Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 11 votes

Vettel as good as Senna, says Ascanelli


  • Please log in to reply
805 replies to this topic

#351 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 3,885 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 04 January 2013 - 15:53

The cars were also a lot harder to drive in the 1980's than they are today. Schumacher stated this not so long ago and admitted he hasn't struggled with the physical side of things because the cars handle much better and its less strain on the body.


I think that´s entirely different topics. A car harder to drive is not the same than a car that drains the driver´s energy.

2004/2005 cars were really, really easy compared to the 80´s but required much, much more fitness to stand a race distance. You got that quote wrong, Schumacher said in 2010 was that "this F1 is not that physically demanding compared to when he left". Despite 2010 cars being even easier to handle than mid 2000´s ones, they had much slower race pace mainly due to new fuel rules. The most physical punishment comes mostly from the passive effort of resisting the G forces, not that much from the active efforts behind the wheel. If you or me got a chance in a F1 our neck would give up way earlier than we started to feel any sort of unconfortable feeling from the effort of the driving itself.


Advertisement

#352 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 5,272 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 January 2013 - 16:08

Vettel has won 3 championships in a row. Newey has been in F1 since 1999 and no championships, yet it's all Newey and with Vettel really not having that much to do with it.... 'Oh, he's doing a GOOD job isn't he?' is a typical comment. Nothing special there. All the difficulty involved in winning 3 championships in a row is thrown out. Too darned good to be true... surely it's all Newey, the might of RBR and the cockups of the other teams.... not the drivers of the other teams.

He's not good as Senna until <insert condition here>. I put it to you there'll always be a condition there that's NEVER, EVER, EVER met in the eyes of some.

Vettel is so outwardly simple in his aura while achieving so much. OTOH, Senna had HUGE presence. He was outwardly fiercely competitive, quite open in expressing his deeper self as a direct result of his huge self-confidence and Latin temperament/style. There was also huge rivalry with palpably fierce competition. As a result of this Vettel's achievements aren't taken as seriously. He doesn't seem to be making that much effort, is he. He doesn't soliloquise on the metaphysical aspects of his driving or take on the antics of other teams/drivers in an antagonistic manner while taking the moral high ground. None of that drama. Just simple racing that has those who expect the drama trying to make sense of it.

No, it just can't be......

Well, it just keeps getting better is all, but we find it difficult to let go at times, don't we.

It would seem that Ascanelli had a serious point to make and I applaud his predictions. It's no surprise that Vettel is achieving what he's achieving if Ascanelli's opinion is true.

Vettel keeps reiterating how challenging it is to do what he has done. However, there's something lacking in his aura that is not convincing about it. I think that though this affects his credibility now, it will rebound and be seen as one of his strengths later. IOW's, he's so darned good and yet, so unassuming about it.


I think that is true for some, but I very much appreciate unassuming champions - in all sports. I have always found them more believable than those players/athletes that are loud, overly dramatic and toot their own horn. That to me always comes across as insecure, so I appreciate the more humble reaction.

Nonetheless, I am not sure personality really plays that key of a role here. Sebastian's popularity has decreased in direct proportion with his success on this BB. The archives will readily prove this. Ascanelli's opinion was never going to go over big here, imo. Nonetheless, his comparison was not to equate the drivers in every sense in any case (which appears to be how some are interpreting hsi words) he was merely to point out that he felt a similarity when working with them - and he linked it to "perfection" - which I think was the key term that wrinkled a few feathers. I think Ascanelli's main point was that he similarity he saw would lend itself toward success for a driver/car combo, which appears to be supported by the results of the two drivers in combination with their cars.

Edited by bourbon, 04 January 2013 - 16:11.


#353 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 749 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 16:21

The point of it in this thread though, is that Vettel is not the only one to have run-ins with others.

Fair enough.

#354 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,148 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 January 2013 - 16:48

He is overrated when he is made out to be godlike.
He is overrated when every positive thing that can be said about a driver, automatically applies to Senna.
He is overrated when people misrepresent history and act like he won 3 championships in dogs of cars and battled his way from the back to the front of the field every other race.
He is overrated when everything Senna did and accomplished, was solely his doing, and he never had the help of a good car or a good set-up (excuses constantly used against Vettel).
Because fact is, like Vettel (and almost all other top drivers), he won most of his races in fast cars from the front of the grid.

If you don't rate him like that, then congratulations, this doesn't apply to you and I wish you a happy new year ;-)


The one aspect of his talent that was "godlike" was his qualifying ability. He was putting 2nd tier cars (Lotus) on the pole that had no business being on pole.

Personally I think anyone who says Senna did not have a good set-up is ill-informed. He accomplished a lot of what he did because he knew how to set-up a race car better than anyone else due to his awareness of what the car did in all parts of the track. All drivers need a good set-up to win a race, even if the set-up is only good for that one particular race.

#355 gillesthegenius

gillesthegenius
  • Member

  • 2,534 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 16:58

The one aspect of his talent that was "godlike" was his qualifying ability. He was putting 2nd tier cars (Lotus) on the pole that had no business being on pole.

