161 replies to this topic

[superapex]

In the modern era, with the advent of the existing aero packages that make it extremely difficult to pass, and cars with higher levels of reliability, I propose that Senna would be even more dominant.

During his career, the number of Pole Positions that either didn't lead to a victory or ended in a vehicle retirement:
1985: 6
1986: 6
1988: 6
1989: 7
1990: 5

A pole position today (because of aero packages and modern reliability) results in a higher conversion rate of pole position to victory. The years I highlighted are of particular interest because of the high percentage of pole positions that weren't converted to victories. Naturally, one will argue that Senna was an aggressive driver and that some of those retirements or non victories were self inflicted. And you would be correct. But many of those retirements, those due to reliability, would never have occurred in the modern era. If we add in the fact that modern aero packages make it extremely difficult to pass on most circuits and near impossible on some circuits (ie valencia, monaco, singapore to name a few) than we can conclude that Senna's pole position's would have converted to victories at a higher frequency today versus yesteryear.

Some of you will argue that it was just as difficult to pass in his era and they would further reinforce his driving genius (witness the 1991 Italian GP where he charged back to 2nd passing legendaries Schumacher, Berger, and Prost).

If he drove in the modern era, he would have achieved 6 WDC's in his 10 Season career.

[Demo.]

In the modern era, with the advent of the existing aero packages that make it extremely difficult to pass, and cars with higher levels of reliability, I propose that Senna would be even more dominant.

During his career, the number of Pole Positions that either didn't lead to a victory or ended in a vehicle retirement:
1985: 6
1986: 6
1988: 6
1989: 7
1990: 5

A pole position today (because of aero packages and modern reliability) results in a higher conversion rate of pole position to victory. The years I highlighted are of particular interest because of the high percentage of pole positions that weren't converted to victories. Naturally, one will argue that Senna was an aggressive driver and that some of those retirements or non victories were self inflicted. And you would be correct. But many of those retirements, those due to reliability, would never have occurred in the modern era. If we add in the fact that modern aero packages make it extremely difficult to pass on most circuits and near impossible on some circuits (ie valencia, monaco, singapore to name a few) than we can conclude that Senna's pole position's would have converted to victories at a higher frequency today versus yesteryear.

Some of you will argue that it was just as difficult to pass in his era and they would further reinforce his driving genius (witness the 1991 Italian GP where he charged back to 2nd passing legendaries Schumacher, Berger, and Prost).

If he drove in the modern era, he would have achieved 6 WDC's in his 10 Season career.

LOL
no way to tell
Cars are so different.
The sport is so different.
The drivers are so different.
The name is the same thats it.

[I_hate_chicanes]

I agree with your analysis. And with the refueling ban being introduced from next season, Senna would have even more of an advantage.

Edited by I_hate_chicanes, 01 August 2009 - 15:29.

[Demo.]

I agree with your analysis. And with refueling being introduced from next season, Senna would have even more of an advantage.

*cough refueling ban dont you mean*cough

[Madras]

Who knows.

[Calorus]

Who knows.

Came here intending to post "Who knows, Who Cares?"

Winner.

[superapex]

Gone are the years of lore, when Prost, Senna, Mansell, and Schumacher would battle throughout the grid with vicious position exchanges.

While watching Räikkönen struggle in misery to pass Nelson Piquet, I can take solace in that fact that every additional beer makes the racing better.

[mel]

Have you checked out the Nostalgia Forum?

[Spunout]

Senna always spent more time perfecting quali setups, in comparison to his rivals. Now that qualifying is all-important, they are all doing the same thing.

[Mary Popsins]

I always though that Senna belonged to the Modern Era but let's not be fussy.


Although I understand the equation I'm a bit puzzled by its significance. There are tons of reason why overtaking has never been possible in F1: firstly because of a gap too big between the cars' performances, and second for the opposite reason. Nowadays it takes a straw to bamboozle the result of a race, so if Senna was "aggressive"..

Aggressive drivers do finish the race. There was this guy who won the WDC seven times, forgot his name.

Most of all it depends on the quality of the opposition. This year's grid is quite a vintage. Senna would not have beaten Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, and the others 6 times out of 10.

