Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 7 votes

Top 20 Greatest F1 Drivers of all time - BBC list [split]


  • Please log in to reply
1662 replies to this topic

#1101 911

911
  • Member

  • 2,205 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 03 November 2012 - 03:06

No, it's a Jesse Alexander photo taken in 1962. The year you refer to is 1960, when Alan Stacey and Chris Bristow were killed during the race and both Moss and Mike Taylor were badly injured during practice. And from that weekend on Clark loathed the place, yet he won there 4 times on the trot from '62 thru '65.


Thank you!

Advertisement

#1102 MightyMoose

MightyMoose
  • RC Forum Host

  • 1,089 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 03 November 2012 - 04:03

Just to dampen someone's fire, I have seen many an interview where Max Mosley said something like Jerez 1997 was originally going to be classed as a racing accident and he "encouraged" them (the stewards) to look again at it. But I guess that viewpoint won't fit in the obvious agenda being peddled.

For all of you who allege that Schumacher was "protected" so much by the FIA, he certainly has a long list for someone who seemingly was able to avoid the full wrath!

As for Prost being under Senna... well it may be 5th vs 1st (apparently) but I think it's fair to say the majority of us see the Top 5 as having wafer fine variances with personal preferences being the most crucial point in any one particular driver's favor.

FWIW, the only one I struggle to put much of a "Well the others were better than him because" is Clark, but then a lot of what I know about him is second hand info.

#1103 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 2,605 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 03 November 2012 - 05:32

Wasn't this picture taken at Spa in '61 when two drivers were killed that weekend?


1962.

http://art.1stdibs.c...il.php?id=12524

I was mostly just pointing out that Clark has the same charisma that Senna exuded and used to his benefit. I feel the difference is that many drivers and others were in awe of Senna, but that awe was never matched entirely with the respect they gave to someone as humble as Jim.

Edited by Jimisgod, 03 November 2012 - 05:38.


#1104 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,884 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 03 November 2012 - 09:01

Everybody knew about the special relation between Alain and the frenchman.

Yes. Because SS officers REALLY like Jews.

Schumacher was the better rain driver, the better qualifier, transformed (of course with others) Ferrari to winning team, had by far more master class performances than Prost in the late 90s. Even without his winning streak from 2000 to 2004 Michael showed in every way he was a better and faster version of Prost. Your turn.

Well, of course Prost transformed Ferrari from also-rans into a but-for-Senna's-attempted-murder title winner, for which they sacked him. Only it took Alain one season.

Prost was happy to have Senna as a team-mate. Schumacher was happy to have Irvine as a team-mate.

Better than Prost in every way?

In a race of 10 finishers, Howden Ganley finished 5th whilst Peter Gethin finished 1st. He was also only +0.61 behind over 200 miles. If we don't know the exact scoring, there could be the chance that Senna and Prost are actually very close, yet 3 others have managed to squeeze between them.

Congratulations, you've found the single closest race in 106 years of Grand Prix history. Now what are the chances that that level of proximity could be applied to a Formula 1 greatest list?

:lol:
The same logic applies to Prost-Senna.

The qualifying score against Prost was 28-4 to Senna been on average 0.737s ahead. (this is more than the double of what Alonso has on Massa this year...)
The race score when both finished the race was 14-6 to Senna.

Statistics are like a bikini. Very interesting and providing crucial support, but to get to the really important stuff you have to peek behind.

Prost had changed his race mentality by the time Senna came along. He had tried leading from pole when with Renault and found that that buggered up reliability. Remember it wasn't bulletproof reliability back then. Prost learned from Lauda - a driver who was consistently slower but who beat him to the 1984 title - that he would do better in Championship terms to chillax a little. Get the car in the right place and let IT do the work. He concentrated on things like race set-up as opposed to sheer speed, in an era when you could overtake.

