Conference oass::racers

    
    
    Saw it on yesterdays Belgium ceefax:Nannini signed a 2 year contract
    with Ferrari

    
    
    Forget reply .281
    
    Nannini stays with Benneton !!!!

    Well I guess the old adage that bad news is news and good news isn't
    holds true in this notes conference.  We had lots of comments about the
    ongoing feud between Prost and Senna, but I was really surprised to see
    that their reconciliation drew no comments.
    
    According to Autoweek when they shook hands after the Italian GP it was
    a very moving moment.  Although Autoweek doubts that they will ever be
    friends, they think that each driver recognizes the greatness of the
    other and they both share a passion for F1.
    
    It can only be good for the sport to have the 2 contemporary giants of
    F1 driving at least speaking again.
    
    Bob J.

    Why can it only be good for the sport, Bob?
    
    Lookit: The only man with apologizing to do was Senna.  Prost's
    only sin was being involved with the little egomaniac.  Besides,
    the row between the two generated more publicity than JMB ever 
    could even with a gas attack.
    
    The change that needs to be made is that Senna and his teammate
    need to quit cutting off and crashing into people.
    
    MrT

    Actually I don't think either driver apologized about anything. They
    just decided that everything that happened last year was water under
    the bridge.
    
    Prost's remark that was quoted in Autoweek was something to the effect
    that he is looking at things differently now and could therefore
    resolve old differences. 
    
    If you think about the super egos involved here, it must have been
    quite a moment.  Personally I think the performances of both drivers in
    the Italian GP convinced each of them of the other's talents.  Senna
    drove his best race of the year and could not "crush" the Ferrari of
    Prost.  Prost drove his Ferrari as fast as possible and he could not
    catch the McLaren.  They left poor Berger and the rest of the field in
    the dust.
    
    One thing in any competition that I feel is essential is respect for
    your opponent.  If you beat somebody that you respect, you have a much
    more satisfying victory.
    
    Bob J.

    I'll second what Bob said about Prost, Senna and respect.  It should be
    obvious by now that these two men are in a class all by themselves. 
    They could be compared to Fangio and Moss in the 50's - nobody else
    comes close.  That doesn't mean that all the other drivers are dog
    meat.  It isn't meant to demean.  It recognizes greatness.  It also
    doesn't excuse either one for certain past actions.  But to snipe at
    them and refuse to acknowledge the talent is a bit ostrich like.  For
    me, I'm glad to see them be behind them their past differences and to
    confine their battles to the track rather than extend them to the
    pressroom and media.
    
    On another note, I thought Warwick showed incredible calm after that
    rather hair raising shunt on lap 1.  To get out of a shredded racing
    car after a +150 mph hit, having only narrowly been missed by others,
    then have the presence of mind to JOG to the pits to get his T-car. 
    Whew!  Is this guy tough or what?!  In the interview before the restart
    he looked calmer than the folks who had just witnessed the crash.  My
    respect for Warwick went up a few points.
    
    Finally, I can only hope that Andrea De Ceasaris moves on next year -
    maybe to farming or something more suited to his driving style.  This
    guy hasn't learned a thing in 10 years it seems.  What a waste.
    
    Paul
    

    A couple of rule changes in F1 were noted in the current issue of
    AUTOWEEK.  Looks like the flat bottoms are being extended.  In '91 the
    cars will be flat from the front of the front tires to the rear of the
    rear tires.  No more diffusers and, sadly, no more Tyrrell noses.  The
    wings will be reduced in size, though the article did not mention any
    specifics.  I would say that the Tyrrells and McLarens will be most
    affected by this.
    
    Paul
    

Re: Senna and Prost acceptance of each other...

I just read in On Track that Prost's new contract is for one year and
the only clauses in his contract were that he would be the #1 driver
and

the team would not consider Senna to fill the other seat. 

    re .288 - makes sense that the two greatest drivers of the time don't
    belong on a team, the egos and level of performance involved simply are
    not compatible with a true "team" approach.  In general the concept of
    teams with two equal "Number Ones" has never worked well in practice,
    and it seems to me that this just recognizes that.
    
    re .286 - about Warwick after his shunt at Monza, I thought he looked a
    mite shaky as he took the first few steps, no surprise there!  The
    other interesting point was that he needed to change helmets since his
    original brain-bucket was dinged in the flip.  My comment during the
    live video feed of a close-up head shot while he was being buckled into
    the spare car was "those are not the eyes of a happy man..." because he
    did look still a little rattled. 
    	One factor that weighed big in my mind about his getting in the
    spare car was that the crash was purely driver error.  I would think
    he'd be a bit more spooked if something unknown had failed
    mechanically.  The cause seemed pretty obvious, he got in too deep and
    hot and ran out of black stuff before he ran out of speed.  Loss of
    front downforce due to traffic may've been a contributing factor, I
    also wondered if the carbon brakes were still at less then 100% on the
    first lap (carbon brakes work better the hotter they get, if they were
    still not at full operating temp it could've reduced his braking
    force).

    
>    Finally, I can only hope that Andrea De Ceasaris moves on next year -
>    maybe to farming or something more suited to his driving style.  
    

	This is a classic line!  If you don't mind I'm going to steal it.
	I read some where that "De Crasheris" had the most starts without
	a win, in the history of F1.

I'll bet he also has a few of these records under his belt

- greatest percentage of accidents to starts

- greatest percentage of DNFs caused by accidents

- greatest number of 'taking out the leader' accidents

- greatest amount of influence on race outcome by a backmarker
	(ie: blocking or hitting a frontrunner)

- scariest driver to pass

       On Warwicks crash, the brakes may have been a factor as the ESPN
    guys said that they were having difficulty in general getting the
    brakes hot enough for the heavy braking areas after running down the
    long straights, but the also meantioned and I think Warwick did to that
    he seemed to lose down force in that turn. Warwick from the sound of it
    may have over cooked it but had no choose but to keep his foot in it.
    
    Mark
    
    
       

    Does anyone happen to know the east coast broadcast time for ESPN's
    coverage of this Sunday's G.P. in Portugal?
    
    Phil

			10:00 pm (est) Sunday night

    Well, Nigel Mansell won the GP in Portugal.  No doubt about it that he
    drove quite well to pass Gerhard Berger and Ayrton Senna.  However, he
    started the race by almost going into Alain Prost.  This allowd Berger
    and Senna to sneak through.  Prost did some amazing driving of his own,
    catching up to Senna and almost passing him.  With 10 laps to go, the
    race was stopped because of a crash that left Jean Alesi (I think it
    was him) and his car stuck in one of the corners.  The report was that
    he had a possible fracture in his ankle.  
    
    One of the commentators said something that made me break out in
    laughter.  After Phillipe Alieo (sp?) crashed, the commentator said
    "...and Alieo crashes again like he does in all the GP races.  He has
    to be one the worst drivers on the circuit.  He didn't even see
    Mansell.  I'm glad he's out of the race.  I mean I'm glad the rest of
    the racers won't have to worry about him."  Alieo just touched
    Mansell's tire before spinning out.  I don't think he saw Mansell
    coming from behind.
    
    Here are the results.
    
    1  Nigel Mansell
    2  Ayrton Senna
    3  Alain Prost
    4  Gerhard Berger
    5  Nelson Piquet
    6  Alessandro Nanni
    
    Grant

.295>    With 10 laps to go, the
.295>    race was stopped because of a crash that left Jean Alesi (I think it
.295>    was him) and his car stuck in one of the corners.  The report was that
.295>    he had a possible fracture in his ankle.  
    
    The brief report in VNS this morning said it was Caffi's car involved
    in the crash that caused the race to be flagged early.
    
    unfortunately ESPN rescheduled the broadcast until tonight, so now I'll
    have to watch to find out how the results I already know were acheived. 
    Oh, well, them's the breaks.

When will ESPN broadcast the race tonight?

Dave

    	My cable system will carry the GP starting at 10:00 tonight. Confab
    at 5:00. Not gonna get much done at home tonight... - Chris

    
    There is a rumor going on that the last two races may be canceled due
    to the crisis in Iraq..................
    
    One of the sport channels reported on it last night........
    
    Lou

    Lou, Did they give a good reason for wanting to canceling the last two
    races............are they in the Middle East? It sure couldn't be
    because of the gas crunch.
    
    The Mad Weldor....Jim

    I believe the next race is in Spain.
    
    Grant

The next race in Spain, but the last two are Japan and Australia.  Maybe JMB
struck a deal with IraqAir to transport the cars?? :-)

Dave

    	The reason given for the possible canceling of the final two
    (distant: Aus. & Jap.) races is the use of air freighters for the
    Persian Gulf action if it turns into a shooting war, which it looks
    more and more like it gonna...  
    	If they can't get air transport, no races. - Chris

    re .300
    
    
    .303 is what I had heard.
    
    It could happen, if after the Spain race the championship is decided.
    
    
    
    Lou

    re. 303
    bummer................
    
    The Mad Weldor....Jim

    hmmm...suppose it could have anything to do with Australia and Japan
    contemplating CART races??

