Senna vs. Prost at Suzuka '90

Suzuka '90—I mean, you practically see it coming, and then boom, right at Turn 1, he just does it. Everyone knows exactly what I’m talking about here—Ayrton Senna getting forced out of the race and Prost basically losing his mind in the pits 155 miles/h. Honestly, thank God it ended okay; things could have gone catastrophically for both of them.

I have to admit, that was the first time I ever saw someone intentionally force another driver off the track in F1. Sure, there’s always been some level of gamesmanship and dirty driving, but at 155 miles/h... that was just pure insanity. What I can't wrap my head around, though, is how he wasn't punished on the spot?? Speaking as an F1 fan, my take is that he should've been slapped with an automatic lifetime ban and sent straight for psychological evaluations, because what he did was nothing short of attempted murder.
The first real penalty for a foul of that magnitude didn't come until Schumacher's move seven years later.

And look, while Schumacher's move was definitely worthy of a penalty, it still feels like a minor slip compared to the sheer savagery from Senna. I’ll ask again: why didn't Jean-Marie Balestre and the rest of the crew penalize Senna back then? I don't get the logic. We had one Senna at the time, but if there had been ten of him on the grid, they'd all be arrested for turning the track into a playground for lunatics who'd be killing each other left and right just because the rules allowed it. How is such a massive oversight even possible?

What kind of thread title is this? Even the grammar is a complete disaster.

j.-m.b. stands for Jean-Marie Balestre—mostly because his full name wouldn't fit in the thread title anyway👍

you're gonna need a whole lot of lines to map this out👍

So, we’re talking about this guy



The real question is—why didn't they just ban Ayrton Senna back in '90? I mean, they had more than enough ammunition to make that call, right?

No penalty was issued because it was strictly a racing incident. Senna simply maintained that braking wasn't even an option in that moment.

mellowtiger83 said:He didn't get penalized because it was just a racing incident—Ayrton Senna basically admitted he couldn't bring himself to lift off the brakes!

Look, Senna actually laid it out before the race started—he made it clear he’d make his move if Alain Prost took the apex first.🤮

And that’s exactly what happened. Calling that a "racing incident" is a massive stretch.🤮

cosmiccyclist8 said:Ayrton Senna announced prior to the race that he intended to make his move specifically if Alain Prost took the corner in the lead. 🤮

That’s exactly what he did. Not even a racing incident. 🤮

What does it matter what Ayrton Senna said about it? Honestly, nothing. Senna attempted to squeeze through on the inside, and it never even crossed his mind to back off. He had already committed more than half the car into that space. As for Alain Prost, either he had no clue where Senna actually was on the track, or he simply couldn't have cared less about him. He turned into that corner as if Senna wasn't even there. Given the lines both drivers had mapped out in their heads, there was just no way for them both to make it. At the exact moment Prost closed off the inside line, Senna was faced with a choice: slam on the brakes or hold his ground. Naturally, he held his ground.

I find it utterly baffling that Prost, being on the outside looking in, didn't simply concede. He was arguably the one with the most to lose in that situation—though, frankly, he likely had no grasp of where Senna actually stood.

You all keep rambling on about "intentions." As if it matters. You argue that Ayrton Senna didn't yield on purpose—which he had every right to do—and then you claim Alain Prost wouldn't have yielded either. That’s really all there is to it. Case closed.

Even Alain Prost himself referred to it as nothing more than an incident.

Imagine a scenario where the protagonists are, say, Jarno Trulli and Heinz Harald Frentzen, navigating what would be considered a perfectly standard racing weekend.

The officials wouldn't even classify that incident as a penalty. It would be viewed strictly as an incident.
Collisions like that have happened plenty of times before and since in Formula 1 history. In those instances, nobody ever faced a penalty, let alone accusations of attempted murder.

The media really blew this whole thing out of proportion. They manufactured this massive frenzy just because of some mindless rambling from Ayrton Senna.

Senna was diving into that corner, and Prost was heading right into the same turn at the exact same moment. It resulted in contact while they were still carrying massive speed.

It’s over. Game Over.

mellowtiger83 said:Even Alain Prost himself just called it an "incident."

Where’s the river, though? Seriously—look at this statement right after Suzuka, where he actually sat there and rewatched the footage a few times.

🤷

He explicitly mentions that Ayrton Senna didn't have even a 1% chance of making the pass, and that he was essentially hit in the rear wing by a column of air. mellowtiger83—you still think that's enough for you?

cosmiccyclist8 said:Where exactly is this river you're talking about? Here is the statement made after Suzuka, once I've personally reviewed the footage several times.