Indeed I could throw another statistic back; Senna lost a third of the races he started on pole. Clark's statistic was a fifth, Fangio hardly any. Indeed Schumacher has won more races than he poled, and Prost had an excess of wins over poles of 50%. That suggests Senna lacked the same race brain as Prost.

Just to dampen someone's fire, I have seen many an interview where Max Mosley said something like Jerez 1997 was originally going to be classed as a racing accident and he "encouraged" them (the stewards) to look again at it. But I guess that viewpoint won't fit in the obvious agenda being peddled.

Fits with Mosley's agenda, doesn't it? Anyone got any corroboration from e.g. the stewards?

#1105 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 03 November 2012 - 09:15

Well, of course Prost transformed Ferrari from also-rans into a but-for-Senna's-attempted-murder title winner, for which they sacked him. Only it took Alain one season.


Berger and Mansell finished either 1st, 2nd or 3rd in 1989 - never below that. They just had massive reliability problems, especially due to their new semi-automatic gearbox - but they got a grip on that for the 1990-car.

Prosts influence was probably greater from 1990 to 1991... :p

Prost had changed his race mentality by the time Senna came along. He had tried leading from pole when with Renault and found that that buggered up reliability. Remember it wasn't bulletproof reliability back then. Prost learned from Lauda - a driver who was consistently slower but who beat him to the 1984 title - that he would do better in Championship terms to chillax a little. Get the car in the right place and let IT do the work. He concentrated on things like race set-up as opposed to sheer speed, in an era when you could overtake.


Like in Monaco? For sure Mr. Prost was intelligent enough to know, that the starting position was crucial there. Shall i post the time difference between them on that track in 8&89? The story, that he wasn´t interested in qualfying und only focused on race-preparation, is a nice and often told myth, nothing else. Even Prost admitted after his career, that he just had no chance against Senna in qualifying.

Indeed I could throw another statistic back; Senna lost a third of the races he started on pole. Clark's statistic was a fifth, Fangio hardly any. Indeed Schumacher has won more races than he poled, and Prost had an excess of wins over poles of 50%. That suggests Senna lacked the same race brain as Prost.


Both have an almost identical race/win-ratio (Senna slightly ahead) and the same goes for the races/podium finish-ratio (Prost slightly ahead). So Prost can´t have had such a large "race brain" either.

Edited by LiJu914, 03 November 2012 - 09:33.


#1106 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,884 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 03 November 2012 - 09:20

Thierry Boutsen won as many as Mansell in 1989. The key thing was John Barnard, with whom Prost had a top-notch relationship - like Schumacher/Brawn/Byrne et al - and of course Ferrari sacked HIM as well.

#1107 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,301 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 03 November 2012 - 09:37

Yes. Because SS officers REALLY like Jews.


Well, of course Prost transformed Ferrari from also-rans into a but-for-Senna's-attempted-murder title winner, for which they sacked him. Only it took Alain one season.

Prost was happy to have Senna as a team-mate. Schumacher was happy to have Irvine as a team-mate.

Better than Prost in every way?


Congratulations, you've found the single closest race in 106 years of Grand Prix history. Now what are the chances that that level of proximity could be applied to a Formula 1 greatest list?


Statistics are like a bikini. Very interesting and providing crucial support, but to get to the really important stuff you have to peek behind.

Prost had changed his race mentality by the time Senna came along. He had tried leading from pole when with Renault and found that that buggered up reliability. Remember it wasn't bulletproof reliability back then. Prost learned from Lauda - a driver who was consistently slower but who beat him to the 1984 title - that he would do better in Championship terms to chillax a little. Get the car in the right place and let IT do the work. He concentrated on things like race set-up as opposed to sheer speed, in an era when you could overtake.

Indeed I could throw another statistic back; Senna lost a third of the races he started on pole. Clark's statistic was a fifth, Fangio hardly any. Indeed Schumacher has won more races than he poled, and Prost had an excess of wins over poles of 50%. That suggests Senna lacked the same race brain as Prost.


