Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 11 votes

Vettel as good as Senna, says Ascanelli


  • Please log in to reply
805 replies to this topic

#551 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 7,306 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 11 January 2013 - 21:04

Did you not listen to the pilots? They take everything into account (speed, altitude etc) and coupled with 1000 of hours of practice and thinking about it all the different situations they find themselves in they know that doing "X" will, in all probability result in "Y", some pilots have a better grasp of this than others. Its not about being able to see into the future or "know" whats going to happen, its about knowing the probabilities of doing something.

...
Sorry, this is way OT, i should really try and sign up for the paddock club forum thing!


There is a longer clip that goes into more detail on the "precognition" thing ... but I could not find it - it got deleted from youtube.

[/OT]

Advertisement

#552 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 11 January 2013 - 21:18

Not even close. Alonso in 2006 didn't lose a single point because of a driving mistake in the whole season. And I don't think I need to say anything about 2012.

Vettel in 2011:




While the car was miles ahead of any other car.


You can think what you want, but why can't you just keep it to the facts?
Why the need to say things that are factually not true?

#553 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 11 January 2013 - 21:21

Do you think, people would even remember drivers like Paletti or Ratzenberger nowadays? E.g. Can you spontaneously tell me the names of their teammates?

What about drivers like Clark, Rindt, Cevert, Peterson, Villeneuve or Bellof? I´m not saying, that they are overrated - but that they their kind of iconic status evolved (or at least became bigger) with their tragic and too early death. (There are of course much more famous example outside of F1, like James Dean, M.Monroe, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Elvis, John Lennon, Kurt Cobain to name a few)
I think it´s quite normal, that people have a different perception of somebody else, after he´d died.

And even in that case Senna´s is "special" (in sports).
In the earlier days death was - quite sadly - a normal part of F1. That became less and less. At the same time TV coverage and public interest grew enormously over time. Both develepmonts had reached a climax at that time. Before Imola there hadn´t been a fatal accident during a GP weekend for over a decade and then (hundreths of) millions of people have to witness the (by far) most successful active athlete of his sport dying on live-television. I guess that happened exactly one time in sports history.
So yes, i think that changed his image/status a little.

As you mentioned Schumacher briefly. Do you really think, people would have exactly the same perception of him, if he would´ve had a fatal accident sometime between - let´s say - 2001-2006?

Ps. To be clear: I don´t mean to say, that Senna´s driving skills are vastly overrated because of his death. That´d be nonsense.


I don't remember Paletti or Ratzenberger teammates just as I don't remember for which teams they were racing. Their deaths made them more famous but did not mystified or overrated them.

About Peterson and Bellof, I agree with BoschKurve. I don't think Clark, Rindt, Cevert and Villeneuve are rated much different before and after their deaths.

I think death immortalize the sentiment that people has in that moment. If Schumi would've had a fatal accident between 2001-2006 specially in early 2005 I believe he would be considered the best because that was the impression at the time.

My opinion is that Ayrton had an unbelievable season in 93 achieving 5 wins and finishing 2nd with a car that was most of the time 2s slower than the Williams leaving the impression that he was by far the best driver, and when he died early in the next season that sentiment was immortalized. Had he kept that level of performance in the following years and retired he would be rated equally as today, otherwise he would be rated below.

#554 Winter98

Winter98
  • Member

  • 638 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 12 January 2013 - 03:31

Did you not listen to the pilots? They take everything into account (speed, altitude etc) and coupled with 1000 of hours of practice and thinking about it all the different situations they find themselves in they know that doing "X" will, in all probability result in "Y", some pilots have a better grasp of this than others. Its not about being able to see into the future or "know" whats going to happen, its about knowing the probabilities of doing something.


Exactly right.

Same thing as in hockey. We call it "seeing the ice." The good ones can make tape to tape passes when they haven't seen their target for three or four seconds and 10 people are flying around at 25 mph. Youtube Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky, or Mario Lemieux for examples.

Edited by Winter98, 12 January 2013 - 03:36.


#555 halifaxf1fan

halifaxf1fan
  • Member

  • 4,846 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 12 January 2013 - 04:54

Exactly right.

Same thing as in hockey. We call it "seeing the ice." The good ones can make tape to tape passes when they haven't seen their target for three or four seconds and 10 people are flying around at 25 mph. Youtube Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky, or Mario Lemieux for examples.



It has been said that the Great One could perceive the game at a much slower pace than the rest of the players, in effect he could see the action in slow motion which would give him a huge advantage. I would suspect that the top drivers in F1 would have this ability as well - advanced spacial skills and minds that work so fast that they can slow down time and perform miracles with this extreme awareness. Imo current drivers Vettel and Raikkonen may be gifted in this way.

Edit: here is an article explaining this-
http://www.sentientd...ering-your.html

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 12 January 2013 - 05:17.


#556 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 7,265 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 12 January 2013 - 05:45

Exactly right.

Same thing as in hockey. We call it "seeing the ice." The good ones can make tape to tape passes when they haven't seen their target for three or four seconds and 10 people are flying around at 25 mph. Youtube Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky, or Mario Lemieux for examples.


Well I think that the great ones have a knack for what they are doing. That is the case for both Vettel and Senna. I don't think any but their harshest critics would deny that they were born to drive. I wouldn't compare them and I don't think Ascanelli was comparing them either. He was pointing out a similarity which is something else altogether. He's a great mind in his own right and he well knows you can't legitimately compare a drivers with such variance in experience and style. What you can compare are similarities because those are characteristics that tend to be present in a driver independent of experience, style and other distinctions.