    	Have you heard that JPB's 'Oval Track Series' is supposed to be for
    NASCAR stockers, not CART or F1 cars!  HaaaH!
    	The dwarfs were taking on a lot when they made bad noises towards 
    Mr. Penske and his series/organization (ie. CART), 
    	but they ain't tangled with anything compared to the Bill France
    dynasty!  Boy, if they try any of their tricks, France may end up
    running FISA. If there is an agreement (I doubt it will happen), it
    will be very favorable to NASCAR.
    	May you live in interesting times. - Chris

They way I heard it was he offered management of the series to NASCAR for 
full bodied type cars because NASCAR isn't in direct competition with F1.  

Jilly

    Is there someone in the Marlborough area who taped the Portugese GP and
    would loan me the tape?  I missed it the other night on ESPN.
    Thanks in advance,
    
    Jeff Rogers
    JUPITR::JROGERS
    DTN 237-2263
    SHR1-3/O2

    In yesterday's USA Today, Yamaha officially announced plans to develop
    a V12 engine for F1.  The Brabham team will be the team that gets the
    engine.
    
    The title line for the article was Yamaha to battle on Honda on 4
    wheels.
    
    Well one thing is for sure, Yamaha knows how to build engines.  They
    could produce an engine that would rival the Honda.  This engine is
    supposed to be unveiled at the Japanese GP.  I am not sure, but I would
    assume that means will be shown not raced.
    
    Bob J.

    	I hope the new Yamaha engine is better than that piece of $#!t they
    provided to Zackspeed for F1 a couple of years ago. I agree that they
    can build motorcycle engines (race and street) and car engines
    (street), but they have egg on their face re. car racing engines.
    	- Chris

    .re -.1
    
    The article in the paper mentioned that ill fated/half hearted effort. 
    From what they said, they learned a lot from that fiasco and they
    intend to make a full blown effort this time.  Corporate pride is on
    the line here.
    
    Which makes me wonder if the Brabham team is capable, even with a world
    class engine, to run at the front.
    
    Bob J.

If they said it would be at the Japanese GP they might run it in a car for
practice or something, just to show it does run.  Unless they've made great
progress they won't use it in the race.

Dave

    
    There was an interesting article in this morning's USA Today regarding
    Nigel Mansell and the Ferrari brass.  I had intended to put the whole
    article in, but after cutting it out of the paper I left it home.  I
    will summarize instead.
    
    Evidently Nigel was called in after the Portugese GP and reprimanded
    for his behavior in the race.  He has been told that for the remaining
    races of the season he is to assume a support role to help Prost win
    the title.  Blocking of Senna would be just fine!  Racing with Prost
    would not!
    
    All of this stems from statements made by Prost after the race that
    after the way Mansell started the race and went on to win, Ferrari does
    not deserve the world championship.  He feels it was a team management
    problem.
    
    The article also stated that Mansell has received a substantial offer
    to drive for Williams next year.  He (Nigel) said he is not sure what
    he will do and is taking some time to think about it.
    
    Comments:
    
    o	So much for the co-number-1 status of the Ferrari drivers.
        
    o	I did not see the race, but it sounds like Mansell may have
        blocked Prost at the start allowing the McLarens to take the lead.
        Nigel was able to battle back and get the win, Prost could not get
        by Senna.  Prost claims that this start cost him the race, but I
        have to wonder why Nigel could pass the McLarens and he couldn't. 
        
        The bickering never ends.  It looks like the only right way is to
        have a clear number 1 driver.  Hopefully Prost and Alesi will not
        have these kind of problems next year.
        
    o	My guess is that Nigel will not retire next year and that he will
        accept Frank Williams offer.  He could be very competitive in a
        Williams -- maybe even extract some revenge on Ferrari.
    
    Bob J.

    In yesterday's race, Prost got the win and keeps his hopes of the
    driver's championship alive.  Mansell came in second, and Alessandro
    Nannini came in third.  Senna did not finish the race because of a
    punctured radiator (this is what the commentator claimed).  I believe
    Boutsen came in fourth.  Riccardo Patrese came in fifth, and Suzuki
    came in sixth.  I think this is the correct order, please correct me
    if I'm wrong.
    
    Jean Alesi was knocked out of the race going into the first turn. 
    Someone bumped him, he (Alesi) inturn bumped Boutsen.  Alesi then went
    wide on the turn, locked his breaks, and spun out.  
    
    Grant

            MARVIN::CARS NOTE SAYS MANSELL ,HAS SIGNED WITH WILLIAMS FOR
    NEXT YEAR. BOUTSEN TO GO TO LIGIER.  
    
    MARK
    

    Can somebody refresh my memory of what happened to Berger?
    
    Thanks,
    Chuck

Nannini got his revenge on McLaren with Berger. Berger tried to pass
Nannini from too far back as Berger seems to have a habit
of trying to do. This time though Nannini came out still running and 
Berger paid the price of his dumb move all by himself.

    
    	re -.1
    
    	Ah, I think it was Boutsen that tangled with Berger in Spain.
    	Nannini ran a clean race all the way.
    
    	Nate

    re .-a_few, about Portugal.  Mansell and Prost were gridded one and
    two, at the green Mansell moved right over to Prost until Prost was
    forced almost off the track while Senna and Berger streamed past.  I
    don't recall the details well enough to comment on Mansell's winning
    easily while Prost was unable to pass Senna but as I recall there was
    at least one pass where Prost clearly chose caution over aggression, 
    so I suspect that the same factor may've been evident elsewhere.
    
    In any case, Mansell's move was obvious, clearly aimed at his teammate,
    and came very close to taking them both out.  The issue of a clear Number
    One driver versus co-Number Ones was not involved, it was a case of one
    driver placing the entire team entry at jeopardy, needlessly and
    foolishly.  My immediate reaction was that it deserved at least a fine
    if not suspension by the team.
    
    Even with equal Number Ones, jeopardizing both yourself and your
    teammate is not acceptable in almost any case, and particularly when it
    was not truely racing for position.  I lost a lot of respect for
    Mansell at that moment, it seemed nothing but a fit of pique.

    re -.1
    
    In this week's Autoweek Mansell was quoted as saying he has never had a
    car jump sideways at the start like his did in Portugal.  He said he
    was lucky to keep it from crashing and he sure did not do the move
    deliberately.  It may very well be a situation similar to Indy a few
    years ago when Kevin Cogan took out Mario Andretti when his car leaped
    sideways at the start.
    
    No matter, he will be off the team next year and will probably have a
    good year with Williams.
    
    Bob J.

.321>    It may very well be a situation similar to Indy a few
.321>    years ago when Kevin Cogan took out Mario Andretti when his car leaped
.321>    sideways at the start.
    
    I doubt it, Cogan's crash was fairly certainly due to a catastrophic
    half-shaft failure which made his car uncontrollable and also would
    make it inoperable even without the ensueing crash.  Mansell's car
    certainly did not show any signs of mechanical problems (it is
    absolutely certain that he would not have won the race with a broken
    halfshaft!).  The only possible cause that I can think of for his
    statement to be true and the car to remain capable of winning a Grand
    Prix race would be wheelspin, which should be clearly visible on a
    video replay (and as I recall was not evident).  Other tire problems
    would almost certainly render his car incapable of competitive
    performance.
    
    No, I'm inclined to disbelieve Nigel on that statement.  I rank it with
    the explanation I heard in the paddock after the Lime Rock IMSA race
    last weekend, from Jeremy Dale about punting his teammate out of the
    way right in front of me (FWIW, the explanation was "my throttle stuck"
    when the incident occured at point where both cars should be on full
    throttle, and a car with a sticking throttle would've spun off before
    getting there.).  In other words, a driver dissembling about his attack
    against his teammate.  
    
    Or, one other possibility, maybe Nigel just plain screwed up and forgot
    to point the front wheels straight ahead?

if you look at the race on tape, watch as they come around on the first few
laps by the start/finish line.  You can see a set of tire marks go right
from the pole spot.  I'm not sure you could detect tire spin by looking for
smoke from the tires, they don't seem to emit large plumes of blue smoke 
except for when they are locked.

Dave

    
    Received the following which was originally posted in the CARS_UK
    conference.  You all may find it interesting.
    
    Bob J.
    ________________________________________________________________
    
    
    Finally (!), you may be interested in the following regarding the 
    premutations of Senna's and Prost's championship chances :
        
    NOTES:  In the Driver's Championship, each driver may only score 
    in 11 rounds and must, therefore, start dropping scores 
    thereafter.  At present, this only affects Senna and Prost.
        
    The situation for the championship is that the maximum points 
    Prost can score is 13 points (he must drop his two worst scores, 
    which are 2 points in Canada and 3 in Brazil).  This would make 
    his maximum total 82.  Senna has scored 78 points but has also 
    scored in 11 rounds - his worst scores are 4 points for 3rd places 
    in Brazil, France and the UK.  Therefore, it follows that Senna 
    needs a win in either of the last two rounds to clinch the title 
    regardless of what Prost scores (a win would give him 78 + 9 - 4 = 
    83 which is more than Prost could score).
        