Fits with Mosley's agenda, doesn't it? Anyone got any corroboration from e.g. the stewards?



Ferrari were a team on the up. They had a better chassis than McLaren throughout '89 and if it wasn't for reliability issues and a serious power and torque disadvantage compared to the Honda, Berger and Mansell would have given McLaren a very tough time indeed. In fact, if Ferrari had the power and reliability in 1989 they had in 1990, I would say Berger or Mansell would have won the 1989 WDC, such was the superiority of the 640 chassis.

Regarding Prost vs Lauda...actually although Lauda never attempted to match Prost in qualifying, or anybody else for that matter during the turbo years, in race trim you will find he was as quick as Prost - something that is often over-looked.

Regarding Prost vs Schumacher, I agree. The Frenchman had far greater competition within the team and outside the team and to top it off he made only a fraction (if that) mistakes of Schumacher. I would put a clear margin between Prost and Schumacher in terms of quality in the Frenchman's favour.

#1108 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,884 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 03 November 2012 - 09:46

Reliability and speed are a trade-off - at least they were for aeons. It is perhaps significant that in 1990 Prost retired four times, one of which was when he was Sennaed; Mansell, with a somewhat more instinctive and ham-fisted approach to racing technique that was less kind to a fragile car, over twice as often. If Prost had been in the '89 Ferrari...

#1109 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,301 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 03 November 2012 - 09:49

Reliability and speed are a trade-off - at least they were for aeons. It is perhaps significant that in 1990 Prost retired four times, one of which was when he was Sennaed; Mansell, with a somewhat more instinctive and ham-fisted approach to racing technique that was less kind to a fragile car, over twice as often. If Prost had been in the '89 Ferrari...



The reliability issues in 1989 came from Magnetti Marelli electronics.

Though Prost was easy on the car...the argument doesn't hold. Frrari improved between 89 and 90 just as Williams did between 91 and 92.

Edited by man, 03 November 2012 - 09:54.


#1110 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,884 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 03 November 2012 - 10:56

Remember Mansell and Williams blamed electrical failure for his retirement at Canada 1991. Team reasons for retirement have to be taken with a pinch of salt; I remember McLaren-Peugeot trying to explain to the world that when Brundle's engine volcanically disassembled itself into a trillion pieces on the Silverstone grid that that wasn't actually an engine failure.

#1111 Glengavel

Glengavel
  • Member

  • 505 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 03 November 2012 - 13:46

Remember Mansell and Williams blamed electrical failure for his retirement at Canada 1991. Team reasons for retirement have to be taken with a pinch of salt; I remember McLaren-Peugeot trying to explain to the world that when Brundle's engine volcanically disassembled itself into a trillion pieces on the Silverstone grid that that wasn't actually an engine failure.


Didn't one team blame a retirement on "alternator failure" - the alternator failed when a con-rod came through the block and punched a hole in it...


#1112 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 786 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:47

Statistics are like a bikini. Very interesting and providing crucial support, but to get to the really important stuff you have to peek behind.

Prost had changed his race mentality by the time Senna came along. He had tried leading from pole when with Renault and found that that buggered up reliability. Remember it wasn't bulletproof reliability back then. Prost learned from Lauda - a driver who was consistently slower but who beat him to the 1984 title - that he would do better in Championship terms to chillax a little. Get the car in the right place and let IT do the work. He concentrated on things like race set-up as opposed to sheer speed, in an era when you could overtake.

Indeed I could throw another statistic back; Senna lost a third of the races he started on pole. Clark's statistic was a fifth, Fangio hardly any. Indeed Schumacher has won more races than he poled, and Prost had an excess of wins over poles of 50%. That suggests Senna lacked the same race brain as Prost.

