18-Sep-2013 14:22:10
I was a Toleman supporter and still think about Jacky Ickx prematurely ending the Monaco Grand Prix to save victory for Alain Prost and McLaren over the charging Toleman and Senna. That being said, I wonder how he can be called the greatest F1 driver of all time?
With McLaren he had superior equipment to the other competitors, whereas Michael Schumacher won 2 world championships with Bennetton while everyone knew Williams had the best car during that period.
To me, the best driver wins when he does not have the best car, Schumacher did, Senna didn't.
Senna, a great talent no doubt, but the best F1 driver of all time?
18-Sep-2013 14:43:07
18-Sep-2013 14:44:53
stubenhocker:
I was a Toleman supporter and still think about Jacky Ickx prematurely ending the Monaco Grand Prix to save victory for Alain Prost and McLaren over the charging Toleman and Senna. That being said, I wonder how he can be called the greatest F1 driver of all time?
With McLaren he had superior equipment to the other competitors, whereas Michael Schumacher won 2 world championships with Bennetton while everyone knew Williams had the best car during that period.
To me, the best driver wins when he does not have the best car, Schumacher did, Senna didn't.
Senna, a great talent no doubt, but the best F1 driver of all time?
You just described one of his best race in a non-competitive car He was 4 seconds a lap faster than Prost in heavy rain.
Rain is the greatest equalizer, doesn't matter how fast each car is, skill and talent is what matters in the rain and Senna is about 3 classes ahead of everyone else in the rain.
lor:
Statistics don't allways tell the whole truth - I like to compare Senna to Maradona,watching them perform it was clearly visible that they are a class above the other 20 guys
Hmm, it's an insult to compare Senna to Maradona, Maradona is famous for being the greatest cheater of all time.
If you want to compare football players, Pele would be the one.
Donington, 1993 Europe GP , Ayrton Senna first lap. Unforgettable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYc9mSENpjU
911 Club Coupe, 993 4S Riviera Blau, 12' Audi S4 Avant
At the time I was a Prost fan, after Lauda retired.
The calculated and intelligent style appealed to me more than Senna's fireworks. Senna was a crowd pleaser, Prost was a "Professor".
The fact that Senna didn't manage to outsurvive F1 (similarly Gilles Villeneuve, another crowd favourite) detracts a lot from his assessment as the greatest F1 driver, in my opinion.
"Form follows function"
Calculated, yes, big time for Prost.
He engineered to have McLaren sign Senna just so HE can benefit from the Honda engines. He didn't expect Senna to out drive him and win the 1988 Championship.
When it looks like Senna is going to win another one in 1989, Prost crashed into Senna deliberately just so he can steal the Championship.
Only fitting that Senna returns the favour in 1990, Prost had it coming.
A good article reappraising Alain Prost
http://www.talkingaboutf1.com/2011/07/in-defence-of-alain-prost.html
--
"Form follows function"
reginos:
A good article reappraising Alain Prost
http://www.talkingaboutf1.com/2011/07/in-defence-of-alain-prost.html
--
"Form follows function"
I read that before. That incident about where he duped Senna into wasting fuel just reaffirms the fact that he is a scheming calculated driver.
I do not dispute his speed, he was the benchmark and that's why Senna was gunning to beat him. Prost also knows ultimately Senna is the faster one on equal cars, that's why he has a clause in his contract to prevent Senna from joining him in Williams.
But in the end, Senna and Prost also admires each other's success on track, and that's why Prost is THE ONE at Senna's funeral. They could be cut throat competitors on track, but the respect remains off track.
18-Sep-2013 23:32:58
Stubenhocker quote: "To me, the best driver wins when he does not have the best car, Schumacher did, Senna didn't."
Your words made me think... Who won drivers championship while their team didn't win constructor championship? To me that is serious proof of a driver exceeding his car's capabilities...
So... backwards... because the modern era interest me...
