Did Schumacher get aggressive because of Senna?

[Lotus102]

Senna's career from then till the end consisted of the same tactic. yield to me or have a wreck.
A tactic that was picked up by Michael and has become common these days which is the point of the thread.
I appreciate his talent but I was around and can separate the man from glowing remembrances.

But that's not what Schumacher did. Schumacher (as with Prost in 1989) drove directly into his competitors. He didn't even give them the choice to yield.

Prost could always have tried to hang it around the outside of Senna into the corner. Hell, he could have defended the inside and made Senna go around the outside. But he didn't, he turned in knowing Senna had part of his car alongside. Sometimes I think he wanted it to happen the way it did.

[Wass85]

If he wasn't alongside, how did they touch side-to-side?

Because Senna didn't lift and steamrolled in to Prost....

Nope.

Prost did the same he did the year before and turned in. This time, thankfully, Balestre was unable to save him.

If talent was all that mattered, Senna would have had 4 titles. But politics reigned and Prost was helped to number three. Balestre tried to help him to number four by swapping the grid. It was so blatant it was sad.

Yep, the fact that Senna basically stated before the race what he was going to do and basically admitted after kind of seals it for me.

He went for the gap and didn't lift running Prost off the road.

[El Scorchio]

retribution
/rɛtrɪˈbjuːʃ(ə)n/

noun

punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act.

[Dr. Acula]

If talent was all that mattered, Senna would have had 4 titles. But politics reigned and Prost was helped to number three. Balestre tried to help him to number four by swapping the grid. It was so blatant it was sad.

The "swapping the grid" story is simply not true.
The Pole Position in Suzuka was traditionaly on the dirty side of the track. It was this way in every race in Suzuka they had before and nobody ever had any complaints about it until Senna came up with this crap.
I totally understand the stand of the FISA back then. Why should they have changed it? The race weekend was already underway, it was ok the years before and except for one guy, nobody seamed to have a problem with how things were.

Look, the year before it wasn't a problem apparently.

[gshevlin]

This is the issue I have with complaints about pole from supporters of Ayrton Senna. They overlook that everybody knew going in which side of the track the pole position was located. If Ayrton thought that the pole side of the track was dirty and had less grip, he could have deliberately qualified second.
Pole was in the same location as it had been in 1987, 1988, and 1989. Not a word of complaint from Ayrton in those years, despite him starting from pole in 1988 and 1989.
The complaints by Ayrton about the location of pole were nothing more than obvious gamesmanship, and should have been dismissed. He was obsessed with beating Prost, and did it on race day by ramming him off the track. The complaints about dirty driving and politicking by Alain Prost are simply unserious and not relevant. Senna drove into Prost deliberately, he eventually admitted it, and in a situation like that it is up to the governing body of the sport to act by imposing an appropriate punishment. They failed to do so, and lowered the bar for acceptable on-track behavior as a result.

[Lotus102]

He was obsessed with beating Prost, and did it on race day by ramming him off the track. The complaints about dirty driving and politicking by Alain Prost are simply unserious and not relevant. Senna drove into Prost deliberately, he eventually admitted it, and in a situation like that it is up to the governing body of the sport to act by imposing an appropriate punishment. They failed to do so, and lowered the bar for acceptable on-track behavior as a result.

1 There is no sense in which Senna 'rammed Prost off the track'. Look at the footage. Senna was on the inside line, travelling at the same speed as Prost, at the same time as Prost moves towards the usual racing line. You can argue that Senna should not have attempted the move, or should have backed out, but it was Prost's movement of his car that made the contact. Saying Senna 'rammed' Prost is unquestionably inaccurate

2 He did not 'admit it'. His later comments simply reinforced what he said before the race, which was that he intended to go for the overtake whatever, and was prepared to crash if Prost turned in. Prost turned in. They crashed.

My take on it is that Schumacher probably learned more from Prost's dirty driving and subsequent dishonesty about it than Senna's sometimes excessive aggression, but I appreciate that others will hold different views. What does't help is to keep reiterating these inaccuracies about the story - the 'ramming' and the 'admission', neither of which are borne out by the facts.

[Shooty81]

Senna's career from then till the end consisted of the same tactic. yield to me or have a wreck.
A tactic that was picked up by Michael and has become common these days which is the point of the thread.
I appreciate his talent but I was around and can separate the man from glowing remembrances.

But that's not what Schumacher did. Schumacher (as with Prost in 1989) drove directly into his competitors. He didn't even give them the choice to yield.