:lol:

Prost didn't care to take this approach against Lauda the next year, or against Rosberg and Johansson before Senna, or against Mansell, Alesi and Hill after. But sure he didn't beat Senna in qualifying because he didn't care. :rolleyes: Maybe Button should say he don't care about qualifying too. :lol:

Just this year Hamilton has 5 poles but he won just 2 of these races plus one he wasn't on pole (he lost 60% of the races he started on pole this year.), while Button has 1 pole and 2 victories (100% more wins than poles this year), but for you, Lewis is clearly much better than Button, still thats not the case for Senna-Prost. See, this statistic you decided to throw back is simply dumb, since the more poles you get the more you gonna lose from pole. If you get pole every single race you gonna lose lots of races duo to mechanical failures, accidents, teams mistakes, bad strategy etc. if you sums up the races you got pole while you shouldn't since you had a worse car but still managed because an incredible single lap (but impossible to keep in race since you have to manage tires, fuel, etc) you have this statistic. Pretty much like the "you never win coming from behind" bullshit. If you won coming from behind is because you had a car that let you do this and so you should have started from pole in the first place.

#1113 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:30

Just to dampen someone's fire, I have seen many an interview where Max Mosley said something like Jerez 1997 was originally going to be classed as a racing accident and he "encouraged" them (the stewards) to look again at it. But I guess that viewpoint won't fit in the obvious agenda being peddled.

For all of you who allege that Schumacher was "protected" so much by the FIA, he certainly has a long list for someone who seemingly was able to avoid the full wrath!


Why, Max would never consider doing anything underhanded would he Moose? :eek: :eek:

#1114 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,774 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 03 November 2012 - 18:44

FWIW, the only one I struggle to put much of a "Well the others were better than him because" is Clark, but then a lot of what I know about him is second hand info.


And if I'm reading you correctly, that's my take on it too. Clark was a level above the field and during his era I firmly believe that there was no one better than him. My best explanation for his driving style is that his natural speed seemed to come so effortlessly that he didn't need to look 'fast' in order to be fast.

#1115 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,884 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 03 November 2012 - 20:08

Just this year Hamilton has 5 poles but he won just 2 of these races plus one he wasn't on pole (he lost 60% of the races he started on pole this year.), while Button has 1 pole and 2 victories (100% more wins than poles this year), but for you, Lewis is clearly much better than Button, still thats not the case for Senna-Prost. See, this statistic you decided to throw back is simply dumb, since the more poles you get the more you gonna lose from pole.

And as I said you have to peek behind for the truth. And the truth is that from 1985-7 Prost was on a wholly different level to his team-mates. When he had an equal in 1988 he worked over a race, Senna worked on his pace.

#1116 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 03 November 2012 - 20:24

And if I'm reading you correctly, that's my take on it too. Clark was a level above the field and during his era I firmly believe that there was no one better than him. My best explanation for his driving style is that his natural speed seemed to come so effortlessly that he didn't need to look 'fast' in order to be fast.


Onboard video of Jimmy at Oulton Park in 1963. I believe it is the only onboard footage of Clark driving. It gives an incredible sense of how smooth he was behind the wheel, but you can also see how deep he went into the apex of corners. Truly a once in a lifetime talent that will never be seen again.



#1117 nordschleife

nordschleife
  • Member

  • 819 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 03 November 2012 - 23:00

Onboard video of Jimmy at Oulton Park in 1963. I believe it is the only onboard footage of Clark driving. It gives an incredible sense of how smooth he was behind the wheel, but you can also see how deep he went into the apex of corners. Truly a once in a lifetime talent that will never be seen again.


Thank you, thank you, thank you!


#1118 ali.unal

ali.unal
  • Member

  • 3,238 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 03 November 2012 - 23:05

Onboard video of Jimmy at Oulton Park in 1963. I believe it is the only onboard footage of Clark driving. It gives an incredible sense of how smooth he was behind the wheel, but you can also see how deep he went into the apex of corners. Truly a once in a lifetime talent that will never be seen again.

What a brilliant footage! Thanks.