[holiday]

Nostalgia Forum.

And the king of the non-refueling era was undeniably Prost.

[I_hate_chicanes]

*cough refueling ban dont you mean*cough

Yes, sorry! Fixed.

Edited by I_hate_chicanes, 01 August 2009 - 15:31.

[I_hate_chicanes]

Most of all it depends on the quality of the opposition. This year's grid is quite a vintage. Senna would not have beaten Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, and the others 6 times out of 10.

Correction: Senna would have beaten all those you've mentioned 10 times out of 10 with one hand tied behind his back

[wewantourdarbyback]

More dominant?


I didn't know he was dominant in the first place, great, yes, dominant with 3 titles in his 10 years in the sport is not dominance I'm afraid.

[qvn]

No, not sure.

Senna's strength is in qualifying but only with nearly empty tank. With the current qualifying rule right now, he would have to qualify with some volume of fuel in his car. Moreover, he could not just optimize his car for qualification any more.

And if he could not be in front and it is so difficult to overtake, I am not sure if he could be more dominant.

[cheapracer]

During his career, the number of Pole Positions that either didn't lead to a victory or ended in a vehicle retirement:
1985: 6
1986: 6
1988: 6
1989: 7
1990: 5

Wow, I knew he was a shitty driver but those figures tell me the picture is even worse than i thought.

Whats the real issue here superknob, Schumacher getting too much attention this week?

[cheapracer]

More dominant?


I didn't know he was dominant in the first place, great, yes, dominant with 3 titles in his 10 years in the sport is not dominance I'm afraid.

Don't forget what he was driving when he got those 3 titles too - the ultimate McLaren which any reasonable monkey could have driven to the title.

So Senna = 3 WDC - but the car was the dominating factor.

Oh but wait, lets not forget that the 1988 season was actually won by Prost on points (105 Vs 94) but they had to drop 3 race results according to the rules that year

So Senna = 2 WDC's with a dominating car.

Oh but wait, lets not forget that Prost was in front going into turn one where Senna rammed him (Senna's factual words not mine) and going on the OP's premise that means that Prost would have won the WDC and that Means that Senna only has right to claim one.

So Senna = 1 WDC with a dominating car

Oh but wait, in Senna's own words he won that title off Bergers back

So really based on driver ability Senna = 0 WDC's.

Phew, I'm out of breathe now!

And lets not forget Superknob that Schumacher beat Senna at Brazil 1994 (You know, Senna's home track) fair and square on track.

[OnyxF1]

I used to be a really huge Senna fan but I have to admit nowadays that he wasn't nearly as complete as some like to point out. He was sort of like a super Jarno Trulli. Amazing qualifier but average in race pace. If you go back through the archives, you find many occasions where he qualified on pole only to drop back during the race or blow his engine up. Prost, Mansell and MS were far better race pace drivers. I always think that Nelson Piquet Sr. is somewhat underrated, he was a very clever driver and a good car developer. Paul Rosche of BMW said he was the best test driver he'd ever known.

As for the topic, consistently fast race pace is required today, like Schumacher's qualifying lap race pace he used to pull out, something that Senna didn't have. He was very sporadic.

Edited by OnyxF1, 01 August 2009 - 16:37.

[cheapracer]

All jokes aside, nice post OnyxF1

[jimm]

Don't forget what he was driving when he got those 3 titles too - the ultimate McLaren which any reasonable monkey could have driven to the title.

So Senna = 3 WDC - but the car was the dominating factor.

Oh but wait, lets not forget that the 1988 season was actually won by Prost on points (105 Vs 94) but they had to drop 3 race results according to the rules that year

So Senna = 2 WDC's with a dominating car.

Oh but wait, lets not forget that Prost was in front going into turn one where Senna rammed him (Senna's factual words not mine) and going on the OP's premise that means that Prost would have won the WDC and that Means that Senna only has right to claim one.

So Senna = 1 WDC with a dominating car

Oh but wait, in Senna's own words he won that title off Bergers back

So really based on driver ability Senna = 0 WDC's.