Personally I think anyone who says Senna did not have a good set-up is ill-informed. He accomplished a lot of what he did because he knew how to set-up a race car better than anyone else due to his awareness of what the car did in all parts of the track. All drivers need a good set-up to win a race, even if the set-up is only good for that one particular race.


Nothing about Senna or any other driver for that matter was god-like. The Lotus, though it wasnt the best of race cars, was a very good qualy car that allowed Senna to showcase his phenomenal speed.

#356 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 January 2013 - 17:07

The one aspect of his talent that was "godlike" was his qualifying ability. He was putting 2nd tier cars (Lotus) on the pole that had no business being on pole.

Personally I think anyone who says Senna did not have a good set-up is ill-informed. He accomplished a lot of what he did because he knew how to set-up a race car better than anyone else due to his awareness of what the car did in all parts of the track. All drivers need a good set-up to win a race, even if the set-up is only good for that one particular race.

How do you know it is a 2nd-tier car when de Angelis was often not that far off?
How do you come to the conclusion -in the context of the comparison with Vettel- that Senna deserves the label of 'god-like qualifying abilities'?

Edited by mnmracer, 04 January 2013 - 17:09.


#357 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,754 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 04 January 2013 - 17:14

How do you know it is a 2nd-tier car when de Angelis was often not that far off?


In 1985 Senna 7 poles, Elio 1.
Regardless, noone else was close to him that season in qualifying.

#358 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 749 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 17:23

How do you know it is a 2nd-tier car when de Angelis was often not that far off?
How do you come to the conclusion -in the context of the comparison with Vettel- that Senna deserves the label of 'god-like qualifying abilities'?

well, What do you call been slower on average by more than 1 second?

#359 AnR

AnR
  • Member

  • 90 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 17:26

To quote SKy

To win a title takes great skill, to retain a world title puts a driver among the elite, but to win 3 titles in a row secures their place in history

Advertisement

#360 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 17:31

If you guys remember Senna´s reasoning for vetoing Warwick after that season, it´s quite clear that Lotus didn´t/cloudn´t support both drivers equally - which also fits with Elio´s comment, that he wasn´t allowed to test after Canada(?)...and he was the WDC-leader at that time.

btw. Lotus/Renault had the most powerful Quali-engine together with BMW.

Still no one else than Senna would´ve achieved that seven poles - but it´s not like he did it in a midfield car, just because the Quali results of his teammate might imply that.

Edited by LiJu914, 04 January 2013 - 17:33.


#361 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 January 2013 - 17:33

In 1985 Senna 7 poles, Elio 1.
Regardless, noone else was close to him that season in qualifying.

Well, for one, a 2nd tier car would not be on pole in Elio's hands.
In 2011 Vettel 15 poles, Webber 3 (5:1 ratio), and Webber's a quali specialist.

Juding people by the same standard, how is it so different?

#362 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,148 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 January 2013 - 17:36

Nothing about Senna or any other driver for that matter was god-like. The Lotus, though it wasnt the best of race cars, was a very good qualy car that allowed Senna to showcase his phenomenal speed.


Hence why I put quotes around it.;)

It was a good qualifying car in Senna's hands, but the race was another story.

#363 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 17:38

Juding people by the same standard, how is it so different?


Do that by looking up how many qualifyings Senna lost to his teammate and how many Vettel did so far (even with fewer races...).


#364 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 January 2013 - 17:39

Do that by looking up how many qualifyings Senna lost to his teammate and how many Vettel did so far (even with fewer races...).

And how many of those have been qualifying specialists?

#365 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,148 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 January 2013 - 17:43

If you guys remember Senna´s reasoning for vetoing Warwick after that season, it´s quite clear that Lotus didn´t/cloudn´t support both drivers equally - which also fits with Elio´s comment, that he wasn´t allowed to test after Canada(?)...and he was the WDC-leader at that time.

btw. Lotus/Renault had the most powerful Quali-engine together with BMW.

Still no one else than Senna would´ve achieved that seven poles - but it´s not like he did it in a midfield car, just because the Quali results of his teammate might imply that.


Lotus was already on their way down by 1985. Senna was the only thing that kept Lotus up top for 1985-1987. They no longer had the ability to compete with the top tier teams by that point because they didn't have the funds to have the sort of facilities/personnel Williams and McLaren had.

The Warwick veto actually did make sense, but it was lost on a lot of people then, especially in England who still were under the impression that Lotus was what they were 10 years earlier. I was critical of the veto in the past, but did look into it a little more, which is why I've changed my opinion of that situation. But the thing also important to remember is that had Colin Chapman been around when Senna was on Lotus, he likely would have implemented team orders in Senna's favor as he did with Fittipaldi/Peterson and Andretti/Peterson.

#366 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 17:44

And how many of those have been qualifying specialists?


