's in an allowable grey area to do such things. Do it in the heat of the moment perhaps, but the owe up to it immediately after and just tell the truth. Nothing wrong here, we just disagree what honesty level should be used by professionals.
@@bennylloyd-willner9667, if F1 wants to act like an unprofessional, chummy good ol' boys club...don't be surprised when racers act unprofessional. The root cause of the 1990 crash has everything to do with the inability for F1's leadership to provide an equitable sporting environment. If you are comfortable stacking the deck for your chosen winner...don't be surprised when other athletes find ways to stack the deck in their favor. ...and don't be surprised when the fans take the driver's side rather than yours. It's not like F1s favoritism for Prost was hidden. Everyone knew it.
In the movie “Senna” there is some footage where he says something like “you work your ass off to get pole and then they make you start on the dirty side of the track”. The anger was visible on his face.
Pole was always on that side of the track. Senna made a ridiculous and insane last minute demand to get the entire organisation of a GP weekend changed because it would better suit him. You can't do that. You can't change pre-arranged and agreed upon rules because it would better suit you. Imagine if Hamilton or Verstappen tried that these days? Also I really wouldn't go around quoting that Senna documentary as fact considering it is one of the most bias and factually questionable documentaries ever made. If you actually spend the time really looking into the history you'd realise just how skewed, bias and factually/historically incorrect much of that documentary is. Seriously, don't take my word for it and actually look it up/do the research. If you really are a big F1 fan you'll find it fascinating
Most people don’t realize that the interview was a game of mental chess with Stewart trying to push Senna to confess his fault and Senna trying to pivot and push the conversation away from painting him in a poor light. Senna didn’t want Stewart to interview him again because Senna knew he was losing the argument
I think everyone knew what Senna was thinking back then even if they don't want to admit it. "If Prost yields i gain the position, if he doesn't we both DNF and i automatically win the championship... its a win win" As amazing of a driver Senna was that famous quote has always just sounded like a person trying to save face by doubling down to me, i never bought it. But i don't particularly blame Senna either. It's ultimately the FIAs fault for not coming down harder on that type of racing. MSC also drove like this and now Verstappen does the same because it's obviously the right way to drive as long as it's permitted.
Dude, Verstappen might be good but he didn't receive any pressure. His teammate is essentially a cuckold, like Bottas was to Hamilton. And those free "lunchbreaks" also permitted Red Bull to get another very dubious title. I'm no Mercedes fan by any measure since they have been cheating since 2014 and blackmailing the FIA about the rules since then too. But all this rulebreaking stuff is making the sport very uninteresting. Verstappen might've gotten titles in his lifetimes but as of yet, I still need to see him win a title legitimately.
I agree to you, specially on the second part of you comment. And the '89 championship going to Prost seemed unfair to me. I believe Prost hesitated and Senna went in.
@@luisvilleda4616 The WDC going to Prost in Japan was unfair, but still Senna needed to win in Australia to win the WDC, which he didn't. That said, he probably would've raced differently down under had his win in Japan stood (as it should've, the guy lost a shit ton of time because of the collision, and still he won the race, like, wtf)
I was a big Senna fan back in the day. But something I later realised from listening to other drivers and reading Sennas book- is that he systematicly used intimidation and bullying as a tool on the racetrack. With Prost at Suzuka it was plain sabotage to try and win the championship, Im talking about his normal driving. He would get too close to other cars or divebomb them into corners to scare them into just giving him the position. And he would note which drivers were easily intimidated and which ones he couldnt psych out, then he'd use that to plan his overtakes. Really nasty, dirty stuff.
Prost & Balestre both were French. Senna has been given shit at the 1989 Suzuka GP so (I think) he decided to end this 1990 Suzuka GP as fast as possible. And I also believe that Schumacher did his Adelaide move because of that incident.
Aidan Millward actually did an explanation to this regarding the pole position's side on the track. Senna requested it to br transferred as to gain the racing line side. But... whether it was granted then later reverted or rejected immediately, pole position has always been on the side it is located. He actually has an explanation on why it was called "pole position" in the first place as derived from horse racing. TLDR of this, Senna lost the 1989 title to prost because of being disqualified after dive-bombing him and returning to track with Marshall assistance. So in 1990, he did the same on the first corner. Edit: Source video actually got deleted due to his issue with copyright though. He has a nice series called "Story Time" tackling things in racing.
@@keso_de_bola9174 Yes I know that. But what would you do, FIA is working against you and complementing your championship rival. There's nothing better at that time like wrecking the competition and let it look like it's their (Prost & FIA) fault.
@@keso_de_bola9174 If Senna's car hadn't existed at that moment in 1989, Prost would have gone straight on the GRASS. Do you have the courage to defend that?
I think what Senna was really saying is, "If you no longer go for a [path to win the championship immediately] you are no longer a racing driver." Of course, he was trying to buffalo everyone into thinking it was just a fair pass attempt, but really, "the gap" was in points, not physical space. Do you want to burn Prost at the stake and be champion right now, or do you want to risk breaking a gearbox and getting 2nd for the season? The guy who's ruthlessly programmed to get 1st, rather than 2nd or 5th, takes the Forza Public Lobby Maneuver. I love Senna. I think he was the greatest ever. But this kind of malarkey should be a serious black stain on his reputation. In my opinion, if you're no longer willing to win honorably by the stop watch, you are no longer a racing driver. Senna wasn't a racer that day in Japan.
I'm a Brit and a massive Senna fan, I was heartbroken when he died, There was just something about Ayrton that i have not seen in other drivers since his death, His last minute quali to pole laps in his McLaren were just brilliant! He put his heart, Soul and everything he had left into winning, He also gave a lot back in charity work to under privileged Brazilians living in poverty, RIP Ayrton, You are so missed mate 👍
Alot of drivers put EVERYTHING into their driving. Alot of people put money and time into charity. And alot of drivers find that "last minute" when needed. He was a great driver... as are many others. But he was also a dirty driver and therefor he wont get my vote. People complain about the likes of Max... and yet Senna was 10x as bad. Max uses the rules but Senna just made his own.
@@egj1975 the difference is Senna also had racecraft and could actually have a battle with someone without shoving them off, something which Max seems to struggle with. Some of the greatest single lap fights in F1 history have involved senna. If Senna was really a dirty driver like you say, then his 1993 season would be theoretically impossible.
@@motorsportfan1246 A battle without shoving them of... hehe. He took out people on many occasions and he did admit it himself. He would drive into people on purpose... that IS a dirty driver. And MSC did the same thing.... these two legends were some of the worst ever when it came to aggressive and dirty driving. I have been watching F1 since 1992 (almost every single race) so I am not that new to the sport.
When you rewrote sennas quote, i would suggest you should have said "before the driver turns in" rather than "reaches the apex" At the point of turn in, if youre on the limit, you are 100% commited to using all the track at your disposal, and have no time to make allowances for another racer. You need to be aware of their presence before turn in to be able to give them room
The thing is people idolize the greats, no matter if it's Schumi, Senna, Vettel or Hamilton and see over their mistakes as everyone of them has made them. I see a lot of Hamilton fans saying he is the goat because he is a 7 time champion and a clean one. I guess they just can't remember how much he pushed Nico of the track in 2014 and 2015, especially in 2015. His many crashes with Massa in 2011, him lying to stewars early in his career or blaiming Mercedes in 2016 that they intentionally sabotaged his car so that they can have a German world champion in Nico. When things didn't go his way he was ruthless to the team, when they did go well he was everybody's darling and so thankful and so on. I can't remember Schumi ever blaming his team. Everyone who says that Hamilton is not among the top 10 F1 drivers ever is an idiot, but Lewis is no angel either.
Seems to me your issue here is with Hamilton or you simply have no idea what you're waffling on about, i seem to remember Rosberg crashing into him and fake crashing to get on pole
What people forget is that he did that to everyone. He would shut the door and expect the other driver to just lift, or shove his car in somewhere and expect the other driver to give him space even when he had no chance of passing in some cases. The 1989 shunt at Japan was senna's fault too, he dive bombed prost up the inside. It was just what he did unfortunately. I'm by no means a senna hater or fanboy but he had questionable driving like a couple greats after him also had. He was the start of the end of the gentleman era in my opinion.
