Did Schumacher get aggressive because of Senna?

[Just_a_fan]

Prost intentionally crashed into Senna in Japan 89

Prost did not intentionally crash into Senna. He had allowed Senna to bully his way past all season and told Ron and Senna that he would not yield again. Senna made yet another attempt to dive inside and force his way past and Prost refused to be bullied.
I don't have a dog in the fight but those are the facts.

Prost turned in knowing Senna was on his inside. He turned in earlier than usual too. That was as intentional as it gets.

[ENGINE TUNER]

Prost intentionally crashed into Senna in Japan 89

Prost did not intentionally crash into Senna. He had allowed Senna to bully his way past all season and told Ron and Senna that he would not yield again. Senna made yet another attempt to dive inside and force his way past and Prost refused to be bullied.
I don't have a dog in the fight but those are the facts.

Not facts, opinions, passing has always been allowed in F1, Senna made a legitimate and clean passing attempt and prost intentionally crashed into him to avoid being passed yet again. The frontal and overhead video is all the proof I need. The lies that flow out of prost's mouth are worthless to me.

If Senna was so "bullying", when did Senna ever collide into Prost?

[Jolle]

I think it´s natural evolution. When 50 years ago there were fatal accidents so frequently, any F1 driver had to be simply crazy to drive too aggressive. No sane person will be agressive when he´s lived some workmate death that close

When 30-40 years ago fatal accidents stop being that frequent, agresiveness started raising because they felt safer, death was not that close.

When 20-30 years ago fatal accidents didn´t happen anymore in normal circumstances (apart from a lorry on a test track, or a crane on a runoff area), agresiveness reached maximum because of obvious reasons.

We humans need first hand experience to learn, if we don´t see it first hand we will never learn it same way. But that´s not a bad thing, it´s adaptation to our environement


Verstappen is a good example, he reached F1 so young on a very safe era he simply can´t see the danger because he´s never seen a fatal accident, so he´s very very agressive. Don´t take me wrong, I´m not criticizing him, that´s perfectly normal. Older people who has seen some death will think different, but because of the same, even if only as a viewer watching some F1 driver death is too impressive to be ignored. But like it or not nowadays F1 cars are so safe they can be that agressive without major risks. Ruining some other driver race is a different matter, and that´s where FIA should put the limits, but safety wise there´s no reason to stop agressive drivers, at least while they don´t go too far... what´s too far? who knows

I don't believe it is. Senna died in front of Schumachers eyes and that didn't effect him one bit. The generation after Schumacher (Hamilton, Button, Alonso and Vettel) grown up with the notion that death is something from the past and was what happend last with Senna, when they were kids. The current young stars on the other hand, already lost, in a short time, lots of guys they know closely. Leclerc already has two RIP's on his helmet.

[Tommy Cookers]

I think this thread was about who led F1 drivers away from the unwritten rules aka moral compass to where we are today
imo certainly (to those of us who were and are of this planet Earth) it wasn't Mr Prost
driver's manners had improved with the turbo era (cars were unreliable so intimidatory driving was less than worthwhile)

I remember telling a room full of sceptical people in late 1993 that ....
a then-unfashionable and innocuous Mr Schumacher was my 'dark horse' for 94 - having in 93 led 4 races till engine troubles

and how about the case of Mr Pironi and Mr G Villeneuve ?

[Wass85]

I think it´s natural evolution. When 50 years ago there were fatal accidents so frequently, any F1 driver had to be simply crazy to drive too aggressive. No sane person will be agressive when he´s lived some workmate death that close

When 30-40 years ago fatal accidents stop being that frequent, agresiveness started raising because they felt safer, death was not that close.

When 20-30 years ago fatal accidents didn´t happen anymore in normal circumstances (apart from a lorry on a test track, or a crane on a runoff area), agresiveness reached maximum because of obvious reasons.

We humans need first hand experience to learn, if we don´t see it first hand we will never learn it same way. But that´s not a bad thing, it´s adaptation to our environement


Verstappen is a good example, he reached F1 so young on a very safe era he simply can´t see the danger because he´s never seen a fatal accident, so he´s very very agressive. Don´t take me wrong, I´m not criticizing him, that´s perfectly normal. Older people who has seen some death will think different, but because of the same, even if only as a viewer watching some F1 driver death is too impressive to be ignored. But like it or not nowadays F1 cars are so safe they can be that agressive without major risks. Ruining some other driver race is a different matter, and that´s where FIA should put the limits, but safety wise there´s no reason to stop agressive drivers, at least while they don´t go too far... what´s too far? who knows

I don't believe it is. Senna died in front of Schumachers eyes and that didn't effect him one bit. The generation after Schumacher (Hamilton, Button, Alonso and Vettel) grown up with the notion that death is something from the past and was what happend last with Senna, when they were kids. The current young stars on the other hand, already lost, in a short time, lots of guys they know closely. Leclerc already has two RIP's on his helmet.