E.g.
Alain Prost never lost a "qualifying duel" over a whole season to any of his teammates (Watson, Lauda, Arnoux, Rosberg, Johansson, Mansell, Alesi, Hill) except for Senna, who beat him 28:4 and often by huge margins.

#367 ali_M

ali_M
  • Member

  • 1,115 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 04 January 2013 - 18:15

I wonder whether we were/are watching the same series. My first race at Kyalami was in 1974, and it is not my recollection that Senna would be wiining in a bad car, and despite him being extremely fast driver, I think on racecraft Prost was at another level. Unfortunately some press could not handle that, which is why we talk mostly about Senna, instead Alain. To elevate Hamilton into that tier of drivers I think does disservice to them. Getting this out of way, and before we take a jump off the cliff, it would be nice to obtain some aditional explanation what aspect of racing Ascanelli was actually talking about.


Ascanelli saw them perform both from the inside and outside. He has a lot more impression than any fan of what they do and how they approached their craft on the inside through their interaction with engineers, how they approach car setup, their attention to detail, how much they strive for to achieve their maximum and their ability to inspire the team and their sheer talent. It's not only his access to them, but his own ability to perceive and appreciate the qualities that makes a driver great. His predictions have been on the mark.

Their are qualities of a driver that are timeless and do not need a particular era or particular teammates, car design, engine formula etc. to shine. These qualities can effectively be compared across driver generations. Nothing at all wrong with doing so. Ascanelli had a lot of opportunity to assess such qualities in and ESPECIALLY out of the spotlight and public eye.

#368 gillesthegenius

gillesthegenius
  • Member

  • 2,534 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 18:54

E.g.
Alain Prost never lost a "qualifying duel" over a whole season to any of his teammates (Watson, Lauda, Arnoux, Rosberg, Johansson, Mansell, Alesi, Hill) except for Senna, who beat him 28:4 and often by huge margins.


Isnt it well known that Alain, knowing that the worst he could do with his MP4-4/5 in qualy was second on the grid, usually let Senna have the honours on saturdays in order to focus on sundays. Not that I expect Alain to have beaten Senna more often than not had he taken saturdays more seriously, but 28-4 with large margins was, imho, more due to the differing strategies of both drivers than thier relative one lap pace.

Besides, aside from Prost, Senna never really had to contend with a very fast team mate except when a young upstart, called Mika Hakkinen, joined him at Mclaren for a few races. Vettel on the other hand has had a qualy specialist - who just like Prost had never lost to any other team mate except when racing alongside Vettel - for more than 70% of his career.

#369 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 749 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 18:54

Well, for one, a 2nd tier car would not be on pole in Elio's hands.
In 2011 Vettel 15 poles, Webber 3 (5:1 ratio), and Webber's a quali specialist.

Juding people by the same standard, how is it so different?

Do you really believe Vettel is as good as Senna was in qualifying?

Why do you call Webber a quali specialist and not de Angelis? de Angelis beat Mansell, and M. Andretti in quali, how many WDC Webber beat?

What about Prost? Or Prost was not good enough in qualifying apart beating everyone except Ayrton?

Senna was beaten 17 times by his teammates, Vettel was already beaten 30 times.

#370 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 749 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 19:10

Isnt it well known that Alain, knowing that the worst he could do with his MP4-4/5 in qualy was second on the grid, usually let Senna have the honours on saturdays in order to focus on sundays. Not that I expect Alain to have beaten Senna more often than not had he taken saturdays more seriously, but 28-4 with large margins was, imho, more due to the differing strategies of both drivers than thier relative one lap pace.

Besides, aside from Prost, Senna never really had to contend with a very fast team mate except when a young upstart, called Mika Hakkinen, joined him at Mclaren for a few races. Vettel on the other hand has had a qualy specialist - who just like Prost had never lost to any other team mate except when racing alongside Vettel - for more than 70% of his career.

Do you believe in Santas too?
If the worst that could happen was he been second why the hell he wasn't second in 1/3 of the races that he was beaten by Ayrton? And even if second was guaranteed why not take first. I never knew a driver that prefers to start second than first, and I don't know one driver that not take saturdays seriously.

And why Prost didn't decide that this "start in second strategy" was a good idea when he was racing Hill in 93? After all FW15C was far, far superior than the rest.

Edited by Kyo, 04 January 2013 - 19:19.


#371 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 19:21

Isnt it well known that Alain, knowing that the worst he could do with his MP4-4/5 in qualy was second on the grid, usually let Senna have the honours on saturdays in order to focus on sundays.


- IIRC AP never said so himself. Just "outsiders" do.
- Prost wasn´t always able to qualify right behind Senna (at least in 9 of his 28 quali losses or roughly 30%)
- Even if Prost would´ve been so calculated, he still would´ve known that the grid position is crucial at places like Monaco or Budapest, and therefore would´ve given his best in quali at these particular weekends.
Results: Monaco 88: Senna 1st, Prost 2nd (+1,5sec) Monaco 89: Senna 1st, Prost 2nd (+1,1sec) Budapest 88: Senna 1st, Prost 7th (+1,1sec) Budapest 89: Senna 2nd, Prost 5th (+1sec)


Besides, aside from Prost, Senna never really had to contend with a very fast team mate except when a young upstart, called Mika Hakkinen, joined him at Mclaren for a few races. Vettel on the other hand has had a qualy specialist - who just like Prost had never lost to any other team mate except when racing alongside Vettel - for more than 70% of his career.