@@jk_46 I agree that Senna had a bad habit of crashing to other drivers, however, the 1989 Suzuka crash was definitely Prost's fault. Prost clearly intentionally shut the door on Senna, with the line Prost took he would have cut the chicane like hell.
Finally somebody who says it like it is and states that this well known and famous quote of Ayrton Senna was spoken because Jackie Stewart had cornered him and he had to use everything he could come up with to come out of it. Not his proudest moment. (And this coming from a Senna fan since his first year in F1.) And that's why when recently Lewis Hamilton referred to this quote I immediately thought "you'de better not go there".
The payback more expensive of all time. Why Stewart don't question to Prost about of him bended the corner early, one year before? Take advantage of the fact that he is still alive. RIP Senna.
Maybe sit back and listen to what Jackie Stewart said here "More contact with other drivers in 36-48 months than Jackie has in total", that's the difference between a smart championship driver and an overly aggressive one achieving the same goal. At least Senna admitted to it and my hast off to him for doing so. My condolences just the same to a very sad loss.
The quote that has caused so many crashes at at club level racing. Fire it into the decreasing wedge last minute and say this quote in the paddock later 🙈
I think you should make a poster saying "if you no longer go for a gap, where you can get alongside the driver ahead, before the apex, without making contact....." With some nice background, I'd buy one!
The key is on the "that exists". If the gap is not safe for the opponent or is illegal to dive into on that circunstances, then this gap does not exists for a racing driver. But when there is a safe gap to pass your opponent or a team mate , and they tell you on the radio to not pass, if you don't, you no longer a racing driver.
I think what makes Senna an exceptional sportsman is his pation for car racing. Forget about the myth and his skills, he has his flaws after all. At the end, he was humble to admit that he lied and asked for guidence to another excptional sportsman, Mr. Stewart. Great reflextion, Scott!
This leaves out the fact that Senna won pole but was forced to start on the dirty side of the track, while Prost started on the rubbered in racing line. Senna knew that gave Prost a massive and unfair advantage making it nearly impossible for him to be ahead by turn 1. (barring a mistake by Prost) He pleaded with the organizers to switch the sides of the grid before the race to make it a fair start. Then add to that the championship hanging in the balance on a track that was famously difficult for overtaking and his frustrations from the FIA's previous year's heart-braking decision, and I believe it paints a clearer picture of Senna's mindset in the car and his ultimate decision not to yield.
Mate this is simply a myth. They had decided to change the side of Pole-Position before the race weekend. Senna and Berger then asked the Stewards to change the side of the Pole-Position. Now there are two accounts of what happened. The first one being that the Stewards first said yes, but later FIA came in to say they can't or that the stewards refused He knew already before the weekend that the Pole-man would be starting on the dirty side of the gri.
@Eggselent 98 Thank you, I didn't know that. Strange that they would change it right before the race, it seems almost conspiratorial. Especially in the context of the previous year's events. What do you think?
@@tulipstomper Because they didn't. Its not too uncommon, that little changes like this are made to racetracks, so them changing the side of the grid before the race weekend was just a normal change. I think Senna realized that he had a problem and tried to give himself an advantage and the FIA denied that (for good reason) I think these conspiriacy things are a bit overblown, mainly because of Sennas actions. While the then FIA president Balestre was clearly on Prosts side, the chance of Prost winning the title by that stage was next to none, so it wouldn't really make sense for them to manipulate the grid that way.
@@tulipstomper Pole Position at Suzuka was originally on the right side. Look up pictures when the cars were standing in the grid the years before. It was no issue the years before, so why should it be changed?
Any F1 fan should know that he took Prost out to ensure the championship like Prost did to him a year before,that quote is a good excuse for the move and since he was/is popular the quote is thill here.Still my Nr 1 driver even with his crazy moments(Schumi 2nd,Lauda 3rd,Prost 4th he should be 3rd but what Lauda wrnt through and what he did in his career gives him the edge,Alonso 5th)
If Prost tried to take Senna out in 1989, Verstappen was more at fault at Silverstone 2021. Senna tried a dive bomb grin too far back (whereas Hamilton was alongside on entry) and that rarely works in that chicane. Send tried a pass and didn't pull it off. That's on him, not Prost.
@@f1jones544 It wasn't the incident Prost was at fault for. That was a classic 50/50 racing incident. What made it his fault was complaining to the stewards to get him unrightfully disqualified. Allegedly, anyways. Iirc it turned out Prost actually didn't do that, and that Balestre was just being a douche all on his own.
This is simply wrong The 1989 title decider shouldn't have been in any kind of contention, as simply a stupid rules system was in place that was heavily favouring Senna. Without that, Prost would've already been champion The Problem is, Prost turned in too early. Instead of waiting for Prost to lose momentum and overtake him in the next corner, Senna tried to dive bomb him, causing the collision. It was 65% Sennas fault at least.
@@eggselent9814 Were that the case, Balestre would have played it safe and used that as justification. But that wasn't the case, as it was the marshals who did so. They'd also tried to do the same for Prost, but his car was cooked.
Glad someone did a video on this. Senna messed up a generation of drivers with that quote. You often hear it repeated after they do stupid moves.
ปีที่แล้ว
This quote is a plague. I organize and also drive multiple karting races during the season and there is always someone using this as a apology for crashing people off the track... When you put it into context they are then like "oh... I didn't know that"
Right Ayrton. Lap one, Turn One. Give us a break. Deliberate. Always thought it was and Senna won't convince me otherwise. He was too good with his hands and feet to make that move. He choked and he never lived with it. Simple.
I used to do league sim racing and the amount of time I heard Senna's quote after getting dive bombed is nuts. Bad drivers use it as their "get out of jail free" card...
It's also worth noting that Senna wasn't happy that pole position was on the dirty side of the track which then disadvantaged Senna Hence his remark that if Prost beat him off the line as a result he would create that situation at T1
@@russotusso1695 My mistake, Pole was still on the dirty side as it was against the pit wall whereas the rubber was all on the opposite side Which had caused Senna to lose out to Prost in exactly the same manner in 89 - which then led to their collision later in the race and Sennas subsequent DQ that gave Prost the title, so could be that which Senna was unhappy about, that they wouldnt move pole to the clean side
My iRacing signature reads: Anyone that quotes Senna "If you no longer go for a gap that exists you are no longer a racing driver" can usually be counted on to go for a gap that isn't there. ;)
In 88 and 89, Senna was P1 and the pole position was on the right side of the track, off the racing line. Afaik, Senna complained of that in both years and then again in 1990, when the crash and the infamous quote happened. In 1991, the pole position was on the left side, on the racing line.
Senna was an absolutely amazing driver but also had some mega personality flaws. Not talking to Stewart ever again, shows an immaturity in social skills. But behind the wheel, was willing to do anything to win, even skirt the rules. This quote were talking about has been an "excuse" in the Simulator community as well. Over a decade ago I remember people on iRacing using it as an excuse for their shitty decisions.
It depends on who you ask. If you ask BBC, then yes. People are very bad at looking situations objectively and in context. The same goes for the BS that Max has become more mature. No, he just got a better car compared to his rivals meaning he needed to take much less risk. Same goes for Lewis in his era of dominance. I have ZERO doubt that there will be a lot of confrontations again when two "mature" drivers are fighting head-to-head for the title. Edit: ow, this is exactly what he said later on in this video.
Hamilton braked and turned into the corner after being alongside at corner entry. Senna didn't brake and he didn't turn and was never alongside. Nice try though.
@F1Jones Hamilton understeered straight into verstappen's car....on-board video shows that clearly. Steering angle didn't correspond with the direction he was going=understeer. Which means he was taking too much speed into the corner and didn't brake sufficiently.
I wanna leave some criticism: 1. Poor research when it comes to why Senna did this move. No word about FIA moving the pole to the dirty side after quali to favor Prost and that's just one of many relevant points (Prost crashing on purpose before, french FIA president favoring Prost, rediculous inconsistency of the dsq with similar incidents, etc). I don't wanna defend Senna, but it's necessary context that's just missing to understand his pov. Especially for that Senna quote from the following year where he admitted the crime. 2. Horrible framing to claim that the quote was a "lie" to cover up 1990. Yes, he needed to cover it up to keep the title and it's important context because the majority of the interview indeed was about Senna trying to justify his murder on Prost and therefore he was in a very stressful defending position at the time of the quote. But in that particular question Stewart made the rediculously exaggerated claim that Senna might have crashed more than all previous champions combined. So no, the quote is NOT a lie and not even remotely related to Japan. It was rather a bad spontaneous justification for being such an aggressive driver in general compared to others. 3. I honestly don't understand the video's purpose. Maybe it's just that we know different people but I've only seen drivers using this quote sarcastically as justification when knowing they're at fault. It's an hilarious meme. I con not believe that there are people out there who actually use this as serious justification for crashing. The way you interpret the quote it would be the same saying that the attacking driver can never ever be the one to blame. Nobody with serious ambitions in motorsport and some intellect would think like that. So what are we even talking about?
