Both Starts at Belgium 87 - Mansell and Senna

Both Ayrton Senna and Nigel Mansell would pay the price for having to restart after Phillipe Streiff and Jonathan Palmer came together somehow.

Category:

Sports

Tags:

• belgium
• spa
• 1987
• belgian
• grand
• prix
• ayrton
• senna
• lotus
• honda
• turbo
• nigel
• mansell
• williams
• alain
• prost
• mclaren
• overtake
• pass
• spin
• wreck
• sand
• trap
• gravel
• james
• hunt
• murray
• walker
• crash
• shunt
• incident

[IShallTellYouWhat]

This is a fantastic video showing some history, and thank you for uploading it. Shame there's not more, including the post-race melee.

I can't for the life of me see why anyone's saying this is Senna's fault. I may be missing something, but if Mansell is going to try to overtake on the outside and cut Senna off, then he cannot expect Senna to yield by slowing down mid-bend. It was Mansell's responsibility to overtake with room on the apex for Senna.

Anyway, all sadly days long gone now.

[sargatanas88]

Piquet said at the end of the year that was a big mistake from Mansell, not a driving error, but a tactical one. Nelson said the Williams miles better than the Lotus so Nigel had only to wait for a good opportunity. before bus stop on the inside would have been much more safe.

[AlejjSi]

@fernandovogel I would thint that he said because it was Mansell, who was the other with Senna in the crash...he reacted like the same in Portugal 1989, where Mansell took out Senna after he was black flagged...normally, he was acnoledged the brilliance of Senna, but when Mansell was around...

[fernandovogel]

Wow, how biased is James Hunt? What a sad comment from this sad, depressed man. One who is only called "champion" because Lauda nearly got killed in Nurburgring and refused to race the last race in Japan (when he had a three-point lead in the championship). If he wanted to be reasonable, he would say it was both drivers fault, or a "misunderstanding". "Clearly Senna's fault" is a ridiculously biased comment that make him look as someone who was never behind the wheel of a F1.

[kzosel]

@tor378a I totally agree...

From the footage it seems as if Senna kept his car pretty close to the inside, so it looks like Nigel tried to squeeze Ayrton off, and left him nowhere to go. I love Nigel, but he threw away a lot of races...

[tor378a]

As much as I loved James hunt's commentary (may he RIP), he was completely wrong about this. This was very stupid by Mansell, not only to try to pass there, but so early in the race. The Williams was a better car and all he had to do was wait to pass at the top of the hill past Eau Rouge.

[flipsidedogchop]

@fateola ive watched every race since the mid 80's but that doesnt help you see this clearer....

The only way would be an arial view!

[fateola]

@flipsidedogchop

Yes, you very easily can, I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble.

I've watched every race live since 1992, and gone back to watch many races from the 70s and 80s. If you've seen more races than that and still can't derive basic information from such a video, I can't help you.

In any case, I see no point in continuing discussion with somebody so rude. If you intend to convey ideas to other people, you would do better to be less offensive. Good day.

[flipsidedogchop]

@fateola You cant fucking see it from that view retard! and dont give me this ive been watching F1 longer than you bullshit cos i can guarantee you havent!

[fateola]

@flipsidedogchop

It is quite simple once you have been watching the sport long enough. @7:20, watch the position of Senna's right front wheel. At no point prior to striking Mansell does it leave the inside edge of the track. It is therefore clear that the collision is caused by Mansell narrowing his cornering radius. I made this clear already in my earlier post, but I'm reposting for your benefit.

[flipsidedogchop]

@fateola how the fuck can you tell "at no point did senna expand his cornering radius"?!

you cant see from that camera view, senna fanboy!

[meachieballz]

The racing line isn't the whole inside, u go out-in-out. Not in-in-in.