Newey mimicked Ascanelli in that regard. You might recall he recently said that all the great champions he ever worked with had something in common - and he went on to name it. So it is not unusual for those working with drivers to spot similarities - especially those similarities that lead to success.

Edited by bourbon, 12 January 2013 - 05:46.


#557 Winter98

Winter98
  • Member

  • 638 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 12 January 2013 - 05:53

Well I think that the great ones have a knack for what they are doing. That is the case for both Vettel and Senna. I don't think any but their harshest critics would deny that they were born to drive. I wouldn't compare them and I don't think Ascanelli was comparing them either. He was pointing out a similarity which is something else altogether. He's a great mind in his own right and he well knows you can't legitimately compare a drivers with such variance in experience and style. What you can compare are similarities because those are characteristics that tend to be present in a driver independent of experience, style and other distinctions.

Newey mimicked Ascanelli in that regard. You might recall he recently said that all the great champions he ever worked with had something in common - and he went on to name it. So it is not unusual for those working with drivers to spot similarities - especially those similarities that lead to success.


Well stated.

#558 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 3,361 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 12 January 2013 - 08:36

The thing with Clark, G.Villeneuve, Senna is that they died on top of their game, in their prime form. That's why people remember them as "perfect", the genius of speed. Had people also seen the decline of their careers, they would have been seen in a different light as well - as vulnerable human beings, not unbeatable gods.

Let's look at others, who had full careers. Had Prost died after mid-80's, he would have had also an impression of an unbeatable master. But as it was, he went on to struggle to match Senna and was past his prime in 93 (Senna was more impressive), despite winning the title. Schumacher was beaten to the title by Alonso in 2006.

People say how Senna would have won all titles in 94-97, but I guess it is likely he would have hit trouble/decline, would have been genuinely outraced by Schumacher (like Prost was by Senna, when the Brazilian was younger), which would have given a new light on his capabilities.

#559 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 9,382 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 12 January 2013 - 08:54

The thing with Clark, G.Villeneuve, Senna is that they died on top of their game, in their prime form. That's why people remember them as "perfect", the genius of speed. Had people also seen the decline of their careers, they would have been seen in a different light as well - as vulnerable human beings, not unbeatable gods.

Let's look at others, who had full careers. Had Prost died after mid-80's, he would have had also an impression of an unbeatable master. But as it was, he went on to struggle to match Senna and was past his prime in 93 (Senna was more impressive), despite winning the title. Schumacher was beaten to the title by Alonso in 2006.

People say how Senna would have won all titles in 94-97, but I guess it is likely he would have hit trouble/decline, would have been genuinely outraced by Schumacher (like Prost was by Senna, when the Brazilian was younger), which would have given a new light on his capabilities.


Utter rubbish. By 91 Senna was being spoken about as a living legend, an all time great.
Vetted has not got half the magic moments on his cv that senna has. And senna took on Prost as teammates.



Advertisement

#560 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:35

Utter rubbish. By 91 Senna was being spoken about as a living legend, an all time great.
Vetted has not got half the magic moments on his cv that senna has. And senna took on Prost as teammates.

It's not 'utter rubbish' at all, or are you suggesting Senna was immune to aging? I'm not arguing that Vettel is better than Senna, but I'm pretty weary of the Senna was an immaculate deity bullshit. He was an extremely talented and somewhat enigmatic character, but he was flawed just like anyone else, both on and off the track, and would unquestionably have become slower and made more mistakes as he aged. As for the the spiritual obsession; I get Jehovah's Witnesses at my door every other month talking twaddle about Noah's big boat or stretching the menu at parties, but I don't put them on a 3000ft pedestal because they claim to know God, so why should Senna be any different?

The guy was a fantastic driver and interesting character, no question, but the objective bottom line is that he had already been beaten before and would have been beaten all the more had he continued racing toward his 40s.

#561 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 4,028 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 12 January 2013 - 14:20

It's not 'utter rubbish' at all, or are you suggesting Senna was immune to aging? I'm not arguing that Vettel is better than Senna, but I'm pretty weary of the Senna was an immaculate deity bullshit. He was an extremely talented and somewhat enigmatic character, but he was flawed just like anyone else, both on and off the track, and would unquestionably have become slower and made more mistakes as he aged. As for the the spiritual obsession; I get Jehovah's Witnesses at my door every other month talking twaddle about Noah's big boat or stretching the menu at parties, but I don't put them on a 3000ft pedestal because they claim to know God, so why should Senna be any different?

The guy was a fantastic driver and interesting character, no question, but the objective bottom line is that he had already been beaten before and would have been beaten all the more had he continued racing toward his 40s.


I have to agree. What Senna achieved in his career can never be taken away from him, but that was against different opposition. In the defining rivalry of his career with Prost, he was the one who was in the peak years of his career (late twenties to early thirties). The challenge facing him from Schumacher was similar to what Prost had faced from him, and what Lauda had faced from Prost etc. It is easy to extrapolate his abilities from his peak years on into the future but no-one stays at their peak level indefinitely.


#562 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 12 January 2013 - 15:39

I have to agree. What Senna achieved in his career can never be taken away from him, but that was against different opposition. In the defining rivalry of his career with Prost, he was the one who was in the peak years of his career (late twenties to early thirties). The challenge facing him from Schumacher was similar to what Prost had faced from him, and what Lauda had faced from Prost etc. It is easy to extrapolate his abilities from his peak years on into the future but no-one stays at their peak level indefinitely.

no one stays at their peak level indefinitely but some stays much longer than others.