Well tbh, i didn't know the quote was related to the crash, i just heard it somewhere. And untill i saw this video, i thought he was speaking about driving a gap, in the sense of "if you no longer push yourself to the limit and go for riding a gap with your opponent, then you're no longer a racing driver." But that's just my vision, it isn't a clarification for how other people interpretate that quote.
Missed probably the most important information on this topic, after qualifying 4 Suzuka the FIA went back on their word and refused to swap pole position to the clean side of the circuit, after Senna got pole! Combined with what happened the year before with Orost the die was cast.
Prost ABSOLUTELY knew Senna was there, regardless of 'peripheral vision'. Watch the clip again & see the Ferrari edging over. Note that the moves are step by step rather than one smooth move, despite Prost being famed for his smooth driving style.
I think that what he wanted to say is: you need to go for a gap that EXISTS, a gap that *can be used without getting other car off the track* A gap is no longer a gap when you ruin someone's race I take it like this, makes more sense considerating who said it was Senna
I think Al Unser Jr took that statement to heart...Was probably around the same time period, which makes me wonder. I remember him taking out Emo and Mario at the same corner on the same race track but 1yr apart from each other. It was an absolute impossible pass attempt both times...That ended any respect I had for Al Jr. That racing style was the one thing I really disliked about Senna.
@@alancx523 A 'Class A prick' doesn't stop his car while a race is ongoing to jump out - run across the track - and help a driver in peril like Senna did for Comas. Senna was a far more complicated character than the picture of it you paint...
@@alancx523 My point is pretty obvious, and if you can't understand why such an act of selfless bravery is not that of a 'Class A Prick' I can't help you. Of course, you're gonna double-down on your senseless and inaccurate observation, and keep liking your own comments but Senna was a complicated character. Much more complicated than you credit him. But then, you come across as pretty simple so I can understand why you struggle to see nuance in others...
Where did that interview go when he admitted that he would be first into the corner at suzuka and went on about the switching of pole positions it wasn't used in SENNA and it was one of the greatest moments in motor sports
@@f1jones544 Except Balestre admitted to it later. And it was also such blatant manipulation that he lost his FISA and FIA presidencies as a direct result of his actions. (Prost was actually pretty innocent in that though, it was all Balestre)
Also.. the quote is over analysed. It is not meant necessarily as literal but the sentiment that a selfish and ruthless winner in F1 (as many champions are), takes risks. Breaking it down bit by bit is missing the point. Rationally it is common sense you leave a certain amount of space in racing. But if you are not going to take a risk to win a race well maybe you are just not that sort of driver. Which is fine, there have always been rationale sensible drivers in racing, firey drivers are often disliked because I know myself when I raced go karts that sometimes you have the top drivers who will just side swipe you as they go past like you ain't there. But heck that's life, no need to be a crybaby about it ;)
I think the question is very simple actually. Even though he was lying in this context and having admitted it... However, that doesn't mean the quote is inherited lying, I mean, doesn't take much more than 2 brain cells to conclude that "a gap that exists" means (or at least should mean) having the space and time to do the move properly and still be able to continue racing. In other words, if you see your car fits in the space ahead but will no end the turn without contact, there is no gap.
Point is that Senna said it in order to justify his intentionally “wrong” move against Prost, which in my opinion tells lots about Senna’s lack of respect for Stewart, Prost and all F1 drivers. In this manner the phrase in itself becomes bovine excrement.
@@giannapple I'm not denying that, cause in this case there was no gap, so indeed Senna was lying about the gap. I just don't think the quote made the sport worse over the years
@@giannapple Anyone who watched f1 at the time knows how much the rules were bent to favor prost, this goes back many years, before Senna started racing. Ballestre always did what he could to favor Prost, after all the injustice of 89 I would have done the same if I were Senna. You can't judge one sin of Senna and ignore ALL MANY sins of Prost.
It's difficult to have an honest discussion about Senna, even to this day. He's been raised to this mythical level where any criticism is seen as heresy.
Agreed. Personally I've always thought Prost was the better all-round driver, whilst Senna was the faster in ideal conditions.
The Senna approach is favoured by so many great drivers (with lots of justification) but I look at someone like Colin McRae and think he could have won many more rallys and championships if sometimes he'd taken the Prost approach and driven more to the conditions rather than always flat out.
@@cruachan1191 Senna faster only in ideal condition? How about rain? How about gearbox issue in Brazil 91? How about Monaco 84?
@@cruachan1191 Season 1989. Senna was faster than Prost in all the races he finished
@@cruachan1191 Pure racing vs tactics. Most people prefer the former.
@@АртемКазанцев-ш7в Did you read OPs Comment?
Precisely why the best quote for good racing is: "All the time you have to leave the space!"
Followed up by this hand sign… 🤌
Alonso has won 2 championships compared to how many by Senna again?
@@Laurentus oh dear 🤦♂️
@@Laurentus I fail to see how championships come into play here?
@@LaurentusAnd who's still alive?
I took it as "take any *good* passing opportunity. To allow an opponent to keep a lead when you should've taken it is shameful.
Others seem to think it meant "dive bomb no matter what from 4 links back" 🤦♂️
The context under which he said it was 100% the second scenario, so that's what applies.
@@f1jones544 no just no, people like you need to stay faaaaaar away from a track.
Don't: Max Verstappen '15-'20
Do: Max Verstappen '21-'22
Think his carreer best sums it up, in '21 he was reserved but elbows out when he had to. In '22 he was even more mature, just lookat his Spa race the composure he showed during the first lap letting several cars pass him to avoid collissions.
@@daarom3472 Did you really call Max "reserved" in 2021 lol.
@@JuicedOnKids he tried his best but unfortunately got repeatedly driven into by the Mercs. Luckily last year he was far enough ahead of them so they crashed into others.
If the f1 fanbase already had a complete meltdown over the course of the 2021 season, I can't even imagine what would happen if f1 Twitter was a thing in the 1989 and 1990 seasons (might as well include 1994 and 1997 lmao)
I was on a couple relatively large F1 forums in 1997. I predicted Jerez 97 before Villeneuve did publicly. I became so-called "Schumi hater #1" on them following that incident by his fans apologizing for him and even received threatening emails from other contributors (back when email addresses were publicly accessible through our profiles lol).It really wasn't any different, there were just fewer forums.
Yeah no sh8t, whatever hamilton or vestappen did was childs play if we look at what senna actually did
I read that after 89 prost had to be escorted by the police in brazil 💀
yea but if senna was british most of the media today would’ve defend or justify his actions
@@adityawardanasujaya they didn’t defend Hamilton after silverstone 21 and that was a lot more up in the air
Senna just could not admit he had done it on purpose, because he could not risk the championship. I fully understand him and would probably have done the same, because he just hadn't been treated fair in 1989.
But I think it's interesting how Senna gets away with his often quite aggressive driving and some questionable manoeuvres much better than Schumacher with his ones. As you say in the video - If it gets close, the most successful drivers will always try to stretch the rules because they are absolutely determined to win. Therefore all of these great champions should be judged in equal measure.
To be fair, the system really favoured Senna against Prost. Prost had outscored Senna by 9 points in 1988. This would be 25 points today and Senna still won the title due to the dropped scores rule. In 1989 Prost would've been Champions like 3 races before the end of the season, but the points system kept Sennas challenge alive.
@@eggselent9814 the system favoured Senna? I assume they knew the rules before they started the season haha
@@eggselent9814 are you born in 2006 ? if anything you just explained why todays system is unfair and back then gave everyone a chance to fight for the championship to the last race
@@cobosil It was the points system.
See, up until 1990 not all results counted towards the championship. In 1988 the best 11 out of 16 results counted for the title. Now Prost was an incredibly consistent driver, while Senna wasn't.
