The wheel tethers were introduced 3 years before this accident and were nowhere near as strong as they are today.

Without an incident you are stupid!

Me! 😂

Yup 😂

Yes of course one of the most famous "loosers" of F1 history. The live of haters must be so bitter

@@marbet2395 That’s what made Senna so ruthless and feared amongst the non-top drivers. People love that about his uncompromising attitude, but it doesn’t make him any less of a loser because of it. You can live in a delusional fantasy of Senna being clean, fair, and simply the best or you can accept the reality of his massive problems of being very good is to be a slave to his overly competitive nature, which results in unconsciously doing dirty tactics to win a battle. Simple psychology really

​​@@sandalphoncpu the one who live for sure in a delusional fantasy and in a so bitter life that needs to write absurdities on social media to feel important maybe is the hater. Maybe... Because I'm not saying Senna was perfect, he never did mistakes or he was a saint, I never thought it (maybe you are the one who feels it - pay attention to your unconscious intentions). If I wanted to find saints I'd go to churches, not to see motorsports. I'm simply saying that defining "looser" the racer, who, 30 years after his death, still has the greatest skills numbers of F1 history and is considered till nowadays one of the most complete racer in F1 history (not by me, but by experts of motorsport and by almost all F1 racers - maybe they know something more than us?!) is evidently the poor expression of an hater with poor attitude for rational thinking, who needs to shoot out something big to feel important, no matter how and what. I'm not saying you have to like Senna or you have to think he was great. You can dislike and criticize him as much as you want, but defining him a looser is not rational. I was never a Prost fan, never a Schumacher fan, today I'm an Hamilton fan as much as before I was a Senna's fan, but I'd never define Prost and Schumacher or Verstappen as loosers because they are evidently great champions even though their characteristics aren't my favorite. I would not do it because it isn't rational and it isn't ethical. Being a fan doesn't take me away the capacity of being rational and understanding that my judgment isn't the navel of the world. What about you? Not to mention that Senna suffered the dirty tactics of others more than how he used dirty tactics. This double standard, completely out of any realistic approach to F1 history, is typical of haters. I can prove it, so pay attention to what you write. If Senna was a looser, so please tell me why, when in 2020 an algorithm calculated who was the fastest racer on flying lap from 1983 to 2019 seasons, the Brazilian won on everyone else, Schumacher ended out second, Hamilton third and Prost only 20th?! If Senna was a looser so why he still has today the highest ranking of all F1 history in rain and wet conditions? Updated June 2024: Senna 55,56%, Verstappen 38,9%, Schumacher 36,36%, Hamilton... Prost not classified. 30 years after his death he still is the King of Monaco with 6 victories in 10 GP: 1987, 1989, 1990,1991, 1992, 1993, in 1988 he made a mistake otherwise no one could get him. In 1984 he won on a Toleman under the rain, but the victory was given to Prost thanks to flags play... No one has ever done better, not Schumacher (5 victories in 19 seasons, not Hamilton, not Vettel or Verstappen) and no one has a so high ranking percentage of victories in the same GP. Hamilton is the one with the highest number of victories, 9,in the same circuit, Silverstone, but not the highest percentage. 9 is more than 6 but 6/10 is more than 9/18. It's mathematic and it's logic. So even Hamilton maybe needs 19 or 20 season in F1 to try to be better than Senna in only 10 seasons in F1, that is to say the double of the time in a safer F1 era with a lot of GP more for each season. Senna won three titles having the best car of the Circus only for two years and both these years with Prost as team mate. In Suzuka 1989 the dirty one was Prost (and what happened after is one of the biggest abuse of power of F1 history). It's not me saying. It's what everyone can see written on F1 official site and footages video clearly show who acted dirty against the other. In 1990 Prost experimented the meaning of the famous sentence: "what goes around comes around". I would not teach to my children that revenge is a good thing, but I can't feel bad for whom receives back what he gave first. In 1993 Senna had a terrible car if compared with Prost, Hill and Schumacher. Still he won every time weather's conditions took away the advantage of other's cars. Being able to win through more obstacles than others isn't being a looser. It means being the greatest winner and Senna was idolized by fans not because he won, but because the way he won. Every year someone wins the world title, every GP someone does the pole and/or win the race. But few racers were able to win or being on pole like Senna. He hasn't the absolute big numbers in results because he was killed at 34. His death is filed, after 13 years of inquiries, 10 years of trials and 2 definitive sentences, as culpable homicide for negligence with highly predictable consequences. It's a procedural truth, not conspiracy theory. Being accidentally killed (as much as being intentionally killed, raped or whatever else) does not make anyone a looser. It makes everyone a victim. Senna didn't retired from motorsport. He was killed and no, he is not a looser, at least he is a victim. Please try to learn how to use properly (rationally and ethically) the language before sharing your judgments on social media. Thanks!