Phew, I'm out of breathe now!

And lets not forget Superknob that Schumacher beat Senna at Brazil 1994 (You know, Senna's home track) fair and square on track.

So we can take 1994, 2002-5 away from MS then right? HE had the best car by a mile for those years and he made his teammate be a lacky for the other years so basiclly no titles for him. Post looses 1985 and 1993, Mika 1998-9, Mansell 1992, Hill and JV 1995-6.

So really no one has ever won a WDC?

You also left out the part where Senna basically took the fight to Prost in 1993 even though the Williams was by far the best car even beating him on pace in the race.

The best drivers always had the best cars. We get treated to years like 1991 and 1993 or 1998 where the best driver has to take the fight to a really good driver in a better car and show his brilliance.

[jimm]

I used to be a really huge Senna fan but I have to admit nowadays that he wasn't nearly as complete as some like to point out. He was sort of like a super Jarno Trulli. Amazing qualifier but average in race pace. If you go back through the archives, you find many occasions where he qualified on pole only to drop back during the race or blow his engine up. Prost, Mansell and MS were far better race pace drivers. I always think that Nelson Piquet Sr. is somewhat underrated, he was a very clever driver and a good car developer. Paul Rosche of BMW said he was the best test driver he'd ever known.

As for the topic, consistently fast race pace is required today, like Schumacher's qualifying lap race pace he used to pull out, something that Senna didn't have. He was very sporadic.

you are using todays F1 to think about this. Back then, they often did not stop for even tires. You bascially used up the brakes, the tires everything as the car burned off fuel. There was also a big difference in the weight from the begining of the race to the end. On heavier fuel loads, the car sat lower and burned off the tires more.

The brilliance of both Senna and Prost is how they managed the car and is a skill that has been lost on the new generation of F1 drivers.

Prost went slower at the beginning saving more of the car and then would push toward the middle of the race when the car was lighter. Senna drove the car closer to its potential and used up more the car....Often they were pretty close at the end. Senna's approach had him leading a bunch of races and in position to win a bunch and netted him a lot of poles. Prost's netted him a bunch of wins and a bunch of fast laps.

boils down to this....if you exclude the races that one or both dropped out...if they were both running at the end, Senna was in front about 70% of the time.

[qvn]

I used to be a really huge Senna fan but I have to admit nowadays that he wasn't nearly as complete as some like to point out. He was sort of like a super Jarno Trulli. Amazing qualifier but average in race pace. If you go back through the archives, you find many occasions where he qualified on pole only to drop back during the race or blow his engine up. Prost, Mansell and MS were far better race pace drivers. I always think that Nelson Piquet Sr. is somewhat underrated, he was a very clever driver and a good car developer. Paul Rosche of BMW said he was the best test driver he'd ever known.

As for the topic, consistently fast race pace is required today, like Schumacher's qualifying lap race pace he used to pull out, something that Senna didn't have. He was very sporadic.

[as65p]

Don't forget what he was driving when he got those 3 titles too - the ultimate McLaren which any reasonable monkey could have driven to the title.

So Senna = 3 WDC - but the car was the dominating factor.

Oh but wait, lets not forget that the 1988 season was actually won by Prost on points (105 Vs 94) but they had to drop 3 race results according to the rules that year

So Senna = 2 WDC's with a dominating car.

Oh but wait, lets not forget that Prost was in front going into turn one where Senna rammed him (Senna's factual words not mine) and going on the OP's premise that means that Prost would have won the WDC and that Means that Senna only has right to claim one.

So Senna = 1 WDC with a dominating car

Oh but wait, in Senna's own words he won that title off Bergers back

So really based on driver ability Senna = 0 WDC's.

Phew, I'm out of breathe now!

And lets not forget Superknob that Schumacher beat Senna at Brazil 1994 (You know, Senna's home track) fair and square on track.

Congratulations, you've proven to be to Senna what Frans is to MS

Only a little more work on your style and you're there!

[as65p]

If you go back through the archives, you find many occasions where he qualified on pole only to drop back during the race or blow his engine up.

Strange, isn't it? With his inferior race pace the engines should actually have lasted longer...