It's not nice to say but a lot of the other drivers on the grid didn't seem all too affected by Senna's death.

You have to think like them, Senna was not their hero he was a competitor who at times treated them with contempt. They are so much in competitive mode they brush of horrible things with relative ease.

[El Scorchio]

You mean title nearly being taken away made him aggressive?

I think he means Schumacher got no punishment for driving into Hill, so carried on employing similar tactics when he needed to on the assumption that IF there was a penalty, it would still be worth it.

I thought he might be saying how Schumacher dominated entire season, but was disqualified from big portion of it, so in order to win what he should he made that "Senna" move.

Never saw Senna make moves like that. At least Schumacher got his comeuppance for cheating in 1997.

[strad]

1990
.

It's not nice to say but a lot of the other drivers on the grid didn't seem all too affected by Senna's death.

Seriously?
When Senna died it rocked the field in much the same way as when Jimmy was killed.

[Wass85]

1990
.

It's not nice to say but a lot of the other drivers on the grid didn't seem all too affected by Senna's death.

Seriously?
When Senna died it rocked the field in much the same way as when Jimmy was killed.

The point is they are competitive machines. Did it change the way they drive or go about things? Of course not.

To single out Schumacher is unfair IMO, he mentioned he mourned Senna's death in private and visited his grave after his funeral.

[ENGINE TUNER]

I think this thread was about who led F1 drivers away from the unwritten rules aka moral compass to where we are today
imo certainly (to those of us who were and are of this planet Earth) it wasn't Mr Prost
driver's manners had improved with the turbo era (cars were unreliable so intimidatory driving was less than worthwhile)

Who intentionally crashed into a competitor before prost did into Senna in Japan 89?

That move changed F1 forever! The only reason why it isn't recognized as much is because the travesty that followed after Senna won the race was even more grievous. And then Senna didn't avoid the contact again in 90. Prost is no doubt the driver who brought all this dirty tactics of crashing into competitors into F1. He may not have been as aggressive in passing or defense as Senna or Mansell or Piquet, but none of them intentionally crashed into competitors.

[3jawchuck]

1990
.

It's not nice to say but a lot of the other drivers on the grid didn't seem all too affected by Senna's death.

Seriously?
When Senna died it rocked the field in much the same way as when Jimmy was killed.

The point is they are competitive machines. Did it change the way they drive or go about things? Of course not.

To single out Schumacher is unfair IMO, he mentioned he mourned Senna's death in private and visited his grave after his funeral.

That's not what you said though. What you say now I can understand, not what you said in your previous post.

[gshevlin]

I am astonished at some of the comments in this thread.
In any sporting competition, competitors will assess what they have to do in order to win, be that fitness, preparation, or how far to push the envelope, both in terms of the written rules, and the unwritten rules. They will watch how other competitors, and people at the top of the sport, are treated when they try to push the envelope in competition.
It is my firm opinion that Michael Schumacher's on-track racing decisions when fighting competitors would have been influenced by looking at how the FIA regarded prior racing incidents. He would have seen the results of Ayrton Senna's ramming of Alain Prost off the track in 1990, where Senna was not penalized any championship points and therefore became F1 champion (although he was forced to apologize later to avoid a suspension for part of the 1991 season).
The 1990 incident, and the failure of the FIA to correctly punish Ayrton Senna, told all competitors that if you could construct a vaguely plausible reason for it (based on a tit-for-tat payback for perceived past sins), or make it look like what is termed a "racing accident", ramming into a competitor had more upside than downside, especially if it would assure you of a championship.
As a result, Michael Schumacher did that twice in order to try and settle championships. He did it in 1994 to Damon Hill, and emerged from the incident with his first world championship. He tried it again in 1997 against Jacques Villeneuve, but lost out and retired on the spot with a damaged car, which led to Villeneuve becoming champion.
Suspensions are the only action that will modify the behavior of competitors. At the end of the day, racing drivers and other highly driven competitive sports people only live to compete, so the only punishment that will really hit home is being denied the opportunity to compete. For a professional athlete being paid more than $10m a year, even a fine of $1m will simply be seen as a cost of doing business. Especially when it is netted off against the financial rewards of winning a championship.
Ditto reprimands and probation. Fines, reprimands and probationary periods are the sport saying in coded language "naughty naughty, better not be so blatant about this in future, but we like controversy from time to time (hint hint)".
You can tell how serious a sport is about eliminating bad behavior by competitors by how it treats violation of rules by those competitors. F1's past actions have tended to show that they value controversy over adherence to written and unwritten rules.