@@marbet2395 Imagine being overly sensitive and overly statistical on his racing career when 90% of your essay is just baseless nonsense that’s not even on topic. Did you only search the stats and not watch the actual races? Evidently you’re not proving me wrong in any way. Heck you’re basically agreeing with me for his driving genius, but you’re intentionally ignoring his racing tactics over the years and just blame it on others when that’s not even dirty 95% of the time. USA 84, Monaco 87, Suzuka 87, Brazil 89, Imola 90, I can name many more on track. Off the track he vetoed Bellof to join as his teammate, indirectly vetoed Pique, and some young talents like Nanini Lotus wanted to sign. Blamed the FIA for apparently putting the pole position to the left side of the track when it remained there before and after. There are so many evidences that Senna can’t handle losing or giving other drivers some credit when they beat him on track, but you chose to search meaningless stats like someone who just started to watch F1 and wanted to find a conclusion. Those are the reasons why Senna is not as great as he should’ve been, just like Schumacher, and Verstappen right now. You can cry in another essay thinking I live in a miserable life and writing useless sentences that’s not even on topic or you can watch the footages, listen to podcasts from drivers who raced and met Senna, and form your thoughts there.

@@sandalphoncpu using too much "overly" definitions and "overly" adjectives does not makes your arguments more rational. It simply makes you more rhetoric, full of empty rhetorical phrases. Rationalilty implies using a critical based method and implies that your arguments must be connected with reality, not with empty rhetorical definitions and adjectives. And reality needs to be analyzed, proven and documented. Statistics are important when you want to analyze and document to be objective about the skills of a racer. So for me it's evident that you are trying to use rhetoric, a bunch of empty rhetoric, to escape from the evidence. It's a typical rhetorical process the one you are trying to use now against evidences. When someone can't stand an evidence, they simply try to avoid it, defining everything in a derogatory way, otherwise they had to admit and face the evidence. All the things I've quoted are facts proven, well documented, and official statistics. Defining them, as much as defining the reality, in a derogatory way does not change anything, at least this kind of behavior shows how far from reality and closed into your hate bubble you are. Whoever does not believe me can easily fact check everything I've written. It's everything posted also on F1 official sites. I've given you very precise informations while you are responding me with big but empty generic definitions, random shooted numbers and percentage, your own interpretations and mistaken gossip - nothing really solid at all. You aren't even able to report gossips without misunderstanding them. I've reported official statistics, not my own inventions and interpretations. Official statistics can easily be checked on official sites, I don't need to prove you anything, while inventing your own statistics you have the burden of proof. So, please, tell me and show me, where the heck it objectively comes out your 95% and explain me why on your opinion USA 1984, Monaco 1987, Suzuka 1987, Brazil 1989, Brazil 1990 must be considered so dirty. Senna never vetoed Piquet, not directly or indirectly, in anything. The Piquet-Senna gossip about vetoes was right the contrary. Some said Piquet vetoed Senna in Brabham in 1984, but Senna himself said it wasn't true, it was a matter of sponsorship. Piquet had nothing to do with it. Then how could a rookie and a beginner, as Senna was back then, have the power to veto a 2 or 3 (it depends on the seasons) world champion and after why Senna had to veto a weaker racer like Piquet at the beginning of Nineties?! Use logic instead of shooting random illogical informations. He really didn't need it. The testimonies are right the contrary. After 1988 Senna always wanted Prost as team mate (he didn't care at all about Piquet and maybe this is what made Piquet so mad about him) because, contrarily with other champions, he wanted the best rival on the same car to be motivated and the best were Prost, Mansell, not Piquet. It's