I saw the documentary so many years ago, that I can't even remember much about that detail, but they definitely depicted the FIA as conspiring against Senna. That said, I don't think too many people have seen the Senna documentary, at least compared to Rush or Netflix's Drive to Survive.
Senna stated “ You bust your ass to get on pole only for it to be on the dirty side of the track”. He was complaining that getting pole position was actually a disadvantage on that track. I remember him requesting that they change the position of pole in a drivers meeting and everyone agreeing with him for the most part. Then Sunday rolls around and The position of pole didn’t change
@@nickwall2497 I think there’s a sub level of “shit, Prost has the quicker car in race trim” there and he knew it was going to be difficult to stay ahead if Prost jumped him off the start. In 88 he fluffed the start and won by having the most OP car in history (more than those Mercs and that’s saying something) and in 1989 he fluffed the start and would have won if not for the DQ. This time he had an actual fight for the win on his hands and the other guy was in another model car. There’s a chance he was running scared and needed an excuse.
I do love the Senna Paradox as you mentioned where he'd talk about safety and risk himself to try at assist Eric Comas but then pile into Prost 2 years in a row at racing speed because he was angry. I always take it as driver's, no matter how great, are not perfect. Similar things happen inside the Nascar fan base and absolutely Idolizing Dale Earnhardt for some of the things he would do on track as well and a lot of the backlash from the time as since been forgotten twisted from the original truth, specifically Bristol 1999. There's a similarity to it between Senna and Earnhardt in that respect that people don't remember it exactly how it was and forget they weren't perfect, nor perfect drivers and if anything the fact both men show it debatably better than anybody else is almost humanizing in a way
In all seriousness, thank you for this vid on this particular topic. I've been a fan of F1 ever since the early 1980s and have studied the sport's long history, so I think I've managed to earn a sense of perspective lost on too many of the sport's recent fandom who seem to think that only the recent past and the present count for anything. I've argued many a time with many a Senna fan (I think of such people as "cultists," but that's a conversation for another time) who firmly believe Senna got screwed in 1990, that pole at Suzuka got moved, that Senna was 100% justified to torpedo Prost off at the start. I can't reason with such people, but what annoys me no end is when they INSIST pole was always on the left (the clean side) of the track at Suzuka, but that the stewards (and/or Balestre - they keep changing the details, but it doesn't matter) changed it to the dirty side on the right after Senna won the pole. It's so easy to verify the claim that pole at Suzuka was, until 1991, on the right side of the track (ironically, pole in 1991 did NOT go to Senna - it went to Berger - and Senna still didn't start on the clean side), but these Senna fans either tell you they're right and you're wrong or refuse to verify (because, maybe, they know they're wrong and just will not admit it). As I said, it's impossible to reason with such people. Anyway, thank you for producing this video. I truly appreciate the way you've presented this case. If nothing else it gives me some satisfaction that someone else bothered to look back at history and tell the story truthfully. It's something you do consistently. Well done, good sir.
One of the things I've learned in my years online is that you'll never be able to prove even the most obvious things to a person replying to you in "Brazilian" English.
I've watched Suzuka's races from 88-90. Each time Senna was on pole, and each time, Prost got the jump at the start. I think Senna wanted Pole moved so that wouldn't happen again.
The ironic thing is that, in 1993, by which time pole had been moved to the "clean" side, Senna, who started 2nd, got ahead of polesitter Prost from the dirty side of the grid!
Prost jumped that start in 1989, I'm pretty sure is it shown quite clearly that Prost's car was moving before the green light. At the time Prost was seen as the good guy and Senna was seen as the bad guy. so anything the good guy did was painted with with good and and anything the bad guy did was painted with bad.
That because the outside was on the Racing-line so was was cleaner than the inside line, so it should have been were pole shoud have been sitting. Senna wanted it move because of that reason, but FIA refused.
one thing in the Senna movie is they show a conversation he had with Roland B (Masi of the day) and they were talking about it and Roland said they'd look at it. They made it seem like Japan but it was really at Hockenheim. So that may be part of it. Side note - Not sure I like the text on screen while you are talking about something else. I keep pausing to read. Otherwise, awesome video! Thanks again Aiden!
yeah there was tons of manipulative/misleading editing in that film. basically once they had a narrative and a version of events, they went looking for whatever footage would add support for that story, even if it was completely out of context. clearly the DTS crew thought that was really clever. also I agree about the text, it's distracting. better to just put it in the script, or stop talking while it's on screen.
@@zvexevz It's worth noting that it's a Ron Dennis voiceover in the film that says "pole position was mysteriously moved to the dirty side of the circuit." Not exactly an unbiased observer.
To quote Adam Savage of Mythbuster fame. “I reject your truth, and replace it with my own”. I think Senna knew damn well how to play the media. Back then it took a while before anything was rebuked. So it was out there. By they the time they could react, something else would be happening.
The first time I remember pole being on the 'clean' side of the grid at Suzuka was 1991. I've watched clips where Senna was claiming that a decision to move it in 1989 had a detrimental effect on the pole sitter. Honestly, I thought this was BS where he won the race from pole in 88'. It's one of the myths that go with Senna.
In '88 he stalled the car on the green light, was lucky he was on a downwards slope and could get the car going again because of that, and he had to pass half the field. So no in 1988 he didn't win because of his 'pole advantage' on the dirty side of the track. In 1989 Prost flew past him at race start just like in 1990...
My opinion on how Senna could be humanitarian off track / throw his safety to the side to save a fellow driver and then do what he did in 1990 comes down to one word. Desire. He wanted to help children, the under privileged, his fellow humans off track but once he was in that seat, he wanted to win, period. To show to the world that he lived life to the fullest while proving any detractors that had appeared before him wrong. Another word for that could be "ego" but I don't think it was so much ego as a desire to do the best that he could. Complicated could be used as well, but I truly think it was desire above all else. And well, the FIA did screw him in 1989 which if they hadn't, we'd probably wouldn't have seen 1990 play out the way it did. Some men can really hold grudges over the pettiest of things, let alone losing an F1 World Drivers championship.
Senna's immense and incredible talent was also his biggest flaw. He always acted like his talent gave him the right to be always first. The "get out of the way or we crash" attitude probably came from his belief that he was faster (which he usually was) and thus that place had to be his. I am a bit of a simracer myself and I always say this to people I'm racing with: if you are faster than me that doesn't mean you're entitled to my position.
The myth came from the Senna movie when a respected figure like Ron Dennis said “pole position was his, then pole was moved to the dirty side of the circuit”. Fuels the myth.
Yep, Piquet apparently was really good at mind games. I worked for Mr Piquet for almost two years and can attest that he is an incredibly smart and witty dude. He's very very good when he's arguing a point. Very very hard to outwit him. And he makes very very few reasoning mistakes. I gradually became a big Piquet fan while I worked there.
Piquet is totally under rated as a F1 legend. A three-time world champion and made arguably the finest overtake in F1 (on Senna) in Hungary and one of the best at setting up a car. I don;t know why he;s isn't more recognied. I don't think he's more flawed than anyone else!
I was at his first F1 win at Long Beach. He was my favorite driver ever since. I have a signed lithograph celebrating his 200th GP start hanging over the desk I'm sitting at.
@@justme-hh4vp probably because he comes out as a huge prick for modern standards...but most of his behaviour is not very different from any multiple WDC really...mind games and always saying or doing anything to gain an advantage
@@mafiousbj Yeah, that's what I thought, wondered if it was an English thing because the issues at Williams with Mansell. Most drivers seem to like him but he despised Senna.
I've commented on your channel previously about Senna and also Prost, so to be clear, Senna is my idol when it comes to racing but that is not to say that he was flawless or without fault several times. Alas, Senna was as good if not better than anyone at playing the media and public opinion. Prost was already seen as inferior to him particularly in character and the cozying up to Balestre. They were more willing to accept Senna than they were willing to accept Prost. Think of it as "underdog vs the establishment" with Prost being the establishment. Senna knew it wasn't moved, of course he did. He just took part on the game surrounding F1 which is politics and public opinion and he was very skilled at getting people on his side. As to the question that you presented, it's because of what Senna said in 1990 and also the Senna documentary which hammered this point home, but in reality it was Senna playing games and public accepted it as a fact (that the pole was moved)
Have to disagree with Prost "cozying up to Balestre". Balestre was the F1 boss at the time so everyone "cozied" up to him. That's not sneaky, that's life. Just think about how everyone in the last 30 years has genuflected before Bernie Ecclestone. The character flaw was Senna thinking he could tell the boss to go and **** himself. Senna believed his own BS and was nowhere near as moral as his public image portrayed.