    The other permutations are quite interesting.  If neither driver 
    wins one of the two remaining races, Senna wins the championship 
    as Prost could only increase his current 69 points by 7 (12 - 5) = 
    76.  If Prost were to win in Japan with Senna 2nd, Prost would 
    have 76 points (69 + 9 - 2) while Senna would have 80 (78 + 6 - 
    4).  If Senna does not either win or finish 2nd he will not 
    increase his score.  Prost needs to win at least one of the two 
    races, therefore, while Senna just needs to keep Prost out of the 
    winner's circle!
        
    
    Colin
    

<><><><><><><><>  T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e  <><><><><><><><>

 Edition : 2170            Wednesday 10-Oct-1990            Circulation :  8359 

VNS UK SPORTS REPORT:                             [Ken Merrick, VNS Sports Desk]
=====================                             [Valbonne, France            ]
                                                                  
MOTOR SPORT
   Martin Brundle will drive a Brabham Yamaha V12 next season. * Martin
   Donnelly, who suffered multiple injuries in practise at the Spanish Grand
   Prix, has had a second brain scan at a hospital in London. Doctors hope that
   sedative drugs will be withdrawn shortly, although he will continue with
   artificial respiration and kidney dialysis.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    
    Permission to copy material from this VNS is granted (per DIGITAL PP&P)
    provided that the message header for the issue and credit lines for the
    VNS correspondent and original source are retained in the copy.

<><><><><><><><>   VNS Edition : 2170   Wednesday 10-Oct-1990   <><><><><><><><>
    
    I don't like the sound of that news about Donnelly, it seems that his
    injuries may be turning out worse than previously indicated.  I hope
    that the report indeed concerns temporary conditions that will pass
    with time to recuperate, but I'm not entirely confident that such will
    prove the case.

2 weeks ago we lost a driver in a Lotus Elan at Silverstone........


	Derek ......<42`-`o>

    re 1
    
    Was that the *new*, front wheel drive, Elan?
    
    re: Mansell
    
    I agree that it was an agressive action on Mansell's part.  Reason
    being that he TURNED right if you look at his front wheels.  So what
    if he spun his wheels.  Shouldn't he have been countersteering?
    
    Whatever the case, the incident took the suspense out of what woulda
    been a showdown between Senna-Prost.  Guess Nige can't take being 
    out of the championship picture.
    
    re: Donnelly
    
    A pictureof Paris Match caught him landing on the tarmac as his car
    was still breaking up.  One of the grossest pictures I've ever seen in
    my life.  Credit Warwick for being courageous enough to race what may
    be the most dangerous car since those side tank models they raced at
    Indy until that Eddie Sachs and that hot shot from California (Dave ?)
    were immolated.
    
    Any speculation on whether it was sudden loss of downforce again?  Do
    the new rules for '91 lessen the danger for this kind of thing?  These
    cars are pulling nearly 4 Gs now (!), so a sudden loss of stick would
    be like being shot out of a cannon that was moving 200 mph to being
    with!
    
    Safety first.
    
    MrT

.327>    I agree that it was an agressive action on Mansell's part.  Reason
.327>    being that he TURNED right if you look at his front wheels.  So what
.327>    if he spun his wheels.  Shouldn't he have been countersteering?
    
    Hmm, if he felt the tail trying to wag I'd expect him to feed in some
    steering lock in the direction it was going, in order to keep the nose
    in front of the tail.  So if the car was fishtailing to the right he
    would turn right to keep the car pointed straight, and the net effect
    would be to move the car to the right.  I'll have to go back and review
    the tapes with more care, the decisive factor will be whether the
    movement of the car seems commensuarate with the amount of steering
    input.
    
.327>    Credit Warwick for being courageous enough to race what may
.327>    be the most dangerous car since ...
    
    I don't know that there's evidence to substantiate that.  In light of
    Warwick's experience (and maybe Donnelly's too) I'd suggest there's
    actually reason to argue the opposite point of view.
    
    Warwick's crash was driver error, pure and simple.  He himself admitted
    it at the time.  The loss of downforce when following closely is a fact
    of life in all cars carrying front wings (remember Denny Hulme standing
    his McLaren Can-Am car on its head at Road Atlanta in '71?  That was
    the cause then, and the laws of physics haven't been changed since.). 
    The survival of the chassis was impressive, to say the least.
    
    The cause of Donnelly's crash is (to my knowledge) not determined, but
    the team says they are investigating a couple of possibilities.  The
    fact that he survived a crash from flat-out in top gear is still fairly
    respectable testimony about the safety of the chassis, to my way of
    thinking.  
    
    There is some discussion going on right now over in REC.AUTOS.SPORT
    about the crashworthiness of carbon-fiber composite monocoque
    structures, because of the different mechanisms involved in energy
    absorption/dissipation between those composites and metal.  Metal when
    stressed to the limits absorbs energy through plastic deformation,
    while the composites don't, they fracture instead.  So there had been
    some questions raised (within the past year) about this very type of
    crash, and the performance of Donnelly's car did not show the potential 
    problems that had been anticipated.  In fact, I read in NSSN that the
    consensus among F1 engineers was that the fracture mode that occurred
    probably saved Donnelly's life by dissipating the energy of the crash. 
    So it seems to me that the chassis was far better than the worst
    expectations and may in fact have done reasonably well.  On the other
    hand, the extent of Martin's injuries certainly shows there's still
    room for improvement.

Back from heavy work period followed by vacation, just catching up on the 
conference.

Updates on the two injured f1 drivers.

I'm not sure whether the Nannini accident has been reported here. On Friday 
his new helicopter crashed (I'm not sure whether he was piloting) and 
Nannini's right arm was severed below the elbow. It has been rejoined after a 
marathon micro-surgical operation. They won't know for a week or so whether 
it's been successful, and then not for months how much use will return to his 
right hand - 50% is regarded as optimistic. So it sounds like the end of 
Sandro's F1 career, sadly.

Martin Donnelly was flown back to London over a week ago. He suffered kidney 
failure shortly afterwards and is still on dialysis plus breathing support. He 
has been very heavily sedated since the accident and is just showing signs of 
starting to regain consciousness. The good news is that the medics are making 
optimistic noises about his recovery.

Looks like Herbert will drive the Lotus for the last 2 GPs in place of 
Nannini, and there was a report that Moreno would get the Benneton for those 
races.  

    The National reported that Nannini underwent ten hours of microsurgery
    to get the arm reattached.  Doctors report the operation as technically
    successful, but are totally unsure of whether or to what extent he will
    be able to use the arm/hand (as noted in .329).

    There was a report on USENET that the chopper bounced on landing, then
    rebounded 65 feet in the air before crashing back down.  No word who
    was piloting the vehicle or whether others were injured.

    A damn shame, all around.

    Re Nannini
    
    There's obviously mixed reports here, but I get the impression that
    Nannini was flying it but was accompanied by his pilot (presumably
    because he hasn't got the full license) and two others. It sounds like
    Nannini was the only one seriously injured.

    Johnny Herbert (Lotus) and Roberto Moreno (Benetton) have definitely
    been announced as replacement drivers for Donnelly and Nannini for the
    last two GPs this year.

    USA Today carried an article by Mark Fogarty about the F1 championship
    and had the "tale-of-the-tape" stats on both Prost and Senna.  It was
    interesting and shows the total domination of these 2 drivers the last
    few years.
    
    Under the most races one in a season category Senna had 8 and Prost 7. 
    They both did it the same year -- 1988!!  That was one of the years
    that they were teammates on McLaren.
    
    Of course Prost has the record for most wins, but he also holds the
    record for most points scored.  He was quoted as saying he thinks he
    can get to 50 wins!
    
    Senna has the most poles and with 26 wins is ready to move into second
    in that category.
    
    USA Today seems to carry the most racing news of any newspaper I can
    get ahold of.  Their articles are usually not in as much depth as the
    racing magazines, but they are here sooner.
    
    Bob J.
    
    

    I only saw the first few minutes of the Japanese GP (and the results)
    and haven't had a chance to see the rest of the tape.
    
    I guess there's nothing more to say about Senna/Prost, but from a
    purely selfish point of view it ruined what was (I hoped) going to be
    the climax of the season after less than 10 seconds. I know Senna will
    have his defenders over the attempted move, but I saw it as being a
    long way from last year's move, which wasn't far off a 50-50. Obviously
    he can't be sanctioned this year but it will put FISAs recent
    statements about fair driving to the test.
    
    I guess Mansell's afternoon must have been made even worse by seeing
    the Lola beating the Williams. It was also great to see Moreno take his
    chance so well (and Herbert).
    
    Mansell didn't have anything shattering to say in the Times this
    morning. He said the track was very slippery at the first corner for a
    few laps, which was why he thought Berger went off (I reckon he was
    rubber-necking!) 
    