In 1988 Prost had outscored Senna by 11 points, however due to that rule, Prost lost the points gained from 3 second places, which led to him losing the title to Senna by 3 points, despite having 11 points more
In todays points, Verstappan could've outscored for example Hamilton by 30,5 points and still not win the title.
The same goes for 1989. By the time the Japanese GP was held, Prost had a 21 point lead over Senna. As there were only 9 points to be gained from a race, Prost should have already been champion. However the system still gave Senna the chance at the title.
@@eggselent9814 I understand what you saying, but the thing is what he already said, both drivers know how the point system works, what they needed to do, there wasnt really a benefit to them both related to that, i mean, you are literally comparing a system point from 1988 to other from 2010+
I don't get why anyone could take this quote seriously. It was an excuse after an accident which Senna caused deliberately. You can only use it as a joke after you hit someone but people really believe in it.
If gap
car go
@@JuicedOnKids no gap
Car crash
this is what happens in the Media, especiallh sports media. These guys just make a half thought-out comment and it's presented as if its a peer reviewed philosophy paper revealing a core belief of the sporter in question.
Reporter: "do you think Alonso could challenge you for the title next year?"
Max: "sure he's a fast driver".
Next day: "Max slams Lewis Hamilton and fails to mention him as his main challenger for the next year".
And it took him a year to admit that, yes, in fact it was just a half-baked excuse to justify his crash into Prost in Suzuka. But people nowadays either take it as proof that "real drivers are hard-wired to go for any gap that appears in front of them", which, while not exactly wrong, can't be done 100% of the time, or as an argument to defend blatant divebombing, even if it results in a perfectly avoidable crash.
Because it was made by Senna who some people think is the greatest driver of all time.
Half the sim racing community's realities shattered within the first 20 seconds
I do love how this quote has shifted over the last few years to become a meme that mocks the very idea of stupid divebombs: "If gap car"
It's really telling that Senna reacted so strongly, even to Jackie Stewart asking him the question. To me it feels like Senna knew that he was in the wrong, and that's why he got mad about it. Anyone else he could brush off and say they don't know about racing. But it touched a nerve that it was someone who was a real, champion saying he was too aggressive. And I think that's because Senna knew it was true.
...especially since, because Prost was such a well connected a-hole...the only way to win was apparently to sink to a level of violence even Senna didn't like.
That's the toxicity of F1 for you.
Yes, it touched a nerve with Senna especially Stewart's accusation that he had been involved in more collisions than the total amount of collisions of all the previous champions before him. Stewart claimed that he had done his homework but still came out with that rubbish. No wonder Senna was agitated
The problem is that Europeans could not stand a Brazillian just beating the shit out of everyone. Prost deliberately drove into Senna in 89 and Jean Marie Ballestre protected his fellow countryman, and the year after, just before the race, recognized that It was a lot more unsafe to do what Senna had been penalised the year before than what he did to return to the track.
That drove Senna mad, and he got tired of all the politics involved and just MASTERFULLY took Prost out of the race.
All we Brasillians at the time wanted to see Senna win on the track, but we had a sense of revenge when Senna did to Prost what Prost had done to Senna in the previous year.
I always took it as "never pass up a good passing opportunity"
I believe this actually started because Senna, who qualified on pole was put on the inside "off the racing line". A decision by the FIA on which side of the track pole position would be. Typically it would be on the inside of Turn 1 but on some tracks this means pole starts on the dirty side of the track. Senna felt that the FIA who had "been against" him the year before was trying to favour Prost again. So, he decided that he was going to be first into turn one as the only way Prost would be ahead is because the start on the racing line for him gave him an advantage.
That begs the question, why doesn’t F1 have a choose rule? Qual shouldn’t decide starting position, it should decide the order that drivers pick their starting spot. Sometimes in NASCAR, one lane will build up 6-7 positions over the other because it’s the preferred line.
From what I've heard, (yes heard, I didn't watched F1 regularly before 2001 and in '90 I was really young wouldn't even know anything about it) the pole position in Suzuka traditionally started in the inside line, the dirty part of the track it wasn't changed to f*d up Ayrton
The pole in Suzuka was always on the inside, you can check the starts of the 1987-1990 Japanese GPs or Japanese categories like the Japanese F2/F3000. It not only happened at Suzuka but in Fuji as well for example. What happened in 1990 is that Senna, who got jumped at the start by Prost in 1989 (I don't count 1988 as he stalled), asked the stewards to change the pole side before the qualifying and they originally agreed to it only to be overturned later, which enraged Senna. So to be more correct, is not that they switched the grid position to screw Senna, but that they did NOT switch the grid position to screw Senna.
@@coronasdelaurel There is no documented evidence of the officials agreeing to change pole. Even the Wikipedia entry for this sights an article that makes no mention of this. Only Senna's word which is not a reliable source of info.
Well said 👍
Saying that to a guy like Jackie who advocated so much for safety and saw his friends die regularly just bothers me so much.
Better than "Balestre was such a righteous c*nt that I put my life and another driver's life in serious danger just to teach him a lesson"
I would be bothered too if I was Senna and in 1989 Prost crashed into me by taking the final chicane 20m early, then the officials disqualifying me for cutting the chicane despite already losing a minute of time.
@@R9naldo these aren't mutually exclusive.
@@R9naldo ah yeah because making low speed contact and having both cars come to a stop safely is the same as two cars flying off into t1
@@R9naldo Senna would have been DSQ anyway for an illegal push start.
I think in these situations the attacking Driver's mindset is - "F*ck the rules. I hope the other Driver yields." And if the other Driver yields, there is no story. If he doesn't and there is a crash, then it becomes a big story.
Like young Maxie...
Back in those days it seemed drivers like Ayrton were determined to gain an advantage through “out psyching” your rivals. From memory, many less experienced guys and No.2 driver types would almost always yield to him. I think that Senna must have thought there was also a good possibility that, “Stop the race there’s rain” Prost, would have taken the corner slightly wider because there wasn’t a chance in hell that the car he could hear over his right shoulder wasn’t Senna.
Yeah, I didn’t like Prost. But only after he ran off to his Chocken Hawk, Jean Marie Balestre in 89’ at Suzuka. Until then, I was more of a F1 fan than of any particular driver. F^*king little Fia Presidential cock sock!
In the same vein, the most famous rally quote by Colin McRae "When in doubt, go flat out" is the absolute worst approach you can have when rallying.
Anyone who takes the quote at face value is misunderstanding it, its a quote about always giving your all and always trying to be better rather than a quote about making dangerous driving mistakes whenever you can.
And you know what someone that's dead was meaning how exactly? Or are you projecting what you think, operative words here are "you think"
its a quote used as an excuse for taking out prost (not a prost fan dont worry), but people read into it too much
Bullsh*t, it was a d*ckhead excuse to make up for a d*ck move. There was no deeper meaning, just like most excuses.
No its not. You are no better at understanding it. Its a good sounding gross simplification one liner that Senna delivered to deflect the tough questions. Its just demagoguery. There was nothing more to it. For anyone to take this as some kind of principle to live by is a complete error in understanding under what circumstances this sentence was said.
You want Senna to have said something positive and meaningful and so you're interpreting it in a way that portrays Senna in a good light, even if all evidence points towards Senna gaslighting the media and people
I've been struggling to find it but I think at the end of the interview Jackie Stewart said something like 'you need to grow up son'
The interview cracks me up, as soon as Senna calls him "Stewart" you can tell in his head Jackie's thinking "why you little shit"
I think the majority of that interview is in Murray Walker’s autobiography. It’s weird how the JYS & Ayrton interview isn’t available to watch in-full. I have only been able to find edited versions and not the very end where Senna basically leaves.
@@jonnyspa27 yes, I have vague recognition of it from the time with Jackie saying that as Senna left but agreed, it's very strange that such a famous and cited interview isn't available anywhere.
"If you no longer go for a gap that exists, then you're no longer a racing driver" - Senna
"If you go for a gap that no longer exist, you are Pastor Maldonado" -some meme
Lmao this is true. 😄
Edit, "If you no longer go for a gap that never existed in the first place".. - Pastor Maldonado
@@phillydelphia8760 LOL, I thought it was Daniel “the torpedo” Kvyat
pastor made his own gap
Pastor is the Gap himself 😁
Also, he asked for the pole position to be on the left side of the track at suzuka (as it is today) because that's the racing line and they didn't change it. So that also added to his frustration when prost got a much better launch even in spite of being in second place. Also I think that when Senna says "a gap that exists" he means a gap that you can take without causing an accident. Don't you think?