@@Claggyt They were both French and had each other's back, later Balestre admitted to having agreed to disqualify Senna on Prosts request and let's be honest, that was bs. I'm talking about how the public viewed Prost and they viewed him as someone who got the competition unjustly disqualified due to having a good relationship with the president of FIA.
@@MrSniperfox29 Well, either or. The relevance was the publics view of Prost and the signifance of this to the image Senna had and the things he said, in this case the pole positions side. Senna was the good guy and Prost was the bad guy (rightly or not isn't relevant) and as such most things Senna said were taken as a fact. He had a part of making Prost seem like a villain in the publics eye, hence his skill at "manipulating" the perception and opinion of others and the other part being Suzuka 1989 after which both of them were booed and thrown trash at
Im old enough to remember watching that race. Right or wrong, Senna stated a few times before the race exactly what he was going to do. I wasn't surprised in the least when he barreled into Prost. If nothing else...he was man of his word.
Senna created a situation in which he was perceived as a victim so he can basically justify anything he did and keep the public on his side. Normally he should have been penalized for that incident, no question about that but the FIA probably didn't want to deal with the bad publicity of preventing Senna winning the title 2 years in a row so they let that one slide.
I am brazilian and have always thought that the pole spot was moved, but after watching the first storytime about it I rewatched the start of those GPs and realized you were right and been shattering my fellow brazilian's hearts with the truth, lol. There is a similar thing in tennis where people say they are shorting the length of wimbledon's grass more and more by the year by CUTTING IT (to harm Federer who would have won 30 titles if not by the ever shortening lengh of the grass, ppl say), when, in fact, they changed the species and composition of the grass in 2002 to improve durability and never made any further changes on it, which means that Roger (who I am a fan of, don't get me wrong) won ALL of his titles in Wimbledon on the same grass. Yeah, there is one for you tennis fans.
What took away from Federer's game a bit over the years are the balls, not really the surfaces. Balls became bigger, jumping higher and more fluffy. When the balls don't jump too much, doesn't matter if the surface is fast, slow, upside down, ice or lava, Federer crushes.
Thanks Aidan for this little snippet, I agree that the story (like so many Senna legends) has slowly been twisted from the facts. Senna did request a change of pole position, and it was rejected be it by the race officials or the governing body. From what I remember at the time virtually every track had pole position on the inside line for the first corner as you stated and on no other occasion had the pole position been moved at the request of the pole sitter. I feel that is the main reason for the refusal to move pole, as in my opinion it would have shown favoritism to Senna.
I actually enjoyed the British air conditioning explaination and the personal comments at the end of the video more than the actual subject of the video ^^
I've always assumed it's someone was told by someone else and, as it's a historical event that (ultimately) doesn't matter, they've never really bothered to look further into it. I agree about Mein Kampf - unreadable drivel, but a fascinating case study of how it's affected history
Hi Aidan. You hit a point that I've always thought about. Ayrton's persona off-track was way better than his on-track one. It is as if something did not add up in terms os his personality. And I agree with you when you say that he was one of the most talented drivers ever, but I also think that there was something really screwed up about him that nobody talks about. Thanks for the video!
The Senna movie was the most inaccurate, biased "documentary" I have ever seen on F1. They seriously made him out to be an absolute saint who always had to fight adversary (the evil French connection of Prost and Ballestre) to win while others (i.e. Prost) always had the easiest route to the finish line with always the best car. The problem with the movie was, other than its glaring inaccuracies (I mean, they took onboard footage from Senna at Monaco from 1990 and claimed it was his 1988 pole lap for crying out loud!!!), was that Senna fanbois took it that the movie was the definitive gospel truth on what it was back in his day.
I would say something that I feel you’ve said before - modern F1 fans have seen the Senna movie/documentary and that is the opinion put forth in that film. I was 5 and likely in bed when Suzuka GP was screened in 1990 so my memory of it is a bit hazy. The Senna movie was the first I had ever heard about Pole being moved. But having spent well over a decade working as a motor racing official in Aust, I’ve never understood how they could just move the Pole. These things are set out in rule books and track manuals and generally you can’t just change things like that race weekend.
I feel privileged enough to have started watching motorsport including F1 since 1984 - through until this very day. The history I have witnessed being made has been both fantastic and at times very sad. I remember at the time liking Senna a lot, but not saying much as everyone was meant to like Nigel Mansell, sounds silly now saying it, but back then you liked your "home" team and nobody else would do apparently. A lot of people talk about when they first saw the "red" cars, and "La Passione", but for me it was the red and white cars of McLaren, which Senna joined in 1988. Back then we would only know about racing drivers and motorsport from the BBC and a few inches on the back pages of newpapers, and the odd motorsport paper. But for some strange reason, and maybe it was purely down to programing or parental conditioning, I didn't like the then FISA president Jean-Marie Balestre, thus I always held him accountable for not allowing the request to switch "Pole" to the clean side of the track. But when you think about it, what F1 driver wouldn't request or demand that pole be located on the cleaner side of the track ? they want every advantage going, and who can blame them.
The myth came from the Senna movie when a respected figure like Ron Dennis said “pole position was his, then pole was moved to the dirty side of the circuit”. Fuels the myth.
Too many Senna fans distort things without reading the available facts. While Senna may have had a point about where pole position should have been. The facts show that traditionally the pole was on the dirty side of the track and wasn't shifted to hold Senna back. I think that there is no way to really prove whether there was an agreement to shift the pole position to the clean side of the track. The internal backstabbing and double dealing off track was common place and both Prost and Senna were as bad as each other. Personally I feel that Senna made a mountain out of a molehill and the media perpetuated things and misreported as well. In terms of the Mandela effect as regards the push stewards gave Senna. I thought it was in effect at that time that any assistance by stewards to push any car back onto the circuit was prohibited. Any help on clearing up my confusion would be greatly appreciated.
Cars weren’t allowed outside assistance UNLESS the car was in a dangerous place. I used to think this but then had to take it back when it was confirmed. Senna was given the DQ for cutting the chicane and not for the push start.
Furthermore, this incident was extremely controversial and I think possibly went some way to starting to end that rule. th-cam.com/video/VEyVJJrKPk0/w-d-xo.html
My recollection of F1 back than was that pole was, by default, on the inside line to the first corner. When they ran the GP at Las Vegas in 1981, the track was covered in dust. Reutemann won pole and asked if pole could be switched, so that he could start on the clean racing line. From then on, the polesitter would often ask for pole to be switched over to the racing line. I believe, but I could be wrong, that Suzuka 1990 was the first time that a polesitter's request to switch sides was denied.
Always wondered if there is no obvious good/fast/ clean side off the grid how is the “pole” side decided? And hypothetically If Indycar decided to have say a standing start at an oval track what side would the pole be on for example? When you could equally say the left inside has shorter distance to the left hand bend but right outside side of the grid ( as you look at from behind) has the faster more banked half the corner coming up though?
The Mythos of Senna grew more after the film, but i remember Senna as a kid as ruthless driver and other video which where not in the film, like Senna on Nannini in Hungary show that Senna wasnt afraid to punt drivers off the road in 1990. he was a complex person who worked well in teams that where willing to push the envelope. in 1986 Lotus removed the bracing on the diffuser allowing it to move and be variable to create more grip, he thrived in these kind of environments
Senna was great in so many ways. However, he did have at least one grave defect, imo: he was so greedy for results that whenever anything went awry, he would get incredibly upset. So upset, in fact, as to be completely unable to enjoy all the great things happening around him. He was one of the most successful people I know of, but was still apparently an unhappy person. All because of that one little thing (or two) that had eluded him or gone against him. Instead of being happy and grateful for the truckload of things that went his way in life.
He quite literally thought he had a god-given right to win. If you got in his way, not only were you preventing him from winning, you were going against the will of god himself.
Speaking of that Suzuka race in 1989 it's still debated on for what Senna was DQ'ed. One of the theories, which was in the Senna movie, is that Senna was disqualified for cutting the chicane. The other theory and the one I honestly feel it's legit is that he was disqualified for the assist he received from the marshals.
And you are correct. That’s the senna myth gone wild again. He wasn’t DQ’d for cutting through the escape road, he was legitimately DQ’d for getting push started the second time when he was pushed out of danger which was legit. Matter of fact, a McLaren engineer, I think it might have been Steve Nichols or Joe Ramirez. One of the 2 said to Prost after the race that he should have continued the race as well because his car had absolutely no damage. Thus excluding all possibilities for senna to win the championship.
