24 responses to “Ayrton Senna – The Complicated Genius”

1. 21 years. Time goes by so fast…

2. You only mention Senna’s victory at the 1993 European GP under the rain. Senna Won 5 races in 1993 and his last two victory in the last 2 races of the season. He ask Ron Dennis to release him early (soon after the season ended) and Ron told win the next races and I will release you early. Senna did in under performance McLaren with a Customer Ford engine. I saw is last race in Brasil in 94 and the public loved him and he did care of them. He did not finish the race and over haft of the spectators left the track

3. Thank you for this excellent piece!

   “The 1989 season was just as closely fought between the two and came to a head at the Japanese Grand Prix where the two collided into the chicane. Prost retired immediately from the race, but Senna was able to continue and win.” [..]

   “Senna was incensed and when Prost got the better start, Senna deliberately drove into the back of the Ferrari at the first corner, eliminating them both on the spot, handing Senna his second championship title.”

   If you apportion blame for Suzuka 1990, then I guess it would be only appropriate to also apportion blame for the Suzuka 1989 accident, in which Prost purposefully drove into Senna before getting to the chicane.

   • But of course that was Prost’s normal line through the chicane….turning in before the corner is a family secret…just ask Nick 🙂

     • Ooo controversial 😜

   • That is very true – although there were two sides to that incident, the ’90 crash was pure unadulterated ramming!

     • “That is very true – although there were two sides to that incident”

       What sides? From the video footage I’ve seen, there is only one side to that incident, along with a lot of unashamed and hypocritical politicking from the other side…

       Go to Part 5, min 4:
       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXuikMaqvtY&index=4&list=PL2C4BE6E3DC2A6BC1

       “the ’90 crash was pure unadulterated ramming!”

       Oh, I beg to differ! The ’89 crash was pure unadulterated ramming. Before getting anywhere near the chicane, Prost simply veered to the right and into Senna. Prost had absolutely no intention of either car making it through that chicane!

       Whilst the ’90 crash, from what I see, Senna placed his front wing between the kerbs and Prost’s car. Prost had the choice to either give Senna sufficient space, or deliberately provoke a racing incident. He chose the latter, clipped Senna’s front wing, and they both beached it into the gravel.

       Just prior to the accident, Senna’s front wheels were at the same level as Prost’s rear wheels; was Senna entitled to more space than what Prost gave him, given that Prost kept closing and closing the gap as they were entering T1? To me it looks like Senna simply did his usual business of placing his front wing in the gap, whereas Prost consciously chose to close the gap and provoke an accident. I just don’t see the ramming part! Senna’s front wing gets clipped, by a Prost continually closing the gap between himself and the kerbs, as opposed to Senna bomb-diving into Prost…

       Now we could argue whether Senna should have backed off with his front wing, but from what I see just prior to entering T1 he was sufficiently alongside Prost to deserve at least some space. But even if we agree that Senna should have backed off, this is a far cry from “ramming”; it would be an accident, for which Senna would be deemed responsible, but surely that was no bomb-diving!

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foiswIS44AM

       For comparison, this looks more like Magnussen on Raikkonen in China 2014, than Verstappen on Ericsson in China 2015…

       I like this take on the rules of engagement:
       https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/the-rules-of-racing/

4. I think Kimi, Alonso and Hamilton are more complex. Those guys have all kinds of paradoxal behaviour compared to being an F1 driver (smoking/drinking, blackmail/cheating and music/bling). Whereas Senna ‘just’ drove exceptionally.

   I guess it comes down to the definition of Complexity. To me Senna is not complex, but layered.

   • Layered like an onion?

   • Senna had the whole preaching morality and religious standpoint thing going on which wildly contrasted with doing whatever it takes to win on track, even if it meant taking massive risk with the lives of others (eg. in the Prost incident). At the same time he would jump out of his car to tend to an injured driver (I forget who that was specifically, might come to me later!). The modern boys just do it as a job and do other things off track, his was a calling from God that consumed his very being.

     • Err…. #Blessed ?

5. “I’m very privileged. I’ve always had a very good life. But everything that I’ve gotten out of life was obtained through dedication and a tremendous desire to achieve my goals… A great desire for victory, meaning victory in life not as a racing driver. To all of you who have experienced this or are searching now, let me say that whoever you may be in your life, whether you’re at the highest or most modest level, you must show great strength and determination and do everything with love and a deep belief in God. One day, you’ll achieve your aim and you’ll be successful.”

6. Steering column fail? I was under the impression that due to cool tyres the height of the car was reduced and caused a riding of the plank as he entered the corner at full speed for the first time following the safety car. A bit like aqua plane in wet weather

   • At the time,most interest regarding the cause revolved around a weak weld in the steering column.Wasnt Patrick Head looking at manslaughter charges regarding this at one point?

