taking screenshots

Ain't that just a title fix though? I think that doesn't require a reupload.

Also Beger

What are you guys talking about? I'm confused. Why would they make him re-upload the video?

@@lsudx479 Rivaly

Or any competitor of any sport really 😅

Prost was the master.

Spot on, exactly right.

Hence, the professor

Nailed it, mate! Grazie mille!

He could race with some hard bastards, too. He and Alan Jones had some good dices in 81.

There is an interview with Alain Prost on Nico Rosberg YT channel where he says the same story about Senna bursting into tears. An enjoyable story teller he is.

Yes the journalist was Johnny Rives. Prost thought it was off the record, Johnny thought it was on the record the rest is history.

Yes and Mansell was embarrassing. He welcomed Prost to Ferrari but when he realized that Prost absolutely DEMOLISHED him he started whining about Prost's politics, etc. Let's examine Mansell's career: Got beaten by De Angelis at Lotus, got beaten by Keke Rosberg at Williams 1985, got beaten by Piquet 1987 and then got HUMILIATED by Prost at Ferrari. After that he threw a temper tantrum and threatened to quit. After every race he was always telling how many problems he had with his car (even after the races he won) and it was always only his pure genius and warrior nature that saved the win to the team. Sure Nigel deserved to win 1986 and Adelaide tire explosion was just bad luck. Frank gave him number 1 status and number 1 car in 1992 which was utterly superior to anything on the grid and Patrese agreed to play the Irvine/Barrichello type of puppet role. Mansell was a good driver, spectacular at his best but the English F1 media has made him a God (which he wasn't). Nowhere near Prost/Senna level. Not even close. He drove winning cars almost all through his career and got 1 WDC. Hakkinen, for example, had a reliable, winning car only for three seasons and took 2 WDC:s and 20 poles from that.

That was 1988, I think

@@AidanMillward yeah I think so myself. Still it showed Senna could be bested with the same car.

@@SteveDull, and, in qualifying as well (which was Senna's forte--race strategy was Prost's speciality).

For the record Senna had 26 poles to Prosts measly 4 during that time period.

@@TBSWORLD77 Zero points for pole. Give me the stats on race wins and points for that period

Oh no, how dare the fia ask driver to keep it on the track, and not crash into other cars....

If you think a car lapping the entire field and winning by a full minute is the glory day's your delusional. Suzuka 89 was a sham. Senna should have never been disqualified. The only reason he was disqualified was because teachers pet Prost went and cried to Belestri. Prost knew exactly what he was doing.

@@titanent.6897 did he though? Senna fanboys keep on claiming this and I have never seen 1 tiny iota of evidence that actually happened. Prost was NOT friends with Balestre, even though Balestre favoured him as a felow Frenchman. Even if Balestre did go and tell the stewards to DQ Senna, (again no evidence I have ever seen) it was not under the request of Prost.

@@EfftupSmith a year late to the party but it looks like Senna was disqualified for the wrong reason. Really he should have been disqualified for being given the push start that got him back in the race. The rules did say that he could be pushed back out of the way if he was in a dangerous spot but being push started was a no-no. Bit whatever the reason and the outcome and all that stuff, the amount of people that think this gives Senna carte Blanche to do what he did the following year baffles me.

Brundle ended up with Senna's car literally on top of him because he refused to yield.

@@AidanMillward Sounds like Hamilton and Verstappen last season 🤣

I couldn’t stand Senna. He had a deeply flawed character and literally believed nothing would happen to him because “god was by his side”. Guess not in the long run 🤷‍♂️. I was watching that Japanese Grand Prix live and knew Senna would be disqualified immediately once the marshals started pushing his car. Those were the rules.

@@trappenweisseguy27 But "of course" Senna was "justified" with risking the whole field the next year at the first corner at Suzuka. I know he was "right" because the F1 press has told me so in the last 25 or so years. It's a shame they didn't continue down JYS's lead (and many of the print journos at the time) in the wee Scot's interview with Senna at Oz in '90.

Max is the driver (since Senna) who reminds me the most of Ayrton. He is still 24 but seems older, and also has that same uncomprimising driving style.

No, Senna would have won in 1990.

I won't argue about how many times Prost could have been world champion with different rules. I will however note that after the FIA finally got rid of the best 11 finishes rule literally no one on the face of the planet asked for it to come back. Nobody. I think that says it all really. Think about that for a second. What a stupid system.

Hard to argue that Senna wasn't the better driver in 1988. He was disqualified in Rio for using the spare car, had well and truly trounced Prost all weekend at Monaco before a lapse in concentration caused him to DNF, and was set for victory at Monza until Jean Louis Schlesser reminded everybody of why that was his one and only F1 appearance by wandering into Senna's path as he was trying to lap him. Not at all far-fetched to imagine Senna wins 2 of those races and gets at least a podium in Rio and he would've been WC outright. In 1989 he won 6 races to Prost's 4. Again in Rio he was squeezed at the start, punted off by Mansell in Portugal (a worse collision than Senna's collision with Prost at Suzuka but no condemnation from the British F1 press because....reasons....) and then was disqualified at Suzuka for something demonstrably allowed to pass pretty much every other time it'd happened. Not that I'm necessarily slating Prost here. He should, for instance, have been 1983 DWC over Piquet. The best of 11 system came in because in the turbo era it encouraged drivers to race and push for the best result possible instead of economy runs just to score points.