Dear Scott,
(if I may),
You are almost completely correct, in my opinion.
Regarding the historical buildup toward that crash in Suzuka 1990 there is a crucial addition to the 1989 case: In 1990 Senna drove the fastest qualifying lap. And he wanted to start on the left side of the track, but one J.M. Balestre insisted that pole position was on the right side. Even Prost himself later admitted that, had he had pole, and the choice, he would also have chosen the left side. He therefore DID start better, the rest ist histery.
Needless to say, Senna was therefore doubly furious, feeling cheated from the 1989 disqualification, and now also from the unfair loss of actual pole position, that was hard earned. He had enough - and the two factors both made him do what he did. So Balestre had his part in that incident, if indirectly.
Just wanted to add to your information while applauding your cautionary note for young drivers. Spot on.
Greetings,
Rolando (Monello)
I'm a fan of the Kankkunen quote "The speed was okay, the corner was too tight" myself.
It speaks more to the way I drive. :-)
That perfectly explains my recent crash
The context of this quote was used to justify him taking Prost out of the race in the 1990 Japanese Grand Prix, effectively winning him the title. So yeah, it’s wrong
@@paralleluniverse99 it literally was used in that context though
No, it is not wrong, Prost did the same to win and some more. He just got pay back.
@@mikepants3736 Simply wrong, as the 1989 crash is also Sennas fault
@@eggselent9814 but we’re talking about the 90 one, where the whole grid was moved to accommodate Prost in detriment of Senna. This type of politics is what f1 is about and Senna was 100% right to do what he did.
@@mikepants3736 that is a lie. Pole position was always on the inside on first corner. Always. Senna wanted it to be moved to the outside (a very fair request imo as it's the racing line there and on most circuits) but the race directors refused it. So no, no special rules for Prost. As in 89, Senna was disqualified for cutting the chicane after the crash, once again that was in the rule books. Any justification for this is silly, how would you feel now if both have died here?
Even though I’d give Prost around 60% of the blame for the 1989 crash, it’s rarely mentioned that Senna DNF’ed the final race of the season, so even if he kept his win in Japan, he still wouldn’t have won the title that year
But after the crash. Send was still able to get back to race and would be champion bit was disqualified after finish in some questionable way as well. That is why the1989 championship has this controversy feeling to him.
@@mlustosakm he lost the championship by 16 points back when wins were worth 10 points. Senna would’ve still finished 6 points behind Prost had he kept the win at Suzuka
if you change one event in history you change everything that came after. If he wasn't disqualified who knows if he could win in Adelaide?
@@RafitoOoO he crashed out of the race while trying to pass lapped cars in the rain. Prost retired from the race too, but regardless, he was not winning that race or the title
If you've seen the Japanese Tv camera angle showing the accident from the front then the only conclusion anyone can reach is that Prost absolutely did it deliberately and is 100% to blame for the crash in 1989.
I was and still am a huge Senna fan, I watched that move live, everyone knew it would not work and he was wrong, but he would win the championship and get payback for the year before. It reminds me of Max blaming Lewis in Italy “that’s what happens when you don’t leave space”, when he only had half a car width and went for it anyway.
yes, and the hypocrisy of him saying that after he said Hamilton had no right to stick his wheel in at Silverstone. To be fair they all talk biased cr@p! so it should be taken in that context.
But there was a car width for Max.
@@AndyFromBeaverton How when his car mounted the curb? There's an escape road for a reason, He's not God
difference is Italy was a racing incident, Japan was not
@@Obi-WanKannabis italy was not an incident. purposeful crash
I'm surprised there are people out there who don't understand this. It should be known, considering that was the climax of one of the most dramatic rivalries in F1 history. Senna was basically trolling Balestre for cheating him out of a WDC the year before.
People just hear that quote and obviously like it, without knowing the whole backstory. That's the truth in most of the cases.
Just like with anything nowadays, just look at the taken out of the context headlines. It brainwashes and fucks with people's minds so much, that it's sad.
Balestre (arguably) cheated him out of the chance of staying in the championship fight for the last round, but saying that Balestre actually took a WDC from Senna is an exaggeration: Prost was already leading the championship and did not even need to outscore Senna at Suzuka to claim the title then and there. Senna wasn't blameless in the collision that led to the disqualifying incident with the marshals anyway, and subsequent examples where drivers have actually been allowed to complete the race after similar assistance are also controversial.
@@joelambert7128Oh I 100% agree with you. I worded that poorly, and should've said a _potential_ title. I think it's still a 90% chance Prost takes it. He rightfully earned that title.
Moreso it's just Balestre's outrageous actions pushing Senna over the edge, and Senna's perspective on it. I'd forgotten to even mention the pole position drama, which was really the nail in the coffin.
@@seventh-hydra But think with me. Senna ALWAYS HUMILIATED Prost in qualifying. The only reason the championship was like that were the breakdowns of Senna's Mclaren and Mansell who was black flagged in Portugal and continued for 3 laps until he destroyed Senna's car in a crash. Considering the 2 driving the same car without Senna breaking down, he would certainly make up the difference. Even because it was 16 not counting this race where Senna was unfairly disqualified, otherwise it would be 7 points difference.
@@nicolasoliveira4903 Things could have very well shaken out that way, too. Just saying I also don't think Prost was outright given a title he didn't deserve.
I have immense respect for both drivers. Personally I think Senna drove better that season, but both are great and that's just how F1 is.
This and Colin McRae's "when in doubt, flat out" are some of my least favorite quotes - at least what comes to motorsports.
They are misused all the time to defend bad driving and racing.
And thats is why colin mcrae have secound most dnfs in rally history
A lot of things that Senna did was simply dirty and dangerous. But people, especially the new fans, love to take what he did, and what Schumacher did as a excuse to justify some forms of dangerous driving simply because they’re one of the greatest of all time. I saw hundreds of that very same comments on the main F1 channel alone whenever there’s a crash between 2 drivers, mainly Verstappen and Hamilton. Literally majority of the “fans” (in reality it’s the new fans) nowadays think that bumper cars and pushing drivers off the track every single corner is true racing. It’s absolutely ridiculous these people
yeah they doesn't drive like jackie did.
But that ofcorse was becouse the car was basically was a bomb on wheels.
Very well said!
I don't think even Senna thought his excuse for hitting Prost was a good one. But given the injustice he'd suffered from Prost and the FIA in the previous year's race, and had been subjected to already at this one, I can forgive him for losing his cool and doing what he did. It was unsportsmanlike sure, but I'm not sure I would have been able to not be that degree of angry and frustrated if I were in his shoes.
if not, then none of you should be pro driver, IMO. If you can't take it, then leave it
To me it isn't an acceptable excuse for deliberately crashing in to another car.
"But they were mean to me before..." doesn't sound professional at all to me.
@@bennylloyd-willner9667
You're forgetting something of crucial importance here: drama between drivers is if anything more important to the commercial success of F1, NASCAR, etc than good racing. This feud between Senna and Prost is exactly the kind of shit the fans eat up and puts asses in seats.
Of course, this is the internet. Either you're a perfect saint or literally Satan. There is no morally gray area anymore. Maybe I was the foolish one to have forgotten that.
@@xen84I'm not sure, but I think you are telling me of in an internettish way, but I still don't think it's the way of a pro to deliberately crash into someone and then initially lie about it. If he was so frustrated by mistreatment he should protest it, but not by crashing IMO .
I don't think it's in an allowable grey area to do such things. Do it in the heat of the moment perhaps, but the owe up to it immediately after and just tell the truth. Nothing wrong here, we just disagree what honesty level should be used by professionals.
Yeah no. This ain’t it. You’re just giving him a pass again because it’s Senna.
@@bennylloyd-willner9667, if F1 wants to act like an unprofessional, chummy good ol' boys club...don't be surprised when racers act unprofessional.
The root cause of the 1990 crash has everything to do with the inability for F1's leadership to provide an equitable sporting environment.
If you are comfortable stacking the deck for your chosen winner...don't be surprised when other athletes find ways to stack the deck in their favor.
...and don't be surprised when the fans take the driver's side rather than yours. It's not like F1s favoritism for Prost was hidden. Everyone knew it.