     • It went to Italian courts but he and Williams were found not guilty. The steering column was modified but found not to have failed,onboard pictures showed this.there was a yellow button on the steering wheel that showed reflection but it was proved that g force on the drivers hands could cause this. It was a series of events that all added up,a one in a million chance of events and we lost one of the greats. If you think about it,really hard, it all started on the Friday. If Rubin’s didn’t have his bad off then really these events wouldn’t have interacted

       • I agree with you in that it was many planets aligning on that day, with many seemingly unlikely factors conspiring, that led to the devastating result of Senna actually dying.

         Be that as it may, one thing you said piqued my curiosity…

         “If you think about it,really hard, it all started on the Friday. If Rubin’s didn’t have his bad off then really these events wouldn’t have interacted“

         Would you lead me (us) through this thread of logic that resulted in you coming to that conclusion… I can’t seen to make as solid a connection as you are implying between Barrichello’s Friday crash and Senna’s Sunday death.

         Thanks,

         WTF

         • Here are my thoughts on the train of events that started,the worst weekend in recent f1 history. barrichello had started the season well in the Jordon and was pushing the car hard on the Friday, but this was about to change. His car left the track and with more luck than judgement he managed to escape a horrific wreck but was left with a broken arm and unconscious. Senna sat with the then young charger in the medical unit and was visibly shaken when he left his side.
           The news for the spectators was less rosie, a number had been injured and so safety was again raised in F1, the powers that be felt this pressure and reacted by increasing guard rail height and implementing the safety car policy in preparation for the race, Senna had asked that the lead f1 car set the pace but after this accident they threw this out in favour of the pace car setting the speed(this was way too slow)
           That was point one, Senna for all of his faults was a very sensitive guy and this must have played heavily on his mind and so we have a start of the tragic events.
           Move forward to Saturday and we have the massive crash of Ratzenburger, from his own accounts,Prof Watkins stated that Senna was in tears and had to be comforted. Again safety was called into question and although this part is speculation, I would imagine that the drivers meeting after must have been a very different animal
           That was point 2..again Senna’s mind was distracted, two massive accidents, spectators injured and mechanics from the team also have problems couple this to the fact he moved to a team that should be winning and he has yet to put points on the board, he has to make this weekend count so the pressure on the Sunday must have been at boiling point.
           Move to Sunday. Senna makes a poor start, his car is heavy(this has a bearing here),his mind is now focused on the race so he pushed..there was yet another accident and the safety car is thrown out..it drives slow, the cars cool and because we don’t have active suspension or traction control the cars get lower to the road..the plank starts to drag slightly and senna again sees another driver in the wall…this goes on for more laps than necessary, IMHO in relation to the number of accident over the weekend,f1 needs to send a message out,we are safe..see…we have a car that slows the race so drivers are safe.
           That’s the final point in the list, a series of one off events that on their own would not cause a problem but added together and we lose a great.
           Enter the restart.. Senna pushes a cold car, he is heavy and the tyres are soft and down on pressure,the car is low and the plank catches the track. Enter a high speed corner,the car bottoms out and cuts the air flow under the floor…it skids,the tyres don’t bite into the track so senna has no steering….bang!!!…he hits the wall, extra padding has been added to the wall following the previous accident but they are not airguards but standard run of the mill tyres, the car rebounds and slides and goes deep, a wheel assembly from the front of the Williams slams into his helmet and the rest is history

     • Deflection!! Not bloody reflection. Sorry, I am at the side of spa at the now and its bloody cold!

7. I believe that the consensus was that lowered tyre pressures subsequent to the safety car period was responsible for reduced ride height and the consequent loss of control at Tamburello – where a previous explosive accident to Berger’s Ferrari looked far worse.
   Whether this crash was caused by the plank bottoming out I’m not sure; it could be that there was simply reduced downforce. Either way I well remember seeing the crash live. It’s not hindsight that makes me recall the eerie atmosphere that descended on the proceedings even before it became clear that there had been devastating injuries – a front suspension component had pierced Senna’s helmet.
   I think I saw all of Senna’s F1 races on TV but I can’t say that I found his personality appealing even if his talent (and a ruthlessness verging on cynicism) was clear from the start. I’m afraid that statements of a personal relationship with The Deity always irritate me even if they’re effectively meaningless. Of course if they aren’t, they certainly qualify as a hostage to fortune.

   • The Senna case was reinvestigated and Patrick Head was found guilty of manslaughter in 2007. However, he escaped serving prison time as the judgement came after the statute of limitations ran out.

     Senna was a devout Catholic. Like all deeply religious people, he felt he had a personal relationship with his god. His claims are actually nothing special, but have been and are still overblown as no F1 media members seem to want to take the time to place his spirituality in its correct context (and, journalists can claim ignorance of the matter all they want – while omitting the fact that, in attempting to elucidate a subject’s mindset and/or philosophy it is their duty as a journalist to conduct, at least, a modicum of research through which they can more accurately portray their subject).