I did some reading after your tweet the other day, my understanding was that Senna asked the local stewards (NOT the FIA) to change it, they said "sure, why not" when they didn't have the authority to do so. The FIA got wind of this and vetoed it, what their motivations for the veto are unclear
I remember it being described as “moved” very clearly in the senna documentary by an English author/ journalist whose name I can’t remember. The same journo/ author was very dramatic the entire doco though
Thats was the whole point of this fan fiction, distort reality or build up straight up lies to dramatize, demonize Prost and Balestre and Idolize Senna because it would be hype
I mostly just listen to your voice on the background, I admit I'm a casual viewer so long time subscribers might know why, but what are those rash like things on your wrists and knuckles? They from gloves?
I’ve got eczema and sensitive skin. When I sweat I itch. And since I’ve been doing a lot of sim racing in the heat wave my hands look like something out of resident evil. It looks worse on camera than it actually is.
@@AidanMillward Ah I understand, thanks Aidan! Thought those were blisters, I sometimes get them when gardening cause the gloves I have tends to do that.
Was watching start of 89 Hungarian GP. And James Hunt mentions they asked pole sitter Riccardo Patrese if he'd like to start from left side or right side of the track, they were giving him the option. Pretty sure that was a thing back then. Atleast for 1989 and perhaps for 1990.
“On his home turf, Jean-Marie Balestre was all charm as he greeted the Brazilian superstar. Balestre removed his shades so as to give our camera the full benefit of his charisma.” Clive James, 1986.
It has to be the "Senna" documentary isn't it? It was one of the first genuine efforts to picture F1 in a believable way and people bought into all of the details blindly.
The way I remember it, was that the drivers had all asked for it to be moved, including Prost, the fia said they would move it for race day, then after senna got pole, they changed their mind, I seem to even remember Murray saying something about it before the race started in the tiny bit of pre race we used to get back then, but I was 12 at the time, so who knows if my memories are correct, but that's how I remember it. As for Lewis/Max incident, I think it was 50/50 first lap racing incident, they both misjudged by a cm or two, where the other car was, and lightly touched, but at those speeds, a light touch, can lead to a big off, as it did. I definitely think it was a move to go for, as Lewis got the slipstream on him enough down the old pit straight to go for a move, it would have been an awesome overtake if it had paid off, and max had not tried to squeeze him on the apex.
So Aidan, how viral would social media be for Suzuka 1989 and 1990 when it happens on live TV for the world to see with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and also Snapchat, how viral can it be compared to the Max Verstappen vs. Lewis Hamilton incident on this year's British Grand Prix?
Back in those days the idea was to give the pole sitter the inside line into turn 1, to supposedly defend better from overtake attempts while completely ignoring the dirty side/clean side matter... If you look at the Hungarian GP starts from the 80's it was also on the dirty side
Hot water bottles, filled with engine coolant, kept in the freezer. They won't freeze solid, even if you get 50:50 coolant and dilute that, so you can wrap it in a towel and use it as a pillow or something
Balestre was a total Muppet, your assumption is correct. Your assumption regarding Piquet is also correct. He's a total dick and always has been. Misinterpretation does seem to be the most likely option, TBH. People hear what they want to hear. It's a perfectly normal reaction, it's not a criticism, we all do it. But when sport is involved, especially one which has passionate followers, "their truth" is going to be the only one allowed. I will never believe that Schumacher didn't take Damon out in '94 deliberately. IMHO, Damon has two championships. And imagine if Schumacher had made as much of a balls up as he did in '97. The story of Damon winning that year would have been turned into a Hollywood film. Anyway, that's me proving my point 🤷🏻♀️
I can easily believe that the race officials agreed to move the pole but the nonce that was Balestre would not allow the pole position to be moved. It sounds like Mandela effect as the pole position ended up being in the same place as it always had been before. In the end, it did give us a spectacular moment and iconic commentary from Murray and James!
Senna's greatest talent, aside from chasing the best car through his career and threatening to quit on his team when they didn't have one by default, was lying with a straight face and getting millions to believe him. I was at Phoenix in 1991, which was the second race after Suzuka 1990. Aside from some Japanese fans who were there supporting Honda, there wasn't a single person sitting around me who even thought he should have been starting that race. To a person, everyone believed he deserved a season ban. He won pole, led every lap and won the race, but after he won pole on Saturday all anyone could say was that it would be a long race on Sunday. Compare that to his demigod status today.
Yeah, ive said some stuff about Schumacher. I do exaggerate the pantomime villain thing as part of the channel. But even I would concede that Schumacher was kicked out of a championship for less.
@@AidanMillward Schumacher's problem was that he effectively did it twice and the problem is he did enough after Adelaide 94 for Jerez 97 to be predictable. I actually called it out on the BB I was on at the time, that if Schumacher could he'd try to pull the same thing again. It was just Schumacher's nature. But Senna's move on Prost in 1990 was totally premeditated. He never intended to make the corner or let Prost do the same. And then to say he was going for a gap, well...
RE : The psychology of Ayrton Senna. For what it's worth (probably not much, really), I think Senna had a sense of "Right And Wrong" that was developed far beyond what most people would consider reasonable or sensible. He helped the underprivileged in Brazil, because it was the right thing to do. He aided Eric Comas, because it was the right thing to do. He had an Austrian flag in his cockpit at Imola '94 in memory of Roland Ratzenberger, because it was the right thing to do. But if he thought someone was screwing with him, like Alain Prost or the track officials at Suzuka, then that was the WRONG thing to do. And, as Senna saw it, it had to be put RIGHT.
I wouldn't be too surprised if this is something else that people started saying because they watched Senna, because as we know, it was pretty biased. Also with that film coming out in 2010/2011, it'd be a lot fresher in the memory bank than 1990. I'd have to rewatch it again to be absolutely sure, but I think Ron Dennis says something about this, my response to that being something like "Bollocks, how much did the Senna family pay you to say that?" *He does.
You find things like this dotted around a lot of history, in this case I do think its something that grew arms and legs after the very good Senna documentary which did have everything from his point of view, Senna was a person who thrived when he felt someone had done him wrong or something was unjust, very similar to Michael Jordan for anyone who watched the last dance will see that similar trait being so driven that its your way or no way,
I thought the "is always on the racing line" (or whatever... quotes used improperly) referred to all other tracks (even if that wasn't true) - not Suzuka. Maybe it got taken from that misunderstanding?
Don't call it as "pole position is on the dirty side" it depends where the inside of the next corner is. Yes, in fact, most of the time, the inside of the next corner is on the dirty side, but if you went to Monza in the old days, pole was actually on the racing line. Pole position used to be designed according to the possibility of the lead driving having a more advantageous position to defend. That's why Pole in Suzuka was in the wrong side, because that first corner is so flat that from the starting line the drivers don't even need to lift before seeing t2
Weird i was thinking about this only the other night! But this is not a good example of the Mandela effect because it was discussed at the time even before the race. In a subsequent interview Senna himself forcely says something like "then Ballstre, he gave the order [to change it]", so it became legend. The lazy part is that people then apply that every previous Japanese grand prix. Balestre doesn't strike me as someone to agree to move pole position, he disqualified Senna was not respecting the length of the course by not retaking the chicane. It is commonly thought that the disqualification was for getting a push start (another Suzuka myth).
Ayrton had been asking about the pole there since 88, in 90 he was told ( apparently) that it would be moved, after securing the pole he was then told it wasn't to be moved and he lost his shit.. and that's from Joe a former member of the team at the time..
Well, I trust Autocourse on this which states that Senna asked for the switch on Wednesday morning. Prost agreed with the idea but the stewards refused due mostly to tradition. The stewards reiterated that view at the drivers meeting. I think people remember it wrongly due to it being a fairly complicated controversy, and how indignant Senna was about the whole thing afterward.
6:47 are you referring to JCS’s video “What Pretending to Be Crazy Looks Like?” If not, definitely check out the video and his channel. It’s all about criminal psychology.
Often, especially for rolling starts, pole is the inside of the first turn. Putting the standing start pole on the cleaner side of the track makes some sense. BTW, I first heard of this controversy when watching the race and Murray Walker had a typical Murrayism "Senna had asked to have pole position moved from the left to the left..." Murray said the request was refused. That's in-situ reporting from the time. I don't know about the rules at the time, but today in some series (but not 2021 Formula 1), the pole sitter can request switching, but it only impacts the first row.
what I find most interesting about that era was how blatantly corrupt it was, and with complete admission from balestre himself that he had made decisions explicitly to benefit prost, in that corruption you can look for signs in the actions and decisions people make. I'm personally of the belief that there's something very fishy going on with the race direction and stewards making decisions that just seem to always benefit mercedes, so it'd be interesting it to compare a season of F1 where we know there was corruption to see if there are any key similarities or differences.
@@MiaReiFilms He admitted it, well not really, actually he didn't but its definitely true you have to believe me. Next week, Senna fans convince themselves the entire planet was against him.