[ENGINE TUNER]

I am astonished at some of the comments in this thread.
In any sporting competition, competitors will assess what they have to do in order to win, be that fitness, preparation, or how far to push the envelope, both in terms of the written rules, and the unwritten rules. They will watch how other competitors, and people at the top of the sport, are treated when they try to push the envelope in competition.
It is my firm opinion that Michael Schumacher's on-track racing decisions when fighting competitors would have been influenced by looking at how the FIA regarded prior racing incidents. He would have seen the results of Ayrton Senna's ramming of Alain Prost off the track in 1990, where Senna was not penalized any championship points and therefore became F1 champion (although he was forced to apologize later to avoid a suspension for part of the 1991 season).
The 1990 incident, and the failure of the FIA to correctly punish Ayrton Senna, told all competitors that if you could construct a vaguely plausible reason for it (based on a tit-for-tat payback for perceived past sins), or make it look like what is termed a "racing accident", ramming into a competitor had more upside than downside, especially if it would assure you of a championship.
As a result, Michael Schumacher did that twice in order to try and settle championships. He did it in 1994 to Damon Hill, and emerged from the incident with his first world championship. He tried it again in 1997 against Jacques Villeneuve, but lost out and retired on the spot with a damaged car, which led to Villeneuve becoming champion.
Suspensions are the only action that will modify the behavior of competitors. At the end of the day, racing drivers and other highly driven competitive sports people only live to compete, so the only punishment that will really hit home is being denied the opportunity to compete. For a professional athlete being paid more than $10m a year, even a fine of $1m will simply be seen as a cost of doing business. Especially when it is netted off against the financial rewards of winning a championship.
Ditto reprimands and probation. Fines, reprimands and probationary periods are the sport saying in coded language "naughty naughty, better not be so blatant about this in future, but we like controversy from time to time (hint hint)".
You can tell how serious a sport is about eliminating bad behavior by competitors by how it treats violation of rules by those competitors. F1's past actions have tended to show that they value controversy over adherence to written and unwritten rules.

So you think Senna should have been harshly punished for Japan 90, but Prost did nothing wrong in Japan 89?

[Jolle]

I am astonished at some of the comments in this thread.
In any sporting competition, competitors will assess what they have to do in order to win, be that fitness, preparation, or how far to push the envelope, both in terms of the written rules, and the unwritten rules. They will watch how other competitors, and people at the top of the sport, are treated when they try to push the envelope in competition.
It is my firm opinion that Michael Schumacher's on-track racing decisions when fighting competitors would have been influenced by looking at how the FIA regarded prior racing incidents. He would have seen the results of Ayrton Senna's ramming of Alain Prost off the track in 1990, where Senna was not penalized any championship points and therefore became F1 champion (although he was forced to apologize later to avoid a suspension for part of the 1991 season).
The 1990 incident, and the failure of the FIA to correctly punish Ayrton Senna, told all competitors that if you could construct a vaguely plausible reason for it (based on a tit-for-tat payback for perceived past sins), or make it look like what is termed a "racing accident", ramming into a competitor had more upside than downside, especially if it would assure you of a championship.
As a result, Michael Schumacher did that twice in order to try and settle championships. He did it in 1994 to Damon Hill, and emerged from the incident with his first world championship. He tried it again in 1997 against Jacques Villeneuve, but lost out and retired on the spot with a damaged car, which led to Villeneuve becoming champion.
Suspensions are the only action that will modify the behavior of competitors. At the end of the day, racing drivers and other highly driven competitive sports people only live to compete, so the only punishment that will really hit home is being denied the opportunity to compete. For a professional athlete being paid more than $10m a year, even a fine of $1m will simply be seen as a cost of doing business. Especially when it is netted off against the financial rewards of winning a championship.
Ditto reprimands and probation. Fines, reprimands and probationary periods are the sport saying in coded language "naughty naughty, better not be so blatant about this in future, but we like controversy from time to time (hint hint)".
You can tell how serious a sport is about eliminating bad behavior by competitors by how it treats violation of rules by those competitors. F1's past actions have tended to show that they value controversy over adherence to written and unwritten rules.

So you think Senna should have been harshly punished for Japan 90, but Prost did nothing wrong in Japan 89?

I think the three incidents (‘89, ‘90 and ‘94) are very different and are better understood with the politics in the background.

Prost move in 1989 should have been punished but instead, with Baleste as FIA boss, Senna was punished for something idiotic; Cutting the chicane. Prost of course played this game perfect and already had a contract with Ferrari. For F1, a Ferrari with a number one was good marketing. This made Sennas frustration grow, the following year, they moved Pole to the dirty side of the grid. All frustration boiled to the point that Senna didn’t even tried to brake. Yes wrong but after all this, almost understandable. Almost to make a point.

For 1994, yes, Benneton should have been excluded from the grid after “option 13” and the fuel rig modification. But, F1 was in the worse state. Prost and Mansell quit, Senna dead. It had no world champion and no star. A disqualification of the next star could have been catastrophic. Also the old teams were in dire straits. Ferrari was nowhere to been seen and McLaren had the Peugeot’s in the back. So, Schumacher got away with everything.