Prost could always have tried to hang it around the outside of Senna into the corner. Hell, he could have defended the inside and made Senna go around the outside. But he didn't, he turned in knowing Senna had part of his car alongside. Sometimes I think he wanted it to happen the way it did.

Into which competitor did Schumacher drive directly, except the rather clumsy move against Villeneuve 1997?

[Wass85]

Senna's career from then till the end consisted of the same tactic. yield to me or have a wreck.
A tactic that was picked up by Michael and has become common these days which is the point of the thread.
I appreciate his talent but I was around and can separate the man from glowing remembrances.

But that's not what Schumacher did. Schumacher (as with Prost in 1989) drove directly into his competitors. He didn't even give them the choice to yield.

Prost could always have tried to hang it around the outside of Senna into the corner. Hell, he could have defended the inside and made Senna go around the outside. But he didn't, he turned in knowing Senna had part of his car alongside. Sometimes I think he wanted it to happen the way it did.

Into which competitor did Schumacher drive directly, except the rather clumsy move against Villeneuve 1997?

Hill 94?

[Shooty81]

But that's not what Schumacher did. Schumacher (as with Prost in 1989) drove directly into his competitors. He didn't even give them the choice to yield.

Prost could always have tried to hang it around the outside of Senna into the corner. Hell, he could have defended the inside and made Senna go around the outside. But he didn't, he turned in knowing Senna had part of his car alongside. Sometimes I think he wanted it to happen the way it did.

Into which competitor did Schumacher drive directly, except the rather clumsy move against Villeneuve 1997?

Hill 94?

Oh this will be a fun discussion...

[Lotus102]

But that's not what Schumacher did. Schumacher (as with Prost in 1989) drove directly into his competitors. He didn't even give them the choice to yield.

Prost could always have tried to hang it around the outside of Senna into the corner. Hell, he could have defended the inside and made Senna go around the outside. But he didn't, he turned in knowing Senna had part of his car alongside. Sometimes I think he wanted it to happen the way it did.

Into which competitor did Schumacher drive directly, except the rather clumsy move against Villeneuve 1997?

Hill 94?

And, arguably, Silverstone '95 (the slo-mo clearly shows Schumacher turning in, hesitating - presumably when he sees Hill going for the overtake - then tightening the steering again). In both cases the same chop across the bows that he later attempted on Villeneuve but on that occasion timed wrongly.

[Shooty81]

Into which competitor did Schumacher drive directly, except the rather clumsy move against Villeneuve 1997?

Hill 94?

And, arguably, Silverstone '95 (the slo-mo clearly shows Schumacher turning in, hesitating - presumably when he sees Hill going for the overtake - then tightening the steering again). In both cases the same chop across the bows that he later attempted on Villeneuve but on that occasion timed wrongly.

Maybe watch the replay of the that divebomb again (and from where Hill is coming, he was not even close to a real chance of successful overtaking):

https://youtu.be/az_CdcAdAjE

Adelaide is probably a combination of a driver keeping a damaged car on the racing line and Hill trying to go for a gap that wasn't really there.

I think Silverstone and Monza '95 Hill made the same mistake

[Lotus102]

I think Silverstone and Monza '95 Hill made the same mistake

Monza was just Hill rear-ending Schumacher, there wasn’t even an attempt at an overtake there. Silverstone, Schumacher left the door wide open. Yes, Hill was a long way back but there was a gap and he went for it.

Adelaide ‘94 is not even in question, in my mind. If Schumacher was going at anything like racing speeds he might have been justified in cutting back to the racing line, but he was crawling, he knew Hill was much faster going up the inside line and a collision was the only possible outcome.

[El Scorchio]

Adelaide 94 and Jerez 97 were clear cases of Schumacher seeing the title slip away as he was being overtaken by his rival and using any means necessary to stop that happening. On both occasions it meant deliberately causing a collision (or driving into, depending on how you prefer to say it) his rival.

You cannot objectively call it 'clumsy' or 'accidental' in any way. It's crystal clear from just watching both incidents what his intent was. You MIGHT be able to give him the benefit of the doubt if he hadn't behaved in exactly the same way in two separate situations. The Jerez one in particular is so blatant.

[strad]

Another thread where peoples biases and prejudices preclude having a reasonable discussion.

[NathanOlder]

Dont forget Schumachers Car was broken after the contact with the wall. He would have known almost straight away with the car feeling different. Hill was never to know this, and saw a chance, if Schumachers car wasn't damaged it could have been Hills only chance to pass. He had to go for that move 100%.