"Mandela Effect " narratives and quality of "truth" as opposed to "fact " and proof of reality . Senna was a moody cross kissing determined individual and is still entertaining us with his rare individuality. Thanks Aiden..🚦
Senna was a complete enigma, how can you have that much anger at a decision from 12 months prior that you feel the need to crash into a fellow driver at 150mph+
From Senna himself in 1991: "'At Suzuka last year I asked the officials to change pole position from the right side of the track to the left. It was unfair, as it was, because the right side is always dirty, and there is less grip - you sweat to get pole position, and then you are penalised for it. And they said, "Yes, no problem". Then, what happened? Balestre gave an order that it wasn't to be changed. I know how the system works, and I thought this was really shit. 'So I said to myself, "OK, whatever happens, I'm going to get into the first corner first - I'm not prepared to let the guy (Alain Prost) turn into that corner before me. If I'm near enough to him, he can't turn in front of me - he just has to let me through." I didn't care if we crashed; I went for it. And he took a chance, turned in, and we crashed. It was building up, it was inevitable. It had to happen.'" www.autosport.com/f1/news/senna-blows-his-top-at-suzuka-5053036/5053036/ I think the reason why Berger and Senna both went is because they'd both lost out starting there previous years.
Sorry if you said this in your video, but I place most of the blame for this on the Senna film, where they didn't even attempt to put Senna's comments about the situation in any sort of real context and let imaginations run wild. Speaking as someone who knew the pole position hadn't changed from the previous year, I always assumed it was one of two things - someone along the way had promised it would be moved after Senna requested it and it just didn't happen, or Senna (rightly) believed that pole should really be on the clean side of the track and no one actually listened to his complaints, which he took personally. Based on what we know of his personality I think the latter is very possible. Speaking of his personality I really don't think Senna is an outlier when it comes to successful drivers. No one gets to the dizzying heights he did without being a ruthless competitor, no matter how magnanimous they might be outside the car. I grew up surrounded by race car drivers on local short tracks and it was very common. Nicest people in the world, but when they were in the car most of them flipped a switch. Not that they were dangerous or anything, but for many of them no quarter was given, especially if they perceived that you'd done them dirty on the track previously. Success came to those who were able to separate those two personalities (in the car and out). My mom tells a story of the first time my dad took her to the race track while he was still a driver - "no matter what happens during the race, when we get out of the car it's over." Obviously that's not always the case, but I always felt it spoke perfectly to the weird, almost multiple personalities you see with successful race car drivers.
I think the Star Wars quote was usually misquoted, or paraphrased, on purpose to give it context. And to make it clear that you are quoting something said to Luke, and not claiming to be someone's father in a deep voice.. 😅 As for the pole position being 'moved', is that how they presented it in the Senna movie? 🤔
So, I've been accused of having a very accurate memory (yes, accused) and here's something that I think I remember. I have it in my mind that Senna expected to be starting from pole position on the clean side of the track and he was outraged that the opposite was confirmed sometime on Saturday evening. I don't know why he expected that other than maybe he thought his status afforded him the luxury to demand it. I also remember reading, from an apocryphal source (sic) that the pole setter was allowed to choose which side to start on (maybe Senna believed that). Wouldn't it be useful to have a copy of the 1990 regulations and the supplementary regs for that race? I can also see a scene from the Senna movie, where Senna is talking to someone (possibly Roland Bruynseraede) through the open window of a car door, about [sorting out] pole position. Can anyone confirm any of this with some actual evidence?
I must admit I struggle with your videos when you place text up while talking. Trying to listen to your voice, while also reading the text, I just get jumbled, a little overloaded. Just this person's feedback, still enjoy your thoughts!
I don't remember anyone saying it was moved, my memory was that the stewards agreed that it should be on the racing line and at the last minute Balestre said they couldn't do that, which was largely seen at the time as further evidence of his favoritism towards Prost.
I’m like you. I was 10 and the story I remember was the fia moving pole to screw him over. But to address the facts clearly it was just a complaint by senna. Great short story
I think the story about a decision to move pole to the outside then somewhere getting rescinded was pushed by Senna himself ever since the day of the race. This is a magazine story from 1991 (a year later) where you have some quotes from him saying it wasn't moved due to influence from Ballestre: www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/december-1991/6/the-other-side-of-senna For sure anyone who thinks it was actively moved from outside to inside that year is under some version of Mandela effect, but the notion that there was some sort of decision to move isn't a Mandela effect because it's a narrative that's been around since the incident.
I must agree this comes from sennas ‘legendary’ status, i mean when you get told about this god like driver with un matchable natural ability any story that makes him look unjustified when he did die behind the wheel will be of course believed and funnelled through different generations and i think it will continue to.
People say prost turned int senna to block him But if you look at the line senna had(the inside) he would not have made the turn cleanly, he would've understeered.
I think a lot of examples of Mandella effect arise from people remembering parodies or skits over the actual event. The Bob Geldof one, for example, everybody swears blind he said "Give us yer fookin money" which was from a comedy sketch, as opposed to him actually saying "fuck the phone number"
Not to get pedantic "give me the money.... fuck the address, let's get the [phone] numbers" People conflate the two things, to 'give us your fucking money' i never heard of a sketch
Senna's legend is always fascinating for those of us just old enough to remember before '94. Back then the media were all over Senna for being a prima-donna and Prost for being po faced and boring. Williams and McLaren were dull, what a shame it was Ferrari couldn't win any more. They all loved Schumacher and Briatore for actually smiling when they won. Then in the space of a few months Prost retired, Senna died, and dastardly Benetton started dominating McLaren and Williams and the early 90s became a golden age.
The reason why I just assumed that it was true is that I wasn't born when Senna drove so all I had to go off was the Senna documentary and my dad who only remembers the crash and a lot of people who weren't there to see it also have the same opinion
Does certainly not justify the disqualification but James Hunt said the q989 collision was Senna's fault. Watch the footage with him and Nurray Walker commentating.
I think people get confused because senna asked for them to change P1 to the other side of the track, which it NEVER had been before - because it was the dirty part of the track. It was always in the same spot.
The Senna Documentary may have had something to do with it.
Agreed. It was decent but definitely bordered on hagiography.
I saw the documentary so many years ago, that I can't even remember much about that detail, but they definitely depicted the FIA as conspiring against Senna.
That said, I don't think too many people have seen the Senna documentary, at least compared to Rush or Netflix's Drive to Survive.
Ironically, Top Gear had an item about Senna because of that documentary, that gave a much more realistic picture of him than the actual documentary!
@@vaska00762 yea the movie is wack. They act as if the fia hates senna but it never mentions him getting better engines then prost
@@tylerwhite9360 and more of the mclaren staff
Senna stated “ You bust your ass to get on pole only for it to be on the dirty side of the track”. He was complaining that getting pole position was actually a disadvantage on that track. I remember him requesting that they change the position of pole in a drivers meeting and everyone agreeing with him for the most part. Then Sunday rolls around and The position of pole didn’t change
Pretty much.
There’s no confirmation of when that decision was made, which is the annoying part.
Maybe not, but that's how we remember it being, something must have been said about it for us to remember it like that, surely.
Why didn't he complain in the previous years then?
@@nickwall2497 I think there’s a sub level of “shit, Prost has the quicker car in race trim” there and he knew it was going to be difficult to stay ahead if Prost jumped him off the start.
In 88 he fluffed the start and won by having the most OP car in history (more than those Mercs and that’s saying something) and in 1989 he fluffed the start and would have won if not for the DQ.
This time he had an actual fight for the win on his hands and the other guy was in another model car. There’s a chance he was running scared and needed an excuse.
I do love the Senna Paradox as you mentioned where he'd talk about safety and risk himself to try at assist Eric Comas but then pile into Prost 2 years in a row at racing speed because he was angry. I always take it as driver's, no matter how great, are not perfect. Similar things happen inside the Nascar fan base and absolutely Idolizing Dale Earnhardt for some of the things he would do on track as well and a lot of the backlash from the time as since been forgotten twisted from the original truth, specifically Bristol 1999. There's a similarity to it between Senna and Earnhardt in that respect that people don't remember it exactly how it was and forget they weren't perfect, nor perfect drivers and if anything the fact both men show it debatably better than anybody else is almost humanizing in a way
In all seriousness, thank you for this vid on this particular topic. I've been a fan of F1 ever since the early 1980s and have studied the sport's long history, so I think I've managed to earn a sense of perspective lost on too many of the sport's recent fandom who seem to think that only the recent past and the present count for anything.
