Jackie Stewart describes F1 crash scandal as "a glitch"

[AstonDBS90]

@ChuckNorrisofF1 There should be something on YouTube but it was funny seeing it. Senna was an angry person and a legendry driver.

[AstonDBS90]

FISA refused Senna entry into the 1990 WDC because he called Balstaire a WANKER. McLaren paid his fine only to wreck prosts Ferrari. At least people have passion and big passion was lost at Imola that weekend. RIP Senna, You're a legend forever

[ChuckNorrisOfF1]

@AstonDBS90 hahahahahahaha.... is there footage of that?

[badback22]

Jackie Stewart is a wise man. Ive always enjoyed listening to him. He's not easily fooled or ever fooled in all the time Ive heard him, since the Jim Mckay-Curt Gowdy days. And here he's like the ultimate Diplomat. Did ya hear how he correctly determined the lowest common denominator?, how with thousands of persons in the F-1 loop mistakes would be made? Beautiful. He talks like a race car driver drives, very precisely.

[ninjachimp67]

senna delibretely crashed so he could take the championship

[tsharpmac420]

is he steve coogans long lost father? If they ever make a movie about jackie stewart steve coogan will play him

[17thMustang]

If it wasnt for the likes of Jackie Stewart, many more drivers would be dead. If you had a bad car accident, and got into an ambulance only to find out the drivers didnt know where the hospital was, I bet youd be bloody annoyed. Jim Clark was killed when he hit a tree! It was expected for at least 5 drivers to be killed per year. Look at Belgium 1998, huge pile of cars just after the start, only minor injuries. They are not there to die for your entertainment. JS was 3 times World Champion.

[NOXXism]

@17thMustang but at belgium it was a low speed pile-up

[70monkey]

Jackie Stewart is a tool and I am sick of seeing his backpacking ass on every fucking F1 documentary / news clip

[RoLLWithITOasis1]

@70monkey He made F1 the safe sport it is today. Without him, no one would've cared, and no doubt many of the drivers you love who may have had accidents in the past + survived would've died.

[vakobolt]

es kaci givi maswavlebels gavs :D:D:D

[mallamoozoo]

i'd go one step further and say that this so-called new-found sense of judiciary jackie speaks of - which remains to be seen as as genuine reform within F1 and anything other than short-term damage control - should be extended to retrospectively revise the entire history of the World Championship.

Case example - 1989 Senna's disqualification on blatant political grounds should be reversed and Prost disqualified from the Title for deliberate crash (just as Schui was in 97).

[lucianoestivill]

Good quote malla! Now, I ask to myself that, as Prost won 89 title after an intentional crash, the same did Ayrton in 1990..... I'd say that, in any case, we could have 89 for Senna and 90 to Prost? Nothing would change in terms of stats.....

The same counts for Schuey-Hill 94, and some others........

[Lolzilol123]

@mallamoozoo Oh come on, Senna was too far back for Prost to be required to give room. Senna made a mistake, not Prost.

[mallamoozoo]

@Lolzilol123 "Too far back"? Their front wheels touched - not nose to tail - they were side by side when they hit - that means Senna already had the posi - the pass was complete - you clearly don't understand the lore (not "law") of passing.

[Lolzilol123]

@mallamoozoo Please watch the footage again. Prost's front wheel is clearly ahead of Senna's. They were not side by side. I also think it was foolish of Senna to try that maneuvre when he was that far back before braking - he is something like 3-4 car lengths behind. Shows he was very good at braking that he even made it near Prost, but it wasn't enough.

[mallamoozoo]

@Lolzilol123 It WAS enough! Senna was almost fully alongside- their front wheels touched (front of senna's front tyre to rear of prost's front tyre). The passing car doesnt have to get literally in front of the car being passed to claim the spot- he just has to get into a position that compromises the other driver's options- forcing him to adjust his dynamics- that's the name of the game. Senna was so far alongside that Prost could have seen Senna's helmet. let alone teh front of his car!