In the movie “Senna” there is some footage where he says something like “you work your ass off to get pole and then they make you start on the dirty side of the track”. The anger was visible on his face.
Pole was always on that side of the track. Senna made a ridiculous and insane last minute demand to get the entire organisation of a GP weekend changed because it would better suit him. You can't do that. You can't change pre-arranged and agreed upon rules because it would better suit you. Imagine if Hamilton or Verstappen tried that these days? Also I really wouldn't go around quoting that Senna documentary as fact considering it is one of the most bias and factually questionable documentaries ever made. If you actually spend the time really looking into the history you'd realise just how skewed, bias and factually/historically incorrect much of that documentary is. Seriously, don't take my word for it and actually look it up/do the research. If you really are a big F1 fan you'll find it fascinating
Not to mention telemetry from the '90 crash. Legend has it that he literally kept it pinned until they came to a halt on the gravel trap.
The conversation wasn't about the 1990 incident alone. Jackie was taking about the past few years.
Most people don’t realize that the interview was a game of mental chess with Stewart trying to push Senna to confess his fault and Senna trying to pivot and push the conversation away from painting him in a poor light. Senna didn’t want Stewart to interview him again because Senna knew he was losing the argument
I think everyone knew what Senna was thinking back then even if they don't want to admit it. "If Prost yields i gain the position, if he doesn't we both DNF and i automatically win the championship... its a win win" As amazing of a driver Senna was that famous quote has always just sounded like a person trying to save face by doubling down to me, i never bought it.
But i don't particularly blame Senna either. It's ultimately the FIAs fault for not coming down harder on that type of racing. MSC also drove like this and now Verstappen does the same because it's obviously the right way to drive as long as it's permitted.
Dude, Verstappen might be good but he didn't receive any pressure. His teammate is essentially a cuckold, like Bottas was to Hamilton. And those free "lunchbreaks" also permitted Red Bull to get another very dubious title. I'm no Mercedes fan by any measure since they have been cheating since 2014 and blackmailing the FIA about the rules since then too. But all this rulebreaking stuff is making the sport very uninteresting. Verstappen might've gotten titles in his lifetimes but as of yet, I still need to see him win a title legitimately.
nailed it
I agree to you, specially on the second part of you comment. And the '89 championship going to Prost seemed unfair to me. I believe Prost hesitated and Senna went in.
@@cesco1990 Wow, you've broken every record on the biggest load of bullshit someone has ever written on an F1 related topic.
@@luisvilleda4616 The WDC going to Prost in Japan was unfair, but still Senna needed to win in Australia to win the WDC, which he didn't. That said, he probably would've raced differently down under had his win in Japan stood (as it should've, the guy lost a shit ton of time because of the collision, and still he won the race, like, wtf)
" If you no longer can give your 100% on every event, you no longer reach for perfection. " would be a more accurate reality.
Telemetry was showing Senna at full throttle, he would have never made the corner!
l saw it in some sort of documentary series that he didn't lift off the throttle until the car was completely stationary
Ah the number one excuse for those people who do impossible and stupid divebomb.
I was a big Senna fan back in the day. But something I later realised from listening to other drivers and reading Sennas book- is that he systematicly used intimidation and bullying as a tool on the racetrack. With Prost at Suzuka it was plain sabotage to try and win the championship, Im talking about his normal driving. He would get too close to other cars or divebomb them into corners to scare them into just giving him the position. And he would note which drivers were easily intimidated and which ones he couldnt psych out, then he'd use that to plan his overtakes. Really nasty, dirty stuff.
Prost & Balestre both were French. Senna has been given shit at the 1989 Suzuka GP so (I think) he decided to end this 1990 Suzuka GP as fast as possible. And I also believe that Schumacher did his Adelaide move because of that incident.
Aidan Millward actually did an explanation to this regarding the pole position's side on the track. Senna requested it to br transferred as to gain the racing line side. But... whether it was granted then later reverted or rejected immediately, pole position has always been on the side it is located. He actually has an explanation on why it was called "pole position" in the first place as derived from horse racing. TLDR of this, Senna lost the 1989 title to prost because of being disqualified after dive-bombing him and returning to track with Marshall assistance. So in 1990, he did the same on the first corner.
Edit: Source video actually got deleted due to his issue with copyright though. He has a nice series called "Story Time" tackling things in racing.
@@keso_de_bola9174 Yes I know that. But what would you do, FIA is working against you and complementing your championship rival. There's nothing better at that time like wrecking the competition and let it look like it's their (Prost & FIA) fault.
@@keso_de_bola9174 If Senna's car hadn't existed at that moment in 1989, Prost would have gone straight on the GRASS. Do you have the courage to defend that?
Context matters.
I think what Senna was really saying is, "If you no longer go for a [path to win the championship immediately] you are no longer a racing driver." Of course, he was trying to buffalo everyone into thinking it was just a fair pass attempt, but really, "the gap" was in points, not physical space. Do you want to burn Prost at the stake and be champion right now, or do you want to risk breaking a gearbox and getting 2nd for the season? The guy who's ruthlessly programmed to get 1st, rather than 2nd or 5th, takes the Forza Public Lobby Maneuver.
I love Senna. I think he was the greatest ever. But this kind of malarkey should be a serious black stain on his reputation. In my opinion, if you're no longer willing to win honorably by the stop watch, you are no longer a racing driver. Senna wasn't a racer that day in Japan.
I'm a Brit and a massive Senna fan, I was heartbroken when he died, There was just something about Ayrton that i have not seen in other drivers since his death, His last minute quali to pole laps in his McLaren were just brilliant! He put his heart, Soul and everything he had left into winning, He also gave a lot back in charity work to under privileged Brazilians living in poverty, RIP Ayrton, You are so missed mate 👍
Alot of drivers put EVERYTHING into their driving. Alot of people put money and time into charity. And alot of drivers find that "last minute" when needed. He was a great driver... as are many others. But he was also a dirty driver and therefor he wont get my vote. People complain about the likes of Max... and yet Senna was 10x as bad. Max uses the rules but Senna just made his own.
@@egj1975 the difference is Senna also had racecraft and could actually have a battle with someone without shoving them off, something which Max seems to struggle with. Some of the greatest single lap fights in F1 history have involved senna. If Senna was really a dirty driver like you say, then his 1993 season would be theoretically impossible.
@@motorsportfan1246 A battle without shoving them of... hehe. He took out people on many occasions and he did admit it himself. He would drive into people on purpose... that IS a dirty driver. And MSC did the same thing.... these two legends were some of the worst ever when it came to aggressive and dirty driving. I have been watching F1 since 1992 (almost every single race) so I am not that new to the sport.
When you rewrote sennas quote, i would suggest you should have said "before the driver turns in" rather than "reaches the apex"
At the point of turn in, if youre on the limit, you are 100% commited to using all the track at your disposal, and have no time to make allowances for another racer.
You need to be aware of their presence before turn in to be able to give them room
What happened to the last years F1 competition you were running?
The thing is people idolize the greats, no matter if it's Schumi, Senna, Vettel or Hamilton and see over their mistakes as everyone of them has made them. I see a lot of Hamilton fans saying he is the goat because he is a 7 time champion and a clean one. I guess they just can't remember how much he pushed Nico of the track in 2014 and 2015, especially in 2015. His many crashes with Massa in 2011, him lying to stewars early in his career or blaiming Mercedes in 2016 that they intentionally sabotaged his car so that they can have a German world champion in Nico. When things didn't go his way he was ruthless to the team, when they did go well he was everybody's darling and so thankful and so on. I can't remember Schumi ever blaming his team. Everyone who says that Hamilton is not among the top 10 F1 drivers ever is an idiot, but Lewis is no angel either.
Seems to me your issue here is with Hamilton or you simply have no idea what you're waffling on about, i seem to remember Rosberg crashing into him and fake crashing to get on pole
@@magicmillz Can't remember saying that Nico was right in those cases... All I want to say is that Lewis is no different to the others.
@@watchnocatch171so if they’re all the same what’s the point in singling out Lewis🤔
@@hamcrazy96 Because it's his fans that keep saying that he is a clean champion and try to make him superior to the others.
Nice clickbait title, lol
Thing is he didn't go for a gap, he went to Prost and prayed for a gap that wasn't there.