I've argued many a time with many a Senna fan (I think of such people as "cultists," but that's a conversation for another time) who firmly believe Senna got screwed in 1990, that pole at Suzuka got moved, that Senna was 100% justified to torpedo Prost off at the start. I can't reason with such people, but what annoys me no end is when they INSIST pole was always on the left (the clean side) of the track at Suzuka, but that the stewards (and/or Balestre - they keep changing the details, but it doesn't matter) changed it to the dirty side on the right after Senna won the pole. It's so easy to verify the claim that pole at Suzuka was, until 1991, on the right side of the track (ironically, pole in 1991 did NOT go to Senna - it went to Berger - and Senna still didn't start on the clean side), but these Senna fans either tell you they're right and you're wrong or refuse to verify (because, maybe, they know they're wrong and just will not admit it). As I said, it's impossible to reason with such people.
Anyway, thank you for producing this video. I truly appreciate the way you've presented this case. If nothing else it gives me some satisfaction that someone else bothered to look back at history and tell the story truthfully. It's something you do consistently. Well done, good sir.
One of the things I've learned in my years online is that you'll never be able to prove even the most obvious things to a person replying to you in "Brazilian" English.
I've watched Suzuka's races from 88-90. Each time Senna was on pole, and each time, Prost got the jump at the start. I think Senna wanted Pole moved so that wouldn't happen again.
The ironic thing is that, in 1993, by which time pole had been moved to the "clean" side, Senna, who started 2nd, got ahead of polesitter Prost from the dirty side of the grid!
Prost jumped that start in 1989, I'm pretty sure is it shown quite clearly that Prost's car was moving before the green light. At the time Prost was seen as the good guy and Senna was seen as the bad guy. so anything the good guy did was painted with with good and and anything the bad guy did was painted with bad.
That because the outside was on the Racing-line so was was cleaner than the inside line, so it should have been were pole shoud have been sitting. Senna wanted it move because of that reason, but FIA refused.
one thing in the Senna movie is they show a conversation he had with Roland B (Masi of the day) and they were talking about it and Roland said they'd look at it. They made it seem like Japan but it was really at Hockenheim. So that may be part of it.
Side note - Not sure I like the text on screen while you are talking about something else. I keep pausing to read.
Otherwise, awesome video! Thanks again Aiden!
yeah there was tons of manipulative/misleading editing in that film. basically once they had a narrative and a version of events, they went looking for whatever footage would add support for that story, even if it was completely out of context. clearly the DTS crew thought that was really clever.
also I agree about the text, it's distracting. better to just put it in the script, or stop talking while it's on screen.
@@zvexevz It's worth noting that it's a Ron Dennis voiceover in the film that says "pole position was mysteriously moved to the dirty side of the circuit." Not exactly an unbiased observer.
I only believed in "If you go for a gap that no longer exists..."
No wonder I crashed all the time during GT3 race.
toon toon
To quote Adam Savage of Mythbuster fame. “I reject your truth, and replace it with my own”. I think Senna knew damn well how to play the media. Back then it took a while before anything was rebuked. So it was out there. By they the time they could react, something else would be happening.
“I reject your reality, and substitute my own.”
The first time I remember pole being on the 'clean' side of the grid at Suzuka was 1991.
I've watched clips where Senna was claiming that a decision to move it in 1989 had a detrimental effect on the pole sitter. Honestly, I thought this was BS where he won the race from pole in 88'.
It's one of the myths that go with Senna.
IIRC Senna "was pissed" when they finally moved pole to the other side in 1991.
In '88 he stalled the car on the green light, was lucky he was on a downwards slope and could get the car going again because of that, and he had to pass half the field. So no in 1988 he didn't win because of his 'pole advantage' on the dirty side of the track. In 1989 Prost flew past him at race start just like in 1990...
@@misterdog7 oh yeah. I forgot about that. I was 4 mind you and it's been a while since I watched the highlights.
@@quietbatperson3115 No worries just running Patrol here defending Ayrton lol
@@misterdog7 rightly so. Senna is a legend and in my opinion the best ever
You can reduce this whole discussion to a famous quote of yours: "Senna was pissed."
My opinion on how Senna could be humanitarian off track / throw his safety to the side to save a fellow driver and then do what he did in 1990 comes down to one word. Desire. He wanted to help children, the under privileged, his fellow humans off track but once he was in that seat, he wanted to win, period. To show to the world that he lived life to the fullest while proving any detractors that had appeared before him wrong. Another word for that could be "ego" but I don't think it was so much ego as a desire to do the best that he could. Complicated could be used as well, but I truly think it was desire above all else.
And well, the FIA did screw him in 1989 which if they hadn't, we'd probably wouldn't have seen 1990 play out the way it did. Some men can really hold grudges over the pettiest of things, let alone losing an F1 World Drivers championship.
Senna's immense and incredible talent was also his biggest flaw. He always acted like his talent gave him the right to be always first. The "get out of the way or we crash" attitude probably came from his belief that he was faster (which he usually was) and thus that place had to be his. I am a bit of a simracer myself and I always say this to people I'm racing with: if you are faster than me that doesn't mean you're entitled to my position.
Ive always wanted to hear someones opinion on this
The myth came from the Senna movie when a respected figure like Ron Dennis said “pole position was his, then pole was moved to the dirty side of the circuit”. Fuels the myth.
Yep, Piquet apparently was really good at mind games. I worked for Mr Piquet for almost two years and can attest that he is an incredibly smart and witty dude. He's very very good when he's arguing a point. Very very hard to outwit him. And he makes very very few reasoning mistakes. I gradually became a big Piquet fan while I worked there.
Piquet is totally under rated as a F1 legend. A three-time world champion and made arguably the finest overtake in F1 (on Senna) in Hungary and one of the best at setting up a car. I don;t know why he;s isn't more recognied. I don't think he's more flawed than anyone else!
I was at his first F1 win at Long Beach. He was my favorite driver ever since. I have a signed lithograph celebrating his 200th GP start hanging over the desk I'm sitting at.
Couldn't agree more. Favourite driver ever. Fast, clean and clever and yet underrated - and yet he probably couldn't care less.
@@justme-hh4vp probably because he comes out as a huge prick for modern standards...but most of his behaviour is not very different from any multiple WDC really...mind games and always saying or doing anything to gain an advantage
@@mafiousbj Yeah, that's what I thought, wondered if it was an English thing because the issues at Williams with Mansell. Most drivers seem to like him but he despised Senna.
I've commented on your channel previously about Senna and also Prost, so to be clear, Senna is my idol when it comes to racing but that is not to say that he was flawless or without fault several times.
Alas, Senna was as good if not better than anyone at playing the media and public opinion. Prost was already seen as inferior to him particularly in character and the cozying up to Balestre. They were more willing to accept Senna than they were willing to accept Prost. Think of it as "underdog vs the establishment" with Prost being the establishment.
Senna knew it wasn't moved, of course he did. He just took part on the game surrounding F1 which is politics and public opinion and he was very skilled at getting people on his side.
As to the question that you presented, it's because of what Senna said in 1990 and also the Senna documentary which hammered this point home, but in reality it was Senna playing games and public accepted it as a fact (that the pole was moved)
Yeah that Senna documentary is... it's something alright... bias at it's finest
Have to disagree with Prost "cozying up to Balestre". Balestre was the F1 boss at the time so everyone "cozied" up to him. That's not sneaky, that's life. Just think about how everyone in the last 30 years has genuflected before Bernie Ecclestone. The character flaw was Senna thinking he could tell the boss to go and **** himself. Senna believed his own BS and was nowhere near as moral as his public image portrayed.
@@Claggyt They were both French and had each other's back, later Balestre admitted to having agreed to disqualify Senna on Prosts request and let's be honest, that was bs. I'm talking about how the public viewed Prost and they viewed him as someone who got the competition unjustly disqualified due to having a good relationship with the president of FIA.
@@casualxxgamerxx9662 I remember that "confession", an article in a no name paper is suddenly "proof" of it.
@@MrSniperfox29 Well, either or. The relevance was the publics view of Prost and the signifance of this to the image Senna had and the things he said, in this case the pole positions side.
Senna was the good guy and Prost was the bad guy (rightly or not isn't relevant) and as such most things Senna said were taken as a fact. He had a part of making Prost seem like a villain in the publics eye, hence his skill at "manipulating" the perception and opinion of others and the other part being Suzuka 1989 after which both of them were booed and thrown trash at
Im old enough to remember watching that race. Right or wrong, Senna stated a few times before the race exactly what he was going to do. I wasn't surprised in the least when he barreled into Prost. If nothing else...he was man of his word.
Senna created a situation in which he was perceived as a victim so he can basically justify anything he did and keep the public on his side. Normally he should have been penalized for that incident, no question about that but the FIA probably didn't want to deal with the bad publicity of preventing Senna winning the title 2 years in a row so they let that one slide.
I mean he did get hard done by the year before.