Ayrton had 33/34yo in 93/94, same as Alain in 88/89 but people say Ayrton died in his peak but Prost wasn't in his when he was Senna's teammate. Really?

Senna had the same age as Hill and Hill was WDC in 96 and still performed pretty well in 97 and 98 to have his downfall just in 99 with 39yo.

Mansell had 39yo when he had one of his best seasons (if not his best) and become WDC in 92 which greatly raised his status and how people came to rate him.

Prost had 38yo didn't raced for a year and came back to be WDC in 93 showing complete superiority over Hill. Still you think he wasn't in his peak five years before that.

And they all raced in the same era which make of them good examples.

#563 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 12 January 2013 - 16:37

no one stays at their peak level indefinitely but some stays much longer than others.

Ayrton had 33/34yo in 93/94, same as Alain in 88/89 but people say Ayrton died in his peak but Prost wasn't in his when he was Senna's teammate. Really?

Senna had the same age as Hill and Hill was WDC in 96 and still performed pretty well in 97 and 98 to have his downfall just in 99 with 39yo.

Mansell had 39yo when he had one of his best seasons (if not his best) and become WDC in 92 which greatly raised his status and how people came to rate him.

Prost had 38yo didn't raced for a year and came back to be WDC in 93 showing complete superiority over Hill. Still you think he wasn't in his peak five years before that.


And they all raced in the same era which make of them good examples.

Come on, Prost had easily the best car and was partnered by a total rookie, while Mansell had easily the best car and was partnered by a journeyman; their dominance in those seasons is hardly evidence of them being at their peak. I agree that talent wanes at slightly different ages with different drivers, but on the whole you cannot claim it 'likely' that Senna aged 38/39 would have been as good as Senna aged 29/30.

#564 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 12 January 2013 - 16:47

Prost had 38yo didn't raced for a year and came back to be WDC in 93 showing complete superiority over Hill. Still you think he wasn't in his peak five years before that.


Prost didn´t have a really convincing season that year (by the standards for an all time great). Not only compared to Senna, but also to Hill. Let´s not forget, that Prost was hired as clear No.1 (e.g. they applied team orders in Barcelona) and that Hill was a rookie - which was quite noticeable at the season´s beginning. But as the season progressed, Hill was able to put Prost more and more under pressure. He could´ve won 5 races in a row at mid-season, without his two retirements, while leading the race. If neither of them hadn´t had any tech-related retirements Prost might´ve likely finished the season with just ~10 points ahead of Hill. That isn´t "complete superiority" in my book.

Regarding 88/89: Of course at that time Prost´s age wasn´t a limiting factor and i see no reason to think, that Prost wasn´t at (or close to) the top of his game in 1988. But in 1989 he was far away from being at his peak in terms of pure perfomance in pace. Gerhard Berger showed better speed next to Senna in the following years than Prost did in that particular season.

Ps. As you mentioned 92,93, 96. That are all WDCs in really dominant cars. As that is regularly portrayed as a quite uninspiring achievement (Schumacher might be the prime example, as no one really mentiones 2002 or 2004 as the main example to underline his qualities) i wonder, why such a WDC would changed something for Senna´s legacy.

Edited by LiJu914, 12 January 2013 - 17:02.


#565 Winter98

Winter98
  • Member

  • 638 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 12 January 2013 - 17:09

By 91 Senna was being spoken about as a living legend, an all time great.


And Senna had just become the youngest 3 time WDC of all time.

And Vettel, by becoming the youngest 3 time WDC of all time has undeniably secured his place amongst the legends of F1.

Vettel has not got half the magic moments on his cv that senna has.


And Vettel's F1 career has been half as long, so right on pace.

You are actually making a pretty good case for Vettel here Rinehart.

Edited by Winter98, 12 January 2013 - 17:13.


#566 Winter98

Winter98
  • Member

  • 638 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 12 January 2013 - 17:12

Mansell had 39yo when he had one of his best seasons (if not his best) and become WDC in 92 which greatly raised his status and how people came to rate him.


Agreed.

Stats do matter. A lot.

#567 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 4,028 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 12 January 2013 - 18:24

no one stays at their peak level indefinitely but some stays much longer than others.

Ayrton had 33/34yo in 93/94, same as Alain in 88/89 but people say Ayrton died in his peak but Prost wasn't in his when he was Senna's teammate. Really?


What I am saying is that 25-34 are approximately the peak years for drivers. People have certainly won races and championships outside those years. Prost won his championships at the ages of 30, 31, 34 and 38 (clearly past peak). Senna's were achieved at the ages of 28, 30 and 31. Schumachers were at 25, 26 and 31-35.

Senna had the same age as Hill and Hill was WDC in 96 and still performed pretty well in 97 and 98 to have his downfall just in 99 with 39yo.


Senna could have won a championship with the 96 Williams (assuming Schumacher had still gone to Ferrari having won the previous two WDCs).

Mansell had 39yo when he had one of his best seasons (if not his best) and become WDC in 92 which greatly raised his status and how people came to rate him.


Mansell was in a dominant car, and I certainly don't think 1992 was his best year (1987 was) or that it greatly changed his status.

Prost had 38yo didn't raced for a year and came back to be WDC in 93 showing complete superiority over Hill. Still you think he wasn't in his peak five years before that.


Yes. I would say his absolute peak was 1984 and that his peak period extended up to 1986/1987.