[Tolyngee]

If he drove in the modern era, he would have achieved 6 WDC's in his 10 Season career.

Had Senna survived Imola '94 and not retired and safety had not significantly changed in F1, I think the history of F1 might look very different here 15 years later.

Since Hill was almost the WDC in '94, I think Senna would have found a way to beat MS... So, title 4 for Senna...

Maybe Senna also in '95? 5 for Senna, still zero for MS...

'96 and '97 were Williams years... Maybe 7 for Senna? Still zero for MS, now two years at Ferrari...

So, Senna retires with 7 WDCs, what MS has now...

The interesting part?

What if because of lack of safety improvements MS's accident in Silverstone '99 was a career ender?

MS finishes his career in F1 with ZERO WDCs...

Quite a difference one fatality can have on a sport and history...

[P123]

Wow, I knew he was a shitty driver but those figures tell me the picture is even worse than i thought.

Whats the real issue here superknob, Schumacher getting too much attention this week?

Trust a silly little Schumacher fanboy to get all exasperated at the mere mention of Senna.

[DOF_power]

Hill was actually ahead of Senna in the Championship, when the later died.

With Senna's 0/0/0-but survives Imola points tally he wouldn't have been able to take the fight to Schumacher in last round.

Even is Senna wouldn't have died, Ratzenberger death and Baricello's near death would have changed things.

[OnyxF1]

The brilliance of both Senna and Prost is how they managed the car and is a skill that has been lost on the new generation of F1 drivers.

Prost went slower at the beginning saving more of the car and then would push toward the middle of the race when the car was lighter. Senna drove the car closer to its potential and used up more the car....Often they were pretty close at the end. Senna's approach had him leading a bunch of races and in position to win a bunch and netted him a lot of poles. Prost's netted him a bunch of wins and a bunch of fast laps.

Uh, Senna didn't manage his car well, that was one of his major flaws. Take the 1989 season for example, he finished only 8 times out of 16 (excluding his disqualification). 5 of those non finishes were mechanical failures. Compare that to Prost who finished 12 times out of 16 and only one of those retirements was down to a mechanical failure. The reason Prost beat Senna convincingly in 1989 was that he was much better at managing the car and avoiding incidents. Look at the number of poles: Prost: 1 Senna: 13 (!). Prost had 4 wins, Senna had 6. That demonstrates to me that Senna was a very quick qualifier but was either inconsistent in race pace or drove his car so hard that it broke down. It was like this throughout Senna's career. The only year where Senna really looked transcendent was 1993, when he started to drive more with an emphasis on race pace rather than qualifying pace. Whether he would have carried that new mentality into 1994 and beyond, who knows?

All of the speculation that "OMG Senna would have been 7 times WDC had he not died" is pure speculation. For all we know, the handling characteristics of the updated Williams may not have suited Senna. Schumacher may not have been disqualified and excluded from several races like he was in 1994. 1995 is questionable too. 1996? Most certainly, but if you believe speculation, Senna was headed to Ferrari in 1996 anyway so no WDC.

Edited by OnyxF1, 01 August 2009 - 17:53.

[as65p]

Hill was actually ahead of Senna in the Championship, when the later died.

With Senna's 0/0/0-but survives Imola points tally he wouldn't have been able to take the fight to Schumacher in last round.

Even is Senna wouldn't have died, Ratzenberger death and Baricello's near death would have changed things.

Many theories possible and all ultimately pointless.

How about: had Senna not died, the FIA wouldn't have felt the need to avoid another major scandal at all cost and instead come down like a ton of bricks on Benettons trick car?

[MinT]

Superknob

On most forums a guy with 2 posts gets welcomed.....

Its not the wrost post I have ever seen, or the most offensive unless you have an irrational Senna hatred that has been burning you up inside for the last 15 years.....

Edited by MinT, 01 August 2009 - 17:59.

[as65p]

Uh,

On a sidenote, are all driver personally responsible for technical failures of their car or just Senna? Or maybe just Senna and Räikönnen?

[DOF_power]

Don't forget what he was driving when he got those 3 titles too - the ultimate McLaren which any reasonable monkey could have driven to the title.