#1119 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 November 2012 - 00:34

Another onboard video, this time of Juan Manuel Fangio in the Maserati 250F. Say what you want, but the sheer power required to throw the F1 cars of Fangio's day around the track is astounding. It's hard to really understand how good these guys were because so many people are used to the current Formula Aero where the cars just stick to the ground through almost everything. That was the one thing that people really could appreciate about grand prix racing in the past; how hard it was to control these cars. When guys drove on the limit, it was quite visible to all watching since you could easily see the car struggling to maintain grip.

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Advertisement

#1120 ali_M

ali_M
  • Member

  • 1,115 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 04 November 2012 - 02:47

Another onboard video, this time of Juan Manuel Fangio in the Maserati 250F. Say what you want, but the sheer power required to throw the F1 cars of Fangio's day around the track is astounding. It's hard to really understand how good these guys were because so many people are used to the current Formula Aero where the cars just stick to the ground through almost everything. That was the one thing that people really could appreciate about grand prix racing in the past; how hard it was to control these cars. When guys drove on the limit, it was quite visible to all watching since you could easily see the car struggling to maintain grip.

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related


I know it's not a great driving here, but this seemed even more physical : http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

#1121 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 786 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 November 2012 - 18:32

And as I said you have to peek behind for the truth. And the truth is that from 1985-7 Prost was on a wholly different level to his team-mates. When he had an equal in 1988 he worked over a race, Senna worked on his pace.

and even then Prost got beaten 14-6 when both finished a race (2 of these 6 Prost started ahead and in 2 of the other 4 Senna had problems - a fuel readout problem in one and a broken front wing in another) showing that Senna had not only the best qualifying pace, but as well the best race pace. Thats pretty different to Lauda-Prost in 84 that besides Lauda been consistently slower in qualifying, his race pace was as good as Prost, if not better. race score was only 4-3 to Prost (Prost started ahead all of these races).

But I should know best and peek behind for the truth since Prost didn't care to do as well as possible in qualifying or to finish a race behind Senna... :rolleyes:

Ahhh, and about the other stat, one more race that Lewis start on pole but still loses the race. But these stats only serves to prove that Senna is equal to Prost, but not to compare Hamilton-Button. :drunk:


@BoschKurve
Wow, nice footage! :love:

#1122 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,264 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 04 November 2012 - 19:31

I know it's not a great driving here, but this seemed even more physical : http://www.youtube.c...feature=related


Yeah, that's a great clip. I know Dumfries was a useless driver by comparison to most, but you have to give him some credit for actually doing that and finishing races even if he was some 3 seconds a lap slower than Senna.

#1123 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,884 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 04 November 2012 - 20:08

But I should know best and peek behind for the truth since Prost didn't care to do as well as possible in qualifying or to finish a race behind Senna... :rolleyes:

And the end result was that in each of the seasons they were together as team-mates Prost out-scored Senna. OK, that's the Great God Points coming into play, and more evidence that it screwed up actual Racing by turning drivers into Accountants, but Prost was driving for the title whereas Senna was driving each lap. So Prost was making the car do the work and not pushing when he felt it unnecessary. When he needed to tiger, he did - look at Austria 1987, he went from last to third with a car falling apart around him...

#1124 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 786 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 November 2012 - 22:43

And the end result was that in each of the seasons they were together as team-mates Prost out-scored Senna. OK, that's the Great God Points coming into play, and more evidence that it screwed up actual Racing by turning drivers into Accountants, but Prost was driving for the title whereas Senna was driving each lap. So Prost was making the car do the work and not pushing when he felt it unnecessary. When he needed to tiger, he did - look at Austria 1987, he went from last to third with a car falling apart around him...

That is just not true. Every time that Prost was superior he pushed to open a big gap just like Senna used to do. In 93 South Africa he almost lapped Senna who was second. Even in 88 and 89 he did this when he got the chance like in French 88, 89 and USA 89. And I still can say that was Senna and not Prost who was driving for the title since he knew it would be decided by most wins since the worst results were discarded and he was just too unlucky and did not expect to have so many more mechanical problems in 89 than 88.