And they all raced in the same era which make of them good examples.


The era we are speculating about is post Imola 1994, and the opponent would have been Michael Schumacher who had nine years on Senna. You have been highlighting the fact that, before this, Senna had mainly been competing with drivers who were over five years older than him.

#568 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 12 January 2013 - 20:14

Come on, Prost had easily the best car and was partnered by a total rookie, while Mansell had easily the best car and was partnered by a journeyman; their dominance in those seasons is hardly evidence of them being at their peak. I agree that talent wanes at slightly different ages with different drivers, but on the whole you cannot claim it 'likely' that Senna aged 38/39 would have been as good as Senna aged 29/30.

Hill wasn't a total rookie, yet I agree he was still rapidly developing his F1 driving skills. Anyway, my point was not that Prost was in his peak in 93, but IMO he still was in 88-90, my point was to show that he didn't lost any status by racing 93 when he was already with 38yo. And Mansell is rated higher thanks his 92 season. If he had retired in 90 like he had said he would he wouldn't have the same status. And I do think 92 was his best season even knowing he had a rocketship.

And I did not claim Senna would perform as good as he did in 93 even when he aged 38/39 but depending how things happened for him he could very well keep his status as he could see his status fade away.


Prost didn´t have a really convincing season that year (by the standards for an all time great). Not only compared to Senna, but also to Hill. Let´s not forget, that Prost was hired as clear No.1 (e.g. they applied team orders in Barcelona) and that Hill was a rookie - which was quite noticeable at the season´s beginning. But as the season progressed, Hill was able to put Prost more and more under pressure. He could´ve won 5 races in a row at mid-season, without his two retirements, while leading the race. If neither of them hadn´t had any tech-related retirements Prost might´ve likely finished the season with just ~10 points ahead of Hill. That isn´t "complete superiority" in my book.

Regarding 88/89: Of course at that time Prost´s age wasn´t a limiting factor and i see no reason to think, that Prost wasn´t at (or close to) the top of his game in 1988. But in 1989 he was far away from being at his peak in terms of pure perfomance in pace. Gerhard Berger showed better speed next to Senna in the following years than Prost did in that particular season.

Ps. As you mentioned 92,93, 96. That are all WDCs in really dominant cars. As that is regularly portrayed as a quite uninspiring achievement (Schumacher might be the prime example, as no one really mentiones 2002 or 2004 as the main example to underline his qualities) i wonder, why such a WDC would changed something for Senna´s legacy.

Ok, it wasn't a complete superiority but it didn't change how Prost was rated as a driver at all.

I don't agree with you about 89. I agree that it was not Prost best performance (ironically is the one he won against Senna) but in no way Berger showed better speed or Alain worse performance was duo to his age. The year after 90, he performed better than in 89 in my opinion. Berger in 90 couldn't win one time, his 2 poles were in mixed conditions qualifying (more duo to luck than anything else), and the only time he finished ahead Senna was because Ayrton hit Nakajima. In 90, McLaren and Ferrari cars were very similar in performance (at least IMO) and look what Prost did and what Berger did.

Never said a WDC in a dominant car would have changed Senna's legacy.

Just my opinion here but going for a what if, supposing 1994 accident had never happened we have 3 most possible outcomes
1)Senna is WDC in 94, 95, 96, 97 and becomes an even bigger legend than today.
2)Senna loses only the 95 championship and is seen pretty much as he is today.
3)Senna wins only 96 and he would have a worse reputation than today.

what would happen? Better ask god for an answer because no one can be certain, and so, no one can say if Senna's legacy would be smaller or bigger than it is todays.

What I am saying is that 25-34 are approximately the peak years for drivers. People have certainly won races and championships outside those years. Prost won his championships at the ages of 30, 31, 34 and 38 (clearly past peak). Senna's were achieved at the ages of 28, 30 and 31. Schumachers were at 25, 26 and 31-35.

Senna could have won a championship with the 96 Williams (assuming Schumacher had still gone to Ferrari having won the previous two WDCs).

Mansell was in a dominant car, and I certainly don't think 1992 was his best year (1987 was) or that it greatly changed his status.

Yes. I would say his absolute peak was 1984 and that his peak period extended up to 1986/1987.

The era we are speculating about is post Imola 1994, and the opponent would have been Michael Schumacher who had nine years on Senna. You have been highlighting the fact that, before this, Senna had mainly been competing with drivers who were over five years older than him.

Anyone up for a list of WDC based on age? My feeling is that the vast majority were between 28 and 35 and I believe these are the years of peak performance for most drivers.

We gonna agree to disagree about Mansell. IMO 87 was his 2nd best (very close to 92 but still...).

So you think Prost was in his absolute best before even be WDC when he lost to someone that was way past his peak and then after his peak he went to become 4xWDC? Thanks god Prost didn't stop racing at his peak.

Hill had the same age as Senna and was 9 years older than Schumacher. We know how he lost 94, 95 he was 2nd, 96 he won and we don't know how would he perform in 97 if Williams had kept him.

Because this last decade we saw a bunch of youngsters been WDC I believe people started to think their peak are at a younger age, but it certainly doesn't correlate to other eras.

#569 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 12 January 2013 - 20:41

Ok, it wasn't a complete superiority but it didn't change how Prost was rated as a driver at all.


For some it did - as almost nobody rated him as the best driver that season, but his main rival instead...(yet again).

I don't agree with you about 89. I agree that it was not Prost best performance (ironically is the one he won against Senna) but in no way Berger showed better speed or Alain worse performance was duo to his age.