@@Bennyboy1985 Why do you say Prost should have been WC in 1983? Regarding the best 11 finishes rule I think many people are aware of roughly when it was implemented, my point is it was flawed enough that no one really missed it when it was gone, it had outlived whatever usefulness it may have had.

@@driffielddodger7412 Prost was the better driver in 83 but was let down by Renault with their reliability problems late in the season. The DWC is not always necessarily the best driver in a given season. Similarly, Mansell was the better drive in 87 and had the most wins but Piquet won the title after Mansell's practise crash at Suzuka ruled him out for the season.

Another one wrongly saying Senna's crash at Adelaide was due to "emotion". Er no..Not true. Senna was a great driver but he crashed into Brundle while trying to lap him. He was not emotional at that time and they were not fighting over a corner. He drove into the back of Brundle's car because there was so much spray he could not see the car - didn't know it was there. Not a problem of emotion just terrible visibility. Completely ok to list Senna's mechanical problems but Prost still had some problems too. Lost the clutch in Brazil so had to drive a lot of the race on worn tyres - no clutch, so no pit stop (still finished second but would have won), lost top gear in Hockenheim (again finished 2nd but would have won), suspension not attached to moncocque correctly in Canada (retirement, same for Senna at that race due to engine) and also Hungary, Portugal and Spain he was well back due to engine miss fires at each race. In 1988 at those races Prost finished 2nd, 1st and 1st. In 1989 though he was well back. Not to mention Senna crashing with Berger at the first corner of the first race in Brazil was not particularly smart in a big picture sense. you could also say Senna should have let Mansell go in Portugal. The Ferrari was clearly the fastest car at that race and Senna needed the points for the title so why contest the corner? He couldn't help himself that's why. Mansell was surely to blame partly for the accident, maybe even mostly to blame but the truth is Senna screwed himself in 1989 much more than anybody else did. As for Mosley's comments I don't think they are particularly trustworthy. He hated Balestre, wanted and actually obtained Balestre's job and frankly can't be trusted as an unbiased source.

@@driffielddodger7412 Prost only led Hockenheim 1989 because Mclaren messed up Senna's pitstop. Canada 1989, Prost damaged his car driving over a manhole cover. Given the heavy rain that fell later in the race maybe he was better off retired from the race.

@@John-mi2rt Not sure how retiring from Canada would be beneficial to Prost, sorry mate but you're not really making any sense here, surely staying in a race is better than retiring?? Interesting comment about the manhole cover though, hadn't heard that one before, would like to read more about it, what's the source of the information?

@@driffielddodger7412 '..surely staying in the race is better than retiring?? Silverstone 88 and Adelaide 89 say that's not true with Prost. I thought Prost hitting the manhole cover was common knowledge but try Autosport or Motorsport magazines

@@driffielddodger7412 You also claim that in Adelaide Senna hit Brundle while trying to lap him. No he did not. Senna was not trying to lap Brundle. Senna never even saw Brundle. Senna was lapping a third driver, Piquet I think, who was overtaking Brundle. When Senna pulled out to overtake he ran into the back of Brundle. How was Senna anyway responsible for the Berger incident in Brazil 1989? The crash at Estoril 1989 is identical to the crash in Suzuka 1990. For the bigger picture why didn't Prost back off?

Senna's move to the chicane was more crafty than anything else: to try to overtake, he used the pit lane (which could be used EXCLUSIVELY to enter the pits) as a shortcut; he entered the pit lane, thus making fewer meters, and then returned to the track taking advantage of this maneuver. Prost, not being an idiot, replied to this gross impropriety of Senna (made with the "cleaver") by anticipating a bit the entry into the curve to lean on the car of the rival who wanted to be crafty (let's say that Prost replied with an elegant shot of "foil"). In summary: Prost committed an impropriety in response to Senna's impropriety, acting in "self-defense". Prost paid Senna with his own currency.

@@vincenzabenvegnu9876 Senna taking the pit lane (easily seen from the shots from the heli) would get Schumacher penalized or DQ'd years later. Also, Senna would have never made the chicane if Prost wasn't there from the line he was taking, he'd have gone off into the runoff anyhow.

I always thought M should had played the waiting game . Surely he would have been in a good position to overtake down the next straight let alone later

Well, Naninni was in a Benetton with very old tires (no stop stategy). There was no chance against a McLaren with fresh tires.

@@TOFKAS01 I don't see what that changes. Plus, after the mad chase-down, I doubt Senna's tires were "fresh."

Getting a bump start form the Marshalls was always the bigger issue to me either way he should've been disqualified.

And having his nose right up Balestre's arse. Hey, you gotta use every advantage you have!

Less repair bills too

He was as quick. And wasnt a fkn nutter

@@sugarnads He wasn't quite as quick, but a lot smarter.