Few years later when F1 was in better shape, they had no trouble to punish this kind of behaviour.

I also believe that lots of these Schumacheresques actions are not planned but were knee jerk reaction.

[ENGINE TUNER]

I am astonished at some of the comments in this thread.
In any sporting competition, competitors will assess what they have to do in order to win, be that fitness, preparation, or how far to push the envelope, both in terms of the written rules, and the unwritten rules. They will watch how other competitors, and people at the top of the sport, are treated when they try to push the envelope in competition.
It is my firm opinion that Michael Schumacher's on-track racing decisions when fighting competitors would have been influenced by looking at how the FIA regarded prior racing incidents. He would have seen the results of Ayrton Senna's ramming of Alain Prost off the track in 1990, where Senna was not penalized any championship points and therefore became F1 champion (although he was forced to apologize later to avoid a suspension for part of the 1991 season).
The 1990 incident, and the failure of the FIA to correctly punish Ayrton Senna, told all competitors that if you could construct a vaguely plausible reason for it (based on a tit-for-tat payback for perceived past sins), or make it look like what is termed a "racing accident", ramming into a competitor had more upside than downside, especially if it would assure you of a championship.
As a result, Michael Schumacher did that twice in order to try and settle championships. He did it in 1994 to Damon Hill, and emerged from the incident with his first world championship. He tried it again in 1997 against Jacques Villeneuve, but lost out and retired on the spot with a damaged car, which led to Villeneuve becoming champion.
Suspensions are the only action that will modify the behavior of competitors. At the end of the day, racing drivers and other highly driven competitive sports people only live to compete, so the only punishment that will really hit home is being denied the opportunity to compete. For a professional athlete being paid more than $10m a year, even a fine of $1m will simply be seen as a cost of doing business. Especially when it is netted off against the financial rewards of winning a championship.
Ditto reprimands and probation. Fines, reprimands and probationary periods are the sport saying in coded language "naughty naughty, better not be so blatant about this in future, but we like controversy from time to time (hint hint)".
You can tell how serious a sport is about eliminating bad behavior by competitors by how it treats violation of rules by those competitors. F1's past actions have tended to show that they value controversy over adherence to written and unwritten rules.

So you think Senna should have been harshly punished for Japan 90, but Prost did nothing wrong in Japan 89?

Prost move in 1989 should have been punished but instead, with Baleste as FIA boss, Senna was punished for something idiotic; Cutting the chicane. Prost of course played this game perfect and already had a contract with Ferrari. For F1, a Ferrari with a number one was good marketing. This made Sennas frustration grow, the following year, they moved Pole to the dirty side of the grid. All frustration boiled to the point that Senna didn’t even tried to brake. Yes wrong but after all this, almost understandable. Almost to make a point.

Agree with most of your post except that there was no reason for Senna to brake, T1 is a flat out corner, especially from a standing start. Prost didn't brake either and there is plenty of room for two cars side by side. Prost intentionally crashed into Senna in Japan 89, and he also caused the crash in Japan 90, although Senna could have avoided it, but had no good reason to do so.

My point stands that all the dirty driving/ intentionally crashing into competitors crap started with Prost. So if you want to point to anyone being the reason why Schumacher made the dirty moves that he did blame Prost and Balastre.

In term of hard aggressive driving in battles, that is something that originated in karts and moved up the ranks, Piquet and Mansell were are tough with their competitors as Senna.

[Wass85]

So you think Senna should have been harshly punished for Japan 90, but Prost did nothing wrong in Japan 89?

Prost move in 1989 should have been punished but instead, with Baleste as FIA boss, Senna was punished for something idiotic; Cutting the chicane. Prost of course played this game perfect and already had a contract with Ferrari. For F1, a Ferrari with a number one was good marketing. This made Sennas frustration grow, the following year, they moved Pole to the dirty side of the grid. All frustration boiled to the point that Senna didn’t even tried to brake. Yes wrong but after all this, almost understandable. Almost to make a point.

Agree with most of your post except that there was no reason for Senna to brake, T1 is a flat out corner, especially from a standing start. Prost didn't brake either and there is plenty of room for two cars side by side. Prost intentionally crashed into Senna in Japan 89, and he also caused the crash in Japan 90, although Senna could have avoided it, but had no good reason to do so.

My point stands that all the dirty driving/ intentionally crashing into competitors crap started with Prost. So if you want to point to anyone being the reason why Schumacher made the dirty moves that he did blame Prost and Balastre.

In term of hard aggressive driving in battles, that is something that originated in karts and moved up the ranks, Piquet and Mansell were are tough with their competitors as Senna.

I'm sorry but your post cannot be taken seriously if you try and blame Prost for 1990.