That´s why i explicitly said, that age wasn´t a factor in my opinion.

The year after 90, he performed better than in 89 in my opinion. Berger in 90 couldn't win one time, his 2 poles were in mixed conditions qualifying (more duo to luck than anything else), and the only time he finished ahead Senna was because Ayrton hit Nakajima. In 90, McLaren and Ferrari cars were very similar in performance (at least IMO) and look what Prost did and what Berger did.


What i meant was, that Berger showed better speed at McLaren than Prost did there in 1989.
His qualifyings were worse that year than Berger´s the years after (both...in terms of the amount of losses and time gaps to Senna) and Prost was never - not a single time - ahead of Senna in 89, when the latter could finish a race. E.g. in 1990 Berger was of course also not stellar compared to Senna. But whereas i can´t remember Prost being ahead of Senna in 89, Berger was at least ahead in Silverstone until his car broke down and he finished Canada in P1 on track, but a got a time penalty of a full minute due to a jump start. And he also "lost" less devastating as his gaps to Senna at the finish line were much lower than Prost´s the year before, who was even lapped once.
That´s why i said, that Prost wasn´t too old in 89 (as you mentioned yourself, he was still a dangerous opponent the year after), but still far away from being at his best - for whatever reason.

Edited by LiJu914, 12 January 2013 - 20:46.


#570 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 4,028 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 12 January 2013 - 20:46

Anyone up for a list of WDC based on age? My feeling is that the vast majority were between 28 and 35 and I believe these are the years of peak performance for most drivers.


Yes, they would, until the current generation of young world champions. This is very close to what I posted.


We gonna agree to disagree about Mansell. IMO 87 was his 2nd best (very close to 92 but still...).


I think of Mansell's 92 title as being deserved on the basis of his entire career, but not that impressive in itself (of a similar standing to Prost's in 1993). I liked Hill, but he is not really in the league we are talking about here.

So you think Prost was in his absolute best before even be WDC when he lost to someone that was way past his peak and then after his peak he went to become 4xWDC? Thanks god Prost didn't stop racing at his peak.


Yes, I do but I would concede he continued to be very strong up to and including the 1990 season. Prost could very easily have won the 1983 and 1984 WDCs, and certainly was not beaten on performance by Lauda. The four years from 1983 to 1986 could be considered the Prost years.

Hill had the same age as Senna and was 9 years older than Schumacher. We know how he lost 94, 95 he was 2nd, 96 he won and we don't know how would he perform in 97 if Williams had kept him.


Obviously, Senna was a better driver than Hill and I think he would have got a WDC for Williams. Had Senna not crashed and been more in contention for the WDC than Hill was in 1994, I don't think we would have seen multiple race penalties for Schumacher, and I don't think we can assume that Senna would have won the WDC. After that, I imagine that Senna and Schumacher would have fought out the 1995 WDC. Maybe Senna would have won, who knows. However, Schumacher was strong and Williams strategies were not great in that time. For 1996, we don't know if Schumacher would have made the move to Ferrari if he were fighting with Senna for championships. Equally, many have said that Senna could have joined the Scuderia for a year or two before retirement although I have doubts about that too (and it would not have been a good idea for Ferrari to have such a short term alliance).

Because this last decade we saw a bunch of youngsters been WDC I believe people started to think their peak are at a younger age, but it certainly doesn't correlate to other eras.


As you stated above, there are not many older than 35 and I note that they tended to have had car advantages.

#571 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 12 January 2013 - 22:54

First I want to say this is my last post about this subject since we already gone completely OT here.

For some it did - as almost nobody rated him as the best driver that season, but his main rival instead...(yet again).

That´s why i explicitly said, that age wasn´t a factor in my opinion.

What i meant was, that Berger showed better speed at McLaren than Prost did there in 1989.
His qualifyings were worse that year than Berger´s the years after (both...in terms of the amount of losses and time gaps to Senna) and Prost was never - not a single time - ahead of Senna in 89, when the latter could finish a race. E.g. in 1990 Berger was of course also not stellar compared to Senna. But whereas i can´t remember Prost being ahead of Senna in 89, Berger was at least ahead in Silverstone until his car broke down and he finished Canada in P1 on track, but a got a time penalty of a full minute due to a jump start. And he also "lost" less devastating as his gaps to Senna at the finish line were much lower than Prost´s the year before, who was even lapped once.
That´s why i said, that Prost wasn´t too old in 89 (as you mentioned yourself, he was still a dangerous opponent the year after), but still far away from being at his best - for whatever reason.


LiJu like you said, people rated him below Senna yet again, was not 93 that made people think different. And 93 gave a nice boost for his stats which certainly help his "greatness" status.

We just agree about the rest then.

Yes, they would, until the current generation of young world champions. This is very close to what I posted.

I think of Mansell's 92 title as being deserved on the basis of his entire career, but not that impressive in itself (of a similar standing to Prost's in 1993). I liked Hill, but he is not really in the league we are talking about here.

Yes, I do but I would concede he continued to be very strong up to and including the 1990 season. Prost could very easily have won the 1983 and 1984 WDCs, and certainly was not beaten on performance by Lauda. The four years from 1983 to 1986 could be considered the Prost years.