I am brazilian and have always thought that the pole spot was moved, but after watching the first storytime about it I rewatched the start of those GPs and realized you were right and been shattering my fellow brazilian's hearts with the truth, lol.
There is a similar thing in tennis where people say they are shorting the length of wimbledon's grass more and more by the year by CUTTING IT (to harm Federer who would have won 30 titles if not by the ever shortening lengh of the grass, ppl say), when, in fact, they changed the species and composition of the grass in 2002 to improve durability and never made any further changes on it, which means that Roger (who I am a fan of, don't get me wrong) won ALL of his titles in Wimbledon on the same grass.
Yeah, there is one for you tennis fans.
What took away from Federer's game a bit over the years are the balls, not really the surfaces. Balls became bigger, jumping higher and more fluffy.
When the balls don't jump too much, doesn't matter if the surface is fast, slow, upside down, ice or lava, Federer crushes.
Of all the TH-camrs on F1. I respect Aidan's opinion most. Also, BTCC is INCREDIBLE. TY for suggesting watching it, most entertaining day of racing
Thanks Aidan for this little snippet, I agree that the story (like so many Senna legends) has slowly been twisted from the facts. Senna did request a change of pole position, and it was rejected be it by the race officials or the governing body. From what I remember at the time virtually every track had pole position on the inside line for the first corner as you stated and on no other occasion had the pole position been moved at the request of the pole sitter. I feel that is the main reason for the refusal to move pole, as in my opinion it would have shown favoritism to Senna.
I actually enjoyed the British air conditioning explaination and the personal comments at the end of the video more than the actual subject of the video ^^
I've always assumed it's someone was told by someone else and, as it's a historical event that (ultimately) doesn't matter, they've never really bothered to look further into it.
I agree about Mein Kampf - unreadable drivel, but a fascinating case study of how it's affected history
Hi Aidan. You hit a point that I've always thought about. Ayrton's persona off-track was way better than his on-track one. It is as if something did not add up in terms os his personality. And I agree with you when you say that he was one of the most talented drivers ever, but I also think that there was something really screwed up about him that nobody talks about. Thanks for the video!
Thanks great video. I was fortunate enough to
Have seen them battle it out. A golden era of the sport.
The Senna movie was the most inaccurate, biased "documentary" I have ever seen on F1. They seriously made him out to be an absolute saint who always had to fight adversary (the evil French connection of Prost and Ballestre) to win while others (i.e. Prost) always had the easiest route to the finish line with always the best car.
The problem with the movie was, other than its glaring inaccuracies (I mean, they took onboard footage from Senna at Monaco from 1990 and claimed it was his 1988 pole lap for crying out loud!!!), was that Senna fanbois took it that the movie was the definitive gospel truth on what it was back in his day.
It was heavily modified and censored by the family. It was more a propaganda film than what actually happened. DTS S4 before DTS S4
I'm a huge Senna fan,I don't think your a Senna hater at all lol, Love the videos mate. Keep up the great work
I would say something that I feel you’ve said before - modern F1 fans have seen the Senna movie/documentary and that is the opinion put forth in that film. I was 5 and likely in bed when Suzuka GP was screened in 1990 so my memory of it is a bit hazy. The Senna movie was the first I had ever heard about Pole being moved. But having spent well over a decade working as a motor racing official in Aust, I’ve never understood how they could just move the Pole. These things are set out in rule books and track manuals and generally you can’t just change things like that race weekend.
I feel privileged enough to have started watching motorsport including F1 since 1984 - through until this very day. The history I have witnessed being made has been both fantastic and at times very sad. I remember at the time liking Senna a lot, but not saying much as everyone was meant to like Nigel Mansell, sounds silly now saying it, but back then you liked your "home" team and nobody else would do apparently. A lot of people talk about when they first saw the "red" cars, and "La Passione", but for me it was the red and white cars of McLaren, which Senna joined in 1988. Back then we would only know about racing drivers and motorsport from the BBC and a few inches on the back pages of newpapers, and the odd motorsport paper. But for some strange reason, and maybe it was purely down to programing or parental conditioning, I didn't like the then FISA president Jean-Marie Balestre, thus I always held him accountable for not allowing the request to switch "Pole" to the clean side of the track. But when you think about it, what F1 driver wouldn't request or demand that pole be located on the cleaner side of the track ? they want every advantage going, and who can blame them.
If you were American, you had a hard time even finding anybody who cared. If you liked Michael Andretti, you looked pretty silly :)
The myth came from the Senna movie when a respected figure like Ron Dennis said “pole position was his, then pole was moved to the dirty side of the circuit”. Fuels the myth.
Too many Senna fans distort things without reading the available facts. While Senna may have had a point about where pole position should have been. The facts show that traditionally the pole was on the dirty side of the track and wasn't shifted to hold Senna back.
I think that there is no way to really prove whether there was an agreement to shift the pole position to the clean side of the track.
The internal backstabbing and double dealing off track was common place and both Prost and Senna were as bad as each other. Personally I feel that Senna made a mountain out of a molehill and the media perpetuated things and misreported as well.
In terms of the Mandela effect as regards the push stewards gave Senna. I thought it was in effect at that time that any assistance by stewards to push any car back onto the circuit was prohibited. Any help on clearing up my confusion would be greatly appreciated.
Cars weren’t allowed outside assistance UNLESS the car was in a dangerous place. I used to think this but then had to take it back when it was confirmed.
Senna was given the DQ for cutting the chicane and not for the push start.
@@AidanMillward I believe outside assistance was fully outlawed when Hamilton got craned back on the track in 2007.
@@RBenjo21 his engine was still running, so he was allowed outside assistance. They shut that down immediately after.
@@AidanMillward Exactly! Although I think it was more to do with getting craned out rather than “pushed” - a bridge too far…?
Furthermore, this incident was extremely controversial and I think possibly went some way to starting to end that rule. th-cam.com/video/VEyVJJrKPk0/w-d-xo.html
Would love to see a vid (if you haven't done one that Ive missed) of the history between Senna and Prost in their years of F1
My recollection of F1 back than was that pole was, by default, on the inside line to the first corner.
When they ran the GP at Las Vegas in 1981, the track was covered in dust. Reutemann won pole and asked if pole could be switched, so that he could start on the clean racing line.
From then on, the polesitter would often ask for pole to be switched over to the racing line.
I believe, but I could be wrong, that Suzuka 1990 was the first time that a polesitter's request to switch sides was denied.
Always wondered if there is no obvious good/fast/ clean side off the grid how is the “pole” side decided? And hypothetically If Indycar decided to have say a standing start at an oval track what side would the pole be on for example? When you could equally say the left inside has shorter distance to the left hand bend but right outside side of the grid ( as you look at from behind) has the faster more banked half the corner coming up though?
The Mythos of Senna grew more after the film, but i remember Senna as a kid as ruthless driver and other video which where not in the film, like Senna on Nannini in Hungary show that Senna wasnt afraid to punt drivers off the road in 1990. he was a complex person who worked well in teams that where willing to push the envelope. in 1986 Lotus removed the bracing on the diffuser allowing it to move and be variable to create more grip, he thrived in these kind of environments
Senna was great in so many ways. However, he did have at least one grave defect, imo: he was so greedy for results that whenever anything went awry, he would get incredibly upset. So upset, in fact, as to be completely unable to enjoy all the great things happening around him. He was one of the most successful people I know of, but was still apparently an unhappy person. All because of that one little thing (or two) that had eluded him or gone against him. Instead of being happy and grateful for the truckload of things that went his way in life.
He quite literally thought he had a god-given right to win. If you got in his way, not only were you preventing him from winning, you were going against the will of god himself.
Speaking of that Suzuka race in 1989 it's still debated on for what Senna was DQ'ed. One of the theories, which was in the Senna movie, is that Senna was disqualified for cutting the chicane. The other theory and the one I honestly feel it's legit is that he was disqualified for the assist he received from the marshals.
Raise your hand if you think the marshalls are making it up as they go along, just like this year too.
And you are correct. That’s the senna myth gone wild again. He wasn’t DQ’d for cutting through the escape road, he was legitimately DQ’d for getting push started the second time when he was pushed out of danger which was legit.
Matter of fact, a McLaren engineer, I think it might have been Steve Nichols or Joe Ramirez. One of the 2 said to Prost after the race that he should have continued the race as well because his car had absolutely no damage. Thus excluding all possibilities for senna to win the championship.
I did some reading after your tweet the other day, my understanding was that Senna asked the local stewards (NOT the FIA) to change it, they said "sure, why not" when they didn't have the authority to do so. The FIA got wind of this and vetoed it, what their motivations for the veto are unclear
What happened to the podcast? I miss it
I remember it being described as “moved” very clearly in the senna documentary by an English author/ journalist whose name I can’t remember.