2008 Lewis Hamilton at McLaren-Mercedes vs Ferrari
1999 Mika Hakinnen at McLaren-Mercedes vs Ferrari
1994 Michael Schumacher at Benetton-Ford vs Williams-Renault
1986 Alain Prost at McLaren-TAG vs Williams-Honda
1983 Nelson Piquet at Brabham-BMW vs Ferrari
1982 Keke Rosberg at Williams-Ford vs Ferrari
1981 Nelson Piquet at Brabham-Ford vs Williams-Ford
1976 James Hunt at McLaren-Ford vs Ferrari
1973 Jackie Stewart at Tyrrell-Ford vs Lotus-Ford
1958 Mike Hawthorn at Ferrari vs Vanwall
Constructor title started with 1958 but I can't in good conscience not add to the list the following:
1950 Giuseppe Farina at Alfa Romeo
1952 & 1953 Alberto Ascari at Ferrari
and....
1951, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957 Juan Manuel Fangio at Alfa Romeo / Maserati-Mercedes / Mercedes / Ferrari / Maserati
That's it. Here you go. The best drivers in the world. The only ones who exceeded their machines CONSISTENTLY.
There is no try. Just do.
Pentium:
Stubenhocker quote: "To me, the best driver wins when he does not have the best car, Schumacher did, Senna didn't."
Your words made me think... Who won drivers championship while their team didn't win constructor championship? To me that is serious proof of a driver exceeding his car's capabilities...
So... backwards... because the modern era interest me...
2008 Lewis Hamilton at McLaren-Mercedes vs Ferrari
1999 Mika Hakinnen at McLaren-Mercedes vs Ferrari
1994 Michael Schumacher at Benetton-Ford vs Williams-Renault
1986 Alain Prost at McLaren-TAG vs Williams-Honda
1983 Nelson Piquet at Brabham-BMW vs Ferrari
1982 Keke Rosberg at Williams-Ford vs Ferrari
1981 Nelson Piquet at Brabham-Ford vs Williams-Ford
1976 James Hunt at McLaren-Ford vs Ferrari
1973 Jackie Stewart at Tyrrell-Ford vs Lotus-Ford
1958 Mike Hawthorn at Ferrari vs Vanwall
Constructor title started with 1958 but I can't in good conscience not add to the list the following:
1950 Giuseppe Farina at Alfa Romeo
1952 & 1953 Alberto Ascari at Ferrari
and....
1951, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957 Juan Manuel Fangio at Alfa Romeo / Maserati-Mercedes / Mercedes / Ferrari / Maserati
That's it. Here you go. The best drivers in the world. The only ones who exceeded their machines CONSISTENTLY.
This is a highly interesting analysis.
One point I would like to add: in these cases where the driver and team championship coincided it would like to differentiate between two scenarios: (i) the driver joins a dominating team and wins (ii) the driver joins a suffering team, the driver first redevelops and optimizes the team and the car and then wins the championship in this new setup he created several times in a row (like Schumacher with Ferrrari).
The reason why I feel so is that the team and management skills needed to rebuild the performance of a F1 team are very unique as well, based on history of F1
F1 is not atheltics. It is man and machine combined and isolating the two is a useless exercise.
A not so good driver cannot handle the best car well (see Zannardi and Frentzen in Williams, or Michael Andretti in the past and many other examples I cannot think of readily) and a brilliant driver cannot win in a rubbish team. How many races has Alonso won with Minardi? How well is Massa performing compared to Alonso? How good was Coulthard next to Hakkinen? Or even Webber next to Vettel.
Not winning the Constructors' could be down to a mediocre second driver partnering the champion driver, rather than the inferiority of the car.
in my way of thinking the best F1 drivers of the modern era have been JYS, Lauda, Prost and Schumacher with a question mark over Piquet. The most spectacular? G.Villeneuve and Senna, both (coincidentally?) prematurely deceased.
"Form follows function"
reginos:
F1 is not atheltics. It is man and machine combined and isolating the two is a useless exercise.
A not so good driver cannot handle the best car well (see Zannardi and Frentzen in Williams, or Michael Andretti in the past and many other examples I cannot think of readily) and a brilliant driver cannot win in a rubbish team. How many races has Alonso won with Minardi? How well is Massa performing compared to Alonso? How good was Coulthard next to Hakkinen? Or even Webber next to Vettel.
Not winning the Constructors' could be down to a mediocre second driver partnering the champion driver, rather than the inferiority of the car.
in my way of thinking the best F1 drivers of the modern era have been JYS, Lauda, Prost and Schumacher with a question mark over Piquet. The most spectacular? G.Villeneuve and Senna, both (coincidentally?) prematurely deceased.