That's how I understand it too.
he just rammed him off because of what happened the season before. it's not science. what the hell does it matter now??
@@DarthLordRaven yes, and all of that was BS to justify what he did. People are too blinded by Senna's mythical aura to see that
What people forget is that he did that to everyone. He would shut the door and expect the other driver to just lift, or shove his car in somewhere and expect the other driver to give him space even when he had no chance of passing in some cases. The 1989 shunt at Japan was senna's fault too, he dive bombed prost up the inside. It was just what he did unfortunately. I'm by no means a senna hater or fanboy but he had questionable driving like a couple greats after him also had. He was the start of the end of the gentleman era in my opinion.
@@jk_46 I agree that Senna had a bad habit of crashing to other drivers, however, the 1989 Suzuka crash was definitely Prost's fault. Prost clearly intentionally shut the door on Senna, with the line Prost took he would have cut the chicane like hell.
Finally somebody who says it like it is and states that this well known and famous quote of Ayrton Senna was spoken because Jackie Stewart had cornered him and he had to use everything he could come up with to come out of it. Not his proudest moment. (And this coming from a Senna fan since his first year in F1.) And that's why when recently Lewis Hamilton referred to this quote I immediately thought "you'de better not go there".
The payback more expensive of all time.
Why Stewart don't question to Prost about of him bended the corner early, one year before?
Take advantage of the fact that he is still alive.
RIP Senna.
Maybe sit back and listen to what Jackie Stewart said here "More contact with other drivers in 36-48 months than Jackie has in total", that's the difference between a smart championship driver and an overly aggressive one achieving the same goal. At least Senna admitted to it and my hast off to him for doing so. My condolences just the same to a very sad loss.
The quote that has caused so many crashes at at club level racing. Fire it into the decreasing wedge last minute and say this quote in the paddock later 🙈
There's a gap six cars ahead. Send it.
Jim Clark is still my favorite driver. Mild mannered, calm under pressure, able to drive any car quickly. What a guy.
did prost paid you to make this video?
I think you should make a poster saying "if you no longer go for a gap, where you can get alongside the driver ahead, before the apex, without making contact....."
With some nice background, I'd buy one!
The key is on the "that exists". If the gap is not safe for the opponent or is illegal to dive into on that circunstances, then this gap does not exists for a racing driver.
But when there is a safe gap to pass your opponent or a team mate , and they tell you on the radio to not pass, if you don't, you no longer a racing driver.
if you no longer go for a gap that no longer exists you are no longer a racing drive
I think what makes Senna an exceptional sportsman is his pation for car racing. Forget about the myth and his skills, he has his flaws after all. At the end, he was humble to admit that he lied and asked for guidence to another excptional sportsman, Mr. Stewart. Great reflextion, Scott!
Where the hell did you guys find that re-creation?
This leaves out the fact that Senna won pole but was forced to start on the dirty side of the track, while Prost started on the rubbered in racing line. Senna knew that gave Prost a massive and unfair advantage making it nearly impossible for him to be ahead by turn 1. (barring a mistake by Prost) He pleaded with the organizers to switch the sides of the grid before the race to make it a fair start. Then add to that the championship hanging in the balance on a track that was famously difficult for overtaking and his frustrations from the FIA's previous year's heart-braking decision, and I believe it paints a clearer picture of Senna's mindset in the car and his ultimate decision not to yield.
the starting positions remained where they had always been
Mate this is simply a myth.
They had decided to change the side of Pole-Position before the race weekend. Senna and Berger then asked the Stewards to change the side of the Pole-Position.
Now there are two accounts of what happened. The first one being that the Stewards first said yes, but later FIA came in to say they can't or that the stewards refused
He knew already before the weekend that the Pole-man would be starting on the dirty side of the gri.
@Eggselent 98 Thank you, I didn't know that. Strange that they would change it right before the race, it seems almost conspiratorial. Especially in the context of the previous year's events. What do you think?
@@tulipstomper
Because they didn't. Its not too uncommon, that little changes like this are made to racetracks, so them changing the side of the grid before the race weekend was just a normal change.
I think Senna realized that he had a problem and tried to give himself an advantage and the FIA denied that (for good reason)
I think these conspiriacy things are a bit overblown, mainly because of Sennas actions. While the then FIA president Balestre was clearly on Prosts side, the chance of Prost winning the title by that stage was next to none, so it wouldn't really make sense for them to manipulate the grid that way.
@@tulipstomper Pole Position at Suzuka was originally on the right side. Look up pictures when the cars were standing in the grid the years before. It was no issue the years before, so why should it be changed?
Senna is my hero
"Well there are gaps and gaps. The trick is to find one wide enough for the car, right?" (Mario Andretti replying to Senna in an interview, 1990)
You mean Andretti the 1 time World Champ talking about Senna the GOAT?
Any F1 fan should know that he took Prost out to ensure the championship like Prost did to him a year before,that quote is a good excuse for the move and since he was/is popular the quote is thill here.Still my Nr 1 driver even with his crazy moments(Schumi 2nd,Lauda 3rd,Prost 4th he should be 3rd but what Lauda wrnt through and what he did in his career gives him the edge,Alonso 5th)
If Prost tried to take Senna out in 1989, Verstappen was more at fault at Silverstone 2021. Senna tried a dive bomb grin too far back (whereas Hamilton was alongside on entry) and that rarely works in that chicane. Send tried a pass and didn't pull it off. That's on him, not Prost.
@@f1jones544 It wasn't the incident Prost was at fault for. That was a classic 50/50 racing incident. What made it his fault was complaining to the stewards to get him unrightfully disqualified.
Allegedly, anyways. Iirc it turned out Prost actually didn't do that, and that Balestre was just being a douche all on his own.
This is simply wrong
The 1989 title decider shouldn't have been in any kind of contention, as simply a stupid rules system was in place that was heavily favouring Senna. Without that, Prost would've already been champion
The Problem is, Prost turned in too early. Instead of waiting for Prost to lose momentum and overtake him in the next corner, Senna tried to dive bomb him, causing the collision.
It was 65% Sennas fault at least.
@@seventh-hydra Even then, Senna should've been disqualified for a different reason, as he recieved a push start by the marshalls
@@eggselent9814 Were that the case, Balestre would have played it safe and used that as justification. But that wasn't the case, as it was the marshals who did so. They'd also tried to do the same for Prost, but his car was cooked.
"Find more about Senna's driving technique here..." and then YT gives me an ad for car insurance. Hmmm....
Glad someone did a video on this. Senna messed up a generation of drivers with that quote. You often hear it repeated after they do stupid moves.
This quote is a plague. I organize and also drive multiple karting races during the season and there is always someone using this as a apology for crashing people off the track... When you put it into context they are then like "oh... I didn't know that"
Right Ayrton. Lap one, Turn One. Give us a break. Deliberate. Always thought it was and Senna won't convince me otherwise. He was too good with his hands and feet to make that move. He choked and he never lived with it. Simple.
I used to do league sim racing and the amount of time I heard Senna's quote after getting dive bombed is nuts. Bad drivers use it as their "get out of jail free" card...
Blame Stewart for his BS ambush interview tactics - otherwise Senna wouldnt have said it
"If you go for a gap that no longer exists, you are PASTOR MALDONADO"
Still the best driver ever!
He should have beaten Prost on points in the same team at least once then.
So the argument could be made that the Senna/Prost collision in 1990 was in fact Jean-Marie Balestre's fault.
wow, this bait is huge. this is going to get you a tons of views!
It's not bait, it's true.
It's also worth noting that Senna wasn't happy that pole position was on the dirty side of the track which then disadvantaged Senna
Hence his remark that if Prost beat him off the line as a result he would create that situation at T1
The idea of pole being on dirty side is a lie m8, it was there before
@@russotusso1695 My mistake, Pole was still on the dirty side as it was against the pit wall whereas the rubber was all on the opposite side
Which had caused Senna to lose out to Prost in exactly the same manner in 89 - which then led to their collision later in the race and Sennas subsequent DQ that gave Prost the title, so could be that which Senna was unhappy about, that they wouldnt move pole to the clean side
My iRacing signature reads:
Anyone that quotes Senna "If you no longer go for a gap that exists you are no longer a racing driver" can usually be counted on to go for a gap that isn't there. ;)
In 88 and 89, Senna was P1 and the pole position was on the right side of the track, off the racing line. Afaik, Senna complained of that in both years and then again in 1990, when the crash and the infamous quote happened. In 1991, the pole position was on the left side, on the racing line.