🤷

He mentions that Ayrton Senna didn't have even a 1% chance of making it through and that a column was essentially slammed into his rear wing. mellowtiger83, is that enough detail for you?

What are you even talking about? If you watch the video from the 13 to 15-second mark, you can see that Ayrton Senna is halfway inside a Prost-like car. He is at most hugging the inside line, while Prost comes from the outside and cuts inward toward where Ayrton Senna is positioned. He really had two choices: slam on the brakes completely to let Prost pass, or hold his ground and stay on his line. Judging by the statements made after qualifying, the first option clearly didn't cross his mind.

It is a textbook racing incident, heavily clouded by historical bias, which people blindly follow because someone shoved that narrative down their throats.

Well, perhaps because some people actually use their eyes?

I see Ayrton Senna occupying half of a Ferrari-like car, leaving absolutely no room to move further inside. I also see Prost moving inward—likely failing to perceive the McLaren's position on the track—resulting in contact.
Furthermore, I see that Prost has space on his left side. Entering that corner at that specific point allows for two cars before the turn tightens up toward the right-to-left section.

Which video was he supposed to be in? And who’s out there quoting Alain Prost, claiming it was just some "racing incident"? Give me a break—you're blind if you can't see what happened. Maybe his Prost-like car got clipped somewhere right at the start, but if he had actually been in that corner, he would've been eating their rear wing instead. 🤦

Look, however you slice it.

Good grief. Based on this footage alone, you could probably categorize at least 20 different F1 collisions as premeditated attempted murder.

Look, however you slice it.

Good grief. Based on this footage, you could probably label about 20 different F1 collisions as premeditated attempted murder.

The driver was blind. At the very entry of the turn, half the car was already on the inside line. Where else did you think Alain Prost was turning if not right into the corner?

And where exactly was Ayrton Senna at that moment? He was pinned to his far right, practically touching the guardrails.

Dammit, that blind Ayrton Senna was right on the inside line at the moment of impact! He should have veered off into the grass to avoid Alain Prost, or just braked hard and surrendered the position, but apparently, that didn't cross his mind.

On another note, tell me, did Alain Prost even know where Ayrton Senna was on the track? (He had plenty of room to the left).



Where exactly was Weber supposed to go here? He was simply holding his line.
I'll tell you what happened. Sebastian Vettel thought he could pass Weber just like Alain Prost thought he could pass Ayrton Senna.

Shouldn't that old fraud from the photos above have ensured the lead car started on the clean side of the track? Instead—once Ayrton Senna secured pole—he deliberately placed Alain Prost on the racing line to give him that unfair advantage at the start.

Given that knowledge—plus the fact that this exact same Alain Prost intentionally cut off Senna in the chicane a year prior—Senna went for broke. This time, he was in a position where a collision actually worked in his favor, much like how a crash had benefited Prost the previous year.

That is why I am starting this thread—so grab some popcorn and stop defending those French swindlers who dominated the scene during the late '80s and early '90s.

The entire grid essentially sided with Senna following the events at Suzuka in '89—specifically after that blatant Prost-Balestre manipulation regarding Senna's disqualification. That Alain Prost was so desperate he couldn't even manage to knock Senna out of the race, let alone beat him fairly while driving the same car.

Walter Anderson43 said:Shouldn't that old fraud in the photo—the one from a few posts up—have set it so the lead car starts on the clean side of the track? Instead, once Ayrton Senna grabbed pole, he conveniently lined up Alain Prost on the racing line to give him the advantage.

When you factor that in—plus the fact that this exact same Alain Prost intentionally cut into Ayrton Senna a year earlier during a chicane right before the finish line—you realize why Ayrton went all-in. This time, he was actually in a position where a collision worked in his favor, just like it did for Alain the year before.

So, I’m starting this thread. Grab some popcorn, settle in, and please, stop defending those French hustlers who were running the show back in the late 80s and early 90s.

The entire grid basically rallied behind Ayrton Senna after what happened at Suzuka in '89—that whole mess with his disqualification orchestrated by the Prost-Balestre duo. Honestly, Alain Prost was so desperate he couldn't even manage to knock Ayrton out of the race, let alone beat him fairly while driving the same car.

Did you just finish watching that Ecclestone documentary on Ayrton Senna five minutes before posting this? 😁

mellowtiger83 said:I can't actually watch videos directly—my eyes aren't quite built for YouTube links yet. If you can drop a transcript, a summary, or even just the gist of what’s being said in that video, I’ll get right on it. Once I have the context, I'll rework the whole thing into my usual style—lots of tangents, dry commentary, and all that good stuff. Just let me know what we're working with!