With all respect, Senna`s accident at the Tamburello has been provoked by a technical failure (i.e. the steering column collapse) rather than from his driving / risk taking attitudes.
911 Club Coupe, 993 4S Riviera Blau, 12' Audi S4 Avant
20-Sep-2013 15:46:59
Pentium, that is really great research on your part, much appreciated!
Regarding the football comparison, Senna was Maradona, I can see that. I think Prost was Beckenbauer.
In talking of great drivers, why doesn't my favourite Nigel Mansell get any mention. He had some classic battles with Senna and no one had bigger bollocks than Nigel!
m4ever:
reginos:
F1 is not atheltics. It is man and machine combined and isolating the two is a useless exercise.
A not so good driver cannot handle the best car well (see Zannardi and Frentzen in Williams, or Michael Andretti in the past and many other examples I cannot think of readily) and a brilliant driver cannot win in a rubbish team. How many races has Alonso won with Minardi? How well is Massa performing compared to Alonso? How good was Coulthard next to Hakkinen? Or even Webber next to Vettel.
Not winning the Constructors' could be down to a mediocre second driver partnering the champion driver, rather than the inferiority of the car.
in my way of thinking the best F1 drivers of the modern era have been JYS, Lauda, Prost and Schumacher with a question mark over Piquet. The most spectacular? G.Villeneuve and Senna, both (coincidentally?) prematurely deceased.
With all respect, Senna`s accident at the Tamburello has been provoked by a technical failure (i.e. the steering column collapse) rather than from his driving / risk taking attitudes.
Not definite whether the steering column failed prior to the accident or because of the accident. Newey's theory, for example, is that the right rear tyre picked up a puncture. Many people say many things.
My belief is that Senna cracked under pressure and made a huge mistake. Pressure from lack of results in the new team in the first 2 races and pressure on the track from new star driver Schumacher.
"Form follows function"
@Reginos: Senna was in a very emotional state at the start of the race due to the death of Ratzenberger the day before and the horrific Barrichello crash on the Friday . This is what has been written by Sid Watkins (who happened to be a great friend of Senna). True the Williams performance was not great due to the tricky handling/setup issues encountered in the first two races and this might have contributed to his stress levels , nevertheless at the italian trial the driver`s error has been excluded in the very early stages of the investigation.
This is a very good read:
http://www.forix.com/8w/senna1994.html
911 Club Coupe, 993 4S Riviera Blau, 12' Audi S4 Avant
Yes, I've read this before. Excellent piece of writing.
Anyway, Senna took his secrets with him including his state of mind on the race weekend and the final seconds on the track. The whole mystery has added to the legend.
"Form follows function"
Ask 10 people who is the greatest and one will probably gets 12 names.
There are some diehard fans who will say their own countryman is better. Others will think of the number of championships, most metric are tainted one way or another, even the ones who won championships while their team lose out on the constructors one as this metric doesn't take into consideration that the 2nd driver could be inferior and hence will be a no show.
Vettel is on his way to his 4th, by that count he would be, but the Red Bull were light years ahead of everyone, so is it him who won or the car win it for him.
Schumacher has 7, but majority of them were from the all conquering Ferrari back then, did that play a role?
Alonso is also consider part of the modern elite, but he won 2 in a super fast Renault, and when he got pair in the same car as Hamilton, he is consistently slower, so for pure skills he is inferior to Hamilton yet he has 1 more championship.
Prost won 4, but one of them is tainted forever as he deliberately take out Senna in order to win that one.
Lauda was also a great driver, but he only has 3 championships, is that good enough?
Fangio has won 5, but by the same metric Schummy has 7.
Poles 'could' be a metric for ultimate driving speed, but then the car makes a big difference so that's also a no go.
I think the most fair metric would be how fast one driver is compared to the rest of the field in the rain. The reduced traction equalized all the cars and the slippery condition demands pure car handling skill.
Whoopsy, the metric I listed doesn't contradict your statements:
- Vettel is not listed
- Schumacher is listed only with his first title at Benetton
- Alonso is not listed
- Prost is listed with a title won before Senna incidents
- Lauda lost to James Hunt in 1976 mainly because of the crash he had but he was driving at that time the best F1 car of the grid, the Ferrari 312T&T2, the one with the flat 12cyl Boxer engine. Making mistakes (crashing) is part of the game.