De Angelis was also unbeaten in Quali until Senna joined him. Berger was also not too shabby.
And btw. Prost was unbeaten against several WDCs, whereas Webber was unbeaten against some sub standard drivers and a few decent ones - that´s hardly the same.

Edited by LiJu914, 04 January 2013 - 19:36.


#372 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 January 2013 - 19:46

Do you really believe Vettel is as good as Senna was in qualifying?

Both are extremely fast qualifying specialist on Saturday. Whether or not Vettel is as good or better than Senna, I don't know yet, I'd have to look into it more.
But the important thing here is, I am not dismissing the idea by saying Senna was a godlike qualifier.

Why do you call Webber a quali specialist and not de Angelis? de Angelis beat Mansell, and M. Andretti in quali, how many WDC Webber beat?

WDCs say nothing about being a qualifying specialist.
If someone beat (in qualifying) both Trulli and Webber as team-mates, it would be a more impressive qualifying performance than beating Alonso. Not because Alonso is bad, but because Alonso is no specialist on Saturday.

#373 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 749 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 19:48

If you guys remember Senna´s reasoning for vetoing Warwick after that season, it´s quite clear that Lotus didn´t/cloudn´t support both drivers equally - which also fits with Elio´s comment, that he wasn´t allowed to test after Canada(?)...and he was the WDC-leader at that time.

btw. Lotus/Renault had the most powerful Quali-engine together with BMW.

Still no one else than Senna would´ve achieved that seven poles - but it´s not like he did it in a midfield car, just because the Quali results of his teammate might imply that.

In one of Senna's interviews, I believe it is a 86 one he said something like:

-Lotus has no condition to support 2 drivers equally to fight for victories. In 85, many times if I had the full support or if de Angelis had the full support we could have achieved better results. So I vetoed Warwick for 86 and made sure I get the complete support from the team since it is the only way that Lotus can achieve victory. Only McLaren, Williams and Ferrari have the condition to equally support both drivers to victory.

My understanding at the time was that they were both treated equally and that cost them a lot and so he made sure it wouldn't happen again vetoing Warwick because of this. In the same interview I remember he saying that the best drivers were Prost and Piquet but he was already right behind in the slipstream.

edit: I agree the engine was the best in quali, but the chassis was not. He certainly had a good enough car in quali, in some cases the best like in Canada. Overall is quite hard to say which one was the best qualifying car that season. Anyway in races Lotus was much worse than in quali.

Edited by Kyo, 04 January 2013 - 20:01.


#374 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 20:04

@ Kyo

I don´t want to go too deep into that as we are getting offtopic.
Just let me say that your version of that interview (i remember it as i wrote, even though i might be wrong) neither fit de Angelis´ view (some of that might be the usual whining, but i doubt he made up that testing incident e.g.) nor the perception of Lotus´ driver politics even before Senna joined them (=focusing on the driver, that they regarded to be the better one)

Edited by LiJu914, 04 January 2013 - 20:06.


#375 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,520 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 04 January 2013 - 20:12

This qualifying thingy is a real dead-end, bar for one aspect: Senna and MS were the only drivers I have yet seen who could take their one-lap speed and fully realize and use it on Sunday. I would like to say LH too, but so far, he has not coupled that ability with thinking. That could be down to a less stimulative environment in that aspect at his team though. If one-lap speed woud define an F1 driver, I would say Trulli would make the greats look lame, but he does not, does he?

#376 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 January 2013 - 21:50

This qualifying thingy is a real dead-end, bar for one aspect: Senna and MS were the only drivers I have yet seen who could take their one-lap speed and fully realize and use it on Sunday. I would like to say LH too, but so far, he has not coupled that ability with thinking. That could be down to a less stimulative environment in that aspect at his team though. If one-lap speed woud define an F1 driver, I would say Trulli would make the greats look lame, but he does not, does he?

In modern day, (more so even) with the parc ferme rules, there is a much bigger difference between qualifying pace and race pace of a car.
Just look at last year: Red Bull and Mercedes were clearly better in qualifying pace, while Ferrari and Lotus were clearly better in race pace.

#377 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 749 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 21:56

@ Kyo

I don´t want to go too deep into that as we are getting offtopic.
Just let me say that your version of that interview (i remember it as i wrote, even though i might be wrong) neither fit de Angelis´ view (some of that might be the usual whining, but i doubt he made up that testing incident e.g.) nor the perception of Lotus´ driver politics even before Senna joined them (=focusing on the driver, that they regarded to be the better one)

ok, just re-watched it, since many times our memories trick us, and Ayrton says in the interview that he and Elio had the same treatment and then basically says what I had written.