8. Oh dear – I see the usual Senna/Prost myths need debunking yet again. Here goes:-
   1. The 1989 collision was a racing incident. Find me a racing steward from today who would punish Prost for that move. However, I will say that Prost should have carried on as his car didn’t have a bent front wing. He thought his suspension was bent but this was not the case.
   2. In 1990 the pole position was on the dirty side of the track – as it had been in 1989, 1988 and 1987.
   3. Senna deliberately rammed Prost in 1990 and he was honest enough to admit this a year later.

   Unfortunately the “Senna” movie has given a rather one-sided view to a very intense and exciting rivalry from two greats who brought out the best in each other. Personally I thought that based on their relative performances, Prost should have been World Champion in 1988 and Senna in 1989.

   • “The 1989 collision was a racing incident.”

     Absolutely not. See my arguments and video evidence above. Before getting at the chicane, Prost veered violently to the right (i.e. rammed) into Senna who was alongside him. The trajectory Prost took wasn’t a viable racing line: had Senna’s car not been there, alongside, Prost would have ended up on the grass (before the kerbs) blatantly cutting the corner. And in pure Schumacher style it was clear that Prost had no intention of either car getting through that chicane in one piece.

     Not all video evidence makes it clear, but the one cited above does. Prost was guilty for deliberately causing the 1989 accident. Period.

     • I’m not convinced by your arguement though you have every right to your opinion. Prost certainly braked early enough to make the corner and had every right to make 1 defensive move (no weaving). However – do you think Senna would have made it through the chicane at that speed? Nigel Roebuck didn’t think so and he was at the spot when the incident occurred:-
       http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/ask_nigel/senna-at-suzuka-revisited/

       The highlighting of Prost’s trajectory into the chicane has sadly become something of a cause célèbre in F1 history thanks to the Senna movie. But I say again – find me an F1 steward who would punish Prost for that move?

       • “had every right to make 1 defensive move (no weaving).”

         All very true. Drivers have the right to make one defensive move on the straight and in front of a following car. Let me emphasize “straight” here. This rule of engagement applies to moves that cars make on a straight, and I agree with you (although I realize I’m putting words in your mouth, and this isn’t what you wanted to say) that the accident happened on a straight. When the contact occurred between Prost and Senna, neither car was anywhere close to starting to turn in and make the chicane.

         The other point is that the lead driver is entitled to make a defensive move when they’re *in front* of the following driver. When Prost made the move, Senna was side-by-side. By this token Prost didn’t make a defensive move, no; he rammed into a car that was next to him and pushed that car off-track.

         “do you think Senna would have made it through the chicane at that speed? ”

         Which brings us to this point. Was Senna at too high a speed? I reckon it’s irrelevant. The accident did NOT happen *because* Senna was traveling at high speed; it happened *because* Prost steered to the right when he was not supposed to. Since the accident happened on a straight and before the corner… well on straights cars are supposed to be quick; but I digress. It doesn’t matter if Senna was too quick and not going to make the chicane.

         By the point Prost made his move, Senna was sufficiently alongside him to have claim to the apex. Think Rosberg on Vettel in Bahrain 2015. Senna had all the right to take his time within the corner, if Prost had let him get there, to sort himself out, and Prost should have complied and backed off (like Vettel did). But they never got anywhere near that point.

         But even if that were indeed the case and Senna had too much speed, the proper course of action for Prost would have been to let Senna overshoot the corner, retake the racing line, and wait for Senna to yield the position for having cut the corner. But we’ll never know, won’t we, simply because Prost didn’t allow Senna to do that.

         Again, Senna had claim to the apex whether he was about to make the corner or not; it was Senna’s corner to make or overshoot at his own discretion. Prost’s move not only failed to aim at the apex (which would have laid blame for any contact at his feet), but it failed to aim at the the corner altogether.

         “Prost’s trajectory into the chicane has sadly become something of a cause célèbre in F1 history thanks to the Senna movie.”

         Personally I don’t care much about the Senna movie (didn’t watch it), or about Senna for that matter. I only care about what the video evidence has to say. And the video footage shows a lot of evidence laying the blame on Prost, and precious little evidence for Senna’s guilt (in this particular incident).

         For what’s worth it, I base much of my analysis on the rules of engagement laid out in this article:
         https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/the-rules-of-racing/

         “find me an F1 steward who would punish Prost for that move?”

         Well, let’s see. We know what stewards think about drivers pushing other cars off-track on a straight (think Magnussen on Alonso in Spa 2014, or Vettel on Alonso in Monza 2012). And we know what stewards think about drivers changing their trajectory within the braking zone (think Perez on Massa in Canada 2014). And we know the accident did not happen within the corner.

         I can’t see any scenario where Prost’s 1989 Suzuka move was in any way justified…

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.