Customer Reviews

Senna Versus Prost: The Story of the Most Deadly Rivalry in Formula One

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

The impression it leaves me is that Folley was so delighted and gratified to be given a nice lunch and a fairly in depth interview by Prost in his Paris apartment in 2008 that his efforts to remain impartial thereafter collapsed into a morass of subtle and not so subtle slips that reaffirmed the narrative of Prost as the ultimate gentleman and Senna as the fragile and ruthless newbie who came and stole it all away. As such, the Folley narrative ranges from fair and balanced, to being rantingly anti-Senna. To the extent that Senna's story is told, or his point of view heard in retrospect, it is through the words of the others of the time: Warwick, Brundle, Berger, Walker, Jardine, Leberer et al, who Folley has at least taken the trouble to interview and quote. (Brundle is impressively self-effacing and candid about his standing against Senna...no agenda there. Warwick is also remarkably gracious, as he has been over the years about Senna, who he retains an immense respect for). Meanwhile, Folley's faithful repetition, without the slightest irony, of Prost's claim about Suzuka in '89: "I had no interest to make a crash", is a case in point. This is as disingenuous a statement as we have heard from Alain, up there with his equally laughable claim that he never blocked Senna from the Williams team for 1993 (we all know he did, and Senna called his bluff with his 'I'll drive for free' offer to Williams, to make the point). But the narrative treats it without the slightest scepticism, having described the Suzuka collision simply as "a brash manoeuvre" on Senna's part, which "hopelessly misjudged Prost's mood". Never mind that Prost's block is regarded quite widely in the F1 pitlane as the template professional foul, as premeditated as they come, and that attempting to pass someone going more slowly than you is usually regarded as one of the primary imperatives of motor racing. Instead, Alain's 'mood' is what counts. Needless to say, there are valid criticisms to be made of Senna's career and conduct. What is lost in this book is the notion that Prost had a ruthless and underhand streak, too, and was something other than a serial victim.

A good example of what I mean when I say Folley's narrative varies from level headed to openly ranting against Senna, comes at the conclusion of a passage quoting Senna about the notorious incident at Imola in `89, where Prost accused Senna of reneging on an agreement to not attack each other at the first turn after the race start. Here, Folley quotes Senna:

"On the second start, after Berger's accident, he got off to a better start than me. But I got in his slipstream and accelerated quickly. I was going faster than him. I then started the manoeuvre to overtake him. Not at the first corner, before that. It was when we were braking that we were not to attack each other. We had a momentary confrontation, and then I drove clear. He made a mistake and skidded off the track. He had made a driving mistake, but he was trying to make me take the blame. The original idea was simple: no overtaking as we braked on the first bend. After the race, I had a clear conscience. I didn't think that the whole thing would take on such proportions".

So far, so good. Folley is quoting Senna's point of view, and we have already heard Prost's point of view, at great length over several pages. But here's how Folley goes on, and, to be clear, this is our author talking, not Alain Prost:

Folley: Perhaps that had something to do with the fact that he had not been in the race when Pironi, blatantly, and inexcusably, betrayed the promise he had shared with Villeneuve. Perhaps that had something to do with the fact that Prost had lived with that haunting memory for seven years and knew it would never leave him. What was it Prost said? "Gilles was angry with Pironi and Ferrari, absolutely furious. Later I would fully understand these feelings because I had this with Ayrton. At the next race, Gilles went too far in the car in practice. He killed himself because of that dispute with Didier." Do you really believe that drivers would enter a pact that involved no overtaking before a braking area rather than a more specific location, such as the first corner?

So here we have Folley pouring scorn on Senna's account and using the passive aggressive, if not openly sarcastic "perhaps that had something to do with..." language to frame the narrative in terms of Prost's feelings about it. All that's missing is the jabbing of the author's finger at Senna's chest (Folley even addresses the reader in the first person, as if we're incredibly dumb to have even entertained Senna's side of the story all these years). Not for the first time, we hear that Senna should somehow have been cognisant that his rival's buried feelings over an accident 7 years earlier, before Senna even entered F1, would be triggered, along with the displaced fury that went with them. It's an interesting idea, that F1 drivers should be aware of all the experiences and traumas their rivals have been through, take account of them and act accordingly. This is not to say that there is no argument that Senna did wrong, though I find it tenuous at best to invoke the events of 1982 as the primary determinant of the rights and wrongs of a passing move in 1989, but the whole passage from Folley reads to me like an outburst, more like something you'd read from a partisan poster on an internet forum than something you'd read in book, written by a professional author, billing itself as an impartial account of a rivalry. Senna could be fully in the wrong on this and the point would still stand. This is not balanced writing, it is a framed narrative from someone who either began the exercise as a firm fan of Alain Prost, or became one through his interviews with the man.