If you ask me, neither driver were being completely honest since de Angelis would not complain just for complaining, but if the situation was like he said Senna would have no reason to act like he did vetoing Warwick since he would already be receiving 1st driver treatment.

#378 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 7,384 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 04 January 2013 - 22:05

Isnt it well known that Alain, knowing that the worst he could do with his MP4-4/5 in qualy was second on the grid, usually let Senna have the honours on saturdays in order to focus on sundays. Not that I expect Alain to have beaten Senna more often than not had he taken saturdays more seriously, but 28-4 with large margins was, imho, more due to the differing strategies of both drivers than thier relative one lap pace.

Besides, aside from Prost, Senna never really had to contend with a very fast team mate except when a young upstart, called Mika Hakkinen, joined him at Mclaren for a few races. Vettel on the other hand has had a qualy specialist - who just like Prost had never lost to any other team mate except when racing alongside Vettel - for more than 70% of his career.


Webber's teammates don't quite stack up to those of Prost's though, do they? The persistant view put forward of Webber as some sort of qualifying specialist is an exaggeration. He beat a rookie Rosberg, shaded Heifeld and beat DC who himself never beat a teammate in qualifying over a season. His other teammates prior to Vettel aren't really noteworthy adversaries on which to build him up as a qualifying speed freak.

#379 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,148 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 January 2013 - 22:52

ok, just re-watched it, since many times our memories trick us, and Ayrton says in the interview that he and Elio had the same treatment and then basically says what I had written.

If you ask me, neither driver were being completely honest since de Angelis would not complain just for complaining, but if the situation was like he said Senna would have no reason to act like he did vetoing Warwick since he would already be receiving 1st driver treatment.


The interesting thing about Lotus in 1985 when Senna joined is that the mechanics gravitated towards Ayrton over Elio. It wasn't Elio's fault at all, he just had the misfortune of having a teammate that had a magnetic pull on all of the mechanics and technicians within the team. And actually, it wasn't even just the Lotus guys, it was the same case with the Renault Sport technicians too.

Advertisement

#380 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 05 January 2013 - 00:26

ok, just re-watched it, since many times our memories trick us, and Ayrton says in the interview that he and Elio had the same treatment and then basically says what I had written.

If you ask me, neither driver were being completely honest since de Angelis would not complain just for complaining, but if the situation was like he said Senna would have no reason to act like he did vetoing Warwick since he would already be receiving 1st driver treatment.


...but if he witnessed himself that this can change (as de Angelis was No.1 before)? So he might´ve reacted that way just as precaution.
There would´ve still been nothing wrong with Lotus´approach though, given the circumstances - and Ayrton would´ve earned that on track then - not via a contract.

Ps.
De Angelis´ results dropping off after the early stages of the season, was always one of these indicators for me, that Senna had gradually "taken over" the team. In the first 4 races de Angelis achieved 3 podiums (incl. 1 win) and a 4th place - afterwards he just managed to get in the lower points rank. Similar in qualifying: He was in the first two starting rows 4 out of first 5 races and from then on was only able to qualify in the midfield.

Anyway that all has little importance for the initial claim, that AS stood out in qualifying compared to all of his competitiors - which was obvious imho..unlike Vettel´s case.

Edited by LiJu914, 05 January 2013 - 00:45.


#381 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,775 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 January 2013 - 11:28

...but if he witnessed himself that this can change (as de Angelis was No.1 before)? So he might´ve reacted that way just as precaution.
There would´ve still been nothing wrong with Lotus´approach though, given the circumstances - and Ayrton would´ve earned that on track then - not via a contract.

Ps.
De Angelis´ results dropping off after the early stages of the season, was always one of these indicators for me, that Senna had gradually "taken over" the team. In the first 4 races de Angelis achieved 3 podiums (incl. 1 win) and a 4th place - afterwards he just managed to get in the lower points rank. Similar in qualifying: He was in the first two starting rows 4 out of first 5 races and from then on was only able to qualify in the midfield.

Anyway that all has little importance for the initial claim, that AS stood out in qualifying compared to all of his competitiors - which was obvious imho..unlike Vettel´s case.


What you are noting (de Angelis dropping back because Senna had "taken over" the team) indeed happened also to Mark Webber (Sebastian Vettel taking over the team).

Christian Horner remarked yesterday, that the later updates of 2012 favoured Vettel and did do ill-service to Mark Webber. One can say this happened by accident but I would say that these tendencies are wanted. In that respect we can see a clear similarity between how Senna worked and how Vettel is working (note: some champion drivers don't work that way - Raikkonen, Hamilton; some who never became champion did not work in that way - Gilles Villeneuve).

Lauda worked like that, Prost worked like that, Schumacher worked like that. Alonso is working like that. This is the way the statistically better drivers succeed also in the long run.