Look, whatever. It is what it is.

Good grief—if we actually applied this logic, you could probably write up twenty different F1 crashes as premeditated attempted murders.

That legendary footage of Ayrton Senna—you know the one—just hunting for that tiny sliver of space. 😁 Just a target for mockery, really—nothing more. 😁

Look, Mario—or rather, mellowtiger83—you know perfectly well that Ayrton Senna’s whole playbook was about forcing his rivals into a corner where they had to decide: either collide or back off. He basically put them in a tactical bind. Honestly, Alain Prost dealt with those kinds of maneuvers more times than I can count, and you know just as well how many collisions he ended up having with the rest of the field because of it. 👍 But let’s be real—they’re probably going to pull the exact same stunt when it comes to... 155 milesHonestly... any Prost-like driver who’s actually seen what he's capable of would know that none of this makes any sense at all.

I'll dig up that clip from YouTube where Alain Prost talks about it—he basically said he was just sitting there in total shock, unable to wrap his head around how someone could actually value a championship title more than their own damn life.

You’re really the only one making such ridiculous claims here.

Ayrton Senna's approach is precisely what cemented his status as the greatest driver of all time—whereas the Prost-like and Balestre-like tactics only served to alienate the drivers who stood by Senna and pushed back against their political maneuvering.

Perhaps you should dive into a few more documentaries to gain some perspective—it would certainly be less embarrassing for you if you did.

Walter Anderson43 said:Honestly, you're the only one making a joke of yourself with comments like that.

Ayrton Senna's approach is exactly what turned him into the greatest driver to ever sit in a cockpit—whereas the Prost-Balestre era mostly just earned them the resentment of drivers who stood by Ayrton Senna and pushed back against the politics of those two.

Maybe try watching a few more documentaries to actually get the full picture; don't embarrass yourself any further.

Look, I saw them in person, so all that Bernie-style propaganda from the movies smells pretty fishy to me. 😁
One was pure gold and the other was total trash—how could it be any other way? 😁

If we're talking about raw talent, the best way to settle it is to look at how they stacked up in identical machinery:
1988: Alain Prost 105 - Ayrton Senna 94
1989: Alain Prost 81 - Ayrton Senna 60

I'm talking about points, obviously. 👍

Hey Walter Anderson43, do yourself a favor and get up to speed:

cosmiccyclist8 said:that famous bit about Senna hunting for a gap is just a joke and nothing more😁 😁

mellowtiger83, you know perfectly well that Senna’s whole strategy was forcing his rivals into a corner where they had to choose between a collision or backing off. Schumacher dealt with those kinds of maneuvers constantly, and you know just as well how many collisions he had with other drivers👍 but thinking he would pull that at 155 miles/h... even Schumacher, who has seen everything the man has done, wouldn't have dreamed of it.

I’ll even find that video of Schumacher on YouTube where he says he was simply in shock and disbelief that someone could value a championship title more than their own life.

That’s what you think. That’s why Schumacher decided to throw away the title back in '90, right? Exactly.

I’m telling you, Schumacher probably wasn't even aware of where the McLaren was on the track. Or did you expect Senna, in the final race deciding the championship, to just floor it and deviate from his line to let Schumacher pass since he couldn't see him?

Good grief, Senna nearly went off into the grass and ended up riding a lawnmower; and people like you claim he intentionally slammed into Schumacher.

There is a difference between what Senna said he would do and what actually happened. To this day, I don't understand how Schumacher could be so foolish as to attempt a pass on Senna like that, knowing their entire history.

Schumacher rambled about something after the race, only to state a few hours later that there was no intention behind it. It's a shame I can't find that specific article.

It was a pure racing incident and nothing else. Primarily, it was a miscalculation by Schumacher, because Senna couldn't have cared less whether he got hit or not.

But you can't ignore the fact that Senna stayed on his line, hugging the edge of the track without lifting off the throttle at the moment of impact. There was no intentional swerving into Schumacher; it was likely just stubbornness and a refusal to yield, which is understandable given the stakes.

Schumacher had the entire race to pass Senna, but instead, he chose the absolute stupidest way to dive right into Senna's path.

And then you wonder why there was no penalty. What penalty? For what specifically?
Do you honestly think Balestre wouldn't have handed out a penalty if he could have? He didn't have a single leg to stand on.