    Just in case:
    
    1. Piquet (will please a certain reader in Italy)
    2. Moreno (has he just found himself a seat for next year)
    3. Suzuki (great race for him at home)
    4. Boutsen
    5. Patrese (or were they the other way round?)
    5. Nakajima (second best Japanese racer by a fair way)
    
    Nigel
    
    PS Williams have tested a semi-automatic box, and McLaren and Benetton
    have them on the way. 	

    Ayrton Senna has won the driver's championship.  Yesterday, in Japan,
    Senna and Prost collided on the first turn.  Both were out of the race,
    giving Senna the championship.  I didn't get to see it all but
    apparently Berger and Mansell didn't finish the race either. Here were
    the top three finishers:
    			Nelson Piquet
    			Roberto Moreno
    			Aguri Suzuki
    
    Grant

>>    4. Boutsen
>>    5. Patrese (or were they the other way round?)
>>    5. Nakajima (second best Japanese racer by a fair way)
    
I think it was like -

    4. Patrese
    5. Boutsen (Who I expected to finish higher)
    6. Nakajima

A bummer of a race to watch. Senna had no right to that corner. I
don't even think he hit Prosts rear tire. I think he was so far behind
he only hit Prost's wing. That wasn't a pass attempt it was a punt!

Mansell was certainly in a hurry (rightfully so) to get back out 
there. Did he break the car or what?

Two cheers for Suzuki though. He drove an inspired-Mansell like race.

    Do any rules about overtaking and things like that exist in the F1
    champion-ship ?
    I know there are a lot of rules in the way the cars must (and mustn't)
    be, but i do not know if there exists simple rules about the "track
    life" !
    Mansell broke his transmission because of a Dragster start from the
    pit !
    If he had won the race, Ferrari could have been the World-Champion by
    the end of the season.
    No way...
    Prost will be in Australia, but i hope nobody will forget the way 
    McHonda behaved this year, and the way Senna drove in Japan.
    Let us think know about next year with Alesi and Prost with Ferrari on
    the one hand and the McHonda cowboys on the other !
    Bruno (who woke up at 5am sunday to watch the 'fiasco at Suzuka' !) :-(

    Che schifo! (tr: Yuk!)

    Senna is what the Argentinians were for the World Cup: winning
    disgunstingly ugly. The poor #@^*&! couldn't handle fair competition.

    Ayrton was impressing me lately with his newly found racing wisdom,
    which mitigated his proverbial exuberance. In my eyes he was transforming
    into a champion at the same level of Prost, but yesterday he gave me
    ample display of his true nature: a spoiled egomaniac two bit pilot.

    Congrats to team McLaren, and to the only great Brazilian pilot: Nelson
    Piquet.

    SMS - A very frustrated "tifoso"

    
    	At last .. !!!!
     
    After three years Nelson gave us a great satisfaction. I appriciated
    that Nelson was admitting that his success was depending on FERRARI and
    McLAREN defaillance. Anyway Nelson acted as the old champion he was
    keeping Williams away all the G.p.
    
    Talking about the accident: Senna made a big mistake ,of course, but
    how can Prost accuse Senna after what he made last year in SUZUKA?
    
    What do you think about ?
    
    				Alex ( a happy fun of the great PIQUET )
    
    
    P.s. Yesterday Alessandro Nannini left the hospital. Now he is back 
       	 to his hometown ( SIENA ) in his father's house.  
    

      Alex,
    
       I was glad to see Nelson win one after such a long dry spell too.
    He drove an excellent race and unlike so many other Million Dollar men
    found the sand in turn one it made it even more satisfying. I hope the 
    new Benneton car is even better next year as the Ford engine seems at
    least to be able to hold it own and maybe give the other a run for
    their money.
    
    Mark
    

    
    
    	Does anybody have some news about Martin DONNELLY ?
    
    Here in Italia I read that he is still in bad health conditions ...
    
    If somebody would like to have more particulars 'bout the Nannini's
    accident, I'll be happy to answer all the questions.
    
    						Alex

      I had heard that Martin Donnelly wasd doing somewhat better on ESPN
    but still seems to be up and down, on and off the resporator and still
    on diolosis (sp) .On ESPN they said that Nannini was recovering and
    they also said that his sister who is a Pop Star in Europe I quess when
    asked said thast He would be back racing, also saying she thought he
    was crazy too do so.  But, he from the sound is doing well.
    
       They gave out address that fans could write to either sandro or
    Martin and I have them on tape if anyone is interested.
    
    Mark
    

    I read in ON TRACK that Prost had reduced the 0-400 meter time by 4
    seconds prior to Estoril.  Mansell was caught off guard by the
    improved acceleration at the start of Portugal.  Prost used the start
    to move ahead of Senna at Suzuka, but Ayrton pushed him off.  There was
    a note in CARS_UK which stated that Prost went spinning off while Senna
    went straight off the track.  It would appear to me that Senna was in
    missile mode while Prost was turning the corner.  I was disappointed,
    but not surprised, that the two would collide.  The incident has given
    me a new nickname for Senna - Ayrton the Exocet.  I just hope he
    doesn't hurt someone else with his tactics.
    
    Jeff

    
    A few words need to be said about the start at the Japanese GP.
    
    o	Senna was right to be dissatisfied with his starting position.  It
    	was very dirty and his acceleration off the starting line was
        affected.  The black marks from his tires go along way down the
        straightaway.  The lack of traction is evidenced by the fact that
        Berger was able to get by Mansell on the start.
        
        It is wrong to give the 2nd position on the grid a better starting
        position.
    
    o	It goes back to a previous discussion we have had about where does 
    	one have to be before he clearly "owns" the corner.  Some people
        think the first person there has it.  But where does the corner
        start?  Also, if you own the corner does that give you the right to
        chop off somebody who is contesting it with you.
        
        In my view of the Suzuka incident, Prost was ahead, but not
        completely.  When they contacted, Senna hit towards the rear of
        Alain's car, but he had been hard on the brakes at that point.  He
        was up farther alongside earlier.  Prost "shut the door" on him --
        cut right across the apex of the corner -- and did not give him any
        room.  To my way of thinking it makes them both equally guilty.
        
        Alain did not act very "professorial" in that move because he had
        everything to lose and absolutely nothing to gain.  If as has been
        suggested and Ayrton had no intention of making the corner, all
        Alain has to do is back off and watch him drive straight off into
        the sand on the outside of the corner.  Personally I believe Senna
        could have made the corner if he had been given room.
        
    o	If F1 would get rid of their stupid scoring system, occurences of 
    	incidents like this would be reduced. If a driver knows that every 
        result will count for the championship, then the "nothing to lose"
        scenario happens less frequently.  In this case if Prost were to
        win and Ayrton takes second, the difference would be 3 points which
        is as it should be.
        
    o	F1 should go to rolling starts to eliminate a lot of the
    	altercations that occur on the first lap.
    
    Well so much for a view from the other side...
    
    Bob J.
        
        Of course if I am playing golf it would be nice to only have to
        count my best 13 out of 18 holes for the final total! 
        

    re: .344

    Tell me you are not serious. Did you watch the Grand Prix? Did
    you see any pictures of the accident? Prost was clearly in front,
    and was already turning, while Senna deliberately hit him from behind
    going straight !?!  Did you see how Senna's cars kept on going straight
    after the accident, and Prost's spun off the track? I am no physics
    wizard, but the mechanics of the accident clearly show that Senna
    litterally plowed into Prost. 

    Did you hear Senna's post race comments in which he had the guts
    to assert that Prost should have let him go, because Senna was right
    behind him? 

    Who the hell does Senna think he is ?! 

    SMS - AFerrariRedMadTifoso

    
    re: .345
    
    I know very well how SMS should feel in this moment and I understand
    he will be very angry with SENNA, but I don't think that Ayrton would
    like to cause the accident because the risk was too high.
    
    Personally I think that Ayrton made a big mistake but also Alain
    didn't make a good thing when he closed the curve. He didn't think that the
    race could be very long and a possible crash should be the end of his
    aspirations.
    
    Last: I think that Alain cannot accuse Senna for his error because
    last year he made the some thing.
    
    wainting for other considerations....
    
    						Alex

    I have quite a bit to say about the GP of Japan and the previous
    postings on that topic, so I've broken my comments up into several
    posts.  Most of them address .344, so thanks to Bob J. for a
    thought-provoking posting even though I disagreed with most of it. :-)
    
    
    Roger French quoted a comment when we were discussing this year's
    Prost/Senna crash in Japan, it was attributed to Scott Pruett after
    being needlessly punted off in the closing laps of an IMSA race a few
    years ago:  "I made a mistake.  I thought he was a competent
    professional."  We both agreed that Prost could make the same
    statement, and it would be true.

    I believe that the evidence shows that Senna intentionally punted Prost
    out of the race in order to clinch the championship.  I'm not surprised
    it happened on the first turn, because if Prost opened any lead at all
    Senna might not have gotten another chance.  I suspect that the
    decision for Senna hinged on whether Prost had won the start or not, if
    Prost was not ahead there would be no need to crash until he attempted a 
    pass, while if Prost was ahead at the first turn then Senna could not
    risk not crashing him immediately.