So Senna = 3 WDC - but the car was the dominating factor.

Oh but wait, lets not forget that the 1988 season was actually won by Prost on points (105 Vs 94) but they had to drop 3 race results according to the rules that year

So Senna = 2 WDC's with a dominating car.

Oh but wait, lets not forget that Prost was in front going into turn one where Senna rammed him (Senna's factual words not mine) and going on the OP's premise that means that Prost would have won the WDC and that Means that Senna only has right to claim one.

So Senna = 1 WDC with a dominating car

Oh but wait, in Senna's own words he won that title off Bergers back

So really based on driver ability Senna = 0 WDC's.

Phew, I'm out of breathe now!

And lets not forget Superknob that Schumacher beat Senna at Brazil 1994 (You know, Senna's home track) fair and square on track.

That's a pretty biased B* post, not without truth, but still plenty of biased B*.

The reason he fell back before 88, was power-per-how electronic engine management.

Superior electronics from 84 onwards meant more-power-vs.-fuel consumption, better engine reliability and better engine driveability.

The TAG-Porsche, then Hondas dominated, the engine-electronic management areas, and thus the sport.
The Renault, Ferrari and BMW engines had power, but no such advanced electronic engine management goodies, witch put them at a disadvantage after 1983.

After the turbo era, the electronic fuel control was converted into electronic traction control, as according the Patrick Head and some Ferrari in a Red Bulletin article, the basics where all there and where quite similar.


The irony is people talk about today's driver aids, but it truth the electronics actually made the biggest difference in the 1984-1988 period.

[nneads]

Senna's poles were a technical achievement as much as anything else. Senna had very special qualifying engines built for him. Super-high H.P and very short life duration engines. Seeing those engines would only last a few laps, of course Senna went out at the very end of the hour qualifying session. And put an "amazing" time in. Well hello reality. It was at the end of the qualifying sessions that the rubber had been laid down on the race track. And the track was by far at its quickest. And no other team put that kind of money and effort into these 1,100-1,400 H.P. engines. Alain Prost never got those "one of" engines from Ron Dennis at McLaren in the late 1980's. But when Prost got a superior engine in the Williams/Renault 3.5 in 1993, he won 14 of 16 poles that year. Bettering Senna best year of 13 of 16 races in 1988. It was Senna getting these Saturday engines that was the cause of the Senna-Prost feud. Ron always favoured Senna and made no bones about that fact. So just who did Senna beat to get his pole positions? NOBODY.

[as65p]

Senna's poles were a technical achievement as much as anything else. Senna had very special qualifying engines built for him. Super-high H.P and very short life duration engines. Seeing those engines would only last a few laps, of course Senna went out at the very end of the hour qualifying session. And put an "amazing" time in. Well hello reality. It was at the end of the qualifying sessions that the rubber had been laid down on the race track. And the track was by far at its quickest. And no other team put that kind of money and effort into these 1,100-1,400 H.P. engines. Alain Prost never got those "one of" engines from Ron Dennis at McLaren in the late 1980's. But when Prost got a superior engine in the Williams/Renault 3.5 in 1993, he won 14 of 16 poles that year. Bettering Senna best year of 13 of 16 races in 1988. It was Senna getting these Saturday engines that was the cause of the Senna-Prost feud. Ron always favoured Senna and made no bones about that fact. So just who did Senna beat to get his pole positions? NOBODY.

I bet not even Prost knew all that in such detail before today, I think he should be told!

PS: Especially considering that the '88 turbos were restricted to 2.5 bar in qualifying AND race trim, which produced at best around 700 HP, more likely 650.

And now you tell us that Honda gave Senna engines with double the power

If he would have been half useful he should have poled by 4 secs every race with those...

Edited by as65p, 01 August 2009 - 18:20.

[DOF_power]

Prost stated he his inferiority in qualifying was to the fact that he wasn't very good/aggressive enough to warm up the tires properly, especially the front tires witch meant the car lost time by understeering.

[Ricardo F1]

So just who did Senna beat to get his pole positions? NOBODY.