Senna was an absolutely amazing driver but also had some mega personality flaws. Not talking to Stewart ever again, shows an immaturity in social skills. But behind the wheel, was willing to do anything to win, even skirt the rules.
This quote were talking about has been an "excuse" in the Simulator community as well. Over a decade ago I remember people on iRacing using it as an excuse for their shitty decisions.
But Max is glorified for dangerous driving 😂
So basically Senna did exactly what Hamilton did at Silverstone in 2021 and he's wrong but Lewis is a hero. r...i..g..h...t...
It depends on who you ask. If you ask BBC, then yes. People are very bad at looking situations objectively and in context.
The same goes for the BS that Max has become more mature. No, he just got a better car compared to his rivals meaning he needed to take much less risk. Same goes for Lewis in his era of dominance. I have ZERO doubt that there will be a lot of confrontations again when two "mature" drivers are fighting head-to-head for the title.
Edit: ow, this is exactly what he said later on in this video.
Found whingestappen fangirl still crying on two years later
@@AZBCDEE found: salty hamster toothless fangirl still can't come to grips with her diva losing the championship
Hamilton braked and turned into the corner after being alongside at corner entry. Senna didn't brake and he didn't turn and was never alongside. Nice try though.
@F1Jones Hamilton understeered straight into verstappen's car....on-board video shows that clearly. Steering angle didn't correspond with the direction he was going=understeer. Which means he was taking too much speed into the corner and didn't brake sufficiently.
And if you no longer go for a racing driver that exists, you're no longer a gap.
I wanna leave some criticism:
1. Poor research when it comes to why Senna did this move. No word about FIA moving the pole to the dirty side after quali to favor Prost and that's just one of many relevant points (Prost crashing on purpose before, french FIA president favoring Prost, rediculous inconsistency of the dsq with similar incidents, etc). I don't wanna defend Senna, but it's necessary context that's just missing to understand his pov. Especially for that Senna quote from the following year where he admitted the crime.
2. Horrible framing to claim that the quote was a "lie" to cover up 1990. Yes, he needed to cover it up to keep the title and it's important context because the majority of the interview indeed was about Senna trying to justify his murder on Prost and therefore he was in a very stressful defending position at the time of the quote. But in that particular question Stewart made the rediculously exaggerated claim that Senna might have crashed more than all previous champions combined. So no, the quote is NOT a lie and not even remotely related to Japan. It was rather a bad spontaneous justification for being such an aggressive driver in general compared to others.
3. I honestly don't understand the video's purpose. Maybe it's just that we know different people but I've only seen drivers using this quote sarcastically as justification when knowing they're at fault. It's an hilarious meme. I con not believe that there are people out there who actually use this as serious justification for crashing. The way you interpret the quote it would be the same saying that the attacking driver can never ever be the one to blame. Nobody with serious ambitions in motorsport and some intellect would think like that. So what are we even talking about?
Well tbh, i didn't know the quote was related to the crash, i just heard it somewhere. And untill i saw this video, i thought he was speaking about driving a gap, in the sense of "if you no longer push yourself to the limit and go for riding a gap with your opponent, then you're no longer a racing driver." But that's just my vision, it isn't a clarification for how other people interpretate that quote.
Senna fans gonna be mad
Missed probably the most important information on this topic, after qualifying 4 Suzuka the FIA went back on their word and refused to swap pole position to the clean side of the circuit, after Senna got pole! Combined with what happened the year before with Orost the die was cast.
he didn't miss, he knows it
this guy is just a senna hater
Prost ABSOLUTELY knew Senna was there, regardless of 'peripheral vision'. Watch the clip again & see the Ferrari edging over. Note that the moves are step by step rather than one smooth move, despite Prost being famed for his smooth driving style.
I think that what he wanted to say is: you need to go for a gap that EXISTS, a gap that *can be used without getting other car off the track*
A gap is no longer a gap when you ruin someone's race
I take it like this, makes more sense considerating who said it was Senna
I think Al Unser Jr took that statement to heart...Was probably around the same time period, which makes me wonder. I remember him taking out Emo and Mario at the same corner on the same race track but 1yr apart from each other. It was an absolute impossible pass attempt both times...That ended any respect I had for Al Jr. That racing style was the one thing I really disliked about Senna.
Sim racers need to see this video
a lot of people think hes overrated but he was actually a very special driver
-burger40
Yeah, Senna was the greatest of his era. He was sill a class A prick. You can be both!!!!
@@alancx523 A 'Class A prick' doesn't stop his car while a race is ongoing to jump out - run across the track - and help a driver in peril like Senna did for Comas. Senna was a far more complicated character than the picture of it you paint...
@@Eat-MyGoal yes. And?
@@Eat-MyGoal are you ok Hun? I agree with you. Maybe get your fanboi hands out of your Senna pants for a bit and have think.....
@@alancx523 My point is pretty obvious, and if you can't understand why such an act of selfless bravery is not that of a 'Class A Prick' I can't help you. Of course, you're gonna double-down on your senseless and inaccurate observation, and keep liking your own comments but Senna was a complicated character. Much more complicated than you credit him. But then, you come across as pretty simple so I can understand why you struggle to see nuance in others...
Where did that interview go when he admitted that he would be first into the corner at suzuka and went on about the switching of pole positions it wasn't used in SENNA and it was one of the greatest moments in motor sports
There's a difference between always trying to win and always trying to win at all costs
Thank you.
I'm so sick of seeing that quote repeated by people that miss what it really means and was about.
Blame Stewart for his BS ambush interview tactics
I think he just wanted an excuse for taking out Prost intentionally
If it wasn’t Senna, it’d be someone else. You can’t change humans being assholes
"To finish first, you must first finish." Exhaust McWheely.
and other cliches ...
got screwed over the year prior and kamikazed them both out of the race for sheer spiteful revenge.
I honestly can't hate it
Every reason you think he was screwed in 1989 was also a lie by Senna.
@@f1jones544 Except Balestre admitted to it later. And it was also such blatant manipulation that he lost his FISA and FIA presidencies as a direct result of his actions.
(Prost was actually pretty innocent in that though, it was all Balestre)
Just because you can see a ‘Gap’ it doesn’t necessarily follow you can use it without barging a competitor off the track.
Meeting Sir Stewart is the only time I’ve ever been star struck.
Also.. the quote is over analysed. It is not meant necessarily as literal but the sentiment that a selfish and ruthless winner in F1 (as many champions are), takes risks. Breaking it down bit by bit is missing the point. Rationally it is common sense you leave a certain amount of space in racing. But if you are not going to take a risk to win a race well maybe you are just not that sort of driver. Which is fine, there have always been rationale sensible drivers in racing, firey drivers are often disliked because I know myself when I raced go karts that sometimes you have the top drivers who will just side swipe you as they go past like you ain't there. But heck that's life, no need to be a crybaby about it ;)
I think the question is very simple actually. Even though he was lying in this context and having admitted it... However, that doesn't mean the quote is inherited lying, I mean, doesn't take much more than 2 brain cells to conclude that "a gap that exists" means (or at least should mean) having the space and time to do the move properly and still be able to continue racing. In other words, if you see your car fits in the space ahead but will no end the turn without contact, there is no gap.
Point is that Senna said it in order to justify his intentionally “wrong” move against Prost, which in my opinion tells lots about Senna’s lack of respect for Stewart, Prost and all F1 drivers. In this manner the phrase in itself becomes bovine excrement.
@@giannapple I'm not denying that, cause in this case there was no gap, so indeed Senna was lying about the gap. I just don't think the quote made the sport worse over the years
@@caezoyd Not the sport of course, but for me personally it damaged my opinion of Senna as a driver.
@@giannapple Anyone who watched f1 at the time knows how much the rules were bent to favor prost, this goes back many years, before Senna started racing. Ballestre always did what he could to favor Prost, after all the injustice of 89 I would have done the same if I were Senna. You can't judge one sin of Senna and ignore ALL MANY sins of Prost.
Online racing lobbies' favorite quote.
Not to mention that he'd qualifyed pole position and FISA (FIA) moved the pole to the dirty side of the track.
Its cool but if you watched and done some racing, you know that in practice if you go for every gap you see you would not finish that race
It is not clickbait if it is true.