Obviously, Senna was a better driver than Hill and I think he would have got a WDC for Williams. Had Senna not crashed and been more in contention for the WDC than Hill was in 1994, I don't think we would have seen multiple race penalties for Schumacher, and I don't think we can assume that Senna would have won the WDC. After that, I imagine that Senna and Schumacher would have fought out the 1995 WDC. Maybe Senna would have won, who knows. However, Schumacher was strong and Williams strategies were not great in that time. For 1996, we don't know if Schumacher would have made the move to Ferrari if he were fighting with Senna for championships. Equally, many have said that Senna could have joined the Scuderia for a year or two before retirement although I have doubts about that too (and it would not have been a good idea for Ferrari to have such a short term alliance).

As you stated above, there are not many older than 35 and I note that they tended to have had car advantages.

We don't know if Senna would won or not, if he would go to Ferrari or not, and thats the point. We don't know if Senna legacy would be smaller or not had the crash never happened.

Whatever the age you get, the champions tend to have had a car advantage.

#572 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 4,028 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 12 January 2013 - 23:36

We don't know if Senna would won or not, if he would go to Ferrari or not, and thats the point. We don't know if Senna legacy would be smaller or not had the crash never happened.

Whatever the age you get, the champions tend to have had a car advantage.


Yes, it is all speculation in the end. I too will bow out of this slightly OT part of the discussion now.

#573 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 13 January 2013 - 00:09

Enjoyable reading guys.

One thing to point out is that Prost should not have won in 1986. Had Mansell and Piquet not spent so much time slugging it out with each other, one of them would have won the title.

#574 emburmak

emburmak
  • Member

  • 2,353 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 13 January 2013 - 00:50

For some it did - as almost nobody rated him as the best driver that season, but his main rival instead...(yet again).



That´s why i explicitly said, that age wasn´t a factor in my opinion.



What i meant was, that Berger showed better speed at McLaren than Prost did there in 1989.
His qualifyings were worse that year than Berger´s the years after (both...in terms of the amount of losses and time gaps to Senna) and Prost was never - not a single time - ahead of Senna in 89, when the latter could finish a race. E.g. in 1990 Berger was of course also not stellar compared to Senna. But whereas i can´t remember Prost being ahead of Senna in 89, Berger was at least ahead in Silverstone until his car broke down and he finished Canada in P1 on track, but a got a time penalty of a full minute due to a jump start. And he also "lost" less devastating as his gaps to Senna at the finish line were much lower than Prost´s the year before, who was even lapped once.


If I remember correctly AP was ahead of AS in quite a few races in 1989---Gemany until he lost top gear & Japan till the 'incident'. Time tends to cloud the past espercially in the F1 world concerning Senna. A truly great driver but he was never as great nor as untouchable as some modern-day enthusisits claim.. His death perhaps??

He was the quali-king, but neither in all-out race-pace nor in balsy moves was he regarded even in his own lifetime as this demi-god he has now become to many misguided fans, few of these who actually watched him race or read contemporary commentaries. Only after the 1991 season was he generally regarded as the best driver of the day. I can still remember the popular comentary of the era--Senna, the quickest, Mansell, the bravest, Prost, the cleverest. :cool:

Edited by emburmak, 13 January 2013 - 01:04.


#575 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 13 January 2013 - 03:28

If I remember correctly AP was ahead of AS in quite a few races in 1989---Gemany until he lost top gear & Japan till the 'incident'.


He was only ahead in Germany after the crew had botched up Senna´s pit stop. And he had the chance to prove, that he would´ve been able to stay ahead of Senna in Japan til the end, but instead chose to turn in on him and cause the accident.

Edited by LiJu914, 13 January 2013 - 03:47.


#576 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 13 January 2013 - 03:41

I made a chart with the number of champions and the age at which they won their championships:
Posted Image

The average age of a world champion is 31 years (not corrected for days/months) old.

Edited by mnmracer, 13 January 2013 - 03:46.


#577 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 13 January 2013 - 03:47

LiJu like you said, people rated him below Senna yet again, was not 93 that made people think different. And 93 gave a nice boost for his stats which certainly help his "greatness" status.


The point was: Without 89 many people would´ve had it much harder to rate Senna higher than Prost, as 88 & 90 were very close and one would´ve had legit reasons to put Prost over Senna in those years. After a while 89 might been regarded just as a "one off" (quite bizarre to write about a season, in which he became WDC, like this), but 93 didn´t help in that regard.

Edited by LiJu914, 13 January 2013 - 03:54.


#578 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 3,361 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 13 January 2013 - 08:16

Regarding Vettel, it is certainly a compliment to him to be compared to Senna in a thread, which is running for 15 pages already. A great feat for a driver, who by many isn't considered among best drivers even in his own era.:D

Although I'd rather compare Vettel to Schumacher. I think their achievement and also driving styles, racing and attitude are going to be a closer match over their full careers.

#579 DarthWillie

DarthWillie
  • Member

  • 1,748 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 13 January 2013 - 09:29

I often wonder if Senna would be considered the same legend had he driven in the internet age......I can only assume their would be much debate over how dominant the 88 mclaren was and how much of a hasbeen prost was. :lol:


Advertisement

#580 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 3,361 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 13 January 2013 - 09:46

I often wonder if Senna would be considered the same legend had he driven in the internet age......I can only assume their would be much debate over how dominant the 88 mclaren was and how much of a hasbeen prost was. :lol:


Had there been internet, I am sure at least in 1989 several people would have said that Berger and Mansell are superior drivers to Prost and would give Senna a run for his money.

#581 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 4,028 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 13 January 2013 - 09:51

I made a chart with the number of champions and the age at which they won their championships:
Posted Image

The average age of a world champion is 31 years (not corrected for days/months) old.