[nneads]

The 1989 McLaren MP4-5 Honda 3.5 V10 was the real insane Saturday power plant. But the 1988 1.5 turbo of McLaren MP4-4 Honda 1.5 V6T was just incredible on Saturday also. I watched them both race on race weekends back then several times. It is amazing what can be done to an engine with a life time expectation of less than 12 laps. Basically 6 laps at full power. Obviously you missed those older days of F1 racing.

[as65p]

The 1989 McLaren MP4-5 Honda 3.5 V10 was the real insane Saturday power plant. But the 1988 1.5 turbo of McLaren MP4-4 Honda 1.5 V6T was just incredible on Saturday also. I watched them both race on race weekends back then several times. It is amazing what can be done to an engine with a life time expectation of less than 12 laps. Basically 6 laps at full power. Obviously you missed those older days of F1 racing.

Nothing will make your claims of 1100 to 1400 HP for an 1988 turbo engine go away, mate.

And I dare say that ranks among the most clueless and misinformed things ever spouted here on the boards.

Otherwise your impression of someone who knows what he's talking about was pretty decent, you just should have stayed away from the numbers. Better luck next time...

[lafitek]

in the same car SENNA >SCHUMACHER>PROST
in 1993 senna beat schumacher (5:1 in wins, 1:0 in poles) in underpowered version of Ford motor and crap of car compared to Byrne Benetton

[kenny]

in 1993, he won 14 of 16 poles that year. . [/b]

13 poles
but I think this mistake matches the rest of your post..

[icecream_man]

Correction: Senna would have beaten all those you've mentioned 10 times out of 10 with one hand tied behind his back ;)

Wow, to be that certain you must have hard evidence, ie a group test of them all together in the same car, could you give us the link please ?

What ? You mean it's pure conjecture that can never be proven ?

Damn, I got all excited there for a second

Edited by icecream_man, 01 August 2009 - 19:41.

[nneads]

Nothing will make your claims of 1100 to 1400 HP for an 1988 turbo engine go away, mate.

And I dare say that ranks among the most clueless and misinformed things ever spouted here on the boards.

Otherwise your impression of someone who knows what he's talking about was pretty decent, you just should have stayed away from the numbers. Better luck next time...

OK, I try one more time, dammed if I know why. In 1988, F1 was in the process of changing over to 3.5/V10 liter engines for 1989. F1 put "IN RACE" limitations on the 1.5 turbo engines for much needed safety reason for the 1988 season. The cars were just too over powered for the race tracks. The normal 1988 Honda 1.5 engine stats engine stats are here. You do know how to read right? Just having a bad joke here my good man. Now that stats are a bit wrong. 800 H.P. for a race engine was the maximum allowed for a in race engine of the 1.5 turbo's in 1988. So the real power is a bit higher. How much? Who knows. Maybe 75-100 H.P. more. Just a guess.
1988 Honda 1.5

Honda 1.5 V6T

Season: 1988

Capacity: 1500 cc

Cylinders: V6

BHP: 800

RPM: 12500

BUT on Saturday qualifying you could use what ever engine specifications you wanted to. So the Saturday special engines came into play that year. That 800+++ H.P race engine was changed into a 1,200+ H.P. power house for Saturday at McLaren for Senna. Maybe 1,400 was rumoured back then. Nobody knew for sure. Or still knows. Seeing BMW got 2,550 H.P. out of a 1.5 turbo engine in a 2005 experimental test, these numbers are right in line with engine, computer, metallurgical and conceptional design development from that time frame. Your are aware of the BMW 1.5 2005 tests, right??? Prost got a slightly less powerful Saturday engine, being the number 2 driver for Ron Dennis. Prost did lots of laps for the tire evaluations. And car set-ups. So his engine had to last about 40 laps on Saturday, in comparison to Senna's engine having to last maybe 6 hot laps. It is that simple. Ron used Prost as his Lap Dogie.
In 1989, the power went down. The Honda Honda 3.5 V10 was vastly under estimated in power here. Ron Dennis was cheating of course. Nothing new there, is there??? 1989 Honda 3.5 V-10
Season: 1989