    I think Senna should be given at least a one-race suspension and a full
    season probation, and perhaps his teammate should be warned also (given 
    Berger's penchant for banging wheels this year too), and if they
    protest at all his team should be given a probation as well.  It won't
    happen, of course,  because his spoiled brat actions only jeopardized
    safety and fairness, not the image and ego of the FISA-meister.
    
    - Bruce McCulley

    There are a couple of points raised in .344 that I think are
    interesting, but wrong.  This posting discusses the first of them.

.344>   o Senna was right to be dissatisfied with his starting position.  It
.344>        was very dirty and his acceleration off the starting line was
.344>        affected.  The black marks from his tires go along way down the
.344>        straightaway.  The lack of traction is evidenced by the fact that
.344>        Berger was able to get by Mansell on the start.
        
    Dissatisfaction may have been justified, not clear that the rest is
    true.  If it was dirty, why didn't the McLaren boys take brooms in hand
    while the cars were being gridded and try to remedy the situation?  I
    don't believe there's anything in the rules to stop them.  As for Berger 
    taking Mansell, that shows nothing, Mansell has had trouble with starts 
    before (notably Portugal).
    
    As for the tire marks, I'd like to start with a review about tires and
    how they work.  Racing slicks generate accelerative forces through a
    combination of molecular adhesion and mechanical compliance.  In other
    words, it is the stickiness of the rubber that is primarily
    responsible for producing acceleration (rather than simple mechanical 
    friction as in street tires).  One of the factors involved in the
    performance of racing tires is called slip angle, it measures the
    degree of slippage of the tread relative to the track surface.  The
    slip angle is a vector, having magnitude and direction, and totals
    both lateral (cornering) and longitudinal (acceleration and braking)
    forces.  Tires grip best at a slip angle typically around 10 to 12
    degrees.  Due to the combination of optimum slip angles and the 
    mechanism of molecular adhesion generating accelerative forces, racing
    tires normally leave significant amounts of rubber on the track
    surface when highly loaded and producing maximum acceleration.

    The statement in .344 about the tire marks left by Senna appears to be
    an error of interpretation.  The tire marks left by Senna are 
    irrelevant.  They simply show that his tires were running at a
    significant slip angle, producing close to maximum acceleration.  There
    appeared to be little or no serious wheelspin (loss of adhesion), as
    evidenced by the absence of significant tire smoke from any of the
    cars.  A close review of the taped ESPN telecast will find that almost
    all the cars left such marks, including Prost (visible just to the
    right of Berger's rightside tires, about 2 car lengths after the start)
    and Mansell, as well as Senna and the others.  The marks are more
    clearly visible for the right column of cars on the grid, since as they
    started they moved left to set up for the entry to the first turn. All
    the cars on the right side of the grid left slightly longer and curved
    tire marks because the slight lateral acceleration from moving to the
    left added to the longitudinal acceleration from a standing start to
    cause the slip angle to remain high longer then for the cars positioned
    on the other side of the track.  This may not have been advantageous
    for the pole position, but does that give licence to punt other cars
    out of the  way?  The starting position was sufficiently far before the
    entrance to the  first turn that this should have had no effect on the
    incident involving Senna and Prost anyway.  
    
    
    In some forms of racing the polesitter can in fact chose the side of
    the track he feels gives best advantage into the first turn.  Some
    events will find polesitters for different races chosing different
    sides as their preference differs.  The inability to do this is a
    peculiarity of the F1 rules, blame it one FISA - but don't consider it
    as a mitigating factor for the subsequent melee!

.344>    o  It goes back to a previous discussion we have had about where does 
.344>    	one have to be before he clearly "owns" the corner.  Some people
.344>        think the first person there has it.  But where does the corner
.344>        start?  Also, if you own the corner does that give you the right to
.344>        chop off somebody who is contesting it with you.
    
    Is there a right for an overtaking car to not brake and punt the lead
    car out of the way?  I think not, otherwise there would be no sport
    involved.  The closely trailing car can always not brake and hit the
    leader, so what?  Should the leader therefore always be expected to
    move over and let the trailer through?  Come on, be serious now. 

    The real issue about right of way and ownership of the corner is
    exactly what  is being contested.  The rule of thumb that seems most
    obvious and fair is also simple, it would be that the overtaker cannot
    commit to a course of action that depends for safety on the leader to
    change a course of action to which he has already committed.  So,
    moving inside and taking a late-braking early apex line is ok if the
    leader is still braking and beginning to turn in, but not if he is 
    already under acceleration and thus unable to alter his line.  This
    follows the same general philosophy as rules of the road governing
    right of way in most other situations, eg sailing vessels have right
    of way over motorboats because motors are more easily governed than
    the wind, but as a practical matter supertankers with a five-mile
    turning radius have right of way over sailboats because laws of
    physics are less changable than the wind.  By the same token, a driver
    that has committed his car to a cornering line cannot bend the laws of 
    physics to accomodate subsequent decisions by competitors, so the
    competitors should be expected to respect the reality of situations
    that are already established.  To bring this back to the specific,
    Senna was still delaying his braking even as Prost was well in front
    and committed to his more normal line,  and perhaps even as Prost was
    already turning in.  Either Senna intended to crash them both (my bet)
    or he made a mistake on the order of magnitude of meters and seconds
    in a sport that is precise to millimeters and milliseconds and where
    mistakes are potentially fatal (ask yourself, would a Championship 
    caliber driver screw up that grossly?).
    
    It seems to me that Prost had won the start and had won the corner, and
    thus owned the corner, and was crashed by Senna because Ayrton could
    not accept that Alain had won fair and square something that Ayrton
    wanted and believed should be his.

.344>        In my view of the Suzuka incident, Prost was ahead, but not
.344>        completely.  When they contacted, Senna hit towards the rear of
.344>        Alain's car, but he had been hard on the brakes at that point.  He
.344>        was up farther alongside earlier.  Prost "shut the door" on him --
.344>        cut right across the apex of the corner -- and did not give him any
.344>        room.  To my way of thinking it makes them both equally guilty.
.344>        
.344>        Alain did not act very "professorial" in that move because he had
.344>        everything to lose and absolutely nothing to gain.  If as has been
.344>        suggested and Ayrton had no intention of making the corner, all
.344>        Alain has to do is back off and watch him drive straight off into
.344>        the sand on the outside of the corner.  Personally I believe Senna
.344>        could have made the corner if he had been given room.
    
    Alain's mistake was believing he could respect his opponent as a
    competant and fair-minded professional, despite previous evidence to
    the contrary.  Even professors sometimes make the mistake of giving
    people who don't deserve it the benefit of the doubt.
    
    I want to start by reviewing the whole concept of apex and cornering
    lines and the range of alternative possibilities.  The normal racing
    line approximates the ideal least-time-cost path around a given turn. 
    That ideal generally involves braking while approaching the turn
    positioned on the outside verge of the track, turning into the corner
    and then accelerating through the apex (which is the point at which the
    car is closest to the inside verge of the track) on a radius that
    gradually increases until it exits the turn again on the outside verge
    of the track.  The slowest portion of the line is during the turn-in 
    phase, with the car then accelerating through the corner.  The famous
    friction circle diagram showing the peak accelerative forces available
    to the car is usually drawn with a clipped bottom because the
    acceleration capability of the engine is limited by the fact that only
    two tires are available to do the work of getting the car out of its
    own way, while all four tires participate in all the other work to be
    done. This is the factor that dictates the optimum line, in conjunction
    with relative importance of entrance and exit speeds (not a relevant
    factor for the case under discussion).  There are alternative lines,
    the commonest are referred to collectively as "early apex" because they
    involve entering the corner with less initial turn-in, clipping the
    apex on the inside verge of the track much earlier and doing more
    turning later, after the apex, instead of accelerating out of the
    corner.  This is a tradeoff sacrificing exit speed for later braking
    and greater entrance speed, with a totally different apex and line
    before and after the apex as a necessary consequences.  All of these
    are subject to the basic laws  of mathematics and physics.  The drivers
    cannot violate those laws, they can only chose among alternatives
    defined by them.

    There was a gross error of fact in .344 ("He was up farther alongside
    earlier.").  Senna was never alongside Prost once they both got moving,
    as a review of the video tapes will show.  Alain clearly won the start
    and was completely in front of Senna a few hundred meters before the
    first corner.  If you review the tapes you'll find that Prost had in
    fact moved to his right so that his car was in front of Senna's to
    block the inside line.  Alain then moved to the left in order to set up
    for the corner entry, and Senna elected to stay on the inside line with
    very late and heavy braking just before the impact.  The impact knocked
    the lower portion of Prost's rear wing off the car immediately.  The
    rear wing is carrying significant aerodynamic forces and is a very
    solid structure, not at all flimsy.  In other words, it took a real
    solid hit to knock it off.  The sidepods and suspension on both cars
    are also equally solid, and some consideration of the geometry involved
    in various possible impacts will find that the only case which would
    allow the rear wing to be knocked off Prost's car is with Senna's left
    front wheel making contact with the rear wing side supports.  (If
    Senna's front wheel is farther forward, it makes contact with either
    Prost's rear wheel or sidepod, in either case pushing Prost's car aside
    before the rear wing can make hard contact with anything that  would
    break it.)  In fact, this is exactly what appears to happen on the
    tape.  Ergo, Senna was behind Prost before the impact and hit him from
    behind.