The same journo/ author was very dramatic the entire doco though
Thats was the whole point of this fan fiction, distort reality or build up straight up lies to dramatize, demonize Prost and Balestre and Idolize Senna because it would be hype
Thanks again Aidan, much appreciated.
I love the history lessons. 🙂
I mostly just listen to your voice on the background, I admit I'm a casual viewer so long time subscribers might know why, but what are those rash like things on your wrists and knuckles? They from gloves?
I’ve got eczema and sensitive skin. When I sweat I itch.
And since I’ve been doing a lot of sim racing in the heat wave my hands look like something out of resident evil. It looks worse on camera than it actually is.
@@AidanMillward Ah I understand, thanks Aidan! Thought those were blisters, I sometimes get them when gardening cause the gloves I have tends to do that.
Was watching start of 89 Hungarian GP. And James Hunt mentions they asked pole sitter Riccardo Patrese if he'd like to start from left side or right side of the track, they were giving him the option.
Pretty sure that was a thing back then. Atleast for 1989 and perhaps for 1990.
Even Murray Walker didn't forgive Senna for pushing Prost off the road in 1990. And he never had a bad word to say about anyone
I recall watching interviews with Prost in Adelaide in 1990 where it seemed people were blaming him for the accident at Suzuka the previous race.
“On his home turf, Jean-Marie Balestre was all charm as he greeted the Brazilian superstar. Balestre removed his shades so as to give our camera the full benefit of his charisma.” Clive James, 1986.
It has to be the "Senna" documentary isn't it? It was one of the first genuine efforts to picture F1 in a believable way and people bought into all of the details blindly.
The way I remember it, was that the drivers had all asked for it to be moved, including Prost, the fia said they would move it for race day, then after senna got pole, they changed their mind, I seem to even remember Murray saying something about it before the race started in the tiny bit of pre race we used to get back then, but I was 12 at the time, so who knows if my memories are correct, but that's how I remember it. As for Lewis/Max incident, I think it was 50/50 first lap racing incident, they both misjudged by a cm or two, where the other car was, and lightly touched, but at those speeds, a light touch, can lead to a big off, as it did. I definitely think it was a move to go for, as Lewis got the slipstream on him enough down the old pit straight to go for a move, it would have been an awesome overtake if it had paid off, and max had not tried to squeeze him on the apex.
So Aidan, how viral would social media be for Suzuka 1989 and 1990 when it happens on live TV for the world to see with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and also Snapchat, how viral can it be compared to the Max Verstappen vs. Lewis Hamilton incident on this year's British Grand Prix?
Back in those days the idea was to give the pole sitter the inside line into turn 1, to supposedly defend better from overtake attempts while completely ignoring the dirty side/clean side matter... If you look at the Hungarian GP starts from the 80's it was also on the dirty side
Hot water bottles, filled with engine coolant, kept in the freezer. They won't freeze solid, even if you get 50:50 coolant and dilute that, so you can wrap it in a towel and use it as a pillow or something
Well the Senna documentary from a few years ago certainly pushed the narrative.
The Meme? LOL ;)
Balestre was a total Muppet, your assumption is correct.
Your assumption regarding Piquet is also correct. He's a total dick and always has been.
Misinterpretation does seem to be the most likely option, TBH. People hear what they want to hear. It's a perfectly normal reaction, it's not a criticism, we all do it. But when sport is involved, especially one which has passionate followers, "their truth" is going to be the only one allowed.
I will never believe that Schumacher didn't take Damon out in '94 deliberately. IMHO, Damon has two championships. And imagine if Schumacher had made as much of a balls up as he did in '97. The story of Damon winning that year would have been turned into a Hollywood film.
Anyway, that's me proving my point 🤷🏻♀️
I can easily believe that the race officials agreed to move the pole but the nonce that was Balestre would not allow the pole position to be moved.
It sounds like Mandela effect as the pole position ended up being in the same place as it always had been before.
In the end, it did give us a spectacular moment and iconic commentary from Murray and James!
[Teenage Screeching] is the perfect representation of Luke in that moment and I love it.
Nah mate it's "He told me enough, He told me you kill him"
Was about to comment this 😂
I've been telling ppl that for years! Its always been in that spot on the track
Senna's greatest talent, aside from chasing the best car through his career and threatening to quit on his team when they didn't have one by default, was lying with a straight face and getting millions to believe him.
I was at Phoenix in 1991, which was the second race after Suzuka 1990. Aside from some Japanese fans who were there supporting Honda, there wasn't a single person sitting around me who even thought he should have been starting that race. To a person, everyone believed he deserved a season ban. He won pole, led every lap and won the race, but after he won pole on Saturday all anyone could say was that it would be a long race on Sunday. Compare that to his demigod status today.
Yeah, ive said some stuff about Schumacher. I do exaggerate the pantomime villain thing as part of the channel. But even I would concede that Schumacher was kicked out of a championship for less.
@@AidanMillward Schumacher's problem was that he effectively did it twice and the problem is he did enough after Adelaide 94 for Jerez 97 to be predictable. I actually called it out on the BB I was on at the time, that if Schumacher could he'd try to pull the same thing again. It was just Schumacher's nature.
But Senna's move on Prost in 1990 was totally premeditated. He never intended to make the corner or let Prost do the same. And then to say he was going for a gap, well...
RE : The psychology of Ayrton Senna. For what it's worth (probably not much, really), I think Senna had a sense of "Right And Wrong" that was developed far beyond what most people would consider reasonable or sensible. He helped the underprivileged in Brazil, because it was the right thing to do. He aided Eric Comas, because it was the right thing to do. He had an Austrian flag in his cockpit at Imola '94 in memory of Roland Ratzenberger, because it was the right thing to do.
But if he thought someone was screwing with him, like Alain Prost or the track officials at Suzuka, then that was the WRONG thing to do. And, as Senna saw it, it had to be put RIGHT.
Yes, this is exactly right.
Senna was righteous, religious, entitled and a bit paranoid. Prost was doomed.
Have you read ordinary men by Christopher browning?
I wouldn't be too surprised if this is something else that people started saying because they watched Senna, because as we know, it was pretty biased. Also with that film coming out in 2010/2011, it'd be a lot fresher in the memory bank than 1990. I'd have to rewatch it again to be absolutely sure, but I think Ron Dennis says something about this, my response to that being something like "Bollocks, how much did the Senna family pay you to say that?"
*He does.
I've been on F1 BBs since the mid-90s and people were saying it back then too.
You find things like this dotted around a lot of history, in this case I do think its something that grew arms and legs after the very good Senna documentary which did have everything from his point of view, Senna was a person who thrived when he felt someone had done him wrong or something was unjust, very similar to Michael Jordan for anyone who watched the last dance will see that similar trait being so driven that its your way or no way,
*Aiden* :*"yah i watch doc's on skool shoouterz"*
*us* : *"yah we figured as much,keep it movng"*
I thought the "is always on the racing line" (or whatever... quotes used improperly) referred to all other tracks (even if that wasn't true) - not Suzuka. Maybe it got taken from that misunderstanding?
Don't call it as "pole position is on the dirty side" it depends where the inside of the next corner is. Yes, in fact, most of the time, the inside of the next corner is on the dirty side, but if you went to Monza in the old days, pole was actually on the racing line. Pole position used to be designed according to the possibility of the lead driving having a more advantageous position to defend. That's why Pole in Suzuka was in the wrong side, because that first corner is so flat that from the starting line the drivers don't even need to lift before seeing t2
One thing that was never clear to me: did he ask for it to be moved after he got pole? Or did he ask before the weekend started?
Weird i was thinking about this only the other night!
But this is not a good example of the Mandela effect because it was discussed at the time even before the race. In a subsequent interview Senna himself forcely says something like "then Ballstre, he gave the order [to change it]", so it became legend. The lazy part is that people then apply that every previous Japanese grand prix. Balestre doesn't strike me as someone to agree to move pole position, he disqualified Senna was not respecting the length of the course by not retaking the chicane. It is commonly thought that the disqualification was for getting a push start (another Suzuka myth).
Ayrton had been asking about the pole there since 88, in 90 he was told ( apparently) that it would be moved, after securing the pole he was then told it wasn't to be moved and he lost his shit.. and that's from Joe a former member of the team at the time..
Well, I trust Autocourse on this which states that Senna asked for the switch on Wednesday morning. Prost agreed with the idea but the stewards refused due mostly to tradition. The stewards reiterated that view at the drivers meeting. I think people remember it wrongly due to it being a fairly complicated controversy, and how indignant Senna was about the whole thing afterward.
6:47 are you referring to JCS’s video “What Pretending to Be Crazy Looks Like?” If not, definitely check out the video and his channel. It’s all about criminal psychology.