Capacity: 3,490 cc

Cylinders: V10

BHP: 650

RPM: 11000

But, on Saturday, they got that engine up to around 1,000 to 1,100 H.P. for the short Senna laps. Which is no great trick really. The Honda 3.5 was probably at 750 H.P. for in race use to start with. Cut the life expectancy down to a few laps and 1,100 H.P. is not that hard technically. But an expensive exercise for sure. So expensive, F1 had to change the qualifying rules for 1990. They began checking engines to make sure they were within 10% of the stated in race out put for the teams. This is not rocket science here. Just a piece of F1 history. I hope you have learn something. I have tired to help you any way Sir.

"And I dare say that ranks among the most clueless and misinformed things ever spouted here on the boards." - That was a wrong statement. And only shows how little YOU know of F1. But have a great day anyway.

[nneads]

Opps, I forgot this. In 1988, Senna pole times were about 3.5 to 4.3 seconds quicker than the mid field teams in every race. Check it out in Forix if you do not believe me. They are just as quick as you stated.

[Schuperman]

in the same car SENNA >SCHUMACHER>PROST

Senna and Prost were driving the same car 1988 & 1989.

In 1988, Senna beat Prost based on the best of 11. In total, Prost beat Senna. The best of 11's rule, IMO is a flaw. In golf terms, only the best of 3 results count. If that were the rule, Tiger Woods would not have as many titles as he has now.

In 1989, Prost beat Senna. (Despite Honda was taking side with Senna. By Prost and Honda own admission)

In a real world, it is justifiable to claim PROST>SENNA in the same car.

Senna and Schumacher had never been driving in the same car. In 1992 - 1993, Senna was driving McLaren. In 1994, Senna jumped to Williams. Back then, these two giants dominated F1. And Schumacher was driving Benetton. A team that was more famous in producing clothes than engineering.

In 1992 a rookie Schumacher did better than Senna. In 1993 Senna, while driving the most technological advanced car, did better than Schumacher. In 1994, while being touted a walkover for Senna, he was beaten in the first 3 races by Schumacher.

in 1993 senna beat schumacher (5:1 in wins, 1:0 in poles) in underpowered version of Ford motor and crap of car compared to Byrne Benetton

In 1993, Senna was driving one of the best cars on the grid. With that kind of car at his disposal, if he was as great as he is written after his death, he should have beaten a semi retired Prost.

Ron Dennis: Senna won five races that year in a car that was the most technically advanced car probably ever made, and they were five phenomenal races.

Unlike tyres and aerodynamics, engine was not a major decisive factor in F1. You could put Force India with the best engine, if its aerodynamics is not as good as McLaren for example, nothing much they could achieve. Senna's McLaren got the same engine as Benetton, after a number of races. Overall, IMO McLaren 1993 was much better car than Benetton. It had TC, aerodynamics and other technological advantages over Benetton.

Edited by Schuperman, 01 August 2009 - 22:54.

[Schuperman]

In the modern era, with the advent of the existing aero packages that make it extremely difficult to pass, and cars with higher levels of reliability, I propose that Senna would be even more dominant.

Could have, would have.....

Let we check how Senna managed to get poles:

Toleman 1984 - 0

Lotus 1985 - 7
Lotus 1986 - 8
Lotus 1987 - 1

McLaren 1988 - 13
McLaren 1989 - 13
McLaren 1990 - 10
McLaren 1991 - 8
McLaren 1992 - 1
McLaren 1993 - 1

Williams 1994 - 3

Most of the time, he needed the fastest car to do it (McLaren 1988 - 1991) OR a car that was set-up for qualifying and used specialised qualifying engines (Lotus 1985 - 1986, back then, it was allowed). When he didn't have that clear advantages, he suffered badly.

And if you did notice, every strong / best team he joined, the team would become weak and weaker. Was it due to his poor technical feedback and development skills? Was it due to his own poor driving? Or both?

Senna made a lot of mistakes and involved in a lot of collisions in the races. By comparing him to Prost, he suffered a lot of mechanical / engines' break down.

All in all, I just could not see how Senna could be more dominant in today's F1. In fact, he wasn't that dominant during his days.