- Fangio is not listed because his titles were won before 1958, the year when the Constructor's title started BUT I would like to point out that five titles with those cars in those years are harder to achieve compared with modern times. Even Schumacher said that about Fangio. And all F1 drivers that drove an old F1 car said that the car scared them. More than that he won the title with four and a half different teams (Maserati-Mercedes and Maserati alone counts for one and a half team).
This metric is not perfect but it gives us a very good candidate list for the best driver title.
When we try to measure something so subjective as talent, especially in a COMPETITIVE situation that needs to take under account so many random variables (the second driver, the team, mechanical failures, weather, etc) we humans have the tendency to turn to metrics because in the end FACTS outlive us.
--
There is no try. Just do.
Reginos: "Not winning the Constructors' could be down to a mediocre second driver partnering the champion driver, rather than the inferiority of the car. "
I don't get this...
So we have Team A that wins the Driver's championship having a very good driver on board and a second lousy driver but both (your claim) having the best car on the grid.
And we have Team B that doesn't have the best car but two mediocre drivers and they win the Constructor's title???!!!
That is the situation you are describing.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Makes much more sense to me that Team B had the best car and with two mediocre drivers won more points than Team A where one of the drivers got a lot of points and the second driver got almost none.
The situation were the Constructor title is won by two mediocre drivers not driving the best car on the grid will mean that BOTH drivers exceeded that car's ability!!! HARD to buy this. Maybe only if the best car of Team A was not reliable but that doesn't make it the best car...
Also in F1 the situation with two similar matched drivers in the same team was not common and it didn't end up well See Senna&Prost, Alonso&Hamilton... Soon perhaps Alonso&Kimi....
It happens more often to have a number one that is better than number two AND it happens MUCH more often to have a one-two win of a race with the two drivers having the best car of the grid: Schumacher&Barrichello, Vettel&Webber, etc
No metric is perfect but this one it's coming pretty close to estimate the most CONSISTENT driver that exceeded his car's capabilities.
--
There is no try. Just do.
Pentium:
Whoopsy, the metric I listed doesn't contradict your statements:
- Vettel is not listed
- Schumacher is listed only with his first title at Benetton
- Alonso is not listed
- Prost is listed with a title won before Senna incidents
- Lauda lost to James Hunt in 1976 mainly because of the crash he had but he was driving at that time the best F1 car of the grid, the Ferrari 312T&T2, the one with the flat 12cyl Boxer engine. Making mistakes (crashing) is part of the game.
- Fangio is not listed because his titles were won before 1958, the year when the Constructor's title started BUT I would like to point out that five titles with those cars in those years are harder to achieve compared with modern times. Even Schumacher said that about Fangio. And all F1 drivers that drove an old F1 car said that the car scared them. More than that he won the title with four and a half different teams (Maserati-Mercedes and Maserati alone counts for one and a half team).
This metric is not perfect but it gives us a very good candidate list for the best driver title.
When we try to measure something so subjective as talent, especially in a COMPETITIVE situation that needs to take under account so many random variables (the second driver, the team, mechanical failures, weather, etc) we humans have the tendency to turn to metrics because in the end FACTS outlive us.
--
There is no try. Just do.
I did a double take on your list and I found it, a dark house.
Nelson Piquet. Only one who won more than once without the constructor championship.
I guess the debate is settled now, Nelson Piquet is the best haha :)
Pentium:
Reginos: "Not winning the Constructors' could be down to a mediocre second driver partnering the champion driver, rather than the inferiority of the car. "
I don't get this...
So we have Team A that wins the Driver's championship having a very good driver on board and a second lousy driver but both (your claim) having the best car on the grid.
And we have Team B that doesn't have the best car but two mediocre drivers and they win the Constructor's title???!!!
That is the situation you are describing.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Makes much more sense to me that Team B had the best car and with two mediocre drivers won more points than Team A where one of the drivers got a lot of points and the second driver got almost none.
Both scenarios are possible. As to the "A" possibility, I can think of 1994 but more 2008.
"Form follows function"
I highly recommend the movie "Senna" from a couple of years ago. Talks about his battles with Prost, etc with some really nice footage., I highly recommend it.
2014 Carrera S - on order- October allocation!
2009 997.2 Carrara White/ blk
2013 BMW 328i Sport (mineral grey/black)
06 987S Seal Grey/blk/blk (gone but not forgotten!)