Yeah, you can bring the points into play, as long as you are coherent and bring the points to compare other team-mates like Button and Hamilton and so BBC should have found a place to put Button just together with Hamilton.

Anyway, I already pointed many evidences that can justify Senna "far" ahead of Prost, if you think it is all bullshit and nothing justify it, thats ok.

#1125 DrF

DrF
  • Member

  • 1,395 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:20

Why is this thread in Racing Comments?

#1126 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 2,605 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 05 November 2012 - 08:49

Not really F1, but Clark won every Class B race he entered in the 1964 BTCC, and won it overall by 10 points. That was in a Lotus Cortina Mk1 and at the same time he was driving in F1. And we all know his win at Indianapolis in 1965, plus his pole in 1964 and 2nd in 1966.

#1127 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,264 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 November 2012 - 08:53

Yes, it is well known that Jim was quick in pretty much anything drove.

#1128 Aloisioitaly

Aloisioitaly
  • Member

  • 272 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 14:50

Anyway, I already pointed many evidences that can justify Senna "far" ahead of Prost, if you think it is all bullshit and nothing justify it, thats ok.

At the end of the day, motorsport racing is all about scoring points.
That's why it makes no sense at all putting senna far ahead of prost.

#1129 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 786 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 06 November 2012 - 15:29

At the end of the day, motorsport racing is all about scoring points.
That's why it makes no sense at all putting senna far ahead of prost.

Like I said, that is no problem at all, as long as you are coherent and put together Alonso-Hamilton-Button, Lauda-Prost, Brabham-Hulme, Mansel behind de Angelis and keep going. BBC didn't do that what means they used other methodology to rank the drivers.

#1130 Aloisioitaly

Aloisioitaly
  • Member

  • 272 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 06 November 2012 - 15:54

If i was a team owner i would hire the guy who scores more points, not the guy who lead the race and then retires, since my aim is to win the championship.
It's plain and simple logic.

#1131 Haribo

Haribo
  • Member

  • 714 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 06 November 2012 - 16:07

If i was a team owner i would hire the guy who scores more points, not the guy who lead the race and then retires, since my aim is to win the championship.
It's plain and simple logic.


Even if the fault of the retirements was the car and not the driver? :confused:

#1132 flavio81

flavio81
  • Member

  • 88 posts
  • Joined: August 12

Posted 06 November 2012 - 16:18

Even if the fault of the retirements was the car and not the driver? :confused:


The car fails less with a gentler driver who -for example- preferres to set the boost to lower pressures, as Prost did compared to Senna.
This is something any engineer would agree with.

Now, returning to the topic, it is indisputable that Senna was a better qualyfier than Prost, but... so what? This is a ranking of Formula 1 drivers, Formula 1 is won by winning Grand Prix, and the Grand Prix is done the sundays not the saturdays. There is no points or bonuses given for pole positions.

Moreover, if we take into account the FRONT ROW STARTS instead of pole positions, Prost and Senna are evenly matched at 87 and 88 front row starts respectively, if i recall correctly.

It depends on which criteria you use to rank drivers. For me, the best way to rank drivers is by comparison with their teammates, and using this criteria alone Prost stands maybe at #1 of all times, and most definitely above Ayrton Senna.

Edited by flavio81, 06 November 2012 - 16:34.


#1133 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 786 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 06 November 2012 - 17:20

The car fails less with a gentler driver who -for example- preferres to the boost to lower pressures, as Prost did compared to Senna.
This is something any engineer would agree with.

Now, returning to the topic, it is indisputable that Senna was a better qualyfier than Prost, but... so what? This is a ranking of Formula 1 drivers, Formula 1 is won by winning Grand Prix, and the Grand Prix is done the sundays not the saturdays. There is no points or bonuses given for pole positions.