The Villeneuve/ Pironi narrative (not only their clash at Imola and Villeneuve's death at Zolder, but also Prost's involvement in Pironi's crash at Hockenheim), which legitimately altered Prost's outlook on risk, runs like a thread through the book. This is interesting, but it's woven through the story in such a way that it's clear Folley thinks it is directly relevant to Senna's own penchant for risk. It would have been better to note the point and move on, rather than keep bringing it up every time Senna is seen to challenge Prost on the circuit. And Pironi's crash always was a feeble excuse for Prost's dire performance at Silverstone in '88, but trotted out here nonetheless.

More pro-Prost sympathies are in evidence when we hear, to take one example, that he had niggling clutch problems at the WDC decider in the wet in Suzuka in '88. A detail worth noting? Well, sure, even if it's the first I've heard of it in the intervening 22 years. But driving around minor mechanical issues was par for the course at the time and where is the mention of, say, Senna's pop-off valve malfunctioning in Mexico earlier the same year, and limiting his boost (a race which the book just blandly notes was won easily by Alain, with, quote: "a flawless drive")? If one is worth a mention, then so is the other, but the race accounts are generally bereft of such detail and it creates a false impression.

The cover was designed by an idiot: a picture of Prost & Mansell? on the front, and Derek Warrick (sic) is mis-spelled on the rear cover. There are factual gaffes: for example stating that Watson never raced an F1 car again after 1983. Actually he raced the McLaren in '85 after Lauda hurt his wrist, and made comments about how he knew his career was over when he witnessed Senna at Dingle Dell on a qualifying lap (Watson was on an in lap at the time) - an episode that might actually have served the narrative had Folley been aware of it.

It is also somewhat repetitive. How many times do I need to be told the list of greats who have won Monaco?

Early in the interview, Prost had noted that he knows he can't compete with the ghost of Senna, the legacy of a dead hero. As such, this is a book that might actually plug a legitimate market gap because I doubt that Prost's point of view, laughably self-serving though it is, has been aired as fully as the Senna plaudits have aired the legend of the brilliant Brazilian. Had the book been called "Prost's point of view: a rivalry with Senna", or some such, I would welcome it, as written. Unfortunately it is billed as a fair account, and the flipside of Prost's dilemma is that Senna is no longer around to defend himself at all. As such, and fascinating as it will always be to hear his reminiscences, it almost seems like a cheap shot from Prost to have been behind this book in such a way. The final responsibility, though, lies with the author.

The bottom line is that the greatest rivalry of Formula-1 history deserved a more impartial view and a fairer balance of interviewees. The author misses to interview crucial people and gives a strong weight to Prost and other British opinion, even if some of them had little relevance in the sport. He uses a subtle technique to state his point of view: he selects quotes and then endorses them at his convenience. Then he dramatizes them. Even if it is OK for an author to state a PoV, he should do it transparently and not in between the lines, billing the analysis to be impartial. On this book it is very far from it.

Prost is depicted as the rational, calm, precise, reasonable, more dedicated to the team testing, who was betrayed by Senna and therefore was right on all conflicts that happened between them. On the other hand, the Brazilian is the brilliant (the author could never get away with any different suggestion than this...), BUT spoiled, unreasonable, irresponsible, dishonest, liar, not committed to team testing, who was at every single time claimed guilty of all polemic that followed. The fact that Prost has always been blaming others for his struggles (Senna, McLaren, Honda then Ferrari) is minimized by the book as the "Professeur" always had a good point to justify his lack of accountability.

I believe such biased author's point of view shows a great lack of respect with the fans of this sport, especially because Senna is dead and cannot state his point of view. The author could have compensated his absence by hearing other people who were close to him: Galvao Bueno and Reginaldo Leme from TV Globo (most renowned F-1 narrator and commentator of Formula-1 in Brazil), Senna's family, Senna's Public Relations Betise Assumpção, etc. But instead he chooses to quote extensively a lot of inexpressive British drivers like Derek Warwick (who carried a lot of regret since he was vetoed by Senna at Lotus) and Martin Brundle (who also regret never beating Senna on F-3 and, by the way, never won one single Formula-1 Grand Prix, despite competing for many years).

Those 2 drivers have an incredibly high share of voice in the book. It is very inconsistent with the fact that Nelson Piquet, for instance, was never heard. So, a 3x world champion's voice who, together with Senna and Prost accounted for 10 out of 13 championships between 1981 and 1993 is absent from the book and does not get a chance to defend himself against the authors' view that he is a selfish and dirty man. I don't have the background to judge Piquet's accusations but, the fact that he was not heard even once to say something in his favour leads me to the question to how much the book is "too British" in essence, glorifying the old continent while devaluating the "under-developed" and "irrationally emotional" South Americans.