#382 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,775 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 January 2013 - 11:30

The interesting thing about Lotus in 1985 when Senna joined is that the mechanics gravitated towards Ayrton over Elio. It wasn't Elio's fault at all, he just had the misfortune of having a teammate that had a magnetic pull on all of the mechanics and technicians within the team. And actually, it wasn't even just the Lotus guys, it was the same case with the Renault Sport technicians too.


Which again brings me back to Ascanelli's statement: why do technicians gravitate to a certain driver (Senna, Vettel)? Could well have to do with how accurate they are in their technical feedback, their accuracy and preciseness. It must be a joy for engineers to work with drivers like Senna and Vettel.


#383 gillesthegenius

gillesthegenius
  • Member

  • 2,534 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 05 January 2013 - 11:40

Which again brings me back to Ascanelli's statement: why do technicians gravitate to a certain driver (Senna, Vettel)? Could well have to do with how accurate they are in their technical feedback, their accuracy and preciseness. It must be a joy for engineers to work with drivers like Senna and Vettel.


Its a good question. But I doubt that anyone in this forum has an answer to it, unless we have an f1 engineer in our midst.

#384 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,145 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 05 January 2013 - 11:44

I am not an F1 engineer, but most simple answer to gravitation is, that people tend to stick with winners, real, or perceived.

#385 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 6,735 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 05 January 2013 - 11:44

Which again brings me back to Ascanelli's statement: why do technicians gravitate to a certain driver (Senna, Vettel)? Could well have to do with how accurate they are in their technical feedback, their accuracy and preciseness. It must be a joy for engineers to work with drivers like Senna and Vettel.


Would think the simple answer is that the engineers take their cues from their bosses.... like most other employees do.

#386 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 05 January 2013 - 11:53

What you are noting (de Angelis dropping back because Senna had "taken over" the team) indeed happened also to Mark Webber (Sebastian Vettel taking over the team).

Christian Horner remarked yesterday, that the later updates of 2012 favoured Vettel and did do ill-service to Mark Webber. One can say this happened by accident but I would say that these tendencies are wanted. In that respect we can see a clear similarity between how Senna worked and how Vettel is working (note: some champion drivers don't work that way - Raikkonen, Hamilton; some who never became champion did not work in that way - Gilles Villeneuve).

Lauda worked like that, Prost worked like that, Schumacher worked like that. Alonso is working like that. This is the way the statistically better drivers succeed also in the long run.


Just a slight note about the RBR upgrades. The upgrades favored of course both drivers in absolute terms. The car gained performance and was faster, the difference is that Seb could extract it better then Mark. You don't win WCCs by giving up performance for both cars just to help a driver to do better. Said that there is some room in delevoping the car and setting it up and some of the greats used every bit. Just look how Schumi lead the way in the cockpit design, on things like pedals, brake bias levers and steering wheels. (Piolas yearbooks are a good source).

All in all the team and the drivers needs to push very hard in all areas. Schumi excelled in this and ironically lessened his status in the eye of the fools who just appreciate 'track-talent'.

Edited by H2H, 05 January 2013 - 11:54.


#387 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 7,384 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 05 January 2013 - 11:53

Which again brings me back to Ascanelli's statement: why do technicians gravitate to a certain driver (Senna, Vettel)? Could well have to do with how accurate they are in their technical feedback, their accuracy and preciseness. It must be a joy for engineers to work with drivers like Senna and Vettel.


I'd say Vettel's superior speed has a lot to do with where the development is directed. They know he is their faster driver. I'm not sure if there is any similarity between Senna's technical feedback and Vettel's, but there certainly is similarity in speed.

#388 oligc94

oligc94
  • Member

  • 453 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 05 January 2013 - 12:37

Which again brings me back to Ascanelli's statement: why do technicians gravitate to a certain driver (Senna, Vettel)? Could well have to do with how accurate they are in their technical feedback, their accuracy and preciseness. It must be a joy for engineers to work with drivers like Senna and Vettel.


I don't really think they do. Designers update the car to provide it with the fastest package possible, not a package which will necessary suit one or the other driver. It just so happens that the current regulations mean that development generally favours Vettel by using exhaust gases to plant the rear end, whereas Webber was more able to cope with less downforce at the beginning of the season.


#389 race addicted

race addicted
  • Member

  • 19,131 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 05 January 2013 - 12:43

Webber's teammates don't quite stack up to those of Prost's though, do they? The persistant view put forward of Webber as some sort of qualifying specialist is an exaggeration. He beat a rookie Rosberg, shaded Heifeld and beat DC who himself never beat a teammate in qualifying over a season. His other teammates prior to Vettel aren't really noteworthy adversaries on which to build him up as a qualifying speed freak.


Webber beat Rosberg in qualifying, no problem. Thing is this was Rosberg, a talented rookie. We're not talking Alex Yoong here.
"Shaded" Heidfeld is wrong, 'cause he was clearly beaten, it's just that qualifying on race-fuel (for the first stint) masked the true picture. There was no doubt who was quicker over one lap.
...and DC was on average five hundreths quicker than Hill in qualifying, in the '95 season.