I am thinking, given the fastest car, Jarno Trulli, could have been more successful than he is today if he were racing in 1985 - 1995.

[Ricardo F1]

Most of the time, he needed the fastest car to do it (McLaren 1988 - 1991) OR a car that was set-up for qualifying and used specialised qualifying engines (Lotus 1985 - 1986, back then, it was allowed). When he didn't have that clear advantages, he suffered badly.

And if you did notice, every strong / best team he joined, the team would become weak and weaker. Was it due to his poor technical feedback and development skills? Was it due to his own poor driving? Or both?

Man you are so utterly full of . . . .

Very sad. You might want to point out that Senna alongside having qualifying cars also stuck a taser up his ass for added "lightning boost" - somewhat similar to KERS in principal - just to gain that added second or so. Rewriting history and inventing nonsense is a bit much to disparage a great driver. You COULD argue that he wasn't the best driver of his era, Prost was certainly a brilliant racing driver, to argue that he wasn't the fastest, especially as a qualifier would just be nonsense. Even Prost knew beating Senna on Saturday was an uphill battle.

Edited by Ricardo F1, 01 August 2009 - 23:20.

[as65p]

OK, I try one more time,

You better hadn't because the only thing you keep doing is digging your hole deeper.

BUT on Saturday qualifying you could use what ever engine specifications you wanted to.

No, clueless. The 2.5 bar limitation was in place at all times, in qualifying and the races.

The only thing Honda would do for qualifying in '88 is run the engine at it's richest setting and raising the engines rpm limit.

That meant and additional 65 PS for qualifying. The bare numbers were 456KW (620 PS) in race trim and 504KW (685 PS) in qualifying.



BTW, he "800" from the site you quote are BHP, not HP. I'm not surprised it's seemingly all the same to you, though...

1100 to 1400 HP, eh? You haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking of.

Ah, and over 1000 HP out of a 3.500cc athmospheric engine in 1989? Your personal hole has by now definitely taken you through the whole globe and out on the other side, still carrying some impressive speed into open space...

But it sure was fun talking to you.

Edited by as65p, 01 August 2009 - 23:51.

[JtP1]

You better hadn't because the only thing you keep doing is digging your hole deeper.



No, clueless. The 2.5 bar limitation was in place at all times, in qualifying and the races.

The only thing Honda would do for qualifying in '88 is run the engine at it's richest setting and raising the engines rpm limit.

That meant and additional 65 PS for qualifying. The bare numbers were 456KW (620 PS) in race trim and 504KW (685 PS) in qualifying.



BTW, he "800" from the site you quote are BHP, not HP. I'm not surprised it's seemingly all the same to you, though...

1100 to 1400 HP, eh? You haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking of.

Ah, and over 1000 HP out of a 3.500cc athmospheric engine in 1989? Your personal hole has by now definitely taken you through the whole globe and out on the other side, still carrying some impressive speed into open space...

But it sure was fun talking to you.

There was the story of the Honda engined driver complaining he only had 4 bar boost during the era of the 2.5 bar limit. So overcoming the limiter valves was no problem in practice.

Senna's 3 poles in 94 never got converted into anythinf but a lot of whining. Must have seemed like old times with Nigel.

[as65p]

There was the story of the Honda engined driver complaining he only had 4 bar boost during the era of the 2.5 bar limit.

Sure. There is also the story of the Tooth Fairy.

Look, there are legit ways to pick on Senna. Many, in fact. But could you please try a little harder to give it some sort of credibility?

[Ricardo F1]

Senna's 3 poles in 94 never got converted into anythinf but a lot of whining. Must have seemed like old times with Nigel.

Because the car was awful in race trim and a bit of a pig all round compared to the Benetton which was a much faster car ; that Senna put that Williams on pole while Hill couldn't get within half a second of him (or even a second and a half in Brazil) was testament to how bloody quick Senna was. Senna came to Williams much in the same vein as Prost had a year before - after many years of struggle to have an championship car was his goal. He didn't get it and it cost him his life.

Edited by Ricardo F1, 02 August 2009 - 00:47.