    Senna absolutely could not make the corner at speed following the line
    he was on, there just was not sufficient ability to brake and turn. 
    Once Senna committed to stay to the inside, there were two options 
    available to him, to crash Alain and himself out of the race or to
    brake much earlier than he did.  This comes down to laws of physics,
    one of the basic ones being that two objects cannot occupy the same
    place at the same time.  Prost being clearly ahead and committed to a
    normal racing line, Senna had no prayer of winning the corner, or even
    competing for it cleanly.  The fact that Senna hit Prost from behind
    when Prost was ahead, already accelerating, and Senna was still braking
    shows clearly that Senna left his braking way too late.  Had Senna
    braked early enough to avoid impact (that was his choice, not Alain's,
    incidentally) then he would've clearly lost the corner and perhaps the
    race.  And it wasn't Prost's choice whether or not to give Senna room,
    Senna had all the room in the world where he was, *-> BEHIND <-* Prost.
    
    The only reason for Senna to be on that line and braking that late
    would be to crash Prost.  That's simple physics, not a matter of
    controversy.  
    
    Unless you consider that Senna may've screwed up his braking point by a
    margin that is simply unthinkable at the level of performance of an F1
    World Champion.  

    
.348>    In some forms of racing the polesitter can in fact chose the side of
.348>    the track he feels gives best advantage into the first turn.  Some
.348>    events will find polesitters for different races chosing different
.348>    sides as their preference differs.  The inability to do this is a
.348>   peculiarity of the F1 rules, blame it one FISA - but don't consider it
.348>    as a mitigating factor for the subsequent melee!

    I understand that in F1 the polesitter can indeed choose the side of the
    track he feels to be to his best advantage.  However, he must petition
    to do so on the *Friday preceeding* the race.  Why?  I don't know, but,
    I'm sure it makes perfect sense to the FISA.    :^)    Given Ayrton's
    remarkable ability to take pole it is a mistery to me why he didn't
    petition.  Unless of course, he knew he didn't really *need* to be at
    his greatest advantage at the start.
    
    flame on -
    
    Last years race at Suzuka was the straw that broke *my* back.  F1 was a
    sham last season.  It lost any sense of credibitily in my eyes.  Prior
    to this years race at Suzuka my attitude had softened and I was feeling
    more inclined to take it seriously.  Now my attitude is as it was a
    year ago.
    
    It seems that when push-comes-to-shove (pun not intended) there is
    little honor, and no sport in F1 anymore.  It's just a spectacle now.
    Though they were all to often tragic times, I truly miss the days of
    Clark, Stewart, Hill, Rindt and scores of other gentlemen who *raced*.
    Now we have spoiled rich boys who endorse products.  Great...
    
    flame off -
    
    Nate

    My last comment on Senna is a quote from a Mr. Mears of Bakersfield
    California:
    
    "You know, every one of these sumbitches has a brake pedal."

  
  >>  "You know, every one of these sumbitches has a brake pedal."

I agree but at the speed they travel they wont stop on a dime.

Senna did it delibrately or screwed up. 
Prost may have provoked the action. 
BEtween them and the incident last year they have brought motor racing 
into disrepute. For this FISA has rules and penalities.

Disqualify both from 1990 championship.

fine Senna $500,000
fine Prost $50,000

Crashing or APPEARING to crash to win must be dealt with severely
SENNA and PROST should have kept apart because of the incident last year
not repeated it.
	God help us if the FF and F3 young guns start to emulate these fellas.


			Derek

.351> I understand that in F1 the polesitter can indeed choose the side
.351> of the track he feels to be to his best advantage.  However, he 
.351> must petition to do so on the *Friday preceeding* the race.  Why?  
.351> I don't know, but, I'm sure it makes perfect sense to the FISA.    
.351> :^)  

If true, then it is FISA's typically strange rules.  After all the pole is
not officially decided until Saturday's practice!  If it would have been on
Friday, then Gerhard Berger who held the provisional Pole would have had to
do the petition.

.re the last few

Everybody is entitled to their opions, and I still think Prost deliberately
cut off Senna this year just as I think he did last year!  It does not make
sense to me that Ayrton would be desparate to eliminate Alain for winning
the race to the first corner.  After all, tire stops were needed later in
this race and there was one more race coming up in Australia.  Anything
could happen.


It is interesting to me that that CART racers can go around corners 2
abreast -- as was evidenced by the start of the Laguna Seca season finale
-- and that F1 drivers usually crash in the same circumstances!  

One other thing needs to be mentioned.  In earlier races this year, the
field was red flagged for incidents in the first lap.  In a race of this
importance, they should have red flagged the race and started it over.  If,
as most of you all believe, Senna was to blame, then he could have been
penalized and forced to start from the back.  At least then we could have
seen the top runners race.

Bob J -- Who has at least succeeded in starting a lively discussion!

>>	God help us if the FF and F3 young guns start to emulate these fellas.


I watched it three times and I'm taking notes. If I ever get near a
championship watch out  ;->

    Glenn whose_FF_has_new_right_front_suspension

Why would Prost risk his championship chances by deliberately chopping across
Senna?  Senna HIT Prost from behind.  Senna had nothing to loose by taking
them both out on the first lap.

Red Flag:  They usually red flag the race if the track is blocked by an
accident or there is need to get rescue and/or medical to the scene.  None
of this happened on the first lap of the race so there was no need for a red
flag.

Dave

    
    	No race is ever won at Turn 1 of Lap 1, unfortunately, when only 11
    of 16 finishes count towards the Championship, very obviously, a "World
    CHUMP-ionship" can and was decided, by a calculated shot to take out
    the leader.
    
    	Prost took the advised middle of the road, defensive line from the
    start, which he clearly won.  Senna had the choice of either the left
    or right behind Prost, as they approached a right-hand turn.  In my eyes,
    the decision should have been to the left rear of Prost, if the intention
    was to *race* ,whereas, the inside right line only allowed for EXTREMELY
    early braking, **JUST TO STAY ON TRACK** , or an INTENTIONAL COLLISION!!!
    Where would Senna have been if he had not collided with Prost?  IF, he 
    managed to keep the car on the track, surely Mansell, Berger, and probably
    Piquet would have passed him as he (Senna) would have had to been on the 
    brakes through the entire 1st turn.  You WON'T convince me that a F1 caliber
    driver can make that kind of mental error;  Senna, if he lost the
    start, made the decision to take out Prost, and executed.  Period.  I
    am of the opinion that if Senna failed in his attempt at Japan, the
    same result was in store at Australia.  Senna only had to ensure that
    Prost didn't win, so even a good nudge to upset the aerodynamics would
    have been sufficient, but that takes too much finesse....
    
    	What a disgrace.  
    
    
    br
    
    

That inside line as you say is very suspect... perhaps he intended only to 
force Prost off the track rather than collide...
 but either way he needs to "change his approach to his work"
			" review his interactions with other people"
			" Adjust other persons perceptions of himself"

or 		"collect his P45"
		" Take an early shower"
		" take a well earned rest"
		"take up a  management position"

succintly 

	Change his ways or Get OUT

		Derek

    
    The best comment came from Boutsen last week,he said:
    "After Prost crashed Senna out of the race last year in Japan now
    they can really start again without being angry one to another;
    It wasn't the handshake a few races ago that was a solution."
    
    Luc Wyns

    
    As you certainly know, I'm a big fan of Nelson Piquet so I'm following
    the troubles between Senna and Prost without any heart beat or
    particular involvment !
    
    I'd only like to make you a question : 
    
    ARE YOU ALL SURE THAT SENNA CRASHED OUT PROST VOLUNTARILY ???
    
    I don't think so .... for two reasons :
    
    1) When he saw that Prost was closing the curve, he drove his car
       out of the track (on the "cordolo"),
    
    2) The risks he was taking for crashing out Prost were too high for
       himself (do you remember Villeneuve's accident in Belgium '82 ?).
    
    ... Keep waiting for your answers to complete my statistics on the 
    accident !! (In Italy, obviously, the polemic is very hard !!).
    
    Ciao and thanks,
    				Alex
    

Looking at the last year of racing Senna has pulled the same stunt 3 times.

He tried to force himself past Prost at Suzuka last year
He punted Nannini out of the lead earlier this year with the same abandon he
did Prost in this last time.

Yes I remember Villeneuve's accident in '82.  It happened because he was on a
flying lap (all his laps were flying laps) and he came upon a slower car on
the course.  He had to choose one side to pass on and didn't have time to
go back on that decision.  He chose the outside of the corner (unusual) and
unfortunately the slower car saw him coming and moved over off the line (to
the outside as well).  He could have lifted and that might have given him time
to avoid the collision or lessen the damage, but he didn't (or didn't appear
to).