#390 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 749 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 05 January 2013 - 17:14

Webber beat Rosberg in qualifying, no problem. Thing is this was Rosberg, a talented rookie. We're not talking Alex Yoong here.
"Shaded" Heidfeld is wrong, 'cause he was clearly beaten, it's just that qualifying on race-fuel (for the first stint) masked the true picture. There was no doubt who was quicker over one lap.
...and DC was on average five hundreths quicker than Hill in qualifying, in the '95 season.

Webber was teammate of only 4 drivers with a F1 resume worth mentioning. Vettel, Coulthard, Rosberg and Heidfeld. He beat 3 of them.

Heidfeld is the same that after been beaten by Webber was beaten by Villeneuve, Kubica, Kobayashi and Petrov.
Coulthard has an awful qualifying record. 82-165. You mentioned 95 season, but Hill beat DC 9-8 and the year before he beat DC 8-0, and Hill was never considered a good qualifier.
So it leave us only with Rosberg. Certainly it bolds well on Mark to have beaten him, but I don't think beating Rosberg in his rookie year is enough to title someone a quali specialist and say beating Webber is even a greater feat them beating Alonso in quali, or that Webber was a harder challenge to Vettel than Elio or Prost were to Senna.

#391 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 5,272 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 05 January 2013 - 17:47

Which again brings me back to Ascanelli's statement: why do technicians gravitate to a certain driver (Senna, Vettel)? Could well have to do with how accurate they are in their technical feedback, their accuracy and preciseness. It must be a joy for engineers to work with drivers like Senna and Vettel.


I would agree that it is - it is fantastic to see your efforts with the car successfully work in combination with a driver and earn a win. Imagine if the driver was error prone and crashed a bit - so that the speed of the car could not be exemplified, that could get pretty frustrating. The reverse is also true - drivers becomes frustrated with cars that lack pace and engineers aren't as satisfied. I think the best technicians end up in the best teams which hire the best drivers - team/crew promotion works similar to driver promotion.

#392 race addicted

race addicted
  • Member

  • 19,131 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 05 January 2013 - 18:52

Webber was teammate of only 4 drivers with a F1 resume worth mentioning. Vettel, Coulthard, Rosberg and Heidfeld. He beat 3 of them.

Heidfeld is the same that after been beaten by Webber was beaten by Villeneuve, Kubica, Kobayashi and Petrov.
Coulthard has an awful qualifying record. 82-165. You mentioned 95 season, but Hill beat DC 9-8 and the year before he beat DC 8-0, and Hill was never considered a good qualifier.
So it leave us only with Rosberg. Certainly it bolds well on Mark to have beaten him, but I don't think beating Rosberg in his rookie year is enough to title someone a quali specialist and say beating Webber is even a greater feat them beating Alonso in quali, or that Webber was a harder challenge to Vettel than Elio or Prost were to Senna.


I've always argued against the qualifying head-to-head score. It doesn't tell you anything about the drivers speed, and that's why I only look at the average gap between drivers.
I agree with most of what you say, but I'd like to add a few nuances; Rosberg wasn't just any rookie, but I agree it would've been a surprise if Webber hadn't turned out to be faster.
DC averaged being 0.158 seconds slower than Häkkinen during their time together. Looking at the '07 season, where DC was still performing very well, Webber was around the same amount faster. Now I'm not keen on cross-comparing different drivers over different cars and years, but we've still got a very good pointer on Webber's speed.
I haven't even mentioned say Pizzonia, who came into F1 with a rep of being "the next one". Yep, he was a rookie, but Webber absolutely blew him away. Destroyed his self-belief. The laps Webber pulled off in those Jaguars were often unbelievable.

...but, I do not at all see Vettel being on the level Senna was. Not at all.

#393 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,148 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 05 January 2013 - 19:17

Which again brings me back to Ascanelli's statement: why do technicians gravitate to a certain driver (Senna, Vettel)? Could well have to do with how accurate they are in their technical feedback, their accuracy and preciseness. It must be a joy for engineers to work with drivers like Senna and Vettel.


I believe 100% it has to do with their technical feedback.

When Senna tested the Penske CART car in 1992, he didn't drive that many laps in it. But when he came back in and started telling the Penske technicians what exactly was going on with all aspects of the car, they were stunned as none of their drivers were even able to give that sort of feedback of what exactly was happening with each component. Senna did the same thing also in 1984 when he drove the Joest Racing Porsche 956 at the 1000KM Nurburgring with Pescarolo and Johansson. It was the only time he ever drove a sports car, but he gave Joest a list of all of the things he thought needed to be improved with the car. His technical feedback, I believe may have been the greatest of any F1 driver in history. It's a side that often gets overlooked. I don't know how much technical feedback Vettel gives, or at least, to what depth he is able to give the feedback. Ascanelli wasn't really clear about that in his statement when he made the comparison between the two. But since he was willing to say it, it must be rather significant. It likely would be the key to why the Red Bull Renault develops to Vettel's strengths over time. Unless someone comes along who is equal to Vettel on the technical side, whoever is the #2 driver is always going to be at a disadvantage.

