McLaren Appeal

@marwood82

his handling of end the 89 championship.

ok explain me how did he actually handled the end of 1989, but without mentioning Suzuka, because it was obvious that Senna missed the chicane and therefore should been given the penalty. But even if the win went to Senna he wouldn't be champ. that year because he was too crash-happy that year (as much as through the whole carrer to be frank) So explain me how did Belasterie manipulated the championship?

---

are you blind? -no, I'm deaf, can't you see? -no, I'm blind.

How was Senna supposed to rejoin the track then brnco? Backwards?
It was always evident that Balestre had his favourite drivers, they were usually French and Prost was a good friend of his. Many team principals and drivers alike thought that the disqualification and subsequent penatly was totally unfair and the scathing criticism that Balestre gave Senna was unjust.

It was obvious that Prost turned in on Senna way before the corner and Prost even admitted after the race that he was prepared to "close the door" if Senna tried to overtake.

Senna was crash happy that year? How many times did he crash of his own accord in during a race in 1989 then? Once. On all other occasions it was another drivers fault (Brazil, Portugal) or gear box issues (Silverstone).

Of all the top drivers of Senna's era only Prost and Lauda didn't get involved in many accidents or crashes, all the others did.

I'm sorry Brnco, but the idea that taking out another driver on purpose (clear from Prosts onboard, as he turned in far too fast and would have flown right over the apex) is fine but rejoining the track after being taken out deserves a penalty is a complete joke.

Everyone who knows anything about F1 knows that Balestre was corrupt and as bent as they come.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

A book called "Bernie's game" explicitly states that Balestre had nothing (he was in the stewards' office, but didn't actively participate according to one of the stewards) to do with Senna's DQ in 1989.

---

@mike and dave,

Prost closing the door on senna is another story. I was saying about senna rejoining the track. He should have power-spin the car and drive through chicane. He missed chicane and therefore he was DQ. Prost's sin was punished by the law of logic, he got DNF.
In 1989 Senna retired too much while driving the same (if not slightly enhanced) car as Prost did. The differnce was Prost was more gentile with his car so he finished more races. And therefore is worthwile 1989 F1 champion.

---

are you blind? -no, I'm deaf, can't you see? -no, I'm blind.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2007 10:32PM by brnco.

Bollocks mate, Mclaren gave Senna and Prost the same identical cars all season. If Senna was such a car breaker why didn't he retire more often say in 1988? He was just plain unlucky in 1989.
Prost and Senna were very evenly matched in race pace in 1988, i still believe that Prost was the best driver of the turbo era. However when the turbo era was out and the 3.5 litre engines were in Senna was in a league of his own.

Why should Senna have to do a power spin and return directly into the path of on coming cars? That would be very dangerous and completely unnecesary. If Balestre and his boys were looking for an excuse to kick out Senna then it should have been for push starting Senna. His drive back to replace his front wing then overtake Nannini and take the lead was extraordinary.
He should have never been disqualified and only rabid Prost fans and/or Senna haters would disagree.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2007 10:57PM by mikef1.

brnco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @marwood82
>
> his handling of end the 89 championship.
>
> ok explain me how did he actually handled the end
> of 1989, but without mentioning Suzuka, because it
> was obvious that Senna missed the chicane and
> therefore should been given the penalty. But even
> if the win went to Senna he wouldn't be champ.
> that year because he was too crash-happy that year
> (as much as through the whole carrer to be frank)
> So explain me how did Belasterie manipulated the
> championship?

let me clarify that point as it seems to have lead us off topic.

whilst there certainly were 'allegations' of favouritism at the time, I remember them very well, what I was referring to was the way the whole mess blew up afterwards as it was far worse than any of the end of season debacles that Mosley has presided over.


I actually think Mosley started off well repairing relations between the FIA and the teams in the early 90's but in the last few years his stubbornness has caused more and more problems.
but i can assure you Balestre was as bad if not worse.

anyway, if we go right back to the begining,
the reason I brought all this up in the first place was because you mentioned 1982 as an example of people getting disqualified for fuel issues.

all i was trying to say is that that isn't a valid comparison with what happened in brazil as what was going on politically in 1982 was very different to today.

imagine at least 1 '6 starters at indy' style fiasco each season for about 4 years running! it was a total mess back then.

as i said, i agree with you, at worst bmw and williams will be fined and/or maybe loose some constructors points but thats all.

I'm not Prost fan and neither im Senna hater, I'm just spectator and I'm always tryig to be as objective as possible. Fact is Prost knew how to finish races, and in those days it mattered, as always infact. Senna was somehow reckless and that costed him championship in 1989. We will never know how many of his mechanical breakdowns were due to his driving style, engineer mistake or simply luck.