Moreover, if we take into account the FRONT ROW STARTS instead of pole positions, Prost and Senna are evenly matched at 87 and 88 front row starts respectively, if i recall correctly.

It depends on which criteria you use to rank drivers. For me, the best way to rank drivers is by comparison with their teammates, and using this criteria alone Prost stands maybe at #1 of all times, and most definitely above Ayrton Senna.

sure this explains why Senna's gear selector mechanism broke before the start of the 88 Brazilian GP, or the problems with the fuel readout at 88 Portuguese an Spanish GPs or the failed differential at the start of 89 French GP or the engine problem in a rainy race like 89 Canadian GP.

about the front row starts it is still not true (i believe you're talking about 88 and 89, instead of 87 and 88). Senna missed only one front row at the 88 British GP while Prost missed Brazil, USA, GBR and Hungary in 88 and Brazil, Hungary, Italy, Portugal and Spain in 89.

#1134 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,264 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 06 November 2012 - 17:28

The car fails less with a gentler driver who -for example- preferres to set the boost to lower pressures, as Prost did compared to Senna.


Is there proof of this?

#1135 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,884 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 06 November 2012 - 22:44

That is just not true. Every time that Prost was superior he pushed to open a big gap just like Senna used to do. In 93 South Africa he almost lapped Senna who was second. Even in 88 and 89 he did this when he got the chance like in French 88, 89 and USA 89. And I still can say that was Senna and not Prost who was driving for the title since he knew it would be decided by most wins since the worst results were discarded and he was just too unlucky and did not expect to have so many more mechanical problems in 89 than 88.

It's all about rhythm. We saw what happened when Senna broke his at Monaco. As for 1989, the change from turbo to aspro affected Senna - he had driven Hondas for longer than Prost had, had a better technique for turbo use (keeping revs up to avoid turbo lag) and had better relationships with Honda personnel &c.

#1136 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 06 November 2012 - 22:57

It's all about rhythm. We saw what happened when Senna broke his at Monaco. As for 1989, the change from turbo to aspro affected Senna - he had driven Hondas for longer than Prost had, had a better technique for turbo use (keeping revs up to avoid turbo lag) and had better relationships with Honda personnel &c.


In which way, do you think, affected it him?


btw. Yes, Senna had driven Honda-engines before Prost...exactly one season earlier. I just wanted to clarify that, because in your words it read, like Senna drove honda-engines for ages before 88.

#1137 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 786 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:14

It's all about rhythm. We saw what happened when Senna broke his at Monaco. As for 1989, the change from turbo to aspro affected Senna - he had driven Hondas for longer than Prost had, had a better technique for turbo use (keeping revs up to avoid turbo lag) and had better relationships with Honda personnel &c.

Not sure what you're trying to say being all about rhythm and how Senna broke his at Monaco or how this have anything to do with what I said, but if it is about his crash in 88 you could look to his "rhythm" at every Monaco GP after 88 that he won even when he had a much worse car like 92 and 93.

In 89 Senna had an average advantage in qualifying of 0.861s instead of 0.613s in 88. In races that both finished the score in favor of Senna was 7-1 in 89 instead of 7-5 in 88. So the last part makes no sense. If anything we could say Prost had an advantage in 88 since he was with McLaren since 84 and was 2 times WDC with them while Senna had 0 WDC by then.

#1138 flavio81

flavio81
  • Member

  • 88 posts
  • Joined: August 12

Posted 07 November 2012 - 07:14

about the front row starts it is still not true (i believe you're talking about 88 and 89, instead of 87 and 88). Senna missed only one front row at the 88 British GP while Prost missed Brazil, USA, GBR and Hungary in 88 and Brazil, Hungary, Italy, Portugal and Spain in 89.


Kyo, when i wrote 87 and 88 i wasn't speaking about years but about actual number of front row starts for prost and senna.