I did my EPQ on Senna, and when you say he's an interesting character well he really truly is, certainly paradoxical as Martin Brundle put it.
Often, especially for rolling starts, pole is the inside of the first turn. Putting the standing start pole on the cleaner side of the track makes some sense. BTW, I first heard of this controversy when watching the race and Murray Walker had a typical Murrayism "Senna had asked to have pole position moved from the left to the left..." Murray said the request was refused. That's in-situ reporting from the time. I don't know about the rules at the time, but today in some series (but not 2021 Formula 1), the pole sitter can request switching, but it only impacts the first row.
Because in horse racing, that's where the POLE is located.
I would consider “Luke, I am your father” as the Tommy Boy Effect.
what I find most interesting about that era was how blatantly corrupt it was, and with complete admission from balestre himself that he had made decisions explicitly to benefit prost, in that corruption you can look for signs in the actions and decisions people make.
I'm personally of the belief that there's something very fishy going on with the race direction and stewards making decisions that just seem to always benefit mercedes, so it'd be interesting it to compare a season of F1 where we know there was corruption to see if there are any key similarities or differences.
Yes we have "proof" that Balestre made those decisions to benefit Prost.
From a Brazilian newspaper, they clearly wouldn't lie at all.
@@MrSniperfox29 he literally admitted it
@@MiaReiFilms Yes he literally admitted it in a single interview in a Brazilian paper and thus "the proof" was born.
@@MrSniperfox29 even if he hadn't admitted it, it would be just as obvious that he did it, you're genuinely delusional if you can't see that lol
@@MiaReiFilms He admitted it, well not really, actually he didn't but its definitely true you have to believe me.
Next week, Senna fans convince themselves the entire planet was against him.
Ive argued about that for all these years ... pole was on the same side of the track in 1990 as it was in 1989
"Mandela Effect " narratives and quality of "truth" as opposed to "fact " and proof of reality . Senna was a moody cross kissing determined individual and is still entertaining us with his rare individuality.
Thanks Aiden..🚦
Laying in bed, soaking in your own water?
Why don't you just go before bed, Aidan? 😉
Senna was a complete enigma, how can you have that much anger at a decision from 12 months prior that you feel the need to crash into a fellow driver at 150mph+
From Senna himself in 1991: "'At Suzuka last year I asked the officials to change pole position from the right side of the track to the left. It was unfair, as it was, because the right side is always dirty, and there is less grip - you sweat to get pole position, and then you are penalised for it. And they said, "Yes, no problem". Then, what happened? Balestre gave an order that it wasn't to be changed. I know how the system works, and I thought this was really shit.
'So I said to myself, "OK, whatever happens, I'm going to get into the first corner first - I'm not prepared to let the guy (Alain Prost) turn into that corner before me. If I'm near enough to him, he can't turn in front of me - he just has to let me through." I didn't care if we crashed; I went for it. And he took a chance, turned in, and we crashed. It was building up, it was inevitable. It had to happen.'"
www.autosport.com/f1/news/senna-blows-his-top-at-suzuka-5053036/5053036/
I think the reason why Berger and Senna both went is because they'd both lost out starting there previous years.
Damn Aidan. Do you have Psoriasis?
I think I read this in one of Tremayne's encyclopedias in the 90s. Something like that anyway.
Sorry if you said this in your video, but I place most of the blame for this on the Senna film, where they didn't even attempt to put Senna's comments about the situation in any sort of real context and let imaginations run wild. Speaking as someone who knew the pole position hadn't changed from the previous year, I always assumed it was one of two things - someone along the way had promised it would be moved after Senna requested it and it just didn't happen, or Senna (rightly) believed that pole should really be on the clean side of the track and no one actually listened to his complaints, which he took personally. Based on what we know of his personality I think the latter is very possible.
Speaking of his personality I really don't think Senna is an outlier when it comes to successful drivers. No one gets to the dizzying heights he did without being a ruthless competitor, no matter how magnanimous they might be outside the car. I grew up surrounded by race car drivers on local short tracks and it was very common. Nicest people in the world, but when they were in the car most of them flipped a switch. Not that they were dangerous or anything, but for many of them no quarter was given, especially if they perceived that you'd done them dirty on the track previously. Success came to those who were able to separate those two personalities (in the car and out).
My mom tells a story of the first time my dad took her to the race track while he was still a driver - "no matter what happens during the race, when we get out of the car it's over." Obviously that's not always the case, but I always felt it spoke perfectly to the weird, almost multiple personalities you see with successful race car drivers.
I think the Star Wars quote was usually misquoted, or paraphrased, on purpose to give it context. And to make it clear that you are quoting something said to Luke, and not claiming to be someone's father in a deep voice.. 😅
As for the pole position being 'moved', is that how they presented it in the Senna movie? 🤔
So, I've been accused of having a very accurate memory (yes, accused) and here's something that I think I remember. I have it in my mind that Senna expected to be starting from pole position on the clean side of the track and he was outraged that the opposite was confirmed sometime on Saturday evening. I don't know why he expected that other than maybe he thought his status afforded him the luxury to demand it. I also remember reading, from an apocryphal source (sic) that the pole setter was allowed to choose which side to start on (maybe Senna believed that). Wouldn't it be useful to have a copy of the 1990 regulations and the supplementary regs for that race? I can also see a scene from the Senna movie, where Senna is talking to someone (possibly Roland Bruynseraede) through the open window of a car door, about [sorting out] pole position. Can anyone confirm any of this with some actual evidence?
I must admit I struggle with your videos when you place text up while talking. Trying to listen to your voice, while also reading the text, I just get jumbled, a little overloaded.
Just this person's feedback, still enjoy your thoughts!
I’ll try to put them up longer 👍🏻
I don't remember anyone saying it was moved, my memory was that the stewards agreed that it should be on the racing line and at the last minute Balestre said they couldn't do that, which was largely seen at the time as further evidence of his favoritism towards Prost.
And the president admitted he was helping Prost years later
Has this anything to do with a certain competition opening now in Japan?
Technically it opened two days ago on the 21st - I don't care what the IOC says!!
My mom didn't have the Mandela effect, she had the Willa Effect - She always remembered bigger than it actually was.
I’m like you. I was 10 and the story I remember was the fia moving pole to screw him over. But to address the facts clearly it was just a complaint by senna. Great short story
I think the story about a decision to move pole to the outside then somewhere getting rescinded was pushed by Senna himself ever since the day of the race. This is a magazine story from 1991 (a year later) where you have some quotes from him saying it wasn't moved due to influence from Ballestre: www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/december-1991/6/the-other-side-of-senna
For sure anyone who thinks it was actively moved from outside to inside that year is under some version of Mandela effect, but the notion that there was some sort of decision to move isn't a Mandela effect because it's a narrative that's been around since the incident.
I must agree this comes from sennas ‘legendary’ status, i mean when you get told about this god like driver with un matchable natural ability any story that makes him look unjustified when he did die behind the wheel will be of course believed and funnelled through different generations and i think it will continue to.
People say prost turned int senna to block him
But if you look at the line senna had(the inside) he would not have made the turn cleanly, he would've understeered.
I think a lot of examples of Mandella effect arise from people remembering parodies or skits over the actual event. The Bob Geldof one, for example, everybody swears blind he said "Give us yer fookin money" which was from a comedy sketch, as opposed to him actually saying "fuck the phone number"
Not to get pedantic "give me the money.... fuck the address, let's get the [phone] numbers"
People conflate the two things, to 'give us your fucking money' i never heard of a sketch
Senna: The Movie didn't help.
I'm surprised Prost didn't put a cease and desist order that "documentary".
Senna's legend is always fascinating for those of us just old enough to remember before '94. Back then the media were all over Senna for being a prima-donna and Prost for being po faced and boring. Williams and McLaren were dull, what a shame it was Ferrari couldn't win any more. They all loved Schumacher and Briatore for actually smiling when they won. Then in the space of a few months Prost retired, Senna died, and dastardly Benetton started dominating McLaren and Williams and the early 90s became a golden age.
The reason why I just assumed that it was true is that I wasn't born when Senna drove so all I had to go off was the Senna documentary and my dad who only remembers the crash and a lot of people who weren't there to see it also have the same opinion
If you do not go for the pole on the clean side ... It wasn't a thing until the Senna movie!
You should do a video on how McLaren improved from 2015 to now
I bet the Senna movie had a part in that too
Does certainly not justify the disqualification but James Hunt said the q989 collision was Senna's fault. Watch the footage with him and Nurray Walker commentating.
I think people get confused because senna asked for them to change P1 to the other side of the track, which it NEVER had been before - because it was the dirty part of the track.
It was always in the same spot.