---

are you blind? -no, I'm deaf, can't you see? -no, I'm blind.

marwood82 Wrote:

>
> I actually think Mosley started off well repairing
> relations between the FIA and the teams in the
> early 90's but in the last few years his
> stubbornness has caused more and more problems.
> but i can assure you Balestre was as bad if not
> worse.


in fact if i recall, mclaren actually appealed sennas disqualification but when they appeared in court found themselves facing a whole host of extra charges Balestre had come up with that they knew nothing about.

I believe that the main point of contention was not the appeal itself but rather an accusation by Senna that Balestre manipulated the championship.

Regardless of veracity, things like that have never been taken well by the governing body, be it 1989 or 2007.

And this is where the FIA/ICA are facing a major problem. It's abundantly clear that BMW and Williams have indeed broken the rules. The clarifications of the rule leave very little room for interpretation. Fuel is to be measured in the rig (not the car), and the only official temperature to be used is the one on screen 3 of the provided monitors. Not only that, but it seems that the representatives of these 2 teams purposefully kept knowledge of these recent rules clarifications from the race stewards.

The FIA are at the dead end and 2007 has wonderfully demonstrated how a decision made in the interest of the show can lead to the point where none of the choices would be 100% fair.

I hate to say it, but the current set of people in charge of enforcing the rules needs to go.

---

tripleM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's abundantly clear that BMW and
> Williams have indeed broken the rules.

It is? Where did you read so?

It's abundantly clear that BMW and Williams have indeed broken the rules.

Actually its extremely unclear that they have. As posted by several members, the temperatures which the FIA readings gave are not only impossible, they clashed with several other temperature sources.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually its extremely unclear that they have.



Yep yep. Its extremely unclear is there any (working) rules in F1 and if yes, then its even more extremely unclear have anybody ever followed/broke those.

That is what makes even more unclear that why the hell anybody ever gets / did get punished..

Kimi, so, Massa Fernando Sebastian is faster than you. Can you confirm you understood that message?

rather an accusation by Senna that Balestre manipulated the championship.


this sentence strikes rigth to the piont of everything. The main problem today in general, not only motorracing, but politics etc, is that if someone says something twice it instantly becames ultimate truth, no matter what, and expecially if that someone is famous. The audience has lost the perspective in general and beleives everything. Expecially if it's said on TV by the famous person, than it's definately the ultimate truth, and noone even thinks about disagreeing.

---

are you blind? -no, I'm deaf, can't you see? -no, I'm blind.

Expecially if it's said on TV by the famous person, than it's definately the ultimate truth, and noone even thinks about disagreeing.



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

---

are you blind? -no, I'm deaf, can't you see? -no, I'm blind.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2007 08:43AM by brnco.

brnco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not Prost fan and neither im Senna hater, I'm
> just spectator and I'm always tryig to be as
> objective as possible. Fact is Prost knew how to
> finish races, and in those days it mattered, as
> always infact. Senna was somehow reckless and that
> costed him championship in 1989. We will never
> know how many of his mechanical breakdowns were
> due to his driving style, engineer mistake or
> simply luck.


Senna knew how to finish races too brnco, look at his 1987 and 1988 finishing rate. If going by your logic then Prost was reckless in 1991 when he was driving for Ferrari.

In 1991 Prost has already passed his prime time in F1. Infact his 1993 season was marred with some uncaracteristic mistakes. He should have won at least 10-12 races that year, as FW15 beeing far better than FW14 due to power steering. If Prost drove FW 14 in 1992 he wouldn't have done as good as Mansell did.

After 1990 season prost became different driver. More nervous, and he got irritated more often

---

are you blind? -no, I'm deaf, can't you see? -no, I'm blind.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2007 09:42AM by brnco.

I think that, with the spy scandal, McLaren should shut up. It´s my point of view. If the team was fined and penalized for cheat, they can´t say nothing

brnco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In 1991 Prost has already passed his prime time in
> F1. Infact his 1993 season was marred with some
> uncaracteristic mistakes. He should have won at
> least 10-12 races that year, as FW15 beeing far
> better than FW14 due to power steering. If Prost
> drove FW 14 in 1992 he wouldn't have done as good
> as Mansell did.
>
> After 1990 season prost became different driver.
> More nervous, and he got irritated more often


The FW14B of 1992 had power steering, the FW14 of 1991 didn't.
Infact it was one of the reasons that Patrese didn't feel as comfortable driving the FW14B compared with the '91 car as he couldn't get the same feel with for the car with power steering as he did without it.

Prost drove superbly in 1990 imo, his race at Mexico was one of his very best. However in reality the Ferrari handled better than the Mclaren's of Senna and Berger and had semi auto gearboxes though it's engine was not quite as good as the Honda's.
I'm sure that Prost getting irritated after 1990 was down to the way Ferrari fell apart during the 1991 season considering they nearly won the year before.