Interesting. Fangio would account for five of the seven titles won at 40 or over. Farina and Jack Brabham would be the others, I believe.

The four at 38 or 39 would be Andretti, Mansell, Prost and Graham Hill?

#582 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 13 January 2013 - 14:06

Interesting. Fangio would account for five of the seven titles won at 40 or over. Farina and Jack Brabham would be the others, I believe.

The four at 38 or 39 would be Andretti, Mansell, Prost and Graham Hill?

I believe you are corrected while the 23-24yo are Vettel, Hamilton and Alonso

BTW thanks for the chart mnmracer.

#583 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 13 January 2013 - 14:12

Had there been internet, I am sure at least in 1989 several people would have said that Berger and Mansell are superior drivers to Prost and would give Senna a run for his money.

Just to be proven wrong the year after.

#584 Juan Kerr

Juan Kerr
  • Member

  • 2,672 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 13 January 2013 - 14:19

I don't care how long Vettel has been in F1 he ain't no Senna and he wouldn't have the championships that he's got if his rivals hadn't been so much more compromised by things outside of their control.
Vettel is your typical nurtured driving talent whose circumstances have allowed him to be very successful. There has been many Vettels in this sport.
Sebastian is basically quicker than the other RedBull backed drivers we've seen of late and Webber. Bizarrely I bet he's not much quicker than Christian Klien but a totally different set of circumstances. That is a different teammate and stage of car evolution. And where is Klien now?

#585 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 13 January 2013 - 14:35

I don't care how long Vettel has been in F1 he ain't no Senna and he wouldn't have the championships that he's got if his rivals hadn't been so much more compromised by things outside of their control.


Yeah, we know, there´s only compromises and things out of control for the rivals. :lol:

Vettel is your typical nurtured driving talent whose circumstances have allowed him to be very successful. There has been many Vettels in this sport.
Sebastian is basically quicker than the other RedBull backed drivers we've seen of late and Webber. Bizarrely I bet he's not much quicker than Christian Klien but a totally different set of circumstances. That is a different teammate and stage of car evolution. And where is Klien now?


No, there hasn´t been many Vettel´s.

Guys THIS talented make his way up no matter where or how they start. Alonso got out of Minardi showing flashes of greatness in a shitbox, and then impressed again as soon as he got a good car in 2003. Hamilton impressed his very first year and beat straight away a world class teammate, mounting a title challenge straight awsay and winning it next time. Räikkönen did enough in his first season while being totally unexperienced to impress a top team straight away, and as soon as he got a good car he mounted a title challenge on the best driver ever with a slightly better package. Vettel was given a run on a midfield team, scored points straight away, then got a race driver seat, won a race on a midfield car, and next year he mounted a title challenge, to win it next time around.

There aren´t many guys like these ones, they´re exceptions. And if Klien was one of their kind, he would have managed to make his way up somehow performing great in whatever he got under him, and making his way up. Yes, motorsport leaves behind potential superstars, but these superstars are not common, there aren´t "many" of them.

#586 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 13 January 2013 - 14:45

I don't care how long Vettel has been in F1 he ain't no Senna and he wouldn't have the championships that he's got if his rivals hadn't been so much more compromised by things outside of their control.
Vettel is your typical nurtured driving talent whose circumstances have allowed him to be very successful. There has been many Vettels in this sport.
Sebastian is basically quicker than the other RedBull backed drivers we've seen of late and Webber. Bizarrely I bet he's not much quicker than Christian Klien but a totally different set of circumstances. That is a different teammate and stage of car evolution. And where is Klien now?

:lol:
Of course. And Hamilton is no quicker than Pedro Diniz, he just got the benefit of being loved, provided and guided from an early by the most professional team in F1. Bizarre indeed.

#587 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 13 January 2013 - 14:49

Interesting. Fangio would account for five of the seven titles won at 40 or over. Farina and Jack Brabham would be the others, I believe.

The four at 38 or 39 would be Andretti, Mansell, Prost and Graham Hill?

All of which means if you restricted the chart to the last 30 years the average WDC age to drop to nearer 30, perhaps even below; further emphasing what most of us have said.

#588 Juan Kerr

Juan Kerr
  • Member

  • 2,672 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 13 January 2013 - 15:31

Yeah, we know, there´s only compromises and things out of control for the rivals. :lol:



No, there hasn´t been many Vettel´s.

Guys THIS talented make his way up no matter where or how they start. Alonso got out of Minardi showing flashes of greatness in a shitbox, and then impressed again as soon as he got a good car in 2003. Hamilton impressed his very first year and beat straight away a world class teammate, mounting a title challenge straight awsay and winning it next time. Räikkönen did enough in his first season while being totally unexperienced to impress a top team straight away, and as soon as he got a good car he mounted a title challenge on the best driver ever with a slightly better package. Vettel was given a run on a midfield team, scored points straight away, then got a race driver seat, won a race on a midfield car, and next year he mounted a title challenge, to win it next time around.

There aren´t many guys like these ones, they´re exceptions. And if Klien was one of their kind, he would have managed to make his way up somehow performing great in whatever he got under him, and making his way up. Yes, motorsport leaves behind potential superstars, but these superstars are not common, there aren´t "many" of them.