What was Gilles after at the time?  A better starting position, not the winner's
circle or a World Championship.  His teammate had set a faster time than him in
qualifying and he was trying to go faster.

Senna chose to undercut Prost for the corner and expected Prost to give way
since he (Prost) ought know the Senna wouldn't give up the corner and they'd 
collide if Prost stuck to the normal racing line.  Does Senna expect people to 
move over for him because they know he'll punt them out of the race if they 
don't?  According to what Senna has said after Suzuka, his answer is "Yes!"

You call this racing?

Dave

You cant in the middle of bend, it doesnt work, he would have crashed if
lifted, he crashed cos didnt.

re: -1

I'm not familiar with the exact corner and the approach to it.  I was saying
he *might* have been able to lift, given there was some view of the corner
and the slower car before he committed to the turn.  If there was no way to
see the other car before entering the corner then true, he had no option
but to go one way or the other....

Quite different circumstances than the Senna-Prost collision (it wasn't an
'accident' was it?) at Suzuka.

Dave

How could Senna be so dumb to think Prost should have let him by. 
Prost should have blocked Senna even more for the turn. Why should 
Prost have let Senna by, then driven around behind him for an hour 
only to get taken out trying to pass. This way Prost found out that 
Senna was going to take him out in the first turn. If you think Senna 
is going to take you out, why not find out in the first turn. Then you 
can pack up and head home.

    
    
    I would like to clarify just a little thing:
    
    I know that the two accident (Zolder '82 - Suzuka '90) are different. 
    The only affinity between the two accident is on the way the crash 
    happened : in both ways, they were "wheel contacts" and Senna (just 
    like Villeneuve !!) risked to take off.
    
    Dave : do you mean that your answer for my statistic is "YES" ?
    
    Thanks again and bye,
    				

Alex, if you want to know if I think Senna was to blame for the Suzuka
collision, then my answer is 'Yes'.  Did Prost have any blame in the collision?
Only that he isn't a mind reader and did not seen that Senna was going to
take the low line NO MATTER WHAT.  Prost was expecting the other driver to
yield to him because he was in front and on the proper line.  This is a 
reasonable assumption that can be made when dealing with reasonable drivers.  
Clearly, someone in this incident (Senna) wasn't acting reasonably.

Dave

.366>    The only affinity between the two accident is on the way the crash 
.366>    happened : in both ways, they were "wheel contacts" and ...
    
    The similarity is limited.  There are different kinds of wheel
    contacts, and these two cases differed significantly.
    
    I believe that Gilles appeared to have made contact tread-to-tread with
    the slower car, totally without any control over it, which inevitably
    causes the overtaking car to vault into the air (unlike contacts
    between sidewalls).  
    
    The Suzuka II incident was more reminescent of Indy with Emmo and
    Little Al.  In both of these cases the crash was the result of contact
    that occured pretty much sidewall to sidewall { I was going to look for
    the description of that Indy crash in this conference to review details
    but didn't bother because it's probably been deleted as stale :-( }
    with the driver holding the inside line possibly having some degree of
    control over the details of the contact if not over the fact of the
    contact.  
    
    Incidentally, consider that Senna may have driven up onto the curbing
    not attempting to avoid contact with Prost, but merely to avoid
    tread-to-tread contact.  Not to say whether it's true or not, but given
    the talent and arrogance at this level, it doesn't seem unreasonable to
    me that some of the drivers may believe they can exert sufficient control
    to nudge other cars off the track safely (Glenn, are you still taking
    notes?  :-). Would you touch wheels in a Formula car for $1 Million? 
    My guess is a lot of folks just might...
    
    I make a simple distinction between intentionally punting another car
    out of the way, and hard close racing with incidental contact. 
    Slamming the door and getting nerfed because of it is part of the game,
    decelerating by hitting a competitor instead of braking is not.
    
    Do I think the incident at Indy was intentional?		Unsure.
    					Maybe, but it was part of close racing.
    
    Do I think the incident at Suzuka '89 was intentional?	Unsure.
    					I doubt it.  No holds barred racing.
    
    Do I think the incident at Suzuka '90 was intentional?	ABSOLUTELY!
    					Senna's line selection made it clear.

    
    I saw an helicopter vieuw of the accident in Suzuka where you can see that
    Prost left the door to long open.
    
    And the 89' Suzuka collision you can clearly see that Prost turned
    his head just before he crashed into Senna.
    
    Don't think I'm defending Senna right now,but that's my point of
    vieuw.
    Luc

    Well that about wraps it up for 1990.
    
    Not a bad year in all, we had many races of stunning tedium (GB,
    Monaco) and others that were enthralling (Australia, and errr - there
    were some but I can't remember which ones...)
    
    Some things stick in my mind viz the drivers;
    
    Mansell always wining
    Prost being a comletely pig headed
    Senna confirming his status as No.1 nutcase
    Berger utterly eclipsed
    Piquet's rebirth (or Indian Summer)
    Alesi the new Senna
    The accidents of Nannini and Donnelly
    The boredom of Boutsen
    The rise of Caffi, Suzuki, the March drivers
    The collapse of Alboreto
    
    The teams are easier to see in perspective;
    
    The dominence in a dictatorial way of McHonda
    The return of Ferrari but its self defeatest policies
    The slide of Williams (boy has Mansell made a mistake)
    The rise of Bennelton and March
    Promise once again shown by Tyrrell
    The disappearence (almost) of Lotus and Arrows
    
    Yet despite all that it was a darn good year. The best for a long time.
    
    May it always be so.
    
    
    

  A few Comments about the Australian Grand Prix.

   The Camera work was some of the best that I have seen. Some very good
in-car shots ...

   Also heard through our CBC Braodcast in Canada that Jackie Stewart had
a confrontation with Senna after an interview that Stewart was giving.
Apparently Stewart pointed out the Japanese Crash 1990 and how Senna seems
to Crash more than most of the top drivers. Apparently Senna was quite
embarressed as noted by his Red Facial Expression. When the interview was
over, a shouting altercation occured which apparently almost lead to a Fist
Fight between Stewart and Senna.. (At least this is what the CBC Broadcast
reported...)

Greg

    ESPN in the US mentioned the same interview, but said the disagreement
    took place on the air (to the amusement of all and sundry, I'm sure)
    and ESPN didn't mention the near-fistfight.  But the Wee Scot vs. the
    Brazilian Death Machine for 15 rounds *is* a nice mental image, isn't
    it?

 Stewart won his world championships in a time when 3-4 GrandPrix drivers 
were killed each year. He retired to stay alive. Most of his racing driver
friends were dead. On retirement he took up with extreme zeal the cause of
motor racing safety. He probably sees Senna as undoing his lifes work
and leading a return to the days of carnage on the tracks which could even lead
to threatening stewarts sons safety (he didnt approve of him starting racing).

	I think Mr Stewart has a point.

.373>  On retirement he took up with extreme zeal the cause of
.373>  motor racing safety. 
    
    One minor nit, Stewart was the leader of the GPDA (Grand Prix Drivers
    Association) and a vocal advocate of improved safety measures while he
    was an active driver.
    
    Other than that, .373 made some good points.  Stewart certainly can
    speak from a position of considerable authority about the ability to
    win races without incurring undue risk, he won a few himself and must
    know how much risk he took.  I'd tend to trust his judgement about the
    performance of present-day drivers too, JYS stayed in touch with the
    sport even after he retired.
    
    I would tend to regard Stewart (and maybe Keke Rosberg) as the most
    qualified objective observers to comment on currently accepted driving
    practices.  Anybody know if Rosberg has offered an opinion?

Senna has yet to equal JYS's record of Grand Prix wins.

	If JYS had used AS's tactics he would not have lived to achieve
his records.

    Derek raises very good points about Stewart remaining involved in
    Formula 1 and concerned about its safety.  My brother met with Jackie
    in Montreal a few years ago to talk about an alternative to armco
    barriers.  The concept was to use arresting cables and nets to capture
    cars at high velocity areas.  Mr. Stewart praised the concept, but
    doubted it would ever be made practical, mostly because of the BS
    involving the organizers.  He was quick to temper about people making a
    buck while the driver had his life on the line.  I hope that there are
    people within the organization that will discourage the current risky
    driving behavior.
    
    Jeff

    .374>>  Anybody know if Rosberg has offered an opinion?
    
    Last weekend's European (it was the only paper left in the shop)
    contained a full page article which was headlined "Rosberg lays blame
    on Senna".
    
    In the article Rosberg is very critical of Senna and of the general
    driving standards in the sport. He says that he believes FISA should
    have a word with Senna about his attitude before the sport suffers a
    major tragedy. He is genuinely worried that Ayrton or someone else is
    going to get killed before long.
    
    For good measure the article also includes some comments from Piquet
    who thinks it was Senna's fault too.
    