If the potential reader is interested on an impartial point of view on Formula 1, I recommend looking for another fairer literature in the sport. If the reader will read or has read this book, and want to get deeper into the whole thing, I recommend watching some key youtube videos to come to your own conclusions. On the most polemic examples that the author uses to substantiate Senna's "irresponsible" behaviour, my conclusions below:

1987 - The famous crash between Senna & Mansell when the Englishman came to punch the brazilian on the paddock. Senna is blamed guilty by the author. Senna is on the lead, he's on the curve's inside almost on the grass, Mansell is trying to push through the outside with all left hand side of Senna's free for him and then crashes the Brazilian. If you see the crash you will notice the only way Senna could have avoided was if he went to the grass to let Mansell pass.

1989 & 1990 - Prost crashes Senna on purpose first to win the title and that is minimized because the author suggests he had all reasons to do it. In 1990, FIA agrees to let pole position start at the cleaner part of the track. But Jean-Marrie Balestre over-rules the decision and keeps Senna on the worst side to favour his compatriot Prost, who ended up taking the lead, as expected by the unfair position he was placed at the start. Senna gets his revenge by crashing back and is crucified by the author and the "low importance british drivers". They allege that the accident could have killed Prost and dramatize it to an extreme risk maneuver, never mentioning that on that curve that was a sea of sand along to slow them down. I wonder, giving the conditions Senna was facing (1989 dirty move from Prost and 1990 dirty move from Balestre), if he should really be blamed the way he was by the author. What he did was not right, but I believe anyone with a minimum of warmth in the blood would have done the same.

I learned a lot about Senna and Prost from this book, but it wasn't the best written book I've ever read. There's not much sense of drama. I do like the fact that the author isn't just a Senna fan-boy and treats Prost with the respect he deserves.

SENNA AND PROST WERE WITHOUT DOUBT THE GREATEST SHOW CREATORS IN FORMULA ONE HISTORY. THERE ARE MANY OPINIONS REGARDING WHICH OF THE TWO WAS BETTER, BUT THE ONLY THING THAT CAN BE SAID IS THAT THREE WORLD CHAMP SENNA IS NO LONGER AMONG US AND FOUR TIME CHAMP PROST IS STILL AMONG US. AFTER SENNA AND PROST, FORMULA ONE WILL NEVER BE THE SAME

I obtained this book to get a better sense of Senna's history, and this was a good start. Prost was interviewed and had input into much of their interaction, and as I read other books on the subject, realized that this book was heavily from his point of view. Good nonetheless, but Senna being unable to counter Prost's statements, a bit "slanted" toward Prost's feelings. It was a good read for sure.

This is an absolutely abominable book. The author swallows everything that Alain Prost says about Ayrton Senna hook, line and sinker. And, of course, Senna having been killed in '94 is unable to respond to the balderdash that Prost poured out in a lengthy interview with the author in his Paris apartment. Any real fan of F1 will recognize this screed for what it is -- a bunch of sour grapes by an arrogant F1 driver/insider who was envious of probably the best driver to ever hit the track. And an author who was only too willing to write what Prost was spewing out. If you want to know the true story, watch the film, "Senna," which came out recently.

There is some debate over how unbiased this book is. It's my opinion that most F1 fans can sort through the stuff that may be dubious and make their own opinion. I found this book to be enjoyable and brought me back to my childhood of watching F1 races with my dad. I was a Senna fan simply because I was a kid and liked the colors of his car better. I agree with the reviewers that found this a valuable addition to their F1 libraries.

Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna were the two most successful drivers of their era. Between them, they won over 90 races and 7 world championships. The time period the book covers from from the late 70s to the day of Senna's death in 1994. Most of it is devoted to chronicling the careers of both men and the one team, McLaren, that was pivotal in both their careers as it rose under the leadership of Ron Dennis to become a potent force in F1 during the 1980s. Both Prost and Senna would race for McLaren for 6 years. They had only two years as teammates, but the intense desire of both men to win ignited an explosive rivalry, the likes of which had not been seen in F1 before or after.

We go through this compelling tale through the eyes of several people in the F1 paddock around them - Prost and Senna themselves, other racers, team bosses, engine suppliers and support staff. The author goes to great pains to ensure that this is no one-sided tale. Each of the interviewees brings his own viewpoint, anecdotes and opinions. The end result is both rich and fascinating. For a fan of motorsport history, a fan of either of these men, or just someone who enjoys a compelling human tale - this book is must read.

This is a book all F1 fans should read and is on the short list of my favorite books. I liked it so much I read it twice last summer and bought a copy for a friend. Only complaint is the lack of photos. They should follow up with an illustrated version.

One of the best books I have read on this era of motor racing. These two men influenced Formula 1 to an extent that few have done before or since, and it is chronicled quite well in this book. Enjoy!