#394 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,775 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 January 2013 - 21:32

I believe 100% it has to do with their technical feedback.

....Senna's technical feedback, I believe may have been the greatest of any F1 driver in history. It's a side that often gets overlooked. I don't know how much technical feedback Vettel gives, or at least, to what depth he is able to give the feedback. Ascanelli wasn't really clear about that in his statement when he made the comparison between the two. But since he was willing to say it, it must be rather significant. It likely would be the key to why the Red Bull Renault develops to Vettel's strengths over time. Unless someone comes along who is equal to Vettel on the technical side, whoever is the #2 driver is always going to be at a disadvantage.


Let's not forget a Newey designed F1 car won the WDC the last time in 1999 - so there must be something about the chemistry between Vettel and Newey. As has been pointed out repeatedly - where would Webber have landed the Red Bull with no Vettel on the team? How would the updates have worked (would they have been more suitable to Webber otherwise?). Or is it indeed the special chemistry between chief technical engineer and driver that we see at play here?

#395 fastwriter

fastwriter
  • Member

  • 173 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 06 January 2013 - 10:35

Webber was teammate of only 4 drivers with a F1 resume worth mentioning. Vettel, Coulthard, Rosberg and Heidfeld. He beat 3 of them.

Heidfeld is the same that after been beaten by Webber was beaten by Villeneuve, Kubica, Kobayashi and Petrov.
Coulthard has an awful qualifying record. 82-165. You mentioned 95 season, but Hill beat DC 9-8 and the year before he beat DC 8-0, and Hill was never considered a good qualifier.
So it leave us only with Rosberg. Certainly it bolds well on Mark to have beaten him, but I don't think beating Rosberg in his rookie year is enough to title someone a quali specialist and say beating Webber is even a greater feat them beating Alonso in quali, or that Webber was a harder challenge to Vettel than Elio or Prost were to Senna.


Do you mean the Heidfeld who beat Kubica in 2007 11:5 in Quali and collected 61 point sto Kubicas 39? Heidfeld wasn't that bad, but started tot struggle from 2008 on because of tire compounds he couldn't get heat into because of his smooth driving style. When he went head to head with Webber Nick was really quick - as is Webber in Qualifying up until today. Everything else is another try to dimiss Vettel. I don't understand wh there are so many users here that can't stand reality?

#396 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 749 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 06 January 2013 - 15:56

Do you mean the Heidfeld who beat Kubica in 2007 11:5 in Quali and collected 61 point sto Kubicas 39? Heidfeld wasn't that bad, but started tot struggle from 2008 on because of tire compounds he couldn't get heat into because of his smooth driving style. When he went head to head with Webber Nick was really quick - as is Webber in Qualifying up until today. Everything else is another try to dimiss Vettel. I don't understand wh there are so many users here that can't stand reality?

Why are you bringing points collected to a qualifying discussion?
What I said remains true, he was beaten by Villeneuve, Kubica, Kobayashi and Petrov in the following years, but if you want to use a one season against a rookie to prove Heidfeld was really quick, good for you, but my opinion remains that he was an average qualifier. Not, bad, not good, just average, and his career results (95-89) back this up since he raced against many different drivers, some experienced, some rookies, some good, some bad and achieved just an average result when you combine it all.

And yes, there is a great conspiracy just to dismiss Vettel and having the opinion that Vettel is not in the same level of Ayrton in qualifying certainly means that person can't stand reality. :rolleyes:

#397 mlsnoopy

mlsnoopy
  • Member

  • 2,356 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 06 January 2013 - 20:29

He certanly struggled when the car wasn't perfect.

#398 Kingshark

Kingshark
  • Member

  • 2,497 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 06 January 2013 - 21:05

Alonso has 2 WDCs, and Hamilton has 1. As it currently stands, they are going to be remembered in the second tier. Of course, if they can add more WDCs to their resumes, or manage one of the top winning percentages, their stock will rise. But as it sits now, historically Vettel will be considered in a higher group.

Do people rate Jacques Villeneuve higher than Sir Stirling Moss because he won more championships?

Likewise, Nelson Piquet won three championships, Jim Clark won two. Again, who do people regard higher?

#399 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 06 January 2013 - 23:26

Do people rate Jacques Villeneuve higher than Sir Stirling Moss because he won more championships?

Likewise, Nelson Piquet won three championships, Jim Clark won two. Again, who do people regard higher?


Those are some of (naturally few) famous expections which confirm the rule.  ;)

Advertisement

#400 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,775 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 06 January 2013 - 23:37

Do people rate Jacques Villeneuve higher than Sir Stirling Moss because he won more championships?

Likewise, Nelson Piquet won three championships, Jim Clark won two. Again, who do people regard higher?


Well, that's without a question, although I feel Jacques never exploited his full potential and would have had two or three more championships in him.

So:

Sir Stirling Moss

Nelson Piquet



What does that say about Senna and Vettel, btw?