    An interesting article with colour pictures of some of Senna's recent
    shunts, including one of Nanninni's Benetton flying through the air at
    the perfect angle for displaying "The European" sponsorship on the rear
    wing!

    
    I thought I heard on "MotorWeek Illustrated" (ESPN) that a committee
    was being formed to review the rough driving/driver tactics displayed
    throughout the F1 season.  Can anyone verify this??  It would be
    EXTREMELY interesting if Jackie Stewart chaired this committee and
    reviewed and reported on the driving tactics of several drivers at the
    F1 rank!  Unfortunately, being the cynic that I am, I will assume this
    committee will be a puppet court, and file its report as told by
    the powers that be.  And, of course, why wait 'til the end of
    the season to decide to review driver tactics?  So many questions, so
    little time! 

    I found an article describing Stewart's confrontation with
    Senna posted in REC.AUTOS.SPORT and decided to repost it here without
    permission.  I also found another article giving the views of Lauda and
    Piquet, which is reposted below as well.  I have editted both by
    removing several irrelevant lines without changing meaning.
    
From: mg@ (Mike Gigante)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.sport
Subject: Re: Stewart & Senna Fighting
Sender: news@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au
Date: 5 Nov 90 03:37:21 GMT
 
tksleslie@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Ted Leslie) writes:
 
>According to a CBC broadcaster - J. Stewart and A. Senna almost got into
>a fist fight (but certainly had a huge verbal fight) when Stewart was 
>interviewing Senna.
 
Well, I did watch the interview. It was clear that Stewart was gravely
concerned about Senna's a) accident record b) sportmanship c) attitude
Senna for his part was *very* defensive and tried to turn it back on
Stewart. He also said that he is "very surprised that someone like you
who knows about racing is saying that". Senna seemed totally unable to
accept any criticism or suggestion.
 
[BTW: when I use quotes ".." I am actually paraphrasing to the best of
my recall, I do not have transcripts]
 
Stewart's main point was a good one. If you look at all the previous
champions and compare their 'incident' record with Senna, he found
that Senna had "as many race incidents as the rest put together". He
tried to be tactful about it (hows that -- a tactful Scotsman!!!),
saying things like "there is no doubt that you are the fastest
driver" etc. but really tried to push the safety point (a Stewart
concern since forever).
 
On Senna's side, he said a) I am the fastest driver b) I have the most
pole positions c) I have won 2 championships in three years (to which
Stewart later responded "so what - I did that a couple of times"
:-)!!! i.e. Senna acted like a brat and totally ignored the issue
until it was pushed again and again.  He then said a) I drive to win,
not come second or third, not to be an also ran b) you can only
compare modern grand prix drivers -- i.e. the last 10 years c) you
should also compare against tail enders and mid-fielders
 
The b) quip was seemingly meant to say "not as far back as you stewart".
 
The c) remark is ridiculous. How can you compare the less experienced
or less talented drivers with the champions and expect a meanful result?
 
Senna did say one thing that rang true: that with the cars so fast and
powerful now, it was relatively more difficult to overtake than it
used to be (given that the majority of the tracks haven't changed as
fast as the cars have developed).  He thereby justified the riskier
overtaking moves (that is where the thinking went astray).
 
Stewart kept saying "don't you think that you need to re-evaluate in
light of your record", Senna just got more defensive and agitated. At
no time did it seem like puches would be thrown, though I actually
expected Senna to storm off...
 
In that interview, Senna blamed Prost for the incident in Japan,
saying that "Prost knew he was right there (Stewart forced an
admission that yes, he was behind Prost, not alongside) and the Prost,
knowing me as he does, *knew* he (Senna) would force his way in;
therefore Prost should have given him room". Stewart was rightly
aghast at this attitude, pointing out that it could have caused a
serious accident.  Senna was adament that "knowing that I was going to
come through, Prost should have given way. After all, he was the one
who needed to finish". Note that this attitude is the opposite of
conventional thinking about the resposibility of overtaking drivers
and re-inforces my earlier posting where I said that Senna charges
through, relying on other to scatter.
 
Stewart later commented on the interview and expressed his amazement at
Senna's attitude.
 
Interestingly, James Hunt in his commentary was scathing in his
criticism of Prost, not Senna. He said that "there had been a lot of
ill-informed commentary about the Japan GP incident and that Prost had
to take total responsibility for the incident". He was also very
critical of "Prost's incessent whinging". I found his comments
absolutely amazing. He didn't even attempt to justify his comments
(not a solitary word!), just kept bagging Prost. I would have liked to
hear his explaination, especially as it was the oposite of nearly
every other "expert" that was asked. (to be fair, some said that the
blame had to be shared, but Hunt was far far further from the mainstream
opinion.)
 
Mike Gigante, RMIT
    
From: grass@unipas.fmi.uni-passau.de (Grass)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.sport
Subject: Re: Honda, Senna, and...
Date: 6 Nov 90 09:26:58 GMT
Organization: University of Passau, W-Germany
 
 
Some more (as I think) very interesting comments:
 
Niki Lauda, november 11, analyzing the '90 GP season in Austrian TV,
concerning Suzuka:
 
 "...Prost ganz klar in Fuehrung mit einem besseren Start, Senna dahinter.
  Senna versucht jetzt innen vorzufahren, was absolut unmoeglich ist und
  faehrt Prost auf das Hinterrad. Ich bin also wirklich der Meinung, dass
  die volle Schuld den Senna trifft, weil Prost schaut einmal noch in den
  Rueckspiegel, sieht seinen Kollegen hinten und rechnet ueberhaupt nicht
  mit diesem Wahnsinnsmanoever, weil natuerlich eine Regel in der Formel 1
  gilt: der, der in einer Kurve die Nase vorn hat, dem gehoert die Kurve
  und ganz besonders in einer derart schnellen wie hier in Suzuka. In meinen
  Augen also wirklich ein schwerer Fehler von Senna, fuer den er bestraft
  werden sollte."
  
I'll try to translate:
 
 '...Prost clearly in the lead after a better start, Senna behind him. Senna
  tries now to drive up inside, what is absolutely impossible, and drives
  Prost onto his back wheel. I'm thoroughly convinced that it is completely
  Sennas fault, since Prost looks once again in his rear-view mirror, sees
  his colleague at his back and does not at all expect this insane manoeuvre
  since of cause there holds a rule in formula 1: he who has his nose in
  front owns the turn, particularly such a fast one as here in Suzuka. In my
  eyes it is in fact a bad mistake of Senna for which he should be
  penalized.'
  
I don't want to explain my own opinion as it cannot contribute aspects,
which have not already been discussed in this newsgroup. Instead I'll quote
Nelson Piquet from his rubric in the swiss magazine 'Motorsport aktuell':
 
 "I have looked at this scene dozens of times and I'm convinced that Senna
  has rammed the frenchman intentionally. [...] Senna has not even put on
  the brakes. It seems that the FISA failed to notice this, but not we
  drivers.
  In many races I had the chance to push away the man in front of me and
  take the victory. I refused to do. Alan Jones did it with me in Montreal
  1980 at a place where no TV cameras had been. It is solely he and me
  knowing what really happened that time."
  
Wolf-Dieter Tiedemann
University of Passau                  email: grass@unipas.fmi.uni-passau.de
Dept. Math. and Computer Science   D-8390 Passau, P.O.Box 2540, F R Germany

   I read in this past Saturday's Newspaper that the Brazilian Police uncovered
a kidnapping attempt on Aryton Senna. This was supposed to happen sometime
in the next month while he was staying in his Holiday Villa. Apparently some
twenty individuals were involved and details of the Villa layout were also
uncovered...

    
    Motorweek Illustrated reported the same thing.
    
    Apparently Fangio was kidnapped once, but released unharmed after he missed
    an improtant race(s).
    
    Nate

    
    
    	Yesterday Alessandro Nannini went to the Hospital in Firenze.
    This morning, he will be operated on his damaged arm that, two weeks
    ago, the doctor decided to sew to his stomach to favour the arm skin
    recovery and the blood circulation.
    
    Tomorrow I'll let you know the result of the operation.
    
    			Ciao
    				Alex

    There was a brief note in this morning's USA Today that announced
    Autosport's driver of the year.
    
    he is...
    
    
    
    World Champion Ayrton Senna!
    
    Congratulations Ayrton.
    
    Bob J.

    yuks...
    

    And next year it'll be his brother 
    
    Goofy!

    Interestingly, in AUTOCOURSE 1990-91, they named their Top 10 drivers
    in F1, as they always do.  This year it is Alain Prost with Senna
    number 2.  Why?  They mentioned Prost's hard work and success at
    Ferrari and his consistency.  They went on to say that up to Japan,
    they were all in favor of Senna as the Number 1, but that the accident
    at Japan, and Senna's subsequant total denial of any fault in the
    matter was considered a major flaw, thus they marked Senna down a
    place.
    
    I can't remember all the other placings but Piquet was 3, Nigel 4 and
    Naninni 5.
    
    Paul