[Lolzilol123]

@mallamoozoo How would Prost be able to see Senna's helmet when it was behind him? Actually, it doesn't matter. I hadn't seen that you were "mallamoozoo", the guy who spams every single Senna and Montoya video with comments and theories that everyone was against them. Please, have a nice day.

[mallamoozoo]

@Lolzilol123 You must be blind - watch the video again - when the cars stop Prost turns his head to the right to look directly at Senna - then look at the side angle - Senna is no more than 40 centimetres behind.

And i dont recall posting any comments about Montoya or conspiracy theories against Senna (except the Balestre affair) - i think u have some wires crossed.

[Lolzilol123]

@mallamoozoo How can Prost look directly at Senna when Senna is 40 centimetres behind? It is impossible to do that in an F1 car. You simply cannot turn your head that much. Your "proof" clearly shows that Prost wouldn't have gone on the grass. He would have hit the first curb, which is the correct line to get maximum traction out of the chicane. Showing two laps isn't "proof" - you would need a lot of laps to prove that he hit Senna on purpose.

And I'm sorry, I mixed you up with "mgarofano" :(

[1HeerenveenSC]

@Lolzilol123

If Senna wasn't next to Prost and he would drove the same line like he did in the 'collision lap' he would cut the corner lap after lap after...

[Ayrton4everrr]

@Lolzilol123 you forgot the mirrors

[Lolzilol123]

@Ayrton4everrr Have you ever driven a single seater car? I've only driven a Formula Ford, but I know that's actually one of the best cars to see out of, much better than an F1 car from the 80's. You can't see something that is a little behind and to the right or left of you, the mirror is point too much to the back of the car.

[Ayrton4everrr]

@Lolzilol123 Senna was tailing prost the whole race, and Prost knew that Senna was behing him all the time, just a few metres behing. that very lap he heared ayrton's mclaren like never before in the race and he jsut closed the door, by taking a different racing line...see the vid, if you watch carefully you will see prost that if he made concluded his manouver he would have ended on the chicane's grass cause he turned too soon. and yes I have driven a single seater

[mallamoozoo]

@Lolzilol123

Proof!

watch?v=n50TWnKujrE

If senna wasn't there and prost turned in the way he did he would have gone on the grass - all 4 wheels clean off the track on the INSIDE!

[mallamoozoo]

@Lolzilol123 Prost tried to take them both out to win the Title on points - but it backfired and Senna's car wasn't terminally damaged - so he continued. Prost could have stayed in the car too and got a push start but he thought it was all over and got out too early.

It was then up to Prost's compatriot - FISA President Balestre to finish the job on Senna - disqualifying him with no legal grounds.

As far as i am concerned - Senna has 42 GP wins and 4 World Titles (in a row! 88,89,90,91)

[Lolzilol123]

@mallamoozoo I think it's a bit hypocritical (just a bit...) to say Senna would've earned the WDC when he and Prost collided in '90, which was clearly intentional and very dangerous. I can't stand than people think Senna was a saint and at the same time call people like Schumacher "dirty cheaters". I can't think of a single thing a driver did that was more dangerous than what Senna did in '90.

[RoLLWithITOasis1]

@Lolzilol123 I would say Schumacher on Barrichello last year IF they crashed. But Senna on Prost in 1990 - especially in that era when F1 was still really unsafe - was shocking.

[mmike222]

@Lolzilol123 Another idiot writing...is amasing in this times the amont of numbs writing. You must see wath happend before the race start. i explain to you: Balestra o was like bernie ecleston at the time, was a good friend of prost, and change the pole to the dirty side of the track....Senna wasnt fighting against prost only...capice?? Compreendes? Do you understand? comprendes?

[Lolzilol123]

@mmike222 How on earth would I be posting about the episode and not now that? It doesn't matter if the pole had been moved to the back, it was still a stupid move.

But it's alright to ram other people off the track if you think you've had a tough break, right?