#1139 Aloisioitaly

Aloisioitaly
  • Member

  • 272 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 07 November 2012 - 12:47

In races that both finished the score in favor of Senna was 7-1 in 89 instead of 7-5 in 88.


What you seem to ignore is that, in order to score points, you have to finish races.

Advertisement

#1140 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 786 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 07 November 2012 - 15:54

Kyo, when i wrote 87 and 88 i wasn't speaking about years but about actual number of front row starts for prost and senna.

but Prost had 3 more seasons. If you consider only the first 10 seasons for each 1980-1989 for Prost and 1984-1993 for Senna you have Prost with 63 and Senna with 85. And poles becomes even worse for Alain, 20 against 62.

What you seem to ignore is that, in order to score points, you have to finish races.

Did you read the entire post? I was answering ensign14 post that said Senna had an advantage in 88 because he had already used Honda engines for one season and knew how to avoid turbo lag, so I pointed that the difference in pace was even greater in 89 which points to a different conclusion. what this have with finishing races I don't know.

And I don't ignore that a driver must finish races but when you count how many times each driver spun off, or was involved in an accident or collision that lead them not finishing a race you have Senna with 18 times (1984-1993) and Prost 15 times (1980-1989), this give us an average of 1.80 per season for driver incidents to Senna and 1.50 for Prost. This difference is just too small to justify the huge difference in pace. but you seem to ignore that in motorsports there are some events that are beyond the drivers reach but still results in a driver retiring from a race.

#1141 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 07 November 2012 - 16:04

Prost was driving turbo engines starting in 1981. It's not like he had never driven a turbo engine till the 1988 season. He proved himself more than capable with the Renault turbos and the TAG turbos.

#1142 repcobrabham

repcobrabham
  • Member

  • 9,259 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 13 November 2012 - 03:20

number two (and, by proxy, number one) revealed at around 9am GMT. get your jackets on, there's a shitstorm coming!

#1143 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 4,966 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 13 November 2012 - 10:56

Formula 1's greatest drivers. Number two: Juan Manuel Fangio

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/20258984

wondering who'll be no1... :rolleyes:

#1144 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 13 November 2012 - 11:55

wondering who'll be no1... :rolleyes:


Perhaps Coulthard.


#1145 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 4,966 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 13 November 2012 - 11:59

Perhaps Coulthard.

nah, he will be no1 in the list coming next year.  ;)

#1146 joshb

joshb
  • Member

  • 3,246 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 13 November 2012 - 12:05

Sort of expected really. Tops the percentages for most of the main stats, but didn't die on track.

#1147 Jovanotti

Jovanotti
  • Member

  • 2,816 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 13 November 2012 - 12:23

The list obviously is not based on stats. I suspect they'll put Senna 1st for sentimental reasons.

Aha!

#1148 F1Dan

F1Dan
  • New Member

  • 8 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 13 November 2012 - 13:04

I don't know why everyone is so worked up about this. At the very beginning BBC said the series was basically one big opinion piece. Of course everyone will have a different opinion, but there is no need to get so vitriolic about it !

Personally i've found it interesting reading about some of the drivers from before my time, the arbitrary number next to their name means nothing.

#1149 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,884 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 13 November 2012 - 13:42

Personally i've found it interesting reading about some of the drivers from before my time, the arbitrary number next to their name means nothing.

It's a shame they didn't go the whole hog and talk about Grand Prix drivers, it would have brought names like Nazzaro, Caracciola and Nuvolari back to life.

#1150 MightyMoose

MightyMoose
  • RC Forum Host

  • 1,089 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 13 November 2012 - 14:13

It's a shame they didn't go the whole hog and talk about Grand Prix drivers, it would have brought names like Nazzaro, Caracciola and Nuvolari back to life.

100% agree..... the problem is, with the exception of Murray I'm not sure how many of the panel could spell those names, let alone do an opinion piece on them.

Far easier to talk predominantly about the "current" and assess it's far better than it's ever been!