not me saying. It's the history of his relationship with Frank Williams and with Cesare Fiorio in Ferrari (Fiorio said it so many times in his interviews). Did you know there was a contract for Senna in Ferrari in 1991 destroyed by behind the scenes politics that also let Ferrari go down for other 10 years? Not mine invention. It's proven. Cesare Fiorio, chosen by Enzo Ferrari before dying to save Ferrari from the dark hole it was into, had made Senna sign a pre- contract for 1991, he wrote a book about it but maybe these things didn't arrive in your bubble. Senna never vetoed Bellof in anything simply for the fact Senna and Bellof had never the occasion of being officially called together, in any team. They made together with Brundle some tests with F1 cars in 1983 and Senna was always the fastest in Donington with Williams and McLaren (with McLaren he was even faster than Lauda) even though he wasn't so good at Paul Richard with Brabham. Bellof and Senna had both proved McLaren in 1983 and they were both vetoed in the team of Working by their sponsors. Rothmans vetoed Bellof in a Marlboro car. So he was taken by Ken Tyrrell while Senna met Rory Birne and Pat Symonds in Toleman Hart team. They were both rookies, how the heck did you think they could vetoed someone?! Then Bellof had a terrible season in 1984, he was disqualified in almost all the races because of irregularities with his car. The next year he was killed by an incident at the 1000 km of Spa with his Porsche 956B and the Porches 962 of Jacky Icks. Use logic, control the informations you share, instead of inventing them or taking them for sure just because they say what you want to believe. Senna never vetoed Nannini in anything, at least you can remember when Senna and Nannini were battling in the Hungarian GP 1990 and, forcing his overtake maneuver, Senna pushed Nannini out of the track. This is the only "dirty" thing ever done by Senna against Nannini. The only reason why Nannini didn't like Senna was because with Ayrton's arrival in Lotus JPS soon, after the death of Colin Chapman, Peter Warr and Ducarougue started betting on Senna more than on De Angelis, who was there since more years and in theory he must be the first pilot. But Senna was faster and Lotus back then had problems in finishing the races so they chose not to bet on the more mature Elio but on the faster Ayrton. Really simple. The rest it was only gossip. Elio said team worked more for Ayrton than for him and that Ayrton was hypocrite quarreling about his situation, Ayrton fears the team was more in De Angelis. It's called rivalry. Each one gave their own version, their own side of the situation and then people decided which one they prefer. If you need to hate Ayrton for sure De Angelis was a victim of Ayrton and not of the fact that back then the talent for speed of Senna suited the exigencies of Lotus more than the trustable experience of De Angelis. The only recer that openly says that somehow Senna had vetoed him was Warwick. No one else. Warwick said that maybe Senna had a role in his not going in Lotus for the 1986 season (saying Warwick was good so he didn't want him as peer in Lotus) to substitute De Angelis who chose to go to Brabham, disappointed by Chapman's behavior. In 1986 during private sessions at Paul Richard De Angelis died in a tragic incident caused by the instability of the car, while he was testing the car destined to Patrese. Mansell and Prost were present and desperately tried to save him, Prost more then others. But in vain. He died poisoned by fires. Senna wrote a courageous article to denounce the safety situation. Elio could be saved if safety conditions were better. But it's necessary to remember gossips from the paddocks instead of these more substantial things. Maybe in your own version of double standard gossip and conspiracy theories, even badly remembered, have to be taken as indisputable truth when they come on your side, but, when objectively highly disputable decisions of FIA are against your ideas, saying that they were an abuse of power suddenly became crying? Your double standard is so big that it took out the space for a correct use of logic in your mind. I'm sorry if statistics bothered you. The next time, instead of things good for motorsport, we can see Gossip Girls series... It looks you prefer these kinds of things.