Ramming into people and endangering lives isn't very smart no matter the circumstances. Capice? Do you understand, mmike222? Do you think you've been enlightened now? Tu comprends?

[mmike222]

@Lolzilol123 You are not so wise!! They are compiting, thats their job. Is it danderous? yes. It was not a "clean move". Every body knows, but you dont understand, because you probabily dont know like make pole-position, it is even more dangerous then that "accident". And even more dangerous, was one year racing in F1(88) the INTIRE YEAR, and left with nothing...to prost. Because the Boss says...

After this i eaven not use adjectives to...just say you're not seeing the whole plan.

cheers.

[Lolzilol123]

@mmike222 I'm sorry but I think you skipped some words, so I'm not completely sure I understand what you mean - are you saying that moving pole position is dangerous? It's not like there are venomous spiders where Senna was, the only reason it became dangerous was because of Senna being stubborn and in my opinion stupid.

I do see the whole picture, and I also realise that F1 is just a sport and no reason to put other people's life on the line just to win.

[mmike222]

@Lolzilol123 yeah yeah...you are missing the point, on purpose. i ask you if make the faster time(pole), is it not more dangerous then that "accident"?? And after you risc your neak, doing the pole, some idiot(ballestra) decided to move the pole position, to the dirty side?? It was like bernie eclestone decides where the pole should be or not to favour Alonso or Hamilton...but you think is reasonable!?

no more words...pal

as i said you are not so wise!!

[Lolzilol123]

@mmike222 Firstly, of course it's not as dangerous to do a quick qualifying lap as it is to ram people off the road. Secondly, I am not missing your point on purpose - I am just saying that just because Senna felt cheated doesn't allow him to put other people's lives at risk.

If Vettel wanted pole on the left side instead of the right, and had got an OK from the stewards, and Todt moved it back, would Vettel then be allowed to ram someone overtaking him off the road?

[mmike222]

@Lolzilol123 if vettel wanted,....?? drivers dont choose where the pole should be!! pole is always on the best clean side of the track. you just still having no arguments...

[Lolzilol123]

@mmike222 mmike222, in Suzuka, when the drivers arrived, pole position was on the right side of the track. Senna (and many others I'm sure) thought this unfair, and then asked the stewards to move it, and they agreed. Balestre then moved it back to where it was at the beginning, which made Senna angry.

So are you saying that actually, Senna should've just accepted it, because drivers of course don't choose where pole is?

[mmike222]

@Lolzilol123 what?? i am sory but to me is a question of logic, pole position is the best place to leave for the race, and fast side is where the cars pass by, most of the time. not on the dirty side but on the clean side, were pilots have more greep...ok

tell where was the last pole, on the dirty side or clean??

looks simple!!

no?

[Lolzilol123]

@mmike222 The last pole in Suzuka, 1989, was also on the dirty side - and Senna was passed by Prost at the start. Because of that, he wanted it moved for 1990, but it wasn't. So he chose to ram into Prost and put their lives in danger because of a sport.

What I wrote (and you answered, so I presume you must've read it) was that it was strange to say Prost should lose the WDC for hitting Senna, but Senna shouldn't when he hit Prost.

Isn't that logic?

No?

[ChuckNorrisOfF1]

@Lolzilol123 Have you seen the Senna movie......... there's a shot in that which will prove you wrong.

[Lolzilol123]

@ChuckNorrisOfF1 I have seen the Senna movie, but I don't know what you're referring to? Are you saying that pole in '89 was not on the dirty side?

[Lolzilol123]

@ChuckNorrisOfF1 If so, then please explain this: ?v=n4q6NUAs8OQ

[fomulawon]

Unfortunately Sir jackie should stick to race commentating and F1 safety, two topics he has experience in, and is respected for. This comment shows how out of touch he is on other issues surrounding F1 such as this renault scandal. Clearly he was not prepared for the question and so he belted out a non sensical, poorly thought out attempt of an answer.

[John27346]

Stick your PR bullshit up your arse Jackie.

[25coppice]

What did he actually say?