Its just pathetic when people get so star struck with these average human being who can drive an F1 fast, it's getting like Football that's the trouble. The sport does leave behind many superstars I agree. People just somehow feel the urge to make gods out of these people so that they can go and worship them, I suppose its the weakness of human nature to follow religions/trends. Circumstances are the most powerful force in any sport, Vettel has had a great run of circumstance even down to Schumacher being his countryman, even that started the ball rolling. The perception that there must be another Schumacher in Germany would've started people looking in the first place.

Anyway all I care about is how actually good these drivers are and Vettel is not as good as Senna or some of the drivers in F1 currently.

#589 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 13 January 2013 - 15:38

Its just pathetic when people get so star struck with these average human being who can drive an F1 fast, it's getting like Football that's the trouble. The sport does leave behind many superstars I agree. People just somehow feel the urge to make gods out of these people so that they can go and worship them, I suppose its the weakness of human nature to follow religions/trends.


So true!!

Circumstances are the most powerful force in any sport, Vettel has had a great run of circumstance even down to Schumacher being his countryman, even that started the ball rolling. The perception that there must be another Schumacher in Germany would've started people looking in the first place.


Circumstances helped, but others in the same situation failed misserably to "get the ball rolling". The guy inside the car is a big factor, something which is a given fact when talking about Lewis/Alonso is doubted when talking about Seb. I agree circumstances must make success possible first, but getting it or not is still a lot down to the guy.

Anyway all I care about is how actually good these drivers are and Vettel is not as good as Senna or some of the drivers in F1 currently.


Don´t have an opinion on that one, as when Senna died I was 7 and had no clue. :lol: Can´t add anything to the debate.


#590 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 4,028 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 13 January 2013 - 15:40

All of which means if you restricted the chart to the last 30 years the average WDC age to drop to nearer 30, perhaps even below; further emphasing what most of us have said.


Yes, indeed.

#591 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 13 January 2013 - 15:42

Anyway all I care about is how actually good these drivers are and Vettel is not as good as Senna or some of the drivers in F1 currently.

For someone who cares about how actually good drivers are, you don't really make much of a point.
Any substantiation?

#592 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 13 January 2013 - 15:50

All of which means if you restricted the chart to the last 30 years the average WDC age to drop to nearer 30, perhaps even below; further emphasing what most of us have said.

Surprisingly, it's still average of 30.2 years (Keke Rosberg - Sebastian Vettel)

#593 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 13 January 2013 - 15:55

All of which means if you restricted the chart to the last 30 years the average WDC age to drop to nearer 30, perhaps even below; further emphasing what most of us have said.

Good that you chose to restrict the chart to the last 30 years, because if you restricted between 10 years before Senna and 10 years after Senna (we have the same 30 years and closer to when Senna raced) you have the WDC average going even up giving credibility to what I had said.

#594 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 3,361 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 13 January 2013 - 17:45

Its just pathetic when people get so star struck with these average human being who can drive an F1 fast, it's getting like Football that's the trouble. The sport does leave behind many superstars I agree. People just somehow feel the urge to make gods out of these people so that they can go and worship them, I suppose its the weakness of human nature to follow religions/trends. Circumstances are the most powerful force in any sport, Vettel has had a great run of circumstance even down to Schumacher being his countryman, even that started the ball rolling. The perception that there must be another Schumacher in Germany would've started people looking in the first place.

Anyway all I care about is how actually good these drivers are and Vettel is not as good as Senna or some of the drivers in F1 currently.


So you say people get star struck with Vettel as he is not so good as he is made. Ever thought that the same is the case with those "some other drivers in F1" currently?

To quote you.
I suppose it is also the weakness of human nature to follow religions/trends, so people just somehow feel the urge to make gods out of Hamilton and Alonso and Senna.
:)

#595 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 13 January 2013 - 19:02

I don't see Senna as a god at all.

I simply see him as a once in a lifetime driver who was incredibly talented, and was far better than his peers who in many cases were top-notch drivers in their own right. He had something unquantifiable that I'm not sure words could ever adequately convey. Those who saw him drive when he was alive know what I refer to. Even prior to his F1 career, it was clear to a number of people he was a different driver from everyone else. I recall talking to someone a few years back who was at Zolder the weekend Villeneuve was killed, and while Senna didn't finish the FF2000 race there (crashed while in the lead with a 13 second gap) he said his one thought about seeing Senna in that race was he could go very, very far in a single-seater career.

#596 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 7,306 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 13 January 2013 - 19:07

Actually, I'd like to know if there is anyone who was around (as a mere fan watching races) when Senna was racing who thinks SV is as good as Senna??

#597 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,744 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 13 January 2013 - 19:11

Actually, I'd like to know if there is anyone who was around (as a mere fan watching races) when Senna was racing who thinks SV is as good as Senna??


Actually, I'd like to know if there is anyone who was around (as a mere fan watching races) when Fangio was racing who thinks Senna was as good as Fangio??

#598 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 7,306 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 13 January 2013 - 19:17

Actually, I'd like to know if there is anyone who was around (as a mere fan watching races) when Fangio was racing who thinks Senna was as good as Fangio??


I wasnt around for Fangio so I cant answer that one .... I just about caught the start of Senna's career.

#599 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 13 January 2013 - 19:20

Actually, I'd like to know if there is anyone who was around (as a mere fan watching races) when Fangio was racing who thinks Senna was as good as Fangio??


I actually do have a friend who saw Fangio race in person in the 50s who said that he thought Senna was a better driver.

Advertisement

#600 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,744 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 13 January 2013 - 19:25

I actually do have a friend who saw Fangio race in person in the 50s who said that he thought Senna was a better driver.


Good then. That's settled.