LoL

It's one of those eternal 'what ifs'.

Not true. Senna was a great driver but he crashed into Brundle while trying to lap him. He was not emotional at that time and they were not fighting over a corner. He drove into the back of Brundle's car because there was so much spray he could not see the car - didn't know it was there. Not a problem of emotion just terrible visibility. A very similar accident cost Didier Pironi his career at Hockenheim in 1982 - crashed into the back of another car on a straight because he did not know it was there.

Agree

Senna is so similar to Max. You either love him or hate him(or at least disagree with his driving style)

For me, Senna's inability to transform his raw talent (far bigger than Prost's) into domination is a significant negative.

Same…. Senna was really talented, but dirty and, at least in my opinion, less intelligent. Ps: I’m Brazilian

senna may have had a dangerous driving style but you cant ignore the fact that prost intentionally turned in earlier than usual to crash senna out. just compare the onboards from prost on the lap beofre the crash

@@lucianomorano3394 just like at Silverstone last year sooner or later the guy previously playing the percentages has to put down a marker

That was indeed a weird one, but it was seven years later under a new FIA president so the rules might have changed. Same way the rule was changed to ALL lapped cars.

@@AidanMillward Oof You're really on a streak in this one ;)

I think it's at least debatable in terms of is that what actually happened, or, could one argue that the Marshalls had already moved the car into the escape road, and then Senna asked for a push when the car was already in a safe location, which he duly received, he then bump started the engine as the car rolled down a slight slope. I think by the time he got a 2nd push when he restarted the engine the car was no longer in a dangerous location.

Very fair comment, I agree 100% about using the wrong rule at Suzuka. For sure outside assistance would have made more sense. But in Adelaide Senna crashed into Brundle in because he could not see - too much spray from too much rain. Even if he was careful there was no way really to avoid that sort of accident. He literally drove into Brundle half way down the straight because he did not know the car was there. Maybe you are right, who knows?

Here we can clearly see that Prost was indeed going for the corner not for the crash. If anything he didn't cared for Senna there - not that he had to anyway. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oLyYZ9J81t7YeqM.html

Most of the track is still there. Drove on it last year.

When you beat someone 28-4 in qualifying and 17-7 in races where there were no mechanical failures/problems. I don't see how u could see that person as a threat. Prost was the one who feared senna hence the veto

I always thought it was a financial decision but the quotes I've found purely put Senna down as refusing to believe Lotus could manage two title contenders. So, at the very least, he thought Warwick was good enough.

@@em4945 I agree I don't understand how people say Senna feared Prost, he didn't fear anyone. I can't remember but who wanted the 84 Monaco race to be stopped as he was going to be passed?

@@TBSWORLD77 bit like Verstappen being afraid of gasly/Albon/Perez lol

@@em4945 nice made up 17-7 stat

This is Suzuka 1989

I have. But Senna doesn't help himself by throwing in from that far back.

@@AidanMillward True, where did he expect Prost to go exactly? And also the question that the Senna Fan Boys never answer - in a role reversal, would Senna have let Prost through? Don't make me laugh. no way! When Senna closes the door it's determination, oh how amazing. Prost does it - aw what a cheat, lol!

Thank you for saying that! It so gets ignored.

It gets ignored because it's inconvenient to the narrative that Senna was reckless and irrational whereas Prost was smart and perfectly justified. Truth is, Prost's "block" on Senna was a mirror image of Schumacher on Villeneuve at Jerez 8 years later and the helicopter angle shows this.

There's certainly footage of them in a room somewhere. Whether it was at Suzuka in 1989, who knows? Maybe the Senna film was right but with editing, who knows 100% for sure??

I wasn't even born at that time. But I prefer this to the fake GOAT one on December 18, 2022

Ah bollocks. Well, I had a good run...

@@AidanMillward deuce!

Yeah, both did some dodgy stuff, but because of that Senna doc Prost is the enemy and Senna is perfect.

@@AidanMillward I loved that documentary as a child, but if I see it now I can only see how biased it was. I love Senna's driving style, incl his throttle blips and blockshifts, but as a person he still had his flaws, eventho he couldn't admit it but that's what racing drivers are like. But I still get inspired by his high levels of dedication and pure passion for what he could do best.

@@AidanMillward Senna film mate, not documentary. A documentary at least tries to show the facts in an impartial and balanced manner. It's a feature film with a hero and some villains - certainly not a documentary.

@@AidanMillward They've made a doc about Senna and one about Schumi, I'd love to see one about Prost. They could call it 'Le Professeur'

@@Bennyboy1985 I do want to see a Prost one so we can get the other side of the story.

Indeed! The interview where the obnoxious "when you see a gap..." quote came about.

Yes old 'safety man' Jackie. Purley certainly had other thoughts about him and the rest of the hypocrits.

He meant to say Suzuka and Adelaide because he was a fair way behind in the championship.

Now KZfaq wants me to watch this.

Only if the car's nose is bent to one side. :^)

I have been waiting for the effing Roberto Moreno video for like 3-4 years, just effing doing Aidan, you lovely talking head -.-

100k. He promised. We're SO close...